Subject: Political Law

Cases: ARTICLE 6 Sec. 1 Phil. Judges Association vs. Makalintal vs. COMELEC Abakada Guru vs. Purisima G.R No./SCRA/Phil. Rep Doctrine

G.R No. 166715 (August 13, 2008)

The Constitution does not require that things which are different in fact be treated in law as though they were the same. The equal protection clause does not forbid discrimination as to things that are different. It does not prohibit legislation which is limited either in the object to which it is directed.

Sec. 5 Ang Bagong Bayani vs. Comelec Veterans Federation Party vs. COMELEC

G.R No. 147589 ( June 26,2001) G.R No. 1,36781 (October 6,2008)

Labo vs. COMELEC

Congress was vested with the broad power to define and prescribe the mechanics of the party-list system of representation. The Constitution explicitly set down only the percentage of the total membership in the House of Representatives reserved for party-list representatives. In an election, the 2nd placer has no right to take the contested public office if the winner is disqualified AFTER the election. But if the decision of disqualification is made BEFORE the election yet the people still voted for the disqualified candidate then the 2nd highest vote getter may be proclaimed as the winner. The votes casted in favor of the highest vote getter, in this case, will be considered as stray votes. Only Congress can create provinces and cities because the creation of provinces and cities necessarily includes the creation of legislative districts, a power only Congress can exercise under Section5, Article VI of the Constitution ad Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution. The ARMM

Grego vs. Comelec Sema vs. COMELEC

G.R No. 177597 (July 16,2008)

I was not delivered in this world in defeat, nor does failure run in my veins. I am not a Sheep waiting to be prodded by my shepherded. I am a Lion and I refuse to talk, to walk, to sleep, with the sheep. I will hear not those who weep and complain, for their disease is contagious. Let them join the sheep. THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE IS NOT MY DESTINY-og mandino

Regional Assembly cannot create a province without a legislative district because the Constitution mandates that every province shall have a legislative district. Sec. 11 Pp. vs. Jalosjos G.R Nos. 132875-76 (February 3,2000) 109 Phil. 863,868-69 (1960) Members of the Congress are not exempt from detention for crime. They may be arrested, even when the House is in session, for crimes punishable by a penalty of more than six months. There is no basis for treating him different from other convincts. Truth is not an action for libel or slander.+

Osmea, Jr. vs. Pendatun Borjal vs. CA Sec. 17-18 Marcos vs. COMELEC Guerrero vs. COMELEC Sec. 21 Bengzon,Jr. vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Standard Charter vs. Senate Arnault vs. Nazareno

203 SCRA 767 (1991) G.R No. 167173 ( Dec. 27,2007) 87 Phil. 29,45 (1950)

It is the inherent right of the Senate to impose penalty in carrying out their duty to conduct inquiry in aid of legislation. But it must be herein established that a witness who refuses to answer a query by the Committee may be detained during the term of the members imposing said penalty but the detention should not be too long as to violate the witness right to due process of law.

Subject: Persons and Family Relations

Cases: C3: System of Absolute
I was not delivered in this world in defeat, nor does failure run in my veins. I am not a Sheep waiting to be prodded by my shepherded. I am a Lion and I refuse to talk, to walk, to sleep, with the sheep. I will hear not those who weep and complain, for their disease is contagious. Let them join the sheep. THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE IS NOT MY DESTINY-og mandino

G.R No./SCRA/Phil. Rep

Doctrine

Community Mathews vs. Taylor

G.R No. 164584 (June 22,2009)

Aliens , whether individuals or corporations, have been disqualified from acquiring lands of public domain for the primary purpose of the constitutional mandate in the conservation of the national patrimony.

Krivenko v. Register of Deeds/Muller v. Muller

Subject: Criminal Procedure

Cases: A. General Principles on Jurisdiction Manuel Icip vs. Pp G.R No./SCRA/Phil. Rep Doctrine

The place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction (Venue is jurisdictional). The jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. It does not mean the allegations in the complaint or information confers jurisdiction-because it is only the LAW that confers jurisdiction, without the law there could be no jurisdiction, the court will have no power to hear, try and decide the case. HOWEVER, when jurisprudence says it is the allegations of the complaint that determines jurisdiction, it must be alleged in the information. 76 SCRA 600

Pp vs. Mariano

I was not delivered in this world in defeat, nor does failure run in my veins. I am not a Sheep waiting to be prodded by my shepherded. I am a Lion and I refuse to talk, to walk, to sleep, with the sheep. I will hear not those who weep and complain, for their disease is contagious. Let them join the sheep. THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE IS NOT MY DESTINY-og mandino

