Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ISSUE
Whether or not being a Congressman is a substantial differentiation which
removes the accused-appellant as a prisoner from the same class as all
persons validly confined under law by reason of the mandate of the
sovereign will.
RULING
NO. While the Constitution guarantees: x x x nor shall any person be denied
the equal protection of laws., this simply means that all persons similarly
situated shall be treated alike both in rights enjoyed and responsibilities
imposed. The duties imposed by the mandate of the people are multifarious.
The Court cannot validate badges of inequality. The necessities imposed by
public welfare may justify exercise of government authority to regulate even if
Central Bank Employees Association vs BSP GR 148208 15
December 2004 operation of the last proviso of Section 15(c). Legal history shows that
ISSUE:
HELD:
ISSUE:
Whether or not the acts done by the respondents are
violative of the Bill of Rights and thus the evidence
obtained therein inadmissible in court
HELD:
The precarious state of lawlessness in Zamboanga at
the time in question did not excuse the non-
observance of the constitutional guarantee against
unreasonable searches and seizures. At the time of
the zona the petitioners were merely suspected of
the mayors slaying and had not been in fact
investigated. Every person is entitled due process.
The respondents defied the precept that civilian
authority is at all times supreme over the military
so clearly proclaimed in the Constitution. The
respondents simply by-passed civil courts which had
the authority to determine whether or not there was
David v. Arroyo power by issuing decrees. It follows that these
GR No. 171396; May 3, 2006 decrees are void and, therefore, cannot be enforced.
With respect to "laws", she cannot call the military to
FACTS: enforce or implement certain laws such as customs
President Arroyo issued PP1017 declaring a state of laws, laws governing family and property relations,
national emergency. This case covers the seven laws on obligations and contracts, and the like. She
consolidated petitions for cetiorari assailing the can only order the military under PP1017, to enforce
constitutionality of PP1017 and General Order No. 5 laws pertinent to its duty to suppress lawless
implementing the former. it is alleged that in doing violence.
so, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo committed
grave abuse of discretion and that respondent
officials of the Government, in their professed efforts
to defend and preserve democratic institutions are
actually trampling upon the very freedom
guaranteed and protected by the constitution.
ISSUE:
Whether or not PP1017 and GO No. 5 are
constitutional
HELD:
The assailed PP1017 is unconstitutional insofar as it
grants President Arroyo the authority to promulgate
decrees. legislative power is peculiarly within the
province of the Legislature, Section 1, Article VI
categorically states that "the legislative power shall
be vested in the Congress of the Philippines, which
shall consist of a Senate and a House of
Representatives". To be sure, neither martial law nor
a state of rebellion nor a state of emergency can
justify President Arroyo's exercise of legislative
Mata v Bayona produce and take their depositions in writing, and attach them to the
G.R. No. L-50720, 26 March 1984 record, in addition to any affidavits presented to him?
FACTS: HELD:YES. Under the Constitution no search warrant shall issue but
Soriano Mata was accused under Presidential Decree (PD) 810, as upon probable cause to be determined by the Judge or such other
amended by PD 1306, the information against him alleging that Soriano responsible officer as may be authorized by law after examination under
Mata offered, took and arranged bets on the Jai Alai game by selling oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce.
illegal tickets known as Masiao tickets without any authority from the More emphatic and detailed is the implementing rule of the constitutional
Philippine Jai Alai & Amusement Corporation or from the government injunction, The Rules provide that the judge must before issuing the
authorities concerned. Mata claimed that during the hearing of the case, warrant personally examine on oath or affirmation the complainant
he discovered that nowhere from the records of the said case could be and any witnesses he may produce and take their depositions in
found the search warrant and other pertinent papers connected to the writing, and attach them to the record, in addition to any affidavits
issuance of the same, so that he had to inquire from the City Fiscal its presented to him. Mere affidavits of the complainant and his
whereabouts, and to which inquiry Judge Josephine K. Bayona, presiding witnesses are thus not sufficient. The examining Judge has to take
Judge of the City Court of Ormoc replied, it is with the court. The Judge depositions in writing of the complainant and the witnesses he may
then handed the records to the Fiscal who attached them to the records. produce and to attach them to the record. Such written deposition is
This led Mata to file a motion to quash and annul the search warrant and necessary in order that the Judge may be able to properly determine the
for the return of the articles seized, citing and invoking, among others, existence or nonexistence of the probable cause, to hold liable for perjury
Section 4 of Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court. The motion was the person giving it if it will be found later that his declarations are false.
