NOTES & CASES IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

September, 2010 Prepared by: ATTY. LARRY D. GACAYAN Professor (Political Law Review, Constitutional Law I & II) COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS PRE-BAR REVIEWER CPRS PRE-BAR REVIEW CENTER (Cagayan de Oro City, Za boanga City, I!oi!o City and "a#ao City$ E%CE&&ENT PRE-BAR REVIEW CENTER (Bag'io City, (ani!a, Ceb' City, Naga City and Ta)!oban City$ POWER*A+S PRE-BAR REVIEW CENTER (Bag'io City, (ani!a, Santiago City and Tagbi!aran City$ *O&, TRINIT, CO&&E-E PREBAR REVIEW CENTER (-enera! Santo. City$ COS(OPO&ITAN BAR REVIEW CENTER (Bag'io City$ LEX REVIEW CENTER

+ni#er.ity o/ Panga.inan "ag'pan City

CHAPTER 1 FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE (Poli ! Po"!#$ 1. Define: police power---is the power vested in the legislature by the Constitution to make, ordain, establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws for the good and welfare of the State and its people. ( ERMITA MALATE HOTEL VS. CITY MAYOR, July 31, 196 ! he basi! purposes of poli!e power are: ". #o pro$o#e #%e &e'er"l wel("re, co$(or# "') co'*e'ie'ce o( #%e people+ ,ASSOCIATIO- O. SMALL LA-/O0-ERS VS. SECRETARY, 1 1 SCRA 323+ 3S VS. TORI4IO, 11 5%il. 61 b. #o pro$o#e "') pre7er*e pu8lic %e"l#% " (VILLA-3EVA VS. CASTA-E/A, Sep#e$8er 91, 196 + /ECS VS. SA- /IE:O, 16; SCRA 133 <-MAT=+ LORE->O VS. /IRECTOR O. HEALTH, 1; 5%il. 191?"ppre%e') "') co'(i'e leper7 i' " lepro7"riu$! 5olice 5ower "7 " li$i#"#io' #o #%e ri&%# #o pr"c#ice " pro(e77io' 5RO.ESSIO-AL RE:3LATIO-S COMMISSIO- VS. ARLE-E /E :3>MA-, ET AL., Ju'e 91, 9;;2 #a!ts: A(#er #%e 5ro(e77io'"l Re&ul"#io'7 Co$$i77io' ,5RC! rele"7e) #%e '"$e7 o( 7ucce77(ul e@"$i'ee7 i' #%e Me)ic"l Lice'7ure E@"$i'"#io', #%e 4o"r) o( Me)ici'e7 o87er*e) #%"# #%e &r")e7 o( #%e 9 ."#i$" Colle&e o( Me)ici'e 7ucce77(ul e@"$i'ee7 were u'u7u"lly "') e@cep#io'"lly %i&% i' #%e #wo ,9! $o7# )i((icul# 7u8Aec#7 o( #%e e@"$, i.e., 4ioc%e$i7#ry "') O87#e#ric7 "') :y'ecolo&y. he $oard then issued %esolution &o. 1' withholding the registration as physi!ians of all the e(aminees from #atima College of )edi!ine. Compared with other e(amines from other s!hools, the results of those from #atima were not only in!redibly high but unusually !lustered !lose to ea!h other. he &$* *nvestigation found that the B."#i$" e@"$i'ee7 &"i'e) e"rly "cce77 #o #%e #e7# Cue7#io'7.D
+

,eld: I# $u7# 8e 7#re77e) #%"# #%e power #o re&ul"#e #%e pr"c#ice o( " pro(e77io' or pur7ui# o( "' occup"#io' c"''o# 8e e@erci7e) 8y #%e S#"#e i' "' "r8i#r"ry, )e7po#ic or oppre77i*e $"''er. Howe*er, #%e re&ul"#i'& 8o)y %"7 #%e ri&%# #o &r"'# or (or8i) 7uc% pri*ile&e i' "ccor)"'ce wi#% cer#"i' co')i#io'7. $ut like all rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, their e(er!ise may be regulated pursuant to the poli!e power of the State to safeguard health, morals, pea!e, edu!ation, order, safety, and general welfare of the people. -s su!h, mandamus will not lie to !ompel the $oard of )edi!ine to issue li!enses for the respondents to pra!ti!e medi!ine. %- +./+ whi!h pres!ribes the re0uirements for admission to the pra!ti!e of medi!ine, the 0ualifi!ations of the !andidates for the board e(amination, the s!ope and !ondu!t of the e(aminations, the grounds for the denying of the issuan!e of a physi!ian1s li!ense, or revoking a li!ense that has been issued. *t is therefore !lear that the e(aminee must prove that he has fully !omplied with all the !onditions and re0uirements imposed by law and the li!ensing authority to be granted the privilege to pra!ti!e medi!ine. *n short, he shall have all the 0ualifi!ations and none of the dis0ualifi!ations. he petition is therefore granted. !. #o pro$o#e "') pro#ec# pu8lic 7"(e#y+ (A:3STI- VS. E/3, 66 SCRA 191+ TAEICA4 O5ERATORS VS. J3I-IO, 119 SCRA 69 ! ). #o $"i'#"i' "') 7"(e&u"r) pe"ce "') or)er+ ,:3A>O- VS. /E VILLA! e. #o pro#ec# pu8lic $or"l7" (CITY O. MA-ILA VS. J3/:E LA:3IO, JR., 211 SCRA 3;6+ 0HITE LI:HT COR5ORATIO- VS. CITY O. MA-ILA, J"'u"ry 9;, 9;;9+ /E LA CR3> VS. 5ARAS, 193 SCRA 169+ ERMITA MALATE HOTEL VS. CITY MAYOR, July 31, 196 + VILLAVICE-CIO VS. MAYOR L3F4A- O. MA-ILA, 39 5%il. 6+ JMM 5ROMOTIO-S VS. CA, 96; SCRA 319+ VELASCO VS. VILLE:AS, .e8ru"ry 13, 1963! A' Or)i'"'ce o( #%e Ci#y o( M"'il" pro%i8i#i'& B7%or#G#i$eD i' Mo#el7 "') Ho#el7. 0HITE LI:HT COR5ORATIO-, TITA-I3M COR5ORATIO- "') STA. MESA TO3RIST H /EVELO5ME-T COR5ORATIO- *7. CITY O.
.

MA-ILA, repre7e'#e) 8y MAYOR AL.RE/O S. LIM, 2.%. &o. 1++/34, 5anuary +6, +66' *&2-, J.: 7ith another !ity ordinan!e of )anila also prin!ipally involving the tourist distri!t as sub8e!t, the Court is !onfronted anew with the in!essant cl"7% 8e#wee' &o*er'$e'# power "') i')i*i)u"l li8er#y i' #"')e$ wi#% #%e "rc%e#yp"l #e'7io' 8e#wee' l"w "') $or"li#y. *n City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr, the Court affirmed the nullifi!ation of a !ity ordinan!e barring the operation of motels and inns, among other establishments, within the 9rmita-)alate area. he petition at bar assails a similarly-motivated !ity ordinan!e that prohibits those same establishments from offering short-time admission, as well as pro-rated or :wash up; rates for su!h abbreviated stays. <ur earlier de!ision tested the !ity ordinan!e against our sa!red !onstitutional rights to liberty, due pro!ess and e0ual prote!tion of law. he same parameters apply to the present petition. his =etition !hallenges the validity of )anila City <rdinan!e &o. >>>3 entitled, :-n <rdinan!e =rohibiting Short- ime -dmission, Short- ime -dmission %ates, and 7ash-?p %ate S!hemes in ,otels, )otels, *nns, @odging ,ouses, =ension ,ouses, and Similar 9stablishments in the City of )anila; (the <rdinan!eA. he fa!ts are as follows: <n De!ember ., 1''+, City )ayor -lfredo S. @im ()ayor @imA signed into law the <rdinan!e. he <rdinan!e is reprodu!ed in full, hereunder: S9C. .. =ursuant to the above poli!y, short-time admission and rate BsicC, wash-up rate or other similarly !on!o!ted terms, are hereby prohibited in hotels, motels, inns, lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments in the City of )anila. S9C. 3. Definition of ermBsC. Short-time admission shall mean admittan!e and !harging of room rate for less than twelve (1+A hours at any given time or the renting out of rooms more than twi!e a day or any other term that may be !on!o!ted by owners or managers of said establishments but would mean the same or would bear the same meaning. S9C. D. =enalty Clause. -ny person or !orporation who shall violate any provision of this ordinan!e shall upon !onvi!tion thereof be punished by a fine of #ive housand (=D,666.66A =esos or imprisonment for a period of not e(!eeding one (1A year or both su!h fine and
3

imprisonment at the dis!retion of the !ourt" =rovided, hat in !ase of BaC 8uridi!al person, the president, the manager, or the persons in !harge of the operation thereof shall be liable: =rovided, further, hat in !ase of subse0uent !onvi!tion for the same offense, the business li!ense of the guilty party shall automati!ally be !an!elled. <n De!ember 1D, 1''+, the )alate ourist and Development Corporation () DCA filed a !omplaint for de!laratory relief with prayer for a writ of preliminary in8un!tion andEor temporary restraining order ( %<A with the %egional rial Court (% CA of )anila, $ran!h ' impleading as defendant, herein respondent City of )anila (the CityA represented by )ayor @im. ) DC prayed that the <rdinan!e, insofar as it in!ludes motels and inns as among its prohibited establishments, be de!lared invalid and un!onstitutional. ) DC !laimed that as owner and operator of the Fi!toria Court in )alate, )anila it was authoriGed by =residential De!ree (=.D.A &o. +D' to admit !ustomers on a short time basis as well as to !harge !ustomers wash up rates for stays of only three hours. hey !ontend that the assailed <rdinan!e is an invalid e(er!ise of poli!e power. II. o students of 8urispruden!e, the fa!ts of this !ase will re!all to mind not only the re!ent City of Manila ruling, but our 1'4> de!ision in Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operations Association, Inc., v. Hon. City Mayor of Manila. Ermita-Malate !on!erned the City ordinan!e re0uiring patrons to fill up a pres!ribed form stating personal information su!h as name, gender, nationality, age, address and o!!upation before they !ould be admitted to a motel, hotel or lodging house. his earlier ordinan!e was pre!isely ena!ted to minimiGe !ertain pra!ti!es deemed harmful to publi! morals. - purpose similar to the annulled ordinan!e in City of Manila whi!h sought a blanket ban on motels, inns and similar establishments in the 9rmita-)alate area. ,owever, the !onstitutionality of the ordinan!e in Ermita-Malate was sustained by the Court. he !ommon thread that runs through those de!isions and the !ase at bar goes beyond the singularity of the lo!alities !overed under the respe!tive ordinan!es. -ll three ordinan!es were ena!ted with a view of regulating publi! morals in!luding parti!ular illi!it a!tivity in transient lodging establishments. his !ould be des!ribed as the middle !ase, wherein there is no wholesale ban on motels and hotels but the servi!es offered by these establishments have been severely restri!ted. -t its !ore, this is another !ase about the e(tent to whi!h the State !an intrude into and regulate the lives of its !itiGens.
D

T%e #e7# o( " *"li) or)i'"'ce i7 well e7#"8li7%e). A lo'& li'e o( )eci7io'7 i'clu)i'& City of Manila %"7 %el) #%"# (or "' or)i'"'ce #o 8e *"li), i# $u7# 'o# o'ly 8e wi#%i' #%e corpor"#e power7 o( #%e loc"l &o*er'$e'# u'i# #o e'"c# "') p"77 "ccor)i'& #o #%e proce)ure pre7cri8e) 8y l"w, i# $u7# "l7o co'(or$ #o #%e (ollowi'& 7u87#"'#i*e reCuire$e'#7I ,1! $u7# 'o# co'#r"*e'e #%e Co'7#i#u#io' or "'y 7#"#u#e+ ,9! $u7# 'o# 8e u'("ir or oppre77i*e+ ,3! $u7# 'o# 8e p"r#i"l or )i7cri$i'"#ory+ ,2! $u7# 'o# pro%i8i# 8u# $"y re&ul"#e #r")e+ ,1! $u7# 8e &e'er"l "') co'7i7#e'# wi#% pu8lic policy+ "') ,6! $u7# 'o# 8e u're"7o'"8le . A. =oli!e power, while in!apable of an e(a!t definition, has been purposely veiled in general terms to unders!ore its !omprehensiveness to meet all e(igen!ies and provide enough room for an effi!ient and fle(ible response as the !onditions warrant. =oli!e power is based upon the !on!ept of ne!essity of the State and its !orresponding right to prote!t itself and its people.=oli!e power has been used as 8ustifi!ation for numerous and varied a!tions by the State. hese range from the regulation of dan!e halls, movie theaters, gas stations, and !o!kpits. he awesome s!ope of poli!e power is best demonstrated by the fa!t that in its hundred or so years of presen!e in our nation1s legal system, its use has rarely been denied. he apparent goal of the <rdinan!e is to minimiGe if not eliminate the use of the !overed establishments for illi!it se(, prostitution, drug use and alike. hese goals, by themselves, are unimpea!hable and !ertainly fall within the ambit of the poli!e power of the State. . he primary !onstitutional 0uestion that !onfronts us is one of due pro!ess, as guaranteed under Se!tion 1, -rti!le *** of the Constitution. Due pro!ess evades a pre!ise definition. he purpose of the guaranty is to prevent arbitrary governmental en!roa!hment against the life, liberty and property of individuals. he due pro!ess guaranty serves as a prote!tion against arbitrary regulation or seiGure. 9ven !orporations and partnerships are prote!ted by the guaranty insofar as their property is !on!erned. he due pro!ess guaranty has traditionally been interpreted as imposing two related but distin!t restri!tions on government, Hpro!edural due pro!essH and Hsubstantive due pro!ess.H =ro!edural due pro!ess refers to the pro!edures that the government must follow before it deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. =ro!edural due pro!ess !on!erns itself
4

>

with government a!tion adhering to the established pro!ess when it makes an intrusion into the private sphere. 9(amples range from the form of noti!e given to the level of formality of a hearing. Substantive due pro!ess !ompletes the prote!tion envisioned by the due pro!ess !lause. *t in0uires whether the government has suffi!ient 8ustifi!ation for depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. he 0uestion of substantive due pro!ess, more so than most other fields of law, has refle!ted dynamism in progressive legal thought tied with the e(panded a!!eptan!e of fundamental freedoms. =oli!e power, traditionally awesome as it may be, is now !onfronted with a more rigorous level of analysis before it !an be upheld. he vitality though of !onstitutional due pro!ess has not been predi!ated on the fre0uen!y with whi!h it has been utiliGed to a!hieve a liberal result for, after all, the libertarian ends should sometimes yield to the prerogatives of the State. *nstead, the due pro!ess !lause has a!0uired poten!y be!ause of the sophisti!ated methodology that has emerged to determine the proper metes and bounds for its appli!ation. C. he general test of the validity of an ordinan!e on substantive due pro!ess grounds is best tested when assessed with the evolved footnote 3 test laid down by the ?.S. Supreme Court in !.". v. Carolene #roducts. #ootnote 3 of the Carolene #roducts !ase a!knowledged that the 8udi!iary would defer to the legislature unless there is a dis!rimination against a B)i7cre#e "') i'7ul"rD $i'ori#y or i'(ri'&e$e'# o( " B(u')"$e'#"l ri&%#D. Conse0uently, two standards of 8udi!ial review were established: 7#ric# 7cru#i'y (or l"w7 )e"li'& wi#% (ree)o$ of the mind or restri!ting the politi!al pro!ess, and the r"#io'"l 8"7i7 7#"')"r) o( re*iew (or eco'o$ic le&i7l"#io'. - third standard, denominated as %ei&%#e'e) or i$$e)i"#e 7cru#i'y, was later adopted by the ?.S. Supreme Court for evaluating !lassifi!ations based on gender and legitima!y, *mmediate s!rutiny was adopted by the ?.S. Supreme Court in Craig, after the Court de!lined to do so in $eed v. $eed. 7hile the test may have first been arti!ulated in e0ual prote!tion analysis, it has in the ?nited States sin!e been applied in all substantive due pro!ess !ases as well. 7e ourselves have often applied the rational basis test mainly in analysis of e0ual prote!tion !hallenges. ?sing the rational basis e(amination, laws or ordinan!es are upheld if they rationally further a legitimate governmental interest. ?nder intermediate review, governmental interest is e(tensively e(amined and the availability of less
>

restri!tive measures is !onsidered. -pplying stri!t s!rutiny, the fo!us is on the presen!e of !ompelling, rather than substantial, governmental interest and on the absen!e of less restri!tive means for a!hieving that interest. *n terms of 8udi!ial review of statutes or ordinan!es, stri!t s!rutiny refers to the standard for determining the 0uality and the amount of governmental interest brought to 8ustify the regulation of fundamental freedoms. Stri!t s!rutiny is used today to test the validity of laws dealing with the regulation of spee!h, gender, or ra!e as well as other fundamental rights as e(pansion from its earlier appli!ations to e0ual prote!tion. he ?nited States Supreme Court has e(panded the s!ope of stri!t s!rutiny to prote!t fundamental rights su!h as suffrage, 8udi!ial a!!ess and interstate travel. *f we were to take the myopi! view that an <rdinan!e should be analyGed stri!tly as to its effe!t only on the petitioners at bar, then it would seem that the only restraint imposed by the law whi!h we are !apa!itated to a!t upon is the in8ury to property sustained by the petitioners, an in8ury that would warrant the appli!ation of the most deferential standard I the rational basis test. Jet as earlier stated, we re!ogniGe the !apa!ity of the petitioners to invoke as well the !onstitutional rights of their patrons I those persons who would be deprived of availing short time a!!ess or wash-up rates to the lodging establishments in 0uestion. %. *t !annot be denied that the primary animus behind the ordinan!e is the !urtailment of se(ual behavior. he City asserts before this Court that the sub8e!t establishments :have gained notoriety as venue of Kprostitution, adultery and forni!ations1 in )anila sin!e they Kprovide the ne!essary atmosphere for !landestine entry, presen!e and e(it and thus be!ame the Kideal haven for prostitutes and thrill-seekers.1; 7hether or not this depi!tion of a mise-en-scene of vi!e is a!!urate, it !annot be denied that legitimate se(ual behavior among willing married or !onsenting single adults whi!h is !onstitutionally prote!ted will be !urtailed as well, as it was in the City of Manila !ase. <ur holding therein retains signifi!an!e for our purposes: 7e !annot dis!ount other legitimate a!tivities whi!h the <rdinan!e would pros!ribe or impair. here are very legitimate uses for a wash rate or renting the room out for more than twi!e a day. 9ntire families are known to !hoose pass the time in a motel or hotel whilst the power is momentarily out in their homes. *n transit passengers who wish to wash up and rest between trips have a legitimate purpose for abbreviated stays in motels or hotels. *ndeed any person or groups of persons in need of !omfortable private spa!es for a span of a few hours with purposes other
/

'

than having se( or using illegal drugs !an legitimately look to staying in a motel or hotel as a !onvenient alternative. E. .ur#%er, i# i7 "pp"re'# #%"# #%e Or)i'"'ce c"' e"7ily 8e circu$*e'#e) 8y $erely p"yi'& #%e w%ole )"y r"#e wi#%ou# "'y %i')r"'ce #o #%o7e e'&"&e) i' illici# "c#i*i#ie7. Moreo*er, )ru& )e"ler7 "') pro7#i#u#e7 c"' i' ("c# collec# Bw"7% r"#e7D (ro$ #%eir clie'#ele 8y c%"r&i'& #%eir cu7#o$er7 " por#io' o( #%e re'# (or $o#el roo$7 "') e*e' "p"r#$e'#7. T%e Or)i'"'ce 'ee)le77ly re7#r"i'7 #%e oper"#io' o( #%e 8u7i'e77e7 o( #%e pe#i#io'er7 "7 well "7 re7#ric#i'& #%e ri&%#7 o( #%eir p"#ro'7 wi#%ou# 7u((icie'# Au7#i(ic"#io'. T%e Or)i'"'ce r"7%ly eCu"#e7 w"7% r"#e7 "') re'#i'& ou# " roo$ $ore #%"' #wice " )"y wi#% i$$or"li#y wi#%ou# "cco$$o)"#i'& i''ocuou7 i'#e'#io'7. o be !andid about it, the oft-0uoted -meri!an ma(im that : you c"''o# le&i7l"#e $or"li#yD is ultimately illegitimate as a matter of law, sin!e as e(plained by Calabresi, that phrase is more a!!urately interpreted as meaning that efforts to legislate morality will fail if they are widely at varian!e with publi! attitudes about right and wrong. <ur penal laws, for one, are founded on age-old moral traditions, and as long as there are widely a!!epted distin!tions between right and wrong, they will remain so oriented. 0HERE.ORE, the =etition is :RA-TE/. <rdinan!e &o. >>>3 is hereby de!lared ?&C<&S * ? *<&-@. LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL -n <rdinan!e re0uiring the motels in 9rmita-)alate area to transfer to another pla!e in the City of )anila as well as prohibiting ,9 9S -$@*S,)9& <% <=9%- *<& <# $?S*&9SS9S =%<F*D*&2 C9% -*& #<%)S <# -)?S9)9& , 9& 9% -*&)9& , S9%F*C9S -&D #-C*@* *9S *& ,9 9%)* --)-@- 9 -%9- was held un!onstitutional CITY O. MA-ILA, HO-. AL.RE/O S. LIM "7 #%e M"yor o( #%e Ci#y o( M"'il", e# "l *7. HO-. 5ER.ECTO A.S. LA:3IO, JR., "7
'

16

5re7i)i'& Ju)&e, RTC, M"'il" "') MALATE TO3RIST /EVELO5ME-T COR5ORATIO-, GR No. 118127, April 12, 2005 TI-:A, J.I .ACTSI he City Coun!il of )anila ena!ted on ' )ar!h 1''. and approved by petitioner City )ayor on .6 )ar!h 1''. an Ordinance is entitledI -& <%D*&-&C9 =%<,*$* *&2 ,9 9S -$@*S,)9& <% <=9%- *<& <# $?S*&9SS9S =%<F*D*&2 C9% -*& #<%)S <# -)?S9)9& , 9& 9% -*&)9& , S9%F*C9S -&D #-C*@* *9S *& ,9 9%)* --)-@- 9 -%9-, =%9SC%*$*&2 =9&-@ *9S #<% F*<@- *<& ,9%9<#, -&D #<% < ,9% =?%=<S9S. he Ordinance is reprodu!ed in full, hereunder: S9C *<& 1. -ny provision of e(isting laws and ordinan!es to the !ontrary notwithstanding, 'o per7o', p"r#'er7%ip, corpor"#io' or e'#i#y 7%"ll, i' #%e Er$i#"GM"l"#e "re" bounded by eodoro ). Malaw Sr. Street in the &orth, aft -venue in the 9ast, Fito CruG Street in the South and %o(as $oulevard in the 7est, pursuant to =.D. 3'' 8e "llowe) or "u#%oriJe) #o co'#r"c# "') e'&"&e i', "'y 8u7i'e77 pro*i)i'& cer#"i' (or$7 o( "$u7e$e'#, e'#er#"i'$e'#, 7er*ice7 "') ("cili#ie7 w%ere wo$e' "re u7e) "7 #ool7 i' e'#er#"i'$e'# "') w%ic% #e') #o )i7#ur8 #%e co$$u'i#y, "''oy #%e i'%"8i#"'#7, "') ")*er7ely "((ec# #%e 7oci"l "') $or"l wel("re o( #%e co$$u'i#y, su!h as but not limited to: 1. Sauna =arlors +. )assage =arlors .. Maraoke $ars 3. $eerhouses D. &ight Clubs 4. Day Clubs >. Super Clubs /. Dis!othe0ues '. Cabarets 16. Dan!e ,alls 11. )otels 1+. *nns S9C. + T%e Ci#y M"yor, #%e Ci#y Tre"7urer or any person a!ting in behalf of the said offi!ials "re pro%i8i#e) (ro$ i77ui'& per$i#7, #e$por"ry or o#%erwi7e, or (ro$ &r"'#i'& lice'7e7 "') "ccep#i'&
16

11

p"y$e'#7 (or #%e oper"#io' o( 8u7i'e77 e'u$er"#e) i' #%e prece)i'& 7ec#io'. S9C. .. Ow'er7 "')Kor oper"#or o( e7#"8li7%$e'#7 engaged in, or devoted to, the businesses enumerated in Se!tion 1 hereof are hereby &i*e' #%ree ,3! $o'#%7 (ro$ #%e )"#e o( "ppro*"l o( #%i7 or)i'"'ce wi#%i' w%ic% #o wi') up 8u7i'e77 oper"#io'7 or #o #r"'7(er #o "'y pl"ce ou#7i)e o( #%e Er$i#"GM"l"#e "re" or co'*er# 7"i) 8u7i'e77e7 #o o#%er Li')7 o( 8u7i'e77 "llow"8le wi#%i' #%e "re", su!h as but not limited to: 1. Curio or anti0ue shop +. Souvenir Shops .. ,andi!rafts display !enters 3. -rt galleries D. %e!ords and musi! shops 4. %estaurants >. Coffee shops /. #lower shops '. )usi! lounge and sing-along restaurants, with well-defined a!tivities for wholesome family entertainment that !ater to both lo!al and foreign !lientele. 16. heaters engaged in the e(hibition, not only of motion pi!tures but also of !ultural shows, stage and theatri!al plays, art e(hibitions, !on!erts and the like. 11. $usinesses allowable within the law and medium intensity distri!ts as provided for in the Goning ordinan!es for )etropolitan )anila, e(!ept new warehouse or open-storage depot, do!k or yard, motor repair shop, gasoline servi!e station, light industry with any ma!hinery, or funeral establishments. he <rdinan!e was 0uestioned as an invalid e(er!ise of poli!e power and violative of the due pro!ess and e0ual prote!tion !lause of the 1'/> Constitution. ,9@D: T%e #e7#7 o( " *"li) or)i'"'ce "re well e7#"8li7%e) . - long line of de!isions has held that for an ordinan!e to be valid, it must not only be within the !orporate powers of the lo!al government unit to ena!t and must be passed a!!ording to the pro!edure pres!ribed by law, it must also !onform to the following substantive re0uirements: ,1! $u7# 'o# co'#r"*e'e #%e Co'7#i#u#io' or "'y 7#"#u#e+ ,9! $u7# 'o# 8e u'("ir or oppre77i*e+ ,3! $u7# 'o# 8e p"r#i"l or )i7cri$i'"#ory+ ,2! $u7# 'o# pro%i8i# 8u# $"y re&ul"#e #r")e+ ,1! $u7# 8e &e'er"l "') co'7i7#e'# wi#% pu8lic policy+ "') ,6! $u7# 'o# 8e u're"7o'"8le. The Ordinan e ontra!ene" the Con"tit#tion he poli!e power of the City Coun!il, however broad and farrea!hing, is subordinate to the !onstitutional limitations thereon" and is sub8e!t to the limitation that its e(er!ise must be reasonable and for the
11

1+

publi! good. *n the !ase at bar, the ena!tment of the Ordinance was an invalid e(er!ise of delegated power as it is un!onstitutional and repugnant to general laws. he relevant !onstitutional provisions are the following: S9C. D. he maintenan!e of pea!e and order, the prote!tion of life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the en8oyment by all the people of the blessings of demo!ra!y. S9C. 13. he State re!ogniGes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental e0uality before the law of women and men. S9C. 1. &o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due pro!ess of law, nor shall any person be denied the e0ual prote!tion of laws. Se!. '. =rivate property shall not be taken for publi! use without 8ust !ompensation. A. T%e Ordinan e i'(ri'&e7 #%e /ue 5roce77 Cl"u7e he !onstitutional safeguard of due pro!ess is embodied in the fiat :(&Ao person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due pro!ess of law. . . .; here is no !ontrolling and pre!ise definition of due pro!ess. *t furnishes though a standard to whi!h governmental a!tion should !onform in order that deprivation of life, liberty or property, in ea!h appropriate !ase, be valid. his standard is aptly des!ribed as a responsiveness to the suprema!y of reason, obedien!e to the di!tates of 8usti!e, and as su!h it is a limitation upon the e(er!ise of the poli!e power. he purpose of the guaranty is to prevent governmental en!roa!hment against the life, liberty and property of individuals" to se!ure the individual from the arbitrary e(er!ise of the powers of the government, unrestrained by the established prin!iples of private rights and distributive 8usti!e" to prote!t property from !onfis!ation by legislative ena!tments, from seiGure, forfeiture, and destru!tion without a trial and !onvi!tion by the ordinary mode of 8udi!ial pro!edure" and to se!ure to all persons e0ual and impartial 8usti!e and the benefit of the general law. he guaranty serves as a prote!tion against arbitrary regulation, and private !orporations and partnerships are :persons; within the s!ope of the guaranty insofar as their property is !on!erned. his !lause has been interpreted as imposing two separate limits on government, usually !alled :pro!edural due pro!ess; and :substantive due pro!ess.; =ro!edural due pro!ess, as the phrase implies, refers to the pro!edures that the government must follow before it deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. Classi! pro!edural due pro!ess issues are !on!erned with
1+

1.

what kind of noti!e and what form of hearing the government must provide when it takes a parti!ular a!tion. Substantive due pro!ess, as that phrase !onnotes, asks whether the government has an ade0uate reason for taking away a person1s life, liberty, or property. *n other words, substantive due pro!ess looks to whether there is a suffi!ient 8ustifi!ation for the government1s a!tion. Case law in the ?nited States (?.S.A tells us that whether there is su!h a 8ustifi!ation depends very mu!h on the level of s!rutiny used. #or e(ample, if a law is in an area where only rational basis review is applied, substantive due pro!ess is met so long as the law is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. $ut if it is an area where stri!t s!rutiny is used, su!h as for prote!ting fundamental rights, then the government will meet substantive due pro!ess only if it !an prove that the law is ne!essary to a!hieve a !ompelling government purpose. he poli!e power granted to lo!al government units must always be e(er!ised with utmost observan!e of the rights of the people to due pro!ess and e0ual prote!tion of the law. Su!h power !annot be e(er!ised whimsi!ally, arbitrarily or despoti!ally as its e(er!ise is sub8e!t to a 0ualifi!ation, limitation or restri!tion demanded by the respe!t and regard due to the pres!ription of the fundamental law, parti!ularly those forming part of the $ill of %ights. *ndividual rights, it bears emphasis, may be adversely affe!ted only to the e(tent that may fairly be re0uired by the legitimate demands of publi! interest or publi! welfare. Due pro!ess re0uires the intrinsi! validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to his life, liberty and property. Re$#i"ite" for the !alid e%er i"e of &oli e &o'er are not (et To 7ucce77(ully i'*oLe #%e e@erci7e o( police power "7 #%e r"#io'"le (or #%e e'"c#$e'# o( #%e Ordinan e, "') #o (ree i# (ro$ #%e i$pu#"#io' o( co'7#i#u#io'"l i'(ir$i#y, 'o# o'ly $u7# i# "ppe"r #%"# #%e i'#ere7#7 o( #%e pu8lic &e'er"lly, "7 )i7#i'&ui7%e) (ro$ #%o7e o( " p"r#icul"r cl"77, reCuire "' i'#er(ere'ce wi#% pri*"#e ri&%#7, 8u# #%e $e"'7 ")op#e) $u7# 8e re"7o'"8ly 'ece77"ry (or #%e "cco$pli7%$e'# o( #%e purpo7e "') 'o# u')uly oppre77i*e upo' i')i*i)u"l7. I# $u7# 8e e*i)e'# #%"# 'o o#%er "l#er'"#i*e (or #%e "cco$pli7%$e'# o( #%e purpo7e le77 i'#ru7i*e o( pri*"#e ri&%#7 c"' worL. A re"7o'"8le rel"#io' $u7# e@i7# 8e#wee' #%e purpo7e7 o( #%e police $e"7ure "') #%e $e"'7 e$ploye) (or i#7 "cco$pli7%$e'#, (or e*e' u')er #%e &ui7e o( pro#ec#i'& #%e pu8lic i'#ere7#, per7o'"l ri&%#7 "') #%o7e per#"i'i'& #o pri*"#e proper#y will 'o# 8e per$i##e) #o 8e "r8i#r"rily i'*")e). L"cLi'& " co'curre'ce o( #%e7e #wo reCui7i#e7, #%e police $e"7ure 7%"ll 8e 7#rucL )ow' "7 "' "r8i#r"ry i'#ru7io' i'#o pri*"#e ri&%#7 "') " *iol"#io' o( #%e )ue proce77 cl"u7e.

1.

13

he Ordinance was ena!ted to address and arrest the so!ial ills purportedly spawned by the establishments in the 9rmita-)alate area whi!h are allegedly operated under the de!eptive veneer of legitimate, li!ensed and ta(-paying night!lubs, bars, karaoke bars, girlie houses, !o!ktail lounges, hotels and motels. =etitioners insist that even the Court in the !ase of Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila had already taken 8udi!ial noti!e of the :alarming in!rease in the rate of prostitution, adultery and forni!ation in )anila tra!eable in great part to e(isten!e of motels, whi!h provide a ne!essary atmosphere for !landestine entry, presen!e and e(it and thus be!ome the ideal haven for prostitutes and thrill-seekers.; he ob8e!t of the Ordinance was, a!!ordingly, the promotion and prote!tion of the so!ial and moral values of the !ommunity. 2ranting for the sake of argument that the ob8e!tives of the Ordinance are within the s!ope of the City Coun!il1s poli!e powers, the means employed for the a!!omplishment thereof were unreasonable and unduly oppressive. he Ordinance seeks to legislate morality but fails to address the !ore issues of morality. ry as the Ordinance may to shape morality, it should not foster the illusion that it !an make a moral man out of it be!ause immorality is not a thing, a building or establishment" it is in the hearts of men. he City Coun!il instead should regulate human !ondu!t that o!!urs inside the establishments, but not to the detriment of liberty and priva!y whi!h are !ovenants, premiums and blessings of demo!ra!y. 7hile petitioners1 earnestness at !urbing !learly ob8e!tionable so!ial ills is !ommendable, they unwittingly punish even the proprietors and operators of :wholesome,; :inno!ent; establishments. *n the instant !ase, there is a !lear invasion of personal or property rights, personal in the !ase of those individuals desirous of owning, operating and patroniGing those motels and property in terms of the investments made and the salaries to be paid to those therein employed. *f the City of )anila so desires to put an end to prostitution, forni!ation and other so!ial ills, it !an instead impose reasonable regulations su!h as daily inspe!tions of the establishments for any violation of the !onditions of their li!enses or permits" it may e(er!ise its authority to suspend or revoke their li!enses for these violations" and it may even impose in!reased li!ense fees. *n other words, there are other means to reasonably a!!omplish the desired end. Mean" e(ployed are on"tit#tionally infir( he Ordinance disallows the operation of sauna parlors, massage parlors, karaoke bars, beerhouses, night !lubs, day !lubs, super !lubs, dis!othe0ues, !abarets, dan!e halls, motels and inns in the 9rmita-)alate area. *n Se!tion . thereof, owners andEor operators of the enumerated
13

1D

establishments are given three (.A months from the date of approval of the Ordinance within whi!h :to wind up business operations or to transfer to any pla!e outside the 9rmita-)alate area or !onvert said businesses to other kinds of business allowable within the area.; #urther, it states in Se!tion 3 that in !ases of subse0uent violations of the provisions of the <rdinan!e, the :premises of the erring establishment shall be !losed and padlo!ked permanently.; *t is readily apparent that the means employed by the Ordinance for the a!hievement of its purposes, the governmental interferen!e itself, infringes on the !onstitutional guarantees of a person1s fundamental right to liberty and property. Modality e(ployed i" #nla'f#l ta)in* *n addition, the Ordinance is unreasonable and oppressive as it substantially divests the respondent of the benefi!ial use of its property. B>>C he Ordinance in Se!tion 1 thereof forbids the running of the enumerated businesses in the 9rmita-)alate area and in Se!tion . instru!ts its ownersEoperators to wind up business operations or to transfer outside the area or !onvert said businesses into allowed businesses. -n ordinan!e whi!h permanently restri!ts the use of property that it !an not be used for any reasonable purpose goes beyond regulation and must be re!ogniGed as a taking of the property without 8ust !ompensation.B>/C *t is intrusive and violative of the private property rights of individuals. he Constitution e(pressly provides in -rti!le ***, Se!tion ', that :private property shall not be taken for publi! use without 8ust !ompensation.; he provision is the most important prote!tion of property rights in the Constitution. his is a restri!tion on the general power of the government to take property. he !onstitutional provision is about ensuring that the government does not !onfis!ate the property of some to give it to others. *n part too, it is about loss spreading. *f the government takes away a person1s property to benefit so!iety, then so!iety should pay. he prin!ipal purpose of the guarantee is :to bar the 2overnment from for!ing some people alone to bear publi! burdens whi!h, in all fairness and 8usti!e, should be borne by the publi! as a whole.B>'C he se!ond option instru!ts the owners to abandon their property and build another one outside the 9rmita-)alate area. *n every sense, it 0ualifies as a taking without 8ust !ompensation with an additional burden imposed on the owner to build another establishment solely from his !offers. he proffered solution does not put an end to the :problem,; it merely relo!ates it. &ot only is this impra!ti!al, it is unreasonable, onerous and oppressive. he !onversion into allowed enterprises is 8ust as ridi!ulous. ,ow may the respondent !onvert a motel into a restaurant or a !offee shop, art gallery or musi! lounge without essentially destroying its
1D

14

propertyN his is a taking of private property without due pro!ess of law, nay, even without !ompensation. =etitioners !annot therefore order the !losure of the enumerated establishments without infringing the due pro!ess !lause. hese lawful establishments may be regulated, but not prevented from !arrying on their business. his is a sweeping e(er!ise of poli!e power that is a result of a la!k of imagination on the part of the City Coun!il and whi!h amounts to an interferen!e into personal and private rights whi!h the Court will not !ountenan!e. *n this regard, we take a resolute stand to uphold the !onstitutional guarantee of the right to liberty and property. he foregoing premises show that the Ordinance is an unwarranted and unlawful !urtailment of property and personal rights of !itiGens. #or being unreasonable and an undue restraint of trade, it !annot, even under the guise of e(er!ising poli!e power, be upheld as valid. +. The Ordinan e !iolate" ,$#al &rote tion Cla#"e 90ual prote!tion re0uires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights !onferred and responsibilities imposed. Similar sub8e!ts, in other words, should not be treated differently, so as to give undue favor to some and un8ustly dis!riminate against others.B'/C he guarantee means that no person or !lass of persons shall be denied the same prote!tion of laws whi!h is en8oyed by other persons or other !lasses in like !ir!umstan!es. B''C he :e0ual prote!tion of the laws is a pledge of the prote!tion of e0ual laws.;B166C *t limits governmental dis!rimination. he e0ual prote!tion !lause e(tends to artifi!ial persons but only insofar as their property is !on!erned.B161C @egislative bodies are allowed to !lassify the sub8e!ts of legislation. I( #%e cl"77i(ic"#io' i7 re"7o'"8le, #%e l"w $"y oper"#e o'ly o' 7o$e "') 'o# "ll o( #%e people wi#%ou# *iol"#i'& #%e eCu"l pro#ec#io' cl"u7e. <1;3= T%e cl"77i(ic"#io' $u7#, "7 "' i')i7pe'7"8le reCui7i#e, 'o# 8e "r8i#r"ry. To 8e *"li), i# $u7# co'(or$ #o #%e (ollowi'& reCuire$e'#7I 1A *t must be based on substantial distin!tions. +A *t must be germane to the purposes of the law. .A *t must not be limited to e(isting !onditions only. 3A *t must apply e0ually to all members of the !lass.B163C *n the Court1s view, there are no substantial distin!tions between motels, inns, pension houses, hotels, lodging houses or other similar establishments. $y definition, all are !ommer!ial establishments providing lodging and usually meals and other servi!es for the publi!. &o reason e(ists for prohibiting motels and inns but not pension houses, hotels, lodging houses or other similar establishments. he !lassifi!ation in the instant
14

1>

!ase is invalid as similar sub8e!ts are not similarly treated, both as to rights !onferred and obligations imposed. *t is arbitrary as it does not rest on substantial distin!tions bearing a 8ust and fair relation to the purpose of the Ordinance. he Court likewise !annot see the logi! for prohibiting the business and operation of motels in the 9rmita-)alate area but not outside of this area. - no(ious establishment does not be!ome any less no(ious if lo!ated outside the area. f. to promote the e!onomi! se!urity of the people. ,ICHO-: VS. HER-A-/E>, 1;1 5%il. 11111! -o# " *"li) e@erci7e o( police powerI ". CITY :OVER-ME-T O. MC VS. ERICTA, 199 SCRA 19+ ,ReCuiri'& pri*"#e ce$e#erie7 #o 7e# "7i)e " por#io' o( #%eir l"') "re" #o 8e &i*e' "7 8uri"l pl"ce (or Bp"uper7D, (ree o( c%"r&e, i7 "' i'*"li) e@erci7e o( police power. I# co'7#i#u#e7 B#"Li'& o( " pri*"#e proper#y (or pu8lic u7e wi#%ou# Au7# co$pe'7"#io'.D T%e loc"l &o*er'$e'# u'i#7 coul) 'o# *"li)ly p"77 #o pri*"#e ce$e#erie7 #%eir o8li&"#io' u')er #%e Loc"l :o*er'$e'# Co)e #o pro*i)e ce$e#erie7 #o #%eir co'7#i#ue'#7! b. Y-OT VS. IAC, 126 SCRA 619" the Dire!tor of -nimal *ndustry or the Chairman if the &ational )eat Commission :may dispose of the !arabaos or !arabeef; !onfis!ated for violating the e(e!utive order prohibiting the inter-provin!ial transport of said animals without prior permit issued by the government :to !haritable agen!ies as he may deem fit;. his is oppressive and unreasonable sin!e the owner of the animals is denied due pro!ess of law and the Dire!tor of -nimal *ndustry or Chairman of the &ational )eat Commission is given so mu!h dis!retion as the law is not !omplete in itself nor is there a standard to guide the offi!ial. c. /E LA CR3> VS. 5ARAS, 193 SCRA 169 ,A' Or)i'"'ce o( 4oc"ue, 4ul"c"' pro%i8i#i'& #%e oper"#io' o( 'i&%#clu87 i7 u'co'7#i#u#io'"l. I# i7 'o# " *"li) e@erci7e o( police power. T%i7 i7 7o 8ec"u7e 'i&%#clu87 "re 'o# ille&"l per 7e. T%ey c"' 8e re&ul"#e) 8u# 'o# pro%i8i#e)! power of eminent domain po'er of ta%ation +. Differen!es and similarities

1>

1/

/I/I5IO EARTH SAVERS M3LTI 53R5OSE ASSOCIATIO- VS. /E-R SEC. ELISEA :O>3, ET AL., 261 SCRA 166 Chi!o-&aGario, 5. 1. he power of eminent domain is the inherent right of the State to !ondemn or to take private property for publi! use upon payment of 8ust !ompensation while poli!e power is the power of the state to promote publi! welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property without !ompensation" +. *n the e(er!ise of poli!e power, en8oyment of a property is restri!ted be!ause the !ontinued use thereof would be in8urious to publi! welfare. *n su!h !ase, there is no !ompensable taking provided none of the property interests is appropriated for the use or for the benefit of the publi!. <therwise, there should be !ompensable taking if it would result to publi! use. .. =roperties !ondemned under poli!e power are usually no(ious or intended for no(ious purpose" hen!e , no !ompensation shall be paid. @ikewise, in the e(er!ise of poli!e power, property rights of private individuals are sub8e!ted to restraints and burdens in order to se!ure the general !omfort, health and prosperity of the state. 7hile the power of eminent domain often results in the appropriation of title to or possession of property, it need not always be the !ase. aking may in!lude trespass without a!tual evi!tion of the owner, material impairment of the value of the property or prevention of the ordinary uses for whi!h the property was intended su!h as the establishment of an easement. -s su!h, an imposition of burden over a private property through easement (by the governmentA is !onsidered taking" hen!e, payment of 8ust !ompensation is re0uired. he determination of 8ust !ompensation, however, is a 8udi!ial fun!tion (9=O- vs. Dulay, 13' SC%- .6DA and initial determinations on 8ust !ompensation by the e(e!utive department and Congress !annot prevail over the !ourt1s findings. .. @imitations in the e(er!ise of said powers 3. ests for a valid e(er!ise of poli!e power a. the interests of the publi!, not mere parti!ular !lass, re0uire the e(er!ise of poli!e power" (LA0.3L S34JECTA b. the means employed is reasonably ne!essary for the a!!omplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive to individuals. ,LA0.3L MEA-SA. *n short, the end does not 8ustify the means.
1/

1'

Illu7#r"#io'I L"w(ul 7u8Aec# 8u# #%e $e"'7 e$ploye) i7 ille&"l RESTIT3TO Y-OT VS. THE ITERME/IATE A55ELLATE CO3RT, :.R. -o. 221 ,M"rc% 9;, 196 CruG, 5. #a!ts: 1. <n 5anuary, 1., 1'/3, Jnot transported si( !arabaos by using a pumpboat from )asbate to *loilo. he si( !arabaos, were, however, !onfis!ated by the =oli!e Station Commander of $arato! &uevo, *loilo for alleged violation of 9(e!utive <rder &o. 4+4-- whi!h prohibits the interprovin!ial transporting of !arabaos and !arabeefs whi!h does not !omply with the provisions of 9(e!utive &o.4+4" +. hat Se!tion 1 of the said law provides that Hhen!eforth, no !arabaos regardless of age, se( physi!al !ondition or purpose and no !arabeef shall be transported from one provin!e to another. he !arabao or !arabeef transported in violation of the said law shall be sub8e!ted to !onfis!ation and forfeiture by the government to be distributed to !haritable institution and similar institutions as the Chairman of the &ational meat inspe!tion Commission may see fit in the !ase of the !arabeef, and to deserving farmers through the dispersal of the Dire!tor of -nimal *ndustry, in the !ase of !arabaos" .. Jnot filed a suit for re!overy and the !arabao were returned to him upon the issuan!e of a writ of replevin upon his filing of a supersede as bond in the amount of =1+,666.66" 3. -fter trial of the !ase, the 5udge upheld the validity of the a!t of the =oli!e Station Commander in !onfis!ating the !arabaos. Jnot was ordered to returned the !arabaos but sin!e he !ould not do so, the !ourt ordered the !onfis!ation of the bond. he !ourt refused to rule on the !onstitutionality of the said 9(e!utive <rder on the ground of la!k of authority to do so and also be!ause of its presumed validity" D. he petitioner appealed to the *-C but the said !ourt upheld the de!ision of the rial Court. ,en!e this petition for review on !ertiorari before the Supreme Court where J&< !laimed that the penalty of !onfis!ation is *&F-@*D the same was imposed without a!!ording the owner the right to be heard before a !ompetent and impartial tribunal as guaranteed by due pro!ess. *ssues:
1'

+6

1. )ay a lower !ourt (like the ) C, % C, of the Court of -ppealsA de!lare a law un!onstitutionalN +. *s 9(e!utive <rder &o. 4+4-- !onstitutionalN Sub-issues under this are: a. 7as it a valid poli!e power measureN b. 7as there an undue delegation of legislative powerN ,eld: 1. 7hile the lower !ourts should observe a be!oming modesty in e(amining !onstitutional 0uestion, ,9J -%9 &< =%9F9& 9D #%<) %9S<@F*&2 ,9 S-)9 7,9&9F9% 7-%%-& 9D, sub8e!t only to review by the supreme !ourt. his is so be!ause under Se!tion D, B+(aAC, -rt. F***, of the 1'/> Constitution provides that the Supreme Court has the power to Hreview, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on appealH or !ertiorari as the rules of !ourt may provide, final 8udgments and orders of the lower !ourts in all !ases involving the !onstitutionality of !ertain measures. his simply means that lower !ourts may de!lare whether or not a law is !onstitutional. +. I' or)er #%"# " $e"7ure or l"w $"y 8e Au7#i(ie) u')er #%e police power o( #%e 7#"#e, i# $u7# $ee# #wo #e7#7I ". #%e 7u8Aec# $u7# 8e l"w(ul+ "') 8. #%e $e"'7 e$ploye) i7 l"w(ul. Sin!e the prohibition of the slaughtering of !arabaos e(!ept where they are at least > years old when male and at least 11 years old when female is in furtheran!e of the publi! interest sin!e said !arabaos are very useful to the work at the farm, it is !on!eded that the 9(e!utive <rder meets the first test---- it has lawful sub8e!t. $ut does the law meets the se!ond re0uisite or test whi!h is lawful methodN 9(e!utive <rder &o. 4+4-- imposes an absolute ban not on the slaughtering of !arabaos $? <& ,*9% )<F9)9& , providing that Hno !arabao regardless of age, se(, physi!al !ondition or purpose and no !arabeef shall be transported from one provin!e to another.H he reasonable !onne!tion between the means employed and the purpose sought to be a!hieved by the 0uestion measure is missing. 7e do not see how the prohibition of the inter-provin!ial transport !an prevent their
+6

+1

indis!riminate slaughter !onsidering that they !an be killed any where, with no less diffi!ulty in one provin!e than in the other. <bviously, retaining a !arabao in one provin!e will not prevent their slaughter there, any more than moving them to another provin!e will make it easier to kill them there. he law is un!onstitutional be!ause it stru!k at on!e and poun!ed upon the petitioner without giving him a !han!e to be heard, thus denying him the !enturies-old guarantee of elementary fair play. Sin!e the 9(e!utive <rder in 0uestion is a penal law, then violation thereof should be pronoun!e not by the poli!e $? $J C<?% <# 5?S *C9, 7,*C, -@<&9 7<?@D ,-F9 ,-D ,9 -? ,<%* J < *)=<S9 ,9 =%9SC%*$9D =9&-@ J, -&D <&@J -# 9% %*-@ -&D C<&F*C *<& <# ,9 -CC?S9D. -lso, there is no reasonable guidelines or bases of the Dire!tor of -nimal *ndustry or the Chairman of the &- *<&-@ )eat *nspe!tion Commission in the disposition of the !arabaos or !arabeef other than what Hthey may see fitH whi!h is very dangerous and !ould result to opportunities for partiality and abuse, and even graft and !orruption. he 9(e!utive <rder is, therefore, invalid and un!onstitutional and not a valid poli!e power measure be!ause the )9 ,<D 9)=@<J9D < C<&S9%F9 C-%-$-<S *S &< %9-S<&-$@J &9C9SS-%J < ,9 =?%=<S9 <# ,9 @-7 -&D, 7<%S9 *S ?&D?@J <==%9SS*F9. D?9 =%<C9SS *S F*<@- 9D $9C-?S9 ,9 <7&9% <# ,9 =%<=9% J C<&#*SC- 9D *S D9&*9D ,9 %*2, < $9 ,9-%D *& ,*S D9#9&S9 -&D *S *))9D*- 9@J C<&D9)&9D -&D =?&*S,9D. ,9 C<&#9%)9& <& ,9 -D)*&*S %- *F9 -? ,<%* *9S (like the poli!eA <# ,9 =<79% < -D5?D29 ,9 2?*@ <# ,9 S?==<S9D <##9&D9% *S C@9-% 9&C%<-C,)9& <# 5?D*C*-@ #?&C *<&S -&D )*@* - 9S -2-*&S ,9 D<C %*&9 <# S9=-%- *<& <# =<79%S. -lso, there is undue delegation of legislative power to the offi!ers mentioned therein (Dire!tor of -nimal *ndustry and ,ead of the &ational )eat CommissionA be!ause they were given unlimited dis!retion in the distribution of the property !onfis!ated. D. %ead: a. 5)) =romotions vs. C-, +46 SC%- .1' b. 9%)* --)-@- 9 ,< 9@ FS. )-J<% <# )-&*@-, 5uly .1, 1'4>" !. *C,<&2 FS. ,9%&-&D9O, 161 =hil. 11DD
+1

++

d. e. f. g. h.

C,?%C,*@@ FS. %-##9% J, .+ =hil. D/6 =9<=@9 FS. =<)-%, 34 =hil. 33> ?S FS. <%*$*<, 1D =hil. /D F9@-SC< FS. F*@@92-S, #ebruary 1., 1'/. *@<*@< *C9 P C<@D S <%-29 FS. )?&*C*=-@ C<?&C*@, +3 =hil. 3>1 i. -2?S *& FS. 9D?, // SC%- 1'D 8. -Q*C-$ <=9%- <%S FS. $< , 11' SC%- D'> k. $-? *S - FS. 5?*&*<, 1+> SC%- .+' - law prohibiting the use of ,eavy and 9(tra ,eavy Fehi!les on weekends and holidays when there is energy !risis is a valid poli!e power measure. MARY CO-CE5CIO-G4A3TISTA VS. AL.RE/O J3I-IO, ET AL, 19 SCRA 399 #ernando, C.5. ."c#7I 1. <n )ay .1, 1'>', =resident )ar!os issued @etter of *nstru!tion &o. /4' prohibiting the use of private motor vehi!les with , (,eavy Fehi!lesA and 9, (9(tra ,eavy Fehi!lesA on week-ends and holidays from 1+:66 a.m. Saturday morning to D:66 a.m. )onday morning, or 1:66 a.m. of the holiday to D:66 a.m. of the day after the holiday. )otor vehi!les of the following !lassifi!ations are however, e(empted: 1. S----servi!e" +. ---- ru!k" .. D=@--Diplomati!" 3. CC---Consular Corps" and D. C--- ourist Cars +. <n 5une 11, 1'>', the then Commissioner of @and ransportation, %<)9< 9D? issued Cir!ular &o. .' imposing Hthe penalties of fine, !onfis!ation of vehi!le and !an!ellation of registration on owners of the above-spe!ified found violating su!h letter of *nstru!tionsH" .. $autista is 0uestioning the !onstitutionality of the @<* and the *mplementing Cir!ular on the grounds that: a. he banning of , and 9, vehi!les is unfair, dis!riminatory, and arbitrary and thus !ontravenes the 9R?-@ =%< 9C *<& C@-?S9" and
++

+.

b. he @<* denies the owners of , and 9, vehi!les of due pro!ess, more spe!ifi!ally of their right to use and en8oy their private property and of their freedom to travel and hold family gatherings, reunions, outings on week-ends and holidays, while those not in!luded in the prohibition are en8oying unrestri!ted freedom" !. he Cir!ular violates the prohibition against undue delegation of legislative power be!ause the @<* does not impose the penalty of !onfis!ation. HEL/I 1. *t must be pointed out that the @<* was promulgated to solve the oil !risis whi!h was besetting the !ountry at that time. *t was therefore a valid poli!e power measure to ensures the !ountrySs e!onomy as a result of spiralling fuel pri!es. *n the interplay of $autistaSs right to due pro!ess and the e(er!ise of poli!e power by the State, the latter must be given leeway. he poli!e power is intended to promote publi! health, publi! morals, publi! safety and general welfare. +. he petitionersS !laim that their right to e0ual prote!tion was violated is without basis. his is so be!ause there is a valid !lassifi!ation in this !ase. Definitely, ,eavy and 9(tra-,eavy vehi!les !onsume more gasoline that the other kinds of vehi!les and it is but proper to regulate the use of those whi!h !onsumes more gasoline. *f all the owner of , and 9, vehi!les are treated in the same fashion, or whatever restri!tions !ast on some in the group is held e0ually binding on the rest, there is no violation of the e0ual prote!tion !lause. .. he penalty of -i(po#ndin*- the vehi!le as embodied in Cir!ular &o. .' has no statutory basis. herefore, it is not valid being an Hultra viresH. l. -SS<C*- *<& <# S)-@@ @-&D<7&9%S FS. S9C%9 -%J <# -2%-%*-& %9#<%), 1>D SC%- .3. m. D9CS FS. S-& D*92<, 1/6 SC%- D.. n. F*@@-&?9F- FS. C-S -&9D-, September +1, 1'/> D-a. &ot a valid e(er!ise of poli!e power C* J 2<F9%&)9& SC%- >D' <# R?9O<& C* J FS. 9%*C -, 1++

C.A&T,R //012, &ROC,33

Sec#io' 1GGG-O 5ERSO- SHALL 4E /E5RIVE/ O. LI.E,

+.

+3

LI4ERTY OR 5RO5ERTY 0ITHO3T /3E 5ROCESS O. LA0, -OR SHALL A-Y 5ERSO- 4E /E-IE/ EM3AL 5ROTECTIO- O. THE LA0S.
Minds of Due =ro!ess: a. substantive due pro!ess---re0uires the intrinsi! validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to life, liberty or property. *n short, it is to determine whether it has a valid governmental ob8e!tive like for the interest of the publi! as against mere parti!ular !lass. b. =ro!edural due pro!ess---one whi!h hears before it !ondemns as pointed out by Daniel 7ebster. Due pro!ess is a law whi!h hears before it !ondemns, whi!h pro!eeds upon in0uiry and renders 8udgment only after trial (=er Daniel 7ebster in the /ARTMO3TH COLLE:E CASE! Due pro!ess have different re0uisites in: 1. +. .. 3. Due pro!ess before 8udi!ial bodies or 8udi!ial due pro!ess" Due pro!ess before administrative bodies" Due pro!ess before the labor tribunals" and Due pro!ess involving students.

I( #%e procee)i'& i7 'o# co*ere) 8y "'y o( #%e "8o*e, )ue proce77 $"y 'o# 8e i'*oLe) i( o'e w"7 B'o# &i*e' #%e ri&%# #o 8e %e"r)D. Illu7#r"#i*e c"7eI

12, &ROC,33

5<S9 @. - *9&O-, 5%., )- *-S F. D9#9&S<%, 5%., %<D<@#< 2.F-@9&C*-, D-&*@< 9. S?-%9O, S<@<)<& %. C,?&2-@-<, S-@F-C*<& O-@D*F-%-=9%9O, ,-%@*& C-S --$-J<&, )9@F*& 2.)-C?S* and 9@9-O-% =. R?*& < vs.
+3

+D

C<)9@9C, )-&?9@ %<Q-S **, #%-&M@*& D%*@<& and 5.%. &9%9?S -C<S - , 2.%. &o. 1//'+6 A4A/, J.: <n 5uly D, +66D respondent #ranklin ). Drilon , then the president of the @iberal =arty (@=A, announ!ed his party1s withdrawal of support for the administration of =resident 2loria )a!apagal--rroyo. $ut petitioner 5ose @. -tienGa, 5r., @= Chairman, and a number of party members denoun!ed Drilon1s move, !laiming that he made the announ!ement without !onsulting his party. <n )ar!h +, +664 petitioner -tienGa hosted a party !onferen!e to supposedly dis!uss lo!al autonomy and party matters but, when !onvened, the assembly pro!eeded to de!lare all positions in the @=1s ruling body va!ant and ele!ted new offi!ers, with -tienGa as @= president. %espondent Drilon immediately filed a petition with the Commission on 9le!tions (C<)9@9CA to nullify the ele!tions. ,e !laimed that it was illegal !onsidering that the party1s ele!ting bodies, the &ational 9(e!utive Coun!il (&9C<A and the &ational =oliti!al Coun!il (&-=<@C<A, were not properly !onvened. Drilon also !laimed that under the amended @= Constitution, party offi!ers were ele!ted to a fi(ed three-year term that was yet to end on &ovember .6, +66>. <n the other hand, petitioner -tienGa !laimed that the ma8ority of the @=1s &9C< and &-=<@C< attended the )ar!h +, +664 assembly. he ele!tion of new offi!ers on that o!!asion !ould be likened to :people power,; wherein the @= ma8ority removed respondent Drilon as president by dire!t a!tion. -tienGa also said that the amendments to the original @= Constitution, or the Salonga Constitution, giving @= offi!ers a fi(ed three-year term, had not been properly ratified. Conse0uently, the term of Drilon and the other offi!ers already ended on 5uly +3, +664 <n <!tober 1., +664, the C<)9@9C issued a resolution, partially granting respondent Drilon1s petition. *t annulled the )ar!h +, +664 ele!tions and ordered the holding of a new ele!tion under C<)9@9C supervision. *t held that the ele!tion of petitioner -tienGa and the others with him was invalid sin!e the ele!ting assembly did not !onvene in a!!ordan!e with the Salonga Constitution. $ut, sin!e the amendments to the Salonga Constitution had not been properly ratified, Drilon1s term may be deemed to have ended. hus, he held the position of @= president in a holdover !apa!ity until new offi!ers were ele!ted. $oth sides of the dispute went to the Supreme Court to !hallenge the C<)9@9C rulings. <n -pril 1>, +66> a divided Court issued a resolution, granting respondent Drilon1s petition and denying that of petitioner -tienGa. he Court held, through the ma8ority, that the C<)9@9C had 8urisdi!tion over the intra-party leadership dispute" that the Salonga Constitution had been validly
+D

+4

amended" and that, as a !onse0uen!e, respondent Drilon1s term as @= president was to end only on &ovember .6, +66>. Subse0uently, the @= held a &9C< meeting to ele!t new party leaders before respondent Drilon1s term e(pired. #ifty-nine &9C< members out of the /> who were supposedly 0ualified to vote attended. $efore the ele!tion, however, several persons asso!iated with petitioner -tienGa sought to !larify their membership status and raised issues regarding the !omposition of the &9C<. 9ventually, that meeting installed respondent )anuel -. %o(as ** (%o(asA as the new @= president. <n 5anuary 11, +66/ petitioners -tienGa, )atias F. Defensor, 5r., %odolfo 2. Falen!ia, Danilo 9. SuareG, Solomon %. Chungalao, Salva!ion Oaldivar-=ereG, ,arlin Cast--bayon, )elvin 2. )a!usi, and 9leaGar =. Ruinto, filed a petition for mandatory and prohibitory in8un!tion before the C<)9@9C against respondents %o(as, Drilon and 5.%. &ereus <. -!osta, the party se!retary general. -tienGa, et al. sought to en8oin %o(as from assuming the presiden!y of the @=, !laiming that the &9C< assembly whi!h ele!ted him was invalidly !onvened. hey 0uestioned the e(isten!e of a 0uorum and !laimed that the &9C< !omposition ought to have been based on a list appearing in the party1s 46th -nniversary Souvenir =rogram. $oth -tienGa and Drilon adopted that list as !ommon e(hibit in the earlier !ases and it showed that the &9C< had 16. members. =etitioners -tienGa, et al. also !omplained that -tienGa, the in!umbent party !hairman, was not invited to the &9C< meeting and that some members, like petitioner Defensor, were given the status of :guests; during the meeting. -tienGa1s allies allegedly raised these issues but respondent Drilon arbitrarily thumbed them down and :railroaded; the pro!eedings. ,e suspended the meeting and moved it to another room, where %o(as was ele!ted without noti!e to -tienGa1s allies. <n the other hand, respondents %o(as, et al. !laimed that %o(as1 ele!tion as @= president faithfully !omplied with the provisions of the amended @= Constitution. he party1s 46th -nniversary Souvenir =rogram !ould not be used for determining the &9C< members be!ause supervening events !hanged the body1s number and !omposition. Some &9C< members had died, voluntarily resigned, or had gone on leave after a!!epting positions in the government. <thers had lost their re-ele!tion bid or did not run in the )ay +66> ele!tions, making them ineligible to serve as &9C< members. @= members who got ele!ted to publi! offi!e also be!ame part of the &9C<. Certain persons of national stature also be!ame &9C< members upon respondent Drilon1s nomination, a privilege granted the @= president under the amended @= Constitution. *n other words, the &9C< membership was not fi(ed or stati!" it !hanged due to supervening !ir!umstan!es.

+4

+>

%espondents %o(as, et al. also !laimed that the party deemed petitioners -tienGa, Oaldivar-=ereG, and Cast--bayon resigned for holding the illegal ele!tion of @= offi!ers on )ar!h +, +664. his was pursuant to a )ar!h 13, +664 &-=<@C< resolution that &9C< subse0uently ratified. )eanwhile, !ertain &9C< members, like petitioners Defensor, Falen!ia, and SuareG, forfeited their party membership when they ran under other politi!al parties during the )ay +66> ele!tions. hey were dropped from the roster of @= members. <n 5une 1/, +66' the C<)9@9C issued the assailed resolution denying petitioners -tienGa, et al.1s petition. *t noted that the )ay +66> ele!tions ne!essarily !hanged the !omposition of the &9C< sin!e the amended @= Constitution e(pli!itly made in!umbent senators, members of the ,ouse of %epresentatives, governors and mayors members of that body. hat some lost or won these positions in the )ay +66> ele!tions affe!ted the &9C< membership. =etitioners failed to prove that the &9C< whi!h ele!ted %o(as as @= president was not properly !onvened. -s for the validity of petitioners -tienGa, et al.1s e(pulsion as @= members, the C<)9@9C observed that this was a membership issue that related to dis!iplinary a!tion within the politi!al party. he C<)9@9C treated it as an internal party matter that was beyond its 8urisdi!tion to resolve. 7ithout filing a motion for re!onsideration of the C<)9@9C resolution, petitioners -tienGa, et al. filed this petition for certiorari under %ule 4D. *SS?9 0%e#%er or 'o# re7po')e'#7 Ro@"7, et al. *iol"#e) pe#i#io'er7 A#ie'J", et al.N7 co'7#i#u#io'"l ri&%# #o )ue proce77 8y #%e l"##erN7 e@pul7io' (ro$ #%e p"r#y. ,9@D: =etitioners -tienGa, et al. argue that their e(pulsion from the party is not a simple issue of party membership or dis!ipline" it involves a violation of their !onstitutionally-prote!ted right to due pro!ess of law. hey !laim that the &-=<@C< and the &9C< should have first summoned them to a hearing before summarily e(pelling them from the party. -!!ording to -tienGa, et al., pro!eedings on party dis!ipline are the e0uivalent of administrative pro!eedings and are, therefore, !overed by the due pro!ess re0uirements laid down in Ang &i'ay v. Court of Industrial $elations.

+>

+/

$ut the re0uirements of administrative due pro!ess do not apply to the internal affairs of politi!al parties. T%e )ue proce77 7#"')"r)7 7e# i' An* Ti4ay co*er o'ly ")$i'i7#r"#i*e 8o)ie7 cre"#e) 8y #%e 7#"#e "') #%rou&% w%ic% cer#"i' &o*er'$e'#"l "c#7 or (u'c#io'7 "re per(or$e). A' ")$i'i7#r"#i*e "&e'cy or i'7#ru$e'#"li#y Bco'#e$pl"#e7 "' "u#%ori#y #o w%ic% #%e 7#"#e )ele&"#e7 &o*er'$e'#"l power (or #%e per(or$"'ce o( " 7#"#e (u'c#io'.D T%e co'7#i#u#io'"l li$i#"#io'7 #%"# &e'er"lly "pply #o #%e e@erci7e o( #%e 7#"#eN7 power7 #%u7, "pply #oo, #o ")$i'i7#r"#i*e 8o)ie7 he !onstitutional limitations on the e(er!ise of the state1s powers are found in -rti!le *** of the Constitution or the $ill of %ights. he $ill of %ights, whi!h guarantees against the taking of life, property, or liberty without due pro!ess under Se!tion 1 is generally a limitation on the state1s powers in relation to the rights of its !itiGens. T%e ri&%# #o )ue proce77 i7 $e"'# #o pro#ec# or)i'"ry ci#iJe'7 "&"i'7# "r8i#r"ry &o*er'$e'# "c#io', 8u# 'o# (ro$ "c#7 co$$i##e) 8y pri*"#e i')i*i)u"l7 or e'#i#ie7. I' #%e l"##er c"7e, #%e 7peci(ic 7#"#u#e7 #%"# pro*i)e relie(7 (ro$ 7uc% pri*"#e "c#7 "pply. T%e ri&%# #o )ue proce77 &u"r)7 "&"i'7# u'w"rr"'#e) e'cro"c%$e'# 8y #%e 7#"#e i'#o #%e (u')"$e'#"l ri&%#7 o( i#7 ci#iJe'7 "') c"''o# 8e i'*oLe) i' pri*"#e co'#ro*er7ie7 i'*ol*i'& pri*"#e p"r#ie7. -lthough politi!al parties play an important role in our demo!rati! set-up as an intermediary between the state and its !itiGens, it is still a private organiGation, not a state instrument. he dis!ipline of members by a politi!al party does not involve the right to life, liberty or property within the meaning of the due pro!ess !lause. -n individual has no vested right, as against the state, to be a!!epted or to prevent his removal by a politi!al party. he only rights, if any, that party members may have, in relation to other party members, !orrespond to those that may have been freely agreed upon among themselves through their !harter, whi!h is a !ontra!t among the party members. )embers whose rights under their !harter may have been violated have re!ourse to !ourts of law for the enfor!ement of those rights, but not as a due pro!ess issue against the government or any of its agen!ies. $ut even when re!ourse to !ourts of law may be made, !ourts will ordinarily not interfere in membership and dis!iplinary matters within a politi!al party. - politi!al party is free to !ondu!t its internal affairs, pursuant to its !onstitutionally-prote!ted right to free asso!iation. *n "inaca v. Mula, the Court said that 8udi!ial restraint in internal party matters serves the publi! interest by allowing the politi!al pro!esses to operate without undue interferen!e. *t is also !onsistent with the state poli!y of allowing a free and open party system to evolve, a!!ording to the free !hoi!e of the people. o !on!lude, the C<)9@9C did not gravely abuse its dis!retion when it upheld %o(as1 ele!tion as @= president but refused to rule on the validity of -tienGa, et al.1s e(pulsion from the party. 7hile the 0uestion of party leadership
+/

+'

has impli!ations on the C<)9@9C1s performan!e of its fun!tions under Se!tion +, -rti!le *Q-C of the Constitution, the same !annot be said of the issue pertaining to -tienGa, et al.1s e(pulsion from the @=. Su!h e(pulsion is for the moment an issue of party membership and dis!ipline, in whi!h the C<)9@9C !annot intervene, given the limited s!ope of its power over politi!al parties. D. %e0uisites of :8udi!ial due pro!ess;. ". 4A-CO ES5A-OL VS. 5ALA-CA, 3 5%il. 991 ReCui7i#e7I 1. here must be an impartial !ourt or tribunal !lothed with 8udi!ial power to hear and de!ide the matter before it" +. 5urisdi!tion must be lawfully a!0uired over the person of the defendant or over the property sub8e!t of the pro!eedings" .. he defendant must be given the opportunity to be heard" 3. 5udgment must be rendered only after lawful hearing. a. :ALMA- VS. 5AMARA- (the 1st !aseA b. *)9@D- )-%C<S FS. S-&D*2-&$-J-&, <!tober 4, 1''/ IMELDA R. MARCOS VS. SANDI AN!A"AN, <!tober 4, 1''/ =urisima, 5. #a!ts: 1. <n 5une /, 1'/3, *)9@D- )-%C<S and 5<S9 D-&S, as Chairman and Fi!e Chairman of the @ight %ailway ransit -uthority (@% -A entered into a @ease Contra!t with the =hilippine 2eneral ,ospital #oundation (=2,#*A involving an @% - property in =asay City for =16+,>46.66 per month for +D years" +. <n 5une +>,1'/3, the =2,#* subleased the said property for =>.3,666.66 per month to the ransnational Constru!tion Corporation represented by one *gna!io 5umeneG" .. -fter petitioner1s husband was deposed as =resident of the =hilippines, she and Dans were !harged of alleged violation of Se!tion . BgC of %.61', otherwise known as the -nti-2raft and Corrupt =ra!ti!es -!t before the Sandiganbayan" 3. -fter trial , the #irst Division of the Sandiganbayan failed to !omply with the legal re0uirement that all the . 8usti!es must be unanimous in its De!ision be!ause 5usti!e 2ar!hitorena and 5usti!e 5ose $ala8adia voted for the !onvi!tion of both a!!used while 5usti!e &ar!iso -tienGa voted to a!0uit them"
+'

.R. &o. 1+4''D,

.6

D. 4.

>. /. '.

hereafter, 5usti!e 2ar!hitorena as =residing 5usti!e issued -dministrative <rder &o. +//-'. !onstituting a Spe!ial Division of five and designating 5usti!es -ugusto -mores and Cipriano del %osario" <n September +1, 1''., 5usti!e -mores wrote 5usti!e 2ar!hitorena that he be given 1D days his )anifestation. <n the same date, however, 5usti!e 2ar!hitorena dissolved the division of D allegedly be!ause he and 5usti!e $ala8adia had agreed to the opinion of 5usti!e del %osario" <n September +3, 1''., a De!ision was rendered !onvi!ting the petitioner and Dans of violation of Se!. . BgC of %- .61'" <n 5une +', 1''/, the hird Division of the Supreme Court by a vote of .+ affirmed the !onvi!tion of the petitioner but a!0uitted D-&S" =etitioner then filed a )otion for %e!onsideration and at the same time prayed that her )otion be heard by the Supreme Court en ban! !laiming that her right to due pro!ess of law, both substantive and pro!edural, was violated:

a.

as a result of the fa!t that she was !onvi!ted as a result of the alleged disparity of the rentals agreed upon with =2,#* and the subse0uent sublease !ontra!t between =2,#* and ransnational Constru!tion Corporation" and b. the #irst Division !onvi!ted her after 5usti!e 2ar!hitorena dissolved the Spe!ial Division of D after a lun!h in a RueGon City restaurant where they agreed to !onvi!t her in one !ase and a!0uit her in her other !ases. he said meeting was attended by another 8usti!e who is not a member of the #irst Division or the Spe!ial Division in violation of the %ules of the Sandiganbayan whi!h re0uires that sessions of the !ourt shall be done only in its prin!ipal offi!e in )anila and that only 8usti!es belonging to the division should 8oin the deliberations. Hel)I he petitioner is hereby a!0uitted. 1. he great disparity between the rental pri!e of the lease agreement signed by the petitioner (=16+,>46.66 per monthA and the sub-lease rental (=>.3,666.66 per monthA does not ne!essarily render the monthly rate of =16+,>46.66 manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government in the absen!e of any eviden!e using rentals of ad8a!ent properties showing that the rentals in the property sub8e!t of the lease agreement is indeed very low. &< 9F*D9&C9 7,- S<9F9% 7-S =%9S9& 9D $J ,9 =%<S9C? *<& %92-%D*&2 ,9 %9& -@ %- 9 <# -D5-C9& =%<=9% *9S.. -s su!h, the prose!ution failed to prove the guilt of the petitioner reasonable doubt. +. he !ourt notes likewise the bias and pre8udi!e of =residing 5usti!e 2ar!hitorena against the petitioner as shown by his leading, misleading
.6

.1

and baseless hypotheti!al 0uestions of said 8usti!e to %-)<& #. C?9%F<, witness for the petitioner. Said 8usti!e asked 1>' 0uestions to the witness as against the prose!utor who !ross-e(amined the witness and asked >.. Said number of 0uestions !ould no longer be des!ribed as :!larifi!atory 0uestions;. -nother ground therefore for the a!0uittal of the petitioner is that she was denied *)=-% *-@ %*-@ before the Sandiganbayan. his is one reason why the !ase !ould no longer be remanded to the Sandiganbayan espe!ially so that the other Sandiganbayan 5usti!es in the Spe!ial Division of D have retired. here is therefore no !ompelling reason why the !ase should still be remanded to the lower !ourt when all the eviden!e are already with the Supreme Court. (&< 9: he vote was '-D for -!0uittal. C5 &arvasa, 5usti!es %egalado, Davide, 5r., %omero, and =anganiban voted for !onvi!tion while 5usti!e Fitug was the only 5usti!e who voted for the return of the !ase to the Sandiganbayan :to allow the !orre!tions of the per!eived Kirregularities1 in the pro!eedings below.;A c. /45 VS. CA, J"'u"ry 99, 1999 ,Repe"#e) ("ilure o( " p"r#y #o pre7e'# e*i)e'ce Au7#i(ie7 #%e cour# #o co'7i)er #%e c"7e 7u8$i##e) (or )eci7io' "') %ol) #%"# #%e p"r#y %"7 w"i*e) #%e ri&%# #o pre7e'# e*i)e'ce! ). MAT3:3I-A VS. CA, 963 SCRA 29; e. 5EO5LE VS. CA, 969 SCRA 219 (. JAVIER VS. COMELEC, 122 SCRA 192 JAVIER VS. COMELEC 2.%. &o.@- 4/.>'-/1+, September ++, 1'/4 .ACTSI 1. he petitioner 9velio 5avier and the private respondent -rturo =a!ifi!ador were !andidates in -nti0ue for the $atasang =ambansa ele!tion in )ay 1'/3" 9. Alle&i'& 7eriou7 "'o$"lie7 i' #%e co')uc# o( #%e elec#io'7 "') #%e c"'*"77 o( #%e elec#io' re#ur'7, J"*ier we'# #o #%e COMELEC #o pre*e'# #%e i$pe')i'& procl"$"#io' o( %i7 ri*"l+ .. <n )ay 1/, 1'/3, the Se!ond Division of the C<)9@9C dire!ted the provin!ial board of !anvassers to pro!eed with the !anvass but to suspend the pro!lamation of the winning !andidate until further orders" 3. <n 5une >, 1'/3, the same Se!ond Division ordered the board to immediately !onvene and to pro!laim the winner without pre8udi!e to the out!ome of the petition filed by 5avier with the C<)9@9C"
.1

.+

D. <n !ertiorari with the S.C. the pro!lamation made by the $oard of Canvassers was set aside as premature, having been made before the lapse of the D - day period of appeal, whi!h the petitioner seasonably made" 4. <n 5uly +., 1'/3 the Se!ond Division itself pro!laimed =a!ifi!ador the ele!ted assemblyman of -nti0ue. ISS3E: 7as the Se!ond Division of the C<)9@9C, authoriGed to promulgate its de!ision of 5uly +., 1'/3 pro!laiming =a!ifi!ador the winner in the ele!tion N -==@*C-$@9 =%<F*S*<&S <# ,9 C<&S* ? *<&: he appli!able provisions of the 1'>. Constitution are -rt. Q**-C, se!s. + and ., whi!h provide: HSe!tion +. $e the sole 8udge of all !ontests relating to the ele!tion, returns and 0ualifi!ations of all members of the $atasang =ambansa and ele!tive provin!ial and !ity offi!ials.H HSe!tion .. he Commission on 9le!tions may sit en ban! or in three divisions. All elec#io' c"7e7 $"y 8e %e"r) "') )eci)e) 8y )i*i7io'7 e@cep# co'#e7#7 i'*ol*i'& $e$8er7 o( #%e 4"#"7"'& 5"$8"'7", w%ic% 7%"ll 8e %e"r) "') )eci)e) e' 8"'c . ?nless otherwise provided by law, all ele!tion !ases shall be de!ided within ninety days from the date of their submission for de!ision.H C<& 9& *<&S <# ,9 =-% *9S: =etitioner: he pro!lamation made by the Se!ond Division is invalid be!ause all !ontests involving members of the $atasang =ambansa !ome under the 8urisdi!tion of the Commission on 9le!tions e' 8"'c. %espondents: <nly H!ontestsH need to be heard and de!ided e' 8"'c, "ll o#%er c"7e7 c"' 8e G i' ("c#, 7%oul) 8e G (ile) wi#% "') )eci)e) o'ly 8y "'y o( #%e #%ree )i*i7io'7. here is a differen!e between H!ontestsH and H!asesH and also a differen!e between Hpre-pro!lamation !ontroversiesH and Hele!tion
.+

..

protestsH. he pre-pro!lamation !ontroversy between the petitioner and the private respondent was not yet a !ontest at the time and therefore !ould be validly heard by a mere division of the Commission on ele!tions, !onsonant with Se!. .. he issue at that stage was still administrative and !ould be resolved by a division. HEL/: a. he S.C. de!ided to resolve the !ase even if the $atasang =ambansa had already been abolished by the -0uino government, and even if 5avier had already died in the meantime. his was be!ause of its desire for this !ase to serve as a guidan!e for the future. hus it said: H he Supreme Court is not only the highest arbiter of legal 0uestions but also the !ons!ien!e of the government. he !itiGen !omes to us in 0uest of law but we must also give him 8usti!e. he two are not always the same. here are times when we !annot grant the latter be!ause the issue has been settled and de!ision is no longer possible a!!ording to law. $ut there are also times when although the dispute has disappeared, as in this !ase, it nevertheless !ries out to be resolved. 5usti!e demands that we a!t, then, not only for the vindi!ation of the outraged right, though gone, but also for the guidan!e of and as a restraint upon the future.H b. he S.C. held on the main issue that in making the C<)9@9C the sole 8udge of all !ontests involving the ele!tion, returns and 0ualifi!ations of the members of the $atasang =ambansa and ele!tive provin!ial and !ity offi!ials, the Constitution intended to give it full authority to hear and de!ide these !ases from beginning to end and on all matter related thereto, in!luding those arising before the pro!lamation of the winners. he de!ision rendered by the Se!ond Division alone was therefore set aside as violative of the Constitution. he !ase should have been de!ided e' 8"'c. !. =re-pro!lamation !ontroversies be!ame known and designated as su!h only be!ause of Se!. 1>D of the 1'>/ 9le!tion Code. he 1'>. Constitution !ould not have therefore been intended to have divided !ontests between pre and post pro!lamation when that Constitution was written in 1'>.. d. he word H!ontestsH should not be given a restri!tive meaning" on the !ontrary, it should re!eive the widest possible s!ope !onformably to the rule that the words used in the Constitution should be interpreted liberally. -s employed in the 1'>. Constitution, the term should be understood as referring to any matter involving the title or !laim of title to an ele!tive offi!e, made before or after the pro!lamation of the winner, whether or not the !ontestant is !laiming the offi!e in dispute.
..

.3

e. T%ere w"7 "l7o " )e'i"l o( )ue proce77 . <ne of the members of the Se!ond Division, Commissioner 5aime <pinion was a law partner of =a!ifi!ador. ,e denied the motion to dis0ualify him from hearing the !ase. he Court has repeatedly and !onsistently demanded O#%e col) 'eu#r"li#y o( "' i$p"r#i"l Au)&eO "7 #%e i')i7pe'7"8le i$per"#i*e o( )ue proce77 . o bolster that re0uirement we have held that the 8udge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial as an added assuran!e to the parties that his de!ision will be 8ust. &. %. i. A. L. l. $. '. o. A>3L VS. CASTRO, 133 SCRA 9 1 5A/ERA-:A VS. A>3RA, 136 SCRA 966 /AVI/ VS. AM3ILI>A-, 92 SCRA ; LORE->A-A VS. CAYETA-O, 6 SCRA 261 ,re7po')e'# w"7 'o# " p"r#y #o #%e eAec#$e'# c"7e! 7o #o e'(orce #%e )eci7io' o' %er *iol"#e7 %er ri&%# #o )ue proce77 o( l"w >AM4ALES CHROMITE MI-I-: VS. CA, 92 SCRA 961 A->AL/O VS. CLAVE, 119 SCRA 313 SI-:SO- VS. -LRC, 9 3 SCRA 916 A->AL/O VS. CLAVE, 119 SCRA 313 MAYOR ALO-TE VS. J3/:E SAVELLA-O, 96 SCRA 921 MA"OR !A"ANI ALON#E VS. $%D E SAVELLANO, 2&' SCRA 2() Fitug, 5. )ayor -lonte of $inan, @aguna was !harged of rape before $ran!h +D, % C of @aguna. ,owever, as a result of a petition for a transfer of venue filed by the prose!ution and granted by the SC, his !ase was transferred to % C $ran!h D., )anila, presided over by the respondent 8udge. -fter the petitioner1s arraignment, the prose!ution submitted an -##*D-F* <# D9S*S -&C9 signed by the private !omplainant 5?F*9-@J& =?&<&2$-J-& where she prayed for the withdrawal of the !ase be!ause she is no longer interested in pursuing the same with no intention of re-filing the said !ase in the future. =ending resolution of the said motion to withdraw, the petitioner filed a motion for bail. he same was not resolved despite several motions filed by the petitioner to resolve the same. <n De!ember 1>, 1''>, !ounsel for the petitioner, - J. =,*@*= S*2#%*D #<% ?&, re!eived a noti!e from the respondent 8udge notifying him of the promulgation of the de!ision in this !ase despite the
.3

.D

fa!t that the prose!ution and the defense have not presented their eviden!e in !ourt. <n De!ember 1/, 1''>, the respondent 8udge issued a De!ision !onvi!ting the petitioner of rape and senten!ed to suffer a penalty of %9C@?S*<& =9%=9 ?-. *ssue: 7hether or not the petitioner was denied his right to due pro!ess of law. ,eld: *n order that an a!!used in a !riminal pro!eedings is deemed to have been given the right to due pro!ess of law, the following re0uisites must be !omplied with before a de!ision is rendered: 1. the !ourt or tribunal trying the !ase is !lothed with 8urisdi!tion to hear and determine the matter before it" +. that 8urisdi!tion was lawfully a!0uired by it over the person of the a!!used" .. that the a!!used is given the opportunity to be heard" and 3. that 8udgment is rendered only upon lawful hearing (=9<=@9 FS. D-=* -&, 1'> SC%- .>/A he a!t of the respondent 8udge in rendering a de!ision without even giving the petitioner the right to addu!e eviden!e in his behalf is a gross violation of his right to due pro!ess of law. he De!ision rendered is &?@@ -&D F<*D for want of due pro!ess. -s long as there is a noti!e to a party in the hearing of a motion on the !ustody of their !hildren in a De!laration of &ullity of )arriage !ase, there is no violation of the right to due pro!ess. S3SIE CHA-GTA- *7. JESSE TA-, :.R. -o. 16 139, .e8ru"ry 91, 9;1; *SS?9: =etitioner raises the 0uestion of whether the .6 )ar!h +663 de!ision and the 1> )ay +663 resolution of the trial !ourt giving !ustody to their !hildren have attained finality despite the alleged denial of due pro!ess sin!e she was not present during the hearing.
.D

.4

,9@D: =etitioner !ontends she was denied due pro!ess when her !ounsel failed to file pleadings and appear at the hearings for respondent1s omnibus motion to amend the partial 8udgment as regards the !ustody of the !hildren and the properties in her possession. =etitioner !laims the trial !ourt issued the 1> )ay +663 resolution relying solely on the testimony of respondent. %espondent stresses neither petitioner nor her !ounsel appeared in !ourt at the hearings on respondentSs omnibus motion or on petitioner1s motion to dismiss. 7e also ruled in &uason that noti!e sent to the !ounsel of re!ord is binding upon the !lient and the negle!t or failure of the !ounsel to inform the !lient of an adverse 8udgment resulting in the loss of the latter1s right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a 8udgment valid and regular on its fa!e. #urther, petitioner !annot !laim that she was denied due pro!ess. 7hile she may have lost her right to present eviden!e due to the supposed negligen!e of her !ounsel, she !annot say she was denied her day in !ourt. %e!ords show petitioner, through !ounsel, a!tively parti!ipated in the pro!eedings below, filing motion after motion. Contrary to petitioner1s allegation of negligen!e of her !ounsel, we have reason to believe the negligen!e in pursuing the !ase was on petitioner1s end, as may be gleaned from her !ounsel1s manifestation dated . )ay +663: ?ndersigned Counsel, who appeared for petitioner, in the nullity pro!eedings, respe!tfully informs the ,onorable Court that she has not heard from petitioner sin!e ,oly 7eek. -ttempts to !all petitioner have failed. ?ndersigned !ounsel regrets therefore that she is unable to respond in an intelligent manner to the )otion (<mnibus )otionA filed by respondent. Clearly, despite her !ounsel1s efforts to rea!h her, petitioner showed utter disinterest in the hearings on respondent1s omnibus motion seeking, among others, !ustody of the !hildren. he trial 8udge was left with no other re!ourse but to pro!eed with the hearings and rule on the motion based on the eviden!e presented by respondent. =etitioner !annot now !ome to this Court !rying denial of due pro!ess. T%e ri&%# o( #%e "ccu7e) #o )ue proce77 o( l"w w"7 *iol"#e) w%e' #%e Au)&e i77ue) " w"rr"'# (or %er "rre7# e*e' #%ou&% 7%e %"7 'o# recei*e) "'y 'o#ice (or %er "rr"i&'$e'# 8e(ore #%e Mu'icip"l Tri"l Cour# o( 4"&uio Ci#y 8ec"u7e #%e 'o#ice
.4

.>

w"7 "c#u"lly 7e'# #o %er #%rou&% #%e C%ie( o( 5olice o( MueJo' Ci#y. (O$)( ". &A( *". J!%+E MA$IA CLA$I&A CA"!+A&A I(, A.M. (o. M&J-,--./0-, January 0,, 0,,A3STRIAGMARTI-E>, J.1 #-C S: &oryn S. an (!omplainantA filed a Complaint dated -pril +, +66> against 5udge )aria Clarita Casuga- abin (respondentA of the )uni!ipal rial Court in Cities () CCA, $ran!h 3, $aguio City for denial of due pro!ess relative to Criminal Case &o. 11/4+/. Complainant avers: <n &ovember ', +664, the =hilippine &ational =oli!e (=&=A RueGon City =oli!e Distri!t (RC=DA served her a warrant of arrest dated <!tober 1., +664, issued by the ) CC $aguio City, $ran!h 3, presided by respondent, relative to Criminal Case &o. 11/4+/ for alleged violation of atas #am'ansa lg. ++. *t was only then that she learned for the first time that a !riminal !ase was filed against her before the !ourt. She was detained at the RueGon City ,all Comple( =oli!e <ffi!e and had to post bail of =1,666.66 before the <ffi!e of the 9(e!utive 5udge of the %egional rial Court (% CA of RueGon City for her temporary release. ?pon verifi!ation, she learned that respondent issued on -ugust /, +664 an <rder dire!ting her to appear before the !ourt on <!tober 16, +664 for arraignment. *t was sent by mail to =&= RueGon City for servi!e to her. ,owever, she did not re!eive any !opy of the <rder and up to the present has not seen the same" hen!e, she was not able to attend her arraignment. She also found out that there was no proof of servi!e of the <rder or any noti!e to her of the arraignment. his notwithstanding, respondent issued a warrant for her arrest. Complainant alleges that she was deeply aggrieved and embarrassed by the issuan!e of the warrant for her arrest despite the fa!t that she was never notified of her arraignment. Complainant prayed that the appropriate investigation be !ondu!ted as to the undue issuan!e of a warrant for her arrest. *n her Comment dated 5uly D, +66>, respondent answered: She issued the warrant of arrest be!ause when the !ase was !alled for appearan!e, the !omplainant, as a!!used therein, failed to appear. =rior to the issuan!e of the warrant of arrest, her staff sent by registered mail the !ourtSs <rder dated -ugust /, +664 addressed to !omplainant :through the Chief of =oli!e, =&=, 1163, RueGon City; dire!ting !omplainant to appear on <!tober 16, +664 at /:.6 a.m. for the arraignment and preliminary !onferen!e in Criminal Case &o. 11/4+/, as proven by %egistry %e!eipt &o. 6.16. *t is true that the return on the !ourtSs <rder dated -ugust /, +664 had not yet been made by the RC =oli!e on or before <!tober 16, +664. &onetheless, she issued the warrant of arrest in good faith and upon the following grounds: (aA under Se!. . of %ule 1.1 of the %ules of Court, the !ourt was entitled to presume that on <!tober 16, +664, after the lapse of a little over two months, offi!ial duty had been regularly performed and a letter duly dire!ted and mailed had been re!eived in the regular !ourse of mail" and (bA Se!. 1+ of the 1'/. %ule on Summary =ro!edure in Spe!ial Cases provides that bail may be re0uired where the a!!used does not
.>

./

reside in the pla!e where the violation of the law or ordinan!e was !ommitted. he warrant of arrest she issued was meant to implement this provision, whi!h was not repealed by the 1''1 %evised %ule on Summary =ro!edure, sin!e !omplainant is a resident of RueGon City and not of $aguio City. *f her interpretation was erroneous, she (respondentA believes that an administrative san!tion for su!h error would be harsh and unsympatheti!. She has nothing personal against !omplainant and did not want to embarrass or humiliate her. She issued the warrant in the honest belief that her a!t was in !omplian!e with the rules. She prays that the !ase against her be dismissed and that a ruling on the interpretation of Se!s. 16 P 1+, of the 1'/. %ule on Summary =ro!edure in Spe!ial Cases, in relation to Se!. 14 of the 1''1 %evised %ule on Summary =ro!edure be made for the guidan!e of the ben!h and bar. ,9@D: 7henever a !riminal !ase falls under the Summary =ro!edure, the general rule is that the !ourt shall not order the arrest of the a!!used, unless the a!!used fails to appear whenever re0uired. his is !learly provided in Se!tion 14 of the 1''1 %evised %ule on Summary =ro!edure whi!h states: Se!. 14. Arrest of accused. - T%e cour# 7%"ll 'o# or)er #%e "rre7# o( #%e "ccu7e) e@cep# (or ("ilure #o "ppe"r w%e'e*er reCuire). %elease of the person arrested shall either be in bail or on re!ogniGan!e by a responsible !itiGen a!!eptable to the !ourt. (9mphasis suppliedA *n this !ase, respondent !laims that the issuan!e of a warrant for the arrest of !omplainant was 8ustified, sin!e !omplainant failed to appear during the arraignment in spite of an order re0uiring her to do so. %espondent admits, however, that a !opy of the <rder dated -ugust /, +664, was sent to !omplainant : t2roug2 t2e C2ief of #olice, #(#, ..,3, 4ue5on City.; 7hile it is true that the %ules of Court provides for presumptions, one of whi!h is that offi!ial duty has been regularly performed, su!h presumption should not be the sole basis of a magistrate in !on!luding that a person !alled to !ourt has failed to appear as re0uired, whi!h in turn 8ustifies the issuan!e of a warrant for her arrest, when su!h noti!e was not a!tually addressed to her residen!e but to the poli!e in her !ity. So basi! and fundamental is a personSs right to liberty that it should not be taken lightly or brushed aside with the presumption that the poli!e through whi!h the noti!e had been sent, a!tually served the same on !omplainant whose address was not even spe!ified. he Court has held that a 8udge !ommits grave abuse of authority when she hastily issues a warrant of arrest against the a!!used in violation of the summary pro!edure rule that the a!!used should first be notified of the !harges against him and given the opportunity to file his !ounter-affidavits and !ountervailing eviden!e . ,en!e, !omplainant1s right to due pro!ess was violated.

./

.'

Considering that this is respondentSs first administrative infra!tion in her more than / years of servi!e in the 8udi!iary, whi!h serves to mitigate her liability, the Court holds the imposition of a fine in the amount of =16,666.66 to be proper in this !ase. 6. 5roce)ur"l )ue proce77 8e(ore ")$i'i7#r"#i*e 8o)ie7 a. *$-J FS. C*%, 4' =hil. 4.D ReCui7i#e7: ". 8. c. ). e. #%e ri&%# #o " %e"ri'& w%ic% i'clu)e7 #%e ri&%# #o pre7e'# e*i)e'ce+ #%e #ri8u'"l $u7# co'7i)er #%e e*i)e'ce pre7e'#e)+ #%e )eci7io' $u7# %"*e 7o$e#%i'& #o 7uppor# i#7el(+ #%e e*i)e'ce $u7# 8e 7u87#"'#i"l+ #%e )eci7io' $u7# 8e 8"7e) o' #%e e*i)e'ce pre7e'#e) )uri'& #%e %e"ri'&+ (. #%e #ri8u'"l or 8o)y $u7# "c# o' i#7 ow' i')epe')e'# co'7i)er"#io' o( #%e l"w or ("c#7+ &. #%e 8o"r) or 8o)y 7%"ll i' "ll co'#ro*er7i"l Cue7#io'7, re')er i#7 )eci7io' i' 7uc% " $"''er #%"# #%e p"r#ie7 #o #%e procee)i'&7 c"' L'ow #%e *"riou7 i77ue7 i'*ol*e). b. -)9%*C-& <$-CC< FS. D*%9C <%, 4> SC%- +/> !. )-&*@- 9@9C %*C C<)=-&J FS. &@%C, +4. SC%- D.1 ). /EL:A/O VS. CA, -o*e$8er 1;, 1966 I( "' "ccu7e) w"7 repre7e'#e) 8y " 'o'Gl"wyer )uri'& #%e #ri"l ,#%ou&% 7%e #%ou&%# #%"# %e i7 " l"wyer!, %er ri&%# #o )ue proce77 w"7 *iol"#e) "') #%ere(ore e'#i#le) #o " 'ew #ri"l. e. 5E/RO CO-S3LTA VS. 5EO5LE, :.R. -o. 1 9269, .e8ru"ry 19, 9;;9 *SS?9: 7hether or not appellant was denied due pro!ess having been represented by a fake lawyer during arraignment, pre-trial and presentation of prin!ipal witnesses for the prose!ution. ,9@D: <n the matter of a!!used-appellant1s !laim of having been denied due pro!ess, an e(amination of the re!ords shows that while a!!usedappellant was represented by -tty. 5o!elyn =. %eyes, who :seems not a
.'

36

lawyer,; during the early stages of trial, the latter withdrew her appearan!e with the !onformity of the former as early as 5uly +/, +666 and subse0uently, approved by the % C in its <rder dated -ugust 3, +666. hereafter, a!!used-appellant was represented by -tty. %ainald C. =aggao from the =ubli! Defender1s (-ttorney1sA <ffi!e of )akati City. Sin!e the a!!used-appellant was already represented by a member of the =hilippine $ar who prin!ipally handled his defense, albeit unsu!!essfully, then he !annot now be heard to !omplain about having been denied of due pro!ess. hat appellant1s first !ounsel may not have been a member of the bar does not dent the proven fa!t that appellant prevented &elia and !ompany from pro!eeding to their destination. #urther, appellant was afforded !ompetent representation by the =ubli! -ttorneys1 <ffi!e during the presentation by the prose!ution of the medi!o-legal offi!er and during the presentation of his eviden!e. #eople v. Elesterio1B3C enlightens: :-s for the !ir!umstan!e that the defense !ounsel turned out later to be a non-lawyer, it is observed that he was !hosen by the a!!used himself and that his representation does not !hange the fa!t that 9lesterio was undeniably !arrying an unli!ensed firearm when he was arrested. -t any rate, he has sin!e been represented by a member of the =hilippine bar, who prepared the petition for 2a'eas corpus and the appellant1s brief.; >. =ro!edural due pro!ess in dis!iplinary a!tions against students -!ademi! freedom" due pro!ess in dis!iplinary a!tions involving students /E LA SALLE 3-IVERSITY VS. CO3RT O. A55EALS, HO-.0IL.RE/O /. REYES, i' %i7 c"p"ci#y "7 5re7i)i'& Ju)&e o( 4r"'c% 36, Re&io'"l Tri"l Cour# o( M"'il", THE COMMISSIO- OHI:HER E/3CATIO-, THE /E5ARTME-T O. E/3CATIOC3LT3RE A-/ S5ORTS, ALVI- A:3ILAR, JAMES 5A3L 43-:343-:, RICHAR/ REVERE-TE "') RO4ERTO VAL/ES, JR., :.R. -o. 19 96;, /ece$8er 19, 9;; REYES, R.T., J.I THE .ACTSI =%*F- 9 respondents -lvin -guilar, 5ames =aul $ungubung, %i!hard %everente and %oberto Faldes, 5r. are members of au 2amma =hi #raternity who were e(pelled by the De @a Salle ?niversity (D@S?A and College of Saint $enilde (CS$A 5oint Dis!ipline $oard be!ause of
1
B3C

2.%. &o. 4.'>1, )ay ', 1'/', 1>. SC%- +3., +3'.

36

31

their involvement in an offensive a!tion !ausing in8uries to petitioner 5ames Jap and three other student members of Domino @u( #raternity. he mauling in!idents were a result of a fraternity war. he vi!tims, namely: petitioner 5ames Jap and Dennis =as!ual, 9ri!son Cano, and )i!hael =ereG, are members of the :Domino @u( #raternity,; while the alleged assailants, private respondents -lvin -guilar, 5ames =aul $ungubung, %i!hard %everente and %oberto Faldes, 5r. are members of : au 2amma =hi #raternity,; a rival fraternity. he ne(t day, )ar!h .6, 1''D, petitioner Jap lodged a !omplaint with the Dis!ipline $oard of D@S? !harging private respondents with :dire!t assault.; Similar !omplaints were also filed by Dennis =as!ual and 9ri!son Cano against -lvin @ee and private respondents Faldes and %everente. hus, !ases entitled :%e La "alle !niversity and College of "t. enilde v. Alvin Aguilar 6A - "M7-.80.,89, James #aul ungu'ung 6A -#"M7-0:33,:9, $o'ert $. *aldes, Jr. 6 "- "-A#M7-0:8,;<9, Alvin Lee 6E%%7-3<0:089, $ic2ard $everente 6A -M+&7-.8:;:/9 and Malvin A. #apio 6A -M+&7-08.00/9; were do!keted as Dis!ipline Case &o. '3'D-.-+D1+1. he Dire!tor of the D@S? Dis!ipline <ffi!e sent separate noti!es to private respondents -guilar, $ungubung and Faldes, 5r. and %everente informing them of the !omplaints and re0uiring them to answer. =rivate respondents filed their respe!tive answers. Said noti!es issued by De @a Salle Dis!ipline $oard uniformly stated as follows: #lease 'e informed t2at a =oint and e>panded %iscipline oard 2ad 'een constituted to 2ear and deli'erate t2e c2arge against you for violation of CHE% Order (o. 3 arising from t2e ?ritten complaints of James )ap, %ennis C. #ascual, and Ericson ). Cano. )ou are directed to appear at t2e 2earing of t2e oard sc2eduled on April .-, .--8 at -1,, a.m. at t2e ro. Connon Hall for you and your ?itnesses to give testimony and present evidence in your 'e2alf. )ou may 'e assisted 'y a la?yer ?2en you give your testimony or t2ose of your ?itnesses. During the pro!eedings before the $oard on -pril 1' and +/, 1''D, private respondents interposed the !ommon defense of alibi. &o fullblown hearing was !ondu!ted nor the students allowed to !ross-e(amine the witnesses against them.

31

3+

<n )ay ., 1''D, the D@S?-CS$ 5oint Dis!ipline $oard issued a %esolution finding private respondents guilty. hey were meted the supreme penalty of automati! e(pulsion pursuant to C,9D <rder &o. 3. he dispositive part of the resolution reads: 7,9%9#<%9, !onsidering all the foregoing, the $oard finds respondents -@F*& -2?*@-% (-$-$S)E'1D+16DA, 5-)9S =-?@ $?&2?$?&2 (-$-=S)E'+.336.A, -@F*& @99 (9DDE'34+.+D6A and %*C,-%D F. %9F9%9& 9 (-$-)2 E'1D./.>A guilty of having violated C,9D <rder &o. 3 and thereby orders their automati! e(pulsion. *n the !ase of respondent )-@F*& -. )2 E'+D1++>A, the $oard a!0uits him of the !harge. I SS3E 7ere private respondents a!!orded due pro!ess of law be!ause there was no full-blown hearing nor were they allowed to !ross-e(amine the witnesses against themN H E L /I 5ri*"#e re7po')e'#7N ri&%# #o )ue proce77 o( l"w w"7 'o# *iol"#e). *n ")$i'i7#r"#i*e c"7e7, 7uc% "7 i'*e7#i&"#io'7 o( 7#u)e'#7 (ou') *iol"#i'& 7c%ool )i7cipli'e, B<#=%ere "re wi#%"l $i'i$u$ 7#"')"r)7 w%ic% $u7# 8e $e# 8e(ore #o 7"#i7(y #%e )e$"')7 o( proce)ur"l )ue proce77 and these are: that (1A the students must be informed in writing of the nature and !ause of any a!!usation against them" (+A they shall have the right to answer the !harges against them and with the assistan!e if !ounsel, if desired" (.A they shall be informed of the eviden!e against them" (3A they shall have the right to addu!e eviden!e in their own behalf" and (DA the eviden!e must be duly !onsidered by the investigating !ommittee or offi!ial designated by the s!hool authorities to hear and de!ide the !ase.; 7here a party was afforded an opportunity to parti!ipate in the pro!eedings but failed to do so, he !annot !omplain of deprivation of due pro!ess. &oti!e and hearing is the bulwark of administrative due pro!ess, the right to whi!h is among the primary rights that must be respe!ted even in administrative pro!eedings. he essen!e of due pro!ess is simply an opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative pro!eedings, an opportunity to e(plain one1s side or an opportunity to seek re!onsideration of the a!tion or ruling !omplained of. So long as the party is given the opportunity to advo!ate her !ause or defend her interest in due !ourse, it !annot be said that there was denial of due pro!ess.
3+

=-=*<

(-$-

3.

- formal trial-type hearing is not, at all times and in all instan!es, essential to due pro!ess I it is enough that the parties are given a fair and reasonable opportunity to e(plain their respe!tive sides of the !ontroversy and to present supporting eviden!e on whi!h a fair de!ision !an be based. : o be heard; does not only mean presentation of testimonial eviden!e in !ourt I one may also be heard through pleadings and where the opportunity to be heard through pleadings is a!!orded, there is no denial of due pro!ess. =rivate respondents were duly informed in writing of the !harges against them by the D@S?-CS$ 5oint Dis!ipline $oard through petitioner Sales. hey were given the opportunity to answer the !harges against them as they, in fa!t, submitted their respe!tive answers. hey were also informed of the eviden!e presented against them as they attended all the hearings before the $oard. )oreover, private respondents were given the right to addu!e eviden!e on their behalf and they did. @astly, the Dis!ipline $oard !onsidered all the pie!es of eviden!e submitted to it by all the parties before rendering its resolution in Dis!ipline Case &o. '3'D-.-+D1+1. =rivate respondents !annot !laim that they were denied due pro!ess when they were not allowed to !ross-e(amine the witnesses against them. his argument was already re8e!ted in +u5man v. (ational !niversityC where this Court held that :( ( ( the imposition of dis!iplinary san!tions re0uires observan!e of pro!edural due pro!ess. -nd it bears stressing that due pro!ess in dis!iplinary !ases involving students does not entail pro!eedings and hearings similar to those pres!ribed for a!tions and pro!eedings in !ourts of 8usti!e. he pro!eedings in student dis!ipline !ases may be summary" and !ross e(amination is not, ( ( ( an essential part thereof.; :3>MA- VS. -ATIO-AL 3-IVERSITY 2.%. &o. @-4/+//, 5uly 11, 1'/4 .ACTSI =etitioners who are students of the &ational ?niversity were barred from enrolment. he s!hool !laims that their s!holasti! standing is poor and that they have been involved in a!tivities that have disrupted !lasses and had !ondu!ted mass a!tions without the re0uired permits. HEL/I a. *t is apparent that despite the a!!usations of alleged violations hurled by the s!hool against the petitioners, the fa!t is that it had never !ondu!ted
3.

33

pro!eedings of any sort to determine whether or not petitioners-students had indeed led or parti!ipated Hin a!tivities within the university premises, !ondu!ted without prior permit from s!hool authorities, that disturbed or disrupted !lasses thereinH. -lso apparent is the omission of respondents to !ite any duly published rule of theirs by whi!h students may be e(pelled or refused re-enrollment for poor s!holasti! standing. b. ?nder the 9du!ation -!t of 1'/+, students have the right Hto freely !hoose their field of study sub8e!t to e(isting !urri!ula and to !ontinue their !ourse therein up to graduation, 9QC9= in !ase of a!ademi! defi!ien!y, or violation of dis!iplinary regulations.H he petitioner were denied of this right, and were being dis!iplined without due pro!ess, in violation of the admonition in the )anual of %egulations for =rivate S!hools that Hno penalty shall be imposed upon any student e(!ept for !ause as defined in LLL (theA )anuel andEor in the s!hool rules and regulations as duly promulgated and only after )ue i'*e7#i&"#io' 7%"ll %"*e 8ee' co')uc#e). I# %"7 "lre")y 8ee' %el) i' $erina vs. =hilippine )aritime *nstitute, 11> SC%- D/1, that it is illegal of a s!hool to impose san!tions on students without !ondu!ting due investigation. !. <f !ourse, all s!hools have the power to adopt and enfor!e its rules. *n fa!t the maintenan!e of good s!hool dis!ipline is a duty spe!ifi!ally en8oined on every private s!hool. he )anual of %egulations for =rivate S!hools provides that: HL L he s!hool rules governing dis!ipline and the !orresponding san!tions therefor must be !learly spe!ified and defined in writing and made known to the students andEor their parents or guardians. S!hools shall have the authority and prerogative to promulgate su!h rules and regulations as they may deem ne!essary from time to time effe!tive as of the date of their promulgation unless otherwise spe!ified.H d. he imposition of dis!iplinary san!tions re0uires observan!e of pro!edural due pro!ess. Due pro!ess in dis!iplinary !ases involving students : a. need not entail pro!eedings and hearing similar to those pres!ribed for a!tions and pro!eedings in !ourt of 8usti!e" b. the pro!eedings may be summary" !. !ross-e(amination is not an essential part thereof.
33

3D

$ut the S.C. said that the following minimum standards must be met to satisfy the demands of pro!edural due pro!ess: 1. the students must be informed in writing of the nature and !ause of any a!!usation against them" +. they shall have the right to answer the !harges against them, with the assistan!e of !ounsel" .. they shall be informed of the eviden!e against them" 3. they shall have the right to addu!e eviden!e in their own behalf" D. the eviden!e must be duly !onsidered by the investigating !ommittee or offi!ial designated by the s!hool authorities to hear and de!ide the !ase. a. $9%*&- FS. =)*, September .6, 1'/+ Due pro!ess in the dismissal of employees ReCui7i#e7 o( /ue 5roce77 8e(ore #%e -LRC 1. &oti!e" and +. ,earing a. b. !. d. e. f. g. )22 )arine Servi!es vs. &@%C, +D' SC%- 443 =hilippine Savings $ank vs. &@%C, +41 SC%- 36' %-JC<% -*% C<& %<@ FS. &@%C, +41 SC%- D/' 7-@@9) )-%* *)9 S9%F*C9S FS. &@%C, +4. SC%- 1>3 S-)*@@-&< FS. &@%C, +4D SC%- >// S <@ -&*9@S9& FS. &@%C, +43 SC%- .6> 2-%C*- FS. &@%C, +43 SC%- +41

/. 9ffe!t of a )otion for %e!onsideration to violation of the right to due pro!ess a. C-S?9@- FS. <##*C9 <# ,9 <)$?DS)-&, +>4 SC%- 4.D b. C<%D9&*@@< FS. 9Q9C? *F9 S9C%9 -%J, +>4 SC%- 4D+ '. *n administrative pro!eedings, does due pro!ess re0uire that B1C a party be assisted by !ounsel and B+C be able to !ross-e(amine the witnessesN L3MIM3E/ VS. EEE-EA, 969 SCRA 191 here is no law, whether the Civil Servi!e -!t or the -dministrative Code of 1'/>, whi!h provides that a respondent in an
3D

34

administrative !ase should be assisted by !ounsel in order that the pro!eedings therein is !onsidered valid. &ot only, that, petitioner herein was given the opportunity several times to engage the servi!es of a lawyer to assist him but he !onfidently informed the investigators that he !ould prote!t himself. A)$i'i7#r"#i*e /ue 5roce77 8e(ore Ci*il Ser*ice Co$$i77io' )oe7 reCuire cro77Ge@"$i'"#io' o( co$pl"i'"'# "') %i7 wi#'e77e7 8y re7po')e'#. #%e 'o# #%e #%e

ATTY. ROMEO ERECE VS. LY- MACALI-:AY, ET AL., :.R. -o. 1666;9, April 99, 9;;6 THE .ACTSI =etitioner is the %egional Dire!tor of the Commission on ,uman %ights (C,%A %egion *, whose offi!e is lo!ated in San #ernando City, @a ?nion. %espondent employees of the C,% %egion * filed an -ffidavitComplaint dated <!tober +, 1''/ against petitioner alleging that he denied them the use of the offi!e vehi!le assigned to petitioner, that petitioner still !laimed transportation allowan!e even if he was using the said vehi!le, and that he !ertified that he did not use any government vehi!le, when in fa!t he did, in order to !olle!t transportation allowan!e. %espondent filed his answer denying the allegations against him. -fter a fa!t-finding investigation, the CSC =roper in CSC %esolution &o. ''-1.46 dated 5uly 1, 1''' !harged petitioner with Dishonesty and 2rave )is!ondu!t for using a government vehi!le in spite of his re!eipt of the monthly transportation allowan!e and for !ertifying that he did not use any government vehi!le, when in fa!t, he did, in order to re!eive the transportation allowan!e. =ertinent portions of the formal !harge read: 1. hat despite the regular re!eipt of 9re!e of his monthly %epresentation and ransportation -llowan!e (%- -A in the amount of =3,666.66, he still prioritiGes himself in the use of the offi!e vehi!le ( amaraw #QA in spite of the dire!tive from the Central <ffi!e that he !annot use the servi!e vehi!le for offi!ial purposes and at the same time re!eive his transportation allowan!e" +. hat 9re!e did not !omply with the dire!tive of the Central <ffi!e addressed to all %egional ,uman %ights Dire!tors, as follows: Kto
34

3>

regulariGe your re!eipt of the transportation allowan!e !omponent of the %- - to whi!h you are entitled monthly, you are hereby dire!ted to immediately transfer to any of your staff, preferably one of your lawyers, the memorandum re!eipt of the vehi!le(sA now still in your name"1 .. hat he !ertified in his monthly li0uidation of his %- that he did not use any government vehi!le for the !orresponding month, whi!h is not true be!ause he is the regular user of the government vehi!le issued to C,%-%egion *. he foregoing fa!ts and !ir!umstan!es indi!ate that government servi!e has been pre8udi!ed by the a!ts of 9re!e. 7,9%9#<%9, %omeo @. 9re!e is hereby formally !harged with Dishonesty and 2rave )is!ondu!t. -!!ordingly, he is given five (DA days from re!eipt hereof to submit his -nswer under oath and affidavits of his witnesses, if any, to the Civil Servi!e Commission-Cordillera -dministrative %egion (CSC-C-%A. <n his -nswer, he should indi!ate whether he ele!ts a formal investigation or waives his right thereto. -ny )otion to Dismiss, re0uest for !larifi!ation or $ills of =arti!ulars shall not be entertained by the Commission. -ny of these pleadings interposed by the respondent shall be !onsidered as an -nswer and shall be evaluated as su!h. @ikewise, he is advised of his right to the assistan!e of !ounsel of his !hoi!e.+B3C -fter a formal investigation of the !ase, the CSC issued %esolution &o. 6+61+3, dated 5anuary +3. +66+, finding petitioner guilty of dishonesty and !ondu!t pre8udi!ial to the best interest of the servi!e and penaliGing him with dismissal from the servi!e. =etitioner filed a petition for review of the CSC %esolution with the C-. *n the De!ision promulgated on 5anuary >, +66D, the C- upheld the CSC %esolution, the dispositive portion of whi!h reads: 0HERE.ORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is /E-IE/ and the assailed %esolutions of the Civil Servi!e Commission are hereby A..IRME/. ,en!e, this petition. I S S 3 EI

+B3C

Id. at .D-.4.

3>

3/

=etitioner raised the issue of violation of his right to due pro!ess be!ause he was denied the right to !ross-e(amine the respondents on their affidavit-!omplaint. H E L /I =etitioner !ontends that he was denied due pro!ess as he was not afforded the right to !ross-e(amine his a!!users and their witnesses. ,e stated that at his instan!e, in order to prevent delay in the disposition of the !ase, he was allowed to present eviden!e first to support the allegations in his Counter--ffidavit. -fter he rested his !ase, respondents did not present their eviden!e, but moved to submit their position paper and formal offer of eviden!e, whi!h motion was granted by the CSC over his (petitioner1sA ob8e!tion. %espondents then submitted their =osition =aper and #ormal <ffer of 9(hibits. =etitioner submits that although he was allowed to present eviden!e first, it should not be !onstrued as a waiver of his right to !rosse(amine the !omplainants. -lthough the order of presentation of eviden!e was not in !onformity with the pro!edure, still petitioner should not be deemed to have lost his right to !ross-e(amine his a!!users and their witnesses. his may be allowed only if he e(pressly waived said right. he Court agrees with the C- that petitioner was not denied due pro!ess when he failed to !ross-e(amine the !omplainants and their witnesses sin!e he was given the opportunity to be heard and present his eviden!e. *n administrative pro!eedings, the essen!e of due pro!ess is simply the opportunity to e(plain one1s side. *ele5 v. %e *era it was held that : Due pro!ess of law in administrative !ases is not identi!al with :8udi!ial pro!ess; for a trial in !ourt is not always essential to due pro!ess. 7hile a day in !ourt is a matter of right in 8udi!ial pro!eedings, it is otherwise in administrative pro!eedings sin!e they rest upon different prin!iples. he due pro!ess !lause guarantees no parti!ular form of pro!edure and its re0uirements are not te!hni!al. hus, in !ertain pro!eedings of administrative !hara!ter, the right to a noti!e or hearing are not essential to due pro!ess of law. he !onstitutional re0uirement of due pro!ess is met by a fair hearing before a regularly established administrative agen!y or tribunal. *t is not essential that hearings be had before the making of a determination if thereafter, there is available trial and tribunal before whi!h all ob8e!tions and defenses to the making of su!h determination may be raised and !onsidered. <ne ade0uate hearing is all that due pro!ess re0uires. . . .

3/

3'

T%e ri&%# #o cro77Ge@"$i'e i7 'o# "' i')i7pe'7"8le "7pec# o( )ue proce77. &or is an a!tual hearing always essential. . . . he dismissal of the petitioner from the government is valid. here is violation of the right to due pro!ess of law if a party he is de!lared as having waived the right to file his answer despite improper servi!e of summons. /AT35AE MA-:3/A/AT3 VS. HO3SE O. RE5RESE-TATIVES ELECTORAL TRI43-AL ,HRET!, :.R. -o. 1 9613, /ece$8er 16, 9;;6 LEO-AR/OG/E CASTRO, J.I Datu =a( =akung S. )angudadatu (petitionerA and -ngelo <. )ontilla (private respondentA were !ongressional !andidates for the #irst Distri!t of Sultan Mudarat during the )ay 13, +66> national ele!tions. =etitioner won by 1>,3D1 votes and was pro!laimed on )ay ++, +66> by the =rovin!ial $oard of Canvassers as the duly ele!ted %epresentative of the said !ongressional distri!t. <n )ay .1, +66>, respondent filed with the ,%9 a =etition of =rotest (Ad CautelamA.B3C !ontesting the results of the ele!tions and the pro!lamation of petitioner. <n 5une 13, +66>, the Se!retary of the ,%9 !aused the servi!e of summons 3BDC upon petitioner #%rou&% re&i7#ere) $"il at #uro@ @osaria,DB4C amnag (#o'lacionA, @utayan, Sultan Mudarat, re0uiring petitioner to file an -nswer to the protest within ten (16A days from re!eipt thereof.

<n 5uly 11, +66>, the ,%9 re!eived the %egistry %eturn %e!eipt Card,4B>C showing that a !ertain -ileen %. $aldenas>B/C ($aldenasA re!eived the summons on 5une +>, +66>. <n -ugust 14, +66>, the ,%9 issued %esolution &o. 6>-1>'/B'C whi!h noted the aforementioned %egistry %eturn %e!eipt Card and that despite the fa!t that 3. days from 5une +>, +66> had passed sin!e $aldenas re!eived the summons, petitioner had not filed an answer in a!!ordan!e with %ule +>'B16C of the +663 ,%9 %ules. *n the
. 3 D

B3C BDC

4 >

/ '

Id., pp. 31->4. Id., p. >>. B4C he assailed %esolutions state :@oria; but the Summons and %egistry %eturn %e!eipt Card !orre!tly state :@osaria.; B>C $ollo, p. >/. B/C he assailed %esolutions state :$aldena;" it should be :$aldenas; based on the %egistry %eturn %e!eipt Card. B'C See &ote +. B16C %?@9 +>. Aailure to Ans?erB Effect. I *f no answer is filed to the protest, !ounter-protest, or the petition for Cuo ?arranto within the period fi(ed in these %ules, a general denial shall be

3'

D6

same %esolution, the ,%9 !onsidered petitioner to have entered a general denial of the allegations of the protest.

*n an <rder dated -ugust 1>, +66>, the ,%9 set the preliminary !onferen!e on September +>, +66> at 11:66 a.m.

)eanwhile, petitioner informally learned of respondent1s protest, prompting petitioner to re0uest his lawyers to verify the same from the re!ords of the ,%9 . hereafter, his lawyers entered their appearan!e on September 3, +66> and re0uested that they be furnished with !opies of the petition of protest as well as noti!es, orders and resolutions pertaining to the protest.

<n September 16, +66>, petitioner filed a )otion to %e!onsider16B11C %esolution &o. 6>-1>' and )otion to -dmit -nswer with Counter-=rotest, alleging that he never re!eived the summons issued by the ,%9 . *n his affidavit 11B1+C atta!hed to the motion, petitioner denied that $aldenas was a member of his household or his employee. ,e further !laimed that she was not authoriGed to re!eive any important do!uments addressed to him. -nd assuming that he had authoriGed her, the summons re!eived by her was never brought to his attention.

.66

1+B1.C

<n September 1', +66>, the ,%9 denying for la!k of merit.

issued %esolution &o. 6>-

,en!e, this petition.

=etitioner filed the instant petition imputing grave abuse of dis!retion amounting to la!k of 8urisdi!tion on the part of the ,%9 for issuing %esolution &os. 6>-1>' and 6>-.66. ,e also prayed for a temporary restraining order andEor a writ of preliminary in8un!tion for this Court to en8oin the ,%9 from further pro!eeding with ,%9 Case &o.6>-6+1. =etitioner !ontended that the ,%9 never a!0uired 8urisdi!tion over his person be!ause of the absen!e of a valid servi!e of summons. ,e argued that a substitute servi!e of summons is made only
deemed to have been entered. B11C $ollo, pp. +4-.>. B1+C Id., p. .6. B1.C See &ote ..

16 11 1+

D6

D1

:when the defendant !annot be served personally at a reasonable time after efforts to lo!ate him have failed.; 1.B13C *n his !ase, sin!e the pro!ess server1s return failed to show on its fa!e the impossibility of personal servi!e, then the substituted servi!e was improper and invalid.

*n his !omment, respondent !ountered that the ,%9 did not !ommit grave abuse of dis!retion in issuing %esolution &os. 6>-1>' dated -ugust 14, +66> and 6>-.66 dated September 1', +66>. ,e argued that %ule ++ of the +663 ,%9 %ules merely states that :the Se!retary of the ribunal shall issue the !orresponding summons to the protestee or respondent, as the !ase may be.; ,e posited then that the intent of the ,%9 in not e(pressly spe!ifying personal servi!e of summons on the protestee or respondent was to give it a reasonable dis!retion or leeway in serving the summons by other means su!h as registered mail. hus, servi!e of summons on petitioner through registered mail did not violate %ule ++ of the +663 ,%9 %ules. #urther, respondent !laimed that %ule 13, Se!tions 4 and > of the %ules of Court were in!onsistent with %ule ++ of the +663 ,%9 %ules and therefore should not be given suppletory appli!ation to ,%9 pro!eedings.

,9@D:

%ule ++ of the +663 ,%9 %ules provides:

%?@9 ++. "ummons. I *f the petition is not summarily dismissed in a!!ordan!e with %ule +1 of these %ules, the Se!retary of the ribunal shall issue the !orresponding summons to the protestee or respondent, as the !ase may be, together with a !opy of the petition, re0uiring him within ten (16A days from re!eipt thereof to file his answer. he +663 ,%9 %ules on summons is silent on how the summons should be served on the protestee. Signifi!antly, %ule /613B1DC of the +663 ,%9 %ules provides that the 1''> %ules of Civil =ro!edure applies by
1.B13C

13

$ollo, p.1+. %?@9 /6. Applica'ility. I he following shall be appli!able by analogy or in suppletory !hara!ter and effe!t in so far as they may be appli!able and are not in!onsistent with these %ules and with the orders, resolutions and de!isions of the ribunal, namely: (1A he %ules of Court" (+A De!isions of the Supreme Court" (.A De!isions of the 9le!toral ribunals.
B1DC

D1

D+

analogy or suppletorily in so far as the latter may be appli!able and not in!onsistent therewith as well as with the orders, resolutions and de!isions of the ,%9 . *n view of the failure of the ,%9 %ules to spe!ify the authoriGed modes of servi!e of summons, resort then is ne!essary to Se!tions 4 and >, %ule 13, 1''> %ules of Civil =ro!edure, whi!h state: S9C. 4. "ervice in person on defendant. I 7henever pra!ti!able, the summons shall be served handling a !opy thereof #o #%e )e(e')"'# i' per7o', or, if he refuses to re!eive and sign for it, 8y #e')eri'& i# #o %i$. S9C. >. "u'stituted service. I *f, for 8ustifiable !auses, the defendant !annot be served within a reasonable time as provided in the pre!eding se!tion, servi!e may be effe!ted ("A 8y le"*i'& copie7 o( #%e 7u$$o'7 "# #%e )e(e')"'#N7 re7i)e'ce wi#% 7o$e per7o' o( 7ui#"8le "&e "') )i7cre#io' #%e' re7i)i'& #%erei', or (8A 8y le"*i'& copie7 "# )e(e')"'#N7 o((ice or re&ul"r pl"ce o( 8u7i'e77 wi#% 7o$e co$pe#e'# per7o' i' c%"r&e #%ereo(. *n the !ase at bar, the servi!e of the summons was made through registered mail, whi!h is 'o# among the allowed modes of servi!e under %ule 13 of the %ules of Court.

*ndeed, if in ordinary !ivil !ases (whi!h involve only private and proprietary interestsA personal servi!e of summons is preferred and servi!e by registered mail is not allowed on 8urisdi!tional and due pro!ess grounds, with more reason should ele!tion !ases (whi!h involve publi! interest and the will of the ele!torateA stri!tly follow the hierar!hy of modes of servi!e of summons under the %ules of Court.

he Court sees no reason why the ,%9 !annot make use of its own pro!ess servers to personally serve the summons, or alternatively, delegate the matter to the pro!ess server of a !ourt with territorial 8urisdi!tion over the pla!e of residen!e of the respondentEprotestee in the ele!tion !ase, at the e(pense of the petitionerEprotestant. Co'7i)eri'& #%"# #%e proper 7er*ice o( 7u$$o'7 o' #%e re7po')e'#Kpro#e7#ee i7 " Auri7)ic#io'"l reCuire$e'# "') &oe7 #o %e"r# o( )ue proce77, we !annot allow servi!e of summons by a method not san!tioned by the ,%9 %ules in relation to the %ules of Court. *n view of the foregoing, we find that the ,%9 !ommitted grave abuse of dis!retion in !onsidering petitioner to have entered a general denial of the allegations in respondent1s petition of protest and in denying
D+

D.

his motion to re!onsider as well as his motion to admit answer with !ounter-protest.

he right to due pro!ess on the part of the respondent was violated when the Civil Servi!e Commission re!onsidered its earlier de!ision in favor of the former based on a )otion for %e!onsideration wherein said respondent was not furnished a !opy thereof nor given the !han!e to !omment on it.

/E5ARTME-T O. E/3CATIO- VS. :O/O.RE/O C3A-A-, :.R. -o. 169;13, /ece$8er 16, 9;;6 he fa!tual ba!kground of the !ase is as follows: <n )ar!h 11, 1''4, @uGviminda $or8a and 5uliana Castro, on behalf of their respe!tive minor daughters, @ily $or8a and Charo Castro, filed before the Department of 9du!ation, Culture and Sports - %egional <ffi!e &o. *** (D9CS-%< &o. ***A, Cabanatuan City, two separate administrative !omplaints for Se(ual ,arassment and Condu!t ?nbe!oming a =ubli! <ffi!er against Cuanan, then =rin!ipal of @awang Mupang 9lementary S!hool in San -ntonio, &ueva 9!i8a. -!ting on the !omplaints, D9CS-%< &o. *** %egional Dire!tor Filma @. @abrador !onstituted an *nvestigating Committee, !omposed of three Dep9d offi!ials from the provin!e, to !ondu!t a formal investigation. #ollowing the investigation, the *nvestigating Committee submitted its *nvestigation %eport dated De!ember 13, 1''', finding Cuanan guilty of se(ual harassment and re!ommending his for!ed resignation without pre8udi!e to benefits. *n a De!ision dated 5anuary +/, +666, %egional Dire!tor @abrador !on!urred in the findings of the *nvestigating Committee and meted out the penalty of for!ed resignation to Cuanan without pre8udi!e to benefits. *n an <rder dated -pril 1., +666, then Dep9d Se!retary -ndrew 2onGales affirmed the De!ision of %egional Dire!tor @abrador. <n )ay .6, +666, Cuanan filed a =etition for %e!onsideration thereof, but the same was denied for la!k of merit by Se!retary 2onGales in a %esolution dated 5une 1', +666. Cuanan elevated his !ase to the CSC. <n 5anuary +6, +66., the CSC issued %esolution &o. 6.664' , whi!h set aside the 5une 1', +666 %esolution of Se!retary 2onGales and e(onerated Cuanan from the !harge of se(ual harassment. <n 5anuary +., +66., !opies of the resolution were duly sent to the parties, in!luding the Dep9d , Cuanan re!eived a !opy of %esolution &o. 6.664' on 5anuary .1, +66. .
D.

D3

*n a @etter dated #ebruary ., +66., Cuanan re0uested his reinstatement as 9lementary S!hool =rin!ipal * . *n a 1 st *ndorsement, the Distri!t Supervisor re!ommended appropriate a!tion. *n a +nd *ndorsement dated #ebruary 3, +66., S!hools Division Superintendent Dios!orides D. @usung (SuperintendentA re!ommended that Cuanan be reinstated to duty as S!hool =rin!ipal of San -ntonio Distri!t upon finality of the de!ision of the CSC . *n a @etter dated #ebruary 16, +66., %egional Dire!tor %i!ardo . Sibug informed the Superintendent that Cuanan !ould not be immediately reinstated to the servi!e until an order of implementation was re!eived from the Department Se!retary. Sometime in )ar!h +66., Dep9d ?nderse!retary 5ose @uis )artin C. 2as!on sent a letter to the CSC re0uesting a !opy of CSC %esolution &o. 6.664' dated 5anuary +6, +66.. *n a @etter dated )ar!h +D, +66., the CSC informed the Dep9d that a !opy of the re0uested resolution was duly sent to it on 5anuary +., +66.. &onetheless, the CSC sent another !opy of the resolution to the Dep9d for its referen!e. he Dep9d re!eived said referen!e !opy on )ar!h +/, +66.. <n -pril 11, +66., then Dep9d Se!retary 9dilberto C. de 5esus filed a =etition for %eviewE%e!onsideration with the CSC. &o !opy of the pleading was served upon Cuanan. <n 5uly +', +66., Se!retary De 5esus filed a Supplemental =etition for %eviewE%e!onsideration reiterating the prayer for reversal of the resolution. -gain, no !opy of the pleading was served upon Cuanan. Subse0uently, pursuant to Division Spe!ial <rder &o. 661 series of +66. dated 5une 1/, +66., Cuanan was reinstated to his former position as s!hool prin!ipal effe!tive -pril .6, +66. *n Division Spe!ial <rder &o. +/D, series of +66. dated 5uly /, +66., Cuanan was dire!ted to return to duty . $ased thereon, Cuanan re0uested payment of salaries and his in!lusion in the payroll, whi!h the Division S!hool Superintendent of &ueva 9!i8a duly endorsed on &ovember >, +66. . ,owever, on <!tober ++, +663, the CSC issued %esolution &o. 63113> setting aside CSC %esolution &o. 6.664' dated 5anuary +6, +66.. *t found Cuanan guilty of Se(ual ,arassment, 2rave )is!ondu!t and Condu!t 2rossly =re8udi!ial to the $est *nterest of the Servi!e and meted out the penalty of dismissal from the servi!e with forfeiture of retirement benefits, !an!ellation of his servi!e eligibility, and perpetual dis0ualifi!ation from holding publi! offi!e. Cuanan re!eived a !opy of the %esolution on &ovember ', +663 . hirteen days later, or on &ovember ++, +663, Cuanan filed a petition for certiorari with the C- seeking to annul %esolution &o. 63113>, alleging that the CSC should not have entertained the petition for reviewEre!onsideration sin!e the Dep9d was not the !omplainant or the party adversely affe!ted by the resolution"
D3

DD

that the petition for reviewEre!onsideration was filed out of time" and that Cuanan was not furnished !opies of the pleadings filed by the Dep9d in violation of pro!edural due pro!ess. he Dep9d sought the dismissal of the petition on the ground of improper remedy, the mode of review from a de!ision of the CSC being a petition for review under %ule 3. of the %ules of Court. <n )ay 14, +66D, the C- rendered a De!ision granting the petition for certiorari and setting aside CSC %esolution &o. 63113> dated <!tober 1+, +663. he C- held that while a motion for re!onsideration and a petition for review under %ule 3. were available remedies, CuananSs re!ourse to a petition for certiorari was warranted, sin!e the a!t !omplained of was patently illegal" that the CSC gravely abused its dis!retion in granting the petition for reviewEre!onsideration filed by the Dep9d without regard for CuananSs fundamental right to due pro!ess, sin!e he was not duly notified of the petition for reviewEre!onsideration, nor was he re0uired by the CSC to file a !omment thereon, mu!h less, given a !opy of the said petition" that the Dep9d failed to establish that the resolution was not yet final and e(e!utory when it filed its petition for reviewEre!onsideration. Dep9d filed a )otion for %e!onsideration but the C- denied the same in its %esolution dated 5uly 1/, +66D. ,en!e, the present petition on the following grounds: * 7* , D?9 %9S=9C , ,9 C<?% <# -==9-@S 2%-F9@J 9%%9D <& - R?9S *<& <# @-7 *& -M*&2 C<2&*O-&C9 <# ,9 =9 * *<& *& C--2.%. S= &<. />3'', ,9 S-)9 &< $9*&2 ,9 =%<=9% %9)9DJ *& -SS-*@*&2 CSC %9S<@? *<& &<. 63113> D- 9D <C <$9% ++, +663. ** 7* , D?9 %9S=9C , ,9 C<?% <# -==9-@S 2%-F9@J 9%%9D <& - R?9S *<& <# @-7 *& -D5?D2*&2 CSC -S ,-F*&2 C<))* 9D 2%-F9 -$?S9 <# D*SC%9 *<& *& *SS?*&2 %9S<@? *<& &<. 63113> D- 9D <C <$9% ++, +663 . Dep9d !ontends that the C- should have dismissed outright the petition for certiorari be!ause CSC de!isions are appealable to the C- by petition for review under %ule 3." that the filing of a motion for re!onsideration was a pre!ondition to the filing of a petition for certiorari under %ule 4D" that the Dep9d, even if not the !omplainant, may 0uestion the resolution of the CSC" that Cuanan
DD

D4

failed to prove that the CSCSs petition for reviewEre!onsideration was not seasonably filed" that even if Cuanan was not served a !opy of the pleadings filed by the Dep9d, the CSC was not bound by pro!edural rules. Cuanan, on the other hand, !ontends that the Dep9d !annot file a motion for re!onsideration from the CSC %esolution e(onerating him, sin!e it is not the !omplainant in the administrative !ase and therefore not a party adversely affe!ted by the de!ision therein" that even if Dep9d may seek re!onsideration of the CSC %esolution, the petition for reviewEre!onsideration was filed out of time" and that Cuanan1s right to due pro!ess was violated when he was not given a !opy of the pleadings filed by the Dep9d or given the opportunity to !omment thereon. he Court finds it ne!essary, before delving on the grounds relied upon by the Dep9d in support of the petition, to first resolve the 0uestion of whether the Dep9d !an seek re!onsideration of the CSC %esolution e(onerating Cuanan. *n a long line of !ases, beginning with Civil "ervice Commission v. %acoycoy , and reiterated in #2ilippine (ational an@ v. +arcia, Jr ., the Court has maintained that the dis!iplining authority 0ualifies as a party adversely affe!ted by the 8udgment, who !an file an appeal of a 8udgment of e(oneration in an administrative !ase. CSC %esolution &o. 6+1466 allows the dis!iplining authority to appeal from a de!ision e(onerating an erring employee, thus: Se!tion +. Coverage and %efinition of &erms. I ( ( ( (lA =-% J -DF9%S9@J -##9C 9D refers to the respondent against whom a de!ision in a dis!iplinary !ase has been rendered or #o #%e )i7cipli'i'& "u#%ori#y i' "' "ppe"l (ro$ " )eci7io' e@o'er"#i'& #%e 7"i) e$ployee. (9mphasis suppliedA ,en!e, CuananSs e(oneration under CSC %esolution &o. 6.664' may be sub8e!t to a motion for re!onsideration by the Dep9d whi!h, as the appointing and dis!iplining authority, is a real party in interest. &ow, as to the merits of Dep9dSs arguments, the Court finds none. he remedy of an aggrieved party from a resolution issued by the CSC is to file a petition for review thereof under %ule 3. of the %ules of Court within fifteen days from noti!e of the resolution. %e!ourse to a petition for certiorari under %ule 4D renders the petition dismissible for being the wrong remedy. &onetheless, there are e(!eptions to this rule, to wit: (aA when publi! welfare and the advan!ement of publi! poli!y di!tates" (bA when the broader interest of 8usti!e so re0uires" ,c! w%e' #%e wri#7 i77ue) "re 'ull "') *oi) " or (dA when the 0uestioned order amounts to an oppressive e(er!ise of 8udi!ial authority . -s will be shown forthwith, e(!eption (!A applies to the present !ase. #urthermore, while a motion for re!onsideration is a !ondition pre!edent to the filing of a petition for certiorari, immediate re!ourse to the e(traordinary
D4

D>

remedy of certiorari is warranted where the order is a patent nullity, as where the !ourt a Cuo has no 8urisdi!tion" where petitioner was deprived of due pro!ess and there is e(treme urgen!y for relief" where the pro!eedings in the lower !ourt are a nullity for la!k of due pro!ess" where the pro!eeding was e> parte or one in whi!h the petitioner had no opportunity to ob8e!t . hese e(!eptions find appli!ation to CuananSs petition for certiorari in the C-. -t any rate, CuananSs petition for certiorari before the C- !ould be treated as a petition for review, the petition having been filed on &ovember ++, +663, or thirteen (1.A days from re!eipt on &ovember ', +663 of CSC %esolution &o. 63113>, !learly within the 1D-day reglementary period for the filing of a petition for review . Su!h move would be in a!!ordan!e with the liberal spirit pervading the %ules of Court and in the interest of substantial 8usti!e . #urthermore, CSC %esolution &o. 6.664' has long be!ome final and e(e!utory. *t must be noted that the re!ords show that !opies of CSC %esolution &o. 6.664' were duly sent to the parties, in!luding Dep9d, on 5anuary +., +66. . Cuanan re!eived a !opy thereof on 5anuary .1, +66. while the Dep9d re0uested a !opy sometime in )ar!h +66., or about two months later. ?nder the %ules of 9viden!e, it is presumed that offi!ial duty has been regularly performed, unless !ontradi!ted . his presumption in!ludes that of regularity of servi!e of 8udgments, final orders or resolutions. Conse0uently, the burden of proving the irregularity in offi!ial !ondu!t -that is, non-re!eipt of the duly sent !opy of CSC %esolution &o. 6.664' -- is on the part of the Dep9d, whi!h in the present !ase !learly failed to dis!harge the same . hus, the presumption stands that CSC %esolution &o. 6.664' dated 5anuary +6, +66. had already be!ome final and e(e!utory when the Dep9d filed its =etition for %eviewE%e!onsideration on -pril 11, +66., more than two months later. *t is elementary that on!e 8udgment has be!ome final and e(e!utory, it be!omes immutable and !an no longer be amended or modified. *n +allardoCorro v. +allardo , this Court held: &othing is more settled in law than that on!e a 8udgment attains finality it thereby be!omes immutable and unalterable. *t may no longer be modified in any respe!t, even if the modifi!ation is meant to !orre!t what is per!eived to be an erroneous !on!lusion of fa!t or law, and regardless of whether the modifi!ation is attempted to be made by the !ourt rendering it or by the highest !ourt of the land. 5ust as the losing party has the right to file an appeal within the pres!ribed period, the winning party also has the !orrelative right to en8oy the finality of the resolution of his !ase. he do!trine of finality of 8udgment is grounded on fundamental !onsiderations of publi! poli!y and sound pra!ti!e, and that, at the risk of o!!asional errors, the 8udgments or orders of !ourts must be!ome final at some definite time fi(ed by law" otherwise, there would be no end to litigations, thus setting to naught the main role of !ourts of 8usti!e whi!h is to assist in the
D>

D/

enfor!ement of the rule of law and the maintenan!e of pea!e and order by settling 8usti!iable !ontroversies with finality . )oreover, while it is true that administrative tribunals e(er!ising 0uasi8udi!ial fun!tions are free from the rigidity of !ertain pro!edural re0uirements, they are bound by law and pra!ti!e to observe the fundamental and essential re0uirements of due pro!ess in 8usti!iable !ases presented before them . T%e rel"#i*e (ree)o$ o( #%e CSC (ro$ #%e ri&i)i#ie7 o( proce)ure c"''o# 8e i'*oLe) #o e*")e w%"# w"7 cle"rly e$p%"7iJe) i' #%e l"')$"rL c"7e o( An* Ti4ay !. Co#rt of /nd#"trial Relation" #%"# "ll ")$i'i7#r"#i*e 8o)ie7 c"''o# i&'ore or )i7re&"r) #%e (u')"$e'#"l "') e77e'#i"l reCuire$e'#7 o( )ue proce77. #urthermore, Se!tion 3..- of the ?niform %ules in -dministrative Cases in the Civil Servi!e provides: Se!tion 3..-. Ailing of "upplemental #leadings. - All ple")i'&7 (ile) 8y #%e p"r#ie7 wi#% #%e Co$$i77io', 7%"ll 8e copy (ur'i7%e) #%e o#%er p"r#y wi#% proo( o( 7er*ice (ile) wi#% #%e Co$$i77io'. -ny supplemental pleading to supply defi!ien!ies in aid of an original pleading but whi!h should not entirely substitute the latter !an be filed only upon a favorable a!tion by the Commission on the motion of a party to the !ase. he said motion should be submitted within five (DA days from re!eipt of a !opy of the original pleading and it is dis!retionary upon the Commission to allow the same or not or even to !onsider the averments therein.(9mphasis suppliedA Cuanan undoubtedly was denied pro!edural due pro!ess. ,e had no opportunity to parti!ipate in the pro!eedings for the petition for reviewE re!onsideration filed by the Dep9d, sin!e no !opy of the pleadings filed by the Dep9d were served upon him or his !ounsel" nor was he even re0uired by the CSC to file his !omments thereon. Considering that pleadings filed by the Dep9d were not served upon Cuanan, they may be treated as mere s!raps of paper whi!h should not have merited the attention or !onsideration of the CSC. 0HERE.ORE, the petition is /E-IE/. he assailed De!ision and %esolution of the Court of -ppeals in C--2.%. S= &o. />3'' are A..IRME/. T%ere i7 'o *iol"#io' o( #%e pe#i#io'erN7 ri&%# #o )ue proce77 w%e' "(#er #%e elec#io' pro#e7# "&"i'7# %i$ w"7 "lre")y 7u8$i##e) (or )eci7io' "') #%e 8"llo#7 #r"'7(erre) #o #%e Se'"#e Elec#or"l Tri8u'"l, #%e COMELEC we'# #o )eli8er"#e o' #%e c"7e "# #%e Se'"#e Elec#or"l Tri8u'"l u7i'& #%e 8"llo#7
D/

D'

#%erei' i' #%e proce77 wi#%ou# 'o#ice #o #%e pe#i#io'er. JOSELITO ME-/O>A VS. COMELEC "') RO4ERTO 5A:/A-:A-A-, :.R. -o. 1663;6, Oc#o8er 11, 9;;9 4RIO-, J.5 he petitioner and the respondent vied for the position of 2overnor of the =rovin!e of $ula!an in the )ay 13, +66> ele!tions. he petitioner was pro!laimed winning !andidate and assumed the offi!e of 2overnor. he respondent seasonably filed an ele!tion protest with the C<)9@9C, whi!h was raffled to the Se!ond Division and do!keted as 9=C &o. +66>-33. %evision of ballots involving the protested and !ounter-protested pre!in!ts in -ngat, $o!aue, Calumpit, DoTa %emedios rinidad, 2uiginto, )alolos, )ey!auayan, &orGagaray, =andi, =aombong, =laridel, =ulilan, San %afael and San 5ose del )onte soon followed. he revision was !ondu!ted at the C<)9@9C1s offi!e in *ntramuros. -fter revision, the parties presented their other eviden!e, leading to the parties1 formal offer of their respe!tive eviden!e. he C<)9@9C approved the parties1 formal offer of eviden!e and then re0uired the parties to submit their respe!tive memoranda. he parties !omplied with the C<)9@9C1s order. T%e c"7e w"7 #%ere"(#er 7u8$i##e) (or re7olu#io'. <n )ar!h +, +66' the C<)9@9C transferred the $ula!an ballot bo(es, in!luding those involved in the provin!ial ele!tion !ontest, to the Senate 9le!toral ribunal ("E&A in !onne!tion with the protest filed by -0uilino =imentel *** against 5uan )iguel Oubiri. *n light of this development, the petitioner moved to suspend further pro!eedings. . he C<)9@9C1s Se!ond Division denied the petitioner1s motion in its <rder of -pril +', +66', ruling that the C<)9@9C has plenary powers to find alternative methods to fa!ilitate the resolution of the ele!tion protest" thus, it !on!luded that it would !ontinue the pro!eedings after proper !oordination with the S9 . he petitioner moved to re!onsider this <rder, but the C<)9@9C1s Se!ond Division denied the motion in its <rder of )ay +4, +66'. hese interrelated %esolutions led to the C<)9@9C1s !ontinued a!tion I 7peci(ic"lly, #%e "ppreci"#io' o( 8"llo#7 I on the provin!ial ele!tion !ontest at the S9 offi!es--whi!h the C<)9@9C did without informing the petitioner. -llegedly alarmed by information on C<)9@9C a!tion on the provin!ial ele!tion !ontest ?it2in t2e "E& premises ?it2out notice to 2im and ?it2out 2is participation, the petitioner1s !ounsel wrote the S9 Se!retary, -tty. *rene
D'

46

2uevarra, a letter dated 5une 16, +66' to !onfirm the vera!ity of the reported !ondu!t of pro!eedings.1DB+C he S9 Se!retary responded on 5une 1>, +66' as follows: ( ( ( please be informed that the !ondu!t of pro!eedings in C<)9@9C 9=C &o. +66>-33 (=agdanganan vs. )endoGaA within the ribunal =remises was authoriGed by then -!ting Chairman of the ribunal, 5usti!e -ntonio . Carpio, upon formal re0uest of the <ffi!e of Commissioner @u!enito &. agle. $asis of su!h grant is Se!tion ., Comele! %esolution &o. +/1+ dated 1> <!tober 1''D, stating that :(tAhe ribunals, the Commission and the Courts shall !oordinate and make arrangement with ea!h other so as not to delay or interrupt the revision of ballots being !ondu!ted. he syn!hroniGation of revision of 'allots shall be su!h that the e(peditious disposition of the respe!tive protest !ase shall be the primary !on!ern.; D2ile t2e said provision spea@s only of revision, it 2as 'een t2e practice of t2e &ri'unal to allo? t2e conduct of ot2er proceedings in local election protest cases ?it2in its premises as may 'e reCuested. Bemphasis suppliedC14B.C ISS3EI A. 0HETHER OR -OT THE COMELEC VIOLATE/ /3E 5ROCESS 4Y CO-/3CTI-: 5ROCEE/I-:S 0ITHO3T :IVI-: /3E -OTICE TO THE 5ETITIO-ER. he petitioner argues that the ele!tion protest involves his ele!tion as 2overnor" thus, its sub8e!t matter involves him and the people of the =rovin!e of $ula!an who ele!ted him. <n this basis, he !laims entitlement to noti!e and parti!ipation in all matters that involve or are related to the ele!tion protest. ,e further asserts that he had the legitimate e(pe!tation that no further pro!eedings would be held or !ondu!ted in the !ase after its submission for de!ision. Citing the !ommentaries of #ather 5oa0uin $ernas,1>B3C the petitioner argues that the pro!eedings before the C<)9@9C in ele!tion protests are 8udi!ial in nature and !hara!ter. hus, the stri!tures of 8udi!ial due pro!ess I spe!ifi!ally, (aA opportunity to be heard and (bA that 8udgment be rendered only after lawful hearing I apply. &oti!es in 8udi!ial dispute, he !laims, are not really 8ust a matter of !ourtesy" they are elementary fundamental element of due pro!ess, they are part and par!el of a right of a party to be heard. ,e further !ites 5usti!e *sagani -. CruG,1/BDC who wrote:
1DB+C 14B.C

See =etition, p. 1+. $ollo, p. 3D. 1>B3C 5. $ernas, Constitutional "tructure and #o?ers of +overnment, +66D, pp. >1/->1'. 1/BDC *. CruG, Constitutional La?, +66., p. 13.

