LECTURE NOTES IN POLITICAL LAW

Volume II
May 2011 Edition

(ILL O! RI"#TS$
%y&
ATTY. LARRY D. GACAYAN
Professor
(Constitutional Law Review, Constitutional Law I & II)
COLLG O! LA"
UNIVERSIT' O! T#E COR(ILLERAS
P)e*a) Re+ie,e)
CPRS PRE*AR REVIEW CENTER
(Ca-ayan de O)o City. /am%oan-a City. Iloilo City. (a+ao City and a-uio City$
E0CELLENT PRE*AR REVIEW CENTER
( Na-a City. Ce%u City and a-uio City$
POWER#AUS PRE*AR REVIEW CENTER
(a-uio. Manila. Santia-o City. (i1olo- City. San !e)nando City (LU$ and
Ta-%ila)an City$
COSMOPOLITAN AR REVIEW CENTER
(a-uio City$
PAN"ASINAN REVIEW CENTER
(a-u1an City
#OL' TRINIT' REVIEW CENTER
"ene)al Santo2 City
C#APTER 1
!UN(AMENTAL POWERS O! T#E STATE
(Poli3e Po,e)$
1. Define:
A. 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, 11 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:
After the %rofessional &egulations Commission %&C' released the names of
su""essful e(aminees in the )edi"al *i"ensure +(amination, the ,oard of )edi"ines
observed that the grades of the -. $atima College of )edi"ine su""essful e(aminees were
unusually and e("eptionally high in the two /' most diffi"ult sub0e"ts of the e(am, i.e.,
,io"hemistry and 1bstetri"s and 2yne"ology.
!he ,oard then issued &esolution 3o. 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 $atima were not only in"redibly high but
unusually "lustered "lose to ea"h other. !he 3,4 4nvestigation found that the @."#i$"
eA"$i'ee7 &"i'e) e"rly "cce77 #o #%e #e7# Bue7#io'7.C
5eld:
4t must be stressed that the power to regulate the pra"ti"e of a profession or pursuit
of an o""upation "annot be e(er"ised by the State in an arbitrary, despoti" or oppressive
manner. 5owever, the regulating body has the right to grant or forbid su"h privilege in
a""ordan"e with "ertain "onditions.
/
,ut like all rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, their e(er"ise may
be regulated pursuant to the poli"e power of the State to safeguard health, morals, pea"e,
edu"ation, order, safety, and general welfare of the people. As su"h, mandamus will not lie
to "ompel the ,oard of )edi"ine to issue li"enses for the respondents to pra"ti"e medi"ine.
&A /67/ whi"h pres"ribes the re8uirements for admission to the pra"ti"e of
medi"ine, the 8ualifi"ations of the "andidates for the board e(amination, the s"ope and
"ondu"t of the e(aminations, the grounds for the denying of the issuan"e of a physi"ian9s
li"ense, or revoking a li"ense that has been issued. 4t is therefore "lear that the e(aminee
must prove that he has fully "omplied with all the "onditions and re8uirements imposed by
law and the li"ensing authority to be granted the privilege to pra"ti"e medi"ine. 4n short, he
shall have all the 8ualifi"ations and none of the dis8ualifi"ations. !he petition is therefore
granted.
". #o pro$o#e "') pro#ec# pu8lic 7"(e#y+ A:3STI- VS. E/3, 66 SCRA 191+ TADICA4
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 $or"l7 # CITY O. MA-ILA VS. J3/:E LA:3IO, JR., 211 SCRA
3;6+ 0HITE LI:HT COR5ORATIO- VS. CITY O. MA-ILA, J"'u"ry 9;, 9;;9+
/E LA CR3> VS. 5ARAS, 193 SCRA 169+ ERMITA MALATE HOTEL VS. CITY
MAYOR, July 31, 196+ VILLAVICE-CIO VS. MAYOR L3E4A- O. MA-ILA,
39 5%il. 6+ JMM 5ROMOTIO-S VS. CA, 96; SCRA 319+ VELASCO VS.
VILLE:AS, .e8ru"ry 13, 1963!
A' Or)i'"'ce o( #%e Ci#y o( M"'il" pro%i8i#i'& @7%or#F
#i$eC i' Mo#el7 "') Ho#el7.
0HITE LI:HT COR5ORATIO-, TITA-I3M COR5ORATIO- "')
STA. MESA TO3RIST G /EVELO5ME-T COR5ORATIO- *7.
CITY O. MA-ILA, repre7e'#e) 8y MAYOR AL.RE/O S.
LIM, 2.&. 3o. 1//7:;, <anuary /=, /==.
!432A, J.:
>ith another "ity ordinan"e of )anila also prin"ipally involving the tourist distri"t
as sub0e"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.
4n 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
+rmita-)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. 1ur earlier de"ision tested the "ity
ordinan"e against our sa"red "onstitutional rights to liberty, due pro"ess and e8ual
prote"tion of law. !he same parameters apply to the present petition.
6
!his %etition

"hallenges the validity of )anila City 1rdinan"e 3o. ---: entitled,
?An 1rdinan"e %rohibiting Short-!ime Admission, Short-!ime Admission &ates, and
>ash-Ap &ate S"hemes in 5otels, )otels, 4nns, *odging 5ouses, %ension 5ouses, and
Similar +stablishments in the City of )anila@ the 1rdinan"e'.
!he fa"ts are as follows:
1n De"ember 6, 1../, City )ayor Alfredo S. *im )ayor *im' signed into law the
1rdinan"e. !he 1rdinan"e is reprodu"ed in full, hereunder:
S+C. 6. %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.
S+C. :. Definition of !ermBsC. Short-time admission shall mean admittan"e and
"harging of room rate for less than twelve 1/' 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.
S+C. D. %enalty Clause. Any 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,===.==' %esos or imprisonment for a period of not e("eeding one 1' year or both su"h
fine and imprisonment at the dis"retion of the "ourt# %rovided, !hat in "ase of BaC 0uridi"al
person, the president, the manager, or the persons in "harge of the operation thereof shall be
liable: %rovided, further, !hat in "ase of subse8uent "onvi"tion for the same offense, the
business li"ense of the guilty party shall automati"ally be "an"elled.
1n De"ember 1D, 1../, the )alate !ourist and Development Corporation
)!DC' filed a "omplaint for de"laratory relief with prayer for a writ of preliminary
in0un"tion andEor temporary restraining order !&1' with the &egional !rial Court
&!C' of )anila, ,ran"h . impleading as defendant, herein respondent City of )anila
the City' represented by )ayor *im. )!DC prayed that the 1rdinan"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.' 3o. /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 1rdinan"e is an invalid e(er"ise of poli"e power.
II.
!o students of 0urispruden"e, the fa"ts of this "ase will re"all to mind not only the
re"ent City of Manila ruling, but our 1.;- 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 re8uiring 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. A 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 +rmita-)alate area. 5owever, 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. All 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. At 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.
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
reBuire$e'#7H ,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 0ustifi"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 nation9s legal system, its use has rarely
been denied.
!he apparent goal of the 1rdinan"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 8uestion that "onfronts us is one of due pro"ess, as
guaranteed under Se"tion 1, Arti"le 444 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. +ven "orporations and partnerships are
prote"ted by the guaranty insofar as their property is "on"erned.
D
!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 with government a"tion adhering to the established pro"ess when it makes an
intrusion into the private sphere. +(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. 4t in8uires whether the government has suffi"ient 0ustifi"ation for depriving a
person of life, liberty, or property.
!he 8uestion 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 fre8uen"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. 4nstead, the due pro"ess "lause has
a"8uired 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 : test laid down by the A.S.
Supreme Court in !.". v. Carolene #roducts. $ootnote : of the Carolene #roducts "ase
a"knowledged that the 0udi"iary would defer to the legislature unless there is a
dis"rimination against a @)i7cre#e "') i'7ul"rC $i'ori#y or i'(ri'&e$e'# o( "
@(u')"$e'#"l ri&%#C. Conse8uently, two standards of 0udi"ial review were established:
7#ric# 7cru#i'y (or l"w7 )e"li'& wi#% (ree)o$ 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'.
A third standard, denominated as %ei&%#e'e) or i$$e)i"#e 7cru#i'y, was later
adopted by the A.S. Supreme Court for evaluating "lassifi"ations based on gender and
legitima"y, 4mmediate s"rutiny was adopted by the A.S. Supreme Court in Craig,

after the
Court de"lined to do so in $eed v. $eed. >hile the test may have first been arti"ulated in
e8ual prote"tion analysis, it has in the Anited States sin"e been applied in all substantive
due pro"ess "ases as well.
>e ourselves have often applied the rational basis test mainly in analysis of e8ual
prote"tion "hallenges. Asing the rational basis e(amination, laws or ordinan"es are upheld
if they rationally further a legitimate governmental interest. Ander intermediate review,
governmental interest is e(tensively e(amined and the availability of less restri"tive
measures is "onsidered. Applying 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.
;
4n terms of 0udi"ial review of statutes or ordinan"es, stri"t s"rutiny refers to the
standard for determining the 8uality and the amount of governmental interest brought to
0ustify 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 e8ual prote"tion. !he
Anited States Supreme Court has e(panded the s"ope of stri"t s"rutiny to prote"t
fundamental rights su"h as suffrage, 0udi"ial a""ess and interstate travel.
4f we were to take the myopi" view that an 1rdinan"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 in0ury to property sustained by the
petitioners, an in0ury 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
8uestion.
%.
4t "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 sub0e"t establishments ?have
gained notoriety as venue of Kprostitution, adultery and forni"ations9 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.9@ >hether 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. 1ur holding therein retains
signifi"an"e for our purposes:
>e "annot dis"ount other legitimate a"tivities whi"h the 1rdinan"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. +ntire families are known to "hoose pass the time in a motel or hotel
whilst the power is momentarily out in their homes. 4n transit passengers who wish to wash
up and rest between trips have a legitimate purpose for abbreviated stays in motels or
hotels. 4ndeed 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
$erely p"yi'& #%e w%ole )"y r"#e wi#%ou# "'y %i')r"'ce #o #%o7e e'&"&e) i' illici#
"c#i*i#ie7. Moreo*er, )ru& )e"ler7 "') pro7#i#u#e7 c"' i' ("c# collec# @w"7% r"#e7C
(ro$ #%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'#
-
Iu7#i(ic"#io'. T%e Or)i'"'ce r"7%ly eBu"#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-8uoted Ameri"an ma(im that ?you c"''o# le&i7l"#e
$or"li#yC is ultimately illegitimate as a matter of law, sin"e as e(plained by Calabresi, that
phrase is more a""urately interpreted as meaning that efforts to legislate morality will fail if
they are widely at varian"e with publi" attitudes about right and wrong. 1ur penal laws, for
one, are founded on age-old moral traditions, and as long as there are widely a""epted
distin"tions between right and wrong, they will remain so oriented.
0HERE.ORE, the %etition is :RA-TE/. 1rdinan"e 3o. ---: is hereby
de"lared A3C13S!4!A!413A*.
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
An 1rdinan"e re8uiring the motels in +rmita-)alate area to
transfer to another pla"e in the City of )anila as well as
prohibiting !5+ +S!A,*4S5)+3! 1& 1%+&A!413 1$
,AS43+SS+S %&1F4D432 C+&!A43 $1&)S 1$
A)AS+)+3!, +3!+&!A43)+3!, S+&F4C+S A3D
$AC4*4!4+S 43 !5+ +&)4!A-)A*A!+ A&+A was held
un"onstitutional
CITY O. MA-ILA, HO-. AL.RE/O S. LIM "7 #%e M"yor o( #%e Ci#y o( M"'il", e#
"l *7. HO-. 5ER.ECTO A.S. LA:3IO, JR., "7 5re7i)i'& Ju)&e, RTC, M"'il" "')
MALATE TO3RIST /EVELO5ME-T COR5ORATIO-, GR No. 118127, April 12,
2005
TI-:A, J.H
.ACTSH
!he City Coun"il of )anila ena"ted on . )ar"h 1..6 and approved by petitioner
City )ayor on 6= )ar"h 1..6 an Ordinance is entitledI
A3 1&D43A3C+ %&154,4!432 !5+ +S!A,*4S5)+3! 1& 1%+&A!413 1$
,AS43+SS+S %&1F4D432 C+&!A43 $1&)S 1$ A)AS+)+3!,
+3!+&!A43)+3!, S+&F4C+S A3D $AC4*4!4+S 43 !5+ +&)4!A-)A*A!+
A&+A, %&+SC&4,432 %+3A*!4+S $1& F41*A!413 !5+&+1$, A3D $1& 1!5+&
%A&%1S+S.
!he Ordinance is reprodu"ed in full, hereunder:
S+C!413 1. Any provision of e(isting laws and ordinan"es to the "ontrary
notwithstanding, 'o per7o', p"r#'er7%ip, corpor"#io' or e'#i#y 7%"ll, i' #%e Er$i#"F
M"l"#e "re" bounded by !eodoro ). Malaw Sr. Street in the 3orth, !aft Avenue in the
+ast, Fito CruG Street in the South and &o(as ,oulevard in the >est, pursuant to %.D. :..
7
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
6. Maraoke ,ars
:. ,eerhouses
D. 3ight Clubs
;. Day Clubs
-. Super Clubs
7. Dis"othe8ues
.. Cabarets
1=. Dan"e 5alls
11. )otels
1/. 4nns
S+C. / 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'& p"y$e'#7 (or #%e oper"#io' o( 8u7i'e77 e'u$er"#e) i'
#%e prece)i'& 7ec#io'.
S+C. 6. 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#"FM"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 anti8ue shop
/. Souvenir Shops
6. 5andi"rafts display "enters
:. Art galleries
D. &e"ords and musi" shops
;. &estaurants
-. Coffee shops
7. $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.
1=. !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 1rdinan"e was 8uestioned as an invalid e(er"ise of poli"e power and violative of the due
pro"ess and e8ual prote"tion "lause of the 1.7- Constitution.
5+*D:
.
T%e #e7#7 o( " *"li) or)i'"'ce "re well e7#"8li7%e). A 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 re8uirements: ,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 Ordinane ontra!ene"
the Con"tit#tion
!he poli"e power of the City Coun"il, however broad and far-rea"hing, is subordinate
to the "onstitutional limitations thereon# and is sub0e"t to the limitation that its e(er"ise
must be reasonable and for the publi" good. 4n 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:
S+C. 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 en0oyment by all the people
of the blessings of demo"ra"y.
S+C. 1:. !he State re"ogniGes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the
fundamental e8uality before the law of women and men.
S+C. 1. 3o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due pro"ess of law,
nor shall any person be denied the e8ual prote"tion of laws.
Se". .. %rivate property shall not be taken for publi" use without 0ust "ompensation.
A. T%e Ordinane i'(ri'&e7
#%e /ue 5roce77 Cl"u7e
!he "onstitutional safeguard of due pro"ess is embodied in the fiat ?3'o 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. 4t 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 0usti"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 0usti"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 0udi"ial pro"edure# and to se"ure to all persons e8ual
and impartial 0usti"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
1=
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 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
ade8uate reason for taking away a person9s life, liberty, or property. 4n other words,
substantive due pro"ess looks to whether there is a suffi"ient 0ustifi"ation for the
government9s a"tion. Case law in the Anited States A.S.' tells us that whether there is su"h
a 0ustifi"ation depends very mu"h on the level of s"rutiny used. $or e(ample, if a law is in
an area where only rational basis review is applied, substantive due pro"ess is met so long
as the law is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. ,ut if it is an area
where stri"t s"rutiny is used, su"h as for prote"ting fundamental rights, then the
government will meet substantive due pro"ess only if it "an prove that the law is ne"essary
to a"hieve a "ompelling government purpose. !he poli"e power granted to lo"al
government units must always be e(er"ised with utmost observan"e of the rights of the
people to due pro"ess and e8ual prote"tion of the law. Su"h power "annot be e(er"ised
whimsi"ally, arbitrarily or despoti"ally as its e(er"ise is sub0e"t to a 8ualifi"ation, limitation
or restri"tion demanded by the respe"t and regard due to the pres"ription of the
fundamental law, parti"ularly those forming part of the ,ill of &ights. 4ndividual rights, it
bears emphasis, may be adversely affe"ted only to the e(tent that may fairly be re8uired by
the legitimate demands of publi" interest or publi" welfare. Due pro"ess re8uires the
intrinsi" validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to his life, liberty and
property.
Re$#i"ite" for the !alid e%eri"e
of &olie &o'er are not (et
To 7ucce77(ully i'*oLe #%e eAerci7e o( police power "7 #%e r"#io'"le (or #%e
e'"c#$e'# o( #%e Ordinane, "') #o (ree i# (ro$ #%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, reBuire "' 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# eAi7# 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
reBui7i#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.
!he Ordinance was ena"ted to address and arrest the so"ial ills purportedly spawned
by the establishments in the +rmita-)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
11
Manila had already taken 0udi"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 ob0e"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 ob0e"tives of the Ordinance are
within the s"ope of the City Coun"il9s 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.
>hile petitioners9 earnestness at "urbing "learly ob0e"tionable so"ial ills is
"ommendable, they unwittingly punish even the proprietors and operators of ?wholesome,@
?inno"ent@ establishments. 4n 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. 4f 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. 4n 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"othe8ues, "abarets, dan"e halls,
motels and inns in the +rmita-)alate area. 4n Se"tion 6 thereof, owners andEor operators of
the enumerated establishments are given three 6' 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 +rmita-)alate area or "onvert said businesses to other kinds of business allowable
within the area.@ $urther, it states in Se"tion : that in "ases of subse8uent violations of the
provisions of the 1rdinan"e, the ?premises of the erring establishment shall be "losed and
padlo"ked permanently.@
4t 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 person9s fundamental right to liberty and property.
Modality e(ployed i"
#nla'f#l ta)in*
4n 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
1/
forbids the running of the enumerated businesses in the +rmita-)alate area and in Se"tion
6 instru"ts its ownersEoperators to wind up business operations or to transfer outside the
area or "onvert said businesses into allowed businesses. An 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 0ust "ompensation.
B-7C
4t is intrusive and violative of the private property rights of individuals.
!he Constitution e(pressly provides in Arti"le 444, Se"tion ., that ?private property
shall not be taken for publi" use without 0ust "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.
4n part too, it is about loss spreading. 4f the government takes away a person9s 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 0usti"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 +rmita-)alate area. 4n every sense, it 8ualifies as a taking without 0ust
"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. 3ot only is this impra"ti"al, it is unreasonable, onerous
and oppressive. !he "onversion into allowed enterprises is 0ust as ridi"ulous. 5ow may the
respondent "onvert a motel into a restaurant or a "offee shop, art gallery or musi" lounge
without essentially destroying its 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. 4n 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. $or being unreasonable and an
undue restraint of trade, it "annot, even under the guise of e(er"ising poli"e power, be
upheld as valid.
+. The Ordinane !iolate" ,$#al
&rotetion Cla#"e
+8ual prote"tion re8uires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated
alike, both as to rights "onferred and responsibilities imposed. Similar sub0e"ts, in other
words, should not be treated differently, so as to give undue favor to some and un0ustly
dis"riminate against others.
B.7C
!he guarantee means that no person or "lass of persons shall
be denied the same prote"tion of laws whi"h is en0oyed by other persons or other "lasses in
like "ir"umstan"es.
B..C
!he ?e8ual prote"tion of the laws is a pledge of the prote"tion of
e8ual laws.@
B1==C
4t limits governmental dis"rimination. !he e8ual prote"tion "lause e(tends
to artifi"ial persons but only insofar as their property is "on"erned.
B1=1C
16
*egislative bodies are allowed to "lassify the sub0e"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 eBu"l pro#ec#io' cl"u7e.
<1;3=
T%e cl"77i(ic"#io' $u7#, "7 "'
i')i7pe'7"8le reBui7i#e, 'o# 8e "r8i#r"ry. To 8e *"li), i# $u7# co'(or$ #o #%e (ollowi'&
reBuire$e'#7H
1' 4t must be based on substantial distin"tions.
/' 4t must be germane to the purposes of the law.
6' 4t must not be limited to e(isting "onditions only.
:' 4t must apply e8ually to all members of the "lass.
B1=:C
4n the Court9s view, there are no substantial distin"tions between motels, inns, pension houses,
hotels, lodging houses or other similar establishments. ,y definition, all are "ommer"ial establishments
providing lodging and usually meals and other servi"es for the publi". 3o reason e(ists for prohibiting
motels and inns but not pension houses, hotels, lodging houses or other similar establishments. !he
"lassifi"ation in the instant "ase is invalid as similar sub0e"ts are not similarly treated, both as to rights
"onferred and obligations imposed. 4t is arbitrary as it does not rest on substantial distin"tions bearing a
0ust and fair relation to the purpose of the Ordinance.
!he Court likewise "annot see the logi" for prohibiting the business and operation of motels in the
+rmita-)alate area but not outside of this area. A no(ious establishment does not be"ome any less
no(ious if lo"ated outside the area.
f. to promote the e"onomi" se"urity of the people. ,ICHO-: VS. HER-A-/E>, 1;1 5%il.
11111!
-o# " *"li) eAerci7e o( police powerH
". CITY :OVER-ME-T O. MC VS. ERICTA, 199 SCRA 19+ ,ReBuiri'& pri*"#e
ce$e#erie7 #o 7e# "7i)e " por#io' o( #%eir l"') "re" #o 8e &i*e' "7 8uri"l pl"ce (or
@p"uper7C, (ree o( c%"r&e, i7 "' i'*"li) eAerci7e o( police power. I# co'7#i#u#e7 @#"Li'&
o( " pri*"#e proper#y (or pu8lic u7e wi#%ou# Iu7# co$pe'7"#io'.C T%e loc"l
&o*er'$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 Animal 4ndustry or the Chairman if the
3ational )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 Animal 4ndustry or Chairman of the 3ational )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
1:
,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) eAerci7e 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)!
4. 5O0ER O. EMI-E-T /OMAI-
3. 5O0ER O. TADATIO-
/. Differen"es and similarities
/I/I5IO EARTH SAVERS M3LTI 53R5OSE ASSOCIATIO- VS. /E-R SEC.
ELISEA :O>3, ET AL., 261 SCRA 166
Chi"o-3aGario, <.
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 0ust "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#
/. 4n the e(er"ise of poli"e power, en0oyment of a property is restri"ted be"ause the
"ontinued use thereof would be in0urious to publi" welfare. 4n 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". 1therwise, there should be "ompensable taking if it would
result to publi" use.
6. %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 sub0e"ted to restraints and burdens in order
to se"ure the general "omfort, health and prosperity of the state.
>hile 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.
As su"h, an imposition of burden over a private property through easement by the
government' is "onsidered taking# hen"e, payment of 0ust "ompensation is re8uired. !he
determination of 0ust "ompensation, however, is a 0udi"ial fun"tion +%OA vs. Dulay, 1:.
SC&A 6=D' and initial determinations on 0ust "ompensation by the e(e"utive department
and Congress "annot prevail over the "ourt9s findings.
6. *imitations in the e(er"ise of said powers
:. !ests for a valid e(er"ise of poli"e power
a. the interests of the publi", not mere parti"ular "lass, re8uire the e(er"ise of poli"e
power# LA0.3L S34JECT'
b. the means employed is reasonably ne"essary for the a""omplishment of the purpose
and not unduly oppressive to individuals. ,LA0.3L MEA-S'. 4n short, the end
does not 0ustify the means.
1D
Illu7#r"#io'H L"w(ul 7u8Iec# 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, <.
$a"ts:

1. 1n <anuary, 16, 1.7:, Jnot transported si( "arabaos by using a pumpboat from
)asbate to 4loilo. !he si( "arabaos, were, however, "onfis"ated by the %oli"e Station
Commander of ,arato" 3uevo, 4loilo for alleged violation of +(e"utive 1rder 3o. ;/;-A
whi"h prohibits the inter-provin"ial transporting of "arabaos and "arabeefs whi"h does not
"omply with the provisions of +(e"utive 3o.;/;#
/. !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 sub0e"ted
to "onfis"ation and forfeiture by the government to be distributed to "haritable institution
and similar institutions as the Chairman of the 3ational 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 Animal 4ndustry, in the "ase of "arabaos#
6. 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/,===.==#
:. After trial of the "ase, the <udge 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 +(e"utive 1rder 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 4AC but the said "ourt upheld the de"ision of the !rial
Court. 5en"e this petition for review on "ertiorari before the Supreme Court where J31!
"laimed that the penalty of "onfis"ation is 43FA*4D 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.
4ssues:

1. )ay a lower "ourt like the )!C, &!C, of the Court of Appeals' de"lare a law
un"onstitutionalN
/. 4s +(e"utive 1rder 3o. ;/;-A "onstitutionalN
Sub-issues under this are:
a. >as it a valid poli"e power measureN
1;
b. >as there an undue delegation of legislative powerN
5eld:
1. >hile the lower "ourts should observe a be"oming modesty in e(amining "onstitutional
8uestion, !5+J A&+ 31! %&+F+3!+D $&1) &+S1*F432 !5+ SA)+
>5+3+F+& >A&&A3!+D, sub0e"t only to review by the supreme "ourt. !his is so
be"ause under Se"tion D,B/a'C, Art. F444, of the 1.7- 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 0udgments 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 Iu7#i(ie) u')er #%e police power o( #%e
7#"#e, i# $u7# $ee# #wo #e7#7H
". #%e 7u8Iec# $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 +(e"utive 1rder meets the first test---- it has lawful sub0e"t.
,ut does the law meets the se"ond re8uisite or test whi"h is lawful methodN
+(e"utive 1rder 3o. ;/;-A imposes an absolute ban not on the slaughtering of
"arabaos ,A! 13 !54+& )1F+)+3!, 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 8uestion measure is missing. >e do not see how the
prohibition of the inter-provin"ial transport "an prevent their indis"riminate slaughter
"onsidering that they "an be killed any where, with no less diffi"ulty in one provin"e than
in the other. 1bviously, 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 +(e"utive 1rder in 8uestion is a penal law, then violation thereof should
be pronoun"e not by the poli"e ,A! ,J A C1A&! 1$ <AS!4C+, >54C5 A*13+
>1A*D 5AF+ 5AD !5+ AA!51&4!J !1 4)%1S+ !5+ %&+SC&4,+D %+3A*!J,
A3D 13*J A$!+& !&4A* A3D C13F4C!413 1$ !5+ ACCAS+D.
Also, there is no reasonable guidelines or bases of the Dire"tor of Animal 4ndustry
or the Chairman of the 3A!413A* )eat 4nspe"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.
1-
!he +(e"utive 1rder is, therefore, invalid and un"onstitutional and not a valid
poli"e power measure be"ause the )+!51D +)%*1J+D !1 C13S+&F+ CA&A,A1S
4S 31! &+AS13A,*J 3+C+SSA&J !1 !5+ %A&%1S+ 1$ !5+ *A> A3D,
>1&S+ 4S A3DA*J 1%%&+SS4F+. DA+ %&1C+SS 4S F41*A!+D ,+CAAS+ !5+
1>3+& 1$ !5+ %&1%+&!J C13$4SCA!+D 4S D+34+D !5+ &425! !1 ,+
5+A&D 43 54S D+$+3S+ A3D 4S 4))+D4A!+*J C13D+)3+D A3D %A34S5+D.
!5+ C13$+&)+3! 13 !5+ AD)434S!&A!4F+ AA!51&4!4+S like the poli"e' 1$
!5+ %1>+& !1 AD<AD2+ !5+ 2A4*! 1$ !5+ SA%%1S+D 1$$+3D+& 4S A
C*+A& +3C&1AC5)+3! 1$ <AD4C4A* $A3C!413S A3D )4*4!A!+S A2A43S!
!5+ D1C!&43+ 1$ S+%A&A!413 1$ %1>+&S.
Also, there is undue delegation of legislative power to the offi"ers mentioned
therein Dire"tor of Animal 4ndustry and 5ead of the 3ational )eat Commission' be"ause
they were given unlimited dis"retion in the distribution of the property "onfis"ated.
D. &ead:
a. <)) %romotions vs. CA, /;= SC&A 61.
b. +&)4!A-)A*A!+ 51!+* FS. )AJ1& 1$ )A34*A, <uly 61, 1.;-#
". 4C5132 FS. 5+&3A3D+O, 1=1 %hil. 11DD
d. C5A&C54** FS. &A$$+&!J, 6/ %hil. D7=
e. %+1%*+ FS. %1)A&, :; %hil. ::-
f. AS FS. !1&4,41, 1D %hil. 7D
g. F+*ASC1 FS. F4**+2AS, $ebruary 16, 1.76
h. 4*14*1 4C+ P C1*D S!1&A2+ FS. )A34C4%A* C1A3C4*, /: %hil. :-1
i. A2AS!43 FS. +DA, 77 SC&A 1.D
0. !AQ4CA, 1%+&A!1&S FS. ,1!, 11. SC&A D.-
k. ,AA!4S!A FS. <A4341, 1/- SC&A 6/.
A law prohibiting the use of 5eavy and +(tra 5eavy
Fehi"les on weekends and holidays when there is energy
"risis is a valid poli"e power measure.
MARY CO-CE5CIO-F4A3TISTA VS. AL.RE/O J3I-IO, ET AL, 19 SCRA 399