denied by the Judge on 1 March 1979, stating that the court has made a We, therefore, hold that the search warrant is tainted with illegality by the
thorough investigation and examination under oath of Bernardo U. Goles failure of the Judge to conform with the essential requisites of taking the
and Reynaldo T. Mayote, members of the Intelligence Section of 352nd depositions in writing and attaching them to the record, rendering the
PC Co./Police District II INP; that in fact the court made a certification to search warrant invalid.
that effect; and that the fact that documents relating to the search warrant
were not attached immediately to the record of the criminal case is of no
moment, considering that the rule does not specify when these documents
are to be attached to the records. Matas motion for reconsideration of the
aforesaid order having been denied, he came to the Supreme Court, with
the petition for certiorari, praying, among others, that the Court declare the
search warrant to be invalid for its alleged failure to comply with the
requisites of the Constitution and the Rules of Court, and that all the
articles confiscated under such warrant as inadmissible as evidence in the
case, or in any proceedings on the matter.
ISSUE: WON the judge must before issuing the warrant personally
examine on oath or affirmation the complainant and any witnesses he may
Kho vs Makalintal questioned search warrants was based on the personal knowledge of
G.R. No. 94902-06. April 21, 1999 the applicants and their witnesses.
In the case of Central Bank v. Morfe (20 SCRA 507), this Court ruled that
the question of whether or not a probable cause exists is one which must
Facts: be determined in light of the conditions obtaining in given
Petitioners sought to restrain the respondent NBI from using the situations. In Luna v. Plaza (26 SCRA 310), it held that the existence of
objects seized by virtue of such warrants in any case or cases filed or a probable cause depends to a large extent upon the finding or opinion
to be filed against them and to return immediately the said items, of the judge who conducted the required examination of the applicants
including the firearms, ammunition and explosives, radio and the witnesses.
communication equipment, hand sets, transceivers, two units of After a careful study, the Court discerns no basis for disturbing the
vehicles and motorcycle. findings and conclusions arrived at by the respondent Judge after
Petitioners question the issuance of subject search warrants, theorizing examining the applicants and witnesses. Respondent judge had the
upon the absence of any probable cause therefor. They contend that singular opportunity to assess their testimonies and to find out their
the surveillance and investigation conducted by NBI agents within the personal knowledge of facts and circumstances enough to create a
premises involved, prior to the application for the search warrants under probable cause. The Judge was the one who personally examined the
controversy, were not sufficient to vest in the applicants personal applicants and witnesses and who asked searching questions vis-a-vis
knowledge of facts and circumstances showing or indicating the the applications for search warrants. He was thus able to observe and
commission of a crime by them (petitioners). determine whether subject applicants and their witnesses gave
accurate accounts of the surveillance and investigation they conducted
Issue: Whether petitioners contention of the absence of probable cause at the premises to be searched. In the absence of any showing that
in the given situation is tenable. respondent judge was recreant of his duties in connection with the
personal examination he so conducted on the affiants before him, there
Held: Petitioners contention is untenable. Records show that the NBI is no basis for doubting the reliability and correctness of his findings
agents who conducted the surveillance and investigation testified and impressions.