46

41

( ( ( Every litigant is entitled to 2is day in court. He 2as a rig2t to 'e notified of every incident of t2e proceeding and to 'e present at every stage t2ereof so t2at 2e may 'e 2eard 'y 2imself and counsel for t2e protection of 2is interest. he petitioner !laims that without noti!e to him of the pro!eedings, the due pro!ess element of the right to have 8udgment only after lawful hearing is absent. here is no way, he !laims, that a 8udi!ial pro!eeding held without noti!e to the parties !ould be des!ribed as a lawful hearing, espe!ially a pro!eeding whi!h has as its sub8e!t matter the sovereign will of an entire provin!e. ,e was therefore denied his day in !ourt, he !laims, when the C<)9@9C !ondu!ted the e(amination and appre!iation of ballots. he pro!eedings should be stopped and de!lared null and void" its future results, too, should be nullified, as not2ing derived from t2e anomalous and unconstitutional clandestine and unilateral proceedings s2ould ever 'e part of any decision t2at t2e COMELEC may su'seCuently render. &2e poisonous fruits 6derived from t2e proceedings9 s2ould 2ave no part and s2ould not 'e admitted for any purpose and7or in any =udicial proceeding. ,9@D: he petition is an!hored on the alleged !ondu!t of pro!eedings in the ele!tion protest I following the !ompleted revision of ballots I at the S9 premises without noti!e to and without the parti!ipation of the petitioner. Signifi!antly, :the !ondu!t of pro!eedings; is !onfirmed by the S9 Se!retary in the letter we 0uoted above.1'B/C -s the issues raised show I the petitioner1s fo!us is not really on the C<)9@9C <rders denying the suspension of pro!eedings when the ballot bo(es and other ele!tion materials pertinent to the ele!tion !ontest were transferred to the S9 " t2e focus is on ?2at t2e COMELEC did after to t2e issuance of t2e $esolutions. 7e read the petition in this !onte(t as these C<)9@9C <rders are now unassailable as the period to !hallenge them has long passed.+6B'C he substantive issue we are primarily !alled upon to resolve is whether there were pro!eedings within the S9 premises, entitling the petitioner to noti!e and parti!ipation, whi!h were denied to him" in other words, the issue is whether the petitioner1s right to due pro!ess has been violated. - finding of due pro!ess violation, be!ause of the inherent arbitrariness it !arries, ne!essarily amounts to grave abuse of dis!retion.
1'B/C +6B'C

"upra note .. See Se!tion ., %ule 43 of the %ules of Court. he petitioner re!eived the C<)9@9C %esolution denying his motion for re!onsideration on 5une 1, +66'. hirty (.6A days later or on 5uly 1, +66', he filed a motion for e(tension of time to file the petition. he petition !annot but be late be!ause of the remainder rule under Se!tion ., %ule 43.

41

4+

-s a preliminary matter, we note that the petitioner has !laimed that C<)9@9C e(er!ises =udicial po?er in its a!tion over provin!ial ele!tion !ontests and has argued its due pro!ess position from this view. 7e take this opportunity to !larify that 8udi!ial power in our !ountry is Evested in one 3#pre(e Co#rt and in suc2 lo'er o#rt" as may 'e esta'lis2ed 'y la? .;+1B16C his e(!lusive grant of authority to the 5udi!iary is reinfor!ed under the se!ond paragraph of Se!tion 1, -rti!le F*** of the Constitution whi!h further states that EJudicial po?er includes t2e duty of t2e o#rt" of 6#"ti e to settle actual controversies involving rig2ts ?2ic2 are legally demanda'le and enforcea'le.. .,F thus !onstitutionally lo!ating the situs of the e(er!ise of 8udi!ial power in the !ourts. *n !ontrast with the above definitions, Se!tion +, -rti!le *Q(CA of the Constitution lists the C<)9@9C1s powers and fun!tions, among others, as follows: (1A 9nfor!e and administer all laws and regulations relative to the !ondu!t of an ele!tion, plebis!ite, initiative, referendum, and re!all. (+A 9(er!ise e(!lusive original 8urisdi!tion over all !ontests relating to the ele!tions, returns and 0ualifi!ations of all ele!tive regional, provin!ial, and !ity offi!ials, and appellate 8urisdi!tion over all !ontests involving ele!tive muni!ipal offi!ials de!ided by trial !ourts of general 8urisdi!tion, or involving ele!tive 'arangay offi!ials by trial !ourts of limited 8urisdi!tion. De!isions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on ele!tion !ontests involving ele!tive muni!ipal and 'arangay offi!ials shall be final, e(e!utory, and not appealable. (.A De!ide, e(!ept those involving the right to vote, all 0uestions affe!ting ele!tions, in!luding determination of the number and lo!ation of polling pla!es, appointment of ele!tion offi!ials and inspe!tors, and registration of voters. ?nder these terms, the C<)9@9C under our governmental stru!ture is a !onstitutional administrative agen!y and its powers are essentially e(e!utive in nature (i.e., to enfor!e and administer ele!tion lawsA, ++B11C 0uasi-8udi!ial (to e(er!ise original 8urisdi!tion over ele!tion !ontests of regional, provin!ial and !ity offi!ials and appellate 8urisdi!tion over ele!tion !ontests of other lower ranking offi!ialsA, and 0uasi-legislative (rulemaking on all 0uestions affe!ting ele!tions and the promulgation of its rules of pro!edureA. he C<)9@9C1s ad8udi!ative fun!tion is 0uasi-8udi!ial sin!e it is a !onstitutional body, ot2er t2an a court, vested with authority to de!ide ele!tion
+1B16C ++B11C

Se!tion 1 (first paragraphA, -rti!le F***, 1'/> Constitution. !tutalum v. Commission on Elections, 2.%. &o. @-+D.3', De!ember ., 1'4D, 1D SC%- 34D.

4+

4.

!ontests, and in the !ourse of the e(er!ise of its 8urisdi!tion, to hold hearings and e(er!ise dis!retion of a 8udi!ial nature"+.B1+C it re!eives eviden!e, as!ertain the fa!ts from these submissions, determine the law and the legal rights of the parties, and on the basis of all these de!ides on the merits of the !ase and renders 8udgment.+3B1.C Despite the e(er!ise of dis!retion that is essentially 8udi!ial in !hara!ter, parti!ularly with respe!t to ele!tion !ontests, C<)9@9C is not a tribunal within the 8udi!ial bran!h of government and is not a !ourt e(er!ising 8udi!ial power in the !onstitutional sense" +DB13C hen!e, its ad8udi!ative fun!tion, e(er!ised as it is in the !ourse of administration and enfor!ement, is 0uasi8udi!ial. he appropriate due pro!ess standards that apply to the C<)9@9C, as an administrative or 0uasi-8udi!ial tribunal, are those outlined in the seminal !ase of Ang &i'ay v. Court of Industrial $elations,0<7189 0uoted below: (1A he first of these rights is the right to a hearing, whi!h in!ludes the right of the party interested or affe!ted to present his own !ase and submit eviden!e in support thereof. ((( (+A &ot only must the party be given an opportunity to present his !ase and to addu!e eviden!e tending to establish the rights whi!h he asserts but the tribunal must !onsider the eviden!e presented. (.A 7hile the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to de!ide right, it does imply a ne!essity whi!h !annot be disregarded, namely, that of having something to support its de!ision. - de!ision with absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity, a pla!e when dire!tly atta!hed. (3A &ot only must there be some eviden!e to support a finding or !on!lusion, but the eviden!e must be Hsubstantial.; HSubstantial eviden!e is more than a mere s!intilla. *t means su!h relevant eviden!e as a reasonable mind might a!!ept as ade0uate to support a !on!lusion.H (DA he de!ision must be rendered on the eviden!e presented at the hearing, or at least !ontained in the re!ord and dis!losed to the parties affe!ted.

+.B1+C

See: #residential Anti-%ollar "alting &as@ Aorce v. Court of Appeals , 2.%. &o. /.D>/, )ar!h 14, 1'/', 1>1 SC%- .3/" Midland Insurance Corporation v. IAC, &o. @->1'6D, -ugust 1., 1'/4, 13. SC%- 3D/. +3B1.C See: CariGo v. Commission on Human $ig2ts, 2.%. &o. '44/1, De!ember +, 1''1, +63 SC%- 3/., on the a!tivities en!ompassed by the e(er!ise of 0uasi-8udi!ial power. +DB13C See: Cipriano v. COMELEC, 2.%. &o. 1D//.6, -ugust 16, +663, 3.4 SC%- 3D, !iting "andoval v. COMELEC, .+. SC%- 36. B+666C. +4B14C 4' =hil. 4.D (1'36A.

4.

43

(4A he Court of *ndustrial %elations or any of its 8udges, therefore, must a!t on its or his own independent !onsideration of the law and fa!ts of the !ontroversy, and not simply a!!ept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a de!ision. (>A he Court of *ndustrial %elations should, in all !ontroversial 0uestions, render its de!ision in su!h a manner that the parties to the pro!eeding !an know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the de!isions rendered. he performan!e of this duty is inseparable from the authority !onferred upon it. hese are now !ommonly referred to as c"r)i'"l pri$"ry ri&%#7 in administrative pro!eedings. he first of the enumerated rights pertain to the substantive rights of a party at %e"ri'& 7#"&e of the pro!eedings. he essen!e of this aspe!t of due pro!ess, we have !onsistently held, is simply the opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative pro!eedings, an opportunity to e(plain one1s side or an opportunity to seek a re!onsideration of the a!tion or ruling !omplained of. +>B1>C formal or trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all instan!es essential" in the !ase of C<)9@9C, %ule 1> of its %ules of =ro!edure defines the re0uirements for a hearing and these serve as the standards in the determination of the presen!e or denial of due pro!ess. he se!ond, third, fourth, fifth, and si(th aspe!ts of the Ang &i'ay re0uirements are reinfor!ements of the right to a hearing and are the inviolable rights appli!able at the )eli8er"#i*e 7#"&e, as the de!ision-maker de!ides on the eviden!e presented during the hearing. hese standards set forth the guiding !onsiderations in deliberating on the !ase and are the material and substantial !omponents of de!ision-making. riefly, t2e tri'unal must consider t2e totality of t2e evidence presented ?2ic2 must all 'e found in t2e records of t2e case 6i.e., t2ose presented or su'mitted 'y t2e parties9B t2e conclusion, reac2ed 'y t2e decision-ma@er 2imself and not 'y a su'ordinate, must 'e 'ased on su'stantial evidence.+/B1/C #inally, the last re0uirement, relating to the form and substan!e of the de!ision of a 0uasi-8udi!ial body, further !omplements the hearing and de!isionmaking due pro!ess rights and is similar in substan!e to the !onstitutional re0uirement that a de!ision of a !ourt must state distin!tly the fa!ts and the law upon whi!h it is based.+'B1'C -s a !omponent of the rule of fairness that underlies due pro!ess, this is the Eduty to give reasonF to enable the affe!ted person to understand how the rule of fairness has been administered in his !ase, to e(pose
+>B1>C +/B1/C

autista v. Comelec, 2.%. &os. 1D3>'4-'>, <!tober +., +66., 313 SC%- +''. "upra note 1>. +'B1'C C<&S * ? *<&, -rti!le F***, Se!tion 13" See "olid Homes, Inc. v. Laserna , 2.%. &o. 1446D1, -pril /, +66/, DD6 SC%- 41..

43

4D

the reason to publi! s!rutiny and !riti!ism, and to ensure that the de!ision will be thought through by the de!ision-maker. *n the present !ase, the petitioner invokes both the due pro!ess !omponent rights at the hearing and deliberative stages and alleges that these !omponent rights have all been violated. 7e dis!uss all these allegations below. T%e Ri&%# #o -o#ice "') #o 8e He"r). ". A# #%e He"ri'& "') Re*i7io' o( 4"llo#7. $ased on the pleadings filed, we see no fa!tual and legal basis for the petitioner to !omplain of denial of his hearing stage rights. *n the first pla!e, he does not dispute that he fully parti!ipated in the pro!eedings of the ele!tion protest until the !ase was deemed submitted for resolution" he had representation at the revision of the ballots, duly presented his eviden!e, and summed up his !ase through a memorandum. hese various phases of the pro!eedings !onstitute the hearing proper of the ele!tion !ontest and the C<)9@9C has more than satisfied the opportunity to be heard that the Ang &i'ay hearing stage rights re0uire. *n these pro!eedings, the petitioner stood head-to-head with the respondent in an adversarial !ontest where both sides were given their respe!tive rights to speak, make their presentations, and !ontrovert ea!h other1s submission, sub8e!t only to established C<)9@9C rules of pro!edures. ?nder these undisputed fa!ts, both parties had their day in !ourt, so to speak, and neither one !an !omplain of any denial of noti!e or of the right to be heard. 8. A# #%e B5rocee)i'&7D "# #%e SET. - !riti!al 0uestion to be answered in passing upon due pro!ess 0uestions at this stage of the ele!tion !ontest is the nature of the so-!alled :pro!eedings; after the ballots and other materials pertinent to the provin!ial ele!tion !ontest were transferred to the S9 . *n the petition, the petitioner alleged that there were :strange pro!eedings;.6B+6C whi!h were :unilateral, !landestine and surreptitious; within the premises of the S9 , on :do!uments, ballots and ele!tion materials whose possession and !ustody have been transferred; to the S9 , and the :petitioner was &9F9% <##*C*-@@J &< *#*9D of the strange on-goings; at the S9 . .1B+1C -tta!hed to the petition was the letter of the Se!retary of the S9 !onfirming the :!ondu!t of pro!eedings; in the provin!ial ele!tion !ontest, and !iting as basis the authority of -!ting S9 Chairman, 5usti!e -ntonio . Carpio, upon the formal re0uest of the <ffi!e of Commissioner @u!enito &. agle, and !iting Se!tion ., C<)9@9C %esolution &o. +/1+ dated 1> <!tober 1''D on the !oordination envisioned among the C<)9@9C, the S9 and the !ourts :so as not to delay or
.6B+6C .1B+1C

$ollo, p. 1+. Id., p. 1..

4D

44

interrupt the re!i"ion of 4allot" being !ondu!ted.; 7hile the S9 letter made the reservation that :7hile the said provision speaks only of revision, it has been the pra!ti!e of the ribunal to allow the !ondu!t of other pro!eedings in lo!al ele!tion protest !ases within its premises as may be re0uested,; no mention whatsoever was made of the kind of pro!eedings taking pla!e. *t was at this point that this Court intervened, in response to the petitioner1s prayer for the issuan!e of temporary in8un!tive relief, through the issuan!e of a Status Ruo <rder with a non-e(tendible dire!tive for the respondents to file their !omments on the petition" for indeed, any further revision of ballots or other adversarial pro!eedings after the !ase has been submitted for resolution, would not only be strange and unusual but would indi!ate a gross violation of due pro!ess rights. -fter !onsideration of the respondents1 Comments and the petitioner1s petition and %eply, we hold that the !ontested pro!eedings at the S9 (: contested proceedingsA are no longer part of the adversarial aspe!ts of the ele!tion !ontest that would re0uire noti!e of hearing and the parti!ipation of the parties. -s the C<)9@9C stated in its Comment and without any !ontrary or disputing !laim in the petitioner1s %eply:.+B++C :,owever, !ontrary to the !laim of petitioner, publi! respondent in the appre!iation of the !ontested ballots in 9=C &o. +66>-33 simultaneously with the S9 in S9 Case &o. 661-6> is not !ondu!ting :further pro!eedings; re0uiring noti!e to the parties. here is no revision or !orre!tion of the ballots be!ause 9=C &o. +66>-63 was already submitted for resolution. =ubli! respondent, in !oordinating with the S9 , is simply resolving the submitted protest !ase before it. he parties ne!essarily take no part in said deliberation, whi!h re0uire utmost se!re!y. &eedless to state, the a!tual de!ision-making pro!ess is supposed to be !ondu!ted only by the designated members of the Se!ond Division of the publi! respondent in stri!t !onfidentiality.; *n other words, what took pla!e at the S9 were the internal deliberations of the C<)9@9C, as a 0uasi-8udi!ial body, in the !ourse of appre!iating the eviden!e presented and de!iding the provin!ial ele!tion !ontest on the merits. hese deliberations are no different from 8udi!ial deliberations whi!h are !onsidered !onfidential and privileged...B+.C 7e find it signifi!ant that the private respondent1s Comment fully supported the C<)9@9C1s position and disavowed any parti!ipation in the !ontested pro!eeding the petitioner !omplained about. he petitioner, on the other hand, has not shown that the private respondent was ever present in any pro!eeding at the S9 relating to the provin!ial ele!tion !ontest.
.+B++C ..B+.C

C<)9@9C Comment" rollo, pp. >+-S and >+- . See C2ave5 v. #u'lic Estates Aut2ority, 2.%. &o. 1..+D6, 5uly ', +66+, ./3 SC%- 1D+.

44

4>

o !on!lude, the rights to noti!e and to be heard are not material !onsiderations in the C<)9@9C1s handling of the $ula!an provin!ial ele!tion !ontest after the transfer of the ballot bo(es to the S9 " no pro!eedings at the instan!e of one party or of C<)9@9C has been !ondu!ted at the S9 that would re0uire noti!e and hearing be!ause of the possibility of pre8udi!e to the other party. he C<)9@9C is under no legal obligation to notify either party of the steps it is taking in the !ourse of deliberating on the merits of the provin!ial ele!tion !ontest. *n the !onte(t of our standard of review for the petition, we see no grave abuse of dis!retion amounting to la!k or e(!ess of 8urisdi!tion !ommitted by the C<)9@9C in its deliberation on the $ula!an ele!tion !ontest and the appre!iation of ballots this deliberation entailed. Alle&e) Viol"#io'7 o( /eli8er"#io' S#"&e Ri&%#7. <n the basis of the above !on!lusion, we see no point in dis!ussing any alleged violation of the deliberative stage rights. #irst, no illegal pro!eeding ever took pla!e that would bear the :poisonous fruits; that the petitioner fears. Se!ondly, in the absen!e of the results of the C<)9@9C deliberations through its de!ision on the ele!tion protest, no basis e(ists to apply the Ang &i'ay deliberative stage rights" there is nothing for us to test under the standards of the due pro!ess deliberative stages rights before the C<)9@9C renders its de!ision. 9(pressed in terms of our standard of review, we have as yet no basis to determine the e(isten!e of any grave abuse of dis!retion. Co')uc# o( COMELEC /eli8er"#io'7 "# #%e SET 5re$i7e7 7e turn to the issue of the propriety of the C<)9@9C1s !onsideration of the provin!ial ele!tion !ontest (spe!ifi!ally its appre!iation of the !ontested ballotsA at the S9 premises and while the same ballots are also under !onsideration by the S9 for another ele!tion !ontest legitimately within the S9 1s own 8urisdi!tion. 7e state at the outset that the C<)9@9C did not lose 8urisdi!tion over the provin!ial ele!tion !ontest, as the petitioner seems to imply, be!ause of the transmittal of the provin!ial ballot bo(es and other ele!tion materials to the S9 . he Constitution !onferred upon the C<)9@9C 8urisdi!tion over ele!tion protests involving provin!ial offi!ials. he C<)9@9C in this !ase has lawfully a!0uired 8urisdi!tion over the sub8e!t matter, i.e., the provin!ial ele!tion !ontest, as well as over the parties. -fter its 8urisdi!tion atta!hed, this 8urisdi!tion !annot be ousted by subse0uent events su!h as the temporary transfer of eviden!e and material re!ords of the pro!eedings to another tribunal e(er!ising its own

4>

4/

8urisdi!tion over another ele!tion !ontest pursuant to the Constitution. rule of adheren!e of 8urisdi!tion..3B+3C

his is the

hus, the 8urisdi!tion of the C<)9@9C over provin!ial ele!tion !ontest e(ists side by side with the 8urisdi!tion of the Senate 9le!toral ribunal, with ea!h tribunal being supreme in their respe!tive areas of !on!ern (the Senate ele!tion !ontests for the S9 , and the regional, provin!ial and !ity ele!tion !ontests for the C<)9@9CA, and with neither one being higher than the other in terms of pre!eden!e so that the 8urisdi!tion of one must yield to the other. $ut while no pre!eden!e in 8urisdi!tion e(ists, the C<)9@9C, vowing to the reality that only a single ballot e(ists in an ele!tion for national and lo!al offi!ials, saw it fit to lay down the rule on the :order of preferen!e in the custody and revision of 'allots and other do!uments !ontained in the ballot bo(es.; he order, in terms of the ad8udi!atory tribunal and as provided in C<)9@9C %esolution &o. +/1+, runs: 1. +. .. 3. D. =residential 9le!toral ribunal" Senate 9le!toral ribunal" ,ouse of %epresentatives 9le!toral ribunal" Commission on 9le!tions" and %egional rial Courts.

his order of preferen!e di!tated that the ballot bo(es and other ele!tion materials in $ula!an1s provin!ial ele!tion !ontest, had to be transferred to the S9 when the latter needed these materials for its revision of ballots. he transfer to the S9 , however, did not mean that the $ula!an provin!ial ele!tion !ontest I at that time already submitted for de!ision I had to be suspended as the C<)9@9C held in its <rders of +' -pril +66' and +4 )ay +66' in 9=C &o. +66>-33. .DB+DC his is parti!ularly true in $ula!an1s !ase as no revision had to be undertaken, the revision having been already terminated. 0HERE.ORE, premises !onsidered, we /ISMISS the petition for !ertiorari for la!k of merit. 7e a!!ordingly LI.T the STAT3S M3O OR/ER we issued, e((ec#i*e i$$e)i"#ely. C*A+#ER III , #*E E-%AL +RO#EC#ION CLA%SE

.3B+3C

See: $amos v. Central an@ of t2e #2ilippines, &o. @-+'.D+, <!tober 3, 1'>1, 31 SC%- D4D" eng5on v. Inciong, &os. @-3/>64-6>, 5une +', 16>', '1 SC%- +3/" alta5ar v. CA, 163 SC%- 41' B1'/1C" $amos v. Our Lady of #eace "c2ool, &o. @-DD'D6, De!ember +4, 1'/3, 1.. SC%- >31" Lee v. #residing Judge, M&C H Lega5pi City, &o. @-4/>/', &ovember 16, 1'/4, 13D SC%- 36/. .DB+DC $ollo, pp. +'-.3.

4/

4'

Sec. 1P'or 7%"ll "'y per7o' 8e )e'ie) #%e eCu"l pro#ec#io' o( #%e l"w7. he laws !onsidering appointed offi!ials of the government who filed their !ertifi!ates of !andida!y :!onsidered resigned; while ele!ted offi!ials are not does not violate the e0ual prote!tion !lause of the Constitution. ELEA>AR 5. M3I-TO "') :ERI-O TOLE-TI-O, JR. VS. COMELEC, :.R. -o. 169696, .e8ru"ry 99, 9;1; ,Re*er7i'& #%e /ece$8er 1, 9;;9 E' 4"'c /eci7io'! =uno, C5 he main issue in this !ase is whether or not the se!ond proviso in the third paragraph of Se!tion 1. of %epubli! -!t &o. '.4', Se!tion 44 of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code and Se!tion 3(aA of C<)9@9C %esolution &o. /4>/, providing that appointive offi!ials are deemed automati!ally resigned from their 8obs upon the filing of their !ertifi!ates of !andida!y (while the ele!ted offi!ials are notA is un!onstitutional mainly on the ground that they violate the e0ual prote!tion !lause of the Constitution and suffer from overbreadth. <n De!ember 1, +66', the Supreme Court held that the 0uestioned provisions of the above-mentioned laws are un!onstitutional for being violative of the e0ual prote!tion !lause. <n )otion for %e!onsideration, the Supreme Court re!onsidered its earlier De!ision and de!lared the above laws and C<)9@9C %esolution !onstitutional. *n support of their respe!tive motions for re!onsideration, respondent C<)9@9C and movants-intervenors submit the following arguments: (1A he assailed De!ision is !ontrary to, andEor violative of, the !onstitutional pros!ription against the parti!ipation of publi! appointive offi!ials and members of the military in partisan politi!al a!tivity"

(+A he assailed provisions do not violate the e0ual prote!tion !lause when they a!!ord differential treatment to ele!tive and appointive offi!ials, be!ause su!h differential treatment rests on material and substantial distin!tions and is germane to the purposes of the law" (.A he assailed provisions do not suffer from the infirmity of overbreadth" and
4'

>6

(3A here is a !ompelling need to reverse the assailed De!ision, as publi! safety and interest demand su!h reversal. 7e find the foregoing arguments meritorious. he assailed De!ember 1, +66' De!ision stru!k down Se!tion 3(aA of %esolution /4>/, the se!ond proviso in the third paragraph of Se!tion 1. of %epubli! -!t (%-A '.4', and Se!tion 44 of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code, on the following grounds: (1A hey violate the e0ual prote!tion !lause of the Constitution be!ause of the differential treatment of persons holding appointive offi!es and those holding ele!tive positions" (+A hey are overbroad insofar as they prohibit the !andida!y of all !ivil servants holding appointive posts: (aA without distin!tion as to whether or not they o!!upy highEinfluential positions in the government, and (bA they limit these !ivil servants1 a!tivity regardless of whether they be partisan or nonpartisan in !hara!ter, or whether they be in the national, muni!ipal or 'arangay level" and (.A Congress has not shown a !ompelling state interest to restri!t the fundamental right of these publi! appointive offi!ials. 7e grant the motions for re!onsideration. 7e 'ow rule that Se!tion 3(aA of %esolution /4>/, Se!tion 44 of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code, and the se!ond proviso in the third paragraph of Se!tion 1. of %- '.4' are not un!onstitutional, and a!!ordingly re*er7e our De!ember 1, +66' De!ision. 7e now hold that Se!tion 3(aA of %esolution /4>/, Se!tion 44 of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code, and the se!ond proviso in the third paragraph of Se!tion 1. of %- '.4' are not violative of the e0ual prote!tion !lause of the Constitution. i. :ari;a", et al. !. ,%e #ti!e 3e retary, et al. i7 Co'#rolli'&

*n truth, this Court has already ruled s0uarely on whether these deemedresigned provisions !hallenged in the !ase at bar violate the e0ual prote!tion !lause of the Constitution in ."riQ"7, et al. *. E@ecu#i*e Secre#"ry, et al. *n ."riQ"7, the !onstitutionality of Se!tion 13 of the #air 9le!tion -!t, in relation to Se!tions 44 and 4> of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code, was assailed on the ground, among others, that it unduly dis!riminates against appointive offi!ials. -s Se!tion 13 repealed Se!tion 4> (i.e., the deemed-resigned provision in respe!t of ele!ted offi!ialsA of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code, ele!ted offi!ials are no longer !onsidered ipso facto resigned from their respe!tive offi!es upon their filing of !ertifi!ates of !andida!y. *n !ontrast, sin!e Se!tion 44 was not repealed, the
>6

>1

limitation on appointive offi!ials !ontinues to be operative I they are deemed resigned when they file their !ertifi!ates of !andida!y. he petitioners in ."riQ"7 thus brought an e0ual prote!tion !hallenge against Se!tion 13, with the end in view of having the deemed-resigned provisions :apply e0ually; to both ele!ted and appointive offi!ials. 7e held, however, that the legal di!hotomy !reated by the @egislature is a reasonable !lassifi!ation, as there are material and signifi!ant distin!tions between the two !lasses of offi!ials. Conse0uently, the !ontention that Se!tion 13 of the #air 9le!tion -!t, in relation to Se!tions 44 and 4> of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code, infringed on the e0ual prote!tion !lause of the Constitution, failed muster. 7e ruled: he petitionersS !ontention, that the repeal of Se!tion 4> of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code pertaining to ele!tive offi!ials gives undue benefit to su!h offi!ials as against the appointive ones and violates the e0ual prote!tion !lause of the !onstitution, is tenuous. he e0ual prote!tion of the law !lause in the Constitution is not absolute, but is sub8e!t to reasonable !lassifi!ation. *f the groupings are !hara!teriGed by substantial distin!tions that make real differen!es, one !lass may be treated and regulated differently from the other. he Court has e(plained the nature of the e0ual prote!tion guarantee in this manner: he e0ual prote!tion of the law !lause is against undue favor and individual or !lass privilege, as well as hostile dis!rimination or the oppression of ine0uality. *t is not intended to prohibit legislation whi!h is limited either in the ob8e!t to whi!h it is dire!ted or by territory within whi!h it is to operate. *t does not demand absolute e0uality among residents" it merely re0uires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like !ir!umstan!es and !onditions both as to privileges !onferred and liabilities enfor!ed. he e0ual prote!tion !lause is not infringed by legislation whi!h applies only to those persons falling within a spe!ified !lass, if it applies alike to all persons within su!h !lass, and reasonable grounds e(ist for making a distin!tion between those who fall within su!h !lass and those who do not. Su87#"'#i"l )i7#i'c#io'7 cle"rly e@i7# 8e#wee' elec#i*e o((ici"l7 "') "ppoi'#i*e o((ici"l7. T%e (or$er occupy #%eir o((ice 8y *ir#ue o( #%e $"')"#e o( #%e elec#or"#e. T%ey "re
>1

>+

elec#e) #o "' o((ice (or " )e(i'i#e #er$ "') $"y 8e re$o*e) #%ere(ro$ o'ly upo' 7#ri'&e'# co')i#io'7. <n the other hand, appointive offi!ials hold their offi!e by virtue of their designation thereto by an appointing authority. Some appointive offi!ials hold their offi!e in a permanent !apa!ity and are entitled to se!urity of tenure while others serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority. -nother substantial distin!tion between the two sets of offi!ials is that under Se!tion DD, Chapter /, itle *, Subse!tion -. Civil Servi!e Commission, $ook F of the -dministrative Code of 1'/> (9(e!utive <rder &o. +'+A, appointive offi!ials, as offi!ers and employees in the !ivil servi!e, are stri!tly prohibited from engaging in any partisan politi!al a!tivity or take 6sic9 part in any ele!tion e(!ept to vote. ?nder the same provision, ele!tive offi!ials, or offi!ers or employees holding politi!al offi!es, are obviously e(pressly allowed to take part in politi!al and ele!toral a!tivities. $y repealing Se!tion 4> but retaining Se!tion 44 of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code, the legislators deemed it proper to treat these two !lasses of offi!ials differently with respe!t to the effe!t on their tenure in the offi!e of the filing of the !ertifi!ates of !andida!y for any position other than those o!!upied by them. -gain, it is not within the power of the Court to pass upon or look into the wisdom of this !lassifi!ation. Sin!e the !lassifi!ation 8ustifying Se!tion 13 of %ep. -!t &o. '664, i.e., ele!ted offi!ials vis-U-vis appointive offi!ials, is an!hored upon material and signifi!ant distin!tions and all the persons belonging under the same !lassifi!ation are similarly treated, the e0ual prote!tion !lause of the Constitution is, thus, not infringed. he !ase at bar is a !rass attempt to resurre!t a dead issue. he mira!le is that our assailed De!ision gave it new life. 7e ought to be guided by the do!trine of stare decisis et non Cuieta movere. his do!trine, whi!h is really <adheren e to pre edent",; mandates that on!e a !ase has been de!ided one way, then another !ase involving e(a!tly the same point at issue should be de!ided in the same manner. his do!trine is one of poli!y grounded on the ne!essity for se!uring !ertainty and stability of 8udi!ial de!isions. -s the renowned 8urist $en8amin CardoGo stated in his treatise T%e -"#ure o( #%e Ju)ici"l 5roce77: *t will not do to de!ide the same 0uestion one way between one set of litigants and the opposite way between another. :*f a group of !ases involves the same point, the parties e(pe!t the same de!ision.
>+

>.

*t would be a gross in8usti!e to de!ide alternate !ases on opposite prin!iples. *f a !ase was de!ided against me yesterday when * was a defendant, * shall look for the same 8udgment today if * am plaintiff. &o decide differently ?ould raise a feeling of resentment and ?rong in my 'reastB it ?ould 'e an infringement, material and moral, of my rig2ts.I Ad2erence to precedent must t2en 'e t2e rule rat2er t2an t2e e>ception if litigants are to 2ave fait2 in t2e even2anded administration of =ustice in t2e courts. <ur ."riQ"7 ruling on the e0ual prote!tion impli!ations of the deemedresigned provisions !annot be minimaliGed as mere o'iter dictum. *t is trite to state that an ad8udi!ation on any point within the issues presented by the !ase !annot be !onsidered as o'iter dictum. his rule applies to all pertinent 0uestions that are presented and resolved in the regular !ourse of the !onsideration of the !ase and lead up to the final !on!lusion, and to any statement as to the matter on whi!h the de!ision is predi!ated. #or that reason, a point e(pressly de!ided does not lose its value as a pre!edent be!ause the disposition of the !ase is, or might have been, made on some other ground" or even though, by reason of other points in the !ase, the result rea!hed might have been the same if the !ourt had held, on the parti!ular point, otherwise than it did. -s we held in Vill"'ue*", Jr. *. Cour# o( Appe"l7, et al.1 J A decision ?2ic2 t2e case could 2ave turned on is not regarded as o'iter dictum merely 'ecause, o?ing to t2e disposal of t2e contention, it ?as necessary to consider anot2er Cuestion , nor !an an additional reason in a de!ision, brought forward after the !ase has been disposed of on one ground, be regarded as di!ta. So, also, where a !ase presents two (+A or more points, any one of whi!h is suffi!ient to determine the ultimate issue, but the !ourt a!tually de!ides all su!h points, t2e case as an aut2oritative precedent as to every point decided, and none of suc2 points can 'e regarded as 2aving t2e status of a dictum, and one point s2ould not 'e denied aut2ority merely 'ecause anot2er point ?as more d?elt on and more fully argued and considered, nor does a de!ision on one proposition make statements of the !ourt regarding other propositions di!ta. (itali!s suppliedA ii. Cla""ifi ation Ger(ane to the &#rpo"e" of the =a'

he ."riQ"7 ruling on the e0ual prote!tion !hallenge stands on solid ground even if ree(amined. o start with, the e0ual prote!tion !lause does not re0uire the universal appli!ation of the laws to all persons or things without distin!tion. 7hat it simply re0uires is e0uality among e0uals as determined a!!ording to a valid !lassifi!ation. he test developed by 8urispruden!e here and yonder is that of reasonableness, whi!h has four re0uisites:
>.

>3

(1A he !lassifi!ation rests on substantial distin!tions" (+A *t is germane to the purposes of the law" (.A *t is not limited to e(isting !onditions only" and (3A *t applies e0ually to all members of the same !lass. <ur assailed De!ision readily a!knowledged that these deemed-resigned provisions satisfy the first, third and fourth re0uisites of reasonableness. *t, however, proffers the dubious !on!lusion that the differential treatment of appointive offi!ials vis-U-vis ele!ted offi!ials is not germane to the purpose of the law, be!ause :whether one holds an appointive offi!e or an ele!tive one, the evils sought to be prevented by the measure remain,; vi5.: V #or e(ample, the 9(e!utive Se!retary, or any )ember of the Cabinet for that matter, !ould wield the same influen!e as the Fi!e-=resident who at the same time is appointed to a Cabinet post (in the re!ent past, ele!ted Fi!e-=residents were appointed to take !harge of national housing, so!ial welfare development, interior and lo!al government, and foreign affairsA. 7ith the fa!t that they both head e(e!utive offi!es, there is no valid 8ustifi!ation to treat them differently when both file their BCertifi!ates of Candida!yC for the ele!tions. ?nder the present state of our law, the Fi!e=resident, in the e(ample, running this time, let us say, for =resident, retains his position during the entire ele!tion period and !an still use the resour!es of his offi!e to support his !ampaign. Sad to state, this !on!lusion !onveniently ignores the long-standing rule that to remedy an in8usti!e, the @egislature need not address every manifestation of the evil at on!e" it may pro!eed :one step at a time.; *n addressing a so!ietal !on!ern, it must invariably draw lines and make !hoi!es, thereby !reating some ine0uity as to those in!luded or e(!luded. &evertheless, as long as :the bounds of reasonable !hoi!e; are not e(!eeded, the !ourts must defer to the legislative 8udgment. 7e may not strike down a law merely be!ause the legislative aim would have been more fully a!hieved by e(panding the !lass. Stated differently, the fa!t that a legislative !lassifi!ation, by itself, is under in!lusive will not render it un!onstitutionally arbitrary or invidious. here is no !onstitutional re0uirement that regulation must rea!h ea!h and every !lass to whi!h it might be applied" that the @egislature must be held rigidly to the !hoi!e of regulating all or none. hus, any person who poses an e0ual prote!tion !hallenge must !onvin!ingly show that the law !reates a !lassifi!ation that is :palpably arbitrary or !apri!ious.; ,e must refute all possible rational bases for the differing treatment, whether or not the @egislature !ited those bases as reasons for the ena!tment, su!h that the !onstitutionality of the law must be sustained even if the reasonableness of the !lassifi!ation is :fairly debatable.; *n the !ase at bar, the
>3

>D

petitioners failed I and in fa!t did not even attempt I to dis!harge this heavy burden. <ur assailed De!ision was likewise silent as a sphin( on this point even while we submitted the following thesis: ... B*Ct is not suffi!ient grounds for invalidation that we may find that the statute1s distin!tion is unfair, underin!lusive, unwise, or not the best solution from a publi!-poli!y standpoint" rather, we must find that there is no reasonably rational reason for the differing treatment. *n the instant !ase, is there a rational 8ustifi!ation for e(!luding ele!ted offi!ials from the operation of the deemed resigned provisionsN * submit that there is. -n ele!tion is the embodiment of the popular will, perhaps the purest e(pression of the sovereign power of the people. *t involves the !hoi!e or sele!tion of !andidates to publi! offi!e by popular vote. Considering that ele!ted offi!ials are put in offi!e by their !onstituents (or " )e(i'i#e #er$, it may 8ustifiably be said that they were e(!luded from the ambit of the deemed resigned provisions in utmost respe!t for the mandate of the sovereign will. *n other words, !omplete deferen!e is a!!orded to the will of the ele!torate that they be served by su!h offi!ials until the end of the term for whi!h they were ele!ted. *n !ontrast, there is no su!h e(pe!tation insofar as appointed offi!ials are !on!erned. T%e )ic%o#o$iJe) #re"#$e'# o( "ppoi'#i*e "') elec#i*e o((ici"l7 i7 #%ere(ore &er$"'e #o #%e purpo7e7 o( #%e l"w. .or #%e l"w w"7 $")e 'o# $erely #o pre7er*e #%e i'#e&ri#y, e((icie'cy, "') )i7cipli'e o( #%e pu8lic 7er*ice+ #%e Le&i7l"#ure, w%o7e wi7)o$ i7 ou#7i)e #%e ru8ric o( Au)ici"l 7cru#i'y, "l7o #%ou&%# i# wi7e #o 8"l"'ce #%i7 wi#% #%e co$pe#i'&, ye# eCu"lly co$pelli'&, i'#ere7# o( )e(erri'& #o #%e 7o*erei&' will. (emphasis in the originalA *n fine, the assailed De!ision would have us :e0ualiGe the playing field; by invalidating provisions of law that seek to restrain the evils from running riot. ?nder the prete(t of e0ual prote!tion, it would favor a situation in whi!h the evils are un!onfined and vagrant, e(isting at the behest of both appointive and ele!ted offi!ials, over another in whi!h a signifi!ant portion thereof is !ontained. he absurdity of that position is self-evident, to say the least. he !on!ern, voi!ed by our esteemed !olleague, )r. 5usti!e &a!hura, in his dissent, that ele!ted offi!ials (vis-U-vis appointive offi!ialsA have greater politi!al !lout over the ele!torate, is indeed a matter worth e(ploring I but 'o# by this Court. Suffi!e it to say that the remedy lies with the @egislature. *t is the
>D

>4

@egislature that is given the authority, under our !onstitutional system, to balan!e !ompeting interests and thereafter make poli!y !hoi!es responsive to the e(igen!ies of the times. *t is !ertainly within the @egislature1s power to make the deemed-resigned provisions appli!able to ele!ted offi!ials, should it later de!ide that the evils sought to be prevented are of su!h fre0uen!y and magnitude as to tilt the balan!e in favor of e(panding the !lass. his Court !annot and should not arrogate unto itself the power to as!ertain and impose on the people the best state of affairs from a publi! poli!y standpoint. iii. M"'cu7o *. T"(# .a" +een O!err#led

#inding no =hilippine 8urispruden!e to prop up its e0ual prote!tion ruling, our assailed De!ision adverted to, and e(tensively !ited, M"'cu7o *. T"(#. his was a de!ision of the #irst Cir!uit of the ?nited States Court of -ppeals promulgated in )ar!h 1'>., whi!h stru!k down as un!onstitutional a similar statutory provision. =atheti!ally, our assailed De!ision, relying on M"'cu7o, !laimed: (1A he right to run for publi! offi!e is :ine(tri!ably linked; with two fundamental freedoms I freedom of e(pression and asso!iation"

(+A -ny legislative !lassifi!ation that signifi!antly burdens this fundamental right must be sub8e!ted to stri!t e0ual prote!tion review" and (.A 7hile the state has a !ompelling interest in maintaining the honesty and impartiality of its publi! work for!e, the deemed-resigned provisions pursue their ob8e!tive in a far too heavy-handed manner as to render them un!onstitutional. *t then !on!luded with the e(hortation that sin!e :the -meri!ans, from whom we !opied the provision in 0uestion, had already stri!ken down a similar measure for being un!onstitutionalB,C it is high-time that we, too, should follow suit.; <ur assailed De!ision1s relian!e on M"'cu7o is !ompletely mispla!ed. 7e !annot blink away the fa!t that the ?nited States Supreme Court effe ti!ely o!err#led M"'cu7o three months after its promulgation by the ?nited States Court of -ppeals. *n 3'i#e) S#"#e7 Ci*il Ser*ice Co$$i77io', et al. *. -"#io'"l A77oci"#io' o( Le##er C"rrier7 A.LGCIO, et al. and 4ro")ricL, et al. !. S#"#e o( OLl"%o$", et al., the ?nited States Supreme Court was fa!ed with the issue of whether statutory provisions prohibiting federal and state employees from taking an a!tive part in politi!al management or in politi!al !ampaigns were un!onstitutional as to warrant fa!ial invalidation. Fiolation of these provisions results in dismissal from employment and possible !riminal san!tions.

>4

>>

he Court de!lared these provisions !ompliant with the e0ual prote!tion !lause. *t held that (iA in regulating the spee!h of its employees, the state as employer has interests that differ signifi!antly from those it possesses in regulating the spee!h of the !itiGenry in general" (iiA the !ourts must therefore balan!e the legitimate interest of employee free e(pression against the interests of the employer in promoting effi!ien!y of publi! servi!es" (iiiA if the employees1 e(pression interferes with the maintenan!e of effi!ient and regularly fun!tioning servi!es, the limitation on spee!h is not un!onstitutional" and (ivA the @egislature is to be given some fle(ibility or latitude in as!ertaining whi!h positions are to be !overed by any statutory restri!tions. herefore, insofar as government employees are !on!erned, the !orre!t standard of review is an interest-balan!ing approa!h, a means-end s!rutiny that e(amines the !loseness of fit between the governmental interests and the prohibitions in 0uestion. Le##er C"rrier7 elu!idated on these prin!iples, as follows: ?ntil now, the 8udgment of Congress, the 9(e!utive, and the !ountry appears to have been that partisan politi!al a!tivities by federal employees must be limited if the 2overnment is to operate effe!tively and fairly, ele!tions are to play their proper part in representative government, and employees themselves are to be suffi!iently free from improper influen!es. he restri!tions so far imposed on federal employees are not aimed at parti!ular parties, groups, or points of view, but apply e0ually to all partisan a!tivities of the type des!ribed. hey dis!riminate against no ra!ial, ethni!, or religious minorities. &or do they seek to !ontrol politi!al opinions or beliefs, or to interfere with or influen!e anyoneSs vote at the polls. ut, as t2e Court 2eld in #ic@ering v. oard of Education, t2e government 2as an interest in regulating t2e conduct and Kt2e speec2 of its employees t2at differ6s9 significantly from t2ose it possesses in connection ?it2 regulation of t2e speec2 of t2e citi5enry in general. &2e pro'lem in any case is to arrive at a 'alance 'et?een t2e interests of t2e 6employee9, as a citi5en, in commenting upon matters of pu'lic concern and t2e interest of t2e 6government9, as an employer, in promoting t2e efficiency of t2e pu'lic services it performs t2roug2 its employees.L Alt2oug2 Congress is free to stri@e a different 'alance t2an it 2as, if it so c2ooses, ?e t2in@ t2e 'alance it 2as so far struc@ is sustaina'le 'y t2e o'viously important interests soug2t to 'e served 'y t2e limitations on partisan political activities no? contained in t2e Hatc2 Act. *t seems fundamental in the first pla!e that employees in the 9(e!utive $ran!h of the 2overnment, or those working for any
>>

>/

of its agen!ies, should administer t2e la? in accordance ?it2 t2e ?ill of Congress, rat2er t2an in accordance ?it2 t2eir o?n or t2e ?ill of a political party. &2ey are e>pected to enforce t2e la? and e>ecute t2e programs of t2e +overnment ?it2out 'ias or favoritism for or against any political party or group or t2e mem'ers t2ereof. - ma8or thesis of the ,at!h -!t is that to serve this great end of 2overnment-the impartial e(e!ution of the laws-it is essential that federal employees, for e(ample, not take formal positions in politi!al parties, not undertake to play substantial roles in partisan politi!al !ampaigns, and not run for offi!e on partisan politi!al ti!kets. #orbidding a!tivities like these will redu!e the haGards to fair and effe!tive government. here is another !onsideration in this 8udgment: it is not only important that the 2overnment and its employees in fa!t avoid pra!ti!ing politi!al 8usti!e, 'ut it is also critical t2at t2ey appear to t2e pu'lic to 'e avoiding it, if confidence in t2e system of representative +overnment is not to 'e eroded to a disastrous e>tent. -nother ma8or !on!ern of the restri!tion against partisan a!tivities by federal employees was perhaps the immediate o!!asion for ena!tment of the ,at!h -!t in 1'.'. &2at ?as t2e conviction t2at t2e rapidly e>panding +overnment ?or@ force s2ould not 'e employed to 'uild a po?erful, invinci'le, and per2aps corrupt political mac2ine. he e(perien!e of the 1'.4 and 1'./ !ampaigns !onvin!ed Congress that these dangers were suffi!iently real that substantial barriers should be raised against the party in power-or the party out of power, for that matter-using the thousands or hundreds of thousands of federal employees, paid for at publi! e(pense, to man its politi!al stru!ture and politi!al !ampaigns. - related !on!ern, and this remains as important as any other, was to further serve the goal that employment and advancement in t2e +overnment service not depend on political performance, and at t2e same time to ma@e sure t2at +overnment employees ?ould 'e free from pressure and from e>press or tacit invitation to vote in a certain ?ay or perform political c2ores in order to curry favor ?it2 t2eir superiors rat2er t2an to act out t2eir o?n 'eliefs. *t may be urged that prohibitions against !oer!ion are suffi!ient prote!tion" but for many years the 8oint 8udgment of the 9(e!utive and Congress has been that to prote!t the rights of federal employees with respe!t to their 8obs and their politi!al a!ts and beliefs it is not enough merely to forbid one employee to attempt to influen!e or !oer!e another. #or e(ample,
>/

>'

at the hearings in 1'>+ on proposed legislation for liberaliGing the prohibition against politi!al a!tivity, the Chairman of the Civil Servi!e Commission stated that Kthe prohibitions against a!tive parti!ipation in partisan politi!al management and partisan politi!al !ampaigns !onstitute the most signifi!ant safeguards against !oer!ion . . ..1 =erhaps Congress at some time will !ome to a different view of the realities of politi!al life and 2overnment servi!e" but that is its !urrent view of the matter, and we are not now in any position to dispute it. &or, in our view, does the Constitution forbid it. &either the right to asso!iate nor the right to parti!ipate in politi!al a!tivities is absolute in any event. ( ( ( As ?e see it, our tas@ is not to destroy t2e Act if ?e can, 'ut to construe it, if consistent ?it2 t2e ?ill of Congress, so as to comport ?it2 constitutional limitations. (itali!s suppliedA 4ro")ricL likewise definitively stated that the assailed statutory provision is !onstitutionally permissible, vi5.: -ppellants do not 0uestion <klahomaSs right to pla!e evenhanded restri!tions on the partisan politi!al !ondu!t of state employees. Appellants freely concede t2at suc2 restrictions serve valid and important state interests, particularly ?it2 respect to attracting greater num'ers of Cualified people 'y insuring t2eir =o' security, free from t2e vicissitudes of t2e elective process, and 'y protecting t2em from Kpolitical e>tortion.1 %ather, appellants maintain that however permissible, even !ommendable, the goals of s /1/ may be, its language is un!onstitutionally vague and its prohibitions too broad in their sweep, failing to distinguish between !ondu!t that may be pros!ribed and !ondu!t that must be permitted. #or these and other reasons, appellants assert that the si(th and seventh paragraphs of s /1/ are void in toto and !annot be enfor!ed against them or anyone else. 7e have held today that the ,at!h -!t is not impermissibly vague. 7e have little doubt that s /1/ is similarly not so vague that Kmen of !ommon intelligen!e must ne!essarily guess at its meaning.1 7hatever other problems there are with s /1/, it is all but frivolous to suggest that the se!tion fails to give ade0uate warning of what a!tivities it pros!ribes or fails to set out Ke(pli!it standardsS for those who must apply it. *n the plainest language, it prohibits any state !lassified employee from being Kan offi!er or member1 of a Kpartisan politi!al !lub1 or a !andidate for Kany paid publi! offi!e.1 *t forbids soli!itation of !ontributions Kfor any
>'

/6

politi!al organiGation, !andida!y or other politi!al purpose1 and taking part Kin the management or affairs of any politi!al party or in any politi!al !ampaign.1 7ords inevitably !ontain germs of un!ertainty and, as with the ,at!h -!t, there may be disputes over the meaning of su!h terms in s /1/ as Kpartisan,1 or Ktake part in,1 or Kaffairs of1 politi!al parties. $ut what was said in Letter Carriers, is appli!able here: Kthere are limitations in the 9nglish language with respe!t to being both spe!ifi! and manageably brief, and it seems to us that although the prohibitions may not satisfy those intent on finding fault at any !ost, they are set out in terms that the ordinary person e(er!ising ordinary !ommon sense !an suffi!iently understand and !omply with, without sa!rifi!e to the publi! interest.S ( ( ( (((( B-ppellantsC nevertheless maintain that the statute is overbroad and purports to rea!h prote!ted, as well as unprote!ted !ondu!t, and must therefore be stru!k down on its fa!e and held to be in!apable of any !onstitutional appli!ation. 7e do not believe that the overbreadth do!trine may appropriately be invoked in this manner here. (((( he !onse0uen!e of our departure from traditional rules of standing in the #irst -mendment area is that any enfor!ement of a statute thus pla!ed at issue is totally forbidden until and unless a limiting !onstru!tion or partial invalidation so narrows it as to remove the seeming threat or deterren!e to !onstitutionally prote!ted e(pression. -ppli!ation of the overbreadth do!trine in this manner is, manifestly, strong medi!ine. *t has been employed by the Court sparingly and only as a last resort. ( ( ( ( ( ( $ut the plain import of our !ases is, at the very least, that fa!ial over-breadth ad8udi!ation is an e(!eption to our traditional rules of pra!ti!e and that its function, a limited one at t2e outset, attenuates as t2e ot2er?ise unprotected 'e2avior t2at it for'ids t2e "tate to sanction moves from Kpure speec2L to?ard conduct and that !ondu!t-even if e(pressive-falls within the s!ope of otherwise valid !riminal laws that refle!t legitimate state interests in maintaining !omprehensive !ontrols over harmful, !onstitutionally unprote!ted !ondu!t. Alt2oug2 suc2 la?s, if too 'roadly ?orded, may deter protected speec2 to some un@no?n e>tent, t2ere comes a point ?2ere t2at effect-at 'est a predictioncannot, ?it2 confidence, =ustify invalidating a statute on its face
/6

/1

and so pro2i'iting a "tate from enforcing t2e statute against conduct t2at is admittedly ?it2in its po?er to proscri'e. &o put t2e matter anot2er ?ay, particularly ?2ere conduct and not merely speec2 is involved, ?e 'elieve t2at t2e over'readt2 of a statute must not only 'e real, 'ut su'stantial as ?ell, =udged in relation to t2e statuteMs plainly legitimate s?eep. *t is our view that s /1/ is not substantially overbroad and that whatever overbreadth may e(ist should be !ured through !ase-by-!ase analysis of the fa!t situations to whi!h its san!tions, assertedly, may not be applied. !nli@e ordinary 'reac2-of-t2e peace statutes or ot2er 'road regulatory acts, s ;.; is directed, 'y its terms, at political e>pression ?2ic2 if engaged in 'y private persons ?ould plainly 'e protected 'y t2e Airst and Aourteent2 Amendments. ut at t2e same time, s ;.; is not a censorial statute, directed at particular groups or vie?points. &2e statute, rat2er, see@s to regulate political activity in an even-2anded and neutral manner. As indicted, suc2 statutes 2ave in t2e past 'een su'=ect to a less e>acting over'readt2 scrutiny. Moreover, t2e fact remains t2at s ;.; regulates a su'stantial spectrum of conduct t2at is as manifestly su'=ect to state regulation as t2e pu'lic peace or criminal trespass. his mu!h was established in !nited #u'lic Dor@ers v. Mitc2ell, and has been unhesitatingly reaffirmed today in Letter Carriers. !nder t2e decision in Letter Carriers, t2ere is no Cuestion t2at s ;.; is valid at least insofar as it for'ids !lassified employees from: soli!iting !ontributions for partisan !andidates, politi!al parties, or other partisan politi!al purposes" be!oming members of national, state, or lo!al !ommittees of politi!al parties, or offi!ers or !ommittee members in partisan politi!al !lubs, or candidates for any paid pu'lic office" taking part in the management or affairs of any politi!al partySs partisan politi!al !ampaign" serving as delegates or alternates to !au!uses or !onventions of politi!al parties" addressing or taking an a!tive part in partisan politi!al rallies or meetings" soli!iting votes or assisting voters at the polls or helping in a partisan effort to get voters to the polls" parti!ipating in the distribution of partisan !ampaign literature" initiating or !ir!ulating partisan nominating petitions" or riding in !aravans for any politi!al party or partisan politi!al !andidate. ( ( ( It may 'e t2at suc2 restrictions are impermissi'le and t2at s ;.; may 'e suscepti'le of some ot2er improper applications. ut, as presently construed, ?e do not 'elieve t2at s ;.; must 'e discarded in toto 'ecause some personsL argua'ly protected conduct may or may not 'e caug2t or c2illed 'y t2e statute.

/1

/+

"ection ;.; is not su'stantially over'road and it not, t2erefore, unconstitutional on its face. (itali!s suppliedA *t bears stressing that, in his Dissenting <pinion, )r. 5usti!e &a!hura )oe7 'o# )e'y the prin!iples enun!iated in Le##er C"rrier7 and 4ro")ricL. ,e would hold, nonetheless, that these !ases !annot be interpreted to mean a reversal of M"'cu7o, sin!e they :pertain to different types of laws and were de!ided based on a different set of fa!ts,; vi5.1 *n Letter Carriers, the plaintiffs alleged that the Civil Servi!e Commission was enfor!ing, or threatening to enfor!e, the ,at!h -!t1s prohibition against :a!tive parti!ipation in politi!al management or politi!al !ampaigns.; he plaintiffs desired to !ampaign for !andidates for publi! offi!e, to en!ourage and get federal employees to run for state and lo!al offi!es, to parti!ipate as delegates in party !onventions, and to hold offi!e in a politi!al !lub. *n roadric@, the appellants sought the invalidation for being vague and overbroad a provision in the 6sic9 <klahoma1s )erit System of =ersonnel -dministration -!t restri!ting the politi!al a!tivities of the State1s !lassified !ivil servants, in mu!h the same manner as the ,at!h -!t pros!ribed partisan politi!al a!tivities of federal employees. =rior to the !ommen!ement of the a!tion, the appellants a!tively parti!ipated in the 1'>6 reele!tion !ampaign of their superior, and were administratively !harged for asking other Corporation Commission employees to do !ampaign work or to give referrals to persons who might help in the !ampaign, for soli!iting money for the !ampaign, and for re!eiving and distributing !ampaign posters in bulk. Mancuso, on the other hand, involves, as aforesaid, an automati! resignation provision. Menneth )an!uso, a full time poli!e offi!er and !lassified !ivil servi!e employee of the City of Cranston, filed as a !andidate for nomination as representative to the %hode *sland 2eneral -ssembly. he )ayor of Cranston then began the pro!ess of enfor!ing the resign-to-run provision of the City ,ome %ule Charter. Clearly, as the above-!ited ?S !ases pertain to different types of laws and were de!ided based on a different set of fa!ts, Letter Carriers and roadric@ !annot be interpreted to mean a reversal of Mancuso. ( ( ( (itali!s in the originalA

/+

/.

7e hold, however, that his position is belied by a plain reading of these !ases. Contrary to his !laim, Le##er C"rrier7, 4ro")ricL "') M"'cu7o all co'cer'e) #%e co'7#i#u#io'"li#y o( re7i&'G#oGru' l"w7, vi5.: (1A M"'cu7o involved a !ivil servi!e employee who filed as a !andidate for nomination as representative to the %hode *sland 2eneral -ssembly. ,e assailed the !onstitutionality of W13.6'(!A of the City ,ome %ule Charter, whi!h prohibits : continuing in t2e classified service of t2e city after 'ecoming a candidate for nomination or election to any pu'lic office.; (+A Le##er C"rrier7 involved plaintiffs who alleged that the Civil Servi!e Commission was enfor!ing, or threatening to enfor!e, the ,at!h -!t1s prohibition against :a!tive parti!ipation in politi!al management or politi!al !ampaigns; with respe!t to !ertain defined a!tivities in whi!h they desired to engage. he plaintiffs relevant to this dis!ussion are (aA he &ational -sso!iation of @etter Carriers, whi!h alleged that its members were desirous of, among others, running in lo!al ele!tions for offi!es su!h as s!hool board member, !ity !oun!il member or mayor"

(bA =laintiff 2ee, who alleged that he desired to, but did not, file as a !andidate for the offi!e of $orough Coun!ilman in his lo!al !ommunity for fear that his parti!ipation in a partisan ele!tion would endanger his 8ob" and (!A =laintiff )yers, who alleged that he desired to run as a %epubli!an !andidate in the 1'>1 partisan ele!tion for the mayor of 7est @afayette, *ndiana, and that he would do so e(!ept for fear of losing his 8ob by reason of violation of the ,at!h -!t. he ,at!h -!t defines :a!tive parti!ipation in politi!al management or politi!al !ampaigns; by !ross-referring to the rules made by the Civil Servi!e Commission. he rule pertinent to our in0uiry states: .6. Candidacy for local office: Candidacy for a nomination or for election to any (ational, "tate, county, or municipal office is not permissi'le . he prohibition against politi!al a!tivity e(tends not merely to formal announ!ement of !andida!y but also to the preliminaries leading to su!h announ!ement and to !anvassing or soli!iting support or doing or permitting to be done any a!t in
/.

/3

furtheran!e of !andida!y. he fa!t that !andida!y, is merely passive is immaterial" if an employee a!0uies!es in the efforts of friends in furtheran!e of su!h !andida!y su!h a!0uies!en!e !onstitutes an infra!tion of the prohibitions against politi!al a!tivity. (itali!s suppliedA Se!tion '(bA re0uires the immediate removal of violators and forbids the use of appropriated funds thereafter to pay !ompensation to these persons. (.A 4ro")ricL was a !lass a!tion brought by !ertain <klahoma state employees seeking a de!laration of un!onstitutionality of two subparagraphs of Se!tion /1/ of <klahoma1s )erit System of =ersonnel -dministration -!t. Se!tion /1/ (>A, the paragraph relevant to this dis!ussion, states that :NnOo employee in t2e classified service s2all 'e J a candidate for nomination or election to any paid pu'lic officeJ ; Fiolation of Se!tion /1/ results in dismissal from employment, possible !riminal san!tions and limited state employment ineligibility. Conse0uently, it !annot be denied that Le##er C"rrier7 and 4ro")ricL effe!tively overruled M"'cu7o. $y no stret!h of the imagination !ould M"'cu7o still be held operative, as Le##er C"rrier7 and 4ro")ricL (iA !on!erned virtually identi!al resign-to-run laws, and (iiA were de!ided by a superior !ourt, the ?nited States Supreme Court. *t was thus not surprising for the #irst Cir!uit Court of -ppeals I the same !ourt that de!ided M"'cu7o I to hold c"#e&oric"lly "') e$p%"#ic"lly in M"&ill *. Ly'c% that M"'cu7o i7 'o lo'&er &oo) l"w. -s we priorly e(plained: M"&ill involved =awtu!ket, %hode *sland firemen who ran for !ity offi!e in 1'>D. =awtu!ket1s :@ittle ,at!h -!t; prohibits !ity employees from engaging in a broad range of politi!al a!tivities. $e!oming a !andidate for any !ity offi!e is spe!ifi!ally pros!ribed, the violation being punished by removal from offi!e or immediate dismissal. he firemen brought an a!tion against the !ity offi!ials on the ground that that the provision of the !ity !harter was un!onstitutional. Howe*er, #%e cour#, (ully co&'iJ"'# o( =etter Carrier" "') +roadri ), #ooL #%e po7i#io' #%"# Man #"o %") 7i'ce lo7# co'7i)er"8le *i#"li#y. I# o87er*e) #%"# #%e *iew #%"# poli#ic"l c"')i)"cy w"7 " (u')"$e'#"l i'#ere7# w%ic% coul) 8e i'(ri'&e) upo' o'ly i( le77 re7#ric#i*e "l#er'"#i*e7 were 'o# "*"il"8le, w"7 " po7i#io' w%ic% w"7 'o lo'&er *i"8le, 7i'ce #%e Supre$e Cour# ,(i')i'& #%"# #%e &o*er'$e'#N7 i'#ere7# i' re&ul"#i'& 8o#% #%e co')uc# "') 7peec% o( i#7 e$ployee7 )i((ere) 7i&'i(ic"'#ly (ro$ i#7 i'#ere7# i' re&ul"#i'& #%o7e o( #%e ci#iJe'ry i' &e'er"l! %") &i*e' li##le
/3

/D

wei&%# #o #%e "r&u$e'# #%"# pro%i8i#io'7 "&"i'7# #%e coercio' o( &o*er'$e'# e$ployee7 were " le77 )r"7#ic $e"'7 #o #%e 7"$e e'), )e(erri'& #o #%e Au)&$e'# o( Co'&re77, "') "pplyi'& " B8"l"'ci'&D #e7# #o )e#er$i'e w%e#%er li$i#7 o' poli#ic"l "c#i*i#y 8y pu8lic e$ployee7 7u87#"'#i"lly 7er*e) &o*er'$e'# i'#ere7#7 w%ic% were Bi$por#"'#D e'ou&% #o ou#wei&% #%e e$ployee7N .ir7# A$e')$e'# ri&%#7. *t must be noted that the Court of -ppeals ruled in this manner even though the ele!tion in M"&ill was !hara!teriGed as 'o'p"r#i7"', as it was reasonable for the !ity to fear, under the !ir!umstan!es of that !ase, that politi!ally a!tive bureau!rats might use their offi!ial power to help politi!al friends and hurt politi!al foes. %uled the !ourt: he 0uestion before us is whether =awtu!ketSs !harter provision, whi!h bars a !ity employeeSs !andida!y in even a nonpartisan !ity ele!tion, is !onstitutional. he issue !ompels us to e(trapolate two re!ent Supreme Court de!isions, Civil "ervice CommMn v. (atMl AssMn of Letter Carriers and roadric@ v. O@la2oma. $oth dealt with laws barring !ivil servants from partisan politi!al a!tivity. Letter Carriers reaffirmed !nited #u'lic Dor@ers v. Mitc2ell, upholding the !onstitutionality of the ,at!h -!t as to federal employees. $roadri!k sustained <klahomaSs :@ittle ,at!h -!t; against !onstitutional atta!k, limiting its holding to <klahomaSs !onstru!tion that the -!t barred only a!tivity in partisan politi!s. In Mancuso v. &aft, ?e assumed t2at proscriptions of candidacy in nonpartisan elections ?ould not 'e constitutional. Letter Carriers and roadric@ compel ne? analysis. (((( 7hat we are obligated to do in this !ase, as the distri!t !ourt re!ogniGed, is to apply t2e CourtLs interest 'alancing approac2 to t2e @ind of nonpartisan election revealed in this re!ord. De 'elieve t2at t2e district court found more residual vigor in our opinion in Mancuso v. &aft t2an remains after Letter Carriers. De 2ave particular reference to our vie? t2at political candidacy ?as a fundamental interest ?2ic2 could 'e trenc2ed upon
/D

/4

only if less restrictive alternatives ?ere not availa'le. D2ile t2is approac2 may still 'e via'le for citi5ens ?2o are not government employees, t2e Court in Letter Carriers recogni5ed t2at t2e governmentMs interest in regulating 'ot2 t2e conduct and speec2 of its employees differs significantly from its interest in regulating t2ose of t2e citi5enry in general. &ot only was ?nited =ubli! 7orkers v. )it!hell HunhesitatinglyH reaffirmed, but the Court gave little weight to the argument that prohibitions against the !oer!ion of government employees were a less drasti! means to the same end, deferring to the 8udgment of the Congress. 7e !annot be more pre!ise than the hird Cir!uit in !hara!teriGing the CourtSs approa!h as Hsome sort of Sbalan!ingS pro!essH. *t appears that the government may pla!e limits on !ampaigning by publi! employees if the limits substantially serve government interests that are HimportantH enough to outweigh the employeesS #irst -mendment rights. ( ( ( (itali!s suppliedA ?pholding thus the !onstitutionality of the law in 0uestion, the M"&ill !ourt detailed the ma8or governmental interests dis!ussed in Le##er C"rrier7 and applied them to the =awtu!ket provision as follows: *n Letter CarriersB,C the first interest identified by the Court was that of an effi!ient government, faithful to the Congress rather than to party. he distri!t !ourt dis!ounted this interest, reasoning that !andidates in a lo!al ele!tion would not likely be !ommitted to a state or national platform. his observation undoubtedly has substan!e insofar as allegian!e to broad poli!y positions is !on!erned. $ut a different kind of possible politi!al intrusion into effi!ient administration !ould be thought to threaten muni!ipal government: not into broad poli!y de!isions, but into the parti!ulars of administration favoritism in minute de!isions affe!ting welfare, ta( assessments, muni!ipal !ontra!ts and pur!hasing, hiring, Goning, li!ensing, and inspe!tions. 5ust as the Court in Letter Carriers identified a se!ond governmental interest in the avoidan!e of the appearan!e of Hpoliti!al 8usti!eH as to poli!y, so
/4

/>

there is an e0uivalent interest in avoiding the appearan!e of politi!al preferment in privileges, !on!essions, and benefits. he appearan!e (or realityA of favoritism that the !harterSs authors evidently feared is not e(or!ised by the nonpartisan !hara!ter of the formal ele!tion pro!ess. 7here, as here, party support is a key to su!!essful !ampaigning, and party rivalry is the norm, the !ity might reasonably fear that politi!ally a!tive bureau!rats would use their offi!ial power to help politi!al friends and hurt politi!al foes. his is not to say that the !itySs interest in visibly fair and effe!tive administration ne!essarily 8ustifies a blanket prohibition of all employee !ampaigning" if parties are not heavily involved in a !ampaign, the danger of favoritism is less, for neither friend nor foe is as easily identified. - se!ond ma8or governmental interest identified in Letter Carriers was avoiding the danger of a powerful politi!al ma!hine. he Court had in mind the large and growing federal bureau!ra!y and its partisan potential. he distri!t !ourt felt this was only a minor threat sin!e parties had no !ontrol over nominations. $ut in fa!t !andidates sought party endorsements, and party endorsements proved to be highly effe!tive both in determining who would emerge from the primary ele!tion and who would be ele!ted in the final ele!tion. ?nder the prevailing !ustoms, known party affiliation and support were highly signifi!ant fa!tors in =awtu!ket ele!tions. he !harterSs authors might reasonably have feared that a politi!ally a!tive publi! work for!e would give the in!umbent party, and the in!umbent workers, an unbreakable grasp on the reins of power. *n muni!ipal ele!tions espe!ially, the small siGe of the ele!torate and the limited powers of lo!al government may inhibit the growth of interest groups powerful enough to outbalan!e the weight of a partisan work for!e. 9ven when nonpartisan issues and !andida!ies are at stake, isolated government employees may seek to influen!e voters or their !o-workers improperly" but a more real danger is that a !entral party stru!ture will mass the s!attered powers of government workers behind a single party platform
/>

//

or slate. <!!asional misuse of the publi! trust to pursue private politi!al ends is tolerable, espe!ially be!ause the politi!al views of individual employees may balan!e ea!h other out. $ut party dis!ipline eliminates this diversity and tends to make abuse systemati!. *nstead of a handful of employees pressured into advan!ing their immediate superiorSs politi!al ambitions, the entire government work for!e may be e(pe!ted to turn out for many !andidates in every ele!tion. *n =awtu!ket, where parties are a !ontinuing presen!e in politi!al !ampaigns, a !arefully or!hestrated use of !ity employees in support of the in!umbent partySs !andidates is possible. he danger is s!ar!ely lessened by the openness of =awtu!ketSs nominating pro!edure or the la!k of party labels on its ballots. he third area of proper governmental interest in Letter Carriers was ensuring that employees a!hieve advan!ement on their merits and that they be free from both !oer!ion and the prospe!t of favor from politi!al a!tivity. he distri!t !ourt did not address this fa!tor, but looked only to the possibility of a !ivil servant using his position to influen!e voters, and held this to be no more of a threat than in the most nonpartisan of ele!tions. $ut we think that the possibility of !oer!ion of employees by superiors remains as strong a fa!tor in muni!ipal ele!tions as it was in Letter Carriers. <n!e again, it is the systemati! and !oordinated e(ploitation of publi! servants for politi!al ends that a legislature is most likely to see as the primary threat of employeesS rights. =oliti!al oppression of publi! employees will be rare in an entirely nonpartisan system. Some superiors may be in!lined to ride herd on the politi!s of their employees even in a nonpartisan !onte(t, but without party offi!ials looking over their shoulders most supervisors will prefer to let employees go their own ways. *n short, the government may !onstitutionally restri!t its employeesS parti!ipation in nominally nonpartisan ele!tions if politi!al parties play a large role in the !ampaigns. *n the absen!e of substantial party involvement, on the
//

/'

other hand, the interests identified by the Letter Carriers Court lose mu!h of their for!e. 7hile the employeesS #irst -mendment rights would normally outbalan!e these diminished interests, we do not suggest that they would always do so. 9ven when parties are absent, many employee !ampaigns might be thought to endanger at least one strong publi! interest, an interest that looms larger in the !onte(t of muni!ipal ele!tions than it does in the national ele!tions !onsidered in Letter Carriers. he !ity !ould reasonably fear the prospe!t of a subordinate running dire!tly against his superior or running for a position that !onfers great power over his superior. -n employee of a federal agen!y who seeks a Congressional seat poses less of a dire!t !hallenge to the !ommand and dis!ipline of his agen!y than a fireman or poli!eman who runs for mayor or !ity !oun!il. he possibilities of internal dis!ussion, !li0ues, and politi!al bargaining, should an employee gather substantial politi!al support, are !onsiderable. (!itations omittedA he !ourt, however, remanded the !ase to the distri!t !ourt for further pro!eedings in respe!t of the petitioners1 overbreadth !harge. &oting that invalidating a statute for being overbroad is :not to be taken lightly, mu!h less to be taken in the dark,; the !ourt held: he governing !ase is roadric@, whi!h introdu!ed the do!trine of HsubstantialH overbreadth in a !losely analogous !ase. ?nder roadric@, when one who !hallenges a law has engaged in !onstitutionally unprote!ted !ondu!t (rather than unprote!ted spee!hA and when the !hallenged law is aimed at unprote!ted !ondu!t, Hthe overbreadth of a statute must not only be real, but substantial as well, 8udged in relation to the statuteSs plainly legitimate sweep.H wo ma8or un!ertainties attend the do!trine: how to distinguish spee!h from !ondu!t, and how to define HsubstantialH overbreadth. 7e are spared the first in0uiry by roadric@ itself. he plaintiffs in that !ase had soli!ited support for a !andidate, and they were sub8e!t to dis!ipline under a law pros!ribing a wide range of a!tivities, in!luding soli!iting !ontributions for politi!al !andidates and be!oming a !andidate. he Court
/'

'6

found that this !ombination re0uired a substantial overbreadth approa!h. he fa!ts of this !ase are so similar that we may rea!h the same result without worrying unduly about the sometimes opa0ue distin!tion between spee!h and !ondu!t. he se!ond diffi!ulty is not so easily disposed of. roadric@ found no substantial overbreadth in a statute restri!ting partisan !ampaigning. =awtu!ket has gone further, banning parti!ipation in nonpartisan !ampaigns as well. Measuring t2e su'stantiality of a statuteMs over'readt2 apparently reCuires, inter alia, a roug2 'alancing of t2e num'er of valid applications compared to t2e num'er of potentially invalid applications. "ome sensitivity to reality is neededB an invalid application t2at is far-fetc2ed does not deserve as muc2 ?eig2t as one t2at is pro'a'le. &2e Cuestion is a matter of degreeB it ?ill never 'e possi'le to say t2at a ratio of one invalid to nine valid applications ma@es a la? su'stantially over'road. "till, an over'readt2 c2allenger 2as a duty to provide t2e court ?it2 some idea of t2e num'er of potentially invalid applications t2e statute permits. <ften, simply reading the statute in the light of !ommon e(perien!e or litigated !ases will suggest a number of probable invalid appli!ations. $ut this !ase is different. 7hether the statute is overbroad depends in large part on the number of ele!tions that are insulated from party rivalry yet !losed to =awtu!ket employees. #or all the re!ord shows, every one of the !ity, state, or federal ele!tions in =awtu!ket is a!tively !ontested by politi!al parties. Certainly the re!ord suggests that parties play a ma8or role even in !ampaigns that often are entirely nonpartisan in other !ities. S!hool !ommittee !andidates, for e(ample, are endorsed by the lo!al Demo!rati! !ommittee. &2e state of t2e record does not permit us to find over'readt2B indeed suc2 a step is not to 'e ta@en lig2tly, muc2 less to 'e ta@en in t2e dar@. <n the other hand, the entire fo!us below, in the short period before the ele!tion was held, was on the !onstitutionality of the statute as applied. =laintiffs may very well feel that further efforts are not
'6

'1

8ustified, 'ut t2ey s2ould 'e afforded t2e opportunity to demonstrate t2at t2e c2arter forecloses access to a significant num'er of offices, t2e candidacy for ?2ic2 'y municipal employees ?ould not pose t2e possi'le t2reats to government efficiency and integrity ?2ic2 Letter Carriers, as ?e 2ave interpreted it, deems significant . -!!ordingly, we remand for !onsideration of plaintiffsS overbreadth !laim. (itali!s supplied, !itations omittedA Cle"rly, =etter Carrier", +roadri ), "') Ma*ill )e$o'7#r"#e 8eyo') )ou8# #%"# Man #"o !. Taft, %e"*ily relie) upo' 8y #%e ponen ia, %"7 e((ec#i*ely 8ee' o*errule). -s it is no longer good law, the ponenciaLs e(hortation that :Bsin!eC the -meri!ans, from whom we !opied the provision in 0uestion, had already stri!ken down a similar measure for being un!onstitutionalB,C it is high-time that we, too, should follow suit; is mispla!ed and unwarranted. -!!ordingly, our assailed De!ision1s submission that the right to run for publi! offi!e is :ine(tri!ably linked; with two fundamental freedoms I those of e(pression and asso!iation I lies on barren ground. -meri!an !ase law has in fa!t 'e*er reco&'iJe) " (u')"$e'#"l ri&%# #o e@pre77 o'eN7 poli#ic"l *iew7 #%rou&% c"')i)"cy, "7 #o i'*oLe " ri&orou7 7#"')"r) o( re*iew. 4"r# *. Tel(or) pointedly stated that :BtChe #irst -mendment does not in terms !onfer a right to run for publi! offi!e, and this !ourt has held that it does not do so by impli!ation either.; hus, one1s interest in seeking offi!e, 8y i#7el(, is 'o# entitled to !onstitutional prote!tion. )oreover, one !annot bring one1s a!tion under the rubri! of freedom of asso!iation, absent any allegation that, by running for an ele!tive position, one is advan!ing the politi!al ideas of a parti!ular set of voters. =res!inding from these premises, it is !rystal !lear that the provisions !hallenged in the !ase at bar, are not violative of the e0ual prote!tion !lause. he deemed-resigned provisions substantially serve governmental interests ( i.e., (iA effi!ient !ivil servi!e faithful to the government and the people rather than to party" (iiA avoidan!e of the appearan!e of :politi!al 8usti!e; as to poli!y" (iiiA avoidan!e of the danger of a powerful politi!al ma!hine" and (ivA ensuring that employees a!hieve advan!ement on their merits and that they be free from both !oer!ion and the prospe!t of favor from politi!al a!tivityA . hese are interests that are important enough to outweigh the non-fundamental right of appointive offi!ials and employees to seek ele!tive offi!e. En passant, we find it 0uite ironi! that )r. 5usti!e &a!hura !ites Cle$e'#7 *. ."7%i'& and Mori"l, et al. *. Ju)ici"ry Co$$i77io' o( #%e S#"#e o(

'1

'+

Loui7i"'", et al. to buttress his dissent. )aintaining that resign-to-run provisions are valid only when made appli!able to spe!ified offi!ials, he e(plains: V?.S. !ourts, in subse0uent !ases, sustained the !onstitutionality of resign-to-run provisions when applied to 7peci(ie) or p"r#icul"r o((ici"l7, "7 )i7#i'&ui7%e) (ro$ "ll o#%er7 , u')er " cl"77i(ic"#io' #%"# i7 &er$"'e #o #%e purpo7e7 o( #%e l"w. hese resign-to-run legislations were 'o# e@pre77e) i' " &e'er"l "') 7weepi'& pro*i7io', and thus )i) 'o# *iol"#e #%e #e7# o( 8ei'& &er$"'e #o #%e purpo7e o( #%e l"w , the se!ond re0uisite for a valid !lassifi!ation. Dire!ted, as they were, to parti!ular offi!ials, they were not overly en!ompassing as to be overbroad. (emphasis in the originalA his reading is a regrettable misrepresentation of Cle$e'#7 and Mori"l. he resign-to-run provisions in these !ases were upheld not be!ause they referred to spe!ified or parti!ular offi!ials (vis-U-vis a general !lassA" the 0uestioned provisions were found valid preci7ely 8ec"u7e #%e Cour# deferred #o le&i7l"#i*e Au)&$e'# "') (ou') #%"# " re&ul"#io' i7 'o# )e*oi) o( " r"#io'"l pre)ic"#e 7i$ply 8ec"u7e i# %"ppe'7 #o 8e i'co$ple#e . *n fa!t, the e0ual prote!tion !hallenge in Cle$e'#7 revolved around the !laim that the State of e(as failed to e(plain why "o(e publi! offi!ials are sub8e!t to the resign-to-run provisions, while others are not. %uled the ?nited States Supreme Court: -rti!le QF*, W 4D, of the e(as Constitution provides that the holders of !ertain offi!es automati!ally resign their positions if they be!ome !andidates for any other ele!ted offi!e, unless the une(pired portion of the !urrent term is one year or less. he burdens that W 4D imposes on !andida!y are even less substantial than those imposed by W 1'. he two provisions, of !ourse, serve essentially the same state interests. he Distri!t Court found W 4D defi!ient, however, not be!ause of the nature or e(tent of the provisionSs restri!tion on !andida!y, but be!ause of the manner in whi!h the offi!es are !lassified. According to t2e %istrict Court, t2e classification system cannot survive eCual protection scrutiny, 'ecause &e>as 2as failed to e>plain sufficiently ?2y some elected pu'lic officials are su'=ect to P <8 and ?2y ot2ers are not. As ?it2 t2e case of P .-, ?e conclude t2at P <8 survives a c2allenge under t2e ECual #rotection Clause unless appellees can s2o? t2at t2ere is no rational predicate to t2e classification sc2eme. &2e 2istory 'e2ind P <8 s2o?s t2at it may 'e up2eld consistent ?it2 t2e Ione step at a timeI approac2 t2at t2is Court 2as underta@en ?it2 regard to state regulation not su'=ect to more vigorous scrutiny t2an t2at sanctioned 'y t2e traditional principles. Se!tion 4D was ena!ted in 1'D3 as a transitional
'+

'.

provision applying only to the 1'D3 ele!tion. Se!tion 4D e(tended the terms of those offi!es enumerated in the provision from two to four years. he provision also staggered the terms of other offi!es so that at least some !ounty and lo!al offi!es would be !ontested at ea!h ele!tion. he automati! resignation proviso to W 4D was not added until 1'D/. *n that year, a similar automati! resignation provision was added in -rt. Q*, W 11, whi!h applies to offi!eholders in home rule !ities who serve terms longer than two years. Se!tion 11 allows home rule !ities the option of e(tending the terms of muni!ipal offi!es from two to up to four years. hus, the automati! resignation provision in e(as is a !reature of the StateSs ele!toral reforms of 1'D/. &2at t2e "tate did not go furt2er in applying t2e automatic resignation provision to t2ose office2olders ?2ose terms ?ere not e>tended 'y P .. or P <8, a'sent an invidious purpose, is not t2e sort of malfunctioning of t2e "tateMs la?ma@ing process for'idden 'y t2e ECual #rotection Clause. A regulation is not devoid of a rational predicate simply 'ecause it 2appens to 'e incomplete. he 90ual =rote!tion Clause does not forbid e(as to restri!t one ele!ted offi!eholderSs !andida!y for another ele!ted offi!e unless and until it pla!es similar restri!tions on other offi!eholders. he provisionSs language and its history belie any notion that W 4D serves the invidious purpose of denying a!!ess to the politi!al pro!ess to identifiable !lasses of potential !andidates. (!itations omitted and itali!s suppliedA #urthermore, it is unfortunate that the dissenters took the Mori"l line that :there is no blanket approval of restri!tions on the right of publi! employees to be!ome !andidates for publi! offi!e; out of !onte(t. - !orre!t reading of that line readily shows that the Court only meant to !onfine its ruling to the fa!ts of that !ase, as ea!h e0ual prote!tion !hallenge would ne!essarily have to involve weighing governmental interests vis-U-vis the spe!ifi! prohibition assailed. he Court held: he interests of publi! employees in free e(pression and politi!al asso!iation are un0uestionably entitled to the prote!tion of the first and fourteenth amendments. &othing in todaySs de!ision should be taken to imply that publi! employees may be prohibited from e(pressing their private views on !ontroversial topi!s in a manner that does not interfere with the proper performan!e of their publi! duties. *n todaySs de!ision, there is no blanket approval of restri!tions on the right of publi! employees to be!ome !andidates for publi! offi!e. &or do we approve any general restri!tions on the politi!al and !ivil rights of 8udges in parti!ular. Our 2olding is necessarily narro?ed 'y t2e met2odology employed to reac2 it . '.

'3

re0uirement that a state 8udge resign his offi!e prior to be!oming a !andidate for non-8udi!ial offi!e bears a reasonably ne!essary relation to the a!hievement of the stateSs interest in preventing the a!tuality or appearan!e of 8udi!ial impropriety. Su!h a re0uirement offends neither the first amendmentSs guarantees of free e(pression and asso!iation nor the fourteenth amendmentSs guarantee of e0ual prote!tion of the laws. (itali!s suppliedA

*ndeed, the Mori"l !ourt even 0uoted 4ro")ricL and stated that: *n any event, the legislature must have some leeway in determining whi!h of its employment positions re0uire restri!tions on partisan politi!al a!tivities and whi!h may be left unregulated. -nd a State !an hardly be faulted for attempting to limit the positions upon whi!h su!h restri!tions are pla!ed. (!itations omittedA V. Sec#io' 2,"! o( Re7olu#io' 66 6, Sec#io' 13 o( RA 9369, "') Sec#io' 66 o( #%e O$'i8u7 Elec#io' Co)e /o -o# Su((er (ro$ O*er8re")#% -part from nullifying Se!tion 3(aA of %esolution /4>/, Se!tion 1. of %'.4', and Se!tion 44 of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code on e0ual prote!tion ground, our assailed De!ision stru!k them down for being overbroad in two respe!ts, vi5.: (1A he assailed provisions limit the !andida!y of all !ivil servants holding appointive posts without due regard for the type of position being held by the employee seeking an ele!tive post and the degree of influen!e that may be attendant thereto" and (+A he assailed provisions limit the !andida!y of any and all !ivil servants holding appointive positions without due regard for the type of offi!e being sought, whether it be partisan or nonpartisan in !hara!ter, or in the national, muni!ipal or 'arangay level. -gain, on se!ond look, we have to revise our assailed De!ision. i. =i(itation on Candida y Re*ardle"" of /n #(4ent Appointi!e Offi ial>" &o"ition, ?alid

-!!ording to the assailed De!ision, the !hallenged provisions of law are overly broad be!ause they apply indis!riminately to all !ivil servants holding appointive posts, without due regard for the type of position being held by the
'3

'D

employee running for ele!tive offi!e and the degree of influen!e that may be attendant thereto. *ts underlying assumption appears to be that the evils sought to be prevented are e(tant only when the in!umbent appointive offi!ial running for ele!tive offi!e holds an influential post. Su!h a myopi! view obviously fails to !onsider a different, yet e0ually plausible, threat to the government posed by the partisan potential of a large and growing bureau!ra!y: the danger of systemati! abuse perpetuated by a :powerful politi!al ma!hine; that has amassed :the s!attered powers of government workers; so as to give itself and its in!umbent workers an :unbreakable grasp on the reins of power.; -s elu!idated in our prior e(position: -ttempts by government employees to wield influen!e over others or to make use of their respe!tive positions (apparentlyA to promote their own !andida!y may seem tolerable I even inno!uous I parti!ularly when viewed in isolation from other similar attempts by other government employees. Jet it would be de!idedly foolhardy to dis!ount the e0ually (if not moreA realisti! and dangerous possibility that su!h seemingly dis8ointed attempts, when taken together, !onstitute a veiled effort on the part of an emerging !entral party stru!ture to advan!e its own agenda through a :!arefully or!hestrated use of Bappointive andEor ele!tiveC offi!ials; !oming from various levels of the bureau!ra!y. VB Che avoidan!e of su!h a :politi!ally a!tive publi! work for!e; whi!h !ould give an emerging politi!al ma!hine an :unbreakable grasp on the reins of power; is reason enough to impose a restri!tion on the !andida!ies of all appointive publi! offi!ials without further distin!tion as to the type of positions being held by su!h employees or the degree of influen!e that may be attendant thereto. (!itations omittedA ii. =i(itation on Candida y Re*ardle"" of Type of Offi e 3o#*ht, ?alid

he assailed De!ision also held that the !hallenged provisions of law are overly broad be!ause they are made to apply indis!riminately to all !ivil servants holding appointive offi!es, without due regard for the type of ele!tive offi!e being sought, whether it be partisan or nonpartisan in !hara!ter, or in the national, muni!ipal or 'arangay level. his erroneous ruling is premised on the assumption that :the !on!erns of a truly partisan offi!e and the temptations it fosters are suffi!iently different from
'D

'4

those involved in an offi!e removed from regular party politi!s Bso asC to warrant distin!tive treatment,; so that restri!tions on !andida!y akin to those imposed by the !hallenged provisions !an validly apply only to situations in whi!h the ele!tive offi!e sought is partisan in !hara!ter. o the e(tent, therefore, that su!h restri!tions are said to pre!lude even !andida!ies for nonpartisan ele!tive offi!es, the !hallenged restri!tions are to be !onsidered as overbroad. -gain, a !areful study of the !hallenged provisions and related laws on the matter will show that the alleged overbreadth is more apparent than real. <ur e(position on this issue has not been repudiated, vi5.: - perusal of %esolution /4>/ will immediately dis!lose that the rules and guidelines set forth therein refer to the filing of !ertifi!ates of !andida!y and nomination of offi!ial !andidates of registered poli#ic"l p"r#ie7, i' co''ec#io' wi#% #%e M"y 1;, 9;1; -"#io'"l "') Loc"l Elec#io'7 . <bviously, these rules and guidelines, in!luding the restri!tion in Se!tion 3(aA of %esolution /4>/, were issued spe!ifi!ally for purposes of the )ay 16, +616 &ational and @o!al 9le!tions, whi!h, it must be noted, are de!idedly partisan in !hara!ter. hus, it is !lear that the restri!tion in Se!tion 3(aA of %- /4>/ applies only to the !andida!ies of appointive offi!ials vying for partisan ele!tive posts in the )ay 16, +616 &ational and @o!al 9le!tions. <n this s!ore, the overbreadth !hallenge leveled against Se!tion 3(aA is !learly unsustainable. Similarly, a !onsidered review of Se!tion 1. of %- '.4' and Se!tion 44 of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code, in !on8un!tion with other related laws on the matter, will !onfirm that these provisions are likewise not intended to apply to ele!tions for nonpartisan publi! offi!es. he only ele!tions whi!h are relevant to the present in0uiry are the ele!tions for barangay offi!es, sin!e these are the only ele!tions in this !ountry whi!h involve nonpartisan publi! offi!es. *n this regard, it is well to note that from as far ba!k as the ena!tment of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code in 1'/D, Congress has intended that these nonpartisan 'arangay ele!tions be governed by spe!ial rules, in!luding a separate rule on deemed resignations whi!h is found in Se!tion .' of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code. Said provision states: Se!tion .'. Certifi!ate of Candida!y. I &o person shall be ele!ted punong 'arangay or @aga?ad ng sangguniang 'arangay unless he files a sworn
'4

'>

!ertifi!ate of !andida!y in tripli!ate on any day from the !ommen!ement of the ele!tion period but not later than the day before the beginning of the !ampaign period in a form to be pres!ribed by the Commission. he !andidate shall state the barangay offi!e for whi!h he is a !andidate. (((( Any elective or appointive municipal, city, provincial or national official or employee, or t2ose in t2e civil or military service, including t2ose in government-o?ned or-controlled corporations, s2all 'e considered automatically resigned upon t2e filing of certificate of candidacy for a 'arangay office. Sin!e 'arangay ele!tions are governed by a separate deemed resignation rule, under the present state of law, there would be no o!!asion to apply the restri!tion on !andida!y found in Se!tion 44 of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code, and later reiterated in the proviso of Se!tion 1. of %- '.4', to any ele!tion other than a partisan one. #or this reason, the overbreadth !hallenge raised against Se!tion 44 of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code and the pertinent proviso in Se!tion 1. of %- '.4' must also fail. *n any event, even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that Se!tion 44 of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code and the !orresponding provision in Se!tion 1. of %- '.4' are general rules that apply also to ele!tions for nonpartisan publi! offi!es, the overbreadth !hallenge would still be futile. -gain, we e(plained: *n the first pla!e, the view that Congress is limited to !ontrolling only partisan behavior has not re!eived 8udi!ial imprimatur, be!ause the general proposition of the relevant ?S !ases on the matter is simply that the government has an interest in regulating the !ondu!t and spee!h of its employees that differs signifi!antly from those it possesses in !onne!tion with regulation of the spee!h of the !itiGenry in general. )oreover, in order to have a statute de!lared as un!onstitutional or void on its fa!e for being overly broad, parti!ularly where, as in this !ase, :!ondu!t; and not :pure spee!h; is involved, the overbreadth must not only be real, but substantial as well, 8udged in relation to the statute1s plainly legitimate sweep.

'>

'/

*n operational terms, measuring the substantiality of a statute1s overbreadth would entail, among other things, a rough balan!ing of the number of valid appli!ations !ompared to the number of potentially invalid appli!ations. *n this regard, some sensitivity to reality is needed" an invalid appli!ation that is farfet!hed does not deserve as mu!h weight as one that is probable. he 0uestion is a matter of degree. hus, assuming for the sake of argument that the partisan-nonpartisan distin!tion is valid and ne!essary su!h that a statute whi!h fails to make this distin!tion is sus!eptible to an overbreadth atta!k, the overbreadth !hallenge presently mounted must demonstrate or provide this Court with some idea of the number of potentially invalid ele!tions (i.e. the number of ele!tions that were insulated from party rivalry but were nevertheless !losed to appointive employeesA that may in all probability result from the enfor!ement of the statute. he state of the re!ord, however, does not permit us to find overbreadth. $orrowing from the words of Magill v. Lync2, indeed, su!h a step is not to be taken lightly, mu!h less to be taken in the dark, espe!ially sin!e an overbreadth finding in this !ase would effe!tively prohibit the State from Kenfor!ing an otherwise valid measure against !ondu!t that is admittedly within its power to pros!ribe.1 his Court would do well to pro!eed with tiptoe !aution, parti!ularly when it !omes to the appli!ation of the overbreadth do!trine in the analysis of statutes that purportedly attempt to restri!t or burden the e(er!ise of the right to freedom of spee!h, for su!h approa!h is manifestly strong medi!ine that must be used sparingly, and only as a last resort. *n the ?nited States, !laims of fa!ial overbreadth have been entertained only where, in the 8udgment of the !ourt, the possibility that prote!ted spee!h of others may be muted and per!eived grievan!es left to fester (due to the possible inhibitory effe!ts of overly broad statutesA outweighs the possible harm to so!iety in allowing some unprote!ted spee!h or !ondu!t to go unpunished. #a!ial overbreadth has likewise not been invoked where a limiting !onstru!tion !ould be pla!ed on the !hallenged statute, and where there are readily apparent !onstru!tions that would !ure, or at least substantially redu!e, the alleged overbreadth of the statute. *n the !ase at bar, the probable harm to so!iety in permitting in!umbent appointive offi!ials to remain in offi!e, even as they a!tively pursue ele!tive posts, far outweighs the less likely evil of having arguably prote!ted !andida!ies blo!ked by the possible inhibitory effe!t of a potentially overly broad statute.

'/

''

*n this light, the !on!eivably impermissible appli!ations of the !hallenged statutes I whi!h are, at best, bold predi!tions I !annot 8ustify invalidating these statutes in toto and prohibiting the State from enfor!ing them against !ondu!t that is, and has for more than 166 years been, un0uestionably within its power and interest to pros!ribe. *nstead, the more prudent approa!h would be to deal with these !on!eivably impermissible appli!ations through !ase-by-!ase ad8udi!ation rather than through a total invalidation of the statute itself. *ndeed, the anomalies spawned by our assailed De!ision have taken pla!e. *n his )otion for %e!onsideration, intervenor Drilon stated that a number of highranking Cabinet members had already filed their Certifi!ates of Candida!y without relin0uishing their posts. Several C<)9@9C ele!tion offi!ers had likewise filed their Certifi!ates of Candida!y in their respe!tive provin!es. 9ven the Se!retary of 5usti!e had filed her !ertifi!ate of substitution for representative of the first distri!t of RueGon provin!e last De!ember 13, +66' I even as her position as 5usti!e Se!retary in!ludes supervision over the City and =rovin!ial =rose!utors, who, in turn, a!t as Fi!e-Chairmen of the respe!tive $oards of Canvassers. he 5udi!iary has not been spared, for a %egional rial Court 5udge in the South has thrown his hat into the politi!al arena. 7e !annot allow the tilting of our ele!toral playing field in their favor. #or the foregoing reasons, we now rule that Se!tion 3(aA of %esolution /4>/ and Se!tion 1. of %- '.4', whi!h merely reiterate Se!tion 44 of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code, are not un!onstitutionally overbroad. I- VIE0 0HEREO., the Court %9S<@F9S to 2%-& the respondent1s and the intervenors1 )otions for %e!onsideration" %9F9%S9 and S9 -S*D9 this Court1s De!ember 1, +66' De!ision" D*S)*SS the =etition" and *SS?9 this %esolution de!laring as not ?&C<&S * ? *<&-@ (1A Se!tion 3(aA of C<)9@9C %esolution &o. /4>/, (+A the se!ond proviso in the third paragraph of Se!tion 1. of %epubli! -!t &o. '.4', and (.A Se!tion 44 of the <mnibus 9le!tion Code. 1. he s!ope of the e0ual prote!tion !lause, 'D SC%+. 90ual prote!tion of the law, 1. SC%- +44 .. %e0uisites for a valid !lassifi!ation%ead: 1. 5eople *7. C"y"#, 66 5%il. 19 a. here must be real and substantial distin!tions" b. *t must be germane tot he purposes of the law" !. *t must not be limited to e(isting !onditions only" and d. *t must apply e0ually to all members of the same !lass.
''

3+6

166

+. %ead again, -sso!iation of Small @andowners vs. Se!. of -grarian reform, 5uly 13, 1'/' 3. 90ual prote!tion in general%ead: 1. =. vs. Fera, 4D =hil. D4 +. *? FS. C-, .61 SC%- +>/ ( here is real and substantial distin!tion between business inside the Subi! Spe!ial 9!onomi! Oone and outside wherein those inside are e(empt from other ta(es as a result of the poli!y of the government to a!!elerate the development of the portion of Subi! left by the -meri!ansA .. *)9@D- )-%C<S FS. C-, +>/ SC%- /3. 3. ,*)-2-& FS. =9<=@9, <!tober >, 1''3 he fa!t that poli!emen !harged with a !riminal offense punishable by more than 4 years are to be suspended during the entire duration of the !ase unlike other government employees is valid sin!e it rests on valid !lassifi!ation be!ause poli!emen !arry weapons and the badge of the law whi!h !an be used to harass or intimidate witnesses against them. here is no violation of the e0ual prote!tion !lause when the Compensation and Classifi!ation -!t of 1'/' in!ludes !ertain allowan!es and fringe benefits into the standardiGed salaries of most government employees but not to poli!e and military personnel. VICTORIA C. 2? *9%%9O, et al vs. D9=-% )9& <# $?D29 -&D )-&-29)9& , 2.%. &o. 1D.+44, )ar!h 1/, +616 A4A/, J.: hese !onsolidated !ases 0uestion the in!lusion of !ertain allowan!es and fringe benefits into the standardiGed salary rates for offi!es in the national government, state universities and !olleges, and lo!al government units as re0uired by the Compensation and =osition Classifi!ation -!t of 1'/' and implemented through the !hallenged &ational Compensation Cir!ular D' (&CC D'A while the said allowan!es and other fringe benefits are not in!luded insofar as members of the poli!e and military are !on!erned.
166

161

T%e ."c#7 "') #%e C"7e Congress ena!ted in 1'/' %epubli! -!t (%.-.A 4>D/, !alled the Compensation and =osition Classifi!ation -!t of 1'/' to rationaliGe the !ompensation of government employees. *ts Se!tion 1+ dire!ted the !onsolidation of allowan!es and additional !ompensation already being en8oyed by employees into their standardiGed salary rates. $ut it e(empted !ertain additional !ompensations that the employees may be re!eiving from su!h !onsolidation. hus: Sec#io' 19. Co'7oli)"#io' o( Allow"'ce7 "') Co$pe'7"#io'. GG All "llow"'ce7, e@cep# (or repre7e'#"#io' "') #r"'7por#"#io' "llow"'ce7+ clo#%i'& "') l"u')ry "llow"'ce7+ 7u87i7#e'ce "llow"'ce o( $"ri'e o((icer7 "') crew o' 8o"r) &o*er'$e'# *e77el7 "') %o7pi#"l per7o''el+ %"J"r) p"y+ "llow"'ce7 o( (orei&' 7er*ice per7o''el 7#"#io'e) "8ro")+ "') 7uc% o#%er "))i#io'"l co$pe'7"#io' 'o# o#%erwi7e 7peci(ie) %erei' "7 $"y 8e )e#er$i'e) 8y #%e /4M, 7%"ll 8e )ee$e) i'clu)e) i' #%e 7#"')"r)iJe) 7"l"ry r"#e7 %erei' pre7cri8e). Suc% o#%er "))i#io'"l co$pe'7"#io', w%e#%er i' c"7% or i' Li'), 8ei'& recei*e) 8y i'cu$8e'#7 o'ly "7 o( July 1, 1969 'o# i'#e&r"#e) i'#o #%e 7#"')"r)iJe) 7"l"ry r"#e7 7%"ll co'#i'ue #o 8e "u#%oriJe). T%e I77ueI 0%e#%er or 'o# #%e &r"'# o( COLA #o $ili#"ry "') police per7o''el #o #%e e@clu7io' o( o#%er &o*er'$e'# e$ployee7 *iol"#e7 #%e eCu"l pro#ec#io' cl"u7e. T%e Cour#N7 Ruli'& -t the heart of the present !ontroversy is Se!tion 1+ of %.-. 4>D/ as 0uoted above. . -s will be noted from the first senten!e above, :"ll "llow"'ce7; were deemed integrated into the standardiGed salary rates e(!ept the following: (1A (+A (.A representation and transportation allowan!es" !lothing and laundry allowan!es" subsisten!e allowan!es of marine offi!ers and !rew on board government vessels"
161

16+

(3A (DA (4A (>A

subsisten!e allowan!es of hospital personnel" haGard pay" allowan!es of foreign servi!e personnel stationed abroad" and su!h other additional !ompensation not otherwise spe!ified in Se!tion 1+ as may be determined by the D$).

$ut, while the provision enumerated !ertain e(!lusions, it also authoriGed the D$) to identify su!h other additional !ompensation that may be granted over and above the standardiGed salary rates. *n #2ilippine #orts Aut2ority Employees Hired After July ., .-;- v. Commission on Audit , the Court has ruled that while Se!tion 1+ !ould be !onsidered self-e(e!uting in regard to items (1A to (4A, it was not so in regard to item (>A. he D$) still needed to amplify item (>A sin!e one !annot simply assume what other allowan!es were e(!luded from the standardiGed salary rates. *t was only upon the issuan!e and effe!tivity of the !orresponding implementing rules and regulations that item (>A !ould be deemed legally !ompleted. Clearly, C<@- is not in the nature of an allowan!e intended to reimburse e(penses in!urred by offi!ials and employees of the government in the performan!e of their offi!ial fun!tions. *t is not payment in !onsideration of the fulfillment of offi!ial duty. -s defined, !ost of living refers to :the level of pri!es relating to a range of everyday items; or :the !ost of pur!hasing those goods and servi!es whi!h are in!luded in an a!!epted standard level of !onsumption.; $ased on this premise, C<@- is a benefit intended to !over in!reases in the !ost of living. hus, it is and should be integrated into the standardiGed salary rates. =etitioners !ontend that the !ontinued grant of C<@- to military and poli!e to the e(!lusion of other government employees violates the e0ual prote!tion !lause of the Constitution. $ut as respondents pointed out, while it may appear that petitioners are 0uestioning the !onstitutionality of these issuan!es, they are in fa!t atta!king the very !onstitutionality of Se!tion 11 of %.-. 4>D/. *t is a!tually this provision whi!h allows the uniformed personnel to !ontinue re!eiving their C<@- over and above their basi! pay, thus: Sec#io' 11. Military and &oli e &er"onnel. G T%e 8"7e p"y o( u'i(or$e) per7o''el o( #%e Ar$e) .orce7 o( #%e 5%ilippi'e7 "') #%e I'#e&r"#e) -"#io'"l 5olice 7%"ll 8e "7 pre7cri8e) i' #%e 7"l"ry 7c%e)ule (or #%e7e per7o''el i' R.A. 6636 "') R.A. 6626. T%e lo'&e*i#y p"y o( #%e7e per7o''el 7%"ll 8e "7 pre7cri8e) u')er R.A. 6636, "') R.A. 1132 "7 "$e')e) 8y R.A. 3 91 "') R.A. 6626I 5ro*i)e), %owe*er, T%"# #%e
16+

16.

lo'&e*i#y p"y o( u'i(or$e) per7o''el o( #%e I'#e&r"#e) -"#io'"l 5olice 7%"ll i'clu)e #%o7e 7er*ice7 re')ere) "7 u'i(or$e) $e$8er7 o( #%e police, A"il "') (ire )ep"r#$e'#7 o( #%e loc"l &o*er'$e'# u'i#7 prior #o #%e police i'#e&r"#io'. All e@i7#i'& #ype7 o( "llow"'ce7 "u#%oriJe) (or u'i(or$e) per7o''el o( #%e Ar$e) .orce7 o( #%e 5%ilippi'e7 "') I'#e&r"#e) -"#io'"l 5olice 7uc% "7 co7# o( li*i'& "llow"'ce, lo'&e*i#y p"y, Cu"r#er7 "llow"'ce, 7u87i7#e'ce "llow"'ce, clo#%i'& "llow"'ce, %"J"r) p"y "') o#%er "llow"'ce7 7%"ll co'#i'ue #o 8e "u#%oriJe). &othing is more settled than that the !onstitutionality of a statute !annot be atta!ked !ollaterally be!ause !onstitutionality issues must be pleaded dire!tly and not !ollaterally. *n any event, the Court is not persuaded that the !ontinued grant of C<@to the uniformed personnel to the e(!lusion of other national government offi!ials run afoul the e0ual prote!tion !lause of the Constitution. he fundamental right of e0ual prote!tion of the laws is not absolute, but is sub8e!t to reasonable !lassifi!ation. *f the groupings are !hara!teriGed by substantial distin!tions that make real differen!es, one !lass may be treated and regulated differently from another. he !lassifi!ation must also be germane to the purpose of the law and must apply to all those belonging to the same !lass. o be valid and reasonable, the !lassifi!ation must satisfy the following re0uirements: (1A it must rest on substantial distin!tions" (+A it must be germane to the purpose of the law" (.A it must not be limited to e(isting !onditions only" and (3A it must apply e0ually to all members of the same !lass. *t is !lear from the first paragraph of Se!tion 11 that Congress intended the uniformed personnel to be !ontinually governed by their respe!tive !ompensation laws. hus, the military is governed by %.-. 44./, as amended by %.-. '144 while the poli!e is governed by %.-. 443/, as amended by %.-. 4'>D. Certainly, there are valid reasons to treat the uniformed personnel differently from other national government offi!ials. $eing in !harged of the a!tual defense of the State and the maintenan!e of internal pea!e and order, they are e(pe!ted to be stationed virtually anywhere in the !ountry. hey are likely to be assigned to a variety of low, moderate, and high-!ost areas. Sin!e their basi! pay does not vary based on lo!ation, the !ontinued grant of C<@- is intended to help them offset the effe!ts of living in higher !ost areas. +-- 2umabon vs. Dire!tor of =risons, .> SC%- 3+6 +-b. =-&#*@< @-CS<& FS. S-&D*2-&$-J-&, 5anuary +6, 1''' +-b-1. $-SC< FS. =-2C<%, )ay 13, 1''1
16.

163

&o violation of the e0ual prote!tion !lause if Congress would legaliGe !o!k-fighting and horse ra!ing sin!e poli!e power !ould regulate gambling. .. =,*@*==*&9 5?D29S -SS<C*- *<& FS. =%-D<, &ovember 11, 1''. here is no valid distin!tion for a law removing the franking privilege of the 8udi!iary while leaving the same to the 9(e!utive and @egislative despite the fa!t that there is !onsiderable volume of mails from the !ourts. @oss of revenue is not a valid ground unless it would be withdrawn to all government offi!es. #%-&C*SC< - -D vs. ,9 S9C%9 -%J <# D9=-% )9& <# 9&9%2J, 2. %. &o. 1+3.46, &ovember D, 1''> 9DC9@ @-2)-&, 5<M9% -%%<J<, 9&%*R?9 2-%C*-, 7*2$9% < -&-D-, #@-2 ,?)-& %*2, S #<?&D- *<& vs. ,<&. %?$9& <%%9S, ,<&. #%-&C*SC< F*%-J, =9 %<&, #*@*=*&-S S,9@@ and C-@ 9Q =,*@*==*&9S, 2.%. &o. 1+>/4>, &ovember D, 1''>. =?&<, 5.

hese petitions !hallenge the !onstitutionality of %epubli! -!t &o. /1/6 entitled :-n -!t Deregulating the Downstream <il *ndustry and for <ther =urposes;. %- /1/6 seeks to end +4 years of government regulation of the downstream oil industry.
he fa!ts: 1. =rior to 1'>1, no government agen!y was regulating the oil industry. &ew players were free to enter the oil market without any government interferen!e. here were four (3A refining !ompanies at that time. S,9@@, C-@ 9Q, $- --& %9#*&*&2 C<)=-&J and #*@<*@ )-%M9 *&2 and si( (4A petroleum marketing !ompanies: 9SS<, #*@<*@, C-@ 9Q, 29 J, )<$*@ and S,9@@" +. *n 1'>1, the !ountry was driven to its knees by the !rippling oil !risis and in order to remedy the same, the <*@ *&D?S %J C<))*SS*<& -C was ena!ted %92?@- *&2 the oil industry " .. <n &ovember ', 1'>., then =resident )ar!os !reated the =hilippine national <il Corporation (=&<CA t break the !ontrol of the foreigners to
163

16D

3.

D. 4.

>.

/. '.

the oil industry. *t a!0uired ownership of 9SS< =hilippines and #iloil and likewise bought !ontrolling shares of the $ataan %efining Corporation. =&<C then operated under the business name =9 %<& C<%=<%- *<& and for the first time, there was a #ilipino presen!e in the =hilippine oil market" *n 1'/3, =res. )ar!os through se!tion / of =D 1'D4 !reated the <*@ =%*C9 S -$*@*O- *<& #?&D (<=S#A to !ushion the effe!ts of fre0uent !hanges in the pri!e of oil !aused by the e(!hange rate ad8ustments or in!rease of the world market pri!es !rude oil and imported petroleum produ!ts" $y 1'/D, only three (.A oil !ompanies were left operating in the !ountry. hese are: C-@ 9Q, #*@*=*&-S S,9@@ and =&<C" *n )ay, 1'/>, =res. CoraGon -0uino signed 9(e!utive <rder &o. 1>+ !reating the 9&9%2J %9?@- <%J $<-%D to regulate the business of importing, e(porting, shipping, transporting, pro!essing, refining, marketing and distributing energy resour!es :7,9& 7-%%-& 9D -&D <&@J 7,9& =?$@*C &9C9SS* J %9R?*%9S;. he $oard was empowered to :fi( and regulate the pri!es of petroleum produ!ts and other related mer!handise" *n )ar!h, 1''4, Congress ena!ted %- /1/6 deregulating the <il *ndustry not later than )ar!h, 1''>. he law re0uires that the implementation of the regulation, shall as far as pra!ti!able be made at a time 7,9& ,9 =%*C9S <# C%?D9 <*@ -&D =9 %<@9?) =%<D?C S *& ,9 7<%@D -%9 D9C@*&*&2 -&D 7,9& ,9 9QC,-&29 %- 9 <# ,9 =9S< *& %9@- *<& < ,9 ?S D<@@-%" *S S -$@9" <n #ebruary /, 1''>, 9(e!utive <rder &o. .>+ was issued by =resident #idel %amos implementing full deregulation <& ,9 2%<?&D ,,9 <=S# #?&D ,-S $99& D9=@9 9D" he petitioners 0uestioned the !onstitutionality of %- /1/6 on the following grounds: a. Se!tion D of %- /1/6 violates the e0ual prote!tion !lause of the Constitution" b. he imposition of different tariff rates does not deregulate the oil industry and even bars the entry of other players in the oil industry but instead effe!tively prote!ts the interest of the oil !ompanies with e(isting refineries. hus, it runs !ounter to the ob8e!tive of the law :to foster a truly !ompetitive market;" he in!lusion of Se!. D BbC providing for tariff differential violates Se!tion +4 B1C of -rt. F* of the 1'/> Constitution whi!h re0uires every law to have only one sub8e!t whi!h should be e(pressed in the title thereof" !. Se!tion 1D of %- /1/6 and 9< &o. .'+ are un!onstitutional for undue delegation of legislative power to the =resident and the Se!retary of 9nergy" d. 9< .'+ implementing the full deregulation of the oil industry is un!onstitutional sin!e it is arbitrary and unreasonable sin!e it was
16D

164

ena!ted due to the alleged depletion of the <=S# fund, a !ondition whi!h is not found in %- &o. /1/6" e. Se!tion 1D of %- /1/6 is un!onstitutional for it allows the formation of a de fa!to !artel among three e(isting oil !ompanies in violation of the Constitution prohibiting against monopolies, !ombination in restraint of trade and unfair !ompetition. he provisions of the law being 0uestioned as un!onstitutional are Se!tion D BbC and Se!tion 1D whi!h provide: E"ection 8 N'O Any la? to t2e contrary not?it2standing and starting ?it2 t2e effectivity of t2is Act, tariff duty s2all 'e imposed and collected on imported crude oil at t2e rate of :Q and imported refined petroleum products at t2e rate of seven 6/Q9 percent, e>cept fuel oil and L#+, t2e rate for ?2ic2 s2all 'e t2e sameB #rovided, t2at 'eginning on January ., 0,,3, t2e tariff rate on imported crude oil and refined petroleum products s2all 'e t2e sameB #rovided, furt2er, t2at t2is provision may 'e amended only 'y an Act of Congress.F ((( E"ection .8. Implementation of full deregulation. #ursuant to "ection 8 NeO of $A /<:;, t2e %OE, upon approval of t2e #resident, implement full deregulation of t2e do?nstream oil industry not later t2an Marc2, .--/. As far as practica'le, t2e %OE s2all time t2e full deregulation ?2en t2e prices of crude oil and petroleum products in t2e ?orld mar@et are declining and ?2en t2e e>c2ange rate of t2e peso in relation to t2e !" dollar is sta'le.F

T%e i77ue7 "reI

5roce)ur"l I77ue7I a. 7hether or not the petitions raise 8usti!iable !ontroversy" and b. 7hether or not the petitioners have the standing to 0uestion the validity of the sub8e!t law and e(e!utive order. Su87#"'#i*e I77ue7: a. 7hether or not Se!tion D of %- /1/6 violates the one titleXone sub8e!t re0uirement of the Constitution" b. 7hether or not Se!tion D of %- /1/6 violates the e0ual prote!tion !lause of the Constitution"
164

16>

!. 7hether se!tion 1D violates the !onstitutional prohibition on undue delegation of legislative power" d. 7hether or not 9< .'+ is arbitrary and unreasonable" and e. 7hether or not %- /1/6 violates the !onstitutional prohibition against monopolies, !ombinations in restraint of trade and unfair !ompetition. ,9@D: 1. 5udi!ial power in!ludes not only the duty of the !ourts to settle !ontroversies involving rights but also the duty to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of dis!retion amounting to la!k or e(!ess of 8urisdi!tion on the part of any agen!y or bran!h of the government. he !ourts, as guardians of the Constitution, have the inherent authority to determine whether a statute ena!ted by the legislature trans!ends the limit imposed by the fundamental law. 7hen the statute violates the Constitution, it is not only the right of the 8udi!iary to de!lare su!h a!t as un!onstitutional and void. +. he 0uestion of lo #" "tandi must likewise fall . -s held in M-=- *%-& &2 )2- &-2@*@*&2M<D S- =-)-,-@--& &2 =*@*=*&-S, *&C. FS. -&, it was held that: :<b8e!tions to ta(payer1s suit for la!k of suffi!ient personality, standing, or interest are , however, in the main pro!edural matters. C<&S*D9%*&2 ,9 *)=<% -&C9 <# ,9 C-S9S < ,9 =?$@*C, -&D *& M99=*&2 7* , ,9 C<?% 1S D? J < D9 9%)*&9 7,9 ,9% <% &< ,9 < ,9% $%-&C,9DS <# 2<F9%&)9& ,-F9 M9= ,9)S9@F9S 7* ,*& ,9 @*)* S <# ,9 C<&S * ? *<& -&D ,9 @-7S -&D ,,9J ,-F9 &< -$?S9 ,9 D*SC%9 *<& 2*F9& < ,9), ,9 C<?% ,-S $%?S,9D -S*D9 9C,&*C-@* *9S <# =%<C9D?%9 -&D ,-S -M9& C<2&*O-&C9 <# ,9S9 =9 * *<&S.;

T%ere i7 'o )i7"&ree$e'# o' #%e p"r# o( #%e p"r#ie7 "7 #o #%e ("rGre"c%i'& i$por#"'ce o( #%e *"li)i#y o( RA 616;. T%u7, #%ere i7 'o &oo) 7e'7e i' 8ei'& %yperG#ec%'ic"l o' #%e 7#"')i'& o( #%e pe#i#io'er7 (or #%ey po7e i77ue7 w%ic% "re 7i&'i(ic"'# #o our people "') w%ic% )e7er*e our (or#%ri&%# re7olu#io'.
.. *t is !ontended that Se!tion DBbB of %- /1/6 on tariff differentials violates the Constitutional prohibition re0uiring every law to have only one sub8e!t whi!h should be e(pressed in its title. 7e do not !on!ur with this !ontention. -s a poli!y, the Court has adopted a liberal !onstru!tion of the one title---one sub8e!t rule. 7e have !onsistently ruled that the title need not mirror, fully inde( or !atalogue all !ontents and minute details of a
16>

16/

law. - law having a single general sub8e!t indi!ated in the title may !ontain a number of provisions, no matter how diverse they may be, so long as they are not in!onsistent with or foreign to the general sub8e!t, and may be !onsidered in furtheran!e of su!h sub8e!t by providing for the method and means of !arrying out the general sub8e!t. 7e hold that Se!tion D providing for tariff differential is germane to the sub8e!t of %/1/6 whi!h is the deregulation of the downstream oil industry. 3. he !ontention that there is undue delegation of legislative power when it authoriGed the =resident to determine when deregulation starts is without merit. he petitioners !laim that the phrases :as far as pra!ti!able;, :de!line of !rude oil pri!es in the world market; and :stability of the peso e(!hange rate to the ?S dollar; are ambivalent, un!lear and in!on!rete in meaning and !ould not therefore provide the :determinate or determinable standards; whi!h !an guide the =resident in his de!ision to fully deregulate the oil industry. he power of Congress to delegate the e(e!ution of laws has long been settled by this Court in 1'14 in the !ase of C<)=-&*- 29&9%-@ D9 -$-C<S D9 #*@*=*&- FS. ,9 $<-%D <# =?$@*C ? *@* J C<))*SS*<&9%S 7,9%9 * 7-S ,9@D ,- : : he true distin!tion is between the delegation of power to make the law , whi!h ne!essarily involves a dis!retion as to what it shall be, and !onferring authority or dis!retion as to its e(e!ution, to be e(er!ised under and in pursuan!e of the law. he first !annot be done" to the latter, no valid ob8e!tion !an be made.; wo tests have been developed to determine whether the delegation of the power to e(e!ute laws does not involve the abdi!ation of the power to make law itself. 7e delineated the metes and bounds of these tests in 9-S 9%) S,*==*&2 @*&9S FS. =<9-, thus: here are two a!!epted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid delegation of legislative power , viG: the !ompleteness test and the suffi!ien!y of standard test. ?nder the first test, the law must be !omplete in all its terms and !onditions when it leaves the legislative su!h that when it rea!hes the delegate, the only thing he will do is enfor!e it. ?nder the suffi!ient standard test, there must be ade0uate guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegate1s authority and prevent the delegation from running riot. $< , 9S S -%9 *& 9&D9D < =%9F9& < -@ %-&S#9%9&C9 <# @92*S@- *F9 -? ,<%* J < ,9 D9@92- 9, 7,< *S &< -@@<79D < S 9= *& < ,9 S,<9S <# ,9 @92*S@- ?%9 -&D 9Q9%C*S9 =<79% 9SS9& *-@@J @92*S@- *F9.;

16/

16'

T%e *"li)i#y o( )ele&"#i'& le&i7l"#i*e power i7 'ow " Cuie# "re" i' our co'7#i#u#io'"l l"')7c"pe 8ec"u7e 7uc% %"7 8eco$e "' i'e*i#"8ili#y i' li&%# o( #%e i'cre"7i'& co$ple@i#y o( #%e #"7L o( &o*er'$e'#. I' ("c#, i' HIRA4AYASHI VS. 3-ITE/ STATES, #%e Supre$e Cour# #%rou&% Ju7#ice ISA:A-I CR3> %el) #%"# Be*e' i( #%e l"w )oe7 'o# e@pre77ly pi'poi'# #%e 7#"')"r), THE CO3RTS 0ILL 4E-/ 4ACF0AR/ TO LOCATE THE SAME ELSE0HERE I- OR/ER TO S5ARE THE STAT3TE+ I. IT CA-, .ROM CO-STIT3TIO-AL I-.IRMITY.D
D. 9< &o. .'+ failed to follow faithfully the standards set by %- /1/6 when it !onsidered the e(traneous fa!tor of depletion of the <=S# #und. he misappli!ation of this e(tra fa!tor !annot be 8ustified. he e(e!utive is bereft of any right to alter either by addition or subtra!tion the standards set by %- /1/6 for it has no power to make laws. o !ede to the e(e!utive the power to make laws would invite tyranny and to transgress the separation of powers. he e(er!ise of delegated power is given a stri!t s!rutiny by !ourts for the delegate is a mere agent whose a!tion !annot infringe the terms of the agen!y. 4. Se!tion 1' of -rti!le Q** of the Constitution provides: : he state shall regulate or prohibit monopolies when the publi! interests so re0uires. &o !ombinations in restraint of trade or unfair !ompetition shall be allowed.; - monopoly is a privilege or pe!uliar advantage vested in one or more persons or !ompanies, !onsisting of the e(!lusive right or power to !arry on a parti!ular business or trade, manufa!ture a parti!ular arti!le or !ontrol the sale or the whole market stru!ture in whi!h one or only a few firms dominate the total sales of a produ!t or servi!e. <n the other hand, a !ombination in restraint of trade is an agreement or understanding between two or more persons, in the form of !ontra!t, trust, pool, holding !ompany, for the purpose of unduly restri!ting !ompetition, monopoliGing trade and !ommer!e in a !ertain !ommodity, !ontrolling its produ!tion, distribution and pri!e or otherwise interfering with freedom of trade without statutory authority. Combination in restraint of trade refers to means while monopoly refers to the end. %espondents aver that the 3Y tariff differential is designed to en!ourage new entrants to invest in refineries. hey stress that the inventory re0uirement is meant to guaranty !ontinuous domesti! supply of petroleum and to dis!ourage fly-by-night operators. hey also !laim that
16'

116

the prohibition against predatory pri!ing is intended to prote!t prospe!tive entrants. he validity of the assailed provisions of %- /1/6 has to be de!ided in the light of the letter and spirit of Se!tion 1', -rt. Q** of the Constitution. 7hile the Constitution embra!ed free enterprise as an e!onomi! !reed, it did not prohibit per se the operation of monopolies whi!h !an, however, be regulated in the publi! interest. his distin!t free enterprise system is di!tated by the need to a!hieve the goals of our national e!onomy as defined under Se!tion 1, -rt. Q** of the Constitution whi!h are: more e0uitable distribution of opportunities, in!ome and wealth" a sustained in!rease in the amount of goods and servi!es produ!ed by the nation for all, espe!ially the underprivileged . *t also !alls for the State to prote!t #ilipino enterprises against unfair and trades pra!ti!es. he provisions on 3Y tariff differential, predatory pri!ing and inventory re0uirement blo!ks the entry of other players and give undue advantage to the . oil !ompanies resulting to monopolies or unfair !ompetition. his is so be!ause it would take billions for new players to !onstru!t refineries, and to have big inventories. his would effe!tively prevent new players. *n the !ase at bar, it !annot be denied that our oil industry is operated and !ontrolled by an oligopoly (dominated by a handful of playersA and a foreign oligopoly at that. -s the dominant players, S,9@@, C-@ 9Q P =9 %<& boast of e(isting refineries of various !apa!ities. he tariff differential of 3Y works to their immense advantage. Jet, this is only one edge on tariff differential. ,9 < ,9% 9D29 C? S -&D C? S D99= *& ,9 ,9-% <# ,9*% C<)=9 * <%S. * 9%9C S ,*2, $-%%*9%S < &9 =@-J9%S. &ew players in order to e0ualiGe must build their refineries worth billions of pesos. hose without refineries had to !ompete with a higher !ost of 3Y. hey will be !ompeting on an uneven field. he provision on inventory widens the advantage of =9 %<&, S,9@@ -&D C-@ 9Q against prospe!tive new players. he three (.A !ould easily !omply with the inventory re0uirement in view of their numerous storage fa!ilities. =rospe!tive !ompetitors again find !omplian!e oft his re0uirement diffi!ult be!ause of prohibitive !ost in !onstru!ting new storage fa!ilities. he net effe!t would be to effe!tively prohibit the entran!e of new players. &ow !omes the prohibition on predatory pri!ing or :selling or offering to sell any produ!t at a pri!e unreasonably below the industry average !ost so as to attra!t !ustomers to the detriment of the !ompetitors;. -!!ording to ,<F9&M-)=:

116

111

: he rationale for predatory pri!ing is the sustaining of losses today that will give a firm monopoly profits in the future. he monopoly profits will never materialiGe, however, if the market is flooded with new entrants as soon as the su!!essful predator attempts to raise its pri!e. =redatory pri!ing will be profitable only if the market !ontains signifi!ant barriers to new entry.; Coupled with the 3Y tariff differential and the inventory re0uirement, the predatory pri!ing is a signifi!ant barrier whi!h dis!ourage new players to enter the oil market thereby promoting unfair !ompetition, monopoly and restraint of trade whi!h are prohibited by the Constitution. +-d.@-CS<& FS. S-&D*2-&$-J-&, 5anuary +6, 1''' .. a(i!ab <perators vs. $< , September .6,l'/+ 3. $autista vs. 5uinio,1+> SC%- .+' D. Dumlao vs. C<)9@9C, 'D SC%- .'+ 4. Fillegas vs. ,iu, /4 SC%- +>6 >. CeniGa vs. C<)9@9C, 'D SC%- >4. /. ?&*D< vs. C<)9@9C, 163 SC%- ./ '. &uneG vs. Sandiganbayan, 111 SC%- 3..(%ead also the dissenting opinion of 5usti!e )akasiar 16. Sison vs. -n!heta, 1.6 SC%- 4D3 11. CitiGens Surety vs. =uno, 11' SC%- +14 1+. =eralta vs. C<)9@9C, /+ SC%- .6 1.. ,awaiian-=hil. Co. vs. -so!ia!ion, 1D1 SC%- .64 13. <rmo! Sugar Co. vs. <rmo! City, ++ SC%- 46. 1D. #lores vs. C<)9@9C, 1/3 SC%- 3/3 CHA5TER IV G THE SEARCH A-/ SEI>3RE 5ROVISIO-

"ection 0. &2e rig2t of t2e people to 'e secure in t2eir persons, 2ouses, papers and effects against unreasona'le searc2es and sei5ures of ?2atever nature and for any purpose s2all 'e inviola'le, and no searc2 ?arrant or ?arrant of arrest s2all issue e>cept upon pro'a'le cause to 'e determined personally 'y t2e =udge after e>amination under oat2 or affirmation of t2e complainant and t2e ?itnesses 2e may produce, and particularly descri'ing t2e place to 'e searc2ed and t2e persons or t2ings to 'e sei5ed. &< 9: -ppli!able provisions of the ,uman Se!urity -!tE-ntierrorism @aw, %epubli! -!t &o. '.>+, -pproved on )ar!h 4, +66> and effe!tive on 5uly 1D, +66> ( his @aw shall be
111

11+

automati!ally suspended one (1A month before and two (+A months after the holding of any ele!tionA 3e . 18. =eriod of detention without 8udi!ial warrant of arrest.- he provisions of -rti!le 1+D of the %evised =enal Code, notwithstanding, any poli!e or law enfor!ement personnel, w%o, %"*i'& 8ee' )uly "u#%oriJe) i' wri#i'& 8y #%e A'#iGTerrori7$ Cou'cil has taken !ustody of a person !harged with or suspe!ted of the !rime of terrorism or the !rime of !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism shall, 7* ,<? *&C?%%*&2 -&J C%*)*&-@ @*-$*@* J #<% D9@-J *& ,9 D9@*F9%J <# D9 -*&9D =9%S<&S < ,9 =%<=9% 5?D*C*-@ -? ,<%* *9S, D9@*F9% S-*D C,-%29D <% S?S=9C 9D =9%S<& < ,9 =%<=9% 5?D*C*-@ -? ,<%* J 7* ,*& - =9%*<D <# ,%99 (.A D-JS !ounted from the moment said !harged or suspe!ted person has been apprehended or arrested, detained, and taken into !ustody by the said poli!e, or law enfor!ement personnel: =rovided, hat the arrest of those suspe!ted of the !rime of terrorism or !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism must result from the surveillan!e under Se!tion > and e(amination of bank deposits under Se!tion +> pf this -!t. he poli!e or law enfor!ement personnel !on!erned shall, before detaining the person suspe!ted of the !rime of terrorism, present him or her before any 8udge at the latter1s residen!e or offi!e nearest the pla!e where the arrest took pla!e at any time of the day or night. *t shall be the duty of the 8udge, among other things, to as!ertain the identity of the poli!e or law enfor!ement personnel and the person or persons they have arrested and presented before him or her, to in0uire of them the reasons why they have arrested the person and determine by 0uestioning and personal observation whether or not the sub8e!t has been sub8e!ted to any physi!al, moral or psy!hologi!al torture by whom and why. he 8udge shall then submit a written report of what heEshe had observed when the sub8e!t was brought before him to the proper !ourt that has 8urisdi!tion over the !ase of the person thus arrested. he 8udge shall forthwith submit his report within . !alendar days from the time the suspe!t was brought to hisEher residen!e or offi!e. *mmediately after taking !ustody of a person !harged with or suspe!ted of the !rime of terrorism or !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism, the poli!e or law enfor!ement personnel shall notify in writing the 8udge of the !ourt nearest the pla!e of apprehension or arrest" provided, hat where the arrest is made during Saturdays,
11+

11.

Sundays, holidays or after offi!e hours, the written noti!e shall be served at the residen!e of the 8udge nearest the pla!e where the a!!used was arrested. he penalty of 16 years and 1 day to 1+ years imprisonment shall be imposed upon the poli!e or law enfor!ement personnel who fails to notify any 8udge as provided in the pre!eding paragraph. 3e tion 1@. =eriod of Detention in the event of an a!tual or imminent terrorist atta!k.- *n the vent of an a!tual or imminent terrorist atta!k,, suspe!ts may not be detained for more than three days without the written approval of a muni!ipal, !ity, provin!ial or regional offi!ial of a ,uman %ights Commission, or 8udge of the muni!ipal, regional trial !ourt, the Sandiganbayan or a 8usti!e of the Court of -ppeals nearest the pla!e of arrest. *f the arrest is made during Saturdays, Sundays or holidays, or after offi!e hours, the arresting poli!e of law enfor!ement personnel shall bring the person thus arrested to the residen!e of any of the offi!ials mentioned above that is nearest the pla!e where the a!!used was arrested. he approval in writing of any of the said offi!ials shall be se!ured by the poli!e or law enfor!ement personnel !on!erned within five days after the date of the detention of the persons !on!erned" =rovided, however, hat within three days after the detention the suspe!ts whose !onne!tion with the terror atta!k or threat is not established, shall be released immediately. 3e tion 28 provides that persons who have been !harged with terrorism or !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism---even if they have been granted bail be!ause eviden!e of guilt is not strongX!an be: Detained under house arrest" %estri!ted from traveling" andEor =rohibited from using any !ellular phones, !omputers, or other means of !ommuni!ations with people outside their residen!e. Se!tion .'. SeiGure and Se0uestration.- he deposits and their outstanding balan!es, pla!ements, trust a!!ounts, assets, and re!ords in any bank or finan!ial institution, moneys, businesses, transportation and !ommuni!ation e0uipment, supplies and other implements, and property of whatever kind and nature belonging: o any person !harged with or suspe!ted of the !rime of terrorism or !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism" to a 8udi!ially de!lared and outlawed terrorist organiGation or group of persons"
11.

113

to a member of su!h 8udi!ially de!lared and outlawed organiGation, asso!iation or group of persons, -shall be seiGed, se0uestered, and froGen in order to prevent their use, transfer or !onveyan!e for purposes that are inimi!al to the safety and se!urity of the people or in8urious to the interest of the State. he a!!used or suspe!t may withdraw su!h sums as are reasonably needed by his family in!luding the servi!es of his !ounsel and his family1s medi!al needs upon approval of the !ourt. ,e or she may also use any of his property that is under seiGure or se0uestration or froGen be!ause of hisEher indi!tment as a terrorist upon permission of the !ourt for any legitimate reason. Sec#io' 2;. he seiGed, se0uestered and froGen bank depositsV shall be deemed property held in trust by the bank or finan!ial institution and that their use or disposition while the !ase is pending shall be sub8e!t to the approval of the !ourt before whi!h the !ase or !ases are pending. Sec#io' 21. *f the person suspe!ted as terrorist is a!0uitted after arraignment or his !ase dismissed before his arraignment by a !ompetent !ourt, the seiGureVshall be lifted by the investigating body or the !ompetent !ourt and restored to him without delay. he filing of an appeal or motion for re!onsideration shall not stay the release of said funds from seiGure, se0uestration and freeGing. *f !onvi!ted, said seiGed, se0uestered and froGen assets shall automati!ally forfeited in favor of the government.

%e0uisites of a valid sear!h warrant %ead: a. 9ssentials of a valid sear!h warrant,13D SC%>.'

b. Falidity of a sear!h warrant and the admissibility of eviden!e obtained in violation thereof. !. he pla!e to be sear!hed as indi!ated in the warrant is !ontrolling #EO#LE *". CA, 0-. "C$A 3,,

&arvasa, C5
113

11D

*n applying for a sear!h warrant, the poli!e offi!ers had in their mind the first four (3A separate apartment units at the rear of -$*2-*@ F-%*9 J S <%9 in RueGon City to be the sub8e!t of their sear!h. he same was not, however, what the 5udge who issued the warrant had in mind, -&D 7-S &< 7,- 7-S ?@ *)- 9@J D9SC%*$9D *& ,9 S9-%C, 7-%%-& . -s su!h, any eviden!e obtained from the pla!e sear!hed whi!h is different from that indi!ated in the sear!h warrant is inadmissible in eviden!e for any purpose and in any pro!eeding. his is so be!ause it is neither li!it nor fair to allow poli!e offi!ers to sear!h a pla!e different from that stated in the warrant on the !laim that the pla!e a!tually sear!hed---although not that spe!ified in the sear!h warrant---is e(a!tly what they had in view when they applied for the warrant and had demar!ated in their supporting eviden!e. 7,- *S )- 9%*-@ *& D9 9%)*&*&2 ,9 F-@*D* J <# - S9-%C, *S ,9 =@-C9 S - 9D *& ,9 7-%%-& * S9@#, &< 7,- ,9 -==@*C-& S ,-D *& ,9*% ,<?2, S, <% ,-D %9=%9S9& 9D *& ,9 =%<<#S ,9J S?$)* 9D < ,9 C<?% *SS?*&2 ,9 7-%%-& . -s su!h, it was not 8ust a !ase of :obvious typographi!al error;, but a !lear !ase of a sear!h of a pla!e different from that !learly and without ambiguity identified in the sear!h warrant. &< 9: Fery *mportant: 7here a sear!h warrant is issued by one !ourt and the !riminal a!tion base don the results of the sear!h is afterwards !ommen!ed in another !ourt, * *S &< ,9 %?@9 ,- )< *<& < R?-S, ,9 7-%%-& (or to retrieve the things seiGedA )-J $9 #*@9D <&@J *& ,9 *SS?*&2 C<?% ---S?C, )< *<& )-J $9 #*@9D #<% ,9 #*%S *)9 *& 9* ,9% ,9 *SS?*&2 C<?% <% ,*& 7,*C, ,9 C%*)*&-@ =%<C99D*&2 *S =9&D*&2. d. Falidity of a warrantless sear!h and seiGure as a result of an informer1s tip. &ote the two (+A !onfli!ting de!isions of the Supreme Court. 5EO5LE VS. AR3TA, 966 SCRA 696 <n De!ember 1., 1'//, =E@t. -bello of the <longapo =&= was tipped off by an informer that -ling %osa would be arriving from $aguio City the following day with a large volume of mari8uana. -s a result of the tip, the poli!emen waited for a Fi!tory $us from $aguio City near the =&$ <longapo, near %iGal -ve. 7hen the a!!used got off, she was pointed to by the informer. She was !arrying a traveling bag at that time. She was not a!ting suspi!iously. She was arrested without a warrant.

11D

114

he bag allegedly !ontained /.D kilos of mari8uana. -fter trial, she was !onvi!ted and imposed a penalty of life imprisonment. *ssue: 7hether or not the mari8uana allegedly taken from the a!!used is admissible in eviden!e. ,eld: 7arrantless sear!h is allowed in the following instan!es: 1. +. .. 3. D. 4. !ustoms sear!hes" sear!hes of moving vehi!le" seiGure of eviden!e in plain view" !onsented sear!hes" sear!h in!idental to a lawful arrest" and stop and frisk measures. he above e(!eptions to the re0uirement of a sear!h warrant, however, should not be!ome unbridled li!enses for law enfor!ement offi!ers to trample upon the !onditionally guaranteed and more fundamental right of persons against unreasonable sear!h and seiGures. he essential re0uisite of probable !ause must still be satisfied before a warrantless sear!h and seiGure !an be lawfully !ondu!ted. *n order that the information re!eived by the poli!e offi!ers may be suffi!ient to be the basis of probable !ause, it must be based on reasonable ground of suspi!ion or belief a !rime has been !ommitted or is about to be !ommitted. he mari8uana obtained as a result of a warrantless sear!h is inadmissible as eviden!e for the following reasons: a. the poli!emen had suffi!ient time to apply for a sear!h warrant but they failed to do so" b. the a!!used was not a!ting suspi!iously" !. the a!!used1s identity was previously as!ertained so applying for a warrant should have been easy" d. the a!!used in this !ase was sear!hed while inno!ently !rossing a street Conse0uently, there was no legal basis for the poli!e to effe!t a warrantless sear!h of the a!!used1s bag, there being no probable !ause and the a!!used1s not having been legally arrested. he arrest was made only after the a!!used was pointed to by the informant at a time when she was not doing anything suspi!ious. he arresting offi!ers do not have personal knowledge that the a!!used was !ommitting a !rime at that time.
114

11>

Sin!e there was no valid warrantless arrest, it logi!ally follows that the subse0uent sear!h is similarly illegal, it being not in!idental to a lawful arrest. his is so be!ause if a sear!h is first undertaken, and an arrest effe!ted based on the eviden!e produ!ed by the sear!h, both su!h sear!h and arrest would be unlawful, for being !ontrary to law. his !ase is similar tot he !ase of =9<=@9 FS. -)*&&?D*&, and =9<=@9 FS. 9&C*&-D-. 5EO5LE VS. MO-TILLA, 962 SCRA ;3 <n 5une 1', 1''3, at about + p.m., S=<1 alingting and S=<1 Clarin of the Dasmarinas, Cavite =&= were informed by an *&#<%)9% that a drug !ourier would be arriving in $arangay Salitran, Dasmarinas, Cavite, from $aguio City, with an undetermined amount of mari8uana. he informer likewise informed them that he !ould re!ogniGe said person. -t about 3 in the morning of 5une +6, 1''3, the appellant was arrested by the above-named poli!e offi!ers while alighting from a passenger 8eepney near a waiting shed in Salitran, Dasmarinas, Cavite, upon being pointed to by the informer. he poli!emen re!overed +/ kilos of dried mari8uana leaves. he arrest was without warrant. he trial !ourt !onvi!ted the appellant for transporting mari8uana based on the testimonies of the -bove-named poli!e offi!ers without presenting the alleged informer. *ssue: 7as the warrantless arrest validN ,eld: he a!!used !laims that the warrantless sear!h and seiGure is illegal be!ause the alleged information was re!eived by the poli!e on 5une 1', 1''3 and therefore, they !ould have applied for a sear!h warrant. he said !ontention is without merit !onsidering that the information given by the informer is too sket!hy and not detailed enough for the obtention of the !orresponding arrest or sear!h warrant. 7hile there is indi!ation that the informer knows the !ourier, the re!ords do not show that he knew his name. <n bare information, the poli!e !ould not have se!ured a warrant from a 8udge. #urthermore, warrantless sear!h is allowed in the following instan!es:
11>

11/

1. +. .. 3. D. 4.