$ernando, C.<.
."c#7H

1. 1n )ay 61, 1.-., %resident )ar"os issued *etter of 4nstru"tion 3o. 7;. prohibiting the
use of private motor vehi"les with 5 5eavy Fehi"les' and +5 +(tra 5eavy Fehi"les' on
week-ends and holidays from 1/:== a.m. Saturday morning to D:== a.m. )onday morning,
or 1:== a.m. of the holiday to D:== 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#
6. D%*--Diplomati"#
17
:. CC---Consular Corps# and
D. !C---!ourist Cars
/. 1n <une 11, 1.-., the then Commissioner of *and !ransportation, &1)+1 +DA issued
Cir"ular 3o. 6. 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 4nstru"tionsH#
6. ,autista is 8uestioning the "onstitutionality of the *14 and the 4mplementing Cir"ular on
the grounds that:
a. !he banning of 5 and +5 vehi"les is unfair, dis"riminatory, and arbitrary and thus
"ontravenes the +RAA* %&1!+C!413 C*AAS+# and
b. !he *14 denies the owners of 5 and +5 vehi"les of due pro"ess, more
spe"ifi"ally of their right to use and en0oy 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 en0oying unrestri"ted freedom#
". !he Cir"ular violates the prohibition against undue delegation of legislative
power be"ause the *14 does not impose the penalty of "onfis"ation.
HEL/H

1. 4t must be pointed out that the *14 was promulgated to solve the oil "risis whi"h
was besetting the "ountry at that time. 4t was therefore a valid poli"e power measure to
ensures the "ountrySs e"onomy as a result of spiralling fuel pri"es. 4n 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 e8ual prote"tion was violated is without
basis. !his is so be"ause there is a valid "lassifi"ation in this "ase. Definitely, 5eavy and
+(tra-5eavy 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. 4f all the owner of 5 and
+5 vehi"les are treated in the same fashion, or whatever restri"tions "ast on some in the
group is held e8ually binding on the rest, there is no violation of the e8ual prote"tion
"lause.
6. !he penalty of -i(po#ndin*- the vehi"le as embodied in Cir"ular 3o. 6. has no
statutory basis. !herefore, it is not valid being an Hultra viresH.
l. ASS1C4A!413 1$ S)A** *A3D1>3+&S FS. S+C&+!A&J 1$ A2&A&4A3
&+$1&), 1-D SC&A 6:6
m. D+CS FS. SA3 D4+21, 17= SC&A D66
n. F4**A3A+FA FS. CAS!A3+DA, September /1, 1.7-
D-a. 3ot a valid e(er"ise of poli"e power
C4!J 21F+&3)+3! 1$ RA+O13 C4!J FS. +&4C!A, 1// SC&A -D.
1.
CHA5TER II?/3E 5ROCESS
Sec#io' 1FFF-O 5ERSO- SHALL 4E /E5RIVE/ O.
LI.E, 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---re8uires the intrinsi" validity of the law in interfering with the
rights of the person to life, liberty or property. 4n short, it is to determine whether it has a
valid governmental ob0e"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
>ebster.
Due pro"ess is a law whi"h hears before it "ondemns, whi"h pro"eeds upon in8uiry and renders
0udgment only after trial %er Daniel >ebster in the /ARTMO3TH COLLE:E CASE!
Due pro"ess have different re8uisites in:
1. Due pro"ess before 0udi"ial bodies or 0udi"ial due pro"ess#
/. Due pro"ess before administrative bodies#
6. 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 @'o# &i*e' #%e
ri&%# #o 8e %e"r)C.
Illu7#r"#i*e c"7eH
DA+ %&1C+SS DA+ %&1C+SS
JOSE L. ATIE->A, JR., MATIAS V. /E.E-SOR, JR., RO/OL.O
:.VALE-CIA, /A-ILO E. S3ARE>, SOLOMO- R. CH3-:ALAO,
SALVACIO- >AL/IVARF5ERE>, HARLI- CASTFA4AYO-,
MELVI- :.MAC3SI "') ELEA>AR 5. M3I-TO *7. COMELEC,
MA-3EL RODAS II, .RA-ELI- /RILO- "') J.R. -ERE3S
ACOSTA , :.R. -o. 16699;
A4A/, J.:
1n <uly D, /==D respondent $ranklin ). Drilon , then the president of the *iberal %arty
*%', announ"ed his party9s withdrawal of support for the administration of %resident 2loria
)a"apagal-Arroyo. ,ut petitioner <ose *. AtienGa, <r., *% Chairman, and a number of party
members denoun"ed Drilon9s move, "laiming that he made the announ"ement without "onsulting
his party.
/=
1n )ar"h /, /==; petitioner AtienGa 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 *%9s ruling body va"ant and ele"ted new offi"ers, with AtienGa as *% president. &espondent
Drilon immediately filed a petition with the Commission on +le"tions C1)+*+C' to nullify the
ele"tions. 5e "laimed that it was illegal "onsidering that the party9s ele"ting bodies, the 3ational
+(e"utive Coun"il 3+C1' and the 3ational %oliti"al Coun"il 3A%1*C1', 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 3ovember 6=, /==-.
1n the other hand, petitioner AtienGa "laimed that the ma0ority of the *%9s 3+C1 and
3A%1*C1 attended the )ar"h /, /==; assembly. !he ele"tion of new offi"ers on that o""asion
"ould be likened to ?people power,@ wherein the *% ma0ority removed respondent Drilon as
president by dire"t a"tion. AtienGa 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. Conse8uently, the term of Drilon and the other offi"ers already ended on <uly /:, /==;
1n 1"tober 16, /==;, the C1)+*+C issued a resolution, partially granting respondent
Drilon9s petition. 4t annulled the )ar"h /, /==; ele"tions and ordered the holding of a new
ele"tion under C1)+*+C supervision. 4t held that the ele"tion of petitioner AtienGa 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, Drilon9s 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 C1)+*+C rulings.
1n April 1-, /==- a divided Court issued a resolution, granting respondent Drilon9s petition and
denying that of petitioner AtienGa. !he Court held, through the ma0ority, that the C1)+*+C had
0urisdi"tion over the intra-party leadership dispute# that the Salonga Constitution had been validly
amended# and that, as a "onse8uen"e, respondent Drilon9s term as *% president was to end only on
3ovember 6=, /==-.
Subse8uently, the *% held a 3+C1 meeting to ele"t new party leaders before respondent
Drilon9s term e(pired. $ifty-nine 3+C1 members out of the 7- who were supposedly 8ualified to
vote attended. ,efore the ele"tion, however, several persons asso"iated with petitioner AtienGa
sought to "larify their membership status and raised issues regarding the "omposition of the
3+C1. +ventually, that meeting installed respondent )anuel A. &o(as 44 &o(as' as the new *%
president.
1n <anuary 11, /==7 petitioners AtienGa, )atias F. Defensor, <r., &odolfo 2. Falen"ia,
Danilo +. SuareG, Solomon &. Chungalao, Salva"ion Oaldivar-%ereG, 5arlin Cast-Abayon, )elvin
2. )a"usi, and +leaGar %. Ruinto, filed a petition for mandatory and prohibitory in0un"tion before
the C1)+*+C against respondents &o(as, Drilon and <.&. 3ereus 1. A"osta, the party se"retary
general. AtienGa, et al. sought to en0oin &o(as from assuming the presiden"y of the *%, "laiming
that the 3+C1 assembly whi"h ele"ted him was invalidly "onvened. !hey 8uestioned the
e(isten"e of a 8uorum and "laimed that the 3+C1 "omposition ought to have been based on a list
appearing in the party9s ;=th Anniversary Souvenir %rogram. ,oth AtienGa and Drilon adopted
that list as "ommon e(hibit in the earlier "ases and it showed that the 3+C1 had 1=6 members.
/1
%etitioners AtienGa, et al. also "omplained that AtienGa, the in"umbent party "hairman, was
not invited to the 3+C1 meeting and that some members, like petitioner Defensor, were given the
status of ?guests@ during the meeting. AtienGa9s allies allegedly raised these issues but respondent
Drilon arbitrarily thumbed them down and ?railroaded@ the pro"eedings. 5e suspended the
meeting and moved it to another room, where &o(as was ele"ted without noti"e to AtienGa9s allies.
1n the other hand, respondents &o(as, et al. "laimed that &o(as9 ele"tion as *% president
faithfully "omplied with the provisions of the amended *% Constitution. !he party9s ;=
th
Anniversary Souvenir %rogram "ould not be used for determining the 3+C1 members be"ause
supervening events "hanged the body9s number and "omposition. Some 3+C1 members had died,
voluntarily resigned, or had gone on leave after a""epting positions in the government. 1thers had
lost their re-ele"tion bid or did not run in the )ay /==- ele"tions, making them ineligible to serve
as 3+C1 members. *% members who got ele"ted to publi" offi"e also be"ame part of the 3+C1.
Certain persons of national stature also be"ame 3+C1 members upon respondent Drilon9s
nomination, a privilege granted the *% president under the amended *% Constitution. 4n other
words, the 3+C1 membership was not fi(ed or stati"# it "hanged due to supervening
"ir"umstan"es.
&espondents &o(as, et al. also "laimed that the party deemed petitioners AtienGa, Oaldivar-
%ereG, and Cast-Abayon resigned for holding the illegal ele"tion of *% offi"ers on )ar"h /, /==;.
!his was pursuant to a )ar"h 1:, /==; 3A%1*C1 resolution that 3+C1 subse8uently ratified.
)eanwhile, "ertain 3+C1 members, like petitioners Defensor, Falen"ia, and SuareG, forfeited
their party membership when they ran under other politi"al parties during the )ay /==- ele"tions.
!hey were dropped from the roster of *% members.
1n <une 17, /==. the C1)+*+C issued the assailed resolution denying petitioners AtienGa,
et al.9s petition. 4t noted that the )ay /==- ele"tions ne"essarily "hanged the "omposition of the
3+C1 sin"e the amended *% Constitution e(pli"itly made in"umbent senators, members of the
5ouse of &epresentatives, governors and mayors members of that body. !hat some lost or won
these positions in the )ay /==- ele"tions affe"ted the 3+C1 membership. %etitioners failed to
prove that the 3+C1 whi"h ele"ted &o(as as *% president was not properly "onvened.
As for the validity of petitioners AtienGa, et al.9s e(pulsion as *% members, the C1)+*+C
observed that this was a membership issue that related to dis"iplinary a"tion within the politi"al
party. !he C1)+*+C treated it as an internal party matter that was beyond its 0urisdi"tion to
resolve.
>ithout filing a motion for re"onsideration of the C1)+*+C resolution, petitioners
AtienGa, et al. filed this petition for certiorari under &ule ;D.
4 S S A +
0%e#%er or 'o# re7po')e'#7 RoA"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 eApul7io' (ro$ #%e p"r#y.
5+*D:
//
%etitioners AtienGa, 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 3A%1*C1 and the 3+C1 should have first summoned them
to a hearing before summarily e(pelling them from the party. A""ording to AtienGa, et al.,
pro"eedings on party dis"ipline are the e8uivalent of administrative pro"eedings and are, therefore,
"overed by the due pro"ess re8uirements laid down in Ang &i'ay v. Court of Industrial $elations.
,ut the re8uirements of administrative due pro"ess do not apply to the internal affairs of
politi"al parties. T%e )ue proce77 7#"')"r)7 7e# i' An* Ti.ay co*er o'ly ")$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 @co'#e$pl"#e7 "' "u#%ori#y #o
w%ic% #%e 7#"#e )ele&"#e7 &o*er'$e'#"l power (or #%e per(or$"'ce o( " 7#"#e (u'c#io'.C T%e
co'7#i#u#io'"l li$i#"#io'7 #%"# &e'er"lly "pply #o #%e eAerci7e 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 state9s powers are found in Arti"le 444
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 state9s
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.
Although 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. An 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. A politi"al party is free to "ondu"t
its internal affairs, pursuant to its "onstitutionally-prote"ted right to free asso"iation. 4n "inaca v.
Mula, the Court said that 0udi"ial restraint in internal party matters serves the publi" interest by
allowing the politi"al pro"esses to operate without undue interferen"e. 4t 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 C1)+*+C did not gravely abuse its dis"retion when it upheld &o(as9
ele"tion as *% president but refused to rule on the validity of AtienGa, et al.9s e(pulsion from the
party. >hile the 8uestion of party leadership has impli"ations on the C1)+*+C9s performan"e of
its fun"tions under Se"tion /, Arti"le 4Q-C of the Constitution, the same "annot be said of the issue
pertaining to AtienGa, et al.9s e(pulsion from the *%. Su"h e(pulsion is for the moment an issue of
/6
party membership and dis"ipline, in whi"h the C1)+*+C "annot intervene, given the limited
s"ope of its power over politi"al parties.
D. &e8uisites of ?0udi"ial due pro"ess@.
". 4A-CO ES5A-OL VS. 5ALA-CA, 3 5%il. 991
ReBui7i#e7H
1. !here must be an impartial "ourt or tribunal "lothed with 0udi"ial power to hear and de"ide
the matter before it#
/. <urisdi"tion must be lawfully a"8uired over the person of the defendant or over the property
sub0e"t of the pro"eedings#
6. !he defendant must be given the opportunity to be heard#
:. <udgment must be rendered only after lawful hearing.
a. :ALMA- VS. 5AMARA- the 1
st
"ase'
b. 4)+*DA )A&C1S FS. SA3D42A3,AJA3, 1"tober ;, 1..7
IMELDA R. MARCOS VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. 3o. 1/;..D, 1"tober ;, 1..7
%urisima, <.
$a"ts:
1. 1n <une 7, 1.7:, 4)+*DA )A&C1S and <1S+ DA3S, as Chairman and Fi"e Chairman
of the *ight &ailway !ransit Authority *&!A' entered into a *ease Contra"t with the
%hilippine 2eneral 5ospital $oundation %25$4' involving an *&!A property in %asay
City for %1=/,-;=.== per month for /D years#
/. 1n <une /-,1.7:, the %25$4 subleased the said property for %-6:,===.== per month to the
!ransnational Constru"tion Corporation represented by one 4gna"io <umeneG#
6. After petitioner9s husband was deposed as %resident of the %hilippines, she and Dans were
"harged of alleged violation of Se"tion 6 BgC of &A 6=1., otherwise known as the Anti-
2raft and Corrupt %ra"ti"es A"t before the Sandiganbayan#
:. After trial , the $irst Division of the Sandiganbayan failed to "omply with the legal
re8uirement that all the 6 0usti"es must be unanimous in its De"ision be"ause <usti"e
2ar"hitorena and <usti"e <ose ,ala0adia voted for the "onvi"tion of both a""used while
<usti"e 3ar"iso AtienGa voted to a"8uit them#
D. !hereafter, <usti"e 2ar"hitorena as %residing <usti"e issued Administrative 1rder 3o. /77-
.6 "onstituting a Spe"ial Division of five and designating <usti"es Augusto Amores and
Cipriano del &osario#
;. 1n September /1, 1..6, <usti"e Amores wrote <usti"e 2ar"hitorena that he be given 1D
days his )anifestation. 1n the same date, however, <usti"e 2ar"hitorena dissolved the
division of D allegedly be"ause he and <usti"e ,ala0adia had agreed to the opinion of <usti"e
del &osario#
-. 1n September /:, 1..6, a De"ision was rendered "onvi"ting the petitioner and Dans of
violation of Se". 6 BgC of &A 6=1.#
/:
7. 1n <une /., 1..7, the !hird Division of the Supreme Court by a vote of 6-/ affirmed the
"onvi"tion of the petitioner but a"8uitted DA3S#
.. %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 %25$4 and the subse8uent sub-lease "ontra"t between %25$4 and
!ransnational Constru"tion Corporation# and
b. the $irst Division "onvi"ted her after <usti"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"8uit her in her other "ases. !he said meeting was attended by another 0usti"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 re8uires that sessions of the "ourt shall be done only in its prin"ipal
offi"e in )anila and that only 0usti"es belonging to the division should 0oin the
deliberations.
Hel)H
!he petitioner is hereby a"8uitted.
1. !he great disparity between the rental pri"e of the lease agreement signed by the
petitioner %1=/,-;=.== per month' and the sub-lease rental %-6:,===.== per month' does
not ne"essarily render the monthly rate of %1=/,-;=.== manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the government in the absen"e of any eviden"e using rentals of ad0a"ent
properties showing that the rentals in the property sub0e"t of the lease agreement is indeed
very low. 31 +F4D+3C+ >5A!S1+F+& >AS %&+S+3!+D ,J !5+
%&1S+CA!413 &+2A&D432 !5+ &+3!A* &A!+ 1$ AD<AC+3! %&1%+&!4+S..
As su"h, the prose"ution failed to prove the guilt of the petitioner reasonable doubt.
/. !he "ourt notes likewise the bias and pre0udi"e of %residing <usti"e 2ar"hitorena against
the petitioner as shown by his leading, misleading and baseless hypotheti"al 8uestions of
said 0usti"e to &A)13 $. CA+&F1, witness for the petitioner. Said 0usti"e asked 1-.
8uestions to the witness as against the prose"utor who "ross-e(amined the witness and
asked -6. Said number of 8uestions "ould no longer be des"ribed as ?"larifi"atory
8uestions@. Another ground therefore for the a"8uittal of the petitioner is that she was
denied 4)%A&!4A* !&4A* 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 <usti"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.
31!+: !he vote was .-D for A"8uittal. C< 3arvasa, <usti"es &egalado, Davide, <r.,
&omero, and %anganiban voted for "onvi"tion while <usti"e Fitug was the only <usti"e who
voted for the return of the "ase to the Sandiganbayan ?to allow the "orre"tions of the
per"eived Kirregularities9 in the pro"eedings below.@'
/D
c. /45 VS. CA, J"'u"ry 99, 1999 ,Repe"#e) ("ilure o( " p"r#y #o pre7e'# e*i)e'ce
Iu7#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.&. 3o.*- ;76-.-71/, September //, 1.7;
.ACTSH
1. !he petitioner +velio <avier and the private respondent Arturo %a"ifi"ador were
"andidates in Anti8ue for the ,atasang %ambansa ele"tion in )ay 1.7:#
/. Alleging serious anomalies in the "ondu"t of the ele"tions and the "anvass of the
ele"tion returns, <avier went to the C1)+*+C to prevent the impending pro"lamation of
his rival#
6. 1n )ay 17, 1.7:, the Se"ond Division of the C1)+*+C 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#
:. 1n <une -, 1.7:, the same Se"ond Division ordered the board to immediately "onvene
and to pro"laim the winner without pre0udi"e to the out"ome of the petition filed by <avier
with the C1)+*+C#
D. 1n "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#
;. 1n <uly /6, 1.7: the Se"ond Division itself pro"laimed %a"ifi"ador the ele"ted
assemblyman of Anti8ue.
ISS3E:
>as the Se"ond Division of the C1)+*+C, authoriGed to promulgate its de"ision of
<uly /6, 1.7: pro"laiming %a"ifi"ador the winner in the ele"tion N
A%%*4CA,*+ %&1F4S413S 1$ !5+ C13S4!A!413:
!he appli"able provisions of the 1.-6 Constitution are Art. Q44-C, se"s. / and 6, whi"h
provide:
HSe"tion /. ,e the sole 0udge of all "ontests relating to the ele"tion, returns and
8ualifi"ations of all members of the ,atasang %ambansa and ele"tive provin"ial and "ity
offi"ials.H
/;
HSe"tion 6. !he Commission on +le"tions may sit en ban" or in three divisions. All
elec#io' c"7e7 $"y 8e %e"r) "') )eci)e) 8y )i*i7io'7 eAcep# 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.
Anless 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
C13!+3!413S 1$ !5+ %A&!4+S:
%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 0urisdi"tion of the Commission on
+le"tions e' 8"'c.
&espondents:
1nly H"ontestsH need to be heard and de"ided e' 8"'c, "ll o#%er c"7e7 c"' 8e F i' ("c#,
7%oul) 8e F (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". 6. !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 A8uino government, and even if <avier 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 8uestions but also the
"ons"ien"e of the government. !he "itiGen "omes to us in 8uest of law but we must also
give him 0usti"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. <usti"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 C1)+*+C the sole 0udge of all
"ontests involving the ele"tion, returns and 8ualifi"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.-7 +le"tion Code. !he 1.-6 Constitution "ould not have therefore been
intended to have divided "ontests between pre and post pro"lamation when that
Constitution was written in 1.-6.
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. As employed in the 1.-6 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.
e. T%ere w"7 "l7o " )e'i"l o( )ue proce77. 1ne of the members of the Se"ond Division,
Commissioner <aime 1pinion was a law partner of %a"ifi"ador. 5e denied the motion to
dis8ualify 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 Iu)&eO "7 #%e i')i7pe'7"8le i$per"#i*e o( )ue
proce77. !o bolster that re8uirement we have held that the 0udge 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 0ust.
&. A>3L VS. CASTRO, 133 SCRA 91
%. 5A/ERA-:A VS. A>3RA, 136 SCRA 966
i. /AVI/ VS. AM3ILI>A-, 92 SCRA ;
I. LORE->A-A VS. CAYETA-O, 6 SCRA 261 ,re7po')e'# w"7 'o# " p"r#y #o #%e
eIec#$e'# c"7e! 7o #o e'(orce #%e )eci7io' o' %er *iol"#e7 %er ri&%# #o )ue proce77 o(
l"w
L. >AM4ALES CHROMITE MI-I-: VS. CA, 92 SCRA 961
l. A->AL/O VS. CLAVE, 119 SCRA 313
$. SI-:SO- VS. -LRC, 93 SCRA 916
'. A->AL/O VS. CLAVE, 119 SCRA 313
o. MAYOR ALO-TE VS. J3/:E SAVELLA-O, 96 SCRA 921
MAYOR BAYANI ALONTE VS. JUDGE SAVELLANO, 287 SCRA 245
Fitug, <.
)ayor Alonte of ,inan, *aguna was "harged of rape before ,ran"h /D, &!C of
*aguna. 5owever, 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 D6, )anila, presided over
by the respondent 0udge.
After the petitioner9s arraignment, the prose"ution submitted an A$$4DAF4! 1$
D+S4S!A3C+ signed by the private "omplainant <AF4+-*J3 %A3132,AJA3 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.
/7
%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.
1n De"ember 1-, 1..-, "ounsel for the petitioner, A!!J. %54*4% S42$&4D
$1&!A3, re"eived a noti"e from the respondent 0udge notifying him of the promulgation
of the de"ision in this "ase despite the fa"t that the prose"ution and the defense have not
presented their eviden"e in "ourt.
1n De"ember 17, 1..-, the respondent 0udge issued a De"ision "onvi"ting the
petitioner of rape and senten"ed to suffer a penalty of &+C*AS413 %+&%+!AA.
4ssue:
>hether or not the petitioner was denied his right to due pro"ess of law.
5eld:
4n 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 re8uisites must be "omplied with before a
de"ision is rendered:
1. the "ourt or tribunal trying the "ase is "lothed with 0urisdi"tion to hear and determine the
matter before it#
/. that 0urisdi"tion was lawfully a"8uired by it over the person of the a""used#
6. that the a""used is given the opportunity to be heard# and
:. that 0udgment is rendered only upon lawful hearing %+1%*+ FS. DA%4!A3, 1.- SC&A
6-7'
!he a"t of the respondent 0udge 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 3A** A3D F14D for want of due pro"ess.
As 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
3ullity of )arriage "ase, there is no violation of the right to
due pro"ess.
S3SIE CHA-FTA- *7. JESSE TA-, :.R. -o. 16139, .e8ru"ry 91,
9;1;
4SSA+:
%etitioner raises the 8uestion of whether the 6= )ar"h /==: de"ision and the 1- )ay /==:
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.
5+*D:
/.
%etitioner "ontends she was denied due pro"ess when her "ounsel failed to file pleadings and
appear at the hearings for respondent9s omnibus motion to amend the partial 0udgment as regards
the "ustody of the "hildren and the properties in her possession. %etitioner "laims the trial "ourt
issued the 1- )ay /==: 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 petitioner9s motion to dismiss.
>e 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 0udgment resulting in the
loss of the latter9s right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a 0udgment valid and regular on
its fa"e.
$urther, petitioner "annot "laim that she was denied due pro"ess. >hile she may have lost her
right to present eviden"e due to the supposed negligen"e of her "ounsel, she "annot say she was
denied her day in "ourt. &e"ords show petitioner, through "ounsel, a"tively parti"ipated in the
pro"eedings below, filing motion after motion. Contrary to petitioner9s allegation of negligen"e of
her "ounsel, we have reason to believe the negligen"e in pursuing the "ase was on petitioner9s end,
as may be gleaned from her "ounsel9s manifestation dated 6 )ay /==::
Andersigned Counsel, who appeared for petitioner, in the nullity pro"eedings,
respe"tfully informs the 5onorable Court that she has not heard from petitioner
sin"e 5oly >eek. Attempts to "all petitioner have failed.
Andersigned "ounsel regrets therefore that she is unable to respond in an intelligent
manner to the )otion 1mnibus )otion' filed by respondent.
Clearly, despite her "ounsel9s efforts to rea"h her, petitioner showed utter disinterest in the
hearings on respondent9s omnibus motion seeking, among others, "ustody of the "hildren. !he trial
0udge was left with no other re"ourse but to pro"eed with the hearings and rule on the motion based
on the eviden"e presented by respondent. %etitioner "annot now "ome to this Court "rying denial of
due pro"ess.
T%e ri&%# o( #%e "ccu7e) #o )ue proce77 o( l"w w"7
*iol"#e) w%e' #%e Iu)&e i77ue) " w"rr"'# (or %er "rre7#
e*e' #%ou&% 7%e %"7 'o# recei*e) "'y 'o#ice (or %er
"rr"i&'$e'# 8e(ore #%e Mu'icip"l Tri"l Cour# o( 4"&uio
Ci#y 8ec"u7e #%e 'o#ice 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$I&A CA"!+A-&AI(, A.M. (o. (O$)( ". &A( *". J!%+E MA$IA CLA$I&A CA"!+A-&AI(, A.M. (o.
M&J-,--./0-, January 0,, 0,,- M&J-,--./0-, January 0,, 0,,-
A3STRIAFMARTI-E>, J.1
$AC!S:
6=
3oryn S. !an "omplainant' filed a Complaint dated April /, /==- against <udge )aria Clarita
Casuga-!abin respondent' of the )uni"ipal !rial Court in Cities )!CC', ,ran"h :, ,aguio City for denial
of due pro"ess relative to Criminal Case 3o. 117;/7.
Complainant avers: 1n 3ovember ., /==;, the %hilippine 3ational %oli"e %3%' RueGon City %oli"e
Distri"t RC%D' served her a warrant of arrest dated 1"tober 16, /==;, issued by the )!CC ,aguio City,
,ran"h :, presided by respondent, relative to Criminal Case 3o. 117;/7 for alleged violation of atas
#am'ansa lg. //. 4t 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 5all Comple( %oli"e 1ffi"e and had to post bail of
%1,===.== before the 1ffi"e of the +(e"utive <udge of the &egional !rial Court &!C' of RueGon City for her
temporary release. Apon verifi"ation, she learned that respondent issued on August 7, /==; an 1rder
dire"ting her to appear before the "ourt on 1"tober 1=, /==; for arraignment. 4t was sent by mail to %3%
RueGon City for servi"e to her. 5owever, she did not re"eive any "opy of the 1rder 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 1rder 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.
4n her Comment dated <uly D, /==-, 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 1rder dated August 7, /==;
addressed to "omplainant ?through the Chief of %oli"e, %3%, 11=:, RueGon City@ dire"ting "omplainant to
appear on 1"tober 1=, /==; at 7:6= a.m. for the arraignment and preliminary "onferen"e in Criminal Case 3o.
117;/7, as proven by &egistry &e"eipt 3o. =61=. 4t is true that the return on the "ourtSs 1rder dated August 7,
/==; had not yet been made by the RC %oli"e on or before 1"tober 1=, /==;. 3onetheless, she issued the
warrant of arrest in good faith and upon the following grounds: a' under Se". 6 of &ule 161 of the &ules of
Court, the "ourt was entitled to presume that on 1"tober 1=, /==;, 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 b' Se". 1/ of the 1.76 &ule on Summary %ro"edure in Spe"ial Cases provides
that bail may be re8uired 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. 4f her interpretation was erroneous, she respondent' 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. 1= P 1/, of the 1.76 &ule on Summary %ro"edure in Spe"ial Cases, in relation to
Se". 1; of the 1..1 &evised &ule on Summary %ro"edure be made for the guidan"e of the ben"h and bar.
5+*D:
>henever 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 re8uired. !his is "learly
provided in Se"tion 1; of the 1..1 &evised &ule on Summary %ro"edure whi"h states:
Se". 1;. Arrest of accused. - T%e cour# 7%"ll 'o# or)er #%e "rre7# o( #%e "ccu7e)
eAcep# (or ("ilure #o "ppe"r w%e'e*er reBuire). &elease of the person arrested shall either
61
be in bail or on re"ogniGan"e by a responsible "itiGen a""eptable to the "ourt. +mphasis
supplied'
4n this "ase, respondent "laims that the issuan"e of a warrant for the arrest of "omplainant was
0ustified, sin"e "omplainant failed to appear during the arraignment in spite of an order re8uiring her to do so.
&espondent admits, however, that a "opy of the 1rder dated August 7, /==;, was sent to "omplainant
?t2roug2 t2e C2ief of #olice, #(#, ..,3, 4ue5on City.@
>hile 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 re8uired, whi"h in turn 0ustifies 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 0udge "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 .
5en"e, "omplainant9s right to due pro"ess was violated.
Considering that this is respondentSs first administrative infra"tion in her more than 7 years of servi"e
in the 0udi"iary, whi"h serves to mitigate her liability, the Court holds the imposition of a fine in the amount of
%1=,===.== to be proper in this "ase.
6. 5roce)ur"l )ue proce77 8e(ore ")$i'i7#r"#i*e 8o)ie7
a. !4,AJ FS. C4&, ;. %hil. ;6D
ReBui7i#e7:
". #%e ri&%# #o " %e"ri'& w%ic% i'clu)e7 #%e ri&%# #o pre7e'# e*i)e'ce+
8. #%e #ri8u'"l $u7# co'7i)er #%e e*i)e'ce pre7e'#e)+
c. #%e )eci7io' $u7# %"*e 7o$e#%i'& #o 7uppor# i#7el(+
). #%e e*i)e'ce $u7# 8e 7u87#"'#i"l+
e. #%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 Bue7#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. A)+&4CA3 !1,ACC1 FS. D4&+C!1&, ;- SC&A /7-
". )A34*A +*+C!&4C C1)%A3J FS. 3*&C, /;6 SC&A D61
). /EL:A/O VS. CA, -o*e$8er 1;, 1966
6/
I( "' "ccu7e) w"7 repre7e'#e) 8y " 'o'Fl"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. 19269, .e8ru"ry 19, 9;;9
4SSA+:
>hether 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.
5+*D:
1n the matter of a""used-appellant9s "laim of having been denied due pro"ess, an
e(amination of the re"ords shows that while a""used-appellant was represented by Atty.
<o"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 <uly /7, /=== and
subse8uently, approved by the &!C in its 1rder dated August :, /===. !hereafter, a""used-
appellant was represented by Atty. &ainald C. %aggao from the %ubli" Defender9s
Attorney9s' 1ffi"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 appellant9s first "ounsel may not have been a member of the bar does not dent the proven fa"t
that appellant prevented 3elia and "ompany from pro"eeding to their destination. $urther, appellant was
afforded "ompetent representation by the %ubli" Attorneys9 1ffi"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
1B:C
enlightens:
?As 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 +lesterio was undeniably "arrying an unli"ensed firearm when
he was arrested. At 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 appellant9s brief.@
-. %ro"edural due pro"ess in dis"iplinary a"tions against students
A"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- O- HI:HER E/3CATIO-, THE /E5ARTME-T O.
E/3CATIO- C3LT3RE A-/ S5ORTS, ALVI- A:3ILAR, JAMES 5A3L
43-:343-:, RICHAR/ REVERE-TE "') RO4ERTO VAL/ES, JR., :.R. -o.
1996;, /ece$8er 19, 9;;
1 B:C
2.&. 3o. ;6.-1, )ay ., 1.7., 1-6 SC&A /:6, /:..
66
REYES, R.T., J.H
THE .ACTSH