unequivocably that they saw guns being carried to and unloaded at the
two houses searched, and motor vehicles and spare parts were stored
therein. In fact, applicant Max B. Salvador declared that he personally People vs Olaes GR No 11166 105 Phil 502 17 April 1959
attended the surveillance together with his witnesses (TSN, May 15,
1990, pp. 2-3), and the said witnesses personally saw the weapons
Fact: Bus No 64 of Laguna Transportation Company was on the
being unloaded from motor vehicles and carried to the premises
referred to. NBI Agent Ali Vargas testified that he actually saw the road when at about 4:00 am in the morning of 9 November 1954
firearms being unloaded from a Toyota Lite-Ace van and brought to the when an armed man later identified as Cosme Isip hailed the bus to
aformentioned house in BF Homes, Paranaque because he was there
inside the compound posing as an appliance agent (TSN, May 15, stop. Driver Feliciano Limosnero slowed down and seven other
1990, pp. 4-5). It is therefore decisively clear that the application for the armed men emerged from the left side. Convinced that the eight
are not passengers but robbers Limosnero sped away and the eight Olaes contened that he was sleeping at his house at the time the
started firing at the bus. A shot grazed Limosneros heaf, another incident happened and that Inobio has a grudge against him and
struck the shoulder of passenger Elena Loyola who would have died just trying to implicate him. He also contended that Inobio failed to
if she had not been given medical attention and another hit the identify him when he led the team of Lt Ver to Inobios house
back of passenger Maria Argame who was pronounced dead on during investigation. This was disputed by Lt Ver as he learned later
arrival in the hospital. Passenger Mariano Inobio identified and that Inobio revealed already to PC detachment commander the
testified against Eugenio Olaes his barriomate as one of the men involvement of Olaes.
who apperead after Isip. Cour of First Instance rendered Olaes guity
of attempted robbery with homicide and attempted homicide.
Issue: Whether or not CFI rendered correct indictment against
Olaes.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent should be found guilty of the
administrative charge of "gross and immoral conduct."
HELD:
Benevolent neutrality recognizes that government must pursue
its secular goals and interests but at the same time strives to
uphold religious liberty to the greatest extent possible within
flexible constitutional limits. Thus, although the morality
petitioners freedom of speech and free exercise of religion.
Iglesia ni Cristo v CA 259 SCRA 529 (1996) Respondent board cannot censor the speech of petitioner Iglesia ni
Cristo simply because it attacks other religions. It is only where it is
Facts: unavoidably necessary to prevent an immediate and grave danger
This is a petition for review on the decision of the CA affirming to the security and welfare of the community that infringement of
action of respondent Board of Review For Moving Pictures and religious freedom may be justified. There is no showing whatsoever
Television that x-rated the TV Program "Ang Iglesia ni Cristo" of the type of harm the tapes will bring about especially the gravity
classifying it not for public viewing on grounds that they offend and and imminence of the threatened harm. Prior restraint on speech,
constitute an attack against other religions which is expressly including religious speech, cannot be justified by hypothetical fears
prohibited by law. Respondent contends the Board acted without but only by the showing of a substantive and imminent evil. Thus
jurisdiction and in grave abuse of discretion by requiring them to the court affirmed the jurisdiction of the Board to review the
submit VTR tapes and x-rating them and suppression of freedom of petitioners TV program while it reversed and set aside the decision
expression. Trial court rendered judgment ordering the Board to of the lower court that sustained the act of respondent in x-rating
give petitioner the permit for their TV program while ordering the TV program of the petitioner.
petitioners to refrain from attacking and offending other religious
sectors from their program. In their motion for reconsideration the 2 fold aspects of religious profession and worship namely:
petitioner prays for the deletion of the order of the court to make 1. Freedom to believe (absolute)
them subject to the requirement of submitting the VTR tapes of 1. Freedom to act on ones belief where an individual
their programs for review prior to showing on television. Such externalizes his beliefs in acts or omissions affecting the
motion was granted. Respondent board appealed before the CA public, this freedom to do so becomes subject to the
which reversed the decision of the lower court affirming the regulation authority of the state.
jurisdiction and power of the board to review the TV program. In
their petition for review on certiorari, petitioner assails the
jurisdiction of the Board over reviewing of their TV program and its
grave abuse of discretion of its power to review if they are indeed
vested with such.
Issue: whether or not the Board has jurisdiction over the case at
bar and whether or not it has acted with grave abuse of discretion.