!ustoms sear!hes" sear!hes of moving vehi!le" seiGure of eviden!e in plain view" !onsented sear!hes" sear!h in!idental to a lawful arrest" and stop and frisk measures. Sin!e the a!!used was arrested for transporting mari8uana, the subse0uent sear!h on his person is 8ustified. -n arresting offi!er has the right to validly sear!h and seiGe from the offender (1A dangerous weapons" and (+A those that may be used as proof of the !ommission of the offense. *n the !ase at bar, upon being pointed to by the informer as the drug !ourier, the poli!emen re0uested the a!!used to open and show them the !ontents of his bag and the !artoon he was !arrying and he voluntarily opened the same and upon !ursory inspe!tion, it was found out that it !ontains mari8uana. ,en!e the arrest. he a!!used insists that it is normal for a person traveling with a bag and !artoon whi!h should not eli!it the slightest suspi!ion that he was !ommitting a !rime. *n short, there was no probable !ause for this poli!emen to think that he was !ommitting a !rime. he said !ontention was !onsidered without merit by the Supreme Court !onsidering the fa!t that he !onsented to the sear!h as well as the fa!t that the informer was a reliable one who had supplied similar information to the poli!e in the past whi!h proved positive. (&< 9: he SC held that the non-presentation of the informer does not affe!t the !ase for the prose!ution be!ause he is not even the best witness. ,e is merely a !orroborative witness to the arresting offi!ers. A 5?S *C9 =-&2-&*$-&: o say that :reliable tips; from informers !onstitute probable !ause for a warrantless arrest or sear!h *S - D-&29%<?S =%9C9D9& -&D =@-C9S *& 2%9- 59<=-%DJ ,9 D<C %*&9S @-*D D<7& *& )-&J D9C*S*<&S )-D9 $J ,*S C<?% . (=9<=@9 FS. $?%2<S, 133 SC%- 1" =9<=@9 FS. -)*&&?D*&, 14. SC%- 36+" =9<=@9 FS. 9&C*&-D-, <!tober +, 1''>" =9<=@9 FS. )9&2< 9, ++6 SC%-A. he !ase is similar to the !ase of =eople vs. 9n!imada where the appellant was sear!hed without a warrant while disembarking from a ship on the strength of a tip from an informer re!eived by the poli!e the
11/

11'

previous afternoon that the appellant would be transporting prohibited drugs. he sear!h yielded a plasti! pa!kage !ontaining mari8uana. <n -ppeal, the SC reversed the de!ision of !onvi!tion and held that 9n!inada did not manifest any suspi!ious behavior that would ne!essarily and reasonably invite the attention of the poli!e. 7arrantless -rrest, sear!h and seiGure in :buy-bust operations;. 5EO5LE O. THE 5HILI55I-ES VS. S5O3 SA-:FI ARA, e# "l., :.R. -o. 161;11, /ece$8er 93, 9;;9 VELASCO, JR., J.I his is an appeal from the De!ember 1., +66> De!ision of the Court of -ppeals (C-A in C--2.%. C%-,.C. &o. 666+D$ entitled #eople of t2e #2ilippines v. "#O: "ang@i Ara y Mirasol, Mi@e &ali' y Mama, Jordan Musa y ayan, whi!h affirmed the De!ision of the %egional rial Court (% CA, $ran!h ' in Davao City, !onvi!ting a!!used-appellants of violation of %epubli! -!t &o. (%-A '14D or the Compre2ensive %angerous %rugs Act of 0,,0. T%e ."c#7 Cri$i'"l C"7e -o. 11,2 1G9;;9 "&"i'7# Ar" hat on or about De!ember +6, +66+, in the City of Davao, =hilippines and within the 8urisdi!tion of this ,onorable Court, the above-named a!!used, without being authoriGed by law, willfully, unlawfully and !ons!iously traded, transported and delivered +4.4D4. grams of )ethamphetamine ,ydro!hloride or :shabu,; whi!h is a dangerous drug, with the aggravating !ir!umstan!e of trading, transporting and delivering said +4.4D4. grams of :shabu; within 166 meters from BtheC s!hool St. =eter1s College of oril, Davao City. C<& %-%J < @-7. During their arraignment, a!!used-appellants all gave a :not guilty; plea. Ver7io' o( #%e 5ro7ecu#io' *n the morning of De!ember +6, +66+, a !onfidential informant (C*A !ame to the ,einous Crime *nvestigation Se!tion (,C*SA of the Davao City =oli!e Department and reported that three (.A suspe!ted drug pushers had !onta!ted him for a deal involving si( (4A plasti! sa!hets of s2a'u. ,e was instru!ted to go that
11'

1+6

same morning to St. =eter1s College at oril, Davao City and look for an orange &issan Sentra !ar. =oli!e Chief *nspe!tor #ulgen!io =avo, Sr. immediately formed a buy-bust team !omposed of S=<. %eynaldo Capute, S=<3 )ario 2alendeG, S=<. -ntonio $alolong, S=<+ -rturo @as!aTos, S=<+ 5im an, S=<1 %iGalino -0uino, S=<1 $ienvenido #urog, =<+ Fiven!io 5umawan, 5r., =<+ %onald @ao, and =<1 9nri0ue -yao, 5r., who would a!t as poseur-buyer. he team pro!eeded to the s!hool where =<1 -yao and the C* waited by the gate. -t around /:3D a.m., an orange &issan Sentra bearing plate number ?2% D16 stopped in front of them. he two men approa!hed the vehi!le and the C* talked briefly with an old man in the front seat. =<1 -yao was then told to get in the ba!k seat as a!!used-appellant )ike alib opened the door. he old man, later identified as a!!used-appellant S=<. -ra, asked =<1 -yao if he had the money and the latter replied in the positive. -ra took out several sa!hets with !rystalline granules from his po!ket and handed them to =<1 -yao, who thereupon gave the pre-arranged signal of opening the !ar door. he driver of the !ar, later identified as a!!used-appellant 5ordan )usa, tried to drive away but =<1 -yao was able to swit!h off the !ar engine in time. he ba!k-up team appeared and S=<1 #urog held on to )usa while =<+ @ao restrained alib. =<1 -yao then asked -ra to get out of the vehi!le. %e!overed from the group were plasti! sa!hets of white !rystalline substan!e: si( (4A big sa!hets, weighing +4.4D4. grams, from -ra by =<1 -yao" five (DA big sa!hets, weighing 13.+'.4 grams, from )usa by S=<1 #urog" and a small sa!het, weighing 6..DD' gram, from alib by =<+ @ao. he three suspe!ts were brought to the ,C*S and the seiGed items indorsed to the =hilippine &ational =oli!e (=&=A Crime @aboratory for e(amination. #orensi! Chemist -ustero, who !ondu!ted the e(amination, found that the !onfis!ated sa!hets all tested positive for s2a'u. Ver7io' o( #%e /e(e'7e he defense offered the sole testimony of -ra, who said that he had been a member of the =&= for .+ years, with a spotless re!ord. <n De!ember +6, +66+, S=<. -ra was in Cotabato City, at the house of his daughter )arilyn, wife of his !o-a!!used )usa. ,e was set to go that day to the <mbudsman1s Davao City offi!e for some paperwork in preparation for his retirement on 5uly /, +66.. ,e re!ounted e(pe!ting at least =h= 1.4 million in retirement benefits. 9arly that morning, past three o1!lo!k, he and )usa headed for Davao City on board the latter1s !ar. -s he was feeling weak, -ra slept in the ba!k seat.

1+6

1+1

?pon rea!hing Davao City, he was surprised to see another man, )ike alib, in the front seat of the !ar when he woke up. )usa e(plained that alib had hit!hed a ride on a bridge they had passed. 7hen they arrived in oril, -ra noti!ed the !ar to be overheating, so they stopped. -ra did not know that they were near St. =eter1s College sin!e he was not familiar with the area. alib alighted from the !ar and -ra transferred to the front seat. 7hile alib was getting into the ba!k seat, =<1 -yao !ame out of nowhere, pointed his .3D !aliber pistol at -ra even if he was not doing anything, and ordered him to get off the vehi!le. ,e saw that guns were also pointed at his !ompanions. -s the group were being arrested, he told =<1 -yao that he was also a poli!e offi!er. -ra insisted that he was not holding anything and that the s2a'u taken from him was planted. ,e asserted that the only time he saw s2a'u was on television. T%e Ruli'& o( #%e Tri"l Cour# he dispositive portion of the % C De!ision reads: 7,9%9#<%9, premised on the foregoing the Court finds the following: *n Criminal Case &o. D1,3>1-+66+, the a!!used herein S-&2M* -%- J )-S<@, #ilipino, DD years old, widower, a resident of Mabuntalan, Cotabato City, is hereby found 2?*@ J beyond reasonable doubt, and is C<&F*C 9D of the !rime of violation of Se!. D, 1st paragraph of %epubli! -!t '14D. ,e is hereby imposed the D9- , =9&-@ J and #*&9 of 9& )*@@*<& =9S<S (=h= 16,666,666A with all the a!!essory penalties !orresponding thereto, in!luding absolute perpetual dis0ualifi!ation from any publi! offi!e, in view of the provision of se!tion +/ of %- '14D 0uoted above. Sin!e the prose!ution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the !rime was !ommitted in the area whi!h is only five (DA to si( (4A meters away from the s!hool, the provision of se!tion D paragraph . -rti!le ** of %- '14D was applied in the imposition of the ma(imum penalty against the herein a!!used. *n Criminal Case &o. D1,3>+-+66+, the a!!used herein )*M9 -@*$ y )-)-, #ilipino, of legal age, single and a resident of =arang, Cotabato, is found 2?*@ J beyond reasonable doubt, and is C<&F*C 9D of the !rime of violation of Se!. 11, .rd paragraph, -rti!le ** of %epubli! -!t '14D. ,e is hereby imposed a penalty of *mprisonment of S*Q 99& (14A J9-%S and

1+1

1++

a fine of ,%99 ,?&D%9D ,<?S-&D =9S<S (=h= .66,666A with all the a!!essory penalties !orresponding thereto. *n Criminal Case &o. D1,3>.-+66+ the a!!used herein 5<%D-& )?S- J $-J-&, #ilipino, .6 years old, married and a resident of Cotabato City, is hereby found 2?*@ J beyond reasonable doubt and is C<&F*C 9D of the !rime for Fiolation of Se!. 11, 1st paragraph, -rti!le ** of %epubli! -!t &o. '14D. ,e is hereby senten!ed to suffer a penalty of @*#9 *)=%*S<&)9& and #*&9 of #<?% ,?&D%9D ,<?S-&D =9S<S (=h= 366,666A with all the a!!essory penalties !orresponding thereto. S< <%D9%9D. -s the death penalty was imposed on -ra, the !ase went on automati! review before this Court. Conformably with #eople v. Mateo, we, however, ordered the transfer of the !ase to the C-. T%e I77ue 7hether the Court of -ppeals erred in holding that the arrest of the a!!used-appellants was valid based on the affidavits of the !omplaining witnesses 0"rr"'#le77 Arre7# "') SeiJure V"li) *n !alling for their a!0uittal, a!!used-appellants de!ry their arrest without probable !ause and the violation of their !onstitutional rights. hey !laim that the buy-bust team had more than a month to apply for an arrest warrant yet failed to do so. <wing to the spe!ial !ir!umstan!es surrounding the drug trade, a buy-bust operation has long been held as a legitimate method of !at!hing offenders. *t is a form of entrapment employed as an effe!tive way of apprehending a !riminal in the a!t of !ommission of an offense. 7e have ruled that a buy-bust operation !an be !arried out after a long period of planning. he period of planning for su!h operation !annot be di!tated to the poli!e authorities who are to undertake su!h operation. *t is unavailing then to argue that the operatives had to first se!ure a warrant of arrest given that the ob8e!tive of the operation was to apprehend the a!!used-appellants in flagrante delicto. *n fa!t, one of the situations !overed by a lawful warrantless arrest under Se!tion D(aA, %ule 11. of the %ules of Court is when a person has !ommitted, is a!tually !ommitting, or is attempting to !ommit an offense in the presen!e of a pea!e offi!er or private person. *t is erroneous as well to argue that there was no probable !ause to arrest a!!used-appellants. =robable !ause, in warrantless sear!hes, must only be based
1++

1+.

on reasonable ground of suspi!ion or belief that a !rime has been !ommitted or is about to be !ommitted. here is no hard and fast rule or fi(ed formula for determining probable !ause, for its determination varies a!!ording to the fa!ts of ea!h !ase. =robable !ause was provided by information gathered from the C* and from a!!used-appellants themselves when they instru!ted =<1 -yao to enter their vehi!le and begin the transa!tion. he illegal sale of s2a'u inside a!!usedappellants1 vehi!le was afterwards !learly established. hus, as we have previously held, the arresting offi!ers were 8ustified in making the arrests as a!!used-appellants had 8ust !ommitted a !rime when -ra sold s2a'u to =<1 -yao. alib and )usa were also frisked for !ontraband as it may be logi!ally inferred that they were also part of -ra1s drug a!tivities inside the vehi!le. his inferen!e was further strengthened by )usa1s attempt to drive the vehi!le away and elude arrest. )oreover, the trial !ourt !orre!tly denied the )otion to Suppress or 9(!lude 9viden!e. 7e need not reiterate that the eviden!e was not e(!luded sin!e the buy-bust operation was shown to be a legitimate form of entrapment. he pie!es of eviden!e thus seiGed therein were admissible. -s the appellate !ourt noted, it was within legal bounds and no anomaly was found in the !ondu!t of the buy-bust operation. here is, therefore, no basis for the assertion that the trial !ourt1s order denying said motion was biased and !ommitted with grave abuse of dis!retion. ELI L3I, ET AL. VS. MATILLA-O, M"y 9 , 9;;2

%ight against unreasonable sear!hes and seiGures" )ission <rder does not authoriGe an illegal sear!h. 7aiver of the right against an unreasonable sear!h and seiGure.
*n sear!h of the allegedly missing amount of =3D,666.66 owned by the employer, the residen!e of a relative of the suspe!t was for!ibly open by the authorities by ki!king the kit!hen door to gain entry into the house. hereafter, they !onfis!ated different personal properties therein whi!h were allegedly part of those stolen from the employer. hey were in possession of a mission order but later on !laimed that the owner of the house gave his !onsent to the warrantless sear!h. -re the things admissible in eviden!eN Can they be sued for damages as a result of the said warrantless sear!h and seiGureN ,eld: he right against unreasonable sear!hes and seiGures is a personal right whi!h may be waived e(pressly or impliedly. $? - 7-*F9% $J *)=@*C- *<& C-&&< $9 =%9S?)9D. here must be !lear and
1+.

1+3

!onvin!ing eviden!e of an a!tual intention to relin0uish the right. here must be proof of the following: a. that the right e(ists" b. that the person involved had knowledge, either !onstru!tive or a!tual, of the e(isten!e of said right" !. that the said person had an a!tual intention to relin0uish the right. #inally, the waiver must be made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently in order that the said is to be valid. he sear!h was therefore held illegal and the members of the sear!hing party held liable for damages in a!!ordan!e with the do!trine laid down in @im vs. =on!e de @eon and ),= 2arments vs. C-. e. 2eneral or roving warrants %ead: 1. Stonehill vs. Diokno,5une 1',1'4> Con!ep!ion, C.5. he petitioners are 0uestioning the validity of a total of 3+ sear!h warrants issued on different dates against them and the !orporations in whi!h they are offi!ers, dire!ting the pea!e offi!er to sear!h the persons above-named andEor the premises of their offi!es, warehouses and to seiGe and take possession of the following personal property, to wit: H$ooks of a!!ounts, finan!ial re!ords, vou!hers, !orresponden!e, re!eipts, ledgers, 8ournals, typewriters and other do!uments or papers showing all business transa!tions in!luding disbursement re!eipts, balan!e sheets and profit and loss statementsH sin!e they are the sub8e!t of the offense of violating the C9& %-@ $-&M @-7S, -%*## -&D C?S <)S @-7S, *& 9%&-@ %9F9&?9 C<D9 -&D ,9 %9F*S9D =9&-@ C<D9. he petitioners !laim that the sear!h warrants are void being violative of the Constitutional provision on sear!h and seiGure on the ground that: a. he sear!h warrants did not parti!ularly des!ribe the do!uments, books and things to be seiGed" b. !ash money not mentioned in the warrant were a!tually seiGed"
1+3

1+D

!. he warrants were issued to fish eviden!e in the deportation !ases against them" d. the sear!hes and seiGures were made in an illegal manner" e. the things seiGed were not delivered to the !ourt to be disposed of in a manner provided for by law. I77ueI 7ere the sear!hes and seiGures made in the offi!es and residen!es of the petitioners validN a. -s to the sear!hes made on their offi!es, they !ould not 0uestion the same in their personal !apa!ities be!ause the !orporations have a personality separate and distin!t with its offi!ers. -n ob8e!tion to an unlawful sear!h and seiGure *S =?%9@J =9%S<&-@ -&D C-&&< $9 -F-*@9D <# $J ,*%D =-% *9S. C<&S9R?9& @J, ,9 =9 * *<&9%S )-J &< F-@*D@J <$59C < ,9 ?S9 *& 9F*D9&C9 -2-*&S ,9) <# ,9 D<C?)9& S, =-=9%S -&D ,*&2S S9*O9D #%<) ,9 <##*C9S -&D =%9)*S9S <# ,9 C<%=<%- *<&S, < 7,<) ,9 S9*O9D 9##9C S $9@<&2, -&D )-J &< $9 *&F<M9D $J ,9 C<%=<%- 9 <##*C9%S *& =%<C99D*&2S -2-*&S ,9) *& ,9*% *&D*F*D?-@ C-=-C* J. b. -s to the do!uments seiGed in the residen!es of the petitioners, the same may not be used in eviden!e against them be!ause the warrants issued were in the nature of a general warrant for failure to !omply with the !onstitutional re0uirement that: 1. that no warrant shall issue but upon probable !ause, to be determined by the 8udge in the manner set forth in said provision" and +. that the warrant shall parti!ularly des!ribe the things to be seiGed. &one of these re0uirements has been !omplied with in the !ontested warrants. hey were issued upon appli!ations stating that the natural and 8uridi!al persons therein named had !ommitted a violation of Central bank @aws, ariff and Customs @aws, *nternal revenue Code and %evised =enal Code. *& < ,9% 7<%DS, &< S=9C*#*C <##9&S9 ,-D $99& -@@929D *& S-*D -==@*C- *<&S. ,9 -F9%)9& S ,9%9<# 7* , %9S=9C < ,9 <##9&S9 C<))* 9D 79%9 A4STRACT. AS A CO-SEM3E-CE, IT 0AS IM5OSSI4LE .OR
1+D

1+4

THE J3/:E 0HO ISS3E/ THE 0ARRA-TS TO HAVE .O3-/ THE EEISTE-CE O. 5RO4A4LE CA3SE, .OR THE SAME 5RES355OSES THE I-TRO/3CTIO- O. COM5ETE-T 5ROO. THAT THE 5ARTY A:AI-ST 0HOM IT IS SO3:HT HAS 5ER.ORME/ 5ARTIC3LAR ACTS, OR COMMITTE/ S5ECI.IC OMISSIO-S, VIOLATI-: A :IVE- 5ROVISIO- O. O3R CRIMI-AL LA0S. +. $a!he vs. %uiG, .> SC%- /+. .. Se!retary vs. )ar!os, >4 SC%- .61 3. Castro vs. =abalan, -pril .6,l'>4 D. -sian Surety vs. ,errera, D3 SC%- .1+ (- sear!h warrant for estafa, falsifi!ation, ta( evasion and insuran!e fraud is a general warrant and therefore not validA 4. Colle!tor vs. FillaluG, 5une 1/,1'>4 >. Fiduya vs. Ferdiago, >. SC%- DD. /. DiGon vs. Castro, -pril 1+, 1'/D '. =eople vs. Feloso, 3/ =hil. 14' 16. -)$-S9& FS. =9<=@9, 5uly 13, 1''D" =9<=@9 FS. C-, +14 SC%161. BA SCATTERGSHOT 0ARRA-T is a sear!h warrant issued for more than one spe!ifi! offense like one for estafa, robbery, theft and 0ualified theft;A f. Define probable !ause. 7ho determines probable !auseN a. %<$9% S FS. C-, +D3 SC%- .6> b. D9 @<S S-& <S FS. )<& 9S-, +3> SC%- /D VICE-TE LIM,SR. A-/ MAYOR S3SA-A LIM VS.HO-. -. .ELIE ,:.R. -O. 99;12G1 ! 9& $-&C 2? *9%%9O, 5%. 5. #a!ts: -------=etitioners are suspe!ts of the slaying of Congressman )oises 9spinosa, Sr. and three of his se!urity es!orts and the wounding of another. hey were initially !harged, with three others, with the !rime of multiple murder with frustrated murder. -fter !ondu!ting a preliminary investigation, a warrant of arrest was issued on 5uly .1, 1'/'. $ail was fi(ed at =+66,666.

1+4

1+>

<n September ++, 1'/', #is!al -lfane, designated to review the !ase, issued a %esolution affirming the finding of a prima fa!ie !ase against the petitioners but ruled that a !ase of )urder for ea!h of the killing of the four vi!tims and a physi!al in8uries !ase for infli!ting gunshot wound on the survivor be filled instead against the suspe!ts. hereafter, four separate informations to that effe!t were filed with the % C of )asbate with no bail re!ommended. <n &ovember +1, 1'/', a motion for !hange of venue, filed by the petitioners was granted by the SC. *t ordered that the !ase may be transferred from the % C of )asbate to the % C of )akati. =etitioners then moved that another hearing ba !ondu!ted to determine if there really e(ists a prima fa!ie !ase against them in the light of do!uments showing re!antations of some witnesses in the preliminary investigation. hey likewise filed a motion to order the transmittal of initial re!ords of the preliminary investigation !ondu!ted by the muni!ipal 8udge of $arsaga of )asbate. hese motions were however denied by the !ourt be!ause the prose!ution had de!lared the e(isten!e of probable !ause, informations were !omplete in form in substan!e , and there was no defe!t on its fa!e. ,en!e it found it 8ust and proper to rely on the prose!utors !ertifi!ation in ea!h information. ISS3EI GGGGGGGGGG 7hether or not a 8udge may issue a warrant of arrest without bail by simply relying on the prose!utions !ertifi!ation and re!ommendation that a probable !ause e(istsN ,eld: ----1. he 8udge !ommitted a grave abuse of dis!retion.

*n the !ase of =la!er vs. Fillanueva, the s! ruled that a 8udge may rely upon the fis!alSs !ertifi!ation of the e(isten!e of a probable !ause and on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest. ,owever, the !ertifi!ation does not bind the 8udge to !ome out with the warrant of arrest. his de!ision interpreted the Hsear!h and seiGureH provision of the 1'>. Constitution. ?nder this provision, the 8udge must satisfy himself of the e(isten!e of probable !ause before issuing a warrant of order of arrest. *f on the fa!e of information, the 8udge finds no probable !ause, he may disregard the fis!alSs !ertifi!ation and re0uire the submission of the affidavits of witness to aid him at arriving at a !on!lusion as to the

1+>

1+/

e(isten!e of a probable !ause. <!ampo and -marga vs. -bbas.

his has been the rule sin!e ?.S vs.

+. *n the !ase of Soliven vs. )akasiar, de!ided under the 1'/> Constitution, the Court noted that the addition of the word personally after the word determined and the deletion of the grant of authority by the 1'>. Constitution to issue warrants to other respondent offi!ers as to may be authoriGed by law does not re0uire the 8udge to personally e(amine the !omplainant and his witness in his determination of probable !ause for the issuan!e of a warrant of arrest.7hat the Constitution unders!ores is the e(!lusive and personal responsibility of the issuing 8udge to satisfy himself of the e(isten!e of probable !ause. #ollowing established do!trine and pro!edures, he shall: (1A personally evaluate the reports and the supporting do!uments submitted by the fis!al regarding the e(isten!e of probable !ause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest" (+A *f on the basis thereof he finds no probable !ause, he may disregard the fis!alSs report and re0uire the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a !on!lusion as to the e(isten!e of probable !ause. .. he !ase of =eople vs. ,onorable 9nri0ue $. *nting reiterates the following do!trines: (1A he determination of probable !ause is a fun!tion of the 8udge. *t is not for the =rovin!ial #is!al or =rose!utor nor for the 9le!tion Supervisor to as!ertain. <nly the 8udge alone makes this detemination. (+A he preliminary in0uiry made by the prose!utor does not bind the 8udge. *t merely assist him to make the determination of probable !ause. he 8udge does not have to follow what the prose!utorSs present to him. $y itself, the prose!utorSs !ertifi!ation of probable !ause is ineffe!tual. *t is the report, the affidavits, the trans!ripts of stenographi! notes, and all other supporting do!uments behind the prose!utorSs !ertifi!ation whi!h are material in assisting the 8udge to make his determination. (.A =reliminary in0uiry should be distinguished from the preliminary investigation proper. 7hile the former seeks to determine probable !ause for the issuan!e of warrant of arrest, the latter as!ertains whether the offender should be held for trial or be released. 3. *n the !ase of Castillo vs. FillaluG, the !ourt ruled that 8udges of % C no longer have authority to !ondu!t preliminary investigations:
1+/

1+'

his authority was removed from them by the 1'/D %ules on Criminal =ro!edure, effe!tive on 5anuary 1, 1'/D. D. *n the present !ase, the respondent 8udge relies solely on the !ertifi!ation of the prose!utor. Considering that all the re!ords of the investigation are in )asbate, he has not personally determined the e(isten!e of probable !ause. he determination was made by the provin!ial prose!utor. he !onstitutional re0uirement had not been satisfied. he re!ords of the preliminary investigation !ondu!ted by the )uni!ipal Court of )asbate and reviewed by the respondent #is!al were still in )asbate when the respondent #is!al issued the warrant of arrest against the petitioners. here was no basis for the respondent 8udge to make his personal determination regarding the e(isten!e of probable !ause from the issuan!e of warrant of arrest as mandated by the Constitution. ,e !ould not have possibly known what has transpired in )asbate as he had nothing but a !ertifi!ation. -lthough the 8udge does not have to personally e(amine the !omplainant and his witnesses (for the prose!utor !an perform the same fun!tions as !ommissioner for taking of eviden!eA there should be a report and ne!essary do!uments supporting the #is!alSs bare !ertifi!ation. -ll of these should be before the 8udge. 1. -marga vs. -bbas, '/ =hil. >.' 1-a. +6th Century #o( vs. C-, 143 SC%- 4DD 1-b. Ruintero vs. &$*, 14+ SC%- 34> 1-!. he =residential -nti-Dollar Salting ask #or!e vs. C-, 2% &o. /.D>/, )ar!h 14, 1'/' SOLIVE- VS. MAFASIAR, 16 SCRA 393 he word Bper7o'"lly; after the word determined does not ne!essarily mean that the 8udge should e(amine the !omplainant and his witnesses personally before issuing the sear!h warrant or warrant of arrest but the e(!lusive responsibility on the part of said 8udge to satisfy himself of the e(isten!e of probable !ause. -s su!h, there is no need to e(amine the !omplainant and his witnesses fa!e to fa!e. *t is suffi!ient if the 8udge is !onvin!ed of the e(isten!e of probable !ause upon reading the affidavits or deposition of the !omplainant and his witnesses. 1-e. =endon vs. C-, &ov. 14, 1''6 1-f. =. vs. *nting, 5uly +D, 1''6 1-g. ?mil vs. %amos, et al., 5uly ', 1''6 with the %esolution of the )otion for %e!onsideration in &ovember, 1''1 1-h. =aderanga vs. Drilon, -pril 1', 1''1
1+'

1.6

+. Department of ,ealth vs. Sy Chi Siong, *n!., 2% &o. /D+/', #ebruary +6, 1'/' +-a. =. vs. Fillanueva, 116 SC%- 34D +-b. =la!er vs. Fillanueva, 1+4 SC%- 34. (<nly a 8udge has the power to determine probable insofar as the issuan!e of a warrant of arrest is !on!ernedA .. olentino vs. FillaluG,5uly +>,1'/> 3. CruG vs. 2atan, >3 SC%- ++4 D. <laes vs. =., 1DD SC%- 3/4 >. 2eronimo vs. %amos, 1.4 SC%- 3.D J3A- 5O-CE E-RILE VS. J3/:E JAIME SALA>AR, ET AL., :.R.-O. 99163, Ju'e 1, 199; Due pro!ess" right to bail" probable !ause for the issuan!e of a warrant of arrest (&ote: his might be useful also in your Criminal @awA &arvasa, 5. <n #ebruary +>, 1''6, Senator 5uan =on!e 9nrile was arrested by law enfor!ement offi!ers led by &$* Dire!tor -lfredo @im on the strength of a warrant of arrest issued by the respondent 8udge, ,<&. 5-*)9 S-@-O-%, %egional trial Court, $ran!h 16., RueGon City in Criminal Case &o. '6-16'31. he warrant was issued on an information signed and filed earlier in the day by Senior State =rose!utor -?%9@*< %-)=9 !harging Senator 9nrile, the spouses %ebe!!o and 9rlinda =anlilio, and 2regorio ,onasan with the !rime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder allegedly !ommitted during the period of the failed !oup attempt from &ovember +' to De!ember 16, 1''6. Senator 9nrile was taken to and held overnight at the &$* ,ead0uarters on aft -ve., )anila, 7* ,<? $-*@, &<&9 ,-F*&2 $99& %9C<))9&D9D *& ,9 *&#<%)- *<& -&D &<&9 #*Q9D *& ,9 7-%%-& <# -%%9S . <n #ebruary +/, 1''6, petitioner through !ounsel filed a petition for ,abeas Corpus alleging that he was deprived of his !onstitutional rights in being, or having been: a. held to answer for a !riminal offense whi!h does not e(ist in the statute books" b. !harged with a !riminal offense in an information for whi!h no !omplaint was initially filed or preliminary investigation was !ondu!ted, hen!e, he was denied due pro!ess"
1.6

1.1

!. denied the right to bail" and d. arrested or detained on the strength of warrant issued without the 8udge who issued it first having personally determined the e(isten!e of probable !ause. ,9@D: he partiesS oral and written arguments presented the following options: 1. -bandon the ,ernandeG Do!trine and adopt the dissenting opinion of 5usti!e )ontemayor that Hrebellion !annot absorb more serious !rimesH" +. ,old ,ernandeG Do!trine appli!able only to offenses !ommitted in furtheran!e, or as ne!essary means for the !ommission, of rebellion, $? &< < -C S C<))* 9D *& ,9 C<?%S9 <# - %9$9@@*<& 7,*C, -@S< C<&S * ? 9 C<))<& C%*)9S <# 2%-F9 <% @9SS 2%-F9 C,-%-C 9%" .. )aintain ,ernandeG Do!trine as applying to make rebellion absorb all other offenses !ommitted in its !ourse, whether or not ne!essary to its !ommission or in furtheran!e thereof. 1. <n the first option, 11 8usti!es voted -2-*&S abandoning ,ernandeG. wo members felt that the do!trine should be re-e(amined. *n view of the ma8ority, ,9 %?@*&2 %9)-*&S 2<<D @-7, * S S?$S -& *F9 -&D @92-@ $-S9S ,-F9 7* ,S <<D -@@ S?$S9R?9& C,-@@9&29S -&D &< &97 <&9S -%9 =%9S9& 9D ,9%9 =9%S?-S*F9 9&<?2, < 7-%%-& - C<)=@9 9 %9F9%S-@. his is so be!ause of the fa!t that the in!umbent =resident (e(er!ising legislative powers under the 1'/4 #reedom ConstitutionA repealed =D &o. '3+ whi!h added a new provision of the %evised =enal Code, parti!ularly -rt. 13+-- whi!h sought to nullify if not repealed the ,ernandeG Do!trine. *n thus a!ting, the =resident in effe!t by legislative fiat reinstated the ,ernandeG as a binding do!trine with the effe!t of law. he Court !an do no less than a!!ord it the same re!ognition, absent any suffi!iently powerful reason against so doing. +. <n the se!ond option, the Supreme Court was unanimous in voting to re8e!t the same though four 8usti!es believe that the arguments in support thereof is not entirely devoid of merit. .. 7ith the re8e!tion of the first two options, the ,ernandeG Do!trine remains a binding do!trine operating to prohibit the !omple(ing of rebellion with any other offense !ommitted on the o!!asion thereof, either
1.1

1.+

as a means ne!essary to its !ommission or as unintended effe!t of an a!tivity that !onstitutes rebellion. <n the issues raised by the petitioner: a. $y a vote of 11-., the Court ruled that the information filed against the petitioner does in fa!t !harge an offense despite the ob8e!tionable phrasing that would !omple( rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder, that indi!tment is to be read as !harging S*)=@9 %9$9@@*<&. he petitionerSs !ontention that he was !harged with a !rime that does not e(ist in the statute books, 7,*@9 9C,&*C-@@J C<%%9C S< #-% -S ,9 C<?% %?@9D ,%9$9@@*<& )-J &< $9 C<)=@9Q9D 7* , < ,9% <##9&S9S C<))* 9D <& ,9 <CC-S*<& ,9%9<#, )?S ,9%9#<%9 $9 D*S)*SS9D -S )9%9 #@*2, <# %,9 <%*C. %ead in the !onte(t of ,ernandeG, the information does indeed !harge the petitioner with a !rime defined and punished by the %evised =enal Code: S*)=@9 %9$9@@*<&. b. 7as the petitioner !harged without a !omplaint having been initially filed andEor preliminary investigation !ondu!tedN he re!ord shows that a !omplaint for simple rebellion against petitioner was filed by the &$* Dire!tor and that based on the strength of said !omplaint a preliminary investigation was !ondu!ted by the respondent prose!utors !ulminating in the filing of the 0uestioned information. ,9%9 *S &< ,*&2 *&,9%9& @J *%%92?@-% <% C<& %-%J < @-7 *& #*@*&2 -2-*&S - %9S=<&D9& -& *&D?C )9& #<% -& <##9&S9 D*##9%9& #%<) 7,- *S C,-%29D *& ,9 *&* *- <%J C<)=@-*& , *# 7-%%-& 9D $J ,9 9F*D9&C9 D9F9@<=9D D?%*&2 ,9 =%9@*)*&-%J *&F9S *2- *<&. !. he petitioner !laims that the warrant issued is void be!ause it was issued barely one hour and twenty minutes after the !ase was raffled to the respondent 8udge whi!h !ould hardly gave him suffi!ient time to personally go over the voluminous re!ords of the preliminary investigation. -lso, the petitioner !laims that the respondent 8udge issued the warrant for his arrest without first personally determining the e(isten!e of probable !ause by e(amining under oath or affirmation the !omplainant and his witnesses, in violation of -rt. ***, Se!tion +, of the Constitution. his Court has already ruled that it is not unavoidable duty of the 8udge to make su!h a personal e(amination, it being suffi!ient that he follows established pro!edure by =9%S<&-@@J 9F-@?- *&2 ,9 %9=<% -&D ,9 S?==<% *&2 D<C?)9& S?$)* 9D $J ,9 =%<S9C? <%. )9%9$J $9C-?S9 S-*D %9S=<&D9& 5?D29 ,-D 7,S<)9 )*2, C<&S*D9% <&@J %9@- *F9@J $%*9# =9%*<D 7* ,*& 7,*C, < C<)=@J 7* , ,- D? J , 2*F9S &< %9-S<& < -SS?)9 ,- ,9 ,-D
1.+

1..

&< , <% C<?@D &< ,-F9, S< C<)=@*9D" &<% D<9S ,S*&2@9 C*%C?)S -&C9 S?##*C9 < <F9%C<)9 ,9 @92-@ =%9S?)= *<& ,- <##*C*-@ D? J ,-S $99& %92?@-%@J =9%#<%)9D. d. =etitioner also !laims that he is denied of his !onstitutional right to bail. *n the light of the CourtSs affirmation of ,ernandeG as appli!able to petitionerSs !ase, and of the logi!al and ne!essary !orollary that the information against him should be !onsidered as !harging only the !rime of simple rebellion whi!h is bailable before !onvi!tion, ,- )?S &<7 $9 -CC9= 9D -S - C<%%9C =%<=<S* *<&. &< 9S: his might be useful also in your %emedial @aw. 7as a petition for ,abeas Corpus before the Supreme Court the appropriate vehi!le for asserting a right to bail or vindi!ating its denialN he Supreme Court held that the !riminal !ase before the respondent 8udge is the normal venue for invoking the petitionerSs right to have provisional liberty pending trial and 8udgment. he !orre!t !ourse was for the petitioner to invoke that 8urisdi!tion by filing a petition to be admitted to bail, !laiming a right to bail per se or by reason of the weakness of the eviden!e against him. <&@J -# 9% ,- %9)9DJ 7-S D9&*9D $J ,9 %*-@ C<?% S,<?@D ,9 %9F*97 5?%*SD*C *<& <# ,9 S?=%9)9 C<?% $9 *&F<M9D, -&D 9F9& ,9&, &< 7* ,<? #*%S -==@J*&2 < ,9 C<?% <# -==9-@S *# -==%<=%*- 9 %9@*9# 7-S -@S< -F-*@-$@9 ,9%9. 9ven assuming that the petitionerSs premise that the information !harges a non-e(istent !rime would not e(!use or 8ustify his improper !hoi!e of remedies. ?nder either hypothesis, the obvious re!ourse would have been a motion to 0uash brought in the !riminal a!tion before the respondent 8udge. g. 7arrantless sear!hes and seiGures--when valid or not. *s H<peration MapkapH validN %ead: 5EO5LE VS. ME-:OTE, :.R. -o. 6 ;19, Ju'e, 1999, 91; SCRA 1 2 7arrantless sear!h and seiGure
1..

1.3

CruG, 5. #a!tsZ 1. <n -ugust /, 1'/>, the 7estern =oli!e Distri!t re!eived a telephone !all from an informer that there were three suspi!ious-looking persons at the !orner of 5uan @una and &orth $ay $lvd., in ondo, )anila" +. 7hen the surveilan!e team arrived therein, they saw the a!!used Hlooking from side to sideH and Hholding his abdomenH. hey appro!hed these persons and identified themselves as poli!ement that is why they tried to ran away be!ause of the other lawmen, they were unable to es!ape" .. -fter their arrest, a ../ !al. Smith and 7essor revolver was !onfis!ated from the a!!used and several days later, an information for violation of =D 1/44 was filed against him" 3. -fter trial, )engote was !onvi!ted of having violated =D 1/44 and was senten!ed to suffer reclusion perpetua based on the alleged gun as the prin!ipal eviden!e. ,en!e this automati! appeal. *ssue: 7as there a valid warrantless sear!h and seiGureN ,eld: here is no 0uestion that eviden!e obtained as a result of an illegal sear!h or seiGure is inadmissible in any pro!eeding for any purpose. hat is the absolute prohibition of -rti!le ***, Se!tion . B+C, of the Constitution. his is the !elebrated e(!lusionary rule based on the 8ustifi!ation given by 5usti!e @earned ,and that Honly in !ase the prose!ution, whi!h itself !ontrols the seiGing offi!ials, knows that it !annot profit by their wrong will the wrong be repressed.H Se!tion D, -rti!le 11. of the %ules of Court provides: Se!. D. -rrest without warrant" when lawful.- - pea!e offi!er or private person may, without warrant, arrest a person: (aA 7hen, in his presen!e, the person to be arrested has !ommitted, is a!tually !ommitting, or is attempting to !ommit an offense"

1.3

1.D

(bA 7hen an offense has in fa!t 8ust been !ommitted, and he has personal knowledge of fa!ts indi!ating that the person to be arrested has !ommitted it" and (!A 7hen the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has es!aped from a penal establishment or pla!e where he is serving final 8udgment or temporarily !onfined while his !ase is pending, or has es!aped while being transferred from one !onfinement to another. ( ( ( 7e have !arefully e(amined the wording of this %ule and !annot see how we we !an agree with the prose!ution. =ar. (!A of Se!tion D is obviously inappli!able as )engote was not an es!apee from a penal institution when he was arrested. 7e therefore !onfine ourselves to determining the lawfulness of his arrest under either =ar. (aA or =ar. (bA of this Se!tion. =ar. (aA re0uires that the person be arrested (1A after he has !ommitted or while he is a!tually !ommitting or is at least attempting to !ommit an offense, (+A in the presen!e of the arresting offi!er. hese re0uirements have not been established in the !ase at bar. -t the time of the arrest in 0uestion, the a!!used-appellant was merely Hlooking from side to sideH and Hholding his abdomen,H a!!ording to the arresting offi!ers themselves. here was apparently no offense that had 8ust been !ommitted or was being a!tually !ommitted or at least being attempted by )engote in thie presen!e. he Soli!itor 2eneral submits that the a!tual e(isten!e of an offense was not ne!essary as long as )engoteSs a!ts !reated a reasonable suspi!ion on the part of the arresting offi!ers and indu!ed in them the belief that an offense had been !ommitted and that a!!used-appellant had !ommitted itH. he 0uestion is, 7hat offenseN 7hat offense !ould possibly have been suggested by a person Hlooking from side to sideH and Hholding his abdomenH and in apla!e not e(a!tly forsaken. hese are !ertainly not sinister a!ts. -nd the setting of the arrest made them less so, if at all. *t might have been different if )engote had been apprehended at an unholy hour and in a pla!e where he had no reason to be, like a darkened alley at . oS!lo!k in the morning. $ut he was arrested at 11:.6 in the morning and in a !rowded street shortly after alighting from a passenger 8eep with his !ompanion.,e was not skulking in the shadows but walking in the !lear light of day. here was nothing

1.D

1.4

!landestine about his being on that street at that busy hour in the blaGe of the noonday sun. <n the other hand, there !ould have been a number of reasons, all of them innoent, why hiseyes were darting from side to sideand he was holding his abdomen. *f they e(!ited suspi!ion in the minds of the arresting offi!ers, as the prose!ution suggests, it has nevertheless not been shown what their suspi!ion was all about. ((( he !ase before us is different be!ause there was nothing to support the arresting offi!ersS suspi!ion other than )engoteSs darting eyes and his hand on his abdomen. $y no stret!h of the imagination !ould it have been inferred from these a!ts that an offense had 8ust been !ommitted, or was a!tually being !ommitted, or was at least being attempted in their presen!e. his is similar to #EO#LE vs. AMMI(!I%I(, .<: "C$A 3,0 where the Court held that a warrantless arrest of the a!!used was un!onstitutional. his was effe!ted while he was !oming down the vessel, to all appearan!es no less inno!ent than the other disembarking passengers. ,e had not !ommitted nor was a!tually !ommitting or attempting to !ommit an offense in the presen!e of the arresting offi!ers. ,e was not even a!ting suspi!iously. *n short, there was no probable !ause that, as the prose!ution in!orre!tly suggested, dispensed with the !onstitutional re0uirement of a warrant. =ar. (bA is no less appli!able be!ause its no less stringent re0uirements have also not been satisfied. heprose!ution has not shown that at the time of )engoteSs arrest an offense had in fa!t been !ommitted and that the arresting offi!ers had personal knowldge of fa!ts indi!ating that )engote had !ommitted it. -ll they had was hearsay information from the telephone !aller, and about a !rime that had yet to bem !ommitted. ((( *n the landmark !ase of #eople vs. urgos, .33 "C$A ., this Court de!lared: ?nder Se!tion 4(aA of %ule 11., the offi!er arresting a person who has 8ust !ommitted, is !ommitting, or is about to !ommit an offense must have personalknowledge of that fa!t. he offense must also be !ommitted in his presen!e or within his view. 6"A)O vs. CHIEA OA #OLICE, ;, #2il. ;8-9.
1.4

1.>

((( *n arrests without a warrant under Se!tion 4(bA, however, it is not enough that there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has !ommitted a !rime. - !rime must in fa!t or actually have been !ommitted first. hat a !rime has a!tually been !ommitted is an essential pre!ondition. *t is not enough to suspe!t that a !rime may have been !ommitted. he fa!t of the !ommission of the offense must be undisputed. he test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the perpetrator.. his do!trine was affirmed in -lih vs. Castro, 1D1 SC%- +>', thus: *f the arrest was made under %ule 11., Se!tion D, of the %ules of Court in !onne!tion with a !rime about to be !ommitted, being !ommitted, or 8ust !ommitted, what was that !rimeN here is no allegation in the re!ord of su!h a falsifi!ation. =arentheti!ally, it may be observed that under the %evised %ule 11., Se!tion D(bA, t2e officer ma@ing t2e arrest must 2ave personal @no?ledge of t2e ground t2erefor as stressed in t2e recent case of #eople vs. urgos. *t would be a sad day, indeed, if any person !ould be summarily arrested and sear!hed 8ust be!ause he is holding his abdomen, even if it be possibly be!ause of a stoma!h-a!he, or if a pea!e offi!er !ould !lamp hand!uffs on any person with a shifty look on suspi!ion that he may have !ommitted a !riminal a!t is a!tually !ommitting or attempting it. his simply !annot be done in a free so!iety. his is not a poli!e state where order is e(alted over liberty or, worse, personal mali!e on the part ofthe arresting offi!er may be 8ustified in the name of se!urity. ((( he !ourt feels that if the pea!e offi!ers had been more mindful of the provisions of the $ill of %ights, the prose!ution of the a!!usedappellant might have su!!eeded. -s it happened, they allowed their over Gealousness to get the better of them, resulting in their disregard of the re0uirements of a valid sear!h and seiGure that rendered inadmissible the eviden!e they had invalidly seiGed. his should be a lesson to other pea!e offi!ers. heir impulsiveness may be the very !ause of the a!0uittal of persons who deserve to be !onvi!ted, es!aping the !lut!hes of the law, be!ause, ironi!ally enough, it has not been observed by those who are supposed to enfor!e it.
1.>

1./

0%e' ille&"l "rre7# i7 )ee$e) w"i*e). 7arrantless arrest" no personal knowledge of the arresting offi!er 5EO5LE VS. :ALVE>, 311 SCRA 926 )endoGa, 5. T%e police$"' "rre7#e) #%e "ccu7e)G"ppell"'# o' #%e 8"7i7 7olely o( w%"# Rey'"l)o C"7#ro %") #ol) %i$ "') 'o# 8ec"u7e %e 7"w #%e "ccu7e)G"ppell"'# co$$i# #%e cri$e c%"r&e) "&"i'7# %i$. I')ee), #%e pro7ecu#io' ")$i##e) #%"# #%ere w"7 'o w"rr"'# o( "rre7# i77ue) "&"i'7# "ccu7e)G"ppell"'# w%e' #%e l"##er w"7 #"Le' i'#o cu7#o)y. Co'7i)eri'& #%"# #%e "ccu7e)G"ppell"'# w"7 'o# co$$i##i'& " cri$e "# #%e #i$e %e w"7 "rre7#e) 'or )i) #%e "rre7#i'& o((icer %"*e "'y per7o'"l L'owle)&e o( ("c#7 i')ic"#i'& #%"# "ccu7e)G"ppell"'# co$$i##e) " cri$e, %i7 "rre7# wi#%ou# " w"rr"'# c"''o# 8e Au7#i(ie). ,owever, by entering a plea of not guilty during the arraignment, the a!!used-appellant waived his right to raise the issue of illegality of his arrest. * *S &<7 S9 @9D ,- <$59C *<& < - 7-%%-& <# -%%9S <% ,9 =%<C9D?%9 $J 7,*C, - C<?% -CR?*%9S 5?%*SD*C *<& <F9% ,9 =9%S<& <# -& -CC?S9D )?S $9 )-D9 $9#<%9 ,9 9& 9%S ,*S =@9-, < ,9%7*S9, ,9 <$59C *<& *S D99)9D 7-*F9D. ,9 #-C ,,9 -%%9S 7-S *@@92-@ D<9S &< %9&D9% ,9 S?$S9R?9& =%<C99D*&2S F<*D -&D D9=%*F9 ,9 S - 9 <# * S %*2, < C<&F*C ,9 2?*@ J 7,9& -@@ ,9 #-C S =<*& < ,9 C?@=-$*@* J <# ,9 -CC?S9D. g-1. 0"rr"'#le77 Se"rc% "') 7eiJure 8y " pri*"#e per7o'. (Falid sin!e the !onstitutional provision is not appli!able to him" when it is not validA %ead: 1. 5EO5LE VS. ME-/O>A, 3;1 SCRA 66 0"rr"'#le77 7e"rc%e7 "') 7eiJure7 8y pri*"#e i')i*i)u"l7 +. S*@-,*S *& 9%&- *<&-@ ,< 9@, *&C. FS. %<29@*< S<@? -, 9 -@., 3/+ SC%- 446 C"rpioGMor"le7, J.

1./

1.'

he petitioner suspe!ts that the respondents who are offi!ers of the Silahis *nternational ,otel ?nion were using the ?nion <ffi!e lo!ated inside the hotel in the sale or use of mari8uana, dollar smuggling, and prostitution. hey arrived at the said !on!lusion through surveillan!e. *n the morning of 5anuary 11, 1'//, while the respondent union offi!er was opening the ?nion <ffi!e, se!urity offi!ers of the plaintiff entered the union offi!e despite ob8e!tions thereto by for!ibly opening the same. <n!e inside the union offi!e they started to make sear!hes whi!h resulted in the !onfis!ation of a plasti! bag of mari8uana. -n information for violation of the dangerous drugs a!t was filed against the respondent before the % C of )anila whi!h a!0uitted them on the ground that the sear!h !ondu!ted was illegal sin!e it was warrantless and without !onsent by the respondents. -fter their a!0uittal, the respondents filed a !ase for )ali!ious =rose!ution against the petitioner for violation of -rt. .+ of the Civil Code. -fter trial, the %egional rial Court held that petitioners are liable for damages as a result of an illegal sear!h. he same was affirmed by the Court of -ppeals. *ssue: 7hether the warrantless sear!h !ondu!ted by the petitioners (private individual and !orporationA on the union offi!e of the private respondents is valid. ,eld: he sear!h is not valid and they are !ivilly liable under -rt. .+ of the Civil Code. he fa!t that the union offi!e is part of the hotel owned by the petitioners does not 8ustify the warrantless sear!h. he alleged reports that the said union offi!e is being used by the union offi!ers for illegal a!tivities does not 8ustify their a!ts of barging into the said offi!e without the !onsent of the union offi!ers and without a sear!h warrant. *f indeed there was surveillan!e made, then they should have applied for a sear!h warrant. he ruling in =eople vs. -ndre )arti is not appli!able here be!ause in )arti, a !riminal !ase, the issue was whether an a!t of a private individual, allegedly in violation of one1s !onstitutional rights may be invoked against the State. *n other words, the issue in )arti is whether the eviden!e obtained by a private person a!ting in his private !apa!ity without the parti!ipation of the State, is admissible. 3. 5EO5LE O. THE 5HILI55I-ES VS. A-/RE MARTI
1.'

136

:.R. -O. 61161, J"'u"ry 16, 1991 7arrantless Sear!h and seiGure by a private person $idin, 5. #-C S: -ndre )arti and his !ommon-law wife, Shirley %eyes went to )anila =a!kaging and 9(port #orwarders to send four (3A pa!kages to Ouri!h, SwitGerland. -nita %eyes, owner of the pla!e (no relation to ShirleyA, re!eived said goods and asked if she !ould e(amine and inspe!t it. )arti refused. ,owever later, following standard operating pro!edure, 5ob %eyes, !o-owner and husband of -nita opened the bo(es for final inspe!tion, before delivering it to the $ureau of Customs andEor $ureau of =osts. ?pon opening, a pe!uliar odor emanated from the bo( that was supposed to !ontain gloves. ?pon further perusal, he felt and saw a dried leaves inside the bo(. 5ob %eyes then brought samples to the &$*, he told them that the bo(es to be shipped were still in his offi!e. *n the presen!e of the &$* agents, %eyes opened the bo( and dis!overed that the odor !ame from the fa!t that the dried leaves were a!tually those of the mari8uana flowering tops. wo other bo(es,marked as !ontaining books and taba!alera !igars" also revealed bri!ks or !ase-like mari8uana leaves and dried mari8uana leaves respe!tively. )arti was later invited by the &$* to shed light on the attempted shipment of the dried leaves. hereafter an information was filed against the appellant for violating %- 43+D or the Dangerous Drugs -!t. he Spe!ial Criminal Court of )anila !onvi!ted a!!used )arti of violating se!.+1(bA of said %-. ISS3ESI 1. Did the sear!h !ondu!ted by a private person, violate a!!usedSs right against unreasonable sear!hes seiGures and invo!able against the stateN +. 7as the eviden!e pro!ured from the sear!h admissibleN Hel)I
136

131

1. &o, !onstitutional prote!tion on sear!h and seiGure is imposable only against the state and not to private persons. Sin!e -rt. ***,+ of the 1'/> !onstitution is almost verbatim from the ?nited States !onstitution, the SC may !onsider ?S #ed. SC !ases as likewise do!trinal in this 8urisdi!tion. ,en!e, in ?S !ases, the !onstitutional provision against unreasomable sear!hes and seiGure was intended as a restraint upon the a!tivities of the sovereign authority and &< intended against private persons. *f a sear!h was initiated by a private person the provision does not apply sin!e it only pros!ribes government a!tion. his view is supported by the deliberations by the 1'/4 Constitutional Commission. *n short, the prote!tion against unreasonable sear!hes and seiGures !annot be e(tended to a!ts !omitted by private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion. Case at bar will show that it was 5ob %eyes[ initiative that perpetrated the sear!h. ,e opened the pa!kages and took the samples to &$*. -ll the &$* agents did was to observe and look in plain sight. his did not !onvert it to a sear!h as !ontemplated by the !onstitution. +. Jes, sin!e the sear!h was valid, the eviden!e from therein is admissible eviden!e. -rt.*** B+C, on the admissibility of eviden!e in violation of the right against unreasonable sear!hes and seiGures, likewise applies only to the government and its agen!ies and not to private persons. (?.S. !ases !ited: $urdeau v. )!Dowell (+D4 us 34D B1'+1C, state v. $ryan (3D> p +d 441 B1'4/C, 7alker v. state (3+' s.w +d 1+1 B1'4'CA, $arnes v. us (.>. # +d D1> B1'4>CA, Chadwi!k v. state (.+' sw +d 1.DA. VALI/ 0ARRA-TLESS SEARCH A-/ SEI>3REI 1. Sear!h made in!idental to a valid arrest a. b. !. d. e. )oreno vs. -go Chi, 1+ =hil. 3.' =9<=@9 FS. -&2 C,?& M* , +D1 SC%- 446 =9<=@9 FS. @?-, +D4 SC%- D.' =9<=@9 FS. #igueroa, +3/ SC%- 4>' &<@-SC< FS. =-&<, 1.' SC%- D31 (- sear!h in!idental to a valid arrest must be done at the pla!e where the a!!used is arrested. -s su!h, if a!!used was arrested while inside a 8eepney, there is no valid sear!h in!idental to a valid arrest if she will be brought to her residen!e and thereafter sear!h the said pla!eA
131

13+

f. 9S=-&< FS. C-, +// SC%- D// (*f the a!!used was arrested in the street during a buy-bust operation, the sear!h of his house nearby is not a valid sear!h in!idental to a valid arrestA 5EO5LE VS. :O, 312 SCRA 336 7here the gun tu!ked in a person1s waist is plainly visible to the poli!e, no sear!h warrant is ne!essary and in the absen!e of any li!ense for said firearm, he may be arrested at on!e as he is in effe!t !ommitting a !rime in the presen!e of the poli!e offi!ers. &o warrant is ne!essary in su!h a situation, it being one of the re!ogniGed e(!eptions under the %ules. -s a !onse0uen!e of the a!!used1s valid warrantless arrest inside the night!lub, he may be lawfully sear!hed for dangerous weapons or anything whi!h may be used as proof of the !ommission of an offense, without a sear!h warrant in a!!ordan!e with Se!tion 1+, %ule 1+4. his is a valid sear!h in!idental to a lawful arrest. *n fa!t, the subse0uent dis!overy in his !ar whi!h was parked in a distant pla!e from where the illegal possession of firearm was !ommitted Bafter he re0uested that he will bring his !ar to the =oli!e Station after his warrantless arrestA , of a drug paraphernalia and shabu, C-&&< $9 S-*D < ,-F9 $99& )-D9 D?%*&2 -& *@@92-@ S9-%C,. -s su!h, the items do not fall under the e(!lusionary rule and the unli!ensed firearms, drug paraphernalia and the shabu, !an be used as eviden!e against the a!!used. +. Sear!h of moving vehi!les a. =. FS. )-%*-C<S, 2.%. &o. 1//411, 5une 14, +616 b. Carrol vs. ?S, +4> ?S 1.+ !. =9<=@9 FS. @< ,< 7*&2, et al. (2. %. &o. //61>A 5anuary +1, 1''1 d. )?S -&2 @?)$9% FS. C-, +D> SC%- 3.6 e. =9<=@9 FS. C#*, 161 SC%- /4 f. =9<=@9 FS. )-@)S 9D 1'/ SC%- 361 &. 5EO5LE VS. LO HO 0I-:, 193 SCRA 199 .ACTSI *n 5uly 1'/>, the Spe!ial <perations 2roup of the C*S re!eived a tip from one of its informers about an organiGed group engaged in importation of illegal drugs and smuggling of !ontraband items. o infiltrate the !rime syndi!ate, they re!ruited !onfidential men and Hdeep
13+

13.

penetration agentsH under <=@-& S,-%<& //>. <ne su!h agent was %eynaldo ia (the di!hargedEa!!usedA. -s an agent, he submitted regular reports of under!over a!tivities of suspe!ted syndi!ates. C-= -*& =-@)9%-, head of oplan sharon //>, in turned informed the Dan gerous Drugs $oard of iaSs a!tivities. ia was introdu!ed to his !o-a!!used @im Cheng ,uat by another agent named 2eorge. @im wanted a male travelling !ompanion for his business trips abroad. ia offered his servi!es and was hired by @im. @ater, ia was introdu!ed to =eter @o (alias of a!!usedEappellant @o ,o 7ingA, the later turning out to be iaSs intended !ompanion. -ppellant @o ,o 7ing and ia left for ,ongkong on <!tober 3, 1'/>. ia telephoned Capt. =almera that they would return to the =hilippines on <!tober 4. #rom ,ongkong, the two pro!eeded to 2uangGhou in mainland China. here, appeallant @o ,o 7ing bought si( (4A !ans of tea. ia saw these 4 bags when they were opened for e(amination. hat evening, they went to @o ,o 7ingSs room and he saw two other men with him. <ne was fi(ing the tea bags, while the other was burning a substan!e on a pie!e of aluminum foil using a lighter. -ppellant @o ,o 7ing 8oined the se!ond man and sniffed the smoke emitted by the burning substan!e. 7hen ia asked @o ,o 7ing what !argo they would bring to )anila, the latter replied that they would be bringing Chinese drugs. he ne(t day en route to )anila, !ustoms e(aminers inspe!ted the bags !ontaining the tin !ans of tea. Sin!e the bags were not !losely e(amined, appellant @o ,o 7ing and ia were !leared. *n )anila, hey were met by @im Cheng ,uat. -ppelant @o ,o 7ing and ia boarded a ta(i from the airport and loaded their luggage in the ta(iSs !ompartment. @im Cheng ,uat followed them in another ta(i. )eamwhile, a team !omposed by Capt. =almera positioned themselves in strategi! areas around the airport. he C*S men who first saw @o ,o and ia followed them. -long *melda -venue, the C*S !ar overtook the ta(i ridden by @o ,o 7ing and ia , for!ing the ta(i driver to stop his vehi!le. he C*S team asked the ta(i driver to open the baggage !ompartment. he C*S team asked permission to sear!h their luggage. - tin !an of tea was taken out of the !ompartment. Sgt. Cayabyab of the C*S pried the lid open and pressed it in the middle to pull out the !ontents. Crystalline white powder resmbling !rushed alum !ame out. Suspe!ting the !rystalline powder to be a dangerous drug, he had the three travelling bags opened for inspe!tion. -ll the bags threshed out a total of si( tin !ans. ia and appellant were taken to the C*S head0uarters for

13.

133

0uestioning. )eanwhile, the se!ond ta(i !arrying @im Cheng ,uat sped in attempt to es!ape. ,owever, they were later !aptured. Samples from the bag tested positive for metamphetamine. he three suspe!ts were indi!ted for violating -rt. ***, se!.1D of the Dangerous Drug -!t. -ppellant @o ,o 7ing and @im Cheng ,uat were senten!ed to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of =+D,666 ea!h. %eynaldo ia was dis!harged as a state witness. he trial !ourt gave full !reden!e to the testimonies of government agents sin!e the presumption of regularity in the performan!e of offi!ial duties were in their favor. *SS?9S: 1. 7as the warrantless sear!h validN +. -re the effe!ts taken admissible as eviden!eN ,9@D: 1. his is a !ase of sear!h on a moving vehi!le whi!h is one of the well-known e(!eptions to the valid warrantless sear!h and seiGure. o stilol get a sear!h warrant from a 8udge would allow the a!!used go s!otfree. +. Sin!e the sear!h and seiGure are valid, the eviden!e obtained is admissible as eviden!e in any pro!eeding. .. SeiGure of goods !on!ealed to avoid dutiesEta(es (FalidA a. b. !. d. =apa vs. )ago, ++ SC%- /D> =a!is vs. =amaran, D4 SC%- 14 ,*O<& FS. C-, +4D SC%- D1> =9<=@9 FS. R?9, +4D SC%- >+1

3. SeiGe of eviden!e in plain view a. b. !. d. D. a. b. !. ,arris vs. ?S, .'6 ?S +.3 =9<=@9 FS. D-)-S<, +1+ SC%- D3> =9<=@9 FS. F9@<S<, +D+ SC%- 1.D =9<=@9 FS. @9S-&2*&, +D+ SC%- +1. 7hen there is waiver of right or gives his !onsent" De 2ar!ia vs. @o!sin, 4D =hil. 4/' @opeG vs. Commissioner, 4D SC%- ..4 5EO5LE VS. /AMASO, 919 SCRA (*n order that there is a valid waiver to a warrantless sear!h, the waiver or !onsent should be given by the person affe!ted, not 8ust anybody. 9(ample: he landlady !ould not
133

13D

give a valid !onsent to the sear!h of a room o!!upied by a tenant. Said tenant himself should give the !onsent in order to be valid. he do!trine in @opeG vs. Commissioner to the effe!t that it !ould be given by any o!!upant of a hotel room being rented by the respondent is deemed abandonedA d. VEROY VS. LAYA:3E, 91; SCRA 9 . (*f the owner of the house allowed the poli!emenEsoldiers to enter his house be!ause they are sear!hing for rebel soldiers but on!e inside the house, they instead seiGed an unli!ensed firearm,A 4. a. b. !. S <= -&D #%*SM. =eople vs. )engote, 5une, 1''+ =9<=@9 FS. =<S-D-S, 1// SC%- +// )-&-@*@* FS. =9<=@9, <!tober ', 1''>. ( he poli!emen saw several suspi!ious looking men at dawn who ran when they went near them. -s the poli!emen ran after them, an unli!ensed firearm was !onfis!ated. he sear!h is validA d. )-@-C- FS. C-, +/. SC%- 1D'. ()ere suspi!ions not suffi!ient to validate warrantless arrestA 6. E//IE :3A>O-, ET AL. VS. MAJ. :E-. RE-ATO /E VILLA, ET AL., :R -O. 6;1;6, J"'u"ry 3;, 199; 7arrantless sear!hes" HGoningsH and Hsaturation drivesH Se!tion 1>, -rt. F** of the Constitution 2utierreG, 5r., 5. #a!ts: T%i7 i7 " pe#i#io' (or 5ro%i8i#io' wi#% preli$i'"ry i'Au'c#io' #o pro%i8i# $ili#"ry "') police o((icer7 (ro$ co')uc#i'& OAre"l #"r&e# Jo'i'&7O or O7"#ur"#io' )ri*eO i' Me#ro M"'il" p"r#icul"rly i' pl"ce7 w%ere #%ey 7u7pec# #%"# #%e 7u8*er7i*e7 "re %i)i'&. T%e 21 pe#i#io'er7 cl"i$ #%"# #%e 7"#ur"#io' )ri*e7 co')uc#e) 8y #%e $ili#"ry i7 i' *iol"#io' o( #%eir %u$"' ri&%#7 8ec"u7e wi#% 'o 7peci(ic #"r&e# %ou7e i' $i'), i' #%e )e") o( #%e 'i&%# or e"rly $or'i'& %our7, police "') $ili#"ry o((icer7 wi#%ou# "'y 7e"rc% w"rr"'# cor)o' "' "re" o( $ore #%"' o'e re7i)e'ce "') 7o$e#i$e7 #%e w%ole 8"r"'&"y. Mo7# o( #%e$ "re i' ci*ili"' clo#%e7 "') wKo '"$epl"#e7 or i)e'#i(ic"#io' c"r)7+ #%"# #%e r"i)er7 ru)ely rou7e re7i)e'#7 (ro$ #%eir 7leep 8y 8"'&i'& o' #%e w"ll7 "') wi')ow7 o( #%eir %o$e7, 7%ou#i'&, LicLi'& #%eir )oor7 ope' ,)e7#royi'& 7o$e! "') or)eri'& #%e re7i)e'#7 #o co$e ou#+ #%e re7i)e'#7 "re %er)e) liLe cow7 "# #%e poi'# o( %i&% powere) &u'7, or)ere) #o 7#rip )ow' #o #%eir 8rie(7 "') e@"$i'e) (or #"##oo $"rL7+ #%"# w%ile e@"$i'"#io' o( #%e 8o)ie7 o( #%e $e' "re 8ei'& co')uc#e), #%e o#%er $ili#"ry
13D

134

$e' co')uc# 7e"rc% "') 7eiJure7 #o e"c% "') e*ery %ou7e wi#%ou# ci*ili"' wi#'e77e7 (ro$ #%e 'ei&%8or7+ 7o$e *ic#i$7 co$pl"i'e) #%"# #%eir $o'ey "') o#%er *"lu"8le7 were lo7# "7 " re7ul# o( #%e7e ille&"l oper"#io'7. he respondents !laim that they have legal authority to !ondu!t saturation drives under -rt. F**, Se!. 1> of the Constitution whi!h provides: he respondents would want to 8ustify said military operation on the following !onstitutional provisions: he =resident shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all the armed for!es of the =hilippines and whenever it be!omes ne!essary, he may !all out su!h armed for!es to prevent or suppress lawless violen!e, invasion or rebellion ( ( ( (((( he =resident shall have !ontrol of all the e(e!utive departments, bureaus and offi!es. ,e shall ensure that the laws are faithfully e(e!uted. ,eld: here !an be no 0uestion that under ordinary !ir!umstan!es, the poli!e a!tion of the nature des!ribed by the petitioners would be illegal and blatantly violative of the $ill of %ights. *f the military wants to flush out subversive and !riminal elements, the same must be !onsistent with the !onstitutional and statutory rights of the people. ,owever, nowhere in the Constitution !an we see a provision whi!h prohibits the Chief 9(e!utive from ordering the military to stop unabated !riminality, rising lawlessness and alarming !ommunist a!tivities. ,owever, all poli!e a!tions are governed by the limitations of the $ill of %ights. he government !annot adopt the same reprehensible methods of authoritarian systems both of the right and of the left. his is so be!ause -rt. ***, Se!tion . of the Constitution is very !lear as e(plained in %oan vs. 2onGales, 13D SC%4/> and Century #o( vs. Court of -ppeals, 143 SC%- 4DD. -lso, it must be pointed out that poli!e a!tions should not be !hara!teriGed by methods that offend oneSs sense of 8usti!e (%o!hin vs. California, .3+ ?S 14DA. he Court believes it highly probable that some violations were a!tually !ommitted. $ut the remedy is not to stop all poli!e a!tions, in!luding the essential and legitimate ones. - show of for!e is sometimes ne!essary as long as the rights of people are prote!ted and not violated. ,owever, the remedy of the petitioners is not an original a!tion for prohibition sin!e not one vi!tim !omplains and not one violator is properly !harged. *t is basi!ally for the e(e!utive department and the trial !ourts. he problem is appropriate for the Commission of ,uman %ights.
134

13>

he petition was therefore remanded to the %egional rial Courts of )anila, )alabon and =asay City where the petitioners may present eviden!e supporting their allegations so that the erring parties may be pinpointed and prose!uted. *n the meantime, the a!ts violative of human rights alleged by the petitioners as !ommitted during the poli!e a!tions are 9&5<*&9D until su!h time as permanent rules to govern su!h a!tions are promulgated. LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL CruG, =adilla and Sarmiento, 55. , Dissenting he ruling of the ma8ority that the petitioners are not proper parties is a spe!ious prete(t for ina!tion. 7e have held that te!hni!al ob8e!tions may be brushed aside where there are !onstitutional 0uestions that must be met (%<D%*2?9O FS. 29@@-, '+ =,*@. 46." <@9& *&< FS. C<)9@9C, 31 SC%- >6+" =,*@C<&S- FS. 5*)9&9O, 4D SC%- 3>'" 9D? FS. 9%*C -, .D SC%- 3/1" 2<&O-@9S FS. C<)9@9C, +> SC%- /.D" @-2?&O-D FS. C-, 1D3 SC%- 1''" D9)9 %*- FS. -@$-,13/ SC%- +6/A. @oGada was in fa!t an aberration. 7here liberty is involved, every person is a proper party even if he may not be dire!tly in8ured. 9a!h of us has a duty to prote!t liberty and that alone makes him a proper party. *t is not only the owner of a burning house who has the right to !all the firemen. Se!tion +, -rt. *** of the !onstitution is very !lear: ?nreasonable sear!hes and seiGures of whatever nature and for whatever purpose is prohibited. Saturation drives are &< -)<&2 ,9 -CC9= 9D *&S -&C9S 7,9& - S9-%C, <% -& -%%9S )-J $9 )-D9 7* ,<? 7-%%-& . ,9J C<)9 ?&D9% ,9 C<&C9= <# ,9 #*S,*&2 9Q=9D* *<&S S *2)- *O9D $J @-7 -&D D<C %*&9 Q Q Q * submit that this !ourt should instead !ategori!ally and emphati!ally that these saturation drives are violative of human rights and individual liberty and should be stopped immediately. 7hile they may be allowed in the a!tual theater of military operations against the insurgents, the Court should also make it !lear that )etro )anila is not su!h a battleground. >. *& ,9 )- 9% <# ,9 =9 * *<& #<% ,-$9-S C<%=?S <# %<$9% < ?)*@, %<@-&D< D?%-@ and %9&- < F*@@-&?9F-. )-&<@* - ?)*@ and &*C-&<% D?%-@, #9@*C* -S S9S9 FS. #*D9@ %-)<S, 9 -@. and !ompanion !ases,
13>

13/

2.%. &o. /1D4>, 5uly ', 1''6 (-n &=- may be arrested without warrant while sleeping or being treated in a hospital be!ause his being a !ommunist rebel is a !ontinuing !rimeA h. *f the 8udge finds that thereSs probable !ause, must he issue a warrant of arrest as a matter of !ourseN See the distin!tions. %ead: 1. SAM3L/E VS. SALVA-I, SE5TEM4ER 96, 1966 (&o be!ause a warrant is issued in order to have 8urisdi!tion of the !ourt over the person of an a!!used and to assure the !ourt of his presen!e whenever his !ase is !alled in !ourt. -s su!h, if the !ourt believes that the presen!e of the a!!used !ould be had even without a warrant of arrest, then he may not issue said warrant. &ote: his !ase involves a minor offenseA +. :O>O VS. TACGA-, 3;; SCRA 961. *f the offense !ommitted is a serious one like that obtaining in this !ase for murder, the 5udge must issue a warrant of arrest after determining the e(isten!e of probable !auseA i. Sear!hing 0uestions %ead: D%. &9)9S*< =%?D9& 9 FS. ,9 ,<&. 9Q9C? *F9 5?D29 -$9@-%D< ). D-J%* , % C .., )anila P =eople of the =hilippines, 2% &o. /+/>6, De!ember 13, 1'/' (9n $an!A Sear!h and seiGure" re0uirementsEre0uisites of a valid sear!h warrant" sear!hing 0uestions =adilla, 5. his is a petition to annul and set aside the <rder of respondent 5udge D9&J*&2 the motion of the petitioner to 0uash Sear!h 7arrant &o. />13 as well as its <rder denying the petitionerSs )otion for %e!onsideration. #a!ts: 1. <n <!tober .1, 1'/>, =E)a8or -lladin Dimagmaliw, Chief of the *ntelligen!e Spe!ial -!tion Division (*S-DA of the 7estern =oli!e Distri!t (7=DA filed with the %egional rial Court of )anila, $ran!h .., presided by the respondent 5udge, an appli!ation for the issuan!e of a Sear!h 7arrant for violation of =D 1/44 against the petitioner" +. *n his appli!ation for sear!h warrant, =E)a8or Dimagmaliw alleged that:
13/

13'

H1. hat he has been informed and has good and suffi!ient reasons to believe that &9)9S*< =%?D9& 9 who may be found at the =olyte!hni! ?niversity of the =hilippines ( ( ( has in his !ontrol or possession firearms, e(plosives, hand grenades and ammunition intended to be used as the means of !ommitting an offense ( ( (" H+. hat the undersigned has verified the report and found it to be a fa!t ( ( ( H. *n support of said appli!ation, =E@t. #loren!io -ngeles e(e!uted a HDeposition of 7itness dated <!tober .1, 1'/> . .. <n &ovember 1, 1'/>, a Sunday and -ll Saints Day, the sear!h warrant was enfor!ed by some +66 7=D operatives led by Col. 9dgar Dula orre and )a8or )aganto" 3. <n &ovember +, 1'/>, %i!ardo -bando, a member of the sear!hing team e(e!uted an affidavit alleging that he found in the drawer of a !abinet inside the wash room of Dr. =rudenteSs offi!e a bulging brown envelope with three live fragmentation hand grenades separately with old newspapers" D. <n &ovember 4, 1'/>, the petitioner moved to 0uash the sear!h warrant on the grounds that: a. the !omplainantSs lone witness, @t. -ngeles had no personal knowledge of the fa!ts whi!h formed the basis for the issuan!e of the sear!h warrant" b. the e(amination of said witness was not in the form of sear!hing 0uestions and answers" !. the sear!h warrant was a general warrant, for the reason that it did not parti!ularly des!ribe the pla!e to be sear!hed and that it failed to !harge one spe!ifi! offense" and d. the warrant was issued in violation of Cir!ular &o. 1' of the Supreme Court in that the !omplainant failed to allege that the issuan!e of the sear!h warrant on a Saturday was urgent. 4. <n )ar!h ', 1'/4, the respondent 8udge denied the motion to 0uash and on -pril +6, 1'//, the same 8udge denied petitionerSs motion for re!onsideration. ,en!e this petition.

13'

1D6

*ssue: 7as the Sear!h 7arrant issued by the respondent 8udge validN 7as there probable !auseN ,eld: a. #or a valid sear!h warrant to issue, there must be probable !ause, whi!h is to be determined by the 8udge, after e(amination under oath or affirmation of the !omplainant and the witnesses he may produ!e, and parti!ularly des!ribing the pla!e to be sear!hed and the persons or things to be seiGed. he probable !ause must be in !onne!tion with one spe!ifi! offense and the 8udge must, before issuing the warrant, personally e(amine in the form of sear!hing 0uestions and answers, in writing and under oath, the !omplainant and the witnesses he may produ!e, on fa!ts personally known to them and atta!h to the re!ord their sworn statements together with any affidavits submitted. he Hprobable !auseH for a valid sear!h warrant, has been defined Has su!h fa!ts and !ir!umstan!es whi!h would lead a reasonably dis!reet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been !ommitted, and that the ob8e!ts sought in !onne!tion with the offense are in the pla!e sought to be sear!hedH. (Ruintero vs. &$*, 5une +., 1'//A. his probable !ause must be shown to be within the personal knowledge of the !omplainant or the witnesses he may produ!e and not based on mere hearsay. (=. FS. SJ 5?C<, 43 =,*@. 44>" -@F-%9O FS. C#*, 43 =,*@. .." ?S FS. -DD*S<&, +/ =,*@. D44A. *n his affidavit, )a8or Dimagmaliw de!lared that Hhe has been informedH that &emesio =rudente Hhas in his !ontrol and possessionH the firearms and e(plosivees des!ribed therein, and that he Hhas verified the report and found it to be a fa!t.H <n the other hand, @t. -ngeles de!lared that as a result of !ontinuous surveillan!e for several days, they Hgathered information1s from verified sour!esH that the holders of said firearms and e(plosives are not li!ensed t possess them. *t is !lear from the foregoing that the appli!ant and his witness ,-D &< =9%S<&-@ M&<7@9D29 <# ,9 #-C S -&D C*%C?)S -&C9S whi!h be!ame the basis for issuing the 0uestioned sear!h warrant, but a!0uired knowledge thereof only through information from other sour!es or persons. Despite the fa!t that )a8or Dimagmaliw stated in his affidavit that Hhe verified the information he had earlier re!eived and found it to be a fa!t, J9 ,9%9 *S &< ,*&2 *& ,9 %9C<%D < S,<7 <% *&D*C- 9 ,<7 -&D 7,9& S-*D -==@*C-& F9%*#*9D ,9 9-%@*9% *&#<%)- *<& -CR?*%9D $J ,*) -S < 5?S *#J ,*S C<&C@?S*<&. ,e might have !larified this point if there had been sear!hing 0uestions and answers, but there were none. *n fa!t, the re!ords
1D6

1D1

yield no 0uestions and answers, whether sear!hing or not, vis-a-vis the said appli!ant. *n -@F-%9O FS. C#*, 43 =,*@. .., it was held that the following test must be !omplied with in an appli!ation for sear!h warrant or in a supporting deposition based on personal knowledge or notH he true test of suffi!ien!y of a deposition or affidavit to warrant issuan!e of a sear!h warrant is whether it was drawn in a manner that per8ury !ould be !harged thereon and the affiant be held liable for damage !aused. he oath re0uired must refer to the truth of the fa!ts within the personal knowledge of the appli!ant of a sear!h warrant andEor his witnesses, not of the fa!ts merely reported by a person whom one !onsiders to be reliable.H ested by the above standards, the allegation of the witness, @t. -ngeles, do not !ome up to the level of fa!ts based on his personal knowledge so mu!h so that he !annot be held liable for per8ury for su!h allegations in !ausing the issuan!e of the 0uestioned sear!h warrant. $esides, respondent 8udge did not take the deposition of the appli!ant as re0uired by the %ules of Court. -s held in %oan vs. 2onGales, 13D SC%- 4'3, Hmere affidavits of the !omplainant and his witnesses are thus insuffi!ient. he e(amining 8udge has to take the depositions in writing of the !omplainant and the witnesses he may produ!e and atta!h them to the re!ord.H b. here was also no sear!hing 0uestions asked by the respondent 8udge be!ause as shown by the re!ord, his 0uestions were too brief and short and did not e(amine the !omplainant and his witnesses in the form of sear!hing 0uestions and answers. <n the !ontrary, the 0uestions asked were leading as they !alled for a simple HyesH or HnoH answer. -s held in Ruintero vs. &$*, 5une +., 1'//, Hthe 0uestions propounded are not suffi!iently sear!hing to establish probable !ause. -sking of leading 0uestions to the deponent in an appli!ation for sear!h warrant and !ondu!ting of e(amination in a general manner would not satisfy the re0uirements for the issuan!e of a valid sear!h warrant.H he Court avails of this de!ision to reiterate the stri!t re0uirements for determination of probable !ause in the valid issuan!e of a sear!h warrant as enun!iated in earlier !ases. rue, this re0uirements are stringent but the purpose is to assure that the !onstitutional right of the individual against unreasonable sear!h and seiGure shall remain both meaningful and effe!tive.

1D1

1D+

!. he rule is, that a des!ription of a pla!e to be sear!hed is suffi!ient if the offi!er with the warrant !an with reasonable effort as!ertain and identify the pla!e intended (= FS. F9@<S<, 3/ =,*@. 1/6A. *n the !ase at bar, the warrant des!ribed the pla!e to be sear!hed as the premises of the =?=, more parti!ularly the offi!es of the Department of S!ien!e and a!ti!s as well as the <ffi!e of the =resident, &emesio =rudente. here is also no violation of the Hone spe!ifi! offenseH re0uirement !onsidering that the appli!ation for a sear!h warrant e(pli!itly des!ribed the offense: illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions under =D 1/44. d. C*%C?@-% &<. 1' <# ,9 S?=%9)9 C<?% merely provides for a guideline, departure from whi!h would not ne!essarily affe!t the validity of the sear!h warrant provided the !onstitutional re0uirements are !omplied with. a. ,?$9% 79$$ FS. D9 @9<&, +3> SC%- 4D6 %ead also: 1. -lvareG vs. C#*, 43 =hil. .. (7hen the appli!ant is basing his knowledge from an informant, the same is not validA +. @una vs. =laGa, +4 SC%- .1. .. De )ulata vs. *riGari, 4+ SC%- +16 3. )arinas vs. Sio!hi, 163 SC%- 3+. D. %oan vs. 2onGales, 13D 4/> 4. )ata vs. $ayona, 1+/ SC%- .// (Depositions of the appli!ants and witnesses should be atta!hed to the re!ord of the !aseA >. Corro vs. @ising, 1.> SC%- D31 /. &olas!o vs =ano, 13> SC%- D6' '. $urgos vs. Chief of Staff, 1.. SC%- /66 16. =. vs. $urgos, September 13,1'/4 11. =. vs. -minnudin J -hni, 5uly 4,1'// 1+. =onsi!a vs. *gnalaga, 5uly .1,1'/> (7hen the statements in the affidavits of witnesses are mere generalities, mere !on!lusions of law, and not positive statements of parti!ular a!ts, the warrant is not validA 1.. -ber!a vs. Fer, -pril 1D,1'// +. =anganiban vs. Cesar, 1D' SC%- D'' .. =9&D<& FS. C-, &ovember 14, 1''6. (7hen the 0uestions asked to the appli!ant for a sear!h warrant was pre-typed, the same is not valid sin!e there !ould have been no sear!hing 0uestionsA 8. 7arrantless sear!hes and seiGures--when valid or not.

1D+

1D.

%ead: 1. RICAR/O VALMO-TE VS. :E- RE-ATO /E VILLA, :R -o. 63966, Sep#e$8er 99, 1969 7arrantless sear!hes and seiGures" validity of !he!kpoints =adilla, 5. #a!ts: 1. <n 5anuary +6, 1'/>, the &ational Capital %egion Distri!t Command (&C%DCA was a!tivated with the mission of !ondu!ting se!urity operations within its area of responsibility for the purpose of maintaining pea!e and order. -s part of its duty to maintain pea!e and order, the &C%DC installed !he!kpoints in various parts of FalenGuela, )etro )anila. =etitioners !laim that be!ause of these !he!kpoints, the residents of FalenGuela, )) are worried of being harassed and of their safety being pla!ed at the arbitrary, !apri!ious and whimsi!al disposition of the military authorities manning the !he!kpoints !onsidering that their !ars and vehi!les are being sub8e!ted to regular sear!hes and !he!k-ups, espe!ially at night or dawn, without the benefit of a sear!h warrant andEor !ourt order. +. <n 5uly ', 1'// at dawn, the apprehensions of the residents of FalenGuela in!reased be!ause $en8amin =arpon, the supply offi!er of the )uni!ipality of FalenGuela was gunned down in !old blood by the military men manning the !he!kpoints for ignoring or refusing to submit himself to the !he!kpoint and for !ontinuing to speed off inspite of several warning shots fired in the air. *ssue: 7hether or not the e(isten!e of said !he!kpoints as well as the periodi! sear!hes and seiGures made by the military authorities without sear!h warrant validN ,eld: =etitionersS !on!ern for their safety and apprehension at being harassed by the military manning the !he!kpoints are not suffi!ient grounds to de!lare the !he!kpoints as per se illegal.
1D.

1D3

&ot all sear!hes and seiGures are prohibited. hose whi!h are reasonable are not forbidden. - reasonable sear!h is not to be determined by any fi(ed formula but is to be resolved a!!ording to the fa!ts of ea!h !ase. 7here, for e(ample, the offi!er merely draws aside the !urtain of a va!ant vehi!le whi!h is parked on a publi! fair grounds (=eople vs. Case, 1'6 )7 +/'A, or simply looks into a vehi!le (State vs. 2aina, '> S9 4+A, or flashes a light therein (%owland vs. Commonwealth, +D' S7 ..A, these do not !onstitute unreasonable sear!h. he setting up of !he!kpoints in FalenGuela, )etro )anila may be !onsidered as se!urity measure to effe!tively maintain pea!e and order and to thwart plots to destabiliGe the government. *n this !onne!tion, the Court may take 8udi!ial noti!e of the shift to urban !enters and their suburbs of the insurgen!y movement, so !learly refle!ted in the in!reased killings in !ities of poli!e and military men by &=-Ss Hsparrow units,H not to mention the abundan!e of unli!ensed firearms. $9 799& ,9 *&,9%9& %*2, <# ,9 S - 9 < =%< 9C * S 9Q*S 9&C9 -&D =%<)< 9 =?$@*C 79@#-%9 -&D -& *&D*F*D?-@SS %*2, -2-*&S - 7-%%-& @9SS S9-%C, 7,*C, *S ,<79F9% %9-S<&-$@J C<&D?C 9D, ,9 #<%)9% S,-@@ =%9F-*@. rue, the manning of these !he!kpoints by the military is sus!eptible of abuse by the men in uniform, in the same manner that all governmental power is sus!eptible to abuse. $? , ,9 C<S <# <CC-S*<&-@ *&C<&F9&*9&C9, D*SC<)#<% -&D 9F9& *%%* - *<& < ,9 C* *O9&, ,9 C,9CM=<*& S D?%*&2 ,9S9 -$&<%)-@ *)9S -%9 =-% <# ,9 =%*C9 79 =-J #<% -& <%D9%@J S<C*9 J -&D =9-C9#?@ C<))?&* J. #inally, it must be emphasiGed that on 5uly 1>, 1'//, the military !he!kpoints in )etro )anila were temporarily lifted and a review and refinement of the rules in the !ondu!t of the poli!e and military manning the !he!kpoints upon order of the &C%DC Chief. CruG and Sarmiento, 55., dissenting: he bland de!laration by the ma8ority that individual rights must yield to the demands of national se!urity ignores the fa!t that the $ill of %ights was intended pre!isely to limit the authority of the State even if asserted on the ground of national se!urity.

1D3

1DD

RESOL3TIOOTHE MOTIORECO-SI/ERATIO-, J3-E 11, 199; Fery *mportant:

.OR

he Supreme Court in its %esolution of the )otion for %e!onsideration dated 1D 5une, 1''6, held that military and poli!e !he!kpoints are not illegal as these measures to prote!t the government and safeguards the lives of the people. he !he!kpoints are legal as where the survival of the organiGed government is on the balan!e, or where the lives and safety of the people are in grave peril. Howe*er, #%e Supre$e Cour# %el) (ur#%er #%"# #%e $ili#"ry o((icer7 $"''i'& #%e c%ecLpoi'#7 $"y co')uc# VIS3AL SEARCH O-LY, -OT 4O/ILY SEARCH. %ead also: 1-a. $i5al Ali2 vs. +en. Castro, June 0:,.-;/ 1-b. = s. Cendana, <!tober 1>, 1''6 1-!. =. vs. Castiller, -ugust 4, 1''6 1-d. =. vs. <laes, 5uly .6, 1''6 +. =apa vs. )ago, ++ SC%- /D> .. %oldan vs. -r!a, 4D SC%- ..4 3. =. vs. C#*, 161 SC%- /4 D. =a!is vs. =amaran, D4 SC%- 14 4. @opeG vs. Commisioner, 4D SC%- ..4 >. = vs. CruG, 14D SC%- 1.D /. &olas!o vs. =ano, 13> SC%- D6' P 1.' SC%1D+ '. = vs. Claudio, 146 SC%- 434 ( here is a valid warrantless sear!h when a &-%C<) (now =D9-A offi!er arrests the person who owns a bag whi!h !ontains mari8uana whi!h he found out when he smelled the same. ,ere , there is a probable !ause sin!e he has personal knowledge due to his e(pertise on drugsA 11. 5EO5LE VS. /EL ROSARIO, July 1;, 1992. (-fter the informant was given by the poli!e the amount of =166.66, he went to buy mari8uana from the a!!used then returned to the poli!e head0uarters with said arti!le. hereafter, the poli!emen went to arrest the a!!used without warrant. he arrest is not valid sin!e it does not fall under Se!tion D %ule 11.A @ikewise, after se!uring a sear!h warrant authoriGing the seiGure of shabu and its paraphernalia and an unli!ensed firearm was seiGed instead, said gun is inadmissible in eviden!e. k. )ay a non-8udi!ial offi!er issue a warrant of arrestN (&<A %ead: 1. ,arvey vs. )iriam Defensor-Santiago, 5une +4,1'//
1DD

1D4

+. )oreno vs. Fivo, +6 SC%- D4+ .. @im vs. =on!e de @eon, 44 SC%- +'' 3. ,<% 9&C*- S-@-O-% FS. ,<& <)-S -C,-C<S<, 2.%. &<. /1D16, )ar!h 13, 1''6 (9n ban!A D. =residential -nti\Dollar Salting ask #or!e vs. C-, )ar!h 14, 1'/' l. =roperties sub8e!t to seiGure %ead: 1 2 1. Se!. +, %ule 1+4,1'/D %ules on Crimial =ro!edure, as amended +. 9S=-&< FS. C-, +// SC%- DD/ m. 7arrantless sear!hes and arrests %ead: 1. =. vs. $ati, -ugust +>, 1''6 1-a. )anuel et al., vs. 5udge irso Felas!o, 2% &o. /3444, #ebruary ', 1'/' 1-b. 2ar!ia-=adilla vs. 9nrile,1+1 SC%- 3> P 1.> SC%43> 1-!. =. vs. )aspil, 5r., -ugust +6, 1''6 (Compare with =. vs. -minnudin, 5uly 4, 1'//, supraA 1-d. =osadas vs. C-, -ug. +, 1''6 1-e. =. vs. De la CruG 1-f. =. vs. ortiG, De!. ., 1''6 1-g. %olito 2o vs. C-, #eb. 11, 1''+ 1-h. =eople vs. )ati, 5anuary 1/, 1''1 +. )orales vs. =on!e 9nrile, 1+1 SC%- D./ +-a. = vs. $urgos, 133 SC%- 1 +-b. =eople vs. de la CruG, 1/3 SC%- 314 +-!. 2at!halian vs. $oard, )ay .1, 1''1 +-d. =eople vs. Su!ro, )ar!h 1/, 1''1 +-e. =9<=@9 FS. S<@-J-<, +4+ SC%- +DD +-f. =9<=@9 FS. C?*S<&, +D4 SC%- .+D +-g. =9<=@9 FS. D-)-S<, +1+ SC%- D3> +-h. <=<S-D-S FS. C-, +D/ SC%- 1// +-i. =9<=@9 FS. 5?- -&, +46 SC%- D.+ ($uy-bust operationA .. Se!. 4, %ule 11., 1'/D %ules on Criminal =ro!edure, as amended n. 9ffe!t posting bail or entering a plea during the arraignment, if the arrest was illegal. ( he alleged illegality of the arrest is deemed waived upon posting of the bond by the a!!usedA
1D4

1D>

5EO5LE VS. :ALVE>, 311 SCRA 926 )endoGa, 5. T%e police$"' "rre7#e) #%e "ccu7e)G"ppell"'# o' #%e 8"7i7 7olely o( w%"# Rey'"l)o C"7#ro %") #ol) %i$ "') 'o# 8ec"u7e %e 7"w #%e "ccu7e)G"ppell"'# co$$i# #%e cri$e c%"r&e) "&"i'7# %i$. I')ee), #%e pro7ecu#io' ")$i##e) #%"# #%ere w"7 'o w"rr"'# o( "rre7# i77ue) "&"i'7# "ccu7e)G"ppell"'# w%e' #%e l"##er w"7 #"Le' i'#o cu7#o)y. Co'7i)eri'& #%"# #%e "ccu7e)G"ppell"'# w"7 'o# co$$i##i'& " cri$e "# #%e #i$e %e w"7 "rre7#e) 'or )i) #%e "rre7#i'& o((icer %"*e "'y per7o'"l L'owle)&e o( ("c#7 i')ic"#i'& #%"# "ccu7e)G"ppell"'# co$$i##e) " cri$e, %i7 "rre7# wi#%ou# " w"rr"'# c"''o# 8e Au7#i(ie). ,owever, by entering a plea of not guilty during the arraignment, the a!!used-appellant waived his right to raise the issue of illegality of his arrest. * *S &<7 S9 @9D ,- <$59C *<& < - 7-%%-& <# -%%9S <% ,9 =%<C9D?%9 $J 7,*C, - C<?% -CR?*%9S 5?%*SD*C *<& <F9% ,9 =9%S<& <# -& -CC?S9D )?S $9 )-D9 $9#<%9 ,9 9& 9%S ,*S =@9-, < ,9%7*S9, ,9 <$59C *<& *S D99)9D 7-*F9D. ,9 #-C ,,9 -%%9S 7-S *@@92-@ D<9S &< %9&D9% ,9 S?$S9R?9& =%<C99D*&2S F<*D -&D D9=%*F9 ,9 S - 9 <# * S %*2, < C<&F*C ,9 2?*@ J 7,9& -@@ ,9 #-C S =<*& < ,9 C?@=-$*@* J <# ,9 -CC?S9D. %ead: 1. +. .. 3. D. 4. Callanta vs. Fillanueva, >> SC%- .>> =9<=@9 FS. &-O-%9&<, +46 SC%- +D4 #*@< 9< FS. S-&D*2-&$-J-&, +4. SC%- +++ =9<=@9 FS. &-O-%9&<, +46 SC%- +D4 =9<=@9 FS. @-=?%-, +DD SC%- /D =9<=@9 FS. S*@-&, +D3 SC%- 3'1 o . =enalty for illegal arrest %ead: =alon vs. &-=<@C<), )ay +/, 1'/' p. 5udi!ial pronoun!ements on illegally seiGed ..4 eviden!e, 164 SC%-

1D>

1D/

0. he e(!lusionary rule,1DD SC%- 3'3 n. 7hat is the status of a do!ument obtained through subpoenaN %ead: Dianalan vs. =ros., <ffi!e of the anodbayan, &ov. +>, 1''6 r. Sear!h warrant for pirated video tapes 1. Century #o( vs. C-, 143 SC%- 4DD ( he master !opy of the allegedly pirated tape should be presented before the 8udge in order to !onvin!e him of the e(isten!e of probable !auseA +. C<@?)$*- =*C ?%9S FS. C-, +41 SC%- 133 ?J FS. $*%, .33 SC%- .4 he following are the re0uisites of a valid sear!h warrant: 1. +. he warrant must be issued upon probable !ause" he probable !ause must be determined by the 8udge himself and not by appli!ant or any other person" .. *n determining probable !ause, the 8udge must e(amine under oath and affirmation the !omplainant and su!h witnesses as the latter may produ!e" and 3. he warrant issued must parti!ularly des!ribe the pla!e to be sear!hed and the person or things to be seiGed. - des!ription of the pla!e to be sear!hed is suffi!ient if the offi!er with the warrant !an, with reasonable effort, as!ertain and identify the pla!e intended and distinguish it from other pla!es in the !ommunity. Sear!h warrants are not issued on loose, vague or doubtful basis of fa!t, nor on mere suspi!ion or belief. *n this !ase, most of the items listed in the warrants fail to meet the test of parti!ularity, espe!ially sin!e the witness had furnished the 8udge photo!opies of the do!uments sought to be seiGed. THE SEARCH 0ARRA-T IS SE5ARA4LE, A-/ THOSE ITEMS -OT 5ARTIC3LARLY /ESCRI4E/ MAY 4E C3T O.. 0ITHO3T /ESTROYI-: THE 0HOLE 0ARRA-T. 5EO5LE VS. VAL/E>, 321 SCRA 91 T%e pro#ec#io' "&"i'7# u're"7o'"8le 7e"rc% "') 7eiJure co*er7 8o#% i''oce'# "') &uil#y "liLe "&"i'7# "'y (or$ o( %i&%%"')e)'e77 o( l"w e'(orce7.

1D/

1D'

T%e Eplain vie?F doctrine, w%ic% $"y Au7#i(y " 7e"rc% wi#%ou# w"rr"'#, -==@*9S <&@J 7,9%9 ,9 =<@*C9 <##*C9% *S &< S9-%C,*&2 #<% 9F*D9&C9 -2-*&S ,9 -CC?S9D, $? *&-DF9% 9& @J C<)9S -C%<SS -& *&C%*)*&- *&2 <$59C . Ju7# 8ec"u7e #%e $"riAu"'" pl"'#7 were (ou') i' "' u'(e'ce) lo# )oe7 'or pre*e'# #%e "ppell"'# (ro$ i'*oLi'& #%e pro#ec#io' "((or)e) 8y #%e Co'7#i#u#io'. T%e ri&%# "&"i'7# u're"7o'"8le 7e"rc% "') 7eiJure i7 #%e i$$u'i#y o( o'eN7 per7o', w%ic% i'clu)e7 %i7 re7i)e'ce, p"per7 "') o#%er po77e77io'7. .or " per7o' #o 8e i$$u'e "&"i'7# u're"7o'"8le 7e"rc%e7 "') 7eiJure7, %e 'ee) 'o# 8e i' %i7 %o$e or o((ice, wi#%i' " (e'ce) y"r) or pri*"#e pl"ce. =9<=@9 FS. $-?@-, .33 SC%- 44. I' c"7e o( co'7e'#e) 7e"rc%e7 or w"i*er o( #%e co'7#i#u#io'"l &u"r"'#ee "&"i'7# o8#ru7i*e 7e"rc%e7, it is fundamental that to !onstitute waiver, * )?S -==9-% ,,9 %*2, 9Q*S S" ,9 =9%S<&S *&F<@F9D ,-D M&<7@9D29, 9* ,9% -C ?-@ <% C<&S %?C *F9, of the e(isten!e of su!h right . T%e #%ir) co')i#io' )i) 'o# e@i7# i' #%e i'7#"'# c"7e. -ei#%er w"7 #%e 7e"rc% i'ci)e'#"l #o " *"li) w"rr"'#le77 "rre7#. ,5EO5LE VS. .I.3EROA, July 6, 9;;;! A' "lle&e) co'7e'# #o " w"rr"'#le77 7e"rc% "') 7eiJure c"''o# 8e 8"7e) $erely o' #%e pre7u$p#io' o( re&ul"ri#y i' #%e per(or$"'ce o( o((ici"l )u#y. THE 5RES3M5TIO- 4Y ITSEL., CA--OT 5REVAIL A:AI-ST THE CO-STIT3TIO-ALLY 5ROTECTE/ RI:HTS O. A- I-/IVI/3AL, A-/ >EAL I- THE 53RS3IT O. CRIMI-ALS CA--OT E--O4LE THE 3SE O. AR4ITRARY METHO/S THAT THE CO-STIT3TIO- ITSEL. A4HORS.

CHA5TER IV THE RI:HT TO 5RIVACY Sec#io' 3. T%e pri*"cy o( co$$u'ic"#io' "') corre7po')e'ce 7%"ll 8e i'*iol"8le e@cep# upo' l"w(ul or)er o( #%e cour#, or w%e' pu8lic 7"(e#y or or)er reCuire7 o#%erwi7e "7 pre7cri8e) 8y l"w. A'y e*i)e'ce o8#"i'e) i' *iol"#io' o( #%i7 or #%e prece)i'& 7ec#io' 7%"ll 8e i'")$i77i8le (or "'y purpo7e i' "'y procee)i'&.
1D'

146

%ead: %ead: &< 9: -ppli!able provisions of the ,uman Se!urity -!tE-nti- errorism @aw, %epubli! -!t &o. '.>+, -pproved on )ar!h 4, +66> and effe!tive on 5uly 1D, +66> ( his @aw shall be automati!ally suspended one (1A month before and two (+A months after the holding of any ele!tionA =lease observe the pro!edure in obtaining the BT%e 0"rr"'# <or Or)er= o( Sur*eill"'ceD, not found in the 1'/> =hilippine Constitution. S?%F9*@@-&C9 <# S?S=9C S -&D *& 9%C9= *<& -&D %9C<%D*&2 <# C<))?&*C- *<&S <# S?S=9C S <% C,-%29D <# 9%%<%*S) 3e tion 7. Surveillan!e of suspe!ts and inter!eption and re!ording of !ommuni!ations. he provisions of %- 3+66 (-nti-7iretapping @awA to the !ontrary notwithstanding, a poli!e or law enfor!ement offi!ial and the members of his team may, upon a written order of the Court of -ppeals, listen to, inter!ept and re!ord, with the use of any mode, form or kind or type of ele!troni! or other surveillan!e e0uipment or inter!epting and tra!king devi!es, or with the use of any other suitable ways or means for that purpose, any !ommuni!ation, message, !onversation, dis!ussion, or spoken or written words between members of a 8udi!ially de!lared and outlawed terrorist organiGation, asso!iation, or group of persons or of any person !harged with or suspe!ted of the !rime of terrorism or !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism. =rovided, hat surveillan!e, inter!eption and re!ording of !ommuni!ations between lawyers and !lients, do!tors and patients, 8ournalists and their sour!es and !onfidential business !orresponden!e shall not be authoriGed. 3e tion 8. #ormal -ppli!ation for 5udi!ial -uthoriGation.- he written order of the authoriGing division of the Court of -ppeals to tra!k down, tap, listen, inter!ept, and re!ord !ommuni!ations, messages, !onversations, dis!ussions, or spoken or written words of any person suspe!ted of the !rime of terrorism or the !rime of !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism, shall only be granted by the authoriGing division of the Court of -ppeals ?=<& -& 9Q-=-% 9 written appli!ation of a poli!e or law enfor!ement offi!ial who has been duly authoriGed in writing by the -ntierrorism Coun!il !reated in Se!tion D. of this -!t to file su!h e(-parte appli!ation, and upon e(amination under oath and affirmation of the appli!ant and the witnesses who may produ!e to establish:
146

141

hat there is probable !ause to believe based on personal knowledge of fa!ts and !ir!umstan!es that the said !rime of terrorism or !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism has been !ommitted, or is being !ommitted, or is about to be !ommitted" hat there is probable !ause to believe based on personal knowledge of fa!ts and !ir!umstan!es that eviden!e whi!h is essential to the !onvi!tion of any !harged or suspe!ted person for, or to the solution or prevention of any su!h !rimes, will be obtained" and hat there is no other effe!tive means readily available for a!0uiring su!h eviden!e. 3e . @. Classifi!ation and Contents of the <rder of the Court. he written order granted by the authoriGing division of the Court of -ppeals as well as its order, if any, to e(tend or renew the same, the original appli!ation of the appli!ant, in!luding his appli!ation to e(tend or renew, if any, and the written authoriGations of the -nti- errorism Coun!il shall be deemed and are hereby de!lared as !lassified information: =rovided, hat the person being surveilled or whose !ommuni!ations, letters, papers, messages, !onversations, dis!ussions, spoken or written words and effe!ts have been monitored, listened to, bugged or re!orded by law enfor!ement authorities has the right to be informed of the a!ts done by the law enfor!ement authorities in the premises or to !hallenge, if he or she intends to do so, the legality of the interferen!e before the Court of -ppeals whi!h issued said written order. he written order of the authoriGing division of the !ourt of -ppeals shall spe!ify the following:

he identity, su!h as name and address, if known, of the !harged of suspe!ted persons whose !ommuni!ations, messages, !onversations, dis!ussions, or spoken or written words are to be tra!ked down, tapped, listened to, inter!epted or re!orded and, in !ase of radio, ele!troni!, or telephone (whether wireless or otherwiseA !ommuni!ations, messages, !onversations, dis!ussions, or spoken or written words, the ele!troni! transmission systems or the telephone numbers to be tra!ked down, tapped, listened to, inter!epted, and re!orded and their lo!ations if the person suspe!ted of the !rime of terrorism or !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism is not fully known, su!h person shall be sub8e!t to !ontinuous surveillan!e provided there is reasonable ground to do so" he identity (name and address, and the poli!e or law enfor!ement organiGationA of the members of his team 8udi!ially authoriGed to tra!k down, tap, listen to, inter!ept, and re!ord the !ommuni!ations, messages, !onversations, dis!ussions, or spoken or written words" he offense or offenses !ommitted, or being !ommitted, or sought to be prevented" and he length of time whi!h the authoriGation shall be used or !arried out.
141

14+

3e tion. 10. 9ffe!tive =eriod of 5udi!ial -uthoriGation. -ny authoriGation granted by the authoriGing division of the !ourt of -ppealsV shall only be effe!tive for the length of time spe!ified in the written order of the authoriGing division of the Court of -ppeals, whi!h shall not e(!eed .6 days from the date of re!eipt of the written order of the authoriGing division of the !ourt of -ppeals by the appli!ant poli!e or law enfor!ement offi!ial. he C- may e(tend or renew the said authoriGation for another non-e(tendible period, whi!h shall not e(!eed .6 days from the e(piration of the original periodV he e(-parte appli!ation for renewal has been duly authoriGed by the -nti-terrorism Coun!il in writing. *f no !ase is filed within the .6-day period, the appli!ant poli!e or law enfor!ement offi!ial shall immediately notify the person sub8e!t of the surveillan!e, inter!eption, and re!ording of the termination of the said surveillan!e, inter!eption and re!ording. B=enalty to be imposed on the poli!e offi!ial who fails to inform the person sub8e!t of surveillan!e of the termination of the surveillan!e, monitoring, inter!eption and re!ording shall be penaliGed to 16 years and 1 day to 1+ years. 3e tion 15. 9videntiary Falue of Deposited )aterials. -ny listened to, inter!epted, and re!orded !ommuni!ations, messages, !onversationsV7,*C, ,-F9 $99& S9C?%9D *& F*<@- *<& <# ,9 =9% *&9& =%<F*S*<&S <# ,*S -C , S,-@@ -$S<@? 9@J &< $9 -D)*SS*$@9 -&D ?S-$@9 -S 9F*D9&C9 -2-*&S -&J$<DJ *& -&J 5?D*C*-@, R?-S*-5?D*C*-@, @92*S@- *F9, <% -D)*&*S %- *F9 *&F9S *2- *<&, *&R?*%J, =%<C99D*&2, <% ,9-%*&2. J3/ICIAL A3THORI>ATIO- TO EEAMI-E 4A-F /E5OSITS, ACCO3-TS, A-/ RECOR/S O. S3S5ECTE/ OR CHAR:E/ TERRORISTS Se!tion +>. 8udi!ial authoriGation re0uired to e(amine bank deposits, a!!ounts and re!ords. he 8usti!es of C- designated as spe!ial !ourt to handle antiterrorism !ases after satisfying themselves of the e(isten!e of probable !ause in a hearing !alled for that purpose that: - person !harged with or suspe!ted of the !rime of terrorism or !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism" <f a 8udi!ially de!lared and outlawed terrorist organiGation or group of persons"
14+

14.

<f a member of su!h 8udi!ially de!lared and outlawed organiGation, asso!iation or group of persons, may authoriGe in writing any poli!e or law enfor!ement offi!er and the members of his team duly authoriGed in writing by the anti-terrorism !oun!il to: 1. e(amine or !ause the e(amination of, the deposits, pla!ements, trust a!!ounts, assets, and re!ords in a bank or finan!ial institution" and +. gather or !ause the gathering of any relevant information about su!h deposits, pla!ements, trust a!!ounts, assets, and re!ords from a bank or finan!ial institution. he bank or finan!ial institution shall not refuse to allow su!h e(amination or to provide the desired information, when so ordered by and served with the written order of the Court of -ppeals. 3e . 28. -ppli!ation to e(amine deposits, a!!ounts and re!ords. he written order of the C- authoriGing the e(amination of bank deposits, pla!ements, trust a!!ounts, assets and re!ords: - person !harged with or suspe!ted of the !rime of terrorism or !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism" <f a 8udi!ially de!lared and outlawed terrorist organiGation or group of persons" <f a member of su!h 8udi!ially de!lared and outlawed organiGation, asso!iation or group of persons, in a bank or finan!ial institution-S,-@@ <&@J $9 2%-& 9D $J ,9 -? ,<%*O*&2 D*F*S*<& <# ,9 C- ?=<& -& 9Q-=-% 9 -==@*C- *<& < ,- 9##9C <# - =<@*C9 <% @-7 9&#<%C9)9& <##*C*-@ who has been duly authoriGed by the -nti- errorism Coun!il to file su!h e(-parte appli!ation and upon e(amination under oath or affirmation of the appli!ant and his witnesses he may produ!e to establish the fa!ts that will 8ustify the need and urgen!y of e(amining and freeGing the bank deposits, pla!ements, trust a!!ounts, assets and re!ords: <f - person !harged with or suspe!ted of the !rime of terrorism or !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism" <f a 8udi!ially de!lared and outlawed terrorist organiGation or group of persons" <f a member of su!h 8udi!ially de!lared and outlawed organiGation, asso!iation or group of persons. 3e tion A5. 9videntiary value of deposited bank materials.- -ny information, data, e(!erpts, summaries, notes, memoranda, work sheets, reports or do!uments a!0uired from the e(amination of the bank deposits, pla!ements, trust a!!ounts, assets and re!ords of:

14.

143

- person !harged with or suspe!ted of the !rime of terrorism or !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism" <f a 8udi!ially de!lared and outlawed terrorist organiGation or group of persons" <f a member of su!h 8udi!ially de!lared and outlawed organiGation, asso!iation or group of persons, -whi!h have been se!ured in violation of the provisions of this -!t, shall absolutely not be admissible and usable as eviden!e against anybody in any 8udi!ial, 0uasi-8udi!ial, legislative or administrative investigation, in0uiry, pro!eeding or hearing. 1. =9<=@9 FS. C-$-@R?*& <, September 1', +664, D6+ SC%- 31' 9. >3L3ETA VS. CA, .e8ru"ry 1;, 1996 he wife for!ibly opened the drawers at the !lini! of her do!torhusband and took diaries, !he!ks and greeting !ards of his alleged paramours. hereafter, she used the same in their legal separation !ase. Said do!uments are inadmissible in eviden!e. his is so be!ause the intima!ies of husband and wife does not 8ustify the breaking of !abinets to determine marital infidelity. 3. O5LE VS. TORRES, July 93, 1996 =uno, 5. #a!ts: <n De!ember 1+, 1''4, then =resident #*D9@ F. %-)<S issued -dministrative <rder &o. .6/ entitled :-D<= *<& <# - &- *<&-@ C<)=? 9%*O9D *D9& *#*C- *<& %9#9%9&C9 SJS 9);. he -< seeks to have all #ilipino !itiGens and foreign residents to have a =opulation %eferen!e &umber (=%&A generated by the &ational Statisti!s <ffi!e (&S<A through the use of $*<)9 %*CS 9C,&<@<2J . he -< was 0uestioned by Senator <ple on the following grounds:

1.

he establishment of the =%& without any law is an un!onstitutional usurpation of the legislative powers of the Congress of the =hilippines"

143

14D

+.

he appropriation of publi! funds for the implementation of the said -< is un!onstitutional sin!e Congress has the e(!lusive authority to appropriate funds for su!h e(penditure" and .. he -< violates the !itiGen1s right to priva!y prote!ted by the $ill of %ights of the Constitution. ,eld: 1. he -< establishes a system of identifi!ation that is all-en!ompassing in s!ope, affe!ts the life and liberty of every #ilipino !itiGens and foreign residents and therefore, it is supposed to be a law passed by Congress that implements it, not by an -dministrative <rder issued by the =resident. -dministrative =ower, whi!h is supposed to be e(er!ised by the =resident, is !on!erned with the work of applying poli!ies and enfor!ing orders as determined by proper governmental organs. *t enables the =resident to fi( a uniform standard of administrative effi!ien!y and !he!k the offi!ial !ondu!t of his agents. =res!inding from the foregoing pre!epts, -< .6/ involves a sub8e!t that is not appropriate to be !overed by an -dministrative <rder. -n administrative order is an ordinan!e issued by the =resident whi!h relates to spe!ifi! aspe!ts in the administrative operation of the government. *t must be in harmony with the law and should be for the sole purpose of implementing the law and !arrying out the legislative poli!y. he sub8e!t of -< .6/ therefore is beyond the power of the =resident to issue and it is a usurpation of legislative power. he -< likewise violates the right to priva!y sin!e its main purpose is to provide a :!ommon referen!e number to establish a linkage among !on!erned agen!ies through the use of $*<)9 %*CS 9C,&<@<2J. $iometry is the s!ien!e of the appli!ation of statisti!al methods to biologi!al fa!ts" a mathemati!al analysis of a biologi!al data. *t is the !onfirmation of an individual1s identity through a fingerprint, retinal s!an, hand geometry or fa!ial features. hrough the =%&, the government offi!es has the !han!e of building a huge and formidable information base through the ele!troni! linkage of the files of every !itiGen. he data, however, may be gathered for gainful and useful government purposes" but the e(isten!e of this vast reservoir of personal information !onstitutes a !overt invitation to misuse, a temptation that may be too great for some of our authorities to resist. #urther, the -< does not even tells us in !lear and une0uivo!al terms how these informations gathered shall be handled. *t does not provide who shall !ontrol and a!!ess the data and under what !ir!umstan!es and for what purpose. hese fa!tors are essential to safeguard the priva!y and guaranty the integrity of the information. he !omputer linkage gives other government agen!ies a!!ess to the information. J9 , ,9%9 -%9 &< C<& %<@S < 2?-%D -2-*&S @9-M-29 <#
14D

+.

144

*&#<%)- *<&S. 7,9& ,9 -CC9SS C<D9 <# ,9 C<& %<@ =%<2%-)S <# ,9 =-% *C?@-% C<)=? 9% SJS 9) *S $%<M9&, -& *& %?D9%, 7* ,<? #9-% <# S-&C *<& <% =9&-@ J, C-& )-M9 ?S9 <# ,9 D- - #<% 7,- 9F9% =?%=<S9, <% 7<%S9, )-&*=?@- 9 ,9 D- - S <%9D 7* ,*& ,9 SJS 9). -< &o. .6/ is un!onstitutional sin!e it falls short of assuring that personal information gathered about our people will be used only for spe!ified purposes thereby violating the !itiGen1s right to priva!y. M*@?S-&2 )-J< ?&< FS. 9Q9C? *F9 S9C%9 -%J 9D?-%D< 9%)* -, 9 -@., -pril 1', +664 P 5une +6, +664 4AYA- M3-A VS. EEEC3TIVE SECRETARY E/3AR/O ERMITA, ET AL., April 19, 9;;6 H Ju'e 9;, 9;;6

Carpio, 5. =resident 2loria )a!apagal--rroyo issued 5re7i)e'#i"l 5rocl"$"#io' -o. 29; #%"# $"')"#e7 #%e A)op#io' o( " 3'i(ie), Mul#iGpurpo7e I)e'#i(ic"#io' Sy7#e$ 8y "ll :o*er'$e'# A&e'cie7 i' #%e E@ecu#i*e /ep"r#$e'#. his is so despite the fa!t that the Supreme Court held in an 9n $an! de!ision in 1''/ <=@9 FS. 9Q9C? *F9 S9C%9 -%J %?$9& <%%9S -dministrative <rder &o. .6/B&ational !omputeriGed *dentifi!ation %eferen!e SystemC issued by then =resident #idel F. %amos that the same is un!onstitutional be!ause :a national *D !ard system re0uires legislation be!ause it !reates a new national data !olle!tion and !ard issuan!e system, where none e(isted before;. he Supreme Court likewise held that 9< .6/ as un!onstitutional for it violates the !itiGen1s right to priva!y. $ased on the <ple ruling, the petitioners !laimed that =ro!lamation &o. 3+6 is un!onstitutional on two (+A grounds: a. usurpation of legislative powers" and b. it infringes on the !itiGen1s right to priva!y ,eld: he said 9(e!utive <rder &o. 3+6 does not violate the !itiGen1s right to priva!y sin!e it does not re0uire all the !itiGens to be issued a national *D as what happened in -< .6/. <nly those dealing or employed with the
144

14>

said government entities who are re0uired to provide the re0uired information for the issuan!e of the said *D. CAMILO L. SA4IO *7. :OR/O-, 2.%. &o. 1>3.36, <!tober 1>, +664, D63 SC%- >63 Sandoval-2utierreG, 5. T%e ."c#7I

<n #ebruary +6, +664, Senator )iriam Defensor Santiago introdu!ed =hilippine Senate %esolution &o. 3DD (Senate %es. &o. 3DDA, .4 B3C :dire!ting an in0uiry in aid of legislation on the anomalous losses in!urred by the =hilippines <verseas ele!ommuni!ations Corporation (=< CA, =hilippine Communi!ations Satellite Corporation (=,*@C<)S- A, and =,*@C<)S- ,oldings Corporation (=,CA due to the alleged improprieties in their operations by their respe!tive $oard of Dire!tors.;

<n )ay /, +664, Chief of Staff %io C. *no!en!io, under the authority of Senator %i!hard 5. 2ordon, wrote Chairman Camilo @. Sabio of the =C22, one of the herein petitioners, inviting him to be one of the resour!e persons in the publi! meeting 8ointly !ondu!ted by the Committee on +overnment Corporations and #u'lic Enterprises and Committee on #u'lic "ervices. he purpose of the publi! meeting was to deliberate on Senate %es. &o. 3DD..>B4C

<n )ay ', +664, Chairman Sabio and other !ommissioners of the =C22 de!lined the invitation be!ause of prior !ommitment../B>C A# #%e 7"$e #i$e, #%ey i'*oLe) Sec#io' 2,8! o( E.O. -o. 1 earlier 0uoted.

<n September 1+, +664, at around 16:3D a.m., )a8or 2eneral $ala8adia arrested Chairman Sabio in his offi!e at *%C $uilding, &o. /+ 9DS-, )andaluyong City and brought him to the Senate premises where he was detained.

.4B3C .>B4C ./B>C

-nne( :9; of the =etition in 2.%. &o. 1>3.1/. -nne( :#; of the =etition in 2.%. &o. 1>3.1/. -nne( :2; of the =etition in 2.%. &o. 1>3.1/.

14>

14/

,en!e, Chairman Sabio filed with the Supreme Court a petition for 2a'eas corpus against the Senate Committee on +overnment Corporations and #u'lic Enterprises and Committee on #u'lic "ervices, their Chairmen, Senators %i!hard 2ordon and 5oker =. -rroyo and )embers.

I S S 3 E SI

*s the investigation !ondu!ted on the petitioners violative of their right to priva!yN

H E L /I

Oones of priva!y are re!ogniGed and prote!ted in our laws. .'B34C 7ithin these Gones, any form of intrusion is impermissible unless e(!used by law and in a!!ordan!e with !ustomary legal pro!ess. he meti!ulous regard we a!!ord to these Gones arises not only from our !onvi!tion that the right to priva!y is a :constitutional rig2t; and :the rig2t most valued 'y civili5ed men,;36B3>C but also from our adheren!e to the ?niversal De!laration of ,uman %ights whi!h mandates that, : no one s2all 'e su'=ected to ar'itrary interference ?it2 2is privacy; and :everyone 2as t2e rig2t to t2e protection of t2e la? against suc2 interference or attac@s.F3.7B89 <ur $ill of %ights, enshrined in -rti!le *** of the Constitution, provides at least two guarantees that e(pli!itly !reate Gones of priva!y. *t highlights a person1s :rig2t to 'e let alone; or the :rig2t to determine ?2at, 2o? muc2, to ?2om and ?2en information a'out 2imself s2all 'e disclosed.;3+B3'C Sec#io' 9 guarantees :#%e ri&%# o( #%e people #o 8e 7ecure i' #%eir per7o'7, %ou7e7, p"per7 "') e((ec#7 "&"i'7# u're"7o'"8le 7e"rc%e7 "') 7eiJure7 o( w%"#e*er '"#ure "') (or "'y purpo7e.; Sec#io' 3 renders inviolable the :pri*"cy o( co$$u'ic"#io' "') corre7po')e'ce; and further !autions that : "'y

.'B34C 36B3>C 31

MarCue5 v. %esierto, 2.%. &o. 1.D//+, 5une +>, +661, .D' SC%- >>+. See Morfe v. Mutuc &o. @-+6./>, 5anuary .1, 1'4/, ++ SC%- 3+3.
B3/C

-rti!le 1+ of the ?niversal De!laration of ,uman %ights. See also -rti!le 1> (1A and (+A of the *nternational Covenant on Civil and =oliti!al %ights.
B3'C

3+

Constitutional and @egal Systems of -S9-& Countries, Sison, -!ademy of -S9-& @aw and 5urispruden!e, 1''6, at ++1, !iting *.%. Cortes, he Constitutional #oundations of =riva!y, > (1'>6A.

14/

14'

e*i)e'ce o8#"i'e) i' *iol"#io' o( #%i7 or #%e prece)i'& 7ec#io' 7%"ll 8e i'")$i77i8le (or "'y purpo7e i' "'y procee)i'&.;

*n evaluating a !laim for violation of the right to priva!y, a !ourt must determine whether a person has e(hibited a reasonable e(pe!tation of priva!y and, if so, whether that e(pe!tation has been violated by unreasonable government intrusion.3.BD6C -pplying this determination to these !ases, the important in0uiries are: (ir7#, did the dire tor" and offi er" of &hil o("at .oldin*" Corporation e%hi4it a rea"ona4le e%pe tation of pri!a yC+ "') 7eco'), did the *o!ern(ent !iolate "# h e%pe tationR

he answers are in the negative. =etitioners were invited in the Senate1s publi! hearing to deliberate on Senate %es. &o. 3DD, parti!ularly Bo' #%e "'o$"lou7 lo77e7 i'curre) 8y #%e 5%ilippi'e O*er7e"7 Teleco$$u'ic"#io'7 Corpor"#io' ,5OTC!, 5%ilippi'e Co$$u'ic"#io'7 S"#elli#e Corpor"#io' ,5HILCOMSAT!, "') 5%ilco$7"# Hol)i'&7 Corpor"#io'7 ,5HC! )ue #o #%e "lle&e) i$proprie#ie7 i' #%e oper"#io'7 8y #%eir re7pec#i*e 8o"r) o( )irec#or7.D <bviously, the in0uiry fo!us on petitioners1 a!ts !ommitted in the dis!harge of their duties as offi!ers and dire!tors of the said !orporations, parti!ularly =hil!omsat ,oldings Corporation. Co'7eCue'#ly, #%ey %"*e 'o re"7o'"8le e@pec#"#io' o( pri*"cy o*er $"##er7 i'*ol*i'& #%eir o((ice7 i' " corpor"#io' w%ere #%e &o*er'$e'# %"7 i'#ere7#. Cer#"i'ly, 7uc% $"##er7 "re o( pu8lic co'cer' "') o*er w%ic% #%e people %"*e #%e ri&%# #o i'(or$"#io'.

T%i7 &oe7 #o 7%ow #%"# #%e ri&%# #o pri*"cy i7 'o# "87olu#e w%ere #%ere i7 "' o*erri)i'& co$pelli'& 7#"#e i'#ere7#. *n Morfe v. Mutuc,337519 the Court, in line with D2alen v. $oe,387529 employed the rational basis relationship test when it held that there was no infringement of the individual1s right to priva!y as the re0uirement to dis!losure information is for a valid purpose, i.e., to !urtail and minimiGe the opportunities for offi!ial !orruption, maintain a standard of honesty in publi! servi!e, and promote morality in publi! administration. 34BD.C *n
3.
BD6C

urro?s v. "uperior Court of "an ernardino County , 1. Cal. .d +./, D+' = +d D'6 (1'>3A. See Sat5 v. !nited states (1'4>A, ./' ?.S. .3>, .D6-.D+, // S. Ct. D6>, 1' @. 9d. +d D>4" #eople v. Srivda (1'>1A D Cal. .d .D>, .43, '4 Cal. %ptr. 4+, 3/4 =. +d 1+4+" / Cal. .d 4+.-4+3,16D Cal. %ptr. D+1, D63 =. +d 3D>. *&S9% ,errera1s ,andbook on -rrest, Sear!h and SeiGure. "upra. 3+' ?.S. D/' (1'>>A. Justice #uno, @e!ture on @egislative *n0uiry and %ight to =riva!y , p. 46.

33BD1C 3DBD+C 34BD.C

14'

1>6

*almonte v. elmonte,3/75B9 the Court remarked that as pu8lic (i&ure7, #%e Me$8er7 o( #%e (or$er 4"#"7"'& 5"$8"'7" e'Aoy " $ore li$i#e) ri&%# #o pri*"cy "7 co$p"re) #o or)i'"ry i')i*i)u"l7, and their a!tions are sub8e!t to !loser s!rutiny. aking this into !onsideration, the Court ruled that the right of the people to a!!ess information on matters of publi! !on!ern prevails over the right to priva!y of finan!ial transa!tions.

?nder the present !ir!umstan!es, the alleged anomalies in the =,*@C<)S- , =,C and =< C, ranging in millions of pesos, and the !onspiratorial parti!ipation of the =C22 and its offi!ials are co$pelli'& re"7o'7 for the Senate to e(a!t vital information from the dire!tors and offi!ers of =hil!omsat ,oldings Corporations, as well as from Chairman Sabio and his Commissioners to aid it in !rafting the ne!essary legislation to prevent !orruption and formulate remedial measures and poli!y determination regarding =C221s effi!a!y. here being no reasonable e(pe!tation of priva!y on the part of those dire!tors and offi!ers over the sub8e!t !overed by Senate %es. &o. 3DD, it follows that their right to priva!y has not been violated by respondent Senate Committees.

@et it be stressed at this point that so long as the !onstitutional rights of witnesses, like Chairman Sabio and his Commissioners, will be respe!ted by respondent Senate Committees, it their duty to !ooperate with them in their efforts to obtain the fa!ts needed for intelligent legislative a!tion. he unremitting obligation of e*ery ci#iJe' is to respond to subpoenae, to respe!t the dignity of the Congress and its Committees, and to testify fully with respe!t to matters within the realm of proper investigation. *n fine, =C22 Chairman Camilo Sabio and Commissioners %i!ardo -b!ede, &ar!iso &ario, &i!asio Conti, and ereso 5avier" and )anuel -ndal and 5ulio 5alandoni, =C221s nominees to =hil!omsat ,oldings Corporation, as well as its dire!tors and offi!ers, $u7# co$ply wi#% #%e 3#4poenae Ad Te"tifi and#( i77ue) 8y re7po')e'# Se'"#e Co$$i##ee7 )irec#i'& #%e$ #o "ppe"r "') #e7#i(y i' pu8lic %e"ri'&7 rel"#i*e #o Se'"#e Re7olu#io' -o. 211.

CHA5TER V G .REE/OM O. S5EECH, 5RESS, EE5RESSIO-, e#c.

3>BD3C

1>6 SC%- +D4 (1'/'A

1>6

1>1

Sec#io' 2. -o l"w 7%"ll 8e p"77e) "8ri)&i'& #%e (ree)o$ o( 7peec%, o( e@pre77io', or o( #%e pre77, or #%e ri&%# o( #%e people pe"ce"8ly #o "77e$8le "') pe#i#io' #%e &o*er'$e'# (or #%e re)re77 o( #%eir &rie*"'ce7. &< 9: -ppli!able provisions of the ,uman Se!urity -!tE-nti- errorism @aw, %epubli! -!t &o. '.>+, -pproved on )ar!h 4, +66> and effe!tive on 5uly 1D, +66> ( his @aw shall be automati!ally suspended one (1A month before and two (+A months after the holding of any ele!tionA 3e tion 28 provides that persons who have been !harged with terrorism or !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism---even if they have been granted bail be!ause eviden!e of guilt is not strongX!an be: Detained under house arrest" %estri!ted from traveling" andEor =rohibited from using any !ellular phones, !omputers, or other means of !ommuni!ations with people outside their residen!e. 1. %ule on !riti!isms against a!ts of publi! offi!ers %ead: 1. 9spuelas vs. =eople, '6 =hil. D+3 +. ?S vs. $ustos, .> =hil. >.1 ,A pu8lic o((ici"l 7%oul) 'o# 8e o'io'G 7Li''e) wi#% re(ere'ce #o co$$e'#7 upo' %i7 o((ici"l "c#7. T%e i'#ere7# o( #%e &o*er'$e'# "') #%e 7ocie#y )e$"')7 (ull )i7cu77io' o( pu8lic "(("ir7A .. =. vs. =ereG, 3D =hil. D'' 3. )er!ado vs. C#*, 114 SC%- '. +. #reedom of the press, in general %ead: 4A:3IO MI/LA-/ CO3RIER H CECILLE A.A4LE VS. CO3RT O. A55EALS H RAMO- LA4O, JR., 222 SCRA 96 <-o*e$8er 91, 9;;2= #reedom of 9(pression" the publi! has the right to be informed on the mental, moral and physi!al fitness of !andidates for publi! offi!e. #-C S:
1>1

1>+

1. I' #%e J"'u"ry 3, 1966 i77ue o( #%e 4"&uio Mi)l"') Courier ,4MC!, Cecille A("8le, #%e E)i#orGi'GC%ie(, i' %er colu$' BI' "') Ou# o( 4"&uioD $")e #%e (ollowi'& co$$e'#7I BO( "ll #%e c"')i)"#e7 (or M"yor o( 4"&uio Ci#y!, L"8o %"7 #%e $o7# i$po')er"8le7 "8ou# %i$. 5eople woul) "7LI Bc"' %e re") "') wri#eDR 0%y i7 %e "lw"y7 #"lLi'& "8ou# %i7 J"p"'e7e ("#%erGi'Gl"wR I7 %e re"lly " J"p"'e7 Se'"#or or " 8"rrio F"pi#"'R I7 i# #rue #%"# %e will 7e') 516M "i) #o 4"&uioR So$e8o)y w"'#e) #o pu# "' ")*er#i7e$e'# o( L"8o i' #%e Mi)l"') Courier 8u# w"7 re(u7e) 8ec"u7e %e %"7 'o# ye# p"i) %i7 "ccou'# o( #%e l"7# #i$e %e w"7 " c"')i)"#e (or Co'&re77. 0e will "ccep# "ll ")*er#i7e$e'#7 (or %i$ i( %e p"y7 %i7 ol) "ccou'# (ir7#.D 9. I' #%e 7"$e colu$', Cecille A("8le wro#e #%e (ollowi'& co$$e'#7 i' %er J"'u"ry 1;, 1966 colu$' "# #%e CourierI BI %e"r) #%"# #%e S/u$p#y i' #%e E&&N i7 c"$p"i&'i'& (or Cor#e7. -o# ("ir. So$e re"l )oc#or7 "re "l7o 8u7y c"$p"i&'i'& "&"i'7# L"8o 8ec"u7e %e %"7 'o# "l7o p"i) #%eir $e)ic"l 7er*ice7 wi#% #%e$. Si'ce %e i7 )o'"#i'& $illio'7 %e 7%oul) "l7o 7e##le %i7 7$"ll )e8#7 liLe #%e repor#e)ly i'7i&'i(ic"'# "$ou'# o( 59 ,;;; o'ly. I( %e wi'7, 7e*er"l #e"c%er7 were 7i&'i(yi'& #o re7i&' "') le"*e 4"&uio (ore*er, "') 5"'&"7i'"' will 8e #%e (r"'c"GliCu" o( 4"&uio.D 3. A7 " re7ul# o( #%e "8o*e "r#icle7, R"$o' L"8or, Jr. (ile) " co$pl"i'# (or /"$"&e7 8e(ore #%e re&io'"l #ri"l Cour# o( 4"&uio Ci#y "7 %e cl"i$e) 7"i) "r#icle7 were li8elou7. He liLewi7e (ile) " 7ep"r"#e cri$i'"l co$pl"i'# 8e(ore #%e O((ice o( #%e Ci#y 5ro7ecu#or o( 4"&uio 8u# w"7 )i7$i77e)+ 2. L"8o cl"i$e) #%"# #%e 7"i) "r#icle7 were #"i'#e) wi#% $"lice 8ec"u7e %e w"7 "lle&e)ly )e7cri8e) "7 B/u$p#y i' #%e E&&D or o'e Bw%o i7 " ("ilure i' %i7 8u7i'e77D w%ic% i7 ("l7e 8ec"u7e %e i7 " *ery 7ucce77(ul 8u7i'e77$"' or #o $e"' BJero or " 8i& lieD+ #%"# %e i7 " B8"l"7u8"7D )ue #o %i7 "lle&e) ("ilure #o p"y %i7 $e)ic"l e@pe'7e7+ 1. T%e pe#i#io'er7, %owe*er, were "8le #o pro*e #%"# L"8o %"7 "' u'p"i) o8li&"#io' #o #%e Courier i' #%e "$ou'# o( 59 ,211.;; (or #%e ")7 pl"ce) 8y %i7 c"$p"i&'er7 (or #%e 1962 4"#"7"'& 5"$8"'7" elec#io'7+ 6. T%e Re&io'"l Tri"l Cour#, 4r"'c% 6, 4"&uio Ci#y, i' i#7 /eci7io' )"#e) Ju'e 12, 199; )i7$i77e) L"8oN7 co$pl"i'# (or )"$"&e7 o' #%e &rou') #%"# #%e "r#icle o( pe#i#io'er A("8le w"7 pri*ile&e) "') co'7#i#u#e) ("ir co$$e'# o' $"##er7 o( pu8lic i'#ere7# "7 i# )e"l# wi#%

1>+

1>.

#%e i'#e&ri#y, repu#"#io' "') %o'e7#y o( pri*"#e re7po')e'# L"8o w%o w"7 " c"')i)"#e (or M"yor o( 4"&uio Ci#y+ . O' J"'u"ry , 1999, #%e Cour# o( Appe"l7 re*er7e) #%e RTC /eci7io' "') or)ere) #%e pe#i#io'er7 #o p"y R"$o' L"8o, Jr. )"$"&e7 i' #%e #o#"l "$ou'# o( 531;,;;;.;; "(#er co'clu)i'& #%"# #%e B/u$p#y i' #%e E&&D re(er7 #o 'o o'e 8u# L"8o %i$7el(. He'ce, #%e 5e#i#io' #o #%e Supre$e Cour#. ISS3ESI Da" =a4o the <1#(pty in the ,**E de" ri4ed in the $#e"tioned arti leF Dere the arti le" "#46e t of the a"e li4elo#" or pri!ile*edF HEL/I 1. T%e Cour# o( Appe"l7 i7 wro'& w%e' i# %el) #%"# L"8o i7 #%e B/u$p#y i' #%e E&&D i' #%e Cue7#io'e) "r#icle. T%i7 i7 7o 8ec"u7e #%e "r#icle 7#"#e) #%"# BT%e /u$p#y i' #%e E&& i7 c"$p"i&'i'& (or Cor#e7D, "'o#%er c"')i)"#e (or $"yor "') oppo'e'# o( L"8o %i$7el(. I# i7 u'8elie*"8le #%"# L"8o c"$p"i&'e) (or %i7 oppo'e'# "') "&"i'7# %i$7el(. Al#%ou&% 7uc% &r"ciou7 "##i#u)e o' #%e p"r# o( L"8o woul) %"*e 8ee' co$$e')"8le, i# i7 co'#r"ry #o co$$o' %u$"' e@perie'ce. A7 poi'#e) ou# 8y #%e pe#i#io'er7, %") %e )o'e #%"#, i# i7 )ou8#(ul w%e#%er %e coul) %"*e wo' "7 Ci#y M"yor o( 4"&uio i' #%e 1966 elec#io'7, w%ic% %e "c#u"lly )i). I' li'e wi#% #%e )oc#ri'e i' 4ORJAL VS. CA, 31; SCRA 1, #%"# Si# i7 "l7o 'o# 7u((icie'# #%"# #%e o((e')e) p"r#y reco&'iJe) %i$7el( "7 #%e per7o' "##"cLe) or )e("$e), 8u# i# $u7# 8e 7%ow' #%"# "# le"7# " 3r) per7o' coul) i)e'#i(y %i$ "7 #%e o8Aec# o( #%e li8elou7 pu8lic"#io'N, #%e c"7e 7%oul) 8e )i7$i77e) 7i'ce L"8o u##erly ("ile) #o )i7po7e o( #%i7 re7po'7i8ili#y. +. L"8o cl"i$7 #%"# #%e pe#i#io'er7 coul) 'o# i'*oLe Bpu8lic i'#ere7#D #o Au7#i(y #%e pu8lic"#io' 7i'ce %e w"7 'o# ye# " pu8lic o((ici"l "# #%"# #i$e. T%i7 "r&u$e'# i7 wi#%ou# $eri# 7i'ce %e w"7 "lre")y " c"')i)"#e (or Ci#y $"yor o( 4"&uio. A7 7uc%, #%e "r#icle i7 7#ill wi#%i' #%e $"'#le o( pro#ec#io' &u"r"'#ee) 8y #%e (ree)o$ o( e@pre77io' pro*i)e) i' #%e Co'7#i#u#io' 7i'ce i# i7 #%e pu8licN7 ri&%# #o 8e i'(or$e) o( #%e $e'#"l, $or"l "') p%y7ic"l (i#'e77 o( c"')i)"#e7 (or pu8lic o((ice. T%i7 w"7 reco&'iJe) "7 e"rly "7 #%e c"7e of ?S FS. S9D-&<, 13 =hil. ../ B1'6'= "') #%e c"7e o( &97 J<%M *)9S FS. S?@@*F-&, .>4 ?.S. +D3 w%ere #%e 3S Supre$e Cour# %el)I BPi# i7 o( #%e u#$o7# co'7eCue'ce #%"# #%e people 7%oul) )i7cu77 #%e c%"r"c#er "') Cu"li(ic"#io'7 o( c"')i)"#e7 (or #%eir 7u((r"&e7. T%e i$por#"'ce #o #%e S#"#e "') #o 7ocie#y
1>.

1>3

o( 7uc% )i7cu77io'7 i7 7o *"7#, "') #%e ")*"'#"&e7 )eri*e) 7o &re"#, #%"# #%ey $ore #%"' cou'#er8"l"'ce #%e i'co'*e'ie'ce o( pri*"#e per7o'7 w%o7e co')uc# $"y 8e i'*ol*e), "') occ"7io'"l i'Aury #o #%e repu#"#io'7 o( i')i*i)u"l7 $u7# yiel) #o #%e pu8lic wel("re, "l#%ou&% "# #i$e7 7uc% i'Aury $"y 8e &re"#. T%e pu8lic 8e'e(i# (ro$ pu8lici#y i7 7o &re"# "') #%e c%"'ce o( i'Aury #o pri*"#e c%"r"c#er 7o 7$"ll, #%"# 7uc% )i7cu77io' $u7# 8e pri*ile&e). B Cle"rly, #%e Cue7#io'e) "r#icle7 co'7#i#u#e ("ir co$$e'# o' " $"##er o( pu8lic i'#ere7# "7 i# )e"l# wi#% #%e c%"r"c#er o( #%e pri*"#e re7po')e'# w%o w"7 ru''i'& (or #%e #op elec#i*e po7# i' 4"&uio Ci#y "# #%"# #i$e. &A+=/TO ?. 3AN/1A1 ?3. COM,=,C, 2.%. &<. '6/>/, 5anuary +', 1''6 #reedom of e(pression and of the press )edialdea, 5. #a!ts: 1. <n <!tober +., 1'/', %- 4>44, entitled H-& -C =%<F*D*&2 #<% -& <%2-&*C -C #<% ,9 C<%D*@@9%- -? <&<)<?S %92*<&H was ena!ted into law" +. =ursuant to said law, the City of $aguio and =rovin!es of $enguet, -bra, )t. =rovin!e, *fugao and Malinga--payao, all !omprising the autonomous region shall take part in a plebis!ite originally s!heduled for De!ember +>, 1'/' but was reset to 5anuary .6, 1''6 spe!ifi!ally for the ratifi!ation or re8e!tion of the said a!t" .. $y virtue of the 1'/> Constitution and the <mnibus 9le!tion Code ($= //1A, the Comele! issued Comele! %esolution &o. +14>, Se!tion 1' of whi!h provides: HSe!tion 1'. =rohibition on !olumnist, !ommentators or announ!ers.- During the plebis!ite !ampaign period, on the day before and on plebis!ite day, no mass media !olumnist, !ommentator, announ!er or personality shall use his !olumn or radio or television time to !ampaign for or against the plebis!ite issues.H

1>3

1>D

3. <n &ovember +6, 1'/', petitioner =-$@* < F. S-&*D-D who is a !olumnist (H<F9%F*97HA for the $aguio )idland Courier, a weekly newspaper !ir!ulated in the City of $aguio and the Cordilleras, filed a petition for =rohibition with prayer for the issuan!e of a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary in8un!tion against the Comele! to en8oin the latter from enfor!ing Se!tion 1' of resolution &o. +14>. =etitioner !laims that the said provision is violative of his !onstitutional freedom of e(pression and of the press and it also !onstitutes a prior restraint be!ause it imposes subse0uent punishment for those who violate the same" D. <n &ovember +/, 1'/', the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order en8oining the respondent from enfor!ing Se!tion 1' of %esolution &o. +14>" 4. <n 5anuary ', 1''6, Comele! through the Soli!itor 2eneral filed its Comment and moved for the dismissal of the petition on the ground that Se!tion 1' of %esolution &o. +14> does not absolutely bar the petitioner from e(pressing his views be!ause under Se!tion '6 and '+ of $= //1, he may still e(press his views or !ampaign for or against the a!t through the Comele! spa!e and airtime. ,eld: 7hat is granted by -rt. *Q-C of the Constitution to the Comele! is the power to supervise and regulate the use and en8oyment of fran!hises, permits or other grants issued for the operation of transportation or other publi! utilities to the end that e0ual opportunity, time and spa!e, and the right to reply, in!luding reasonable, e0ual rates therefor, for publi! information !ampaigns and forums among !andidates are insured. he evil sought to be prevented by this provision is the possibility that a fran!hise holder may favor or give undue advantage to a !andidate in terms of advertising time and spa!e. his is also the reason why a !olumnist, !ommentator or announ!er is re0uired to take a leave of absen!e from his work during the !ampaign period if he is a !andidate. ,<79F9%, &9* ,9% -% *C@9 *Q-C <# ,9 C<&S * ? *<& &<% S9C *<& 11($A, +&D =-%. <# %- 4434 C-& $9 C<&S %?9D < )9-& ,- ,9 C<)9@9C ,-S -@S< $99& 2%-& 9D ,9 %*2, < S?=9%F*S9 -&D %92?@- 9 ,9 9Q9%C*S9 $J )9D*- =%-C * *<&9%S ,9)S9@F9S <# ,9*% %*2, < 9Q=%9SS*<& D?%*&2 ,9 =@9$*SC* 9 =9%*<DS. )edia pra!titioners e(er!ising their freedom of e(pression during the plebis!ite periods are neither the fran!hise holders nor the !andidates. *n fa!t, there are no !andidates in a plebis!ite.

1>D

1>4

7hile it is true that the petitioner is not absolutely barred from !ampaigning for or against the <rgani! -!t, said fa!t does not !ure the !onstitutional infirmity of Se!tion 1', Comele! %esolution &o. +14>. his is so be!ause * *S S *@@ - %9S %*C *<& <& ,*S C,<*C9 <# ,9 #<%?) 7,9%9 ,9 )-J 9Q=%9SS ,*S F*97. =lebis!ite issues are matters of publi! !on!ern and importan!e. he peopleSs right to be informed and to be able to freely and intelligently make a de!ision would be better served by a!!ess to an unabridged dis!ussion of the issues, *&C@?D*&2 ,9 #<%?). he people affe!ted by the issues presented in a plebis!ite should not be unduly burdened by restri!tions on the forum where the right to e(pression may be e(er!ised. -CC<%D*&2@J, Se!tion 1' of Comele! %esolution &o. +14> is hereby de!lared ?&C<&S * ? *<&-@. %ead also: 1. +. .. 3. D. 4. *n re: %amon ulfo,)ar!h 1', 1'' *n re: -tty. 9mil 5urado, 5uly 1+, 1''6 $urgos vs. Chief of Staff, 1.. SC%- /66 Corro vs. @ising, 1.> SC%- 33/ $abst vs. &*$, 1.+ SC%- .14 9liGalde vs. 2utierreG,>4 SC%- 33/ ,I' or)er #%"# "'y 'ew7 i#e$ rel"#i'& #o " Au)ici"l procee)i'& will 'o# 8e "c#io'"8le (or 8ei'& li8elou7, #%e 7"$e $u7# 8e <"= " #rue "') ("ir repor# o( #%e "c#u"l procee)i'&7+ <8= $u7# 8e )o'e i' &oo) ("i#%+ "') <c= 'o co$$e'#7 'or re$"rL7 7%"ll 8e $")e 8y #%e wri#er. >. =oli!arpio vs. )anila imes, D SC%- 13/ /. @opeG vs. C-, .3 SC%- 114 '. &ew Jork imes vs. Sullivan,.>4 ?.S.+D3 16. @iwayway =ublishing vs. =C22, -pril 1D,l'// .. #reedom of e(pression in general %ead: 1. %-&DJ D-F*D FS. -%%<J<, )ay ., +664, 3/' SC%- 146" +. -diong vs. Comele!, )ar!h .1, 1''+ (pu##i'& o( )ec"l7 "') 7#icLer7 i' o'eN7 c"r i7 wi#%i' #%e pro#ec#e) (ree)o$ o( e@pre77io'! .. &ational =ress Club vs. Comele!, )ar!h D, 1''+. %eal also the dissenting and separate opinions of the 8usti!es. (5re*e'#i'& c"$p"i&'7 #%rou&% r")io, TV "') 'ew7p"per7 i7 *"li) i' or)er #o e*e' #%e pl"yi'& (iel) 8e#wee' ric% "') poor c"')i)"#e7! 3. Oaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan, 2% &o. >'46->6> P Oaldivar vs. 2onGales, 2% &o. /6D>/, #ebruary 1, 1'/'
1>4

1>>

D. 9astern $road!asting vs. Dans,1.> SC%- 4+/ 4. &ewsweek vs. *-C, 13+ SC%- 1>1 >. Mapisanan vs. Camara Shoes, 11 SC%- 3>> /. *& %9: -tty. ipon, >' SC%- .>+ '. @a!sa vs. *-C, )ay +.,1'// 16. Mapunan vs. De Filla, De!ember 4, 1'// 3. &ot within the prote!tion of the freedom of Constitution 1. <bs!enity" test of %ead: a. =. vs. Mottinger, 3D =hil. .D+ b. = vs. 2< =*&, -ugust /, 1'DD Te7#7I ". 0%e#%er #%e "*er"&e per7o' "pplyi'& #o co'#e$por"ry co$$u'i#y 7#"')"r)7 woul) (i') #%e worL "ppe"l7 #o prurie'# i'#ere7#+ 8. 0%e#%er #%e worL )epic#7 or )e7cri8e7 " p"#e'#ly o((e'7i*e 7e@u"l co')uc#+ c. 0%e#%er #%e worL "7 " w%ole l"cL7 7eriou7 li#er"ry , "r#i7#ic, poli#ic"l or 7cie'#i(ic *"lue. !. )iller vs. California, .> @. 9d. +d 31' d. 2insberg vs. &ew Jork,.'6 ?.S. 4+' e. 5i#" *7. CA, 1 6 SCRA 369 (- City )ayor may not order the warrantless seiGure of magaGines whi!h he believes to be obs!ene" otherwise, he will be!ome the !omplainant, prose!utor and 8udge at the same time. ,e should obtain a sear!h warrant from a 8udgeA +. @ibel or slander" test of%ead: a. @opeG and )anila imes !ases, supra b. Ruisumbing vs. @opeG, '4 =hil. D16 .. Cases undersub-8udi!e %ead: a. =. vs. -lar!on, 4' =hil. +4D e(pression !lause of the

1>>

1>/

D. #reedom of assembly and to petition the government grievan!es I-TE:RATE/ 4AR O. THE 5HILI55I-ES VS. MA-ILA MAYOR JOSE BLITOD ATIE->A, :.R. -o. 1 1921, .e8ru"ry 92, 9;1; CAR5IO MORALES, J.I

for redress of

=etitioners *ntegrated $ar of the =hilippines (*$=A and lawyers ,. ,arry @. %o0ue and 5oel %. $utuyan appeal the 5une +/, +664 De!ision and the <!tober +4, +664 %esolution of the Court of -ppeals that found no grave abuse of dis!retion on the part of respondent 5ose :@ito; -tienGa, the then mayor of )anila, in granting a permit to rally in a venue other than the one applied for by the *$=. <n 5une 1D, +664, the *$=, through its then &ational =resident 5ose -nselmo CadiG (CadiGA, filed with the <ffi!e of the City )ayor of )anila a letter appli!ation for a permit to rally at the foot of )endiola $ridge on 5une ++, +664 from +:.6 p.m. to D:.6 p.m. to be parti!ipated in by *$= offi!ers and members, law students and multi-se!toral organiGations. %espondent issued a permit dated 5une 14, +664 allowing the *$= to stage a rally on given date but indi!ated therein =laGa )iranda as the venue, instead of )endiola $ridge, whi!h permit the *$= re!eived on 5une 1', +664. -ggrieved, petitioners filed on 5une +1, +664 before the Court of -ppeals a petition for !ertiorari do!keted as C--2.%. S= &o. '3'3'. he petition having been unresolved within +3 hours from its filing, petitioners filed before this Court on 5une ++, +664 a petition for !ertiorari do!keted as 2.%. &o. 1>+'D1 whi!h assailed the appellate !ourt1s ina!tion or refusal to resolve the petition within the period provided under the =ubli! -ssembly -!t of 1'/D. he Court, by %esolutions of 5uly +4, +664, -ugust .6, +664 and &ovember +6, +664, respe!tively, denied the petition for being moot and a!ademi!, denied the relief that the petition be heard on the merits in view of the penden!y of C--2.%. S= &o. '3'3', and denied the motion for re!onsideration. he rally pushed through on 5une ++, +664 at )endiola $ridge, after CadiG dis!ussed with =ESupt. -rturo =aglinawan whose !ontingent from the )anila =oli!e Distri!t ()=DA earlier barred petitioners from pro!eeding thereto. =etitioners allege that the parti!ipants voluntarily dispersed after the pea!eful !ondu!t of the program.