%&4FA!+ respondents Alvin Aguilar, <ames %aul ,ungubung, &i"hard &everente
and &oberto Faldes, <r. are members of !au 2amma %hi $raternity who were e(pelled by
the De *a Salle Aniversity D*SA' and College of Saint ,enilde CS,' <oint Dis"ipline
,oard be"ause of their involvement in an offensive a"tion "ausing in0uries to petitioner
<ames 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 <ames Jap and Dennis %as"ual, +ri"son Cano, and )i"hael %ereG, are members
of the ?Domino *u( $raternity,@ while the alleged assailants, private respondents Alvin
Aguilar, <ames %aul ,ungubung, &i"hard &everente and &oberto Faldes, <r. 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*SA "harging private respondents with ?dire"t assault.@ Similar
"omplaints were also filed by Dennis %as"ual and +ri"son Cano against Alvin *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 3o. .:.D-6-/D1/1.
!he Dire"tor of the D*SA Dis"ipline 1ffi"e sent separate noti"es to private
respondents Aguilar, ,ungubung and Faldes, <r. and &everente informing them of the
"omplaints and re8uiring 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 April 1. and /7, 1..D, private
respondents interposed the "ommon defense of alibi. 3o full-blown hearing was "ondu"ted
nor the students allowed to "ross-e(amine the witnesses against them.
6:
1n )ay 6, 1..D, the D*SA-CS, <oint Dis"ipline ,oard issued a &esolution finding
private respondents guilty. !hey were meted the supreme penalty of automati" e(pulsion
pursuant to C5+D 1rder 3o. :. !he dispositive part of the resolution reads:
>5+&+$1&+, "onsidering all the foregoing, the ,oard finds respondents A*F43
A2A4*A& A,-,S)E.1D/1=D', <A)+S %AA* ,A32A,A32 A,-%S)E./6::=6',
A*F43 *++ +DDE.:;/6/D=' and &4C5A&D F. &+F+&+3!+ A,-)2!E.1D676-'
guilty of having violated C5+D 1rder 3o. : and thereby orders their automati" e(pulsion.
4n the "ase of respondent )A*F43 A. %A%41 A,-)2!E./D1//-', the ,oard
a"8uits him of the "harge.
I S S 3 E
>ere 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 /H

5ri*"#e re7po')e'#7N ri&%# #o )ue proce77 o( l"w w"7 'o# *iol"#e).

4n ")$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, @<#=%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 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 and with the assistan"e if "ounsel, if
desired# 6' they shall be informed of the eviden"e against them# :' they shall have the
right to addu"e eviden"e in their own behalf# and 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.@
>here 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.

3oti"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 one9s 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.
A 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*SA-CS, <oint Dis"ipline ,oard through petitioner Sales. !hey were given the
6D
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 3o. .:.D-6-/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
re0e"ted in +u5man v. (ational !niversity
C
where this Court held that ?( ( ( the imposition
of dis"iplinary san"tions re8uires observan"e of pro"edural due pro"ess. And 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 0usti"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.&. 3o. *-;7/77, <uly 11, 1.7;
.ACTSH
%etitioners who are students of the 3ational Aniversity 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 re8uired
permits.
HEL/H
a. 4t 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 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.
Also 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. Ander the +du"ation A"t of 1.7/, students have the right Hto freely "hoose their field of
study sub0e"t to e(isting "urri"ula and to "ontinue their "ourse therein up to graduation,
+QC+%! 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 the' )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 4nstitute, 11- SC&A D71, that it is illegal of a s"hool to impose
san"tions on students without "ondu"ting due investigation.
6;
". 1f "ourse, all s"hools have the power to adopt and enfor"e its rules. 4n fa"t the
maintenan"e of good s"hool dis"ipline is a duty spe"ifi"ally en0oined 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 re8uires 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 0usti"e#
b. the pro"eedings may be summary#
". "ross-e(amination is not an essential part thereof.
,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#
6. they shall be informed of the eviden"e against them#
:. 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. ,+&43A FS. %)4, September 6=, 1.7/

Due pro"ess in the dismissal of employees
ReBui7i#e7 o( /ue 5roce77 8e(ore #%e -LRC
1. 3oti"e# and
/. 5earing
a. )22 )arine Servi"es vs. 3*&C, /D. SC&A ;;:
b. %hilippine Savings ,ank vs. 3*&C, /;1 SC&A :=.
". &AJC1& A4& C13!&1* FS. 3*&C, /;1 SC&A D7.
d. >A**+) )A&4!4)+ S+&F4C+S FS. 3*&C, /;6 SC&A 1-:
e. SA)4**A31 FS. 3*&C, /;D SC&A -77
6-
f. S!1*!-34+*S+3 FS. 3*&C, /;: SC&A 6=-
g. 2A&C4A FS. 3*&C, /;: SC&A /;1
7. +ffe"t of a )otion for &e"onsideration to violation of the right to due pro"ess
a. CASA+*A FS. 1$$4C+ 1$ !5+ 1),ADS)A3, /-; SC&A ;6D
b. C1&D+34**1 FS. +Q+CA!4F+ S+C&+!A&J, /-; SC&A ;D/
.. 4n administrative pro"eedings, does due pro"ess re8uire that B1C a party be assisted by
"ounsel and B/C be able to "ross-e(amine the witnessesN
L3MIM3E/ VS. EDE-EA, 969 SCRA 191
!here is no law, whether the Civil Servi"e A"t or the Administrative Code of 1.7-,
whi"h provides that a respondent in an administrative "ase should be assisted by "ounsel in
order that the pro"eedings therein is "onsidered valid. 3ot only, that, petitioner herein was
given the opportunity several times to engage the servi"es of a lawyer to assist him but he
"onfidently informed the investigators that he "ould prote"t himself.
A)$i'i7#r"#i*e /ue 5roce77 8e(ore #%e Ci*il Ser*ice
Co$$i77io' )oe7 'o# reBuire cro77FeA"$i'"#io' o( #%e
co$pl"i'"'# "') %i7 wi#'e77e7 8y #%e re7po')e'#.
ATTY. ROMEO ERECE VS. LY- MACALI-:AY, ET AL., :.R. -o. 1666;9, April
99, 9;;6
THE .ACTSH
%etitioner is the &egional Dire"tor of the Commission on 5uman &ights C5&'
&egion 4, whose offi"e is lo"ated in San $ernando City, *a Anion. &espondent employees
of the C5& &egion 4 filed an Affidavit-Complaint dated 1"tober /, 1..7 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.
After a fa"t-finding investigation, the CSC %roper in CSC &esolution 3o. ..-16;=
dated <uly 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 +re"e of his monthly &epresentation and
!ransportation Allowan"e &A!A' in the amount of %:,===.==, he still prioritiGes himself
in the use of the offi"e vehi"le !amaraw $Q' in spite of the dire"tive from the Central
67
1ffi"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 +re"e did not "omply with the dire"tive of the Central 1ffi"e addressed
to all &egional 5uman &ights Dire"tors, as follows: Kto regulariGe your re"eipt of the
transportation allowan"e "omponent of the &A!A 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"les' now still in your name#9
6. !hat he "ertified in his monthly li8uidation of his &A!A 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 C5&-&egion 4.
!he foregoing fa"ts and "ir"umstan"es indi"ate that government servi"e has been
pre0udi"ed by the a"ts of +re"e.
>5+&+$1&+, &omeo *. +re"e is hereby formally "harged with Dishonesty and
2rave )is"ondu"t. A""ordingly, he is given five D' days from re"eipt hereof to submit his
Answer under oath and affidavits of his witnesses, if any, to the Civil Servi"e Commission-
Cordillera Administrative &egion CSC-CA&'. 1n his Answer, he should indi"ate whether
he ele"ts a formal investigation or waives his right thereto. Any )otion to Dismiss, re8uest
for "larifi"ation or ,ills of %arti"ulars shall not be entertained by the Commission. Any of
these pleadings interposed by the respondent shall be "onsidered as an Answer and shall be
evaluated as su"h. *ikewise, he is advised of his right to the assistan"e of "ounsel of his
"hoi"e.
/B:C

After a formal investigation of the "ase, the CSC issued &esolution 3o. =/=1/:,
dated <anuary /:. /==/, finding petitioner guilty of dishonesty and "ondu"t pre0udi"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 CA.
4n the De"ision promulgated on <anuary -, /==D, the CA 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/.
5en"e, this petition.
I S S 3 EH
%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 /H
/B:C
Id. at 6D-6;.
6.
%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. 5e 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-Affidavit. After 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 petitioner9s' ob0e"tion.
&espondents then submitted their %osition %aper and $ormal 1ffer of +(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 "ross-e(amine the "omplainants. Although 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 CA 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. 4n administrative pro"eedings, the
essen"e of due pro"ess is simply the opportunity to e(plain one9s side.
*ele5 v. %e *era

it was held that :
Due pro"ess of law in administrative "ases is not identi"al with ?0udi"ial pro"ess@
for a trial in "ourt is not always essential to due pro"ess. >hile a day in "ourt is a matter of
right in 0udi"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 re8uirements 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 re8uirement of due pro"ess is met by a fair hearing before a
regularly established administrative agen"y or tribunal. 4t 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 ob0e"tions and defenses to the making of su"h determination may be raised
and "onsidered. 1ne ade8uate hearing is all that due pro"ess re8uires. . . .
T%e ri&%# #o cro77FeA"$i'e i7 'o# "' i')i7pe'7"8le "7pec# o( )ue proce77. 3or 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.
/AT35AD MA-:3/A/AT3 VS. HO3SE O. RE5RESE-TATIVES
ELECTORAL TRI43-AL ,HRET!, :.R. -o. 19613, /ece$8er 16, 9;;6
LEO-AR/OF/E CASTRO, J.H
Datu %a( %akung S. )angudadatu petitioner' and Angelo 1. )ontilla private
respondent' were "ongressional "andidates for the $irst Distri"t of Sultan Mudarat during
:=
the )ay 1:, /==- national ele"tions. %etitioner won by 1-,:D1 votes and was pro"laimed
on )ay //, /==- by the %rovin"ial ,oard of Canvassers as the duly ele"ted &epresentative
of the said "ongressional distri"t. 1n )ay 61, /==-, respondent filed with the 5&+! a
%etition of %rotest Ad Cautelam'
6B:C
"ontesting the results of the ele"tions and the
pro"lamation of petitioner. 1n <une 1:, /==-, the Se"retary of the 5&+! "aused the servi"e
of summons
:BDC
upon petitioner #%rou&% re&i7#ere) $"il at #uro@ *osaria,
DB;C
!amnag
#o'lacion', *utayan, Sultan Mudarat, re8uiring petitioner to file an Answer to the protest
within ten 1=' days from re"eipt thereof.
1n <uly 11, /==-, the 5&+! re"eived the &egistry &eturn &e"eipt Card,
;B-C
showing
that a "ertain Aileen &. ,aldenas
-B7C
,aldenas' re"eived the summons on <une /-, /==-. 1n
August 1;, /==-, the 5&+! issued &esolution 3o. =--1-.
7B.C
whi"h noted the
aforementioned &egistry &eturn &e"eipt Card and that despite the fa"t that :6 days from
<une /-, /==- had passed sin"e ,aldenas re"eived the summons, petitioner had not filed an
answer in a""ordan"e with &ule /-
.B1=C
of the /==: 5&+! &ules. 4n the same &esolution,
the 5&+! "onsidered petitioner to have entered a general denial of the allegations of the
protest.
4n an 1rder dated August 1-, /==-, the 5&+! set the preliminary "onferen"e on
September /-, /==- at 11:== a.m.
)eanwhile, petitioner informally learned of respondent9s protest, prompting
petitioner to re8uest his lawyers to verify the same from the re"ords of the 5&+!.
!hereafter, his lawyers entered their appearan"e on September :, /==- and re8uested that
they be furnished with "opies of the petition of protest as well as noti"es, orders and
resolutions pertaining to the protest.
1n September 1=, /==-, petitioner filed a )otion to &e"onsider
1=B11C
&esolution 3o.
=--1-. and )otion to Admit Answer with Counter-%rotest, alleging that he never re"eived
the summons issued by the 5&+!. 4n his affidavit
11B1/C
atta"hed to the motion, petitioner
denied that ,aldenas was a member of his household or his employee. 5e further "laimed
that she was not authoriGed to re"eive any important do"uments addressed to him. And
assuming that he had authoriGed her, the summons re"eived by her was never brought to his
attention.
6 B:C
Id., pp. :1--;.
: BDC
Id., p. --.
D B;C
!he assailed &esolutions state ?*oria@ but the Summons and &egistry &eturn &e"eipt Card "orre"tly state
?*osaria.@
; B-C
$ollo, p. -7.
- B7C
!he assailed &esolutions state ?,aldena@# it should be ?,aldenas@ based on the &egistry &eturn &e"eipt Card.
7 B.C
See 3ote /.
. B1=C
&A*+ /-. Aailure to Ans?erB Effect. I 4f 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 deemed to have been entered.
1= B11C
$ollo, pp. /;-6-.
11 B1/C
Id., p. 6=.
:1
1n September 1., /==-, the 5&+! issued &esolution 3o. =--6==
1/B16C
denying for
la"k of merit.
5en"e, this petition.
%etitioner filed the instant petition imputing grave abuse of dis"retion amounting to
la"k of 0urisdi"tion on the part of the 5&+! for issuing &esolution 3os. =--1-. and =--
6==. 5e also prayed for a temporary restraining order andEor a writ of preliminary
in0un"tion for this Court to en0oin the 5&+! from further pro"eeding with 5&+! Case
3o.=--=/1. %etitioner "ontended that the 5&+! never a"8uired 0urisdi"tion over his
person be"ause of the absen"e of a valid servi"e of summons. 5e argued that a substitute
servi"e of summons is made only ?when the defendant "annot be served personally at a
reasonable time after efforts to lo"ate him have failed.@
16B1:C
4n his "ase, sin"e the pro"ess
server9s return failed to show on its fa"e the impossibility of personal servi"e, then the
substituted servi"e was improper and invalid.
4n his "omment, respondent "ountered that the 5&+! did not "ommit grave abuse
of dis"retion in issuing &esolution 3os. =--1-. dated August 1;, /==- and =--6== dated
September 1., /==-. 5e argued that &ule // of the /==: 5&+! &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.@ 5e posited then that the intent of the 5&+! 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 /==: 5&+! &ules. $urther, respondent "laimed that &ule 1:,
Se"tions ; and - of the &ules of Court were in"onsistent with &ule // of the /==: 5&+!
&ules and therefore should not be given suppletory appli"ation to 5&+! pro"eedings.
5+*D:
&ule // of the /==: 5&+! &ules provides:
&A*+ //. "ummons. I 4f 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,
re8uiring him within ten 1=' days from re"eipt thereof to file his answer.
1/ B16C
See 3ote 6.
16B1:C
$ollo, p.1/.
:/
!he /==: 5&+! &ules on summons is silent on how the summons should be served
on the protestee. Signifi"antly, &ule 7=
1:B1DC
of the /==: 5&+! &ules provides that the
1..- &ules of Civil %ro"edure applies by analogy or suppletorily in so far as the latter may
be appli"able and not in"onsistent therewith as well as with the orders, resolutions and
de"isions of the 5&+!. 4n view of the failure of the 5&+! &ules to spe"ify the authoriGed
modes of servi"e of summons, resort then is ne"essary to Se"tions ; and -, &ule 1:, 1..-
&ules of Civil %ro"edure, whi"h state:
S+C. ;. "ervice in person on defendant. I >henever pra"ti"able, the summons shall be
served handling a "opy thereof #o #%e )e(e')"'# i' per7o', or, if he refuses to re"eive and
sign for it, 8y #e')eri'& i# #o %i$.
S+C. -. "u'stituted service. I 4f, for 0ustifiable "auses, the defendant "annot be served
within a reasonable time as provided in the pre"eding se"tion, servi"e may be effe"ted "'
8y le"*i'& copie7 o( #%e 7u$$o'7 "# #%e )e(e')"'#N7 re7i)e'ce wi#% 7o$e per7o' o(
7ui#"8le "&e "') )i7cre#io' #%e' re7i)i'& #%erei', or 8' 8y le"*i'& copie7 "#
)e(e')"'#N7 o((ice or re&ul"r pl"ce o( 8u7i'e77 wi#% 7o$e co$pe#e'# per7o' i' c%"r&e
#%ereo(.
4n the "ase at bar, the servi"e of the summons was made through registered mail,
whi"h is 'o# among the allowed modes of servi"e under &ule 1: of the &ules of Court.
4ndeed, if in ordinary "ivil "ases whi"h involve only private and proprietary
interests' personal servi"e of summons is preferred and servi"e by registered mail is not
allowed on 0urisdi"tional and due pro"ess grounds, with more reason should ele"tion "ases
whi"h involve publi" interest and the will of the ele"torate' stri"tly follow the hierar"hy of
modes of servi"e of summons under the &ules of Court.
!he Court sees no reason why the 5&+! "annot make use of its own pro"ess
servers to personally serve the summons, or alternatively, delegate the matter to the pro"ess
server of a "ourt with territorial 0urisdi"tion over the pla"e of residen"e of the
respondentEprotestee in the ele"tion "ase, at the e(pense of the petitionerEprotestant.
Co'7i)eri'& #%"# #%e proper 7er*ice o( 7u$$o'7 o' #%e re7po')e'#Kpro#e7#ee i7 "
Iuri7)ic#io'"l reBuire$e'# "') &oe7 #o %e"r# o( )ue proce77, we "annot allow servi"e of
summons by a method not san"tioned by the 5&+! &ules in relation to the &ules of Court.
4n view of the foregoing, we find that the 5&+! "ommitted grave abuse of
dis"retion in "onsidering petitioner to have entered a general denial of the allegations in
1: B1DC
&A*+ 7=. 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:
1' !he &ules of Court#
/' De"isions of the Supreme Court#
6' De"isions of the +le"toral !ribunals.
:6
respondent9s petition of protest and in denying 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:
1n )ar"h 11, 1..;, *uGviminda ,or0a and <uliana Castro, on behalf of their respe"tive
minor daughters, *ily ,or0a and Charo Castro, filed before the Department of +du"ation, Culture and
Sports - &egional 1ffi"e 3o. 444 D+CS-&1 3o. 444', Cabanatuan City, two separate administrative
"omplaints for Se(ual 5arassment and Condu"t Anbe"oming a %ubli" 1ffi"er against Cuanan, then
%rin"ipal of *awang Mupang +lementary S"hool in San Antonio, 3ueva +"i0a.
A"ting on the "omplaints, D+CS-&1 3o. 444 &egional Dire"tor Filma *. *abrador
"onstituted an 4nvestigating Committee, "omposed of three Dep+d offi"ials from the provin"e, to
"ondu"t a formal investigation. $ollowing the investigation, the 4nvestigating Committee submitted its
4nvestigation &eport

dated De"ember 1:, 1..., finding Cuanan guilty of se(ual harassment and
re"ommending his for"ed resignation without pre0udi"e to benefits. 4n a De"ision

dated <anuary /7,
/===, &egional Dire"tor *abrador "on"urred in the findings of the 4nvestigating Committee and
meted out the penalty of for"ed resignation to Cuanan without pre0udi"e to benefits.
4n an 1rder dated April 16, /===, then Dep+d Se"retary Andrew 2onGales affirmed the
De"ision of &egional Dire"tor *abrador. 1n )ay 6=, /===, 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 <une 1., /===.
Cuanan elevated his "ase to the CSC. 1n <anuary /=, /==6, the CSC issued &esolution 3o.
=6==;. , whi"h set aside the <une 1., /=== &esolution of Se"retary 2onGales and e(onerated Cuanan
from the "harge of se(ual harassment. 1n <anuary /6, /==6, "opies of the resolution were duly sent
to the parties, in"luding the Dep+d , Cuanan re"eived a "opy of &esolution 3o. =6==;. on <anuary
61, /==6 .
4n a *etter dated $ebruary 6, /==6, Cuanan re8uested his reinstatement as +lementary S"hool
%rin"ipal 4 . 4n a 1
st
4ndorsement, the Distri"t Supervisor re"ommended appropriate a"tion. 4n a /
nd
4ndorsement dated $ebruary :, /==6, S"hools Division Superintendent Dios"orides D. *usung
Superintendent' re"ommended that Cuanan be reinstated to duty as S"hool %rin"ipal of San Antonio
Distri"t upon finality of the de"ision of the CSC . 4n a *etter

dated $ebruary 1=, /==6, &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 /==6, Dep+d Anderse"retary <ose *uis )artin C. 2as"on sent a letter to
the CSC re8uesting a "opy of CSC &esolution 3o. =6==;. dated <anuary /=, /==6. 4n a *etter

dated
)ar"h /D, /==6,

the CSC informed the Dep+d that a "opy of the re8uested resolution was duly sent to
it on <anuary /6, /==6. 3onetheless, the CSC sent another "opy of the resolution to the Dep+d for its
referen"e. !he Dep+d re"eived said referen"e "opy on )ar"h /7, /==6.
1n April 11, /==6, then Dep+d Se"retary +dilberto C. de <esus filed a %etition for
&eviewE&e"onsideration

with the CSC. 3o "opy of the pleading was served upon Cuanan.
1n <uly /., /==6, Se"retary De <esus filed a Supplemental %etition for
&eviewE&e"onsideration

reiterating the prayer for reversal of the resolution. Again, no "opy of the
pleading was served upon Cuanan.
Subse8uently, pursuant to Division Spe"ial 1rder 3o. ==1 series of /==6 dated <une 17,
/==6, Cuanan was reinstated to his former position as s"hool prin"ipal effe"tive April 6=, /==6 4n
Division Spe"ial 1rder 3o. /7D, series of /==6 dated <uly 7, /==6, Cuanan was dire"ted to return to
duty . ,ased thereon, Cuanan re8uested payment of salaries and his in"lusion in the payroll, whi"h
the Division S"hool Superintendent of 3ueva +"i0a duly endorsed on 3ovember -, /==6 .
5owever, on 1"tober //, /==:, the CSC issued &esolution 3o. =:11:-

setting aside CSC
&esolution 3o. =6==;. dated <anuary /=, /==6. 4t found Cuanan guilty of Se(ual 5arassment, 2rave
)is"ondu"t and Condu"t 2rossly %re0udi"ial to the ,est 4nterest 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 dis8ualifi"ation from holding publi" offi"e. Cuanan re"eived a "opy of the
&esolution on 3ovember ., /==: .
!hirteen days later, or on 3ovember //, /==:, Cuanan filed a petition for certiorari

with the
CA seeking to annul &esolution 3o. =:11:-, alleging that the CSC should not have entertained the
petition for reviewEre"onsideration sin"e the Dep+d was not the "omplainant or the party adversely
affe"ted by the resolution# that the petition for reviewEre"onsideration was filed out of time# and that
Cuanan was not furnished "opies of the pleadings filed by the Dep+d in violation of pro"edural due
pro"ess.
!he Dep+d 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 :6 of the &ules of Court.
1n )ay 1;, /==D, the CA rendered a De"ision

granting the petition for certiorari and setting
aside CSC &esolution 3o. =:11:- dated 1"tober 1/, /==:. !he CA held that while a motion for
re"onsideration and a petition for review under &ule :6 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 Dep+d
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 re8uired by the CSC to file a "omment thereon, mu"h
less, given a "opy of the said petition# that the Dep+d failed to establish that the resolution was not yet
final and e(e"utory when it filed its petition for reviewEre"onsideration.
:D
Dep+d filed a )otion for &e"onsideration but the CA denied the same in its &esolution
dated <uly 17, /==D.
5en"e, the present petition on the following grounds:
4
>4!5 DA+ &+S%+C!, !5+ C1A&! 1$ A%%+A*S 2&AF+*J +&&+D 13 A RA+S!413
1$ *A> 43 !AM432 C1234OA3C+ 1$ !5+ %+!4!413 43 CA-2.&. S% 31. 7-:.., !5+
SA)+ 31! ,+432 !5+ %&1%+& &+)+DJ 43 ASSA4*432 CSC &+S1*A!413 31.
=:11:- DA!+D 1C!1,+& //, /==:.
44
>4!5 DA+ &+S%+C!, !5+ C1A&! 1$ A%%+A*S 2&AF+*J +&&+D 13 A RA+S!413
1$ *A> 43 AD<AD2432 CSC AS 5AF432 C1))4!!+D 2&AF+ A,AS+ 1$
D4SC&+!413 43 4SSA432 &+S1*A!413 31. =:11:- DA!+D 1C!1,+& //, /==: .
Dep+d "ontends that the CA should have dismissed outright the petition for certiorari
be"ause CSC de"isions are appealable to the CA by petition for review under &ule :6# that the filing
of a motion for re"onsideration was a pre"ondition to the filing of a petition for certiorari under &ule
;D# that the Dep+d, even if not the "omplainant, may 8uestion the resolution of the CSC# that Cuanan
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 Dep+d, the CSC was not bound by
pro"edural rules.
Cuanan, on the other hand, "ontends that the Dep+d "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 Dep+d may seek
re"onsideration of the CSC &esolution, the petition for reviewEre"onsideration was filed out of time#
and that Cuanan9s right to due pro"ess was violated when he was not given a "opy of the pleadings
filed by the Dep+d or given the opportunity to "omment thereon.
!he Court finds it ne"essary, before delving on the grounds relied upon by the Dep+d in
support of the petition, to first resolve the 8uestion of whether the Dep+d "an seek re"onsideration of
the CSC &esolution e(onerating Cuanan.
4n 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
8ualifies as a party adversely affe"ted by the 0udgment, who "an file an appeal of a 0udgment of
e(oneration in an administrative "ase. CSC &esolution 3o. =/1;==

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 ( ( ( l' %A&!J ADF+&S+*J
A$$+C!+D 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' eAo'er"#i'& #%e 7"i)
e$ployee. +mphasis supplied'
:;
5en"e, CuananSs e(oneration under CSC &esolution 3o. =6==;. may be sub0e"t to a motion for
re"onsideration by the Dep+d whi"h, as the appointing and dis"iplining authority, is a real party in
interest.
3ow, as to the merits of Dep+dSs 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 :6

of the &ules of Court within fifteen days from noti"e of the resolution.
&e"ourse to a petition for certiorari under &ule ;D renders the petition dismissible for being the
wrong remedy. 3onetheless, there are e("eptions to this rule, to wit: a' when publi" welfare and the
advan"ement of publi" poli"y di"tates# b' when the broader interest of 0usti"e so re8uires# ,c! w%e'
#%e wri#7 i77ue) "re 'ull "') *oi)# or d' when the 8uestioned order amounts to an oppressive
e(er"ise of 0udi"ial authority . As will be shown forthwith, e("eption "' 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 remedy of certiorari is warranted
where the order is a patent nullity, as where the "ourt a Cuo has no 0urisdi"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 ob0e"t . !hese e("eptions find appli"ation to CuananSs petition for
certiorari in the CA.
At any rate, CuananSs petition for certiorari before the CA "ould be treated as a petition for
review, the petition having been filed on 3ovember //, /==:, or thirteen 16' days from re"eipt on
3ovember ., /==: of CSC &esolution 3o. =:11:-, "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 0usti"e .
$urthermore, CSC &esolution 3o. =6==;. has long be"ome final and e(e"utory. 4t must be
noted that the re"ords show that "opies of CSC &esolution 3o. =6==;. were duly sent to the parties,
in"luding Dep+d, on <anuary /6, /==6 . Cuanan re"eived a "opy thereof on <anuary 61, /==6 while
the Dep+d re8uested a "opy sometime in )ar"h /==6, or about two months later. Ander the &ules of
+viden"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 0udgments, final orders or resolutions.
Conse8uently, the burden of proving the irregularity in offi"ial "ondu"t -- that is, non-re"eipt
of the duly sent "opy of CSC &esolution 3o. =6==;. -- is on the part of the Dep+d, whi"h in the
present "ase "learly failed to dis"harge the same .