U.S vs. Jueves Reyes vs. Diaz Landbank of the Phils. vs. Belisata

23 Phil. 100 73 Phil. 484 Sec. 50 of the DAR LAW says that the DAR has primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters. EXCEPTION: The DAR doesnt have original or exclusive jurisdiction over determination of just compensation that is JUDICIAL FUNCTION. ALL CRIMINAL OFFENSES UNDER RA 6657 ARE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE RTC SITTING AS A SPECIAL AGRARIAN COURT. Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan-If the offender is at least salary grade 27,and the act was committed in relation to the office. As long as the offense charged in the information is intimately connected with the office and is alleged to have been perpetrated while the accused was in the performance though improper or irregular of his official functions there being no personal motive to commit the crime and had the accused not have committed it had he not held the aforesaid office (The office is a constitutive element of the offense that without the office the crime would not have been committed). We held that while the first part of Sec.4-A of PD 1606 covers only officials with salary grade 27 and higher ,according to Geduspan, in second part, specifically includes other executive officials whose position may not be of salary grade 27 and higher, but by provision of the law placed under the jurisdiction of the SB. Municipal mayors fall under original and exclusive jurisdiction of the SB. For as long as one falls within the jurisdiction of the SB even if the other accused does not fall under salary grade 27, SB still has jurisdiction. Hold Departure Order=2nd level courts or the RTC.

Pp. vs. Sandiganbayan

G.R No. 167304 (Aug. 25,2009)

Sirena vs. SB citing the case of Geduspan vs. Pp.

Esquivel vs. Ombudsman citing the case of Rodrigo vs. Sandiganbayan and Layus vs. Sandiganbayan Mondejar vs. Buban

I was not delivered in this world in defeat, nor does failure run in my veins. I am not a Sheep waiting to be prodded by my shepherded. I am a Lion and I refuse to talk, to walk, to sleep, with the sheep. I will hear not those who weep and complain, for their disease is contagious. Let them join the sheep. THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE IS NOT MY DESTINY-og mandino

Badiola vs. CA Tecson vs. SB US v. Bernardo, repealed by Legados case;

19 Phil 265 (1911)

Legados v. de Guzman

170 SCRA 357 (1989)

People v. Mabuyo,

63 SCRA 532 (1975)

Inferior courts have no jurisdiction to over crimes that may require sentencing the accused to support the offspring from the crime, even if the period of imprisonment is within the jurisdiction of the inferior court. MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses where the penalty imposable does not exceed 4 years and 2 months (now 6 years) regardless of other imposable penalties and civil liability arising from such offense. Hence, the inferior courts have jurisdiction for simple seduction, even if the accused might be required to support the offspring from the crime. Unless place of commission is an essential element of the crime, the accused may be convicted of a crime committed in a place other than the place alleged in the information, as long as such other place is still within the jurisdiction of the court. GR: Precise date the offense was committed not necessary. Exception: When it is a material ingredient of the offense.

Velunta vs. Chief, Philippine Constabulary Uy vs. Sandiganbayan B. Jurisdiction determined by the position Subido vs. Sandiganbayan Cuyco vs. Sandiganbayan C. Jurisdiction determined by the allegation

157 SCRA 147 312 SCRA 77

G.R No. 122641 (Jan. 20, 1997) G.R Nos. 13701718 (Feb. 8,2000)

I was not delivered in this world in defeat, nor does failure run in my veins. I am not a Sheep waiting to be prodded by my shepherded. I am a Lion and I refuse to talk, to walk, to sleep, with the sheep. I will hear not those who weep and complain, for their disease is contagious. Let them join the sheep. THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE IS NOT MY DESTINY-og mandino

Buaya vs. Polo U.S vs. Gallegos D. Jurisdiction determined over the person of the accused Republic vs. Sunga D. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and not by waiver U.S vs. De La Santa F. Jurisdiction is not conferred by consent U.S vs. Reyes G. Estoppels by laches to bar attacks on jurisdiction Pp. vs. Alex Regalario et. Al H. Adherence of Jurisdiction Dela Cruz vs. Moya Pp. vs. Magallanes Uy vs. CA Binay vs. Sandiganbayan Sanchez and Managay vs. The Sandiganbayan Lacson vs. Exec. Secretary Rule 116 Adasa vs. Abalos Pp. vs. Documento Virata vs. Sandiganbayan G.R No. 168617 (Feb. 19, 2007) G.R No. 188706 (March 17, 2010) G.R No. 114331 G.R No. 101451 (March 22,1993) June 20, 1980

I was not delivered in this world in defeat, nor does failure run in my veins. I am not a Sheep waiting to be prodded by my shepherded. I am a Lion and I refuse to talk, to walk, to sleep, with the sheep. I will hear not those who weep and complain, for their disease is contagious. Let them join the sheep. THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE IS NOT MY DESTINY-og mandino