1>/

1>'

he )=D thereupon instituted on 5une +4, +664 a !riminal a!tion, do!keted as *.S. &o. 64*-1+D61, against CadiG for violating the =ubli! -ssembly -!t in staging a rally at a venue not indi!ated in the permit, to whi!h !harge CadiG filed a Counter--ffidavit of -ugust ., +664. *n the meantime, the appellate !ourt ruled, in C--2.%. S= &o. '3'3', by the first assailed issuan!e, that the petition be!ame moot and la!ked merit. he appellate !ourt also denied petitioners1 motion for re!onsideration by the se!ond assailed issuan!e. ,en!e, the filing of the present petition for review on !ertiorari, to whi!h respondent filed his Comment of &ovember 1/, +66/ whi!h merited petitioners1 %eply of <!tober +, +66'. *SS?9: he main issue is whether the appellate !ourt erred in holding that the modifi!ation of the venue in *$=1s rally permit does not !onstitute grave abuse of dis!retion. =etitioners assert that the partial grant of the appli!ation runs !ontrary to the =ubi! -ssembly -!t and *iol"#e7 #%eir co'7#i#u#io'"l ri&%# #o (ree)o$ o( e@pre77io' "') pu8lic "77e$8ly. ,9@D: he Court shall first resolve the preliminary issue of mootness. ?ndoubtedly, the petition filed with the appellate !ourt on 5une +1, +664 be!ame moot upon the passing of the date of the rally on 5une ++, +664. - moot and a!ademi! !ase is one that !eases to present a 8usti!iable !ontroversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a de!laration thereon would be of no pra!ti!al use or value. 2enerally, !ourts de!line 8urisdi!tion over su!h !ase or dismiss it on ground of mootness. ,owever, even in !ases where supervening events had made the !ases moot, this Court did not hesitate to resolve the legal or !onstitutional issues raised to formulate !ontrolling prin!iples to guide the ben!h, bar and publi!. Moreo*er, "7 "' e@cep#io' #o #%e rule o' $oo#'e77, cour#7 will )eci)e " Cue7#io' o#%erwi7e $oo# i( i# i7 c"p"8le o( repe#i#io', ye# e*")i'& re*iew. *n the present !ase, the 0uestion of the legality of a modifi!ation of a permit to rally will arise ea!h time the terms of an intended rally are altered by the !on!erned offi!ial, yet it evades review, owing to the limited time in pro!essing the appli!ation where the shortest allowable period is five days prior to the
1>'

1/6

assembly. he sus!eptibility of re!urren!e !ompels the Court to definitively resolve the issue at hand. Se!tion 4 of the =ubli! -ssembly -!t reads: Se!tion 4. Action to 'e ta@en on t2e application (aA *t shall be the duty of the mayor or any offi!ial a!ting in his behalf to issue or grant a permit unless there is !lear and !onvin!ing eviden!e that the publi! assembly will !reate a !lear and present danger to publi! order, publi! safety, publi! !onvenien!e, publi! morals or publi! health. (bA he mayor or any offi!ial a!ting in his behalf shall a!t on the appli!ation within two (+A working days from the date the appli!ation was filed, failing whi!h, the permit shall be deemed granted. Should for any reason the mayor or any offi!ial a!ting in his behalf refuse to a!!ept the appli!ation for a permit, said appli!ation shall be posted by the appli!ant on the premises of the offi!e of the mayor and shall be deemed to have been filed. (!A *f the mayor is of the view that there is imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil warranting the denial or modifi!ation of the permit, he shall immediately inform the appli!ant who must be heard on the matter. (dA he a!tion on the permit shall be in writing and served on the appli!ation BsicC within twenty-four hours. (eA *f the mayor or any offi!ial a!ting in his behalf denies the appli!ation or modifies the terms thereof in his permit, the appli!ant may !ontest the de!ision in an appropriate !ourt of law. (fA *n !ase suit is brought before the )etropolitan rial Court, the )uni!ipal rial Court, the )uni!ipal Cir!uit rial Court, the %egional rial Court, or the *ntermediate -ppellate Court, its de!isions may be appealed to the appropriate !ourt within fortyeight (3/A hours after re!eipt of the same. &o appeal bond and re!ord on appeal shall be re0uired. - de!ision granting su!h permit or modifying it in terms satisfa!tory to the appli!ant shall, be immediately e(e!utory. (gA -ll !ases filed in !ourt under this Se!tion shall be de!ided within twenty-four (+3A hours from date of filing. Cases filed hereunder shall be immediately endorsed to the e(e!utive 8udge for disposition or, in his absen!e, to the ne(t in rank.
1/6

1/1

(hA *n all !ases, any de!ision may be appealed to the Supreme Court. (iA elegraphi! appeals to be followed by formal appeals are hereby allowed. (unders!oring suppliedA *n ayan, Sarapatan, Silusang Mag'u'u@id ng #ilipinas 6SM#9 v. Ermita, the Court reiterated: ( ( ( #reedom of assembly !onnotes the right of the people to meet pea!eably for !onsultation and dis!ussion of matters of publi! !on!ern. *t is entitled to be a!!orded the utmost deferen!e and respe!t. I# i7 'o# #o 8e li$i#e), $uc% le77 )e'ie), e@cep# o' " 7%owi'&, "7 i7 #%e c"7e wi#% (ree)o$ o( e@pre77io', o( " cle"r "') pre7e'# )"'&er o( " 7u87#"'#i*e e*il #%"# #%e 7#"#e %"7 " ri&%# #o pre*e'#. 9ven prior to the 1'.D Constitution, 5usti!e )al!olm had o!!asion to stress that it is a ne!essary !onse0uen!e of our republi!an institutions and !omplements the right of free spee!h. o paraphrase the opinion of 5usti!e %utledge, speaking for the ma8ority of the -meri!an Supreme Court in &2omas v. Collins, it was not by a!!ident or !oin!iden!e that the rights to freedom of spee!h and of the press were !oupled in a single guarantee with the rights of the people pea!eably to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievan!es. -ll these rights, while not identi!al, are inseparable. *n every !ase, therefore, where there is a limitation pla!ed on the e(er!ise of this right, the 8udi!iary is !alled upon to e(amine the effe!ts of the !hallenged governmental a!tuation. T%e 7ole Au7#i(ic"#io' (or " li$i#"#io' o' #%e e@erci7e o( #%i7 ri&%#, 7o (u')"$e'#"l #o #%e $"i'#e'"'ce o( )e$ocr"#ic i'7#i#u#io'7, i7 #%e )"'&er, o( " c%"r"c#er 8o#% &r"*e "') i$$i'e'#, o( " 7eriou7 e*il #o pu8lic 7"(e#y, pu8lic $or"l7, pu8lic %e"l#%, or "'y o#%er le&i#i$"#e pu8lic i'#ere7# . (emphasis suppliedA he Court in ayan stated that the provisions of the =ubli! -ssembly -!t of 1'/D pra!ti!ally !odified the 1'/. ruling in $eyes v. agatsing. *n 8u(taposing Se!tions 3 to 4 of the =ubli! -ssembly -!t with the pertinent portion of the $eyes !ase, the Court elu!idated as follows: ( ( ( B he publi! offi!ial !on!erned shallC appraise whether there may be valid ob8e!tions to the grant of the permit or to its grant but at another publi! pla!e. *t is an indispensable !ondition to su!h refusal or modification that the !lear and present danger test be the standard for the de!ision rea!hed. *f he is of the view that there is su!h an imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil, the appli!ants must be heard on the
1/1

1/+

matter. hereafter, his de!ision, whether favorable or adverse, must be transmitted to them at the earliest opportunity. hus if so minded, they !an have re!ourse to the proper 8udi!ial authority. (itali!s and unders!oring suppliedA *n modifying the permit outright, re7po')e'# &r"*ely "8u7e) %i7 )i7cre#io' w%e' %e )i) 'o# i$$e)i"#ely i'(or$ #%e I45 w%o 7%oul) %"*e 8ee' %e"r) (ir7# o' #%e $"##er o( %i7 percei*e) i$$i'e'# "') &r"*e )"'&er o( " 7u87#"'#i*e e*il #%"# $"y w"rr"'# #%e c%"'&i'& o( #%e *e'ue. T%e oppor#u'i#y #o 8e %e"r) prece)e7 #%e "c#io' o' #%e per$i#, 7i'ce #%e "pplic"'# $"y )irec#ly &o #o cour# "(#er "' u'("*or"8le "c#io' o' #%e per$i#. %espondent failed to indi!ate how he had arrived at modifying the terms of the permit against the 7#"')"r) o( " cle"r "') pre7e'# )"'&er #e7# w%ic%, i# 8e"r7 repe"#i'&, i7 "' i')i7pe'7"8le co')i#io' #o 7uc% $o)i(ic"#io'. &othing in the issued permit adverts to an imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil, whi!h :blank; denial or modifi!ation would, when granted imprimatur as the appellate !ourt would have it, render illusory any 8udi!ial s!rutiny thereof. *t is true that the li!ensing offi!ial, here respondent )ayor, is not devoid of dis!retion in determining whether or not a permit would be granted. *t is not, however, unfettered dis!retion. 7hile pruden!e re0uires that there be a realisti! appraisal not of what may possibly o!!ur but of what may pro'a'ly o!!ur, given all the relevant !ir!umstan!es, still the assumption I espe!ially so where the assembly is s!heduled for a spe!ifi! publi! pla!e I is that the permit must be for the assembly being held there. T%e e@erci7e o( 7uc% " ri&%#, i' #%e l"'&u"&e o( Ju7#ice Ro8er#7, 7pe"Li'& (or #%e A$eric"' Supre$e Cour#, i7 'o# #o 8e O"8ri)&e) o' #%e ple" #%"# i# $"y 8e e@erci7e) i' 7o$e o#%er pl"ce .D (emphasis and unders!oring suppliedA &otably, respondent failed to indi!ate in his Comment any basis or e(planation for his a!tion. *t sma!ks of whim and !apri!e for respondent to 8ust impose a !hange of venue for an assembly that was slated for a spe!ifi! publi! pla!e. *t is thus reversible error for the appellate !ourt not to have found su!h grave abuse of dis!retion. he Court D9C@-%9S that respondent !ommitted grave abuse of dis!retion in modifying the rally permit issued on 5une 14, +664 insofar as it altered the venue from )endiola $ridge to =laGa )iranda. 29S* 9 et al. vs. C<?% <# -==9-@S, 333 SC%- D1 .ree)o$ o( pu8lic 7c%ool #e"c%er7 #o pe"ce"8ly "77e$8le "') pe#i#io' #%e &o*er'$e'# (or re)re77 o( &rie*"'ce7+ ri&%# o( pu8lic 7c%ool #e"c%er7 #o (or$ u'io'.
1/+

1/.

T%e pe#i#io'er7 ")$i##e) #%"# #%ey p"r#icip"#e) i' co'cer#e) $"77 "c#io'7 i' Me#ro M"'il" (ro$ Sep#e$8er #o #%e (ir7# %"l( o( Oc#o8er, 199; w%ic% #e$por"rily )i7rup#e) cl"77e7 i' Me#ro M"'il" 8u# #%ey cl"i$e) #%"# #%ey were 'o# o' 7#riLe. T%ey cl"i$e) #%"# #%ey were $erely e@erci7i'& #%eir co'7#i#u#io'"l ri&%# #o pe"ce"8ly "77e$8le "') pe#i#io' #%e &o*er'$e'# (or re)re77 o( #%eir &rie*"'ce7. T%u7, #%ey $"y 'o# 8e pe'"liJe) ")$i'i7#r"#i*ely. HEL/I T%e i77ue o( w%e#%er or 'o# #%e $"77 "c#io' l"u'c%e) 8y #%e pu8lic 7c%ool #e"c%er7 )uri'& #%e perio) (ro$ Sep#e$8er up #o #%e 1 7# %"l( o( Oc#o8er, 199; w"7 " 7#riLe or 'o# %"7 8ee' )eci)e) i' #%e c"7e o( MA-ILA 534LIC SCHOOL TEACHERS ASSOCIATIO- VS. LA:3IO, 9;; SCRA 393 w%ere i# w"7 %el) #%"# B#%e7e $"77 "c#io'7 were #o "ll i'#e'#7 "') purpo7e7 " 7#riLe+ #%ey co'7#i#u#e) " co'cer#e) "') u'"u#%oriJe) 7#opp"&e o(, or "87e'ce (ro$, worL w%ic% i# w"7 #%e #e"c%er7N )u#y #o per(or$, u')er#"Le' (or e77e'#i"lly eco'o$ic re"7o'7.D I# i7 u')i7pu#e) ("c# #%"# #%ere w"7 " worL 7#opp"&e "') #%"# pe#i#io'er7N purpo7e w"7 #o re"liJe #%eir )e$"')7 8y wi#%%ol)i'& #%eir 7er*ice7. T%e ("c# #%"# #%e co'*e'#io'"l #er$ B7#riLeD w"7 'o# u7e) 8y #%e 7#riLi'& e$ployee7 #o )e7cri8e #%eir co$$o' cour7e o( "c#io' i7 i'co'7eCue'#i"l, SI-CE THE S34STA-CE O. THE SIT3ATIO-, A-/ -OT ITS A55EARA-CE, 0ILL 4E /EEME/ CO-TROLLI-:. /e7pi#e #%e co'7#i#u#io'"l ri&%# #o (or$ "77oci"#io'7 u')er #%e Co'7#i#u#io', e$ployee7 i' #%e pu8lic 7er*ice $"y 'o# e'&"&e i' 7#riLe7, $"77 le"*e7, w"lLou#7 "') o#%er (or$7 o( $"77 "c#io'7 #%"# will le") #o #e$por"ry 7#opp"&e or )i7rup#io' o( pu8lic 7er*ice. T%e ri&%# o( &o*er'$e'# e$ployee7 #o or&"'iJe IS LIMITE/ TO THE .ORMATIO-S O. 3-IO-S OR ASSOCIATIO-S O-LY, 0ITHO3T I-CL3/I-: THE RI:HT TO STRIFE. ,4"'&"li7"' *7. CA, 9 6 SCRA 619! he petitioners are not therefore entitled to their salaries during their suspension be!ause the general proposition is that a publi! offi!ial is not entitled to any !ompensation if he had not rendered any servi!e.

4AYA-, FARA5ATA-, FIL3SA-: MA:4343FI/ -: 5ILI5I-AS ,FM5!, "') :A4RIELA vs. E/3AR/O ERMITA, in his !apa!ity as 9(e!utive Se!retary, )anila City )ayor LITO ATIE->A,
1/.

1/3

Chief of the =hilippine &ational =oli!e, 2en. ART3RO M. LOMI4AO, -CR5O Chief M"A. :e'. VI/AL M3EROL, and 7estern =oli!e Distri!t Chief :e'. 5E/RO 43LAO-:, 2.%. &o. 14'/3/, )ay, +664 A>C3-A, J.I T%e ."c#7I =etitioners !ome in three groups. he first petitioners, 4"y"', e# "l., in 2.%. &o. 14'/./, allege that they are !itiGens and ta(payers of the =hilippines and that their rights as organiGations and individuals were violated when the rally they parti!ipated in on <!tober 4, +66D was violently dispersed by poli!emen implementing $atas =ambansa ($.=.A &o. //6. he se!ond group !onsists of +4 individual petitioners, Je77 )el 5r")o, e# "l., in 2.%. &o. 14'/3/, who allege that they were in8ured, arrested and detained when a pea!eful mass a!tion they held on September +4, +66D was preempted and violently dispersed by the poli!e. hey further assert that on <!tober D, +66D, a group they parti!ipated in mar!hed to )ala!aTang to protest issuan!es of the =ala!e whi!h, they !laim, put the !ountry under an :unde!lared; martial rule, and the protest was likewise dispersed violently and many among them were arrested and suffered in8uries. he third group, Filu7"'& M"yo 3'o ,FM3!, e# "l., petitioners in 2.%. &o. 14'//1, allege that they !ondu!t pea!eful mass a!tions and that their rights as organiGations and those of their individual members as !itiGens, spe!ifi!ally the right to pea!eful assembly, are affe!ted by $atas =ambansa &o. //6 and the poli!y of :Calibrated =reemptive %esponse; (C=%A being followed to implement it. FM3, e# "l., !laim that on <!tober 3, +66D, a rally M)? !osponsored was to be !ondu!ted at the )endiola bridge but poli!e blo!ked them along C.). %e!to and @epanto Streets and for!ibly dispersed them, !ausing in8uries to several of their members. hey further allege that on <!tober 4, +66D, a multi-se!toral rally whi!h M)? also !o-sponsored was s!heduled to pro!eed along 9spaTa -venue in front of the ?niversity of Santo omas and going towards )endiola bridge. =oli!e offi!ers blo!ked them along )orayta Street and prevented them from pro!eeding further. hey were then for!ibly dispersed, !ausing in8uries on one of them. hree other rallyists were arrested.

1/3

1/D

-ll petitioners assail $atas =ambansa &o. //6, some of them in toto and others only Se!tions 3, D, 4, 1+, 1.(aA, and 13(aA, as well as the poli!y of C=%. hey seek to stop violent dispersals of rallies under the :no permit, no rally; poli!y and the C=% poli!y re!ently announ!ed. $.=. &o. //6, : he =ubli! -ssembly -!t of 1'/D,; provides: $atas =ambansa $lg. //6 -n -!t 9nsuring he #ree 9(er!ise $y he =eople <f heir %ight =ea!eably o -ssemble -nd =etition he 2overnment B-ndC #or <ther =urposes e it enacted 'y t2e atasang #am'ansa in session assem'led1 S9C *<& 1. &itle . I -ssembly -!t of 1'/D.; his -!t shall be known as : he =ubli!

S9C. +. %eclaration of policy. I he !onstitutional right of the people pea!eably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievan!es is essential and vital to the strength and stability of the State. o this end, the State shall ensure the free e(er!ise of su!h right without pre8udi!e to the rights of others to life, liberty and e0ual prote!tion of the law. S9C. .. %efinition of terms. I #or purposes of this -!t: (bA :=ubli! pla!e; shall in!lude any highway, boulevard, avenue, road, street, bridge or other thoroughfare, park, plaGa s0uare, andEor any open spa!e of publi! ownership where the people are allowed a!!ess. (!A :)a(imum toleran!e; means the highest degree of restraint that the military, poli!e and other pea!e keeping authorities shall observe during a publi! assembly or in the dispersal of the same. S9C. 3. #ermit ?2en reCuired and ?2en not reCuired .-- - written permit shall be re0uired for any person or persons to organiGe and hold a publi! assembly in a publi! pla!e. ,owever, no permit shall be re0uired if the publi! assembly shall be done or made in a freedom park duly established by law or ordinan!e or in private property, in whi!h !ase only the !onsent of the owner or the one entitled to its legal possession is re0uired, or in the !ampus of a government-owned and operated edu!ational institution whi!h shall be sub8e!t to the rules and regulations of said edu!ational institution. =oliti!al meetings or rallies held during any ele!tion !ampaign period as provided for by law are not !overed by this -!t.
1/D

1/4

S9C. D. Application reCuirements.-- -ll appli!ations for a permit shall !omply with the following guidelines: 1. he appli!ations shall be in writing and shall in!lude the names of the leaders or organiGers" the purpose of su!h publi! assembly" the date, time and duration thereof, and pla!e or streets to be used for the intended a!tivity" and the probable number of persons parti!ipating, the transport and the publi! address systems to be used. +. he appli!ation shall in!orporate responsibility of appli!ant under Se!tion / hereof. the duty and

.. he appli!ation shall be filed with the offi!e of the mayor of the !ity or muni!ipality in whose 8urisdi!tion the intended a!tivity is to be held, at least five (DA working days before the s!heduled publi! assembly. 3. ?pon re!eipt of the appli!ation, whi!h must be duly a!knowledged in writing, the offi!e of the !ity or muni!ipal mayor shall !ause the same to immediately be posted at a !onspi!uous pla!e in the !ity or muni!ipal building. S9C. 4. Action to 'e ta@en on t2e application. I 1. *t shall be the duty of the mayor or any offi!ial a!ting in his behalf to issue or grant a permit unless there is !lear and !onvin!ing eviden!e that the publi! assembly will !reate a !lear and present danger to publi! order, publi! safety, publi! !onvenien!e, publi! morals or publi! health. +. he mayor or any offi!ial a!ting in his behalf shall a!t on the appli!ation within two (+A working days from the date the appli!ation was filed, failing whi!h, the permit shall be deemed granted. Should for any reason the mayor or any offi!ial a!ting in his behalf refuse to a!!ept the appli!ation for a permit, said appli!ation shall be posted by the appli!ant on the premises of the offi!e of the mayor and shall be deemed to have been filed. .. *f the mayor is of the view that there is imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil warranting the denial or modifi!ation of the permit, he shall immediately inform the appli!ant who must be heard on the matter. 3. he a!tion on the permit shall be in writing and served on the appli!aBntC within twenty-four hours.
1/4

1/>

D. *f the mayor or any offi!ial a!ting in his behalf denies the appli!ation or modifies the terms thereof in his permit, the appli!ant may !ontest the de!ision in an appropriate !ourt of law. 4. *n !ase suit is brought before the )etropolitan rial Court, the )uni!ipal rial Court, the )uni!ipal Cir!uit rial Court, the %egional rial Court, or the *ntermediate -ppellate !ourt, its de!isions may be appealed to the appropriate !ourt within forty-eight (3/A hours after re!eipt of the same. &o appeal bond and re!ord on appeal shall be re0uired. de!ision granting su!h permit or modifying if in terms satisfa!tory to the appli!ant shall be immediately e(e!utory. >. -ll !ases filed in !ourt under this se!tion shall be de!ided within twenty-four (+3A hours from date of filing. Cases filed hereunder shall be immediately endorsed to the e(e!utive 8udge for disposition or, in his absen!e, to the ne(t in rank. /. Court. C=%, on the other hand, is a poli!y set forth in a press release by )ala!aTang dated September +1, +66D, shown in -nne( :-; to the =etition in 2.%. &o. 14'/3/, thus: )ala!aTang )anila, =hilippines %elease &o. + <ffi!ial &97S September +1, +66D *n all !ases, any de!ision may be appealed to the Supreme

STATEME-T O. EEEC3TIVE SECRETARY E/3AR/O ERMITA On !nla?ful Mass Actions *n view of intelligen!e reports pointing to !redible plans of antigovernment groups to inflame the politi!al situation, sow disorder and in!ite people against the duty !onstituted authorities, we have instru!ted the =&= as well as the lo!al government units to stri!tly enfor!e a :no permit, no rally; poli!y, disperse groups that run afoul of this standard and arrest all persons violating the laws of the land as well as ordinan!es on the proper !ondu!t of mass a!tions and demonstrations. T%e rule o( c"li8r"#e) pree$p#i*e re7po'7e i7 'ow i' (orce, i' lieu o( $"@i$u$ #oler"'ce. T%e "u#%ori#ie7 will 'o# 7#"') "7i)e w%ile #%o7e wi#% ill i'#e'# "re %er)i'& " wi##i'& or u'wi##i'& $"77 o( people
1/>

1//

"') i'ci#i'& #%e$ i'#o "c#io'7 #%"# "re i'i$ic"l #o pu8lic or)er, "') #%e pe"ce o( $i') o( #%e '"#io'"l co$$u'i#y. ?nlawful mass a!tions will be dispersed. he ma8ority of lawabiding !itiGens have the right to be prote!ted by a vigilant and proa!tive government. 7e appeal to the detra!tors of the government to engage in lawful and pea!eful !ondu!t befitting of a demo!rati! so!iety. he =resident1s !all for unity and re!on!iliation stands, based on the rule of law. =etitioners 4"y"', e# "l., !ontend that $atas =ambansa &o. //6 is !learly a violation of the Constitution and the *nternational Covenant on Civil and =oliti!al %ights and other human rights treaties of whi!h the =hilippines is a signatory. hey argue that $.=. &o. //6 re0uires a permit before one !an stage a publi! assembly regardless of the presen!e or absen!e of a !lear and present danger. *t also !urtails the !hoi!e of venue and is thus repugnant to the freedom of e(pression !lause as the time and pla!e of a publi! assembly form part of the message for whi!h the e(pression is sought. #urthermore, it is not !ontent-neutral as it does not apply to mass a!tions in support of the government. he words :lawful !ause,; :opinion,; :protesting or influen!ing; suggest the e(position of some !ause not espoused by the government. -lso, the phrase :ma(imum toleran!e; shows that the law applies to assemblies against the government be!ause they are being tolerated. -s a !ontent-based legislation, it !annot pass the stri!t s!rutiny test. .ur#%er$ore, #%e l"w )ele&"#e7 power7 #o #%e M"yor wi#%ou# pro*i)i'& cle"r 7#"')"r)7. T%e #wo 7#"')"r)7 7#"#e) i' #%e l"w7 ,cle"r "') pre7e'# )"'&er "') i$$i'e'# "') &r"*e )"'&er! "re i'co'7i7#e'#. %egarding the C=% poli!y, it is void for being an ultra vires a!t that alters the standard of ma(imum toleran!e set forth in $.=. &o. //6, aside from being void for being vague and for la!k of publi!ation. #inally, petitioners FM3, e# "l., argue that the Constitution sets no limits on the right to assembly and therefore $.=. &o. //6 !annot put the prior re0uirement of se!uring a permit. -nd even assuming that the legislature !an set limits to this right, the limits provided are unreasonable: #irst, allowing the )ayor to deny the permit on !lear and !onvin!ing eviden!e of a !lear and present danger is too !omprehensive. Se!ond, the
1//

1/'

five-day re0uirement to apply for a permit is too long as !ertain events re0uire instant publi! assembly, otherwise interest on the issue would possibly wane. -s to the C=% poli!y, they argue that it is preemptive, that the government takes a!tion even before the rallyists !an perform their a!t, and that no law, ordinan!e or e(e!utive order supports the poli!y. #urthermore, it !ontravenes the ma(imum toleran!e poli!y of $.=. &o. //6 and violates the Constitution as it !auses a !hilling effe!t on the e(er!ise by the people of the right to pea!eably assemble. / " " # e "5 3. 1. +. .. 3. D. D. 1. +. .. <n the !onstitutionality of $atas =ambansa &o. //6, spe!ifi!ally Se!tions 3, D, 4, 1+ 1.(aA and 13(aA thereof, and %epubli! -!t &o. >146: -re these !ontent-neutral or !ontent-based regulationsN -re they void on grounds of overbreadth or vaguenessN Do they !onstitute prior restraintN -re they undue delegations of powers to )ayorsN Do they violate international human rights treaties and the ?niversal De!laration of ,uman %ightsN <n the !onstitutionality and legality of the poli!y of Calibrated =reemptive %esponse (C=%A: *s the poli!y void on its fa!e or due to vaguenessN *s it void for la!k of publi!ationN *s the poli!y of C=% void as applied to the rallies of September +4 and <!tober 3, D and 4, +66DN H e l )I =etitioners1 standing !annot be seriously !hallenged. heir right as !itiGens to engage in pea!eful assembly and e(er!ise the right of petition, as guaranteed by the Constitution, is dire!tly affe!ted by $.=. &o. //6 whi!h re0uires a permit for all who would publi!ly assemble in the nation1s streets and parks. hey have, in fa!t, purposely engaged in publi! assemblies without the re0uired permits to press their !laim that no su!h permit !an be validly re0uired without violating the Constitutional guarantee. %espondents, on the other hand, have !hallenged su!h a!tion as !ontrary to law and dispersed the publi! assemblies held without the permit. Se!tion 3 of -rti!le *** of the Constitution provides:

1/'

1'6

S9C. 3. &o law shall be passed abridging the freedom of spee!h, of e(pression, or of the press, or the right of the people pea!eably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievan!es. he first point to mark is that the right to pea!eably assemble and petition for redress of grievan!es is, together with freedom of spee!h, of e(pression, and of the press, a right that en8oys prima!y in the realm of !onstitutional prote!tion. #or these rights !onstitute the very basis of a fun!tional demo!rati! polity, without whi!h all the other rights would be meaningless and unprote!ted. -s stated in Jacinto v. CA, the Court, as early as the onset of this !entury, in !.". v. Apurado already upheld the right to assembly and petition, as follows: here is no 0uestion as to the petitioners1 rights to pea!eful assembly to petition the government for a redress of grievan!es and, for that matter, to organiGe or form asso!iations for purposes not !ontrary to law, as well as to engage in pea!eful !on!erted a!tivities. hese rights are guaranteed by no less than the Constitution, parti!ularly Se!tions 3 and / of the $ill of %ights, Se!tion +(DA of -rti!le *Q, and Se!tion . of -rti!le Q***. 5urispruden!e abounds with hallowed pronoun!ements defending and promoting the people1s e(er!ise of these rights. -s early as the onset of this !entury, this Court in !.". vs. Apurado, already upheld the right to assembly and petition and even went as far as to a!knowledge: :*t is rather to be e(pe!ted that more or less disorder will mark the publi! assembly of the people to protest against grievan!es whether real or imaginary, be!ause on su!h o!!asions feeling is always wrought to a high pit!h of e(!itement, and the greater, the grievan!e and the more intense the feeling, the less perfe!t, as a rule will be the dis!iplinary !ontrol of the leaders over their irresponsible followers. $ut if the prose!ution be permitted to seiGe upon every instan!e of su!h disorderly !ondu!t by individual members of a !rowd as an e(!use to !hara!teriGe the assembly as a seditious and tumultuous rising against the authorities, then the right to assemble and to petition for redress of grievan!es would e(pose all those who took part therein to the severest and most unmerited punishment, if the purposes whi!h they sought to attain did not happen to be pleasing to the prose!uting authorities. *f instan!es of disorderly !ondu!t o!!ur on su!h o!!asions, the guilty individuals should be sought out and punished therefor, but the utmost dis!retion must be e(er!ised in drawing the line between disorderly and seditious !ondu!t and between an essentially pea!eable assembly and a tumultuous uprising.; -gain, in #rimicias v. Augoso, the Court likewise sustained the prima!y of freedom of spee!h and to assembly and petition over !omfort and !onvenien!e in the use of streets and parks.

1'6

1'1

&e(t, however, it must be remembered that the right, while sa!rosan!t, is not absolute. *n #rimicias, this Court said: he right to freedom of spee!h, and to pea!efully assemble and petition the government for redress of grievan!es, are fundamental personal rights of the people re!ogniGed and guaranteed by the !onstitutions of demo!rati! !ountries. $ut it is a settled prin!iple growing out of the nature of well-ordered !ivil so!ieties that the e(er!ise of those rights is not absolute for it may be so regulated that it shall not be in8urious to the e0ual en8oyment of others having e0ual rights, nor in8urious to the rights of the !ommunity or so!iety. he power to regulate the e(er!ise of su!h and other !onstitutional rights is termed the sovereign :poli!e power,; whi!h is the power to pres!ribe regulations, to promote the health, morals, pea!e, edu!ation, good order or safety, and general welfare of the people. his sovereign poli!e power is e(er!ised by the government through its legislative bran!h by the ena!tment of laws regulating those and other !onstitutional and !ivil rights, and it may be delegated to politi!al subdivisions, su!h as towns, muni!ipalities and !ities by authoriGing their legislative bodies !alled muni!ipal and !ity !oun!ils ena!t ordinan!es for purpose $eyes v. agatsing further e(pounded on the right and its limits, as follows: 1. *t is thus !lear that the Court is !alled upon to prote!t the e(er!ise of the !ognate rights to free spee!h and pea!eful assembly, arising from the denial of a permit. he Constitution is 0uite e(pli!it: :&o law shall be passed abridging the freedom of spee!h, or of the press, or the right of the people pea!eably to assemble and petition the 2overnment for redress of grievan!es.; #ree spee!h, like free press, may be identified with the liberty to dis!uss publi!ly and truthfully any matter of publi! !on!ern without !ensorship or punishment. here is to be then no previous restraint on the !ommuni!ation of views or subse0uent liability whether in libel suits, prose!ution for sedition, or a!tion for damages, or !ontempt pro!eedings unless there be a :!lear and present danger of a substantive evil that Bthe StateC has a right to prevent.; #reedom of assembly !onnotes the right of the people to meet pea!eably for !onsultation and dis!ussion of matters of publi! !on!ern. *t is entitled to be a!!orded the utmost deferen!e and respe!t. *t is not to be limited, mu!h less denied, e(!ept on a showing, as is the !ase with freedom of e(pression, of a !lear and present danger of a substantive evil that the state has a right to prevent. 9ven prior to the 1'.D Constitution, 5usti!e )al!olm had o!!asion to stress that it is a ne!essary !onse0uen!e of our republi!an institutions and !omplements the right of free spee!h. o paraphrase the opinion of 5usti!e %utledge, speaking for the ma8ority of the -meri!an Supreme Court in homas v. Collins, it was not by a!!ident
1'1

1'+

or !oin!iden!e that the rights to freedom of spee!h and of the press were !oupled in a single guarantee with the right of the people pea!eably to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievan!es. -ll these rights, while not identi!al, are inseparable. *n every !ase, therefore, where there is a limitation pla!ed on the e(er!ise of this right, the 8udi!iary is !alled upon to e(amine the effe!ts of the !hallenged governmental a!tuation. he sole 8ustifi!ation for a limitation on the e(er!ise of this right, so fundamental to the maintenan!e of demo!rati! institutions, is the danger, of a !hara!ter both grave and imminent, of a serious evil to publi! safety, publi! morals, publi! health, or any other legitimate publi! interest. +. &owhere is the rationale that underlies the freedom of e(pression and pea!eable assembly better e(pressed than in this e(!erpt from an opinion of 5usti!e #rankfurter: :*t must never be forgotten, however, that the $ill of %ights was the !hild of the 9nlightenment. $a!k of the guaranty of free spee!h lay faith in the power of an appeal to reason by all the pea!eful means for gaining a!!ess to the mind. *t was in order to avert for!e and e(plosions due to restri!tions upon rational modes of !ommuni!ation that the guaranty of free spee!h was given a generous s!ope. $ut utteran!e in a !onte(t of violen!e !an lose its signifi!an!e as an appeal to reason and be!ome part of an instrument of for!e. Su!h utteran!e was not meant to be sheltered by the Constitution.; 7hat was rightfully stressed is the abandonment of reason, the utteran!e, whether verbal or printed, being in a !onte(t of violen!e. *t must always be remembered that this right likewise provides for a safety valve, allowing parties the opportunity to give vent to their views, even if !ontrary to the prevailing !limate of opinion. #or if the pea!eful means of !ommuni!ation !annot be availed of, resort to non-pea!eful means may be the only alternative. &or is this the sole reason for the e(pression of dissent. *t means more than 8ust the right to be heard of the person who feels aggrieved or who is dissatisfied with things as they are. *ts value may lie in the fa!t that there may be something worth hearing from the dissenter. hat is to ensure a true ferment of ideas. here are, of !ourse, well-defined limits. 7hat is guaranteed is pea!eable assembly. <ne may not advo!ate disorder in the name of protest, mu!h less prea!h rebellion under the !loak of dissent. he Constitution frowns on disorder or tumult attending a rally or assembly. %esort to for!e is ruled out and outbreaks of violen!e to be avoided. he utmost !alm though is not re0uired. -s pointed out in an early =hilippine !ase, penned in 1'6> to be pre!ise, ?nited States v. -purado: :*t is rather to be e(pe!ted that more or less disorder will mark the publi! assembly of the people to protest against grievan!es whether real or imaginary, be!ause on su!h o!!asions feeling is always wrought to a high pit!h of e(!itement, and the greater the grievan!e and the more intense the feeling, the less perfe!t, as a rule, will be the dis!iplinary !ontrol of the leaders over their irresponsible followers.; *t bears repeating that for the !onstitutional right to be
1'+

1'.

invoked, riotous !ondu!t, in8ury to property, and a!ts of vandalism must be avoided. o give free rein to one1s destru!tive urges is to !all for !ondemnation. *t is to make a mo!kery of the high estate o!!upied by intelle!tual liberty in our s!heme of values. here !an be no legal ob8e!tion, absent the e(isten!e of a !lear and present danger of a substantive evil, on the !hoi!e of @uneta as the pla!e where the pea!e rally would start. he =hilippines is !ommitted to the view e(pressed in the plurality opinion, of 1'.' vintage of, 5usti!e %oberts in ,ague v. C*<: :7henever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the publi! and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, !ommuni!ating thoughts between !itiGens, and dis!ussing publi! 0uestions. Su!h use of the streets and publi! pla!es has, from an!ient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights and liberties of !itiGens. he privilege of a !itiGen of the ?nited States to use the streets and parks for !ommuni!ation of views on national 0uestions may be regulated in the interest of all" it is not absolute, but relative, and must be e(er!ised in subordination to the general !omfort and !onvenien!e, and in !onsonan!e with pea!e and good order" but must not, in the guise of respondents, be abridged or denied.; he above e(!erpt was 0uoted with approval in =rimi!ias v. #ugoso. =rimi!ias made e(pli!it what was impli!it in )uni!ipality of Cavite v. %o8as, a 1'1D de!ision, where this Court !ategori!ally affirmed that plaGas or parks and streets are outside the !ommer!e of man and thus nullified a !ontra!t that leased =laGa Soledad of plaintiff-muni!ipality. %eferen!e was made to su!h plaGa :being a promenade for publi! use,; whi!h !ertainly is not the only purpose that it !ould serve. o repeat, there !an be no valid reason why a permit should not be granted for the proposed mar!h and rally starting from a publi! park that is the @uneta. 3. &either !an there be any valid ob8e!tion to the use of the streets to the gates of the ?S embassy, hardly two blo!ks away at the %o(as $oulevard. =rimi!ias v. #ugoso has resolved any lurking doubt on the matter. *n holding that the then )ayor #ugoso of the City of )anila should grant a permit for a publi! meeting at =laGa )iranda in Ruiapo, this Court !ategori!ally de!lared: :<ur !on!lusion finds support in the de!ision in the !ase of 7illis Co( v. State of &ew ,ampshire, .1+ ?.S., D4'. *n that !ase, the statute of &ew ,ampshire =.@. !hap. 13D, se!tion +, providing that no parade or pro!ession upon any ground abutting thereon, shall be permitted unless a spe!ial li!ense therefor shall first be obtained from the sele!tmen of the town or from li!ensing !ommittee,1 was !onstrued by the Supreme Court of &ew ,ampshire as not !onferring upon the li!ensing board unfettered dis!retion to refuse to grant the li!ense, and held valid. -nd the Supreme Court of the ?nited States, in its de!ision (1'31A penned by Chief 5usti!e ,ughes affirming the 8udgment of
1'.

1'3

the State Supreme Court, held that Ka statute re0uiring persons using the publi! streets for a parade or pro!ession to pro!ure a spe!ial li!ense therefor from the lo!al authorities is not an un!onstitutional abridgment of the rights of assembly or of freedom of spee!h and press, where, as the statute is !onstrued by the state !ourts, the li!ensing authorities are stri!tly limited, in the issuan!e of li!enses, to a !onsideration of the time, pla!e, and manner of the parade or pro!ession, with a view to !onserving the publi! !onvenien!e and of affording an opportunity to provide proper poli!ing, and are not invested with arbitrary dis!retion to issue or refuse li!ense, L L L. :&or should the point made by Chief 5usti!e ,ughes in a subse0uent portion of the opinion be ignored: :Civil liberties, as guaranteed by the Constitution, imply the e(isten!e of an organiGed so!iety maintaining publi! order without whi!h liberty itself would be lost in the e(!esses of unrestri!ted abuses. he authority of a muni!ipality to impose regulations in order to assure the safety and !onvenien!e of the people in the use of publi! highways has never been regarded as in!onsistent with !ivil liberties but rather as one of the means of safeguarding the good order upon whi!h they ultimately depend. he !ontrol of travel on the streets of !ities is the most familiar illustration of this re!ognition of so!ial need. 7here a restri!tion of the use of highways in that relation is designed to promote the publi! !onvenien!e in the interest of all, it !annot be disregarded by the attempted e(er!ise of some !ivil right whi!h in other !ir!umstan!es would be entitled to prote!tion.; ((( 4. ( ( ( he prin!iple under -meri!an do!trines was given utteran!e by Chief 5usti!e ,ughes in these words: : he 0uestion, if the rights of free spee!h and pea!eable assembly are to be preserved, is not as to the auspi!es under whi!h the meeting is held but as to its purpose" not as to the relations of the speakers, but whether their utteran!es trans!end the bounds of the freedom of spee!h whi!h the Constitution prote!ts.; here !ould be danger to publi! pea!e and safety if su!h a gathering were marked by turbulen!e. hat would deprive it of its pea!eful !hara!ter. *t is true that the li!ensing offi!ial, here respondent )ayor, is not devoid of dis!retion in determining whether or not a permit would be granted. *t is not, however, unfettered dis!retion. 7hile pruden!e re0uires that there be a realisti! appraisal not of what may possibly o!!ur but of what may probably o!!ur, given all the relevant !ir!umstan!es, still the assumption I espe!ially so where the assembly is s!heduled for a spe!ifi! publi! pla!e I is that the permit must be for the assembly being held there. he e(er!ise of su!h a right, in the language of 5usti!e %oberts, speaking for the -meri!an Supreme Court, is not to be :abridged on the plea that it may be e(er!ised in some other pla!e.; (((

1'3

1'D

/. $y way of a summary. <"= T%e "pplic"'#7 (or " per$i# #o %ol) "' "77e$8ly 7%oul) i'(or$ #%e lice'7i'& "u#%ori#y o( #%e )"#e, #%e pu8lic pl"ce w%ere "') #%e #i$e 'hen i# will #"Le pl"ce. <8= I( i# were " pri*"#e pl"ce, o'ly #%e co'7e'# o( #%e ow'er or #%e o'e e'#i#le) #o i#7 le&"l po77e77io' i7 reCuire). <c= Suc% "pplic"#io' 7%oul) 8e (ile) well "%e") i' #i$e #o e'"8le #%e pu8lic o((ici"l co'cer'e) #o "ppr"i7e w%e#%er #%ere $"y 8e *"li) o8Aec#io'7 #o #%e &r"'# o( #%e per$i# or #o i#7 &r"'# 8u# "# "'o#%er pu8lic pl"ce. <)= I# i7 "' i')i7pe'7"8le co')i#io' #o 7uc% re(u7"l or $o)i(ic"#io' #%"# #%e cle"r "') pre7e'# )"'&er #e7# 8e #%e 7#"')"r) (or #%e )eci7io' re"c%e). <e= I( %e i7 o( #%e *iew #%"# #%ere i7 7uc% "' i$$i'e'# "') &r"*e )"'&er o( " 7u87#"'#i*e e*il, #%e "pplic"'#7 $u7# 8e %e"r) o' #%e $"##er. <(= T%ere"(#er, %i7 )eci7io', w%e#%er ("*or"8le or ")*er7e, $u7# 8e #r"'7$i##e) #o #%e$ "# #%e e"rlie7# oppor#u'i#y. hus if so minded, they !an have re!ourse to the proper 8udi!ial authority. #ree spee!h and pea!eable assembly, along with the other intelle!tual freedoms, are highly ranked in our s!heme of !onstitutional values. *t !annot be too strongly stressed that on the 8udi!iary, -- even more so than on the other departments I rests the grave and deli!ate responsibility of assuring respe!t for and deferen!e to su!h preferred rights. &o verbal formula, no san!tifying phrase !an, of !ourse, dispense with what has been so feli!itously termed by 5usti!e ,olmes :as the sovereign prerogative of 8udgment.; &onetheless, the presumption must be to in!line the weight of the s!ales of 8usti!e on the side of su!h rights, en8oying as they do pre!eden!e and prima!y. ( ( (. $.=. &o. //6 was ena!ted after this Court rendered its de!ision in $eyes. he provisions of $.=. &o. //6 pra!ti!ally !odify the ruling in $eyes: Reye7 *. 4"&"#7i'& (2.%. &o. @-4D.44, &ovember ', 1'/., 1+D SC%- DD., D4'A /. $y way of a summary. he appli!ants for a permit to hold an assembly should inform the li!ensing authority of the date, the publi! pla!e where and the time ?2en it will take pla!e. *f it were a 4.5. -o. 66;

S9C. 3. #ermit ?2en reCuired and ?2en not reCuired.-- written permit shall be re0uired for any person or persons to organiGe and hold a publi! assembly in a publi! pla!e. ,owever, no permit shall be re0uired if the publi!
1'D

1'4

private pla!e, only the !onsent of the owner or the one entitled to its legal possession is re0uired. Su!h appli!ation should be filed well ahead in time to enable the publi! offi!ial !on!erned to appraise whether there may be valid ob8e!tions to the grant of the permit or to its grant but at another publi! pla!e. *t is an indispensable !ondition to su!h refusal or modifi!ation that the !lear and present danger test be the standard for the de!ision rea!hed. *f he is of the view that there is su!h an imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil, the appli!ants must be heard on the matter. hereafter, his de!ision, whether favorable or adverse, must be transmitted to them at the earliest opportunity. hus if so minded, they !an have re!ourse to the proper 8udi!ial authority.

assembly shall be done or made in a freedom park duly established by law or ordinan!e or in private property, in whi!h !ase only the !onsent of the owner or the one entitled to its legal possession is re0uired, or in the !ampus of a government-owned and operated edu!ational institution whi!h shall be sub8e!t to the rules and regulations of said edu!ational institution. =oliti!al meetings or rallies held during any ele!tion !ampaign period as provided for by law are not !overed by this -!t. S9C. D. Application reCuirements.--ll appli!ations for a permit shall !omply with the following guidelines: (aA he appli!ations shall be in writing and shall in!lude the names of the leaders or organiGers" the purpose of su!h publi! assembly" the date, time and duration thereof, and pla!e or streets to be used for the intended a!tivity" and the probable number of persons parti!ipating, the transport and the publi! address systems to be used. (bA he appli!ation shall in!orporate the duty and responsibility of appli!ant under Se!tion / hereof. (!A he appli!ation shall be filed with the offi!e of the mayor of the !ity or
1'4

1'>

muni!ipality in whose 8urisdi!tion the intended a!tivity is to be held, at least five (DA working days before the s!heduled publi! assembly. (dA ?pon re!eipt of the appli!ation, whi!h must be duly a!knowledged in writing, the offi!e of the !ity or muni!ipal mayor shall !ause the same to immediately be posted at a !onspi!uous pla!e in the !ity or muni!ipal building. S9C. 4. Action to 'e ta@en on t2e application. I (aA *t shall be the duty of the mayor or any offi!ial a!ting in his behalf to issue or grant a permit unless there is !lear and !onvin!ing eviden!e that the publi! assembly will !reate a !lear and present danger to publi! order, publi! safety, publi! !onvenien!e, publi! morals or publi! health. (bA he mayor or any offi!ial a!ting in his behalf shall a!t on the appli!ation within two (+A working days from the date the appli!ation was filed, failing whi!h, the permit shall be deemed granted. Should for any reason the mayor or any offi!ial a!ting in his behalf refuse to a!!ept the appli!ation for a permit, said appli!ation shall be posted by the appli!ant on the premises of the offi!e of
1'>

1'/

the mayor and shall be deemed to have been filed. (!A *f the mayor is of the view that there is imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil warranting the denial or modifi!ation of the permit, he shall immediately inform the appli!ant who must be heard on the matter. (dA he a!tion on the permit shall be in writing and served on the appli!aBntC within twentyfour hours. (eA *f the mayor or any offi!ial a!ting in his behalf denies the appli!ation or modifies the terms thereof in his permit, the appli!ant may !ontest the de!ision in an appropriate !ourt of law. (fA *n !ase suit is brought before the )etropolitan rial Court, the )uni!ipal rial Court, the )uni!ipal Cir!uit rial Court, the %egional rial Court, or the *ntermediate -ppellate Court, its de!isions may be appealed to the appropriate !ourt within forty-eight (3/A hours after re!eipt of the same. &o appeal bond and re!ord on appeal shall be re0uired. - de!ision granting su!h permit or modifying it in terms satisfa!tory to the appli!ant shall be immediately e(e!utory. (gA -ll !ases filed in !ourt under this se!tion shall be de!ided within twenty-four (+3A hours
1'/

1''

from date of filing. Cases filed hereunder shall be immediately endorsed to the e(e!utive 8udge for disposition or, in his absen!e, to the ne(t in rank. (hA *n all !ases, any de!ision may be appealed to the Supreme Court. (iA elegraphi! appeals to be followed by formal appeals are hereby allowed.

*t is very !lear, therefore, that 4.5. -o. 66; i7 'o# "' "87olu#e 8"' o( pu8lic "77e$8lie7 8u# " re7#ric#io' #%"# 7i$ply re&ul"#e7 #%e #i$e, pl"ce "') $"''er o( #%e "77e$8lie7. his was adverted to in OsmeGa v. Comelec,3/ where the Court referred to it as a :!ontent-neutral; regulation of the time, pla!e, and manner of holding publi! assemblies.3' - fair and impartial reading of $.=. &o. //6 thus readily shows that it refers to "ll kinds of publi! assembliesD6 that would use publi! pla!es. he referen!e to :lawful !ause; does not make it !ontent-based be!ause assemblies really have to be for lawful !auses, otherwise they would not be :pea!eable; and entitled to prote!tion. &either are the words :opinion,; :protesting; and :influen!ing; in the definition of publi! assembly !ontent based, sin!e they !an refer to any sub8e!t. he words :petitioning the government for redress of grievan!es; !ome from the wording of the Constitution, so its use !annot be avoided. #inally, ma(imum toleran!e is for the prote!tion and benefit of all rallyists and is independent of the !ontent of the e(pressions in the rally. #urthermore, the permit !an only be denied on the ground of !lear and present danger to publi! order, publi! safety, publi! !onvenien!e, publi! morals or publi! health. his is a re!ogniGed e(!eption to the e(er!ise of the right even under the ?niversal De!laration of ,uman %ights and the *nternational Covenant on Civil and =oliti!al %ights.
3/ 3' D6

.R. No. 1.22.1, Mar/0 .1, 111&, 2&& SCRA (('. Ibid, p. ('&. E2/ept pi/3etin4 and ot0er /on/erted a/tion in 5tri3e area5 b6 wor3er5 and emp7o6ee5 re587tin4 from a 7abor di5p8te, w0i/0 are 4o9erned b6 t0e Labor Code and ot0er 7abor 7aw5: po7iti/a7 meetin4 or ra77ie5 0e7d d8rin4 an6 e7e/tion /ampai4n period, w0i/0 are 4o9erned b6 t0e E7e/tion Code and ot0er e7e/tion re7ated 7aw5: and p8b7i/ a55emb7ie5 in t0e /amp85 of a 4o9ernment,owned and operated ed8/ationa7 in5tit8tion, w0i/0 50a77 be 58b;e/t to t0e r87e5 and re487ation5 of 5aid ed8/ationa7 in5tit8tion. <Se/. .=a> and Se/. ( of !.+. No. &&0?.

1''

+66

-ei#%er i7 #%e l"w o*er8ro"). *t regulates the e(er!ise of the right to pea!eful assembly and petition only to the e(tent needed to avoid a !lear and present danger of the substantive evils Congress has the right to prevent. here is, likewise, 'o prior re7#r"i'#, sin!e the !ontent of the spee!h is not relevant to the regulation. -s to the )ele&"#io' o( power7 #o #%e $"yor, the law provides a pre!ise and suffi!ient standard I the !lear and present danger test stated in Se!. 4(aA. he referen!e to :imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil; in Se!. 4(!A substantially means the same thing and is not an in!onsistent standard. -s to whether respondent )ayor has the same power independently under %epubli! -!t &o. >146D1 is thus not ne!essary to resolve in these pro!eedings, and was not pursued by the parties in their arguments. #inally, for those who !annot wait, Se!tion 1D of the law provides for an alternative forum through the !reation of freedom parks where no prior permit is needed for pea!eful assembly and petition at any time: S9C. 1D. Areedom par@s. I 9very !ity and muni!ipality in the !ountry shall within si( months after the effe!tivity of this -!t establish or designate at least one suitable :freedom park; or mall in their respe!tive 8urisdi!tions whi!h, as far as pra!ti!able, shall be !entrally lo!ated within the pobla!ion where demonstrations and meetings may be held at any time without the need of any prior permit. *n the !ities and muni!ipalities of )etropolitan )anila, the respe!tive mayors shall establish the freedom parks within the period of si( months from the effe!tivity this -!t. + he Court now !omes to the matter of the C=%. -s stated earlier, the Soli!itor 2eneral has !on!eded that the use of the term should now be dis!ontinued, sin!e it does not mean anything other than the ma(imum
D1

#0e Lo/a7 t085A

o9ernment Code. Spe/ifi/a776, Se/tion 1@ 5tatin4 t0e 4enera7 we7fare /7a85e,

SEC. 1@. General Welfare. B E9er6 7o/a7 4o9ernment 8nit 50a77 e2er/i5e t0e power5 e2pre5576 4ranted, t0o5e ne/e55ari76 imp7ied t0erefrom, a5 we77 a5 power5 ne/e55ar6, appropriate, or in/identa7 for it5 effi/ient and effe/ti9e 4o9ernan/e, and t0o5e w0i/0 are e55entia7 to t0e promotion of t0e 4enera7 we7fare. Cit0in t0eir re5pe/ti9e territoria7 ;8ri5di/tion5, 7o/a7 4o9ernment 8nit5 50a77 en58re and 58pport amon4 ot0er t0in45, t0e pre5er9ation and enri/0ment of /87t8re, promote 0ea7t0 and 5afet6, en0an/e t0e ri40t of t0e peop7e to a ba7an/ed e/o7o46, en/o8ra4e and 58pport t0e de9e7opment of appropriate and 5e7f,re7iant 5/ientifi/ and te/0no7o4i/a7 /apabi7itie5, impro9e p8b7i/ mora75, en0an/e e/onomi/ pro5perit6 and 5o/ia7 ;85ti/e, promote f877 emp7o6ment amon4 t0eir re5ident5, maintain pea/e and order, and pre5er9e t0e /omfort and /on9enien/e of t0eir in0abitant5.

+66

+61

toleran!e poli!y set forth in $.=. &o. //6. his is stated in the -ffidavit of respondent 9(e!utive Se!retary 9duardo 9rmita, submitted by the Soli!itor 2eneral, thus: he truth of the matter is the poli!y of :!alibrated preemptive response; is in !onsonan!e with the legal definition of :ma(imum toleran!e; under Se!tion . (!A of $.=. $lg. //6, whi!h is the :highest degree of restraint that the military, poli!e and other pea!ekeeping authorities shall observe during a publi! assembly or in the dispersal of the same.; ?nfortunately, however, the phrase :ma(imum toleran!e; has a!0uired a different meaning over the years. )any have taken it to mean ina!tion on the part of law enfor!ers even in the fa!e of mayhem and serious threats to publi! order. )ore so, other felt that they need not bother se!ure a permit when holding rallies thinking this would be :tolerated.; Clearly, the popular !onnotation of :ma(imum toleran!e; has departed from its real essen!e under $.=. $lg. //6. *t should be emphasiGed that the poli!y of ma(imum toleran!e is provided under the same law whi!h re0uires all pubi! assemblies to have a permit, whi!h allows the dispersal of rallies without a permit, and whi!h re!ogniGes !ertain instan!es when water !annons may be used. his !ould only mean that :ma(imum toleran!e; is not in !onfli!t with a :no permit, no rally poli!y; or with the dispersal and use of water !annons under !ertain !ir!umstan!es for indeed, the ma(imum amount of toleran!e re0uired is dependent on how pea!eful or unruly a mass a!tion is. <ur law enfor!ers should !alibrate their response based on the !ir!umstan!es on the ground with the view to preempting the outbreak of violen!e. hus, when * stated that !alibrated preemptive response is being enfor!ed in lieu of ma(imum toleran!e * !learly was not referring to its legal definition but to the distorted and mu!h abused definition that it has now a!0uired. * only wanted to disabuse the minds of the publi! from the notion that law enfor!ers would shirk their responsibility of keeping the pea!e even when !onfronted with dangerously threatening behavior. * wanted to send a message that we would no longer be la( in enfor!ing the law but would hen!eforth follow it to the letter. hus * said, E?e 2ave instructed t2e #(# as ?ell as t2e local government units to strictly enforce a no permit, no rally policy . . . arrest all persons violating t2e la?s of t2e land . . . unla?ful mass actions ?ill 'e dispersed.F &one of these is at loggerheads with the letter and spirit of $atas =ambansa $lg. //6. *t is thus absurd for !omplainants to even !laim that * ordered my !orespondents to violate any law. *n sum, this Court reiterates its basi! poli!y of upholding the fundamental rights of our people, espe!ially freedom of e(pression and freedom of assembly. #or this reason, the so-!alled !alibrated preemptive response
+61

+6+

poli!y has no pla!e in our legal firmament and must be stru!k down as a darkness that shrouds freedom. *t merely !onfuses our people and is used by some poli!e agents to 8ustify abuses. <n the other hand, $.=. &o. //6 !annot be !ondemned as un!onstitutional" it does not !urtail or unduly restri!t freedoms" it merely regulates the use of publi! pla!es as to the time, pla!e and manner of assemblies. #ar from being insidious, :ma(imum toleran!e; is for the benefit of rallyists, not the government. he delegation to the mayors of the power to issue rally :permits; is valid be!ause it is sub8e!t to the !onstitutionally-sound :!lear and present danger; standard. 0HERE.ORE, the petitions are :RA-TE/ in part, and C"li8r"#e) 5ree$p#i*e Re7po'7e ,C5RA, insofar as it would purport to differ from or be in lieu of ma(imum toleran!e, is -3LL and VOI/ and respondents are E-JOI-E/ to RE.RAI- from using it and to STRICTLY O4SERVE the re0uirements of ma(imum toleran!e. Re")I 1. %ight of assembly...1 SC%- >.3 and >3+ +. 9vangelista vs. 9arnshaw, D> =hil +DD .. =rimi!ias vs. #uguso, /6 =hil. >1 3. De la CruG vs. 9la, '' =hil. .34 D. &avarro vs. Fillegas, .1 SC%- >.1 4. =hilippine $looming )ills Case,D1 SC%- 1/' >. %eyes vs. $agatsing, 1+D SC%- DD."see guidelines /. %uiG vs. 2ordon, 1+4 SC%- +.. '. Fillar vs. *=, 1.D SC%- >6D 16. )alabanan vs. %amento, 1+' SC%- .D' 11. Carpio vs. 2uevara, 164 SC%- 4/D 1+. &estleS =hils. vs. San!heG, 1D3 SC%- D3+ 1.. -rreGa vs. -raneta ?niversity #oundation, 1.> SC%- '3 4. #reedom from prior restraint Closing a radio station is definitely prior restraint -E0SO3-/S 4ROA/CASTI-: -ET0ORF I-C. "') CO-SOLI/ATE/ 4ROA/CASTI-: SYSTEM, I-C.HO-. CEASAR :. /Y, .ELICISIMO :. MEER, 4A:-OS MAEIMO, RACMA .ER-A-/E>G:ARCIA "') THE CITY O. CA3AYA-, :.R. -o7. 1 ;9 ; H1 9211, April 9, 9;;9 *&2-, J.:

+6+

+6.

$ombo %adyo =hilippines (:$ombo %adyo;A operates several radio stations under the -) and #) band throughout the =hilippines. hese stations are operated by !orporations organiGed and in!orporated by $ombo %adyo, parti!ularly petitioners &ewsounds $road!asting &etwork, *n!. (:&ewsounds;A and Consolidated $road!asting System, *n!. (:C$S;A. -mong the stations run by &ewsounds is $ombo %adyo DO&C Cauayan (DO&CA, an -) radio broad!ast station operating out of Cauayan City, *sabela. C$S, in turn, runs Star #) D7* Cauayan (:Star #);A, also operating out of Cauayan City, airing on the #) band. he servi!e areas of DO&C and Star #) e(tend from the provin!e of *sabela to throughout %egion ** and the Cordillera region.D+B4C ,9 <&@J < ,9% S - *<& <=9%- *&2 *& C-?-J-& C* J, *S-$9@-, is owned by the family of respondent )ayor Dy. *n 1''4, &ewsounds !ommen!ed relo!ation of its broad!asting stations, management offi!e and transmitters on property lo!ated in )inante +, Cauayan City, *sabela. he property is owned by C$S Development Corporation (CDCA, an affiliate !orporation under the $ombo %adyo network whi!h holds title over the properties used by $ombo %adyo stations throughout the !ountry.D.B>C <n +/ 5une 1''4, CDC was issued by the then muni!ipal government of Cauayan a building permit authoriGing the !onstru!tion of a !ommer!ial establishment on the property.D3B/C <n D 5uly 1''4, the ,ousing and @and ?se %egulatory $oard (,@?%$A issued a Ooning De!ision !ertifying the property as !ommer!ial.DDB'C hat same day, the <ffi!e of the )uni!ipal =lanning and Development Coordinator (<)=DCA of Cauayan affirmed that the !ommer!ial stru!ture to be !onstru!ted by CDC !onformed to lo!al Goning regulations, noting as well that the lo!ation :is !lassified as a Commer!ial area.;D4B16C Similar !ertifi!ations would be issued by <)=DC from 1''> to +661.D>B11C - building was !onse0uently ere!ted on the property, and therefrom, DO&C and Star #) operated as radio stations. $oth stations su!!essfully se!ured all ne!essary operating do!uments, in!luding mayor1s permits from 1''> to +661.D/B1+C During that period, CDC paid real
D+ B4C D. B>C D3 B/C

$ollo (2.%. &o. 1>'311A, p. 1.. *d. *d. at '6. *d. at '1.

DDB'C
D4 B16C D> B11C D/ B1+C

*d. at '+. *d. at '.-'>. *d. at '/-16+.

+6.

+63

property ta(es on the property based on the !lassifi!ation of the land as !ommer!ial.D'B1.C -ll that !hanged beginning in +66+. <n 1D 5anuary of that year, petitioners applied for the renewal of the mayor1s permit. he following day, the City -ssessor1s <ffi!e in Cauayan City noted on CDC1s De!laration of %eal =roperty filed for +66+ !onfirmed that based on the e(isting file, CDC1s property was !lassified as :!ommer!ial.;46B13C <n +/ 5anuary, representatives of petitioners formally re0uested then City Ooning -dministrator-Designate $agnos )a(imo ()a(imoA to issue a Goning !learan!e for the property.41B1DC )a(imo, however, re0uired petitioners to submit :either an approved land !onversion papers from the Department of -grarian %eform (D-%A showing that the property was !onverted from prime agri!ultural land to !ommer!ial land, or an approved resolution from the "angguniang ayan or "angguniang #anglungsod authoriGing the re-!lassifi!ation of the property from agri!ultural to !ommer!ial land.;4+B14C =etitioners had never been re0uired to submit su!h papers before, and from 1''4 to +661, the <)=DC had !onsistently !ertified that the property had been !lassified as !ommer!ial. ,9%9-# 9%, ,9 )?&*C*=-@ <##*C*-@S =-D@<CM9D ,9 %-D*< S - *<&S $-S9D <& ,9 2%<?&D ,,9 =9 * *<&9%S #-*@9D < S?$)* ,9 re0uisite Goning !learan!e needed for the issuan!e of the mayor1s permit be!ause there was allegedly no D-% De!ision !onverting said land from agri!ultural to !ommer!ial. =etitioners filed a petition for mandamus, do!keted as SC- &o. +6-1>1, with the % C of Cauayan City, $ran!h +6 to !ompel the muni!ipality to allow the radio stations to operate. he petition was a!!ompanied by an appli!ation for the issuan!e of temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary prohibitory in8un!tion, both provisional reliefs being denied by the % C through an <rder dated +6 -pril +663. hereafter, the petition was dismissed by the % C as well as the Court of -ppeals. ,en!e, this !ase before the Supreme Court. * S S ? 9:

D' B1.C 46 B13C 41 B1DC

*d. at 16.-116. *d. at 16.. *d. at 111. *d. at 1/-1'.

4+ B14C

+63

+6D

*s !onstitutionalN HEL/I

the

!losure

of

the

petitioners1

radio

stations

he !losure !onstitutes prior restraint. he fundamental !onstitutional prin!iple that informs our analysis of both petitions is the freedom of spee!h, of e(pression or the press. 4.B.+C #ree spee!h and free press may be identified with the liberty to dis!uss publi!ly and truthfully any matter of publi! interest without !ensorship and punishment. here is to be no previous restraint on the !ommuni!ation of views or subse0uent liability whether in libel suits, prose!ution for sedition, or a!tion for damages, or !ontempt pro!eedings unless there be a !lear and present danger of substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent.43B..C =etitioners have taken great pains to depi!t their struggle as a te(tbook !ase of denial of the right to free spee!h and of the press. *n their tale, there is undeniable politi!al !olor. hey admit that in +661, $ombo %adyo :was aggressive in e(posing the widespread ele!tion irregularities in *sabela that appear to have favored respondent Dy and other members of the Dy politi!al dynasty.;4DB.3C %espondent Ceasar Dy is the brother of #austino Dy, 5r., governor of *sabela from +661 until he was defeated in his re-ele!tion bid in +663 by 2ra!e =ada!a, a former assistant station manager at petitioners1 own DO&C $ombo %adyo. 44B.DC - rival -) radio station in Cauayan City, D7DJ, is owned and operated by the Dy family.4>B.4C =etitioners likewise dire!t our attention to a +6 #ebruary +663 arti!le printed in the =hilippine Daily *n0uirer where Dy is 0uoted as intending :to file disenfran!hisement pro!eedings against DO&C-).;4/B.>C he following undisputed fa!ts bring the issue of free e(pression to fore. =etitioners are authoriGed by law to operate radio stations in Cauayan City, and had been doing so for some years undisturbed by lo!al
4. B.+C 43 B..C 4D B.3C 44 B.DC See 5 $urgonio, :Isa'ela gov ?2o ended a dynasty ?ins $M pri5e, ; =hilippine Daily *n0uirer (1 -ugust +66/A, at http:EEopinion.in0uirer.netEin0uireropinionEletterstotheeditorEview E+66/6/61-1D1'D6E*sabelagov-who-ended-a-dynasty-wins-%)-priGe 4> B.4C 4/ B.>C

-rti!le ., Se!. 3. +on5ales v. COMELEC, 1.> =hil. 3>1, 3'+ (1'4'A. %ollo (2.%. &o. 1>6+>6A, p. +>.

$ollo (2.%. &o. 1>6+>6A, p. 1>. $ollo (2.%. &o. 1>'311A, p. 13+.

+6D

+64

authorities. $eginning in +66+, respondents in their offi!ial !apa!ities have taken a!tions, whatever may be the motive, that have impeded the ability of petitioners to freely broad!ast, if not broad!ast at all. hese a!tions have ranged from withholding permits to operate to the physi!al !losure of those stations under !olor of legal authority. 7hile on!e petitioners were able to broad!ast freely, the weight of government has sin!e bore down upon them to silen!e their voi!es on the airwaves. -n elementary s!hool !hild with a basi! understanding of !ivi!s lessons will re!ogniGe that free spee!h animates these !ases. 7ithout taking into a!!ount any e(tenuating !ir!umstan!es that may favor the respondents, we !an identify the bare a!ts of !losing the radio stations or preventing their operations as an a!t of prior restraint against spee!h, e(pression or of the press. 5rior re7#r"i'# re(er7 #o o((ici"l &o*er'$e'#"l re7#ric#io'7 o' #%e pre77 or o#%er (or$7 o( e@pre77io' i' ")*"'ce o( "c#u"l pu8lic"#io' or )i77e$i'"#io'.69<36= 0%ile "'y 7y7#e$ o( prior re7#r"i'# co$e7 #o cour# 8e"ri'& " %e"*y 8ur)e' "&"i'7# i#7 co'7#i#u#io'"li#y, ;<39= 'o# "ll prior re7#r"i'#7 o' 7peec% "re i'*"li). 1<2;= hat the a!ts imputed against respondents !onstitute a prior restraint on the freedom of e(pression of respondents who happen to be members of the press is !lear enough. here is a long-standing tradition of spe!ial 8udi!ial soli!itude for free spee!h, meaning that governmental a!tion dire!ted at e(pression must satisfy a greater burden of 8ustifi!ation than governmental a!tion dire!ted at most other forms of behavior.>+B31C 7e had said in "D" v. COMELEC: :$e!ause of the preferred status of the !onstitutional rights of spee!h, e(pression, and the press, su!h a measure is vitiated by a weighty presumption of invalidity. *ndeed, Kany system of prior restraints of e(pression !omes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its !onstitutional validity. . . . he 2overnment Sthus !arries a heavy burden of showing 8ustifi!ation for the enfor!ement of su!h restraint.1 here is thus a reversal of the normal presumption of validity that inheres in every legislation.;>.B3+C -t the same time, 8urispruden!e distinguishes between a co'#e'#G 'eu#r"l regulation, i.e., merely !on!erned with the in!idents of the spee!h,
4' B./C >6

C2ave5 v. +on5ales, 2.%. &o. 14/../, 1D #ebruary +66/, D3D SC%- 331, 3'1.

"ocial Deat2er "tations, Inc. v. COMELEC , 36' =hil. D>1, D/D (+661A" !iting (e? )or@ &imes v. !nited "tates, 36. ?.S. >1., >13, +' @. 9d. +d /++, /+3 (1'>1A.
>1 B36C >+ B31C >. B3+C

B.'C

C2ave5 v. +on5ales, 2.%. &o. 14/..D, 1D #ebruary +66/, D3D SC%- 331, 3'+. 2?& ,9%, et al., C<&S * ? *<&-@ @-7 (13th ed., +661A, at '43. "D" v. COMELEC, supra note .'.

+64

+6>

or one that merely !ontrols the time, pla!e or manner, and under well defined standards" and a co'#e'#G8"7e) restraint or !ensorship, i.e., the restri!tion is based on the sub8e!t matter of the utteran!e or spee!h. >3B3.C Content-based laws are generally treated as more suspe!t than !ontentneutral laws be!ause of 8udi!ial !on!ern with dis!rimination in the regulation of e(pression.>DB33C Content-neutral regulations of spee!h or of !ondu!t that may amount to spee!h, are sub8e!t to lesser but still heightened s!rutiny.>4B3DC <stensibly, the a!t of an @2? re0uiring a business of proof that the property from whi!h it operates has been Goned for !ommer!ial use !an be argued, when applied to a radio station, as !ontent-neutral sin!e su!h a regulation would presumably apply to any other radio station or business enterprise within the @2?. ,owever, the !ir!umstan!es of this !ase di!tate that we view the a!tion of the respondents as a !ontent-based restraint. *n their petition for mandamus filed with the % C, petitioners make the following relevant allegations: 4.1. 7ith spe!ifi! referen!e to DO&C, &ewsounds, to this date, is engaged in dis!ussing publi! issues that in!lude, among others, the !ondu!t of publi! offi!ials that are detrimental to the !onstituents of *sabela, in!luding Cauayan City. *n view of its wide !overage, DO&C has been a primary medium for the e(er!ise of the people of *sabela of their !onstitutional right to free spee!h. Corollarily, DO&C has always been at the forefront of the struggle to maintain and uphold freedom of the press, and the people1s !orollary right to freedom of spee!h, e(pression and petition the government for redress of grievan!es. 4.+. &ewsound1s only rival -) station in Cauayan and the rest of *sabela, D7DJ, is owned and operated by the family of respondent Dy. >>
B34C

(((( .D. %espondents !losure of petitioners1 radio stations is !learly tainted with ill motives.

>3 B3.C >D B33C >4 B3DC >> B34C

C2ave5 v. +on5ales, 2.%. &o. 14/../, 1D #ebruary +66/, D3D SC%- 331, 3'.. 2?& ,9%, et al., supra note 33. *d. at 'D>. $ollo (2.%. &o. 1>'311A, p. 1>6.

+6>

+6/

.D.1. *t must be pointed out that in the +661 ele!tions, $ombo %adyo was aggressive in e(posing the widespread ele!tion irregularities in *sabela that appear to have favored respondent Dy and other members of the Dy politi!al dynasty. *t is 8ust too !oin!idental that it was only after the +661 ele!tions (i.e., +66+A that the )ayor1s <ffi!e started 0uestioning petitioners1 appli!ations for renewal of their mayor1s permits. .D.+. *n an arti!le found in the =hilippine Daily in0uirer dated +6 #ebruary +663, respondent Dy was 0uoted as saying that he will :disenfran!hise the radio station.; Su!h statement manifests and !onfirms that respondents1 denial of petitioners1 renewal appli!ations on the ground that the =roperty is !ommer!ial is merely a prete(t and that their real agenda is to remove petitioners from Cauayan City and suppress the latter1s voi!e. his is a blatant violation of the petitioners1 !onstitutional right to press freedom. .D... he timing of respondents1 !losure of petitioners1 radio stations is also very telling. he !losure !omes at a most !riti!al time when the people are set to e(er!ise their right of suffrage. Su!h timing emphasiGes the ill motives of respondents.>/B3>C -ll those !ir!umstan!es lead us to believe that the steps employed by respondents to ultimately shut down petitioner1s radio station were ultimately !ontent-based. he ?nited States Supreme Court generally treats restri!tion of the e(pression of a parti!ular point of view as the paradigm violation of the #irst -mendment.>'BD.C he fa!ts !onfronting us now !ould have easily been drawn up by a !onstitutional law professor eager to provide a plain e(ample on how free spee!h may be violated. he Court is of the position that the a!tions of the respondents warrant heightened or stri!t s!rutiny from the Court, the test whi!h we have deemed appropriate in assessing !ontent-based restri!tions on free spee!h, as well as for laws dealing with freedom of the mind or restri!ting the politi!al pro!ess, of laws dealing with the regulation of spee!h, gender, or ra!e as well as other fundamental rights as e(pansion from its earlier appli!ations to e0ual prote!tion./6BD3C he immediate impli!ation of the appli!ation of the :stri!t s!rutiny; test is that the burden falls upon respondents as agents of government to prove that their a!tions do not infringe upon petitioners1 !onstitutional rights. -s !ontent regulation !annot be done in the absen!e of any !ompelling reason, /1BDDC the burden
>/ B3>C >' BD.C /6 BD3C /1 BDDC

*d. at 1>/-1>'. 2?& ,9% et. al., supra note 33. See D2ite Lig2t v. Court of Appeals, 2.%. &o. 1++/34, +6 5anuary +66'. OsmeGa v. COMELEC, .D1 =hil. 4'+, >11 (1''/A.

+6/

+6'

lies with the government to establish su!h !ompelling reason to infringe the right to free e(pression. *t is thus evident that respondents had no valid !ause at all to even re0uire petitioners to se!ure :approved land !onversion papers from the D-% showing that the property was !onverted from prime agri!ultural land to !ommer!ial land.; hat re0uirement, assuming that it !an be demanded by a lo!al government in the !onte(t of approving mayor1s permits, should only obtain upon !lear proof that the property from where the business would operate was !lassified as agri!ultural under the @2?1s land use plan or Goning ordinan!es and other relevant laws. &o eviden!e to that effe!t was presented by the respondents either to the petitioners, or to the !ourts. ,aving established that respondents had violated petitioners1 legal and !onstitutional rights, let us now turn to the appropriate reliefs that should be granted. 7e turn to the issue of damages. =etitioners had sought to re!over from respondents =/ )illion in temperate damages, =1 )illion in e(emplary damages, and =1 )illion in attorney1s fees. 2iven respondents1 !lear violation of petitioners1 !onstitutional guarantee of free e(pression, the right to damages from respondents is s0uarely assured by -rti!le .+ (+A of the Civil Code, whi!h provides: -rt. .+. -ny publi! offi!er or employee, or any private individual, who dire!tly or indire!tly obstru!ts, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages: ( ( ( ( (+A #reedom of spee!h" 7e noted in Lim v. #once de Leon that :BpCubli! offi!ials in the past have abused their powers on the prete(t of 8ustifiable motives or good faith in the performan!e of their dutiesV BandC the ob8e!t of B-rti!le .+ of the Civil CodeC is to put an end to offi!ial abuse by plea of the good faith.;/+B/DC he appli!ation of -rti!le .+ not only serves as a measure of pe!uniary re!overy to mitigate the in8ury to !onstitutional rights, it likewise serves noti!e to publi! offi!ers and employees that any violation on their part of any person1s guarantees under the $ill of %ights will meet with final re!koning.
/+

146 =hil. ''1, 1661 (1'>DA. See also MH# +arments, Inc., v. Court of Appeals , 2.%. &o. /4>+6, + September 1''3, +.4 SC%- ++>, +.D.

B/DC

+6'

+16

he present prayer for temperate damages is premised on the e(isten!e of pe!uniary in8ury to petitioner due to the a!tions of respondents, the amount of whi!h nevertheless being diffi!ult to prove. /. B/4C emperate damages avail when the !ourt finds that some pe!uniary loss has been suffered but its amount !an not, from the nature of the !ase, be proved with !ertainty./3B/>C he e(isten!e of pe!uniary in8ury at bar !annot be denied. =etitioners had no way of knowing it when they filed their petition, but the a!tions of respondents led to the !losure of their radio stations from 5une +663 until this Court issued a writ of preliminary in8un!tion in 5anuary +664./DB//C he lost potential in!ome during that one and a half year of !losure !an only be presumed as substantial enough. Still, despite that fa!t, possibly unanti!ipated when the original amount for !laimed temperate damages was !al!ulated, petitioners have maintained before this Court the same amount, =/ )illion, for temperate damages. he said amount is :reasonable under the !ir!umstan!es.;/4B/'C 9(emplary damages !an be awarded herein, sin!e temperate damages are available. =ubli! offi!ers who violate the Constitution they are sworn to uphold embody :a poison of wi!kedness that may not run through the body politi!.;/>B'6C %espondents, by purposely denying the !ommer!ial !hara!ter of the property in order to deny petitioners1 the e(er!ise of their !onstitutional rights and their business, manifested bad faith in a wanton, fraudulent, oppressive and malevolent manner. //B'1C he amount of e(emplary damages need not be proved where it is shown that plaintiff is entitled to temperate damages,/'B'+C and the sought for amount of =1 )illion is more than appropriate. 7e likewise deem the prayer for =1 )illion in attorney1s fees as suitable under the !ir!umstan!es. 0HERE.ORE, the petitions are :RA-TE/. he assailed de!isions of the Court of -ppeals and the %egional rial Court of Cauayan City, $ran!h +3, are hereby reversed and set aside.
/. B/4C /3 B/>C /D

$ollo (2.%. &o. 1>'311A, p. 1/.. See C*F*@ C<D9, -rt. +++3.

-!!ording to an arti!le posted on the offi!ial website of $ombo %adyo, DO&C a!!ordingly resumed broad!ast on / #ebruary +664. See http:EEwww.bomboradyo.!omEar!hiveE newEstationprofile Ebombo!auayanEinde(.htm (last visited, 4 )ar!h +66'A
/4 B/'C />

B//C

See C*F*@ C<D9, -rt. +++D.

B9(emplary damagesC are an antidote so that the poison of wi!kedness may not run through the body politi!.; Octot v. )'aGe5, et!., et al., 1'> =hil. >4, /+ (1'/+A.
//

B'6C

:B he award of e(emplary damagesC would be allowed only if the guilty party a!ted in a wanton, fraudulent, re!kless, oppressive or malevolent manner.; Octot v. )'aGe5, supra note />, at /D" !iting Ong )iu v. CA, '1 SC%- ++..
/' B'+C

B'1C

#atricio v. Hon. Leviste, 2.%. &o. @-D1/.+, +4 -pril 1'/'.

+16

+11

Su7pe'7io' (or #%ree ,3! $o'#%7 o( TV Ho7#, "7 well "7 %i7 ow' TV 5ro&r"$ %el) 'o# prior re7#r"i'#.

4RO. ELISEO SORIA-O VS. MOVIE A-/ TELEVISIOREVIE0 A-/ CLASSI.ICATIO- 4OAR/, :.R. -O. 162 61, A5RIL 99, 9;;9 VELASCO, JR., J.I <n -ugust 16, +663, at around 16:66 p.m., petitioner, as host of the program Ang %ating %aan, aired on ?& F .>, made the following remarks: Le2itimong ana@ ng demonyoB sinungalingB +ago @a talaga Mic2ael, masa2ol @a pa sa putang 'a'ae o di 'a. )ung putang 'a'ae ang gumagana lang doon yung i'a'a, NditoO @ay Mic2ael ang gumagana ang itaas, o di 'aT O, masa2ol pa sa putang 'a'ae yan. "a'i ng lola @o masa2ol pa sa putang 'a'ae yan. "o'ra ang @asinungalingan ng mga demonyong ito. wo days after, before the ) %C$, separate but almost identi!al affidavit-!omplaints were lodged by 5essie @. 2alapon and seven other private respondents, all members of the *glesia ni Cristo (*&CA, against petitioner in !onne!tion with the above broad!ast. %espondent )i!hael ). Sandoval, who felt dire!tly alluded to in petitioner1s remark, was then a minister of *&C and a regular host of the F program Ang &amang %aan.'6B.C #orthwith, the ) %C$ sent petitioner a noti!e of the hearing on -ugust 14, +663 in relation to the alleged use of some !uss words in the -ugust 16, +663 episode of Ang %ating %aan.'1B3C -fter a preliminary !onferen!e in whi!h petitioner appeared, the ) %C$, by <rder of -ugust 14, +663, preventively suspended the showing of Ang %ating %aan program for +6 days, in a!!ordan!e with Se!tion .(dA of =residential De!ree &o. (=DA 1'/4, !reating the ) %C$, in relation to Se!. ., Chapter Q*** of the +663 *mplementing %ules and %egulations (*%%A of =D 1'/4 and Se!. >, %ule F** of the ) %C$ %ules of =ro!edure.'+BDC he same order also set the !ase for preliminary investigation.
'6 '1 '+ B.C B3C

*d. at '+3, =rivate %espondents1 )emorandum. *d. at 116. BDC *d. at 11+-11., %ules of =ro!edure in the Condu!t of ,earing for Fiolations of =D 1'/4 and the *%%.

+11

+1+

he following day, petitioner sought re!onsideration of the preventive suspension order, praying that Chairperson ConsoliGa =. @aguardia and two other members of the ad8udi!ation board re!use themselves from hearing the !ase.'.B4C wo days after, however, petitioner sought to withdraw'3B>C his motion for re!onsideration, followed by the filing with this Court of a petition for !ertiorari and prohibition, 'DB/C do!keted as 2.%. &o. 143>/D, to nullify the preventive suspension order thus issued. <n September +>, +663, in -dm. Case &o. 61-63, the ) %C$ issued a de!ision, disposing as follows: 7,9%9#<%9, in view of all the foregoing, a De!ision is hereby rendered, finding respondent Soriano liable for his utteran!es and thereby imposing on him a penalty of three (.A months suspension from his program, :-ng Dating Daan;. S< <%D9%9D.'4B'C =etitioner then filed this petition for !ertiorari and prohibition with prayer for in8un!tive relief, do!keted as 2.%. &o. 14D4.4. *n 2.%. &o. 143>/D, petitioner raises the following issues: ,9 <%D9% <# =%9F9& *F9 S?S=9&S*<& =%<)?@2- 9D $J %9S=<&D9& B) %C$C D- 9D 14 -?2?S +663 -2-*&S ,9 9@9F*S*<& =%<2%-) A(+ %A&I(+ %AA( ( ( ( *S &?@@ -&D F<*D #<% $9*&2 *SS?9D 7* , 2%-F9 -$?S9 <# D*SC%9 *<& -)<?& *&2 < @-CM <% 9QC9SS <# 5?%*SD*C *<& (-A $J %9-S<& ,,9 B*%%C *S *&F-@*D *&S<#-% -S * =%<F*D9S #<% ,9 *SS?-&C9 <# =%9F9& *F9 S?S=9&S*<& <%D9%S" ($A$J %9-S<& <# @-CM <# D?9 ,9-%*&2 *& ,9 C-S9 - $9&C," (CA#<% $9*&2 F*<@- *F9 <# 9R?-@ =%< 9C *<& ?&D9% ,9 @-7" (DA #<% $9*&2 F*<@- *F9 <# #%99D<) <# %9@*2*<&" -&D (9A #<% $9*&2 F*<@- *F9 <# #%99D<) <# S=99C, -&D 9Q=%9SS*<&.'>B16C *n 2.%. &o. 14D4.4, petitioner relies on the following grounds:
'. '3 'D '4 '> B4C B>C

*d. at 131-1D1. *d. at 1D+-1D3. B/C *d. at 144-+D+. B'C *d. at .>/. B16C *d. at 1/+.

+1+

+1.

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o. 162 61

'/

B11C

*d. at 34.

+1.

+13

7e shall first dispose of the issues in 2.%. &o. 143>/D, regarding the assailed order of preventive suspension, although its implementability had already been overtaken and veritably been rendered moot by the e0ually assailed September +>, +663 de!ision. *t is petitioner1s threshold posture that the preventive suspension imposed against him and the relevant *%% provision authoriGing it are invalid inasmu!h as =D 1'/4 does not e(pressly authoriGe the ) %C$ to issue preventive suspension. =etitioner1s !ontention is untenable. -dministrative agen!ies have powers and fun!tions whi!h may be administrative, investigatory, regulatory, 0uasi-legislative, or 0uasi8udi!ial, or a mi( of the five, as may be !onferred by the Constitution or by statute.''B1+C hey have in fine only su!h powers or authority as are granted or delegated, e(pressly or impliedly, by law. 166B1.C -nd in determining whether an agen!y has !ertain powers, the in0uiry should be from the law itself. $ut on!e as!ertained as e(isting, the authority given should be liberally !onstrued.161B13C - perusal of the ) %C$1s basi! mandate under =D 1'/4 reveals the possession by the agen!y of the authority, albeit impliedly, to issue the !hallenged order of preventive suspension. -nd this authority stems naturally from, and is ne!essary for the e(er!ise of, its power of regulation and supervision. Se!. . of =D 1'/4 pertinently provides the following: Se!tion .. =owers and #un!tions.X he have the following fun!tions, powers and duties: (((( !A o approve or disapprove, delete ob8e!tionable portions from andEor prohibit the ( ( ( produ!tion, ( ( ( e(hibition andEor television broad!ast of the motion pi!tures, television programs and publi!ity materials sub8e!t of the pre!eding paragraph, whi!h, in the 8udgment of the board applying !ontemporary #ilipino !ultural values as standard, are ob8e!tionable for being immoral, inde!ent, !ontrary to law andEor good !ustoms, in8urious to the prestige of the %epubli! of the =hilippines or its people, or with a dangerous tenden!y to en!ourage the !ommission of violen!e or of wrong or !rime su!h as but not limited to:
''

$<-%D

shall

A5arcon v. "andigan'ayan, 2.%. &o. 1146.., #ebruary +4, 1''>, +4/ SC%- >3>. #imentel v. COMELEC, &os. @-D.D/1-/., De!ember 1', 1'/6, 161 SC%- >4'. 161 B13C -gpalo, -D)*&*S %- *F9 @-7 (+66DA" !iting Matien5on v. A'ellera, 2.%. &o. >>4.+, 5une /, 1'//, 14+ SC%- 1.
166 B1.C

B1+C

+13

+1D

(((( viA hose whi!h are libelous or defamatory to the good name and reputation of any person, whether living or dead" (((( (dA o 7uper*i7e, re&ul"#e, and grant, deny or !an!el, permits for the ( ( ( produ!tion, !opying, distribution, sale, lease, e@%i8i#io', "')Kor #ele*i7io' 8ro")c"7# of all motion pi!tures, television programs and publi!ity materials, #o #%e e') #%"# 'o 7uc% pic#ure7, pro&r"$7 "') $"#eri"l7 as are determined by the $<-%D to be ob8e!tionable in a!!ordan!e with paragraph (!A hereof shall be ( ( ( produ!ed, !opied, reprodu!ed, distributed, sold, leased, e@%i8i#e) "')Kor 8ro")c"7# 8y #ele*i7io'" (((( kA o e(er!ise su!h powers and fun!tions as may be ne!essary or in!idental to the attainment of the purposes and ob8e!tives of this -!t ( ( (. (9mphasis added.A he issuan!e of a preventive suspension !omes well within the s!ope of the ) %C$1s authority and fun!tions e(pressly set forth in =D 1'/4, more parti!ularly under its Se!. .(dA, as 0uoted above, whi!h empowers the ) %C$ to :supervise, regulate, and grant, deny or !an!el, permits for the ( ( ( e(hibition, andEor television broad!ast of all motion pi!tures, television programs and publi!ity materials, to the end that no su!h pi!tures, programs and materials as are determined by the $<-%D to be ob8e!tionable in a!!ordan!e with paragraph (!A hereof shall be ( ( ( e(hibited andEor broad!ast by television.; Surely, the power to issue preventive suspension forms part of the ) %C$1s e(press regulatory and supervisory statutory mandate and its investigatory and dis!iplinary authority subsumed in or implied from su!h mandate. -ny other !onstrual would render its power to regulate, supervise, or dis!ipline illusory. =reventive suspension, it ought to be noted, is not a penalty by itself, being merely a preliminary step in an administrative investigation. 16+ B1DC -nd the power to dis!ipline and impose penalties, if granted, !arries with it the power to investigate administrative !omplaints and, during su!h

16+

B1DC

Lastimoso v. *asCue5, 2.%. &o. 114/61, -pril 4, 1''D, +3. SC%- 3'>.

+1D

+14

investigation, to preventively suspend the person sub8e!t of the !omplaint.16.B14C o reiterate, preventive suspension authority of the ) %C$ springs from its powers !onferred under =D 1'/4. he ) %C$ did not, as petitioner insinuates, empower itself to impose preventive suspension through the medium of the *%% of =D 1'/4. *t is true that the matter of imposing preventive suspension is embodied only in the *%% of =D 1'/4. Se!. ., Chapter Q*** of the *%% provides: Se!. .. =%9F9& *<& S?S=9&S*<& <%D9%.II-ny time during the penden!y of the !ase, and in order to prevent or stop further violations or for the interest and welfare of the publi!, the Chairman of the $oard may issue a =reventive Suspension <rder mandating the preventive ( ( ( suspension of the permitEpermits involved, andEor !losure of the ( ( ( television network, !able F station ( ( ( provided that the temporaryEpreventive order thus issued shall have a life of not more than twenty (+6A days from the date of issuan!e. $ut the mere absen!e of a provision on preventive suspension in =D 1'/4, without more, would not work to deprive the ) %C$ a basi! dis!iplinary tool, su!h as preventive suspension. %e!all that the ) %C$ is e(pressly empowered by statute to regulate and supervise television programs to obviate the e(hibition or broad!ast of, among others, inde!ent or immoral materials and to impose san!tions for violations and, !orollarily, to prevent further violations as it investigates. Contrary to petitioner1s assertion, the afore0uoted Se!. . of the *%% neither amended =D 1'/4 nor e(tended the effe!t of the law. &either did the ) %C$, by imposing the assailed preventive suspension, outrun its authority under the law. #ar from it. he preventive suspension was a!tually done in furtheran!e of the law, imposed pursuant, to repeat, to the ) %C$1s duty of regulating or supervising television programs, pending a determination of whether or not there has a!tually been a violation. *n the final analysis, Se!. ., Chapter Q*** of the +663 *%% merely formaliGed a power whi!h =D 1'/4 bestowed, albeit impliedly, on ) %C$. Se!. .(!A and (dA of =D 1'/4 finds appli!ation to the present !ase, suffi!ient to authoriGe the ) %C$1s assailed a!tion. =etitioner1s restri!tive reading of =D 1'/4, limiting the ) %C$ to fun!tions within the literal !onfines of the law, would give the agen!y little leeway to operate, stifling and rendering it inutile, when Se!. .(kA of =D 1'/4 !learly intends to grant the ) %C$ a wide room for fle(ibility in its operation. Se!. .(kA, we reiterate, provides, : o e(er!ise su!h powers and fun!tions as may be ne!essary or in!idental to the attainment of the
16.

Alon5o v. Capulong, 2.%. &o. 116D'6, )ay 16, 1''D, +33 SC%- /6" e=a v. Court of Appeals, 2.%. &o. '>13', )ar!h .1, 1''+, +6> SC%- 4/'.

B14C

+14

+1>

purposes and ob8e!tives of this -!t ( ( (.; *ndeed, the power to impose preventive suspension is one of the implied powers of ) %C$. -s distinguished from e(press powers, implied powers are those that !an be inferred or are impli!it in the wordings or !onferred by ne!essary or fair impli!ation of the enabling a!t.163B1>C -s we held in Angara v. Electoral Commission, when a general grant of power is !onferred or a duty en8oined, every parti!ular power ne!essary for the e(er!ise of one or the performan!e of the other is also !onferred by ne!essary impli!ation. 16DB1/C Clearly, the power to impose preventive suspension pending investigation is one of the implied or inherent powers of ) %C$. 7e !annot agree with petitioner1s assertion that the afore0uoted *%% provision on preventive suspension is appli!able only to motion pi!tures and publi!ity materials. he s!ope of the ) %C$1s authority e(tends beyond motion pi!tures. 7hat the a!ronym ) %C$ stands for would suggest as mu!h. -nd while the law makes spe!ifi! referen!e to the !losure of a television network, the suspension of a television program is a far less punitive measure that !an be undertaken, with the purpose of stopping further violations of =D 1'/4. -gain, the ) %C$ would regretfully be rendered ineffe!tive should it be sub8e!t to the restri!tions petitioner envisages. 5ust as untenable is petitioner1s argument on the nullity of the preventive suspension order on the ground of la!k of hearing. -s it were, the ) %C$ handed out the assailed order after petitioner, in response to a written noti!e, appeared before that $oard for a hearing on private respondents1 !omplaint. &o less than petitioner admitted that the order was issued after the ad8ournment of the hearing, 164B1'C proving that he had already appeared before the ) %C$. ?nder Se!. ., Chapter Q*** of the *%% of =D 1'/4, preventive suspension shall issue :BaCny time during the penden!y of the !ase.; *n this parti!ular !ase, it was done after ) %C$ duly apprised petitioner of his having possibly violated =D 1'/416>B+6C and of administrative !omplaints that had been filed against him for su!h violation.16/B+1C -t any event, that preventive suspension !an validly be meted out even without a hearing.16'B++C =etitioner ne(t faults the ) %C$ for denying him his right to the e0ual prote!tion of the law, arguing that, owing to the preventive
163

C2ave5 v. (ational Housing Aut2ority , 2.%. &o. 143D+>, -ugust 1D, +66>, D.6 SC%- +.D, +'D+'4" !iting A5arcon, supra note 1+, at >41" $adio Communications of t2e #2ilippines, Inc. v. "antiago , &os. @+'+.4 P +'+3>, -ugust +1, 1'>3, D/ SC%- 3'., 3'>. 16D B1/C 4. =hil. 1.', 1>> (1'.4A. 164 B1'C $ollo (2.%. &o. 143>/DA, p. 1+. 16> B+6C *d. at '3. 16/ B+1C *d. at 'D. 16' B++C e=a, supra note 14" Espiritu v. Melgar, 2.%. &o. 166/>3, #ebruary 1., 1''+, +64 SC%- +D4.

B1>C

+1>

+1/

suspension order, he was unable to answer the !riti!isms !oming from the *&C ministers. =etitioner1s position does not persuade. he e0ual prote!tion !lause demands that :all persons sub8e!t to legislation should be treated alike, under like !ir!umstan!es and !onditions both in the privileges !onferred and liabilities imposed.;116B+.C *t guards against undue favor and individual privilege as well as hostile dis!rimination. 111B+3C Surely, petitioner !annot, under the premises, pla!e himself in the same shoes as the *&C ministers, who, for one, are not fa!ing administrative !omplaints before the ) %C$. #or another, he offers no proof that the said ministers, in their F programs, use language similar to that whi!h he used in his own, ne!essitating the ) %C$1s dis!iplinary a!tion. *f the immediate result of the preventive suspension order is that petitioner remains temporarily gagged and is unable to answer his !riti!s, this does not be!ome a deprivation of the e0ual prote!tion guarantee. he Court need not belabor the fa!t that the !ir!umstan!es of petitioner, as host of Ang %ating %aan, on one hand, and the *&C ministers, as hosts of Ang &amang %aan, on the other, are, within the purview of this !ase, simply too different to even !onsider whether or not there is a prima facie indi!ation of oppressive ine0uality. =etitioner ne(t in8e!ts the notion of religious freedom, submitting that what he uttered was religious spee!h, adding that words like : putang 'a'ae; were said in e(er!ise of his religious freedom. he argument has no merit. he Court is at a loss to understand how petitioner1s utteran!es in 0uestion !an !ome within the pale of Se!. D, -rti!le *** of the 1'/> Constitution on religious freedom. he se!tion reads as follows: &o law shall be made respe!ting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free e(er!ise thereof. he free e(er!ise and en8oyment of religious profession and worship, without dis!rimination or preferen!e, shall forever be allowed. &o religious test shall be re0uired for the e(er!ise of !ivil or politi!al rights. here is nothing in petitioner1s statements sub8e!t of the !omplaints e(pressing any parti!ular religious belief, nothing furthering his avowed evangeli!al mission. he fa!t that he !ame out with his statements in a televised bible e(position program does not automati!ally a!!ord them the !hara!ter of a religious dis!ourse. =lain and simple insults
116 111

1 De @eon, =,*@*==*&9 C<&S * ? *<&-@ @-7 +>3 (+66.A. &iu v. +uingona, 2.%. &o. 1+>316, 5anuary +6, 1''', .61 SC%- +>/" !iting Ic2ong v. Hernande5, 161 =hil. 11DD (1'D>A and other !ases.
B+3C

B+.C

+1/

+1'

dire!ted at another person !annot be elevated to the status of religious spee!h. 2.%. &o. 14D4.4 =etitioner urges the striking down of the de!ision suspending him from hosting Ang %ating %aan for three months on the main ground that the de!ision violates, apart from his religious freedom, his freedom of spee!h and e(pression guaranteed under Se!. 3, -rt. *** of the Constitution, whi!h reads: &o law shall be passed abridging the freedom of spee!h, of e(pression, or of the press, or the right of the people pea!eably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievan!e. ,e would also have the Court de!lare =D 1'/4, its Se!. .(!A in parti!ular, un!onstitutional for reasons arti!ulated in this petition. *t is settled that e(pressions by means of newspapers, radio, television, and motion pi!tures !ome within the broad prote!tion of the free spee!h and e(pression !lause.11+B+DC 9a!h method though, be!ause of its dissimilar presen!e in the lives of people and a!!essibility to !hildren, tends to present its own problems in the area of free spee!h prote!tion, with broad!ast media, of all forms of !ommuni!ation, en8oying a lesser degree of prote!tion.11.B+4C 5ust as settled is the rule that restri!tions, be it in the form of prior restraint, e.g., 8udi!ial in8un!tion against publi!ation or threat of !an!ellation of li!enseEfran!hise, or subse0uent liability, whether in libel and damage suits, prose!ution for sedition, or !ontempt pro!eedings, are anathema to the freedom of e(pression. =rior restraint means offi!ial government restri!tions on the press or other forms of e(pression in advan!e of a!tual publi!ation or dissemination. 113B+>C he freedom of e(pression, as with the other freedoms en!ased in the $ill of %ights, is, however, not absolute. *t may be regulated to some e(tent to serve important publi! interests, some forms of spee!h not being prote!ted. -s has been held, the limits of the freedom of e(pression are rea!hed when the e(pression tou!hes upon matters of essentially private !on!ern.11DB+/C *n the oft-0uoted e(pression of 5usti!e ,olmes, the !onstitutional guarantee :obviously was not intended to give immunity for
11+B+DC !" v. #aramount #ictures, ..3 ?.S. 1.1" Eastern roadcasting Corporation v. %ans , Jr., &o. @D'.+', 5uly 1', 1'/D, 1.> SC%- 4+/. 11. B+4C Eastern roadcasting Corporation v. %ans, Jr ., supra note +D" !iting ACC v. #acifica Aoundation, 3./ ?.S. >+4" +on5ales v. Sala? Satig'a@, &o. @-4'D66, 5uly ++, 1'/D, 1.> SC%- >1>. 113 B+>C 5.2. $ernas, S.5., ,9 C<&S * ? *<& <# ,9 %9=?$@*C <# ,9 =,*@*==*&9S: C<))9& -%J +6D (1''4A. 11D B+/C Lagunsad v. "oto vda. %e +on5ales, &o. @-.+644, -ugust 4, 1'>', '+ SC%- 3>4.

+1'

++6

every possible use of language.;114B+'C #rom Lucas v. $oyo !omes this line: :B Che freedom to e(press one1s sentiments and belief does not grant one the li!ense to vilify in publi! the honor and integrity of another. -ny sentiments must be e(pressed within the proper forum and with proper regard for the rights of others.;11>B.6C *ndeed, as noted in C2aplins@y v. "tate of (e? Hamps2ire,11/B.1C :there are !ertain well-defined and narrowly limited !lasses of spee!h that are harmful, the prevention and punishment of whi!h has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problems.; *n net effe!t, some forms of spee!h are not prote!ted by the Constitution, meaning that restri!tions on unprote!ted spee!h may be de!reed without running afoul of the freedom of spee!h !lause.11'B.+C - spee!h would fall under the unprote!ted type if the utteran!es involved are :no essential part of any e(position of ideas, and are of su!h slight so!ial value as a step of truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is !learly outweighed by the so!ial interest in order and morality.;1+6B..C $eing of little or no value, there is, in dealing with or regulating them, no imperative !all for the appli!ation of the !lear and present danger rule or the balan!ing-of-interest test, they being essentially modes of weighing !ompeting values,1+1B.3C or, with like effe!t, determining whi!h of the !lashing interests should be advan!ed. =etitioner asserts that his utteran!e in 0uestion is a prote!ted form of spee!h. he Court rules otherwise. *t has been established in this 8urisdi!tion that unprote!ted spee!h or low-value e(pression refers to libelous statements, obs!enity or pornography, false or misleading advertisement, insulting or :fighting words;, i.e., those whi!h by their very utteran!e infli!t in8ury or tend to in!ite an immediate brea!h of pea!e and e(pression endangering national se!urity. he Court finds that petitioner1s statement !an be treated as obs!ene, at least with respe!t to the average !hild. ,en!e, it is, in that !onte(t, unprote!ted spee!h. *n Aernando v. Court of Appeals, the Court e(pressed diffi!ulty in formulating a definition of o87ce'i#y that would apply to all !ases, but nonetheless stated the ensuing observations on the matter: T%ere i7 'o per(ec# )e(i'i#io' o( Bo87ce'i#yD 8u# #%e l"#e7# wor) i7 #%"# o( Miller !. California w%ic% e7#"8li7%e) 8"7ic &ui)eli'e7, to wit:
114 11>

&ro2?er@ v. !nited "tates, +3' ?.S. +63 (1'1'A" !ited in $ernas, supra at +1/. 2.%. &o. 1.41/D, <!tober .6, +666, .33 SC%- 3/1, 3'6. 11/B.1C .1D ?.S. D4/ (1'3+A. 11'B.+C -gpalo, =,*@*==*&9 C<&S * ? *<&-@ @-7 .D/ (+664A. 1+6B..C C2aplins@y, supra note .1" !ited in $ernas, supra note +>, at +3/. 1+1B.3C $ernas, supra note +>, at +3/.
B.6C

B+'C

++6

++1

(aA whether to the average person, applying !ontemporary standards would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest" (bA whether the work depi!ts or des!ribes, in a patently offensive way, se(ual !ondu!t spe!ifi!ally defined by the appli!able state law" and (!A whether the work, taken as a whole, la!ks serious literary, artisti!, politi!al, or s!ientifi! value. $ut, it would be a serious misreading of Miller to !on!lude that the trier of fa!ts has the unbridled dis!retion in determining what is :patently offensive.; ( ( ( 7hat remains !lear is that obs!enity is an issue proper for 8udi!ial determination and should be treated on a !ase to !ase basis and on the 8udge1s sound dis!retion.1++B.DC #ollowing the !onte(tual lessons of the !ited !ase of Miller v. California,1+.B.4C a patently offensive utteran!e would !ome within the pale of the term o'scenity should it appeal to the prurient interest of an average listener applying !ontemporary standards. - !ursory e(amination of the utteran!es !omplained of and the !ir!umstan!es of the !ase reveal that to an average adult, the utteran!es :+ago @a talaga > > >, masa2ol @a pa sa putang 'a'ae > > >. )ung putang 'a'ae ang gumagana lang doon yung i'a'a, NditoO @ay Mic2ael ang gumagana ang itaas, o di 'aT; may not !onstitute obs!ene but merely inde!ent utteran!es. hey !an be viewed as figures of spee!h or merely a play on words. *n the !onte(t they were used, they may not appeal to the prurient interests of an adult. he problem with the !hallenged statements is that they were uttered in a F program that is rated :2; or for general viewership, and in a time slot that would likely rea!h even the eyes and ears of !hildren. 7hile adults may have understood that the terms thus used were not to be taken literally, !hildren !ould hardly be e(pe!ted to have the same dis!ernment. 7ithout parental guidan!e, the unbridled use of su!h language as that of petitioner in a television broad!ast !ould !orrupt impressionable young minds. he term :putang 'a'ae; means :a female prostitute,; a term wholly inappropriate for !hildren, who !ould look it up in a di!tionary and 8ust get the literal meaning, missing the !onte(t within whi!h it was used. =etitioner further used the terms, : ang gumagana lang doon yung i'a'a,; making referen!e to the female se(ual organ and how a female prostitute uses it in her trade, then stating that Sandoval was worse than that by using his mouth in a similar manner. Children !ould be motivated by !uriosity and ask the meaning of what petitioner said, also without pla!ing the phrase in !onte(t. hey may be in0uisitive as to why Sandoval is different from a female prostitute and the reasons for the dissimilarity. -nd upon learning the meanings of the words used, young minds, without the guidan!e of an adult, may, from their end, view this
1++ 1+. B.DC B.4C

2.%. &o. 1D'>D1, De!ember 4, +664, D16 SC%- .D1, .46-.41. 31. ?.S. 1D.

++1

+++

kind of inde!ent spee!h as obs!ene, if they take these words literally and use them in their own spee!h or form their own ideas on the matter. *n this parti!ular !ase, where !hildren had the opportunity to hear petitioner1s words, when speaking of the average person in the test for obs!enity, we are speaking of the average !hild, not the average adult. he average !hild may not have the adult1s grasp of figures of spee!h, and may la!k the understanding that language may be !olorful, and words may !onvey more than the literal meaning. ?ndeniably the sub8e!t spee!h is very suggestive of a female se(ual organ and its fun!tion as su!h. *n this sense, we find petitioner1s utteran!es obs!ene and not entitled to prote!tion under the umbrella of freedom of spee!h. 9ven if we !on!ede that petitioner1s remarks are not obs!ene but merely inde!ent spee!h, still the Court rules that petitioner !annot avail himself of the !onstitutional prote!tion of free spee!h. Said statements were made in a medium easily a!!essible to !hildren. 7ith respe!t to the young minds, said utteran!es are to be treated as unprote!ted spee!h. &o doubt what petitioner said !onstitutes inde!ent or offensive utteran!es. $ut while a 8urisprudential pattern involving !ertain offensive utteran!es !onveyed in different mediums has emerged, this !ase is veritably one of first impression, it being the first time that inde!ent spee!h !ommuni!ated via television and the appli!able norm for its regulation are, in this 8urisdi!tion, made the fo!al point. Aederal Communications Commission (ACCA v. #acifica Aoundation,1+3B.>C a 1'>/ -meri!an landmark !ase !ited in Eastern roadcasting Corporation v. %ans, Jr.1+DB./C and C2ave5 v. +on5ales,1+4B.'C is a ri!h sour!e of persuasive lessons. #oremost of these relates to inde!ent spee!h without prurient appeal !omponent !oming under the !ategory of prote!ted spee!h depending on the !onte(t within whi!h it was made, irresistibly suggesting that, within a parti!ular !onte(t, su!h inde!ent spee!h may validly be !ategoriGed as unprote!ted, ergo, sus!eptible to restri!tion. *n ACC, seven of what were !onsidered :filthy; words1+>B36C earlier re!orded in a monologue by a satiri! humorist later aired in the afternoon over a radio station owned by =a!ifi!a #oundation. ?pon the !omplaint of a man who heard the pre-re!orded monologue while driving with his son, #CC de!lared the language used as :p"#e'#ly o((e'7i*e; and :i')ece'#; under a prohibiting law, though not ne!essarily obs!ene. #CC added, however, that its de!laratory order was issued in a :spe!ial fa!tual !onte(t,; referring, in gist, to an afternoon radio broad!ast when !hildren were undoubtedly in the audien!e. -!ting on the 0uestion of whether the #CC !ould regulate the sub8e!t utteran!e, the ?S Supreme Court ruled in
1+3 1+D 1+4 1+> B.>C B./C

3./ ?.S. >+4. Supra note +D. B.'C 2.%. &o. 14/../, #ebruary 1D, +66/, D3D SC%- 331. B36C :Shit, piss, fu!k, tits, et!.;

+++

++.

the affirmative, owing to two spe!ial features of the broad!ast medium, to wit: (1A radio is a pervasive medium and (+A broad!asting is uni0uely a!!essible to !hildren. he ?S Court, however, hastened to add that the monologue would be prote!ted spee!h in other !onte(ts, albeit it did not e(pound and identify a !ompelling state interest in putting #CC1s !ontentbased regulatory a!tion under s!rutiny. he Court in C2ave51+/B31C elu!idated on the distin!tion between regulation or restri!tion of prote!ted spee!h that is !ontent-based and that whi!h is !ontent-neutral. - !ontent-based restraint is aimed at the !ontents or idea of the e(pression, whereas a !ontent-neutral restraint intends to regulate the time, pla!e, and manner of the e(pression under well-defined standards tailored to serve a !ompelling state interest, without restraint on the message of the e(pression. Courts sub8e!t !ontent-based restraint to stri!t s!rutiny. 7ith the view we take of the !ase, the suspension ) %C$ imposed under the premises was, in one perspe!tive, permissible restri!tion. 7e make this disposition against the ba!kdrop of the following interplaying fa!tors: Airst, the inde!ent spee!h was made via television, a pervasive medium that, to borrow from +on5ales v. Sala? Satig'a@,1+'B3+C easily :rea!hes every home where there is a set Band whereC B!Children will likely be among the avid viewers of the programs therein shown;" second, the broad!ast was aired at the time of the day when there was a reasonable risk that !hildren might be in the audien!e" and t2ird, petitioner uttered his spee!h on a :2; or :for general patronage; rated program. ?nder Se!. +(-A of Chapter *F of the *%% of the ) %C$, a show for general patronage is :BsCuitable for all ages,; meaning that the :material for television ( ( ( in the 8udgment of the $<-%D, does not !ontain anything unsuitable for !hildren and minors, and may be viewed without adult guidan!e or supervision.; he words petitioner used were, by any !iviliGed norm, !learly not suitable for !hildren. 7here a language is !ategoriGed as inde!ent, as in petitioner1s utteran!es on a generalpatronage rated F program, it may be readily pros!ribed as unprote!ted spee!h. - view has been advan!ed that unprote!ted spee!h refers only to pornography,1.6B3.C false or misleading advertisement,1.1B33C advo!a!y of imminent lawless a!tion, and e(pression endangering national se!urity. $ut this list is not, as some members of the Court would submit, e(!lusive or !arved in stone. 7ithout going into spe!ifi!s, it may be stated without fear of !ontradi!tion that ?S de!isional law goes beyond the aforesaid
1+/ 1+'

Supra note .'. Supra note +4. 1.6B3.C +on5ales v. Sala? Satig'a@, supra. 1.1B33C #2armaceutical and Healt2 Care Association of t2e #2ilippines v. Healt2 "ecretary Arancisco &. %uCue III, 2.%. &o. 1>.6.3, <!tober ', +66>, D.D SC%- +4D.
B3+C

B31C

++.

++3

general e(!eptions. -s the Court has been impelled to re!ogniGe e(!eptions to the rule against !ensorship in the past, this parti!ular !ase !onstitutes yet another e(!eption, another instan!e of unprote!ted spee!h, !reated by the ne!essity of prote!ting the welfare of our !hildren. -s unprote!ted spee!h, petitioner1s utteran!es !an be sub8e!ted to restraint or regulation. Despite the settled ruling in ACC whi!h has remained undisturbed sin!e 1'>/, petitioner asserts that his utteran!es must present a !lear and present danger of bringing about a substantive evil the State has a right and duty to prevent and su!h danger must be grave and imminent.1.+B3DC =etitioner1s invo!ation of the !lear and present danger do!trine, arguably the most permissive of spee!h tests, would not avail him any relief, for the appli!ation of said test is un!alled for under the premises. he do!trine, first formulated by 5usti!e ,olmes, a!!ords prote!tion for utteran!es so that the printed or spoken words may not be sub8e!t to prior restraint or subse0uent punishment unless its e(pression !reates a !lear and present danger of bringing about a substantial evil whi!h the government has the power to prohibit.1..B34C ?nder the do!trine, freedom of spee!h and of press is sus!eptible of restri!tion when and only when ne!essary to prevent grave and immediate danger to interests whi!h the government may lawfully prote!t. -s it were, said do!trine evolved in the !onte(t of prose!utions for rebellion and other !rimes involving the overthrow of government.1.3B3>C *t was originally designed to determine the latitude whi!h should be given to spee!h that espouses anti-government a!tion, or to have serious and substantial deleterious !onse0uen!es on the se!urity and publi! order of the !ommunity. 1.DB3/C he !lear and present danger rule has been applied to this 8urisdi!tion. 1.4B3'C -s a standard of limitation on free spee!h and press, however, the !lear and present danger test is not a magi! in!antation that wipes out all problems and does away with analysis and 8udgment in the testing of the legitima!y of !laims to free spee!h and whi!h !ompels a !ourt to release a defendant from liability the moment the do!trine is invoked, absent proof of imminent !atastrophi! disaster.1.>BD6C -s we observed in Eastern roadcasting Corporation, the !lear and present danger test :does not lend itself to a simplisti! and all embra!ing interpretation appli!able to all utteran!es in all forums.;1./BD1C

1.+

ayan v. Ermita, 2.%. &o. 14'/./, -pril +D, +664, 3// SC%- ++4. 14- -m 5ur. +d Constitutional @aw Se!. 3'." "c2enc@ v. !nited "tates, +3' ?.S. 3>. 1.3B3>C $ernas, supra note +>, at +1'-++6. 1.DB3/C +on5ales v. COMELEC, &o. @-+>/.., -pril 1/, 1'4', +> SC%- /.D. 1.4B3'C A "-C ( roadcasting Corp. v. COMELEC, 2.%. &o. 1..3/4, 5anuary +/, +666, .+. SC%/11" Adiong v. COMELEC, 2.%. &o. 16.'D4, )ar!h .1, 1''+, +6> SC%- >1+. 1.>BD6C Ualdivar v. "andigan'ayan, 2.%. &os. >'4'6->6> P /6D>/, #ebruary 1, 1'/', 1>6 SC%- 1. 1./BD1C Supra note +D, at 4.D.
1..B34C

B3DC

++3

++D

o be sure, the !lear and present danger do!trine is not the only test whi!h has been applied by the !ourts. 2enerally, said do!trine is applied to !ases involving the overthrow of the government and even other evils whi!h do not !learly undermine national se!urity. Sin!e not all evils !an be measured in terms of :pro(imity and degree; the Court, however, in several !asesXAyer #roductions v. Capulong1.'BD+C and +on5ales v. COMELEC,136BD.C applied the balan!ing of interests test. #ormer Chief 5usti!e #red %uiG Castro, in +on5ales v. COMELEC, elu!idated in his Separate <pinion that :where the legislation under !onstitutional atta!k interferes with the freedom of spee!h and assembly in a more generaliGed way and where the effe!t of the spee!h and assembly in terms of the probability of realiGation of a spe!ifi! danger is not sus!eptible even of impressionisti! !al!ulation,;131BD3C then the :balan!ing of interests; test !an be applied. he Court e(plained also in +on5ales v. COMELEC the :balan!ing of interests; test: 7hen parti!ular !ondu!t is regulated in the interest of publi! order, and the regulation results in an indire!t, !onditional, partial abridgment of spee!h, the duty of the !ourts is to determine whi!h of the two !onfli!ting interests demands the greater prote!tion under the parti!ular !ir!umstan!es presented. ( ( ( 7e must, therefore, undertake the :deli!ate and diffi!ult task ( ( ( to weigh the !ir!umstan!es and to appraise the substantiality of the reasons advan!ed in support of the regulation of the free en8oyment of rights ( ( (. *n enun!iating standard premised on a 8udi!ial balan!ing of the !onfli!ting so!ial values and individual interests !ompeting for as!endan!y in legislation whi!h restri!ts e(pression, the !ourt in %ouds laid the basis for what has been !alled the :balan!ing-of-interests; test whi!h has found appli!ation in more re!ent de!isions of the ?.S. Supreme Court. $riefly stated, the :balan!ing; test re0uires a !ourt to take !ons!ious and detailed !onsideration of the interplay of interests observable in a given situation or type of situation. ((( -lthough the urgen!y of the publi! interest sought to be se!ured by Congressional power restri!ting the individual1s freedom, and the so!ial importan!e and value of the freedom so restri!ted, :are to be 8udged in the !on!rete, not on the basis of abstra!tions,; a wide range of fa!tors are ne!essarily relevant in as!ertaining the point or line of e0uilibrium. -mong these are (aA the so!ial value and importan!e of the spe!ifi! aspe!t
1.'BD+C
136 131 BD.C

&o. @-/+./6, -pril +', 1'//, 146 SC%- /41. Supra note 3/. BD3C Supra at /'/.

++D

++4

of the parti!ular freedom restri!ted by the legislation" (bA the spe!ifi! thrust of the restri!tion, i.e., whether the restri!tion is dire!t or indire!t, whether or not the persons affe!ted are few" (!A the value and importan!e of the publi! interest sought to be se!ured by the legislationIIthe referen!e here is to the nature and gravity of the evil whi!h Congress seeks to prevent" (dA whether the spe!ifi! restri!tion de!reed by Congress is reasonably appropriate and ne!essary for the prote!tion of su!h publi! interest" and (eA whether the ne!essary safeguarding of the publi! interest involved may be a!hieved by some other measure less restri!tive of the prote!ted freedom.13+BDDC his balan!ing of interest test, to borrow from =rofessor Mauper, 13. BD4C rests on the theory that it is the !ourt1s fun!tion in a !ase before it when it finds publi! interests served by legislation, on the one hand, and the free e(pression !lause affe!ted by it, on the other, to balan!e one against the other and arrive at a 8udgment where the greater weight shall be pla!ed. *f, on balan!e, it appears that the publi! interest served by restri!tive legislation is of su!h nature that it outweighs the abridgment of freedom, then the !ourt will find the legislation valid. *n short, the balan!e-ofinterests theory rests on the basis that !onstitutional freedoms are not absolute, not even those stated in the free spee!h and e(pression !lause, and that they may be abridged to some e(tent to serve appropriate and important interests.133BD>C o the mind of the Court, the balan!ing of interest do!trine is the more appropriate test to follow. *n the !ase at bar, petitioner used inde!ent and obs!ene language and a three (.A-month suspension was slapped on him for brea!h of ) %C$ rules. *n this setting, the assertion by petitioner of his en8oyment of his freedom of spee!h is ranged against the duty of the government to prote!t and promote the development and welfare of the youth. -fter a !areful e(amination of the fa!tual milieu and the arguments raised by petitioner in support of his !laim to free spee!h, the Court rules that the government1s interest to prote!t and promote the interests and welfare of the !hildren ade0uately buttresses the reasonable !urtailment and valid restraint on petitioner1s prayer to !ontinue as program host of Ang %ating %aan during the suspension period. &o doubt, one of the fundamental and most vital rights granted to !itiGens of a State is the freedom of spee!h or e(pression, for without the en8oyment of su!h right, a free, stable, effe!tive, and progressive demo!rati! state would be diffi!ult to attain. -rrayed against the freedom
Supra at /''-'66. Mauper, C*F*@ @*$9% *9S -&D ,9 C<&S * ? *<& 11. (1'44A" !ited in +on5ales v. COMELEC, supra note 3/" also !ited in 5.2. $ernas, S.5., ,9 1'/> C<&S * ? *<& <# ,9 %9=?$@*C <# ,9 =,*@*==*&9S: - C<))9& -%J (+66.A. 133 BD>C *d.
13.BD4C

13+BDDC

++4

++>

of spee!h is the right of the youth to their moral, spiritual, intelle!tual, and so!ial being whi!h the State is !onstitutionally tasked to promote and prote!t. )oreover, the State is also mandated to re!ogniGe and support the vital role of the youth in nation building as laid down in Se!. 1., -rt. ** of the 1'/> Constitution. he Constitution has, therefore, imposed the sa!red obligation and responsibility on the State to provide prote!tion to the youth against illegal or improper a!tivities whi!h may pre8udi!e their general well-being. he -rti!le on youth, approved on se!ond reading by the Constitutional Commission, e(plained that the State shall :e(tend so!ial prote!tion to minors against all forms of negle!t, !ruelty, e(ploitation, i$$or"li#y, and pra!ti!es whi!h may foster ra!ial, religious or other forms of dis!rimination.;13DBD/C *ndisputably, the State has a !ompelling interest in e(tending so!ial prote!tion to minors against all forms of negle!t, e(ploitation, and immorality whi!h may pollute inno!ent minds. *t has a !ompelling interest in helping parents, through regulatory me!hanisms, prote!t their !hildren1s minds from e(posure to undesirable materials and !orrupting e(perien!es. he Constitution, no less, in fa!t en8oins the State, as earlier indi!ated, to promote and prote!t the physi!al, moral, spiritual, intelle!tual, and so!ial well-being of the youth to better prepare them fulfill their role in the field of nation-building.134BD'C *n the same way, the State is mandated to support parents in the rearing of the youth for !ivi! effi!ien!y and the development of moral !hara!ter.13>B46C =etitioner1s offensive and obs!ene language uttered in a television broad!ast, without doubt, was easily a!!essible to the !hildren. ,is statements !ould have e(posed !hildren to a language that is una!!eptable in everyday use. -s su!h, the welfare of !hildren and the State1s mandate to prote!t and !are for them, as parens patriae,13/B41C !onstitute a substantial and !ompelling government interest in regulating petitioner1s utteran!es in F broad!ast as provided in =D 1'/4. ACC e(plains the duty of the government to a!t as parens patriae to prote!t the !hildren who, be!ause of age or interest !apa!ity, are sus!eptible of being !orrupted or pre8udi!ed by offensive language, thus: B$Croad!asting is uni0uely a!!essible to !hildren, even those too young to read. -lthough Cohen1s written message, B:#u!k the Draft;C, might have been in!omprehensible to a first grader, =a!ifi!a1s broad!ast !ould have enlarged a !hild1s vo!abulary in an instant. <ther forms of
13D 134 13> 13/ BD/C BD'C

$ernas, supra note +>, at /1. C<&S * ? *<&, -rt. **, Se!. 1.. B46C *d., id., Se!. 1+. B41C *d.

++>

++/

offensive e(pression may be withheld from the young without restri!ting the e(pression at its sour!e. $ookstores and motion pi!ture theaters, for e(ample, may be prohibited from making inde!ent material available to !hildren. 7e held in +ins'erg v. (e? )or@ that the government1s interest in the :well-being of its youth; and in supporting :parents1 !laim to authority in their own household; 8ustified the regulation of otherwise prote!ted e(pression. he ease with whi!h !hildren may obtain a!!ess to broad!ast material, !oupled with the !on!erns re!ogniGed in +ins'erg, amply 8ustify spe!ial treatment of inde!ent broad!asting. )oreover, +on5ales v. Sala? Satig'a@ likewise stressed the duty of the State to attend to the welfare of the young: ( ( ( *t is the !onsensus of this Court that where television is !on!erned, a less liberal approa!h !alls for observan!e. his is so be!ause unlike motion pi!tures where the patrons have to pay their way, television rea!hes every home where there is a set. Children then will likely will be among the avid viewers of the programs therein shown. -s was observed by Cir!uit Court of -ppeals 5udge 5erome #rank, it is hardly the !on!ern of the law to deal with the se(ual fantasies of the adult population. *t !annot be denied though that the State as parens patriae is !alled upon to manifest an attitude of !aring for the welfare of the young.13'B4+C he !ompelling need to prote!t the young impels us to sustain the regulatory a!tion ) %C$ took in the narrow !onfines of the !ase. o reiterate, ACC 8ustified the restraint on the F broad!ast grounded on the following !onsiderations: (1A the use of television with its uni0ue a!!essibility to !hildren, as a medium of broad!ast of a patently offensive spee!h" (+A the time of broad!ast" and (.A the :2; rating of the Ang %ating %aan program. -nd in agreeing with ) %C$, the !ourt takes sto!k of and !ites with approval the following e(!erpts from ACC: *t is appropriate, in !on!lusion, to emphasiGe the narrowness of our holding. his !ase does not involve a two-way radio !onversation between a !ab driver and a dispat!her, or a tele!ast of an 9liGabethan !omedy. 7e have not de!ided that an o!!asional e(pletive in either setting would 8ustify any san!tion. ( ( ( he B##C1sC de!ision rested entirely on a nuisan!e rationale under whi!h !onte(t is all important. he !on!ept re0uires !onsideration of a host of variables. he time of day was emphasiGed by the B##CC. he !ontent of the program in whi!h the language is used will affe!t the !omposition of the audien!e ( ( (. -s )r. 5usti!e Sutherland wrote a Knuisan!e may be merely a right thing in the wrong pla!e, like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard.1 7e simply hold that when the B#CCC finds that a pig has entered the parlor, the

13'

B4+C

Supra note +4, at >+'.

++/

++'

e(er!ise of its regulatory power does not depend on proof that the pig is obs!ene. (Citation omitted.A here !an be no 0uibbling that the remarks in 0uestion petitioner uttered on prime-time television are blatantly inde!ent if not outright obs!ene. *t is the kind of spee!h that =D 1'/4 pros!ribes ne!essitating the e(er!ise by ) %C$ of statutory dis!iplinary powers. *t is the kind of spee!h that the State has the inherent prerogative, nay duty, to regulate and prevent should su!h a!tion served and further !ompelling state interests. <ne who utters inde!ent, insulting, or offensive words on television when unsuspe!ting !hildren are in the audien!e is, in the graphi! language of ACC, a :pig in the parlor.; =ubli! interest would be served if the :pig; is reasonably restrained or even removed from the :parlor.; ,r*o, pe#i#io'erN7 o((e'7i*e "') i')ece'# l"'&u"&e c"' 8e 7u8Aec#e) #o prior re7#r"i'#. =etitioner theoriGes that the three (.A-month suspension is either prior restraint or subse0uent punishment that, however, in!ludes prior restraint, albeit indire!tly. A(#er " re*iew o( #%e ("c#7, #%e Cour# (i')7 #%"# w%"# MTRC4 i$po7e) o' pe#i#io'er i7 "' ")$i'i7#r"#i*e 7"'c#io' or 7u87eCue'# pu'i7%$e'# (or %i7 o((e'7i*e "') o87ce'e l"'&u"&e i' An* 1atin* 1aan. o !larify, statutes imposing prior restraints on spee!h are generally illegal and presumed un!onstitutional brea!hes of the freedom of spee!h. he e(!eptions to prior restraint are movies, television, and radio broad!ast !ensorship in view of its a!!ess to numerous people, in!luding the young who must be insulated from the pre8udi!ial effe!ts of unprote!ted spee!h. =D 1'/4 was passed !reating the $oard of %eview for )otion =i!tures and elevision (now ) %C$A and whi!h re0uires prior permit or li!ense before showing a motion pi!ture or broad!asting a F program. he $oard !an !lassify movies and television programs and !an !an!el permits for e(hibition of films or television broad!ast. he power of ) %C$ to regulate and even impose some prior restraint on radio and television shows, even religious programs, was upheld in Iglesia (i Cristo v. Court of Appeals. Speaking through Chief 5usti!e %eynato S. =uno, the Court wrote: 7e thus re8e!t petitioner1s postulate that its religious program is per se beyond review by the respondent $oard. *ts publi! broad!ast on F of its religious program brings it out of the bosom of internal belief. elevision is a medium that rea!hes even the eyes and ears of !hildren.
++'

+.6

he Court iterates the rule that the e(er!ise of religious freedom !an be regulated by the State when it will bring about the !lear and present danger of some substantive evil whi!h the State is duty bound to prevent, i.e., serious detriment to the more overriding interest of publi! health, publi! morals, or publi! welfare. ( ( ( ((( 7hile the thesis has a lot to !ommend itself, we are not ready to hold that B=D 1'/4C is un!onstitutional for Congress to grant an administrative body 0uasi-8udi!ial power to preview and !lassify F programs and enfor!e its de!ision sub8e!t to review by our !ourts. -s far ba!k as 1'+1, we upheld this setup in "otto vs. $ui5, viG: : he use of the mails by private persons is in the nature of a privilege whi!h !an be regulated in order to avoid its abuse. =ersons possess no absolute right to put into the mail anything they please, regardless of its !hara!ter.;1D6B4.C $ernas adds: ?nder the de!ree a movie !lassifi!ation board is made the arbiter of what movies and television programs or parts of either are fit for publi! !onsumption. *t de!ides what movies are :immoral, inde!ent, !ontrary to law andEor good !ustoms, in8urious to the prestige of the %epubli! of the =hilippines or its people,; and what :tend to in!ite subversion, insurre!tion, rebellion or sedition,; or :tend to undermine the faith and !onfiden!e of the people in their government andEor duly !onstituted authorities,; et!. )oreover, its de!isions are e(e!utory unless stopped by a !ourt.1D1B43C )oreover, in M&$C v. A "-C ( roadcasting Corporation ,1D+B4DC it was held that the power of review and prior approval of ) %C$ e(tends to all television programs and is valid despite the freedom of spee!h guaranteed by the Constitution. hus, all broad!ast networks are regulated by the ) %C$ sin!e they are re0uired to get a permit before they air their television programs. Conse0uently, their right to en8oy their freedom of spee!h is sub8e!t to that re0uirement. -s lu!idly e(plained by 5usti!e Dante <. inga, government regulations through the ) %C$ be!ame :a ne!essary evil; with the government taking the role of assigning bandwidth to individual broad!asters. he stations e(pli!itly agreed to this regulatory s!heme" otherwise, !haos would result in the television broad!ast industry as !ompeting broad!asters will interfere or !o-opt ea!h other1s signals. *n this s!heme, station owners and
1D6 1D1 1D+ B4.C B43C

2.%. &o. 11'4>., 5uly +4, 1''4, +D' SC%- D+', D33, DD+. Supra note D4, at +.D. B4DC 2.%. &o. 1DD+/+, 5anuary 1>, +66D, 33/ SC%- D>D.

+.6

+.1

broad!asters in effe!t waived their right to the full en8oyment of their right to freedom of spee!h in radio and television programs and impliedly agreed that said right may be sub8e!t to prior restraintXdenial of permit or subse0uent punishment, like suspension or !an!ellation of permit, among others. T%e #%ree ,3! $o'#%7 7u7pe'7io' i' #%i7 c"7e i7 'o# " prior re7#r"i'# o' #%e ri&%# o( pe#i#io'er #o co'#i'ue wi#% #%e 8ro")c"7# o( An* 1atin* 1aan "7 " per$i# w"7 "lre")y i77ue) #o %i$ 8y MTRC4 (or 7uc% 8ro")c"7#. R"#%er, #%e 7u7pe'7io' i7 i' #%e (or$ o( per$i77i8le ")$i'i7#r"#i*e 7"'c#io' or 7u87eCue'# pu'i7%$e'# (or #%e o((e'7i*e "') o87ce'e re$"rL7 %e u##ere) o' #%e e*e'i'& o( Au&u7# 1;, 9;;2 i' %i7 #ele*i7io' pro&r"$, An* 1atin* 1aan. *t is a san!tion that the ) %C$ may validly impose under its !harter without running afoul of the free spee!h !lause. -nd the imposition is separate and distin!t from the !riminal a!tion the $oard may take pursuant to Se!. .(iA of =D 1'/4 and the remedies that may be availed of by the aggrieved private party under the provisions on libel or tort, if appli!able. -s ACC tea!hes, the imposition of san!tions on broad!asters who indulge in profane or inde!ent broad!asting does not !onstitute forbidden !ensorship. @est it be overlooked, the san!tion imposed is not per se for petitioner1s e(er!ise of his freedom of spee!h via television, but for the inde!ent !ontents of his utteran!es in a :2; rated F program. )ore importantly, petitioner is deemed to have yielded his right to his full en8oyment of his freedom of spee!h to regulation under =D 1'/4 and its *%% as television station owners, program produ!ers, and hosts have impliedly a!!epted the power of ) %C$ to regulate the broad!ast industry. &either !an petitioner1s virtual inability to speak in his program during the period of suspension be plausibly treated as prior restraint on future spee!h. #or viewed in its proper perspe!tive, the suspension is in the nature of an intermediate penalty for uttering an unprote!ted form of spee!h. *t is definitely a lesser punishment than the permissible !an!ellation of e(hibition or broad!ast permit or li!ense. *n fine, the suspension meted was simply part of the duties of the ) %C$ in the enfor!ement and administration of the law whi!h it is tasked to implement. Fiewed in its proper !onte(t, the suspension sought to penaliGe past spee!h made on prime-time :2; rated F program" it does not bar future spee!h of petitioner in other television programs" it is a permissible subse0uent administrative san!tion" it should not be !onfused with a prior restraint on spee!h. 7hile not on all fours, the Court, in M&$C ,1D.B44C sustained the power of the ) %C$ to penaliGe a broad!ast !ompany for

1D.

B44C

Supra note 4D.

+.1

+.+

e(hibitingEairing a pre-taped F episode without $oard authoriGation in violation of Se!. > of =D 1'/4. -ny simplisti! suggestion, however, that the ) %C$ would be !rossing the limits of its authority were it to regulate and even restrain the prime-time television broad!ast of inde!ent or obs!ene spee!h in a :2; rated program is not a!!eptable. -s made !lear in Eastern roadcasting Corporation, :the freedom of television and radio broad!asting is somewhat lesser in s!ope than the freedom a!!orded to newspaper and print media.; he ) %C$, as a regulatory agen!y, must have the wherewithal to enfor!e its mandate, whi!h would not be effe!tive if its punitive a!tions would be limited to mere fines. elevision broad!asts should be sub8e!t to some form of regulation, !onsidering the ease with whi!h they !an be a!!essed, and violations of the regulations must be met with appropriate and proportional dis!iplinary a!tion. he suspension of a violating television program would be a suffi!ient punishment and serve as a deterrent for those responsible. he prevention of the broad!ast of petitioner1s television program is 8ustified, and does not !onstitute prohibited prior restraint. *t behooves the Court to respond to the needs of the !hanging times, and !raft 8urispruden!e to refle!t these times. #inally, petitioner argues that there has been undue delegation of legislative power, as =D 1'/4 does not provide for the range of imposable penalties that may be applied with respe!t to violations of the provisions of the law. he argument is without merit. *n Edu v. Ericta, the Court dis!ussed the matter of undue delegation of legislative power in the following wise: *t is a fundamental prin!iple flowing from the do!trine of separation of powers that Congress may not delegate its legislative power to the two other bran!hes of the government, sub8e!t to the e(!eption that lo!al governments may over lo!al affairs parti!ipate in its e(er!ise. 7hat !annot be delegated is the authority under the Constitution to make laws and to alter and repeal them" the test is the !ompleteness of the statute in all its term and provisions when it leaves the hands of the legislature. o determine whether or not there is an undue delegation of legislative power, the in0uiry must be dire!ted to the s!ope and definiteness of the measure ena!ted. he legislature does not abdi!ate its fun!tions when it des!ribes what 8ob must be done, who is to do it, and what is the s!ope of his authority. #or a !omple( e!onomy, that may indeed be the only way in whi!h the legislative pro!ess !an go forward. - distin!tion has rightfully been made between delegation of power to make laws whi!h ne!essarily involves a dis!retion as to what it shall be, whi!h !onstitutionally may not
+.+

+..

be done, and delegation of authority or dis!retion as to its e(e!ution to be e(er!ised under and in pursuan!e of the law, to whi!h no valid ob8e!tion !an be made. he Constitution is thus not to be regarded as denying the legislature the ne!essary resour!es of fle(ibility and pra!ti!ability. o avoid the taint of unlawful delegation, there must be a standard, whi!h implies at the very least that the legislature itself determines matters of prin!iple and lays down fundamental poli!y. <therwise, the !harge of !omplete abdi!ation may be hard to repel. - standard thus defines legislative poli!y, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and spe!ifies the publi! agen!y to apply it. *t indi!ates the !ir!umstan!es under whi!h the legislative !ommand is to be effe!ted. *t is the !riterion by whi!h legislative purpose may be !arried out. hereafter, the e(e!utive or administrative offi!e designated may in pursuan!e of the above guidelines promulgate supplemental rules and regulations.1D3B4>C $ased on the foregoing pronoun!ements and analyGing the law in 0uestion, pe#i#io'erN7 pro#e7#"#io' "8ou# u')ue )ele&"#io' o( le&i7l"#i*e power (or #%e 7ole re"7o' #%"# 5/ 1966 )oe7 'o# pro*i)e (or " r"'&e o( pe'"l#ie7 (or *iol"#io' o( #%e l"w i7 u'#e'"8le. Hi7 #%e7i7 i7 #%"# MTRC4, i' pro$ul&"#i'& #%e IRR o( 5/ 1966, pre7cri8i'& " 7c%e)ule o( pe'"l#ie7 (or *iol"#io' o( #%e pro*i7io'7 o( #%e )ecree, we'# 8eyo') #%e #er$7 o( #%e l"w. =etitioner1s posture is flawed by the erroneous assumptions holding it together, the first assumption being that =D 1'/4 does not pres!ribe the imposition of, or authoriGe the ) %C$ to impose, penalties for violators of =D 1'/4. -s earlier indi!ated, however, the ) %C$, by e(press and dire!t !onferment of power and fun!tions, is !harged with supervising and regulating, granting, denying, or !an!eling permits for the e(hibition andEor television broad!ast of all motion pi!tures, television programs, and publi!ity materials to the end that no su!h ob8e!tionable pi!tures, programs, and materials shall be e(hibited andEor broad!ast by television. Complementing this provision is Se!. .(kA of the de!ree authoriGing the ) %C$ :to e(er!ise su!h powers and fun!tions as may be ne!essary or in!idental to the attainment of the purpose and ob8e!tives of Bthe lawC.; -s earlier e(plained, the investiture of supervisory, regulatory, and dis!iplinary power would surely be a meaningless grant if it did not !arry with it the power to penaliGe the supervised or the regulated as may be proportionate to the offense !ommitted, !harged, and proved. -s the Court said in C2ave5 v. (ational Housing Aut2ority: ( ( ( B7Chen a general grant of power is !onferred or duty en8oined, every parti!ular power ne!essary for the e(er!ise of the one or the performan!e of the other is also !onferred. ( ( ( B7Chen the statute
1D3 B4>C

&o. @-.+6'4, <!tober +3, 1'>6, .D SC%- 3/1, 3'4-3'>.

+..

+.3

does not spe!ify the parti!ular method to be followed or used by a government agen!y in the e(er!ise of the power vested in it by law, said agen!y has the authority to adopt any reasonable method to !arry out its fun!tion.1DDB4/C 2iven the foregoing perspe!tive, it stands to reason that the power of the ) %C$ to regulate and supervise the e(hibition of F programs !arries with it or ne!essarily implies the authority to take effe!tive punitive a!tion for violation of the law sought to be enfor!ed. -nd would it not be logi!al too to say that the power to deny or !an!el a permit for the e(hibition of a F program or broad!ast ne!essarily in!ludes the lesser power to suspendN he ) %C$ promulgated the *%% of =D 1'/4 in a!!ordan!e with Se!. .(aA whi!h, for referen!e, provides that agen!y with the power :BtoC promulgate su!h rules and regulations as are ne!essary or proper for the implementation of this -!t, and the a!!omplishment of its purposes and ob8e!tives ( ( (.; -nd Chapter Q***, Se!. 1 of the *%% providing: Se!tion 1. F*<@- *<&S -&D -D)*&*S %- *F9 S-&C *<&S.II7ithout pre8udi!e to the immediate filing of the appropriate !riminal a!tion and the immediate seiGure of the pertinent arti!les pursuant to Se!tion 1., "'y *iol"#io' o( 5/ 1966 "') i#7 I$ple$e'#i'& Rule7 "') Re&ul"#io'7 &o*er'i'& $o#io' pic#ure7, #ele*i7io' pro&r"$7, "') rel"#e) pro$o#io'"l $"#eri"l7 7%"ll 8e pe'"liJe) wi#% 7u7pe'7io' or c"'cell"#io' o( per$i#7 "')Kor lice'7e7 i77ue) 8y #%e 4o"r) andEor with the imposition of fines and other administrative penaltyEpenalties. he $oard re!ogniGes the e(isting able of -dministrative =enalties atta!hed without pre8udi!e to the power of the $oard to amend it when the need arises. *n the meantime the e(isting revised able of -dministrative =enalties shall be enfor!ed. (9mphasis added.A his is, in the final analysis, no more than a measure to spe!ifi!ally implement the afore0uoted provisions of Se!. .(dA and (kA. Contrary to what petitioner implies, the *%% does not e(pand the mandate of the ) %C$ under the law or partake of the nature of an unauthoriGed administrative legislation. he ) %C$ !annot shirk its responsibility to regulate the publi! airwaves and employ su!h means as it !an as a guardian of the publi!. *n Se!. .(!A, one !an already find the permissible a!tions of the ) %C$, along with the standards to be applied to determine whether there have been statutory brea!hes. he ) %C$ may evaluate motion
1DD

Supra note 1>" !iting Angara v. Electoral Commission, 4. =hil. 1.' (1'.4A" #rovident &ree Aarms, Inc. v. atario, Jr., 2.%. &o. '++/D, )ar!h +/, 1''3, +.1 SC%- 34..

B4/C

+.3

+.D

pi!tures, television programs, and publi!ity materials :applying !ontemporary #ilipino !ultural values as standard,; and, from there, determine whether these audio and video materials :are ob8e!tionable for being immoral, inde!ent, !ontrary to law andEor good !ustoms, Bet!.C ( ( (; and apply the san!tions it deems proper. he lawmaking body !annot possibly provide for all the details in the enfor!ement of a parti!ular statute.1D4B4'C he grant of the rule-making power to administrative agen!ies is a rela(ation of the prin!iple of separation of powers and is an e(!eption to the non-delegation of legislative powers.1D>B>6C -dministrative regulations or :subordinate legislation; !al!ulated to promote the publi! interest are ne!essary be!ause of :the growing !omple(ity of modern life, the multipli!ation of the sub8e!ts of governmental regulations, and the in!reased diffi!ulty of administering the law.;1D/B>1C -llowing the ) %C$ some reasonable elbow-room in its operations and, in the e(er!ise of its statutory dis!iplinary fun!tions, a!!ording it ample latitude in fi(ing, by way of an appropriate issuan!e, administrative penalties with due regard for the severity of the offense and attending mitigating or aggravating !ir!umstan!es, as the !ase may be, would be !onsistent with its mandate to effe!tively and effi!iently regulate the movie and television industry. $ut even as we uphold the power of the ) %C$ to review and impose san!tions for violations of =D 1'/4, i#7 )eci7io' #o 7u7pe') pe#i#io'er $u7# 8e $o)i(ie), (or 'ow%ere i' #%"# i77u"'ce, p"r#icul"rly #%e powerG)e(i'i'& Sec. 3 'or i' #%e MTRC4 Sc%e)ule o( A)$i'i7#r"#i*e 5e'"l#ie7 e((ec#i*e J"'u"ry 1, 1999 i7 #%e 4o"r) e$powere) #o 7u7pe') #%e pro&r"$ %o7# or e*e' #o pre*e'# cer#"i' people (ro$ "ppe"ri'& i' #ele*i7io' pro&r"$7. he ) %C$, to be sure, may prohibit the broad!ast of su!h television programs or !an!el permits for e(hibition, but it may not suspend television personalities, for su!h would be beyond its 8urisdi!tion. he ) %C$ !annot e(tend its e(er!ise of regulation beyond what the law provides. <nly persons, offenses, and penalties !learly falling !learly within the letter and spirit of =D 1'/4 will be !onsidered to be within the de!ree1s penal or dis!iplinary operation. -nd when it e(ists, the reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the person !harged with violating the statute and for whom the penalty is sought. hus, the ) %C$1s de!ision in -dministrative Case &o. 61-63 dated September +>, +663 and the subse0uent order issued pursuant to said de!ision must be modified. T%e 7u7pe'7io' 7%oul) co*er o'ly #%e #ele*i7io' pro&r"$ o' w%ic% pe#i#io'er "ppe"re) "') u##ere) #%e o((e'7i*e "') o87ce'e l"'&u"&e, w%ic% 7"'c#io' i7 w%"# #%e l"w "') #%e ("c#7 o8#"i'i'& c"ll (or. *n ending, what petitioner obviously advo!ates is an unrestri!ted spee!h paradigm in whi!h absolute permissiveness is the norm.
1D4 1D> 1D/ B4'C B>6C

#eople v. Maceren, &o. @-.+144, <!tober 1/, 1'>>, >' SC%- 3D6, 3D/. *d. B>1C *d.