!hus, the presumption stands that CSC &esolution
3o. =6==;. dated <anuary /=, /==6 had already be"ome final and e(e"utory when the Dep+d filed its
%etition for &eviewE&e"onsideration on April 11, /==6, more than two months later.
4t is elementary that on"e 0udgment has be"ome final and e(e"utory, it be"omes immutable
and "an no longer be amended or modified. 4n +allardo-Corro v. +allardo , this Court held:
3othing is more settled in law than that on"e a 0udgment attains finality it thereby be"omes
immutable and unalterable. 4t 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. <ust 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 en0oy the finality of the resolution of his "ase. !he
do"trine of finality of 0udgment is grounded on fundamental "onsiderations of publi" poli"y and
sound pra"ti"e, and that, at the risk of o""asional errors, the 0udgments 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 0usti"e whi"h is to assist in the enfor"ement of the rule of
law and the maintenan"e of pea"e and order by settling 0usti"iable "ontroversies with finality .
)oreover, while it is true that administrative tribunals e(er"ising 8uasi-0udi"ial fun"tions are
free from the rigidity of "ertain pro"edural re8uirements, they are bound by law and pra"ti"e to
observe the fundamental and essential re8uirements of due pro"ess in 0usti"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* Ti.ay !. 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 reBuire$e'#7 o( )ue proce77.
$urthermore, Se"tion :6.A of the Aniform &ules in Administrative Cases in the Civil
Servi"e provides:
Se"tion :6.A. 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'.
Any 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 D' 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.+mphasis supplied'
Cuanan undoubtedly was denied pro"edural due pro"ess. 5e had no opportunity to
parti"ipate in the pro"eedings for the petition for reviewE re"onsideration filed by the Dep+d, sin"e no
"opy of the pleadings filed by the Dep+d were served upon him or his "ounsel# nor was he even
re8uired by the CSC to file his "omments thereon. Considering that pleadings filed by the Dep+d
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 Appeals in CA-2.&. S% 3o. 7-:.. 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$i##e) (or )eci7io' "') #%e 8"llo#7 #r"'7(erre)
#o #%e Se'"#e Elec#or"l Tri8u'"l, #%e COMELEC we'# #o
)eli8er"#e o' #%e c"7e "# #%e Se'"#e Elec#or"l Tri8u'"l
u7i'& #%e 8"llo#7 #%erei' i' #%e proce77 wi#%ou# 'o#ice #o
#%e pe#i#io'er.
JOSELITO ME-/O>A VS. COMELEC "') RO4ERTO
5A:/A-:A-A-, :.R. -o. 1663;6, Oc#o8er 11, 9;;9
:7
4RIO-, J.0
!he petitioner and the respondent vied for the position of 2overnor of the %rovin"e of
,ula"an in the )ay 1:, /==- ele"tions. !he petitioner was pro"laimed winning "andidate and
assumed the offi"e of 2overnor.
!he respondent seasonably filed an ele"tion protest with the C1)+*+C, whi"h was raffled
to the Se"ond Division and do"keted as +%C 3o. /==--::. &evision of ballots involving the
protested and "ounter-protested pre"in"ts in Angat, ,o"aue, Calumpit, DoTa &emedios !rinidad,
2uiginto, )alolos, )ey"auayan, 3orGagaray, %andi, %aombong, %laridel, %ulilan, San &afael and
San <ose del )onte soon followed. !he revision was "ondu"ted at the C1)+*+C9s offi"e in
4ntramuros. After revision, the parties presented their other eviden"e, leading to the parties9 formal
offer of their respe"tive eviden"e.
!he C1)+*+C approved the parties9 formal offer of eviden"e and then re8uired the
parties to submit their respe"tive memoranda. !he parties "omplied with the C1)+*+C9s order.
T%e c"7e w"7 #%ere"(#er 7u8$i##e) (or re7olu#io'.
1n )ar"h /, /==. the C1)+*+C transferred the ,ula"an ballot bo(es, in"luding those
involved in the provin"ial ele"tion "ontest, to the Senate +le"toral !ribunal "E&' in "onne"tion
with the protest filed by A8uilino %imentel 444 against <uan )iguel Oubiri. 4n light of this
development, the petitioner moved to suspend further pro"eedings. .
!he C1)+*+C9s Se"ond Division denied the petitioner9s motion in its 1rder of April /.,
/==., ruling that the C1)+*+C 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 S+!. !he petitioner moved to re"onsider this 1rder, but the
C1)+*+C9s Se"ond Division denied the motion in its 1rder of )ay /;, /==.. !hese inter-
related &esolutions led to the C1)+*+C9s "ontinued a"tion I 7peci(ic"lly, #%e "ppreci"#io' o(
8"llo#7 I on the provin"ial ele"tion "ontest at the S+! offi"es---whi"h the C1)+*+C did without
informing the petitioner.
Allegedly alarmed by information on C1)+*+C a"tion on the provin"ial ele"tion "ontest
?it2in t2e "E& premises ?it2out notice to 2im and ?it2out 2is participation, the petitioner9s
"ounsel wrote the S+! Se"retary, Atty. 4rene 2uevarra, a letter dated <une 1=, /==. to "onfirm the
vera"ity of the reported "ondu"t of pro"eedings.
1DB/C
!he S+! Se"retary responded on <une 1-,
/==. as follows:
( ( ( please be informed that the "ondu"t of pro"eedings in C1)+*+C
+%C 3o. /==--:: %agdanganan vs. )endoGa' within the !ribunal %remises was
authoriGed by then A"ting Chairman of the !ribunal, <usti"e Antonio !. Carpio,
upon formal re8uest of the 1ffi"e of Commissioner *u"enito 3. !agle.
,asis of su"h grant is Se"tion 6, Comele" &esolution 3o. /71/ dated 1-
1"tober 1..D, stating that ?t'he !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
1DB/C
See %etition, p. 1/.
:.
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 suppliedC
1;B6C

ISS3EH
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
sub0e"t matter involves him and the people of the %rovin"e of ,ula"an who ele"ted him. 1n this
basis, he "laims entitlement to noti"e and parti"ipation in all matters that involve or are related to
the ele"tion protest. 5e 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 <oa8uin ,ernas,
1-B:C
the petitioner argues that the
pro"eedings before the C1)+*+C in ele"tion protests are 0udi"ial in nature and "hara"ter. !hus,
the stri"tures of 0udi"ial due pro"ess I spe"ifi"ally, a' opportunity to be heard and b' that
0udgment be rendered only after lawful hearing I apply. 3oti"es in 0udi"ial dispute, he "laims, are
not really 0ust 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. 5e further "ites <usti"e 4sagani A. CruG,
17BDC
who wrote:
( ( ( 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 0udgment only after lawful hearing is absent. !here is no way, he
"laims, that a 0udi"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 sub0e"t matter the sovereign will of an entire
provin"e.
5e was therefore denied his day in "ourt, he "laims, when the C1)+*+C "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.
5+*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 S+! premises without noti"e to and without the
1;B6C
$ollo, p. :D.
1-B:C
<. ,ernas, Constitutional "tructure and #o?ers of +overnment, /==D, pp. -17--1..
17BDC
4. CruG, Constitutional La?, /==6, p. 1:.
D=
parti"ipation of the petitioner. Signifi"antly, ?the "ondu"t of pro"eedings@ is "onfirmed by the
S+! Se"retary in the letter we 8uoted above.
1.B7C
As the issues raised show I the petitioner9s fo"us
is not really on the C1)+*+C 1rders 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 S+!# t2e
focus is on ?2at t2e COMELEC did after to t2e issuance of t2e $esolutions. >e read the petition
in this "onte(t as these C1)+*+C 1rders are now unassailable as the period to "hallenge them
has long passed.
/=B.C

!he substantive issue we are primarily "alled upon to resolve is whether there were
pro"eedings within the S+! premises, entitling the petitioner to noti"e and parti"ipation, whi"h
were denied to him# in other words, the issue is whether the petitioner9s right to due pro"ess has
been violated. A finding of due pro"ess violation, be"ause of the inherent arbitrariness it "arries,
ne"essarily amounts to grave abuse of dis"retion.
As a preliminary matter, we note that the petitioner has "laimed that C1)+*+C 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. >e take this opportunity to "larify that 0udi"ial power in our "ountry is
Evested in one 1#pre(e Co#rt and in suc2 lo'er o#rt" as may 'e esta'lis2ed 'y la?.@
/1B1=C
!his
e("lusive grant of authority to the <udi"iary is reinfor"ed under the se"ond paragraph of Se"tion 1,
Arti"le F444 of the Constitution whi"h further states that EJudicial po?er includes t2e duty of t2e
o#rt" of 2#"tie 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 0udi"ial power in the
"ourts.
4n "ontrast with the above definitions, Se"tion /, Arti"le 4QC' of the Constitution lists the
C1)+*+C9s powers and fun"tions, among others, as follows:
1' +nfor"e and administer all laws and regulations relative to the "ondu"t of
an ele"tion, plebis"ite, initiative, referendum, and re"all.
/' +(er"ise e("lusive original 0urisdi"tion over all "ontests relating to the
ele"tions, returns and 8ualifi"ations of all ele"tive regional, provin"ial, and "ity
offi"ials, and appellate 0urisdi"tion over all "ontests involving ele"tive muni"ipal
offi"ials de"ided by trial "ourts of general 0urisdi"tion, or involving ele"tive
'arangay offi"ials by trial "ourts of limited 0urisdi"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.
6' De"ide, e("ept those involving the right to vote, all 8uestions 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.

Ander these terms, the C1)+*+C 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
1.B7C
"upra note 6.
/=B.C
See Se"tion 6, &ule ;: of the &ules of Court. !he petitioner re"eived the C1)+*+C &esolution denying his motion for
re"onsideration on <une 1, /==.. !hirty 6=' days later or on <uly 1, /==., 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 6, &ule ;:.
/1B1=C
Se"tion 1 first paragraph', Arti"le F444, 1.7- Constitution.
D1
administer ele"tion laws',
//B11C
8uasi-0udi"ial to e(er"ise original 0urisdi"tion over ele"tion "ontests
of regional, provin"ial and "ity offi"ials and appellate 0urisdi"tion over ele"tion "ontests of other
lower ranking offi"ials', and 8uasi-legislative rulemaking on all 8uestions affe"ting ele"tions and
the promulgation of its rules of pro"edure'.
!he C1)+*+C9s ad0udi"ative fun"tion is 8uasi-0udi"ial sin"e it is a "onstitutional body,
ot2er t2an a court, vested with authority to de"ide ele"tion "ontests, and in the "ourse of the
e(er"ise of its 0urisdi"tion, to hold hearings and e(er"ise dis"retion of a 0udi"ial nature#
/6B1/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
0udgment.
/:B16C
Despite the e(er"ise of dis"retion that is essentially 0udi"ial in "hara"ter,
parti"ularly with respe"t to ele"tion "ontests, C1)+*+C is not a tribunal within the 0udi"ial
bran"h of government and is not a "ourt e(er"ising 0udi"ial power in the "onstitutional sense#
/DB1:C
hen"e, its ad0udi"ative fun"tion, e(er"ised as it is in the "ourse of administration and enfor"ement,
is 8uasi-0udi"ial.
!he appropriate due pro"ess standards that apply to the C1)+*+C, as an administrative or
8uasi-0udi"ial tribunal, are those outlined in the seminal "ase of Ang &i'ay v. Court of Industrial
$elations,
0<3145
8uoted below:
1' !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. (((
/' 3ot 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.
6' >hile 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. A de"ision with absolutely nothing to support it is
a nullity, a pla"e when dire"tly atta"hed.
:' 3ot 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. 4t means su"h relevant eviden"e as a reasonable mind might a""ept as
ade8uate to support a "on"lusion.H
D' !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.
//B11C
!tutalum v. Commission on Elections, 2.&. 3o. *-/D6:., De"ember 6, 1.;D, 1D SC&A :;D.
/6B1/C
See: #residential Anti-%ollar "alting &as@ Aorce v. Court of Appeals, 2.&. 3o. 76D-7, )ar"h 1;, 1.7., 1-1 SC&A 6:7# Midland
Insurance Corporation v. IAC, 3o. *--1.=D, August 16, 1.7;, 1:6 SC&A :D7.
/:B16C
See: CariGo v. Commission on Human $ig2ts, 2.&. 3o. .;;71, De"ember /, 1..1, /=: SC&A :76, on the a"tivities en"ompassed
by the e(er"ise of 8uasi-0udi"ial power.
/DB1:C
See: Cipriano v. COMELEC, 2.&. 3o. 1D776=, August 1=, /==:, :6; SC&A :D, "iting "andoval v. COMELEC, 6/6 SC&A :=6
B/===C.
/;B1;C
;. %hil. ;6D 1.:='.
D/
;' !he Court of 4ndustrial &elations or any of its 0udges, therefore, must a"t
on its or his own independent "onsideration of the law and fa"ts of the "ontroversy,
and not simply a""ept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a de"ision.
-' !he Court of 4ndustrial &elations should, in all "ontroversial 8uestions,
render its de"ision in su"h a manner that the parties to the pro"eeding "an know the
various issues involved, and the reasons for the de"isions rendered. !he
performan"e of this duty is inseparable from the authority "onferred upon it.
!hese are now "ommonly referred to as c"r)i'"l pri$"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 one9s side or an opportunity to seek a re"onsideration of the a"tion or ruling "omplained
of.
/-B1-C
A formal or trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all instan"es essential# in the "ase of
C1)+*+C, &ule 1- of its &ules of %ro"edure defines the re8uirements 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 re8uirements 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.
/7B17C

$inally, the last re8uirement, relating to the form and substan"e of the de"ision of a 8uasi-
0udi"ial body, further "omplements the hearing and de"ision-making due pro"ess rights and is
similar in substan"e to the "onstitutional re8uirement 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
As 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 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.
4n 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. >e
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.
/-B1-C
autista v. Comelec, 2.&. 3os. 1D:-.;-.-, 1"tober /6, /==6, :1: SC&A /...
/7B17C
"upra note 1-.
/.B1.C
C13S!4!A!413, Arti"le F444, Se"tion 1:# See "olid Homes, Inc. v. Laserna, 2.&. 3o. 1;;=D1, April 7, /==7, DD= SC&A ;16.
D6
,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. 4n 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 C1)+*+C has more than satisfied the
opportunity to be heard that the Ang &i'ay hearing stage rights re8uire. 4n 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 other9s
submission, sub0e"t only to established C1)+*+C rules of pro"edures. Ander 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 @5rocee)i'&7C "# #%e SET.
A "riti"al 8uestion to be answered in passing upon due pro"ess 8uestions 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 S+!.
4n the petition, the petitioner alleged that there were ?strange pro"eedings@
6=B/=C
whi"h were
?unilateral, "landestine and surreptitious@ within the premises of the S+!, on ?do"uments, ballots
and ele"tion materials whose possession and "ustody have been transferred@ to the S+!, and the
?petitioner was 3+F+& 1$$4C4A**J 31!4$4+D of the strange on-goings@ at the S+!.
61B/1C
Atta"hed to the petition was the letter of the Se"retary of the S+! "onfirming the ?"ondu"t of
pro"eedings@ in the provin"ial ele"tion "ontest, and "iting as basis the authority of A"ting S+!
Chairman, <usti"e Antonio !. Carpio, upon the formal re8uest of the 1ffi"e of Commissioner
*u"enito 3. !agle, and "iting Se"tion 6, C1)+*+C &esolution 3o. /71/ dated 1- 1"tober 1..D
on the "oordination envisioned among the C1)+*+C, the S+! and the "ourts ?so as not to delay
or interrupt the re!i"ion of .allot" being "ondu"ted.@ >hile the S+! letter made the reservation
that ?>hile 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
re8uested,@ no mention whatsoever was made of the kind of pro"eedings taking pla"e.
4t was at this point that this Court intervened, in response to the petitioner9s prayer for the
issuan"e of temporary in0un"tive relief, through the issuan"e of a Status Ruo 1rder 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.
After "onsideration of the respondents9 Comments and the petitioner9s petition and &eply,
we hold that the "ontested pro"eedings at the S+! ?contested proceedings' are no longer part of
the adversarial aspe"ts of the ele"tion "ontest that would re8uire noti"e of hearing and the
parti"ipation of the parties. As the C1)+*+C stated in its Comment and without any "ontrary or
disputing "laim in the petitioner9s &eply:
6/B//C
6=B/=C
$ollo, p. 1/.
61B/1C
Id., p. 16.
6/B//C
C1)+*+C Comment# rollo, pp. -/-S and -/-!.
D:
?5owever, "ontrary to the "laim of petitioner, publi" respondent in the appre"iation
of the "ontested ballots in +%C 3o. /==--:: simultaneously with the S+! in S+!
Case 3o. ==1-=- is not "ondu"ting ?further pro"eedings@ re8uiring noti"e to the
parties. !here is no revision or "orre"tion of the ballots be"ause +%C 3o. /==--=:
was already submitted for resolution. %ubli" respondent, in "oordinating with the
S+!, is simply resolving the submitted protest "ase before it. !he parties
ne"essarily take no part in said deliberation, whi"h re8uire utmost se"re"y.
3eedless 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.@
4n other words, what took pla"e at the S+! were the internal deliberations of the
C1)+*+C, as a 8uasi-0udi"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
0udi"ial deliberations whi"h are "onsidered "onfidential and privileged.
66B/6C
>e find it signifi"ant
that the private respondent9s Comment fully supported the C1)+*+C9s 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
S+! relating to the provin"ial ele"tion "ontest.
!o "on"lude, the rights to noti"e and to be heard are not material "onsiderations in the
C1)+*+C9s handling of the ,ula"an provin"ial ele"tion "ontest after the transfer of the ballot
bo(es to the S+!# no pro"eedings at the instan"e of one party or of C1)+*+C has been
"ondu"ted at the S+! that would re8uire noti"e and hearing be"ause of the possibility of pre0udi"e
to the other party. !he C1)+*+C 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. 4n 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 0urisdi"tion "ommitted by the C1)+*+C 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.
1n the basis of the above "on"lusion, we see no point in dis"ussing any alleged violation of
the deliberative stage rights. $irst, no illegal pro"eeding ever took pla"e that would bear the
?poisonous fruits@ that the petitioner fears. Se"ondly, in the absen"e of the results of the
C1)+*+C deliberations through its de"ision on the ele"tion protest, no basis e(ists to apply the
Ang &i'ay deliberative stage rights# there is nothing for us to test under the standards of the due
pro"ess deliberative stages rights before the C1)+*+C renders its de"ision. +(pressed in terms of
our standard of review, we have as yet no basis to determine the e(isten"e of any grave abuse of
dis"retion.
Co')uc# o( COMELEC
/eli8er"#io'7 "# #%e SET 5re$i7e7
>e turn to the issue of the propriety of the C1)+*+C9s "onsideration of the provin"ial
ele"tion "ontest spe"ifi"ally its appre"iation of the "ontested ballots' at the S+! premises and
66B/6C
See C2ave5 v. #u'lic Estates Aut2ority, 2.&. 3o. 166/D=, <uly ., /==/, 67: SC&A 1D/.
DD
while the same ballots are also under "onsideration by the S+! for another ele"tion "ontest
legitimately within the S+!9s own 0urisdi"tion.
>e state at the outset that the C1)+*+C did not lose 0urisdi"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 S+!. !he Constitution "onferred upon the C1)+*+C
0urisdi"tion over ele"tion protests involving provin"ial offi"ials. !he C1)+*+C in this "ase has
lawfully a"8uired 0urisdi"tion over the sub0e"t matter, i.e., the provin"ial ele"tion "ontest, as well
as over the parties. After its 0urisdi"tion atta"hed, this 0urisdi"tion "annot be ousted by subse8uent
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 0urisdi"tion over another ele"tion "ontest pursuant to the
Constitution. !his is the rule of adheren"e of 0urisdi"tion.
6:B/:C

!hus, the 0urisdi"tion of the C1)+*+C over provin"ial ele"tion "ontest e(ists side by side
with the 0urisdi"tion of the Senate +le"toral !ribunal, with ea"h tribunal being supreme in their
respe"tive areas of "on"ern the Senate ele"tion "ontests for the S+!, and the regional, provin"ial
and "ity ele"tion "ontests for the C1)+*+C', and with neither one being higher than the other in
terms of pre"eden"e so that the 0urisdi"tion of one must yield to the other.
,ut while no pre"eden"e in 0urisdi"tion e(ists, the C1)+*+C, 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 ad0udi"atory tribunal and as provided in
C1)+*+C &esolution 3o. /71/, runs:
1. %residential +le"toral !ribunal#
/. Senate +le"toral !ribunal#
6. 5ouse of &epresentatives +le"toral !ribunal#
:. Commission on +le"tions# and
D. &egional !rial Courts.
!his order of preferen"e di"tated that the ballot bo(es and other ele"tion materials in ,ula"an9s
provin"ial ele"tion "ontest, had to be transferred to the S+! when the latter needed these materials
for its revision of ballots. !he transfer to the S+!, 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 C1)+*+C held in its 1rders of /. April /==. and /; )ay /==. in +%C 3o. /==--::.
6DB/DC
!his is parti"ularly true in ,ula"an9s "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. >e a""ordingly LI.T the STAT3S M3O OR/ER we issued, e((ec#i*e i$$e)i"#ely.
CHAPTER III - THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE
6:B/:C
See: $amos v. Central an@ of t2e #2ilippines, 3o. *-/.6D/, 1"tober :, 1.-1, :1 SC&A D;D# eng5on v. Inciong, 3os. *-:7-=;-
=-, <une /., 1=-., .1 SC&A /:7# alta5ar v. CA, 1=: SC&A ;1. B1.71C# $amos v. Our Lady of #eace "c2ool, 3o. *-DD.D=,
De"ember /;, 1.7:, 166 SC&A -:1# Lee v. #residing Judge, M&C H Lega5pi City, 3o. *-;7-7., 3ovember 1=, 1.7;, 1:D SC&A :=7.
6DB/DC
$ollo, pp. /.-6:.
D;
Sec. 1P'or 7%"ll "'y per7o' 8e )e'ie) #%e eBu"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
e8ual 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, C<
!he main issue in this "ase is whether or not the se"ond proviso in the third paragraph of
Se"tion 16 of &epubli" A"t 3o. .6;., Se"tion ;; of the 1mnibus +le"tion Code and Se"tion :a'
of C1)+*+C &esolution 3o. 7;-7, providing that appointive offi"ials are deemed automati"ally
resigned from their 0obs upon the filing of their "ertifi"ates of "andida"y while the ele"ted
offi"ials are not' is un"onstitutional mainly on the ground that they violate the e8ual prote"tion
"lause of the Constitution and suffer from overbreadth.
1n De"ember 1, /==., the Supreme Court held that the 8uestioned provisions of the above-
mentioned laws are un"onstitutional for being violative of the e8ual prote"tion "lause.
1n )otion for &e"onsideration, the Supreme Court re"onsidered its earlier De"ision and
de"lared the above laws and C1)+*+C &esolution "onstitutional.
4n support of their respe"tive motions for re"onsideration, respondent C1)+*+C and
movants-intervenors submit the following arguments:
1' !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#
/' !he assailed provisions do not violate the e8ual 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#
6' !he assailed provisions do not suffer from the infirmity of overbreadth# and
:' !here is a "ompelling need to reverse the assailed De"ision, as publi" safety and interest
demand su"h reversal.
>e find the foregoing arguments meritorious.
D-
!he assailed De"ember 1, /==. De"ision stru"k down Se"tion :a' of &esolution 7;-7, the
se"ond proviso in the third paragraph of Se"tion 16 of &epubli" A"t &A' .6;., and Se"tion ;; of
the 1mnibus +le"tion Code, on the following grounds:
1' !hey violate the e8ual prote"tion "lause of the Constitution be"ause of the differential
treatment of persons holding appointive offi"es and those holding ele"tive positions#
/' !hey are overbroad insofar as they prohibit the "andida"y of all "ivil servants holding
appointive posts: a' without distin"tion as to whether or not they o""upy
highEinfluential positions in the government, and b' they limit these "ivil servants9
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
6' Congress has not shown a "ompelling state interest to restri"t the fundamental right of
these publi" appointive offi"ials.
>e grant the motions for re"onsideration. >e 'ow rule that Se"tion :a' of &esolution
7;-7, Se"tion ;; of the 1mnibus +le"tion Code, and the se"ond proviso in the third paragraph of
Se"tion 16 of &A .6;. are not un"onstitutional, and a""ordingly re*er7e our De"ember 1, /==.
De"ision.
>e now hold that Se"tion :a' of &esolution 7;-7, Se"tion ;; of the 1mnibus +le"tion
Code, and the se"ond proviso in the third paragraph of Se"tion 16 of &A .6;. are not violative of
the e8ual prote"tion "lause of the Constitution.
i. 6ari7a", et al. !. ,%e#ti!e 1eretary, et al. i7 Co'#rolli'&
4n truth, this Court has already ruled s8uarely on whether these deemed-resigned provisions
"hallenged in the "ase at bar violate the e8ual prote"tion "lause of the Constitution in ."riQ"7, et
al. *. EAecu#i*e Secre#"ry, et al.
4n ."riQ"7, the "onstitutionality of Se"tion 1: of the $air +le"tion A"t, in relation to
Se"tions ;; and ;- of the 1mnibus +le"tion Code, was assailed on the ground, among others, that
it unduly dis"riminates against appointive offi"ials. As Se"tion 1: repealed Se"tion ;- i.e., the
deemed-resigned provision in respe"t of ele"ted offi"ials' of the 1mnibus +le"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. 4n "ontrast, sin"e Se"tion ;; was not repealed, the 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 e8ual prote"tion "hallenge against Se"tion 1:,
with the end in view of having the deemed-resigned provisions ?apply e8ually@ to both ele"ted and
appointive offi"ials. >e 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. Conse8uently, the "ontention that Se"tion 1: of the $air +le"tion A"t, in relation to
Se"tions ;; and ;- of the 1mnibus +le"tion Code, infringed on the e8ual prote"tion "lause of the
Constitution, failed muster. >e ruled:
D7
!he petitionersS "ontention, that the repeal of Se"tion ;- of the 1mnibus
+le"tion Code pertaining to ele"tive offi"ials gives undue benefit to su"h offi"ials as
against the appointive ones and violates the e8ual prote"tion "lause of the
"onstitution, is tenuous.

