Roco vs Contreras

Facts: Domingo Roco was engaged in the business of buying and selling dressed
chicken. Sometime in 1993, he purchased his supply of dressed chicken from private
respondent Cals Poultry Supply Corporation (Cals Corporation, for short), a domestic
corporation controlled and managed by one Danilo Yap. As payment for his purchases,
Roco drew five (5) checks payable to Cals Corporation against his account with the
Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB). Cals Corporation deposited the
checks in its account with PCIB but the bank dishonored them for having been drawn
against a closed account. Thereafter, Cals Corporation filed criminal complaints against
petitioner for violation of Batas Pambasa Blg. 22 (BP 22), otherwise known as the
Bouncing Checks Law. fter preliminary investigation, five (5) informations for violation of
BP 22 were filed against Roco before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Roxas
City, thereat docketed as Crim. Cases No. 94-2172-12 to 94-2176-12, all of which were
raffled to Branch 2 of said court but even before trial could commence, Roco filed with
the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) at Iloilo City a denunciation letter against Cals
Corporation for the latters alleged violation of Section 258 in relation to Section 263 of
the National Internal Revenue Code in that it failed to issue commercial invoices on its
sales of merchandise. Upon BIRs investigation, it was found that Cals Corporations
sales on account were unavoidable, hence, the corporation had to defer the issuance of
Sales Invoices until the purchases of its customers were paid in full and the
investigation disclosed that the same could not, as yet, be issued by the corporation
precisely because the checks drawn and issued by him in payment of his purchases
were dishonored by PCIB for the reason that the checks were drawn against a closed
account. Accordingly, the BIR found noprima facia evidence of tax evasion against Cals
Corporation then trial of the criminal cases proceeded. After the prosecution rested, the
MTCC declared the cases submitted for decision on account of Roco failure to adduce
evidence in his behalf. Later, the same court rendered a judgment of conviction against
Roco.

Issue: Whether the subpoena calls for the production of specific

documents, or rather for specific proof
Held: The issuance of a subpoena duces tecum, it must appear, by clear and
unequivocal proof, that the book or document sought to be produced contains
evidence relevant and material to the issue before the court, and that the precise book,
paper or document containing such evidence has been so designated or described that
it may be identified. oing by established precedents, it thus behooves the petitioner to
first prove, to the satisfaction of the court, the relevancy and the definiteness of the
books and documents he seeks to be brought before it. Admittedly, the books and
documents that petitioner requested to be subpoenaed are designated and described in
his request with definiteness and readily identifiable. The test of definiteness, therefore,
is satisfied in this case. It is, however, in the matter of relevancy of those books and

documents to the pending criminal cases that petitioner miserably failed to discharge his
burden. We stress that the gravamen of the offense under BP 22 is the act of making or
issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentment for
payment. The offense is already consummated from the very moment a person issues a
worthless check, albeit payment of the value of the check, either by the drawer or by the
drawee bank, within five (5) banking days from notice of dishonor given to the drawer is
a complete defense because the prima facie presumption that the drawer had
knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds or credit at the time of the issuance of the
check and on its presentment for payment is thereby rebutted by such payment. Here,
Roco would want it appear that the books and documents subject of his request for
subpoena duces tecum are indispensable, or, at least, relevant to prove his innocence.
The Court disagrees. We do not find any justifiable reason, and petitioner has not
shown any, why this Court must have to disbelieve the factual findings of the appellate
court. In short, the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum or ad testificandum to compel
the attendance of Vivian Deocampo or Danilo Yap of Cals Corporation or their duly
authorized representatives, to testify and bring with them the records and documents
desired by the petitioner, would serve no purpose but to further delay the proceedings in
the pending criminal cases.

Jackson vs Macalino
Jackson vs. Macalino Facts: Am information was filed against an American citizen, Raymond Jackson for
violation of Article 176 of the Revised Penal Code. Summary deportation proceedings were initiated at the
Commission of Immigration and Deportation (CID) against the petitioner. However, he could not be
deported because he filed a petition to lift the summary order of deportation with the CID which had not
yet been resolved. The CID then issued an order for his arrest for being an undesirable alien, based on
the hold departure order in one of the criminal cases. Jackson filed a petition for habeas corpus against
the Commissioner of the CID. The court directed its issuance as well as a return of the writ by the
respondents. In their return , the respondents alleged inter alia that the detention was on the basis of the
summary deportation order issued and the hold departure order of the Makati RTC. Issue: WON the
Commissioner of the CID can
issue warrants of arrest and if so, WON such warrants can only be issued to enforce a final order of
deportation.

Held: The ultimate purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to relieve a person from unlawful restraint. It is
essentially a writ of inquiry and is granted to test the right under which he is detained. The term court
includes quasi-judicial bodies like the Deportation Board of the Bureau of Immigration. As a general rule,
the burden of proving illegal restraint by the respondents rests on the petitioner who attaches such
restraints. Whether the return sets forth process where on its face shows good ground for the detention of
the petitioner, it is incumbent on him to allege and prove new matter that tends to invalidate the apparent
effects of such process. If it appears that the detained person is in custody under a warrant of
commitment in pursuance of law, the return shall be considered prima facie evidence of the cause of
restraint. In this case, based on the return of the writ by the respondents, Jackson was arrested and
detained based on the order of the BOC which had become final and executory. His passports were also
cancelled by the US consul on the ground that they were tampered with. Based on previous
jurisprudence, such constitute sufficient grounds for the arrest and deportation of aliens from the
Philippines. Hence, the petition was dismissed.