+.D

+.4

=etitioner1s flawed belief that he may simply utter gutter profanity on television without adverse !onse0uen!es, under the guise of free spee!h, does not lend itself to a!!eptan!e in this 8urisdi!tion. 7e repeat: freedoms of spee!h and e(pression are not absolute freedoms. o say :any a!t that restrains spee!h should be greeted with furrowed brows; is not to say that any a!t that restrains or regulates spee!h or e(pression is per se invalid. his only re!ogniGes the importan!e of freedoms of spee!h and e(pression, and indi!ates the ne!essity to !arefully s!rutiniGe a!ts that may restrain or regulate spee!h. 0HERE.ORE, the de!ision of the ) %C$ in -dm. Case &o. 61-63 dated September +>, +663 is hereby A..IRME/ with the MO/I.ICATIO- of limiting the suspension to the program Ang %ating %aan. -s thus modified, the fallo of the ) %C$ shall read as follows: 7,9%9#<%9, in view of all the foregoing, a De!ision is hereby rendered, imposing a penalty of THREE ,3! MO-THS S3S5E-SIOo' #%e #ele*i7io' pro&r"$, An* 1atin* 1aan, sub8e!t of the instant petition. /ISSE-TI-: O5I-IO-, Ju7#ice A'#o'io C"rpio. * dissent be!ause the three-month suspension of petitioner1s F program Ang %ating %aan !onstitutes an un!onstitutional prior re7#r"i'# on freedom of e(pression. T%e 7u7pe'7io' pre*e'#7 pe#i#io'er (ro$ e*e' reci#i'& #%e Lor)N7 5r"yer, or e*e' 7"yi'& B%elloD #o *iewer7, i' %i7 TV pro&r"$. he suspension bars the publi! airing of petitioner1s F program regardless of whatever sub8e!t matter petitioner, or anyone else, wishes to dis!uss in petitioner1s F program. his is like suspending the publi!ation of the #2ilippine %aily InCuirer for three months if its editorial des!ribes a private person as :masa2ol pa sa putang 'a'ae.; his is also similar to suspending for three months the !olumn of a newspaper !olumnist for using the e(pletive :putang ina mo; in his !olumn. Su!h suspension is the !ensorship that the Constitution outlaws when it states that :BnCo law shall be passed abridging the freedom of spee!h, of e(pression, or of the press ( ( (.;1)1=1> he remedy of any aggrieved person is to file a libel or tort !ase after the utteran!e or publi!ation of su!h !usswords. <ur libels laws punish with fine, imprisonment or damages libelous language already #ttered or p#4li"hed.1@0=2> <ur tort laws also allow re!overy of damages
1D'B1C

Se!tion 3, -rti!le ***, Constitution.

146B+C

-rti!le .D.-.D', %evised =enal Code" -rti!le .., Civil Code.

+.4

+.>

for tortious spee!h already #ttered or p#4li"hed.1@1=.> ,owever, both our libel and tort laws never impose a gag order on f#t#re e%pre""ion be!ause that will !onstitute prior restraint or !ensorship. hus, our libel and tort laws do not allow the filing of a suit to en8oin or punish an e(pression that has yet to be uttered or written. *ndeed, there !an never be a prior re"traint on future e(pression, whether for fear of possible libelous utteran!e or publi!ation, or as a punishment for past libelous utteran!e or publi!ation. <therwise, many of the radio and F politi!al programs will have to be banned for the fre0uent use of !usswords and other libelous language. 9ven politi!ians will have to be barred from addressing politi!al rallies, or the rallies themselves will have to be banned, be!ause politi!ians often use !usswords and other profanities during politi!al rallies. *n the present !ase, the three-month preventive suspension of petitioner1s F program bars petitioner from talking about the weather, or from talking about the birds and the bees, or even from talking about nothingness, in his F program. he publi! airing of the entire F program, regardless of its !ontent, is totally suppressed for three months. he 2overnment has no power under the Constitution to so braGenly suppress freedom of e(pression. his Court should never give its imprimatur to su!h a blatant violation of a fundamental !onstitutional right, whi!h has been des!ribed as the one basi! right that makes all other !ivil, human and politi!al rights possible. 5rior Re7#r"i'# o' E@pre77io' he well-settled rule is there !an be no prior restraint on e(pression. his rule emanates from the !onstitutional !ommand that :BnCo law shall be passed abridging the freedom of spee!h, of e(pression, or of the press ( ( (.; he history of freedom of e(pression has been a !onstant struggle against the !ensor1s prior re7#r"i'# on e(pression. he leading -meri!an !ase of (ear v. Minnesota1@2=(> tea!hes us that #%e pri$or)i"l purpo7e o( #%e .ree E@pre77io' Cl"u7e i7 #o pre*e'# prior re7#r"i'# o' e@pre77io'. his well-settled rule, however, is sub8e!t to e(!eptions narrowly !arved out by !ourts over time be!ause of ne!essity. *n this 8urisdi!tion, we re!ogniGe only four e(!eptions, namely: por'o&r"p%y,163[5] ("l7e or
141B.C

-rti!le +4, Civil Code.

14+B3C

+/. ?.S. 4'> (1'.1A.

14.BDC

+on5ales v. Sala?-Satig'a@, +++ =hil. ++D (1'/DA.

+.>

+./

$i7le")i'& ")*er#i7e$e'#,164[6] ")*oc"cy o( i$$i'e'# l"wle77 "c#io',165[7] "') )"'&er #o '"#io'"l 7ecuri#y.1@@=&> <nly in these instan!es may e(pression be sub8e!t to prior restraint. All o#%er e@pre77io' i7 'o# 7u8Aec# #o prior re7#r"i'#. -lthough pornography, false or misleading advertisement, advo!a!y of imminent lawless a!tion, and e(pression endangering national se!urity may be sub8e!t to prior restraint, su!h prior restraint must hurdle a high barrier. Airst, su!h prior restraint is 7#ro'&ly pre7u$e) "7 u'co'7#i#u#io'"l. "econd, the government bears a %e"*y 8ur)e' of 8ustifying su!h prior restraint.1@'=1> he test to determine the !onstitutionality of prior restraint on pornography, advo!a!y of imminent lawless a!tion, and e(pression endangering national se!urity is the cle"r "') pre7e'# )"'&er #e7#. he e(pression sub8e!t to prior restraint must present a !lear and present danger of bringing about a substantive evil the State has a right and duty to prevent, and su!h danger must be &r"*e "') i$$i'e'#.1@&=10> he power of Congress to impose prior restraint on false or misleading advertisements emanates from the !onstitutional provision that the :advertising industry is impressed with publi! interest, and shall be regulated by law for the prote!tion of !onsumers and the promotion of the general welfare.;1@1=11> =rior restraint on e(pression may be either !ontent-based or !ontent-neutral. Content-based prior restraint is aimed at suppressing the message or idea !ontained in the e(pression. Courts sub8e!t !ontent-based restraint to stri!t s!rutiny. Content-neutral restraint on e(pression is restraint that regulates the time, pla!e or manner of e(pression in publi! pla!es without any restraint on the !ontent of the e(pression. Courts sub8e!t !ontent-neutral restraint to intermediate s!rutiny.
143B4C

#2armaceutical and Healt2 Care Association of t2e #2ilippines v. %uCue III , 2.%. &o. 1>.6.3, ' <!tober +66>, D.D SC%- +4D.
14DB>C

Eastern roadcasting Corporation v. %ans, &o. +++ =hil. 1D1 (1'/DA.

144B/C

*d.
14>B'C

Iglesia ni Cristo 6I(C9 v. Court of Appeals, 2.%. &o. 11'4>., +4 5uly 1''4, +D' SC%- D+'" (e? )or@ &imes v. !nited "tates, 36. ?.S. >1. (1'>1A.
14/B16C

ayan v. Ermita, 2.%. &os. 14'/./, 14'/3/ and 14'//1, +D -pril +664, 3// SC%- ++4.
14'B11C

Se!tion 11(+A, -rti!le QF*, Constitution.

+./

+.'

Su87eCue'# 5u'i7%$e'# o( E@pre77io' he rule is also well-settled that e(pression !annot be sub8e!t to subse0uent punishment. his rule also emanates from the !onstitutional !ommand that :BnCo law shall be passed abridging the freedom of spee!h, of e(pression, or of the press ( ( (.; ,owever, !ourts again have !arved out narrow e(!eptions to this rule out of ne!essity. he e(!eptions start with the four types of e(pression that may be sub8e!t to prior restraint. *f a !ertain e(pression is sub8e!t to prior restraint, its utteran!e or publi!ation in violation of the lawful restraint naturally sub8e!ts the person responsible to subse0uent punishment. hus, a!ts of pornography,1'0=12> false or misleading advertisement,1'1=1.> advo!a!y of imminent lawless a!tion,1'2=1(> and endangering national se!urity,1'.=1)> are all punishable under the law. wo other e(!eptions are defamation,1'(=1@> whi!h in!ludes libel and slander, and tortious spee!h.1')=1'> Defamatory and tortious spee!h, per se, are not sub8e!t to prior restraint be!ause by definition they do not !onstitute a !lear and present danger to the State that is grave and imminent. <n!e defamatory or tortuous spee!h rises to the level of advo!a!y of imminent lawless a!tion, then it may be sub8e!t to prior restraint be!ause it is seditious 1'@=1&> but not be!ause it is defamatory or tortious. Defamation and tortious !ondu!t, however, may be sub8e!t to subse0uent punishment, !ivilly or !riminally. #ighting words are not sub8e!t to subse0uent punishment unless they are defamatory or tortious. #ighting words refer to profane or vulgar words that are likely to provoke a violent response from an audien!e. =rofane or vulgar words like :#u!k the draft,; when not dire!ted at any parti!ular person, ethni! or religious group, are not sub8e!t to subse0uent

1>6B1+C

-rti!le +61, %evised =enal Code.

1>1B1.C

Se!tion 4(aA, )ilk Code.

1>+B13C

-rti!le 13+, %evised =enal Code.

1>.B1DC

-rti!le 1./, %evised =enal Code.

1>3B14C

See note +.
1>DB1>C

See note ..
1>4B1/C

-rti!les 1./ and 13+, %evised =enal Code.

+.'

+36

punishment.1''=11> -s aptly stated, :one man1s vulgarity may be another man1s lyri!.;1'&=20> I( pro("'e or *ul&"r l"'&u"&e liLe B.ucL #%e )r"(#D i7 'o# 7u8Aec# #o 7u87eCue'# pu'i7%$e'#, #%e' wi#% $ore re"7o' i# c"''o# 8e 7u8Aec# #o prior re7#r"i'#. 7ithout a law punishing the a!tual utteran!e or publi!ation of an e(pression, an e(pression !annot be sub8e!t to prior restraint be!ause su!h e(pression is not unlawful or illegal. =rior restraint is more deleterious to freedom of e(pression than subse0uent punishment. -lthough subse0uent punishment also deters e(pression, still the ideas are disseminated to the publi!. =rior restraint prevents even the dissemination of ideas to the publi!. hus, the threemonth suspension of petitioner1s F program, being a prior restraint on e(pression, has far graver ramifi!ations than any possible subse0uent punishment of petitioner. T%reeGMo'#% Su7pe'7io' i7 " 5ro%i8i#e) 5rior Re7#r"i'# he three-month suspension of petitioner1s F program is indisputably a prior restraint on e(pression. During the three-month suspension, petitioner !annot utter a single word in his F program be!ause the program is totally suppressed. - prior restraint may be 8ustified only if the e(pression falls under any of the four types of e(pression that may be sub8e!t to prior restraint, namely, pornography, false or misleading advertisement, advo!a!y of imminent lawless a!tion, and danger to national se!urity. <bviously, what petitioner uttered does not fall under any of the four types of e(pression that may be sub8e!t to prior restraint. 7hat respondents assail is the following ranting of petitioner: Le2itimong ana@ ng demonyoB sinungalingB +ago @a talaga Mic2ael, masa2ol @a pa sa putang 'a'ae o di 'a. )ung putang 'a'ae ang gumagana lang doon yung i'a'a, NditoO @ay Mic2ael ang gumagana ang itaas, o di 'aT O, masa2ol pa sa putang 'a'ae yan. "a'i ng lola @o masa2ol pa sa putang 'a'ae yan. "o'ra ang @asinungalingan ng mga demonyong itoJ

1>>B1'C

Co2en v. California, 36. ?.S. 1D (1'>1A.

1>/B+6C

*d.

+36

+31

&o matter how offensive, profane or vulgar petitioner1s words may be, they do not !onstitute pornography, false or misleading advertisement, advo!a!y of imminent lawless a!tion, or danger to national se!urity. hus, petitioner1s offensive, profane or vulgar language !annot be sub8e!t to prior restraint but may be sub8e!t to subse0uent punishment if defamatory or tortious. -ny prior restraint is strongly presumed to be un!onstitutional and the government bears a heavy burden of 8ustifying su!h prior restraint. 1'1 =21> Su!h prior restraint must pass the !lear and present danger test. T%e $"Aori#y opi'io', w%ic% i$po7e7 " prior re7#r"i'# o' e@pre77io', i7 #o#"lly 8ere(# o( "'y )i7cu77io' #%"# pe#i#io'erN7 r"'#i'& po7e7 " cle"r "') pre7e'# )"'&er #o #%e S#"#e #%"# i7 &r"*e "') i$$i'e'#. he respondents have not presented any !redible 8ustifi!ation to over!ome the strong presumption of un!onstitutionality a!!orded to the three-month suspension order. he three-month suspension !annot be passed off merely as a preventive suspension that does not partake of a penalty. he a!tual and real effe!t of the three-month suspension is a prior restraint on e(pression in violation of a fundamental !onstitutional right. 9ven Congress !annot validly pass a law imposing a three-month preventive suspension on freedom of e(pression for offensive or vulgar language uttered in the past. Congress may punish su!h offensive or vulgar language, after their utteran!e, with damages, fine or imprisonment but Congress has no power to suspend or suppress the people1s right to speak freely be!ause of su!h past utteran!es. *n short, Congress may pass a law punishing defamation or tortious spee!h but the punishment !annot be the suspension or suppression of the !onstitutional right to freedom of e(pression. O#%erwi7e, 7uc% l"w woul) 8e B"8ri)&i'& #%e (ree)o$ o( 7peec%, o( e@pre77io', or o( #%e pre77.D *f Congress !annot pass su!h a law, neither !an respondent ) %C$ promulgate a rule or a de!ision suspending for three months petitioner1s !onstitutional right to freedom of e(pression. -nd of !ourse, neither !an this Court give its stamp of imprimatur to su!h an un!onstitutional ) %C$ rule or de!ision. %ead: 1. 2onGales vs. Malaw Matigbak, 1.> SC%- >1>

1>'B+1C

See note '.

+31

+3+

+. &ew Jork imes vs. ?.S., 36. ?.S. >1. (-ny system of prior restraints of e(pression !omes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its validityA .. &ear vs. )innesota, +/. ?.S. 4'> 3. imes #ilm vs. City of Chi!ago, .4D ?.S. 3. D. #reedman vs. )aryland, ./6 ?.S. D1 6. Cle"r "') pre7e'# )"'&er "') )"'&erou7 #e')e'cy rule ,w%e#%er #%e wor)7 u7e) i' 7uc% circu$7#"'ce7 "') "re o( 7uc% " '"#ure "7 #o cre"#e " cle"r "') pre7e'# )"'&er #%"# #%ey will 8ri'& "8ou# #%e 7u87#"'#i*e e*il7 #%"# #%e S#"#e %"7 #%e ri&%# #o pre*e'#! >-a. /"'&erou7 #e')e'cy rule ,I( #%e wor)7 u##ere) cre"#e " )"'&erou7 #e')e'cy w%ic% #%e S#"#e %"7 #%e ri&%# #o pre*e'#, #%e' 7uc% wor)7 "re pu'i7%"8le! %ead: 1. Cabansag vs. #ernandeG, 16+ =hil. 1D+ +. %ead again the %eyes and %uiG !ases, supra .. %ead again Oaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan, 2% &o. >'46->6>P Oaldivar vs. 2onGales, 2% &o. /6D>/, #ebruary 1, 1'/' /. T%e 8"l"'ci'&Go(Gi'#ere7# #e7# ,0%e' " p"r#icul"r co')uc# i7 re&ul"#e) i' #%e i'#ere7# o( #%e pu8lic or)er, "') #%e re&ul"#io' re7ul#7 i' "' i')irec#, co')i#io'"l, p"r#i"l "8ri)&$e'# o( 7peec%, #%e )u#y o( #%e cour#7 i7 #o )e#er$i'e w%ic% o( #%e 9 co'(lic#i'& i'#ere7#7 )e$"') &re"#er pro#ec#io' u')er #%e circu$7#"'ce7 pre7e'#e).! %ead: A)E$ #$O%!C&IO( *". J!%+E CA#!LO(+, J!A( #O(CE E($ILE, E& AL., .<, "C$A ;<. %ead also: 1. @agunGad vs. 2onGales, '+ SC%- 3>4 +. 2itlow vs. &ew Jork, +4/ ?.S. 4D+, in!luding this test by 5usti!e ,olmes .. See also Oaldivar !ase above the !riti!ism on

CHA5TER VI G THE -O-GESTA4LISHME-T O. RELI:IO- CLA3SE Sec#io' 1. -o l"w 7%"ll 8e $")e re7pec#i'& #%e e7#"8li7%$e'# o( reli&io',
+3+

+3.

or pro%i8i#i'& #%e (ree e@erci7e #%ereo(. T%e (ree e@erci7e "') e'Aoy$e'# o( reli&iou7 pro(e77io' "') wor7%ip, wi#%ou# )i7cri$i'"#io' or pre(ere'ce 7%"ll (ore*er 8e "llowe). -o reli&iou7 #e7# 7%"ll 8e reCuire) (or #%e e@erci7e o( ci*il or poli#ic"l ri&%#7. ESTRA/A VS. SOLE/A/ ESCRITOR, 299 SCRA 1 ,Re7olu#io' o( #%e Mo#io' (or Reco'7i)er"#io'!, 2;6 SCRA 1 =uno, 5. %espondent is the Court interpreter of % C $ran!h +D., @as =inas City. Complainant re0uested for an investigation of respondent for living with a man not her husband while she was still legally married and having borne a !hild within this live-in arrangement. 9strada believes that 9s!ritor is !ommitting a grossly immoral a!t whi!h tarnishes the image of the 8udi!iary, thus she should not be allowed to remain employed therein as it might appear that the !ourt !ondones her a!t. %espondent admitted she started living with @u!iano Ruilapio, 5r. more than +6 years ago when her husband was still alive but living with another woman. She likewise admitted having a son with Ruilapio but denies any liability for alleged grossly immoral !ondu!t be!ause: She is a member of the 5ehovah1s 7itnesses and the 7at!h ower So!iety" hat the !on8ugal arrangement was in !onformity with their religious beliefs" hat the !on8ugal arrangement with Ruilapio has the approval of her !ongregation. 9s!ritor likewise !laimed that she had e(e!uted a :D9C@-%- *<& <# =@9D2*&2 #-* ,#?@&9SS; in a!!ordan!e with her religion whi!h allows members of the 5ehovah1s witnesses who have been abandoned by their spouses to enter into marital relations. he De!laration thus makes the resulting union moral and binding within the !ongregation all over the world e(!ept in !ountries where divor!e is allowed. ,9@D: 9s!ritor1s !on8ugal arrangement !annot be penaliGed as she has made out a !ase for e(emption from the law based on her fundamental right to religion. he Court re!ogniGes that state interests must be upheld in order that freedoms---in!luding religious freedom---may be en8oyed. *&
+3.

+33

,9 -%9- <# %9@*2*<?S 9Q9%C*S9 -S - =%9#9%%9D #%99D<), ,<79F9%, )-& S -&DS -CC<?& -$@9 < -& -? ,<%* J ,*2,9% ,-& ,9 S - 9, and so the state interest sought to be upheld must be so !ompelling that its violation will erode the very fabri! of the state that will also prote!t the freedom. *n the absen!e of a showing that the state interest e(ists, man must be allowed to subs!ribe to the *nfinite. 9s!ritor was therefore held not administratively liable for grossly immoral !ondu!t. #%99D<) <# %9@*2*<& -any spe!ifi! system of belief, worship or !ondu!t, often involving a !ode of ethi!s and philosophy. -- profession of faith to an a!tive power that binds and elevates man to his Creator. he e(isten!e of a Divine being is not ne!essarily inherent in religion" the $uddhists espouses a way of life without referen!e to an omnipotent 2od. <3tron* fen e" (a)e *ood nei*h4or"E. he idea is to delineate the boundaries between two institutions and prevent en!roa!hments by one against the other. T%e )oc#ri'e cu#7 8o#% w"y7. I# i7 'o# o'ly #%e S#"#e #%"# i7 pro%i8i#e) (ro$ i'#er(eri'& i' purely eccle7i"7#ic"l "(("ir7+ #%e C%urc% i7 liLewi7e 8"rre) (ro$ $e))li'& i' purely 7ecul"r $"##er7. -O-GSTA4LISHME-T CLA3SEI I# 7i$ply $e"'7 B#%"# #%e S#"#e c"''o# 7e# up " c%urc%+ 'or p"77 l"w7 w%ic% "i)7 o'e reli&io'+ "i) "ll reli&io', or pre(er o'e reli&io' o*er "'o#%er 'or (orce 'or i'(lue'ce " per7o' #o &o #o or re$"i' "w"y (ro$ c%urc% "&"i'7# %i7 will+ or (orce %i$ #o pro(e77 " 8elie( or )i78elie(+ #%"# #%e S#"#e c"''o# ope'ly or 7ecre#ly p"r#icip"#e i' #%e "(("ir7 o( "'y reli&iou7 or&"'iJ"#io' or &roup "') *ice *er7"D ,EVERSO- VS. 4OAR/ O. E/3CATIO-, 33; 3S 1! T%i7 cl"u7e 7eeL7 #o pro#ec#I Volu'#"ri7$GGG$u7# co$e i'#o e@i7#e'ce #%rou&% #%e *olu'#"ry 7uppor# o( i#7 $e$8er7+

+33

+3D

I'7ul"#io' (ro$ poli#ic"l proce77?&row#% #%rou&% *olu'#"ry 7uppor# o( i#7 $e$8er7 will 'o# #"Le pl"ce i( #%ere i7 i'#er*e'#io' (ro$ #%e S#"#e. T%ere will 8e 'o *iol"#io' o( #%e 'o'Ge7#"8li7%$e'# cl"u7e i(I #%e 7#"#u#e %"7 " 7ecul"r le&i7l"#i*e purpo7e+ i#7 pri'cip"l or pri$"ry e((ec# i7 o'e #%"# 'ei#%er ")*"'ce7 'or i'%i8i#7 reli&io'+ "') i# )oe7 'o# (o7#er "' e@ce77i*e &o*er'$e'# e'#"'&le$e'# wi#% reli&io'. ,LEMO- VS. F3RT>MA-, 2;3 3S 6;9! T%e &o*er'$e'# i7 'eu#r"l "') w%ile pro#ec#i'& "ll, i# pre(er7 'o'e "') )i7p"r"&e7 'o'e. BAllD %ere "pplie7 8o#% #o #%e 8elie*er "') #%e 'o'G8elie*er. .REE/OM O. RELI:IO- I-CL3/ES .REE/OM .ROM RELI:IO-+ THE RI:HT TO 0ORHI5 I-CL3/ES THE RI:HT -OT TO 0ORSHI5. SC,<<@ =%-J9% C-S9 (9&29@ FS. F* -@9, .>6 ?S 3+1A I# i7 u'co'7#i#u#io'"l (or " 7c%ool #o reCuire #%e 7#u)e'#7 #o reci#e " pr"yer co$po7e) 8y #%e 4o"r) o( Re&e'#7 "# #%e 7#"r#7 o( #%e )"yN7 cl"77. BI# i7 'o p"r# o( #%e 8u7i'e77 o( &o*er'$e'# #o co$po7e o((ici"l pr"yer7 (or "'y &roup o( #%e A$eric"' 5eople.D SC,<<@ D*S %*C +6. I# i7 u'co'7#i#u#io'"l (or " l"w #o reCuire #%"# "# le"7# 1; *er7e7 (ro$ #%e Holy 4i8le 8e re") )"ily wi#%ou# co$$e'# 8ec"u7e #%e 7"$e co'7#i#u#e " reli&iou7 e@erci7e w%ic% *iol"#e7 #%e 'o'G e7#"8li7%$e'# cl"u7e. +OAR1 O: ,12CAT/ON ?3. A==,N, A@2 23 2A8 - law re0uiring the $oard of 9du!ation to lend te(tbooks free of !harge to all students from grades >-1+ of paro!hial s!hool. his is !onstitutional sin!e it is not the paro!hial s!hool whi!h gets the benefits but the parents. E*E$"O( *". OA$% OA E%!CA&IO(, ::, !" . he law authoriGing reimbursement of transportation e(penses of s!hool !hildren going to and from paro!hial s!hools is not violative of the
+3D

<# -$*&2 <& FS. SC,9)==, .>3 ?S

+34

non-establishment !lause be!ause it will be the parents who get benefits, not the paro!hial s!hool. RI:HT TO RELI:IO3S 5RO.ESSIO- A-/ 0ORSHI5 HAS T0O AS5ECTSI ". .ree)o$ #o 8elie*e+ "') 8. .ree)o$ #o "c#. *& the first, su!h freedom is absolute. ,e may indulge in his own theories about life and death" worship any god he !hooses, or none at all. ,e may not be punished even if he !annot prove what he believes. *n the se!ond, if the individual e(ternaliGes what he believes, his freedom to do so be!omes sub8e!t to the authority of the State. his is so be!ause religious freedom !an be e(er!ised only with due regard to the rights of others. 9(ample: :2o forth and multiply---!annot marry several times 8ust to !omply. =9<=@9 FS. @-2)-& P O<S-, ./ <.2. 14>4 -voiding military duties based on religious grounds is not allowed in the =hilippines be!ause of Se!tion 3, -rti!le **X he state is the prote!tor of the people and it is the prime duty of the people to defend the State and in the fulfillment of this duty, the State may !all all !itiGens to render military or !ivil servi!e. I( $E "!MME$", :08 !" 8<. he a!t of the *llinois Supreme Court denying admission to the bar be!ause of his refusal to take in good faith an oath to support the Constitution of the State of *llinois whi!h re0uires mandatory servi!e in the military in times of war was reversed by the ?S Supreme Court stating that this !onstitutes a violation of the 1st -mendment whi!h guarantees religious freedom. 1. %eligious freedom in relation to impairment of the right to 8oin asso!iations,.4 SC%- 33D +. %ead: 1. -glipay vs. %uiG, 43 =hil. +61 +. 2ar!es vs. 9stenGo, 163 SC%- D16 .. *&M vs. 2ironella, 164 SC%- 1 3. -meri!an $ible So!iety vs. City of )anila, 161 !ontra!ts and

=hil. .'/
+34

+3>

D. 2erona vs. Se!. of 9du!ation, 164 =hil. 11 4. =amil vs. eleron, &ovember +6, 1'>/ >. Fi!toriano vs. 9liGalde %ope, D' SC%- D3 >. 2erman vs. $arangan, 1.D SC%- D13 A-: LA/LA/ L:4T 5ARTY VS. COMELEC, :.R. -o. 19;169, April , 9;1; /EL CASTILLO, J.I his is a =etition for Certiorari under %ule 4D of the %ules of Court, with an appli!ation for a writ of preliminary mandatory in8un!tion, filed by Ang Ladlad @2$ =arty (Ang LadladA against the %esolutions of the Commission on 9le!tions (C<)9@9CA dated &ovember 11, +66' (the #irst -ssailed %esolutionA and De!ember 14, +66' (the Se!ond -ssailed %esolutionA in S== &o. 6'-++/ (=@A (!olle!tively, the -ssailed %esolutionsA. he !ase has its roots in the C<)9@9C1s refusal to a!!redit Ang Ladlad as a party-list organiGation under %epubli! -!t (%-A &o. >'31, otherwise known as the =arty-@ist System -!t. Ang Ladlad is an organiGation !omposed of men and women who identify themselves as lesbians, gays, bise(uals, or trans-gendered individuals (@2$ sA. *n!orporated in +66., Ang Ladlad first applied for registration with the C<)9@9C in +664. he appli!ation for a!!reditation was denied on the ground that the organiGation had no substantial membership base. <n -ugust 1>, +66', Ang Ladlad again filed a =etition for registration with the C<)9@9C. $efore the C<)9@9C, petitioner argued that the @2$ !ommunity is a marginaliGed and under-represented se!tor that is parti!ularly disadvantaged be!ause of their se(ual orientation and gender identity" that @2$ s are vi!tims of e(!lusion, dis!rimination, and violen!e" that be!ause of negative so!ietal attitudes, @2$ s are !onstrained to hide their se(ual orientation" and that Ang Ladlad !omplied with the /point guidelines enun!iated by this Court in Ang agong ayani-OAD La'or #arty v. Commission on Elections. Ang Ladlad laid out its national membership base !onsisting of individual members and organiGational supporters, and outlined its platform of governan!e. <n &ovember 11, +66', after admitting the petitioner1s eviden!e, the C<)9@9C (Se!ond DivisionA dismissed the =etition on moral grounds, stating that: ( ( ( his =etition is dismissible on moral grounds. =etitioner defines the #ilipino @esbian, 2ay, $ise(ual and ransgender (@2$ A Community, thus: ( ( ( a marginaliGed and under-represented se!tor that is parti!ularly disadvantaged be!ause of their se(ual orientation and gender identity. and pro!eeded to define se(ual orientation as that whi!h:
+3>

+3/

( ( ( refers to a person1s !apa!ity for profound emotional, affe!tional and se(ual attra!tion to, and intimate and se(ual relations with, individuals of a different gender, of the same gender, or more than one gender.; his definition of the @2$ se!tor makes it !rystal !lear that petitioner tolerates immorality whi!h offends religious beliefs. he -&2 @-D@-D apparently advo!ates se(ual immorality as indi!ated in the =etition1s par. 4#: KConsensual partnerships or relationships by gays and lesbians who are already of age1. *t is further indi!ated in par. +3 of the =etition whi!h waves for the re!ord: K*n +66>, )en ,aving Se( with )en or )S)s in the =hilippines were estimated as 4>6,666 (2enesis 1' is the history of Sodom and 2omorrahA. @aws are deemed in!orporated in every !ontra!t, permit, li!ense, relationship, or a!!reditation. ,en!e, pertinent provisions of the Civil Code and the %evised =enal Code are deemed part of the re0uirement to be !omplied with for a!!reditation. -&2 @-D@-D !ollides with -rti!le 4'D of the Civil Code whi!h defines nuisan!e as K-ny a!t, omission, establishment, business, !ondition of property, or anything else whi!h ( ( ( (.A sho!ks, defies" or disregards de!en!y or morality ( ( ( *t also !ollides with -rti!le 1.64 of the Civil Code: K he !ontra!ting parties may establish su!h stipulations, !lauses, terms and !onditions as they may deem !onvenient, provided they are not !ontrary to law, morals, good !ustoms, publi! order or publi! poli!y. -rt 136' of the Civil Code provides that KContra!ts whose !ause, ob8e!t or purpose is !ontrary to law, morals, good !ustoms, publi! order or publi! poli!y1 are ine(istent and void from the beginning. #inally to safeguard the morality of the #ilipino !ommunity, the %evised =enal Code, as amended, penaliGes K*mmoral do!trines, obs!ene publi!ations and e(hibitions and inde!ent shows1 as follows: -rt. +61. *mmoral do!trines, obs!ene publi!ations and e(hibitions, and inde!ent shows. X he penalty of prision mayor or a fine ranging from si( thousand to twelve thousand pesos, or both su!h imprisonment and fine, shall be imposed upon: 1. hose who shall publi!ly e(pound or pro!laim do!trines openly !ontrary to publi! morals" 7hen Ang Ladlad sought re!onsideration to the C<)9@9C 9& $-&C, three !ommissioners voted to overturn the #irst -ssailed %esolution (Commissioners 2regorio J. @arraGabal, %ene F. Sarmiento, and -rmando Felas!oA, while three !ommissioners voted to deny Ang LadladLs )otion for %e!onsideration (Commissioners &i!odemo . #errer, @u!enito &. agle, and 9lias %. JusophA. he C<)9@9C Chairman, breaking

+3/

+3'

the tie and speaking for the ma8ority in his Separate <pinion, upheld the #irst -ssailed %esolution, stating that: Ladlad is applying for a!!reditation as a se!toral party in the party-list system. 9ven assuming that it has properly proven its under-representation and marginaliGation, it !annot be said that Ladlad1s e(pressed se(ual orientations per se would benefit the nation as a whole. Se!tion + of the party-list law une0uivo!ally states that the purpose of the party-list system of ele!ting !ongressional representatives is to enable #ilipino !itiGens belonging to marginaliGed and under-represented se!tors, organiGations and parties, and who la!k well-defined politi!al !onstituen!ies but who !ould !ontribute to the formulation and ena!tment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to be!ome members of the ,ouse of %epresentatives. *f entry into the party-list system would depend only on the ability of an organiGation to represent its !onstituen!ies, then all representative organiGations would have found themselves into the party-list ra!e. $ut that is not the intention of the framers of the law. he party-list system is not a tool to advo!ate toleran!e and a!!eptan!e of misunderstood persons or groups of persons. %ather, #%e p"r#yGli7# 7y7#e$ i7 " #ool (or #%e re"liJ"#io' o( "7pir"#io'7 o( $"r&i'"liJe) i')i*i)u"l7 w%o7e i'#ere7#7 "re "l7o #%e '"#io'N7 I only that their interests have not been brought to the attention of the nation be!ause of their under representation. 3'#il #%e #i$e co$e7 w%e' =adlad i7 "8le #o Au7#i(y #%"# %"*i'& $i@e) 7e@u"l orie'#"#io'7 "') #r"'7&e')er i)e'#i#ie7 i7 8e'e(ici"l #o #%e '"#io', i#7 "pplic"#io' (or "ccre)i#"#io' u')er #%e p"r#yGli7# 7y7#e$ will re$"i' Au7# #%"#. hus, even if so!iety1s understanding, toleran!e, and a!!eptan!e of @2$ 1s is elevated, there !an be no denying that Ladlad !onstituen!ies are still males and females, and #%ey will re$"i' ei#%er $"le or (e$"le pro#ec#e) 8y #%e 7"$e 4ill o( Ri&%#7 #%"# "pplie7 #o "ll ci#iJe'7 "liLe. he C<)9@9C likewise used the ,oly $ible and the Moran in denying @adlad1s appli!ation. <n 5anuary 3, +616, Ang Ladlad filed this =etition, praying that the Court annul the -ssailed %esolutions and dire!t the C<)9@9C to grant Ang LadladLs appli!ation for a!!reditation. Ang Ladlad also sought the issuan!e e> parte of a preliminary mandatory in8un!tion against the C<)9@9C, whi!h had previously announ!ed that it would begin printing the final ballots for the )ay +616 ele!tions by 5anuary +D, +616. <n 5anuary 4, +616, the <ffi!e of the Soli!itor 2eneral (<S2 was ordered to file its Comment on behalf of C<)9@9C not later than 1+:66 noon of 5anuary 11, +616. *nstead of filing a Comment, however, the <S2 filed a )otion for 9(tension, re0uesting that it be given until 5anuary 14, +616 to Comment. Somewhat surprisingly, the <S2 later filed a Comment in support of petitioner1s appli!ation. hus, in order to
+3'

+D6

give C<)9@9C the opportunity to fully ventilate its position, we re0uired it to file its own !omment. he C<)9@9C, through its @aw Department, filed its Comment on #ebruary +, +616. *n the meantime, due to the urgen!y of the petition, a temporary restraining order was issued on 5anuary 1+, +616, effe!tive immediately and !ontinuing until further orders from this Court, dire!ting the C<)9@9C to !ease and desist from implementing the -ssailed %esolutions. -lso, on 5anuary 1., +616, the Commission on ,uman %ights (C,%A filed a )otion to *ntervene or to -ppear as -mi!us Curiae, atta!hing thereto its Comment-in*ntervention. he C,% opined that the denial of Ang LadladLs petition on moral grounds violated the standards and prin!iples of the Constitution, the ?niversal De!laration of ,uman %ights (?D,%A, and the *nternational Covenant on Civil and =oliti!al %ights (*CC=%A. <n 5anuary 1', +616, we granted the C,%1s motion to intervene. ,9@D: 7e grant the petition. Co(plian e 'ith the Re$#ire(ent" of the Con"tit#tion and Rep#4li A t No. 7@B1 he C<)9@9C denied Ang LadladLs appli!ation for registration on the ground that the @2$ se!tor is neither enumerated in the Constitution and %- >'31, nor is it asso!iated with or related to any of the se!tors in the enumeration. %espondent mistakenly opines that our ruling in Ang agong ayani stands for the proposition that only those se!tors spe!ifi!ally enumerated in the law or related to said se!tors ,l"8or, pe"7"'#, (i7%er(olL, ur8"' poor, i')i&e'ou7 cul#ur"l co$$u'i#ie7, el)erly, %"')ic"ppe), wo$e', you#%, *e#er"'7, o*er7e"7 worLer7, "') pro(e77io'"l7A may be registered under the party-list system. -s we e(pli!itly ruled in Ang agong ayani-OAD La'or #arty v. Commission on Elections, B#%e e'u$er"#io' o( $"r&i'"liJe) "') u')erGrepre7e'#e) 7ec#or7 i7 'o# e@clu7i*eD. he !ru!ial element is not whether a se!tor is spe!ifi!ally enumerated, but whether a parti!ular organiGation !omplies with the re0uirements of the Constitution and %- >'31.

- !ursory perusal of Ang LadladLs initial petition shows that it never !laimed to e(ist in ea!h provin!e of the =hilippines. %ather, petitioner alleged that the @2$ !ommunity in the =hilippines was estimated to !onstitute at least 4>6,666 persons" that it had 14,166 affiliates and members around the !ountry, and 3,633 members in its ele!troni! dis!ussion group. Ang Ladlad also represented itself to be :a national @2$ umbrella organiGation with affiliates around the =hilippines !omposed of the following @2$ networks:;
+D6

+D1

-bra 2ay -sso!iation -klan $utterfly $rigade (-$$A I -klan -lbay 2ay -sso!iation -rts Center of Cabanatuan City I &ueva 9!i8a $oys @egion I )etro )anila Cagayan de <ro =eople @ike ?s (CD< =@?SA Can1t @ive in the Closet, *n!. (C@*CA I )etro )anila Cebu =ride I Cebu City Cir!le of #riends Dipolog 2ay -sso!iation I Oamboanga del &orte 2ay, $ise(ual, P ransgender Jouth -sso!iation (2-$-JA 2ay and @esbian -!tivists &etwork for 2ender 90uality (2-@-&2A I )etro )anila 2ay )en1s Support 2roup (2)S2A I )etro )anila 2ay ?nited for =ea!e and Solidarity (2?=SA I @anao del &orte *loilo City 2ay -sso!iation I *loilo City Mabulig 7riter1s 2roup I Camarines Sur @esbian -dvo!ates =hilippines, *n!. (@9-=A @?)*&- I $aguio City )arikina 2ay -sso!iation I )etro )anila )etropolitan Community Chur!h ()CCA I )etro )anila &aga City 2ay -sso!iation I &aga City <&9 $-C-%D* <rder of St. -elred (<S-eA I )etro )anila =?= @-M-& %-D-% =%*D979-% %ainbow %ights =ro8e!t (%-%ightsA, *n!. I )etro )anila San 5ose del )onte 2ay -sso!iation I $ula!an Sining Mayumanggi %oyal #amily I %iGal So!iety of ranse(ual 7omen of the =hilippines (S %-=A I )etro )anila Soul 5ive I -ntipolo, %iGal he @ink I Davao City ayabas 2ay -sso!iation I RueGon 7omen1s $ise(ual &etwork I )etro )anila Oamboanga 2ay -sso!iation I Oamboanga City -gainst this ba!kdrop, we find that Ang Ladlad has suffi!iently demonstrated its !omplian!e with the legal re0uirements for a!!reditation. *ndeed, aside from C<)9@9C1s moral ob8e!tion and the belated allegation of non-e(isten!e, nowhere in the re!ords has the respondent ever foundEruled that Ang Ladlad is not 0ualified to register as a party-list organiGation under any of the re0uisites under %- >'31 or the guidelines in Ang agong ayani. he differen!e, C<)9@9C !laims, lies in Ang LadladLs morality, or la!k thereof.

+D1

+D+

<ur Constitution provides in Ar#icle III, Sec#io' 1 #%"# B<'=o l"w 7%"ll 8e $")e re7pec#i'& "' e7#"8li7%$e'# o( reli&io', or pro%i8i#i'& #%e (ree e@erci7e #%ereo(.D -t bottom, what our non-establishment !lause !alls for is B&o*er'$e'# 'eu#r"li#y i' reli&iou7 $"##er7.D Cle"rly, B&o*er'$e'#"l reli"'ce o' reli&iou7 Au7#i(ic"#io' i7 i'co'7i7#e'# wi#% #%i7 policy o( 'eu#r"li#y.D 7e thus find that it was grave violation of the non-establishment !lause for the C<)9@9C to utiliGe the $ible and the Moran to 8ustify the e(!lusion of Ang Ladlad. %ather than relying on religious belief, the legitima!y of the -ssailed %esolutions should depend, instead, on whether the C<)9@9C is able to advan!e some 8ustifi!ation for its rulings beyond mere !onformity to religious do!trine. <therwise stated, government must a!t for se!ular purposes and in ways that have primarily se!ular effe!ts. -s we held in Estrada v. Escritor: ( ( ( he morality referred to in the law is publi! and ne!essarily se!ular, not religious as the dissent of )r. 5usti!e Carpio holds. H%eligious tea!hings as e(pressed in publi! debate may influen!e the !ivil publi! order but publi! moral disputes may be resolved only on grounds arti!ulable in se!ular terms.H <therwise, if government relies upon religious beliefs in formulating publi! poli!ies and morals, the resulting poli!ies and morals would re0uire !onformity to what some might regard as religious programs or agenda. he non-believers would therefore be !ompelled to !onform to a standard of !ondu!t buttressed by a religious belief, i.e., to a H!ompelled religion,H anathema to religious freedom. @ikewise, if government based its a!tions upon religious beliefs, it would ta!itly approve or endorse that belief and thereby also ta!itly disapprove !ontrary religious or non-religious views that would not support the poli!y. -s a result, government will not provide full religious freedom for all its !itiGens, or even make it appear that those whose beliefs are disapproved are se!ond-!lass !itiGens. 7e are not blind to the fa!t that, through the years, homose(ual !ondu!t, and perhaps homose(uals themselves, have borne the brunt of so!ietal disapproval. *t is not diffi!ult to imagine the reasons behind this !ensure I religious beliefs, !onvi!tions about the preservation of marriage, family, and pro!reation, even dislike or distrust of homose(uals themselves and their per!eived lifestyle. &onetheless, we re!all that the =hilippines has not seen fit to !riminaliGe homose(ual !ondu!t. 9vidently, therefore, these :generally a!!epted publi! morals; have not been !onvin!ingly transplanted into the realm of law. he -ssailed %esolutions have not identified any spe!ifi! overt immoral a!t performed by Ang Ladlad. 9ven the <S2 agrees that :there should have been a finding by the C<)9@9C that the group1s members have !ommitted or are !ommitting immoral a!ts.; he <S2 argues: ( ( ( - person may be se(ually attra!ted to a person of the same gender, of a different gender, or more than one gender, but mere attra!tion does not translate to immoral a!ts. here is a great divide between thought and a!tion. $eduction ad a'surdum. *f immoral thoughts !ould be penaliGed, C<)9@9C would have its hands
+D+

+D.

full of dis0ualifi!ation !ases against both the :straights; and the gays.; Certainly this is not the intendment of the law. %espondent has failed to e(plain what so!ietal ills are sought to be prevented, or why spe!ial prote!tion is re0uired for the youth. &either has the C<)9@9C !ondes!ended to 8ustify its position that petitioner1s admission into the party-list system would be so harmful as to irreparably damage the moral fabri! of so!iety. 7e, of !ourse, do not suggest that the state is wholly without authority to regulate matters !on!erning morality, se(uality, and se(ual relations, and we re!ogniGe that the government will and should !ontinue to restri!t behavior !onsidered detrimental to so!iety. &onetheless, we !annot !ountenan!e advo!ates who, undoubtedly with the loftiest of intentions, situate morality on one end of an argument or another, without bothering to go through the rigors of legal reasoning and e(planation. *n this, the notion of morality is robbed of all value. Clearly then, the bare invo!ation of morality will not remove an issue from our s!rutiny. 7e also find the C<)9@9C1s referen!e to purported violations of our penal and !ivil laws flimsy, at best" disingenuous, at worst. -rti!le 4'3 of the Civil Code defines a nuisan!e as :any a!t, omission, establishment, !ondition of property, or anything else whi!h sho!ks, defies, or disregards de!en!y or morality,; the remedies for whi!h are a prose!ution under the %evised =enal Code or any lo!al ordinan!e, a !ivil a!tion, or abatement without 8udi!ial pro!eedings. - violation of -rti!le +61 of the %evised =enal Code, on the other hand, re0uires proof beyond reasonable doubt to support a !riminal !onvi!tion. *t hardly needs to be emphasiGed that mere allegation of violation of laws is not proof, and a mere blanket invo!ation of publi! morals !annot repla!e the institution of !ivil or !riminal pro!eedings and a 8udi!ial determination of liability or !ulpability. -s su!h, we hold that moral disapproval, without more, is not a suffi!ient governmental interest to 8ustify e(!lusion of homose(uals from parti!ipation in the partylist system. he denial of Ang LadladLs registration on purely moral grounds amounts more to a statement of dislike and disapproval of homose(uals, rather than a tool to further any substantial publi! interest. %espondent1s blanket 8ustifi!ations give rise to the inevitable !on!lusion that the C<)9@9C targets homose(uals themselves as a !lass, not be!ause of any parti!ular morally reprehensible a!t. *t is this sele!tive targeting that impli!ates our e0ual prote!tion !lause. ,$#al &rote tion Despite the absolutism of -rti!le ***, Se!tion 1 of our Constitution, whi!h provides :nor s2all any person 'e denied eCual protection of t2e la?s,; !ourts have never interpreted the provision as an absolute prohibition on !lassifi!ation. :90uality,; said -ristotle, :!onsists in the same treatment of similar persons.; he e0ual prote!tion !lause guarantees that no person or !lass of persons shall be deprived of the same prote!tion of laws whi!h is en8oyed by other persons or other !lasses in the same pla!e and in like !ir!umstan!es.

+D.

+D3

%e!ent 8urispruden!e has affirmed that if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspe!t !lass, we will uphold the !lassifi!ation as long as it bears a rational relationship to some legitimate government end. *n Central an@ Employees Association, Inc. v. an@o "entral ng #ilipinas, we de!lared that :BiCn our 8urisdi!tion, the standard of analysis of e0ual prote!tion !hallenges ( ( ( have followed the Krational basis1 test, !oupled with a deferential attitude to legislative !lassifi!ations and a relu!tan!e to invalidate a law unless there is a showing of a !lear and une0uivo!al brea!h of the Constitution.; T%e COMELEC po7i#7 #%"# #%e $"Aori#y o( #%e 5%ilippi'e popul"#io' co'7i)er7 %o$o7e@u"l co')uc# "7 i$$or"l "') u'"ccep#"8le, "') #%i7 co'7#i#u#e7 7u((icie'# re"7o' #o )i7Cu"li(y #%e pe#i#io'er. 3'(or#u'"#ely (or #%e re7po')e'#, #%e 5%ilippi'e elec#or"#e %"7 e@pre77e) 'o 7uc% 8elie(. -o l"w e@i7#7 #o cri$i'"liJe %o$o7e@u"l 8e%"*ior or e@pre77io'7 or p"r#ie7 "8ou# %o$o7e@u"l 8e%"*ior. I')ee), e*e' i( we were #o "77u$e #%"# pu8lic opi'io' i7 "7 #%e COMELEC )e7cri8e7 i#, #%e "77er#e) 7#"#e i'#ere7# %ere T #%"# i7, $or"l )i7"ppro*"l o( "' u'popul"r $i'ori#y T i7 'o# " le&i#i$"#e 7#"#e i'#ere7# #%"# i7 7u((icie'# #o 7"#i7(y r"#io'"l 8"7i7 re*iew u')er #%e eCu"l pro#ec#io' cl"u7e. T%e COMELECN7 )i((ere'#i"#io', "') i#7 u'7u87#"'#i"#e) cl"i$ #%"# An* =adlad c"''o# co'#ri8u#e #o #%e (or$ul"#io' o( le&i7l"#io' #%"# woul) 8e'e(i# #%e '"#io', (ur#%er7 'o le&i#i$"#e 7#"#e i'#ere7# o#%er #%"' )i7"ppro*"l o( or )i7liLe (or " )i7("*ore) &roup. I# 8e"r7 7#re77i'& #%"# our (i')i'& #%"# COMELECN7 "c# o( )i((ere'#i"#i'& L:4T7 (ro$ %e#ero7e@u"l7 i'7o("r "7 #%e p"r#yGli7# 7y7#e$ i7 co'cer'e) )oe7 'o# i$ply #%"# "'y o#%er l"w )i7#i'&ui7%i'& 8e#wee' %e#ero7e@u"l7 "') %o$o7e@u"l7 u')er )i((ere'# circu$7#"'ce7 woul) 7i$il"rly ("il. 0e )i7"&ree wi#% #%e OS:N7 po7i#io' #%"# %o$o7e@u"l7 "re " cl"77 i' #%e$7el*e7 (or #%e purpo7e7 o( #%e eCu"l pro#ec#io' cl"u7e. 0e "re 'o# prep"re) #o 7i'&le ou# %o$o7e@u"l7 "7 " 7ep"r"#e cl"77 $eri#i'& 7peci"l or )i((ere'#i"#e) #re"#$e'#. 0e %"*e 'o# recei*e) 7u((icie'# e*i)e'ce #o #%i7 e((ec#, "') i# i7 7i$ply u''ece77"ry #o $"Le 7uc% " ruli'& #o)"y. 5e#i#io'er i#7el( %"7 $erely )e$"')e) #%"# i# 8e reco&'iJe) u')er #%e 7"$e 8"7i7 "7 "ll o#%er &roup7 7i$il"rly 7i#u"#e), "') #%"# #%e COMELEC $")e B"' u'w"rr"'#e) "') i$per$i77i8le cl"77i(ic"#io' 'o# Au7#i(ie) 8y #%e circu$7#"'ce7 o( #%e c"7e.D :reedo( of ,%pre""ion and A""o iation #reedom of e(pression !onstitutes one of the essential foundations of a demo!rati! so!iety, and this freedom applies not only to those that are favorably re!eived but also to those that offend, sho!k, or disturb. -ny restri!tion imposed in this sphere must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. -bsent any !ompelling state interest, it is not for the C<)9@9C or this Court to impose its views on the popula!e. <therwise stated, the C<)9@9C is !ertainly not free to interfere with spee!h for no better reason than promoting an approved message or dis!ouraging a disfavored one. his position gains even more for!e if one !onsiders that homose(ual !ondu!t is not illegal in this !ountry. *t follows that both e(pressions !on!erning one1s
+D3

+DD

homose(uality and the a!tivity of forming a politi!al asso!iation that supports @2$ individuals are prote!ted as well. O#%er Auri7)ic#io'7 %"*e &o'e 7o ("r "7 #o c"#e&oric"lly rule #%"# e*e' o*erw%el$i'& pu8lic percep#io' #%"# %o$o7e@u"l co')uc# *iol"#e7 pu8lic $or"li#y )oe7 'o# Au7#i(y cri$i'"liJi'& 7"$eG7e@ co')uc#. Europe"' "') 3'i#e) -"#io'7 Au)ici"l )eci7io'7 %"*e rule) i' ("*or o( &"y ri&%#7 cl"i$"'#7 o' 8o#% pri*"cy "') eCu"li#y &rou')7, ci#i'& &e'er"l pri*"cy "') eCu"l pro#ec#io' pro*i7io'7 i' (orei&' "') i'#er'"#io'"l #e@#7. To #%e e@#e'# #%"# #%ere i7 $uc% #o le"r' (ro$ o#%er Auri7)ic#io'7 #%"# %"*e re(lec#e) o' #%e i77ue7 we ("ce %ere, 7uc% Auri7pru)e'ce i7 cer#"i'ly illu$i'"#i'&. T%e7e (orei&' "u#%ori#ie7, w%ile 'o# (or$"lly 8i')i'& o' 5%ilippi'e cour#7, $"y 'e*er#%ele77 %"*e per7u"7i*e i'(lue'ce o' #%e Cour#N7 "'"ly7i7. *n the area of freedom of e(pression, for instan!e, ?nited States !ourts have ruled that e(isting free spee!h do!trines prote!t gay and lesbian rights to e(pressive !ondu!t. *n order to 8ustify the prohibition of a parti!ular e(pression of opinion, publi! institutions must show that their a!tions were !aused by :something more than a mere desire to avoid the dis!omfort and unpleasantness that always a!!ompany an unpopular viewpoint.; 0i#% re7pec# #o (ree)o$ o( "77oci"#io' (or #%e ")*"'ce$e'# o( i)e"7 "') 8elie(7, i' Europe, wi#% i#7 *i8r"'# %u$"' ri&%#7 #r")i#io', #%e Europe"' Cour# o( Hu$"' Ri&%#7 ,ECHR! %"7 repe"#e)ly 7#"#e) #%"# " poli#ic"l p"r#y $"y c"$p"i&' (or " c%"'&e i' #%e l"w or #%e co'7#i#u#io'"l 7#ruc#ure7 o( " 7#"#e i( i# u7e7 le&"l "') )e$ocr"#ic $e"'7 "') #%e c%"'&e7 i# propo7e7 "re co'7i7#e'# wi#% )e$ocr"#ic pri'ciple7. T%e ECHR %"7 e$p%"7iJe) #%"# poli#ic"l i)e"7 #%"# c%"lle'&e #%e e@i7#i'& or)er "') w%o7e re"liJ"#io' i7 ")*oc"#e) 8y pe"ce(ul $e"'7 $u7# 8e "((or)e) " proper oppor#u'i#y o( e@pre77io' #%rou&% #%e e@erci7e o( #%e ri&%# o( "77oci"#io', e*e' i( 7uc% i)e"7 $"y 7ee$ 7%ocLi'& or u'"ccep#"8le #o #%e "u#%ori#ie7 or #%e $"Aori#y o( #%e popul"#io'. A poli#ic"l &roup 7%oul) 'o# 8e %i')ere) 7olely 8ec"u7e i# 7eeL7 #o pu8licly )e8"#e co'#ro*er7i"l poli#ic"l i77ue7 i' or)er #o (i') 7olu#io'7 c"p"8le o( 7"#i7(yi'& e*eryo'e co'cer'e). O'ly i( " poli#ic"l p"r#y i'ci#e7 *iole'ce or pu#7 (orw"r) policie7 #%"# "re i'co$p"#i8le wi#% )e$ocr"cy )oe7 i# ("ll ou#7i)e #%e pro#ec#io' o( #%e (ree)o$ o( "77oci"#io' &u"r"'#ee. 0e )o 'o# )ou8# #%"# " 'u$8er o( our ci#iJe'7 $"y 8elie*e #%"# %o$o7e@u"l co')uc# i7 )i7#"7#e(ul, o((e'7i*e, or e*e' )e(i"'#. T%ey "re e'#i#le) #o %ol) "') e@pre77 #%"# *iew. O' #%e o#%er %"'), L:4T7 "') #%eir 7uppor#er7, i' "ll liLeli%oo), 8elie*e wi#% eCu"l (er*or #%"# rel"#io'7%ip7 8e#wee' i')i*i)u"l7 o( #%e 7"$e 7e@ "re $or"lly eCui*"le'# #o %e#ero7e@u"l rel"#io'7%ip7. T%ey, #oo, "re e'#i#le) #o %ol) "') e@pre77 #%"# *iew. Howe*er, "7 ("r "7 #%i7 Cour# i7 co'cer'e), our )e$ocr"cy preclu)e7 u7i'& #%e reli&iou7 or $or"l *iew7 o( o'e p"r# o( #%e co$$u'i#y #o e@clu)e (ro$ co'7i)er"#io' #%e *"lue7 o( o#%er $e$8er7 o( #%e co$$u'i#y.

+DD

+D4

<f !ourse, none of this suggests the impending arrival of a golden age for gay rights litigants. *t well may be that this De!ision will only serve to highlight the dis!repan!y between the rigid !onstitutional analysis of this Court and the more !omple( moral sentiments of #ilipinos. 7e do not suggest that publi! opinion, even at its most liberal, refle!t a !lear-!ut strong !onsensus favorable to gay rights !laims and we neither attempt nor e(pe!t to affe!t individual per!eptions of homose(uality through this De!ision. 0HERE.ORE, the =etition is hereby :RA-TE/. ROEL E4RALI-A:, ET AL VS. THE /IVISIOS35ERI-TE-/E-T O. SCHOOLS O. CE43, M"rc% 1, 1993

2rino---0uino, 5. #a!ts: 1. he petitioners are high s!hool and grade s!hools students enrolled in the different publi! s!hools of the =rovin!e of Cebu and who belong to the religious group known as the 5ehovahSs 7itnesses" +. hat they rrefused to take part in the flag !eremony whi!h in!ludes playing by a band or singing the =hilippine &ational -nthem, saluting the =hilippine #lag and re!iting the patrioti! pledge be!ause they !onsidered the flag as an image and they should not worship it e(!ept 2<D" .. hat be!ause of their refusal to perform the foregoing a!ts as re0uired by %- 1+4D of 5uly 11, 1'DD and by Department <rder &o. / dated 5uly +1, 1'DD of the D9CS making the flag !eremony !ompulsory in all edu!ational institutions, they were e(pelled by the respondent s!hool authorities. ,en!e this petition. *ssue: -----)ay the petitioners be e(pelled for refusing to salute the flag, re!ite the patrioti! pledge or sing the national anthem in order to follow their religious beliefsN ,eld:

+D4

+D>

he same issue was raised in +erona vs. "ecretary of Education, .,< #2il. 0 6.-8-9 and al'una vs. "ecretary of Education, .., #2il. .8, 6.-<,9 where the SC held that: he flag is not an image but a symbol of the %epubli! of the =hilippines, an emblem of national sovereignty, of national unity and !ohesion and of freedom and liberty whi!h it and the Constitution guarantee and prote!t. ?nder a system of !omplete separation of !hur!h and state in the government, the flag is utterly devoid of any religious signifi!an!e. he law, %- 1+4D was likewise in!orporated in 9(e!utive <rder &o. +'>, September +1, 1'//. <ur task is e(tremely diffi!ult for the .6-year old de!ision of this Court in 29%<&- upholding the salute law and approving the e(pulsion of students who refuse to obey it, is not lightly to be trifled with. he idea that one may be !ompelled to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and re!ite the patrioti! pledge, during flag !eremony on pain of being dismissed from oneSs 8ob or be e(pelled in s!hool, *S -@*9& < ,9 C<&SC*9&C9 <# ,9 =%9S9& 29&9%- *<& <# #*@*=*&<S 7,< C? ,9*% 99 , <& ,9 $*@@ <# %*2, S 7,*C, 2?-%-& 99S ,9*% %*2, S < #%99 S=99C, -&D ,9 #%99 9Q9%C*S9 <# %9@*2*<?S =%<#9SS*<& -&D 7<%S,*= (Se!tion D, -rt. ***, 1'/> ConstitutionA. %eligious freedom is a fundamental right whi!h is entitled to the highest priority and the amplest prote!tion among human rights, for it involves the relationship of man and his Creator (Chief 5usti!e #ernandoSs separate opinion in +erman vs. arangan, .:8 "C$A 8:,9. he right to religious profession has a two-fold aspe!t, vis., freedom to believe and freedom to a!t on oneSs belief. he first is absolute as long as the belief is !onfined within the realm of the thought. he se!ond is sub8e!t to regulation where the belief is translated into e(ternal a!ts that affe!t the publi! welfare. he sole 8ustifi!ation for a prior restraint or limitation on the e(er!ise of religious freedom (a!!ording the #ormer Chief 8usti!e eehankee in his dissenting opinion in 2erman vs. $aranaganA is the e(isten!e of a grave and present danger of a !hara!ter both grave and imminent, of a serious evil to publi! safety, publi! morals, publi! health or any other legitimate publi! interest, that the State has the right and duty to presvent. -bsent su!h a threat to publi! safety, the e(pulsion of the petitioners from the s!hools is not 8ustified sin!e they are not doing
+D>

+D/

anything that !ould warrant their e(pulsion sin!e during flag !eremonies, they 8ust 0uietly stand at attention to show their respe!t for the rights of others who !hoose to parti!ipate in the solemn pro!eedings. *n *ictoriano vs. Eli5alde $ope Dor@ers !nion, 8- "C$A 83, we upheld the e(emption of the members of the *glesia ni Mristo from the !overage of the !losed-shop agreement between the labor union and the !ompany be!ause it would violate the tea!hing of their !hur!h not to 8oin any labor group. 7e hold that a similar e(emption may be a!!orded to the 5ehovahSs 7itnesses with regard to the observan!e of the flag !eremony out of respe!t to their religious beliefs, however HbiGarreH those beliefs may seem to others CHA5TER VII G THE CO-STIT3TIO-AL RI:HT TO TRAVEL Sec#io' 6. T%e li8er#y o( "8o)e "') o( c%"'&i'& #%e 7"$e wi#%i' #%e li$i#7 pre7cri8e) 8y l"w 7%"ll 'o# 8e i$p"ire) e@cep# upo' l"w(ul or)er o( #%e cour#. -ei#%er 7%"ll #%e ri&%# #o #r"*el 8e i$p"ire) e@cep# i' #%e i'#ere7# o( '"#io'"l 7ecuri#y, pu8lic 7"(e#y, or pu8lic %e"l#%, "7 $"y 8e pro*i)e) 8y l"w. &< 9: ,9 -==@*C-$@9 =%<F*S*<& <# ,9 ,?)-& S9C?%* J -C <& ,9 %*2, < %-F9@ 3e tion 28 provides that persons who have been !harged with terrorism or !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism---even if they have been granted bail be!ause eviden!e of guilt is not strongX!an be: Detained under house arrest" %estri!ted from traveling" andEor =rohibited from using any !ellular phones, !omputers, or other means of !ommuni!ations with people outside their residen!e. ?pon appli!ation of the prose!utor, the suspe!t1s right to travel shall be limited to the muni!ipality or !ity where he resides or where the !ase is pending, in the interest of national se!urity and publi! safety. ravel outside of said muni!ipality or !ity, without the authoriGation of the !ourt, shall be deemed a violation of the terms and !onditions of the bail whi!h shall then be forfeited as provided in the %ules of Court.
+D/

+D'

hese restri!tions shall be terminated upon a!0uittal of the a!!used" or the dismissal of the !ase filed against him" or earlier upon the dis!retion of the !ourt or upon motion of the prose!utor. 1. he !onstitutional as well as human right to travel, +. %ead: .ER/I-A-/ MARCOS, ET AL. VS. HO-. RA3L MA-:LA53S, ET AL., :.R. -O. 66911, Sep#e$8er 11, 1969 "') #%e Re7olu#io' o( #%e Mo#io' (or Reco'7i)er"#io' )"#e) Oc#o8er 9 , 1969 right to travel" liberty of abode and Hright to returnH 9n ban! Cortes, 5. his is a petition for mandamus and prohibition asking the Supreme Court to <rder the respondents to issue travel do!uments to the petitioners and to en8oin the implementation of the =residentSs de!ision to bar their return to the =hilippines. he !ase for the petitioners is founded on the assertion that their right to return to the =hilippines is guaranteed by the following provisions of the Constitution: Se!tion 1. &o person shall be deprived of life liberty or property without due pro!ess of law, nor shall any person be denied e0ual prote!tion of the laws. Se!tion 4. he liberty of abode and of !hanging the same within the limits pres!ribed by law shall not be impaired e(!ept in the interest of national se!urity, publi! safety or publi! health, as may be provided by law. he petitioners !ontend that the =resident has no power to impair the liberty of abode of the )ar!oses be!ause only the Courts may do so Hwithin the limits pres!ribed by lawH. &or may the =resident impair the right to travel be!ause no law has authoriGed her to do so. -lso, the petitioners !laim that under international law, parti!ularly the ?niversal De!laration of ,um8an %ights guaranteed the right of the )ar!oses to return to the =hilippines. hus:
+D'

1+' SC%-

+46

Ar#. 13 (1A 9veryone has the right to freedom of movement and residen!e within the borders of ea!h state. (+A 9veryone has the right to leave any !ountry, in!luding his own, -&D < %9 ?%& < ,*S C<?& %J. @ikewise, under the *nternational Covenant on Civil and =oliti!al %ights, whi!h had been ratified by the =hilippines, provides: Ar#. 19 3A &o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own !ountry. he respondents argue that the issue in this !ase involves a politi!al 0uestion whi!h is therefore beyond the 8urisdi!tion of the Court. #urthermore, they argue that the right of the state to national se!urity prevails over individual rights, !iting Se!tion 3, -rt. ** of the 1'/> =hilippine Constitution. *ssue: 7hether or not, in the e(er!ise of the powers granted in the Constitution, the =resident may prohibit the )ar!oses from returning to the =hilippines. he sub-issues, whi!h !ould help in the determination of the main issue, are: 1. Does the =resident have the power to bar the )ar!oses to return to the =hilippinesN a. *s this a politi!al 0uestionN 9. A77u$i'& #%"# #%e 5re7i)e'# %"7 #%e power #o 8"r (or$er 5re7. M"rco7 "') %i7 ("$ily (ro$ re#ur'i'& #o #%e 5%ilippi'e7, i' #%e i'#ere7# o( '"#io'"l 7ecuri#y, pu8lic 7"(e#y or pu8lic %e"l#%, %"7 #%e 5re7i)e'# $")e " (i')i'& #%"# #%e re#ur' o( #%e pe#i#io'er7 #o #%e 5%ilippi'e7 i7 " cle"r "') pre7e'# )"'&er #o '"#io'"l 7ecuri#y, pu8lic wel("re or pu8lic %e"l#%. A') i( 7%e %"7 $")e #%"# (i')i'&, %"*e #%e reCuire$e'#7 o( )ue proce77 8ee' co$plie) wi#% i' $"Li'& 7uc% (i')i'&R H"7 #%ere 8ee' prior 'o#ice #o #%e pe#i#io'er7R ,eld: *t must be emphasiGed that the individual right involved in this !ase is not the right to travel from the =hilippines to other !ountries or within the
+46

+41

=hilippines. hese are what the right to travel !onnote. 9ssentially, the right to return to oneSs !ountry, a totally distin!t right under international law, independent from, though related to the right to travel. hus, even the ?niversal de!laration of ,uman %ights and the *nternational Covenant on Civil and =oliti!al %ights treat the right to freedom of movement and abode within the territory of the state, the right to leave a !ountry and the right to enter oneSs !ountry as separate and distin!t rights. THE RI:HT TO RET3R- TO O-EUS CO3-TRY IS -OT AMO-: THE RI:HTS S5ECI.ICALLY :3ARA-TEE/ 4Y THE 4ILL O. RI:HTS, 0HICH TREATS O-LY O. THE LI4ERTY O. A4O/E A-/ THE RI:HT TO TRAVEL, 43T IT IS O3R 0ELLGCO-SI/ERE/ VIE0 THAT THE RI:HT TO RET3RMAY 4E CO-SI/ERE/ AS A :E-ERALLY ACCE5TE/ 5RI-CI5LE O. I-TER-ATIO-AL LA0, 3-/ER O3R CO-STIT3TIO-, IS 5ART O. THE LA0 O. THE LA-/. To #%e 5re7i)e'#, #%e pro8le$ i7 o'e o( 8"l"'ci'& #%e &e'er"l wel("re "') #%e co$$o' &oo) "&"i'7# #%e e@erci7e o( ri&%#7 o( cer#"i' i')i*i)u"l7. T%e power i'*ol*e) i7 #%e 5re7i)e'#U7 RESI/3AL 5O0ER #o pro#ec# #%e &e'er"l wel("re o( #%e people. he !ourt !annot !lose its eyes to present realities and pretend that the !ountry is not besieged by the insurgen!y, separatist movement in )indanao, rightist !onspira!ies to grab power, et!. 7ith these before her, the =resident !annot be said to have a!ted arbitrarily, !apri!iously and whimsi!ally. @astly, the issue involved in the !ase at bar is not politi!al in nature sin!e under Se!tion 1, -rt. F*** of the Constitution, 8udi!ial power now in!ludes the duty to Hdetermine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of dis!retion amounting to la!k of 8urisdi!tion on the part of any bran!h or instrumentality of the government.H &< 9: he main opinion was !on!urred in by > 8usti!es (C5 #ernan, &arvasa, )elen!io-,errera, 2an!ay!o, 2rino--0uino, )edialdea and %egaladoA or a total of / 8usti!es in voting in favor of D*S)*SS*&2 the petition. Seven 8usti!es filed separate dissenting opinions (2utierreG, 5r., CruG, =aras, #eli!iano, =adilla, $idin and SarmientoA. LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL 2utierreG, 5r., 5., dissenting.

+41

+4+

7ith all due respe!t for the ma8ority in the Court that the main issue in this !ase is not one of power but one on %*2, S. *f he !omes home, the government has the power to arrest and punish him but does it have the power to deny him his right to !ome home and die among familiar surroundingsN ( ( ( he government has more than ample powers under e(isting laws to deal with a person who transgresses the pea!e and imperils publi! safety. $? ,9 D9&*-@ <# %-F9@ =-=9%S *S &< <&9 <# ,<S9 =<79%S $9C-?S9 ,9 $*@@ <# %*2, S S-J S<. ,9%9 *S &< @-7 =%9SC%*$*&2 9Q*@9 *& #<%9*2& @-&D -S ,9 =9&-@ J #<% ,?% *&2 ,9 &- *<&. . he fears e(pressed by its representatives were based on mere !on8e!tures of politi!al and e!onomi! destabiliGation without any single pie!e of !on!rete eviden!e to ba!k up their apprehensions. -maGingly, however, the ma8ority has !ome to the !on!lusion that there e(ist Hfa!tual bases for the =residentSs de!isionH to bar )ar!osSs return. hat is not my re!olle!tion of the impressions of the Court after the hearing. +. Silverio vs. C-, -pril /, 1''1 %ead also: 1. Caun!a vs. SalaGar, /+ =hil. /D1 +. Mwong vs. =C22, De!ember >,l'/> M"'o#oc *7. CA, 129 SCRA 129 1. =etitioner %i!ardo )anoto!, 5r. has 4 !riminal !ases for estafa pending against him. *n said !ases he was admitted to bail with the #2? *nsuran!e Corporation as surety. ,e is also involved in a !ase pending before the Se!urities and 9(!hange Commission. +. he S9C re0uested the Commissioner on *mmigration not to !lear petitioner for departure pending disposition of the !ase involving him. he same was granted by the Commissioner. .. =etitioner subse0uently filed before the trial !ourts a motion entitled Hmotion for permission to leave the !ountryH stating as ground therefor his desire to go to the ?nited States, Hrelative to his business transa!tions and opportunitiesH. 3. he motion was denied by the lower !ourts and the matter was elevated to the Court of -ppeals whi!h also denied the same. =etitioner
+4+

+4.

brings the matter to the S.C. !laiming his !onstitutional right to travel and also !ontending that having been admitted to bail as a matter of right, neither the !ourts whi!h granted him bail nor the S9C would have 8urisdi!tion over his liberty. HEL/I =etition denied. a. - !ourt has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the =hilippines. his is a ne!essary !onse0uen!e of the nature and fun!tion of a bail bond. he !ondition imposed upon petitioner to make himself available at all times whenever the !ourt re0uires his presen!e operates as a valid restri!tion on his right to travel. b. H( ( ( the result of the obligation assumed by appellee to hold the a!!used amenable at all times to the orders and pro!esses of the lower !ourt, was to prohibit the a!!used from leaving the 8urisdi!tion of the =hilippines, be!ause, otherwise, said orders and pro!esses will be nugatory, and inasmu!h as the 8urisdi!tion of the !ourts from whi!h they issued does not e(tend beyond that of the =hilippines they would have no binding for!e outside of said 8urisdi!tion.H,5eople *7. 3y Tui7i'&, 61 5%il. 2;2 ,l931! !. o allow the petitioner to leave the =hilippines without suffi!ient reason would pla!e him beyond the rea!h of the !ourts. d. =etitioner !ites the Court of -ppeals !ase of =eople vs. Shepherd (C.-.-2.%. &o. +.D6D-%, #eb. 1., 1'/6A as authority for his !laim that he !ould travel. he S.C. held however that said !ase is not s0uarely on all fours with the !ase at bar. ?nlike the Shepherd !ase, petitioner has failed to satisfy the !ourts of the urgen!y of his travel, the duration thereof, as well as the !onsent of his surety to the proposed travel. e. *t may thus be inferred that the fa!t that a !riminal !ase is pending against an a!!used does not automati!ally bar him from travelling abroad. He $u7# %owe*er co'*i'ce #%e cour#7 o( #%e ur&e'cy o( %i7 #r"*el, #%e )ur"#io' #%ereo(, "') #%"# %i7 7ure#ie7 "re willi'& #o u')er#"Le #%e re7po'7i8ili#y o( "llowi'& %i$ #o #r"*el. 3. Fillavi!en!io vs. @ukban, .' =hil. >>/ D. %oan vs. 2onGales, supra. 4. Salonga vs. ,ermoso, '> SC%- 1+1 >. %ead also the #erdinand )ar!os Cases of -ugust 1'/'

P <!tober,

+4.

+43

C.A&T,R ?/// G T., CON3T/T2T/ONA= RI:HT TO I-.ORMATIOSec#io' . T%e ri&%# o( #%e people #o i'(or$"#io' o' $"##er7 o( pu8lic co'cer' 7%"ll 8e reco&'iJe). Acce77 #o o((ici"l recor)7P7%"ll 8e "((or)e) #%e ci#iJe' 7u8Aec# #o 7uc% li$i#"#io'7 "7 $"y 8e pro*i)e) 8y l"w. 1. %ead: %ight to =riva!y" right to information on matters of publi! !on!ern" CAMILO L. SA4IO *7. :OR/O-, 2.%. &o. 1>3.36, <!tober 1>, +664, D63 SC%- >63 Sandoval-2utierreG, 5. T%e ."c#7I

<n #ebruary +6, +664, Senator )iriam Defensor Santiago introdu!ed =hilippine Senate %esolution &o. 3DD (Senate %es. &o. 3DDA, 1/6 B3C :dire!ting an in0uiry in aid of legislation on the anomalous losses in!urred by the =hilippines <verseas ele!ommuni!ations Corporation (=< CA, =hilippine Communi!ations Satellite Corporation (=,*@C<)S- A, and =,*@C<)S- ,oldings Corporation (=,CA due to the alleged improprieties in their operations by their respe!tive $oard of Dire!tors.; he pertinent portions of the %esolution read:

0HEREAS, in the last 0uarter of +66D, the representation and entertainment e(pense of the =,C skyro!keted to =3.. million, as !ompared to the previous year1s mere =164 thousand" 7,9%9-S, some board members established wholly owned =,C subsidiary !alled ele!ommuni!ations Center, *n!. ( C*A, where =,C funds are allegedly siphoned" in 1/ months, over =>. million had been allegedly advan!ed to C* without any a!!ountability report given to =,C and =,*@C<)S- " 7,9%9-S, the #2ilippine "tar, in its 1+ #ebruary +66+ issue reported that the e(e!utive !ommittee of =hil!omsat has pre!ipitately
1/6B3C

-nne( :9; of the =etition in 2.%. &o. 1>3.1/.

+43

+4D

released =+4D million and granted =1+D million loan to a relative of an e(e!utive !ommittee member" to date there have been no payments given, sub8e!ting the !ompany to an estimated interest in!ome loss of =11.+D million in +663" 7,9%9#<%9, 8e i# re7ol*e) #%"# #%e proper Se'"#e Co$$i##ee 7%"ll co')uc# "' i'Cuiry i' "i) o( le&i7l"#io', o' #%e "'o$"lou7 lo77e7 i'curre) 8y #%e 5%ilippi'e O*er7e"7 Teleco$$u'ic"#io'7 Corpor"#io' ,5OTC!, 5%ilippi'e Co$$u'ic"#io'7 S"#elli#e Corpor"#io' ,5HILCOMSAT!, "') 5%ilco$7"# Hol)i'&7 Corpor"#io'7 ,5HC! )ue #o #%e "lle&e) i$proprie#ie7 i' #%e oper"#io'7 8y #%eir re7pec#i*e 8o"r) o( )irec#or7. <n )ay /, +664, Chief of Staff %io C. *no!en!io, under the authority of Senator %i!hard 5. 2ordon, wrote Chairman Camilo @. Sabio of the =C22, one of the herein petitioners, inviting him to be one of the resour!e persons in the publi! meeting 8ointly !ondu!ted by the Committee on +overnment Corporations and #u'lic Enterprises and Committee on #u'lic "ervices. he purpose of the publi! meeting was to deliberate on Senate %es. &o. 3DD.1/1B4C

<n )ay ', +664, Chairman Sabio de!lined the invitation be!ause of prior !ommitment.1/+B>C A# #%e 7"$e #i$e, %e i'*oLe) Sec#io' 2,8! o( E.O. -o. 1 earlier 0uoted. <n September 1+, +664, at around 16:3D a.m., )a8or 2eneral $ala8adia arrested Chairman Sabio in his offi!e at *%C $uilding, &o. /+ 9DS-, )andaluyong City and brought him to the Senate premises where he was detained. ,en!e, Chairman Sabio filed with the Supreme Court a petition for 2a'eas corpus against the Senate Committee on +overnment Corporations and #u'lic Enterprises and Committee on #u'lic "ervices, their Chairmen, Senators %i!hard 2ordon and 5oker =. -rroyo and )embers. he !ase was do!keted as 2.%. &o. 1>3.36.

I S S 3 E SI

*s the refusal of the petitioners to testify in Congress by virtue of 9< &o. 1, Se!tion 3 BbC violates the !onstitutional provision on information on matters of publi! !on!ernN

, 9 @ D:
1/1B4C 1/+B>C

-nne( :#; of the =etition in 2.%. &o. 1>3.1/. -nne( :2; of the =etition in 2.%. &o. 1>3.1/.

+4D

+44

Jes.

Se!tion 3(bA of 9.<. &o.1 whi!h was invoked by the petitioners in support of their refusal to testify in the Senate limits the power of legislative in0uiry by e(empting all =C22 members or staff from testifying in any 8udi!ial, legislative or administrative pro!eeding, thus:

-o $e$8er or 7#"(( o( #%e Co$$i77io' 7%"ll 8e reCuire) #o #e7#i(y or pro)uce e*i)e'ce i' "'y Au)ici"l, le&i7l"#i*e or ")$i'i7#r"#i*e procee)i'& co'cer'i'& $"##er7 wi#%i' i#7 o((ici"l co&'iJ"'ce.

Su!h provision of 9< &o. 1 is un!onstitutional be!ause it violates the !onstitutional provision ensuring the people1s a!!ess to information on matters of publi!

4A-TAY RE534LIC ACT SCRA 1

VS. COMELEC, MAY 2, 9;; , 193

T%e pe#i#io'er reCue7#e) #%e COMELEC #o pu8li7% #%e i')i*i)u"l 'o$i'ee7 o( "ll #%e p"r#yGli7# &roup7 i' or)er #%"# #%ey will 8e &ui)e) o' w%"# p"r#yGli7# &roup 7%"ll 8e 7uppor#e) 8y #%e$. T%e COMELEC %el) #%"# u')er #%e 5"r#yGli7# Ac#, 7uc% li7# o( 'o$i'ee7 i7 co'(i)e'#i"l "') 7%oul) 'o# 8e pu8li7%e). Hel)I T%e COMELEC 7%oul) pu8li7% #%e li7# o( 'o$i'ee7 o( "ll #%e p"r#yGli7# &roup7. T%i7 i7 i' "ccor)"'ce wi#% #%e ri&%# #o i'(or$"#io' o' $"##er7 o( pu8lic co'cer' w%ic% 7%"ll 8e "ccor)e) #o e*ery ci#iJe'. VALMO-TE VS. 4ELMO-TE, :R -O. 293;, .E4R3ARY 13, 1969 in relation to the %ight to =riva!y Cortes, 5. #a!ts: 1. <n 5une 3, 1'/4, petitioner Falmonte wrote the respondent asking the latter to furnish him !opies of former members of the $atasang =ambansa
+44

+4>

who were able to se!ure a H!lean loanH from the 2S*S prior to the #ebruary >, 1'/4 ele!tions" +. <n 5une 1>, 1'/4, respondent through !ounsel refused to give petitioner a list of said lawmakers who obtained H!lean loansH from 2S*S on the ground that there is a !onfidential relationship between 2S*S and its borrowers and it would be proper for them to preserve same" .. <n 5uly 1', 1'/4, the petitioners filed this instant petition. *ssues: 1. 7hether or not the !ase should be dismissed for failure to e(haust administrative remediesN +. 7hether or not the petitioners are entitled to the do!uments sought in a!!ordan!e with their !onstitutional right to informationN ,eld: 1. *t is well-settled in our 8urisdi!tion that before a party !an be allowed to resort to the !ourts, he is e(pe!ted to have e(hausted all means of administrative redress available under the law. *n the !ase at bar, the de!ision of the 2eneral )anager of the 2S*S is appealableEreviewable by the 2S*S $oard of rustees. =etitioners did not ask the $oard of rustees to review the de!ision of the respondent. ,owever, the rule on e(haustion of administrative remedies is not appli!able when only 0uestions of law is involved. (=as!ual vs. =rovin!ial $oard, 164 =hil. 344" -guilar vs. Falen!ia, 36 SC%- +16" )alabanan vs. %amento, 1+' SC%- .D'. his is not the first time that the !ourt is !onfronted with a !ase involving the right to information. *n anada vs. uvera, 1.4 SC%- +>, we upheld the !itiGenSs right to information as well as in @egaspi vs. CSC, 1D6 SC%- D.6 and ordered the government offi!ers involved to a!t as prayed for by the petitioners. he pertinent provision of the Constitution is Se!tion >, -rt. *** whi!h provides: he right of the people to information on matters of publi! !on!ern shall be re!ogniGed. -!!ess to offi!ial re!ords, and to do!uments, and papers pertaining to offi!ial a!ts, transa!tions ( ( ( shall be afforded the !itiGen, sub8e!t to su!h limitations as may be provided for by law. the the the the

+4>

+4/

he postulate of publi! offi!e is a publi! trust as institutionaliGed in the Constitution (Se!. 1, -rt. Q*A to prote!t the people from abuse of governmental power, would !ertainly be empty words if a!!ess to information of publi! !on!ern is denied e(!ept under limitations pres!ribed by law. =etitioners are members of the media. -s su!h, they have both the right to gather and the obligation to !he!k the a!!ura!y of the information they disseminate ( ( ( he right to information is an essential premise of a meaningful right to spee!h and e(pression. $ut this is not to say that the right to information is merely an ad8un!t of and therefore restri!ted in appli!ation by the e(er!ise of the freedom of spee!h and of the press. #ar from it. he right to information goes hand in hand with the !onstitutional poli!ies of Hfull publi! dis!losureH and Hhonesty in the publi! servi!eH. Jet, like all the !onstitutional guarantees, the right to information is not absolute. *t is sub8e!t to limitations provided for by law and the peopleSs right to information is limited to Hmatters of publi! !on!ernH. Similarly, the StateSs poli!y of full dis!losure is limited to Htransa!tions involving publi! interestH and sub8e!t to Hreasonable !onditions pres!ribed by law.H he information sought to be obtained by the petitioners affe!t publi! interest sin!e the 2S*S is the trustee of !ontributions from the government and its employees. he funds of the 2S*S assume a publi! !hara!ter and that its obligations are guaranteed by the government. he petitioners are entitled to a!!ess to do!uments sought sub8e!t to reasonable regulations that the respondent may impose relating to manner and hours of e(amination, to the end that damage or loss of the re!ords may be avoided, that undue interferen!e with the duties of the !ustodian of the re!ords may be prevented and that the right of other persons entitled to inspe!t the re!ords may be insured B@egaspi vs. CSC, supra" Subido vs. <Gaeta, /6 =hil. ./.C he petitioners, however, are not entitled to be furnished !opies of list of alleged members of the $atasang =ambansa who were able to se!ure !lean loans through the inter!essions of =res. )ar!os and the #irst @ady. his is so be!ause a!!ess to publi! re!ords does not in!lude the right to !ompel !ustodians of offi!ial re!ords to prepare lists, abstra!ts, summaries and the like in their desire to a!0uire information on matters of publi! !on!ern. he respondent is therefore ordered to allow petitioners a!!ess to do!uments and re!ords eviden!ing loans granted to members of the

+4/

+4'

$atasang =ambansa, as petitioners may spe!ify, sub8e!t to reasonable rules and regulations as the 2S*S may deem ne!essary. S9&- 9 <# ,9 =,*@*==*&9S, represented by S9&- 9 =%9S*D9& #%-&M@*& D%*@<&, 9 -@., FS. 9Q9C. S9C. 9D?-%D< 9%)* -, 9 -@., 2.%. &o. 14'>>, -pril +6, +664

CAR5IO MORALES, J.I T%e ."c#7I *n the e(er!ise of its legislative power, the Senate of the =hilippines, through its various Senate Committees, !ondu!ts in0uiries or investigations in aid of legislation whi!h !all for, inter alia, the attendan!e of offi!ials and employees of the e(e!utive department, bureaus, and offi!es in!luding those employed in 2overnment <wned and Controlled Corporations, the -rmed #or!es of the =hilippines (-#=A, and the =hilippine &ational =oli!e (=&=A. <n September +1 to +., +66D, the Committee of the Senate as a whole issued invitations to various offi!ials of the 9(e!utive Department for them to appear on September +', +66D as resour!e speakers in a publi! hearing on the railway pro8e!t of the &orth @uGon %ailways Corporation with the China &ational )a!hinery and 90uipment 2roup (hereinafter &orth %ail =ro8e!tA. he publi! hearing was sparked by a privilege spee!h of Senator 5uan =on!e 9nrile urging the Senate to investigate the alleged overpri!ing and other unlawful provisions of the !ontra!t !overing the &orth %ail =ro8e!t. <n September +/, +66D, the =resident of the =hilippines issued 9.<. 343, :9&S?%*&2 <$S9%F-&C9 <# ,9 =%*&C*=@9 <# S9=-%- *<& <# =<79%S, -D,9%9&C9 < ,9 %?@9 <& 9Q9C? *F9 =%*F*@929 -&D %9S=9C #<% ,9 %*2, S <# =?$@*C <##*C*-@S -==9-%*&2 *& @92*S@- *F9 *&R?*%*9S *& -*D <# @92*S@- *<& ?&D9% ,9 C<&S * ? *<&, -&D #<% < ,9% =?%=<S9S,; whi!h, pursuant to Se!tion 4 thereof, took effe!t immediately. he salient provisions of the <rder are as follows: S9C *<& 1. Appearance 'y Heads of %epartments efore Congress. I *n a!!ordan!e with -rti!le F*, Se!tion ++ of the Constitution and to implement the Constitutional provisions on the separation of powers between !o-e0ual bran!hes of the government, "ll %e")7 o( )ep"r#$e'#7 o( #%e E@ecu#i*e 4r"'c% o( #%e &o*er'$e'# 7%"ll 7ecure #%e co'7e'# o( #%e 5re7i)e'# prior #o "ppe"ri'& 8e(ore ei#%er Hou7e o( Co'&re77.
+4'

+>6

7hen the se!urity of the State or the publi! interest so re0uires and the =resident so states in writing, the appearan!e shall only be !ondu!ted in e(e!utive session. S9C *<&. +. (ature, "cope and Coverage of E>ecutive #rivilege. H (aA &ature and S!ope. - he rule of !onfidentiality based on e(e!utive privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution ( Almonte vs. *asCue5, 2.%. &o. 'D.4>, +. )ay 1''DA. #urther, %epubli! -!t &o. 4>1. or the Code of Condu!t and 9thi!al Standards for =ubli! <ffi!ials and 9mployees provides that =ubli! <ffi!ials and 9mployees shall not use or divulge !onfidential or !lassified information offi!ially known to them by reason of their offi!e and not made available to the publi! to pre8udi!e the publi! interest. (bA 0%o "re co*ere). I order: 1. +. .. 3. D. he following are !overed by this e(e!utive

Senior offi!ials of e(e!utive departments w%o i' #%e Au)&$e'# o( #%e )ep"r#$e'# %e")7 are !overed by the e(e!utive privilege" 2enerals and flag offi!ers of the -rmed #or!es of the =hilippines and su!h other offi!ers who in the 8udgment of the Chief of Staff are !overed by the e(e!utive privilege" =hilippine &ational =oli!e (=&=A offi!ers with rank of !hief superintendent or higher and su!h other offi!ers who in the 8udgment of the Chief of the =&= are !overed by the e(e!utive privilege" Senior national se!urity offi!ials who in the 8udgment of the &ational Se!urity -dviser are !overed by the e(e!utive privilege" and Su!h other offi!ers as may be determined by the =resident. I S S 3 E SI 1. 7hether 9.<. 343 violates the right of the people to information on matters of publi! !on!ern" and H E L /I 9.< 343 likewise violates the !onstitutional provision on the right to information on matters of publi! !on!ern. here are !lear distin!tions between the right of Congress to information whi!h underlies the power of in0uiry and the right of the people to information on matters of publi! !on!ern. #or one, the demand of a !itiGen for the produ!tion of do!uments pursuant to his right to information does not have the same obligatory
+>6

+>1

for!e as a su'poena duces tecum issued by Congress. &either does the right to information grant a !itiGen the power to e(a!t testimony from government offi!ials. hese powers belong only to Congress and not to an individual !itiGen. o the e(tent that investigations in aid of legislation are generally !ondu!ted in publi!, however, any e(e!utive issuan!e tending to unduly limit dis!losures of information in su!h investigations ne!essarily deprives the people of information whi!h, being presumed to be in aid of legislation, is presumed to be a matter of publi! !on!ern. he !itiGens are thereby denied a!!ess to information whi!h they !an use in formulating their own opinions on the matter before Congress X opinions whi!h they !an then !ommuni!ate to their representatives and other government offi!ials through the various legal means allowed by their freedom of e(pression. hus holds *almonte v. elmonte: *t is in the interest of the State that the !hannels for free politi!al )i7cu77io' 8e $"i'#"i'e) #o #%e e') #%"# #%e &o*er'$e'# $"y percei*e "') 8e re7po'7i*e #o #%e peopleN7 will. Ye#, #%i7 ope' )i"lo&ue c"' 8e e((ec#i*e o'ly #o #%e e@#e'# #%"# #%e ci#iJe'ry i7 i'(or$e) "') #%u7 "8le #o (or$ul"#e i#7 will i'#elli&e'#ly. <nly when the parti!ipants in the dis!ussion are aware of the issues and have a!!ess to information relating thereto !an su!h bear fruit.1/. (9mphasis and unders!oring suppliedA he impairment of the right of the people to information as a !onse0uen!e of 9.<. 343 is, therefore, in the sense e(plained above, 8ust as dire!t as its violation of the legislature1s power of in0uiry. 1-a. @egaspi vs. CSC, 1D6 SC%- D.6 1-b. $rilliantes vs. Chang, -ug. 13, 1''6 1-!. Canlas vs. FaG0ueG, 5uly ., 1''6 1-d. -0uino-Sarmiento vs. )anuel )orato, &ovember 1., 1''1 +. anada vs. uvera, 134 SC%- 33 .. $aldoGa vs. Dimaano, >1 SC%- 13 3. @anta!o vs. @llamas, 16/ SC%- D6+ D. Subido vs. <Gaeta, /6 =hil. ./. CHA5TER IE G THE CO-STIT3TIO-AL RI:HT TO .ORM A-/ JOI- ASSOCIATIO-S Sec#io' 6. T%e ri&%# o( #%e people, i'clu)i'& #%o7e e$ploye) i' #%e pu8lic "') pri*"#e 7ec#or7, #o (or$ u'io'7, "77oci"#io'7, 7ocie#ie7 (or purpo7e7 'o# co'#r"ry #o l"w 7%"ll 'o# 8e "8ri)&e).
1/.

2.%. &o. >3'.6, #ebruary 1., 1'/', 1>6 SC%- +D4.

+>1

+>+

1. #reedom of -sso!iation, 166 SC%- 166 +. he fundamental right of self-organiGation,16/ SC%.. he right of self-organiGation of managerial 3.3 3. %ead: 1. *n re: - J. 9D*@@<&, /3 SC%- DD3 +. arnate vs. &oriel, 166 SC%- '. .. Samahan ng )anggagawa vs. &oriel, 16/ SC%- ./1 3. Fillar vs. *n!iong, -pril +6,l'/. D. =. vs. #errer, 3/ SC%- ./+ 4. =. vs. #errer, D4 SC%- >'. (%ead the dissenting 5usti!e #9%&-&D< in both !asesA C.A&T,R H G T., &OD,R O. EMI-E-T /OMAISec#io' 9. 5ri*"#e proper#y 7%"ll 'o# 8e #"Le' (or pu8lic u7e wi#%ou# Au7# co$pe'7"#io' 1. he inherent power of eminent domain,'. SC%- 44. +. 7ho may e(er!ise itN ,ow about a barangayN Jes with the =resident1s approval. %ead: 1. 4"r"'&"y M"#ic#ic *7. El8i'i"7, 126 SCRA 63 +. =ro!edure for the e(er!ise of said power" 9(tent of payment to be made before writ of possession shall be issued in favor of the government. Falue of property e(propriated (or '"#io'"l &o*er'$e'# proAec#7" 7rit of possession when it shall be issued by the !ourt" when %ule 4> of the %ules of Court and when %- /'>3 shall apply" full payment of 8ust !ompensation before government takes over. RE534LIC O. THE 5HILI55I-ES VS. J3/:E :I-:OYO-, 2 6 SCRA 2 2
+>+

.'6

employees,3> SC%-

opinion of

+>.

inga, 5. #a!ts: *n +66., the Supreme Court held in A:A- VS. 5IATCO, 2;9 SCRA 619 that the C<&C9SS*<& -2%99)9& #<% ,9 $?*@D <=9%- 9 %-&S#9% -%%-&29)9& <# ,9 &*&<J -R?*&< *& 9%&- *<&-@ -*%=<% =-SS9&29% 9%)*&-@ ** between the =hilippine 2overnment and the =hilippine *nternational -ir erminals Co., *n!. (=*- C<A as well as the amendments thereto is void for being !ontrary to law and publi! poli!y. <n )otion for %e!onsideration ,29; SCRA 29;A, the Supreme Court held that: : his Court, however, is not unmindful of the reality that the stru!tures !omprising the &-*- *= *** fa!ility are almost !omplete and that funds have been spent by =*- C< in their !onstru!tion. #or the government to take over the said fa!ility, IT HAS TO COM5E-SATE RES5O-/E-T 5IATCO AS 43IL/ER O. THE SAI/ STR3CT3RES. THE COM5E-SATIO- M3ST 4E J3ST A-/ IACCOR/A-CE 0ITH LA0 A-/ EM3ITY .OR THE :OVER-ME-T CA- -OT 3-J3STLY E-RICH ITSEL. AT THE EE5E-SE O. 5IATCO A-/ ITS I-VESTORS.D <n De!ember +1, +663, the 2overnment filed a !omplaint for e(propriation with the % C of =asay City seeking a writ of possession authoriGing to take immediate possession and !ontrol over &-*- . fa!ilities and deposited the amount of =..6$ in !ash with @and $ank of the =hilippines representing the assessed value of the terminal1s assessed value for ta(ation purposes. <n the same day, 5udge 2ingoyon issued an <rder dire!ting the issuan!e of a writ of possession to the government to :take or enter upon the possession of the &-*- . fa!ilities;. *t held that it is the ministerial duty of the government to issue writ of possession upon deposit of the assessed value of the property sub8e!t of e(propriation. ,owever, on 5anuary 3, +66D, 5udge 2ingoyon issued another <rder supplementing the De!ember +1, +663 <rder. *t pointed out that the earlier orders to the amount to be deposited by the government was based on Se!tion +, %ule 4> when what should be appli!able is %- /'>3 and therefore ordered that the amount of ?S]4+,.3.,1>D.>> be released to =*- C< instead of the amount in the De!ember +1, +663 <rder.

+>.

+>3

<n 5anuary >, +66D, 5udge 2ingoyon issued another <rder dire!ting the appointment of three (.A Commissioners to determine 8ust !ompensation for the &-*- . Comple(. $oth <rders were 0uestioned by the government as having been issued with grave abuse of dis!retion. ISS3ESI 1. 0%"# l"w i7 "pplic"8le i' #%i7 e@propri"#io' c"7eI Rule 6 o( #%e Rule7 o( Cour# or RA 69 2R 9. I( RA 69 2 will 8e u7e), $"y #%e cour# u7e) #%e pro*i7io' o( Rule 6 o' #%e 3 co$$i77io'er7 #o )e#er$i'e Au7# co$pe'7"#io'. HEL/I 1. Applic"#io' o( Rule 6 woul) *iol"#e #%e A:A- /oc#ri'e w%ic% pro*i)e7 #%"# B(or #%e &o*er'$e'# #o #"Le o*er #%e 7"i) -AIA 3 ("cili#y, IT HAS TO COM5E-SATE RES5O-/E-T 5IATCO AS 43IL/ER O. THE SAI/ STR3CT3RESD. I( Sec#io' 9, Rule 6 will 8e "pplie), 5IATCO woul) 8e e'Aoi'e) (ro$ recei*i'& #%e Au7# co$pe'7"#io' e*e' i( #%e &o*er'$e'# #"Le7 o*er #%e -AIA 3 ("cili#y. I# i7 7u((icie'# #%"# #%e &o*er'$e'# )epo7i#7 #%e "$ou'# eCu"l #o #%e "77e77e) *"lue o( #%e ("cili#ie7. I# woul) *iol"#e #%e pro7crip#io' i' #%e A:A- /eci7io' #%"# #%e &o*er'$e'# $u7# p"y (ir7# #%e Au7# co$pe'7"#io' 8e(ore #"Li'& o*er #%e ("cili#ie7. So when shall %ule 4> be used in e(propriation !ases and when shall %- /'>3 be usedN *n all :-"#io'"l &o*er'$e'# proAec#7; or :'"#io'"l i'(r"7#ruc#ure proAec#7;, like those !overed by the :$uild-<perate- ransfer;, %- /'>3 shall be followed. he rest, %ule 4> shall apply. Differen!es between the two laws on e(propriation: a. ?nder %ule 4>, the government :merely deposits; the assessed value of the property sub8e!t of e(propriation and !an have a writ of possession over the same while under %- /'>3, the s!heme of immediate payment (166YA shall be followed. b. ?nder %ule 4>, there !an be writ of possession even if the owner of the property has not re!eived a single !entavo while under %- /'>3, as in this !ase, 7rit of =ossession may not be issued in favor of the government

+>3

+>D

?& *@ -C ?-@ %9C9*= !ompensation.

by =*- C< of the preferred value of 8ust

?pon issuan!e of the writ in favor of the government, however, it !ould already e(er!ise a!ts of ownership over the &-*- . fa!ilities. he 8ust !ompensation to be paid by the government shall be determined within 46 days from the finality of the de!ision based on Se!tion 3, %- /'>3. + %ule 4> on the appointment of three (.A !ommissioners to determine 8ust !ompensation may be used sin!e %- /'>3 does not provide for su!h pro!edure. 5ust Compensation" -mount to be deposited in !ourt before a 7rit of =ossession may be issued by the !ourt in favor of the government" 7hen to apply %ule 4> and when to apply %- &o. /'>3" 7ho owns the interest of the initial amount deposited for the purpose of issuing writ of possession RE534LIC O. THE 5HILI55I-ES VS. HOLY TRI-ITY REALTY /EVELO5ME-T COR5ORATIO-, :.R. -o. 1 921;, April 12, 9;;6 THE .ACTSI <n +' De!ember +666, petitioner %epubli! of the =hilippines, represented by the oll %egulatory $oard ( %$A, filed with the % C a Consolidated Complaint for 9(propriation against landowners whose properties would be affe!ted by the !onstru!tion, rehabilitation and e(pansion of the &orth @uGon 9(pressway. he suit was do!keted as Civil Case &o. /4'-)-+666 and raffled to $ran!h /D, )alolos, $ula!an. %espondent ,oly rinity %ealty and Development Corporation (, %DCA was one of the affe!ted landowners. <n 1/ )ar!h +66+, %$ filed an ?rgent 9(-=arte )otion for the issuan!e of a 7rit of =ossession, manifesting that it deposited a suffi!ient amount to !over the payment of 166Y of the Gonal value of the affe!ted properties, in the total amount of =+/,364,>66.66, with the @and $ank of the =hilippines, South ,arbor $ran!h (@$=-South ,arborA, an authoriGed government depository. %$ maintained that sin!e it had already !omplied with the provisions of Se!tion 3 of %epubli! -!t &o. /'>31/3BDC in

1/3

+>D

+>4

relation to Se!tion + of %ule 4> of the %ules of Court, the issuan!e of the writ of possession be!omes ministerial on the part of the % C. he % C issued, on 1' )ar!h +66+, an <rder for the *ssuan!e of a 7rit of =ossession. <n . )ar!h +66., , %DC filed with the % C a )otion to 7ithdraw Deposit, praying that the respondent or its duly authoriGed representative be allowed to withdraw the amount of =++,'4/,666.66, out of %$1s advan!e deposit of =+/,364,>66.66 with @$=-South ,arbor, i'clu)i'& #%e i'#ere7# w%ic% "ccrue) #%ereo'. hereafter, the % C allowed the release of the prin!ipal amount together with the interest to the respondent but on )otion for %e!onsideration of the %$, it disallowed the withdrawal of the interest reasoning out that the said issue will be in!luded in the se!ond stage of e(propriation, that is, the determination of 8ust !ompensation. he private respondent elevated the issue to the Court of -ppeals whi!h ruled that the respondent is entitled to the interest by way of a!!ession. ,en!e, this petition of the government before the Supreme Court. I S S 3 EI 7ho has the right over the interest of the amount deposited representing the Gonal value of the property sought to be e(propriatedN he e(propriator or the landownerN HEL/I he petition is without merit. he %$ !laims that there are two stages 1/DB11C in e(propriation pro!eedings, the determination of the authority to e(er!ise eminent domain and the determination of 8ust !ompensation. he %$ argues that it is only during the se!ond stage when the !ourt will appoint !ommissioners and determine !laims for entitlement to interest, !iting Land an@ of t2e #2ilippines v. Dycoco .;<7129 and (ational #o?er Corporation v. Angas.1/>B1.C

1/D 1/4 1/>

+>4

+>>

he %$ further points out that the e(propriation a!!ount with @$=-South ,arbor is not in the name of , %DC, but of D=7,. hus, the said e(propriation a!!ount in!ludes the !ompensation for the other landowners named defendants in Civil Case &o. /4'-)-+666, and does not e(!lusively belong to respondent. he said argument is without merit be!ause it failed to distinguish between the e(propriation pro!edures under %epubli! -!t &o. /'>3 and %ule 4> of the %ules of Court. %epubli! -!t &o. /'>3 and %ule 4> of the %ules of Court speak of different pro!edures, with the former spe!ifi!ally governing e(propriation pro!eedings for national government infrastru!ture pro8e!ts. hus, in $epu'lic v. +ingoyon,1//B13C we held: here are at least two !ru!ial differen!es between the respe!tive pro!edures under %ep. -!t &o. /'>3 and %ule 4>. 3')er #%e 7#"#u#e, #%e :o*er'$e'# i7 reCuire) #o $"Le i$$e)i"#e p"y$e'# #o #%e proper#y ow'er upo' #%e (ili'& o( #%e co$pl"i'# #o 8e e'#i#le) #o " wri# o( po77e77io', w%ere"7 i' Rule 6 , #%e :o*er'$e'# i7 reCuire) o'ly #o $"Le "' i'i#i"l )epo7i# wi#% "' "u#%oriJe) &o*er'$e'# )epo7i#"ry. )oreover, %ule 4> pres!ribes that the initial deposit be e0uivalent to the assessed value of the property for purposes of ta(ation, unlike %ep. -!t &o. /'>3 whi!h provides, as the relevant standard for initial !ompensation, the market value of the property as stated in the ta( de!laration or the !urrent relevant Gonal valuation of the $ureau of *nternal %evenue ($*%A, whi!hever is higher, and the value of the improvements andEor stru!tures using the repla!ement !ost method. (((( %ule 4> outlines the pro!edure under whi!h eminent domain may be e(er!ised by the 2overnment. Jet by no means does it serve at present as the solitary guideline through whi!h the State may e(propriate private property. #or e(ample, Se!tion 1' of the @o!al 2overnment Code governs as to the e(er!ise by lo!al government units of the power of eminent domain through an enabling ordinan!e. -nd then there is %ep. -!t &o. /'>3, whi!h !overs e(propriation pro!eedings intended for national government infrastru!ture pro8e!ts. %ep. -!t &o. /'>3, whi!h provides for a pro!edure eminently more favorable to the property owner than %ule 4>, ines!apably applies in instan!es when the national government e(propriates property :for national government infrastru!ture pro8e!ts.; hus, if e(propriation is engaged in by the national government for purposes other than national infrastru!ture pro8e!ts, the assessed value standard and the deposit mode pres!ribed in %ule 4> !ontinues to apply.
1//

+>>

+>/

here is no 0uestion that the pro!eedings in this !ase deal with the e(propriation of properties intended for a national government infrastru!ture pro8e!t. herefore, the % C !orre!tly applied the pro!edure laid out in %epubli! -!t &o. /'>3, by re0uiring the deposit of the amount e0uivalent to 166Y of the Gonal value of the properties sought to be e(propriated before the issuan!e of a writ of possession in favor of the %epubli!. he !ontroversy, though, arises not from the amount of the deposit, but as to the ownership of the interest that had sin!e a!!rued on the deposited amount. 7hether the Court of -ppeals was !orre!t in holding that the interest earned by the deposited amount in the e(propriation a!!ount would a!!rue to ,% DC by virtue of a!!ession, hinges on the determination of who a!tually owns the deposited amount, sin!e, under -rti!le 336 of the Civil Code, the right of a!!ession is !onferred by ownership of the prin!ipal property: -rt. 336. he ownership of property gives the right by a!!ession to everything whi!h is produ!ed thereby, or whi!h is in!orporated or atta!hed thereto, either naturally or artifi!ially. he prin!ipal property in the !ase at bar is part of the deposited amount in the e(propriation a!!ount of D=7, whi!h pertains parti!ularly to , %DC. Su!h amount, determined to be =++,'4/,666.66 of the =+/,364,>66.66 total deposit, was already ordered by the % C to be released to , %DC or its authoriGed representative. he Court of -ppeals further re!ogniGed that the deposit of the amount was already deemed a !onstru!tive delivery thereof to , %DC: 7hen the Bherein petitionerC %$ deposited the money as advan!e payment for the e(propriated property with an authoriGed government depositary bank for purposes of obtaining a writ of possession, it is deemed to be a :!onstru!tive delivery; of the amount !orresponding to the 166Y Gonal valuation of the e(propriated property. Sin!e B, %DCC is entitled thereto and indisputably the owner of the prin!ipal amount deposited by Bherein petitionerC %$, !onversely, the interest yield, as a!!ession, in a bank deposit should likewise pertain to the owner of the money deposited.1/'B1DC Sin!e the Court of -ppeals found that the , %DC is the owner of the deposited amount, then the latter should also be entitled to the interest whi!h a!!rued thereon.
1/'

+>/

+>'

he deposit was made in order to !omply with Se!tion 3 of %epubli! -!t &o. /'>3, whi!h re0uires nothing less than the immediate payment of 166Y of the value of the property, based on the !urrent Gonal valuation of the $*%, to the property owner. hus, going ba!k to our ruling in $epu'lic v. +ingoyon.-,7189: *t is the plain intent of %ep. -!t &o. /'>3 to supersede the system of deposit under %ule 4> with the s!heme of :immediate payment; in !ases involving national government infrastru!ture pro8e!ts. he !riti!al fa!tor in the different modes of effe!ting delivery whi!h gives legal effe!t to the a!t is the a!tual intention to deliver on the part of the party making su!h delivery. 1'1B1>C he intention of the %$ in depositing su!h amount through D=7, was !learly to !omply with the re0uirement of immediate payment in %epubli! -!t &o. /'>3, so that it !ould already se!ure a writ of possession over the properties sub8e!t of the e(propriation and !ommen!e implementation of the pro8e!t. *n fa!t, %$ did not ob8e!t to , %DC1s )otion to 7ithdraw Deposit with the % C, for as long as , %DC shows (1A that the property is free from any lien or en!umbran!e and (+A that respondent is the absolute owner thereof.1'+B1/C - !lose s!rutiny of %$1s arguments would further reveal that it does not dire!tly !hallenge the Court of -ppeals1 determinative pronoun!ement that the interest earned by the amount deposited in the e(propriation a!!ount a!!rues to , %DC by virtue of a!!ession. %$ only asserts that , %DC is :entitled only to an amount e0uivalent to the Gonal value of the e(propriated property, nothing more and nothing less.; 7e agree in %$1s statement sin!e it is e(a!tly how the amount of the immediate payment shall be determined in a!!ordan!e with Se!tion 3 of %epubli! -!t &o. /'>3, i.e., an amount e0uivalent to 166Y of the Gonal value of the e(propriated properties. ,owever, %$ already !omplied therewith by depositing the re0uired amount in the e(propriation a!!ount of D=7, with @$=-South ,arbor. $y depositing the said amount, %$ is already !onsidered to have paid the same to , %DC, and , %DC be!ame the owner thereof. he amount earned interest after the deposit" hen!e, the interest should pertain to the owner of the prin!ipal who is already determined as , %DC. he interest is paid by @$=-South ,arbor on the deposit, and the %$ !annot !laim that it paid an amount more than what it is re0uired to do so by law.

1'6 1'1 1'+

+>'

+/6

Sin!e the respondent is the owner of 599,966,;;;.;;, it is entitled by right of a!!ession to the interest that had a!!rued to the said amount only. 7e are not persuaded by %$1s !itation of (ational #o?er Corporation v. Angas and Land an@ of t2e #2ilippines v. Dycoco , in support of its argument that the issue on interest is merely part and par!el of the determination of 8ust !ompensation whi!h should be determined in the se!ond stage of the pro!eedings only. 7e find that neither !ase is appli!able herein. he issue in Angas is whether or not, in the !omputation of the legal rate of interest on 8ust !ompensation for e(propriated lands, the appli!able law is -rti!le ++6' of the Civil Code whi!h pres!ribes a 4Y legal interest rate, or Central $ank Cir!ular &o. 314 whi!h fi(ed the legal rate at 1+Y per annum. 7e ruled in Angas that sin!e the kind of interest involved therein is interest by way of damages for delay in the payment thereof, and not as earnings from loans or forbearan!es of money, -rti!le ++6' of the Civil Code pres!ribing the 4Y interest shall apply. *n Dycoco, on the other hand, we !larified that interests in the form of damages !annot be applied where there is prompt and valid payment of 8ust !ompensation. he !ase at bar, however, does not involve interest as damages for delay in payment of 8ust !ompensation. *t !on!erns interest earned by the amount deposited in the e(propriation a!!ount. ?nder Se!tion 3 of %epubli! -!t &o. /'>3, the implementing agen!y of the government pays 8ust !ompensation twi!e: (1A immediately upon the filing of the !omplaint, where the amount to be paid is 166Y of the value of the property based on the !urrent relevant Gonal valuation of the $*% (initial paymentA" and (+A when the de!ision of the !ourt in the determination of 8ust !ompensation be!omes final and e(e!utory, where the implementing agen!y shall pay the owner the differen!e between the amount already paid and the 8ust !ompensation as determined by the !ourt (final payment9 -s a final note, %$ does not ob8e!t to , %DC1s withdrawal of the amount of =++,'4/,666.66 from the e(propriation a!!ount, provided that it is able to show (1A that the property is free from any lien or en!umbran!e and (+A that it is the absolute owner thereof. he said !onditions do not put in abeyan!e the !onstru!tive delivery of the said amount to , %DC pending the latter1s !omplian!e therewith. -rti!le 11/> of the Civil Code provides that the :effe!ts of a !onditional obligation to give, on!e the !ondition has been fulfilled, shall retroa!t to the day of the !onstitution of the obligation.; ,en!e, when , %DC
+/6

+/1

!omplied with the given !onditions, as determined by the % C in its <rderdated +1 -pril +66., the effe!ts of the !onstru!tive delivery retroa!ted to the a!tual date of the deposit of the amount in the e(propriation a!!ount of D=7,. $*2@-&2--7- FS. 5?D29 $-C-@@-, .D3 SC%- D4+ 53RS3A-T TO SECTIO- 9, R3LE 6 O. THE 199 R3LES O. CIVIL 5ROCE/3RE A-/ THE /OCTRI-E LAI/ /O0- I- THE RO4ER- /EVELO5ME-T CASE, THE O-LY REM3ISITES .OR THE IMME/IATE E-TRY 4Y THE :OVER-ME-T I- EE5RO5RIATIO- CASES AREI ". #%e (ili'& o( " co$pl"i'# (or e@propri"#io' 7u((icie'# i' (or$ "') 7u87#"'ce+ "') b. #%e $"Li'& o( " )epo7i# eCui*"le'# #o #%e ASSESSE/ VAL3E O. THE 5RO5ERTY S34JECT TO EE5RO5RIATIO-. he owners of the e(propriated land are entitled to legal interest on the !ompensation eventually ad8udged from the date the !ondemnor takes possession of the land until the full !ompensation is paid to them or deposited in !ourt. ReCui7i#e7 8e(ore i$$e)i"#e po77e77io' or wri# o( po77e77io' $"y 8e i77ue) i' e@propri"#io' c"7e7, i'*ol*i'& loc"l &o*er'$e'# u'i#7 "7 #%e e@propri"#i'& "&e'cyI 1. Co$pl"i'# 7u((icie'# i' (or$ "') 7u87#"'ce+ "') 9. 5"y$e'# o( 11V o( #%e M"rLe# *"lue "7 "ppe"ri'& i' #%e l"#e7# T"@ /ecl"r"#io'. THE CITY O. ILOILO VS. J3/:E LE:AS5I, RTC 99, ILOILO CITY, 222 SCRA 969

%e0uisites before the e(propriator is allowed immediate entry on the property sub8e!t of e(propriation if the e(propriator is a lo!al government unit.
T%e e@propri"#or $"y i$$e)i"#ely e'#er #%e proper#y 7u8Aec# o( e@propri"#io' procee)i'&7 i( #%e (ollowi'& reCui7i#e7 "re pre7e'#I

+/1

+/+

1.

the !omplaint for e(propriation filed in !ourt is suffi!ient in form and substan!e" and 9. #%e e@propri"#or $u7# )epo7i# #%e "$ou'# eCui*"le'# #o 11V o( #%e ("ir $"rLe# *"lue o( #%e proper#y #o 8e e@propri"#e) 8"7e) o' i#7 curre'# #"@ )ecl"r"#io'. 4u# i( #%e &o*er'$e'# ("il7 #o u7e #%e proper#y e@propri"#e) (or #%e purpo7e (or w%ic% i# w"7 i'#e')e), #%e l"')ow'er %"7 #%e ri&%# #o 8uyG8"cL #%e 7"$e. MACTA-GCE43 I-TER-ATIO-AL AIR5ORT A3THORITY "') AIR TRA-S5ORTATIO- O..ICE *7. 4ER-AR/O LO>A/A, JR., ET AL., :.R. -o. 1 6691, .e8ru"ry 91, 9;1; -ACH3RA, J.I Sub8e!t of this !ase is @ot &o. //-S7<-+D63+ (@ot &o. //A, with an area of 1,61> s0uare meters, more or less, lo!ated in @ahug, Cebu City. *ts original owner was -nasta!io Deiparine when the same was sub8e!t to e(propriation pro!eedings, initiated by the %epubli! of the =hilippines (%epubli!A, represented by the then Civil -eronauti!s -dministration (C--A, for the e(pansion and improvement of the @ahug -irport. he !ase was filed with the then Court of #irst *nstan!e of Cebu, hird $ran!h, and do!keted as Civil Case &o. %-1//1. -s early as 1'3>, the lots were already o!!upied by the ?.S. -rmy. hey were turned over to the Surplus =roperty Commission, the $ureau of -eronauti!s, the &ational -irport Corporation and then to the C--. During the penden!y of the e(propriation pro!eedings, respondent $ernardo @. @oGada, Sr. a!0uired @ot &o. // from Deiparine. Conse0uently, ransfer Certifi!ate of itle ( C A &o. '63D was issued in @oGada1s name. <n De!ember +', 1'41, the trial !ourt rendered 8udgment in favor of the %epubli! and ordered the latter to pay @oGada the fair market value of @ot &o. //, ad8udged at =..66 per s0uare meter, with !onse0uential damages by way of legal interest !omputed from &ovember 14, 1'3>Xthe time when the lot was first o!!upied by the airport. @oGada re!eived the amount of =.,61/.66 by way of payment. he affe!ted landowners appealed. =ending appeal, the -ir ransportation <ffi!e (- <A, formerly C--, proposed a !ompromise settlement whereby the owners of the lots affe!ted by the e(propriation pro!eedings would either not appeal or withdraw their respe!tive appeals in !onsideration of a !ommitment that
+/+

+/.

the e(propriated lots would be resold at the pri!e they were e(propriated in the event that the - < would abandon the @ahug -irport, pursuant to an established poli!y involving similar !ases. $e!ause of this promise, @oGada did not pursue his appeal. hereafter, @ot &o. // was transferred and registered in the name of the %epubli! under C &o. +D6D>. he pro8e!ted improvement and e(pansion plan of the old @ahug -irport, however, was not pursued. @oGada, with the other landowners, !onta!ted then C-- Dire!tor Fi!ente %ivera, 5r., re0uesting to repur!hase the lots, as per previous agreement. he C-- replied that there might still be a need for the @ahug -irport to be used as an emergen!y DC-. airport. *t reiterated, however, the assuran!e that :should this <ffi!e dispose and resell the properties whi!h may be found to be no longer ne!essary as an airport, then the poli!y of this <ffi!e is to give priority to the former owners sub8e!t to the approval of the =resident.; <n &ovember +', 1'/', then =resident CoraGon C. -0uino issued a )emorandum to the Department of ransportation, dire!ting the transfer of general aviation operations of the @ahug -irport to the )a!tan *nternational -irport before the end of 1''6 and, upon su!h transfer, the !losure of the @ahug -irport. Sometime in 1''6, the Congress of the =hilippines passed %epubli! -!t (%.-.A &o. 4'D/, entitled :-n -!t Creating the )a!tan-Cebu *nternational -irport -uthority, ransferring 9(isting -ssets of the )a!tan *nternational -irport and the @ahug -irport to the -uthority, Festing the -uthority with =ower to -dminister and <perate the )a!tan *nternational -irport and the @ahug -irport, and #or <ther =urposes.;

#rom the date of the institution of the e(propriation pro!eedings up to the present, the publi! purpose of the said e(propriation (e(pansion of the airportA was never a!tually initiated, realiGed, or implemented. *nstead, the old airport was !onverted into a !ommer!ial !omple(. @ot &o. // be!ame the site of a 8ail known as agong u2ay $e2a'ilitation Comple>, while a portion thereof was o!!upied by s0uatters. he old airport was !onverted into what is now known as the -yala *. . =ark, a !ommer!ial area. hus, on 5une 3, 1''4, petitioners initiated a !omplaint for the re!overy of possession and re!onveyan!e of ownership of @ot &o. //. he !ase was do!keted as Civil Case &o. C9$-1//+. and was raffled to the %egional rial Court (% CA, $ran!h D>, Cebu City.

+/.

+/3

*n their -nswer, petitioners asked for the immediate dismissal of the !omplaint. hey spe!ifi!ally denied that the 2overnment had made assuran!es to re!onvey @ot &o. // to respondents in the event that the property would no longer be needed for airport operations. =etitioners instead asserted that the 8udgment of !ondemnation was un!onditional, and respondents were, therefore, not entitled to re!over the e(propriated property notwithstanding non-use or abandonment thereof. -fter pretrial, but before trial on the merits, the parties stipulated on the following set of fa!ts: (1A he lot involved is @ot &o. //-S7<-+D63+ of the $anilad 9state, situated in the City of Cebu, !ontaining an area of <ne housand Seventeen (1,61>A s0uare meters, more or less" he property was e(propriated among several other properties in @ahug in favor of the %epubli! of the =hilippines by virtue of a De!ision dated De!ember +', 1'41 of the C#* of Cebu in Civil Case &o. %-1//1" he publi! purpose for whi!h the property was e(propriated was for the purpose of the @ahug -irport" -fter the e(pansion, the property was transferred in the name of )C*--" BandC <n &ovember +', 1'/', then =resident CoraGon C. -0uino dire!ted the Department of ransportation and Communi!ation to transfer general aviation operations of the @ahug -irport to the )a!tan-Cebu *nternational -irport -uthority and to !lose the @ahug -irport after su!h transfer.

(+A

(.A (3A (DA

<n <!tober ++, 1''', the % C rendered its De!ision, disposing as follows: 7,9%9#<%9, in the light of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders 8udgment in favor of the plaintiffs, $ernardo @. @oGada, Sr., and the heirs of %osario )er!ado, namely, Fi!ente ). @oGada, )ar!ia @. 2odineG, Firginia @. #lores, $ernardo ). @oGada, 5r., Dolores @. 2a!asan, So!orro @. Cafaro and %osario ). @oGada, represented by their attorney-in-fa!t )ar!ia @oGada 2odineG, and against defendants Cebu-)a!tan *nternational -irport -uthority ()C*--A and -ir ransportation <ffi!e (- <A:

+/3

+/D

1. ordering )C*-- and - < to restore to plaintiffs the possession and ownership of their land, @ot &o. // =sd-/+1 (S7<-+./6.A, upon payment of the e(propriation pri!e to plaintiffs" and +. ordering the %egister of Deeds to effe!t the transfer of the Certifi!ate of itle from defendantBsC to plaintiffs on @ot &o. B//C, !an!elling C &o. +6.D> in the name of defendant )C*-and to issue a new title on the same lot in the name of $ernardo @. @oGada, Sr. and the heirs of %osario )er!ado, namely: Fi!ente ). @oGada, )ario ). @oGada, )ar!ia @. 2odineG, Firginia @. #lores, $ernardo ). @oGada, 5r., Dolores @. 2a!asan, So!orro @. Cafaro and %osario ). @oGada. &o pronoun!ement as to !osts. -ggrieved, petitioners interposed an appeal to the C-. -fter the filing of the ne!essary appellate briefs, the C- rendered its assailed De!ision dated #ebruary +/, +664, denying petitioners1 appeal and affirming in toto the De!ision of the % C, $ran!h D>, Cebu City. =etitioners1 motion for re!onsideration was, likewise, denied in the 0uestioned C- %esolution dated #ebruary >, +66>. ,en!e, this petition arguing that: (1A the respondents utterly failed to prove that there was a repur!hase agreement or !ompromise settlement between them and the 2overnment" (+A the 8udgment in Civil Case &o. %-1//1 was absolute and un!onditional, giving title in fee simple to the %epubli!" and (.A the respondents1 !laim of verbal assuran!es from government offi!ials violates the Statute of #rauds. he petition should be denied. =etitioners an!hor their !laim to the !ontroverted property on the supposition that the De!ision in the pertinent e(propriation pro!eedings did not provide for the !ondition that should the intended use of @ot &o. // for the e(pansion of the @ahug -irport be aborted or abandoned, the property would revert to respondents, being its former owners. =etitioners !ite, in support of this position, Aery v. Municipality of Ca'anatuan, whi!h de!lared that the 2overnment a!0uires only su!h rights in e(propriated par!els of land as may be allowed by the !hara!ter of its title over the propertiesX *f ( ( ( land is e(propriated for a parti!ular purpose, with the !ondition that when that purpose is ended or abandoned the property shall return to its former owner, then, of !ourse, when the purpose is terminated or abandoned the former owner rea!0uires the property so e(propriated. *f ( ( ( land is e(propriated for a publi! street and the e(propriation is granted upon !ondition that
+/D

+/4

the !ity !an only use it for a publi! street, then, of !ourse, when the !ity abandons its use as a publi! street, it returns to the former owner, unless there is some statutory provision to the !ontrary. ( ( (. *f, upon the !ontrary, however, the de!ree of e(propriation gives to the entity a fee simple title, then, of !ourse, the land be!omes the absolute property of the e(propriator, whether it be the State, a provin!e, or muni!ipality, and in that !ase the non-user does not have the effe!t of defeating the title a!0uired by the e(propriation pro!eedings. ( ( (. 7hen land has been a!0uired for publi! use in fee simple, unconditionally, either by the e(er!ise of eminent domain or by pur!hase, the former owner retains no right in the land, and the publi! use may be abandoned, or the land may be devoted to a different use, without any impairment of the estate or title a!0uired, or any reversion to the former owner. ( ( (. Contrary to the stan!e of petitioners, this Court had ruled otherwise in Heirs of &imoteo Moreno and Maria $otea v. Mactan-Ce'u International Airport Aut2ority, thusX )oreover, respondent )C*-- has brought to our attention a signifi!ant and telling portion in the %ecision in Civil Case &o. %-1//1 validating our dis!ernment that the e(propriation by the prede!essors of respondent was ordered under the running impression that @ahug -irport would !ontinue in operationX -s for the publi! purpose of the e(propriation pro!eeding, it !annot now be doubted. -lthough )a!tan -irport is being !onstru!ted, it does not take away the a!tual usefulness and importan!e of the @ahug -irport: it is handling the air traffi! both !ivilian and military. #rom it air!rafts fly to )indanao and Fisayas and pass thru it on their flights to the &orth and )anila. &2en, no evidence ?as adduced to s2o? 2o? soon is t2e Mactan Airport to 'e placed in operation and ?2et2er t2e La2ug Airport ?ill 'e closed immediately t2ereafter. *t is up to the other departments of the 2overnment to determine said matters. he Court !annot substitute its 8udgment for those of the said departments or agen!ies. In t2e a'sence of suc2 s2o?ing, t2e Court ?ill presume t2at t2e La2ug Airport ?ill continue to 'e in operation 6emp2asis supplied9.

+/4

+/>

7hile in the trial in Civil Case &o. %-1//1 BweC !ould have simply a!knowledged the presen!e of publi! purpose for the e(er!ise of eminent domain regardless of the survival of @ahug -irport, the trial !ourt in its %ecision !hose not to do so but instead prefi(ed its finding of publi! purpose upon its understanding that ELa2ug Airport ?ill continue to 'e in operation.F Ferily, these meaningful statements in the body of the %ecision warrant the !on!lusion that the e(propriated properties would remain to be so until it was !onfirmed that @ahug -irport was no longer Ein operation.F his inferen!e further implies two (+A things: (aA after the @ahug -irport !eased its undertaking as su!h and the e(propriated lots were not being used for any airport e(pansion pro8e!t, the rights vis-U-vis the e(propriated @ots &os. '14 and '+6 as between the State and their former owners, petitioners herein, must be e0uitably ad8usted" and (bA the foregoing unmistakable de!larations in the body of the %ecision should merge with and be!ome an intrinsi! part of the fallo thereof whi!h under the premises is !learly inade0uate sin!e the dispositive portion is not in a!!ord with the findings as !ontained in the body thereof. *ndeed, the De!ision in Civil Case &o. %-1//1 should be read in its entirety, wherein it is apparent that the a!0uisition by the %epubli! of the e(propriated lots was sub8e!t to the !ondition that the @ahug -irport would !ontinue its operation. he !ondition not having materialiGed be!ause the airport had been abandoned, the former owner should then be allowed to rea!0uire the e(propriated property. <n this note, we take this opportunity to revisit our ruling in Aery, whi!h involved an e(propriation suit !ommen!ed upon par!els of land to be used as a site for a publi! market. *nstead of putting up a publi! market, respondent Cabanatuan !onstru!ted residential houses for lease on the area. Claiming that the muni!ipality lost its right to the property taken sin!e it did not pursue its publi! purpose, petitioner 5uan #ery, the former owner of the lots e(propriated, sought to re!over his properties. ,owever, as he had admitted that, in 1'1D, respondent Cabanatuan a!0uired a fee simple title to the lands in 0uestion, 8udgment was rendered in favor of the muni!ipality, following -meri!an 8urispruden!e, parti!ularly City of Aort Dayne v. La@e "2ore V M.". $). Co., McConi2ay v. &2eodore Drig2t, and $eic2ling v. Covington Lum'er Co., all uniformly holding that the transfer to a third party of the e(propriated real property, whi!h ne!essarily resulted in the abandonment of the parti!ular publi! purpose for whi!h the property was taken, is not a ground for the re!overy of the same by its previous owner, the title of the e(propriating agen!y being one of fee simple. <bviously, Aery was not de!ided pursuant to our now sa!redly held !onstitutional right that private property shall not be taken for publi! use without 8ust !ompensation. *t is well settled that the taking of private property by the
+/>

+//

2overnment1s power of eminent domain is sub8e!t to two mandatory re0uirements: (1A that it is for a parti!ular publi! purpose" and (+A that 8ust !ompensation be paid to the property owner. hese re0uirements partake of the nature of implied !onditions that should be !omplied with to enable the !ondemnor to keep the property e(propriated. )ore parti!ularly, with respe!t to the element of publi! use, the e(propriator should !ommit to use the property pursuant to the purpose stated in the petition for e(propriation filed, failing whi!h, it should file another petition for the new purpose. *f not, it is then in!umbent upon the e(propriator to return the said property to its private owner, if the latter desires to rea!0uire the same. <therwise, the 8udgment of e(propriation suffers an intrinsi! flaw, as it would la!k one indispensable element for the proper e(er!ise of the power of eminent domain, namely, the parti!ular publi! purpose for whi!h the property will be devoted. -!!ordingly, the private property owner would be denied due pro!ess of law, and the 8udgment would violate the property owner1s right to 8usti!e, fairness, and e0uity. *n light of these premises, we 'ow e@pre77ly %ol) #%"# #%e #"Li'& o( pri*"#e proper#y, co'7eCue'# #o #%e :o*er'$e'#N7 e@erci7e o( i#7 power o( e$i'e'# )o$"i', i7 "lw"y7 7u8Aec# #o #%e co')i#io' #%"# #%e proper#y 8e )e*o#e) #o #%e 7peci(ic pu8lic purpo7e (or w%ic% i# w"7 #"Le'. Coroll"rily, i( #%i7 p"r#icul"r purpo7e or i'#e'# i7 'o# i'i#i"#e) or 'o# "# "ll pur7ue), "') i7 pere$p#orily "8"')o'e), #%e' #%e (or$er ow'er7, i( #%ey 7o )e7ire, $"y 7eeL #%e re*er7io' o( #%e proper#y, 7u8Aec# #o #%e re#ur' o( #%e "$ou'# o( Au7# co$pe'7"#io' recei*e). I' 7uc% " c"7e, #%e e@erci7e o( #%e power o( e$i'e'# )o$"i' %"7 8eco$e i$proper (or l"cL o( #%e reCuire) ("c#u"l Au7#i(ic"#io'. <n the matter of the repur!hase pri!e, while petitioners are obliged to re!onvey @ot &o. // to respondents, the latter must return to the former what they re!eived as 8ust !ompensation for the e(propriation of the property, plus legal interest to be !omputed from default, whi!h in this !ase runs from the time petitioners !omply with their obligation to respondents. %espondents must likewise pay petitioners the ne!essary e(penses they may have in!urred in maintaining @ot &o. //, as well as the monetary value of their servi!es in managing it to the e(tent that respondents were benefited thereby. :A4ATI- VS. LA-/ 4A-F O. THE 5HILI55I-ES, 222 SCRA 1 6

7hat is the basis of the 8ust !ompensation for e(propriation pro!eedings in !onne!tion with the agrarian reform program of the government.
+//

+/'

,eld: T%e #"Li'& o( pri*"#e l"')7 u')er #%e "&r"ri"' re(or$ pro&r"$ o( #%e &o*er'$e'# p"r#"Le7 o( #%e '"#ure o( "' e@propri"#io' procee)i'&7. A7 7uc%, in !omputing the 8ust !ompensation, it is the value of the land at the time of the taking, not at the time of the rendition of the 8udgment, whi!h should be taken into !onsideration. 4A-F O. THE 5HILI55I-E ISLA-/S VS. CO3RT O. A55EALS, 221 SCRA 63

Ju7# co$pe'7"#io' i' e@propri"#io' c"7e7+ *"lue o( #%e proper#y w%e'R

Ju7# co$pe'7"#io' i7 )e(i'e) "7 #%e (ull "') ("ir eCui*"le'# o( #%e proper#y #"Le' (ro$ i#7 ow'er 8y #%e e@propri"#or. T%e $e"7ure i7 'o# #%e #"LerN7 &"i', 8u# #%e ow'erN7 lo77. M"rLe# *"lue i7 #%"# 7u$ o( $o'ey w%ic% " per7o' )e7irou7 8u# 'o# co$pelle) #o 8uy, "') "' ow'er willi'& 8u# 'o# co$pelle) #o 7ell, woul) "&ree o' "7 " price #o 8e &i*e' "') recei*e) #%ere(ore. T%e Au7# co$pe'7"#io' i7 )e#er$i'e) "7 o( #%e )"#e o( #"Li'& o( #%e proper#y or #%e (ili'& o( #%e co$pl"i'# (or e@propri"#io', 0HICHEVER COMES .IRST. 3. $asis of 8ust !ompensation %ead: a. &=C vs. 5o!son, #ebruary +D, 1''+ a-1. -nsaldo vs. antui!o, -ug. ., 1''6 b. )un. of )akati vs. C-, <!t. 1, 1''6 !. %eubli! vs. *-C, 1/D SC%- D>+ d. )un. of alisay vs. %amireG, 1/. SC%- D+/ e. &=C vs. C-, 1+' SC%- 44D f. )addumba vs. 2S*S, 1/+ SC%- +/1 %ead also: 1. )eaning of 8ust !ompensation in eminent domain +' SC%- /4/ pro!eedings,

+/'

+'6

$asis of 8ust !ompensation (9(!eptional !aseA 4ERFE-FOTTER, I-C. VS. CO3RT O. A55EALS A-/ RE534LIC O. THE 5HILI55I-ES, /ece$8er 12, 1999 CruG, 5. #a!ts: 1. <n 5une 1/, 1'/+, Fi!ente Firay, then =resident of -polinario -pa!ible S!hool of #isheries, a government institution in &asugbu, $atangas, sent the petitioner a written offer to buy the property of the latter with an area of 16,436 s0uare meters for its D-year e(pansion program" +. hat the petitioner e(pressed willingness to sell at =D6.66 per s0uare meter in its reply" .. Firay then re0uested the <ffi!e of the =rovin!ial -ssessor of the =rovin!e of $atangas to appraise the land and the latter fi(ed its market value at =.+.66 per s0uare meter" 3. Firay then wrote the petitioner and e(pressed willingness to buy the latterSs property at =.+.66 per s0uare meter. he petitioner, however, stu!k to its original valuation. @ater on, it said that its property had in fa!t appre!iated to as mu!h as =166.66 per s0uare meter" D. <n <!tober +/, 1'/., the %epubli! of the =hilippines filed a !omplaint for the e(propriation of the petitionerSs property and invoked the assessment made by the =rovin!ial -ppraisal Committee of the =rovin!ial -ssessor of $atangas in the amount of =.+.66. he government likewise sought immediate possession of the property upon deposit of 16Y of the total assessment in a!!ordan!e with =D 3/" 4. $erkenkotter originally 0uestioned the purpose of the e(propriation but later abandoned this ob8e!tion and !on!entrated only on what it !alled the HunderappraisalH of the sub8e!t land" >. he % C then appointed a panel of !ommissioners in a!!ordan!e with %ule 4>, e!tion D, of the %ules of Court, to determine the 8ust !ompensation to be paid for the land" /. <n September +., 1'/D, the panel of !ommissioners submitted its report to the trial !ourt and pegged the market value at =/D.66 per s0uare meter"
+'6

+'1

'. he %epubli! of the =hilippines ob8e!ted and pointed to three (.A !ontra!ts of sale e(e!uted by the petitioner in 1'/D whereby it sold three (.A tra!ts of land similar in topography and ad8a!ent to the property in 0uestion for the unit pri!e of only =1'.1/ per s0uare meter" 16. he !ourt dire!ted the !ommissioners to !onvene anew and to re!eive additional eviden!e. ,owever, in its se!ond report dated -pril 1, 1'/>, the panel reiterated its original re!ommendation of =/D.66Es0. m. or a total of ='63,366.66 for the entire area sought to be e(propriated. he trial !ourt a!ting on this re!ommendation rendered 8udgment re0uiring the %epubli! to pay the petitioner the amount of ='63,366.66 for the entire area sought to be e(propriated"

11. he government appealed the trial !ourtSs de!ision to the Court of -ppeals whi!h rendered a de!ision %9F9%S*&2 ,9 @<79% C<?% SS D9C*S*<& and de!laring that the fair market value whi!h should be the basis in !omputing the amount to be paid by the government to the petitioner shall be =1'.1/, the market value a!!ording set by the petitioner if we follow the three (.A deeds of sale it e(e!uted in favor of three (.A different individuals"
1+. he petitioner was therefore !onstrained to file this instant petition !laiming that the Court of -ppeals erred in holding that =1'.1/ per s0uare meter should be the basis of the !omputation for the 8ust !ompensation of its property be!ause: a. Firay even offered the amount of =.+.66 per s0uaremeter as the fair market value" b. that =.+.66 per s0uare meter was the appraised value made by the <ffi!e of the =rovin!ial -ssessor of $atangas" and !. the !omplaint itself prays that the market value be pegged at =.+.66 per s0uare meter. *ssue: 7,- S,<?@D $9 ,9 $-S*S *& ,9 C<)=? - *<& <# ,9 5?S C<)=9&S- *<&: =.+.66ESR. ). *& -CC<%-&C9 7* , ,9 -==%-*S-@ <# ,9 =%<F*&C*-@ -SS9SS<%" =166.66ESR.). -S C@-*)9D $J ,9 <7&9%" =/D.66ESR. ). -S %9C<))9&D9D $J ,9 $<-%D <# C<))*SS*<&9%S -==<*& 9D $J ,9 C<?% < 9F-@?- 9 ,9 S-)9, <% =1'.1/ =9% SR?-%9 )9 9% 7,*C, 7-S ,9 S9@@*&2 =%*C9
+'1

+'+

*& -& -D5-C9& @< S<@D $J ,9 =9 * *<&9% < ,%99 =%*F- 9 *&D*F*D?-@S. ,eld. he basis in the !omputation of 8ust !ompensation shall be =1'.1/ per s0uare meter or the pri!e whi!h the petitioner sold its other lots to other individuals. his is so be!ause there is no showing that the petitioner had any spe!ial reason for granting ea!h of the individual vendees the e(traordinary dis!ount amounting to as mu!h as >DY of its !laimed real value of the land. o all appearan!es, they were ordinary buyers who bought the land for their own private purposes only and not for the publi! purpose invoked by the government. he petitionerSs !laim that the value as appearing in the deeds of sale in the three other par!els is not a reliable inde( of 8ust !ompensation Hbe!ause owners usually undervalue the selling pri!e of the property to lower the e(penses they would have to pay for !apital gains ta( and do!umentary stamps ta(H is pra!ti!ally an admission that it did not indi!ate the a!tual !onsideration in the three transa!tions where it was made to appear that the pri!e per s0uare meter was only =1'.1/. *f this was the purpose of the petitioner when it e(e!uted the . deeds of sale, then * *S S?%9@J ,<*S &<7 $J * S <7& =9 -%D. -&D %*2, @J S<, #<% * C-&&< $9 -@@<79D < =%<#* #%<) * S <7& D9C9= *<& -&D C@-*) ,,9 S?$59C =%<=9% J S,<?@D $9 -SS9SS9D ,9 ,*2,9% %- 9 * C@-&D9S *&9@J -2%99D ?=<& 7* , ,9 $?J9%S. he Court is disappointed that the petitioner should demand a higher pri!e from the republi!, whi!h needs the land for a publi! purpose, when it was willing to a!!ept less from the three individual buyers who had only their private interests to serve. he fa!t that the petitioner sold the . other par!els of land at =1'.1/ per s0uare meter whi!h are admittedly of the same topography as that sub8e!t of this !ase, it impliedly admitted that the pri!e for the latter should be the same as the former. his rule of !onsisten!y is best e(pressed in the familiar saying, surely not unknown to the petitioner, ,- 7,- *S S-?C9 #<% ,9 2<<S9 *S -@S< S-?C9 #<% ,9 2-&D9%. Just compensation is defined as the full and fair e0uivalent of the proerty sought to be e(propriated 6Association of "mall Lando?ners vs. "ecretary of Agrarian $eform, ./8 "C$A :/;9. he measure is not the
+'+

+'.

takerSs gain but the ownerSs loss. he !ompensation, to be 8ust, must be fair not only to the owner but also to the taker. o determine 8ust !ompensation, the trial !ourt should first as!ertain the market value of the property, to whi!h should be added the !onse0uential benefits whi!h may arise from the e(propriation. he market value of the property is the pri!e that may be agreed upon by the parties willing but not !ompelled to enter into a !ontra!t of sale. A$o'& #%e ("c#or7 #o 8e co'7i)ere) i' "rri*i'& "# #%e ("ir $"rLe# *"lue "reI 1. co7# o( "cCui7i#io'+ 9. #%e curre'# *"lue o( liLe proer#ie7+ 3. i#7 "c#u"l or po#e'#i"l u7e7+ 2. p"r#icul"r c"7e o( l"')7+ 1. #%eir 7iJe, 7%"pe, loc"#io'+ "') 6. #%e #"@ )ecl"r"#io'7 #%ereo'. #inally, note that as held in the !ase of %epubli! vs. Santos, 131 SC%- .6, the market value as re!ommended by the board of !ommissioners appointed by the !ourt were at best only -DF*S<%J -&D =9%S?-S*F9 -&D $J &< )9-&S #*&-@ <% $*&D*&2. +. &,- vs. %eyes, 1+. SC%- +3D .. )anotok vs. C-, )ay +1,1'/> 3. 9=O- vs. Dulay, -pril +',l'/> D. @agunGad vs. C-, 1D3 SC%- 1'' 7hen it is !onsidered for Hpubli! useH: 4. Sumulong vs. 2uererro, 1D3 SC%- 341 >. %epubli! vs. C-, 1D3 SC%- 3+/ /.Cos!ulluela vs. C-, 143 SC%- .'. D. %e0uisite of HtakingH in eminent domain !ases %ead: 1. Rep. *7. C"7#ell*i, 16 SCRA 336 %e0uisites of taking: ". #%e e@propri"#or $u7# e'#er #%e proper#y+ 8. #%e e'#r"'ce $u7# 'o# 8e (or Au7# " $o$e'#"ry perio)+
+'.