!he e8ual prote"tion of the law "lause in the Constitution is not absolute, but
is sub0e"t to reasonable "lassifi"ation. 4f 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 e8ual
prote"tion guarantee in this manner:

!he e8ual 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 ine8uality. 4t is not intended to prohibit legislation
whi"h is limited either in the ob0e"t to whi"h it is dire"ted or by
territory within whi"h it is to operate. 4t does not demand absolute
e8uality among residents# it merely re8uires that all persons shall be
treated alike, under like "ir"umstan"es and "onditions both as to
privileges "onferred and liabilities enfor"ed. !he e8ual 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 eAi7# 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 $"')"#e o(
#%e elec#or"#e. T%ey "re elec#e) #o "' o((ice (or " )e(i'i#e #er$ "') $"y 8e
re$o*e) #%ere(ro$ o'ly upo' 7#ri'&e'# co')i#io'7. 1n 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.

Another substantial distin"tion between the two sets of offi"ials is that under
Se"tion DD, Chapter 7, !itle 4, Subse"tion A. Civil Servi"e Commission, ,ook F of
the Administrative Code of 1.7- +(e"utive 1rder 3o. /./', 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. Ander
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 ;- but retaining Se"tion ;; of the 1mnibus +le"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. Again,
it is not within the power of the Court to pass upon or look into the wisdom of this
"lassifi"ation.
D.

Sin"e the "lassifi"ation 0ustifying Se"tion 1: of &ep. A"t 3o. .==;, 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 e8ual 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. >e ought to be guided by the do"trine of stare decisis et non Cuieta
movere. !his do"trine, whi"h is really 8adherene to preedent",@ 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 0udi"ial de"isions. As the renowned 0urist ,en0amin CardoGo stated in his
treatise T%e -"#ure o( #%e Ju)ici"l 5roce77:
4t will not do to de"ide the same 8uestion one way between one set of litigants and
the opposite way between another. ?4f a group of "ases involves the same point, the
parties e(pe"t the same de"ision. 4t would be a gross in0usti"e to de"ide alternate
"ases on opposite prin"iples. 4f a "ase was de"ided against me yesterday when 4 was
a defendant, 4 shall look for the same 0udgment today if 4 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 even-
2anded administration of =ustice in t2e courts.
1ur ."riQ"7 ruling on the e8ual prote"tion impli"ations of the deemed-resigned provisions
"annot be minimaliGed as mere o'iter dictum. 4t is trite to state that an ad0udi"ation on any point
within the issues presented by the "ase "annot be "onsidered as o'iter dictum. !his rule applies to
all pertinent 8uestions 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. As 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 /' 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 supplied'
ii. Cla""ifiation Ger(ane to the &#rpo"e" of the 9a'
;=
!he ."riQ"7 ruling on the e8ual prote"tion "hallenge stands on solid ground even if
ree(amined.
!o start with, the e8ual prote"tion "lause does not re8uire the universal appli"ation of the
laws to all persons or things without distin"tion. >hat it simply re8uires is e8uality among e8uals
as determined a""ording to a valid "lassifi"ation. !he test developed by 0urispruden"e here and
yonder is that of reasonableness, whi"h has four re8uisites:
1' !he "lassifi"ation rests on substantial distin"tions#
/' 4t is germane to the purposes of the law#
6' 4t is not limited to e(isting "onditions only# and
:' 4t applies e8ually to all members of the same "lass.
1ur assailed De"ision readily a"knowledged that these deemed-resigned provisions satisfy
the first, third and fourth re8uisites of reasonableness. 4t, 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 +(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 affairs'. >ith the fa"t that they both head
e(e"utive offi"es, there is no valid 0ustifi"ation to treat them differently when both
file their BCertifi"ates of Candida"yC for the ele"tions. Ander 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
in0usti"e, the *egislature need not address every manifestation of the evil at on"e# it may pro"eed
?one step at a time.@ 4n addressing a so"ietal "on"ern, it must invariably draw lines and make
"hoi"es, thereby "reating some ine8uity as to those in"luded or e("luded. 3evertheless, as long as
?the bounds of reasonable "hoi"e@ are not e("eeded, the "ourts must defer to the legislative
0udgment. >e 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 re8uirement 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 e8ual prote"tion "hallenge must "onvin"ingly show that the
law "reates a "lassifi"ation that is ?palpably arbitrary or "apri"ious.@ 5e 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
;1
reasonableness of the "lassifi"ation is ?fairly debatable.@ 4n the "ase at bar, the petitioners failed I
and in fa"t did not even attempt I to dis"harge this heavy burden. 1ur assailed De"ision was
likewise silent as a sphin( on this point even while we submitted the following thesis:
... B4Ct is not suffi"ient grounds for invalidation that we may find that the
statute9s 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.

4n the instant "ase, is there a rational 0ustifi"ation for e("luding ele"ted
offi"ials from the operation of the deemed resigned provisionsN 4 submit that there
is.

An ele"tion is the embodiment of the popular will, perhaps the purest
e(pression of the sovereign power of the people. 4t 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 0ustifiably 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. 4n 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. 4n "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( Iu)ici"l 7cru#i'y, "l7o
#%ou&%# i# wi7e #o 8"l"'ce #%i7 wi#% #%e co$pe#i'&, ye# eBu"lly co$pelli'&,
i'#ere7# o( )e(erri'& #o #%e 7o*erei&' will. emphasis in the original'
4n fine, the assailed De"ision would have us ?e8ualiGe the playing field@ by invalidating
provisions of law that seek to restrain the evils from running riot. Ander the prete(t of e8ual
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. <usti"e 3a"hura, in his dissent, that
ele"ted offi"ials vis-U-vis appointive offi"ials' 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. 4t is the *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. 4t is "ertainly within the *egislature9s 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 fre8uen"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 0urispruden"e to prop up its e8ual 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 Anited States Court of Appeals promulgated in )ar"h 1.-6, whi"h stru"k down as
un"onstitutional a similar statutory provision. %atheti"ally, our assailed De"ision, relying on
M"'cu7o, "laimed:
1' !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#
/' Any legislative "lassifi"ation that signifi"antly burdens this fundamental right must be
sub0e"ted to stri"t e8ual prote"tion review# and
6' >hile the state has a "ompelling interest in maintaining the honesty and impartiality of
its publi" work for"e, the deemed-resigned provisions pursue their ob0e"tive in a far too
heavy-handed manner as to render them un"onstitutional.
4t then "on"luded with the e(hortation that sin"e ?the Ameri"ans, from whom we "opied
the provision in 8uestion, had already stri"ken down a similar measure for being un"onstitutionalB,C
it is high-time that we, too, should follow suit.@
1ur assailed De"ision9s relian"e on M"'cu7o is "ompletely mispla"ed. >e "annot blink
away the fa"t that the Anited States Supreme Court effeti!ely o!err#led M"'cu7o three months
after its promulgation by the Anited States Court of Appeals. 4n 3'i#e) S#"#e7 Ci*il Ser*ice
Co$$i77io', et al. *. -"#io'"l A77oci"#io' o( Le##er C"rrier7 A.LFCIO, et al. and 4ro")ricL,
et al. !. S#"#e o( OLl"%o$", et al., the Anited 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.
!he Court de"lared these provisions "ompliant with the e8ual prote"tion "lause. 4t held that
i' 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# ii' 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# iii' if the employees9
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 iv' 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 8uestion.
Le##er C"rrier7 elu"idated on these prin"iples, as follows:
Antil now, the 0udgment of Congress, the +(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
;6
federal employees are not aimed at parti"ular parties, groups, or points of view, but
apply e8ually to all partisan a"tivities of the type des"ribed. !hey dis"riminate
against no ra"ial, ethni", or religious minorities. 3or 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.

4t seems fundamental in the first pla"e that employees in the +(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. A
ma0or thesis of the 5at"h A"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 0udgment: it is not only important that
the 2overnment and its employees in fa"t avoid pra"ti"ing politi"al 0usti"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.

Another ma0or "on"ern of the restri"tion against partisan a"tivities by federal
employees was perhaps the immediate o""asion for ena"tment of the 5at"h A"t in
1.6.. &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 1.6; and 1.67 "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.

A 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. 4t may be urged
that prohibitions against "oer"ion are suffi"ient prote"tion# but for many years the
0oint 0udgment of the +(e"utive and Congress has been that to prote"t the rights of
federal employees with respe"t to their 0obs 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 . . ..9 %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. 3or, in
our view, does the Constitution forbid it.

3either 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 supplied'
4ro")ricL likewise definitively stated that the assailed statutory provision is "onstitutionally
permissible, vi5.:
Appellants do not 8uestion 1klahomaSs right to pla"e even-handed
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.9 &ather, appellants maintain that however permissible,
even "ommendable, the goals of s 717 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 717 are
void in toto and "annot be enfor"ed against them or anyone else.

>e have held today that the 5at"h A"t is not impermissibly vague. >e have
little doubt that s 717 is similarly not so vague that Kmen of "ommon intelligen"e
must ne"essarily guess at its meaning.9 >hatever other problems there are with s
717, it is all but frivolous to suggest that the se"tion fails to give ade8uate warning
of what a"tivities it pros"ribes or fails to set out Ke(pli"it standardsS for those who
must apply it. 4n the plainest language, it prohibits any state "lassified employee
from being Kan offi"er or member9 of a Kpartisan politi"al "lub9 or a "andidate for
Kany paid publi" offi"e.9 4t forbids soli"itation of "ontributions Kfor any politi"al
organiGation, "andida"y or other politi"al purpose9 and taking part Kin the
management or affairs of any politi"al party or in any politi"al "ampaign.9 >ords
inevitably "ontain germs of un"ertainty and, as with the 5at"h A"t, there may be
;D
disputes over the meaning of su"h terms in s 717 as Kpartisan,9 or Ktake part in,9 or
Kaffairs of9 politi"al parties. ,ut what was said in Letter Carriers, is appli"able here:
Kthere are limitations in the +nglish 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 ( ( (

( ( ( (

BAppellantsC 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. >e do
not believe that the overbreadth do"trine may appropriately be invoked in this
manner here.

( ( ( (

!he "onse8uen"e of our departure from traditional rules of standing in the
$irst Amendment 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. Appli"ation of the overbreadth do"trine in this manner is,
manifestly, strong medi"ine. 4t 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 ad0udi"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 prediction-cannot,
?it2 confidence, =ustify invalidating a statute on its face 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. 4t is our view that s 717 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. "ection ;.; is
not su'stantially over'road and it not, t2erefore, unconstitutional on its face.
itali"s supplied'
4t bears stressing that, in his Dissenting 1pinion, )r. <usti"e 3a"hura )oe7 'o# )e'y the
prin"iples enun"iated in Le##er C"rrier7 and 4ro")ricL. 5e 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
4n Letter Carriers, the plaintiffs alleged that the Civil Servi"e Commission
was enfor"ing, or threatening to enfor"e, the 5at"h A"t9s 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.

4n roadric@, the appellants sought the invalidation for being vague and
overbroad a provision in the 6sic9 1klahoma9s )erit System of %ersonnel
Administration A"t restri"ting the politi"al a"tivities of the State9s "lassified "ivil
servants, in mu"h the same manner as the 5at"h A"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.-= 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 4sland 2eneral Assembly. !he )ayor of Cranston then
began the pro"ess of enfor"ing the resign-to-run provision of the City 5ome &ule
Charter.

Clearly, as the above-"ited AS "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 original'
>e 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&'F#oFru' l"w7, vi5.:
1' M"'cu7o involved a "ivil servi"e employee who filed as a "andidate for nomination as
representative to the &hode 4sland 2eneral Assembly. 5e assailed the "onstitutionality
of W1:.=."' of the City 5ome &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.@
/' Le##er C"rrier7 involved plaintiffs who alleged that the Civil Servi"e Commission was
enfor"ing, or threatening to enfor"e, the 5at"h A"t9s 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
a' !he 3ational Asso"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#
b' %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
0ob# and
"' %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 >est *afayette,
4ndiana, and that he would do so e("ept for fear of losing his 0ob by
reason of violation of the 5at"h A"t.
!he 5at"h A"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 in8uiry 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
;7
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
furtheran"e of "andida"y. !he fa"t that "andida"y, is merely passive
is immaterial# if an employee a"8uies"es in the efforts of friends in
furtheran"e of su"h "andida"y su"h a"8uies"en"e "onstitutes an
infra"tion of the prohibitions against politi"al a"tivity. itali"s
supplied'
Se"tion .b' re8uires the immediate removal of violators and forbids the use of
appropriated funds thereafter to pay "ompensation to these persons.
6' 4ro")ricL was a "lass a"tion brought by "ertain 1klahoma state employees seeking a
de"laration of un"onstitutionality of two sub-paragraphs of Se"tion 717 of 1klahoma9s
)erit System of %ersonnel Administration A"t. Se"tion 717 -', 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
717 results in dismissal from employment, possible "riminal san"tions and limited state
employment ineligibility.
Conse8uently, 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 i' "on"erned virtually identi"al resign-to-run laws, and ii' were
de"ided by a superior "ourt, the Anited States Supreme Court. 4t was thus not surprising for the
$irst Cir"uit Court of Appeals I the same "ourt that de"ided M"'cu7o I to hold c"#e&oric"lly "')
e$p%"#ic"lly in M"&ill *. Ly'c% that M"'cu7o i7 'o lo'&er &oo) l"w. As we priorly e(plained:
M"&ill involved %awtu"ket, &hode 4sland firemen who ran for "ity offi"e in
1.-D. %awtu"ket9s ?*ittle 5at"h A"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( 9etter 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 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 Iu)&$e'# o( Co'&re77, "') "pplyi'& " @8"l"'ci'&C #e7# #o )e#er$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'$e'# i'#ere7#7 w%ic% were @i$por#"'#C e'ou&% #o ou#wei&% #%e
e$ployee7N .ir7# A$e')$e'# ri&%#7.

4t must be noted that the Court of Appeals 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 8uestion 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 5at"h A"t as to
federal employees. ,roadri"k sustained 1klahomaSs ?*ittle 5at"h
A"t@ against "onstitutional atta"k, limiting its holding to 1klahomaSs
"onstru"tion that the A"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.

( ( ( (

>hat 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 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. 3ot only was Anited %ubli" >orkers 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 0udgment of the Congress. >e "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. 4t 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 Amendment rights. ( ( ( itali"s supplied'

Apholding thus the "onstitutionality of the law in 8uestion, the M"&ill "ourt
detailed the ma0or governmental interests dis"ussed in Le##er C"rrier7 and applied
them to the %awtu"ket provision as follows:

4n 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. <ust as the Court in Letter Carriers
identified a se"ond governmental interest in the avoidan"e of the
appearan"e of Hpoliti"al 0usti"eH as to poli"y, so there is an
e8uivalent interest in avoiding the appearan"e of politi"al preferment
in privileges, "on"essions, and benefits. !he appearan"e or reality'
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.
>here, 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
0ustifies 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.

A se"ond ma0or 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. Ander 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. 4n
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. +ven 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.
1""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
-1
eliminates this diversity and tends to make abuse systemati". 4nstead
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. 4n
%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. 1n"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.

4n 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. 4n 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.
>hile the employeesS $irst Amendment rights would normally
outbalan"e these diminished interests, we do not suggest that they
would always do so. +ven 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. An 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, "li8ues, and politi"al bargaining,
should an employee gather substantial politi"al support, are
"onsiderable. "itations omitted'

-/
!he "ourt, however, remanded the "ase to the distri"t "ourt for further
pro"eedings in respe"t of the petitioners9 overbreadth "harge. 3oting 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.
Ander roadric@, when one who "hallenges a law has engaged in
"onstitutionally unprote"ted "ondu"t rather than unprote"ted spee"h'
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,
0udged in relation to the statuteSs plainly legitimate sweep.H !wo
ma0or un"ertainties attend the do"trine: how to distinguish spee"h
from "ondu"t, and how to define HsubstantialH overbreadth. >e are
spared the first in8uiry by roadric@ itself. !he plaintiffs in that "ase
had soli"ited support for a "andidate, and they were sub0e"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 found that this "ombination
re8uired 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 opa8ue 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. 1ften, 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. >hether 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 ma0or 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.

-6
&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@. 1n 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 0ustified, '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. A""ordingly, we remand for
"onsideration of plaintiffsS overbreadth "laim. itali"s supplied,
"itations omitted'

Cle"rly, 9etter Carrier", +roadri), "') Ma*ill )e$o'7#r"#e 8eyo')
)ou8# #%"# Man#"o !. Taft, %e"*ily relie) upo' 8y #%e ponenia, %"7 e((ec#i*ely
8ee' o*errule). As it is no longer good law, the ponenciaLs e(hortation that
?Bsin"eC the Ameri"ans, from whom we "opied the provision in 8uestion, had
already stri"ken down a similar measure for being un"onstitutionalB,C it is high-time
that we, too, should follow suit@ is mispla"ed and unwarranted.
A""ordingly, our assailed De"ision9s submission that the right to run for publi" offi"e is
?ine(tri"ably linked@ with two fundamental freedoms I those of e(pression and asso"iation I lies
on barren ground. Ameri"an "ase law has in fa"t 'e*er reco&'iJe) " (u')"$e'#"l ri&%# #o
eApre77 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 $irst Amendment does not in terms "onfer a right to
run for publi" offi"e, and this "ourt has held that it does not do so by impli"ation either.@ !hus,
one9s interest in seeking offi"e, 8y i#7el(, is 'o# entitled to "onstitutional prote"tion. )oreover, one
"annot bring one9s a"tion under the rubri" of freedom of asso"iation, absent any allegation that, by
running for an ele"tive position, one is advan"ing the politi"al ideas of a parti"ular set of voters.
%res"inding from these premises, it is "rystal "lear that the provisions "hallenged in the "ase
at bar, are not violative of the e8ual prote"tion "lause. !he deemed-resigned provisions
substantially serve governmental interests i.e., i' effi"ient "ivil servi"e faithful to the government
and the people rather than to party# ii' avoidan"e of the appearan"e of ?politi"al 0usti"e@ as to
poli"y# iii' avoidan"e of the danger of a powerful politi"al ma"hine# and iv' ensuring that
employees a"hieve advan"ement on their merits and that they be free from both "oer"ion and the
prospe"t of favor from politi"al a"tivity'. !hese are interests that are important enough to outweigh
the non-fundamental right of appointive offi"ials and employees to seek ele"tive offi"e.
En passant, we find it 8uite ironi" that )r. <usti"e 3a"hura "ites Cle$e'#7 *. ."7%i'& and
Mori"l, et al. *. Ju)ici"ry Co$$i77io' o( #%e S#"#e o( 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:
VA.S. "ourts, in subse8uent "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$"'e #o #%e purpo7e7 o( #%e
l"w. !hese resign-to-run legislations were 'o# eApre77e) i' " &e'er"l "')
-:
7weepi'& pro*i7io', and thus )i) 'o# *iol"#e #%e #e7# o( 8ei'& &er$"'e #o #%e
purpo7e o( #%e l"w, the se"ond re8uisite 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 original'
!his reading is a regrettable misrepresentation of Cle$e'#7 and Mori"l. !he resign-to-run
provisions in these "ases were upheld not be"ause they referred to spe"ified or parti"ular offi"ials
vis-U-vis a general "lass'# the 8uestioned provisions were found valid preci7ely 8ec"u7e #%e
Cour# deferred #o le&i7l"#i*e Iu)&$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. 4n fa"t, the e8ual 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 sub0e"t to the resign-to-run provisions, while others are not. &uled the Anited States
Supreme Court:
Arti"le QF4, W ;D, 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 ;D 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 ;D 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 ;D was ena"ted in 1.D: as a transitional provision
applying only to the 1.D: ele"tion. Se"tion ;D 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 ;D was not added
until 1.D7. 4n that year, a similar automati" resignation provision was added in Art.
Q4, 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.D7. &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 +8ual %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
-D
similar restri"tions on other offi"eholders. !he provisionSs language and its history
belie any notion that W ;D 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 supplied'
$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. A "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 e8ual 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
un8uestionably entitled to the prote"tion of the first and fourteenth amendments.
3othing 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. 4n 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. 3or do we approve any general
restri"tions on the politi"al and "ivil rights of 0udges in parti"ular. Our 2olding is
necessarily narro?ed 'y t2e met2odology employed to reac2 it. A re8uirement that
a state 0udge resign his offi"e prior to be"oming a "andidate for non-0udi"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 0udi"ial impropriety. Su"h a re8uirement
offends neither the first amendmentSs guarantees of free e(pression and asso"iation
nor the fourteenth amendmentSs guarantee of e8ual prote"tion of the laws. itali"s
supplied'

4ndeed, the Mori"l "ourt even 8uoted 4ro")ricL and stated that:
4n any event, the legislature must have some leeway in determining whi"h of its
employment positions re8uire restri"tions on partisan politi"al a"tivities and whi"h
may be left unregulated. And a State "an hardly be faulted for attempting to limit
the positions upon whi"h su"h restri"tions are pla"ed. "itations omitted'
V.
Sec#io' 2,"! o( Re7olu#io' 666, Sec#io' 13 o( RA 9369, "') Sec#io' 66 o( #%e O$'i8u7
Elec#io' Co)e /o -o# Su((er (ro$ O*er8re")#%
Apart from nullifying Se"tion :a' of &esolution 7;-7, Se"tion 16 of &A .6;., and Se"tion
;; of the 1mnibus +le"tion Code on e8ual prote"tion ground, our assailed De"ision stru"k them
down for being overbroad in two respe"ts, vi5.:
1' !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
-;
/' !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.
Again, on se"ond look, we have to revise our assailed De"ision.
i. 9i(itation on Candiday Re*ardle"" of /n#(.ent Appointi!e Offiial;" &o"ition, <alid
A""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 employee running for ele"tive offi"e and the
degree of influen"e that may be attendant thereto.
4ts 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 e8ually 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.@ As elu"idated in our prior e(position:
Attempts by government employees to wield influen"e over others or to
make use of their respe"tive positions apparently' 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 e8ually if not more' realisti" and dangerous possibility
that su"h seemingly dis0ointed 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
omitted'
ii. 9i(itation on Candiday Re*ardle"" of Type of Offie 1o#*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 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.
Again, a "areful study of the "hallenged provisions and related laws on the matter will
show that the alleged overbreadth is more apparent than real. 1ur e(position on this issue has not
been repudiated, vi5.:
A perusal of &esolution 7;-7 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. 1bviously, these rules and
guidelines, in"luding the restri"tion in Se"tion :a' of &esolution 7;-7, were issued
spe"ifi"ally for purposes of the )ay 1=, /=1= 3ational and *o"al +le"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 :a' of &A 7;-7 applies only to the "andida"ies of appointive
offi"ials vying for partisan ele"tive posts in the )ay 1=, /=1= 3ational and *o"al
+le"tions. 1n this s"ore, the overbreadth "hallenge leveled against Se"tion :a' is
"learly unsustainable.

Similarly, a "onsidered review of Se"tion 16 of &A .6;. and Se"tion ;; of
the 1mnibus +le"tion Code, in "on0un"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 in8uiry 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.

4n this regard, it is well to note that from as far ba"k as the ena"tment of the
1mnibus +le"tion Code in 1.7D, 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 6. of the 1mnibus +le"tion Code.
Said provision states:
Se"tion 6.. Certifi"ate of Candida"y. I 3o person shall be ele"ted
punong 'arangay or @aga?ad ng sangguniang 'arangay unless he
files a sworn "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,
-7
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 ;; of the 1mnibus +le"tion Code, and
later reiterated in the proviso of Se"tion 16 of &A .6;., to any ele"tion other than a
partisan one. $or this reason, the overbreadth "hallenge raised against Se"tion ;; of
the 1mnibus +le"tion Code and the pertinent proviso in Se"tion 16 of &A .6;.
must also fail.


4n any event, even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that Se"tion ;; of the
1mnibus +le"tion Code and the "orresponding provision in Se"tion 16 of &A .6;. are general
rules that apply also to ele"tions for nonpartisan publi" offi"es, the overbreadth "hallenge would
still be futile. Again, we e(plained:
4n the first pla"e, the view that Congress is limited to "ontrolling only
partisan behavior has not re"eived 0udi"ial imprimatur, be"ause the general
proposition of the relevant AS "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, 0udged in relation to the statute9s plainly legitimate sweep.

4n operational terms, measuring the substantiality of a statute9s 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. 4n this
regard, some sensitivity to reality is needed# an invalid appli"ation that is far-
fet"hed does not deserve as mu"h weight as one that is probable. !he 8uestion 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 employees'
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.9

-.
!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.
4n the Anited States, "laims of fa"ial overbreadth have been entertained only where, in the
0udgment 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 statutes' 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.
4n 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.
4n this light, the "on"eivably impermissible appli"ations of the "hallenged statutes I whi"h
are, at best, bold predi"tions I "annot 0ustify invalidating these statutes in toto and prohibiting the
State from enfor"ing them against "ondu"t that is, and has for more than 1== years been,
un8uestionably within its power and interest to pros"ribe. 4nstead, the more prudent approa"h
would be to deal with these "on"eivably impermissible appli"ations through "ase-by-"ase
ad0udi"ation rather than through a total invalidation of the statute itself.
4ndeed, the anomalies spawned by our assailed De"ision have taken pla"e. 4n his )otion
for &e"onsideration, intervenor Drilon stated that a number of high-ranking Cabinet members had
already filed their Certifi"ates of Candida"y without relin8uishing their posts. Several C1)+*+C
ele"tion offi"ers had likewise filed their Certifi"ates of Candida"y in their respe"tive provin"es.
+ven the Se"retary of <usti"e had filed her "ertifi"ate of substitution for representative of the first
distri"t of RueGon provin"e last De"ember 1:, /==. I even as her position as <usti"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 <udi"iary has not been spared, for a &egional !rial
Court <udge in the South has thrown his hat into the politi"al arena. >e "annot allow the tilting of
our ele"toral playing field in their favor.
$or the foregoing reasons, we now rule that Se"tion :a' of &esolution 7;-7 and Se"tion 16
of &A .6;., whi"h merely reiterate Se"tion ;; of the 1mnibus +le"tion Code, are not
un"onstitutionally overbroad.
I- VIE0 0HEREO., the Court &+S1*F+S to 2&A3! the respondent9s and the
intervenors9 )otions for &e"onsideration# &+F+&S+ and S+! AS4D+ this Court9s De"ember 1,
/==. De"ision# D4S)4SS the %etition# and 4SSA+ this &esolution de"laring as not
A3C13S!4!A!413A* 1' Se"tion :a' of C1)+*+C &esolution 3o. 7;-7, /' the se"ond
proviso in the third paragraph of Se"tion 16 of &epubli" A"t 3o. .6;., and 6' Se"tion ;; of the
1mnibus +le"tion Code.
1. !he s"ope of the e8ual prote"tion "lause, .D SC&A :/=
7=
/. +8ual prote"tion of the law, 16 SC&A /;;
6. &e8uisites 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. 4t must be germane tot he purposes of the law#
". 4t must not be limited to e(isting "onditions only# and
d. 4t must apply e8ually to all members of the same "lass.
/. &ead again, Asso"iation of Small *andowners vs. Se". of Agrarian reform, <uly 1:,
1.7.