(May 27,1997)
SERVICE OF ORDERS

& vs. 350 SCRA 475 (Jan. 2001) . The Rules were meant to govern court procedures and pleadings. A preliminary investigation is not a court proceeding. The rule on service provided for in the Rules of Court cannot be made to apply to the service of resolutions by public prosecutors especially as the agency concerned (in this case, the Department of Justice) has its own procedural rules governing said service. DOJ Order 223 2 provides that in preliminary investigations, service of resolutions of public prosecutors could be made upon either the party or his counsel. 387 For double jeopardy to exist, the ff. elements must be established: (a) a 1st jeopardy must have attached prior to the 2nd; (2) the 1st jeopardy must have terminated; and (3) the 2nd jeopardy must be for the same offense as the first. In this case, what was elevated to the CA was the civil aspect of the criminal case. A was not charged anew with a 2nd offense identical to the 1st. There was no 2nd jeopardy to speak of; As claim of having been placed in double jeopardy is incorrect.

RESOLUTIONS IN INVESTIGATION

PRELIMINARY

Tam Wing Makasiar

Tak

Manantan vs. Ca

350 SCRA (Jan. 2001)

Time of Commission of the Offense Pp vs. Elpedes

350 SCRA (Jan. 2001)

716 The remedy against an indictment that fails to allege the time of commission of the offense with sufficient definiteness is a motion for bill of particulars (Rule 116 10). A did not ask for a bill of particulars. The failure to move or specification or the quashal of the information on any of the grounds provided for in the Rules deprives the accused of the right to object to evidence which could be lawfully

I was not delivered in this world in defeat, nor does failure run in my veins. I am not a Sheep waiting to be prodded by my shepherded. I am a Lion and I refuse to talk, to walk, to sleep, with the sheep. I will hear not those who weep and complain, for their disease is contagious. Let them join the sheep. THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE IS NOT MY DESTINY-og mandino

introduced and admitted under an information of more or less general terms but which sufficiently charges the accused with a definite crime. Besides, the exact date of the commission of the crime is not an essential element of the crime. Information Pp. vs. Santiago 03 Apr. 2001 An indictment of multiple offenses in a single complaint or information transgresses Rule 110, 13. A, however, has failed to timely question the above defect and he may thus be deemed to have waived this objection. The non-inclusion of some of the names of the eyewitnesses in the information does not preclude the prosecutor from presenting them during trial. There is thus no basis for the allegation that this fact indicated that Ws presentation as an eyewitness was a mere afterthought.

Names of Witnesses in the Information PEOPLE V. DELA CRUZ

349 SCRA 124 (Jan. 2001)

Subject: Election Law

Cases: Miranda vs. Abaya Butch Aquino vs. COMELEC Sanga vs.COMELEC Cayat vs. COMELEC G.R No./SCRA/Phil. Rep Doctrine

The doctrine (Second Placer Doctrine) cannot be applied in this case because the disqualification of Cayat became final and executory before the elections and hence, there is only one candidate to speak of. The law expressly declares that a candidate disqualified by final judgment before an election cannot be voted for, and votes cast

I was not delivered in this world in defeat, nor does failure run in my veins. I am not a Sheep waiting to be prodded by my shepherded. I am a Lion and I refuse to talk, to walk, to sleep, with the sheep. I will hear not those who weep and complain, for their disease is contagious. Let them join the sheep. THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE IS NOT MY DESTINY-og mandino

for him shall not be counted. As such, Palileng is the only candidate and the duly elected mayor. The doctrine will apply in Bayacsans favor, regardless of his intervention in the present case, if two conditions concur: (1) the decision on Cayats disqualification remained pending on election day, 10 May2004, resulting in the presence of two mayoralty candidates for Buguias, Benguetin the elections; and (2) the decision on Cayats disqualification became final only after the elections. Loong vs. COMELEC Mitmug vs. COMELEC Valles vs. COMELEC Borja vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 137000. August 9, 2000 G.R. No. 133495 September 3, 1998 The three term limit of local officials must be taken to the right to be elected and the right to serve the same elective position. Consequently, it is not enough that an individual has served three consecutive terms but he must also be elected in the to the same position in the same number of times before the disqualification can apply. In this case, the first term of Carpo cannot be included in the computation because he was not elected in that instance but rather only served the remaining term of the deceased mayor by virtue of operation of law.