+'3

c. #%e e'#ry $u7# 8e u')er w"rr"'# o( color or #i#le+ ). #%e proper#y $u7# 8e )e*o#e) (or pu8lic u7e+ "') e. #%e ow'er $u7# 8e ou7#e) (ro$ 8e'e(ici"l u7e o( %i7 l"'). +. *gna!io vs. 2uererro, 1D6 SC%- .4' .. 2ar!ia vs. C-, 16+ SC%- D'> 4. &ot a valid e(er!ise of eminent domain %ead: 1. City of )anila vs. Chinese Community, 36 =hil. .3' ( private property whi!h is devoted to publi! use may not be e(propriated for another publi! purpose.A +. De Mne!ht vs. $autista, 166 SC%- 446 %9=?$@*C <# ,9 =,*@*==*&9S FS. C%*S *&- D9 M&9C, -&D ,9 C<?% <# -==9-@S, 2.%. &<. />..D, #ebruary 1+, 1'/' 9(propriation 2an!ay!o, 5. #a!ts: 1. <n #ebruary +6, 1'>', the %ep. of the =hilippines initiated an e(propriation pro!eedings against the owners of the houses standing along #ernando %ein-Del =an streets, among them Cristina de Mne!ht together with Con!ep!ion Cabarrus, and some other fifteen defendants in Civil Case &o. >661-=" +. *n 5une, 1'>', the %epubli! of the =hilippines prayed for the issuan!e of a writ of possession of the property to be e(propriated on the ground that it had already deposited with the =&$ 16Y of the amount of !ompensation stated in the !omplaint" that on 5une 13, 1'>', the @ower Court issued a writ of possession authoriGing the %epubli! to enter into the properties !ondemned and !reated a !ommittee to determine 8ust !ompensation" .. <n 5uly 14, 1'>', De Mne!ht went to the Supreme Court on a petition for !ertiorari and prohibition dire!ted against the 5une 13, 1'>' order of the lower !ourt"

+'3

+'D

3. <n <!tober .6, 1'/6, the Supreme Court rendered its de!ision granting the petition for !ertiorari and prohibition and dire!ting that the <rder of the respondent 5udge dated 5une 13, 1'>' be S9 -S*D9 and the respondent 5udge is permanently en8oined from taking any further a!tion on Civil Case &o. >661-=" D. <n -ugust /, 1'/1, the defendants in Civil Case &o. >661- moved for the dismissal of said !ase sin!e the de!ision of the Supreme Court is already final" 4. <n September +, 1'/., the %epubli! moved for the dismissal of the !ase due to the ena!tment of $= .36 e(propriating the same properties for the same purpose. <n the same date, the Court dismissed the !ase. he defendants moved for a re!onsideration whi!h the Court denied" >. De Mne!ht appealed the <rder dismissing the !ase to the Court of -ppeals who on De!ember +/, 1'// issued its de!ision setting aside the <rder appealed from and dismissing the e(propriation pro!eedings before the lower !ourt on the ground that the !hoi!e of the above-mentioned streets as the line through whi!h the 9DS- should be e(tended is arbitrary and should not re!eive 8udi!ial approval" /. he %epubli! of the =hilippines filed a =etition for %eview with the Supreme Court. *ssue: 7hether or not the legislature !ould still pass a law e(propriating the lots of the private respondents despite the e(isten!e of a final de!ision of the Supreme Court whi!h held that !hoi!e of their lot to be used as an e(tension of 9DS- is arbitraryN ,eld: *t is true that there is already a final de!ision of the Supreme Court to the effe!t that the !hoi!e of the #ernando %ein-Del =an Streets is arbitrary and should not re!eive 8udi!ial approval. ,owever, it is e0ually true that the Constitution and our laws may e(propriate private properties after the payment of 8ust !ompensation. 7hen on #ebruary 1>, 1'/., the $atasang =ambansa passed $= .36 e(propriating the same properties for the same purpose, * -==9-%S ,,9 S-)9 7-S $-S9D <& S?=9%F9&*&2 9F9& S ,- <CC?%%9D after the de!ision of the SC in De Mne!ht vs. $autista in 1'/6. he so!ial impa!t fa!tor whi!h persuaded the Court to !onsider this e(tension has disappeared be!ause of the fa!t that the residents of the area have been relo!ated and duly !ompensated and only D9 M&9C, now is left while her property is only
+'D

+'4

about DY of the area to be e(propriated. he %epubli! !ould !ontinue it e(propriation pro!eedings !onsidering the supervening events after the de!ision was rendered. $= $ilang .36 ,9%9#<%9 9##9C *F9@J S?=9%S9D9D ,9 -#<%9S-*D #*&-@ -&D 9Q9C? <%J D9C*S*<& <# ,9 S?=%9)9 C<?% . Q ( ( ,9 C<?% -2%99S *& ,9 7*SD<) -&D &9C9SS* J <# 9&-C *&2 $= .36. ,?S ,9 -& 9%*<% D9C*S*<& <# ,*S C<?% )?S J*9@D < ,*S S?$S9R?9& @92*S@- *F9 #*- . LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL CruG, 5., !on!urring Supervening events have !hanged the fa!tual basis of the SCSs de!ision to 8ustify the subse0uent ena!tment of the statute. *f we are sustaining the legislation, it is not be!ause we !on!ede that the lawmakers !an nullify the findings of the Court in the e(er!ise of its dis!retion. *t is simply be!ause we ourselves have found that under the !hanged situation, the present e(propriation is no longer arbitrary. * )?S -DD ,,*S D9C*S*<& *S &< - %9F9%S-@ <# ,9 <%*2*&-@ D9 M&9C, C-S9, 7,*C, 7-S D9C*D9D ?&D9% - D*##9%9& S9 <# #-C S. .. %9=?$@*C <# ,9 =,*@*==*&9S FS. C%*S *&- D9 M&9C, -&D ,9 C<?% <# -==9-@S, 2.%. &<. />..D, #ebruary 1+, 1'/' .-a. @imitations of the power of e(propriation, . SC%- >64

>. 7hen shall we base the !omputation of the value of the property e(propriated: at the time of taking or at the time of the institution of the e(propriation pro!eedingsN /. 9minent domain !ases, in general %ead: 1. City of $aguio vs. &-7-S-, 164 =hil. 133 +. 2ar!ia vs. C-, 16+ SC%- 4+6 .. )uni!ipality of Daet vs. C-, '. SC%- D6. 3. Salas vs. 5aren!io, 34 SC%- >.3 D. -r!e vs. 2enito, #eb. +>, 1'>4 4. 2uido vs. %=-, /3 =hil. /3> >. %ep. vs. $aylosis, '4 =hil. 341
+'4

+'>

/. )ataas na @upa vs. Dimayuga, 1.6 SC%- .6 '. San Diego vs. Faldellon, /6 SC%- .6D 16. ,aguisan vs. 9milia, 1.1 SC%- D1> 11. ,eirs of -rdona vs. %eyes, 1+D SC%- ++6 1+. Commissioner vs. $urgos, )ar!h .1,1'/6 1.. %epubli! vs. 5uan, '+ SC%- +' CHA5TER EI G THE -O-GIM5AIRME-T CLA3SE Sec#io' 1;. -o l"w i$p"iri'& #%e o8li&"#io' o( co'#r"c#7 7%"ll 8e p"77e). 1. %ead: 1. Mabiling, et al., vs. &,-, De!ember 1/,l'/> +. Clements vs. &olting, 3+ =hil. >6+ .. Co vs. =&$, 113 SC%- /3+ 3. @oGano vs. )artineG,134 SC%- .+. D. %utter vs. 9steban,'. =hil. 4/ 4. *lusorio vs. C-%, 1> SC%- +D >. <rtigas vs. #eati $ank, '3 SC%- D.. /. 2anGon vs. *nsierto, 1+. SC%- >1. '. Del %osario vs. De los Santos, )ar!h +1, 1'4/ 16. -bella vs. &@%C, 1D+ SC%- 136 11. =F$9? vs. =F$, 1/' SC%- 13 Se!tion 11. #ree a!!ess to the !ourts and 0uasi-8udi!ial bodies and ade0uate legal assistan!e shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty. CHA5TER EII G RI:HTS /3RI-: C3STO/IAL I-VESTI:ATIOSe!tion 1+. (1A -ny person under investigation for the !ommission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have !ompetent and independent !ounsel preferably of his own !hoi!e. *f the person !annot afford the servi!es of !ounsel, he must be provided with one. hese rights

+'>

+'/

!annot be waived e(!ept in writing and in the presen!e of !ounsel. (+A &o torture, for!e, violen!e, threat, intimidation or any other means whi!h vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Se!ret detention pla!es, solitary, in!ommuni!ado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. (.A -ny !onfession or admission obtained in violation of this or Se!tion 1> hereof shall be inadmissible in eviden!e against him. %ights of a person under < #"todial detentionE for one suspe!ted or arrested as a terrorist. &< 9: -ppli!able provisions of the ,uman Se!urity -!tE-nti- errorism @aw, %epubli! -!t &o. '.>+, -pproved on )ar!h 4, +66> and effe!tive on 5uly 1D, +66> ( his @aw shall be automati!ally suspended one (1A month before and two (+A months after the holding of any ele!tionA 3e tion 21. %ights of a person under !ustodial detention.- he moment a person !harged with or suspe!ted of the !rime of terrorism or the !rime of !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism is apprehended or arrested and detained, he shall forthwith be informed by the arresting poli!e or law enfor!ement offi!ers to whose !ustody the person !on!erned is brought, of his or her right: 1. to be informed of the nature and !ause of his arrest, to remain silent and to have !ompetent and independent !ounsel preferably of his own !hoi!e. *f the person !annot afford the servi!es of !ounsel of his or her !hoi!e, the poli!e or law enfor!ement offi!ers !on!erned shall immediately !onta!t the free legal assistan!e unit of the *$= or the =ubli! attorney1s offi!e (=-<A. *t shall be the duty of the free legal assistan!e unit of the *$= or the =-<1s thus !onta!ted to immediately visit the person detained and provide him with legal assistan!e. hese rights !annot be waived e(!ept in writing and in the presen!e of the !ounsel of !hoi!e" +. informed of the !ause or !auses of his detention in the presen!e of his legal !ounsel" .. allowed to !ommuni!ate freely with his legal !ounsel and to !onfer with them at any time without restri!tion" 3. allowed to !ommuni!ate freely and privately without restri!tions with the members of his family or with his nearest relatives and be visited by them" and
+'/

+''

D. allowed freely to avail of the servi!es of a physi!ian or physi!ians of !hoi!e. Se!tion +.. ReCuire$e'# (or "' o((ici"l cu7#o)i"l lo&8ooL "') i#7 co'#e'#7.- he poli!e or other law enfor!ement !ustodial unit in whose !are and !ontrol the person !harged with or suspe!ted of the !rime of terrorism or the !rime of !onspira!y to !ommit terrorism has been pla!ed under !ustodial arrest and detention shall keep a se!urely and orderly maintained offi!ial logbook, whi!h is hereby de!lared as publi! do!ument and opened and made available for inspe!tion and s!rutiny of the lawyer or lawyers of the person under !ustody or any member of his family or relative by !onsanguinity within the fourth !ivil degree or his physi!ian at any time of the day without any form of restri!tion. he logbook shall !ontain a !lear and !on!ise re!ord of: 1. +. name, des!ription, and address of the detained person" date and e(a!t time of his initial admission for !ustodial arrest and detention" .. the name and address of the physi!ianEs who e(amined him physi!ally and medi!ally" 3. the state of his health and his physi!al !ondition a the time of his initial admission for !ustodial detention" D. the date and time of ea!h removal of the detained person from his !ell for interrogation or for any purpose" 4. the date and time of his return to his !ell" >. name and address of the physi!ian who e(amined him physi!ally and medi!ally" /. summary of the physi!al and medi!al findings after ea!h interrogation" '. names and addresses of the members of his family and relatives" 16. names and addresses of the persons who visited him" 11. date and time of su!h visits" 1+. date and time when the detained person re0uested to !ommuni!ate or !onfer with his lawyer" 1.. the date and time of visits by his legal !ounsel and the date and time of departure" and 13. all other important events bearing on all relevant details regarding the treatment of the detained person while under !ustodial arrest or detention. Se!tion +3. &o torture or !oer!ion in *nvestigation and interrogation. &o threat, intimidation, or !oer!ion, and no a!t whi!h will infli!t any form of physi!al pain or torment, or mental, moral, or psy!hologi!al pressure on the detained person whi!h shall vitiate his free will shall be employed in his investigation and interrogation" otherwise, the eviden!e obtained from said detained person Vshall be in its entirety, absolutely not admissible and usable as eviden!e in any 8udi!ial, 0uasi-

+''

.66

8udi!ial, legislative, or administrative investigation, in0uiry, pro!eeding or hearing. T%e 7u$$"ry o( #%e ri&%#7 o( "' "ccu7e) )uri'& cu7#o)i"l i'*e7#i&"#io' ,(ro$ #%e #i$e o( "rre7#! u')er #%e Co'7#i#u#io', l"w7 "') Auri7pru)e'ce. THE 5EO5LE O. THE 5HILI55I-ES VS. MAHI-AY, :.R. -o. 199261, .e8ru"ry 1, 1999 =er Curiam: Co'7i)eri'& #%e %e"*y pe'"l#y o( )e"#% and in order to ensure that eviden!e against an a!!used were obtained through lawful means, #%e Cour#, "7 &u"r)i"' o( #%e ri&%#7 o( #%e people, l"y7 )ow' #%e 5ROCE/3RE, :3I/ELI-ES, A-/ /3TIES 0HICH THE ARRESTI-:, /ETAI-I-:, I-VITI-: OR I-VESTI:ATI-: O..ICER OR HIS COM5A-IO-S M3ST O4SERVE AT THE TIME O. MAFI-: THE ARREST A-/ A:AI- AT A-/ /3RI-: THE TIME O. THE C3STO/IAL I-VESTI:ATIO- OR I-TERRO:ATIO- I- ACCOR/A-CE wi#% #%e Co'7#i#u#io', Auri7pru)e'ce "') %epubli! -!t &o. >3./. *t is high time to edu!ate our law enfor!ement agen!ies who negle!t either by ignoran!e or indifferen!e the so-!alled )iranda rights whi!h had be!ome insuffi!ient and whi!h the !ourt must update in the light of new legal developments. 1. he person arrested, detained, invited or under !ustodial investigation must be informed in a language known to and understood by him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown a !opy of the warrant of arrest, if any" 9very other warnings, information or !ommuni!ation must be in a language known to and understood by said person"

+. ,e must be warned that he has the right to remain silent and that any statement he makes may be used as eviden!e against him" .. ,e must be informed that he has the right to be assisted at all times and have the presen!e of an independent and !ompetent lawyer, preferably of his own !hoi!e" 3. ,e must be informed that if he has no lawyer or !annot afford the servi!es of a lawyer, one will be provided for him" and that a lawyer may also be engaged by any person in his behalf, or may be appointed by the !ourt upon petition of the person arrested or one a!ting in his behalf"

.66

.61

D.

hat whether or not the person arrested has a lawyer, , he must be informed that no !ustodial investigation in any form shall be !ondu!ted e(!ept in the presen!e of his !ounsel or after a valid waiver has been made" he person arrested must be informed that, at any time, he has the right to !ommuni!ate or !onfer by the most e(pedient means---telephone, radio, letter or messenger---with his lawyer (either retained or appointedA, any member of his immediate family" or any medi!al do!tor, priest or minister !hosen by him or by any one from his immediate family or by his !ounsel, or be visited byE!onfer with duly a!!redited national or international nongovernmental organiGation. * S,-@@ $9 ,9 %9S=<&S*$*@* J <# ,9 <##*C9% < 9&S?%9 ,- ,*S *S -CC<)=@*S,9D"

4.

>. ,e must be informed that he has the right to waive any of said rights provided it is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently and ensure that he understood the same" /. *n addition, if the person arrested waives his right to a lawyer, he must be informed that it must be done in writing -&D in the presen!e of !ounsel, otherwise, he must be warned that the waiver is void even if he insist on his waiver and !hooses to speak" '. hat the person arrested must be informed that he may indi!ate in any manner at any time or state of the pro!ess that he does not wish to be 0uestioned with the warning that on!e he makes su!h indi!ation, the poli!e may not interrogate him if the same had not yet !ommen!ed, or the interrogation has begun"

16. he person arrested must be informed that his initial waiver of his right to remain silent, the right to !ounsel or any of his rights does not bar him from invoking it at any other time during the pro!ess, regardless of whether he may have answered some 0uestions or volunteered some information or statements" 11. ,e must be informed that any statement <% 9F*D9&C9, as the !ase may be, obtained in violation of any of the foregoing, whether in!ulpatory or e(!ulpatory, in whole or in part, S,-@@ $9 *&-D)*SS*$@9 *& 9F*D9&C9. (&< 9: -ny violation of the foregoing rights of the a!!used shall entitle him to sue for damages against the arresting or investigating offi!ers in a!!ordan!e with %->3./, not to mention the possible !riminal liability of said persons under e(isting lawsA.

.61

.6+

LATEST CASES O- THE RI:HTS O. A 5ERSO- /3RI-: C3STO/IAL I-VESTI:ATIO%ights during !ustodial investigation" when !ustodial investigation is deemed to have started" right to be informed of the nature and !ause of a!!usation against him. THE 5EO5LE O. THE 5HILI55I-ES VS. JOSE TI-: LA- 3Y, JR., e# "l., 2 1 SCRA 926

Jnares-Santiago, 5. ."c#7I #or allegedly diverting and !olle!ting funds of the &ational =ower Corporation intended for the pur!hase of ?S Dollars from the ?nited Co!onut =lanters $ank (?C=$A, the a!!used-appellants were !harged of )alversation through #alsifi!ation of Commer!ial Do!uments as defined and penaliGed under -rts. +1> and 1>1 B/C in relation to -rti!le 3/ of the %evised =enal Code. -fter trial, all a!!used were !onvi!ted by the Sandiganbayan. 7hile the *nformation !harged the a!!used of will(ul "') i'#e'#io'"l co$$i77io' o( #%e "c#7 co$pl"i'e) o( while the De!ision found the a!!used &uil#y o( i'e@cu7"8le 'e&li&e'ce. -!!used <!hoa interposed an appeal and !laimed that his !onvi!tion was based on his alleged sworn statement and the trans!ript of stenographi! notes of a supposed interview with an &=C personnel and the report of the &$*. ,e maintains that he signed the sworn statement while !onfined a the =hilippine heart !enter and upon assuran!e that it would not be used against him. ,e was not assisted by !ounsel nor he was apprised of his !onstitutional rights when he e(e!uted the affidavit. ,e likewise !laimed that his !onstitutional rights to be informed of the nature and !ause of a!!usation against and due pro!ess were violated. Hel)I 1. 9ven if the information !harges willful malversation, !onvi!tion for malversation through negligen!e may still be ad8udged if the eviden!e ultimately proves that mode of !ommission of the offense. (DiaG vs. Sandiganbayan, .6+ SC%- 11/A. his was the do!trine laid down in the !ase of Samson vs. Court of appeals, 16. =hil. +>>.

.6+

.6.

+.

he !laim that his affidavit is inadmissible in eviden!e in a!!ordan!e with se!tion 1+ B1C of the $ill of %ights is not tenable. he :investigation; under said provision refers to :!ustodial investigation where a suspe!t has already been taken into poli!e !ustody and that the investigating offi!ers begin to ask 0uestions to eli!it information and !onfessions or admissions from the suspe!t. Su!!in!tly stated, !ustodial investigation refers to the !riti!al pre-trial stage when the investigation !eases to be a general in0uiry into an unsolved !rime but has began to fo!us on a parti!ular person as a suspe!t (5eople *7. /ue'"7, Jr., 296 SCRA 666 A. Clearly, therefore, the rights enumerated by the a!!used are not available $9#<%9 2<F9%&)9& *&F9S *2- <%S 9& 9% ,9 =*C ?%9. he prote!tive mantle of se!tion 1+, arti!le *** does not apply to administrative investigations ,5eople *7. Ju)&e Ay7o', 1 1 SCRA 916!" !onfession to a private individual ,Fi$po *7. CA, 939 SCRA 13!" verbal admission made to a radio announ!er who was not a part of the investigation ( 5eople *7. Or)o'o, 332 SCRA 6 3A" or even to a )ayor approa!hed as a personal !onfidante and not in his offi!ial !apa!ity (5eople *7. >uel", 393 SCRA 169A. *n fa!t, even a videotaped interview where the a!!used willingly admit his guilt in the presen!e of newsmen is not !overed by the said provision though the trial !ourts were warned by the supreme Court to take e(treme !aution in admitting similar !onfessions be!ause of the distin!t possibility that the poli!e, with the !onnivan!e of uns!rupulous media pra!titioners, may attempt to legitimiGe !oer!ed e(tra8udi!ial !onfessions and pla!e them beyond the e(!lusionary rule by having an a!!used admit an offense on television (5eople *7. E')i'o, 313 SCRA 3; A. Clearly, the !onfession of the a!!used was obtained during an administrative investigation by &=C and therefore, the same was not !overed by Se!tion 1+, -rt. *** of the Constitution. (&< 9: *n =eople vs. -ndam, the !onfession made before a )uni!ipal )ayor was held admissible as eviden!eA. =9<=@9 FS. #*2?9%<-, ..D SC%- .3' 3')er Ar#. III, Sec#io' 19 <1= o( #%e Co'7#i#u#io', " 7u7pec# i' cu7#o)i"l i'*e7#i&"#io' $u7# 8eI

1. 9. 3.

i'(or$e) o( %i7 ri&%# #o re$"i' 7ile'#+ w"r'e) #%"# "'y#%i'& %e 7"y7 c"' 8e "') will 8e u7e) "&"i'7# %i$+ #ol) #%"# %e %"7 #%e ri&%# #o cou'7el, "') #%"# i( %e i7 i')i&e'#, " l"wyer will 8e "ppoi'#e) #o repre7e'# %i$. I' #%i7 c"7e, "ccu7e)G"ppell"'# w"7 &i*e' 'o $ore #%"' " per(u'c#ory reci#"#io' o( %i7 ri&%#7, 7i&'i(yi'& 'o#%i'& $ore #%"' "
.6.

.63

(ei&'e) co$pli"'ce wi#% #%e co'7#i#u#io'"l reCuire$e'#7. ,5eople *7. S"$ol)e, July 31, 9;;;! I# i7 "lw"y7 i'cu$8e'# o' #%e pro7ecu#io' #o pro*e "# #%e #ri"l #%"#, prior #o i'Gcu7#o)y Cue7#io'i'&, #%e co'(e77"'# w"7 i'(or$e) o( %i7 co'7#i#u#io'"l ri&%#7. T%e pre7u$p#io' o( re&ul"ri#y o( o((ici"l "c#7 )oe7 'o# pre*"il o*er #%e co'7#i#u#io'"l pre7u$p#io' o( i''oce'ce. He'ce, i' #%e "87e'ce o( proo( #%"# #%e "rre7#i'& o((icer7 co$plie) wi#% #%e "8o*e co'7#i#u#io'"l 7"(e&u"r)7, e@#r"Au)ici"l 7#"#e$e'#7, w%e#%er i'culp"#ory or e@culp"#ory, $")e )uri'& #%e cu7#o)i"l i'*e7#i&"#io', "re i'")$i77i8le 'o# o'ly "&"i'7# #%e /ECLARA-T 8u# wi#% $ore 7o "&"i'7# 3r) per7o'7. THIS IS SO EVE- I. S3CH STATEME-TS ARE :OS5EL TR3TH A-/ VOL3-TARILY :IVE-. Suc% 7#"#e$e'#7 "re u7ele77 EECE5T AS EVI/E-CE A:AI-ST THE VERY 5OLICE A3THORITIES 0HO VIOLATE/ THE S3S5ECTNS RI:HTS. =9<=@9 FS. $-%*R?* , .31 SC%- 466 0%e' cu7#o)i"l i'*e7#i&"#io' i7 )ee$e) #o %"*e 7#"r#e). T%e pro#ec#io' u')er Sec#io' 19 , Ar#. III o( #%e Co'7#i#u#io' 8e&i'7 w%e' " per7o' i7 #"Le' i'#o cu7#o)y (or i'*e7#i&"#io' o( %i7 po77i8le p"r#icip"#io' i' #%e co$$i77io' o( " cri$e, or (ro$ #%e #i$e %e i7 7i'&le) ou# "7 " 7u7pec# i' #%e co$$i77io' o( #%e cri$e, "l#%ou&% 'o# ye# i' cu7#o)y. Cu7#o)i"l i'*e7#i&"#io' 8e&i'7 w%e' i# i7 'o lo'&er " &e'er"l i'Cuiry i'#o "' u'7ol*e) cri$e 8u# 7#"r#7 #o (ocu7 o' " p"r#icul"r per7o' "7 " 7u7pec#, i.e., w%e' #%e police i'*e7#i&"#or 7#"r#7 i'#erro&"#i'& or e@"c#i'& co'(e77io' (ro$ #%e 7u7pec# i' co''ec#io' wi#% "' "lle&e) o((e'7e. ,9 =@-C9 <# *& 9%%<2- *<& *S &< D9 9%)*&- *F9 <# ,9 9Q*S 9&C9 <% -$S9&C9 <# C?S <D*-@ *&F9S *2- *<& $? ,9 <&9 -&D )-&&9% <# R?9S *<&*&2 $J ,9 =<@*C9 -? ,<%* *9S. T%u7, #%ere w"7 cu7#o)i"l i'*e7#i&"#io' w%e' #%e police "u#%ori#ie7, upo' #%eir "rre7# o( 7o$e o( #%e "ccu7e), i$$e)i"#ely "7Le) #%e$ re&"r)i'& #%eir p"r#icip"#io' i' #%e co$$i77io' o( #%e cri$e , e*e' w%ile #%ey were 7#ill w"lLi'& "lo'& #%e %i&%w"y o' #%eir w"y #o #%e police 7#"#io'. T%i7 i7 li'e wi#% #%e pro*i7io'7 o( RA 236 w%ic% $"Le7 i# "pplic"8le e*e' w%e' " per7o' i7 $erely i'*i#e) (or Cue7#io'i'&.
.63

.6D

=9<=@9 FS. D-&<, 2.%. &<. 11>4'6, ..' SC%- D1D, S9= . 1, +666" =9<=@9 FS. )-J<%2-, 2.%. &<. 1.D36D, .34 SC%- 3D/, &<F9)$9% +', +666. Howe*er, spontaneous statements voluntarily given, as where appellant orally admitted killing the vi!tim before the barangay !aptain ,w%o i7 'ei#%er " police o((icer 'or " l"w e'(orce$e'# "&e'#!, )o 'o# ("ll u')er cu7#o)i"l i'*e7#i&"#io'. Suc% ")$i77io', e*e' wi#%ou# #%e "77i7#"'ce o( " l"wyer, )oe7 'o# *iol"#e "ppell"'#N7 co'7#i#u#io'"l ri&%#7 A-/ THERE.ORE A/MISSI4LE IEVI/E-CE. =9<=@9 FS. D-&<, 2.%. &<. 11>4'6, ..' SC%- D1D, S9= . 1, +666" =9<=@9 FS. S-)<@D9, 2.%. &<. 1+/DD1, ..4 SC%- 4.+, 5?@. .1, +666. To 8e ")$i77i8le i' e*i)e'ce, "' e@#r"Au)ici"l co'(e77io' $u7# 8eI (iA voluntary" (iiA made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel" (iiiA e(press" and (ivA in writing. A 7u7pec#N7 co'(e77io', w%e#%er *er8"l or 'o'G*er8"l, w%e' #"Le' wi#%ou# #%e "77i7#"'ce o( cou'7el, wi#%ou# " *"li) w"i*er o( 7uc% "77i7#"'ce, re&"r)le77 o( #%e "87e'ce o( coercio' or #%e ("c# #%"# i# %") 8ee' *olu'#"rily &i*e', is inadmissible in eviden!e, even if appellant1s !onfession were gospel truth. %e0uisites of a valid e(tra8udi!ial !onfession 5EO5LE O. THE 5HILI55I-ES *7. ROM3LO T3-IACO, ET AL., :.R. -o. 161 1;, J"'u"ry 1;, 9;1; A4A/, J.: his !ase is about the re0uirements of a valid e(tra8udi!ial !onfession and the establishment of the e(isten!e of corpus delicti in murder !ases. T%e ."c#7 "') #%e C"7e
.6D

.64

he !ity prose!utor of 2eneral Santos City !harged the a!!used %omulo unia!o, 5effrey Datulayta, and -le( -leman with murder before the %egional rial Court (% CA of 2eneral Santos City in Criminal Case /.>6. $ased on the findings of the % C, in the morning of 5une 1., 1''+ some poli!e offi!ers from the @agao =oli!e Sub-Station re0uested poli!e offi!er 5aime abu!on of the Central =oli!e Station of 2eneral Santos City homi!ide division to take the statement of a!!used -le( -leman regarding the slaying of a !ertain Dondon CorteG. <n his arrival at the sub-station, abu!on noted the presen!e of -tty. %uperto $esinga, 5r. of the =ubli! -ttorney1s <ffi!e (=-<A who was !onversing with those taken into !ustody for the offense. 7hen 0ueried if the suspe!ts would be willing to give their statements, -tty. $esinga said that they were. Some other poli!e offi!er first took the statement of a!!used 5effrey Datulayta. <ffi!er abu!on ne(t took the statement of a!!used -leman, whom he observed to be in good physi!al shape. $efore anything else, offi!er abu!on informed a!!used -leman in Cebuano of his !onstitutional right to remain silent and to the assistan!e of !ounsel of his own !hoi!e and asked him if he was willing to give a statement. -leman answered in the affirmative. 7hen asked if he had any !omplaint to make, -leman said that he had none. 7hen -leman said that he had no lawyer, abu!on pointed to -tty. $esinga who !laimed that he was assisting all the suspe!ts in the !ase. abu!on warned -leman that anything he would say may be used against him later in !ourt. -fterwards, the poli!e offi!er started taking down -leman1s statement. -!!used -leman said that in the !ourse of a drinking bout with a!!used Datulayta and unia!o at around ' p.m. on 5une 4, 1''+, Dondon CorteG threatened to report his drinking !ompanions1 illegal a!tivities to the poli!e unless they gave him money for his forth!oming marriage. -!!ording to -leman, Datulayta and unia!o had already planned to kill CorteG in upi, South Cotabato, for making the same threats and now they de!ided to do it. hey got CorteG drunk then led him out supposedly to get the money he needed. he three a!!used brought CorteG to -popong near the dump site and, as they were walking, a!!used -leman turned on CorteG and stabbed him on the stoma!h. -!!used Datulayta, on the other hand, drew out his single shot homemade )14 pistol and shot CorteG on the head, !ausing him to fall. Datulayta handed over the gun to -leman who fired another shot on CorteG1s head. -!!used unia!o used the same gun to pump some bullets into CorteG1s body. hen they !overed him with ri!e husks. -fter taking down the statement, abu!on e(plained the substan!e of it to a!!used -leman who then signed it in the presen!e of -tty. $esinga.
.64

.6>

<n 5une 1D, 1''+ the poli!e brought -leman to the City =rose!utor1s <ffi!e where he swore to his statement before an assistant !ity prose!utor. *n the afternoon, a!!used Datulayta and -leman led abu!on, the !ity prose!utor, and a poli!e inspe!tor, to the dump site where they left their vi!tim1s body. -fter some sear!h, the group found a spot !overed with burnt ri!e husks and a partially burnt body of a man. -bout a foot from the body, they found the shells of a D.D4 !aliber gun and an armalite rifle. <n being arraigned, all three a!!used, assisted by -tty. $esinga, pleaded not guilty to the murder !harge. -fter the prose!ution rested its !ase, a!!used unia!o filed a demurrer to eviden!e whi!h the Court granted, resulting in the dismissal of the !ase against him. <n being re-arraigned at his re0uest, a!!used Datulayta pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of ,omi!ide. he trial !ourt senten!ed him to imprisonment of si( years and one day and to pay =D6,666.66 to the vi!tim1s family. #or some reason, the trial !ourt had -leman sub8e!ted to psy!hiatri! e(amination at the Davao )ental ,ospital. $ut, shortly after, the hospital sent word that -leman had es!aped. ,e was later re!aptured. 7hen trial in the !ase resumed, -leman1s new =-< lawyer raised the defense of insanity. his prompted the !ourt to re0uire the =rovin!ial 5ail 7arden to issue a !ertifi!ation regarding -leman1s behavior and mental !ondition while in 8ail to determine if he was fit to stand trial. he warden !omplied, stating that -leman had been observed to have good mental !ondition and did not !ommit any infra!tion while in 8ail. -lthough the prose!ution and defense stipulated that -tty. $esinga assisted a!!used -leman during the taking of his e(tra8udi!ial !onfession, the latter, however, re!anted what he said to the poli!e during the trial. ,e testified that sometime in 1''+, some poli!e offi!ers took him from his aunt1s house in =urok =alen, @abangal, 2eneral Santos City, and brought him to the @agao poli!e station. ,e was there asked to admit having taken part in the murder of CorteG. 7hen he refused, they tortured him until he agreed to sign a do!ument admitting his part in the !rime. -!!used -leman also testified that he !ould not remember having been assisted by -tty. $esinga during the poli!e investigation. ,e even denied ever knowing the lawyer. -leman further denied prior asso!iation with a!!used unia!o and Datulayta. ,e said that he met them only at the !ity 8ail where they were detained for the death of CorteG. <n <!tober /, +661 the % C rendered 8udgment, finding a!!used -leman guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the !rime !harged, and senten!ed him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. he !ourt also ordered him to pay death indemnity of =>6,666.66 and moral damages of =D6,666.66 to the heirs of CorteG.
.6>

.6/

<n appeal to the Court of -ppeals (C-A in C--2.%. C%-,C 66.11, the !ourt rendered 8udgment on 5anuary +1, +66/, affirming the de!ision of the % C with the modifi!ation that dire!ted a!!used -leman and Datulayta to indemnify the heirs of CorteG, 8ointly and severally, in the amounts of =D6,666.66 as !ivil indemnity" =D6,666.66 as moral damages" =+D,666.66 as temperate damages" and =+D,666.66 as e(emplary damages. -leman appealed to this Court. T%e I77ue7 5re7e'#e) -!!used -leman raises two issues: aA whether or not the prose!ution was able to present eviden!e of corpus delicti" and bA whether or not a!!used -leman1s e(tra8udi!ial !onfession is admissible in eviden!e. T%e Ruli'&7 o( #%e Cour# 1. Corpus delicti has been defined as the body, foundation, or substan!e of a !rime. he eviden!e of a dead body with a gunshot wound on its ba!k would be eviden!e that murder has been !ommitted. Corpus delicti has two elements: (aA that a !ertain result has been established, for e(ample, that a man has died and (bA that some person is !riminally responsible for it. he prose!ution is burdened to prove corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt either by dire!t eviden!e or by !ir!umstantial or presumptive eviden!e. he defense !laims that the prose!ution failed to prove corpus delicti sin!e it did not bother to present a medi!al !ertifi!ate identifying the remains found at the dump site and an autopsy report showing su!h remains sustained gunshot and stab wounds that resulted in death" and the shells of the guns used in killing the vi!tim. $ut corpus delicti need not be proved by an autopsy report of the dead vi!tim1s body or even by the testimony of the physi!ian who e(amined su!h body. 7hile su!h report or testimony is useful for understanding the nature of the in8uries the vi!tim suffered, they are not indispensable proof of su!h in8uries or of the fa!t of death. &or is the presentation of the murder weapons also indispensable sin!e the physi!al e(isten!e of su!h weapons is not an element of the !rime of murder. ,ere, the poli!e authorities found the remains of CorteG at the pla!e pointed to by a!!used -leman. hat physi!al !onfirmation, !oming after his testimony of the gruesome murder, suffi!iently establishes the corpus delicti of the !rime. <f !ourse, that statement must be admissible in eviden!e. +. here is no reason for it not to be . Co'(e77io' #o 8e ")$i77i8le $u7# 8e "! *olu'#"ry+ 8! $")e wi#% #%e "77i7#"'ce o( " co$pe#e'# "') i')epe')e'# cou'7el+ c! e@pre77+ "') )! i' wri#i'&. hese re0uirements were met here. - lawyer, not working with or was not beholden to the poli!e, -tty.
.6/

.6'

$esinga, assisted a!!used -leman during the !ustodial investigation. <ffi!er abu!on testified that he saw a!!used -leman, before the taking of his statement, !onversing with !ounsel at the poli!e station. -tty. $esinga did not dispute this !laim. -leman alleges torture as the reason for the e(e!ution of the !onfession. he appellate !ourt is !orre!t in ruling that su!h allegation is baseless. *t is a settled rule that where the defendant did not present eviden!e of !ompulsion, where he did not institute any !riminal or administrative a!tion against his supposed intimidators, where no physi!al eviden!e of violen!e was presented, all these will be !onsidered as indi!ating voluntariness. ,ere, although -leman !laimed that he bore torture marks on his head, he never brought this to the attention of his !ounsel, his relatives, or the prose!utor who administered his oath. -!!used -leman !laims, !iting #eople v. +alit, that long 0uestions followed by monosyllabi! answers do not satisfy the re0uirement that the a!!used is amply informed of his rights. $ut this does not apply here. abu!on testified that he spoke to -leman !learly in the language he knew. -leman, 8oined by -tty. $esinga, even signed a !ertifi!ation that the investigator suffi!iently e(plained to him his !onstitutional rights and that he was still willing to give his statement. #urther, -leman asserts that he was la!king in edu!ation and so he did not fully realiGe the !onse0uen!es of a !onfession. $ut as the C- said, no law or 8urispruden!e re0uires the poli!e offi!er to as!ertain the edu!ational attainment of the a!!used. -ll that is needed is an effe!tive !ommuni!ation between the interrogator and the suspe!t to the end that the latter is able to understand his rights. his appears to have been done in this !ase. )oreover, as the lower !ourt noted, it is improbable that the poli!e fabri!ated -leman1s !onfession and 8ust for!ed him to sign it. he !onfession has details that only the person who !ommitted the !rime !ould have possibly known. 7hat is more, a!!used Datulayta1s !onfession !orroborate that of -leman in important details. ?nder the do!trine of interloc@ing confessions, su!h !orroboration is !ir!umstantial eviden!e against the person impli!ated in it. Cu7#o)i"l I'*e7#i&"#io' 8e(ore B4"'#"y 4"y"' Me$8er7 reCuire7 #%"# #%e 7u7pec# 8e i'(or$e) o( %i7 E@p"')e) Mir"')" Ri&%#7+ o#%erwi7e, #%e e*i)e'ce o8#"i'e) 7%"ll 8e i'")$i77i8le i' e*i)e'ce.

.6'

.16

5EO5LE O. THE 5HILI55I-ES VS. A-TO-IO LA3:A, :.R. -o. 166996, M"rc% 11, 9;1; 5ERE>, J.: Consistent with the ruling of this Court in #eople v. Ca'alCuinto, the real name and the personal !ir!umstan!es of the vi!tim, and any other information tending to establish or !ompromise her identity, in!luding those of her immediate family or household members, are not dis!losed in this de!ision. The :a t" *n an *nformation dated +1 September +666, the appellant was a!!used of the !rime of R?-@*#*9D %-=9 allegedly !ommitted as follows: hat on or about the 1Dth day of )ar!h +666, in the evening, at $arangay (((, muni!ipality of (((, provin!e of $ukidnon, =hilippines, and within the 8urisdi!tion of this ,onorable Court, the above-named a!!used, being the father of --- with lewd design, with the use of for!e and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and !riminally have !arnal knowledge with his own daughter ---, a 1. yearBsCold minor against her will. <n 1+ <!tober +666, appellant entered a plea of not guilty. During the pre-trial !onferen!e, the prose!ution and the defense stipulated and admitted: (aA the !orre!tness of the findings indi!ated in the medi!al !ertifi!ate of the physi!ian who e(amined ---" (bA that --- was only thirteen (1.A years old when the alleged offense was !ommitted" and (!A that --- is the daughter of the appellant. <n trial, three (.A witnesses testified for the prose!ution, namely: vi!tim ---" her brother $$$" and one )oises $oy $anting, a : 'antay 'ayan; in the 'arangay. heir testimonies revealed the following: *n the afternoon of 1D )ar!h +666, --- was left alone at home. ---1s father, the appellant, was having a drinking spree at the neighbor1s pla!e. ,er mother de!ided to leave be!ause when appellant gets drunk, he has the habit of mauling ---1s mother. ,er only brother $$$ also went out in the !ompany of some neighbors. -t around 16:66 o1!lo!k in the evening, appellant woke --- up" removed his pants, slid inside the blanket !overing --- and removed her pants and underwear" warned her not to shout for help while threatening her with his fist" and told her that he had a knife pla!ed above her head. ,e pro!eeded to mash her breast, kiss her repeatedly, and :inserted his penis inside her vagina.;

.16

.11

Soon after, $$$ arrived and found --- !rying. -ppellant !laimed he s!olded her for staying out late. $$$ de!ided to take --- with him. 7hile on their way to their maternal grandmother1s house, --- re!ounted her harrowing e(perien!e with their father. ?pon rea!hing their grandmother1s house, they told their grandmother and un!le of the in!ident, after whi!h, they sought the assistan!e of )oises $oy $anting. )oises $oy $anting found appellant in his house wearing only his underwear. ,e invited appellant to the poli!e station, to whi!h appellant obliged. -t the poli!e outpost, he admitted to him that he raped --- be!ause he was unable to !ontrol himself. he following day, --- submitted herself to physi!al e(amination. Dra. 5osefa -rlita @. -lsula, )uni!ipal ,ealth <ffi!er of ( ( (, $ukidnon, issued the )edi!al Certifi!ate, whi!h reads: hyperemi! vulvae with 3 o1!lo!k P 4 o1!lo!k freshly la!erated hymen" (^A minimal to moderate bloody dis!harges +_ to an alleged raping in!ident <n the other hand, only appellant testified for the defense. ,e believed that the !harge against him was ill-motivated be!ause he sometimes physi!ally abuses his wife in front of their !hildren after engaging in a heated argument, and beats the !hildren as a dis!iplinary measure. ,e went further to narrate how his day was on the date of the alleged rape. he lone assignment of error in the appellant1s brief is that, the trial !ourt gravely erred in finding him guilty as !harged despite the failure of the prose!ution to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, be!ause: (1A there were in!onsisten!ies in the testimonies of --- and her brother $$$" (+A his e(tra8udi!ial !onfession before )oises $oy $anting was without the assistan!e of a !ounsel, in violation of his !onstitutional right" and (.A ---1s a!!usation was ill-motivated. .,=1 -ppellant !ontests the admissibility in eviden!e of his alleged !onfession with a :'antay 'ayan; and the !redibility of the witnesses for the prose!ution. Ad(i""i4ility in ,!iden e of an ,%tra6#di ial Confe""ion 4efore a <+antay +ayanE -ppellant argues that even if he, indeed, !onfessed to )oises $oy $anting, a :'antay 'ayan,; the !onfession was inadmissible in eviden!e be!ause he was not assisted by a lawyer and there was no valid waiver of su!h re0uirement.

.11

.1+

he !ase of #eople v. Malngan is the authority on the s!ope of )iranda do!trine provided for under -rti!le ***, Se!tion 1+(1A and (.A of Constitution. *n Malngan, appellant 0uestioned the admissibility of e(tra8udi!ial !onfessions given to the barangay !hairman and a neighbor of private !omplainant. his Court distinguished. hus: Argua'ly, the 'arangay tanods, in!luding the arangay Chairman, in this parti!ular instan!e, (ay 8e )ee$e) "7 l"w e'(orce$e'# o((icer (or purpo7e7 o( "pplyi'& Ar#icle III, Sec#io' 19,1! "') ,3!, o( #%e Co'7#i#u#io'. 7hen a!!usedappellant was brought to the barangay hall in the morning of + 5anuary +661, she was already a suspe!t, a!tually the only one, in the fire that destroyed several houses ( ( (. She was, therefore, already under !ustodial investigation and the rights guaranteed by ( ( ( BtheC Constitution should have already been observed or applied to her. -!!used-appellant1s !onfession to $arangay Chairman ( ( ( was made in response to the Kinterrogation1 made by the latter I admittedly !ondu!ted without first informing a!!used-appellant of her rights under the Constitution or done in the presen!e of !ounsel. #or this reason, the !onfession of a!!used-appellant, given to $arangay Chairman ( ( (, as well as the lighter found ( ( ( in her bag are i'")$i77i8le i' e*i)e'ce against her ( ( (. B$ut su!h doesC not automati!ally lead to her a!0uittal. ( ( ( B Che !onstitutional safeguards during !ustodial investigations )o 'o# "pply #o #%o7e 'o# elici#e) #%rou&% Cue7#io'i'& 8y #%e police or #%eir "&e'#7 but given in an ordinary manner whereby the a!!used verbally admits ( ( ( as ( ( ( in the !ase at bar when a!!usedappellant admitted to )er!edita )endoGa, one of the neighbors ( ( ( Bof the private !omplainantC. 6Emp2asis supplied9

the the her the

#ollowing the rationale behind the ruling in Malngan, this Court needs to as!ertain whether or not a :'antay 'ayan; may be deemed a law enfor!ement offi!er within the !ontemplation of -rti!le ***, Se!tion 1+ of the Constitution. *n #eople of t2e #2ilippines v. uendia, this Court had the o!!asion to mention #%e '"#ure o( " B4antay 4ayan,D #%"# i7, B" &roup o( $"le re7i)e'#7 li*i'& i' <#%e= "re" or&"'iJe) (or #%e purpo7e o( Leepi'& pe"ce i' #%eir co$$u'i#y<,w%ic% i7= "' "ccre)i#e) "u@ili"ry o( #%e @ @ @ 5-5.D -lso, it may be worthy to !onsider that pursuant to Se!tion 1(gA of 9(e!utive <rder &o. .6' issued on 11 &ovember 1'/>, as amended, a =ea!e and <rder Committee in ea!h 'arangay shall be organiGed :to serve as implementing arm of the CityE)uni!ipal =ea!e and <rder Coun!il at the arangay level.; he !omposition of the Committee in!ludes, among others: (1A the #unong arangay
.1+

.1.

as Chairman" (+A the Chairman of the "angguniang Sa'ataan" (.A a )ember of the Lupon &agapamayapa" (3A a arangay &anod" and (DA "# le"7# #%ree ,3! Me$8er7 o( e@i7#i'& +aran*ayG4"7e) A'#iGCri$e or 'ei&%8or%oo) 0"#c% :roup7 or " -o' :o*er'$e'# Or&"'iJ"#io' Repre7e'#"#i*e wellGL'ow' i' %i7 co$$u'i#y. T%i7 Cour# i7, #%ere(ore, co'*i'ce) #%"# 4aran*ayG8"7e) *olu'#eer or&"'iJ"#io'7 i' #%e '"#ure o( w"#c% &roup7, "7 i' #%e c"7e o( #%e B 4antay 4ayan,D "re reco&'iJe) 8y #%e loc"l &o*er'$e'# u'i# #o per(or$ (u'c#io'7 rel"#i'& #o #%e pre7er*"#io' o( pe"ce "') or)er "# #%e 4aran*ay le*el. hus, without ruling on the legality of the a!tions taken by )oises $oy $anting, and the spe!ifi! s!ope of duties and responsibilities delegated to a :'antay 'ayan,; parti!ularly on the authority to !ondu!t a !ustodial investigation, "'y i'Cuiry %e $"Le7 %"7 #%e color o( " 7#"#eGrel"#e) (u'c#io' "') o8Aec#i*e i'7o("r "7 #%e e'#i#le$e'# o( " 7u7pec# #o %i7 co'7#i#u#io'"l ri&%#7 pro*i)e) (or u')er Ar#icle III, Sec#io' 19 o( #%e Co'7#i#u#io', o#%erwi7e L'ow' "7 #%e Mir"')" Ri&%#7, i7 co'cer'e). 7e, therefore, find the e(tra8udi!ial !onfession of appellant, whi!h was taken without a !ounsel, inadmissible in eviden!e. $e that as it may, 7e agree with the Court of -ppeals that the !onvi!tion of the appellant was not dedu!ed solely from the assailed e(tra8udi!ial !onfession but :from the !onfluen!e of eviden!e showing his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.; Volu'#"ry "') 7po'#"'eou7 co'(e77io' o( " 7u7pec# w%o i7 "lre")y u')er cu7#o)y o( #%e police i7 ")$i77i8le i' e*i)e'ce e*e' i' #%e "87e'ce o( cou'7el. 5EO5LE O. THE 5HILI55I-ES VS. VICTOR VILLARI-O, :.R.-O. 161;19, MARCH 1, 9;1; .ACTSI <n -pril +/, 1''D, :$$$;, together with her 16-year old daughter :---; and her younger son :CCC; went to the house of their relative in arangay :D; to attend the fiesta to be held the ne(t day. <n even date, from >:66 o1!lo!k to ':66 o1!lo!k in the evening, S=<3 5esus 2enoguin (S=<3 2enoguinA was in his house in arangay :D; entertaining his guests, one of whom was appellant. 7hile personally serving food and drinks to appellant, S=63 2enoguin noti!ed that the latter was wearing a bra!elet and a ne!kla!e with pendant. -ppellant even allowed S=<3 2enoguin to put on the bra!elet.
.1.

.13

<n -pril +', 1''D, at around ':66 o1!lo!k in the morning, the appellant who was on his way to arangay :D;, passed by the house of %odrigo <la8e (%odrigoA. -t that time, %odrigo noti!ed appellant wearing a bra!elet and a ne!kla!e with pendant. ,e was also wearing a white sleeveless t-shirt (sandoA. -t 11:66 o1!lo!k in the morning, appellant was at the house of :$$$1s; aunt. :$$$; offered him food. :$$$; also noti!ed that he was dressed in a white sando and that he wore 8ewelry !onsisting of a bra!elet and a ne!kla!e with pendant. -t 1:66 o1!lo!k in the afternoon, he was seen wearing the same sando and 8ewelry while drinking at the basketball !ourt in arangay :D;. -t around .:66 o1!lo!k in the afternoon, :$$$; told :---; to go home to arangay :D1; to get a t-shirt for her brother. :---; obeyed. ,owever, she no longer returned. 7hile :$$$; was an(iously waiting for :---; in the house of her aunt in arangay :D;, she re!eived information that a dead !hild had been found in arangay :D1;. She pro!eeded to the area where she identified the !hild1s body as that of her daughter, :---;. -t around 3:66 o1!lo!k in the afternoon, %odrigo, who was the 'arangay !aptain of arangay :D1; re!eived information that a dead !hild was found in their 'arangay. ,e instru!ted a 'arangay tanod to inform the poli!e about the in!ident. hereafter, %odrigo pro!eeded to the spe!ified area together with other 'arangay tanods. S=<3 2enoguin also went to the !rime s!ene after being informed by his !ommander. ?pon arrival, he saw the !orpse of a little girl behind a big boulder that was about 16 meters away from the trail 8un!tion of the 'arangays. =eople had gathered seven to 16 meters away from the dead body, but no one dared to approa!h. :---1s; lifeless body lay fa!e up with her butto!ks on top of a small ro!k. ,er body was slanted downward with her legs spread apart and dangling on the sides of the small boulder. She was no longer wearing short pants and panty, and blood ooGed from her vagina. 7rapped around her right hand, whi!h was positioned near her right ear, was a white sando. :---1s; panty was found a meter away from her body, while her short pants was about two meters farther. - bra!elet and a pendant were also re!overed from the !rime s!ene. %odrigo and :$$$; identified these pie!es of 8ewelry as those seen on the appellant. hey also identified the sando on :---1s; arm as the appellant1s. hus, the hunt for appellant began. <n the same day, the appellant was found in the house of -urelia Susmena near the seashore of arangay :D1;. ,e was drunk and violent. ,e resisted arrest and had to be bodily !arried to the motorboat that would take him to the muni!ipal building in -lmagro, Samar. he arresting team made the appellant take off his !lothes sin!e they were wet. 7hen he !omplied, his briefs revealed bloodstains.

.13

.1D

<n )ay +, 1''D, the poli!e brought appellant to Calbayog City for medi!al e(amination sin!e he had s!rat!hes and abrasions on his body. 7hile waiting for a boat ride at 3:66 o1!lo!k in the morning, the poli!e team took a !offee break. S=<3 2enoguin was momentarily left alone to guard the appellant. During this short period, the appellant voluntarily admitted to S=<3 2enoguin that he !ommitted the !rime !harged. ,e also told S=<3 2enoguin that he !ould keep the pendant and bra!elet if he would retrieve the t-shirt and throw it into the sea. S=<3 2enoguin re8e!ted the appellant1s offer and reminded him of his right to a !ounsel and that everything the appellant said !ould be used against him in !ourt. ?nperturbed, the appellant reiterated his offer. 7hen they boarded the motorboat, the appellant repeatedly offered to give S=<3 2enoguin =+6,666.66 if he would throw the sando into the sea. ,owever, the poli!e offi!er ignored the offer and instead reported the matter to the Chief of =oli!e of -lmagro, S=<3 $asilio ). Jabao. @ater, the appellant1s mother, #eli!idad )abute y @egaspi, asked him not to testify against her son. -t the Calbayog Distri!t ,ospital, Senior %esident =hysi!ian Dr. 5ose F. <ng, found that appellant1s body had 16 healed abrasions and two linear abrasions or s!rat!hes, parti!ularly, on his breast, knees, as well as right and left ears, that !ould have been !aused by fingernails. <n -ugust ., 1''D, an *nformation was filed !harging appellant Fi!tor Fillarino y )abute with the spe!ial !omple( !rime of rape with homi!ide. he *nformation !ontained the following a!!usatory allegations: hat on or about the +'th day of -pril, 1''D, at about D:66 o1!lo!k in the afternoon, at $arangay :D1;, )uni!ipality of -lmagro, =rovin!e of Samar, =hilippines, and within the 8urisdi!tion of this ,onorable Court, the above named a!!used, with lewd design, by means of for!e, violen!e and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have !arnal knowledge against a minor ten (16A years Bsi!C, :---;, without the latter1s !onsent and against her will, and thereafter, with deliberate intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously infli!t upon the said :---; mortal wounds on ( ( ( different parts of her body, whi!h !aused her untimely death. C<& %-%J < @-7. -ppellant pleaded not guilty to the !rime !harged. -fter the termination of the pre-trial !onferen!e, trial ensued. he % C found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the !omple( !rime of %ape with ,omi!ide and senten!ed to Death. ISS3EI

.1D

.14

*s a!!used-appellant1s voluntary !onfession to S=<3 2enoguin admissible in eviden!eN HEL/I *n the instant !ase, appellant voluntarily !onfessed to raping and killing :---; to S=<3 2enoguin. ,e even offered to give the pie!es of 8ewelry to the latter if his sando is thrown into the sea. he appellant did not deny this a!!usation nor assail its truthfulness. 7hen appellant !onfessed to the !rime, he was alone with S=<3 2enoguin, and no for!e or intimidation was employed against him. he !onfession was spontaneously made and not eli!ited through 0uestioning. he trial !ourt did not, therefore, err in holding that !omplian!e with the !onstitutional pro!edure on !ustodial interrogation is not appli!able in the instant !ase. *n #eople v. %y, we held that: Contrary to the defense !ontention, the oral !onfession made by the -!!used to =at. =adilla that :he had shot a tourist; and that the gun he had used in shooting the vi!tim was in his bar whi!h he wanted surrendered to the Chief of =oli!e (t.s.n., <!tober 1>, 1'/3, pp. 4-'A, is !ompetent eviden!e against him. he de!laration of an a!!used a!knowledging his guilt of the offense !harged may be given in eviden!e against him (Se!. +', %ule 1.6, %ules of CourtA. *t may in a sense be also regarded as part of the res gestae. he rule is that, any person, otherwise !ompetent as a witness, who heard the !onfession, is !ompetent to testify as to the substan!e of what he heard if he heard and understood all of it. -n oral !onfession need not be repeated verbatim, but in su!h a !ase it must be given in substan!e (+. C.5.S. 1'4, !ited in #eople v. &a?at, 2.%. &o. 4+/>1, )ay +D, 1'/D, 1+' SC%- 3.1A. 7hat was told by the -!!used to =at. =adilla was a spontaneous statement not eli!ited through 0uestioning, but given in an ordinary manner. &o written !onfession was sought to be presented in eviden!e as a result of formal !ustodial investigation. (#eople v. &aylaran, 2.%. &o. @-1'13', <!tober .1, 1'/1, 16/ SC%- .>.A. he rial Court, therefore, !annot be held to have erred in holding that !omplian!e with the !onstitutional pro!edure on !ustodial interrogation is not appli!able in the instant !ase, as the defense alleges in its 9rror F**. -t any rate, even without his !onfession, appellant !ould still be !onvi!ted of the !omple( !rime of rape with homi!ide. he prose!ution established his !ompli!ity in the !rime through !ir!umstantial eviden!e whi!h were !redible and suffi!ient, and led to the ines!apable !on!lusion that the appellant !ommitted the !omple( !rime of rape with homi!ide. 7hen !onsidered together, the !ir!umstan!es point to the appellant as the !ulprit.
.14

.1>

+. 2uidelines for poli!e investigation %ead: 1.9s!obedo vs. *llinois, .>/ ?S 3>/ +. )iranda vs. -riGona, ./3 ?S 3.4 .. =. vs. Duero, 163 SC%- .>' +-a. Duties of the =oli!e or -rresting <ffi!ers %ead: 1. =. vs. )atos-Fiduya, Sept. 11, 1''6 1-a. = vs. &i!andro, 131 SC%- +/' +. = vs. Duhan, 13+ SC%- 166 .. = vs. Caguioa, 'D SC%- + 3. = vs. %amos, 1++ SC%- .1+ .. o be informed of the %ight to remain silent" !ases %ead: 1. Constitutional right to remain silent,163 SC%1-a. =eople vs. )ar!os 5imeneG, De!. 16, 1''1 9(tra8udi!ial !onfession" !ounsel of !hoi!e .'1 in parti!ular

%ight to !ounsel during !ustodial investigation" while making an e(tra8udi!ial !onfession

5EO5LE VS. 5AT3-:A-, 312 SCRA 213 he a!!used was under !oer!ive and un!ounselled !ustodial investigation by the poli!e without a lawyer for + and a half days . hen, he was brought to the *$= <ffi!e where a lawyer assisted him in his e(tra8udi!ial !onfession. 0e "re i'cli'e) #o 8elie*e #%"# w%e' %e w"7 8rou&%# #o #%e I45 O((ice, %i7 8o)y "') %i7 will were i' 'o po7i#io' #o r"i7e "'y o8Aec#io' $uc% le77 #o co$pl"i'# #o #%e I45 l"wyer "8ou# w%"# %e %"7 &o'e #%rou&%. I' ("c#, #%e I45 l"wyer w"7 worLi'& o' "' "ppe"l i' "'o#%er c"7e w%ile #%e e@#r"Au)ici"l co'(e77io' w"7 8ei'& #"Le'.

.1>

.1/

he mere presen!e of a lawyer is not suffi!ient !omplian!e with the !onstitutional re0uirement of assistan!e of !ounsel. -ssistan!e of !ounsel must be effe!tive, vigilant and independent. - lawyer who !ould 8ust hear the investigation going on while working on another !ase hardly satisfies the minimum re0uirements of effe!tive assistan!e of !ounsel. &ot only was the a!!used sub8e!ted to !ustodial investigation without !ounsel, he was likewise denied effe!tive assistan!e of !ounsel during the taking of his e(tra-8udi!ial !onfession. 5EO5LE V. JIME-E> :.R.-o. 696;2. /ece$8er 1;, 1991 &-%F-S-, 5.: #-C S: <n -ugust 1., 1'/D, poli!e authorities, a!ting upon a report, !ame upon the !orpse of =elagio 5imeneG below a !liff near a balite tree. he poli!e investigators learned that )ar!os, the son of the de!eased =elagio 5imeneG told his mother that his father had not !ome home the previous night: that the sear!h for the de!eased, who was living separately from them, !ommen!ed a day earlier but it was not until the morning of the following day, -ugust 1., 1'/D, that de!eased =elagio was finally found dead. hey also learned from the persons they interviewed of !ir!umstan!es that drew their suspi!ion to the son, )ar!os and %obert, su!h as" the bathing at the artesian well Has if washing away stains of bloodH" the de!easedSs violent 0uarrels with his !hildren and o!!asions that he had been bo(ed and hit by his !hildren. he poli!e had invited the de!easedSs widow and her sons for 0uestioning about the killing. - draft of the !onfession was prepared by the investigating offi!er but )ar!os was not able to sign the same due to the absen!e of the 8udge before whom it is supposed to be sworn and signed. )ar!os agreed to !ome ba!k and sign his statement, but upon his return, he, assisted by a former 8udge whose presen!e was re0uested by the poli!e authorities, refused to sign his statement. Subse0uently, an information for parri!ide was filed against the widow and her sons, )ar!os, %obert, and 7ilkins. *n an order dated 5uly +1, 1'/4, the trial !ourt absolved the widow and 7ilkins of any parti!ipation in the filling for la!k of proof. <n De!ember 1+. 1'/4, the trial !ourt found )ar!os and %obert guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the !rime of parri!ide, noting that the unsigned !onfession is admissible in eviden!e inasmu!h as eviden!e aliunde !orroborated su!h !onfession. $oth a!!used !ontest su!h ruling. ,en!e this appeal. *SS?9:
.1/

.1'

*s the e(tra8udi!ial !onfession of )ar!os admissible in eviden!eN ,9@D: &o. De!ision reversed. Se!tion 1+ (1A, -rti!le *** <# ,9 1'/> Constitution de!lares that a person being investigated by the poli!e as a suspe!t in an offense has the right, among others, (1A to have a !ompetent and independent !ounsel of his own !hoi!e and if he !annot afford the servi!es of !ounsel, he must be provided with one" and that (+A said right !annot be waived e(!ept in writing and in the presen!e of !ounsel. T%e l"wyer w%o "77i7#7 #%e 7u7pec# u')er cu7#o)i"l i'#erro&"#io' 7%oul) 8e o( #%e l"##erU7 ow' c%oice, 'o# o'e (oi7#e) o' %i$ 8y #%e police i'*e7#i&"#or7 or o#%er p"r#ie7. I' #%i7 c"7e, #%e (or$er Au)&e w%o7e "77i7#"'ce w"7 reCue7#e) 8y #%e police w"7 e*i)e'#ly 'o# o( M"rco7 Ji$e'eJU ow' c%oice+ 7%e w"7 #%e police o((icer7U ow' c%oice+ 7%e )i) 'o# "7L M"rco7 i( w"7 i7 willi'& #o %"*e %er repre7e'# %i$. T%i7 i7 'o# #%e $o)e o( 7olici#"#io' o( le&"l "77i7#"'ce co'#e$pl"#e) 8y #%e co'7#i#u#io'. #urthermore, the former 8udge was not present when )ar!os was being interrogated by the poli!e. 7hile she asked him if he had voluntarily given the statements !ontained in the typewritten do!ument, this is far from being substantial !omplian!e with the !onstitutional duty of poli!e investigators during !ustodial interrogation. he typewritten !onfession is unsigned and was in fa!t e(pressly re8e!ted by )ar!os. ,en!e, the supposed waiver made therein of his !onstitutional right to !ounsel of his own !hoi!e. &either !an the !onfession pre8udi!e his !o-a!!used, his brother %obert, not only be!ause it was obtained in violation of the !onstitution but also be!ause of the prin!iple of res inter alios a!ta. he interrogation of )ar!os 5imeneG having been !ondu!ted without the assistan!e of !ounsel, and no valid waiver of su!h right to !ounsel have been made, not only the !onfession but also any admissible obtained in the !ourse thereof are inadmissible against him or his !o a!!used. *n view of the inadmissibility in eviden!e of the !onfession, the rest of the eviden!e of the prose!ution is inade0uate to over!ome the presumption of inno!en!e raised by the fundamental law in favor of both the a!!used.

.1'

.+6

9(tra8udi!ial !onfession without the assistan!e of !ounsel, inadmissible as eviden!e" e(!eption =9<=@9 FS. =-&#*@< C-$*@9S, +/3 SC%- 1''" =9<=@9 FS. -&, +/4 SC%- +6> )elo, 5. 9ven if the !onfession of the a!!used speaks of the truth, if it was made without the assistan!e of !ounsel, it is inadmissible in eviden!e regardless of the absen!e of !oer!ion or even if it was voluntarily given. *n order that a !onfession is admissible, the following re0uisites must be present: a. the !onfession must be voluntary" b. the !onfession must be made with the assistan!e of a !ompetent and independent !ounsel" !. the !onfession must be e(press" and d. the !onfession must be in writing. he above re0uirements, however, are not appli!able when the suspe!t makes an spontaneous statement, not eli!ited through 0uestioning by the authorities, $? 2*F9& *& -& <%D*&-%J )-&&9% 7,9%9$J ,9 -CC?S9D <%-@@J -D)* 9D ,-F*&2 C<))* 9D ,9 C%*)9. his was the de!ision of the Supreme Court in the !ase of =9<=@9 FS. -&D-&, )ar!h ., 1''> when the a!!used made a voluntary and verbal !onfession to the )uni!ipal )ayor that he !ommitted the !rime imputed to him. -s su!h, his un!ounselled !onfession is ")$i77i8le i' e*i)e'ce. 5EO5LE VS. O4RERO, 339 SCRA 19; )endoGa, 5. here are two (+A kinds of involuntary or !oer!ed !onfessions under -rt. ***, Se!tion 1+ of the Constitution. hese are: a. !onfession whi!h are the produ!t of third degree methods su!h as torture, for!e, violen!e, threat, intimidation" and b. those whi!h are given without the benefit of )iranda 7arnings. here is no !omplian!e of the !onstitutional re0uirement of !ompetent and independent !ounsel to assist an a!!used during !ustodial investigation when the a!!used was assisted by the Station Commander of the 7=D, -tty. De los %eyes, while being investigated by other poli!emen
.+6

.+1

of the same poli!e station be!ause the interest of the poli!e is naturally adverse to the a!!used. *n fa!t, the SC in the !ase of =9<=@9 FS. 5-&?-%*<, +4> SC%- 46/ held that a lawyer applying for a position in the &$* !ould not validly assist an a!!used being investigated then by the &$*. 1-b. =. vs. -spili, &ovember +1, 1''6 1-!. 5eople *7. Ju)&e Ay7o', 1 1 SCRA 916 ,Co'(e77io' $")e #o #%e o((ici"l7 o( 5%ilippi'e Airli'e7 )uri'& "' i'*e7#i&"#io' i7 ")$i77i8le i' e*i)e'ce )e7pi#e #%e ("c# #%"# %e w"7 'o# i'(or$e) o( %i7 ri&%#7 )uri'& cu7#o)i"l i'*e7#i&"#io'7 7i'ce 7"i) o((ici"l7 "re 'o# 8ou') 8y #%e reCuire$e'#7 o( Sec#io' 19, Ar#. III o( #%e Co'7#i#u#io'! 1-d. =. vs. =inla!, 14D SC%- 4>D 1-e. =eople vs. @overia, 1/> SC%- 3> 1-f. 2amboa vs. 5udge CruG, 14+ SC%- 4>D +. =. vs. 2alit, 1.D SC%- 34D .. = vs. -legre, '3 SC%- 16' 3. Dra!ulan vs. Donato, /D SC%- +44 D. =. vs. $orromeo, 5une +',l'/. 4. = vs. Camalog, 2% &o. >>114, 5anuary .1, 1'/' (*n!luding the duty of =oli!e <ffi!ers in !onne!tion with said rightA >. = vs. Cui, 5r., 14+ SC%- ++6 .-a. ,ow about if the a!!used gives an spontaneous statement before he !ould be advised of his right to remain silentN %ead: -balle vs. =eople, 1/. SC%- 1'4 .-b. 7hen shall the !onstitutional rights of the above demandableN During poli!e line-upN %ead: 1. = vs. ?sman ,assan, 1D> SC%- +41 +. 2amboa vs. 5udge CruG, 14+ SC%- 43+ .. D9 @- <%%9 FS. C-, +'3 SC%- 1'4 3. =9<=@9 FS. ,- <& he right to !ounsel" 5EO5LE VS. JERE>, 961 SCRA 393 a!!used as mentioned

.+1

.++

- lawyer provided by the investigators to the a!!used during the !ustodial investigation is deemed engaged by the a!!used where he never raised any ob8e!tion against the former1s appointment during the !ourse of the investigation -&D ,9 -CC?S9D ,9%9-# 9% S?$SC%*$9S < ,9 F9%-C* J <# ,*S S - 9)9& $9#<%9 ,9 S79-%*&2 <##*C9%. (&< 9: *n the !ase of 5EO5LE VS. J3A-ERIO, .e8ru"ry , 199 , the SC held that a lawyer who was at the &$* <ffi!e applying for a position therein and who was appointed as !ounsel for a suspe!t being then investigated by the &$* !ould not be !onsidered as the !ompetent and independent !ounsel referred to in the Constitution espe!ially so that later on, said lawyer was appointed by the &$* as one of its agents.A T%e 'e@# c"7e i7 *ery i$por#"'#. *t diminishes the right to !ounsel during !ustodial investigation and makes the work of the investigator easier to make the !onfession of a suspe!t admissible as eviden!e. *t is obviously a reversal of the &eople !". J#anerio ruling. RI:HT TO A COM5ETE-T A-/ I-/E5E-/E-T CO3-SEL O. HIS O0- CHOICE. T%i7 c"7e i7 )i((ere'# (or$ #%e pre*iou7 )oc#ri'e7. 5EO5LE O. THE 5HILI55I-ES VS. /OMI-:O REYES, ET AL., :.R. -o. 1 63;;, M"rc% 1 , 9;;9 C,*C<-&-O-%*<, J.: <n 11 -ugust 1''', an *nformation1'.B3C was filed before the % C !harging appellants with the spe!ial !omple( !rime of kidnapping for ransom with homi!ide. he a!!usatory portion of the information reads: he undersigned State =rose!utor of the Department of 5usti!e hereby a!!uses Domingo %eyes y =a8e, -lvin -rnaldo y -vena and 5oselito #lores y Fi!torio of the !rime of kidnapping for ransom with homi!ide defined and penaliGed under -rti!le +4> of the %evised =enal Code, as amended, !ommitted as follows: hat on or about 11:66 p.m. on 5uly 14, 1''', at Sitio @ambakin, barangay Sto. Cristo, San 5ose del )onte, $ula!an, =hilippines and within the 8urisdi!tion of this ,onorable Court, the above-named a!!used !onspiring, !onfederating and mutually helping one another and grouping themselves together with 5uanito =ataray y Cayaban, #ederi!o =ataray y Cabayan and %ommel @ibarnes y -!e8o, who are still at large, did then
1'.B3C

%e!ords, pp. 3+-3..

.++

.+.

and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of for!e and intimidation and with use of firearms, !arry away and deprive Ro8er# Y"o, Y"o S"', C%u" O'& 5i'& Si$, R"y$o') Y"o, Ro'"l) M"##%ew Y"o, Le''ie Y"o, C%"rle'e Y"o, Jo'" A8"&"#'"' "'& Jo7ep%i'e Or#e" against their will and !onsent on board their )aGda )F= van for the purpose of e(torting money in the amount of #ive )illion =esos (=D,666,666.66A, that during the detention of Chua <ng =ing Sim and %aymong Jao, said a!!used with intent to kill, willfully and unlawfully strangled C%u" O'& 5i'& Si$ "') R"y$o') Y"o to death to the damage and pre8udi!e of their heirs in su!h amount as may be awarded to them by this ,onorable Court. he prose!ution presented as witnesses 5ona -bagatnan (-bagatnanA, %obert Jao (%obertA, Jao San, =oli!e <ffi!er . (=<.A -le( -lberto, =<. %oberto 5abien, A##y. .lori$o') Rou7 (-tty. %ousA and A##y. C"rlo 3$i'&" (-tty. ?mingaA. heir testimonies, taken together, attest to the following: he Jao family is !omposed of Jao San (fatherA, Chua <ng =ing Sim (motherA, %obert and %aymond (!hildrenA, @enny (daughter-in-law, wife of %obertA, )atthew and Charlene (grand!hildrenA, and 5ona -bagatnan and 5osephine <rtea (housemaidsA. he Jao family owns and operates a poultry farm in $arangay Santo Cristo, San 5ose del )onte, $ula!an. <n 14 5uly 1''', at about 11:66 p.m., the Jao family, on board a )aGda )F= van, arrived at the their poultry farm in $arangay Sto. Cristo, San 5ose del )onte, $ula!an. Jao San alighted from the van to open the gate of the farm. -t this 8un!ture, appellant %eyes and a !ertain 5uanito =ataray (=atarayA approa!hed, poked their guns at Jao San, and dragged him inside the van. -ppellant %eyes and =ataray also boarded the van. hereupon, appellants -rnaldo and #lores, with two male !ompanions, all armed with guns, arrived and immediately boarded the van. -ppellant #lores took the driver1s seat and drove the van. -ppellants %eyes and -rnaldo and their !ohorts then blindfolded ea!h member of the Jao family inside the van with pa!kaging tape.1'3B4C -fter about .6 minutes of traveling on the road, the van stopped. =er order of appellants and their !ohorts, Chua <ng =ing Sim, %obert, %aymond and 5ona -bagatnan (-bagatnanA stepped out of the van with appellants %eyes and -rnaldo, =ataray and one of their male !ompanions.1'DB>C -ppellant #lores, with the other male !ompanion, drove

1'3B4C

1'DB>C

S&, +4 <!tober 1''', pp. .-13" S&, 11 -ugust +666, pp. .->" S&, +1 September +666, pp. +/. S&, +4 <!tober 1''', pp. 14-1>" S&, 11 -ugust +666, p. >.

.+.

.+3

the van with the remaining members of the Jao family inside the vehi!le.1'4B/C @ater, the van stopped again. -ppellant #lores and his male !ompanion told Jao San to produ!e the amount of five million pesos (=D,666,666.66A as ransom in e(!hange for the release of Chua <ng =ing Sim, %obert, %aymond and -bagatnan. hereafter, appellant #lores and his male !ompanion left the van and fled" while Jao San, @enny, )atthew, Charlene and 5osephine remained inside the van. ?pon sensing that the kidnappers had already left, Jao San drove the van towards the poultry farm and sought the help of relatives.1'>B'C )eanwhile, Chua <ng =ing Sim, %obert, %aymond and -bagatnan were taken on foot by appellants %eyes and -rnaldo, =ataray and one male !ompanion to a safe-house situated in the mountainous part of San 5ose Del )onte, $ula!an where they spent the whole night.1'/B16C <n the morning of the following day, at around 3:66 a.m., appellants and their !ohorts tried to !onta!t Jao San regarding the ransom demanded, but the latter !ould not be rea!hed. hus, appellants instru!ted -bagatnan to look for Jao San in the poultry farm. -ppellants %eyes and -rnaldo and one male !ompanion es!orted -bagatnan in pro!eeding to the poultry farm. ?pon arriving therein, -bagatnan sear!hed for Jao San, but the latter !ould not be found. -ppellants %eyes and -rnaldo told -bagatnan to remind Jao San about the ransom demanded. hereafter, appellants %eyes and -rnaldo and their male !ompanion left -bagatnan in the poultry farm and went ba!k to the safe-house.1''B11C *n the safe-house, appellants told %obert that they would release him so he !ould help -bagatnan in lo!ating Jao San. %obert and appellants left the safe-house, and after .6 minutes of trekking, appellants abandoned %obert. %obert then ran towards the poultry farm. ?pon arriving at the poultry farm, %obert found Jao San and informed him about the ransom demanded by the appellants. %obert also told Jao San that Chua <ng =ing Sim and %aymond were still held by appellants and their !ohorts.+66B1+C <n 1/ 5uly 1''', appellants !alled Jao San through a !ellular phone and demanded the ransom of =D million for Chua <ng =ing Sim

1'4B/C 1'>B'C 1'/B16C

1''B11C +66B1+C

%e!ords, p. .3. *d. S&, +4 <!tober 1''', pp. 14-+." S&, > De!ember 1''', pp. +-D" S&, 11 -ugust +666, pp. /'. S&, > De!ember 1''', pp. 3->. *d. at >-/" S&, 11 -ugust +666, pp. 16-1+.

.+3

.+D

and %aymond. Jao San a!!eded to appellants1 demand. allowed Jao San to talk with Chua <ng =ing Sim.+61B1.C

-ppellants

<n the morning of 1' 5uly 1''', appellants again !alled Jao San via a !ellular phone and threatened to kill Chua <ng =ing Sim and %aymond be!ause of newspaper and radio reports regarding the in!ident. Jao San !larified to appellants that he did not report the in!ident to the poli!e and also pleaded with them to spare the life of Chua <ng =ing Sim and %aymond. -ppellants then instru!ted Jao San to appear and bring with him the ransom of =D million at .:66 p.m. in the ?san dumpsite, @ite( %oad, #airview, RueGon City. Jao San arrived at the designated pla!e of the pay-off at 3:66 p.m., but none of the appellants or their !ohorts showed up. Jao San waited for appellant1s !all, but none !ame. hus, Jao San left.+6+B13C <n +. 5uly 1''', the !orpses of Chua <ng =ing Sim and %aymond were found at the @a )esa Dam, &ovali!hes, RueGon City. +6.B1DC $oth died of asphy(ia by strangulation.+63B14C <n +4 5uly 1''', appellant -rnaldo surrendered to the =residential -nti-<rganiGed Crime ask #or!e (=-<C #A at Camp Crame, RueGon City. hereupon, appellant -rnaldo, with the assistan!e of -tty. ?minga, e(e!uted a written e(tra-8udi!ial !onfession narrating his parti!ipation in the in!ident. -ppellant -rnaldo identified appellants %eyes and #lores, =ataray and a !ertain ata and -key as his !o-parti!ipants in the in!ident. -ppellant -rnaldo also des!ribed the physi!al features of his !ohorts and revealed their whereabouts.+6DB1>C Subse0uently, appellant %eyes was arrested in Sto. Cristo, San 5ose del )onte, $ula!an. hereafter, appellants -rnaldo and %eyes were identified in a poli!e line-up by Jao San, %obert and -bagatnan as their kidnappers.+64B1/C <n 16 -ugust 1''', agents of the =-<C # arrested appellant #lores in $alayan, $atangas. -fterwards, appellant #lores, with the assistan!e of -tty. %ous, e(e!uted a written e(tra-8udi!ial !onfession detailing his parti!ipation in the in!ident. -ppellant #lores identified appellants %eyes and -rnaldo, =ataray and a !ertain ata and -key as his !o-parti!ipants in the in!ident. -ppellant #lores was subse0uently

+61B1.C +6+B13C +6.B1DC +63B14C +6DB1>C +64B1/C

%e!ords, p. .D. *d" S&, 11 -ugust +666, pp. 1+-13. S&, > De!ember 1''', pp. /-'" S&, 11 -ugust +666, pp. 13-1D" %e!ords, p. .D. %e!ords, pp. 1D-1>. *d. at D, /, 1+, P +3-+/. *d. at 1.-13 P .., .D, P ./.

.+D

.+4

identified in a poli!e line-up by Jao San, %obert and -bagatnan as one of their kidnappers.+6>B1'C #or its part, the defense presented the testimonies of appellants, )arina %eyes, *rene #lores Celestino, 7ilfredo Celestino, 5r., %a!hel C. %amos, and *sidro -rnaldo. -ppellants denied any liability and interposed alibis and the defense of frame-up. heir testimonies, as !orroborated by their witnesses, are as follows: -ppellant -rnaldo testified that he was an :asset; of the =-<C #. ,e narrated that on +D 5uly 1''', while he was at the tri!y!le terminal of $rgy. Sto. Cristo, San 5ose del )onte, $ula!an, a poli!e offi!er named @iwanag of the =-<C # approa!hed and invited him to go to Camp Crame to shed light on a kidnapping !ase allegedly !ommitted by a !ertain $rgy. Captain %amos and by members of the -guirre and $autista families. ,e a!!epted the invitation. Subse0uently, he pro!eeded to Camp Crame and met therein Colonel Cesar )an!ao *** (Colonel )an!aoA of the =-<C #. Colonel )an!ao told him that the =-<C # would arrest $rgy. Capt. %amos and !ertain persons named 2erry $autista and Dadie $autista. Colonel )an!ao instru!ted him to identify said persons as responsible for the kidnapping of the Jao family. ,e refused to do so be!ause he feared $rgy. Capt. %amos. he day after, Colonel )an!ao !alled appellant -rnaldo to his offi!e. ?pon arriving thereat, the latter saw Jao San. Jao San promised him that if their kidnappers would be apprehended through his !ooperation, he would give him =D66,666.66. ,e a!!epted Jao San1s offer under the !ondition that he would identify a different set of suspe!ts. @ater, Colonel )an!ao gave him =.6,666.66.+6/
B.1C

Subse0uently, he pointed to appellants %eyes and #lores as his !ohorts in kidnapping the Jao family. ,e impli!ated appellants %eyes and #lores to get even with them, sin!e the two had previously mauled him after he sold their fighting !o!ks and failed to give them the pro!eeds of the sale.+6'B.+C ,e denied having met with -tty. ?minga. ,e was not assisted by the latter when he was for!ed by the =-<C # to make a written e(tra8udi!ial !onfession on the kidnapping of the Jao family. #urther, he !laimed that while he was under the !ustody of =-<C #, a !ertain )a8or =aulino utiliGed him as a drug pusher. ?pon failing to remit the pro!eeds of the drug sale, he was beaten up by =-<C # agents and thereafter in!luded as a!!used with appellants %eyes and #lores for the kidnapping of the Jao family.+16B..C
+6>B1'C +6/B.1C +6'B.+C +16B..C

*d. at 34-3/, 4.-43 P .6+-.64. S&, > 5une +661, pp. .-+1. S&, 16 5uly +661, pp. .-4. *d. at 16-14" S&, +1 -ugust +661, pp. .-13.

.+4

.+>

<n the other hand, appellant %eyes testified that he slept in his house with his family from 4:66 p.m. of 14 5uly 1''' until the morning of the ne(t day" that on the early morning of +4 5uly 1''', five poli!emen barged into his house and arrested him" that the poli!emen told him that he was a suspe!t in the kidnapping of the Jao family" that he was mauled by the poli!emen outside his house" that the poli!emen for!ibly brought him to Camp Crame, where he was subse0uently tortured" that he knew the Jao family be!ause he worked as a !arpenter in the family1s poultry farm at $rgy. Sto. Cristo, San 5ose del )onte, $ula!an" that he had no involvement in the kidnapping of the family" and that appellant -rnaldo impli!ated him in the kidnapping of the family be!ause appellant -rnaldo held a grudge against him.+11B.3C #or his part, appellant #lores testified that he stayed in his sister1s house at -ntipolo City from 1+ 5uly 1''' up to .6 5uly 1'''" that he went to her house on 1+ 5uly 1''' be!ause it was the birthday of her !hild" that he worked as a !onstru!tion worker during his stay in his sister1s house" that he was arrested in $atangas and thereafter brought to Camp Crame, where he was beaten up by poli!emen for refusing to admit involvement in the kidnapping of the Jao family" that after three days of beating, he was for!ed to sign a do!ument whi!h he later found out to be a written e(tra8udi!ial !onfession" that he never met nor did he know -tty. %ous" that he knew the Jao family be!ause he lived near the family1s poultry farm, and he used to work therein as a welder" that he had no parti!ipation in the kidnapping of the family" and that appellant -rnaldo impli!ated him in the kidnapping of the family be!ause he and appellant %eyes had mauled appellant -rnaldo several years ago.+1+B.DC he defense proffered do!umentary and ob8e!t eviden!e to buttress their foregoing !laims, to wit: (1A prayer booklet of appellant -rnaldo (9(hibit 1 for appellant -rnaldoA"+1.B.4C (+A !alling !ard of Colonel )an!ao (9(hibit + for appellant -rnaldoA"+13B.>C and (.A pi!tures allegedly showing appellant #lores working as a !arpenter in -ntipolo City (9(hibits 1 P + for appellant #loresA.+1DB./C -fter trial, the % C rendered a De!ision dated +4 #ebruary +66+ !onvi!ting appellants of the spe!ial !omple( !rime of kidnapping for ransom with homi!ide and senten!ing ea!h of them to suffer the supreme penalty of death. -ppellants were also ordered to pay 8ointly and severally the Jao family =1D6,666.66 as !ivil indemnity, =D66,666.66 as
+11B.3C +1+B.DC +1.B.4C +13B.>C +1DB./C

S&, 4 )ar!h +661, pp. .-16. S&, +3 )ay +661, pp. +-'. %e!ords, Folume F*, *nde( of 9(hibits. *d. %e!ords, p. .D>.

.+>

.+/

moral damages and the !osts of the pro!eedings. of the % C De!ision reads:

he dispositive portion

7,9%9#<%9, finding herein three (.A a!!used D<)*&2< %9J9S y =-59, -@F*& -%&-@D< y -F9&-, and 5<S9@* < #@<%9S y F*C <%*< guilty as prin!ipals beyond reasonable doubt of the !rime of M*D&-==*&2 #<% %-&S<) 7* , (D<?$@9A ,<)*C*D9 as !harged, they are hereby senten!ed ea!h to suffer the supreme penalty of D9- , as mandated by law, to 8ointly and severally indemnify the heirs of de!eased Chua <ng =ing Sim and %aymond Jao in the amount of <ne ,undred #ifty housand =esos (=1D6,666.66A, and all the private offended parties or vi!tims, in!luding the heirs of the de!eased, in the amount of #ive ,undred housand =esos (=D66,666.66A as moral damages, sub8e!t to the !orresponding filing fee as a first lien, and to pay the !osts of the pro!eedings.+14B.'C $y reason of the death penalty imposed on ea!h of the appellants, the instant !ase was elevated to us for automati! review. ,owever, pursuant to our ruling in #eople v. Mateo,+1>B36C we remanded the instant !ase to the Court of -ppeals for proper disposition. <n 13 -ugust +664, the Court of -ppeals promulgated its De!ision affirming with modifi!ations the % C De!ision. he appellate !ourt redu!ed the penalty imposed by the % C on ea!h of the appellants from death penalty to reclusion perpetua without the possibility of parole. *t also de!reased the amount of !ivil indemnity from =1D6,666.66 to =166,666.66. #urther, it dire!ted appellants to pay 8ointly and severally the Jao family =166,666.66 as e(emplary damages. he fallo of the Court of -ppeals1 de!ision states: 7,9%9#<%9, premises !onsidered, the De!ision of the %egional rial Court of )alolos, $ula!an, $ran!h 1+, dated #ebruary +4, +66+, in Criminal Case &o. 1411-)-'' !onvi!ting a!!used-appellants of the !rime of Midnapping #or %ansom with (DoubleA ,omi!ide, is hereby -##*%)9D with )<D*#*C- *<&S in that: 1A a!!used-appellants are instead senten!ed to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua" +A the award of !ivil indemnity e> delicto is hereby redu!ed to =166,666" and

+14B.'C +1>B36C

C- rollo, p. 41. 2.%. &os. 13>4>/-/>, > 5uly +663, 3.. SC%- 436.

.+/

.+'

.A a!!used-appellants are further ordered to pay private !omplainants the amount of =166,666.66 as e(emplary damages.+1/B31C -ppellants filed a motion for re!onsideration of the Court of -ppeals1 De!ision but this was denied. ,en!e, appellants filed their &oti!e of -ppeal on +D -ugust +664. <ne of the main issues raised is: THE TRIAL CO3RT ERRE/ I- :IVI-: 0EI:HT A-/ CRE/E-CE TO THE EETRAGJ3/ICIAL CO-.ESSIO-S O. A55ELLA-T AR-AL/O A-/ A55ELLA-T .LORES+ -ppellant %eyes !laims that his alleged parti!ipation in the kidnapping of the Jao family was based solely on the written e(tra8udi!ial !onfessions of appellants -rnaldo and #lores. ,e maintains, however, that said e(tra-8udi!ial !onfessions are inadmissible in eviden!e, be!ause they were obtained in violation of his !o-appellants1 !onstitutional right to have an independent !ounsel of their own !hoi!e during !ustodial investigation. -ppellant %eyes alleges that the agents of the =-<C # did not ask his !o-appellants during the !ustodial investigation whether they had a lawyer of their own !hoi!e, and whether they !ould afford to hire a lawyer" that the agents of the =-<C # suggested the availability of -tty. ?minga and -tty. %ous to his !o-appellants" and that -tty. ?minga and -tty. %ous were asso!iates of the =-<C #. -ppellant %eyes also asseverates that the e(tra-8udi!ial !onfessions of appellants -rnaldo and #lores !annot be utiliGed against him. -ppellant #lores argues that his written e(tra-8udi!ial !onfession is inadmissible in eviden!e, be!ause it was obtained in violation of his !onstitutional right to have an independent !ounsel of his own !hoi!e during !ustodial investigation. ,e insists that his written e(tra-8udi!ial !onfession was eli!ited through for!e, torture and without the assistan!e of a lawyer. ,e avers that he was not assisted by any lawyer from the time he was arrested until he was !oer!ed to sign the purported !onfession" that he was for!ed to sign it be!ause he !ould not anymore endure the beatings he suffered at the hands of the =-<C # agents" and that he never met or knew -tty. %ous who, a!!ording to the =-<C #, had assisted him during the !ustodial investigation. -ppellant -rnaldo !ontends that his written e(tra-8udi!ial !onfession should be e(!luded as eviden!e, as it was pro!ured in violation of his !onstitutional right to have an independent !ounsel of his own !hoi!e during !ustodial investigation. ,e !laims that he was not given freedom to !hoose his !ounsel" that the agents of the =-<C # did not ask
+1/B31C

$ollo, p. .3.

.+'

..6

him during the !ustodial investigation whether he had a lawyer of his own !hoi!e, and whether he !ould afford to hire a lawyer" and that the agents of the =-<C # suggested the availability of -tty. ?minga to him. hus, we have held that an e(tra-8udi!ial !onfession is admissible in eviden!e if the following re0uisites have been satisfied: ( 1! i# $u7# 8e *olu'#"ry+ ,9! i# $u7# 8e $")e wi#% #%e "77i7#"'ce o( co$pe#e'# "') i')epe')e'# cou'7el+ ,3! i# $u7# 8e e@pre77+ "') ,2! i# $u7# 8e i' wri#i'&.919<6 = he right of an a!!used to be informed of the right to remain silent and to !ounsel co'#e$pl"#e7 #%e #r"'7$i77io' o( $e"'i'&(ul i'(or$"#io' r"#%er #%"' Au7# #%e cere$o'i"l "') per(u'c#ory reci#"#io' o( "' "87#r"c# co'7#i#u#io'"l pri'ciple .++6B4'C Su!h right !ontemplates effe!tive !ommuni!ation whi!h results in the sub8e!t understanding what is !onveyed.++1B>6C he right to !ounsel is a fundamental right and is intended to pre!lude the slightest !oer!ion as would lead the a!!used to admit something false.+++B>1C he right to !ounsel atta!hes upon the start of the investigation, i.e., when the investigating offi!er starts to ask 0uestions to eli!it information andEor !onfessions or admissions from the a!!used.++.B>+C he lawyer !alled to be present during su!h investigation should be, as far as reasonably possible, the !hoi!e of the a!!used. *f the lawyer is one furnished in behalf of a!!used, he should be !ompetent and independent" that is, he must be willing to fully safeguard the !onstitutional rights of the a!!used.++3B>.C - !ompetent and independent !ounsel is logi!ally re0uired to be present and able to advi!e and assist his !lient from the time the latter answers the first 0uestion asked by the investigator until the signing of the !onfession. )oreover, the lawyer should as!ertain that the !onfession was made voluntarily, and that the person under investigation fully understood the nature and the !onse0uen!e of his e(tra-8udi!ial !onfession vis-a-vis his !onstitutional rights. ++DB>3C ,owever, the foregoing rule is not intended to deter to the a!!used from !onfessing guilt if he voluntarily and intelligently so desires, but to prote!t him from admitting what he is being !oer!ed to admit although untrue. o be an effe!tive !ounsel, a lawyer need not !hallenge all the 0uestions being propounded to his !lient. T%e pre7e'ce o( " l"wyer i7 'o# i'#e')e) #o 7#op "' "ccu7e) (ro$ 7"yi'& "'y#%i'& w%ic% $i&%#
+1'B4>C ++6B4'C ++1B>6C +++B>1C ++.B>+C ++3B>.C ++DB>3C

#eople v. ase, ./D =hil. /6., /1D (+666A. #eople v. "aya'oc, 343 =hil. /+3, /.' (+663A. #eople v. Agustin, .16 =hil. D'3, 41+ (1''DA. #eople v. Olermo, 3D3 =hil. 13>, 14D (+66.A. +am'oa v. Cru5, 2.%. &o. @-D4+'1, +> 5une 1'//, 14+ SC%- 43+, 4D.. #eople v. %eniega, 2.%. &o. 16.3'', +' De!ember 1''D, +D1 SC%- 4+4, 4.>. #eople v. *elarde, 3.3 =hil. 16+, 11' (+66+A.

..6

..1

i'cri$i'"#e %i$+ 8u#, r"#%er, i# w"7 ")op#e) i' our Co'7#i#u#io' #o preclu)e #%e 7li&%#e7# coercio' o' #%e "ccu7e) #o ")$i# 7o$e#%i'& ("l7e. T%e cou'7el 7%oul) 'e*er pre*e'# "' "ccu7e) (ro$ (reely "') *olu'#"rily #elli'& #%e #ru#%.++4B>DC 7e have gone over the re!ords and found that the =-<C # investigators have duly apprised appellants -rnaldo and #lores of their !onstitutional rights to remain silent and to have !ompetent and independent !ounsel of their own !hoi!e during their respe!tive !ustodial investigations. he #asu'ali00/7789 of appellants -rnaldo and #lores1s written e(tra8udi!ial !onfessions !learly shows that before they made their respe!tive !onfessions, the =-<C # investigators had informed them that the interrogation about to be !ondu!ted on them referred to the kidnapping of the Jao family. hereafter, the =-<C # agents e(plained to them that they had a !onstitutional right to remain silent, and that anything they would say may be used against them in a !ourt of law. hey were also told that they were entitled to a !ounsel of their own !hoi!e, and that they would be provided with one if they had none. 7hen asked if they had a lawyer of their own, appellant -rnaldo replied that he would be assisted by -tty. ?minga, while appellant #lores agreed to be represented by -tty. %ous. hereafter, when asked if they understood their said rights, they replied in the affirmative. he appraisal of their !onstitutional rights was done in the presen!e of their respe!tive lawyers and in the &agalog diale!t, the language spoken and understood by them. -ppellants -rnaldo and #lores and their respe!tive !ounsels, -tty. ?minga and -tty. %ous, also signed and thumbmarked the e(tra-8udi!ial !onfessions. -tty. ?minga and -tty. %ous attested to the vera!ity of the afore-!ited fa!ts in their respe!tive !ourt testimonies.++/B>>C *ndeed, the appraisal of appellants1 !onstitutional rights was not merely perfun!tory, be!ause it appeared !ertain that appellants had understood and, in fa!t, e(er!ised their fundamental rights after being informed thereof. %e!ords refle!t that appellants -rnaldo and %eyes were likewise a!!orded their right to !ompetent and independent !ounsel during their respe!tive !ustodial investigations. -s regards appellant -rnaldo, -tty. ?minga testified that prior to the 0uestioning of appellant -rnaldo about the in!ident, -tty. ?minga told the =-<C # investigators and agents to give him and appellant -rnaldo spa!e and priva!y, so that they !ould freely !onverse. -fter the =-<C # investigators and agents left them, he and appellant -rnaldo went to a
++4B>DC ++>B>4C ++/B>>C

#eople v. ase, supra note 4>. %e!ords, pp. .1+-.1/. S&, +D September +661 and +> September +661.

..1

..+

!ubi!le where only the two of them were present. ,e interviewed appellant -rnaldo in the agalog language regarding the latter1s personal !ir!umstan!es and asked him why he was in the =-<C # offi!e and why he wanted a lawyer. -ppellant -rnaldo replied that he wanted to make a !onfession about his parti!ipation in the kidnapping of the Jao family. hereupon, he asked appellant -rnaldo if the latter would a!!ept his assistan!e as his lawyer for purposes of his !onfession. -ppellant -rnaldo agreed. ,e warned appellant -rnaldo that he might be senten!ed to death if he !onfessed involvement in the in!ident. -ppellant -rnaldo answered that he would fa!e the !onse0uen!es be!ause he was bothered by his !ons!ien!e. ,e in0uired from appellant -rnaldo if he was harmed or intimidated into giving self-in!riminating statements to the =-<C # investigators. -ppellant -rnaldo answered in the negative. ,e re0uested appellant -rnaldo to remove his shirt for him to !he!k if there were torture marks on his body, but he found none. ,e also observed that appellant -rnaldo1s appearan!e and movements were normal. ,is !onferen!e with appellant -rnaldo lasted for 1D minutes or more. hereafter, he allowed the =-<C # investigators to 0uestion appellant -rnaldo.++'B>/C #urther, -tty. ?minga sat beside appellant -rnaldo during the in0uiry and listened to the latter1s entire !onfession. -fter the taking of appellant -rnaldo1s !onfession, -tty. ?minga re0uested the =-<C # investigators to give him a !opy of appellant -rnaldo1s !onfession. ?pon obtaining su!h !opy, he read it entirely and thereafter gave it to appellant -rnaldo. ,e instru!ted appellant -rnaldo to read and !omprehend the same !arefully. ,e told appellant -rnaldo to ask him for !larifi!ation and !omment if he did not agree or understand any part of his written !onfession. -ppellant -rnaldo read his entire written !onfession and handed it to him. -tty. ?minga asked him if he had ob8e!tions to it. -ppellant -rnaldo replied in the negative. ,e then reminded appellant -rnaldo that the latter !ould still !hange his mind, and that he was not being for!ed to sign. -ppellant -rnaldo manifested that he would sign his written !onfession. @ater, he and appellant -rnaldo affi(ed their signatures to the written !onfession.+.6B>'C 7ith respe!t to appellant #lores, -tty. %ous de!lared that before the =-<C # investigators began 0uestioning appellant, -tty. %ous interviewed him in agalog inside a room, where only the two of them were present. ,e asked appellant #lores about his personal !ir!umstan!es. -ppellant #lores replied that he was a suspe!t in the kidnapping of the Jao family, and he wanted to give a !onfession regarding his involvement in the said in!ident. ,e asked appellant #lores whether he would a!!ept his assistan!e as his lawyer. -ppellant #lores affirmed that he would. ,e asked appellant #lores why he wanted to give su!h !onfession. -ppellant
++'B>/C +.6B>'C

S&, +> September +661, pp. D-'. *d. at '-1D.

..+

...

#lores answered that he was bothered by his !ons!ien!e. -tty. %ous warned appellant #lores that his !onfession would be used against him in a !ourt of law, and that the death penalty might be imposed on him. -ppellant #lores told him that he wanted to tell the truth and unload the burden on his mind. ,e re0uested appellant #lores to lift his shirt for the former to verify if there were torture marks or bruises on his body, but found none. -gain, he !autioned appellant #lores about the serious !onse0uen!es of his !onfession, but the latter maintained that he wanted to tell the truth. hereafter, he permitted the =-<C # investigators to 0uestion appellant #lores.+.1B/6C -dditionally, -tty. %ous stayed with appellant #lores while the latter was giving statements to the =-<C # investigators. -fter the taking of appellant #lores1 statements, he instru!ted appellant #lores to read and !he!k his written !onfession. -ppellant #lores read the same and made some minor !orre!tions. ,e also read appellant #lores1 written !onfession. -fterwards, he and appellant #lores signed the latter1s written !onfession.+.+B/1C *t is true that it was the =-<C # whi!h !onta!ted and suggested the availability of -tty. ?minga and -tty. %ous to appellants -rnaldo and #lores, respe!tively. &onetheless, this does not automati!ally imply that their right to !ounsel was violated. 7hat the Constitution re0uires is the presen!e of !ompetent and independent !ounsel, one who will effe!tively undertake his !lient1s defense without any intervening !onfli!t of interest.+..B/+C here was no !onfli!t of interest with regard to the legal assistan!e rendered by -tty. ?minga and -tty. %ous. $oth !ounsels had no interest adverse to appellants -rnaldo and #lores. -lthough -tty. ?minga testified that he was a former &ational $ureau of *nvestigation (&$*A agent, he, nevertheless, !larified that he had been separated therefrom sin!e 1''3+.3B/.C when he went into private pra!ti!e. -tty. ?minga de!lared under oath that he was a private pra!titioner when he assisted appellant -rnaldo during the !ustodial investigation.+.DB/3C *t appears that -tty. ?minga was !alled by the =-<C # to assist appellant -rnaldo, be!ause -tty. ?minga1s telephone number was listed on the dire!tory of his former &$* offi!emates detailed at the =-<C #. -tty. %ous, on the other hand, was a member of the #ree @egal -id Committee of the *ntegrated $ar of the =hilippines, RueGon City at the time he rendered legal assistan!e to appellant #lores.+.4B/DC =art of -tty. %ous1 duty as member of the said group was to render legal assistan!e to the indigents in!luding suspe!ts under !ustodial investigation. here was no eviden!e
+.1B/6C +.+B/1C +..B/+C +.3B/.C +.DB/3C +.4B/DC

S&, +D September +661, pp. +-13. *d. at 13-1'. #eople v. *elarde, supra note >3. S&, +> September +661, p. D. *d. S&, +D September +661, pp. 3-D.

...

..3

showing that -tty. %ous had organiGational or personal links to the =-<C #. *n fa!t, he pro!eeded to the =-<C # offi!e to assist appellant #lores, be!ause he happened to be the lawyer manning the offi!e when the =-<C # !alled.+.>B/4C I' &eople !. :a4ro,+./B/>C we stated: he Constitution further re0uires that the !ounsel be independent" thus, he !annot be a spe!ial !ounsel, publi! or private prose!utor, !ounsel of the poli!e, or a muni!ipal attorney whose interest is admittedly adverse to that of the a!!used. -tty. 5ung!o does not fall under any of said enumeration. &or is there any eviden!e that he had any interest adverse to that of the a!!used. he indelible fa!t is that he was president of the Oambales Chapter of the *ntegrated $ar of the =hilippines, and not a la!key of the lawmen. #urther, as earlier stated, under Se!tion 1+(1A, -rti!le *** of the 1'/> Constitution, an a!!used is entitled to have !ompetent and independent !ounsel preferably of his own !hoi!e. he phrase Eprefera'ly of 2is o?n c2oiceF does not !onvey the message that the !hoi!e of a lawyer by a person under investigation is e(!lusive as to pre!lude other e0ually !ompetent and independent attorneys from handling the defense. <therwise, the tempo of !ustodial investigation would be solely in the hands of the a!!used who !an impede, nay, obstru!t, the progress of the interrogation by simply sele!ting a lawyer who, for one reason or another, is not available to prote!t his interest. +.'B//C 7hile the !hoi!e of a lawyer in !ases where the person under !ustodial interrogation !annot afford the servi!es of !ounsel I or where the preferred lawyer is not available I is naturally lodged in the poli!e investigators, the suspe!t has the final !hoi!e, as he may re8e!t the !ounsel !hosen for him and ask for another one. - lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the a!!used when he does not raise any ob8e!tion to the !ounsel1s appointment during the !ourse of the investigation, and the a!!used thereafter subs!ribes to the vera!ity of the statement before the swearing offi!er.+36B/'C -ppellants -rnaldo and #lores did not ob8e!t to the appointment of -tty. ?minga and -tty. %ous as their lawyers, respe!tively, during their !ustodial investigation. =rior to their 0uestioning, appellants -rnaldo and #lores !onferred with -tty. ?minga and -tty. %ous. -ppellant -rnaldo manifested that he would be assisted by -tty. ?minga, while appellant #lores agreed to be !ounseled by -tty. %ous. -tty. ?minga and -tty. %ous !ountersigned the written e(tra8udi!ial !onfessions of appellants -rnaldo and #lores, respe!tively. ,en!e, appellants -rnaldo and #lores are deemed to have engaged the servi!es of -tty. ?minga and -tty. %ous, respe!tively.
+.>B/4C +./B/>C +.'B//C +36B/'C

*d. at 4. Supra note 4D at >+4. #eople v. Mo=ello, 34/ =hil. '33, 'D3 (+663A. #eople v. ase, supra note 4>.

..3

..D

Sin!e the prose!ution has suffi!iently established that the respe!tive e(tra-8udi!ial !onfessions of appellant -rnaldo and appellant #lores were obtained in a!!ordan!e with the !onstitutional guarantees, these !onfessions are admissible. hey are eviden!e of a high order be!ause of the strong presumption that no person of normal mind would deliberately and knowingly !onfess to a !rime, unless prompted by truth and !ons!ien!e.+31B'6C Conse0uently, the burden of proving that undue pressure or duress was used to pro!ure the !onfessions rests on appellants -rnaldo and #lores.+3+B'1C *n the !ase at bar, appellants -rnaldo and #lores failed to dis!harge their burden of proving that they were for!ed or !oer!ed to make their respe!tive !onfessions. <ther than their self-serving statements that they were maltreated by the =-<C # offi!ersEagents, they did not present any plausible proof to substantiate their !laims. hey did not submit any medi!al report showing that their bodies were sub8e!ted to violen!e or torture. &either did they file !omplaints against the persons who had allegedly beaten or for!ed them to e(e!ute their respe!tive !onfessions despite several opportunities to do so. -ppellants -rnaldo and #lores averred that they informed their family membersErelatives of the alleged maltreatment, but the latter did not report su!h allegations to proper authorities. <n the !ontrary, appellants -rnaldo and #lores de!lared in their respe!tive !onfessions that they were not for!ed or harmed in giving their sworn statements, and that they were not promised or given any award in !onsideration of the same. %e!ords also bear out that they were physi!ally e(amined by do!tors before they made their !onfessions.+3.B'+C heir physi!al e(amination reports !ertify that no e(ternal signs of physi!al in8ury or any form of trauma were noted during their e(amination.+33B'.C I' &eople !. &ia,921<92= we %el) #%"# #%e (ollowi'& ("c#or7 i')ic"#e *olu'#"ri'e77 o( "' e@#r"GAu)ici"l co'(e77io'I ,1! w%ere #%e "ccu7e) ("ile) #o pre7e'# cre)i8le e*i)e'ce o( co$pul7io' or )ure77 or *iole'ce o' #%eir per7o'7+ ,9! w%ere #%ey ("ile) #o co$pl"i' #o #%e o((icer7 w%o ")$i'i7#ere) #%e o"#%7+ ,3! w%ere #%ey )i) 'o# i'7#i#u#e "'y cri$i'"l or ")$i'i7#r"#i*e "c#io' "&"i'7# #%eir "lle&e) i'#i$i)"#or7 (or $"l#re"#$e'#+ ,2! w%ere #%ere "ppe"re) #o 8e 'o $"rL7 o( *iole'ce o' #%eir 8o)ie7+ "') ,1! w%ere #%ey )i) 'o# %"*e #%e$7el*e7 e@"$i'e) 8y " repu#"8le p%y7ici"' #o 8u##re77 #%eir cl"i$. *t should also be noted that the e(tra-8udi!ial !onfessions of appellants -rnaldo and #lores are replete with details on the manner in whi!h the kidnapping was !ommitted, thereby ruling out the possibility
+31B'6C +3+B'1C +3.B'+C +33B'.C +3DB'3C

#eople v. agnate, 2.%. &os. 1..4/D-/4, +6 )ay +663, 3+/ SC%- 4.., 4D1. #eople v. Aa'ro, supra note 4D. %e!ords, p. 1/. *d. at 1'. ++' =hil. D>>, D/+ (1'/4A.

..D

..4

that these were involuntarily made. heir e(tra-8udi!ial !onfessions !learly state how appellants and their !ohorts planned the kidnapping as well as the se0uen!e of events before, during and after its o!!urren!e. he voluntariness of a !onfession may be inferred from its language if, upon its fa!e, the !onfession e(hibits no suspi!ious !ir!umstan!es tending to !ast doubt upon its integrity, it being replete with details whi!h !ould only be supplied by the a!!used.+34B'DC 7ith respe!t to appellant %eyes1s !laim that the e(tra-8udi!ial !onfessions of appellants -rnaldo and #lores !annot be used in eviden!e against him, we have ruled that although an e(tra-8udi!ial !onfession is admissible only against the !onfessant, 8urispruden!e makes it admissible as !orroborative eviden!e of other fa!ts that tend to establish the guilt of his !o-a!!used.+3>B'4C *n #eople v. Alvare5,+3/B'>C we ruled that where the !onfession is used as !ir!umstantial eviden!e to show the probability of parti!ipation by the !o-!onspirator, that !onfession is re!eivable as eviden!e against a !o-a!!used. *n #eople v. Encipido03-7@89 we elu!idated as follows: *t is also to be noted that -==9@@-& S1 e(tra8udi!ial !onfessions were independently made without !ollusion, are identi!al with ea!h other in their material respe!ts and !onfirmatory of the other. hey are, therefore, also admissible as !ir!umstantial eviden!e against their !oa!!used impli!ated therein to show the probability of the latter1s a!tual parti!ipation in the !ommission of the !rime. hey are also admissible as !orroborative eviden!e against the others, it being !lear from other fa!ts and !ir!umstan!es presented that persons other than the de!larants themselves parti!ipated in the !ommission of the !rime !harged and proved. hey are what is !ommonly known as interlo!king !onfession and !onstitute an e(!eption to the general rule that e(tra8udi!ial !onfessionsEadmissions are admissible in eviden!e only against the de!larants thereof. -ppellants -rnaldo and #lores stated in their respe!tive !onfessions that appellant %eyes parti!ipated in their kidnapping of the Jao family. hese statements are, therefore, admissible as !orroborative and !ir!umstantial eviden!e to prove appellant %eyes1 guilt. %*2, < C<?&S9@

he person who assisted him in !ourt during his arraignment and pre-trial is not a lawyer.
+34B'DC +3>B'4C +3/B'>C +3'B'/C

#eople v. agnate, supra note '6. "antos v. "andigan'ayan, 366 =hil. 11>D, 1+64 (+666A. 2.%. &o. //3D1, D September 1''1, +61 SC%- .43, .>>. +.6 =hil. D46, D>3 (1'/4A.

..4

..>

5E/RO CO-S3LTA VS. 5EO5LE, :.R. -o. 1 929, .e8ru"ry 19, 9;;9 CAR5IO MORALES, J.I <n the matter of a!!used-appellant1s !laim of having been denied due pro!ess, an e(amination of the re!ords shows that while a!!usedappellant was represented by -tty. 5o!elyn =. %eyes, who :seems not a lawyer,; during the early stages of trial, the latter withdrew her appearan!e with the !onformity of the former as early as 5uly +/, +666 and subse0uently, approved by the % C in its <rder dated -ugust 3, +666. hereafter, a!!used-appellant was represented by -tty. %ainald C. =aggao from the =ubli! Defender1s (-ttorney1sA <ffi!e of )akati City. Sin!e the a!!used-appellant was already represented by a member of the =hilippine $ar who prin!ipally handled his defense, albeit unsu!!essfully, then he !annot now be heard to !omplain about having been denied of due pro!ess.+D6B.C (?nders!oring suppliedA hat appellant1s first !ounsel may not have been a member of the bar does not dent the proven fa!t that appellant prevented &elia and !ompany from pro!eeding to their destination. #urther, appellant was afforded !ompetent representation by the =ubli! -ttorneys1 <ffi!e during the presentation by the prose!ution of the medi!o-legal offi!er and during the presentation of his eviden!e. #eople v. Elesterio+D1B3C enlightens: :-s for the !ir!umstan!e that the defense !ounsel turned out later to be a non-lawyer, it is observed that he was !hosen by the a!!used himself and that his representation does not !hange the fa!t that 9lesterio was undeniably !arrying an unli!ensed firearm when he was arrested. -t any rate, he has sin!e been represented by a member of the =hilippine bar, who prepared the petition for 2a'eas corpus and the appellant1s brief.; (?nders!oring suppliedA %ead also: 1. he right to !ounsel, D> SC%- 3/1 1-a. = vs. &olas!o, 14. SC%- 4+. 1-b. = vs. ,ernandeG, 14+ SC%- 3++ 1-!. =. vs. -mpo-an, 5uly 3, 1''6 1-d. =. vs. Saludar, 5uly .1, 1''6 1-e. =. vs. Midagan, -ugust +6, 1''6 1-f. 9sta!io vs. Sandiganbayan, 1/. SC%- 1+ 1-g. =. vs. $uenaflor, 1/1 SC%- ++D +. = vs. ampus, '4 SC%- 4+3
+D6 +D1
B.C B3C

$ollo, p. 14' 2.%. &o. 4.'>1, )ay ', 1'/', 1>. SC%- +3., +3'.

..>

../

.. = vs. aylaran, 16/ SC%- .>. 3. = vs. awat, 1+' SC%- 3.1 D. = vs. )ar!os, 13> SC%- +63 (&ote that this !riti!iGed by !onstitutionalistsA 4. = vs. @adrera, 1D6 SC%- 11. >. =. &ulla, 1D. SC%- 3>1 /. = vs. )ar0ueG, 1D. SC%- >66 '. = vs. <lvis, 1D3 SC%- D1. 16. = vs. Caguioa, 5anuary 1>, 1'/6 ll. = vs. =e!ardal, 13D SC%- 4+3 1+. = vs. @asa!, 13/ SC%- 4+3 1.. = vs. =ena, /6 SC%- D/' 13. = vs. 5ara, 133 SC%- D14

de!ision is widely

,ow about if the lawyer who assisted him during !ustodial investigation is a publi! attorney who was not !hosen by the a!!used himself but given to him free of !hargeN he e(tra8udi!ial !onfession is inadmissible as eviden!e. %ead: =. vs. -legria, September +/, 1''6 Could the #is!al also represent the a!!used during !ustodial investigation to satisfy the re0uirement of the Constitution that the a!!used is assisted by !ounselN &o. he #is!al is the !ounsel for the State, not the a!!used or the suspe!t. %ead: =. vs. )atos-Fiduaya, September 11, 1''6 D. %ight to remain silent and to !ounsel and the right to be informed of su!h rights" !ases in generalEwhen does these rights demandableN 9ffe!t of its non-observan!e by the investigator %ead: 1. = vs. -lbofera, 1D+ SC%- 1+. 1-a. = vs. @asanas, 1D+ SC%- +> 1-b. = vs. <lvis, 1D3 SC%- D1. 1-!. = vs. Capitin, 14D SC%- 3> 1-a. 2amboa vs. CruG, 14+ SC%- 43+ 1-b. = vs. ,iGon, 14. SC%- >46 1-!. = vs. Felas!o, 116 SC%- .1' +. Diokno vs. 9nrile, 116 SC%- 136
../

..'

.. )orales vs. =on!e 9nrile, 1+1 SC%- D./ 3. = vs. %o8as, 5anuary /, l'/> D. = vs. Santiago, 5anuary >,1'/> 4. = vs. De!ierdo, 13' SC%- 3'4 D-a. *s the right to !ounsel indispensable in non-!riminal pro!eedingsN %ead: 1. &era vs. -uditor 2enral, 143 SC%- 1 4. =resumptions on e(tra8udi!ial !onfessions(that offi!ial a!ts were regularly performed as against the presumption against waiver of !onstitutional rightsA %ead: 1. = vs. Duero, 163 SC%- .>' +. = vs. 5ara, 133 SC%- D14 .. = vs. -bano, 13D SC%- DDD 3. = vs. olentino, 13D SC%- D'> D. = vs. Salig, 1.. SC%- D' 4. = vs. CruG, 1.. SC%- 3+4 >. = vs. =rudente,, 1.. SC%- 4D1 / = vs. rinidad, 14+ SC%- >13, when the regularity does not apply >. 7ho !an ob8e!t to the admissibility of an %ead: 1. Stonehill vs. Diokno, supra +. = vs. 5ara, 133 SC%- D>4 .. =. vs. loveria, 5uly +, 1''6 /. *nadmissible as eviden!e a. he do!trine of the Hfruit of the poisoned treeH

presumption of

e(tra8udi!ial !onfessionN

9ven if the e(tra8udi!ial !onfession is inadmissible as eviden!e, a!!used still held guilty by the Supreme Court. 5EO5LE VS. ROLA-/O .ELIEMI-IA y CAMACHO :R -o. 191333, M"rc% 9;, 9;;9 9n $an!
..'

.36

#a!ts: 1. *n the morning of September 1', 1''D, a!!used-appellant and his !ousin, %<&&*9 2-%C*- were drinking gin in a !anteen in ?rdaneta, =angasinan" +. -t around 16 a.m. of the same day, %osita )angunay saw both persons walking along -mbrosio St., in the pobla!ion and noti!ed that they smelled li0uor when they greeted her" .. *n the early afternoon of the same day, a!!used-appellant and his !ousin went to look for 4-year old )aria @ourdes 2alinato, also known as isay and found her playing inside a 8eepney and took her" 3. -t around +:3D p.m. of the same day, )angunay again saw the a!!usedappellant walking along -mbrosio St., !arrying isay who was !rying and struggling. She !laimed that she !learly saw the a!!used-appellant sin!e they were walking towards ea!h other !oming from opposite dire!tions" D. $efore . to 3 p.m., prose!ution witness &atividad $ernardo, saw a!!usedappellant pass their house !arrying a !hild who looked about D-4 years old. 4. -t about the same time, witness @eah )agno saw the a!!used-appellant !arrying a !hild was seen heading towards the wooded area in the )a!along %iver" >. $y D p.m. to 4:.6 p.m. of that same day, )agno saw a!!used-appellant walking alone to town !oming from the dire!tion of the )a!along %iver" /. )eanwhile, the parents of isay were franti!ally sear!hing for their !hild and when their sear!h proved futile, they reported the matter to the $arangay Captain and to the =oli!e" '. ?pon re!eipt of the information that the !hild was last seen with the a!!used-appellant, the poli!e together with the $arangay Captains of Camantiles and $ayaoas, ?rdaneta, =angasinan, pro!eeded to the house of the a!!used-appellant" 16. -s they approa!hed the house, the a!!used-appellant 8umped out of the window !arrying a bla!k bag. he poli!e authorities gave !hase and finally !aught him after twenty (+6A e(hausting hours" 11. -fter his arrest, a!!used-appellant was brought to the ?rdaneta =oli!e Station where he admitted that he raped, killed and buried )aria @ourdes near the )a!along %iver in $arangay San Fi!ente, ?rdaneta, =angasinan,
.36

.31

while ?&D9% *&F9S *2- *<& 7* ,<? ,9 -SS*S -&C9 <# @-7J9%. *&D99D, ,9 $<DJ <# *S-J 7-S #<?&D *& ,9 =@-C9 7,*C, ,9 D9SC%*$9D D?%*&2 ,*S C?S <D*-@ *&F9S *2- *<&. 1+. -fter trial, the trial !ourt (% C 3D presided over by 5?D29 5<F9& C<S -@9SA rendered a 8udgment of !onvi!tion and imposing the penalty of death to the a!!used-appellant. he !ourt admitted as eviden!e the e(tra8udi!ial !onfession of the a!!used-appellant and used the same as one of the grounds in support of the 8udgment of !onvi!tion. ISS%ES 1. *s the e(tra8udi!ial !onfession of the a!!used Iappellant admissible in eviden!eN +. 7hether the lower !ourt erred in !onvi!ting in !onvi!ting the a!!usedappellantN ,eld: 1 he alleged e(tra8udi!ial !onfession of the a!!used while under !ustodial investigation and without the assistan!e of !ounsel is inadmissible in eviden!e despite the fa!t that he was allegedly appraised of his !onstitutional rights to remain silent and to !ounsel. his is so be!ause under the 1'/> Constitution, the said rights !ould not be waived e(!ept in the presen!e of !ounsel. -s su!h, in a!!ordan!e with the do!trine of the Kfruit of the poisoned tree1, the same is inadmissible in eviden!e. -ny information or admission given by a person while in !ustody whi!h may appear harmless or inno!uous at the time without the !ompetent assistan!e or an independent !ounsel should be stru!k down as inadmissible. + T%ou&% #%e e@#r"Au)ici"l co'(e77io' o( #%e "ccu7e)G "ppell"'# i7 i'")$i77i8le "7 e*i)e'ce, %i7 co'*ic#io' 8y #%e #ri"l cour# i7 correc#. T%i7 i7 7o 8ec"u7e <1= #%e co$pro$i7i'& circu$7#"'ce7 were )uly pro*e' w%ic% were co'7i7#e'# wi#% e"c% o#%er "') w%ic% le") wi#% $or"l cer#"i'#y #o #%e co'clu7io' #%"# %e w"7 &uil#y o( #%e cri$e c%"r&e)+ "') <9= #%e #o#"li#y o( 7uc% circu$7#"'ce7 eli$i'"#e) 8eyo') )ou8# #%e po77i8ili#y o( %i7 i''oce'ce. I' 5eople *7. M"%i'"y, i# w"7
.31

.3+

%el) #%"# co'*ic#io' $"y 8e %") o' circu$7#"'#i"l e*i)e'ce pro*i)e) #%e (ollowi'& reCui7i#e7 "re pre7e'#I <"= #%ere i7 $ore #%"' o'e circu$7#"'ce+ <8= #%e ("c#7 (ro$ w%ic% #%e i'(ere'ce7 "re )eri*e) "re pro*e'+ "') <c= #%e co$8i'"#io' o( "ll circu$7#"'ce7 i7 7uc% "7 #o pro)uce " co'*ic#io' 8eyo') re"7o'"8le )ou8#. T%e e*i)e'ce i' #%i7 c"7e "re $ore #%"' 7u((icie'# #o pro*e #%e "ccu7e)G"ppell"'#N7 8eyo') re"7o'"8le )ou8#. Circu$7#"'#i"l e*i)e'ce i7 'o# " we"Ler (or$ o( e*i)e'ce *i7GWG*i7 )irec# e*i)e'ce "') c"7e7 %"*e reco&'iJe) #%"# circu$7#"'#i"l e*i)e'ce i' i#7 wei&%# "') pro8"#i*e (orce, $"y 7urp"77 )irec# e*i)e'ce i' i#7 e((ec# upo' #%e Supre$e Cour#. (-OTE: he indemnifi!ation for the death of a person in a rape with ,omi!ide !ases was in!reased from =D6,666.66 to =1+D,666.66. he said indemnity shall also be appli!able where the death penalty is authoriGed by appli!able amendatory lawsAA b. he e(!lusionary rule, 13D SC%- >66 %ead: 1. = vs. $urgos, 133 SC%- D14 +. = vs. -l!araG,1.4 SC%- >3 .. Does it also in!lude the !onfession of a a!!usedN %ead: 1. = vs. $ombesa, 14+ SC%- 36+ +. p. vs. Jutu!, 5uly +4, 1''6 '. Se!. 1+(+A %ead: 1. DiGon vs. 2en. 9duardo, )ay .,1'// +. = vs. 9ligino, -ugust 11,1'// .. Contado vs. an, -pril 1D, 1'// 16. 9(tra8udi!ial !onfession" when admissible or %ead: 1. he admissibility of an e(tra8udi!ial prose!ution,13+ SC%- 116 !onfession in a !riminal inadmissible

witness, not the

.3+

.3.

+. -dmissibility of an e(tra8udi!ial 31' and 16 SC%- D+6

!onfession,1.D

SC%for!e, 113 SC%- 4.>

.. *nadmissibility of an admission obtained by SC%- +.3 3. Confession as eviden!e against the a!!used, '4 %ead: D. = vs. Camalog, 5anuary .1, 1'/' D-a. = vs. Capulong, 146 SC%- D.. D-b. = vs. @agahan, De!ember /, 1'// D-!. = vs. Dino, 146 SC%- 1'> D-d. = vs. Caramonte, '3 SC%- 1D6 D-e. = vs. 9n!iso, 146 SC%- >+/ D-d. = vs. -bano, 13D SC%- D4D D-e. = vs. RuiGon, 13+ SC%- .4+ D-f. = vs. <lvis, 1D3 SC%- D1. D-g. = vs. %obles, 163 SC%- 3D6 D-h. = vs. 9ligino, 143 SC%- +46 D-i. = vs. -be8ero, )ay 1>,l'/6 D-8. =. vs. $agano, 1/1 SC%- .3 D-k. =. vs. 9stevan, 1/4 SC%- 1/3 D-l. =. vs. %amos, 1/4 SC%- 1/3 D-m. =. vs. #lores, 1/4 SC%- .6. D-n. =. vs. 5ung!o, 1/4 SC%- >13 D-o. =. vs. -rsenio, 1/3 SC%- +6D 4. = vs. Fillanueva, 1+/ SC%- 3// >. = vs. De8ares!o, 1+' SC%- D>4 /. = vs. uvera, 1.6 SC%- 14' '. = vs. )aternal, 1.6 SC%- 4+D 16. = vs. &ilos, 1+> SC%- +6> 11. = vs. San!heG, 1.+ SC%- 16. 1+. = vs. =iGarro, 1.1 SC%- 31/ 1.. = vs. Sabilano, 1.+ SC%- /. 13. = vs. Feloso, 13/ SC%- 46 1D. )agtoto vs. )anguera, 4. SC%- 3 14. = vs. 2apasin, 13D SC%- 1>/ 1>. = vs. =alo, 13> SC%- 1>/ 1/. =. vs. De 5esus, 13D SC%- D+1 1'. = vs. =ia, 13D SC%- D/1 +6. = vs. 9n!ipiado, 134 SC%- 3>/ +1. = vs. Canumay, 1.6 SC%- .61 ++. = vs. )arino, 1.6 SC%- D'D

.3.

.33

+.. = vs. &atipravat, 13D SC%- 3/. +3. = vs. CruG, 1.. SC%a 3+4--when !onfession is valid +D. =. vs. De @a CruG, 1/. SC%- >4.---when !onfession is inadmissible but a!!used is still liable 11. 9viden!e of la!k of !voluntariness %ead: 1. = vs. 5ara, 133 SC%- D14 +. = vs. -bayon, 113 SC%- 1'> 1+. *s the testimony of the arresting offi!er on the !onfession of the a!!used admissibleN %ead: 1. = vs. Dy, 1D/ SC%- 111 CHA5TER EIII G THE CO-STIT3TIO-AL RI:HT TO 4AIL Se!tion 1.. -ll persons, e(!ept those !harged with offenses punishable by re!lusion perpetua when the eviden!e of guilt is strong, shall before !onvi!tion, be bailable by suffi!ient sureties, or be released on re!ogniGan!e as may be provided by law. he right to be bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas !orpus is suspended. 9(!essive bail shall not be re0uired. 1. he right to bail, 163 SC%- .>+ +. $ail, /1 SC%- 1// Fi')7 o( 8"il+ w%e' 'o# "pplic"8le. %e!ogniGan!eEbail for a !onvi!t - J. 5?@*-&- -D-@*)-7,* 9 FS. 5?D29 -%&?@#< $?2 -S, % C + $<%<&2-&, S-)-%, 3>D SC%- 1>D -ustria-)artineG, 5.
.33

alleged oral

.3D

#a!ts: )anuel $agaporo, 5r. was !onvi!ted of frustrated murder and was senten!ed four years and two months to eight years and one day of imprisonment. ,e started serving his senten!e and subse0uently, he filed an appli!ation for release on re!ogniGan!e. *n support of his appli!ation, the =rovin!ial 5ail 7arden issued a !ertifi!ation that $agaoporo has been !onfined at the =rovin!ial 5ail sin!e #ebruary ', 1''4 and is already entitled to parole. -nother !ertifi!ation was issued by the Supervising =arole and =robation <ffi!er showing that $agaporo applied for parole in lieu of the D<51s )aagang =aglaya =rogram. $y virtue of the above !ertifi!ations, respondent 8udge ordered the release of $agaporo upon re!ogniGan!e of the =rovin!ial 5ail 7arden of 9astern Samar. ,e likewise 8ustified the same based on the rule that :bail is dis!retionary upon !onvi!tion by the % C of an offense not punishable by death, re!lusion perpetua or life imprisonment. ,eld: %espondent 5udge is guilty of gross ignoran!e of the law for ordering the release of $agaporo pending the approval of his appli!ation for parole and before the !ompletion of the minimum period of the senten!e imposed upon him. *t is patently erroneous to release a !onvi!t on re!ogniGan!e. Se!tion +3, %ule 113 provides that there shall no bail for a !onvi!t after final 8udgment. he only e(!eption is when the !onvi!t applies for =robation before he !ommen!es to serve his senten!e and that the offense and the penalty for the offense is within the purview of the =robation @aw. Se!tions D and 14 of %ule 113 of the %ules of Court (on the different kinds of bailA A55LIES O-LY TO A- ACC3SE/ 3-/ER:OI-: 5REVE-TIVE IM5RISO-ME-T /3RI-: TRIAL OR O- A55EAL. THEY /O -OT A55LY TO A 5ERSOCO-VICTE/ 4Y .I-AL J3S:ME-T A-/ ALREA/Y SERVI-: SE-TE-CE. 5udge $ugtas was therefore fined =36,666.66 for gross ignoran!e of the law and sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar a!t shall be dealt with more severely. .. %ead:

.3D

.34

9(!essive bail: 1. De la Camara vs. 9nage, 31 SC%- 1 1-a. =estano vs. 5udge Felas!o, 5uly ., 1''6 7aiver of the right to bail: 1-b. =. vs. Donato, 5une D, 1''1 +. -lmeda vs. FillaluG, 44 SC%- ./ .. )ar!os vs. CruG, 4> and >6 =hil. 3. Fillasenor vs. -bano, +1 SC%- .1+ D. = vs. *-C, 5anuary 16,1'/>, 13> SC%- +1' 4. )anoto! vs. C-, )ay .6,1'/4 >. 2ar!ia vs. Domingo, D+ SC%- 13. /. = vs. San Diego, +4 SC%- D++ 4 3. See Se!tion 16, %ule 113, 1'/D %ules on Criminal =ro!edure a. =ro!edure when prose!utor does not ob8e!t to the petition for bail in !apital offenses: 4"il i' E@#r")i#io' c"7e7. 1 3-ITE/ STATES VS. J3/:E 53R3::A-A- H MARF J3ME-E> &ovember, +66+ A per7o' ("ci'& e@#r")i#io' procee)i'&7 i7 'o# e'#i#le) #o 8"il e*e' i( #%e cri$e %e w"7 c%"r&e) o( i' " (orei&' cou'#ry i7 8"il"8le. T%i7 i7 7o 8ec"u7e #%e co'7#i#u#io'"l pro*i7io' o' #%e ri&%# #o 8"il u')er Ar#. III o( #%e 196 Co'7#i#u#io' "pplie7 o'ly #o cri$i'"l c"7e7, 'o# i' e@#r")i#io' procee)i'&7. %ight to noti!e and hearing before the issuan!e of a warrant of arrest in e(tradition !ase when earlier, the e(traditee was allowed to be out on bail by the !ourt. he bail !ould not be !an!elled without hearing. + 9D?-%D< %<D%*2?9O FS. ,9 =%9S*D*&2 5?D29, % C 1>, )-&*@-, 3/. SC%- +'6 Ruisumbing, 5.
.34

.3>

*n SECRETARY O. J3STICE VS. J3/:E LA-TIO-, 399 SCRA 16; ( he )ark 5imeneG CaseA , the Supreme Court on a '-4 vote held that the e(traditee is entitled to noti!e and hearing even when a re0uest for e(tradition by another !ountry is still being evaluated. ,owever, on )otion for %e!onsideration in the same !ase, in a '-4 de!ision, the Supreme Court held that the prospe!tive e(traditee is not entitled to noti!e and hearing while his !ase is still under evaluation be!ause this would defeat the purpose of the arrest warrant sin!e it !ould give warning that respondents would be arrested and even en!ourage them to flee but entitled to noti!e and hearing if the !ase is already filed in !ourt. *t is a different matter if at first, the e(traditee was allowed bail. he !an!ellation of his bail bond may be made only after noti!e and hearing. <therwise, his right to due pro!ess of law will be violated. (&< 9: *n the !ase of ?S vs. 5udge =urugganan, ./' SC%- 4+.A, the Supreme Court held that the e(traditee is not entitled to post a bond even if the !rime he was !harged of abroad is a bailable offense. his is so be!ause of the possibility of flight.A . :OVER-ME-T O. HO-:FO-: S5ECIAL A/MI-ISTRATIVE RE:IOVS. HO-. .ELIE4ERTO OLALIA, JR., 191 SCRA 2 ; *n ?&* 9D S - 9S FS. 5?D29 =?%?22-&-&, ./' SC%4+., it was held that the !onstitutional provision on bail does not available in e(tradition pro!eedings. *t applies only in !riminal pro!eedings be!ause of the word :!onvi!tion. ,owever, the modern trend in publi! international law is the prima!y pla!ed on the worth of the individual person and the san!tity of human rights. -s su!h, the right to bail was applied in a deportation pro!eedings, i.e., )95<## FS. D*%9C <% <# =%*S<&S, '6 =hil. >6 B1'D1C and 8ustified the same with the ?niversal de!laration of ,uman %ights. *f the right to bail is available in deportation !ases, then there is no reason why it is not allowed in e(tradition pro!eedings. 4E.ORE A 5ROS5ECTIVE EETRA/ITEE IS ALLO0E/ TO 53T 35 4AIL, HE M3ST 5ROVE 4Y BCLEAR A-/ CO-VI-CI-: EVI/E-CED THAT HE IS -OT A .LI:HT RISF A-/ 0ILL A4I/E 0ITH ALL OR/ERS A-/ 5ROCESSES O. THE EETRA/ITIO- CO3RT.
.3>

.3/

CHA5TER EIV G /3E 5ROCESS I- CRIMI-AL 5ROCEE/I-:S 1. *n general: 1. = vs. errobias, 16. SC%- .+1 5re7u$p#io' o( i''oce'ce pre*"il7 o*er #%e pre7u$p#io' o( re&ul"ri#y i' #%e per(or$"'ce o( o((ici"l )u#ie7 o( #%e police "u#%ori#ie7 "') 5re7u$p#io' o( i''oce'ce re7ul#i'& i' "cCui##"l "7 " re7ul# o' co'(lic#i'& "') i'co'7i7#e'# #e7#i$o'ie7 o( #%e pro7ecu#io'N7 wi#'e77e7I -o'Gco$pli"'ce o( Sec#io' 91, Repu8lic Ac# -o. 9161, *iol"#e7 #%e pre7u$p#io' o( i''oce'ce o' #%e p"r# o( #%e "ccu7e) "') #%ere(ore, %e 7%oul) 8e "cCui##e). 5EO5LE O. THE 5HILI55I-ES VS. RO-AL/O /E :3>MA-, :.R. -o. 166296, M"rc% 96, 9;1; <n 5une 16, +66., a !onfidential informant reported De 2uGman1s drug pushing a!tivities to -l!ala, =angasinan1s Chief of =oli!e, Sotero Soriano, 5r. Soriano immediately formed a team to !ondu!t a buy-bust operation. -fter a short briefing, the team pro!eeded to De 2uGman1s house. <n!e there, the !onfidential informant introdu!ed appellant to Senior =oli!e <ffi!er (S=<A1 Daniel @lanillo, who was designated as poseur-buyer. @lanillo tried to buy =+66 worth of shabu. ,e handed two marked =166 bills to De 2uGman, and the latter, in turn, gave him two heat-sealed transparent plasti! sa!hets !ontaining what was suspe!ted as shabu. hereafter, @lanillo gave the prearranged signal to the rest of the team. -ppellant was arrested and frisked. he team re!overed from De 2uGman two pa!ks of empty transparent sa!hets, three disposable lighters, and =.,./6.66 in !ash, whi!h in!luded the marked money paid by S=<1 @lanillo. he team then brought De 2uGman to the poli!e station in -l!ala, =angasinan. -t the poli!e station, De 2uGman and the items seiGed during the buy-bust operation were turned over to the poli!e investigator, S=<. 9duardo Jadao. S=<. Jadao entered the in!ident in the poli!e blotter. ,e then pla!ed his initials on the pa!kets of suspe!ted shabu, whi!h were later submitted to the =hilippine &ational =oli!e (=&=A Crime @aboratory in ?rdaneta City. Confirmatory tests revealed that the substan!e in the pa!kets that appellant handed to S=<1 @lanillo was indeed shabu. -t the trial, appellant denied the !harges against him. ,e !laimed that, on the morning of 5une 16, +66., he was on the se!ond floor of his house wat!hing
.3/

.3'

television when he was informed by his wife that poli!e offi!ers were looking for him. ,e !laimed that S=<1 @lanillo informed him about a report that he (De 2uGmanA was repa!king shabu, whi!h he denied. hereafter, the poli!e offi!ers frisked him and took the =.,666.66 from his po!ket. he poli!e offi!ers also sear!hed the !abinet, where his television was, and found a lighter. hen, he was hand!uffed and brought to the poli!e station. -fter trial, the % C rendered a de!ision, finding De 2uGman guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating %.-. &o. '14D. ,e was senten!ed to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of =D66,666.66. De 2uGman elevated the matter to the Supreme Court on =etition for %eview after the Court of -ppeals affirmed the % C De!ision. ,e argues that the prose!ution failed to show that the poli!e offi!ers !omplied with the mandatory pro!edures under %.-. &o. '14D. *n parti!ular, he points to the fa!t that the seiGed items were not marked immediately after his arrest" that the poli!e offi!ers failed to make an inventory of the seiGed items in his presen!e or in the presen!e of his !ounsel and of a representative from the media and from the Department of 5usti!e (D<5A" and that no photographs were taken of the seiGed items and of appellant. -ppellant also !laims that the unbroken !hain of !ustody of the eviden!e was not established. #urther, appellant !ontends that the failure of the poli!e offi!ers to enter the buy-bust operation in the poli!e blotter before the said operation, the la!k of !oordination with the =hilippine Drug 9nfor!ement -gen!y (=D9-A, and the failure to observe the re0uirements of %.-. &o. '14D have effe!tively overturned the presumption of regularity in the performan!e of the poli!e offi!ers1 duties. HEL/I - review of the re!ords of this !ase reveals that !ir!umstan!es warrant a reversal of the trial !ourt1s de!ision.

he Constitution mandates that an a!!used in a !riminal !ase shall be presumed inno!ent until the !ontrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. he prose!ution is laden with the burden to over!ome su!h presumption of inno!en!e by presenting the 0uantum of eviden!e re0uired. Conse0uently, !ourts are re0uired to put the prose!ution eviden!e through the !ru!ible of a severe testing, and the !onstitutional right to presumption of inno!en!e re0uires them to take a more than !asual !onsideration of every !ir!umstan!e or doubt favoring the inno!en!e of the a!!used.

.3'

.D6

7hen the !ir!umstan!es are !apable of two or more inferen!es, as in this !ase, one of whi!h is !onsistent with inno!en!e and the other is !ompatible with guilt, the presumption of inno!en!e must prevail, and the !ourt must a!0uit. he duty to prove the guilt of an a!!used is reposed in the State. @aw enfor!ers and publi! offi!ers have the duty to preserve the !hain of !ustody over the seiGed drugs. his guarantee of the integrity of the eviden!e to be used against an a!!used goes to the very heart of his fundamental rights. *n a prose!ution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven: (1A that the transa!tion or sale took pla!e" (+A that the corpus delicti or the illi!it drug was presented as eviden!e" and (.A that the buyer and seller were identified. 7hat is material is the proof that the transa!tion or sale a!tually took pla!e, !oupled with the presentation in !ourt of the prohibited or regulated drug. he delivery of the !ontraband to the poseur-buyer and the re!eipt of the marked money !onsummate the buy-bust transa!tion between the entrapping offi!ers and the a!!used. he presentation in !ourt of the corpus delicti X the body or the substan!e of the !rime I establishes the fa!t that a !rime has a!tually been !ommitted. Contrary to De 2uGman1s !ontention, the trial !ourt !orre!tly found that the buy-bust transa!tion took pla!e. he buyer (S=<1 @lanilloA and seller (De 2uGmanA were both identified and the !ir!umstan!es of how the purported sale of the illegal drugs took pla!e were !learly demonstrated. hus, the prose!ution su!!essfully established the first and third elements of the !rime. ,owever, there is a problem in the prose!ution1s effort to establish the integrity of the corpus delicti. he identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral !ertainty. -part from showing that the elements of possession or sale are present, the fa!t that the substan!e illegally possessed and sold in the first pla!e is the same substan!e offered in !ourt as e(hibit must likewise be established with the same degree of !ertitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdi!t. he corpus delicti should be identified with unwavering e(a!titude. he !hain of !ustody re0uirement performs this fun!tion in that it ensures that unne!essary doubts !on!erning the identity of the eviden!e are removed. Se!tion +1 of %.-. &o. '14D states: Sec#io' 91. Custody and %isposition of Confiscated, "ei5ed, and7or "urrendered %angerous %rugs, #lant "ources of %angerous %rugs, Controlled #recursors and Essential C2emicals, Instruments7#arap2ernalia and7or La'oratory ECuipment. I he =D9- shall take !harge and have !ustody of all dangerous drugs, plant sour!es of dangerous drugs, !ontrolled pre!ursors and essential !hemi!als, as well as
.D6

.D1

instrumentsEparaphernalia andEor laboratory e0uipment so !onfis!ated, seiGed andEor surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner: (1A he apprehending team having initial !ustody and !ontrol of the drugs shall, immediately after seiGure and !onfis!ation, physi!ally inventory and photograph the same in the presen!e of the a!!used or the personEs from whom su!h items were !onfis!ated andEor seiGed, or hisEher representative or !ounsel, a representative from the media and the Department of 5usti!e (D<5A, and any ele!ted publi! offi!ial who shall be re0uired to sign the !opies of the inventory and be given a !opy thereof. he Court finds that the apprehending offi!ers failed to !omply with the guidelines set under %.-. &o. '14D and its *%%. S=<1 @lanillo himself admitted that the marking of the seiGed items was done in the poli!e station and not immediately after the buy-bust operation. he failure to follow the pro!edure mandated under %.-. &o. '14D and its *%% $u7# 8e ")eCu"#ely e@pl"i'e). he 8ustifiable ground for non-!omplian!e must be proven as a fa!t. he !ourt !annot presume what these grounds are or that they even e(ist. -!!ordingly, non-!omplian!e with the pro!edure shall not render void and invalid the seiGure and !ustody of the drugs only when: (1A su!h non-!omplian!e is attended by 8ustifiable grounds" and (+A the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seiGed items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. here must be proof that these two (+A re0uirements were met before su!h non-!omplian!e may be said to fall within the s!ope of the proviso. *n this !ase, it was admitted that it was S=<. Jadao, the assigned investigator, who marked the seiGed items, and only upon seeing the items for the first time at the poli!e station. )oreover, there was no physi!al inventory made or photographs of the seiGed items taken under the !ir!umstan!es re0uired by %.-. &o. '14D and its *%%. here was also no mention that representatives from the media and from the D<5, and any ele!ted offi!ial, were present during this inventory. he prose!ution never e(plained the reasons for these lapses. -s a method of authenti!ating eviden!e, the !hain of !ustody rule re0uires that the admission of an e(hibit be pre!eded by eviden!e suffi!ient to support a finding that the matter in 0uestion is what the proponent !laims it to be. *t would in!lude testimony about every link in the !hain, from the moment the item was pi!ked up to the time it is offered in eviden!e, in su!h a way that every person
.D1

.D+

who tou!hed the e(hibit would des!ribe how and from whom it was re!eived, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness1 possession, the !ondition in whi!h it was re!eived and the !ondition in whi!h it was delivered to the ne(t link in the !hain. hese witnesses would then des!ribe the pre!autions taken to ensure that there had been no !hange in the !ondition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the !hain to have possession of the same. *ndeed, it is from the testimony of every witness who handled the eviden!e that a reliable assuran!e !an be derived that the eviden!e presented in !ourt and that seiGed from the a!!used are one and the same. -!!ordingly, the failure to establish, through !onvin!ing proof, that the integrity of the seiGed items has been ade0uately preserved through an unbroken !hain of !ustody is enough to engender reasonable doubt on the guilt of an a!!used. %easonable doubt is that doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability after su!h investigation to let the mind rest upon the !ertainty of guilt. -bsolute !ertainty of guilt is not demanded by the law to !onvi!t a person !harged with a !rime, but moral !ertainty is re0uired as to every proposition of proof re0uisite to !onstitute the offense. - !onvi!tion !annot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the identity of the drug.

*ndeed, the prose!ution1s failure to prove that the spe!imen submitted for laboratory e(amination was the same one allegedly seiGed from appellant is fatal to the prose!ution1s !ase. #inally, the prose!ution !annot find sola!e in its invo!ation of the presumption of regularity in the apprehending offi!ers1 performan!e of offi!ial duty. T%e pre7u$p#io' o( re&ul"ri#y i' #%e per(or$"'ce o( o((ici"l )u#y c"''o# 8y i#7el( o*erco$e #%e pre7u$p#io' o( i''oce'ce 'or co'7#i#u#e proo( 8eyo') re"7o'"8le )ou8t. )oreover, the failure to observe the proper pro!edure negates the operation of the presumption of regularity a!!orded to poli!e offi!ers. -s a general rule, the testimonies of the poli!e offi!ers who apprehended the a!!used are a!!orded full faith and !redit be!ause of the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly. $ut when the performan!e of their duties is tainted with failure to !omply with the pro!edure and guidelines pres!ribed, the presumption is effe!tively destroyed. hus, even if the defense eviden!e is weak, the prose!ution1s whole !ase still falls. he eviden!e for the prose!ution must stand or fall on its own weight and !annot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.

.D+

.D.

EL5I/IO 4O-/A/, JR. VS. 5EO5LE, :.R. -o. 1 36;2, E/ece$8er 1;, 9;;6 CAR5IO MORALES, J.I 9lpidio $ondad, 5r., y $ura! (appellantA was !harged before the %egional rial Court (% CA of )arikina City +D+B1C for violation of Se!tion D, paragraph +(.A, -rti!le ** of %epubli! -!t &o. '14D (%.-. &o. '14DA or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs -!t of +66+, allegedly !ommitted as follows:+D.B+C hat on or about the +'th day of 5anuary +663, in the City of )arikina, =hilippines and within the 8urisdi!tion of this ,onorable Court, the above-named a!!used, without being authoriGed by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly sell to poseur buyer 6.6+ gram of )ethamphetamine ,ydro!hloride (shabuA !ontained in one (1A heat-sealed transparent plasti! sa!het, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-!ited law.+D3B.C (?nders!oring suppliedA ,e was likewise !harged for violation of Se!tion 11, par. +(.A, -rti!le ** also of %.-. &o. '14D, allegedly !ommitted as follows: hat on or about the +'th day of 5anuary +663, in the City of )arikina, =hilippines, and within the 8urisdi!tion of this ,onorable Court, the above-named a!!used, without being authoriGed by law to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drugs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession dire!t !ustody and !ontrol 6.63 gram of white !rystalline substan!e !ontained in two (+A heat-sealed plasti! sa!hets whi!h gave positive result to the test for )ethamphetamine ,ydro!hloride (shabuA, whi!h is a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-!ited law.+DDB3C (?nders!oring suppliedA -t around >:6D p.m. of 5anuary +', +663, while =<+ #erdinand $rubio, =<1 Christopher -nos, and =<1 %oberto )uega were at the Station -nti *llegal Drug Spe!ial <perations ask #or!e (S-*DS< #A, <ffi!e of the )arikina City =oli!e Station, =<+ &elson -rribay arrived together with a !onfidential informant. he !onfidential informant reported, among other things, about the rampant sale of s2a'u in a billiard hall along $onifa!io -venue, $arangka, )arikina City and named a !ertain alias :5un; as the vendor.

+D+ +D. +D3 +DD

B1C B+C B.C B3C

$ollo, pp. >.->3. %e!ords, p. +. %e!ords, p. + - *nformation dated #ebruary +, +663. *d. at p. 4.

.D.