:. +8ual prote"tion in general-
&ead:
1. %. vs. Fera, ;D %hil. D;
/. !4A FS. CA, 6=1 SC&A /-7 !here is real and substantial distin"tion between business
inside the Subi" Spe"ial +"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 Ameri"ans'
6. 4)+*DA )A&C1S FS. CA, /-7 SC&A 7:6
:. 54)A2A3 FS. %+1%*+, 1"tober -, 1..:
!he fa"t that poli"emen "harged with a "riminal offense punishable by more than ;
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 e8ual prote"tion "lause when the
Compensation and Classifi"ation A"t of 1.7. 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. :3TIERRE>, e# "l *7. /E5ARTME-T O.
43/:ET A-/ MA-A:EME-T, :.R. -o. 113966, M"rc% 16,
9;1;
A4A/, J.:
!hese "onsolidated "ases 8uestion 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 re8uired by the Compensation and %osition Classifi"ation
71
A"t of 1.7. and implemented through the "hallenged 3ational Compensation Cir"ular D. 3CC
D.' 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.
T%e ."c#7 "') #%e C"7e
Congress ena"ted in 1.7. &epubli" A"t &.A.' ;-D7, "alled the Compensation and %osition
Classifi"ation A"t of 1.7. to rationaliGe the "ompensation of government employees. 4ts Se"tion
1/ dire"ted the "onsolidation of allowan"es and additional "ompensation already being en0oyed 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'. FF All
"llow"'ce7, eAcep# (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 I77ueH
0%e#%er or 'o# #%e &r"'# o( COLA #o $ili#"ry "') police
per7o''el #o #%e eAclu7io' o( o#%er &o*er'$e'# e$ployee7
*iol"#e7 #%e eBu"l pro#ec#io' cl"u7e.
T%e Cour#N7 Ruli'&
At the heart of the present "ontroversy is Se"tion 1/ of &.A. ;-D7 as 8uoted above. .
As will be noted from the first senten"e above, ?"ll "llow"'ce7@ were deemed integrated
into the standardiGed salary rates e("ept the following:
1' representation and transportation allowan"es#
/' "lothing and laundry allowan"es#
6' subsisten"e allowan"es of marine offi"ers and "rew on board government vessels#
:' subsisten"e allowan"es of hospital personnel#
D' haGard pay#
;' allowan"es of foreign servi"e personnel stationed abroad# and
7/
-' 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. 4n #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 1' to ;', it was not so in regard to item -'. !he D,) still needed to amplify item -' sin"e
one "annot simply assume what other allowan"es were e("luded from the standardiGed salary rates.
4t was only upon the issuan"e and effe"tivity of the "orresponding implementing rules and
regulations that item -' "ould be deemed legally "ompleted.
Clearly, C1*A 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. 4t is
not payment in "onsideration of the fulfillment of offi"ial duty. As 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, C1*A 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 C1*A to military and poli"e to the
e("lusion of other government employees violates the e8ual prote"tion "lause of the Constitution.
,ut as respondents pointed out, while it may appear that petitioners are 8uestioning the
"onstitutionality of these issuan"es, they are in fa"t atta"king the very "onstitutionality of Se"tion
11 of &.A. ;-D7. 4t is a"tually this provision whi"h allows the uniformed personnel to "ontinue
re"eiving their C1*A over and above their basi" pay, thus:
Sec#io' 11. Military and &olie &er"onnel. F 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. 391 "') R.A. 6626H
5ro*i)e), %owe*er, T%"# #%e 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$8er7 o( #%e police, I"il "') (ire )ep"r#$e'#7 o( #%e loc"l &o*er'$e'# u'i#7
prior #o #%e police i'#e&r"#io'.

All eAi7#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, Bu"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).
3othing 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.
4n any event, the Court is not persuaded that the "ontinued grant of C1*A to the uniformed
personnel to the e("lusion of other national government offi"ials run afoul the e8ual prote"tion
76
"lause of the Constitution. !he fundamental right of e8ual prote"tion of the laws is not absolute,
but is sub0e"t to reasonable "lassifi"ation. 4f 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 re8uirements: 1' it
must rest on substantial distin"tions# /' it must be germane to the purpose of the law# 6' it must
not be limited to e(isting "onditions only# and :' it must apply e8ually to all members of the same
"lass.
4t 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 &.A. ;;67, as amended by &.A. .1;; while the poli"e is governed by &.A. ;;:7, as
amended by &.A. ;.-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 C1*A is intended to
help them offset the effe"ts of living in higher "ost areas.
/-A 2umabon vs. Dire"tor of %risons, 6- SC&A :/=
/-b. %A3$4*1 *ACS13 FS. SA3D42A3,AJA3, <anuary /=, 1...
/-b-1. ,ASC1 FS. %A2C1&, )ay 1:, 1..1
3o violation of the e8ual prote"tion "lause if Congress would legaliGe "o"k-fighting
and horse ra"ing sin"e poli"e power "ould regulate gambling.
6. %54*4%%43+ <AD2+S ASS1C4A!413 FS. %&AD1, 3ovember 11, 1..6
!here is no valid distin"tion for a law removing the franking privilege of the
0udi"iary while leaving the same to the +(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.
.RA-CISCO TATA/ *7. THE SECRETARY O. /E5ARTME-T O. E-ER:Y,
:. R. -o. 19236;, -o*e$8er 1, 199
E/CEL LA:MA-, JOEER ARROYO, E-RIM3E :ARCIA, 0I:4ERTO
TA-A/A, .LA: H3MA- RI:HTS .O3-/ATIO- *7. HO-. R34E- TORRES,
HO-. .RA-CISCO VIRAY, 5ETRO-, .ILI5I-AS SHELL "') CALTED
5HILI55I-ES, :.R. -o. 1966, -o*e$8er 1, 199.
%A31, <.
7:
!hese petitions "hallenge the "onstitutionality of &epubli" A"t 3o. 717= entitled ?An A"t
Deregulating the Downstream 1il 4ndustry and for 1ther %urposes@. &A 717= seeks to
end /; 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. 3ew players were
free to enter the oil market without any government interferen"e. !here were four :'
refining "ompanies at that time. S5+**, CA*!+Q, ,A!AA3 &+$43432 C1)%A3J
and $4*14* )A&M+!432 and si( ;' petroleum marketing "ompanies: +SS1, $4*14*,
CA*!+Q, 2+!!J, )1,4* and S5+**#
/. 4n 1.-1, the "ountry was driven to its knees by the "rippling oil "risis and in order to
remedy the same, the 14* 43DAS!&J C1))4SS413 AC! was ena"ted
&+2A*A!432 the oil industry #
6. 1n 3ovember ., 1.-6, then %resident )ar"os "reated the %hilippine national 1il
Corporation %31C' t break the "ontrol of the foreigners to the oil industry. 4t a"8uired
ownership of +SS1 %hilippines and $iloil and likewise bought "ontrolling shares of the
,ataan &efining Corporation. %31C then operated under the business name %+!&13
C1&%1&A!413 and for the first time, there was a $ilipino presen"e in the %hilippine oil
market#
:. 4n 1.7:, %res. )ar"os through se"tion 7 of %D 1.D; "reated the 14* %&4C+
S!A,4*4OA!413 $A3D 1%S$' to "ushion the effe"ts of fre8uent "hanges in the pri"e of
oil "aused by the e("hange rate ad0ustments or in"rease of the world market pri"es "rude oil
and imported petroleum produ"ts#
D. ,y 1.7D, only three 6' oil "ompanies were left operating in the "ountry. !hese are:
CA*!+Q, $4*4%43AS S5+** and %31C#
;. 4n )ay, 1.7-, %res. CoraGon A8uino signed +(e"utive 1rder 3o. 1-/ "reating the
+3+&2J &+A*A!1&J ,1A&D to regulate the business of importing, e(porting,
shipping, transporting, pro"essing, refining, marketing and distributing energy resour"es
?>5+3 >A&&A3!+D A3D 13*J >5+3 %A,*4C 3+C+SS4!J &+RA4&+S@. !he
,oard was empowered to ?fi( and regulate the pri"es of petroleum produ"ts and other
related mer"handise#
-. 4n )ar"h, 1..;, Congress ena"ted &A 717= deregulating the 1il 4ndustry not later than
)ar"h, 1..-. !he law re8uires that the implementation of the regulation, shall as far as
pra"ti"able be made at a time >5+3 !5+ %&4C+S 1$ C&AD+ 14* A3D %+!&1*+A)
%&1DAC!S 43 !5+ >1&*D A&+ D+C*43432 A3D >5+3 !5+ +QC5A32+
&A!+ 1$ !5+ %+S1 43 &+*A!413 !1 !5+ AS D1**A&# 4S S!A,*+#
7. 1n $ebruary 7, 1..-, +(e"utive 1rder 3o. 6-/ was issued by %resident $idel &amos
implementing full deregulation 13 !5+ 2&1A3D !5A! !5+ 1%S$ $A3D 5AS ,++3
D+%*+!+D#
.. !he petitioners 8uestioned the "onstitutionality of &A 717= on the following grounds:
a. Se"tion D of &A 717= violates the e8ual prote"tion "lause of the Constitution#
b. !he imposition of different tariff rates does not deregulate the oil industry and
even bars the entry of other players in the oil industry but instead effe"tively prote"ts
the interest of the oil "ompanies with e(isting refineries. !hus, it runs "ounter to the
ob0e"tive of the law ?to foster a truly "ompetitive market@# !he in"lusion of Se". D BbC
providing for tariff differential violates Se"tion /; B1C of Art. F4 of the 1.7-
7D
Constitution whi"h re8uires every law to have only one sub0e"t whi"h should be
e(pressed in the title thereof#
". Se"tion 1D of &A 717= and +1 3o. 6./ are un"onstitutional for undue
delegation of legislative power to the %resident and the Se"retary of +nergy#
d. +1 6./ implementing the full deregulation of the oil industry is un"onstitutional
sin"e it is arbitrary and unreasonable sin"e it was ena"ted due to the alleged depletion
of the 1%S$ fund, a "ondition whi"h is not found in &A 3o. 717=#
e. Se"tion 1D of &A 717= 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 8uestioned 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
( ( (
81etion 15. /(ple(entation of f#ll dere*#lation. &#r"#ant to 1etion 5
3e5 of RA 74=8, the >O,, #pon appro!al of the &re"ident, i(ple(ent f#ll
dere*#lation of the do'n"trea( oil ind#"try not later than Marh, 1??7.
A" far a" pratia.le, the >O, "hall ti(e the f#ll dere*#lation 'hen the
prie" of r#de oil and petrole#( prod#t" in the 'orld (ar)et are
delinin* and 'hen the e%han*e rate of the pe"o in relation to the @1
dollar i" "ta.le.A
T%e i77ue7 "reH
5roce)ur"l I77ue7H
a. >hether or not the petitions raise 0usti"iable "ontroversy# and
b. >hether or not the petitioners have the standing to 8uestion the validity of the sub0e"t law
and e(e"utive order.
Su87#"'#i*e I77ue7:
a. >hether or not Se"tion D of &A 717= violates the one titleXone sub0e"t re8uirement of the
Constitution#
b. >hether or not Se"tion D of &A 717= violates the e8ual prote"tion "lause of the
Constitution#
7;
". >hether se"tion 1D violates the "onstitutional prohibition on undue delegation of
legislative power#
d. >hether or not +1 6./ is arbitrary and unreasonable# and
e. >hether or not &A 717= violates the "onstitutional prohibition against monopolies,
"ombinations in restraint of trade and unfair "ompetition.
5+*D:
1. <udi"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 0urisdi"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. >hen the statute violates the Constitution, it is not only the right of the
0udi"iary to de"lare su"h a"t as un"onstitutional and void.
/. !he 8uestion of lo#" "tandi must likewise fall . As held in MA%A!4&A3 32 )2A
3A2*4*432M1D SA %A)A5A*AA3 32 %4*4%43AS, 43C. FS. !A3, it was held that:
?1b0e"tions to ta(payer9s suit for la"k of suffi"ient personality, standing, or interest are ,
however, in the main pro"edural matters. C13S4D+&432 !5+ 4)%1&!A3C+ 1$ !5+
CAS+S !1 !5+ %A,*4C, A3D 43 M++%432 >4!5 !5+ C1A&!9S DA!J !1
D+!+&)43+ >5+!5+& 1& 31! !5+ 1!5+& ,&A3C5+DS 1$ 21F+&3)+3!
5AF+ M+%! !5+)S+*F+S >4!543 !5+ *4)4!S 1$ !5+ C13S!4!A!413 A3D
!5+ *A>S A3D !5A! !5+J 5AF+ 31! A,AS+ !5+ D4SC&+!413 24F+3 !1
!5+), !5+ C1A&! 5AS ,&AS5+D AS4D+ !+C534CA*4!4+S 1$ %&1C+DA&+
A3D 5AS !AM+3 C1234OA3C+ 1$ !5+S+ %+!4!413S.@
!here is no disagreement on the part of the parties as to the far-rea"hing importan"e of the
validity of &A 717=. !hus, there is no good sense in being hyper-te"hni"al on the standing
of the petitioners for they pose issues whi"h are signifi"ant to our people and whi"h deserve
our forthright resolution.
6. 4t is "ontended that Se"tion DBbB of &A 717= on tariff differentials violates the
Constitutional prohibition re8uiring every law to have only one sub0e"t whi"h should be
e(pressed in its title. >e do not "on"ur with this "ontention. As a poli"y, the Court has
adopted a liberal "onstru"tion of the one title---one sub0e"t rule. >e have "onsistently ruled
that the title need not mirror, fully inde( or "atalogue all "ontents and minute details of a
law. A law having a single general sub0e"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 sub0e"t, and may be "onsidered in furtheran"e of su"h sub0e"t by
providing for the method and means of "arrying out the general sub0e"t. >e hold that
Se"tion D providing for tariff differential is germane to the sub0e"t of &A 717= whi"h is the
deregulation of the downstream oil industry.
:. !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 AS dollar@ are ambivalent, un"lear and
in"on"rete in meaning and "ould not therefore provide the ?determinate or determinable
7-
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 1.1; in the "ase of C1)%A34A 2+3+&A* D+ !A,AC1S D+ $4*4%43A FS.
!5+ ,1A&D 1$ %A,*4C A!4*4!J C1))4SS413+&S >5+&+ 4! >AS 5+*D
!5A!:
?!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 ob0e"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. >e
delineated the metes and bounds of these tests in +AS!+&) S54%%432 *43+S FS.
%1+A, 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. Ander 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.
Ander the suffi"ient standard test, there must be ade8uate guidelines or limitations in the
law to map out the boundaries of the delegate9s authority and prevent the delegation from
running riot. ,1!5 !+S!S A&+ 43!+3D+D !1 %&+F+3! A !1!A*
!&A3S$+&+3C+ 1$ *+24S*A!4F+ AA!51&4!J !1 !5+ D+*+2A!+, >51 4S
31! A**1>+D !1 S!+% 43!1 !5+ S51+S 1$ !5+ *+24S*A!A&+ A3D
+Q+&C4S+ A %1>+& +SS+3!4A**J *+24S*A!4F+.@
!he validity of delegating legislative power is now a 8uiet area in our "onstitutional
lands"ape be"ause su"h has be"ome an inevitability in light of the in"reasing "omple(ity of
the task of government. 4n fa"t, in 54&A,AJAS54 FS. A34!+D S!A!+S, the Supreme
Court through <usti"e 4SA2A34 C&AO held that ?even if the law does not e(pressly
pinpoint the standard, !5+ C1A&!S >4** ,+3D ,ACM>A&D !1 *1CA!+ !5+
SA)+ +*S+>5+&+ 43 1&D+& !1 S%A&+ !5+ S!A!A!+# 4$ 4! CA3, $&1)
C13S!4!A!413A* 43$4&)4!J.@
D. +1 3o. 6./ failed to follow faithfully the standards set by &A 717= when it "onsidered
the e(traneous fa"tor of depletion of the 1%S$ $und. !he misappli"ation of this e(tra fa"tor
"annot be 0ustified. !he e(e"utive is bereft of any right to alter either by addition or
subtra"tion the standards set by &A 717= 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.
;. Se"tion 1. of Arti"le Q44 of the Constitution provides:
?!he state shall regulate or prohibit monopolies when the publi" interests so re8uires. 3o
"ombinations in restraint of trade or unfair "ompetition shall be allowed.@
77
A 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. 1n 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 :Y tariff differential is designed to en"ourage new entrants to
invest in refineries. !hey stress that the inventory re8uirement is meant to guaranty
"ontinuous domesti" supply of petroleum and to dis"ourage fly-by-night operators. !hey
also "laim that the prohibition against predatory pri"ing is intended to prote"t prospe"tive
entrants.
!he validity of the assailed provisions of &A 717= has to be de"ided in the light of the
letter and spirit of Se"tion 1., Art. Q44 of the Constitution. >hile 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, Art. Q44 of the Constitution whi"h are: more e8uitable 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 . 4t also "alls for the
State to prote"t $ilipino enterprises against unfair and trades pra"ti"es.
!he provisions on :Y tariff differential, predatory pri"ing and inventory re8uirement
blo"ks the entry of other players and give undue advantage to the 6 oil "ompanies resulting
to monopolies or unfair "ompetition. !his is so be"ause it would take billions for new
players to "onstru"t refineries, and to have big inventories. !his would effe"tively prevent
new players.
4n the "ase at bar, it "annot be denied that our oil industry is operated and "ontrolled by an
oligopoly dominated by a handful of players' and a foreign oligopoly at that. As the
dominant players, S5+**, CA*!+Q P %+!&13 boast of e(isting refineries of various
"apa"ities. !he tariff differential of :Y works to their immense advantage. Jet, this is only
one edge on tariff differential. !5+ 1!5+& +D2+ CA!S A3D CA!S D++% 43 !5+
5+A&! 1$ !5+4& C1)%+!4!1&S. 4! +&+C!S 5425 ,A&&4+&S !1 3+ %*AJ+&S.
3ew players in order to e8ualiGe must build their refineries worth billions of pesos. !hose
without refineries had to "ompete with a higher "ost of :Y.!hey will be "ompeting on an
uneven field.
!he provision on inventory widens the advantage of %+!&13, S5+** A3D CA*!+Q
against prospe"tive new players. !he three 6' "ould easily "omply with the inventory
re8uirement in view of their numerous storage fa"ilities. %rospe"tive "ompetitors again
find "omplian"e oft his re8uirement 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.
7.
3ow "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@. A""ording to 51F+3MA)%:
@T%e r"#io'"le (or pre)"#ory prici'& i7 #%e 7u7#"i'i'& o( lo77e7 #o)"y #%"# will &i*e "
(ir$ $o'opoly pro(i#7 i' #%e (u#ure. T%e $o'opoly pro(i#7 will 'e*er $"#eri"liJe,
%owe*er, i( #%e $"rLe# i7 (loo)e) wi#% 'ew e'#r"'#7 "7 7oo' "7 #%e 7ucce77(ul pre)"#or
"##e$p#7 #o r"i7e i#7 price. 5re)"#ory prici'& will 8e pro(i#"8le o'ly i( #%e $"rLe#
co'#"i'7 7i&'i(ic"'# 8"rrier7 #o 'ew e'#ry.C
Coupled with the :Y tariff differential and the inventory re8uirement, 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.*ACS13 FS. SA3D42A3,AJA3, <anuary /=, 1...
6. !a(i"ab 1perators vs. ,1!, September 6=,l.7/
:. ,autista vs. <uinio,1/- SC&A 6/.
D. Dumlao vs. C1)+*+C, .D SC&A 6./
;. Fillegas vs. 5iu, 7; SC&A /-=
-. CeniGa vs. C1)+*+C, .D SC&A -;6
7. A34D1 vs. C1)+*+C, 1=: SC&A 67
.. 3uneG vs. Sandiganbayan, 111 SC&A :66&ead also the dissenting opinion of <usti"e
)akasiar
1=. Sison vs. An"heta, 16= SC&A ;D:
11. CitiGens Surety vs. %uno, 11. SC&A /1;
1/. %eralta vs. C1)+*+C, 7/ SC&A 6=
16. 5awaiian-%hil. Co. vs. Aso"ia"ion, 1D1 SC&A 6=;
1:. 1rmo" Sugar Co. vs. 1rmo" City, // SC&A ;=6
1D. $lores vs. C1)+*+C, 17: SC&A :7:
CHA5TER IV F THE SEARCH
A-/ SEI>3RE 5ROVISIO-
1etion 2. The ri*ht of the people to .e "e#re in their per"on", ho#"e",
paper" and effet" a*ain"t #nrea"ona.le "earhe" and "eiB#re" of
'hate!er nat#re and for any p#rpo"e "hall .e in!iola.le, and no "earh
'arrant or 'arrant of arre"t "hall i""#e e%ept #pon pro.a.le a#"e to .e
deter(ined per"onally .y the 2#d*e after e%a(ination #nder oath or
affir(ation of the o(plainant and the 'itne""e" he (ay prod#e, and
parti#larly de"ri.in* the plae to .e "earhed and the per"on" or thin*"
to .e "eiBed.
31!+: Appli"able provisions of the 5uman Se"urity A"tEAnti-!errorism *aw,
&epubli" A"t 3o. .6-/, Approved on )ar"h ;, /==- and effe"tive on <uly 1D, /==-
.=
!his *aw shall be automati"ally suspended one 1' month before and two /'
months after the holding of any ele"tion'
1e. 18. %eriod of detention without 0udi"ial warrant of arrest.- !he provisions of
Arti"le 1/D of the &evised %enal Code, notwithstanding, any poli"e or law
enfor"ement personnel, w%o, %"*i'& 8ee' )uly "u#%oriJe) i' wri#i'& 8y #%e
A'#iFTerrori7$ 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,
>4!51A! 43CA&&432 A3J C&4)43A* *4A,4*4!J $1& D+*AJ 43 !5+
D+*4F+&J 1$ D+!A43+D %+&S13S !1 !5+ %&1%+& <AD4C4A*
AA!51&4!4+S, D+*4F+& SA4D C5A&2+D 1& SAS%+C!+D %+&S13 !1
!5+ %&1%+& <AD4C4A* AA!51&4!J >4!543 A %+&41D 1$ !5&++ 6'
DAJS "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 A"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 0udge
at the latter9s residen"e or offi"e nearest the pla"e where the arrest took pla"e at any
time of the day or night. 4t shall be the duty of the 0udge, 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 in8uire of them the
reasons why they have arrested the person and determine by 8uestioning and
personal observation whether or not the sub0e"t has been sub0e"ted to any physi"al,
moral or psy"hologi"al torture by whom and why. !he 0udge shall then submit a
written report of what heEshe had observed when the sub0e"t was brought before
him to the proper "ourt that has 0urisdi"tion over the "ase of the person thus
arrested.
!he 0udge shall forthwith submit his report within 6 "alendar days from the
time the suspe"t was brought to hisEher residen"e or offi"e.
4mmediately 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 0udge of the "ourt nearest the
pla"e of apprehension or arrest# provided, !hat where the arrest is made during
Saturdays, Sundays, holidays or after offi"e hours, the written noti"e shall be served
at the residen"e of the 0udge nearest the pla"e where the a""used was arrested. !he
penalty of 1= 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 0udge as provided in the
pre"eding paragraph.
1etion 1?. %eriod of Detention in the event of an a"tual or imminent
terrorist atta"k.- 4n 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 5uman &ights Commission, or
0udge of the muni"ipal, regional trial "ourt, the Sandiganbayan or a 0usti"e of the
.1
Court of Appeals nearest the pla"e of arrest. 4f 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.
1etion 24 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 6.. SeiGure and Se8uestration.- !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 e8uipment, 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 0udi"ially de"lared and outlawed terrorist organiGation or group of persons#
to a member of su"h 0udi"ially de"lared and outlawed organiGation, asso"iation or
group of persons,
-shall be seiGed, se8uestered, 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
in0urious 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 family9s medi"al needs upon
approval of the "ourt. 5e or she may also use any of his property that is under
seiGure or se8uestration 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, se8uestered and froGen bank depositsVshall 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 sub0e"t to the approval of the "ourt
before whi"h the "ase or "ases are pending.
Sec#io' 21. 4f the person suspe"ted as terrorist is a"8uitted 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, se8uestration and freeGing.
4f "onvi"ted, said seiGed, se8uestered and froGen assets shall automati"ally
forfeited in favor of the government.
&e8uisites of a valid sear"h warrant
&ead:
a. +ssentials of a valid sear"h warrant,1:D SC&A -6.
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
5EO5LE VS. CA, 991 SCRA 2;; 5EO5LE VS. CA, 991 SCRA 2;;

3arvasa, C<
4n applying for a sear"h warrant, the poli"e offi"ers had in their mind the first four
:' separate apartment units at the rear of A,42A4* FA&4+!J S!1&+ in RueGon City to
be the sub0e"t of their sear"h. !he same was not, however, what the <udge who issued the
warrant had in mind, A3D >AS 31! >5A! >AS A*!4)A!+*J D+SC&4,+D 43
!5+ S+A&C5 >A&&A3!. As 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. >5A! 4S
)A!+&4A* 43 D+!+&)43432 !5+ FA*4D4!J 1$ A S+A&C5 4S !5+ %*AC+
S!A!+D 43 !5+ >A&&A3! 4!S+*$, 31! >5A! !5+ A%%*4CA3!S 5AD 43
!5+4& !51A25!S, 1& 5AD &+%&+S+3!+D 43 !5+ %&11$S !5+J SA,)4!!+D
!1 !5+ C1A&! 4SSA432 !5+ >A&&A3!. As su"h, it was not 0ust 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.
31!+: Fery 4mportant: >here 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, 4! 4S 31! !5+ &A*+ !5A! A )1!413 !1 RAAS5 !5+ >A&&A3! or to
retrieve the things seiGed' )AJ ,+ $4*+D 13*J 43 !5+ 4SSA432 C1A&!---SAC5 A
)1!413 )AJ ,+ $4*+D $1& !5+ $4&S! !4)+ 43 +4!5+& !5+ 4SSA432 C1A&!
1& !5A! 43 >54C5 !5+ C&4)43A* %&1C++D432 4S %+3D432.
d. Falidity of a warrantless sear"h and seiGure as a result of an informer9s tip. 3ote the
two /' "onfli"ting de"isions of the Supreme Court.
.6
5EO5LE VS. AR3TA, 966 SCRA 696
1n De"ember 16, 1.77, %E*t. Abello of the 1longapo %3% was tipped off by an
informer that Aling &osa would be arriving from ,aguio City the following day with a
large volume of mari0uana. As a result of the tip, the poli"emen waited for a Fi"tory ,us
from ,aguio City near the %3, 1longapo, near &iGal Ave. >hen 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.
!he bag allegedly "ontained 7.D kilos of mari0uana. After trial, she was "onvi"ted
and imposed a penalty of life imprisonment.
4ssue:
>hether or not the mari0uana allegedly taken from the a""used is admissible in
eviden"e.
5eld:
>arrantless sear"h is allowed in the following instan"es:
1. "ustoms sear"hes#
/. sear"hes of moving vehi"le#
6. seiGure of eviden"e in plain view#
:. "onsented sear"hes#
D. sear"h in"idental to a lawful arrest# and
;. stop and frisk measures.
!he above e("eptions to the re8uirement 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 re8uisite of probable "ause must still be satisfied before a
warrantless sear"h and seiGure "an be lawfully "ondu"ted. 4n 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 mari0uana 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""used9s 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
Conse8uently, there was no legal basis for the poli"e to effe"t a warrantless sear"h
of the a""used9s bag, there being no probable "ause and the a""used9s 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.
Sin"e there was no valid warrantless arrest, it logi"ally follows that the subse8uent
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 %+1%*+ FS. A)433AD43, and %+1%*+ FS.
+3C43ADA.
5EO5LE VS. MO-TILLA, 962 SCRA ;3
1n <une 1., 1..:, at about / p.m., S%11 !alingting and S%11 Clarin of the
Dasmarinas, Cavite %3% were informed by an 43$1&)+& that a drug "ourier would be
arriving in ,arangay Salitran, Dasmarinas, Cavite, from ,aguio City, with an undetermined
amount of mari0uana. !he informer likewise informed them that he "ould re"ogniGe said
person.
At about : in the morning of <une /=, 1..:, the appellant was arrested by the
above-named poli"e offi"ers while alighting from a passenger 0eepney near a waiting shed
in Salitran, Dasmarinas, Cavite, upon being pointed to by the informer. !he poli"emen
re"overed /7 kilos of dried mari0uana leaves. !he arrest was without warrant.
!he trial "ourt "onvi"ted the appellant for transporting mari0uana based on the
testimonies of the Above-named poli"e offi"ers without presenting the alleged informer.
4ssue:
>as the warrantless arrest validN
5eld:
!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 <une 1., 1..: 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. >hile there is indi"ation that the informer
knows the "ourier, the re"ords do not show that he knew his name. 1n bare information,
the poli"e "ould not have se"ured a warrant from a 0udge.
$urthermore, warrantless sear"h is allowed in the following instan"es:
1. "ustoms sear"hes#
/. sear"hes of moving vehi"le#
6. seiGure of eviden"e in plain view#
:. "onsented sear"hes#
D. sear"h in"idental to a lawful arrest# and
.D
;. stop and frisk measures.
Sin"e the a""used was arrested for transporting mari0uana, the subse8uent sear"h on
his person is 0ustified. An arresting offi"er has the right to validly sear"h and seiGe from the
offender 1' dangerous weapons# and /' those that may be used as proof of the
"ommission of the offense.
4n the "ase at bar, upon being pointed to by the informer as the drug "ourier, the
poli"emen re8uested 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 mari0uana. 5en"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. 4n 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.
31!+: !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. 5e is merely a
"orroborative witness to the arresting offi"ers. '
<AS!4C+ %A32A34,A3:
!o say that ?reliable tips@ from informers "onstitute probable "ause for a
warrantless arrest or sear"h 4S A DA32+&1AS %&+C+D+3! A3D %*AC+S 43 2&+A!
<+1%A&DJ !5+ D1C!&43+S *A4D D1>3 43 )A3J D+C4S413S )AD+ ,J !54S
C1A&!. %+1%*+ FS. ,A&21S, 1:: SC&A 1# %+1%*+ FS. A)433AD43, 1;6 SC&A
:=/# %+1%*+ FS. +3C43ADA, 1"tober /, 1..-# %+1%*+ FS. )+321!+, //= SC&A'.
!he "ase is similar to the "ase of %eople vs. +n"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 previous afternoon that the appellant would be
transporting prohibited drugs. !he sear"h yielded a plasti" pa"kage "ontaining mari0uana.
1n Appeal, the SC reversed the de"ision of "onvi"tion and held that +n"inada did not
manifest any suspi"ious behavior that would ne"essarily and reasonably invite the attention
of the poli"e.
>arrantless Arrest, sear"h and seiGure in ?buy-bust
operations@.
5EO5LE O. THE 5HILI55I-ES VS. S5O3 SA-:EI ARA, e# "l.,
:.R. -o. 161;11, /ece$8er 93, 9;;9
.;
VELASCO, JR., J.H
!his is an appeal from the De"ember 16, /==- De"ision of the Court of Appeals CA' in
CA-2.&. C&-5.C. 3o. ===/D, entitled #eople of t2e #2ilippines v. "#O: "ang@i Ara y Mirasol,
Mi@e &ali' y Mama, Jordan Musa y ayan, whi"h affirmed the De"ision of the &egional !rial
Court &!C', ,ran"h . in Davao City, "onvi"ting a""used-appellants of violation of &epubli" A"t
3o. &A' .1;D or the Compre2ensive %angerous %rugs Act of 0,,0.
T%e ."c#7
Cri$i'"l C"7e -o. 11,21F9;;9 "&"i'7# Ar"

!hat on or about De"ember /=, /==/, in the City of Davao, %hilippines and within
the 0urisdi"tion of this 5onorable Court, the above-named a""used, without being
authoriGed by law, willfully, unlawfully and "ons"iously traded, transported and
delivered /;.;D;6 grams of )ethamphetamine 5ydro"hloride or ?shabu,@ whi"h is
a dangerous drug, with the aggravating "ir"umstan"e of trading, transporting and
delivering said /;.;D;6 grams of ?shabu@ within 1== meters from BtheC s"hool St.
%eter9s College of !oril, Davao City.

