DUE PROCESS

Penned by: Justice Peralta

ARROYO VS DOJ

Facts
On Aug. 2, 2011 the COMELEC issued
Resolution No. 9266 approving the creation of
a committee jointly with DOJ which shall
counduct PI on the alleged election offenses
and anomalies committed during the 2004
2007 elections
The Committee was composed of a Joint
Committee and a Fact Finding Team
In its initial report, the fact finding team
concluded that manipulation of the results in
the May 14. 2007 elections in the provinces of
North and South Cotabato and Maguindanao
were indeed perpetuated.

 On Nov. 16, 2011 the Joint Committee

promulgated a joint resolution which was later
approved and adopted by the COMELEC,
wherein it ordered that information be filed
against GMA, Abalos and others for Violation
of Sec 42 (b) (3) of RA 9369
Electoral Sabotage by "(3) Any and all other
forms or tampering increase/s and/ or
decrease/s of votes perpetuated or in cases of
refusal to credit the correct votes or deduct
the tampered votes, where the total votes
involved exceed ten thousand (10,000) votes;

 Petitioners contend that the joint panel does

not possess the required cold neutrality of an
impartial judge because it is all at once the
evidence gatherer, prosecutor and judge.
Respondent however assails that petitioners
failed to present proof that the president,
secretary of justice and the COMELEC
commissioner actually made statements
allegedly prejudging their case and in the
context in which they interpreted them
The joint committee and Fact Finding
committee are separate and cannot be
regarded as one

ISSUE
W/N
the
joint
DOJ-COMELEC
Preliminary Investigation Committee
and Fact Finding Team violated the
Due
Process
clause
in
the
Constitution.

RULING
NO. There was no showing that the
statements claimed to have prejudiced the
case against petitioners are made by Sec. De
Lima and Chairman Brillantes or were in the
prejudicial context in which petitioners
demand the statements were made.
There was no proof or even an allegation that
the joint committee itself, tasked to conduct PI
against petitioners, made biased statements
that would convey to the public that members
were favoring a particular party

 It must be emphasized that the Joint

Order No. 001-2011 created 2
bodies, therefore it is inaccurate to
say there is only one body which
acted as evidence gatherer,
prosecutor and judge

Penned by : Justice Fernandedo

VELASCO VS VILLEGAS

FACTS
The City of Manila enacted an
ordinance
that
prohibits
any
barbershop to conduct the business
of massaging customers or other
persons in any adjacent room or
rooms of said barbershop or any
room or rooms of the same building
where the barber shop is located as
long as the operator of the
barbershop and the room where

ISSUE
W/N the prohibition amounts to a
deprivation of property of the
petitioners-appellants of their means
of livelihood without Due Process of
the law

RULING
NO. The court has been liberal in
sustaining ordinances based on the
General Welfare clause.
The attack against the validity
cannot succeed since the ordinance
is a valid exercise of Police Powers
The objectives behind the enactment
are:

 To be able to impose payment of

license fee for engaging in the
business of massage clinic
To forestall possible immorality which
might grow out of the construction of
separate
rooms
for
massage
customers

Penned by: Justice Villarama

PEOPLE VS SORIA

FACTS
On Feb. 26, 2000 while AAA was resting in
the bedroom, her father entered, positioned
himself on top of her, took off his clothes
and inserted his penis to her vagina.
AAA then felt an intense pain which she told
her father. At that point the latter
apologized, stood up and left the room
The whole incident was witnessed by AAAs
brother BBB who told her that it was their
fathers penis which was inserted to her.

 Medicolegal findings concluded that

there are no signs of physical trauma
and victim is still a virgin.
Trial Court convicted accused and
sentenced him to death while CA
convicted him of simple rape and
sentenced him to reclusion perpetua
die to the absence of proof that AAA
is a minor.

 W/N Failure of the victim to identify

the object inserted to her vagina
negates the claims of rape

RULING
NO. The law does not require the
victim to identify the object inserted
to her
To require AAA to identify the
particular instrument or object
inserted to her vagina violates the
tenets of the Due Process