.D3

he Chief of the S-*DS< #, =ESr. *nsp. %am!hrisen ,averia, 5r., at on!e formed a buy-bust team !omposed of, among others, =<+ %amiel Soriano and =<+ Dano who was designated as the poseur-buyer. =<+ Dano was given a one hundred peso bill bearing Serial &o. R3/>'3D to be used as buy-bust money. *t was agreed that =<+ Dano1s removal of his !ap would signal that the buy-bust was !onsummated. he !ondu!t of a buy-bust operation was re!orded in the poli!e blotter and was !oordinated with the =hilippine Drug 9nfor!ement -gen!y (=D9-A whi!h gave it !ontrol number &<C-61+'63-+/. he buy-bust team, together with the !onfidential informant, pro!eeded to . C1s billiard hall at the !orner of ). CruG St. and $onifa!io -venue in $arangka, )arikina City. <n entering the hall, the !onfidential informant pointed to appellant who was then holding a !ue sti!k beside the billiard table as the alias :5un.; he !onfidential informant approa!hed appellant and talked to him. 7ithin minutes, appellant approa!hed =<+ Dano and asked him if he wanted to buy s2a'u, to whi!h =<+ Dano answered :piso lang.; -ppellant at on!e took out a :Fi!ks; !ontainer from his right front po!ket+D4BDC whi!h, when opened, yielded heat-sealed plasti! sa!hets !ontaining substan!es suspe!ted to be s2a'u. #rom the !ontainer, appellant drew out one sa!het in e(!hange for whi!h =<+ Dano gave the marked one hundred peso bill. -t that instant, =<+ Dano removed his !ap. -s the ba!k-up poli!e offi!ers were !losing-in, =<+ Dano grabbed appellant1s arm, identified himself, and apprised appellant of his !onstitutional rights. ?pon =<+ Dano1s order, appellant returned the buybust money, handed the :Fi!ks; !ontainer, and gave his name as 9lpidio $ura! $ondad, 5r. Still at the pla!e of arrest, =<+ Dano pla!ed the markings :9$$9D $?J$?S 61E+'E63; on the substan!e-filled sa!het sold to him, and :9$$-9D, =<S 1 and +, 61E+'E63; on the sa!hets that remained inside the :Fi!ks; !ontainer. he buy-bust team thereupon brought appellant and the seiGed items to the )arikina City =oli!e Station where a memorandum dated 5anuary +', +663+D>B4C was prepared by =ESr. *nsp. Chief ,averia, 5r., addressed to the Chief of the 9astern =oli!e Distri!t Crime @aboratory <ffi!e, re0uesting for the !ondu!t of laboratory e(amination on the seiGed items to determine the presen!e of dangerous drugs and their weight. =<+ Dano also re0uested that appellant be sub8e!ted to a drug test.+D/B>C

+D4 +D> +D/

BDC B4C B>C

&o spe!ifi!ation if it was a po!ket of the shirt or of the pants. *d. at p. 1D S&, 5une 1D, +663, p. 31

.D3

.DD

he following day or on 5anuary .6, +663, at .:66 =.)., upon re!eipt of three sa!hets, a laboratory e(amination was !ondu!ted thereon by =oli!e Senior *nspe!tor -nnalee %. #orro, #orensi! Chemi!al <ffi!er of the 9astern =oli!e Distri!t Crime @aboratory <ffi!e, who, in =hysi!al S!ien!e %eport &o. D-66'3-639+D'B/C, re!orded, among other things, the spe!imen submitted, her findings and !on!lusion as follows: S=9C*)9& S?$)* 9D:

hree (.A heat-sealed transparent plasti! sa!hets with markings marked as - through C respe!tively, ea!h !ontaining white !rystalline substan!e with following re!orded net weights and markings: - ` 6.6+ gram :9$$-9D $?J$?S 61E+'E63; $ ` 6.6+ gram :9$$-9D =<SS 1 61E+'E63; C ` 6.6+ gram :9$$-9D =<SS + 61E+'E63; (-(-( # * & D * & 2 S: ( ( ( (-(-( (-(-(

Rualitative e(amination !ondu!ted on the above-stated spe!imen gave &O3/T/?, result to the tests for Metha(pheta(ine .ydro hloride, a dangerous drug. (-(-( C < & C @ ? S * < &: Spe!imens - through C !ontain Metha(pheta(ine .ydro hloride, a dangerous drug. +46B'C (*tali!s and emphasis in the originalA Denying the !harges against him, appellant, a former poli!e offi!er, !laimed that he was framed up and gave the following version: <n 5anuary +', +663, while he was playing inside . C1s billiard hall, =<+ $rubio, whom he knew was a poli!eman, entered the billiard hall. -fter greeting =<+ $rubio in icolano, he !ontinued playing but =<+ $rubio suddenly hand!uffed him and asked him :"umama @a muna.; -nother person who was at his ba!k pushed him out of the billiard hall in the !ourse of whi!h he felt =<+ $rubio rea!hing his (appellant1sA right front po!ket,+41B16C drawing him to restrain the hand of =<+ $rubio, telling him :pera @o yana; (-(-( (-(-(

+D' +46 +41B16C

B/C B'C

%e!ords, p. 1> 9(hibit :C;, folder of e(hibits, p. + here is also no spe!ifi!ation if it was a po!ket of the shirt or the pants

.DD

.D4

-ware that his son was inside the billiard hall, appellant summoned and handed him his wallet !ontaining =+,666. =<+ $rubio, however, took the wallet from his son, telling him : Hu?ag @a ma@ialam dito.; ,e was then made to board a !ar and taken to the <ffi!e of the S-*DS< # at the poli!e station. -ppellant1s defense was !orroborated by his son Christian 5effrey C. $ondad, and %oberto ?. )ata who was a :spotter; (refereeA at the billiard hall at the time appellant was arrested. #inding for the prose!ution, the trial !ourt !onvi!ted appellant in both !harges, disposing as follows: 7,9%9#<%9, foregoing premises !onsidered, the Court finds the a!!used 9@=*D*< $<&D-D, 5%. y $?%-C guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the !rime of Fiolation of Se!. 11 par. +(.A, -rt. ** of %.-. '14D and is senten!ed to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of 79@F9 (1+A J9-%S and <&9 (1A D-J and to pay the fine of ,%99 ,?&D%9D ,<?S-&D =9S<S (=h=.66,666.66A as provided for in Se!. 11 par. +(.A, -rt. ** of %- '14D. he a!!used is likewise found guilty of the !rime of Fiolation of Se!. D -rt. ** of %- '14D and is senten!ed to suffer the penalty of @*#9 *)=%*S<&)9& and fine of #*F9 ,?&D%9D ,<?S-&D =9S<S (=h=D66,66.66A pursuant to Se!. D, -rt. ** of %- '14D the methamphetamine hydro!hloride (shabuA is ordered !onfis!ated in favor of the government for proper destru!tion by the proper agen!y. S< <%D9%9D.+4+B11C (?nders!oring suppliedA $y De!ision of #ebruary /, +664,+4.B1+C the Court of -ppeals affirmed the trial !ourt1s de!ision with modifi!ation, disposing as follows: 7,9%9#<%9, in the light of the foregoing, the appeal is D*S)*SS9D for la!k of merit. he assailed de!ision is -##*%)9D with the )<D*#*C- *<& that the a!!used-appellant is senten!ed to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of twelve (1+A years and one (1A day, as minimum, to thirteen (1.A years, as ma(imum and to pay a fine of hree ,undred housand =esos (=.66,666.66A. S< <%D9%9D.+43B1.C (?nders!oring suppliedA

+4+ +4.

B11C B1+C

+43

C- rollo, p. 1+3. =enned by 5usti!e -melita 2. olentino with the !on!urren!e of 5usti!es =ortia -liTo ,orma!huelos and Fi!ente S.9. Feloso, C- rollo, pp. +.+-+D3. B1.C $ollo, p. 4/.

.D4

.D>

Spe!ifi!ally with respe!t to the !harge of possession of s2a'u, the appellate !ourt held: he eviden!e for the prose!ution fully proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements ne!essary to su!!essfully prose!ute a !ase for illegal possession of a prohibited drug, namely, (aA the a!!used is in possession of an item or an ob8e!t identified to be a prohibited or a regulated drug, (bA su!h possession is not authoriGed by law and (!A the a!!used freely and !ons!iously possessed said drug. ?nder Se!tion 11, =ar. + B.C of %.-. '14D, the mere a!t of possessing any dangerous drug !onsummates the !rime. here is no doubt that the !harge of illegal possession of s2a'u was proven beyond reasonable doubt sin!e the a!!used-appellant knowingly possessed plasti! sa!hets with white !rystalline granules, without legal authority at the time he was !aught during the buy-bust operation. he white !rystalline granules found in his possession, upon laboratory e(amination, were positively identified as met2amp2etamine 2ydroc2loride or s2a'u, a dangerous drug.+4DB13C (*tali!s in the original, unders!oring suppliedA ,en!e, the present =etition for %eview on Certiorari, appellant faulting the appellate !ourt: **. . . . *& -D)* *&2 ,9 9F*D9&C9 <# ,9 =%<S9C? *<& D9S=* 9 CLEAR VIOLATIO- O. SECTIO- 91 ,1! O. R.A. 9161+ -s the resolution of the se!ond assignment of error is determinative of whether there is still ne!essity of segueing to the first and third assignments of error, it shall early on be passed upon. -ppellant !laims that there was failure to follow the re0uirements of Se!. +1 of %.-. &o. '14D, hen!e, it !ompromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the allegedly seiGed items. Se!. +1 of %.-. &o '14D provides: Sec#io' 91. C#"tody and 1i"po"ition of Confi" ated, 3eiIed, andFor 3#rrendered 1an*ero#" 1r#*", &lant 3o#r e" of 1an*ero#" 1r#*", Controlled &re #r"or" and ,""ential Che(i al", /n"tr#(ent"F&araphernalia andFor =a4oratory ,$#ip(ent. T he =D9shall take !harge and have !ustody of all dangerous drugs, plant sour!es or dangerous drugs, !ontrolled pre!ursors and essential !hemi!als, as well as
+4D

B13C

*d. at p. 44 (!itations omittedA..

.D>

.D/

instrumentsEparaphernalia andEor laboratory e0uipment so !onfis!ated, seiGed and or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner: (1A he apprehending team having initial !ustody and !ontrol of the drugs 7%"ll, i$$e)i"#ely "(#er 7eiJure "') co'(i7c"#io' , p%y7ic"lly i'*e'#ory "') p%o#o&r"p% #%e 7"$e in t2e presence of the a!!used or the personsEs from whom su!h items were !onfis!ated andEor seiGed, or hisEher representative or !ounsel, a representative from the media and the Department of 5usti!e (D<5A, and any ele!ted publi! offi!ial w%o 7%"ll 8e reCuire) #o 7i&' #%e copie7 o( #%e i'*e'#ory "') 8e &i*e' " copy #%ereo(" ( ( ( (9mphasis and unders!oring suppliedA -ppellant !laims that no physi!al inventory and photographing of the drugs took pla!e. - reading of the testimony of the poseur-buyer, =<+ Dano indeed !onfirms appellant1s !laim, vi5: -tty. =uentebella: 7hen you brought him to the poli!e, it was there that the items taken from him were inventoried, is it notN 7itness: 7e did 'o# make inventory be!ause we simply brought the eviden!e !onfis!ated. ((( -tty. =uentebella: Jou also did not take photographs of the items taken from the a!!usedN 7itness: Jes, sir. -tty. =uentebella: -nd you know for a fa!t that under the new drugs law, this is a re0uirement for the apprehending team to do, is it notN =ros. 2apuGan: Counsel is asking for a !on!lusion of law. * will ob8e!t. Court: 7itness may answer the 0uestion. 7itness: Jes, sir. ((((
.D/

.D'

-tty. =uentebella: So it is very !lear now )r. 7itness that at the time you apprehended the a!!used, you )i) 'o# $"Le "' i'*e'#ory i' #%e pre7e'ce of the a!!used 'or you )i) 'o# <"i = $"Le " p%o#o&r"p% of the items seiGed i' #%e pre7e'ce of the a!!used, an ele!tive offi!ial, a representative from the Department of 5usti!e, or the media, that1s very !learN 7itness: Jes, sir. -tty. =uentebella: Sin!e you did not make any inventory, it follows that you did not re0uire them to sign your inventory as re0uired by lawN 7itness: Jes, sir.+44B14C (9mphasis and unders!oring suppliedA Clearly then, the apprehending poli!e offi!ers failed to !omply with the above-0uoted provision of Se!tion +1 of %.-. &o. '14D. &eople !. &rin*a" holds, however: &on-!omplian!e by the apprehendingEbuy-bust team with Se!tion +1 is not fatal as long as there is Au7#i(i"8le &rou') therefor, and "7 lo'& "7 #%e i'#e&ri#y "') #%e e*i)e'#i"ry *"lue o( #%e co'(i7c"#e)K7eiJe) i#e$7, "re properly pre7er*e) 8y #%e "ppre%e')i'& o((icerK#e"$. *ts non-!omplian!e will not render an a!!usedSs arrest illegal or the items seiGedE!onfis!ated from him inadmissible. 7hat is of utmost importan!e is the pre7er*"#io' o( #%e i'#e&ri#y "') #%e e*i)e'#i"ry *"lue o( #%e 7eiJe) i#e$7, as the same would be utiliGed in the determination of the guilt or inno!en!e of the a!!used.+4>B1>C (Citation omitted, emphasis, itali!s and unders!oring suppliedA he Court1s pronoun!ement in #ringas is based on the provision of Se!tion +1(aA of the *mplementing %ules and %egulations +4/B1/C of %.-. &o. '14D, vi5: ( ( ( =rovided, further, that non-!omplian!e with these re0uirements under Au7#i(i"8le &rou')7, as long as the i'#e&ri#y "') e*i)e'#i"ry *"lue o( #%e 7eiJe) i#e$7 "re properly pre7er*e) by the apprehending

+44 +4> +4/B1/C

B14C B1>C

S&, 5une 1D, +663, pp. /6-/>. 2.%. &o. 1>D'+/. -ugust .1, +66>, D.1 SC%- /+/, /3+-/3. ook effe!t on &ovember +>, +66+.

.D'

.46

offi!erEteam, 7%"ll 'o# re')er *oi) "') i'*"li) 7uc% 7eiJure7 o( "') cu7#o)y o*er 7"i) i#e$7" (9mphasis and unders!oring suppliedA *n the present !ase, by =<+ Dano1s !laim, he immediately marked the seiGed items whi!h were brought to the Crime @aboratory for e(amination. 4y %i7 ")$i77io', %owe*er, %e )i) 'o# co')uc# "' i'*e'#ory o( #%e i#e$7 7eiJe). 0or7e, 'o p%o#o&r"p% o( #%e i#e$7 w"7 #"Le'. T%ere w"7 #%u7 ("ilure #o ("i#%(ully (ollow #%e reCuire$e'#7 o( #%e l"w. =arentheti!ally, unlike in #ringas, the defense in the present !ase 0uestioned early on, during the !ross e(amination of =<+ Dano, the failure of the apprehending offi!ers to !omply with the inventory and photographing re0uirements of Se!tion +1 of %.-. &o. '14D+4'B1'C, despite =<+ Dano1s awareness of su!h re0uirements. -nd the defense raised it again during the offer of eviden!e by the prose!ution, thus: -tty. =uentebella: (((( 9(hibits :$; whi!h is the brown envelope, :$-1;, :$-+; and :$-.; are ob8e!ted to for being produ!t of irregular fun!tions of poli!e and therefore fruit of poisonous thinking BsicC and they are not admissible and #%ey were 'o# p%o#o&r"p%e) i' #%e pre7e'ce o( #%e "ccu7e) "7 pro*i)e) (or 8y Sec. 91, p"r.1, R.A. 9161"+>6B+6C (emphasis suppliedA *& #*&9, as the failure to !omply with the aforesaid re0uirements of the law !ompromised the identity of the items seiGed, whi!h is the corpus delicti of ea!h of the !rimes !harged against appellant, +>1B+1C his a!0uittal is in order. his leaves it unne!essary to still dwell on the first and third assignments of error. 0HERE.ORE, the =etition is :RA-TE/. he assailed de!ision is REVERSE/ "') SET ASI/E and appellant, 9lpidio $ondad 5r., y $ura!, is -CR?* 9D of the !rimes !harged. 5EO5LE VS. SAM3EL O4MIRA-IS, 2.%. &o. 1/13'+, De!ember 14, +66/ *&2-, J.:
+4' +>6 +>1
B1'C B+6C B+1C

*ide S&, 5une 1D, +663, pp. /1-/D. S&, -ugust 16, +663, pp. 4->. #eople v. La>a, 313 =hil. 1D4, 1>6 (+661A !iting #eople v. $igodon, +./ SC%- +> (1''3A.

.46

.41

his is an appeal filed by Samuel <bmiranis y <reta (appellantA who was !harged with violation of Se!tion D in relation to Se!tion +4 of %epubli! -!t (%.-.A &o. '14D.+>+B1C ,e was allegedly !aught in a buy-bust operation by elements of the )anila 7estern =oli!e Distri!t ()7=DA while offering to sell methyl amphetamine hydro!hloride, a dangerous drug lo!ally known as s2a'u. he !riminal information filed with the %egional rial Court (% CA of )anila, $ran!h + +>.B+C a!!used him as follows: hat on or about )ay 1/, +663, in the City of )anila, =hilippines, the said a!!used, not having been authoriGed by law to sell, trade, deliver or give away to another any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly attempt to sell or offer for sale one (1A transparent plasti! sa!het !ontaining 7< =<*& 9*2, O9%< O9%< (+./66A grams of white !rystalline substan!e known as :S,-$?; !ontaining methylamphetamine hydro!hloride, a dangerous drug. Contrary to law.+>3B.C -t the pre-trial, both the prose!ution and the defense stipulated on the 0ualifi!ation of #orensi! Chemist 9lisa %eyes and, thus, both parties dispensed with her testimony. he prose!ution further admitted that the forensi! !hemist who analyGed the seiGed the !onfis!ated substan!eX whi!h yielded positive for methylamphetamine hydro!hloride !ontentX did not have personal knowledge of the ultimate sour!e of the drug.+>DB3C -ppellant was brought to trial after having entered a negative plea. he prose!ution then pro!eeded to prove the !harge against him through the lone testimony of poli!e offi!er 5erry Felas!o (Felas!oA. Felas!o was the alleged leader of the raiding team that apprehended appellant on 1/ )ay +663 at the !orner of 2. uaGon and 5ho!son Streets in Sampalo!, )anila.+>>B4C
+>4BDC

he narrative woven by Felas!o established the following fa!ts: <n 1> )ay +663, =oli!e Superintendent )ar!elino =edroGo (=edroGoA of the )7=D organiGed a buy-bust team on the information of a !onfidential informant that the latter was able to pla!e an order for half a : 'ulto; of s2a'u with appellant. Felas!o was designated as the team leader and the poseur-buyer, with =oli!e <ffi!ers 7ilfredo Cin!o, 9dgardo =alabay,
+>+ +>. +>3 +>D +>4 +>>

.41

.4+

%oberto $eniteG and one+>/B>C!onfidential informant as members.+>'B/C =edroGo gave the team a marked D66-peso bill to be used as buy-bust money whi!h was pla!ed on top of a de!k of boodle money. he team informed the =hilippine Drug 9nfor!ement -gen!y (=D9-A of the impending operation,+/6B'C entered the same in the blotter+/1B16C and pro!eeded to $ambang in 2. uaGon Street 8ust before 1+ a.m. of 1/ )ay +663Xthe appointed time and date that the !onfidential informant and appellant had agreed to meet. he informant 8oined Felas!o in his !ar, and they awaited the arrival of appellant at the !orner of 2. uaGon and 5ho!son Streets.+/+B11C -t around 1+:.6 a.m., appellant on board a !ar arrived at the s!ene and seeing the informant he approa!hed the latter. he informant introdu!ed Felas!o to appellant and said that Felas!o would like to buy one-half :'ultoF of s2a'u. Felas!o negotiated with appellant to lower the pri!e but the latter refused. Felas!o then insisted that he must first see the mer!handise. -ppellant went ba!k to his !ar, took the item and brought it to Felas!o. Felas!o readily re!ogniGed the item as a plasti! sa!het !ontaining a white !rystalline substan!e. 7hen appellant asked for payment, he seemed to have re!ogniGed Felas!o1s !ooffi!er be!ause he uttered the words, : May pulis yata.F -t that point, he was arrested 8ust as he was trying to get ba!k to his !ar.+/.B1+C -!!ording to Felas!o, he was the one who effe!ted the arrest but it was Cin!o who seiGed the plasti! sa!het from appellant. ,e further stated that immediately after the arrest, he and his team brought the seiGed item to the poli!e head0uarters and there, in his presen!e, Cin!o marked the same with the initials :S<<.; -t the trial, he identified the plasti! sa!het as that seiGed from appellant as well as the marking made by Cin!o on it. #urthermore, he admitted on !ross-e(amination that there was no eviden!e !ustodian designated and that he !ould not remember if the seiGed item had been inventoried and photographed in the presen!e of the a!!used" that Cin!o put the item in his po!ket after the same was re!overed and did not mark it on the spot and that the markings made on the buy-bust money had not been entered in the blotter.+/3B1.C he !hemistry report issued at the instan!e of =edroGo and signed by #orensi! Chemi!al <ffi!er )aritess )ariano of the =&= Crime @aboratory revealed that the spe!imen supposedly seiGed from appellant yielded positive of methylamphetamine hydro!hloride !ontent.+/DB13C
+>/ +>' +/6 +/1 +/+ +/. +/3 +/D

.4+

.4.

aking the stand, appellant boldly asserted that he was merely framed up by the buy-bust team, and strongly denied having transa!ted the alleged sale of s2a'u with Felas!o and the !onfidential informant. ,e !laimed that he was taken by Felas!o and his team not on 1/ )ay +663 but rather on 1> )ay +663 at >:66 p.m. along Santa eresita Street, Sampalo!, )anila"+/4B1DC that he was there to see his girlfriend who was residing in that area" that when he was arrested by two men in !ivilian !lothes, he was not !ommitting any !rime" that he asked them why they were arresting him but neither of them gave an answer and instead one of them grabbed him by his shoulder and ushered him inside a poli!e !ar" that on!e inside the !ar, one of the men pulled out a gun with whi!h he hit his ne!k, ki!ked him and uttered, :Ma@ulit @a 2a, yu@oT;" that he asked them why they were doing that to him when in fa!t he merely told them to park their !ar properly on the street" that they !uffed his hands at the ba!k and the driver, Felas!o, asked if he !ould give them =+66,666.66" that he answered he did not have that mu!h money" that they drove the !ar around and told him that if he !ould not give them the money then he must 8ust find for them someone who sells drugs in large-s!ale (: Magturo @a ng nag'e'enta ng droga, iyong mala@i2an 2aT;A" that be!ause he said he did not know anyone who was into selling drugs, he was taken to the ?.&. -venue poli!e head0uarters" that he was not detained at the head0uarters but rather, he was brought to the se!ond floor where the two arresting offi!ers demanded =D6,666.66 from him" that the demand was then redu!ed to =.6,666.66 in e(!hange for the mitigation of his !ase. +/>B14C <livia *smael, another defense witness who introdu!ed herself as a friend of appellant1s girlfriend and who admitted having witnessed appellant1s arrest, !orroborated the material points of appellant1s testimony.+//B1>C *n its +. #ebruary +664 De!ision, the % C found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense !harged. ,e was senten!ed to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, and to pay a =D66,666.66 fine without subsidiary imprisonment as well as the !osts.+/'B1/C Appell"'# i'#erpo7e) "' "ppe"l wi#% #%e Cour# o( Appe"l7 i' w%ic% %e rei#er"#e) #%"# #%e pro7ecu#io' w"7 u'"8le #o e7#"8li7% %i7 &uil# 8eyo') re"7o'"8le )ou8# i' *iew o( #%e ("ilure #o e7#"8li7% #%e c%"i' o( cu7#o)y o( #%e ille&"l )ru&7 "') #%"# i# w"7 liLewi7e u'"8le #o e7#"8li7% #%e co'7u$$"#io' o( #%e "lle&e) 7"le o( )ru&7. +'6B1'C #or its part, the =eople, through the <ffi!e of the Soli!itor 2eneral (<S2A, posited that the fa!t that all the essential elements of a !onsummated sale
+/4 +/> +// +/' +'6

.4.

.43

of dangerous drug had not been !ompletely shown was immaterial be!ause the !harge involved a mere attempt or offer to sell whi!h had been duly established by the prose!ution.+'1B+6C *t also maintained that the !hain of !ustody of the seiGed s2a'u had been duly established be!ause the re0uirements in taking !ustody of seiGed nar!oti!s provided for in Dangerous Drugs $oard %egulation &o. 1, series of +66+ +'+B+1C admit of liberal interpretation.+'.B++C *n its 3 September +66> De!ision,+'3B+.C the Court of -ppeals affirmed in toto the trial !ourt1s de!ision. T%e "ppe"l %"7 #o 8e &r"'#e). *n !riminal prose!utions, fundamental is the re0uirement that the elemental a!ts !onstituting the offense be established with moral !ertainty as this is the !riti!al and only re0uisite to a finding of guilt. *n prose!utions involving nar!oti!s, the nar!oti! substan!e itself !onstitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fa!t of its e(isten!e is vital to sustain a 8udgment of !onvi!tion beyond reasonable doubt.+'DB+>C *t is therefore of prime importan!e that in these !ases, the identity of the dangerous drug be likewise established beyond reasonable doubt.+'4B+/C *n other words, it must be established with unwavering e(a!titude that the dangerous drug presented in !ourt as eviden!e against the a!!used is the same as that seiGed from him in the first pla!e. he !hain of !ustody re0uirement performs this fun!tion in that it ensures that unne!essary doubts !on!erning the identity of the eviden!e are removed.+'>B+'C $oard %egulation &o. 1, series of +66+ defines !hain of !ustody as :the duly re!orded authoriGed movements and !ustody of seiGed drugs or !ontrolled !hemi!als or plant sour!es of dangerous drugs or laboratory e0uipment of ea!h stage, from the time of seiGureE!onfis!ation to re!eipt in the forensi! laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in !ourt for destru!tion.; -s a method of authenti!ating eviden!e, the !hain of !ustody rule re0uires that the admission of the e(hibit be pre!eded by eviden!e suffi!ient to support a finding that the matter in 0uestion is what the proponent !laims it to be.+'/B.6C *t would thus in!lude testimony about every link in the !hain, from the moment the item was seiGed to the time it is offered in !ourt as eviden!e, su!h that every person who handled the
+'1 +'+ +'. +'3 +'D +'4 +'> +'/

.43

.4D

same would admit how and from whom it was re!eived, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness1 possession, the !ondition in whi!h it was re!eived and the !ondition in whi!h it was delivered to the ne(t link in the !hain. he same witnesses would then des!ribe the pre!autions taken to ensure that there had been no !hange in the !ondition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the !hain to have possession of the same.+''B.1C *t is from the testimony of every witness who handled the eviden!e from whi!h a reliable assuran!e !an be derived that the eviden!e presented in !ourt is one and the same as that seiGed from the a!!used. he prose!ution eviden!e in the !ase at bar, however, does not suffi!e to afford su!h assuran!e. <f all the people who !ame into dire!t !onta!t with the sa!het of s2a'u purportedly seiGed from appellant, only Felas!o was able to observe the uni0ueness thereof in !ourt. Cin!o, who, a!!ording to Felas!o, took initial !ustody of the plasti! sa!het at the time of arrest and who allegedly marked the same with the initials :S<<; at the poli!e station, was not even presented in !ourt to dire!tly observe the uni0ueness of the spe!imen and, more importantly, to a!knowledge the marking as his own. he same is true with respe!t to the laboratory personnel who !ould have but nevertheless failed to testify on the !ir!umstan!es under whi!h he re!eived the spe!imen at the laboratory for analysis and testing, as well as on the !ondu!t of the e(amination whi!h was administered on the spe!imen and what he did with it at the time it was in his possession and !ustody. -side from that, it was not reasonably e(plained why these same witnesses were not able to testify in !ourt. 7hile indeed the prose!ution and the defense had stipulated on the 0ualifi!ation of the forensi! !hemist, dispensed with his testimony and admitted that said forensi! !hemist had no personal knowledge of the ultimate sour!e of the drug submitted for e(amination, nevertheless, these stipulations and admission pertain only to a !ertain 9lisa 2. %eyes and not to #orensi! Chemi!al <ffi!er )aritess )ariano who, based on the !hemistry report, was the one who e(amined the !ontents of the plasti! sa!het at the !rime laboratory. *n view of these loopholes in the eviden!e addu!ed against appellant, it !an be reasonably !on!luded that the prose!ution was unable to establish the identity of the dangerous drug and in effe!t failed to obliterate the hypothesis of appellant1s guiltlessness. $e that as it may, although testimony about a perfe!t !hain does not always have to be the standard be!ause it is almost always impossible to obtain, "' u'8roLe' c%"i' o( cu7#o)y i')ee) 8eco$e7 i')i7pe'7"8le "') e77e'#i"l w%e' #%e i#e$ o( re"l e*i)e'ce i7 " '"rco#ic 7u87#"'ce. uni0ue !hara!teristi! of nar!oti! substan!es su!h as s2a'u is that they are
+''

.4D

.44

not distin!tive and are not readily identifiable as in fa!t they are sub8e!t to s!ientifi! analysis to determine their !omposition and nature. .66B.+C -nd be!ause they !annot be readily and properly distinguished visually from other substan!es of the same physi!al andEor !hemi!al nature, they are sus!eptible to alteration, tampering, !ontamination,.61B..C substitution and e(!hangeX.6+B.3C whether the alteration, tampering, !ontamination, substitution and e(!hange be inadvertent or otherwise not..6.B.DC *t is by reason of this distin!tive 0uality that the !ondition of the e(hibit at the time of testing and trial is !riti!al..63B.4C ,en!e, in authenti!ating nar!oti! spe!imens, a standard more stringent than that applied to ob8e!ts whi!h are readily identifiable must be appliedXa more e(a!ting standard that entails a !hain of !ustody of the item with suffi!ient !ompleteness if only to render it improbable that the original item has either been e(!hanged with another or !ontaminated or tampered with..6DB.>C he Court !ertainly !annot relu!tantly !lose its eyes to the possibility of substitution, alteration or !ontaminationXwhether intentional or unintentionalXof nar!oti! substan!es at any of the links in the !hain of !ustody thereof espe!ially be!ause pra!ti!ally su!h possibility is great where the item of real eviden!e is small and is similar in form to other substan!es to whi!h people are familiar in their daily lives. .64B./C +ra2am v. "tate.6>B.'C in fa!t a!knowledged this danger. *n that !ase, a substan!e later shown to be heroin was e(!luded from the prose!ution eviden!e be!ause prior to e(amination, it was handled by two poli!e offi!ers who, however, did not testify in !ourt on the !ondition and whereabouts of the e(hibit at the time it was in their possession. he !ourt in that !ase pointed out that the white powder seiGed !ould have been indeed heroin or it !ould have been sugar or baking powder. *t thus de!lared that the state must be able to show by re!ords or testimony the !ontinuous whereabouts of the e(hibit at least between the time it !ame into the possession of poli!e offi!ers until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its !omposition..6/B36C Re"7o'"8le 7"(e&u"r)7 "re pro*i)e) (or i' our )ru&7 l"w7 #o pro#ec# #%e i)e'#i#y "') i'#e&ri#y o( '"rco#ic 7u87#"'ce7 "') )"'&erou7 )ru&7 7eiJe) "')Kor reco*ere) (ro$ )ru& o((e')er7.

.66 .61 .6+ .6. .63 .6D .64 .6> .6/

.44

.4>

Sec#io' 913;9<21= o( R.A. -o. 9161 $"#eri"lly reCuire7 #%e "ppre%e')i'& #e"$ %"*i'& i'i#i"l cu7#o)y "') co'#rol o( #%e )ru&7 #o, <1= i$$e)i"#ely "(#er 7eiJure "') co'(i7c"#io', <9= p%y7ic"lly i'*e'#ory "') <3= p%o#o&r"p% #%e 7"$e i' #%e pre7e'ce o( #%e "ccu7e) or #%e per7o'K7 (ro$ w%o$ 7uc% i#e$7 were co'(i7c"#e) "')Kor 7eiJe), or %i7K%er repre7e'#"#i*e or cou'7el, " repre7e'#"#i*e (ro$ #%e $e)i" "') #%e /ep"r#$e'# o( Ju7#ice, "') "'y elec#e) pu8lic o((ici"l w%o <2= 7%"ll 8e reCuire) #o 7i&' #%e copie7 o( #%e i'*e'#ory "') 8e &i*e' " copy #%ereo(. he same re0uirements are also found in Se!tion +.16B3+C of its implementing rules.11B3.C as well as in Se!tion +.1+B33C of the Dangerous Drugs $oard %egulation &o. 1, series of +66+..1.B3DC hese guidelines, however, were not shown to have been !omplied with by the members of the buy-bust team, and nothing on re!ord suggests that they had e(tended reasonable efforts to !omply with the statutory re0uirements in handling the eviden!e. Felas!o, the leader of the raiding team, himself admitted that as soon as appellant was arrested, Cin!o had taken !ustody of the plasti! sa!het of s2a'u, pla!ed it in his po!ket and brought the same together with appellant to the poli!e station. *t was at the poli!e stationXand not at the pla!e where the item was seiGed from appellantXwhere a!!ording to him (Felas!oA, Cin!o had pla!ed the initials :S<<; on the spe!imen. Felas!o never even mentioned that the identifying mark on the spe!imen was pla!ed in appellant1s presen!e" he !ould not even remember whether or not the spe!imen had been properly inventoried and photographed at least in appellant1s presen!e. 9ven more telling is the fa!t that, as eli!ited from Felas!o himself during his !rosse(amination, no eviden!e !ustodian had been designated by the raiding team to safeguard the identity and integrity of the eviden!e supposedly seiGed from appellant..13B34C -ll these aforementioned flaws in the !ondu!t of the post-seiGure !ustody of the dangerous drug allegedly re!overed from appellant, taken together with the failure of the key persons who handled the same to testify on the whereabouts of the e(hibit before it was offered in eviden!e in !ourt, militates against the prose!ution1s !ause be!ause it not only !asts doubt on the identity of the corpus delicti but also tends to dis!redit, if not totally negate, the !laim of regularity in the !ondu!t of offi!ial poli!e operation.

.6' .16 .11 .1+ .1. .13

.4>

.4/

7hat we !an fairly assume is that the Court of -ppeals had overlooked the signifi!an!e of these glaring details in the re!ords of the !ase as it pla!ed blind relian!e right away on the !redibility of Felas!o1s testimony and on the presumption of regularity and thereby it failed to properly a!!ount for the missing substantial links in the !hain of !ustody of the eviden!e. *t needs no elu!idation that the presumption of regularity in the performan!e of offi!ial duty must be seen in the !onte(t of an e(isting rule of law or statute authoriGing the performan!e of an a!t or duty or pres!ribing a pro!edure in the performan!e thereof. he presumption, in other words, obtains only where nothing in the re!ords is suggestive of the fa!t that the law enfor!ers involved deviated from the standard !ondu!t of offi!ial duty as provided for in the law. <therwise, where the offi!ial a!t in 0uestion is irregular on its fa!e, an adverse presumption arises as a matter of !ourse..1DB3/C here is indeed merit in the !ontention that where no ill motives to make false !harges was su!!essfully attributed to the members of the buy-bust team, the presumption prevails that said poli!e operatives had regularly performed their duty, but the theory is !orre!t only where there is no showing that the !ondu!t of poli!e duty was irregular. #eople v. %ulay.14B3'C and #eople v. +anenas.1>BD6C in fa!t both suggest that the presumption of regularity is disputed where there is deviation from the regular performan!e of duty. Suffi!e it to say at this point that the presumption of regularity in the !ondu!t of poli!e duty is merely 8ust thatXa mere presumption disputable by !ontrary proof and whi!h when !hallenged by the eviden!e !annot be regarded as binding truth..1/BD1C *t must be emphasiGed at this 8un!ture that what !an reasonably be presumed based on the re!ords of this !ase is that Felas!o is aware of his duties and responsibilities as an agent of the government in its antinar!oti!s !ampaign. - member of the anti-nar!oti!s division of the poli!e sin!e 1''>,.1'BD+C Felas!o !an be reasonably presumed to be adept in and mindful of the proper pro!edure in apprehending drug offenders, se!uring and taking !ustody of the eviden!e obtained in poli!e operations su!h as this one and preserving the integrity of the eviden!e by prote!ting the !hain of !ustody thereof..+6BD.C ,owever, for reasons as obvious as intimated above, even this presumption is unworthy of !redit.

.1D .14 .1> .1/ .1' .+6

.4/

.4'

-ll told, in view of the deviation by the buy-bust team from the mandated !ondu!t of taking post-seiGure !ustody of the dangerous drug in this !ase, there is no way to presume that the members thereof had performed their duties regularly. 9ven granting that we must blindly rely on the !redibility of Felas!o1s testimony, still, the prose!ution eviden!e would fall short of satisfying the 0uantum of eviden!e re0uired to arrive at a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt inasmu!h as the eviden!e !hain failed to solidly !onne!t appellant with the seiGed drug in a way that would establish that the spe!imen is one and the same as that seiGed in the first pla!e and offered in !ourt as eviden!e. he Court !annot indulge in the presumption of regularity of offi!ial duty if only to obliterate the obvious infirmity of the eviden!e advan!ed to support appellant1s !onvi!tion. *n Mallillin v. #eople,.+1BD3C we !ategori!ally de!lared that the failure of the prose!ution to offer in !ourt the testimony of key witnesses for the basi! purpose of establishing a suffi!iently !omplete !hain of !ustody of a spe!imen of s2a'u and the irregularity whi!h !hara!teriGed the handling of the eviden!e before the same was finally offered in !ourt, materially !onfli!t with every proposition as to the !ulpability of the a!!used. #or the same plain but !onse0uential reason, we will not hesitate to reverse the 8udgment of !onvi!tion in the present appeal. <ne final word. *n no un!ertain terms must it be stressed that basi! and elementary is the presupposition that the burden of proving the guilt of an a!!used rests on the prose!ution whi!h must draw strength from its own eviden!e and not from the weakness of the defense. he rule, in a !onstitutional system like ours, is invariable regardless of the reputation of the a!!used be!ause the law presumes his inno!en!e until the !ontrary is shown. In du'io pro reo. 7hen moral !ertainty as to !ulpability hangs in the balan!e, a!0uittal on reasonable doubt inevitably be!omes a matter of right..++BDDC 7,9%9#<%9, the assailed De!ision of the Court of -ppeals in C--2.%. C%.-,.C. &o. 6+1D/ affirming the 8udgment of !onvi!tion rendered by the %egional rial Court of )anila, $ran!h +, is REVERSE/ and SET ASI/E. -ppellant Samuel <bmiranis y <reta is ACM3ITTE/ on reasonable doubt and is thus a!!ordingly ordered released immediately from !onfinement, unless he is lawfully !onfined for another offense. J3-IE MALLILLI- Y. LO5E> VS. 5EO5LE, :.R. -o. 1 9913 , April 3;, 9;;6 ,9 #-C S:
.+1 .++

.4'

.>6

<n the strength of a warrant of sear!h and seiGure issued by the % C of Sorsogon City, $ran!h D+, a team of five poli!e offi!ers raided the residen!e of petitioner in $arangay ugos, Sorsogon City on 3 #ebruary +66.. he team was headed by =E*nsp. Catalino $olanos ($olanosA, with =<. %oberto 9sternon (9sternonA, S=<1 =edro Do!ot, S=<1 Danilo @asala and S=<+ %omeo 2allinera (2allineraA as members. he sear!hX !ondu!ted in the presen!e of 'arangay @aga?ad Delfin @i!up as well as petitioner himself, his wife Sheila and his mother, &ormaXallegedly yielded two (+A plasti! sa!hets of s2a'u and five (DA empty plasti! sa!hets !ontaining residual morsels of the said substan!e. -!!ordingly, petitioner was !harged with violation of Se!tion 11, -rti!le ** of %epubli! -!t &o. '14D, otherwise known as he Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs -!t of +66+. hat on or about the 3th day of #ebruary +66., at about /:3D in the morning in $arangay ugos, Sorsogon City, =hilippines, the said a!!used did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, !ustody and !ontrol two (+A plasti! sa!hets of methamphetamine hydro!hloride BorC :s2a'u; with an aggregate weight of 6.6>3. gram, and four empty sa!hets !ontaining : s2a'u; residue, without having been previously authoriGed by law to possess the same. C<& %-%J < @-7. =etitioner entered a negative plea. -t the ensuing trial, the prose!ution presented $olanos, -rroyo and 9sternon as witnesses. aking the witness stand, $olanos, the leader of the raiding team, testified on the !ir!umstan!es surrounding the sear!h as follows: that he and his men were allowed entry into the house by petitioner after the latter was shown the sear!h warrant" that upon entering the premises, he ordered 9sternon and 'arangay @aga?ad @i!up, whose assistan!e had previously been re0uested in e(e!uting the warrant, to !ondu!t the sear!h" that the rest of the poli!e team positioned themselves outside the house to make sure that nobody flees" that he was observing the !ondu!t of the sear!h from about a meter away" that the sear!h !ondu!ted inside the bedroom of petitioner yielded five empty plasti! sa!hets with suspe!ted s2a'u residue !ontained in a denim bag and kept in one of the !abinets, and two plasti! sa!hets !ontaining s2a'u whi!h fell off from one of the pillows sear!hed by 9sternonXa dis!overy that was made in the presen!e of petitioner. .+.B16C <n !ross e(amination, $olanos admitted that during the sear!h, he was e(plaining its progress to petitioner1s mother, &orma, but that at the same time his eyes were fi(ed on the sear!h being !ondu!ted by 9sternon.
.+. B16C

S&, ++ -pril +66., pp. 4-'.

.>6

.>1

9sternon testified that the denim bag !ontaining the empty plasti! sa!hets was found :behind; the door of the bedroom and not inside the !abinet" that he then found the two filled sa!hets under a pillow on the bed and forthwith !alled on 2allinera to have the items re!orded and marked..+3B1+C <n !ross, he admitted that it was he alone who !ondu!ted the sear!h be!ause $olanos was standing behind him in the living room portion of the house and that petitioner handed to him the things to be sear!hed, whi!h in!luded the pillow in whi!h the two sa!hets of s2a'u were kept".+DB1.C that he brought the seiGed items to the $alogo =oli!e Station for a :true inventory,; then to the trial !ourt.+4B13C and thereafter to the laboratory..+>B1DC Supt. @orlie -rroyo (-rroyoA, the forensi! !hemist who administered the e(amination on the seiGed items, was presented as an e(pert witness to identify the items submitted to the laboratory. She revealed that the two filled sa!hets were positive of s2a'u and that of the five empty sa!hets, four were positive of !ontaining residue of the same substan!e..+/B14C She further admitted that all seven sa!hets were delivered to the laboratory by 9sternon in the afternoon of the same day that the warrant was e(e!uted e(!ept that it was not she but rather a !ertain )rs. <felia 2ar!ia who re!eived the items from 9sternon at the laboratory .C he eviden!e for the defense fo!used on the irregularity of the sear!h and seiGure !ondu!ted by the poli!e operatives. =etitioner testified that 9sternon began the sear!h of the bedroom with @i!up and petitioner himself inside. ,owever, it was momentarily interrupted when one of the poli!e offi!ers de!lared to $olanos that petitioner1s wife, Sheila, was tu!king something inside her underwear. #orthwith, a lady offi!er arrived to !ondu!t the sear!h of Sheila1s body inside the same bedroom. -t that point, everyone e(!ept 9sternon was asked to step out of the room. So, it was in his presen!e that Sheila was sear!hed by the lady offi!er. =etitioner was then asked by a poli!e offi!er to buy !igarettes at a nearby store and when he returned from the errand, he was told that

.+3 B1+C

S&, +. 5uly +66., pp. 4->, 16. *d. at 14-1>. S&, +. 5uly +66., pp. 1.-1D.

.+DB1.C

.+4B13C

.+>B1DC
.+/

*d. at '. he results of the !hemi!al analysis are embodied in Chemistry %eport &o. D-6.>-6..

S&, +/ )ay +66., p. 13. See re!ords, p. 1/.

B14C

.>1

.>+

nothing was found on Sheila1s body..+'B1/C Sheila was ordered to transfer to the other bedroom together with her !hildren. =etitioner asserted that on his return from the errand, he was summoned by 9sternon to the bedroom and on!e inside, the offi!er !losed the door and asked him to lift the mattress on the bed. -nd as he was doing as told, 9sternon stopped him and ordered him to lift the portion of the headboard. *n that instant, 9sternon showed him :sa!het of shabu; whi!h a!!ording to him !ame from a pillow on the bed...6B+6C =etitioner1s a!!ount in its entirety was !orroborated in its material respe!ts by &orma, 'arangay @aga?ad @i!up and Sheila in their testimonies. &orma and Sheila positively de!lared that petitioner was not in the house for the entire duration of the sear!h be!ause at one point he was sent by 9sternon to the store to buy !igarettes while Sheila was being sear!hed by the lady offi!er. @i!up for his part testified on the !ir!umstan!es surrounding the dis!overy of the plasti! sa!hets. ,e re!ounted that after the five empty sa!hets were found, he went out of the bedroom and into the living room and after about three minutes, 9sternon, who was left inside the bedroom, e(!laimed that he had 8ust found two filled sa!hets.C <n +6 5une +663 the trial !ourt rendered its De!ision de!laring petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense !harged. =etitioner was !ondemned to prison for twelve years (1+A and one (1A day to twenty (+6A years and to pay a fine of =.66,666.66. he trial !ourt reasoned that the fa!t that s2a'u was found in the house of petitioner was prima facie eviden!e of petitioner1s animus possidendi suffi!ient to !onvi!t him of the !harge inasmu!h as things whi!h a person possesses or over whi!h he e(er!ises a!ts of ownership are presumptively owned by him. *t also noted petitioner1s failure to as!ribe ill motives to the poli!e offi!ers to fabri!ate !harges against him. ,en!e, this -ppeal. ,9@D: =rose!utions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs ne!essitates that the elemental a!t of possession of a prohibited substan!e be established with moral !ertainty, together with the fa!t that the same is not authoriGed by law. he dangerous drug itself !onstitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fa!t of its e(isten!e is vital to a 8udgment of !onvi!tion. E77e'#i"l #%ere(ore i' #%e7e c"7e7 i7 #%"# #%e i)e'#i#y o( #%e pro%i8i#e) )ru& 8e e7#"8li7%e) 8eyo') )ou8# . $e that as it may, the mere fa!t of unauthoriGed possession will not suffi!e to !reate in a
.+' B1/C

S&, + De!ember +66., pp. 4-16. *d. at 11-1+.

..6B+6C

.>+

.>.

reasonable mind the moral !ertainty re0uired to sustain a finding of guilt. )ore than 8ust the fa!t of possession, the fa!t that the substan!e illegally possessed in the first pla!e is the same substan!e offered in !ourt as e(hibit must also be established with the same unwavering e(a!titude as that re0uisite to make a finding of guilt. he !hain of !ustody re0uirement performs this fun!tion in that it ensures that unne!essary doubts !on!erning the identity of the eviden!e are removed. -s a method of authenti!ating eviden!e, the !hain of !ustody rule re0uires that the admission of an e(hibit be pre!eded by eviden!e suffi!ient to support a finding that the matter in 0uestion is what the proponent !laims it to be. *t would in!lude testimony about every link in the !hain, from the moment the item was pi!ked up to the time it is offered into eviden!e, in su!h a way that every person who tou!hed the e(hibit would des!ribe how and from whom it was re!eived, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness1 possession, the !ondition in whi!h it was re!eived and the !ondition in whi!h it was delivered to the ne(t link in the !hain. hese witnesses would then des!ribe the pre!autions taken to ensure that there had been no !hange in the !ondition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the !hain to have possession of the same. *ndeed, the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respe!t to an e(hibit is greatest when the e(hibit is small and is one that has physi!al !hara!teristi!s fungible in nature and similar in form to substan!es familiar to people in their daily lives...1B31C +ra2am vs. "tate..+B3+C positively a!knowledged this danger. *n that !ase where a substan!e later analyGed as heroinXwas handled by two poli!e offi!ers prior to e(amination who however did not testify in !ourt on the !ondition and whereabouts of the e(hibit at the time it was in their possessionXwas e(!luded from the prose!ution eviden!e, the !ourt pointing out that the white powder seiGed !ould have been indeed heroin or it !ould have been sugar or baking powder. *t ruled that unless the state !an show by re!ords or testimony, the !ontinuous whereabouts of the e(hibit at least between the time it !ame into the possession of poli!e offi!ers until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its !omposition, testimony of the state as to the laboratory1s findings is inadmissible....B3.C - uni0ue !hara!teristi! of nar!oti! substan!es is that they are not readily identifiable as in fa!t they are sub8e!t to s!ientifi! analysis to determine their !omposition and nature. he Court !annot relu!tantly !lose its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the possibility, that at any of the
..1B31C ..+B3+C
... B3.C

+ra2am v. "tate, +DD &.9+d 4D+, 4DD. +ra2am v. "tate, +DD &.9+d 4D+.

+ra2am v. "tate, +DD &.9+d 4D+, 4DD.

.>.

.>3

links in the !hain of !ustody over the same there !ould have been tampering, alteration or substitution of substan!es from other !asesXby a!!ident or otherwiseXin whi!h similar eviden!e was seiGed or in whi!h similar eviden!e was submitted for laboratory testing. ,en!e, in authenti!ating the same, a standard more stringent than that applied to !ases involving ob8e!ts whi!h are readily identifiable must be applied, a more e(a!ting standard that entails a !hain of !ustody of the item with suffi!ient !ompleteness if only to render it improbable that the original item has either been e(!hanged with another or been !ontaminated or tampered with. - mere fleeting glan!e at the re!ords readily raises signifi!ant doubts as to the identity of the sa!hets of s2a'u allegedly seiGed from petitioner. <f the people who !ame into dire!t !onta!t with the seiGed ob8e!ts, only 9sternon and -rroyo testified for the spe!ifi! purpose of establishing the identity of the eviden!e. 2allinera, to whom 9sternon supposedly handed over the !onfis!ated sa!hets for re!ording and marking, as well as 2ar!ia, the person to whom 9sternon dire!tly handed over the seiGed items for !hemi!al analysis at the !rime laboratory, were not presented in !ourt to establish the !ir!umstan!es under whi!h they handled the sub8e!t items. -ny reasonable mind might then ask the 0uestion: -re the sa!hets of s2a'u allegedly seiGed from petitioner the very same ob8e!ts laboratory tested and offered in !ourt as eviden!eN he prose!ution1s eviden!e is in!omplete to provide an affirmative answer. Considering that it was 2allinera who re!orded and marked the seiGed items, his testimony in !ourt is !ru!ial to affirm whether the e(hibits were the same items handed over to him by 9sternon at the pla!e of seiGure and a!knowledge the initials marked thereon as his own. he same is true of 2ar!ia who !ould have, but nevertheless failed, to testify on the !ir!umstan!es under whi!h she re!eived the items from 9sternon, what she did with them during the time they were in her possession until before she delivered the same to -rroyo for analysis. 2iven the foregoing deviations of poli!e offi!er 9sternon from the standard and normal pro!edure in the implementation of the warrant and in taking post-seiGure !ustody of the eviden!e, the blind relian!e by the trial !ourt and the Court of -ppeals on the presumption of regularity in the !ondu!t of poli!e duty is manifestly mispla!ed. he presumption of regularity is merely 8ust thatXa mere presumption disputable by !ontrary proof and whi!h when !hallenged by the eviden!e !annot be regarded as binding truth...3BD+C Suffi!e it to say that this presumption !annot preponderate over the presumption of inno!en!e that prevails if not
..3BD+C

#eople v. Am'rosio, 2.%. &o. 1.D.>/, 13 -pril +663, 3+> SC%- .1+, .1/ !iting #eople v. &an, ./+ SC%-

31' (+66+A.

.>3

.>D

overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt...DBD.C *n the present !ase the la!k of !on!lusive identifi!ation of the illegal drugs allegedly seiGed from petitioner, !oupled with the irregularity in the manner by whi!h the same were pla!ed under poli!e !ustody before offered in !ourt, strongly militates a finding of guilt. *n our !onstitutional system, basi! and elementary is the presupposition that the burden of proving the guilt of an a!!used lies on the prose!ution whi!h must rely on the strength of its own eviden!e and not on the weakness of the defense. he rule is invariable whatever may be the reputation of the a!!used, for the law presumes his inno!en!e unless and until the !ontrary is shown. ..4BD3C In du'io pro reo. 7hen moral !ertainty as to !ulpability hangs in the balan!e, a!0uittal on reasonable doubt inevitably be!omes a matter of right. T%e ECuipoi7e Rule+ E*i)e'ce o( &uil# "') e*i)e'ce o( i''oce'ce "re "8ou# e*e'+ e((ec# o( 'o'Gpre7e'#"#io' o( (ore'7ic c%e$i7# w%o e@"$i'e) #%e 7%"8u or $"riAu"'"?&rou') (or "cCui##"l. 5EO5LE O. THE 5HILI55I-ES *7. MO-ALY- CERVA-TES, :.R. -o. 161292, )ar!h 1>, +66' VELASCO, JR., J.I his is an appeal from the De!ision dated 5uly 1', +66> of the Court of -ppeals (C-A in C--2.%. C%-,.C. &o. 663>4 whi!h affirmed the -pril +., +663 De!ision in Criminal Case &o. 66-1/1'+' of the %egional rial Court (% CA, $ran!h D. in )anila. he % C found a!!used-appellant )onalyn Cervantes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Se!tion 1D, -rti!le *** of %epubli! -!t &o. (%-A 43+D or the %angerous %rugs Act of .-/0, as amended. he re!ords show the following fa!ts: *n an *nformation dated -pril >, +666, a!!used-appellant and three others were !harged with violation of Se!. 1D, -rt. *** of %- 43+D (selling or distributing a regulated drugA, allegedly !ommitted as follows: hat, on or about -pril D, +666, in the City of )anila, =hilippines, and within the 8urisdi!tion of this ,onorable Court, a!!used *S*D%< -%2?S<& y -%9&D9@-, b isoy, )<&-@J& BC9%F-& 9SC y S<@-% b )ona, 7*@S<& D9@ )<& 9 b 7ilson and %*C,-%D %9R?*O b %i!hard, !onspiring, !onfederating and mutually helping one
..DBD.C

#eople v. Am'rosio, 2.%. &o. 1.D.>/, 13 -pril +663, 3+> SC%- .1+, .1/ !iting #eople v. &an, ./+ SC%-

31' (+66+A.
..4 BD3C

#eople v. La>a, id.

.>D

.>4

another, a!ting in !ommon a!!ord, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, for the amount of #*F9 ,?&D%9D ,<?S-&D (=D66,666.66A =9S<S, =hilippine Curren!y, sell, deliver and give away to a poseur-buyer, #<?% ,?&D%9D S9F9& J ,%99 =<*& S9F9& J S*Q (3>..>4A 2%-)S <# )9 ,-)=,9 -)*&9 B,JD%<C,@<%*D9C, !ommonly known as shabu, a regulated drug, without authority of law or the !orresponding li!ense therefor. C<& %-%J < @-7...>B1C

Accu7e)G"ppell"'# "') %er coG"ccu7e) ple")e) 'o# &uil#y #o #%e c%"r&e. I' #%e e'7ui'& #ri"l, #%e pro7ecu#io' pre7e'#e) i' e*i)e'ce #%e or"l #e7#i$o'ie7 o( 0illi"$ To)"*i", 5O3 Rey'"l)o R"$o7 o( #%e 5%ilippi'e -"#io'"l 5olice Re&io'"l O((ice IV ,5-5 RGIV!, "') 5KSr. I'7pec#or Lor'" Tri", " (ore'7ic c%e$ic"l o((icer o( #%e 7"$e re&io'"l o((ice.
he =eople1s version of the in!ident, as summariGed by the C- in the de!ision now on appeal, is as follows: <n -pril D, +666, the %egional Spe!ial <perations 2roup *F (%S<2-*FA, based at Camp Fi!ente @im in Calamba, @aguna, re!eived a tip from a deep penetration agent (D=-A about a group of drug traffi!kers led by *sidro -rguson operating in Cavite. -!ting on this bit of information, a team led by S=<+ 2eronimo =astrana, =<. %amos, and =<+ 9merson $alosbalos arranged a buy-bust operation to be !ondu!ted at -rguson1s rest house in arangay @ambingan, anGa, Cavite.../B+C ?pon arriving at the rest house, =<. %amos and =<+ $alosbalos, a!ting as poseur-buyers, were introdu!ed by the D=- to -rguson as the buyers of =h= D66,666 worth of s2a'u, simultaneously showing him a bundle of money. Sin!e -rguson did not have enough supply of s2a'u in the premises, he instru!ted the would-be-buyers to follow him to =asay City. #or the purpose, he hired a vehi!le owned by odavia. -t about three o1!lo!k in the afternoon of that day, in front of the )!Donald1s bran!h in =. <!ampo St., =asay City,..'B.C -rguson instru!ted the would-be-buyers to wait for someone who will !ome out from the nearby 9strella St. Fery mu!h later, a!!used-appellant emerged from 9strella St. and approa!hed =<. %amos to !he!k if he still had the money. -fter being shown the money bundle, a!!used-appellant left, only to return a few minutes later this time with -rguson, 7ilson Del )onte, who was holding a bla!k plasti! bag, and %i!hard %e0uiG. -rguson then took
..>B1C ../B+C
..' B.C

$ollo, pp. 4->. *d. at D. he )!Donald1s bran!h in =. <!ampo St. was later determined to be in )anila.

.>4

.>>

from Del )onte the bag, later found to !ontain 3>..>4 grams of s2a'u pa!ked in si( small self-sealing transparent bags, and handed it to =<+ $alosbalos, who in turn gave him the bundle of boodle money. #inally, =<. %amos gave the pre-arranged signal to indi!ate the !onsummation of the drug deal and introdu!ed himself as poli!eman. -!!used-appellant and her s!ampering !ompanions were later arrested and brought to and booked at Camp Fi!ente @im. he bla!k plasti! bag !ontaining the si( small self-sealing bags of white !rystalline substan!e was likewise taken to Camp Fi!ente @im where =<. %amos prepared the booking sheets and arrest reports and the re0uest for a 0ualitative analysis of the seiGed items. %egional Crime @aboratory <ffi!e *F Chief *nspe!tor (CE*A )ary 5ean 2eronimo then !ondu!ted the standard physi!al and !hemi!al e(aminations on the spe!imen referred to her. <n -pril 4, +666, CE* 2eronimo prepared and !ompleted Chemistry %eport &o. D-11D/66 on the !rystalline substan!e. =er her report, the substan!e tested positive for methamphetamine hydro!hloride or s2a'u. -part from the witnesses1 affidavits and other do!uments, the prose!ution, in the hearing of )ar!h 3, +66+, offered in eviden!e the following e(hibits,.36B3C in!lusive of its sub markings, whi!h, as may be e(pe!ted, were ob8e!ted to by the defense: (aA E@%i8i# B4; I Chemistry %eport &o. D-11D/66 prepared by CE* 2eronimo" (bA E@%i8i# BC; I )emorandum of %S<2-*F dated -pril D, +666 to the Chief, @aboratory Servi!e, re0uesting for 0ualitative analysis of the !ontents of the si( transparent plasti! bags" (!A E@%i8i#7 B/D "') B/G1D #o B/G6 ; I $la!k plasti! bag with markings" and si( (4A self-sealing transparent bags allegedly !ontaining the !onfis!ated s2a'u" and (dA E@%i8i# B.D I %e!eipt of property seiGed signed by =<+ $alosbalos and by odavia and =<. %amos as witnesses. T%e CA )eci7io' liLewi7e 7u$$"riJe) #%e )e(e'7eN7 "ccou'# o( w%"# purpor#e)ly #r"'7pire), #o wi#I -!!used-appellant testified that after she did laundry works at her house in 9strella Street near #.$. ,arrison on -pril 3, +666, her youngest !hild asked her to go to B)!Donald1sC, Fito CruG bran!h, to buy i!e !ream. 7hen they arrived thereat at about 3:.6 in the afternoon, there was a !ommotion going on in front of the restaurant. She then saw a woman who alighted from a nearby van and pointed her out to her !ompanions, one of whom BwasC an old man boarded her inside the van !ausing her to lose hold of her !hild. hereafter, two (+A younger male persons, whom
.36 B3C

%e!ords, pp. 1/D-1/>.

.>>

.>/

she later !ame to know as D9@ )<& 9 and %9R?*O, were also boarded into the same van. hey were taken to a !emetery where another vehi!le !ame and took them to Camp Fi!ente @im, where she allegedly met -%2?S<& for the first time. <n the other hand, a!!used D9@ )<& 9 testified that he was a parking boy around Fito CruG and that on the day in 0uestion, while he was wat!hing a vehi!le near B)!Donald1sC, Fito CruG bran!h, a !ommotion happened near his post. -s he moved ba!kward from where he stood, he was suddenly approa!hed by a poli!eman who arrested him and boarded him inside a vehi!le together with C9%F-& 9S and %9R?*O, whom he did not know prior to that in!ident. #or his part, a!!used %9R?*O testified that on the date and time in 0uestion, he was riding a borrowed bi!y!le on his way to the Cultural Center, passing by #.$. ,arrison St., when he bumped a parked van, wherefrom a man alighted and !ursed him, saying :pulis a@o ?ag @ang aalis dyanNTO ; he man left and when he returned, a!!used C9%F-& 9S was with him. hereafter, he was boarded into the van together with the other a!!used..31BDC 7hile not stated in the C- de!ision, Del )onte testified, like a!!used-appellant, that he was taken to a !emetery somewhere in Cavite where the arresting offi!ers lingered for an hour before bringing him to Camp Fi!ente @im..3+B4C hese testimonies remained un!ontroverted. -rguson died during the !ourse of the trial resulting in the dismissal of the !ase against him..3.B>C <n -pril +., +663, the % C rendered 8udgment a!0uitting Del )onte and %e0uiG but finding a!!used-appellant guilty as !harged and meting upon her the penalty of reclusion perpetua. he fallo of the % C De!ision reads: 7,9%9#<%9, in view of the foregoing, 8udgment is hereby rendered: 1. #inding a!!used )<&-@J& C9%F-& 9S J S<@-% 2?*@ J beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Se!. 1D, -rti!le ***, of %epubli! -!t &o. 43+D as amended, and is senten!ed to $eclusion #erpetua and to pay a fine in the amount of =hpD66,666.66" and

.31 .3+ .3.

BDC B4C

$ollo, pp. >-/. S&, 5anuary +6, +66., pp. 16-11. B>C $ollo, p. /.

.>/

.>'

+.

#inding the prose!ution1s eviden!e insuffi!ient to prove the guilt of a!!used 7*@S<& D9@ )<& 9 and %*C,-%D %9R?*O beyond reasonable doubt, and who are hereby -CR?* 9D. S< <%D9%9D..33B/C <n )ay 1/, +663, a!!used-appellant filed a &oti!e of -ppeal, pursuant to whi!h the % C forwarded the re!ords of the !ase to this Court. Conformably with #eople v. Mateo,.3DB'C the Court dire!ted the transfer of the !ase to the C- where it was do!keted as C--2.%. C%-,.C. &o. 663>4. $efore the appellate !ourt, a!!used-appellant urged her a!0uittal on the ground of :insuffi!ien!y of eviden!e,; parti!ularly stating that the :forensi! !hemist who a!tually !ondu!ted the laboratory e(amination on the spe!imens allegedly re!overed from the a!!used was not presented in !ourt ( ( ( BandC hen!e, there was no !lear identifi!ation of the !ontents of the !onfis!ated sa!hets.;.34B16C $y its De!ision.3>B11C dated 5uly 1', +66>, the C-, finding the elements ne!essary for the prose!ution of illegal sale of drugs .3/B1+C to have suffi!iently been satisfied and the identifi!ation of a!!used-appellant having been established, affirmed her !onvi!tion.

T%e CA reAec#e) "ccu7e)G"ppell"'#N7 l"$e'# "8ou# o'e I'7pec#or Tri" #e7#i(yi'& o' #%e c%e$i7#ry repor# 7%e )i) 'o# prep"re. A7 #%e "ppell"#e cour# 7#re77e), CKI :ero'i$oN7 (ore'7ic repor# Bc"rrie7 #%e pre7u$p#io' o( re&ul"ri#y i' #%e per(or$"'ce o( o((ici"l (u'c#io'7 <"')= #%e e'#rie7 #%ereo' @ @ "re pri$" ("cie e*i)e'ce o( #%e ("c#7 #%erei' 7#"#e).D T%e CA "))e) #%e o87er*"#io' #%"# "87e'# "'y e*i)e'ce o*er#ur'i'& #%e pre7u$p#io' o( re&ul"ri#y i' #%e per(or$"'ce o( o((ici"l (u'c#io'7, #%e pro8"#i*e *"lue "') ")$i77i8ili#y o( #%e (ore'7ic repor# prep"re) 8y CKI :ero'i$o, w%o %") re7i&'e) (ro$ #%e 7er*ice, $u7# 8e up%el) e*e' i( 7%e )i) 'o# per7o'"lly #e7#i(y i' cour#.
<n -ugust 1>, +66>, a!!used-appellant filed a &oti!e of -ppeal of the C- affirmatory de!ision.
.33 .3D

C- rollo, p. .6. =enned by 5udge %eynaldo -. -lhambra. 2.%. &os. 13>4>/-/>, 5uly >, +663, 3.. SC%- 436. .34 B16C C- rollo, pp. /1-/+. .3> B11C $ollo, pp. 3-16. =enned by -sso!iate 5usti!e 9stela ). =erlas-$ernabe and !on!urred in by -sso!iate 5usti!es Fi!ente R. %o(as and @u!as =. $ersamin. .3/ B1+C (aA identity of the buyer and the seller, the ob8e!t and the !onsideration" and (bA the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor.
B'C

B/C

.>'

./6

<n )ar!h +3, +66/, this Court re0uired the parties to submit supplemental briefs if they so desired. he parties manifested their willingness to submit the !ase on the basis of the re!ords already submitted, thus veritably reiterating their prin!ipal arguments raised in the C-, whi!h on the part of a!!used-appellant would be: THE <CA= :RAVELY ERRE/ I- .I-/I-: THE ACC3SE/GA55ELLA-T :3ILTY O. THE O..E-SE CHAR:E/ /ES5ITE THE I-S3..ICIE-CY O. EVI/E-CE .OR THE 5ROSEC3TIO-. #or its part, the =eople, thru the <ffi!e of the Soli!itor 2eneral, !ounters that the prose!ution has established that the buy-bust transa!tion took pla!e, has identified a!!used-appellant and her !ompli!ity in -rguson1s illegal trade, and has presented the corpus delicti, as eviden!e. T%e Cour#N7 Ruli'& -fter a !ir!umspe!t study, the Court resolves to a!0uit a!!usedappellant, !onsidering !ertain !ir!umstan!es engendering reasonable doubt as to her guilt. 7e start off with the most basi!, the testimony of the prose!ution1s prin!ipal witness, =<. %amos, who identified a!!used-appellant and des!ribed her role in the !onspira!y to sell s2a'u. *n the witness bo(, =<. %amos testified that, after being told by -rguson to wait for someone who will !ome out from the street when!e -rguson would enter, a!!usedappellant emerged from said street, !he!ked on the pur!hase money, asked the operatives to wait, and later re-appeared. 7hat happened ne(t is !aptured by the following answers of =<. %amos to the prose!utor1s 0uestions: M: 7hat did you see when Cervantes already returnedN A: 7hen )onalyn return the one holding the plasti! bag was 7ilson, sir. M: 7ilsonN A: Jes, sir, together with %i!hard, 7ilson, -rguson, they were four (3A. A##y. CruJ: Jour honor, may we move to strike that out ( ( (. .i7c"l .or$o7o: hat1s part of the answer ( ( ( now, when all these a!!used here return with )onalyn Cervantes, what happenBedCN

./6

./1

A: -rguson took the plasti! bag from 7ilson, sir and handed it to $alosbalos, $alosbalos gave -rguson the boodle money while * flash the signal ( ( ( then we apprehended them..3'B1.C -s may be noted, =<. %amos !ategori!ally stated that Del )onte was among the four who emerged with -rguson from a street. 7ithout hesitation, =<. %amos pointed to Del )onte as the one holding the plasti! bag allegedly !ontaining the prohibited substan!e until -rguson took it from him and handed it over to =<+ $alosbalos. here is no suggestion that a!!used-appellant, while at the !rime s!ene, ever handled the mer!handise or its !ontainer. Jet, the trial !ourt a!0uitted %e0uiG and Del )onte, but !onvi!ted a!!used-appellant, stating: :Clearly, a!!used )onalyn Cervantes1 !ompli!ity with a!!used *sidro -rguson in the sale of s2a'u has been established by the testimony of =<. %amos.;.D6B13C $ut two paragraphs later, the % C went on to write: ( ( ( 7hile =<. %amos testified that the bag was initially held by a!!used Del )onte and then taken from him by a!!used -rguson, there is no other eviden!e whi!h !an support the !harge of !onspira!y with -rguson and Cervantes ( ( (. he !ourt does not find the eviden!e suffi!ient to pass the test of moral !ertainty to find a!!used Del )onte liable as !harged. 9ven if =<. %amos saw him to have held the bag for -rguson, it !ould have been possible that he was merely asked by Cervantes or -rguson to !arry the bag..D1B1DC $efore us then is a situation where two personsII "ccu7e)G "ppell"'#, a laundry woman" and /el Mo'#e, a !ar park boy, in the !ompany of the ostensible pusher, -rguson, during the a!tual buy bustII are being indi!ted, on the basis alone of the testimony of a witness, with !onfederating with ea!h and several others to sell s2a'u. he overt a!ts performed by a!!used-appellant, as indi!ia of !onspira!y, !onsisted of allegedly verifying whether the poseur-buyer still had the pur!hase money, disappearing from the s!ene and then !oming ba!k with the prin!ipal player. <n the other hand, Del )onte !ame a!!ompanying -rguson !arrying the drug-!ontaining plasti! bag no less. -s between the two a!ts performed, !arrying the bag would relatively have the more serious impli!ation being in itself a punishable a!t of possession of regulated drugs. $oth offered the defenses of denial and instigation, ea!h testifying that they 8ust happened to be near or passing by )!Donald1s at about 3:.6 in the afternoon of -pril 3, +666 when they were apprehended. $ut the trial !ourt, in its observation that :it !ould have been possible that BDel )onteC was merely asked by ( ( ( -rguson to !arry the bag,; e(tended to Del )onte the :benefit of the doubt,; a benevolen!e denied to a!!usedappellant without so mu!h of an a!!eptable e(planation. -ny reasonable
.3' .D6 .D1 B1.C B13C

S&, <!tober +., +661, pp. 1+-14. C- rollo, p. +/. B1DC *d. at +/-+'.

./1

./+

mind might ask: 7hy the !ontrasting treatmentN 7hy !onsider =<. %amos as a highly !redible eyewitness as against a!!used-appellant, but an unreliable one as against Del )onte, when both a!!used are !omplete strangers to the poli!emanN o paraphrase an unyielding rule, if the in!ulpatory testimony is !apable of two or more e(planations, one !onsistent with the inno!en!e of the a!!used persons and the other !onsistent with their guilt, then the eviden!e does not fulfill the test of moral !ertainty and is not suffi!ient to support a !onvi!tion..D+B14C $ut even if we were to !ast aside the foregoing e0uipoise rule, a reversal of the appealed de!ision is indi!ated on another but more !ompelling ground. 7e refer to the postulate that the prose!ution, having failed to positively and !onvin!ingly prove the identity of the seiGed regulated substan!e, is deemed to have also failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt a!!used-appellant1s guilt. 7e shall e(plain. *n every prose!ution for illegal sale of dangerous drug, what is !ru!ial is the identity of the buyer and seller, the ob8e!t and its !onsideration, the delivery of the thing sold, and the payment for it. *mpli!it in these !ases is first and foremost the identity and e(isten!e, !oupled with the presentation to the !ourt of the traded prohibited substan!e, this ob8e!t eviden!e being an integral part of the corpus.D.B1>C delicti.D3B1/C of the !rime of possession or selling of regulatedEprohibited drug..DDB1'C here !an be no su!h !rime when nagging doubts persist on whether the spe!imen submitted for e(amination and presented in !ourt was what was re!overed from, or sold by, the a!!used. .D4B+6C 9ssential, therefore, in appropriate !ases is that the identity of the prohibited drug be established with moral !ertainty. his means that on top of the key elements of possession or sale, the fa!t that the substan!e illegally possessed and sold in the first pla!e is the same substan!e offered in !ourt as e(hibit must likewise be established with the same degree of !ertitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdi!t. -nd as we stressed in Malillin v. #eople, the :c%"i' o( cu7#o)y reCuire$e'# per(or$7 #%i7 (u'c#io' i' #%"# i# e'7ure7 #%"# u''ece77"ry )ou8#7 co'cer'i'& #%e i)e'#i#y o( #%e

.D+ .D.

#eople v. (avarro, 2.%. &o. 1>.>'6, <!tober 11, +66>, D.D SC%- 433, 4D.. - @atin word whi!h signifies :body.; .D3 B1/C @iterally body of the !rime" in the legal sense, corpus delicti as referring to the fa!t of the !ommission of the !rime !harged or to the substan!e of the !rime" it does not refer to the a!tual physi!al eviden!e, su!h as ransom money in the !rime of kidnapping for ransom, the !adaver of the person murdered, or the !onfis!ated !ases of blue seal !igarettes in the !rime of smuggling. See $imorin, "r. v. #eople, 2.%. &o. 1343/1, -pril .6, +66., 36+ SC%- .'., 366. .DD B1'C #eople v. "anc2e5, 2.%. &o. 1>D/.+, <!tober 16, +66/" !iting *alde5 v. #eople, 2.%. &o. 1>61/6, &ovember +., +66>, D./ SC%- 411. .D4 B+6C *alde5, supra note 1', at 4+/-4+'" !iting #eople v. Ong, 2.%. &o. 1.>.3/, 5une +1, +663, 3.+ SC%- 3>6.
B1>C

B14C

./+

./.

e*i)e'ce "re re$o*e).;.D>B+1C So it is that in a slew of !ases the Court has !onsidered the prose!ution1s failure to ade0uately prove that the spe!imen submitted for laboratory e(amination was the same one supposedly seiGed from the offending seller or possessor as ground for a!0uittal..D/B++C Sec. 1,8! o( #%e /"'&erou7 /ru&7 4o"r) Re&ul"#io' -o. 1, Serie7 o( 9;;9, or #%e B:ui)eli'e7 o' #%e Cu7#o)y "') /i7po7i#io' o( SeiJe) /"'&erou7 /ru&7, Co'#rolle) 5recur7or7 "') E77e'#i"l C%e$ic"l7, "') L"8or"#ory ECuip$e'#,D )e(i'e7 Bc%"i' o( cu7#o)y,D #%u7lyI <Chain of C#"todyE means the duly re!orded authoriGed movements and !ustody of seiGed drugs or !ontrolled !hemi!als ( ( ( from the time of seiGureE!onfis!ation to re!eipt in the forensi! laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in !ourt for destru!tion. Su!h re!ord of movements and !ustody of seiGed item shall in!lude the identity and signature of the person who held temporary !ustody of the seiGed item, the date and time when su!h transfer of !ustody BwasC made in the !ourse of safekeeping and use in !ourt as eviden!e, and the final disposition..D'B+.C -s a mode of authenti!ating eviden!e, the !hain of !ustody rule re0uires that the admission of an e(hibit be pre!eded by eviden!e suffi!ient to support a finding that the matter in 0uestion is what the proponent !laims it to be. *n !onte(t, this would ideally in!lude testimony about every link in the !hain, from the seiGure of the prohibited drug up to the time it is offered into eviden!e, in su!h a way that everyone who tou!hed the e(hibit would des!ribe how and from whom it was re!eived, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness1 possession, the !ondition in whi!h it was re!eived, and the !ondition in whi!h it was delivered to the ne(t link in the !hain. .46B+3C he need for the pun!tilious observan!e of the !hain-of-!ustody pro!ess in drug-related !ases is e(plained in Malillin in the following wise: 0%ile #e7#i$o'y "8ou# " per(ec# c%"i' i7 'o# "lw"y7 #%e 7#"')"r) 8ec"u7e i# i7 "l$o7# "lw"y7 i$po77i8le #o o8#"i', an unbroken !hain of !ustody be!omes indispensable and essential when the item of real eviden!e is not distin!tive and is not really identifiable, or w%e' i#7 co')i#io' "# #%e #i$e o( #e7#i'& or #ri"l i7 cri#ic"l, or w%e' " wi#'e77 %"7 ("ile) #o o87er*e i#7 u'iCue'e77. T%e 7"$e 7#"')"r) liLewi7e o8#"i'7 i' c"7e #%e e*i)e'ce i7 7u7cep#i8le #o "l#er"#io', #"$peri'&, co'#"$i'"#io' "') e*e' 7u87#i#u#io' "') e@c%"'&e. I' o#%er wor)7, #%e e@%i8i#N7 le*el o( 7u7cep#i8ili#y #o (u'&i8ili#y, "l#er"#io' or #"$peri'&TTwi#%ou# re&"r) #o w%e#%er #%e 7"$e i7 ")*er#e'# or o#%erwi7e
.D> .D/

2.%. &o. 1>+'D., -pril .6, +66/, DD. SC%- 41', 4.+" !iting -meri!an 8urispruden!e. *alde5, supra" Ong, supra note +6. .D' B+.C *n a!!ordan!e with Se!. +1, -rt. ** of the *mplementing %ules and %egulations (*%%A of %- '14D or the Compre2ensive %angerous %rugs Act of 0,,0 in relation to Se!. /1(bA, -rt. *Q of %- '14D. .46 B+3C Malillin, supra note +1.
B++C

B+1C

./.

./3

'o#TT)ic#"#e7 #%e le*el o( 7#ric#'e77 i' #%e "pplic"#io' o( #%e c%"i' o( cu7#o)y rule. @@@@ A u'iCue c%"r"c#eri7#ic o( '"rco#ic 7u87#"'ce7 i7 #%"# #%ey "re 'o# re")ily i)e'#i(i"8le "7 i' ("c# #%ey "re 7u8Aec# #o 7cie'#i(ic "'"ly7i7 #o )e#er$i'e #%eir co$po7i#io' "') '"#ure. T%e Cour# c"''o# reluc#"'#ly clo7e i#7 eye7 #o #%e liLeli%oo), or "# le"7# #%e po77i8ili#y, #%"# "# "'y o( #%e li'L7 i' #%e c%"i' o( cu7#o)y o*er #%e 7"$e #%ere coul) %"*e 8ee' #"$peri'&, "l#er"#io' or 7u87#i#u#io' o( 7u87#"'ce7 (ro$ o#%er c"7e7TT8y "cci)e'# or o#%erwi7eTTi' w%ic% 7i$il"r e*i)e'ce w"7 7eiJe) or i' w%ic% 7i$il"r e*i)e'ce w"7 7u8$i##e) (or l"8or"#ory #e7#i'&. He'ce, i' "u#%e'#ic"#i'& #%e 7"$e, " 7#"')"r) $ore 7#ri'&e'# #%"' #%"# "pplie) #o c"7e7 i'*ol*i'& o8Aec#7 w%ic% "re re")ily i)e'#i(i"8le $u7# 8e "pplie), " $ore e@"c#i'& 7#"')"r) #%"# e'#"il7 " c%"i' o( cu7#o)y o( #%e i#e$ wi#% 7u((icie'# co$ple#e'e77 i( o'ly #o re')er i# i$pro8"8le #%"# #%e ori&i'"l i#e$ %"7 ei#%er 8ee' e@c%"'&e) wi#% "'o#%er or 8ee' co'#"$i'"#e) or #"$pere) wi#%.361<91= ,E$p%"7i7 "))e).! -s the Court distin!tly notes in this !ase, of the individuals who !ame into dire!t !onta!t with or had physi!al !ustody of the seiGed regulated items, only =<. %amos testified for the spe!ifi! purpose of identifying the eviden!e. *n the witness bo(, however, he did not indi!ate how he and his !ompanions, right after the buy bust, handled the seiGed plasti! bag and its !ontents. ,e did not name the duty desk offi!er at Camp Fi!ente @im to whom he spe!ifi!ally turned over the !onfis!ated bag and sa!hets at least for re!ording. 7hat is on re!ord is 9(hibit :C,; whi!h, as earlier des!ribed, is a memorandum .4+B+4C =<. %amos prepared.4.B+>C dated -pril D, +666 from the %S<2-*F Dire!tor to the Chief, =&= %-*F Crime @aboratory Servi!e, submitting for 0ualitative analysis the white !rystalline substan!e !onfis!ated by the buy-bust group. &eedless to stress, the unnamed person who delivered the suspe!ted s2a'u and the re!ipient of it at the laboratory were no-show in !ourt to testify on the !ir!umstan!es under whi!h they handled the spe!imen or whether other persons had a!!ess to the spe!imen before a!tual testing. -nd CE* 2eronimo, the analyGing forensi! !hemist, was not also presented. hen, too, no one testified on how the spe!imen was !ared after following the !hemi!al analysis. -s the Court observed aptly in #eople v. Ong, :B Chese 0uestions should be answered satisfa!torily to determine whether the integrity of the eviden!e was !ompromised in any way. <therwise, the prose!ution !annot maintain that it was able to prove the guilt of appellants beyond reasonable doubt.;.43B+/C
.41 .4+ .4. .43 B+DC B+4C

*d. at 4..-4.3. %e!ords, p. ... B+>C S&, <!tober +., +661, p. +6. B+/C Supra note +6, at 3'6.

./3

./D

I# c"''o# 8e o*ere$p%"7iJe) #%"# I'7pec#or Tri" w"7 re"lly 'o# p"r# o( #%e cu7#o)i"l c%"i'. A') 7%e )i) 'o# "7 7%e coul) 'o#, e*e' i( 7%e w"'#e) #o, #e7#i(y o' w%e#%er or 'o# #%e 7peci$e' #ur'e) o*er (or "'"ly7i7 "') e*e'#u"lly o((ere) i' cour# "7 e@%i8i# w"7 #%e 7"$e 7u87#"'ce recei*e) (ro$ Ar&u7o'. 2iven the foregoing perspe!tive, it is fairly evident that the poli!e operatives trifled with the pro!edures in the !ustody of seiGed prohibited drugs in a buy-bust operation, as embodied in Se!. +1(1A, -rt. ** of %'14D, i.e., the apprehending offi!erEteam having initial !ustody and !ontrol of the drug 7%"ll: i$$e)i"#ely "(#er 7eiJure "') co'(i7c"#io', p%y7ic"lly i'*e'#ory "') p%o#o&r"p% #%e <)ru&= i' #%e pre7e'ce o( #%e "ccu7e) or #%e per7o'K7 (ro$ w%o$ 7uc% i#e$7 were co'(i7c"#e) "')Kor 7eiJe), or %i7K%er repre7e'#"#i*e or cou'7el, " repre7e'#"#i*e (ro$ #%e $e)i" "') #%e /ep"r#$e'# o( Ju7#ice ,/OJ!, "') "'y elec#e) pu8lic o((ici"l w%o 7%"ll 8e reCuire) #o 7i&' #%e copie7 o( #%e i'*e'#ory "') 8e &i*e' " copy #%ereo(.361<99C *n this !ase, no physi!al inventory was made and no photograph taken nor markings made on the seiGed arti!les at the !rime s!ene. =<. %amos admitted as mu!h, thus: M. &ow, you were able to arrest all the a!!used here, after their arrest, what did you doN A. -fter informing their rights and the reason why we arrest them we brought them immediately to our offi!e in Canlubang. (((( M. &ow, what about this Shabu, who was in possession of this Shabu ( ( ( when you left the pla!e and pro!eeded to CanlubangN A. =<+ $alosbalos, sir. (((( M. &ow, when you rea!h your offi!e, what did you do thereN A. * made the booking sheet and * re0uested for their medi!alEphysi!al e(amination ( ( (..44B.6C

he *%% of %- '14D provides further, : 'o'Gco$pli"'ce wi#% #%e7e reCuire$e'#7 u')er Au7#i(i"8le &rou')7, "7 lo'& "7 #%e i'#e&ri#y "') #%e e*i)e'#i"ry *"lue o( #%e 7eiJe) i#e$7 "re properly pre7er*e) 8y #%e "ppre%e')i'& o((icerK#e"$, 7%"ll 'o# re')er *oi) "') i'*"li) 7uc% 7eiJure7 o( "') cu7#o)y o*er 7"i) i#e$7.; .44 B.6C S&, <!tober +., +661, pp. 1/-1'.

.4DB+'C

./D

./4

5ust as !lear is the fa!t that the e(a!ting !hain of !ustody rule was not observed. 7ithal, #%ere i7 'o re"7o'"8le "77ur"'ce #%"# 'o #"$peri'& or 7u87#i#u#io' occurre) 8e#wee' #%e #i$e #%e police 7eiJe) #%e 8l"cL 8"& i' 5. Oc"$po S#. i' M"'il" u'#il i#7 co'#e'#7 were #e7#e) i' #%e l"8or"#ory o( #%e 5-5 RGIV %e")Cu"r#er7 i' C"'lu8"'&, L"&u'". *n net effe!t, a heavy !loud of doubt hangs over the integrity and ne!essarily the evidentiary value of the seiGed items. he prose!ution !annot, thus, rightfully assert that the si( sa!hets seiGed from -rguson were the very same ob8e!ts tested by CE* 2eronimo and offered in !ourt in proving the corpus delicti. -dding a negative dimension to the prose!ution1s !ase is the nonpresentation of CE* 2eronimo and the presentation in her stead of *nspe!tor ria to testify on the !hemi!al report CE* 2eronimo prepared. 7hile *nspe!tor ria !an plausibly testify on the fa!t that CE* 2eronimo prepared the !hemi!al report in the regular !ourse of her duties, she, *nspe!tor ria, was in!ompetent to state that the spe!imen her former !olleague analyGed was in fa!t s2a'u and was the same spe!imen delivered to the laboratory for !hemi!al analysis. o be sure, the Court, notably in &eople !. +andan*, has held that the non-presentation of the forensi! !hemist in illegal drug !ases is an insuffi!ient !ause for a!0uittal. *n it, the a!!used persons were !onvi!ted of illegal sale of s2a'u even if the forensi! !hemist who prepared the !orresponding laboratory report was not presented. hus, we wrote: ( ( ( *n =eople vs. ?y, we ruled that a forensi! !hemist is a publi! offi!er and as su!h, his report !arries the presumption of regularity in the performan!e of his fun!tion and duties. Corollarily, under Se!tion 33 of %ule 1.6, ( ( ( entries in offi!ial re!ords made in the performan!e of offi!ial duty are prima fa!ie eviden!e of the fa!ts therein stated. <mero1s reports that the seven sa!hets of white !rystalline substan!e were :positive for met2ylamp2etamine 2ydroc2loride; or s2a'u are, therefore, !on!lusive in the absen!e of eviden!e proving the !ontrary, as in this !ase. Se!ond, it must be stressed that -tty. 9nri0ueG r"i7e7 %i7 o8Aec#io' to the *nitial @aboratory %eport and Chemistry %eport &o. D1D/D-66 o'ly 'ow. ,e should have ob8e!ted to their admissibility at the time they were being offered. <therwise, the ob8e!tion shall be !onsidered waived and su!h eviden!e will form part of the re!ords of the !ase as !ompetent and admissible eviden!e. he familiar rule in this 8urisdi!tion is that the admissibility of !ertain do!uments ( ( ( !annot be raised for the first time on appeal..4>B.1C (9mphasis added.A

.4>B.1C

2.%. &o. 1D1.13, 5une ., +663, 3.6 SC%- D>6, D/4-D/>.

./4

./>

*t should be pointed out, however, that the andang ruling was !ast against a different ba!kdrop where: (1A the seiGed !rystalline substan!e was the same item e(amined and tested positive for s2a'u and presented in !ourt, implying that the identity and integrity of prohibited drug was safeguarded throughout, a !ir!umstan!e not obtaining in this !ase" (+A there was a !ompelling reason for not presenting the e(amining forensi! !hemist, i.e., the parties stipulated that the !onfis!ated seven plasti! bags have been identified and e(amined and that the !hemist stated in his report that the substan!e is positive for s2a'u. *n this !ase, CE* 2eronimo1s resignation from the servi!e is not, standing alone, a 8ustifying fa!tor for the prose!ution to dispense with her testimony" and (.A a!!used $andang, et al. did not raise any ob8e!tion to the !hemi!al report during trial, unlike here where a!!used-appellant ob8e!ted to *nspe!tor ria1s !ompeten!y to testify on the 2eronimo !hemi!al report. -t any rate, *nspe!tor ria1s testimony on, and the presentation of, the !hemistry report in 0uestion only established, at best, the e(isten!e, due e(e!ution, and authenti!ity of the results of the !hemistry analysis..4/ B.+C *t does not prove !omplian!e with the re0uisite !hain of !ustody over the !onfis!ated substan!e from the time of seiGure of the eviden!e. *n this regard, the Court in effe!t stated in Malillin that unless the state !an show by re!ords or testimony that the integrity of the eviden!e has not been !ompromised by a!!ounting for the !ontinuous whereabouts of the ob8e!t eviden!e at least between the time it !ame into the possession of the poli!e offi!ers until it was tested in the laboratory, .4'B..C then the prose!ution !annot maintain that it was able to prove the guilt of the a!!used beyond reasonable doubt. So it was that in #eople v. Simura the Court said that in establishing the corpus delicti, proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that :unwavering e(a!titude;.>6B.3C be observed, a demand whi!h may be addressed by hewing to the !hain-of-!ustody rule. 9vidently, the prose!ution has not proved that the substan!e seiGed in front of the )!Donald1s was the same substan!e addu!ed in eviden!e as an indispensable element of corpus delicti of the !rime, whi!h failure produ!es a serious doubt as to a!!used-appellant1s guilt..>1B.DC $oth the trial and appellate !ourts made mu!h of the presumption of regularity in the performan!e of offi!ial fun!tions both with respe!t to the a!ts of =<. %amos and other =&= personnel at Camp Fi!ente @im. o a point, the relian!e on the presumptive regularity is tenable. his presumption is, however, disputable and may be overturned by affirmative eviden!e of irregularity or failure to perform a duty".>+B.4C any taint of
.4/ .4'

"anc2e5, supra note 1'. Supra note +1, at 4.3. .>6 B.3C 2.%. &o. 1.6/6D, -pril +>, +663, 3+/ SC%- D1, >6. .>1 B.DC *d. .>+ B.4C "evilla v. Cardenas, 2.%. &o. 14>4/3, 5uly .1, +664, 3'> SC%- 3+/, 33." !iting Ma'sucang v. Judge algos, 334 =hil. +1>, ++3 (+66.A.
B..C

B.+C

./>

.//

irregularity vitiates the performan!e and negates the presumption. -nd as earlier dis!ussed, the buy bust team !ommitted serious lapses in the handling of the prohibited item from the very start of its operation, the error of whi!h the =&= %-*F !ommand later !ompounded. he Court need not belabor this matter anew. @est it be overlooked, the presumption of regularity in the performan!e of offi!ial duty always yields to the presumption of inno!en!e and does not !onstitute proof beyond reasonable doubt..>.B.>C 7e held in one !ase: he presumption of regularity in the performan!e of offi!ial duty !annot be used as basis for affirming a!!used-appellant1s !onvi!tion be!ause, :BfCirst, the presumption is pre!isely 8ust thatXa mere presumption. <n!e !hallenged by eviden!e, as in this !ase, ( ( ( BitC !annot be regarded as binding truth. Se!ond, the presumption of regularity in the performan!e of offi!ial fun!tions !annot preponderate over the presumption of inno!en!e that prevails if not overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt.;.>3B./C #or failure then of the prose!ution to establish the guilt of a!!usedappellant beyond reasonable doubt, she must perfor!e be e(onerated from !riminal liability. he fa!ts and the law of the !ase !all for this kind of disposition. 4u# " (i'"l co'7i)er"#io'. T%e Cour# i7 co&'iJ"'# o( #%e c"$p"i&' o( #%e police "') o#%er )ru& e'(orce$e'# "&e'cie7 "&"i'7# #%e &rowi'& )ru& $e'"ce i' #%e cou'#ry. 3'(or#u'"#ely, #%eir 8e7# e((or#7, p"r#icul"rly 7ucce77(ul %o'e7#G#oG&oo)'e77 8uyG8u7# oper"#io'7, 7o$e#i$e7 7#ill e') up i' #%e "cCui##"l o( ille&"l )ru& $"'u("c#urer7, )i7#ri8u#or7, pu7%er7 "')Kor le77er pl"yer7, e*e' w%e' '"88e) in fla*rante, 7i$ply 8ec"u7e )ru& e'(orce$e'# oper"#i*e7 #e') #o co$pro$i7e #%e i'#e&ri#y "') e*i)e'#i"ry wor#% o( #%e 7eiJe) ille&"l i#e$7. T%i7 "8err"#io' i7 o(#e'#i$e7 i' #ur' "##ri8u#"8le #o #%e u'("$ili"ri#y o( police oper"#i*e7 o( e@#"'# rule7 "') proce)ure7 &o*er'i'& #%e cu7#o)y, co'#rol, "') %"')li'& o( 7eiJe) )ru&7. T%i7 i7, #%u7, "' oppor#u'e #i$e #o re$i') "ll co'cer'e) "8ou# #%e7e rule7 "') proce)ure7 "') #%e &ui)i'& Auri7pru)e'ce. A') #o pu# #%i'&7 i' #%e proper per7pec#i*e, 'o'Gco$pli"'ce wi#% #%e le&"l pre7crip#io'7 o( #%e /"'&erou7 /ru&7 Ac#, "7 "$e')e), i7, "7 we $")e "8u')"'#ly cle"r i' &eople !. 3an heI, 'o# 'ece77"rily ("#"l #o #%e pro7ecu#io' o( )ru&G rel"#e) c"7e7+ #%"# police proce)ure7 $"y 7#ill %"*e 7o$e l"p7e7. T%e7e l"p7e7, %owe*er, $u7# 8e reco&'iJe), "))re77e), "') e@pl"i'e) i' #er$7 o( #%eir Au7#i(i"8le &rou')7, "') #%e i'#e&ri#y "') e*i)e'#i"ry

.>. .>3

B.>C B./C

#eople v. CaGete, 2.%. &o. 1./366, 5uly 11, +66+, ./3 SC%- 311, 3+3. #eople v. &an, 2.%. &o. 1+'.>4, )ay +', +66+, ./+ SC%- 31', 333.

.//

./'

*"lue o( #%e e*i)e'ce 7eiJe) $u7# 8e 7%ow' #o %"*e 8ee' pre7er*e) 8y #%e "ppre%e')i'& o((icer or #e"$. To 8e (orew"r'e) i7 #o 8e (ore"r$e). 0HERE.ORE, the C- De!ision dated 5uly 1', +66> in C--2.%. C%-,.C. &o. 663>4, affirming that of the % C, $ran!h D. in )anila whi!h found her guilty of violating Se!. 1D, -rt. *** of %- 43+D and imposed upon her the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of =h= D66,666, is hereby REVERSE/ and SET ASI/E. -!!used-appellant )onalyn Cervantes y Solar is ACM3ITTE/ on the ground of reasonable doubt and is a!!ordingly immediately RELEASE/ from !ustody unless she is being lawfully held for some lawful !ause. 5re7u$p#io' o( i''oce'ce le")7 #o #%e "ccu7e)N7 "cCui##"l )ue #o i'co'7i7#e'# #e7#i$o'ie7 o( pro7ecu#io'N7 wi#'e77e7 I'co'7i7#e'# #e7#i$o'ie7 o( pro7ecu#io'N7 wi#'e77e7 e'#i#le7 #%e "ccu7e) #o "cCui##"l 8"7e) o' %i7 co'7#i#u#io'"l pre7u$p#io' o( i''oce'ce. ELY A:3STI- VS. 5EO5LE O. THE 5HILI55I-ES, :.R. -o. 116 66, April 3;, 9;;6 #-C S: <n <!tober 1, 1''D, at >:+6 in the evening, armed men robbed the house of spouses 2eorge and %osemarie 2ante in $arangay =ug-os, Cabugao, *lo!os Sur, for!ibly taking with them several valuables, in!luding !ash amounting to =466,666.66..>DB.C #orthwith, the spouses reported the matter to the poli!e, who, in turn, immediately applied for a sear!h warrant with the )uni!ipal rial Court () CA of Cabugao, *lo!os Sur..>4B3C he ) C issued Sear!h 7arrant &o. D-'D,.>> BDC dire!ting a sear!h of the items stolen from the vi!tims, as well as the firearms used by the perpetrators. <ne of the target premises was the residen!e of petitioner, named as one of the several suspe!ts in the !rime. <n <!tober 4, 1''D, armed with the warrant, poli!emen sear!hed the premises of petitionerSs house lo!ated in Sitio =adual, $arangay =ug-os, Cabugao, *lo!os Sur. he sear!h resulted in the re!overy of a firearm and ammunitions whi!h had no li!ense nor authority to possess su!h weapon, and, !onse0uently, the filing of a !riminal !ase, do!keted as Criminal Case &o. 14D1-M, for violation of =.D. &o.
.>D .>4 .>>

./'

.'6

1/44 or *llegal =ossession of #irearms, against petitioner before the % C. hereafter, trial ensued. he prose!ution presented eight witnesses namely: (1A =E*nsp. -nselmo $aldovino.>/B>C (=E*nsp. $aldovinoA, a poli!e investigator and the appli!ant for the sear!h warrant" (+A %osemarie 2ante (2anteA, the vi!tim of the robbery and private !omplainant" (.A *gna!io Jabes (JabesA, a )uni!ipal @o!al 2overnment <perations <ffi!er of the Department of *nterior and @o!al 2overnment who was the !ivilian witness to the sear!h" (3A =ESupt. $onifa!io -bian.>'B/C (=ESupt. -bianA, Deputy =rovin!ial Dire!tor of the =hilippine &ational =oli!e and part of the sear!h team" (DA S=<3 )arino =eneyra (S=<3 =eneyraA" (4A S=<1 #ranklin Cabaya (S=<1 CabayaA" (>A S=<1 5ames 5ara (S=<1 5araA" and (/A S=<+ #lorentino %enon (S=<+ %enonA. he prose!utionSs !ase !entered mainly on eviden!e that during the enfor!ement of the sear!h warrant against petitioner, a ../ !aliber revolver firearm was found in the latterSs house../6B'C *n parti!ular, S=<1 Cabaya testified that while poking at a !losed rattan !abinet near the door, he saw a firearm on the lower shelf../1B16C he gun is a ../ !aliber revolver ./+B11C with five live ammunitions,./.B1+C whi!h he immediately turned over to his superior, =E*nsp. $aldovino../3B1.C =etitioner an!hored his defense on denial and frame-up. he petitioner and his wife @orna assert that petitioner does not own a gun../DB13C @orna testified that she saw a :military; man planting the gun../4B1DC -fter trial, the % C rendered its De!ision./>B14C dated 5uly >, 1''', finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt. =etitioner filed an appeal with the C-, whi!h rendered the assailed De!ision.//B1/C dated 5anuary ++, +66., affirming with modifi!ation the de!ision of the trial !ourt, thus: 7,9%9#<%9, e(!ept for the )<D*#*C- *<& redu!ing and !hanging the ma(imum of the prison term imposed to #ive (DA Jears #our (3A )onths and wenty (+6A Days, the appealed De!ision is otherwise -##*%)9D. ,en!e, the instant =etition for %eview, on the prin!ipal ground that the C.>/ .>' ./6 ./1 ./+ ./. ./3 ./D ./4 ./> .//

.'6

.'1

gravely erred in finding that the guilt of petitioner has been proven beyond reasonable doubt" and more spe!ifi!ally, in giving weight and !reden!e to the testimonies of the poli!e offi!ers who sear!hed the house of the petitioner whi!h are replete with material and irre!on!ilable !ontradi!tions and in giving S=<1 Cabaya the presumption of regularity in the performan!e of duty despite the !laim of @orna that the ../ !aliber revolver was planted. =etitioner insists that the trial !ourt and the C- !ommitted reversible error in giving little !reden!e to his defense that the firearm found in his residen!e was planted by the poli!emen. ,e also alleges material in!onsisten!ies in the testimonies of the poli!emen as witnesses for the prose!ution, whi!h amounted to failure by the prose!ution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. HEL/I he petition has merit. he paramount issue in the present !ase is whether the prose!ution established the guilt of petitioner beyond reasonable doubt" and in the determination thereof, a fa!tual issue, that is, whether a gun was found in the house of petitioner, must ne!essarily be resolved. *t is a well-entren!hed rule that appeal in !riminal !ases opens the whole !ase wide open for review../'B+6C *n !onvi!ting petitioner, the % C relied heavily on the testimony of S=<1 Cabaya, who testified that he dis!overed the sub8e!t firearm in a !losed !abinet inside the formerSs house. he trial !ourt brushed aside petitionerSs defense of denial and protestations of frame-up. he % C 8ustified giving full !reden!e to CabayaSs testimony on the prin!iples that the latter is presumed to have performed his offi!ial duties regularly" that he had no ill motive to frame-up petitioner" and that his affirmative testimony is stronger than petitionerSs negative testimony..'6B+1C 7eighing these findings of the lower !ourts against the petitionerSs !laim that the prose!ution failed to prove its !ase beyond reasonable doubt due to the material in!onsisten!ies in the testimonies of its witnesses, the Court finds, after a meti!ulous e(amination of the re!ords that the lower !ourts, indeed, !ommitted a reversible error in finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the !rime he was !harged with. he % C and the C- have overlooked !ertain fa!ts and !ir!umstan!es that would have inter8e!ted serious apprehensions absolutely impairing the !redibility of the witnesses for the prose!ution. he !onfli!ting testimonies of the prose!ution witnesses as to who a!tually entered the house and !ondu!ted the sear!h, who :dis!overed; the gun, and who
./' .'6

.'1

.'+

witnessed the :dis!overy; are material matters be!ause they relate dire!tly to a fa!t in issue" in the present !ase, whether a gun has been found in the house of petitioner" or to a fa!t to whi!h, by the pro!ess of logi!, an inferen!e may be made as to the e(isten!e or non-e(isten!e of a fa!t in issue. .'1B+3C -s held in !nited "tates v. EstraGa,.'+B+DC a material matter is the main fa!t whi!h is the sub8e!t of in0uiry or "'y circu$7#"'ce w%ic% #e')7 #o pro*e #%"# ("c# or "'y ("c# or circu$7#"'ce w%ic% #e')7 #o corro8or"#e or 7#re'&#%e' #%e #e7#i$o'y rel"#i*e #o #%e 7u8Aec# o( i'Cuiry or w%ic% le&i#i$"#ely "((ec#7 #%e cre)i# o( "'y wi#'e77 w%o #e7#i(ie7. he eviden!e of prose!ution is severely weakened by several !ontradi!tions in the testimonies of its witnesses. 9spe!ially damaged is the !redibility of S=<1 Cabaya, none of whose de!larations on material points 8ibes with those of the other prose!ution witnesses. *n the fa!e of the vehement and !onsistent protestations of frame-up by petitioner and his wife, the trial !ourt and the C- erred in overlooking or misappre!iating these in!onsisten!ies. he in!onsisten!ies are material as they delve into the very bottom of the 0uestion of whether or not S=<1 Cabaya really found a firearm in the house of petitioner. S=<1 Cabaya testified that he entered the house with four other poli!emen, among whom were S=<1 5ara, S=<3 =eneyra, S=<. $ernabe <!ado (S=<. <!adoA and another one whose name he does not remember. .'.B+4C 7hile sear!hing, he dis!overed the firearm in the kit!hen, inside a !losed !abinet near the door..'3B+>C ,e said that S=<1 5ara was standing right behind him, at a distan!e of 8ust one meter, when he (CabayaA saw the firearm".'DB+/C and that he pi!ked up the gun, held it and showed it to S=<1 5ara..'4B+'C ,e asserted that S=<+ %enon was not one of those who went inside the house..'>B.6C ,owever, S=<1 5ara, the best witness who !ould have !orroborated S=<1 CabayaSs testimony, related a different story as to the !ir!umstan!es of the firearmSs dis!overy. S=<1 5ara testified that he merely !ondu!ted perimeter se!urity during the sear!h and did not enter or parti!ipate in sear!hing the house. .'/B.+C S=<1 5ara testified that he remained outside the house throughout the sear!h, and when S=<1 Cabaya shouted and showed a gun, he was seven to eight meters away from him..''B..C ,e !ould not see the inside of the house and !ould see Cabaya only from his !hest up.366B.3C ,e did not see the firearm at the pla!e where it was found, but saw it only when Cabaya raised his arm to show the gun, whi!h was a revolver. 361
.'1 .'+ .'. .'3 .'D .'4 .'> .'/ .'' 366 361

.'+

.'.
B.DC

He i7 cer#"i' #%"# %e w"7 'o# wi#% C"8"y" "# #%e #i$e #%e l"##er )i7co*ere) #%e (ire"r$.36+B.4C ,e further testified that S=<. <!ado, who, a!!ording to S=<1 Cabaya was one of those near him when he (CabayaA dis!overed the firearm, stayed outside and did not enter or sear!h the house.36.B.>C =E*nsp. $aldovino testified that only S=<+ %enon !ondu!ted the sear!h and entered the house together with S=<1 Cabaya, 363B./C dire!tly !ontradi!ting S=<1 CabayaSs testimony that he, together with S=<1 5ara, S=<3 =eneyra, S=<. <!ado, and another one whose name he !annot re!all, were inside the house when he dis!overed the gun36DB.'C and that S=<+ %enon did not enter the house of petitioner.364B36C he testimonies of the other prose!ution witnesses further muddled the prose!ution eviden!e with more in!onsisten!ies as to matters material to the determination of whether a gun had in fa!t been found in the house of petitioner. S=<3 =eneyra testified that Jabes stayed outside of the during the sear!h" 36>BD'C whereas S=<1 5ara testified that Jabes was inside, at the sala, but the latter saw the gun only when S=<1 Cabaya raised it.36/B46C -lthough the Court has held that frame-up is inherently one of the weakest defenses,36'B41C as it is both easily !on!o!ted and diffi!ult to prove,316B4+C in the present !ase, the lower !ourts seriously erred in ignoring the weakness of the prose!utionSs eviden!e and its failure to prove the guilt of petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. T%e rule reCuiri'& " cl"i$ o( (r"$eGup #o 8e 7uppor#e) 8y cle"r "') co'*i'ci'& e*i)e'ce211<63= w"7 'e*er i'#e')e) #o 7%i(# #o #%e "ccu7e) #%e 8ur)e' o( proo( i' " cri$i'"l c"7e. -s the Court held in #eople of t2e #2ilippines v. Am'i2:31+B43C B7Chile the lone defense of the a!!used that he was the vi!tim of a frame-up is easily fabri!ated, this !laim assumes importan!e when fa!ed with the rather shaky nature of the prose!ution eviden!e. *t is well to remember that the prose!ution must rely, not on the weakness of the defense eviden!e, but rather on its own proof whi!h must be strong enough to !onvin!e this Court that the prisoner in the do!k deserves to be punished. T%e co'7#i#u#io'"l pre7u$p#io' i7 #%"# #%e "ccu7e) i7 i''oce'# e*e' i( %i7 )e(e'7e i7 we"L "7 lo'& "7 #%e pro7ecu#io' i7 'o# 7#ro'& e'ou&% #o co'*ic# %i$.31.B4DC (9mphasis suppliedA *n #eople of t2e #2ilippines v. +on5ales,313B44C the Court held that where
36+ 36. 363 36D 364 36> 36/ 36' 316 311 31+ 31. 313

.'.

.'3

there was material and une(plained in!onsisten!y between the testimonies of two prin!ipal prose!ution witnesses relating not to in!onse0uential details but to the alleged transa!tion itself whi!h is sub8e!t of the !ase, the inherent improbable !hara!ter of the testimony given by one of the two prin!ipal prose!ution witnesses had the effe!t of vitiating the testimony given by the other prin!ipal prose!ution witness. he Court ruled that it !annot 8ust dis!ard the improbable testimony of one offi!er and adopt the testimony of the other that is more plausible. *n su!h a situation, both testimonies lose their probative value. he Court further held: 7hy should two (+A poli!e offi!ers give two (+A !ontradi!tory des!riptions of the same sale transa!tion, whi!h allegedly took pla!e before their very eyes, on the same physi!al lo!ation and on the same o!!asionN 7e must !on!lude that a reasonable doubt was generated as to whether or not the Hbuy-bustH operation ever took pla!e.31DB4'C *n the present !ase, to repeat, the glaring !ontradi!tory testimonies of the prose!ution witnesses generate serious doubt as to whether a firearm was really found in the house of petitioner. he prose!ution utterly failed to dis!harge its burden of proving that petitioner is guilty of illegal possession of firearms beyond reasonable doubt. he !onstitutional presumption of inno!en!e of petitioner has not been demolished and therefore petitioner should be a!0uitted of the !rime he was with. %ead also: =. vs. $ernardino, 5anuary +/, 1''1 1-a. = vs. #lores, 14D SC%- >1 1-b. -guirre vs. =., 1DD SC%- ..> 1-!. =. vs. 2uinto, 1/3 SC%- +/> 1-d. =. vs. Solis, 1/+ SC%- 1/+ 1-e. =. vs. Capilitan, 1/+ SC%- .1. +. -lonso vs. *-C, 1D1 SC%- DD+ .. = vs. @opeG, >3 SC%- +6D 3. = vs. Ruiason, >/ SC%- D1. D. = vs. 5ose, .> SC%- 3D6 4. = vs. =oblador, >4 SC%- 4.3 >. Dumlao vs. Comele!, 'D SC%- .'+ .. =resumption of inno!en!e in general and in the order of trial 5EO5LE VS. /E LOS SA-TOS, 311 SCRA 211 5EO5LE VS. SAT3R-O, 311 SCRA 1 6 7hat is the EM3I5OISE R3LER

31D

.'3

.'D

-.

*f the eviden!e in a !riminal !ase is evenly balan!ed, the !onstitutional presumption of inno!en!e tilts the s!ale of 8usti!e in favor of the a!!used and he should be a!0uitted from the !rime !harged. 7here the in!ulpatory fa!ts and !ir!umstan!es are !apable of two or more interpretations one of whi!h is !onsistent with the inno!en!e of the a!!used and the other !onsistent with his guilt, then the eviden!e does not fulfill the test of moral !ertainty and is not suffi!ient to support a !onvi!tion. %ead:

1. -le8andro vs. =epito, '4 SC%- .++ .. Sa!ay vs. Sandiganbayan, 5uly 16,l'/4 SACAY VS. SA-/I:A-4AYA2.%. &o. @-443'>-'/,5uly 16, 1'/4 .ACTSI 1. -t the initial hearing, the testimony of the prose!ution witnesses was interrupted when the a!!used, through !ounsel, admitted that he shot the de!eased but !laimed that it was done in self-defense and fulfillment of duty. he prose!ution then moved that the reverse pro!edure be adopted in view of the admission that the a!!used shot the de!eased. &o ob8e!tion was interposed by the a!!used or his !ounsel. +. <n appeal with the S.C. after he was !onvi!ted the a!!used later !laims that there was a violation of the order of trial provided for in Se!. ., %ule 11' of the %ules of Court. ,e also !ites the !ase of -le8andro vs. =epito, '4 SC%- .++, wherein the S.C. ruled that : H*t behooved the respondent 5udge to have followed the se0uen!e of trial set forth ( ( ( the form of a trial is also a matter of publi! order and interest" the orderly !ourse of pro!edure re0uires that the prose!ution should go forward and present all of its proof in the first instan!e.H HEL/I he !ase of -le8andro vs. =epito is not appli!able inasmu!h as the a!!used in the !ase at bar did not ob8e!t to the pro!edure followed. *n fa!t in the said -le8andro !ase, the Court also stated: H*t is true that in the !ase of 3.S. *7. :"oir"', 1 5%il. 2;2 ,l91;!, relied upon by the prose!ution and the trial Court, the defense has produ!ed its proofs before the prose!ution presented its !ase, and it was held that no substantial rights of the a!!used were pre8udi!ed. here is one
.'D

.'4

radi!al differen!e, however, sin!e in that !ase no ob8e!tion was entered in the Court below to the pro!edure followed in the presentation of proof. *n this !ase, the !hange in the order of trial made by respondent 5udge was promptly and timely ob8e!ted to by the defense.H *n fa!t it should be noted that under the newly adopted 1'/D %ules of Criminal =ro!edure (Se!. .eA, %ule 11'Athe said pro!edure is now e(pressly san!tioned. hus: H,owever, when the a!!used admits the a!t or omission !harged in the !omplaint or information but interposes a lawful defense, the order of trial may be modified a!!ordingly.H ..Se!. .(.A, %ule 11' , 1'/D %ules on Criminal amended. 3. <ther !ases %ead: 1. = vs. <pida, 5une 1.,1'/4 +. = vs. empongko, <!tober +,1'/4 .. = vs. Drammayo, 3+ SC%- D' 3. = vs. #ernando, 13D SC%- 1D1 D. = vs. olentino, 13D SC%- D'> 4. Castillo vs. #ilte(, September .6,1'/. >. Dumlao vs. C<)9@9C, supra D. %ight to !ounsel-during trial 1. %eason behind the re0uirement +. <bligation of the 8udge to an a!!used who without a lawyer to assist him %ead: 1. = vs. ,olgado,/D =hil. >D+ +. /el&")o *7. CA, 121 SCRA 31 .. = vs. Cuison, 1'. =hil. +'4 D-a. he right to be heard by himself and !ounsel during trial 9ffe!t of the fa!t that a!!used was represented by a &<&-@-7J9% at the early part of the trial but a full-pledged lawyer took over as his !ounsel appears in !ourt =ro!edure , as

.'4

.'>

when he presented his eviden!e. (-lso important in your !riminal law as to the distin!tions between robbery and grave !oer!ionA 5E/RO CO-S3LTA VS. 5EO5LE, 2.%. &o. 1>'34+, #ebruary 1+, +66'

CAR5IO MORALES, J.I he Court of -ppeals having, by De!ision of -pril +., +66>,314B1C affirmed the De!ember ', +663 De!ision of the %egional rial Court of )akati City, $ran!h 1.' !onvi!ting =edro C. Consulta (appellantA of %obbery with *ntimidation of =ersons, appellant filed the present petition. he a!!usatory portion of the *nformation against appellant reads: hat on or about the >th day of 5une, 1''', in the City of )akati, =hilippines and within the 8urisdi!tion of this ,onorable Court, the abovenamed a!!used, with intent of gain, and by means of for!e, violen!e and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and !arry away !omplainant1s &9@*- %. S*@F9S %9 gold ne!kla!e worth =.,D66.66, belonging to said !omplainant, to the damage and pre8udi!e of the owner thereof in the aforementioned amount of =.,D66.66. C<& %-%J < @-7.31>B+C unders!oring suppliedA (9mphasis in the original,

#rom the eviden!e for the prose!ution, the following version is gathered: -t about +:66 o1!lo!k in the afternoon of 5une >, 1''', private !omplainant &elia %. Silvestre (&eliaA, together with )aria Fiovi!ente ()ariaA and Feroni!a -mar (Feroni!aA, boarded a tri!y!le on their way to =embo, )akati City. ?pon rea!hing -mbel Street, appellant and his brother 9dwin Consulta (9dwinA blo!ked the tri!y!le and under their threats, the driver alighted and left. -ppellant and 9dwin at on!e shouted inve!tives at &elia, saying E#utang ina mong matanda @a, ?alang2iya @a, @apal ng mu@2a mo, papatayin @a namin.F -ppellant added :#utang ina @ang matanda @a, ?ala @ang @adala dala, sina'i2an na @ita na @a2it saan @ita matiempu2an, papatayin @ita.F

314

B1C

31>

=enned by -sso!iate 5usti!e 9stela ). =erlas-$ernabe, with the !on!urren!e of -sso!iate 5usti!es )arina @. $uGon and @u!as =. $ersamin" C- rollo, pp. 144-1>4. B+C %e!ords, p. 1.

.'>

.'/

-ppellant thereafter grabbed &elia1s 1/M gold ne!kla!e with a !ru!ifi( pendant whi!h, a!!ording to an :ala8era; in the provin!e, was of 1/k gold, and whi!h was worth =.,D66, ki!ked the tri!y!le and left saying :#utang ina @ang matanda @aT Sayo mga nurses lang, anong ipinagmamala@i niyo, mga nurses lang @ayo. Sami, marami @aming mga a'ogado. Hindi niyo @ami maipapa@ulong @a2it @ailanTF &elia and her !ompanions immediately went to the =embo barangay hall where they were advised to undergo medi!al e(amination. hey, however, repaired to the =oli!e Station, =re!in!t / in Comembo, )akati City and reported the in!ident. hey then pro!eeded to Camp Crame where they were advised to return in a few days when any in8uries they suffered were e(pe!ted to manifest. &ine days after the in!ident or on 5une 14, 1''', &elia submitted a medi!o-legal report and gave her statement before a poli!e investigator. Denying the !harge, appellant branded it as fabri!ated to spite him and his family in light of the following ante!edent fa!ts: ,e and his family used to rent the ground floor of &elia1s house in =ateros. &elia is his godmother. he ad8a!ent house was o!!upied by &elia1s parents with whom she often 0uarreled as to whom the rental payments should be remitted. $e!ause of the per!eption of the parents of &elia that his family was partial towards her, her parents disliked his family. &elia1s father even filed a !ase for maltreatment against him whi!h was dismissed and, on learning of the maltreatment !harge, &elia ordered him and his family to move out of their house and filed a !ase against him for grave threats and another for light threats whi!h were dismissed or in whi!h he was a!0uitted. -ppellant went on to !laim that despite fre0uent transfers of residen!e to avoid &elia, she would tra!k his whereabouts and !ause s!andal. -ppellant1s witness Darius =a!aTa testified that on the date of the alleged robbery, &elia, together with her two !ompanions, approa!hed him while he was at -mbel Street in the !ompany of )i!hael #ontanilla and 5immy Sembrano, and asked him (=a!aTaA if he knew a bald man who is bigEstout with a big tummy and with a sister named )aria. -s he replied in the affirmative, &elia at on!e asked him to a!!ompany them to appellant1s house, to whi!h he a!!eded. -s soon as the group rea!hed appellant1s house, appellant, on his (=a!aTa1sA !all, emerged and on seeing the group, told them to go away so as not to !ause trouble. %etorting, &elia uttered :Mga 2ayop @ayo, 2indi @o @ayo titigilan.;

.'/

.''

-nother defense witness, a!!ount.

helma Fuesa, !orroborated =a!aTa1s

he trial !ourt, holding that intent to gain on appellant1s part :is presumed from the unlawful taking; of the ne!kla!e, and brushing aside appellant1s denial and !laim of harassment, !onvi!ted appellant of %obbery, disposing as follows: 7,9%9#<%9, premises !onsidered, this Court finds a!!used =9D%< C. C<&S?@ - guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as prin!ipal of the felony of %obbery with *ntimidation of =ersons defined and penaliGed under -rti!le +'3, paragraph &o. D, in relation to -rti!le +'. of the %evised =enal Code and hereby senten!es him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment from one (1A year, seven (>A months and eleven (11A days of arresto mayor, as minimum, to eight (/A years, eight (/A months and one (1A day of prision mayor, as ma(imum, applying the *ndeterminate Senten!e @aw, there being no mitigating or aggravating !ir!umstan!es whi!h attended the !ommission of the said !rime. he said a!!used is further ordered to pay unto the !omplainant &elia Silvestre the amount of =.,D66.66 representing the value of her ne!kla!e taken by him and to pay the !osts of this suit. S< <%D9%9D. (*tali!s in the original, unders!oring suppliedA he appellate !ourt affirmed modifi!ation on the penalty. appellant1s !onvi!tion with

*n his present appeal, appellant raises the following issues: (1A (+A 7hether or not appellant was validly arraigned" 7hether or not appellant was denied due pro!ess having been represented by a fake lawyer during arraignment, pre-trial and presentation of prin!ipal witnesses for the prose!ution" he first two issues, whi!h appellant raised before the appellate !ourt only when he filed his )otion for %e!onsideration of said !ourt1s de!ision, were resolved in the negative in this wise: <n the matter of a!!used-appellant1s !laim of having been denied due pro!ess, an e(amination of the re!ords shows that while a!!usedappellant was represented by -tty. 5o!elyn =. %eyes, who :seems not a lawyer,; during the early stages of trial, the latter withdrew her appearan!e with the !onformity of the former as early as 5uly +/, +666 and subse0uently, approved by the % C in its <rder dated -ugust 3, +666.
.''

366

hereafter, a!!used-appellant was represented by -tty. %ainald C. =aggao from the =ubli! Defender1s (-ttorney1sA <ffi!e of )akati City. Sin!e the a!!used-appellant was already represented by a member of the =hilippine $ar who prin!ipally handled his defense, albeit unsu!!essfully, then he !annot now be heard to !omplain about having been denied of due pro!ess.31/B.C (?nders!oring suppliedA hat appellant1s first !ounsel may not have been a member of the bar does not dent the proven fa!t that appellant prevented &elia and !ompany from pro!eeding to their destination. #urther, appellant was afforded !ompetent representation by the =ubli! -ttorneys1 <ffi!e during the presentation by the prose!ution of the medi!o-legal offi!er and during the presentation of his eviden!e. &eople !. ,le"terio31'B3C enlightens: :-s for the !ir!umstan!e that the defense !ounsel turned out later to be a non-lawyer, it is observed that he was !hosen by the a!!used himself and that his representation does not !hange the fa!t that 9lesterio was undeniably !arrying an unli!ensed firearm when he was arrested. -t any rate, he has sin!e been represented by a member of the =hilippine bar, who prepared the petition for 2a'eas corpus and the appellant1s brief.; (?nders!oring suppliedA 9F9& *# ,9 D9C*S*<& <# C<&F*C *<& *S -@%9-DJ #*&-@ -&D 9Q9C? <%J, ,9 C-S9 )-J S *@@ $9 %9-<=9&9D *# ,9%9 *S 2%<SS-&92@*29&C9 <& ,9 =-% <# -CC?S9D1S C<?&S9@ ,9%9$J F*<@- *&2 ,*S %*2, < D?9 =%<C9SSEC<?&S9@. JOH- HILARIO VS. 5EO5LE O. THE 5HILI55I-ES, :.R. -o. 161; ;, April 12, 9;;6 ,9 #-C S: =etitioner, together with one 2ilbert -li8id (-li8idA, was !harged with two !ounts3+6B.C of )urder in the %egional rial Court (% CA, $ran!h >4, RueGon City to whi!h petitioner, assisted by !ounsel de parte, pleaded not guilty. During trial, -tty. %aul %ivera of the =ubli! -ttorneySs <ffi!e (=-<A, !ounsel of -li8id, took over representing petitioner in view of the death of the latterSs !ounsel.
31/ 31' 3+6
B.C B3C

$ollo, p. 14' 2.%. &o. 4.'>1, )ay ', 1'/', 1>. SC%- +3., +3'.
B.C

Do!keted as Criminal Case &os. R-66-'143>-3/.

366

361

<n De!ember D, +661, the % C rendered its De!ision 3+1B3C finding petitioner and his !o-a!!used -li8id guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the !rime of homi!ide and senten!ing them to suffer imprisonment of eight (/A years and one (1A day of prision mayor to fourteen (13A years and eight (/A months of reclusion temporal in ea!h !ount. <n )ay 16, +66+, petitioner, this time unassisted by !ounsel, filed with the % C a =etition for %elief3++BDC from the De!ision dated De!ember D, +661 together with an affidavit of merit. *n his petition, petitioner !ontended that at the time of the promulgation of the 8udgment, he was already !onfined at RueGon City 5ail and was dire!ted to be !ommitted to the &ational =enitentiary in )untinlupa" that he had no way of personally filing the noti!e of appeal thus he instru!ted his lawyer to file it on his behalf" that he had no !hoi!e but to repose his full trust and !onfiden!e to his lawyer" that he had instru!ted his lawyer to file the ne!essary motion for re!onsideration or noti!e of appeal" that on )ay +, +66+, he was already in!ar!erated at the &ew $ilibid =risons, )untinlupa City and learned from the grapevine of his impending transfer to the *wahig =enal Colony, =alawan" that believing that the noti!e of appeal filed by his !ounsel prevented the De!ision dated De!ember D, +661 from be!oming final to warrant his transfer, he instru!ted his representative to get a !opy of the noti!e of appeal from the % C" that no noti!e of appeal was filed by his lawyer in defian!e of his !lear instru!tions" and that the % C De!ision showed that it was re!eived by his !ounsel on #ebruary 1, +66+ and yet the !ounsel did not inform him of any a!tion taken thereon. * S S ? 9: 7hether or not the delay in appealing the instant !ase due to the defian!e or failure of the petitionerSs !ounsel de oficio to seasonably file a &oti!e of -ppeal, !onstitutes e(!usable negligen!e to entitle the undersigned detention prisonerE petitioner to pursue his appealN 7hether or not pro 2ac vice, the mere invo!ation of 8usti!e warrants the review of a final and e(e!utory 8udgmentN ,9@D: =etitioner !ontends that the negligen!e of his !ounsel de oficio !annot be binding on him for the latterSs defian!e of his instru!tion to appeal automati!ally breaks the fidu!iary relationship between !ounsel-!lient and !annot be against the !lient who was pre8udi!ed" that this brea!h of trust !annot easily be !on!o!ted in this situation !onsidering that it was a !ounsel de oficio, a lawyer from =-<, who broke the fidu!iary relationship" that the assailed C- %esolutions both harped on te!hni!alities to uphold the dismissal by the % C of his petition for relief" that
3+1 3++
B3C BDC

=enned by 5udge )onina -. Oenarosa, rollo, pp. .4-D+. *d. at D.-46.

361

36+

relian!e on te!hni!alities to the pre8udi!e of petitioner who is serving 13 years imprisonment for a !rime he did not !ommit is an affront to the poli!y promulgated by this Court that dismissal purely on te!hni!al grounds is frowned upon espe!ially if it will result to unfairness" and that it would have been for the best interest of 8usti!e for the C- to have dire!ted the petitioner to !omplete the re!ords instead of dismissing the petition outright. *n his Comment, the <S2 argues that the mere invo!ation of 8usti!e does not warrant the review of an appeal from a final and e(e!utory 8udgment" that perfe!tion of an appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by law is not only mandatory but 8urisdi!tional and failure to perfe!t the appeal renders the 8udgment sought to be reviewed final and not appealable" and that petitionerSs appeal after the finality of 8udgment of !onvi!tion is an e(er!ise in futility, thus the % C properly dismissed petitionerSs petition for relief from 8udgment. he <S2 further !laims that noti!e to !ounsel is noti!e to !lients and failure of !ounsel to notify his !lient of an adverse 8udgment would not !onstitute e(!usable negligen!e and therefore binding on the !lient. 7e grant the petition. A li#i&"'# w%o i7 'o# " l"wyer i7 'o# e@pec#e) #o L'ow #%e rule7 o( proce)ure. I' ("c#, e*e' #%e $o7# e@perie'ce) l"wyer7 &e# #"'&le) i' #%e we8 o( proce)ure.293<19= 0e %"*e %el) i' " ci*il c"7e #%"# #o )e$"') "7 $uc% (ro$ or)i'"ry ci#iJe'7 w%o7e o'ly o(pelle intrare i7 #%eir 7e'7e o( ri&%# woul) #ur' #%e le&"l 7y7#e$ i'#o "' i'#i$i)"#i'& $o'7#ro7i#y w%ere "' i')i*i)u"l $"y 8e 7#rippe) o( %i7 proper#y ri&%#7 'o# 8ec"u7e %e %"7 'o ri&%# #o #%e proper#y 8u# 8ec"u7e %e )oe7 'o# L'ow %ow #o e7#"8li7% 7uc% ri&%#.292<13= T%i7 (i')7 "pplic"#io' 7peci"lly i( #%e li8er#y o( " per7o' i7 "# 7#"Le. A7 we %el) i' Telan !. Co#rt of Appeal": he right to !ounsel in !ivil !ases e(ists 8ust as for!efully as in !riminal !ases, espe!ially so when as a !onse0uen!e, life, liberty, or property is sub8e!ted to restraint or in danger of loss. I' cri$i'"l c"7e7, #%e ri&%# o( "' "ccu7e) per7o' #o 8e "77i7#e) 8y " $e$8er o( #%e 8"r i7 i$$u#"8le. O#%erwi7e, #%ere woul) 8e " &r"*e )e'i"l o( )ue proce77. T%u7, e*e' i( #%e Au)&$e'# %") 8eco$e (i'"l "') e@ecu#ory, i# $"y 7#ill 8e rec"lle), "') #%e "ccu7e) "((or)e) #%e oppor#u'i#y #o 8e %e"r) 8y %i$7el( "') cou'7el. (((( 9ven the most e(perien!ed lawyers get tangled in the web of pro!edure. he demand as mu!h from ordinary !itiGens whose only compelle intrare is their
3+. 3+3
B1+C B1.C

See &elan v. Court of Appeals, 2.%. &o. 'D6+4, <!tober 3, 1''1, +6+ SC%- D.3, D31. *d.

36+

36.

sense of right would turn the legal system into an intimidating monstrosity where an individual may be stripped of his property rights not be!ause he has no right to the property but be!ause he does not know how to establish su!h right. he right to !ounsel is absolute and may be invoked at all times. )ore so, in the !ase of an on-going litigation, it is a right that must be e(er!ised at every step of the way, with the lawyer faithfully keeping his !lient !ompany. -o "rr"'&e$e'# or i'#erpre#"#io' o( l"w coul) 8e "7 "87ur) "7 #%e po7i#io' #%"# #%e ri&%# #o cou'7el e@i7#7 o'ly i' #%e #ri"l cour#7 "') #%"# #%ere"(#er, #%e ri&%# ce"7e7 i' #%e pur7ui# o( #%e "ppe"l .3+DB13C (9mphasis suppliedA o repeat the ruling in &elan, no arrangement or interpretation of law !ould be as absurd as the position that the right to !ounsel e(ists only in the trial !ourts and that thereafter, the right !eases in the pursuit of the appeal. 3+4B1DC *t is even more important to note that petitioner was not assisted by !ounsel when he filed his petition for relief from 8udgment with the % C. *t !annot be overstressed therefore, that in !riminal !ases, as held in &elan, the right of an a!!used person to be assisted by a member of the bar is immutable" otherwise, there would be a grave denial of due pro!ess. Cases should be determined on the merits after full opportunity to all parties for ventilation of their !auses and defenses, rather than on te!hni!ality or some pro!edural imperfe!tions. *n that way, the ends of 8usti!e would be served better.3+>B14C 7hile as a general rule, the failure of petitioner to file his motion for re!onsideration within the 1D-day reglementary period fi(ed by law rendered the resolution final and e(e!utory, we have on some o!!asions rela(ed this rule. hus, in +arne" !. &adilla3+/B1>C we held: ,owever, this Court has rela(ed this rule in order to serve substantial 8usti!e !onsidering ("! $"##er7 o( li(e, li8er#y, %o'or or proper#y, ,8! #%e e@i7#e'ce o( 7peci"l or co$pelli'& circu$7#"'ce7, ,c! #%e $eri#7 o( #%e c"7e, ,)! " c"u7e 'o# e'#irely "##ri8u#"8le #o #%e ("ul# or 'e&li&e'ce o( #%e p"r#y ("*ore) 8y #%e 7u7pe'7io' o( #%e rule7, ,e! " l"cL o( "'y 7%owi'& #%"# #%e re*iew 7ou&%# i7 $erely (ri*olou7 "') )il"#ory, "') ,(! #%e o#%er p"r#y will 'o# 8e u'Au7#ly preAu)ice) #%ere8y. *nvariably, rules of pro!edure should be viewed as mere tools designed to fa!ilitate the attainment of 8usti!e. heir stri!t and rigid appli!ation, whi!h would
3+DB13C 3+4 3+> 3+/
B1DC B14C B1>C

*d. at D36-D31. *d. at D31. +arcia v. #2ilippine Airlines, Inc., supra note 11, at >/1.
2.%. &o. 146>D., September .6, +663, 3.' SC%- 4>D.

36.

363

result in te!hni!alities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial 8usti!e, must always be es!hewed. 9ven the %ules of Court refle!ts this prin!iple. he power to suspend or even disregard rules !an be so pervasive and !ompelling as to alter even that whi!h this Court itself had already de!lared to be final. *n De 2uGman v. Sandiganbayan, this Court, speaking through the late 5usti!e %i!ardo 5. #ran!is!o, had o!!asion to state: he %ules of Court was !on!eived and promulgated to set forth guidelines in the dispensation of 8usti!e but not to bind and !hain the hand that dispenses it, for otherwise, !ourts will be mere slaves to or robots of te!hni!al rules, shorn of 8udi!ial dis!retion. hat is pre!isely why !ourts in rendering 8usti!e have always been, as they ought to be guided by the norm that when on the balan!e, te!hni!alities take a ba!kseat against substantive rights, and not the other way around. ruly then, te!hni!alities, in the appropriate language of 5usti!e )akalintal, Hshould give way to the realities of the situation. *ndeed, the emerging trend in the rulings of this Court is to afford every party litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and 8ust determination of his !ause, free from the !onstraints of te!hni!alities.3+'B1/C %ules of pro!edure are mere tools designed to e(pedite the de!ision or resolution of !ases and other matters pending in !ourt. - stri!t and rigid appli!ation of rules that would result in te!hni!alities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial 8usti!e must be avoided.3.6B+1C E*e' i( #%e Au)&$e'# %") 8eco$e (i'"l "') e@ecu#ory, i# $"y 7#ill 8e rec"lle), "') #%e "ccu7e) "((or)e) #%e oppor#u'i#y #o 8e %e"r) 8y %i$7el( "') cou'7el.231<++C ,owever, instead of remanding the !ase to the C- for a de!ision on the merits, we opt to resolve the same so as not to further delay the final disposition of this !ase. *n all !riminal prose!utions, the a!!used shall have the right to appeal in the manner pres!ribed by law. he importan!e and real purpose of the remedy of appeal has been emphasiGed in Castro v. Court of Appeals3.+B+>C where we ruled that an appeal is an essential part of our 8udi!ial system and trial !ourts are advised to pro!eed with !aution so as not to deprive a party of the right to appeal and instru!ted that every party-litigant should be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and 8ust disposition of his !ause, freed from the !onstraints of te!hni!alities. 0%ile #%i7 ri&%# i7 7#"#u#ory, o'ce i# i7 &r"'#e) 8y l"w, %owe*er, i#7 7uppre77io' woul) 8e " *iol"#io' o( )ue proce77, " ri&%# &u"r"'#ee) 8y #%e
3+' 3.6 3.1
B1/C B+1C

*d. at 4/4-4/>. Cusi-Hernande5 v. "pouses %ia5, .'6 =hil. 1+3D, 1+D+ (+666A. B++C &elan v. Court of Appeals, supra note 1+, at D36-D31" #eople of t2e #2ilippines v. Holgado, /D =hil. >D+, >D4->D> (1'D6A" Alores v. Judge $ui5, 1>' =hil. .D1, .DD (1'>'A" %elgado v. Court of Appeals, ++' =hil. .4+, .44 (1'/4A.

3.+

363

36D

Co'7#i#u#io'. hus, the importan!e of finding out whether petitionerSs loss of the right to appeal was due to the 5AO l"wyerU7 'e&li&e'ce "') 'o# "# "ll "##ri8u#e) #o pe#i#io'er. 5EO5LE VS. -A/ERA, JR., 392 SCRA 29; )endoGa, 5. he !avalier attitude of -tty. )anolo $rotonel of the =-< !annot go unnoti!ed. *t is dis!ernible in BaC his refusal to !ross-e(amine <leby &adera (the !omplainant for %-=9A" BbC the manner in whi!h he !ondu!ted )ari!ris &adera1s !ross-e(amination" and B!C his failure not only to present eviden!e for the a!!used but to inform the a!!used of his right to do so, if he desires. <nly the faithful performan!e by !ounsel of his duty towards his !lient !an give meaning and substan!e to the a!!used1s right to due pro!ess and to be presumed inno!ent until proven otherwise. ,en!e, a lawyer1s duty, espe!ially that of a defense !ounsel, must not be taken lightly. *t must be performed with all the Geal and vigor at his !ommand to prote!t and safeguard the a!!used1s fundamental rights. *t may be so that the defense !ounsel really found <leby1s testimony to be believable. &onetheless, he had the bounden duty to s!rutiniGe private !omplainant1s testimony to ensure that the a!!used1s !onstitutional right to !onfront and e(amine the witnesses against him was not rendered for naught. *t bears pointing out that in rape !ases, it is often the words of the !omplainant against the a!!used, the two being the only persons present during the !ommission of the !rime. his is so be!ause the !omplainant1s testimony !annot be a!!epted with pre!ipitate !redulity without denying the a!!used1s !onstitutional right to be presumed inno!ent. his is where !ross-e(amination be!omes essential to test the !redibility of the witnesses, e(pose falsehoods or half-truths, un!over the truth whi!h rehearsed dire!t e(amination testimonies may su!!essfully suppress, and demonstrate in!onsisten!ies in substantial matters whi!h !reate reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the a!!used and thus give substan!e to the !onstitutional right of the a!!used to !onfront the witnesses against him. #or unless proven otherwise to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt, the a!!used is presumed inno!ent. (&< 9: #or your @egal P 5udi!ial 9thi!sA -tty. $rotonel as !ounsel de ofi!io, had the duty to defend his !lient and prote!t his rights, no matter how guilty or evil he per!eives a!!used-appellant to be. he performan!e of this duty was all the more imperative be!ause the life of the a!!used-appellant hangs in the balan!e. ,is duty was no less be!ause he was !ounsel de ofi!io.
36D

364

he De!ision of the % C !onvi!ting the a!!used is S9 -S*D9 and the !ase is remanded for further pro!eedings !onsistent with this de!ision. %ead: 1. = vs. Dis!hoso, '4 SC%- 'D> +. %ead also: =9<=@9 FS. J-)$< , 2.%. &<. 1+6.D6, .3. SC%- +6, <C . .6, +666" =9<=@9 FS. $-&*,* , 2.%. &<. 1.+63D, ..' SC%- /4, -?2. +D, +666. Ri&%# #o 8e He"r) 8y %i$7el( "') cou'7el "') #o pre7e'# e*i)e'ce (or %i7 )e(e'7e. I' #%i7 c"7e, #%e 'o'G"ppe"r"'ce o( cou'7el (or #%e "ccu7e) o' #%e 7c%e)ule) %e"ri'& w"7 'o# co'7#rue) "7 w"i*er 8y #%e "ccu7e) o( %i7 ri&%# #o pre7e'# e*i)e'ce (or %i7 )e(e'7e. /e'i"l o( )ue proce77 c"' 8e 7ucce77(ully i'*oLe) w%ere 'o *"li) w"i*er o( ri&%#7 %") 8ee' $")e "7 i' #%i7 c"7e. I' "'o#%er c"7e, #%e "ccu7e)G"ppell"'# *"li)ly w"i*e) %i7 ri&%# #o pre7e'# e*i)e'ce. T%i7 i7 i' co'7o'"'ce wi#% #%e )oc#ri'e #%"# e*eryo'e %"7 " ri&%# #o w"i*e #%e ")*"'#"&e o( " l"w or rule $")e 7olely (or #%e 8e'e(i# "') pro#ec#io' o( #%e i')i*i)u"l i' %i7 pri*"#e c"p"ci#y, i( i# c"' 8e )i7pe'7e) wi#% "') reli'Cui7%e) wi#%ou# i'(ri'&i'& o' "'y pu8lic ri&%#, "') wi#%ou# )e#ri$e'# #o #%e co$$u'i#y "# l"r&e. 4. he right to be present during trial %ead: 1. -0uino vs. )ilitary Commission, 4. SC%- D34 +. = vs. 5udge, 1+D SC%- +4' .. 7aiver of the defendantSs presen!e in a !riminal prose!ution,>> SC%- 3.6 he right to a speedy trial" not a !ase of" %e0uisites of double 8eopardy" /A-TE TA- VS. 5EO5LE, :.R. -o. 1 363 , April 91, 9;;9 C,*C<-&-O-%*<, J.:
364

36>

$efore this Court is a =etition for %eview on Certiorari filed under %ule 3D of the %evised %ules of Court seeking the reversal and setting aside of the De!ision3..B1C dated ++ #ebruary +664 and %esolution3.3B+C dated 1> 5uly +664 issued by the Court of -ppeals in C--2.%. S= &o. /.64/ entitled, E#eople of t2e #2ilippines v. Hon. riccio C. )gana, in 2is capacity as #residing Judge of ranc2 .8:, $egional &rial Court, #asig City and %ante &an.F he assailed De!ision reinstated Criminal Case &o. 11'/.6, earlier dismissed by the trial !ourt due to an alleged violation of petitioner Dante . an1s right to speedy trial. he assailed %esolution denied his )otion for %e!onsideration and )otion to *nhibit. he fa!tual and pro!edural ante!edents of the instant petition are as follows: <n 1' De!ember +666, a =anel of =rose!utors of the Department of 5usti!e (D<5A, on behalf of the #eople of t2e #2ilippines (=eopleA, filed three *nformations against Dante . an (petitionerA before the %egional rial Court (% CA of =asig City. he !ases were do!keted as Criminal Cases &o. 11'/.6, &o. 11'/.1 and &o. 11'/.+, all entitled, : #eople of t2e #2ilippines v. %ante &an.; Criminal Case &o. 11'/.63.DB.C pertains to allegations that petitioner employed manipulative devises in the pur!hase of $est 7orld %esour!es Corporation ($7A shares. <n the other hand, Criminal Cases &o. 11'/.13.4B3C and &o. 11'/.+3.>BDC involve the alleged failure of petitioner to file with the Se!urities and 9(!hange Commission (S9CA a sworn statement of his benefi!ial ownership of $7 shares. *n two other related !ases, two *nformations were filed against a !ertain 5immy 5uan and 9duardo 2. @im for violation of the %evised Se!urities -!t involving $7 shares of sto!k. hese were do!keted as Criminal Cases &o. 11'/+/ and &o. 11'/+'. <n the same day, the D<5, through -ssistant Chief State =rose!utor &ilo C. )ariano, filed a )otion for Consolidation praying that Criminal Cases &o. 11'/.6, &o. 11'/.1 and &o. 11'/.+ be !onsolidated

3..

B1C

3.3

=enned by -sso!iate 5usti!e #ernanda @ampas =eralta with -sso!iate 5usti!es 5osefina 2uevara-Salonga and Sesinando 9. Fillon, !on!urring" rollo, pp. '6-166. B+C *d. at 16+-11+. *d. at ++/-+.6. *d. at +.1-+.+. *d. at +..-+.D.

3.DB.C 3.4B3C 3.>BDC

36>

36/

together with Criminal Cases &o. 11'/+/ and &o. 11'/+', whi!h the trial !ourt granted. <n +1 De!ember +666, Criminal Cases &o. 11'/.6, &o. 11'/.1 and &o. 11'/.+ were raffled off to the =asig % C, $ran!h 1D., presided by 5udge $ri!!io C. Jgana. Criminal Cases &o. 11'/+/ and &o. 11'/+' also went to the same !ourt. =etitioner was arraigned on 14 5anuary +661, and pleaded not guilty to the !harges.3./B4C <n 4 #ebruary +661, the pre-trial was !on!luded, and a pre-trial order set, among other things, the first date of trial on +> #ebruary +661. 3.'
B>C

-tty. Celia Sande8as of the Se!urities and 9(!hange Commission (S9CA, under the dire!t !ontrol and supervision of =ubli! =rose!utor &estor @aGaro, entered her appearan!e for the =eople" -tty. -gnes )aranan for petitioner Dante an" -tty. Sigfrid #ortun for 9duardo @im, 5r." and -tty. %udolf $rittani!o for 5immy 5uan. State =rose!utors Susan Da!anay and 9dna Fillanueva later on took over as lawyers for the =eople. he =eople insists that during the penden!y of the initial hearing on +> #ebruary +661, the parties agreed that Criminal Cases &o. 11'/.1 and &o. 11'/.+ would be tried ahead of Criminal Case &o. 11'/.6, and that petitioner would not interpose any ob8e!tion to its manifestation, nor would the trial !ourt disapprove it. hereafter, the =eople presented eviden!e for Criminal Cases &o. 11'/.1 and &o. 11'/.+. <n 1/ September +661, the prose!ution !ompleted the presentation of its eviden!e and was ordered by the % C to file its formal offer of eviden!e within thirty days. -fter being granted e(tensions to its filing of a formal offer of eviden!e, the prose!ution was able to file said formal offer for Criminal Cases &o. 11'/.1 and &o. 11'/.+ on +D &ovember +66..336B/C <n + De!ember +66., petitioner moved to dismiss Criminal Case &o. 11'/.6 due to the =eople1s alleged failure to prose!ute. Claiming violation of his right to speedy trial, petitioner faults the =eople for failing to prose!ute the !ase for an unreasonable length of time and without giving any e(!use or 8ustifi!ation for the delay. -!!ording to petitioner,
3./B4C 3.'B>C 336

%e!ords, p. 1'3. *d. at +D.-+D'. B/C $ollo, pp. +3>-+D..

36/

36'

he was persistent in asserting his right to speedy trial, whi!h he had allegedly done on several instan!es. #inally, he !laimed to have been substantially pre8udi!ed by this delay. he prose!ution opposed the )otion, insisting on its !laim that the parties had an earlier agreement to defer the trial of Criminal Case &o. 11'/.6 until after that of Criminal Cases &o. 11'/.1-11'/.+, as the presentation of eviden!e and prose!ution in ea!h of the five !ases involved were to be done separately. he presentation of eviden!e in Criminal Cases &o. 11'/.1-11'/.+, however, were done simultaneously, be!ause they involved similar offenses of non-dis!losure of benefi!ial ownership of sto!ks pros!ribed under %ule .4(aA-1331B'C in relation to Se!tions .+(aA133+B16C and D433.B11C of $atas =ambansa $ilang 1>/, otherwise known as the :%evised Se!urities -!t.; Criminal Case &o. 11'/.6 pertains to alleged violation of Se!tion +> (bA,333B1+C in relation to Se!tion D4 of said a!t. <n ++ De!ember +66., 5udge $ri!!io C. Jgana of the =asig % C, $ran!h 1D., ruled that the delays whi!h attended the pro!eedings of petitioner1s !ase (Criminal Case &o. 11'/.6A were ve(atious, !apri!ious
331
B'C

33+

33.

333

Se!tion .4. %irectors, officers and principal stoc@2olders.X (aA 9very person who is dire!tly or indire!tly the benefi!ial owner of more than ten per !entum of any !lass of any e0uity se!urity whi!h is registered pursuant to this -!t, or who is a dire!tor or an offi!er of the issuer of su!h se!urity, shall file, at the time of the registration of su!h se!urity on a se!urities e(!hange or by the effe!tive date of a registration statement or within ten days after he be!omes su!h a benefi!ial owner, dire!tor, or offi!er, a statement with the Commission and, if su!h se!urity is registered on a se!urities e(!hange, also with the e(!hange, of the amount of all e0uity se!urities of su!h issuer of whi!h he is the benefi!ial owner, and within ten days after the !lose of ea!h !alendar month thereafter, if there has been a !hange in su!h ownership during su!h month, shall file with the Commission, and if su!h se!urity is registered on a se!urities e(!hange, shall also file with the e(!hange, a statement indi!ating his ownership at the !lose of the !alendar month and su!h !hanges in his ownership as have o!!urred during su!h !alendar month. B16C Se!tion .+. $eports. I (aA (1A -ny person who, after a!0uiring dire!tly or indire!tly the benefi!ial ownership of any e0uity se!urity of a !lass whi!h is registered pursuant to this -!t, is dire!tly or indire!tly the benefi!ial owner of more than ten (16YA per centum of su!h !lass shall, within ten days after su!h a!0uisition or su!h reasonable time as fi(ed by the Commission, submit to the issuer of the se!urity, to the sto!k e(!hanges where the se!urity is traded, and to the Commission a sworn statement ( ( (. B11C #enalties. -ny person who violates any of the provisions of this -!t, or the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission under authority thereof, or any person who, in a registration statement filed under this -!t, makes any untrue statement of a material fa!t of omits to state any material fa!t re0uired to be stated therein or ne!essary to make the statements therein not misleading, shall, upon !onvi!tion, suffer a fine of not less than five thousand ( =D,666.66A pesos nor more than five hundred thousand (=D66,666.66A pesos or imprisonment of not less than seven (>A years nor more than twenty one (+1A years, or both in the dis!retion of the !ourt. *f the offender is a !orporation, partnership or asso!iation or other 8uridi!al entity, the penalty shall be imposed upon the offi!er or offi!ers of the !orporation, partnership, asso!iation or entity responsible for the violation, and if su!h offi!er is an alien, he shall, in addition to the penalties pres!ribed, be deported without further pro!eedings after servi!e of senten!e. B1+C Se!tion +>. Manipulative and deceptive devices. *t shall be unlawful for any person, dire!tly or indire!tly, by the use of any fa!ility of any e(!hange I (((( (bA o use or employ, in !onne!tion with the pur!hase or sale of any se!urity, any manipulative or de!eptive devi!e or !ontrivan!e.