In re: Issuance of Habeas Corpus

FACTS:
The case is an application for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus on behalf of 14 detainees. Sabino
Padilla and 8 others out of the 14 detainees were then having a conference in the dining room at Dr.
Parong's residence. Prior thereto, all the 14 detainees were under surveillance as they were then
identified as members of the Communist Party of the Philippines. engaging in subversive activities. They
were arrested and later transferred to a facility only the PCs know, hence, the present petition of Josefina,
mother
of
Sabina,
for
writ
of
habeas
corpus.
ISSUE:
Whether

or

not

the

arrests

done

to

the

present

detainees

are

valid

HELD:
The suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus raises a political, not a judicial, question and that
the right to bail cannot be invoked during such a period. PD 1836 and LOI 1211 have vested, assuming a
law is necessary, in the President the power of preventive arrest incident to the suspension of the
privilege of the writ. In addition, however, it should be noted that the PCO has been replaced by
Preventive Detention Action (PDA) pursuant to PD 1877. As provided for in the said decree, a PDA
constitute an authority to arrest and preventively detain persons committing the aforementioned crimes,
for a period of one year, with the cause or causes of their arrest subjected to review by the President or
the by the Review Committee created for the purpose.

Padua vs Ericta
FACTS : Domingo Padua, petioner sought to recover damages for the injures suffered by his eightyear old daughter, Luzviminda, caused by her being hit by a truck driven by Rundio Abjaeto and
owned by Antonio G. Ramos. Padua was litigating in forma pauperis. Trial of the case having been
set in due course, Padua commenced presentation of his evidence on December 6, 1973. He gave
testimony on direct exqmination in the course of which reference was made to numerous
documents. At the close of his examination, and on motion of defendants' counsel, the previously
scheduled hearing of December 12, 1973 was cancelled, and Padua's cross-examination was reset
on December 17, 1973. However, the hearing of December 17,1973 was also cancelled, again at the
instance of defendants' counsel, who pleaded sickness as ground therefor; and trial was once more
slated to "take place on March 6, March 7 and 13, 1974, all at 9:00 o'clock in the morning." After
defendants' attorney had twice sought and obtained cancellation of trial settings, as narrated, it was
plaintiff Padua's counsel who next moved for cancellation of a hearing date. In a motion dated and
filed on March 1, 1974, Padua's counsel alleged that he had "another hearing on March 6, 1974 in

Tarlac and that the cancellation would "at any rate ... leave plaintiff and defendants two (2) hearing
dates on March 7 and 13, 1974;" and on these premises, he asked "that the hearing on March 6,
1974 ... be ordered cancelled." No opposition was filed by the defendants to the motion. Apart from
filing this motion on March 1, 1974, plaintiffs counsel took the additional step of sending his client's
wife to the Court on the day of the trial, March 6,1974, to verbally reiterate his application for
cancellation of the hearing on that day. This, Mrs. Padua did. The respondent Judge however denied
the application and dismissed the case. Padua moved for reconsideration, but this was denied.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE : Whether or not the respondent judge erred in dismissing the case on the ground that it
violates the right to a speedy disposition of cases.
RULING: Courts should not brook undue delays in the ventilation and determination of causes. It
should be their constant effort to assure that litigations are prosecuted and resolved with dispatch.
Postponements of trials and hearings should not be allowed except on meritorious grounds; and the
grant or refusal thereof rests entirely in the sound discretion of the Judge. It goes without saying,
however, that that discretion must be reasonably and wisely exercised, in the light of the attendant
circumstances. Some reasonable deferment of the proceedings may be allowed or tolerated to the
end that cases may be adjudged only after full and free presentation of evidence by all the parties,
specially where the deferment would cause no substantial prejudice to any part. The desideratum of
a speedy disposition of cases should not, if at all possible, result in the precipitate loss of a party's
right to present evidence and either in plaintiff's being non-suited or the defendant's being
pronounced liable under an ex parte judgment. Judge's action was unreasonable, capricious and
oppressive, and should be as it is hereby annulled.

People vs Gallarde
Facts: Radel Gallarde was charged with the special complex crime of rape with homicide. He was
accused of causing such harm to a ten year old Editha Talan, since according to witnesses, he was the
last person seen talking to the child, the night before her death. Also, the when they were looking for her,
Gallarde was seen several meters where Editha's slipper was found, with his hands and knees covered
with soil. The child's body was later found in the same area. During trial, the court rejected photographs of
Gallarde immediately after the incident on the ground that "the same were taken while was already under
the mercy of the police." Still, based on circumstantial evidence, he was convictedof the crime of murder
only, not of the complex crime of rape with homicide because of the lack of proof of carnal knowledge.
Issue: WON Gallarde's constitutional right against self-incrimination was violated.
Held: No. The taking of pictures of an accused even without the assistance of counsel, being a purely
mechanical act, is not a violation of his constitutional right against selfincrimination.The constitutional right
of an accused against self-incrimination proscribes the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
communications from the accused and not the inclusion of his body in evidence when it may be material.
Purely mechanical acts are not included in the prohibition as the accused does not thereby speak his
guilt, hence the assistance and guiding hand of counsel is not required. The essence of the right against
self-incrimination is testimonial compulsion, that is, the giving of evidence against himself through a
testimonial act.