Latasa vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 154829 December 10, 2003

The new city acquired a new corporate existence separate and distinct from that of the municipality. This does not mean, however, that for the purpose of applying the subject Constitutional provision, the office of the municipal mayor would now be construed as a different local government post as that of the office of the city mayor. As stated earlier, the territorial jurisdiction of the City of Digos is the same as that of the municipality. Consequently, the inhabitants of the municipality are the same as those in the city.

I was not delivered in this world in defeat, nor does failure run in my veins. I am not a Sheep waiting to be prodded by my shepherded. I am a Lion and I refuse to talk, to walk, to sleep, with the sheep. I will hear not those who weep and complain, for their disease is contagious. Let them join the sheep. THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE IS NOT MY DESTINY-og mandino

These inhabitants are the same group of voters who elected petitioner Latasa to be their municipal mayor for three consecutive terms. These are also the same inhabitants over whom he held power and authority as their chief executive for nine years. The Court believes that Latasa did involuntarily relinquish his office as municipal mayor since the said office has been deemed abolished due to the conversion. However, the very instant he vacated his office as municipal mayor, he also assumed office as city mayor unlike in Lonzanida case, where petitioner for even just a short period of time, stepped down from office. In this case, there was no interruption in the holding of office and hence, the three consecutive term is completed. Since Latasa was proclaimed but later on disqualified, the second placer Sunga, cannot assume the position but the vice mayor. The three-term limitation provided by the Constitution and the LCG provides that The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall be determined by law shall be three years and no such officials shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected. In the present case the assumption in office of Lonzanida in 1995 cannot be considered as part of the three-term limit because of the absence of two requisites. First, the petitioner cannot be considered as having been duly elected to the post in the May 1995 elections, and second, the petitioner did not fully serve the 1995-1998 mayoral term by reason of involuntary relinquishment of office. To recapitulate, the term limit for elective local officials must be taken to refer to the right to be elected as well as the right to serve in the same elective position. Consequently, it is not enough that an individual has served three
I was not delivered in this world in defeat, nor does failure run in my veins. I am not a Sheep waiting to be prodded by my shepherded. I am a Lion and I refuse to talk, to walk, to sleep, with the sheep. I will hear not those who weep and complain, for their disease is contagious. Let them join the sheep. THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE IS NOT MY DESTINY-og mandino

LOZANIDA V. COMELEC

G.R. No. 135150 July 28, 1999

consecutive terms in an elective local office, he must also have been elected to the same position for the same number of times before the disqualification can apply.

Subject: Labor Law and Social Legislation

Cases: Calalang Williams vs. G.R No./SCRA/Phil. Rep Doctrine Labor and social legislation are enacted pursuant to the police power of the State. This is its inherent power to enact wholesome and reasonable laws to promote order, safety, health, morals and general welfare of society. In its exercise the state may interfere with personal liberty, with property and with business and occupation. SOCIAL JUSTICE is neither communism nor despotism, nor atornism, nor anarchy, but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated. It means the promotion of the welfare of the people, the adoption of measures by the government to ensure economic stability of all the competent elements of society, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex. Social justice does not champion division of property of economic status; what it guarantees are equality of opportunity, equality of political rights, equality before the law, equality between values given and received, and equitable sharing of the social and material goods on the basis of efforts exerted in their production. The policy of social justice is not intended to countenance wrongdoing simply because it is committed by the underprivileged. At best it

Guido vs. RPA

PLDT vs. NLRC

I was not delivered in this world in defeat, nor does failure run in my veins. I am not a Sheep waiting to be prodded by my shepherded. I am a Lion and I refuse to talk, to walk, to sleep, with the sheep. I will hear not those who weep and complain, for their disease is contagious. Let them join the sheep. THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE IS NOT MY DESTINY-og mandino

Phil. Movieworkers Assn. vs. Premiere Productions Phil. Blooming Mills Employees Association vs. Phil. Blooming Mills Dy Keh Beng vs. International Labor

may mitigate the penalty but it certainly will not condone the offense. Those who invoke social justice may do so only if their hands are clean and their motives blameless and not simply because they happen to be poor. The right of a person to his labor is deemed property within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. That is his means of livelihood. He cannot be deprived of his labor or work without due process of law. G.R No. L-31195,05 The primacy of human rights- freedom of (June,1973) expression , of peaceful assembly and petition for redress of grievances over property rights have been sustained. G.R No. L-32245 (May 25,1979) The control test calls merely for the existence of the right to control and manner of doing work, not the actual exercise of the right.

I was not delivered in this world in defeat, nor does failure run in my veins. I am not a Sheep waiting to be prodded by my shepherded. I am a Lion and I refuse to talk, to walk, to sleep, with the sheep. I will hear not those who weep and complain, for their disease is contagious. Let them join the sheep. THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE IS NOT MY DESTINY-og mandino