36'

316

and oppressive, resulting in violation of petitioner1s right to speedy trial. he % C ordered33DB1.C the dismissal of Criminal Case &o. 11'/.6, disposing as follows: 7,9%9#<%9, foregoing premises duly !onsidered and finding the motion to dismiss to be meritorious, the Court hereby orders Criminal Case &o. 11'/.6 D*S)*SS9D. <n motion for re!onsideration, the prose!ution insisted that the parties agreed to hold separate trials of the $7 !ases, with petitioner a!0uies!ing to the prose!ution of Criminal Cases &o. 11'/.1 and &o. 11'/.+ ahead of Criminal Case &o. 11'/.6. *n an <rder dated +6 5anuary +663, the % C denied the )otion for %e!onsideration for la!k of merit. he % C1s order of dismissal was elevated to the Court of -ppeals via a petition for certiorari, with the =eople !ontending that: %9S=<&D9& 5?D29 2%-F9@J -$?S9D ,*S D*SC%9 *<& *& %?@*&2 ,- ,9 =9<=@9 F*<@- 9D D-& 9 -&1S %*2, < S=99DJ %*-@, -@$9* , ,9 @- 9% -&D %9S=<&D9& 5?D29 ,*)S9@# ,-F9 C<&#<%)9D < ,9 D9#9%)9& <# C%*)*&-@ C-S9 &<. 11'/.6 =9&D*&2 ,9-%*&2 <# ,9 7< < ,9% %9@- 9D C-S9S. Setting aside the trial !ourt1s order of dismissal, the Court of -ppeals granted the petition for certiorari in its De!ision dated ++ #ebruary +664. *n resolving the petition, the appellate !ourt reinstated Criminal Case &o. 11'/.6 in this wise: 7,9%9#<%9, the petition is granted and the assailed <rders dated De!ember ++, +66. and 5anuary +6, +663 are set aside. Criminal Case &o. 11'/.6 is reinstated and the trial !ourt is ordered to !ondu!t further pro!eedings in said !ase immediately.334B13C =etitioner moved for a re!onsideration of the De!ision and filed a motion for inhibition of the 5usti!es who de!ided the !ase. <n 1> 5uly +664, the Court of -ppeals denied both motions. =etitioner Dante an, hen!eforth, filed the instant petition for review on certiorari, raising the following issues: *.
33D 334B13C
B1.C

$ollo, pp. /.D-/DD. *d. at ''-166.

316

311

7,9 ,9% <% &< ,9 -C *&2 S9C%9 -%J <# 5?S *C9 )-J F-@*D@J 9Q9C? 9 ,9 C9% *#*C- 9 <# &<&-#<%?) S,<==*&2 - -C,9D < ,9 =9 * *<& #<% C9% *<%-%* #*@9D $J ,9 =9<=@9 7* , ,9 C<?% <# -==9-@S 9F9& ,<?2, ,9 C%*)*&-@ -C *<& 7-S *&S * ? 9D $J C<)=@-*& S?$SC%*$9D $J ,9 -? ,<%*O9D <##*C9%S <# ,9 S9C?%* *9S -&D 9QC,-&29 C<))*SS*<&. **. 7,9 ,9% <% &< ,9 =9 * *<& #<% C9% *<%-%* F*<@- 9D -&1S %*2, -2-*&S D<?$@9 59<=-%DJ. ***. 7,9 ,9% <% &< C%*)*&-@ C-S9 &<. 11'/.6 7-S C<%%9C @J D*S)*SS9D $J ,9 %*-@ C<?% <& ,9 2%<?&D <# F*<@- *<& <# -&1S %*2, < S=99DJ %*-@. *F. 7,9 ,9% <% &< ,9 -$?S9 <# D*SC%9 *<&. %*-@ C<?% C<))* 9D 2%-F9

7e first resolve the preliminary issues. *n an attempt at having the instant petition dismissed, petitioner !ontends that the !ertifi!ate of non-forum shopping atta!hed to the =eople1s appeal before the Court of -ppeals should have been signed by the Chairman of the S9C as !omplainant in the !ases instead of -!ting D<5 Se!retary )er!editas &. 2utierreG. =etitioner1s argument is futile. he Court of -ppeals was !orre!t in sustaining the authority of -!ting D<5 Se!retary )er!editas 2utierreG to sign the !ertifi!ate of non-forum shopping of the petition for certiorari before said !ourt. *t must be stressed that the !ertifi!ation against forum shopping is re0uired to be e(e!uted by the plaintiff. 33>B1DC -lthough the !omplaint-affidavit was signed by the =rose!ution and 9nfor!ement Department of the S9C, the petition before the Court of -ppeals originated from Criminal Case &o. 11'/.6, where the plaintiff or the party instituting the !ase was the =eople of the =hilippines. Se!tion +, %ule 116 of the %ules of Court leaves no room for doubt and establishes that !riminal !ases are prose!uted in the name of the =eople of the =hilippines,
33>B1DC

%egalado, %9)9D*-@ @-7, p. >+'.

311

31+

the offended party in !riminal !ases. )oreover, pursuant to Se!tion ., paragraph (+A of the %evised -dministrative Code, the D<5 is the e(e!utive arm of the government mandated to investigate the !ommission of !rimes, prose!ute offenders and administer the probation and !orre!tion system. *t is the D<5, through its prose!utors, whi!h is authoriGed to prose!ute !riminal !ases on behalf of the =eople of the =hilippines. 33/B14C =rose!utors !ontrol and dire!t the prose!ution of !riminal offenses, in!luding the !ondu!t of preliminary investigation, sub8e!t to review by the Se!retary of 5usti!e. Sin!e it is the D<5 whi!h is the government agen!y tasked to prose!ute !riminal !ases before the trial !ourt, the D<5 is best suited to attest whether a similar or related !ase has been filed or is pending in another !ourt of tribunal. -!ting D<5 Se!retary )er!editas &. 2utierreG, being the head of the D<5, therefore, had the authority to sign the !ertifi!ate of non-forum shopping for Criminal Case &o. 11'/.6, whi!h was filed on behalf of the =eople of the =hilippines. he preliminary issues having been resolved, the Court shall pro!eed to dis!uss the main issues. -t the !ru( of the !ontroversy is the issue of whether there was a violation of petitioner Dante an1s right to speedy trial. =etitioner Dante an assails the De!ision and %esolution of the Court of -ppeals in C--2.%. S= &o. /.64/. he appellate !ourt determined that he :impliedly agreed; that Case &o. 11'/.6 would not be tried until after termination of Criminal Cases &o. 11'/.1-11'/.+, whi!h finding was grounded entirely on spe!ulations, surmises and !on8e!tures. $oth parties !on!ede that this issue is fa!tual. *t is a basi! rule that fa!tual issues are beyond the provin!e of this Court in a petition for review, for it is not our fun!tion to review eviden!e all over again. 33'B1>C %ule 3D of the %ules of Court provides that only 0uestions of law may be raised in this Court in a petition for review on certiorari.3D6B1/C he reason is that the Court is not a trier of fa!ts.3D1B1'C ,owever, the rule is sub8e!t to several e(!eptions.3D+B+6C ?nder these e(!eptions, the Court may delve into and resolve fa!tual issues, su!h as in !ases where the findings of the trial !ourt and the Court of -ppeals are absurd, !ontrary to the eviden!e on re!ord, impossible, !apri!ious or arbitrary, or based on a misappre!iation of fa!ts.

33/B14C 33' 3D6

3D1

3D+

%evised -dministrative Code, Se!tion .(+A. B1>C Centeno v. *iray, 336 =hil. //1, //> (+66+A. B1/C usmente, Jr. v. (ational La'or $elations Commission , 2.%. &o. >.43>, / -pril 1''1, 1'D SC%- >16, >1.. B1'C &ad-y v. #eople, 2.%. &o. 13//4+, 11 -ugust +66D, 344 SC%- 3>3, 3'+" $omago Electric Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, .// =hil. '43, '>D (+666A. B+6C #alon v. (ino, 36D =hil. 4>6, 4/1 (+661A.

31+

31.

*n this !ase, the Court is !onvin!ed that the findings of the Court of -ppeals on the substantial matters at hand, while !onfli!ting with those of the % C, are ade0uately supported by the eviden!e on re!ord. 7e, therefore, find no reason to deviate from the 8urisprudential holdings and treat the instant !ase differently. -n a!!used1s right to :have a speedy, impartial, and publi! trial; is guaranteed in !riminal !ases by Se!tion 13(+A of -rti!le *** of the Constitution. his right to a speedy trial may be defined as one free from ve(atious, !apri!ious and oppressive delays, its :salutary ob8e!tive; being to assure that an inno!ent person may be free from the an(iety and e(pense of a !ourt litigation or, if otherwise, of having his guilt determined within the shortest possible time !ompatible with the presentation and !onsideration of whatsoever legitimate defense he may interpose . *ntimating histori!al perspe!tive on the evolution of the right to speedy trial, we reiterate the old legal ma(im, :8usti!e delayed is 8usti!e denied.; his oft-repeated adage re0uires the e(peditious resolution of disputes, mu!h more so in !riminal !ases where an a!!used is !onstitutionally guaranteed the right to a speedy trial . #ollowing the poli!ies in!orporated under the 1'/> Constitution, %epubli! -!t &o. /3'., otherwise known as : he Speedy rial -!t of 1''/,; was ena!ted, with Se!tion 4 of said a!t limiting the trial period to 1/6 days from the first day of trial . -ware of problems resulting in the !logging of !ourt do!kets, the Court implemented the law by issuing Supreme Court Cir!ular &o. ./-'/, whi!h has been in!orporated in the +666 %ules of Criminal =ro!edure, Se!tion + of %ule 11' . *n Corpu5 v. "andigan'ayan the Court had o!!asion to state I he right of the a!!used to a speedy trial and to a speedy disposition of the !ase against him was designed to prevent the oppression of the !itiGen by holding !riminal prose!ution suspended over him for an indefinite time, and to prevent delays in the administration of 8usti!e by mandating the !ourts to pro!eed with reasonable dispat!h in the trial of !riminal !ases. "uc2 rig2t to a speedy trial and a speedy disposition of a case is violated only ?2en t2e proceeding is attended 'y ve>atious, capricious and oppressive delays. &2e inCuiry as to ?2et2er or not an accused 2as 'een denied suc2 rig2t is not suscepti'le 'y precise Cualification. &2e concept of a speedy disposition is a relative term and must necessarily 'e a fle>i'le concept. 7hile 8usti!e is administered with dispat!h, the essential ingredient is orderly, e(peditious and not mere speed. *t !annot be definitely said how long is too long in a system where 8usti!e is supposed to be swift, but deliberate. *t is !onsistent with delays and depends upon !ir!umstan!es.
31.

313

*t se!ures rights to the a!!used, but it does not pre!lude the rights of publi! 8usti!e. -lso, it must be borne in mind that the rights given to the a!!used by the Constitution and the %ules of Court are shields, not weapons" hen!e, !ourts are to give meaning to that intent. he Court emphasiGed in the same !ase that: - balan!ing test of applying so!ietal interests and the rights of the a!!used ne!essarily !ompels the !ourt to approa!h speedy trial !ases on an ad 2oc basis. *n determining whether the a!!used has been deprived of his right to a speedy disposition of the !ase and to a speedy trial, four fa!tors must be !onsidered: (aA length of delay" (bA the reason for the delay" (!A the defendant1s assertion of his right" and (dA pre8udi!e to the defendant. ( ( (. Closely related to the length of delay is the reason or 8ustifi!ation of the State for su!h delay. Different weights should be assigned to different reasons or 8ustifi!ations invoked by the State. ( ( (.3D.B+4C 9(haustively e(plained in Corpu5 v. "andigan'ayan, an a!!used1s right to speedy trial is deemed violated only when the pro!eeding is attended by ve>atious, capricious, and oppressive delays. *n determining whether petitioner was deprived of this right, the fa!tors to !onsider and balan!e are the following: (aA duration of the delay" (bA reason therefor" (!A assertion of the right or failure to assert it" and (dA pre8udi!e !aused by su!h delay.3D3B+>C #rom the initial hearing on +> #ebruary +661 until the time the prose!ution filed its formal offer of eviden!e for Criminal Cases &o. 11'/.1-11'/.+ on +D &ovember +66., both prose!ution and defense admit that no eviden!e was presented for Criminal Case &o. 11'/.6. ,en!e, for a period of almost two years and eight months, the prose!ution did not present a single eviden!e for Criminal Case &o. 11'/.6. he 0uestion we have to answer now is whether there was ve(atious, !apri!ious, and oppressive delay. o this, we apply the fourfa!tor test previously mentioned. 7e emphasiGe that in determining the right of an a!!used to speedy trial, !ourts are re0uired to do more than a mathemati!al !omputation of the number of postponements of the s!heduled hearings of the !ase. - mere mathemati!al re!koning of the time involved is !learly
3D.B+4C 3D3

*d. at .1.-.13. B+>C A'ardo v. "andigan'ayan, 36> =hil. '/D, '''-1666 (+661A" %ela #ena v. "andigan'ayan , 31+ =hil. '+1, '+' (+661A.

313

31D

insuffi!ient,3DDB+/C and parti!ular regard must be given to the fa!ts and !ir!umstan!es pe!uliar to ea!h !ase.3D4B+'C *n Alvi5o v. "andigan'ayan,3D>B.6C the Court ruled that there was no violation of the right to speedy trial and speedy disposition. he Court took into a!!ount the reasons for the delay, i.e., the fre0uent amendments of pro!edural laws by presidential de!rees, the stru!tural reorganiGations in e(isting prose!utorial agen!ies and the !reation of new ones by e(e!utive fiat, resulting in !hanges of personnel, preliminary 8urisdi!tion, and the fun!tions and powers of prose!uting agen!ies. he Court also !onsidered the failure of the a!!used to assert su!h right, and the la!k of pre8udi!e !aused by the delay to the a!!used. *n %efensor-"antiago v. "andigan'ayan,3D/B.1C the !omple(ity of the issues and the failure of the a!!used to invoke her right to speedy disposition at the appropriate time spelled defeat for her !laim to the !onstitutional guarantee. *n Cadalin v. #2ilippine Overseas Employment AdministrationLs Administrator,3D'B.+C the Court, !onsidering also the !omple(ity of the !ases and the !ondu!t of the parties1 lawyers, held that the right to speedy disposition was not violated therein. =etitioner1s ob8e!tion to the prose!ution1s stand that he gave an implied !onsent to the separate trial of Criminal Case &o. 11'/.6 is belied by the re!ords of the !ase. &o ob8e!tion was interposed by his defense !ounsel when this matter was dis!ussed during the initial hearing. 346B..C =etitioner1s !onformity thereto !an be dedu!ed from his non-ob8e!tion at the preliminary hearing when the prose!ution manifested that the eviden!e to be presented would be only for Criminal Cases &o. 11'/.1-11'/.+. ,is failure to ob8e!t to the prose!ution1s manifestation that the !ases be tried separately is fatal to his !ase. he a!ts, mistakes and negligen!e of !ounsel bind his !lient, e(!ept only when su!h mistakes would result in serious in8usti!e.341B.3C *n fa!t, petitioner1s a!0uies!en!e is evident from the trans!ript of stenographi! notes during the initial presentation of the =eople1s eviden!e in the five $7 !ases on +> #ebruary +661, herein 0uoted below: C<?% : -tty. Sande8as, !all your witness.
3DD
B+/C

3D4 3D> 3D/ 3D' 346 341

"ocrates v. "andigan'ayan, .+3 =hil. 1D1, 1>6 (1''4A" &ai Lim v. Court of Appeals , .>D =hil. '>1, '>> (1'''A. B+'C "antiago v. +arc2itorena, 2.%. &o. 16'+44, + De!ember 1''., ++/ SC%- +13, ++1. B.6C 2.%. &o. 1614/', 1> )ar!h 1''., ++6 SC%- DD. B.1C 36/ =hil. >4> (+661A. B.+C 2.%. &o. 163>>4, D De!ember 1''3, +./ SC%- >+1. B..C S&, +> #ebruary +661. B.3C #roducers an@ of t2e #2ilippines v. Court of Appeals, 3.6 =hil. /1+, /+. (+66+A" #eople v. Hernande5, .+/ =hil. 11+., 113. (1''4A.

31D

314

J. S-&D95-S BS9C =rose!uting @awyerC: )ay we make some manifestation first, your ,onor, before we !ontinue presenting our witness. #irst of all, this witness will only be te"tifyin* a" to t'o J2K of the har*e"5 nonGdi" lo"#re of 4enefi ial o'ner"hip of 1ante Tan ( ( (.

(((( C<?% : (to -tty. Sande8asA Call your witness. J. S-&D95-S: <ur witness is )r. 7ilfredo $altaGar of the Se!urities and 9(!hange Commission, your ,onor. 7e are presenting this witness for the purpose of non-dis!losure of benefi!ial ownership !aseV

C<?% : * would advise the !ounsel from the S9C to make it very !lear your purpose in presenting your first witness. J. S-&D95-S: Jes, your ,onor. Can * borrow the fileN

C<?% : Show it to !ounsel. J. S-&D95-S: Crim. Case &os. 11'/.1 and 11'/.+, for Fiolation of %%ule .4(aA1, in relation to Se!. .+ (aA-1 of the %evised Se!urities -!t when he failed to dis!lose his benefi!ial ownership amounting to more than 16Y whi!h re0uires dis!losure of su!h fa!t.34+B.DC During the same hearing, the =eople manifested in open !ourt that the parties had agreed to the separate trials of the $7 Cases: =%<S9C? <% @-O-%<: )ay we be allowed to speak, your ,onorN Jour ,onor please, as we ( ( ( understand, this is not a 8oint trial but a separate trial ( ( ( so as manifested by the S9C lawyer, the witness is being presented insofar as 11'/.1 and 11'/.+ as against Dante an only ( ( (.34.B.4C he trans!ript of stenographi! notes taken from the . -pril +661 hearing further !larifies that only the two !ases against Dante an were being prose!uted:

34+B.DC

34.B.4C

S&, +> #ebruary +661, pp. .->" C- rollo, pp. />-'1. *d. at >1->3" id. at 1DD-1D4.

314

31>

J. D9 @- C%?O Bnew !ounsel for a!!used 9duardo @im, 5r.C:

Jour ,onor, please, may * re0uest !larifi!ation from the prose!utors regarding the purpose of the testimony of the witness in the stand. 7hile the =rivate =rose!utor stated the purpose of the testimony of the witness. . =%<S9C? <% @-O-%<: * was present during the last hearing. * was then going over the trans!ript of this !ase, well, * believe the testimony ( ( ( mainly BisC on a!!used Dante an, your ,onor. -s a matter of fa!t, there was a !larifi!ation made by the parties and !ounsels after the witness had testified that the hearing in these !ases is not a 8oint trial be!ause it involves separate !harges, involving different do!uments, your ,onor. hat is why the witness already testified only !on!erning Dante an. =er the 0uery made by -tty. #ortun, be!ause at that time, -tty. #ortun was still representing )r. @im, * believe, your ,onor, then * understand that the testimony of this witness !annot 8ust be adopted insofar as the other a!!used, your ,onor. J. )-%-&-&:

7e !onfirm that, your ,onor, sin!e ( ( ( parti!ularly sin!e this is already !ross, it is !lear that the dire!t e(amination dealt e(!lusively with )r. Dante an. =%<S. @-O-%<: )r. Dante an, involving the + (twoA !ases.343B.>C )oreover, although periods for trial have been stipulated, these periods are not absolute. 7here periods have been set, !ertain e(!lusions are allowed by law.34DB./C -fter all, this Court and the law re!ogniGe that it is but a fa!t that 8udi!ial pro!eedings do not e(ist in a va!uum and must !ontend with the realities of everyday life. *n spite of the pres!ribed time limits, 8urispruden!e !ontinues to adopt the view that the fundamentally re!ogniGed prin!iple is that the !on!ept of speedy trial is a relative term and must ne!essarily be a fle(ible !on!ept.344B.'C -s to the assertion that delay in the presentation of eviden!e for Criminal Case &o. 11'/.6 has pre8udi!ed petitioner be!ause the witnesses for the defense may no longer be available at this time, suffi!e it to say

343
34D 344

B.>C B./C B.'C

S&, . -pril +661, pp. D-16" id. at ++D-+.6. "olar &eam Entertainment, Inc. v. Judge Ho?, .'. =hil. 1>+, 1/3 (+666A. *d.

31>

31/

that the burden of proving his guilt rests upon the prose!ution. 34>B36C Should the prose!ution fail for any reason to present eviden!e suffi!ient to show his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, petitioner will be a!0uitted. *t is safely entren!hed in our 8urispruden!e that unless the prose!ution dis!harges its burden to prove the guilt of an a!!used beyond reasonable doubt, the latter need not even offer eviden!e in his behalf.34/B31C *n the !ases involving petitioner, the length of delay, !omple(ity of the issues and his failure to invoke said right to speedy trial at the appropriate time tolled the death knell on his !laim to the !onstitutional guarantee.34'B3+C )ore importantly, in failing to interpose a timely ob8e!tion to the prose!ution1s manifestation during the preliminary hearings that the !ases be tried separately, one after the other, petitioner was deemed to have a!0uies!ed and waived his ob8e!tion thereto. #or the reasons above-stated, there is !learly insuffi!ient ground to !on!lude that the prose!ution is guilty of violating petitioner1s right to speedy trial. 2rave abuse of dis!retion defies e(a!t definition, but generally refers to :!apri!ious or whimsi!al e(er!ise of 8udgment as is e0uivalent to la!k of 8urisdi!tion.; -ny !apri!ious or whimsi!al e(er!ise of 8udgment in dismissing a !riminal !ase is e0uivalent to la!k of 8urisdi!tion. his is true in the instant !ase. here is also no merit to petitioner1s !laim that a reversal of the % C1s <rder dismissing Criminal Case &o. 11'/.6 is a violation of his !onstitutional right against double 8eopardy whi!h dismissal was founded on an alleged violation of his right to speedy trial. he !onstitutional prote!tion against double 8eopardy shields one from a se!ond or later prose!ution for the same offense. -rti!le ***, Se!tion +1 of the 1'/> Constitution de!lares that no person shall be twi!e put in 8eopardy of punishment for the same offense, providing further that if an a!t is punished by a law and an ordinan!e, !onvi!tion or a!0uittal under either shall !onstitute a bar to another prose!ution for the same a!t. #ollowing the above !onstitutional provision, Se!tion >, %ule 11> of the %evised %ules of Court found it apt to stipulate: S9C. >. Aormer conviction or acCuittalB dou'le =eopardy. I 7hen an a!!used has been !onvi!ted or a!0uitted, or the !ase against him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his e(press !onsent by a !ourt
34> 34/
B36C B31C

34'

$epu'lic v. "andigan'ayan and Marcos, 341 =hil. D'/, 41D (+66.A. #eople v. +anguso, 2.%. &o 11D3.6, +. &ovember 1''D, +D6 SC%- +4/, +>3-+>D" #eople v. A'ellanosa, ..+ =hil. >46, >// (1''4A, !iting #eople v. aclayon, 2.%. &o. 116/.>, +' )ar!h 1''3, +.1 SC%- D>/, D/3, !iting #eople v. +arcia, 2.%. &o. '31/>, 3 &ovember 1''+, +1D SC%- .3', .D/.D'. B3+C "antiago v. +arc2itorena, supra note +'.

31/

31'

of !ompetent 8urisdi!tion, upon a valid !omplaint or information or other formal !harge suffi!ient in form and substan!e to sustain a !onvi!tion and after the a!!used had pleaded to the !harge, the !onvi!tion or a!0uittal of the a!!used or the dismissal of the !ase shall be a bar to another prose!ution for the offense !harged, or for any attempt to !ommit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense whi!h ne!essarily in!ludes or is ne!essarily in!luded in the offense !harged in the former !omplaint or information. #or double 8eopardy to atta!h then, the following elements in the first !riminal !ase must be present: (aA he !omplaint or information or other formal !harge was suffi!ient in form and substan!e to sustain a !onvi!tion" (bA (!A he !ourt had 8urisdi!tion" he a!!used had been arraigned and had pleaded" and

(dA ,e was !onvi!ted or a!0uitted or the !ase was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the e(press !onsent of the a!!used.3>6B3.C -mong the above-!ited elements, we are !on!erned with the fourth element, !onvi!tion or a!0uittal, or the !ase was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the e(press !onsent of the a!!used. his element is !ru!ial sin!e, as a general rule, the dismissal of a !riminal !ase resulting in a!0uittal, made with the e(press !onsent of the a!!used or upon his own motion, will not pla!e the a!!used in double 8eopardy. 3>1B33C his rule, however, admits of two e(!eptions, namely: insuffi!ien!y of eviden!e and denial of the right to speedy trial.3>+B3DC 7hile indeed petitioner was in fa!t the one who filed the )otion to Dismiss Criminal Case &o. 11'/.6, the dismissal thereof was due to an alleged violation of his right to speedy trial, whi!h would otherwise put him in double 8eopardy should the same !harges be revived. =etitioner1s situation is different. Double 8eopardy has not atta!hed, !onsidering that the dismissal of Criminal Case &o. 11'/.6 on the ground of violation of his right to speedy trial was without basis and issued with grave abuse of dis!retion amounting to la!k or e(!ess of 8urisdi!tion. 7here the right of the a!!used to speedy trial has not been violated, there is no reason to support the initial order of dismissal.

3>6B3.C 3>1B33C 3>+

Condrada v. #eople, 334 =hil. 4.D, 431 (+66.A. *d. B3DC *d." #2ilippine "avings an@ v. ermoy, 2.%. &o. 1D1'1+, +4 September +66D, 3>1 SC%- '3, 164, !iting #eople v. ans, 2.%. &o. 16313>, / De!ember 1''3, +.' SC%- 3/, DD.

31'

3+6

#ollowing this Court1s ruling in Almario v. Court of Appeals,3>.B34C as petitioner1s right to speedy trial was not transgressed, this e(!eption to the fourth element of double 8eopardy I that the defendant was a!0uitted or !onvi!ted, or the !ase was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the e(press !onsent of the a!!used I was not met. 7here the dismissal of the !ase was allegedly !apri!ious, !ertiorari lies from su!h order of dismissal and does not involve double 8eopardy, as the petition !hallenges not the !orre!tness but the validity of the order of dismissal" su!h grave abuse of dis!retion amounts to la!k of 8urisdi!tion, whi!h prevents double 8eopardy from atta!hing.3>3B3>C -s this Court ruled in #eople v. &ampal,3>DB3/C reiterated in #eople v. Leviste,3>4B3'C where we overturned an order of dismissal by the trial !ourt predi!ated on the right to speedy trial I *t is true that in an unbroken line of !ases, we have held that dismissal of !ases on the ground of failure to prose!ute is e0uivalent to an a!0uittal that would bar further prose!ution of the a!!used for the same offense. *t must be stressed, however, that these dismissals were predi!ated on the !lear right of the a!!used to speedy trial. hese !ases are not appli!able to the petition at ben!h !onsidering that the right of the private respondents to speedy trial has not been violated by the State. ( ( (. #rom the foregoing, it follows that petitioner !annot !laim that double 8eopardy atta!hed when said % C order was reversed by the Court of -ppeals. Double 8eopardy does not apply to this !ase, !onsidering that there is no violation of petitioner1s right to speedy trial. he old adage that 8usti!e delayed is 8usti!e denied has never been more valid than in our 8urisdi!tion, where it is not a rarity for a !ase to drag in our !ourts for years and years and even de!ades. *t was this diffi!ulty that inspired the !onstitutional re0uirement that the rules of !ourt to be promulgated by the Supreme Court shall provide for a simplified and ine(pensive pro!edure for the speedy trial and disposition of !ases. 3>>BD6C *ndeed, for 8usti!e to prevail, the s!ales must balan!e, for 8usti!e is not to be dispensed for the a!!used alone.3>/BD1C

3>.B34C 3>3B3>C 3>DB3/C 3>4B3'C

3>>
3>/

36> =hil. +>' (+66+A. %egalado, %9)9D*-@ @-7 C<)=9&D*?) (Fol. **, +661A, p. D6.. .13 =hil. .D, 3D (1''DA. .+D =hil. D+D, D.> (1''4A. BD6C 5usti!e *sagani CruG, =,*@*==*&9 =<@* *C-@ @-7, p. +'+. BD1C %imatulac v. *illon, .D/ =hil. .+/, .44 (1''/A" #eople v. "u'ida, 2.%. &o. 13D'3D, +> 5une +664, 3'. SC%- 1+D, 1.>.

3+6

3+1

9vidently, the task of the pillars of the !riminal 8usti!e system is to preserve our demo!rati! so!iety under the rule of law, ensuring that all those who appear before or are brought to the bar of 8usti!e are afforded a fair opportunity to present their side. -s !orre!tly observed by the Court of -ppeals, Criminal Case &o. 11'/.6 is 8ust one of the many !ontroversial !ases involving the $7 shares s!am where publi! interest is undoubtedly at stake. he State, like any other litigant, is entitled to its day in !ourt, and to a reasonable opportunity to present its !ase. - hasty dismissal, instead of un!logging do!kets, has a!tually in!reased the workload of the 8usti!e system and unwittingly prolonged the litigation. 3>'
BD+C

#inally, we reiterate that the rights given to the a!!used by the Constitution and the %ules of Court are shields, not weapons. Courts are tasked to give meaning to that intent. here being no !apri!ious, ve(atious, oppressive delay in the pro!eedings, and no postponements un8ustifiably sought, we !on!ur in the !on!lusions rea!hed by the Court of -ppeals. Spee)y )i7po7i#io' o( c"7e7 8e(ore ")$i'i7#r"#i*e 8o)ie7+ e((ec# o( u')ue )el"y CA5T. 0IL.RE/O ROM3ERO VS. THE CHA-CELLOR O. 35GMA-ILA, ET AL., :.R. -o. 161611, M"rc% 9, 9;1; 5ERE>, J.5 =etitioner 7ildredo 2. %o0uero is an employee of ?=-)anila assigned at the =hilippine 2eneral ,ospital (=2,A Se!urity Division as Spe!ial =oli!e Captain. =rivate respondent *melda <. -butal is a @ady 2uard of 9(-$ataan Se!urity -gen!y who was applying for a position in the se!urity for!e assigned at ?==2,. he instant !ontroversy arose from a !omplaint by private respondent -butal with then Chan!ellor of ?=-)anila =erla D. Santos-<!ampo for 2rave )is!ondu!t against petitioner Capt. %o0uero. he formal !harge filed on 1 <!tober 1''/ and do!keted as A/M C"7e -o. 35MGAC 9 G;; reads as follows: -fter preliminary investigation duly !ondu!ted in a!!ordan!e with the %ules and %egulations on the Dis!ipline of ?= #a!ulty and 9mployees, a prima
3>'
BD+C

#eople v. Leviste, supra note 3'.

3+1

3++

fa!ie !ase has been found to e(ist against you for 2%-F9 )*SC<&D?C punishable under the ?niversity %ules and %egulations on the Dis!ipline of ?= #a!ulty and 9mployees in relation to the Civil Servi!e @aw, !ommitted as follows: hat you, Capt. 7ilfredo %o0uero of the ?= )anila =oli!e #or!e, sometime in -pril 1''4, while !ondu!ting an interview on )S. *)9@D- -$? -@ who was then applying for the position of @ady 2uard of 9(-$ataan Se!urity -gen!y to be assigned at ?=-=2,, proposed to her that if she agreed to be your mistress, you would fa!ilitate her appli!ation and give her a permanent position" that despite the fa!t the )S. -$? -@ re8e!ted your proposal, you still insisted on demanding said se(ual favor from her" that you, therefore, are liable for 2%-F9 )*SC<&D?C under Se!tion ++, paragraph (!A of %ule Q*F of the <mnibus %ules *mplementing $ook F of 9.<. +'+ on Civil %ules. <n 1 <!tober 1''/, the petitioner was pla!ed under preventive suspension for ninety ('6A days by Chan!ellor Santos-<!ampo, the material portion of said <rder reads: Considering the gravity of the offense !harged and pursuant to Se!tion 1' of %ules and %egulations on the Dis!ipline of ?= #a!ulty )embers and 9mployees and Se!tion +4 and +> %ule Q*F of $ook F of 9(e!utive <rder &o. +'+ and <mnibus %ules, you are hereby preventively suspended for ninety ('6A days effe!tive upon re!eipt hereof. 7hile on preventive suspension, you are hereby re0uired to appear before the -dministrative Dis!iplinary ribunal (-D A whenever your presen!e is ne!essary. hereafter, the -dministrative Dis!iplinary ribunal (-D A !omposed of -tty. Oaldy $. Do!ena, 9den =erdido and *sabella @ara, was organiGed to hear the instant !ase. -tty. =aul -. #lor, as ?niversity =rose!utor, represented the prose!ution. ,e was later on repla!ed by -tty. -steria #eli!en. =etitioner was

3++

3+.

represented by -tty. @eo 2. @ee of the =ubli! -ttorneys <ffi!e (=-<A who was then repla!ed by =ubli! -ttorney =hilger *nove8as. he =rose!ution presented its only witness, private respondent -butal. -fter the !ompletion of the !ross-e(amination on the prose!ution1s only witness, the prose!ution agreed to submit its #ormal <ffer of 9viden!e on or before 14 5uly 1'''. he prose!ution, however, failed to submit its formal offer of eviden!e within the period agreed upon. hereafter, on 16 -ugust 1''', when the !ase was !alled, only petitioner and his !ounsel appeared. -tty. #lor merely !alled by telephone and re0uested -tty. Do!ena to reset the !ase to another date. -tty. Do!ena then ordered the resetting of the hearing on the following dates: 11 -ugust and +1 -ugust 1'''. <n 11 -ugust 1''', only petitioner and his !ounsel !ame. &o representative from the prose!ution appeared before the -D . -tty. #lor again !alled and asked for the postponement of the hearing. $y reason thereof, -tty. Do!ena issued an <rder, whi!h reads as follows: he !ontinuation of the hearing of this !ase is hereby set to September +', 1''' at +:66 p.m., with the understanding that if and when the parties fail to appear at said hearing date, this !ase shall be deemed submitted for resolution based on the eviden!es already obtaining in the re!ord of the !ase. S< <%D9%9D. 11 -ugust 1'''. <n said date, the representative from the prose!ution again failed to appear. O' 99 Oc#o8er 1999, pe#i#io'er (ile) " Mo#io' #%rou&% cou'7el pr"yi'& #%"# co$pl"i'"'# ,pri*"#e re7po')e'# %erei'! 8e )ecl"re) #o %"*e w"i*e) %er ri&%#7 #o (or$"lly o((er %er e@%i8i#7 7i'ce co$pl"i'"'# w"7 'o# "8le #o (ile %er .or$"l O((er wi#%i' #%e &i*e' perio) o( (i(#ee' ,11! )"y7 (ro$ 1 July 1999 or up #o 16 July 1999. he -D was not able to a!t on the said )otion for almost five (DA years. Due to the unreasonable delay, petitioner, on 1' )ay +663 filed another )otion asking for the dismissal of the administrative !ase against him. he )otion to Dismiss was an!hored on the following reasons: that the prose!ution had not formally offered its eviden!e" that the -D had failed to a!t on the motion filed
3+.

3+3

on ++ <!tober 1'''" that the unfounded !harges in the administrative !omplaint were filed 8ust to harass him" and that he is entitled to a 8ust and speedy disposition of the !ase. <n +4 )ay +663, the prose!ution, represented by -tty. #eli!en in view of the resignation of -tty. #lor in -ugust 1''', filed its CommentE<pposition to the )otion to Dismiss. he prose!ution alleged that a .or$"l O((er o( /ocu$e'#"ry E@%i8i#7 %") 8ee' (ile) o' 92 J"'u"ry 9;;2 , of whi!h a !opy thereof was re!eived by -tty. @ee, petitioner1s !ounsel, on .6 5anuary +663, per registry return re!eipt. ,owever, petitioner has not filed his !omment to the said #ormal <ffer. #urthermore, the prose!ution e(plained in its CommentE<pposition that in view of the resignation of -tty. #lor in -ugust 1''' but who had been on leave by mid-5uly 1''', the #ormal <ffer !ould not be prepared by another !ounsel until all the trans!ript of stenographi! notes have been furnished to the !ounsel that repla!ed -tty. #lor. )eanwhile, the stenographer, 5amie @imbaga, had been in and out of the hospital due to a serious illness, thus the delay in the filing of the prose!utor1s #ormal <ffer of Do!umentary 9(hibits. <n / 5une +663, -tty. Do!ena issued the assailed <rder denying petitioner1s motion to dismiss, to wit: -!ting on respondent1s )otion to Dismiss, as well as the ?niversity =rose!utor1s Comment andEor <pposition to said )otion, and finding that said )otion to Dismiss to be bereft of merit, the same is hereby D9&*9D. *n view of the failure of the respondent to file his !omment on the =rose!ution1s #ormal <ffer of 9viden!e, the 9(hibit1s (:-; to :2-1;A of the =rose!ution are hereby -D)* 9D for the purpose for whi!h the same have been offered. he respondent is hereby dire!ted to present his eviden!e on 5une ++, +663 at 16:.6 in the morning. S< <%D9%9D. - motion for re!onsideration was filed by petitioner but the same was denied in an <rder dated ' &ovember +663. =etitioner Captain 7ilfredo %o0uero then filed with the Court of -ppeals a =etition for Certiorari under %ule 4D, do!keted as C--2.%. S= &o. />>>4,
3+3

3+D

alleging therein that the -D !ommitted grave abuse of dis!retion when it denied the motion to dismiss the administrative !ase filed against him. *n a De!ision dated ++ )ar!h +66>, the ,onorable Court of -ppeals denied the petition with prayer for %< of %o0uero reasoning that the -D did not !ommit grave abuse of dis!retion in issuing the assailed orders. ,en!e, this =etition. he !ore issue of this !ase is whether the failure of the -D to resolve %o0uero1s )otion (to de!lare !omplainant *melda -butal to have waived her right to submit her #ormal <ffer of 9(hibitA whi!h he seasonably filed on ++ <!tober 1''' and the assailed <rder of the -D dated / 5une +663 admitting the #ormal <ffer of 9(hibit of !omplainant *melda -butal despite having filed after almost five years violated the !onstitutional right of %o0uero to a speedy disposition of !ases. ,9@D: *ndeed, while Se!tion +> of the ?niform %ules on -dministrative Cases in Civil Servi!e states #%"# #%e ("ilure #o 7u8$i# #%e (or$"l o((er o( e*i)e'ce wi#%i' #%e &i*e' perio) 7%"ll 8e co'7i)ere) "7 w"i*er #%ereo(, the -D in fa!t allowed the prose!ution to present its formal offer almost five (DA years later or on +3 5anuary +663. Starting on that date, petitioner was presented with the !hoi!e to either present his eviden!e or to, as he did, file a motion to dismiss owing to the e(traordinary length of time that -D failed to rule on his motion. 7e !annot a!!ept the finding of the Court of -ppeals that there was no grave abuse of dis!retion on the part of the -D be!ause B" (or$"l o((er o( e*i)e'ce w"7 (ile) 8y #%e pro7ecu#io', " copy o( w%ic% w"7 recei*e) 8y pe#i#io'er7N cou'7el.D he admission by -D on / 5une +663 of the formal offer of e(hibits belatedly filed did not !ure the D-year delay in the resolution of petitioner1s 1''' motion to deem as waived su!h formal offer of eviden!e. *ndeed, the delay of almost five (DA years !annot be 8ustified.

he -D admitted this e(planation of the prose!utor hook, line and sinker without asking why it took him almost five (DA years to make that e(planation. *f the e(!uses were true, the prose!ution !ould have easily manifested with the -D of its predi!ament right after %o0uero filed his motion to de!lare the waiver of the formal offer. *t is evident too that the prose!ution failed to e(plain why it took them so long a time to find a repla!ement for the original prose!utor. -nd, the stenographer who had been in and out of the hospital due to serious illness should have been repla!ed sooner.

3+D

3+4

7hile it is true that administrative investigations should not be bound by stri!t adheren!e to the te!hni!al rules of pro!edure and eviden!e appli!able to 8udi!ial pro!eedings, the same however should not violate the !onstitutional right of respondents to a speedy disposition of !ases. Se!tion 14, -rti!le *** of the 1'/> Constitution provides: Se!tion 14. -ll person shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their !ases before all 8udi!ial, 0uasi-8udi!ial, or administrative bodies. he !onstitutional right to a :speedy disposition of !ases; is not limited to the a!!used in !riminal pro!eedings but e(tends to all parties in all !ases, in!luding !ivil and administrative !ases, and in all pro!eedings, in!luding 8udi!ial and 0uasi-8udi!ial hearings. ,en!e, under the Constitution, any party to a !ase may demand e(peditious a!tion by all offi!ials who are tasked with the administration of 8usti!e. he right to a speedy disposition of a !ase, like the right to a speedy trial, is deemed violated only when the pro!eedings are attended by ve(atious, !apri!ious, and oppressive delays" or when un8ustified postponements of the trial are asked for and se!ured" or e*e' wi#%ou# c"u7e or Au7#i(i"8le $o#i*e, " lo'& perio) o( #i$e i7 "llowe) #o el"p7e wi#%ou# #%e p"r#y %"*i'& %i7 c"7e #rie) . 90ually appli!able is the balan!ing test used to determine whether a defendant has been denied his right to a speedy trial, or a speedy disposition of a !ase for that matter, in whi!h the !ondu!t of both the prose!ution and the defendant is weighed, and su!h fa!tors as the length of the delay, the reasons for su!h delay, the assertion or failure to assert su!h right by the a!!used, and the pre8udi!e !aused by the delay. he !on!ept of a speedy disposition is a relative term and must ne!essarily be a fle(ible !on!ept. ,en!e, the do!trinal rule is that in the determination of whether that right has been violated, the fa!tors that may be !onsidered and balan!ed are as follows: (1A the length of delay" (+A the reasons for the delay" (.A the assertion or failure to assert su!h right by the a!!used" and (3A the pre8udi!e !aused by the delay. -pplying the do!trinal ruling vis-a-vis the fa!tual milieu of this !ase, the violation of the right to a speedy disposition of the !ase against petitioner is !lear for the following reasons: (1A the delay of almost five (DA years on the part of -D in resolving the motion of petitioner, whi!h resolution petitioner reasonably found ne!essary before he !ould present his defense" (+A the unreasonableness of the delay" and (.A the timely assertions by petitioner of the right to an early disposition whi!h he did through a motion to dismiss. <ver and above this, the delay was pre8udi!ial to petitioner1s !ause as he was under preventive suspension for ninety ('6A days, and during the interregnum of almost five years, the trial of the a!!usation against him remained stagnant at the prose!ution stage.
3+4

3+>

he Constitutional guarantee against unreasonable delay in the disposition of !ases was intended to stem the tide of disen!hantment among the people in the administration of 8usti!e by our 8udi!ial and 0uasi-8udi!ial tribunals. he ad8udi!ation of !ases must not only be done in an orderly manner that is in a!!ord with the established rules of pro!edure but must also be promptly de!ided to better serve the ends of 8usti!e. 9(!essive delay in the disposition of !ases renders the rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution and by various legislations inutile. 0HERE.ORE, the =etition is hereby :RA-TE/. he -dministrative Dis!iplinary ribunal (-D A of the ?niversity of the =hilippines-)anila, -tty. Oaldy $. Do!ena, 9den =erdido and *sabella @ara, in their !apa!ities as Chairman and )embers of the -D respe!tively, are hereby OR/ERE/ to /ISMISS the administrative !ase against Capt. 7ilfredo 2. %o0uero for violation of his !onstitutional right to a speedy disposition of !ases. JAIME 4ER-AT VS. SA-/I:A-4AYA-, M"y 9;, 9;;2 %ight to speedy disposition of !ase. #a!ts: 1. <n -ugust 13, 1''1, the petitioner and several others were !harged of violation of Se!tion . BeC of %- .61', otherwise known as the -nti-graft and Corrupt =ra!ti!es -!t" +. <n -ugust +., 1''3 after the presentation of the parties1 eviden!e, the !ase was deemed submitted for de!ision before the +nd Division" .. hereafter, the !ase was unloaded to the newly !reated D th Division, parti!ularly to 5usti!e 2odofredo @egaspi and later re-assigned to 5usti!e )a. Cristina CorteG-9strada upon her assumption of offi!e on &ovember ., 1''/. 3. *n the early part of +66+ while 5usti!e 9strada was writing the de!ision of the !ase, she found out that the &ovember +4, 1''. trans!ript of stenographi! notes, whi!h was the !ross-e(amination of the petitioner, was missing so she !alled the parties for a !onferen!e on -pril 1', +66+ to dis!uss the matter. D. *nstead of attending the !onferen!e, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the !ase based on the alleged violation of his right to speedy trial. he Court denied the same as well as the subse0uent )otion for %e!onsideration. ,en!e, this =etition. *ssue: 7as there violation of the petitioner1s right to a speedy disposition of his !ase when the same was not de!ided for almost / years from the time it was :deemed submitted for de!isionN;
3+>

3+/

,eld: &o. he right is violated only if the pro!eedings were attended by ve(atious, !apri!ious and oppressive delays. he determination of whether the delays are of said nature is relative and !annot be based on mere mathemati!al re!koning of time. =arti!ular regard to the fa!ts and !ir!umstan!es of the !ase. -s held in the !ase of D9 @- =9&- FS. S-&D*2-&$-J-&, !ertain fa!tors shall be !onsidered and balan!ed to determine if there is delay, as follows: 3. 2. 1. 6. Le'&#% o( #%e )el"y+ Re"7o'7 (or #%e )el"y+ A77er#io' or ("ilure #o "77er# 7uc% ri&%# 8y #%e "ccu7e)+ "') 5reAu)ice) c"u7e) 8y #%e )el"y. here is no violation of the right to speedy disposition of his !ase be!ause petitioner failed to assert his !onstitutional right to a speedy disposition of his !ase. During the /-year period prior to -pril 1', +66+, petitioner did not !omplain about the long delay in de!iding his !ase. a. %ead -dmin. Cir!ular &o. 3 of the Supreme September ++, 1'// b. Department of 5usti!e Cir!ular &o. +>, dated 1'// !. 7hen shall this right starts %ead: 1. = vs. <rsal, 11. SC%- ++4 d. o what pro!eedings is this right available %ead: 1. Caballero vs. -lfonso, 1D. SC%- 1D. e. *n general %ead: 1. he right to speedy trial, +/ SC%- 461 +. Conde vs. %ivera, D' =hil. 4D6 .. Fentura vs. =eople, &ov. 4,1'>4 3. )artin vs. Fer, 5uly +D, 1'/.
3+/

Court dated September 14,

3+'

D. $ermisa vs. C-, '+ SC%a 4. @uneta vs. )il. Com., 16+ SC%- D4 >. = vs. $alad8ay, 11. SC%- +/3 /. = vs. -raula, 111 SC%- D'/ '. %egaspi vs. Castillo, 4' SC%- 146 16. -!evedo vs. Sarmiento, .4 SC%- +3> 11. &epumu!eno vs. Se!retary,16/ SC%- 4D/ 1+. atad vs. S$, 1D' SC%- >6 1.. = vs. C#* of %iGal, 141 SC%- +3' 13. = vs. @aya, 141 SC%- .+> 1D. Sal!edovs. )endoGa, // SC%- /11 14. D? 9% 9 FS. S-&D*2-&$-J-&, +/' SC%- >+1 1/. -&2C,-&2C< FS. <)$?DS)-&, +4' SC%- .61 S?)$-&2 FS. 29&. C<?% )-% *-@, 2.%. &<. 1361//, ..> SC%- ++>, -?2. ., +666" $@-&C< FS. S-&D*2-&$-J-&, 2.%. &<S. 1.4>D> I D/, .34 SC%- 16/, &<F. +>, +666" S<@-% 9-) 9& 9% -*&)9& , *&C. ,<&. ,<7, 2.%. &<. 136/4., ../ SC%D1, -?2. ++, +666. Spee)y /i7po7i#io' o( C"7e7. ,i! T%e )e#er$i'"#io' o( w%e#%er "' "ccu7e) %") 8ee' )e'ie) #%e ri&%# #o 7pee)y #ri"l )epe')7 o' #%e 7urrou')i'& circu$7#"'ce7 o( e"c% c"7e. Al#%ou&% i# #ooL "8ou# 6 ye"r7 8e(ore #%e #ri"l o( #%i7 c"7e w"7 re7u$e), 7uc% )el"y )i) 'o# "$ou'# #o *iol"#io' o( pe#i#io'erN7 ri&%# #o 7pee)y #ri"l co'7i)eri'& #%"# 7uc% )el"y w"7 'o# 8y "##ri8u#"8le #o #%e pro7ecu#io'. ."c#or7 #o co'7i)er i' )e#er$i'i'& w%e#%er or 'o# 7uc% ri&%# %"7 8ee' *iol"#e)I 1. 9. 3. le'&#% o( )el"y, re"7o'7 (or 7uc% )el"y, "') "77er#io' or ("ilure #o "77er# 7uc% ri&%#7 8y #%e "ccu7e) "') #%e preAu)ice c"u7e) 8y #%e )el"y. ,ii! Spee)y Tri"l Ac# o( 1996. T%e "u#%ori#y o( #%e Secre#"ry o( Ju7#ice #o re*iew re7olu#io'7 o( %i7 7u8or)i'"#e7 e*e' "(#er "' i'(or$"#io' %"7 "lre")y 8ee' (ile) i' cour# )oe7 'o# pre7e'# "' irreco'cil"8le co'(lic# wi#% #%e 3;G)"y perio) pre7cri8e) i' Sec. o( #%e Spee)y Tri"l Ac# o( 1996. /. he right to an impartial trial %ead:
3+'

3.6

1. = vs. <pida, 5une 1.,1'/4 1-a. = vs. uaGon, 1D' SC%- .1> +. <laguer vs. Chief of Staff, )ay ++, 1'/> .. )ateo, 5r. vs. FillaluG,'6 SC%- 14 3. = vs. Sendaydiego, /1 SC%- 1+6 D. Dima!uha vs. Con!ep!ion, 11> SC%- 4.6 '. %ight to a publi! trial %ead: 1. 2ar!ia vs. Domingo, 5uly +D,1'>. +. = vs. ampus, )ar!h +/,1'/6 16. he right to be informed of the nature and !ause of 7hen the same is !onsidered waived. a!!usation.

,9 =9<=@9 <# ,9 =,*@*==*&9S FS. 59%%J &-O-%9&<, 2.%. &o. 14>>D4, -pril /, +66/ ,9 #-C S: <n )ar!h 1>, 1''', appellant 5erry &aGareno was indi!ted for violation of -rti!le +44-- of the %evised =enal Code in Criminal Case &o. +4./ for the alleged rape of $$$, his daughter. he information reads: hat sometime and 8e#wee' J"'u"ry 1999 up #o /ece$8er ;6, 1996, i' +aran*ay Co)o', Mu'icip"li#y o( S"' A')re7, 5ro*i'ce o( C"#"')u"'e7, 5%ilippi'e7, and within the 8urisdi!tion of this ,onorable Court, the above-named a!!used by means of for!e, violen!e and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and repeatedly made se(ual inter!ourse with his daughter $$$ at the age of > through 13 years old against her will. he *nformation is worded thus: hat from sometime in 5anuary 1''6 up to De!ember 1''/ in arangay Codon, muni!ipality of San -ndres, Catanduanes, and within the 8urisdi!tion of the ,onorable Court, the said a!!used, being the father of the !omplainant, did then and there willfully, feloniously and !riminally repeatedly had se(ual inter!ourse with her daughter ---, then five years old up to the time when she was 1D-years-old against her will.

3.6

3.1

C<& %-%J < @-7.3/6B1/C -fter trial , the a!!used was found guilty of 0ualified rape in both !ases. ,e appealed his !onvi!tion to the Court of -ppeals in a!!ordan!e with the =eople vs. )ateo Do!trine but the Court of -ppeals affirmed the % C De!ision. ,en!e, this =etition before the Supreme Court. I S S 3 EI *s the !onstitutional right of the petitioner to be informed of the nature and !ause of a!!usation against him violated sin!e the information failed to spe!ify with !ertainty the appro(imate date of the !ommission of the offenses for rape whi!h is a fatal defe!t. H E L /I he argument is spe!ious. -n information is intended to inform an a!!used of the a!!usations against him in order that he !ould ade0uately prepare his defense. Ferily, an a!!used !annot be !onvi!ted of an offense unless it is !learly !harged in the !omplaint or information. hus, to ensure that the !onstitutional right of the a!!used to be informed of the nature and !ause of the a!!usation against him is not violated, the information should state the name of the a!!used" the designation given to the offense by the statute" a statement of the a!ts or omissions so !omplained of as !onstituting the offense" the name of the offended party" the appro(imate time and date of the !ommission of the offense" and the pla!e where the offense has been !ommitted. 3/1B+>C #urther, it must embody the essential elements of the !rime !harged by setting forth the fa!ts and !ir!umstan!es that have a bearing on the !ulpability and liability of the a!!used, so that he !an properly prepare for and undertake his defense. 3/+
B+/C

,owever, it is not ne!essary for the information to allege the date and time of the !ommission of the !rime with e(a!titude unless time is an essential ingredient of the offense.3/.B+'C *n #eople v. ugayong,3/3B.6C the Court held that when the time given in the information is not the essen!e of the offense, the time need not be proven as alleged" and that the !omplaint will be sustained if the proof shows that the offense was

3/6B1/C

%e!ords, Fol. **, p. 1/. #eople v. 4uitlong, .D3 =hil. .>+, .// (1''/A, !iting %ules of Criminal =ro!edure (+666A, %ule 116, Se!s. 4 and /. *d.

3/1B+>C
3/+B+/C

3/.B+'C

#eople v. "antos, .'6 =hil. 1D6, 141 (+666A" %ules of Criminal =ro!edure (+666A, %ule 116, Se!. 11 reads: Se!. 11. %ate of commission of t2e offense. I *t is not ne!essary to state in the !omplaint or information the pre!ise date the offense was !ommitted e(!ept when it is a material ingredient of the offense. he offense may be alleged to have been !ommitted on a date as near as possible to the a!tual date of its !ommission. 3/3B.6C 2.%. &o. 1+4D1/, De!ember +, 1''/, +'' SC%- D+/.

3.1

3.+

!ommitted at any time within the period of the statute of limitations and before the !ommen!ement of the a!tion. *n #eople v. +ianan,3/DB.1C the Court ruled that the time of the !ommission of rape is not an element of the said !rime as it is defined in -rti!le ..D of the %evised =enal Code. he gravamen of the !rime is the fa!t of !arnal knowledge under any of the !ir!umstan!es enumerated therein, i.e.: (1A by using for!e or intimidation" (+A when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise un!ons!ious" and (.A when the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. *n a!!ordan!e with %ule 116, Se!tion 11 of the +666 %ules of Criminal =ro!edure, as long as it alleges that the offense was !ommitted :at any time as near to the a!tual date at whi!h the offense was !ommitted,; an information is suffi!ient. he do!trine was reiterated with greater firmness in #eople v. "alalima3/4B.+C and in #eople v. Li5ada.3/>B..C *n the !ase under review, the information in Criminal Case &o. +4./ alleged that the rape of $$$ transpired :sometime and between 5anuary 1''+ up to De!ember 4, 1''/ in arangay Codon, )uni!ipality of San -ndres, =rovin!e of Catanduanes.; *n Criminal Case &o. +4D6, the information averred that :from sometime in 5anuary 1''6 up to De!ember 1''/ in arangay Codon, )uni!ipality of San -ndres, =rovin!e of Catanduanes,; --- was raped by appellant. o the mind of the Court, the re!itals in the informations suffi!iently !omply with the !onstitutional re0uirement that the a!!used be informed of the nature and !ause of the a!!usation against him. *n #eople v. +arcia,3//B.3C the Court upheld a !onvi!tion for ten !ounts of rape based on an *nformation whi!h alleged that the a!!used !ommitted multiple rapes :from &ovember 1''6 up to 5uly +1, 1''3.; *n #eople v. Espe=on,3/'B.DC the Court found the appellant liable for rape under an information !harging that he perpetrated the offense :sometime in the year 1'/+ and dates subse0uent thereto; and :sometime in the year 1''D and subse0uent thereto.; *n the !ase under review, the information in Criminal Case &o. +4./ alleged that the rape of $$$ transpired :sometime and between 5anuary 1''+ up to De!ember 4, 1''/ in arangay Codon, )uni!ipality of San -ndres, =rovin!e of Catanduanes.; *n Criminal Case &o. +4D6, the information averred that :from sometime in 5anuary 1''6 up to De!ember 1''/ in arangay Codon, )uni!ipality of San -ndres, =rovin!e of
3/DB.1C 3/4B.+C

2.%. &os. 1.D+//-'., September 1D, +666, .36 SC%- 3>>. 2.%. &os. 1.>'4'->1, -ugust 1D, +661, .4. SC%- 1'+. 3/>B..C 2.%. &os. 13.34/->1, 5anuary +3, +66., .'4 SC%- 4+. 3//B.3C 2.%. &o. 1+66'., &ovember 4, 1''>, +/1 SC%- 34.. 3/'B.DC 2.%. &o. 1.3>4>, #ebruary +6, +66+, .>> SC%- 31+.

3.+

3..

Catanduanes,; --- was raped by appellant. o the mind of the Court, the re!itals in the informations suffi!iently !omply with the !onstitutional re0uirement that the a!!used be informed of the nature and !ause of the a!!usation against him. *ndeed, this Court has ruled that allegations that rapes were !ommitted :before and until <!tober 1D, 1''3,; 3'6B.4C :sometime in the year 1''1 and the days thereafter,;3'1B.>C and :on or about and sometime in the year 1'//;3'+B./C !onstitute suffi!ient !omplian!e with %ule 116, Se!tion 11 of the +666 %ules of Criminal =ro!edure. )ore than that, the Court notes that the matter of parti!ularity of the dates in the information is being raised for the first time on appeal. he rule is well-entren!hed in this 8urisdi!tion that ob8e!tions as to matter of form or substan!e in the information !annot be made for the first time on appeal.3'.B.'C -ppellant failed to raise the issue of defe!tive informations before the trial !ourt. ,e !ould have moved to 0uash the informations or at least for a bill of parti!ulars. ,e did not. Clearly, he slumbered on his rights and awakened too late. oo, appellant did not ob8e!t to the presentation of the eviden!e for the =eople !ontending that the offenses were !ommitted :sometime and between 5anuary 1''+ up to De!ember 4, 1''/; for Criminal Case &o. +4.+ and :sometime in 5anuary 1''6, up to De!ember 1''/; in Criminal Case &o. +4D6. <n the !ontrary, appellant a!tively parti!ipated in the trial, offering denial and alibi as his defenses. Simply put, he !annot now be heard to !omplain that he was unable to defend himself in view of the vagueness of the re!itals in the informations. REASO-S .OR THE CO-STIT3TIO-AL 5ROVISIO- O- THE RI:HT O. THE ACC3SE/ TO 4E I-.ORME/ O. THE -AT3RE A-/ CA3SE O. ACC3SATIOD9 @- C%?O FS. =9<=@9 <# ,9 =,*@*==*&9S , 2.%. &o. 1>D'+', De!ember 14, +66/ *t is true that in all !riminal prose!utions, the a!!used shall be informed of the nature and !ause of the a!!usation against him. 3'3B//C he Constitution uses the word :shall,; hen!e, the same is mandatory. 3'6B.4C 3'1B.>C

#eople v. ugayong, supra note .6. #eople v. Mag'anua, 2.%. &o. 1+////, De!ember ., 1''', .1' SC%- >1'. 3'+B./C #eople v. "antos, 2.%. &os. 1.116. P 13.3>+, 5une +', +666, ..3 SC%- 4DD. 3'.B.'C #eople v. $a5ona'le, ./4 =hil. >>1, >/6 (+666A.
3'3

3..

3.3

violation of this right prevents the !onvi!tion of the a!!used with the !rime !harged in the *nformation. he !onstitutional guaranty has a #%reeG(ol) purpo7e: .ir7#. o furnish the a!!used with su!h a des!ription of the !harge against him as will enable him to make his defense" and 7eco'), to avail himself of his !onvi!tion or a!0uittal for prote!tion against a further prose!ution for the same !ause" and #%ir), to inform the !ourt of the fa!ts alleged, so that it may de!ide whether they are suffi!ient in law to support a !onvi!tion.3'DB/'C %ead: 1. Sales vs. C-, 143 SC%- >1> 1-a. = vs. Crisologo, 1D6 SC%- 4D. 1-b. = vs. Corral, 1D> SC%- 4>/ 1-!. = vs. %esavaga, 1D' SC%- 3+4 1-d. #ormilleGa vs. S$, 1D' SC%+. = vs. @abado, '/ SC%- >.6 .. Mo $u @in vs. C-, 11/ SC%- D>. 3. =. vs. Cabale, 1/D SC%- 136 D. =eople vs. %egala, -pril +>, 1'/+ 11. he right to meet witnesses fa!e to fa!e or the !onfrontation %ead: 1. =. vs. alingdan, &ov. ', 1''6 1-a. = vs. FillaluG, <!tober +6, 1'/. +. = vs. Falero, 11+ SC%- 441 .. = vs. $undalian, 11> SC%- >1/ 3. alino vs. Sandiganbayan, )ar!h 14,1'/> D. = vs. Seneris, '' SC%- '+ 4. <rtigas, 5%. vs. @ufthansa, 43 SC%- 416 >. oledo vs. =eople, +6 SC%- D3 /. = vs. $arda8e, '' SC%- .// '. = vs. Santos, 1.' SC%- ./. 16. Soliman vs. Sandiganbayan, 13D SC%- 436 11. = vs. @a!una, /> SC%- .43 1+. = vs. Clores, 166 SC%- ++> 1.. Carredo vs. =eople, 1/. SC%- +>. 13. #ulgado vs. C-, 1/+ SC%- /1 1+. rial in absentia
3'D

right of

3.3

3.D

%ead: 1. $or8a vs. )endoGa, >> SC%- 3+6 +. &olas!o vs. 9nrile, 1.' SC%- D6+ .. = vs. Salas, 13. SC%- 14." &ote the purpose of this provisionA 3. = vs. 5udge =rieto, 5uly +1,1'>/ D. 2imeneG vs. &aGareno, 146 SC%- 1 4. Carredo vs. =eople, 1/. SC%- +>. 1.. %ight to se!ure witnesses and produ!tion of %ead: 1. Cavili vs. ,on. #lorendo, 1D3 SC%- 416 +. #a8ardo vs. 2ar!ia, '/ SC%- D13 C,-= 9% QF - ,-$9-S C<%=?S %ead: 1In t2e matter of t2e #etition for Ha'eas Corpus of Aerdinand Marcos, etc, +$ (o. ;;,/-, May .;, .-;- and August V Octo'er, .-;-. 1-a. ,arvey vs. Santiago, supra +. CruG vs. 5uan =on!e 9nrile, -pril 1D,1'// .. -badilla vs. #idel %amos, De!ember 1,1'/> CHA#&E$ W*I - &HE $I+H& A+AI("& "ELA-I(C$IMI(A&IO( SOCIAL J3STICE SOCIETY ,SJS! VS. /A-:ERO3S /R3:S 4OAR/, :.R. -o. 11 6 ;, -OVEM4ER 3, 9;;6+ ATTY. MA-3EL J. LASER-A, JR. VS. /A-:ERO3S /R3:S 4OAR/, :.R. -o. 116633, -OVEM4ER 3, 9;;6 -s far as pertinent, the !hallenged se!tion reads as follows: S9C. .4. Aut2ori5ed %rug &esting.X-uthoriGed drug testing shall be done by any government forensi! laboratories or by any of the drug testing laboratories a!!redited and monitored by the D<, to safeguard the 0uality of the test results. ( ( ( he drug testing shall employ, among
3.D

eviden!e.

3.4

others, two (+A testing methods, the s!reening test whi!h will determine the positive result as well as the type of drug used and the !onfirmatory test whi!h will !onfirm a positive s!reening test. ( ( ( he following shall be sub8e!ted to undergo drug testing: (((( (!A Students of se!ondary and tertiary s!hools.XStudents of se!ondary and tertiary s!hools shall, pursuant to the related rules and regulations as !ontained in the s!hool1s student handbook and with noti!e to the parents, undergo a random drug testing ( ( (" (dA <ffi!ers and employees of publi! and private offi!es.X<ffi!ers and employees of publi! and private offi!es, whether domesti! or overseas, shall be sub8e!ted to undergo a random drug test as !ontained in the !ompany1s work rules and regulations, ( ( ( for purposes of redu!ing the risk in the workpla!e. -ny offi!er or employee found positive for use of dangerous drugs shall be dealt with administratively whi!h shall be a ground for suspension or termination, sub8e!t to the provisions of -rti!le +/+ of the @abor Code and pertinent provisions of the Civil Servi!e @aw" (((( (fA -ll persons !harged before the prose!utor1s offi!e with a !riminal offense having an imposable penalty of imprisonment of not less than si( (4A years and one (1A day shall undergo a mandatory drug test" :.R. -o. 11 6 ; ("ocial Justice "ociety v. %angerous %rugs oard and #2ilippine %rug Enforcement AgencyA *n its =etition for =rohibition under %ule 4D, petitioner So!ial 5usti!e So!iety (S5SA, a registered politi!al party, seeks to prohibit the Dangerous Drugs $oard (DD$A and the =hilippine Drug 9nfor!ement -gen!y (=D9-A from enfor!ing paragraphs (!A, (dA, (fA, and (gA of Se!. .4 of %- '14D on the ground that they are !onstitutionally infirm. #or one, the provisions !onstitute undue delegation of legislative power when they give unbridled dis!retion to s!hools and employers to determine the manner of drug testing. #or another, the provisions tren!h in the e0ual prote!tion !lause inasmu!h as they !an be used to harass a student or an employee deemed undesirable. -nd for a third, a person1s !onstitutional right against unreasonable sear!hes is also brea!hed by said provisions. :.R. -o. 116633 (Atty. Manuel J. Laserna, Jr. v. %angerous %rugs oard and #2ilippine %rug Enforcement AgencyA =etitioner -tty. )anuel 5. @aserna, 5r., as !itiGen and ta(payer, also seeks in his =etition for Certiorari and =rohibition under %ule 4D that Se!. .4(!A, (dA, (fA, and (gA of %- '14D be stru!k down as un!onstitutional for infringing on the !onstitutional right to
3.4

3.>

priva!y, the right against unreasonable sear!h and seiGure, and the right against selfin!rimination, and for being !ontrary to the due pro!ess and e0ual prote!tion guarantees. SJS 5e#i#io' ,Co'7#i#u#io'"li#y o( Sec. 36<c=, <)=, <(=, "') <&= o( RA 9161! he drug test pres!ribed under Se!. .4(!A, (dA, and (fA of %- '14D for se!ondary and tertiary level students and publi! and private employees, while mandatory, is a random and suspi!ionless arrangement. he ob8e!tive is to stamp out illegal drug and safeguard in the pro!ess :the well being of BtheC !itiGenry, parti!ularly the youth, from the harmful effe!ts of dangerous drugs.; his statutory purpose, per the poli!y-de!laration portion of the law, !an be a!hieved via the pursuit by the state of :an intensive and unrelenting !ampaign against the traffi!king and use of dangerous drugs ( ( ( through an integrated system of planning, implementation and enfor!ement of anti-drug abuse poli!ies, programs and pro8e!ts.;3'4B13C he primary legislative intent is not !riminal prose!ution, as those found positive for illegal drug use as a result of this random testing are not ne!essarily treated as !riminals. hey may even be e(empt from !riminal liability should the illegal drug user !onsent to undergo rehabilitation. Se!s. D3 and DD of %'14D are !lear on this point: Se!. D3. *oluntary "u'mission of a %rug %ependent to Confinement, &reatment and $e2a'ilitation.X- drug dependent or any person who violates Se!tion 1D of this -!t may, by himselfEherself or through hisEher parent, B!lose relativesC ( ( ( apply to the $oard ( ( ( for treatment and rehabilitation of the drug dependen!y. ?pon su!h appli!ation, the $oard shall bring forth the matter to the Court whi!h shall order that the appli!ant be e(amined for drug dependen!y. *f the e(amination ( ( ( results in the !ertifi!ation that the appli!ant is a drug dependent, heEshe shall be ordered by the Court to undergo treatment and rehabilitation in a Center designated by the $oard ( ( (. (((( Se!. DD. E>emption from t2e Criminal Lia'ility !nder t2e *oluntary "u'mission #rogram.X- drug dependent under the voluntary submission program, who is finally dis!harged from !onfinement, shall be e(empt from the !riminal liability under Se!tion 1D of this -!t sub8e!t to the following !onditions: (((( S!hool !hildren, the ?S Supreme Court noted, are most vulnerable to the physi!al, psy!hologi!al, and addi!tive effe!ts of drugs. )aturing nervous systems of the
3'4B13C

%- '14D, Se!. +.

3.>

3./

young are more !riti!ally impaired by into(i!ants and are more in!lined to drug dependen!y. heir re!overy is also at a depressingly low rate.3'>B1DC he right to priva!y has been a!!orded re!ognition in this 8urisdi!tion as a fa!et of the right prote!ted by the guarantee against unreasonable sear!h and seiGure 3'/B14C under Se!. +, -rt. ***3''B1>C of the Constitution. $ut while the right to priva!y has long !ome into its own, this !ase appears to be the first time that the validity of a state-de!reed sear!h or intrusion through the medium of mandatory random drug testing among students and employees is, in this 8urisdi!tion, made the fo!al point. hus, the issue tendered in these pro!eedings is veritably one of first impression. ?S 8urispruden!e is, however, a ri!h sour!e of persuasive 8urispruden!e. 7ith respe!t to random drug testing among s!hool !hildren, we turn to the tea!hings of *ernonia "c2ool %istrict 3/J v. Acton (*ernoniaA and oard of Education of Independent "c2ool %istrict (o. -0 of #otta?atomie County, et al. v. Earls, et al. ( oard of EducationA,D66B1/C both fairly pertinent ?S Supreme Court-de!ided !ases involving the !onstitutionality of governmental sear!h. *n *ernonia, s!hool administrators in Fernonia, <regon wanted to address the drug mena!e in their respe!tive institutions following the dis!overy of fre0uent drug use by s!hool athletes. -fter !onsultation with the parents, they re0uired random urinalysis drug testing for the s!hool1s athletes. 5ames -!ton, a high s!hool student, was denied parti!ipation in the football program after he refused to undertake the urinalysis drug testing. -!ton forthwith sued, !laiming that the s!hool1s drug testing poli!y violated, inter alia, the #ourth -mendmentD61B1'C of the ?S Constitution. he ?S Supreme Court, in fashioning a solution to the issues raised in *ernonia, !onsidered the following: (1A s!hools stand in loco parentis over their students" (+A s!hool !hildren, while not shedding their !onstitutional rights at the s!hool gate, have less priva!y rights" (.A athletes have less priva!y rights than non-athletes sin!e the former observe !ommunal undress before and after sports events" (3A by 8oining the sports a!tivity, the athletes voluntarily sub8e!ted themselves to a higher degree of s!hool supervision and regulation" (DA re0uiring urine samples does not invade a student1s priva!y sin!e a student need not undress for this kind of drug testing" and (4A there is need for the drug testing be!ause of the dangerous effe!ts of illegal drugs on the young. he ?S Supreme Court held that the poli!y !onstituted reasonable sear!h under the
3'> 3'/

*ernonia "c2ool %istrict 3/J v. Acton, D1D ?.S. 434 (1''DA, 441. Ople v. &orres, 2.%. &o. 1+>4/D, 5uly +., 1''/, +'. SC%- 131, 14'" !iting Morfe v. Mutuc, &o. @+6./>, 5anuary .1, 1'4/, ++ SC%- 3+3, 333-33D. 3'' B1>C Se!. +. he right of the people to be se!ure in their persons, houses, papers, and effe!ts against unreasonable sear!hes and seiGures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no sear!h warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue e(!ept upon probable !ause to be determined personally by the 8udge after e(amination under oath or affirmation of the !omplainant and the witnesses he may produ!e, and parti!ularly des!ribing the pla!e to be sear!hed and the person or things to be seiGed. D66 B1/C D.4 ?.S. /++ (+66+A" !ited in + $ernas, C<&S * ? *<&-@ %*2, S -&D S<C*-@ D9)-&DS ++3++> (+663A. D61 B1'C he right of the people to be se!ure in their persons, houses, papers, and effe!ts, against unreasonable sear!hes and seiGures, shall not be violated, and no 7arrants shall issue, but upon probable !ause, supported by <ath or affirmation, and parti!ularly des!ribing the pla!e to be sear!hed, and the persons or things to be seiGed.
B14C

B1DC

3./

3.'

#ourthD6+B+6C and 13th -mendments and de!lared the random drug-testing poli!y !onstitutional. *n oard of Education, the $oard of 9du!ation of a s!hool in e!umseh, <klahoma re0uired a drug test for high s!hool students desiring to 8oin e(tra-!urri!ular a!tivities. @indsay 9arls, a member of the show !hoir, mar!hing band, and a!ademi! team de!lined to undergo a drug test and averred that the drug-testing poli!y made to apply to non-athletes violated the #ourth and 13th -mendments. -s 9arls argued, unlike athletes who routinely undergo physi!al e(aminations and undress before their peers in lo!ker rooms, non-athletes are entitled to more priva!y. he ?S Supreme Court, !iting *ernonia, upheld the !onstitutionality of drug testing even among non-athletes on the basis of the s!hool1s !ustodial responsibility and authority. *n so ruling, said !ourt made no distin!tion between a non-athlete and an athlete. *t ratio!inated that s!hools and tea!hers a!t in pla!e of the parents with a similar interest and duty of safeguarding the health of the students. -nd in holding that the s!hool !ould implement its random drug-testing poli!y, the Court hinted that su!h a test was a kind of sear!h in whi!h even a reasonable parent might need to engage. *n sum, what !an reasonably be dedu!ed from the above two !ases and applied to this 8urisdi!tion are: (1A s!hools and their administrators stand in loco parentis with respe!t to their students" (+A minor students have !onte(tually fewer rights than an adult, and are sub8e!t to the !ustody and supervision of their parents, guardians, and s!hools" (.A s!hools, a!ting in loco parentis, have a duty to safeguard the health and well-being of their students and may adopt su!h measures as may reasonably be ne!essary to dis!harge su!h duty" and (3A s!hools have the right to impose !onditions on appli!ants for admission that are fair, 8ust, and non-dis!riminatory. 2uided by *ernonia and oard of Education, the Court is of the view and so holds that the provisions of %- '14D re0uiring mandatory, random, and suspi!ionless drug testing of students are !onstitutional. *ndeed, it is within the prerogative of edu!ational institutions to re0uire, as a !ondition for admission, !omplian!e with reasonable s!hool rules and regulations and poli!ies. o be sure, the right to enroll is not absolute" it is sub8e!t to fair, reasonable, and e0uitable re0uirements. he Court !an take 8udi!ial noti!e of the proliferation of prohibited drugs in the !ountry that threatens the well-being of the people,D6.B+1C parti!ularly the youth and s!hool !hildren who usually end up as vi!tims. -!!ordingly, and until a more effe!tive method is !on!eptualiGed and put in motion, a random drug testing of students in se!ondary and tertiary s!hools is not only a!!eptable but may even be ne!essary if the safety and interest of the student population, doubtless a legitimate !on!ern of the government, are to be promoted and prote!ted. o borrow from *ernonia, :BdCeterring drug use by our
D6+

he #ourth -mendment is almost similar to Se!. +, -rt. *** of the Constitution, e(!ept that the latter limited the determination of probable !ause to a 8udge after an e(amination under oath of the !omplainant and his witnesses. ,en!e, pronoun!ements of the ?S #ederal Supreme Court and State -ppellate Court may be !onsidered do!trinal in this 8urisdi!tion, unless they are manifestly !ontrary to our Constitution. "ee ,errera, ,-&D$<<M <& -%%9S , S9-%C, -&D S9*O?%9 / (+66.A. D6. B+1C &olentino v. Alconcel, &o. @-4.366, )ar!h 1/, 1'/., 1+1 SC%- '+, 'D-'4.

B+6C

3.'

336

&ation1s s!hool!hildren is as important as enhan!ing effi!ient enfor!ement of the &ation1s laws against the importation of drugs;" the ne!essity for the State to a!t is magnified by the fa!t that the effe!ts of a drug-infested s!hool are visited not 8ust upon the users, but upon the entire student body and fa!ulty. D63B++C &eedless to stress, the random testing s!heme provided under the law argues against the idea that the testing aims to in!riminate unsuspe!ting individual students. 5ust as in the !ase of se!ondary and tertiary level students, the mandatory but random drug test pres!ribed by Se!. .4 of %- '14D for offi!ers and employees of publi! and private offi!es is 8ustifiable, albeit not e(a!tly for the same reason. he Court notes in this regard that petitioner S5S, other than saying that :sub8e!ting almost everybody to drug testing, without probable !ause, is unreasonable, an unwarranted intrusion of the individual right to priva!y,;D6DB+.C has failed to show how the mandatory, random, and suspi!ionless drug testing under Se!. .4(!A and (dA of %- '14D violates the right to priva!y and !onstitutes unlawful andEor un!onsented sear!h under -rt. ***, Se!s. 1 and + of the Constitution.D64B+3C =etitioner @aserna1s lament is 8ust as simplisti!, sweeping, and gratuitous and does not merit serious !onsideration. Consider what he wrote without elaboration: he ?S Supreme Court and ?S Cir!uit Courts of -ppeals have made various rulings on the !onstitutionality of mandatory drug tests in the s!hool and the workpla!es. he ?S !ourts have been !onsistent in their rulings that the mandatory drug tests violate a !itiGen1s !onstitutional right to priva!y and right against unreasonable sear!h and seiGure. hey are 0uoted e(tensively hereinbelow.D6>B+DC he essen!e of priva!y is the right to be left alone.D6/B+4C *n !onte(t, the right to priva!y means the right to be free from unwarranted e(ploitation of one1s person or from intrusion into one1s private a!tivities in su!h a way as to !ause humiliation to a person1s ordinary sensibilities. D6'B+>C -nd while there has been general agreement as to the basi! fun!tion of the guarantee against unwarranted sear!h, :translation of the abstra!t prohibition against Kunreasonable sear!hes and seiGures1 into workable broad guidelines for the de!ision of parti!ular !ases is a diffi!ult task,; to borrow from C. Camara v. Municipal Court.D16B+/C -uthorities are agreed though that the right to priva!y yields to

D63 D6D

$ollo (2.%. &o. 1D/4..A, p. +63, respondents1 Consolidated )emorandum. $ollo (2.%. &o. 1D>/>6A, p. 16. D64 B+3C Sec#io' 1. &o person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due pro!ess of law, nor shall any person be denied the e0ual prote!tion of the laws. Sec. 9. he right of the people to be se!ure in their persons, houses, papers, and effe!ts against unreasonable sear!hes and seiGures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no sear!h warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue e(!ept upon probable !ause to be determined personally by the 8udge after e(amination under oath or affirmation of the !omplainant and the witnesses he may produ!e, and parti!ularly des!ribing the pla!e to be sear!hed and the person or things to be seiGed. D6> B+DC $ollo (2.%. &o. 1D/4..A, p. '. D6/B+4C Ople, supra note 14, at 1D." !iting Cooley on orts, Se!. 1.D, Fol. 1, 3th ed., B1'.+C. D6' B+>C 4+ -m. 5ur. +d, #rivacy, Se!. 1. D16 B+/C ./> ?.S. D+." !ited in + $ernas, supra note 1/, at +.+.
B+.C

B++C

336

331

!ertain paramount rights of the publi! and defers to the state1s e(er!ise of poli!e power.D11
B+'C

-s the warrantless !lause of Se!. +, -rt *** of the Constitution is !ou!hed and as has been held, :reasonableness; is the tou!hstone of the validity of a government sear!h or intrusion.D1+B.6C -nd whether a sear!h at issue hews to the reasonableness standard is 8udged by the balan!ing of the government-mandated intrusion on the individual1s priva!y interest against the promotion of some !ompelling state interest. D1.B.1C *n the !riminal !onte(t, reasonableness re0uires showing of probable !ause to be personally determined by a 8udge. 2iven that the drug-testing poli!y for employeesIIand students for that matterIIunder %- '14D is in the nature of administrative sear!h needing what was referred to in *ernonia as :swift and informal dis!iplinary pro!edures,; the probable-!ause standard is not re0uired or even pra!ti!able. $e that as it may, the review should fo!us on the reasonableness of the !hallenged administrative sear!h in 0uestion. he first fa!tor to !onsider in the matter of reasonableness is the nature of the priva!y interest upon whi!h the drug testing, whi!h effe!ts a sear!h within the meaning of Se!. +, -rt. *** of the Constitution, intrudes. *n this !ase, the offi!e or workpla!e serves as the ba!kdrop for the analysis of the priva!y e(pe!tation of the employees and the reasonableness of drug testing re0uirement. he employees1 priva!y interest in an offi!e is to a large e(tent !ir!ums!ribed by the !ompany1s work poli!ies, the !olle!tive bargaining agreement, if any, entered into by management and the bargaining unit, and the inherent right of the employer to maintain dis!ipline and effi!ien!y in the workpla!e. heir priva!y e(pe!tation in a regulated offi!e environment is, in fine, redu!ed" and a degree of impingement upon su!h priva!y has been upheld. 5ust as defining as the first fa!tor is the !hara!ter of the intrusion authoriGed by the !hallenged law. %edu!ed to a 0uestion form, is the s!ope of the sear!h or intrusion !learly set forth, or, as formulated in Ople v. &orres, is the enabling law authoriGing a sear!h :narrowly drawn; or :narrowly fo!used;ND13B.+C he poser should be answered in the affirmative. #or one, Se!. .4 of %- '14D and its implementing rules and regulations (*%%A, as !ou!hed, !ontain provisions spe!ifi!ally dire!ted towards preventing a situation that would unduly embarrass the employees or pla!e them under a humiliating e(perien!e. 7hile every offi!er and employee in a private establishment is under the law deemed forewarned that he or she may be a possible sub8e!t of a drug test, nobody is really singled out in advan!e for drug testing. he goal is to dis!ourage drug use by not telling in advan!e anyone when and who is to be tested. -nd as may be observed, Se!. .4(dA of %- '14D itself pres!ribes what, in Ople, is a narrowing ingredient by providing that the employees !on!erned shall be sub8e!ted to :random drug test as !ontained in the !ompany1s work rules and regulations ( ( ( for purposes of redu!ing the risk in the work pla!e.;
D11 B+'C

D1. D13

4+ -m. 5ur. +d, #rivacy, Se!. 1>. *ernonia P oard of Education, supra notes 1D P 1/. B.1C "@inner v. $ail?ay La'or E>ecutives Assn., 3/' ?.S. 46+, 41' (1'/'A" !ited in *ernonia, supra. B.+C Supra note 14, at 144 P 14'.
D1+B.6C

331

33+

#or another, the random drug testing shall be undertaken under !onditions !al!ulated to prote!t as mu!h as possible the employee1s priva!y and dignity. -s to the me!hani!s of the test, the law spe!ifies that the pro!edure shall employ two testing methods, i.e., the s!reening test and the !onfirmatory test, doubtless to ensure as mu!h as possible the trustworthiness of the results. $ut the more important !onsideration lies in the fa!t that the test shall be !ondu!ted by trained professionals in a!!ess-!ontrolled laboratories monitored by the Department of ,ealth (D<,A to safeguard against results tampering and to ensure an a!!urate !hain of !ustody. D1DB..C *n addition, the *%% issued by the D<, provides that a!!ess to the drug results shall be on the :need to know; basis" D14 B.3C that the :drug test result and the re!ords shall be BkeptC !onfidential sub8e!t to the usual a!!epted pra!ti!es to prote!t the !onfidentiality of the test results.; D1>B.DC &otably, %- '14D does not oblige the employer !on!erned to report to the prose!uting agen!ies any information or eviden!e relating to the violation of the Compre2ensive %angerous %rugs Act re!eived as a result of the operation of the drug testing. -ll told, therefore, the intrusion into the employees1 priva!y, under %- '14D, is a!!ompanied by proper safeguards, parti!ularly against embarrassing leakages of test results, and is relatively minimal. o reiterate, %- '14D was ena!ted as a measure to stamp out illegal drug in the !ountry and thus prote!t the well-being of the !itiGens, espe!ially the youth, from the deleterious effe!ts of dangerous drugs. he law intends to a!hieve this through the medium, among others, of promoting and resolutely pursuing a national drug abuse poli!y in the workpla!e via a mandatory random drug test. D1/B.4C o the Court, the need for drug testing to at least minimiGe illegal drug use is substantial enough to override the individual1s priva!y interest under the premises. he Court !an !onsider that the illegal drug mena!e !uts a!ross gender, age group, and so!ial- e!onomi! lines. -nd it may not be amiss to state that the sale, manufa!ture, or traffi!king of illegal drugs, with their ready market, would be an investor1s dream were it not for the illegal and immoral !omponents of any of su!h a!tivities. he drug problem has hardly abated sin!e the martial law publi! e(e!ution of a notorious drug traffi!ker. he state !an no longer assume a laid ba!k stan!e with respe!t to this modern-day s!ourge. Drug enfor!ement agen!ies per!eive a mandatory random drug test to be an effe!tive way of preventing and deterring drug use among employees in private offi!es, the threat of dete!tion by random testing being higher than other modes. he Court holds that the !hosen method is a reasonable and enough means to li!k the problem. aking into a!!ount the foregoing fa!tors, i.e., the redu!ed e(pe!tation of priva!y on the part of the employees, the !ompelling state !on!ern likely to be met by the sear!h, and the well-defined limits set forth in the law to properly guide authorities in the
D1D

?nder Se!. > B.C of the D<, *%% 2overning @i!ensing and -!!reditation of Drug @aboratories, a laboratory is re0uired to use do!umented !hain of !ustody pro!edures to maintain !ontrol and !ustody of spe!imens. D14 B.3C D<, *%% 2overning @i!ensing and -!!reditation of Drug @aboratories, Se!. > B16..C provides that the original !opy of the test results form shall be given to the !lientEdonor, !opy furnished the D<, and the re0uesting agen!y. D1> B.DC *d., Se!. > B16.3C. D1/ B.4C Se!s. 3> and 3/ of %- '14D !harge the Department of @abor and 9mployment with the duty to develop and promote a national drug prevention program and the ne!essary guidelines in the work pla!e, whi!h shall in!lude a mandatory drafting and adoption of poli!ies to a!hieve a drug-free workpla!e.

B..C

33+

33.

!ondu!t of the random testing, we hold that the !hallenged drug test re0uirement is, under the limited !onte(t of the !ase, reasonable and, ergo, !onstitutional. @ike their !ounterparts in the private se!tor, government offi!ials and employees also labor under reasonable supervision and restri!tions imposed by the Civil Servi!e law and other laws on publi! offi!ers, all ena!ted to promote a high standard of ethi!s in the publi! servi!e.D1'B.>C -nd if %- '14D passes the norm of reasonableness for private employees, the more reason that it should pass the test for !ivil servants, who, by !onstitutional !ommand, are re0uired to be a!!ountable at all times to the people and to serve them with utmost responsibility and effi!ien!y.D+6B./C =etitioner S5S1 ne(t posture that Se!. .4 of %- '14D is ob8e!tionable on the ground of undue delegation of power hardly !ommends itself for !on!urren!e. Contrary to its position, the provision in 0uestion is not so e(tensively drawn as to give unbridled options to s!hools and employers to determine the manner of drug testing. Se!. .4 e(pressly provides how drug testing for students of se!ondary and tertiary s!hools and offi!ersEemployees of publi!Eprivate offi!es should be !ondu!ted. *t enumerates the persons who shall undergo drug testing. *n the !ase of students, the testing shall be in a!!ordan!e with the s!hool rules as !ontained in the student handbook and with noti!e to parents. <n the part of offi!ersEemployees, the testing shall take into a!!ount the !ompany1s work rules. *n either !ase, the random pro!edure shall be observed, meaning that the persons to be sub8e!ted to drug test shall be pi!ked by !han!e or in an unplanned way. -nd in all !ases, safeguards against misusing and !ompromising the !onfidentiality of the test results are established. @est it be overlooked, Se!. '3 of %- '14D !harges the DD$ to issue, in !onsultation with the D<,, Department of the *nterior and @o!al 2overnment, Department of 9du!ation, and Department of @abor and 9mployment, among other agen!ies, the *%% ne!essary to enfor!e the law. *n net effe!t then, the parti!ipation of s!hools and offi!es in the drug testing s!heme shall always be sub8e!t to the *%% of %'14D. *t is, therefore, in!orre!t to say that s!hools and employers have un!he!ked dis!retion to determine how often, under what !onditions, and where the drug tests shall be !ondu!ted. he validity of delegating legislative power is now a 0uiet area in the !onstitutional lands!ape.D+1B.'C *n the fa!e of the in!reasing !omple(ity of the task of the government and the in!reasing inability of the legislature to !ope dire!tly with the many problems demanding its attention, resort to delegation of power, or entrusting to administrative agen!ies the power of subordinate legislation, has be!ome imperative, as here. L"7er'" 5e#i#io' ,Co'7#i#u#io'"li#y o( Sec. 36<c=, <)=, <(=, "') <&= o( RA 9161!
C<D9 <# C<&D?C -&D 9 ,*C-@ S -&D-%DS #<% =?$@*C <##*C9%S -&D 9)=@<J99S, Se!. +. D+6 B./C C<&S * ? *<&, -rt. Q*, Se!. 1. D+1 B.'C &atad, supra note 4, at .D1.
D1'B.>C

33.

333

?nlike the situation !overed by Se!. .4(!A and (dA of %- '14D, the Court finds no valid 8ustifi!ation for mandatory drug testing for persons a!!used of !rimes. *n the !ase of students, the !onstitutional viability of the mandatory, random, and suspi!ionless drug testing for students emanates primarily from the waiver by the students of their right to priva!y when they seek entry to the s!hool, and from their voluntarily submitting their persons to the parental authority of s!hool authorities. *n the !ase of private and publi! employees, the !onstitutional soundness of the mandatory, random, and suspi!ionless drug testing pro!eeds from the reasonableness of the drug test poli!y and re0uirement. 7e find the situation entirely different in the !ase of persons !harged before the publi! prose!utor1s offi!e with !riminal offenses punishable with si( (4A years and one (1A day imprisonment. he operative !on!epts in the mandatory drug testing are :randomness; and :suspi!ionless.; *n the !ase of persons !harged with a !rime before the prose!utor1s offi!e, a mandatory drug testing !an never be random or suspi!ionless. he ideas of randomness and being suspi!ionless are antitheti!al to their being made defendants in a !riminal !omplaint. hey are not randomly pi!ked" neither are they beyond suspi!ion. 7hen persons suspe!ted of !ommitting a !rime are !harged, they are singled out and are impleaded against their will. he persons thus !harged, by the bare fa!t of being haled before the prose!utor1s offi!e and pea!eably submitting themselves to drug testing, if that be the !ase, do not ne!essarily !onsent to the pro!edure, let alone waive their right to priva!y.D++B36C o impose mandatory drug testing on the a!!used is a blatant attempt to harness a medi!al test as a tool for !riminal prose!ution, !ontrary to the stated ob8e!tives of %- '14D. Drug testing in this !ase would violate a persons1 right to priva!y guaranteed under Se!. +, -rt. *** of the Constitution. 7orse still, the a!!used persons are veritably for!ed to in!riminate themselves. 1. Self-in!rimination, +3 SC%- 4'+ +. %ead 1. ChaveG vs. C-, +3 SC%- 44. +. 2alman vs. =amaran, 1./ SC%- +'3, read !on!urring and dissenting opinions .. Fillaflor vs. Summers, 31 =hil. 4+ 3. $eltran vs. Samson, D6 =hil. D>6 D. $agadiong vs. 2onGales, '3 SC%- '64 4. $-S9C< vs. =C22, supra >. *sabela Sugar vs. )a!adaeg, '/ =hil. ''D /. #ernando vs. )aglano!, 'D =hil. 3.1 '. ?S vs. ang eng, +. =hil. 13D 16. = vs. <tadora, /4 =hil. +33 11. = vs. <lvis, 1D3 SC%- D1. 1+. = vs. $oholst--madore, 1D+ SC%- +4. 1.. = vs. %osas, 13/ SC%- 343
D++ B36C

in!luding the

Leona #asion *iuda de +arcia v. Locsin , 4D =hil. 4/', 4'D (1'./A" !iting Cooley, C<&S . @*). 4.6 (/th

ed.A.

333

33D

13. = vs. %uallo, 1D+ SC%- 4.D 1D. = vs. =oli!arpio, 1D/ SC%- /D( Compare with $oholst !asesA 14. = vs. @umayok, 1.' SC%- 1 1>. Cabal vs. Mapunan, 5r. De!ember +', 1'4+

the %osas P

=9<=@9 FS. $-&*,* , 2.%. &<. 1.+63D, ..' SC%- /4, -?2. +D, +666" =9<=@9 FS. C<& *&9& 9, 2.%. &<S. 166/61- 6+, ..' SC%- 1, -?2. +D, +666. T%e e77e'ce o( #%i7 ri&%# "&"i'7# 7el(Gi'cri$i'"#io' i7 #e7#i$o'i"l co$pul7io' or #%e &i*i'& o( e*i)e'ce "&"i'7# o'e7el( #%rou&% " #e7#i$o'i"l "c#. He'ce, "' "ccu7e) $"y 8e co$pelle) #o 7u8$i# #o p%y7ic"l e@"$i'"#io' "') %"*e " 7u87#"'ce #"Le' (ro$ %i7 8o)y (or $e)ic"l )e#er$i'"#io' "7 #o w%e#%er %e w"7 7u((eri'& (ro$ " )i7e"7e #%"# w"7 co'#r"c#e) 8y %i7 *ic#i$ wi#%ou# *iol"#i'& #%i7 ri&%#. CHA#&E$ W*II - &HE $I+H& A+AI("& I(*OL!(&A$) "E$*I&!%E 1. %ead: 1. -!lara!ion vs. 2atmaitan, 43 SC%- 1.1 +. Caun!a vs. SalaGar, supra CHA#&E$ W*III - $I+H& A+AI("& C$!EL A(% !(!"!AL #!(I"HME(& a. *s the Death =enalty already abolished by the %ead: 1. = vs. 2avarra, 1DD SC%a .+> +. = vs. )asangkay, 1DD SC%- 11. .. = vs. -ten!io, 1D4 SC%- +3+ 3. = vs. *ntino, September +4, 1'// D. =eople vs. )unoG, 1>6 SC%- 16> b. *s death as a penalty a !ruel or unuasual punishmentN 1'/> ConstitutionN

&o. Death through lethal in8e!tion is the most humane way of implementing the death =enalty (@eo 9!hegaray vs. Se!retary of 5usti!eA %ead: 1. = vs. 9stoista, '. =hil. 43>
33D

334

+. = vs. Fillanueva,, 1+/ SC%- 3// .. Feniegas vs. =eople, 11D SC%- >' 3. = vs. Camano, 11D SC%- 4// +. <n the death penalty whether it was abolished or not %ead: a. = vs. *dnay, 143 SC%- .D/ C.A&T,R H/H G R/G.T AGA/N3T -O-GIM5RISO-ME-T .OR /E4T 1. %ead: 1. =oIano !". MartineI, 1B8 3CRA A2A +. -8eno vs. *n!ierto, >1 SC%- 144 C.A&T,R HH G T., R/G.T AGA/N3T 1O2+=, J,O&AR1L 1. %e0uisites present before this right !an be invoked 5EO5LE VS. ALMARIO, 311 SCRA 1 here is double 8eopardy when there is: B1C valid indi!tment" B+C before a !ompetent !ourt" B.C after arraignment" B3C when a valid plea has been entered" and BDC when the defendant was !onvi!ted or a!0uitted, or the !ase was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the e(press !onsent of the a!!used. *f the dismissal is through the instan!e of the a!!used or with his e(press !onsent, there is no double 8eopardy and the !ase !ould be reinstated. ,owever, this rule admits of two (+A e(!eptions: 1A the motion to dismiss is based on insuffi!ien!y of eviden!e" and +A the motion to dismiss is based on the denial of the a!!used1s right to speedy trial. his is so be!ause the :dismissal; is a!tually an :a!0uittal; and therefore, all the re0uisites of double 8eopardy are !omplete.
334

33>

JE..REY RESO /AYA5 *7. 5RET>YGLO3 SE-/IO-:, :E-ESA SE-/IO-:, ELVIE SY "') /EEIE /3RA-, :.R. -o. 1 96;, J"'u"ry 99, 9;;9

he !ase had its origins in the filing of an *nformation D+.B3C on +' De!ember +663 by the =rovin!ial =rose!utor1s <ffi!e, Sibulan, &egros <riental, !harging herein petitioner 5effrey %eso Dayap with the !rime of %e!kless *mpruden!e resulting to ,omi!ide, @ess Serious =hysi!al *n8uries, and Damage to =roperty. he pertinent portion of the information reads: hat at about 11:DD o1!lo!k in the evening of +/ De!ember +663 at $rgy. )aslog, Sibulan, &egros <riental, =hilippines, and within the 8urisdi!tion of this ,onorable Court, the above-named a!!used, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously drive in a re!kless and imprudent manner a 16-wheeler !argo tru!k with plate number ?@=-'DD, !olor blue, fully loaded with sa!ks of !o!onut shell, registered in the name of %uben Fillabeto of Sta. -gueda =amplona, &egros <riental, thereby hitting an automobile, a Colt 2alant with plate number &@D-.>' driven by @ou 2ene %. Sendiong who was with two female passengers, namely: De(ie Duran and 9lvie Sy, thus !ausing the instantaneous death of said @ou 2ene %. Sendiong, less serious physi!al in8uries on the bodies of De(ie Duran and 9lvie Sy and e(tensive damage to the above-mentioned Colt 2alant whi!h is registered in the name of Cristina =. 7eyer of 11D Dr. F. @o!sin St., Dumaguete City, to the damage of the heirs of the same @ou 2ene %. Sendiong and the other two offended parties abovementioned. -n a!t defined and penaliGed by -rti!le .4D of the %evised =enal Code. <n 16 5anuary +66D, before the )uni!ipal rial Court () CA of Sibulan, &egros <riental, petitioner was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty to the !harge.D+3BDC <n 1> 5anuary +66D, respondents =retGy-@ou =. Sendiong, 2enesa Sendiong and De(ie Duran filed a motion for leave of !ourt to file an amended information.D+DB4C hey sought to add the allegation of
D+. B3C D+3 BDC D+D B4C

%e!ords, p. .+. $ollo, p. 33" See <rder dated 16 5anuary +66D. %e!ords, pp. .3-.4.

33>

33/

abandonment of the vi!tims by petitioner, thus: : he driver of the 16wheeler !argo tru!k abandoned the vi!tims, at a time when said B@ou2eneC %. Sendiong was still alive inside the !ar" he was only e(tra!ted from the !ar by the by-standers.;D+4B>C <n +1 5anuary +66D, however, the =rovin!ial =rose!utor filed an <mnibus )otion praying that the motion to amend the information be !onsidered withdrawn.D+>B/C <n +1 5anuary +66., the ) C granted the withdrawal and the motion to amend was !onsidered withdrawn.D+/B'C =re-trial and trial of the !ase pro!eeded. %espondents testified for the prose!ution. -fter the prose!ution had rested its !ase, petitioner sought leave to file a demurrer to eviden!e whi!h was granted. =etitioner filed his Demurrer to 9viden!eD+'B16C dated 1D -pril +66D grounded on the prose!ution1s failure to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is !riminally liable for re!kless impruden!e, to whi!h respondents filed a CommentD.6B11C dated +D -pril +66D. *n the <rderD.1B1+C dated 14 )ay +66D, the ) C granted the demurrer and a!0uitted petitioner of the !rime of re!kless impruden!e. he ) C found that the eviden!e presented by respondents failed to establish the allegations in the *nformation. =ertinent portions of the order state: -n e(amination of the allegations in the information and !omparing the same with the eviden!e presented by the prose!ution would reveal that the eviden!e presented has not established said allegations. he fa!ts and !ir!umstan!es !onstituting the allegations !harged have not been proven. *t is elementary in the rules of eviden!e that a party must prove his own affirmative allegations. (((( &owhere in the eviden!e of the prose!ution !an this Court find that it was the a!!used who !ommitted the !rime as !harged. *ts witnesses have never identified the a!!used as the one who has !ommitted the !rime. he prose!ution never bothered to establish if indeed it was the a!!used
D+4 B>C

*d. at .>. *d. at 31. $ollo, p. DD. %e!ords, pp. /6-'+. *d. at '.-'3. $ollo, pp. >+->3.

D+> B/C D+/ B'C D+' B16C D.6 B11C D.1 B1+C

33/

33'

who !ommitted the !rime or asked 0uestions whi!h would have proved the elements of the !rime. he prose!ution did not even establish if indeed it was the a!!used who was driving the tru!k at the time of the in!ident. he Court simply !annot find any eviden!e whi!h would prove that a !rime has been !ommitted and that the a!!used is the person responsible for it. here was no eviden!e on the allegation of the death of @ou 2ene %. Sendiong as there was no death !ertifi!ate that was offered in eviden!e. he alleged less serious physi!al in8uries on the bodies of De(ie Duran and 9lvie Sy were not also proven as no medi!al !ertifi!ate was presented to state the same nor was a do!tor presented to establish su!h in8uries. he alleged damage to the BCColt B2Calant was also not established in any manner as no witness ever testified on this aspe!t and no do!umentary eviden!e was also presented to state the damage. he prose!ution therefore failed to establish if indeed it was the a!!used who was responsible for the death of @ou 2ene %. Sendiong and the in8uries to De(ie Duran and 9lvie Sy, in!luding the damage to the Colt 2alant. he mother of the vi!tim testified only on the e(penses she in!urred and the sho!k she and her family have suffered as a result of the in!ident. $ut sad to say, she !ould not also pinpoint if it was the a!!used who !ommitted the !rime and be held responsible for it. his Court !ould only say that the prose!ution has pra!ti!ally bungled this !ase from its in!eption. (((( he defense furthermore argued that on the !ontrary, the prose!ution1s Beviden!eC !on!lusively show that the swerving of vehi!le 1 Bthe Colt 2alantC to the lane of vehi!le + Bthe !argo tru!kC is the pro(imate !ause of the a!!ident. he !ourt again is in!lined to agree with this argument of the defense. *t has looked !arefully into the sket!h of the a!!ident as indi!ated in the poli!e blotter and !an only !on!lude that the logi!al e(planation of the a!!ident is that vehi!le 1 swerved into the lane of vehi!le +, thus hitting the latter1s inner fender and tires. 9(hibit :>; whi!h is a pi!ture of vehi!le + shows the e(tent of its damage whi!h was the effe!t of vehi!le 11s ramming into the rear left portion of vehi!le + !ausing the differential guide of vehi!le + to be !ut, its tires busted and pulled out together with their a(le. he !utting of the differential guide !auseBdC the entire housing !onne!ting the tires to the tru!k body to !ollapse, thus !ausing vehi!le + to tilt to its left side and swerve towards the lane of vehi!le 1. *t was this a!!ident that !aused the swerving, not of BsicC any negligent a!t of the a!!used. (((( 9very !riminal !onvi!tion re0uires of the prose!ution to prove two thingsXthe fa!t of the !rime, i.e., the presen!e of all the elements of the !rime for whi!h the a!!used stands !harged, and the fa!t that the a!!used
33'

3D6

is the perpetrator of the !rime. Sad to say, the prose!ution has miserably failed to prove these two things. 7hen the prose!ution fails to dis!harge its burden of establishing the guilt of the a!!used, an a!!used need not even offer eviden!e in his behalf. (((( 7,9%9#<%9, premises !onsidered, the demurrer is granted and the a!!used 59##%9J %9S< D-J-= is hereby "cCui##e) (or i'7u((icie'cy o( e*i)e'ce. he bail bond posted for his temporary liberty is also hereby !an!elled and ordered released to the a!!used or his duly authoriGed representative. S< <%D9%9D.D.+B1.C %espondents thereafter filed a petition for !ertiorari under %ule 4D, alleging that the ) C1s dismissal of the !ase was done without !onsidering the eviden!e addu!ed by the prose!ution. %espondents added that the ) C failed to observe the manner the trial of the !ase should pro!eed as provided in Se!. 11, %ule 11' of the %ules of Court as well as failed to rule on the !ivil liability of the a!!used in spite of the eviden!e presented. he !ase was raffled to the %egional rial Court (% CA of &egros <riental, $r. .+.
D..B13C

*n the orderD.3B1DC dated +. -ugust +66D, the % C affirmed the a!0uittal of petitioner but ordered the remand of the !ase to the ) C for further pro!eedings on the !ivil aspe!t of the !ase. he % C ruled that the ) C1s re!ital of every fa!t in arriving at its !on!lusions disproved the allegation that it failed to !onsider the eviden!e presented by the prose!ution. he re!ords also demonstrated that the ) C !ondu!ted the trial of the !ase in the manner di!tated by Se!. 11, %ule 11' of the %ules of Court, e(!ept that the defense no longer presented its eviden!e after the ) C gave due !ourse to the a!!used1s demurrer to eviden!e, the filing of whi!h is allowed under Se!. +., %ule 11'. he % C however agreed that the ) C failed to rule on the a!!used1s !ivil liability, espe!ially sin!e the 8udgment of a!0uittal did not in!lude a de!laration that the fa!ts from whi!h the !ivil liability might arise did not e(ist. hus, the % C de!lared that the aspe!t of !ivil liability was not passed upon and resolved to remand the issue to the ) C. he dispositive portion of the de!ision states:

D.+ B1.C D.. B13C D.3 B1DC

*d. at >+ and >3. %e!ords, pp. .-11. $ollo, pp. >D-/1.

3D6

3D1

7,9%9#<%9, the 0uestioned order of the )uni!ipal rial Court of Sibulan on a!!used1s a!0uittal is -##*%)9D. he !ase is %9)-&D9D to the !ourt of origin or its su!!essor for further pro!eedings on the !ivil aspe!t of the !ase. &o !osts. S< <%D9%9D.D.DB14C $oth parties filed their motions for re!onsideration of the % C order, but these were denied for la!k of merit in the order D.4B1>C dated 1+ September +66D. %espondents then filed a petition for review with the Court of -ppeals under %ule 3+, do!keted as C--2.%. S=. &o. 611>'. he appellate !ourt subse0uently rendered the assailed de!ision and resolution. he Court of -ppeals ruled that there being no proof of the total value of the properties damaged, the !riminal !ase falls under the 8urisdi!tion of the % C and the pro!eedings before the ) C are null and void. *n so ruling, the appellate !ourt !ited &ulor v. +arcia (!orre!t title of the !ase is Cuyos v. +arciaAD.>B1/C whi!h ruled that in !omple( !rimes involving re!kless impruden!e resulting in homi!ide or physi!al in8uries and damage to property, the 8urisdi!tion of the !ourt to take !ogniGan!e of the !ase is determined by the fine imposable for the damage to property resulting from the re!kless impruden!e, not by the !orresponding penalty for the physi!al in8uries !harged. *t also found support in Se!. .4 of the 5udi!iary %eorganiGation -!t of 1'/6 and the 1''1 %ule / on Summary =ro!edure, whi!h govern the summary pro!edure in first-level !ourts in offenses involving damage to property through !riminal negligen!e where the imposable fine does not e(!eed =16,666.66. -s there was no proof of the total value of the property damaged and respondents were !laiming the amount of =1,D66,666.66 as !ivil damages, the !ase falls within the % C1s 8urisdi!tion. he dispositive portion of the De!ision dated 1> -ugust +664 reads: 7,9%9#<%9, premises !onsidered, 8udgment is hereby rendered by ?s %9)-&D*&2 the !ase to the %egional rial Court (% CA, 5udi!ial %egion, $ran!h .+, &egros <riental for proper disposition of the merits of the !ase. S< <%D9%9D.D./B1'C
D.D B14C D.4 B1>C D.> B1/C D./ B1'C

*d. at /1. *d. at /'-'6. &o. @-34'.3, 1D -pril 1''/, . $ollo, p. .D.

3D1

3D+

=etitioner moved for re!onsideration of the Court of -ppeals de!ision,D.'B+6C arguing that 8urisdi!tion over the !ase is determined by the allegations in the information, and that neither the 1''1 %ule on Summary =ro!edure nor Se!. .4 of the 5udi!iary %eorganiGation -!t of 1'/6 !an be the basis of the % C1s 8urisdi!tion over the !ase. ,owever, the Court of -ppeals denied the motion for re!onsideration for la!k of merit in the %esolution dated +D -pril +66>.D36B+1C *t reiterated that it is the % C that has proper 8urisdi!tion !onsidering that the information alleged a willful, unlawful, felonious killing as well as abandonment of the vi!tims. *n the present petition for review, petitioner argues that the ) C had 8urisdi!tion to hear the !riminal !ase for re!kless impruden!e, owing to the ena!tment of %epubli! -!t (%.-.A &o. >4'1,D31B++C whi!h !onfers 8urisdi!tion to first-level !ourts on offenses involving damage to property through !riminal negligen!e. ,e asserts that the % C !ould not have a!0uired 8urisdi!tion on the basis of a legally unfiled and offi!ially withdrawn amended information alleging abandonment. %espondents are also faulted for !hallenging the ) C1s order a!0uitting petitioner through a spe!ial !ivil a!tion for !ertiorari under %ule 4D in lieu of an ordinary appeal under %ule 3+. he petition has merit. *t should be granted. he first issue is whether the Court of -ppeals erred in ruling that 8urisdi!tion over the offense !harged pertained to the % C. $oth the ) C and the % C pro!eeded with the !ase on the basis of the *nformation dated +' De!ember +663 !harging petitioner only with the !omple( !rime of re!kless impruden!e resulting to homi!ide, less serious physi!al in8uries and damage to property. he Court of -ppeals however de!lared in its de!ision that petitioner should have been !harged with the same offense but aggravated by the !ir!umstan!e of abandonment of the vi!tims. *t appears from the re!ords however that respondents1 attempt to amend the information by !harging the aggravated offense was unsu!!essful as the ) C had approved the =rovin!ial =rose!utor1s motion to withdraw their motion to amend the information. he information filed before the trial !ourt had remained unamended. D3+B+.C hus, petitioner is
D.' B+6C D36 B+1C D31

*d. at '6-'3. Supra note +.

9ntitled :-& -C 9Q=-&D*&2 ,9 5?%*SD*C *<& <# ,9 )9 %<=<@* -& %*-@ C<?% S, )?&*C*=-@ %*-@ C<?% S -&D )?&*C*=-@ C*%C?* %*-@ C<?% S, -)9&D*&2 #<% ,9 =?%=<S9 $- -S =-)$-&S- $@2. 1+', < ,9%7*S9 M&<7& -S ,9 5?D*C*-%J %9<%2-&*O- *<& -C <# 1'/6,; whi!h took effe!t on 13 -pril 1''3.
D3+ B+.C

B++C

See notes / and '.

3D+

3D.

deemed to have been !harged only with the offense alleged in the original *nformation without any aggravating !ir!umstan!e. -rti!le .4D of the %evised =enal Code punishes any person who, by re!kless impruden!e, !ommits any a!t whi!h, had it been intentional, would !onstitute a grave felony, with the penalty of arresto mayor in its ma(imum period to prision correccional in its medium period. 7hen su!h re!kless impruden!e the use of a motor vehi!le, resulting in the death of a person attended the same arti!le imposes upon the defendant the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and ma(imum periods. he offense with whi!h petitioner was !harged is re!kless impruden!e resulting in homi!ide, less serious physi!al in8uries and damage to property, a !omple( !rime. 7here a re!kless, imprudent, or negligent a!t results in two or more grave or less grave felonies, a !omple( !rime is !ommitted.D3.B+3C -rti!le 3/ of the %evised =enal Code provides that when the single a!t !onstitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a ne!essary means for !ommitting the other, the penalty for the most serious !rime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its ma(imum period. Sin!e -rti!le 3/ speaks of felonies, it is appli!able to !rimes through negligen!e in view of the definition of felonies in -rti!le . as :a!ts or omissions punishable by law; !ommitted either by means of de!eit (doloA or fault (culpaA.D33B+DC hus, the penalty imposable upon petitioner, were he to be found guilty, is prision correccional in its medium period (+ years, 3 months and 1 day to 3 yearsA and ma(imum period (3 years, + months and 1 day to 4 yearsA. -ppli!able as well is the familiar rule that the 8urisdi!tion of the !ourt to hear and de!ide a !ase is !onferred by the law in for!e at the time of the institution of the a!tion, unless su!h statute provides for a retroa!tive appli!ation thereof.D3DB+4C 7hen this !ase was filed on +' De!ember +663, Se!tion .+(+A of $atas =ambansa $ilang 1+' had already been amended by %.-. &o. >4'1. %.-. &o. >4'1 e(tended the 8urisdi!tion of the first-level !ourts over !riminal !ases to in!lude all offenses punishable with imprisonment not e(!eeding si( (4A years irrespe!tive of the amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable a!!essory or other penalties in!luding those for !ivil liability. *t e(pli!itly states :that in offenses involving damage to property through !riminal negligen!e, they shall have e(!lusive original 8urisdi!tion thereof.; *t follows that !riminal !ases for re!kless
D3. B+3C

#eople v. de los "antos, 36> =hil. >+3, >33 (+661, !iting $eodica v. Court of Appeals, +'+ SC%- />, 16+ #eople v. de los "antos, 36> =hil. >+3 (+661A.

(1''/A.
D33 B+DC D3D B+4C *enancio Aigueroa y Cervantes v. #eople of t2e #2ilippines , 2.%. &o. 13>364, 13 5uly +66/, !iting Alarilla v. "andigan'ayan, .'. =hil. 13., 1DD (+666A and Escovar v. Justice +arc2itorena, 344 =hil. 4+D, 4.D (+663A.

3D.

3D3

impruden!e punishable with prision correccional in its medium and ma(imum periods should fall within the 8urisdi!tion of the ) C and not the % C. Clearly, therefore, 8urisdi!tion to hear and try the same pertained to the ) C and the % C did not have original 8urisdi!tion over the !riminal !ase.D34B+>C Conse0uently, the ) C of Sibulan, &egros <riental had properly taken !ogniGan!e of the !ase and the pro!eedings before it were valid and legal. -s the re!ords show, the ) C granted petitioner1s demurrer to eviden!e and a!0uitted him of the offense on the ground of insuffi!ien!y of eviden!e. he demurrer to eviden!e in !riminal !ases, su!h as the one at bar, is :filed after the prose!ution had rested its !ase,; and when the same is granted, it !alls :for an appre!iation of the eviden!e addu!ed by the prose!ution and its suffi!ien!y to warrant !onvi!tion beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in a dismissal of the !ase on the merits, tantamount to an a!0uittal of the a!!used.; D3>B+/C Suc% )i7$i77"l o( " cri$i'"l c"7e 8y #%e &r"'# o( )e$urrer #o e*i)e'ce $"y 'o# 8e "ppe"le), (or #o )o 7o woul) 8e #o pl"ce #%e "ccu7e) i' )ou8le Aeop"r)y.D3/B+'C $ut while the dismissal order !onse0uent to a demurrer to eviden!e is not sub8e!t to appeal, the same is still reviewable but only by !ertiorari under %ule 4D of the %ules of Court. hus, in su!h !ase, the fa!tual findings of the trial !ourt are !on!lusive upon the reviewing !ourt, and the only legal basis to reverse and set aside the order of dismissal upon demurrer to eviden!e is by a !lear showing that the trial !ourt, in a!0uitting the a!!used, !ommitted grave abuse of dis!retion amounting to la!k or e(!ess of 8urisdi!tion or a denial of due pro!ess, thus rendering the assailed 8udgment void.D3'B.6C -!!ordingly, respondents filed before the % C the petition for !ertiorari alleging that the ) C gravely abused its dis!retion in dismissing the !ase and failing to !onsider the eviden!e of the prose!ution in resolving the same, and in allegedly failing to follow the proper pro!edure as mandated by the %ules of Court. he % C !orre!tly ruled that the ) C did not abuse its dis!retion in dismissing the !riminal !omplaint. he ) C1s !on!lusions were based on fa!ts diligently re!ited in the order thereby disproving that the ) C failed to !onsider the eviden!e presented by the prose!ution. he re!ords also show that the ) C !orre!tly followed the pro!edure set forth in the %ules of Court.

D34 B+>C D3>

*enancio Aigueroa y Cervantes v. #eople of t2e #2ilippines , 2.%. &o. 13>364, 13 5uly +66/.

#eople v. "andigan'ayan, 3// =hil. +'., .16 (+663A, !iting #eople v. City of "ilay, &o. @-3.>'6, ' De!ember 1'>4, >3 SC%- +3>.
D3/ B+'C D3' B.6C

B+/C

*d. #eople v. !y, 2.%. &o. 1D/1D>, .6 September +66D, 3>1 SC%- 44/.

3D3

3DD

he se!ond issue is whether the Court of -ppeals erred in ordering the remand of the !ase of the matter of !ivil liability for the re!eption of eviden!e. 7e disagree with the Court of -ppeals on dire!ting the remand of the !ase to the % C for further pro!eedings on the !ivil aspe!t, as well as with the % C in dire!ting a similar remand to the ) C. he a!0uittal of the a!!used does not automati!ally pre!lude a 8udgment against him on the !ivil aspe!t of the !ase. he e(tin!tion of the penal a!tion does not !arry with it the e(tin!tion of the !ivil liability where: (aA the a!0uittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderan!e of eviden!e is re0uired" (bA the !ourt de!lares that the liability of the a!!used is only !ivil" and (!A the !ivil liability of the a!!used does not arise from or is not based upon the !rime of whi!h the a!!used is a!0uitted. DD6B.1C ,owever, the !ivil a!tion based on deli!t may be deemed e(tinguished if there is a finding on the final 8udgment in the !riminal a!tion that the a!t or omission from whi!h the !ivil liability may arise did not e(istDD1B.+C or where the a!!used did not !ommit the a!ts or omission imputed to him.DD+B..C hus, if demurrer is granted and the a!!used is a!0uitted by the !ourt, the a!!used has the right to addu!e eviden!e on the !ivil aspe!t of the !ase unless the !ourt also de!lares that the a!t or omission from whi!h the !ivil liability may arise did not e(ist. DD.B.3C his is be!ause when the a!!used files a demurrer to eviden!e, he has not yet addu!ed eviden!e both on the !riminal and !ivil aspe!ts of the !ase. he only eviden!e on re!ord is the eviden!e for the prose!ution. 7hat the trial !ourt should do is issue an order or partial 8udgment granting the demurrer to eviden!e and a!0uitting the a!!used, and set the !ase for !ontinuation of trial for the a!!used to addu!e eviden!e on the !ivil aspe!t of the !ase and for the private !omplainant to addu!e eviden!e by way of rebuttal. hereafter, the !ourt shall render 8udgment on the !ivil aspe!t of the !ase.DD3B.DC - s!rutiny of the ) C1s de!ision supports the !on!lusion that the a!0uittal was based on the findings that the a!t or omission from whi!h the !ivil liability may arise did not e(ist and that petitioner did not !ommit the a!ts or omission imputed to him" hen!e, petitioner1s !ivil liability has been e(tinguished by his a!0uittal. *t should be noted that the ) C
DD6 B.1C DD1 B.+C DD+ B..C DD. B.3C DD3 B.DC

Hun Hyung #ar@ v. Eung Don C2oi, 2.%. &o. 14D3'4, 1+ #ebruary +66>, D1D SC%- D6+, D1.. %?@9S <# C<?% , %ule 111, Se!. +, last par. "ala5ar v. #eople, 3D/ =hil. D63 (+66.A. *d. at 46>. *d. at D1/-D1'.

3DD

3D4

!ategori!ally stated that it !annot find any eviden!e whi!h would prove that a !rime had been !ommitted and that a!!used was the person responsible for it. *t added that the prose!ution failed to establish that it was petitioner who !ommitted the !rime as !harged sin!e its witnesses never identified petitioner as the one who was driving the !argo tru!k at the time of the in!ident. #urthermore, the ) C found that the pro(imate !ause of the a!!ident is the damage to the rear portion of the tru!k !aused by the swerving of the Colt 2alant into the rear left portion of the !argo tru!k and not the re!kless driving of the tru!k by petitioner, !learly establishing that petitioner is not guilty of re!kless impruden!e. Conse0uently, there is no more need to remand the !ase to the trial !ourt for pro!eedings on the !ivil aspe!t of the !ase, sin!e petitioner1s a!0uittal has e(tinguished his !ivil liability. LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL *t must be pointed out, however, that in 5EO5LE VS. TAM5AL, 922 SCRA 9;9 "') 5EO5LE VS. LEVISTE, 911 SCRA 936 , the SC reversed the dismissal of the !riminal !ase by the trial !ourt based on :speedy trial; sin!e the same was not predi!ated :on the !lear right of the a!!used to speedy trial.; *t is only when there is a !lear violation of the a!!used1s right to speedy trial that the dismissal results in double 8eopardy. .. Double 8eopardy, 16+ SC%- 33 and 1+ SC%- D41 3. 7hen the a!t is punished by both a law and an ordinan!e: 5EO5LE VS. RELOVA, 126 SCRA 999 *f the a!!used was !harged of :theft of ele!tri!ity; based on the City <rdinan!e of $atangas and not based on the %evised =enal Code and later on the !ase is dismissed by the 8udge due to the fa!t that the !rime has pres!ribed, the government !an no longer !harge the a!!used of the same !rime under the %evised =enal Code sin!e double 8eopardy has set in. %ead: 1. = vs. Duero, 163 SC%- .>' +. C?D*- FS. C-, +/3 SC%- 1>. .. C?*S<& FS. C-, +/' SC%- 1D' +. = vs. 5ara, 133 SC%- D14 .. = vs. -bano, 13D SC%- DDD 3. = vs. olentino, 13D SC%- D'> D. = vs. Salig, 1.. SC%- D' 4. = vs. CruG, 1.. SC%- 3+4 >. = vs. =rudente,, 1.. SC%- 4D1 / = vs. rinidad, 14+ SC%- >13, when the regularity does>, 1'44

presumption of

3D4

3D>

+. = vs. City Court,1D3 SC%- 1>D .. 2alman vs. =amaran, 133 SC%- 3. 3. = vs. )olero, 133 SC%- .'> D. = vs. Ruibate, 1.1 SC%- /1 4. = vs. <bania, 5une +',1'4/ >. Dionaldo vs. Da!uy!uy, 16/ SC%- >.4 /. = vs. 5udge ,ernando, 16/ SC%- 1+1 '. 9smena vs. 5udge =ogoy, 16+ SC%- /41 16. )aGo vs. )un. Court, 11. SC%- +1> 11. -ndres vs. Ca!da!, 11. SC%- +1> 1+. $uerano vs. C-, 11D SC%- /+ 1.. = vs. )ilitante, 11> SC%- '16 13. = vs. #uentebella, 166 SC%- 4>+ 1D. @aGaro vs. =, 11+ SC%- 3.6 14. #lores vs. 9nrile, 11D SC%- +.4 1>. $ernarte vs. Se!. ,114 SC%- 3. 1/. Mo $u @in vs. C-, 11/ SC%- D>. 1'. = vs. Duran, 16>D SC%- '>' +6. = vs. Cuevo, 163 SC%- .1+ +1. 5imeneG vs. )ilitary Commission, 16+ SC%- .' ++. = vs. @iwanag, >. SC%- 3>. +.. = vs. -raula, 5anuary .6, 1'/+ +3. = vs. $alad8ay, )ar!h .6, 1'/+ +D. = vs. City Court of Silay, >3 SC%- +3> +/. = vs. =ilpa, >' SC%- /1 +'. = vs. 2loria, De!ember +', 1'>> .6. = vs. 2alano, >D SC%- 1'. .1. a!as vs. Carias!o, >+ SC%- D+> .+. = vs. @edesma, >. SC%- >> ... = vs. Consulta, >6 SC%- +>> .3. = vs. *nting, >6 SC%- +/' .D. De 2uGman vs. 9s!alona, '> SC%- 41' .4. = vs. =ablo, '/ SC%- +/' .>. CruG vs. 9nrile, 146 SC%- >66 ./. angan vs. =, 1DD SC%- 3.D .'. = vs. RueGada, 146 SC%- D14 36. CaniGano vs. =, 1D' SC%- D'' 31. $ustamante vs. )a!eren, 3/ SC%- 133 here is no double 8eopardy in this !ase: 5EO5LE VS. MOLERO 2.% &o. @-4>/3+, September +3, 1'/4 .ACTSI
3D>

3D/

1. )olero was !harged for having raped his daughter. he original !omplaint was dated )ar!h ++, 1'>>, the !omplainant !harged )olero of having raped her on the H1.th day of #ebruary 1'>4H. +. )olero was arraigned and pleaded H&ot 2uiltyH" .. During the trial, the !omplainant testified that she was raped by her father on #ebruary D, 1'>4 and not #ebruary 1., 1'>4 as alleged in the !omplaint" 3. he #is!al filed a motion for leave to amend the !omplaint. he motion was granted but was subse0uently re!onsidered. he lower !ourt in its order dismissed the original !omplaint, but ordered the #is!al to !ause the filing of a new !omplaint !harging the proper offense of rape !ommitted on or before #ebruary D, 1'>4" D. - new !omplaint was therefore filed dated )ar!h .6, 1'>/ 4. )olero !laims that the new !omplaint pla!es him in double 8eopardy. HEL/I here is no double 8eopardy. a. Dismissal of the first !ase !ontemplated by the rule against double 8eopardy presupposes a definite and un!onditional dismissal whi!h terminates the !ase.,J"c" *7. 4l"'co, 66 5%il. 219+ 5eople *7. M"'l"p"7, 1 SCRA 663+ 5eople *7. Mo&ol, 131 SCRA 996! A') O(or )i7$i77"l #o 8e " 8"r u')er #%e Aeop"r)y cl"u7e o( #%e Co'7#i#u#io', i# $u7# %"*e #%e e((ec# o( "cCui##"l.,5eople *7. A&o'cillo, 2; SCRA 1 9!+ b. *t is 0uite !lear that the order of the trial !ourt dismissal the original !omplaint was without pre8udi!e to the filing of a new !omplaint andEor information !harging )olero with the proper offense. he said dismissal did not therefore amount to an a!0uittal. !. *n fa!t there was no need for the trial !ourt to have adopted su!h a !umbersome pro!edure. *t !ould have merely ordered an amendment of the !omplaint. Se!. 1+, %ule 11' of the %evised %ules of Court applies when there is a mistake in !harging the proper offense, but not when an honest error of a few days is sought to be !orre!ted and the !hange does not affe!t the rights of the a!!used. d. he pre!ise time of the !ommission of the !rime is not an essential element of the offense of rape. he amendment of the !omplaint !hanging the date of the !ommission of the !rime of rape from #ebruary 1., 1'>4 to
3D/

3D'

#ebruary D, 1'>4 , a differen!e of / days was only a matter of form under the fa!ts of this !ase and did not pre8udi!e the rights of the a!!used. e. he relian!e of the a!!used on the !ase of 5eople *7. Ope$i", 96 5%il. 696 i7 'o# wellG#"Le'. I' #%e 7"i) c"7e #%e propo7e) "$e')$e'# w"7 #%e c%"'&i'& o( #%e )"#e o( #%e co$$i77io' o( #%e cri$e (ro$ Ju'e 16, 1919 #o July 192 , or " )i((ere'ce o( 1 ye"r7. T%e S.C. %el) #%"# #%e "$e')$e'# #%"# woul) c%"'&e #%e )"#e o( #%e co$$i77io' o( #%e o((e'7e (ro$ 192 #o 1919 i7 cer#"i'ly 'o# " $"##er o( (or$. f. he dismissal of the first !omplaint did not amount to the appellantSs a!0uittal. *n effe!t, the order of dismissal does not !onstitute a proper basis for a !laim of double 8eopardy. ,5eople *7. 4oc"r, 136 SCRA 166! D. )ay the government appeal a 8udgment of a!0uittal or of the penalty imposedN &o. for the in!rease

=9<=@9 FS. ,<&. F9@-SC<, 2.%. &<. 1+>333, .36 SC%+6>, S9= . 1., +666. /ou8le Jeop"r)y. E*olu#io' o( )oc#ri'e. Appe"l 8y #%e :o*er'$e'# (ro$ *er)ic#7 o( "cCui##"l. A7 $"')"#e) 8y #%e Co'7#i#u#io', 7#"#u#e7 "') co&'"#e Auri7pru)e'ce, "' "cCui##"l i7 (i'"l "') u'"ppe"l"8le o' #%e &rou') o( )ou8le Aeop"r)y, w%e#%er i# %"ppe'7 "# #%e #ri"l cour# o( " Au)&$e'# o( "cCui##"l 8rou&%# 8e(ore #%e Supre$e Cour# o' cer#ior"ri c"''o# 8e %") u'le77 #%ere i7 " (i')i'& o( $i7#ri"l, "7 i' Gal(an !". 3andi*an4ayan. 6. M"y #%e "ppell"#e cour# o( #%e Supre$e Cour# i'cre"7e #%e per'"l#y i$po7e) 8y #%e #ri"l cour# o' "ppe"l 8y #%e "ccu7e)R Ye7. 5EO5LE VS. /OMI-:O, :.R. -o. 162323, M"rc% 9, 9;;9 -ppellant 5esus Domingo assails the De!isionDDDB1C of the Court of -ppeals dated .6 -pril +66/ in C--2.%. C% &o. .6D11, modifying the De!isionDD4B+C dated 1. &ovember +664 of $ran!h 1. of the %egional rial Court (% CA of )alolos, $ula!an. he Court of -ppeals found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder in Criminal Cases &o. 13'4-)+666 and &o. 13'>-)-+666, attempted murder in Criminal Cases &o.
DDD
B1C

DD4B+C

=enned by -sso!iate 5usti!e #ernanda @ampas =eralta with -sso!iate 5usti!es 9dgardo =. CruG and -polinario D. $ruselas, 5r., !on!urring" rollo, pp. +-+D. =enned by =residing 5udge -ndres $. Soriano" C- rollo, pp. 11-+..

3D'

346

13'/-)-+666 and &o. 1D61-)-+666, frustrated murder in Criminal Case &o. 1D66-)-+666, and frustrated homi!ide in Criminal Case &o. 13''-)+666. <n > September +666, appellant, with the assistan!e of !ounsel, was arraigned and he entered separate pleas of :&ot 2uilty; to the !rimes !harged. hereafter, pre-trial !onferen!e was held, and trial ensued a!!ordingly.DD>B3C he a!!used was !onvi!ted of ,omi!ide, instead of )urder. <n -ppeal to the Court of -ppeals, the C- held that the !rime proven by the prose!ution is )urder and therefore in!reased the penalty from ,omi!ide to )urder. I7 i'cre"7e i' #%e pe'"l#y *"li)R Ye7 8ec"u7e i# w"7 #%e "ccu7e) w%o i'#erpo7e) #%e "ppe"l $"Li'& #%e cour# re*iew #%e e*i)e'ce. A') i# i# (i')7 #%e e*i)e'ce 7u((icie'# (or co'*ic#io' o( #%e cri$e o( Mur)er, i# coul) i'cre"7e #%e pe'"l#y. %ead: 1. Central $ank of the =hilippines vs. C-, 2% &o. /, 1'/' 1-a. = vs. )ontemayor, 5anuary .6, 1'4', +4 SC%+. = vs. %uiG,/1 SC%- 3DD .. ?S vs. Jam ung 7ay, +1 =hil. 4> 3. = vs. -ng ho Mio, 'D =hil. 3>D 4. he HSupervening #a!t Do!trine.H %ead: 1. >4 SC%- 34' +. = vs. arok, >. =hil. +46 .. = vs. Fillasis, 34 <.2. +4/ 3. )elo vs. =eople, /D =hil. >44 D. = vs. $uling, 16> =hil. >1+ D-a. = vs. -dil, >4 SC%- 34+ D-b. =. vs. a!-an, 1/+ SC%- 461 4. = vs. City Court of )anila, 1+1 SC%- 4.> >. %ead also Se!. >, %ule 11>, 1'/D %ules on CHA#&E$ WWI
DD>B3C

31/D', )ar!h 4/>

Criminal =ro!edure

*d. at 1..

346

341

$I+H& A+AI("& EW-#O"& AAC&O LAD, ILL OA A&&AI(E$, E&C. %ead: 1. &uneG vs. Sandiganbayan, 111 SC%- 3.. +-@-CS<& FS. S-&D*2-&$-J-&, 5anuary +6, 1''' 5A-.ILO M. LACSO- VS. THE EEEC3TIVE SECRETARY, THE SA-/I:A-4AYA-, ET AL. ROMEO ACO5 H .RA-CISCO >34IA, JR., 5e#i#io'er7G I'#er*e'or7 :.R. -o. 196;96, J"'u"ry 9;, 1999 T%e pe#i#io'er 7eeL7 #o 7#op #%e S"')i&"'8"y"' (ro$ #ryi'& #%e $ul#iple $ur)er c"7e "&"i'7# %i$ "') 96 o#%er police o((icer7 (or #%e )e"#% o( 11 Fur"#o'& 4"lele'& $e$8er7 i' #%e e"rly $or'i'& o( M"y 16, 1991 "# Co$$o'we"l#% A*e'ue, MueJo' Ci#y. T%e police o((icer7 cl"i$e) #%"# i# w"7 " 7%oo#Gou# 8e#wee' #%e$ "') #%e Fur"#o'& 4"lele'& Me$8er7 w%ile S5O9 E)u"r)o )e lo7 Reye7 cl"i$e) i# w"7 " 7u$$"ry e@ecu#io' or ru8Gou#. he preliminary investigation !ondu!ted by the Deputy <mbudsman for )ilitary -ffairs resulted in the dismissal of the !ases after finding that the in!ident was :a legitimate poli!e operation.; ,owever, the %eview $oard led by Deputy <mbudsman #ran!is!o Filla resulted in the filing of multiple murder !ases against the petitioner and his !ompanion where he was indi!ted as a prin!ipal. ?pon motion by the petitioner and his !o-poli!e offi!ers with leave from the Sandiganbayan, a )otion for %e!onsideration was filed with the <ffi!e of the <mbudsman who -)9&D9D the 11 information1s on )ar!h 1, 1''4 !harging the petitioner , %<)9< -C<= and #%-&C*SC< O?$*-, 5%., as mere a!!essories. <n )ar!h D-4,1''4, the a!!used 0uestioned the 8urisdi!tion of the Sandiganbayan over the 11 !riminal !ases sin!e under %epubli! -!t &o. >'>D, parti!ularly Se!tion +, paragraphs BaC and B!C, the said !ourt has 8urisdi!tion only if one or more of the prin!ipal a!!used has a rank of $rigadier 2eneral (Chief SuperintendentA or higher and sin!e the highest =&= offi!er !harged as a prin!ipal a!!used is merely Chief *nspe!tor, the %egional rial Court of RueGon City has 8urisdi!tion to try and de!ide the same. <n )ay /, 1''4, the Sandiganbayan issued a %esolution transferring the !ase to the % C of RueGon City whi!h has original and
341

34+

e(!lusive 8urisdi!tion over the !ases under %- >'>D. <n )ay 1>, 1''4, the <ffi!e of the Spe!ial =rose!utor moved for a %e!onsideration and insisted that the !ases should remain with the Sandiganbayan whi!h was opposed by the petitioner and his !o-a!!used. 7hile the )otions for %e!onsideration were pending before the Sandiganbayan, Congress passed into law %epubli! -!t &o. /+3' whi!h was approved by the =resident on #ebruary D, 1''> entitled :-& -C #?% ,9% D9#*&*&2 ,9 5?%*SD*C *<& <# ,9 S-&D*2-&$-J-&, -)9&D*&2 #<% ,*S =?%=<S9 =D 1464, -S -)9&D9D, =%<F*D*&2 #?&DS ,9%9#<%; whi!h deleted the word :=%*&C*=-@; in Se!tion +, paragraphs BaC and B!C of %- >'>D thereby giving 8urisdi!tion to the Sandiganbayan !riminal !ases involving poli!e generals like the petitioners even though they are not !harged as prin!ipals but merely a!!essories or a!!ompli!es. he new law further provides that it shall be appli!able to all !ases whi!h are pending in !ourt before the passage of the same provided trial has not begun at the time of its approval. <n )ar!h D, 1''>, the Sandiganbayan issued its %esolution denying the )otion for %e!onsideration of the <ffi!e of the Spe!ial =rose!utor and ruled that it :stands pat in its %esolution dated )ay /, 1''4; ordering the transfer of the 11 !riminal !ases to the % C of RueGon City. <n the same day, however, the Sandiganbayan issued an -DD9&D?) to its )ar!h D, 1''> %esolution where it that with the passage of %- /+3', :the !ourt admitted the amended information1s in these !ases and by the unanimous vote of 3 with 1 neither !on!urring nor dissenting, retained 8urisdi!tion to try and de!ide the !ases;. he petitioner 0uestioned the said %esolution Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court on the following grounds: of the

1. their right to due pro!ess of law and e0ual prote!tion of the law was violated as a result of the appli!ation of the new law by whi!h restored to the Sandiganbayan 8urisdi!tion over their !ases espe!ially so that the Sandiganbayan has foot-dragged for ' months the resolution of the pending in!ident involving the transfer of these !ases to the % C of RueGon City and waited for the passage of the law to overtake su!h resolution and thereby rendering their vested rights under the old Sandiganbayan law moot" +. the retroa!tive appli!ation of the new law violates their !onstitutional right against e(-post fa!to law" .. the title of the law is misleading in that it !ontains the aforesaid inno!uous provisions in Se!tions 3 and > whi!h a!tually e(pands rather than defines
34+

34.

the old Sandiganbayan law thereby violating the one title one sub8e!t re0uirement of Se!tion +4 B1C -rti!le F* of the Constitution. he petitioners-intervenors !laimed that while the law (Se!tions 3 and >A inno!uously appears to have merely e(panded the 8urisdi!tion of the Sandiganbayan, it is in fa!t a !lass legislation and an e(-post fa!to law statute intended spe!ifi!ally to apply to all the a!!used in the Muratong $aleleng !ase pending before the Sandiganbayan. #inally, if their !ase will be tried by the Sandiganbayan, they will be deprived of their :two-tiered; appeal to the Sandiganbayan whi!h they a!0uire under %- >'>D before re!ourse to the Supreme Court !ould be made. ,eld: 1. he !ontention that the law violates petitioner1s right to due pro!ess and e0ual prote!tion of the law is too shallow to deserve merit. *t is an established pre!ept in !onstitutional law that the guaranty of the e0ual prote!tion of the laws is not violated by a legislation based on reasonable !lassifi!ation. he !lassifi!ation is reasonable and not arbitrary when there is !on!urren!e of four elements, namely: it must rest on real and substantial distin!tions" it must be germane to the purposes of the law" must not be limited to e(isting !onditions only" and must apply e0ually to all members of the same !lassall of whi!h are present in this !ase. he !lassifi!ation between those pending !ases involving !on!erned publi! offi!ials whose trial has not yet !ommen!ed and whose !ases !ould have been affe!ted by the amendments of the Sandiganbayan 8urisdi!tion under %- /+3', as against those whose !ases where trial has already started as of the approval of the law rests on substantial distin!tion that makes real differen!es. *n the 1st instan!e, eviden!e against them were not yet presented, whereas in the latter the parties have already submitted their respe!tive proofs, e(amined witnesses and presented do!uments. Sin!e it is within the power of Congress to define the 8urisdi!tion of the !ourts, it !an be reasonably anti!ipated that an alteration of that 8urisdi!tion ne!essarily affe!t pending !ases, whi!h is why it has to provide for a remedy in the form of a transitory provision. he transitory provision does not only !over !ases whi!h are in the Sandiganbayan but also in :any !ourt;. *t 8ust happened that the Muratong $aleleng !ases are one of those affe!ted by the law. )oreover, those !ases where trial has already begun are not affe!ted by the transitory provision under Se!tion > of the new law (%- /+3'A.

a. b. !. d.

34.

343

+.

he petitioners1 argument that the retroa!tive appli!ation of the new law to the Muratong $aleleng !ases !onstitutes an e( post fa!to law for they are deprived of their right to due pro!ess as they !an no longer avail of the two-tiered appeal whi!h they had allegedly a!0uired under %- >'>D is without merit. *n order that a law is an e( post fa!to law, the same must be oneX

". 8. c. ). e. (. &.

w%ic% $"Le7 "' "c# )o'e cri$i'"l 8e(ore #%e p"77i'& o( #%e l"w "') w%ic% w"7 i''oce'# w%e' co$$i##e), "') pu'i7%e7 7uc% "c#io'+ w%ic% "&&r"*"#e7 " cri$e or $"Le7 i# &re"#er #%"' w%e' i# w"7 co$$i##e)+ w%ic% c%"'&e7 #%e pu'i7%$e'# "') i'(lic#7 " &re"#er pu'i7%$e'# #%"' #%e l"w "''e@e) #o #%e cri$e w%e' i# w"7 co$$i##e)+ w%ic% "l#er7 #%e le&"l rule7 o( e*i)e'ce "') recei*e7 le77 or )i((ere'# #e7#i$o'y #%"' #%e l"w reCuire) " #%e #i$e o( #%e co$$i77io' o( #%e o((e'7e i' or)er #o co'*ic# #%e )e(e')"'#+ e*ery l"w w%ic%, i' rel"#io' #o #%e o((e'7e or i#7 co'7eCue'ce7, "l#er7 #%e 7i#u"#io' o( " per7o' #o %i7 )i7")*"'#"&e+ #%"# w%ic% "77u$e7 #o re&ul"#e ci*il ri&%#7 "') re$e)ie7 8u# i' e((ec# i$po7e7 " pe'"l#y or )epri*"#io' o( " ri&%# w%ic% w%e' )o'e w"7 l"w(ul+ )epri*e7 " per7o' "ccu7e) o( " cri$e o( 7o$e l"w(ul pro#ec#io' #o w%ic% %e %"7 8eco$e e'#i#le), 7uc% "7 #%e pro#ec#io' o( " (or$er co'*ic#io' or "cCui##"l, or " procl"$"#io' o( "$'e7#y ,FAY VILLE:AS FAMI, 31 SCRA 299+ MEJIA VS. 5AMARA-, 16; SCRA 21 + TA- VS. 4ARRIOS, 19; SCRA 666+ 5EO5LE VS. SA-/I:A-4AYA-, 911 SCRA 921!. 9( post fa!to law prohibits the retrospe!tivity of penal laws. %/+3' is not a penal law. *t is a substantive law on 8urisdi!tion whi!h is not penal in !hara!ter. he other !ontention that their right to a two-tiered appeal whi!h they a!0uired under %- >'>D has been diluted by the ena!tment of %/+3' is in!orre!t. he same !ontention had been re8e!ted by the !ourt several times in the !ases of %<D%*2?9O FS. S-&D*2-&$-J-&, +6D =hil. D4>" -@F*-% FS. S-&D*2-&$-J-&, 1.> SC%- 4." &?&9O FS. S-&D*2-&$-J-&, 111 SC%- 3.." D9 2?O)-& FS. =9<=@9, De!ember 1D, 1'/+ !onsidering that the right to appeal is not a natural right but statutory in nature that !an be regulated by law. he mode of pro!edure provided for in the statutory right of appeal is not in!luded in the prohibition against e( post fa!to laws. )oreover, the new law did not alter the rules of eviden!e or the mode of trial.

343

34D

..

he !ontention that the new Sandiganbayan law violates the one title-one sub8e!t provision of the Constitution is without merit. he petitioners !laim that the new does not define the 8urisdi!tion of the Sandiganbayan but e(pands the same. $ut even assuming that that is true, the e(pansion of the 8urisdi!tion, does not have to be e(pressly stated in the title of the law be!ause su!h is the ne!essary !onse0uen!e of the amendments. he re0uirement that every bill must only have one sub8e!t e(pressed in the title is satisfied if the title is !omprehensive enough, as in this !ase, to in!lude sub8e!ts related to the general purpose whi!h the statute seeks to a!hieve. he Congress, in employing the word :define; in the title of the law, a!ted within its power sin!e Se!tion +, -rti!le F*** of the Constitution itself empowers the legislative body to :define, pres!ribe and apportion the 8urisdi!tion of various !ourts. (&< 9: hough the Supreme Court re8e!ted all the above arguments raised by the petitioner and the intervenors who are against the trial of their !ases with the Sandiganbayan and prefer to have their !ases be tried and de!ided by the % C of RueGon City, they got what they want in the end be!ause it was held that the 11 !riminal information1s failed to alleged that they !ommitted the !rimes in relation to their publi! offi!e whi!h is a 8urisdi!tional re0uirement in order that the same be tried by the Sandiganbayan. #inally, sometime in )ay, 1''', the RueGon City % C to whom the said !ases were raffled D*S)*SS9D the 11 murder !ases as a result of the retra!tion made by the eyewitnesses. he same was revived by the D<5 in -pril, +661. he same was returned to the RC % C to determine if the +-year provisional rule under the +666 %ules on Criminal =ro!edure is appli!ableA +.a. May Fillegas Mami, .D SC%- 3+' .. Seville8a vs. C<)9@9C, 16> SC%- 131 3. = vs. #errer, 34 P D4 SC%D. an vs. $arrios, <!tober 1/, 1''6

34D