C13!&A&J !1 *A>.
During their arraignment, a""used-appellants all gave a ?not guilty@ plea.
Ver7io' o( #%e 5ro7ecu#io'
4n the morning of De"ember /=, /==/, a "onfidential informant C4' "ame to the 5einous
Crime 4nvestigation Se"tion 5C4S' of the Davao City %oli"e Department and reported that three
6' suspe"ted drug pushers had "onta"ted him for a deal involving si( ;' plasti" sa"hets of s2a'u.
5e was instru"ted to go that same morning to St. %eter9s College at !oril, Davao City and look for
an orange 3issan Sentra "ar.
%oli"e Chief 4nspe"tor $ulgen"io %avo, Sr. immediately formed a buy-bust team "omposed
of S%16 &eynaldo Capute, S%1: )ario 2alendeG, S%16 Antonio ,alolong, S%1/ Arturo
*as"aTos, S%1/ <im !an, S%11 &iGalino A8uino, S%11 ,ienvenido $urog, %1/ Fiven"io
<umawan, <r., %1/ &onald *ao, and %11 +nri8ue Ayao, <r., who would a"t as poseur-buyer.
!he team pro"eeded to the s"hool where %11 Ayao and the C4 waited by the gate. At around
7::D a.m., an orange 3issan Sentra bearing plate number A2& D1= stopped in front of them. !he
two men approa"hed the vehi"le and the C4 talked briefly with an old man in the front seat. %11
Ayao 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%16 Ara, asked %11 Ayao if he had the money and
the latter replied in the positive. Ara took out several sa"hets with "rystalline granules from his
po"ket and handed them to %11 Ayao, who thereupon gave the pre-arranged signal of opening the
"ar door. !he driver of the "ar, later identified as a""used-appellant <ordan )usa, tried to drive
away but %11 Ayao was able to swit"h off the "ar engine in time. !he ba"k-up team appeared and
S%11 $urog held on to )usa while %1/ *ao restrained !alib. %11 Ayao then asked Ara to get out
of the vehi"le.
.-
&e"overed from the group were plasti" sa"hets of white "rystalline substan"e: si( ;' big
sa"hets, weighing /;.;D;6 grams, from Ara by %11 Ayao# five D' big sa"hets, weighing 1:./.6;
grams, from )usa by S%11 $urog# and a small sa"het, weighing =.6DD. gram, from !alib by %1/
*ao.
!he three suspe"ts were brought to the 5C4S and the seiGed items indorsed to the %hilippine
3ational %oli"e %3%' Crime *aboratory for e(amination. $orensi" Chemist Austero, 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 Ara, who said that he had been a member of the
%3% for 6/ years, with a spotless re"ord. 1n De"ember /=, /==/, S%16 Ara was in Cotabato City,
at the house of his daughter )arilyn, wife of his "o-a""used )usa. 5e was set to go that day to the
1mbudsman9s Davao City offi"e for some paperwork in preparation for his retirement on <uly 7,
/==6. 5e re"ounted e(pe"ting at least %h% 1.; million in retirement benefits. +arly that morning,
past three o9"lo"k, he and )usa headed for Davao City on board the latter9s "ar. As he was feeling
weak, Ara slept in the ba"k seat.
Apon 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.
>hen they arrived in !oril, Ara noti"ed the "ar to be overheating, so they stopped. Ara did
not know that they were near St. %eter9s College sin"e he was not familiar with the area. !alib
alighted from the "ar and Ara transferred to the front seat. >hile !alib was getting into the ba"k
seat, %11 Ayao "ame out of nowhere, pointed his .:D "aliber pistol at Ara even if he was not doing
anything, and ordered him to get off the vehi"le. 5e saw that guns were also pointed at his
"ompanions. As the group were being arrested, he told %11 Ayao that he was also a poli"e offi"er.
Ara insisted that he was not holding anything and that the s2a'u taken from him was planted. 5e
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:
>5+&+$1&+, premised on the foregoing the Court finds the following:

4n Criminal Case 3o. D1,:-1-/==/, the a""used herein SA32M4 A&A J
)AS1*, $ilipino, DD years old, widower, a resident of Mabuntalan, Cotabato City,
is hereby found 2A4*!J beyond reasonable doubt, and is C13F4C!+D of the
"rime of violation of Se". D, 1st paragraph of &epubli" A"t .1;D. 5e is hereby
imposed the D+A!5 %+3A*!J and $43+ of !+3 )4**413 %+S1S %h%
1=,===,===' with all the a""essory penalties "orresponding thereto, in"luding
absolute perpetual dis8ualifi"ation from any publi" offi"e, in view of the provision
of se"tion /7 of &A .1;D 8uoted above.

Sin"e the prose"ution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the "rime was
"ommitted in the area whi"h is only five D' to si( ;' meters away from the s"hool,
.7
the provision of se"tion D paragraph 6 Arti"le 44 of &A .1;D was applied in the
imposition of the ma(imum penalty against the herein a""used.

4n Criminal Case 3o. D1,:-/-/==/, the a""used herein )4M+ !A*4, y
)A)A, $ilipino, of legal age, single and a resident of %arang, Cotabato, is found
2A4*!J beyond reasonable doubt, and is C13F4C!+D of the "rime of violation
of Se". 11, 6rd paragraph, Arti"le 44 of &epubli" A"t .1;D. 5e is hereby imposed a
penalty of 4mprisonment of S4Q!++3 1;' J+A&S and a fine of !5&++
5A3D&+D !51ASA3D %+S1S %h% 6==,===' with all the a""essory penalties
"orresponding thereto.

4n Criminal Case 3o. D1,:-6-/==/ the a""used herein <1&DA3 )ASA J
,AJA3, $ilipino, 6= years old, married and a resident of Cotabato City, is hereby
found 2A4*!J beyond reasonable doubt and is C13F4C!+D of the "rime for
Fiolation of Se". 11, 1st paragraph, Arti"le 44 of &epubli" A"t 3o. .1;D. 5e is
hereby senten"ed to suffer a penalty of *4$+ 4)%&4S13)+3! and $43+ of
$1A& 5A3D&+D !51ASA3D %+S1S %h% :==,===' with all the a""essory
penalties "orresponding thereto.

S1 1&D+&+D.
As the death penalty was imposed on Ara, the "ase went on automati" review before this
Court. Conformably with #eople v. Mateo, we, however, ordered the transfer of the "ase to the CA.
T%e I77ue
>hether the Court of Appeals 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)
4n "alling for their a"8uittal, 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.
1wing 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. 4t is a form of entrapment employed
as an effe"tive way of apprehending a "riminal in the a"t of "ommission of an offense. >e 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. 4t is unavailing then to argue that the operatives had to first se"ure a warrant of arrest
given that the ob0e"tive of the operation was to apprehend the a""used-appellants in flagrante
delicto. 4n fa"t, one of the situations "overed by a lawful warrantless arrest under Se"tion Da',
&ule 116 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.
4t 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 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 C4 and from a""used-
appellants themselves when they instru"ted %11 Ayao to enter their vehi"le and begin the
transa"tion. !he illegal sale of s2a'u inside a""used-appellants9 vehi"le was afterwards "learly
established. !hus, as we have previously held, the arresting offi"ers were 0ustified in making the
arrests as a""used-appellants had 0ust "ommitted a "rime when Ara sold s2a'u to %11 Ayao. !alib
and )usa were also frisked for "ontraband as it may be logi"ally inferred that they were also part
of Ara9s drug a"tivities inside the vehi"le. !his inferen"e was further strengthened by )usa9s
attempt to drive the vehi"le away and elude arrest.
)oreover, the trial "ourt "orre"tly denied the )otion to Suppress or +("lude +viden"e. >e
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. As
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 "ourt9s 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 ELI L3I, ET AL. VS. MATILLA-O, M"y 9, 9;;2
&ight against unreasonable sear"hes and seiGures# )ission 1rder does not authoriGe an
illegal sear"h. >aiver of the right against an unreasonable sear"h and seiGure.
4n sear"h of the allegedly missing amount of %:D,===.== 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. Are the things admissible in eviden"eN Can they be sued
for damages as a result of the said warrantless sear"h and seiGureN
5eld:
!he right against unreasonable sear"hes and seiGures is a personal right whi"h may
be waived e(pressly or impliedly. ,A! A >A4F+& ,J 4)%*4CA!413 CA331! ,+
%&+SA)+D. !here must be "lear and "onvin"ing eviden"e of an a"tual intention to
relin8uish 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 relin8uish the right.
$inally, the waiver must be made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently in order
that the said is to be valid.
1==
!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
)5% 2arments vs. CA.
e. 2eneral or roving warrants
&ead:
1. Stonehill vs. Diokno,<une 1.,1.;-
Con"ep"ion, C.<.
!he petitioners are 8uestioning the validity of a total of :/ 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,
0ournals, 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 sub0e"t of the offense of violating the C+3!&A* ,A3M *A>S,
!A&4$$ A3D CAS!1)S *A>S, 43!+&3A* &+F+3A+ C1D+ A3D !5+ &+F4S+D
%+3A* C1D+.
!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#
". !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.
I77ueH

>ere the sear"hes and seiGures made in the offi"es and residen"es of the petitioners
validN
a. As to the sear"hes made on their offi"es, they "ould not 8uestion the same in their
personal "apa"ities be"ause the "orporations have a personality separate and distin"t with
its offi"ers. An ob0e"tion to an unlawful sear"h and seiGure 4S %A&+*J %+&S13A* A3D
CA331! ,+ AFA4*+D 1$ ,J !54&D %A&!4+S. C13S+RA+3!*J, !5+
1=1
%+!4!413+&S )AJ 31! FA*4D*J 1,<+C! !1 !5+ AS+ 43 +F4D+3C+
A2A43S! !5+) 1$ !5+ D1CA)+3!S, %A%+&S A3D !5432S S+4O+D $&1)
!5+ 1$$4C+S A3D %&+)4S+S 1$ !5+ C1&%1&A!413S, !1 >51) !5+ S+4O+D
+$$+C!S ,+*132, A3D )AJ 31! ,+ 43F1M+D ,J !5+ C1&%1&A!+
1$$4C+&S 43 %&1C++D432S A2A43S! !5+) 43 !5+4& 43D4F4DAA*
CA%AC4!J.
b. As to the do"uments seiGed in the residen"es of the petitioners, the same may not
be used in eviden"e against them be"ause the warrants issued were in the nature of a
general warrant for failure to "omply with the "onstitutional re8uirement that:
1. that no warrant shall issue but upon probable "ause, to be determined by the 0udge in the
manner set forth in said provision# and
/. that the warrant shall parti"ularly des"ribe the things to be seiGed.
3one of these re8uirements has been "omplied with in the "ontested warrants. !hey
were issued upon appli"ations stating that the natural and 0uridi"al persons therein named
had "ommitted a violation of Central bank *aws, !ariff and Customs *aws, 4nternal
revenue Code and &evised %enal Code. 43 1!5+& >1&DS, 31 S%+C4$4C 1$$+3S+
5AD ,++3 A**+2+D 43 SA4D A%%*4CA!413S. !5+ AF+&)+3!S !5+&+1$
>4!5 &+S%+C! !1 !5+ 1$$+3S+ C1))4!!+D >+&+ A4STRACT. AS A
CO-SEM3E-CE, IT 0AS IM5OSSI4LE .OR THE J3/:E 0HO ISS3E/ THE
0ARRA-TS TO HAVE .O3-/ THE EDISTE-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, 6- SC&A 7/6
6. Se"retary vs. )ar"os, -; SC&A 6=1
:. Castro vs. %abalan, April 6=,l.-;
D. Asian Surety vs. 5errera, D: SC&A 61/ A sear"h warrant for estafa, falsifi"ation,
ta( evasion and insuran"e fraud is a general warrant and therefore not valid'
;. Colle"tor vs. FillaluG, <une 17,1.-;
-. Fiduya vs. Ferdiago, -6 SC&A DD6
7. DiGon vs. Castro, April 1/, 1.7D
.. %eople vs. Feloso, :7 %hil. 1;.
1=. !A),AS+3 FS. %+1%*+, <uly 1:, 1..D# %+1%*+ FS. CA, /1; SC&A 1=1. @A
SCATTERFSHOT 0ARRA-T is a sear"h warrant issued for more than one spe"ifi"
offense like one for estafa, robbery, theft and 8ualified theft@'
f. Define probable "ause. >ho determines probable "auseN
a. &1,+&!S FS. CA, /D: SC&A 6=-
b. D+ *1S SA3!1S FS. )13!+SA, /:- SC&A 7D
VICE-TE LIM,SR. A-/ MAYOR S3SA-A LIM
1=/
VS.HO-. -. .ELID ,:.R. -O. 99;12F1!
+3 ,A3C
2A!4+&&+O, <&. <.
$a"ts:
--------
%etitioners are suspe"ts of the slaying of Congressman )oises +spinosa, 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. After "ondu"ting a
preliminary investigation, a warrant of arrest was issued on <uly 61, 1.7.. ,ail was fi(ed at
%/==,===.
1n September //, 1.7., $is"al Alfane, 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 in0uries "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.
1n 3ovember /1, 1.7., a motion for "hange of venue, filed by the petitioners was
granted by the SC. 4t 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 0udge 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. 5en"e it found it 0ust
and proper to rely on the prose"utors "ertifi"ation in ea"h information.
ISS3EH
FFFFFFFFFF
>hether or not a 0udge 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
5eld:
-----
1. !he 0udge "ommitted a grave abuse of dis"retion.
4n the "ase of %la"er vs. Fillanueva, the s" ruled that a 0udge 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. 5owever, the "ertifi"ation does not bind the 0udge to "ome out with the
1=6
warrant of arrest. !his de"ision interpreted the Hsear"h and seiGureH provision of the 1.-6
Constitution. Ander this provision, the 0udge must satisfy himself of the e(isten"e of
probable "ause before issuing a warrant of order of arrest. 4f on the fa"e of information, the
0udge finds no probable "ause, he may disregard the fis"alSs "ertifi"ation and re8uire the
submission of the affidavits of witness to aid him at arriving at a "on"lusion as to the
e(isten"e of a probable "ause. !his has been the rule sin"e A.S vs. 1"ampo and Amarga vs.
Abbas.
/. 4n the "ase of Soliven vs. )akasiar, de"ided under the 1.7- 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.-6 Constitution to issue warrants to other
respondent offi"ers as to may be authoriGed by law does not re8uire the 0udge to personally
e(amine the "omplainant and his witness in his determination of probable "ause for the
issuan"e of a warrant of arrest.>hat the Constitution unders"ores is the e("lusive and
personal responsibility of the issuing 0udge to satisfy himself of the e(isten"e of probable
"ause. $ollowing established do"trine and pro"edures, he shall:
1' 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#
/' 4f on the basis thereof he finds no probable "ause, he may disregard the
fis"alSs report and re8uire 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.
6. !he "ase of %eople vs. 5onorable +nri8ue ,. 4nting reiterates the following
do"trines:
1' !he determination of probable "ause is a fun"tion of the 0udge. 4t is not for
the %rovin"ial $is"al or %rose"utor nor for the +le"tion Supervisor to as"ertain. 1nly the
0udge alone makes this detemination.
/' !he preliminary in8uiry made by the prose"utor does not bind the 0udge. 4t
merely assist him to make the determination of probable "ause. !he 0udge 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. 4t 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 0udge to make his determination.
6' %reliminary in8uiry should be distinguished from the preliminary
investigation proper. >hile 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.
:. 4n the "ase of Castillo vs. FillaluG, the "ourt ruled that 0udges of &!C no
longer have authority to "ondu"t preliminary investigations: !his authority was removed
from them by the 1.7D &ules on Criminal %ro"edure, effe"tive on <anuary 1, 1.7D.
1=:
D. 4n the present "ase, the respondent 0udge 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 re8uirement 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 0udge 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. 5e "ould not
have possibly known what has transpired in )asbate as he had nothing but a "ertifi"ation.
Although the 0udge 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"e'
there should be a report and ne"essary do"uments supporting the $is"alSs bare "ertifi"ation.
All of these should be before the 0udge.
1. Amarga vs. Abbas, .7 %hil. -6.
1-a. /=th Century $o( vs. CA, 1;: SC&A ;DD
1-b. Ruintero vs. 3,4, 1;/ SC&A :;-
1-". !he %residential Anti-Dollar Salting !ask $or"e vs. CA, 2& 3o. 76D-7, )ar"h
1;, 1.7.
SOLIVE- VS. MAEASIAR, 16 SCRA 393
!he word @per7o'"lly@ after the word determined does not ne"essarily mean that
the 0udge 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 0udge
to satisfy himself of the e(isten"e of probable "ause. As su"h, there is no need to e(amine
the "omplainant and his witnesses fa"e to fa"e. 4t is suffi"ient if the 0udge 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. CA, 3ov. 1;, 1..=
1-f. %. vs. 4nting, <uly /D, 1..=
1-g. Amil vs. &amos, et al., <uly ., 1..= with the &esolution of the )otion
for &e"onsideration in 3ovember, 1..1
1-h. %aderanga vs. Drilon, April 1., 1..1
/. Department of 5ealth vs. Sy Chi Siong, 4n"., 2& 3o. 7D/7., $ebruary /=,
1.7.
/-a. %. vs. Fillanueva, 11= SC&A :;D
/-b. %la"er vs. Fillanueva, 1/; SC&A :;6 1nly a 0udge has the power to determine
probable insofar as the issuan"e of a warrant of arrest is "on"erned'
6. !olentino vs. FillaluG,<uly /-,1.7-
:. CruG vs. 2atan, -: SC&A //;
D. 1laes vs. %., 1DD SC&A :7;
-. 2eronimo vs. &amos, 16; SC&A :6D
1=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
3ote: !his might be useful also in your Criminal *aw'
3arvasa, <.

1n $ebruary /-, 1..=, Senator <uan %on"e +nrile was arrested by law enfor"ement
offi"ers led by 3,4 Dire"tor Alfredo *im on the strength of a warrant of arrest issued by
the respondent 0udge, 513. <A4)+ SA*AOA&, &egional trial Court, ,ran"h 1=6, RueGon
City in Criminal Case 3o. .=-1=.:1. !he warrant was issued on an information signed and
filed earlier in the day by Senior State %rose"utor AA&+*41 !&A)%+ "harging Senator
+nrile, the spouses &ebe""o and +rlinda %anlilio, and 2regorio 5onasan with the "rime of
rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder allegedly "ommitted during the
period of the failed "oup attempt from 3ovember /. to De"ember 1=, 1..=. Senator +nrile
was taken to and held overnight at the 3,4 5ead8uarters on !aft Ave., )anila, >4!51A!
,A4*, 313+ 5AF432 ,++3 &+C1))+3D+D 43 !5+ 43$1&)A!413 A3D
313+ $4Q+D 43 !5+ >A&&A3! 1$ A&&+S!.
1n $ebruary /7, 1..=, petitioner through "ounsel filed a petition for 5abeas Corpus
alleging that he was deprived of his "onstitutional rights in being, or having been:
a. held to answer for a "riminal offense whi"h does not e(ist in the statute books#
b. "harged with a "riminal offense in an information for whi"h no "omplaint was
initially filed or preliminary investigation was "ondu"ted, hen"e, he was denied due
pro"ess#
". denied the right to bail# and
d. arrested or detained on the strength of warrant issued without the 0udge who
issued it first having personally determined the e(isten"e of probable "ause.
5+*D:
!he partiesS oral and written arguments presented the following options:
1. Abandon the 5ernandeG Do"trine and adopt the dissenting opinion of <usti"e
)ontemayor that Hrebellion "annot absorb more serious "rimesH#
/. 5old 5ernandeG Do"trine appli"able only to offenses "ommitted in furtheran"e, or as
ne"essary means for the "ommission, of rebellion, ,A! 31! !1 AC!S C1))4!!+D 43
!5+ C1A&S+ 1$ A &+,+**413 >54C5 A*S1 C13S!4!A!+ C1))13 C&4)+S
1$ 2&AF+ 1& *+SS 2&AF+ C5A&AC!+&#
6. )aintain 5ernandeG 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=;
1. 1n the first option, 11 0usti"es voted A2A43S! abandoning 5ernandeG. !wo members
felt that the do"trine should be re-e(amined. 4n view of the ma0ority, !5+ &A*432
&+)A43S 211D *A>, 4!S SA,S!A3!4F+ A3D *+2A* ,AS+S 5AF+
>4!5S!11D A** SA,S+RA+3! C5A**+32+S A3D 31 3+> 13+S A&+
%&+S+3!+D 5+&+ %+&SAAS4F+ +31A25 !1 >A&&A3! A C1)%*+!+
&+F+&SA*. !his is so be"ause of the fa"t that the in"umbent %resident e(er"ising
legislative powers under the 1.7; $reedom Constitution' repealed %D 3o. .:/ whi"h
added a new provision of the &evised %enal Code, parti"ularly Art. 1:/-A whi"h sought to
nullify if not repealed the 5ernandeG Do"trine. 4n thus a"ting, the %resident in effe"t by
legislative fiat reinstated the 5ernandeG 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.
/. 1n the se"ond option, the Supreme Court was unanimous in voting to re0e"t the same
though four 0usti"es believe that the arguments in support thereof is not entirely devoid of
merit.
6. >ith the re0e"tion of the first two options, the 5ernandeG 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 as a means ne"essary to its "ommission or as
unintended effe"t of an a"tivity that "onstitutes rebellion.
1n the issues raised by the petitioner:

a. ,y a vote of 11-6, the Court ruled that the information filed against the petitioner does in
fa"t "harge an offense despite the ob0e"tionable phrasing that would "omple( rebellion
with murder and multiple frustrated murder, that indi"tment is to be read as "harging
S4)%*+ &+,+**413. !he petitionerSs "ontention that he was "harged with a "rime that
does not e(ist in the statute books, >54*+ !+C534CA**J C1&&+C! S1 $A& AS !5+
C1A&! &A*+D !5A! &+,+**413 )AJ 31! ,+ C1)%*+Q+D >4!5 1!5+&
1$$+3S+S C1))4!!+D 13 !5+ 1CCAS413 !5+&+1$, )AS! !5+&+$1&+ ,+
D4S)4SS+D AS A )+&+ $*425! 1$ &5+!1&4C. &ead in the "onte(t of 5ernandeG,
the information does indeed "harge the petitioner with a "rime defined and punished by the
&evised %enal Code: S4)%*+ &+,+**413.
b. >as the petitioner "harged without a "omplaint having been initially filed andEor
preliminary investigation "ondu"tedN !he re"ord shows that a "omplaint for simple
rebellion against petitioner was filed by the 3,4 Dire"tor and that based on the strength of
said "omplaint a preliminary investigation was "ondu"ted by the respondent prose"utors
"ulminating in the filing of the 8uestioned information. !5+&+ 4S 31!5432
435+&+3!*J 4&&+2A*A& 1& C13!&A&J !1 *A> 43 $4*432 A2A43S! A
&+S%13D+3! A3 43DAC!)+3! $1& A3 1$$+3S+ D4$$+&+3! $&1) >5A! 4S
C5A&2+D 43 !5+ 434!4A!1&J C1)%*A43!, 4$ >A&&A3!+D ,J !5+
+F4D+3C+ D+F+*1%+D DA&432 !5+ %&+*4)43A&J 43F+S!42A!413.
". !he petitioner "laims that the warrant issued is void be"ause it was issued barely one
hour and twenty minutes after the "ase was raffled to the respondent 0udge whi"h "ould
hardly gave him suffi"ient time to personally go over the voluminous re"ords of the
1=-
preliminary investigation. Also, the petitioner "laims that the respondent 0udge issued the
warrant for his arrest without first personally determining the e(isten"e of probable "ause
by e(amining under oath or affirmation the "omplainant and his witnesses, in violation of
Art. 444, Se"tion /, of the Constitution. !his Court has already ruled that it is not
unavoidable duty of the 0udge to make su"h a personal e(amination, it being suffi"ient that
he follows established pro"edure by %+&S13A**J +FA*AA!432 !5+ &+%1&! A3D
!5+ SA%%1&!432 D1CA)+3! SA,)4!!+D ,J !5+ %&1S+CA!1&. )+&+,J
,+CAAS+ SA4D &+S%13D+3! <AD2+ 5AD >5A! S1)+ )425! C13S4D+&
13*J A &+*A!4F+*J ,&4+$ %+&41D >4!543 >54C5 !1 C1)%*J >4!5 !5A!
DA!J , 24F+S 31 &+AS13 !1 ASSA)+ !5A! 5+ 5AD 31!, 1& C1A*D 31!
5AF+, S1 C1)%*4+D# 31& D1+S !5A! S432*+ C4&CA)S!A3C+ SA$$4C+ !1
1F+&C1)+ !5+ *+2A* %&+SA)%!413 !5A! 1$$4C4A* DA!J 5AS ,++3
&+2A*A&*J %+&$1&)+D.
d. %etitioner also "laims that he is denied of his "onstitutional right to bail. 4n the light of
the CourtSs affirmation of 5ernandeG as appli"able to petitionerSs "ase, and of the logi"al
and ne"essary "orollary that the information against him should be "onsidered as "harging
only the "rime of simple rebellion whi"h is bailable before "onvi"tion, !5A! )AS! 31>
,+ ACC+%!+D AS A C1&&+C! %&1%1S4!413.
31!+S:
!his might be useful also in your &emedial *aw.
>as a petition for 5abeas Corpus before the Supreme Court the appropriate vehi"le for
asserting a right to bail or vindi"ating its denialN
!he Supreme Court held that the "riminal "ase before the respondent 0udge is the normal
venue for invoking the petitionerSs right to have provisional liberty pending trial and
0udgment. !he "orre"t "ourse was for the petitioner to invoke that 0urisdi"tion by filing a
petition to be admitted to bail, "laiming a right to bail per se or by reason of the weakness
of the eviden"e against him. 13*J A$!+& !5A! &+)+DJ >AS D+34+D ,J !5+
!&4A* C1A&! S51A*D !5+ &+F4+> <A&4SD4C!413 1$ !5+ SA%&+)+ C1A&!
,+ 43F1M+D, A3D +F+3 !5+3, 31! >4!51A! $4&S! A%%*J432 !1 !5+
C1A&! 1$ A%%+A*S 4$ A%%&1%&4A!+ &+*4+$ >AS A*S1 AFA4*A,*+ !5+&+.
+ven assuming that the petitionerSs premise that the information "harges a non-e(istent
"rime would not e("use or 0ustify his improper "hoi"e of remedies. Ander either
hypothesis, the obvious re"ourse would have been a motion to 8uash brought in the
"riminal a"tion before the respondent 0udge.
g. >arrantless sear"hes and seiGures--when valid
or not. 4s H1peration MapkapH validN
&ead:
5EO5LE VS. ME-:OTE, :.R. -o. 6;19, Ju'e, 1999, 91; SCRA 12
>arrantless sear"h and
1=7
seiGure
CruG, <.
$a"tsZ
1. 1n August 7, 1.7-, the >estern %oli"e Distri"t re"eived a telephone "all from an
informer that there were three suspi"ious-looking persons at the "orner of <uan *una and
3orth ,ay ,lvd., in !ondo, )anila#
/. >hen 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#
6. After their arrest, a .67 "al. Smith and >essor revolver was "onfis"ated from the a""used
and several days later, an information for violation of %D 17;; was filed against him#
:. After trial, )engote was "onvi"ted of having violated %D 17;; and was senten"ed to
suffer reclusion perpetua based on the alleged gun as the prin"ipal eviden"e. 5en"e this
automati" appeal.
4ssue:
>as there a valid warrantless sear"h and seiGureN
5eld:
!here is no 8uestion 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
Arti"le 444, Se"tion 6 B/C, of the Constitution. !his is the "elebrated e("lusionary rule based
on the 0ustifi"ation given by <usti"e *earned 5and 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, Arti"le 116 of the &ules of Court provides:
Se". D. Arrest without warrant# when lawful.- A pea"e offi"er or private person
may, without warrant, arrest a person:
a' >hen, in his presen"e, the person to be arrested has "ommitted, is a"tually
"ommitting, or is attempting to "ommit an offense#
b' >hen an offense has in fa"t 0ust been "ommitted, and he has personal
knowledge of fa"ts indi"ating that the person to be arrested has "ommitted it# and
"' >hen the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has es"aped from a penal
establishment or pla"e where he is serving final 0udgment or temporarily "onfined while his
"ase is pending, or has es"aped while being transferred from one "onfinement to another.
1=.
( ( (
>e have "arefully e(amined the wording of this &ule and "annot see how we we
"an agree with the prose"ution.
%ar. "' of Se"tion D is obviously inappli"able as )engote was not an es"apee from
a penal institution when he was arrested. >e therefore "onfine ourselves to determining
the lawfulness of his arrest under either %ar. a' or %ar. b' of this Se"tion.
%ar. a' re8uires that the person be arrested 1' after he has "ommitted or while he
is a"tually "ommitting or is at least attempting to "ommit an offense, /' in the presen"e of
the arresting offi"er.
!hese re8uirements have not been established in the "ase at bar. At the time of the
arrest in 8uestion, 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 0ust 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 8uestion is, >hat offenseN >hat 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. And the setting of the arrest made them less so,
if at all. 4t 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 6 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 0eep with his "ompanion.5e was not skulking in the
shadows but walking in the "lear light of day. !here was nothing "landestine about his
being on that street at that busy hour in the blaGe of the noonday sun.
1n 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. 4f
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
0ust been "ommitted, or was a"tually being "ommitted, or was at least being attempted in
their presen"e.
11=
!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. 5e had not "ommitted nor was a"tually "ommitting or
attempting to "ommit an offense in the presen"e of the arresting offi"ers. 5e was not even
a"ting suspi"iously. 4n short, there was no probable "ause that, as the prose"ution
in"orre"tly suggested, dispensed with the "onstitutional re8uirement of a warrant.
%ar. b' is no less appli"able be"ause its no less stringent re8uirements 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. All they had was hearsay information
from the telephone "aller, and about a "rime that had yet to bem "ommitted.
( ( (
4n the landmark "ase of #eople vs. urgos, .33 "C$A ., this Court de"lared:
Ander Se"tion ;a' of &ule 116, the offi"er arresting a person who has 0ust
"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.
( ( (
4n arrests without a warrant under Se"tion ;b', however, it is not enough that there
is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has "ommitted a "rime. A
"rime must in fa"t or actually have been "ommitted first. !hat a "rime has a"tually been
"ommitted is an essential pre"ondition. 4t 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 Alih vs. Castro, 1D1 SC&A /-., thus:
4f the arrest was made under &ule 116, Se"tion D, of the &ules of Court in
"onne"tion with a "rime about to be "ommitted, being "ommitted, or 0ust "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 116, Se"tion Db', 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.
4t would be a sad day, indeed, if any person "ould be summarily arrested and
sear"hed 0ust 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 0ustified in the name of se"urity.
111
( ( (
!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""used-appellant might have su""eeded. As it
happened, they allowed their over Gealousness to get the better of them, resulting in their
disregard of the re8uirements 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"8uittal 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.
0%e' ille&"l "rre7# i7 )ee$e) w"i*e).
>arrantless arrest# no personal knowledge of the arresting offi"er
5EO5LE VS. :ALVE>, 311 SCRA 926
)endoGa, <.
!he poli"eman arrested the a""used-appellant on the basis solely of what &eynaldo
Castro had told him and not be"ause he saw the a""used-appellant "ommit the "rime
"harged against him. 4ndeed, the prose"ution admitted that there was no warrant of arrest
issued against a""used-appellant when the latter was taken into "ustody. Considering that
the a""used-appellant was not "ommitting a "rime at the time he was arrested nor did the
arresting offi"er have any personal knowledge of fa"ts indi"ating that a""used-appellant
"ommitted a "rime, his arrest without a warrant "annot be 0ustified.
5owever, 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. 4! 4S 31>
S+!!*+D !5A! 1,<+C!413 !1 A >A&&A3! 1$ A&&+S! 1& !5+ %&1C+DA&+
,J >54C5 A C1A&! ACRA4&+S <A&4SD4C!413 1F+& !5+ %+&S13 1$ A3
ACCAS+D )AS! ,+ )AD+ ,+$1&+ 5+ +3!+&S 54S %*+A, 1!5+&>4S+, !5+
1,<+C!413 4S D++)+D >A4F+D. !5+ $AC! !5A! !5+ A&&+S! >AS 4**+2A*
D1+S 31! &+3D+& !5+ SA,S+RA+3! %&1C++D432S F14D A3D D+%&4F+
!5+ S!A!+ 1$ 4!S &425! !1 C13F4C! !5+ 2A4*!J >5+3 A** !5+ $AC!S
%143! !1 !5+ CA*%A,4*4!J 1$ !5+ ACCAS+D.
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 valid'
&ead:
1. 5EO5LE VS. ME-/O>A, 3;1 SCRA 66
>arrantless sear"hes and seiGures by private individuals
11/
9. SILAHIS I-TER-ATIO-AL HOTEL, I-C. VS. RO:ELIO SOL3TA, ET AL.,
269 SCRA 66;
Carpio-)orales, <.
!he petitioner suspe"ts that the respondents who are offi"ers of the Silahis
4nternational 5otel Anion were using the Anion 1ffi"e lo"ated inside the hotel in the sale
or use of mari0uana, dollar smuggling, and prostitution. !hey arrived at the said "on"lusion
through surveillan"e.
4n the morning of <anuary 11, 1.77, while the respondent union offi"er was opening
the Anion 1ffi"e, se"urity offi"ers of the plaintiff entered the union offi"e despite
ob0e"tions thereto by for"ibly opening the same. 1n"e inside the union offi"e they started
to make sear"hes whi"h resulted in the "onfis"ation of a plasti" bag of mari0uana. An
information for violation of the dangerous drugs a"t was filed against the respondent before
the &!C of )anila whi"h a"8uitted them on the ground that the sear"h "ondu"ted was
illegal sin"e it was warrantless and without "onsent by the respondents.
After their a"8uittal, the respondents filed a "ase for )ali"ious %rose"ution against
the petitioner for violation of Art. 6/ of the Civil Code. After 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 Appeals.
4ssue:
>hether the warrantless sear"h "ondu"ted by the petitioners private individual and
"orporation' on the union offi"e of the private respondents is valid.
5eld:
!he sear"h is not valid and they are "ivilly liable under Art. 6/ of the Civil Code.
!he fa"t that the union offi"e is part of the hotel owned by the petitioners does not 0ustify
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 0ustify their a"ts of barging into the said offi"e
without the "onsent of the union offi"ers and without a sear"h warrant. 4f indeed there was
surveillan"e made, then they should have applied for a sear"h warrant.
!he ruling in %eople vs. Andre )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
one9s "onstitutional rights may be invoked against the State. 4n 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
:.R. -O. 61161, J"'u"ry 16, 1991
>arrantless Sear"h and seiGure
by a private person
116
,idin, <.
$AC!S:
Andre )arti and his "ommon-law wife, Shirley &eyes went to )anila %a"kaging
and +(port $orwarders to send four :' pa"kages to Ouri"h, SwitGerland. Anita &eyes,
owner of the pla"e no relation to Shirley', re"eived said goods and asked if she "ould
e(amine and inspe"t it. )arti refused. 5owever later, following standard operating
pro"edure, <ob &eyes, "o-owner and husband of Anita opened the bo(es for final
inspe"tion, before delivering it to the ,ureau of Customs andEor ,ureau of %osts.
Apon opening, a pe"uliar odor emanated from the bo( that was supposed to "ontain
gloves. Apon further perusal, he felt and saw a dried leaves inside the bo(. <ob &eyes then
brought samples to the 3,4, he told them that the bo(es to be shipped were still in his
offi"e. 4n the presen"e of the 3,4 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 mari0uana
flowering tops.
!wo other bo(es,marked as "ontaining books and taba"alera "igars# also revealed
bri"ks or "ase-like mari0uana leaves and dried mari0uana leaves respe"tively.
)arti was later invited by the 3,4 to shed light on the attempted shipment of the
dried leaves. !hereafter an information was filed against the appellant for violating &A
;:/D or the Dangerous Drugs A"t. !he Spe"ial Criminal Court of )anila "onvi"ted
a""used )arti of violating se"./1b' of said &A.
ISS3ESH

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
/. >as the eviden"e pro"ured from the sear"h admissibleN
Hel)H

1. 3o, "onstitutional prote"tion on sear"h and seiGure is imposable only against the state
and not to private persons.
Sin"e Art. 444,/ of the 1.7- "onstitution is almost verbatim from the Anited States
"onstitution, the SC may "onsider AS $ed. SC "ases as likewise do"trinal in this
0urisdi"tion. 5en"e, in AS "ases, the "onstitutional provision against unreasomable sear"hes
and seiGure was intended as a restraint upon the a"tivities of the sovereign authority and
31! intended against private persons. 4f 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 1.7; Constitutional Commission.
11:
4n 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 <ob &eyes[ initiative that perpetrated the sear"h.
5e opened the pa"kages and took the samples to 3,4. All the 3,4 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.
Art.444 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.
A.S. "ases "ited: ,urdeau v. )"Dowell /D; us :;D B1./1C, state v. ,ryan :D- p
/d ;;1 B1.;7C, >alker v. state :/. s.w /d 1/1 B1.;.C', ,arnes v. us 6-6 $ /d D1-
B1.;-C', Chadwi"k v. state 6/. sw /d 16D'.
VALI/ 0ARRA-TLESS SEARCH A-/ SEI>3REH
1. Sear"h made in"idental to a valid arrest
a. )oreno vs. Ago Chi, 1/ %hil. :6.
b. %+1%*+ FS. A32 C5A3 M4!, /D1 SC&A ;;=
". %+1%*+ FS. *AA, /D; SC&A D6.
d. %+1%*+ FS. $igueroa, /:7 SC&A ;-.
e. 31*ASC1 FS. %A31, 16. SC&A D:1 A sear"h in"idental to a valid arrest must be done
at the pla"e where the a""used is arrested. As su"h, if a""used was arrested while inside a
0eepney, 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"e'
f. +S%A31 FS. CA, /77 SC&A D77 4f 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
arrest'
5EO5LE VS. :O, 312 SCRA 336 5EO5LE VS. :O, 312 SCRA 336
>here the gun tu"ked in a person9s 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. 3o
warrant is ne"essary in su"h a situation, it being one of the re"ogniGed e("eptions under the
&ules.
As a "onse8uen"e of the a""used9s 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/;. !his is a valid sear"h in"idental to a lawful arrest.
11D
4n fa"t, the subse8uent 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 re8uested that he will bring
his "ar to the %oli"e Station after his warrantless arrest' , of a drug paraphernalia and shabu,
CA331! ,+ SA4D !1 5AF+ ,++3 )AD+ DA&432 A3 4**+2A* S+A&C5. As
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. )A&4AC1S, 2.&. 3o. 177;11, <une 1;, /=1=
b. Carrol vs. AS, /;- AS 16/
". %+1%*+ FS. *1 51 >432, et al.
2. &. 3o. 77=1-' <anuary /1, 1..1
d. )AS!A32 *A),+& FS. CA, /D- SC&A :6=
e. %+1%*+ FS. C$4, 1=1 SC&A 7;
f. %+1%*+ FS. )A*)S!+D!1.7 SC&A :=1
&. 5EO5LE VS. LO HO 0I-:, 193 SCRA 199
.ACTSH
4n <uly 1.7-, the Spe"ial 1perations 2roup of the C4S 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 penetration agentsH under 1%*A3 S5A&13 77-. 1ne su"h agent was &eynaldo !ia
the di"hargedEa""used'. As an agent, he submitted regular reports of under"over a"tivities
of suspe"ted syndi"ates. CA%!A43 %A*)+&A, head of oplan sharon 77-, in turned
informed the Dan
gerous Drugs ,oard of !iaSs a"tivities.
!ia was introdu"ed to his "o-a""used *im Cheng 5uat 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 5o >ing', the later turning out to be !iaSs intended "ompanion.
Appellant *o 5o >ing and !ia left for 5ongkong on 1"tober :, 1.7-. !ia
telephoned Capt. %almera that they would return to the %hilippines on 1"tober ;. $rom
5ongkong, the two pro"eeded to 2uangGhou in mainland China. !here, appeallant *o 5o
>ing bought si( ;' "ans of tea.!ia saw these ; bags when they were opened for
e(amination. !hat evening, they went to *o 5o >ingSs room and he saw two other men
with him. 1ne was fi(ing the tea bags, while the other was burning a substan"e on a pie"e
of aluminum foil using a lighter. Appellant *o 5o >ing 0oined the se"ond man and sniffed
the smoke emitted by the burning substan"e. >hen !ia asked *o 5o >ing 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 5o >ing and
!ia were "leared. 4n )anila, !hey were met by *im Cheng 5uat. Appelant *o 5o >ing
11;
and !ia boarded a ta(i from the airport and loaded their luggage in the ta(iSs "ompartment.
*im Cheng 5uat followed them in another ta(i.
)eamwhile, a team "omposed by Capt. %almera positioned themselves in strategi"
areas around the airport. !he C4S men who first saw *o 5o and !ia followed them. Along
4melda Avenue, the C4S "ar overtook the ta(i ridden by *o 5o >ing and !ia , for"ing the
ta(i driver to stop his vehi"le. !he C4S team asked the ta(i driver to open the baggage
"ompartment. !he C4S team asked permission to sear"h their luggage.
A tin "an of tea was taken out of the "ompartment. Sgt. Cayabyab of the C4S 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. All the bags threshed out a
total of si( tin "ans. !ia and appellant were taken to the C4S head8uarters for 8uestioning.
)eanwhile, the se"ond ta(i "arrying *im Cheng 5uat sped in attempt to es"ape. 5owever,
they were later "aptured.
Samples from the bag tested positive for metamphetamine. !he three suspe"ts were
indi"ted for violating Art. 444, se".1D of the Dangerous Drug A"t. Appellant *o 5o >ing
and *im Cheng 5uat were senten"ed to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
%/D,=== 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.
4SSA+S:

1. >as the warrantless sear"h validN
/. Are the effe"ts taken admissible as eviden"eN
5+*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
0udge would allow the a""used go s"ot-free.
/. Sin"e the sear"h and seiGure are valid, the eviden"e obtained is admissible as
eviden"e in any pro"eeding.
6. SeiGure of goods "on"ealed to avoid dutiesEta(es Falid'
a. %apa vs. )ago, // SC&A 7D-
b. %a"is vs. %amaran, D; SC&A 1;
". 54O13 FS. CA, /;D SC&A D1-
d. %+1%*+ FS. RA+, /;D SC&A -/1
:. SeiGe of eviden"e in plain view
a. 5arris vs. AS, 6.= AS /6:
b. %+1%*+ FS. DA)AS1, /1/ SC&A D:-
11-
". %+1%*+ FS. F+*1S1, /D/ SC&A 16D
d. %+1%*+ FS. *+SA3243, /D/ SC&A /16
D. >hen there is waiver of right or gives his "onsent#
a. De 2ar"ia vs. *o"sin, ;D %hil. ;7.
b. *opeG vs. Commissioner, ;D SC&A 66;
". 5EO5LE VS. /AMASO, 919 SCRA 4n 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 0ust anybody.
+(ample: !he landlady "ould not 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 abandoned'
d. VEROY VS. LAYA:3E, 91; SCRA 9 . 4f 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,'
;. S!1% A3D $&4SM.
a. %eople vs. )engote, <une, 1../
b. %+1%*+ FS. %1SADAS, 177 SC&A /77
". )A3A*4*4 FS. %+1%*+, 1"tober ., 1..-. !he poli"emen saw several suspi"ious
looking men at dawn who ran when they went near them. As the poli"emen ran after them,
an unli"ensed firearm was "onfis"ated. !he sear"h is valid'
d. )A*ACA! FS. CA, /76 SC&A 1D.. )ere suspi"ions not suffi"ient to validate
warrantless arrest'
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;
>arrantless sear"hes#
HGoningsH and Hsaturation drivesH
Se"tion 1-, Art. F44 of the Constitution
2utierreG, <r., <.
$a"ts:
!his is a petition for %rohibition with preliminary in0un"tion to prohibit military and
poli"e offi"ers from "ondu"ting HAreal target GoningsH or Hsaturation driveH in )etro
)anila parti"ularly in pla"es where they suspe"t that the subversives are hiding. !he :1
petitioners "laim that the saturation drives "ondu"ted by the military is in violation of their
human rights be"ause with no spe"ifi" target house in mind, in the dead of the night or
early morning hours, poli"e and military offi"ers without any sear"h warrant "ordon an area
of more than one residen"e and sometimes the whole barangay. )ost of them are in "ivilian
"lothes and wEo nameplates or identifi"ation "ards# that the raiders rudely rouse residents
from their sleep by banging on the walls and windows of their homes, shouting, ki"king
their doors open destroying some' and ordering the residents to "ome out# the residents are
herded like "ows at the point of high powered guns, ordered to strip down to their briefs
and e(amined for tattoo marks# that while e(amination of the bodies of the men are being
"ondu"ted, the other military men "ondu"t sear"h and seiGures to ea"h and every house
117
without "ivilian witnesses from the neighbors# some vi"tims "omplained that their money
and other valuables were lost as a result of these illegal operations.
!he respondents "laim that they have legal authority to "ondu"t saturation drives under
Art. F44, Se". 1- of the Constitution whi"h provides:
!he respondents would want to 0ustify 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. 5e
shall ensure that the laws are faithfully e(e"uted.
5eld:
!here "an be no 8uestion 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. 4f the military wants to flush out subversive and "riminal elements, the same must
be "onsistent with the "onstitutional and statutory rights of the people. 5owever, nowhere
in the Constitution "an we see a provision whi"h prohibits the Chief +(e"utive from
ordering the military to stop unabated "riminality, rising lawlessness and alarming
"ommunist a"tivities. 5owever, 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 Art. 444, Se"tion 6 of the
Constitution is very "lear as e(plained in &oan vs. 2onGales, 1:D SC&A ;7- and Century
$o( vs. Court of Appeals, 1;: SC&A ;DD. Also, it must be pointed out that poli"e a"tions
should not be "hara"teriGed by methods that offend oneSs sense of 0usti"e &o"hin vs.
California, 6:/ AS 1;D'.
!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. A
show of for"e is sometimes ne"essary as long as the rights of people are prote"ted and not
violated. 5owever, 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. 4t is basi"ally for
the e(e"utive department and the trial "ourts. !he problem is appropriate for the
Commission of 5uman &ights.
!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. 4n the meantime, the a"ts violative
of human rights alleged by the petitioners as "ommitted during the poli"e a"tions are
+3<143+D until su"h time as permanent rules to govern su"h a"tions are promulgated.
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
11.
CruG, %adilla and Sarmiento, <<. , Dissenting

!he ruling of the ma0ority that the petitioners are not proper parties is a spe"ious prete(t
for ina"tion. >e have held that te"hni"al ob0e"tions may be brushed aside where there are
"onstitutional 8uestions that must be met &1D&42A+O FS. 2+**A, ./ %54*. ;=6#
!1*+3!431 FS. C1)+*+C, :1 SC&A -=/# %54*C13SA FS. <4)+3+O, ;D SC&A
:-.# +DA FS. +&4C!A, 6D SC&A :71# 213OA*+S FS. C1)+*+C, /- SC&A 76D#
*A2A3OAD FS. CA, 1D: SC&A 1..# D+)+!&4A FS. A*,A,1:7 SC&A /=7'. *oGada
was in fa"t an aberration.
>here liberty is involved, every person is a proper party even if he may not be dire"tly
in0ured. +a"h of us has a duty to prote"t liberty and that alone makes him a proper party. 4t
is not only the owner of a burning house who has the right to "all the firemen.
Se"tion /, Art. 444 of the "onstitution is very "lear: Anreasonable sear"hes and seiGures
of whatever nature and for whatever purpose is prohibited.
Saturation drives are 31! A)132 !5+ ACC+%!+D 43S!A3C+S >5+3 A
S+A&C5 1& A3 A&&+S! )AJ ,+ )AD+ >4!51A! A >A&&A3!. !5+J C1)+
A3D+& !5+ C13C+%! 1$ !5+ $4S5432 +Q%+D4!413S S!42)A!4O+D ,J *A>
A3D D1C!&43+ Q Q Q 4 submit that this "ourt should instead "ategori"ally and
emphati"ally that these saturation drives are violative of human rights and individual liberty
and should be stopped immediately. >hile they may be allowed in the a"tual theater of
military operations against the insurgents, the Court should also make it "lear that )etro
)anila is not su"h a battleground.
-. 43 !5+ )A!!+& 1$ !5+ %+!4!413 $1& 5A,+AS C1&%AS 1$ &1,+&!1
A)4*, &1*A3D1 DA&A* and &+3A!1 F4**A3A+FA. )A31*4!A A)4* and
34CA31& DA&A*, $+*4C4!AS S+S+ FS. $4D+* &A)1S, +! A*. and "ompanion
"ases, 2.&. 3o. 71D;-, <uly ., 1..= An 3%A may be arrested without warrant while
sleeping or being treated in a hospital be"ause his being a "ommunist rebel is a "ontinuing
"rime'
h. 4f the 0udge 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 3o be"ause a warrant is issued in
order to have 0urisdi"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. As 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. 3ote: !his "ase involves a minor offense'
/. :O>O VS. TACFA-, 3;; SCRA 961 . 4f the offense "ommitted is a serious one like that
obtaining in this "ase for murder, the <udge must issue a warrant of arrest after determining
the e(isten"e of probable "ause'
i. Sear"hing 8uestions
1/=
&ead:
/R. -EMESIO 5R3/E-TE VS. THE HO-. EDEC3TIVE J3/:E A4ELAR/O M.
/AYRIT, RTC 33, M"'il" G 5eople o( #%e 5%ilippi'e7, :R -o. 696;, /ece$8er 12,
1969 ,E' 4"'c!
Sear"h and seiGure# re8uirementsEre8uisites of a valid sear"h warrant# sear"hing 8uestions
%adilla, <.

!his is a petition to annul and set aside the 1rder of respondent <udge D+3J432 the
motion of the petitioner to 8uash Sear"h >arrant 3o. 7--1: as well as its 1rder denying the
petitionerSs )otion for &e"onsideration.
$a"ts:

1. 1n 1"tober 61, 1.7-, %E)a0or Alladin Dimagmaliw, Chief of the 4ntelligen"e Spe"ial
A"tion Division 4SAD' of the >estern %oli"e Distri"t >%D' filed with the &egional !rial
Court of )anila, ,ran"h 66, presided by the respondent <udge, an appli"ation for the
issuan"e of a Sear"h >arrant for violation of %D 17;; against the petitioner#
/. 4n his appli"ation for sear"h warrant, %E)a0or Dimagmaliw alleged that:
H1. !hat he has been informed and has good and suffi"ient reasons to believe that
3+)+S41 %&AD+3!+ who may be found at the %olyte"hni" Aniversity 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.
4n support of said appli"ation, %E*t. $loren"io Angeles e(e"uted a HDeposition of
>itness dated 1"tober 61, 1.7- .
6. 1n 3ovember 1, 1.7-, a Sunday and All Saints Day, the sear"h warrant was enfor"ed by
some /== >%D operatives led by Col. +dgar Dula !orre and )a0or )aganto#
:. 1n 3ovember /, 1.7-, &i"ardo Abando, 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. 1n 3ovember ;, 1.7-, the petitioner moved to 8uash the sear"h warrant on the grounds
that:
a. the "omplainantSs lone witness, *t. Angeles had no personal knowledge of the fa"ts
whi"h formed the basis for the issuan"e of the sear"h warrant#
1/1
b. the e(amination of said witness was not in the form of sear"hing 8uestions 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 3o. 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.
;. 1n )ar"h ., 1.7;, the respondent 0udge denied the motion to 8uash and on April /=,
1.77, the same 0udge denied petitionerSs motion for re"onsideration. 5en"e this petition.
4ssue:

>as the Sear"h >arrant issued by the respondent 0udge validN >as there probable
"auseN
5eld:
a. $or a valid sear"h warrant to issue, there must be probable "ause, whi"h is to be
determined by the 0udge, 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 0udge must, before issuing the warrant, personally e(amine in the
form of sear"hing 8uestions 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 ob0e"ts sought in "onne"tion with the offense are
in the pla"e sought to be sear"hedH. Ruintero vs. 3,4, <une /6, 1.77'. !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 <AC1, ;: %54*. ;;-# A*FA&+O
FS. C$4, ;: %54*. 66# AS FS. ADD4S13, /7 %54*. D;;'.
4n his affidavit, )a0or Dimagmaliw de"lared that Hhe has been informedH that 3emesio
%rudente Hhas in his "ontrol and possessionH the firearms and e(plosivees des"ribed therein,
and that he Hhas verified the report and found it to be a fa"t.H 1n the other hand, *t.
Angeles de"lared that as a result of "ontinuous surveillan"e for several days, they Hgathered
information9s from verified sour"esH that the holders of said firearms and e(plosives are not
li"ensed t possess them. 4t is "lear from the foregoing that the appli"ant and his witness
5AD 31 %+&S13A* M31>*+D2+ 1$ !5+ $AC!S A3D C4&CA)S!A3C+S whi"h
be"ame the basis for issuing the 8uestioned sear"h warrant, but a"8uired knowledge thereof
only through information from other sour"es or persons.
Despite the fa"t that )a0or Dimagmaliw stated in his affidavit that Hhe verified the
information he had earlier re"eived and found it to be a fa"t, J+! !5+&+ 4S 31!5432
43 !5+ &+C1&D !1 S51> 1& 43D4CA!+ 51> A3D >5+3 SA4D A%%*4CA3!
F+&4$4+D !5+ +A&*4+& 43$1&)A!413 ACRA4&+D ,J 54) AS !1 <AS!4$J
1//
54S C13C*AS413. 5e might have "larified this point if there had been sear"hing
8uestions and answers, but there were none. 4n fa"t, the re"ords yield no 8uestions and
answers, whether sear"hing or not, vis-a-vis the said appli"ant.
4n A*FA&+O FS. C$4, ;: %54*. 66, 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 not-
H!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 per0ury "ould be "harged thereon and the
affiant be held liable for damage "aused. !he oath re8uired 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. Angeles, 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 per0ury for su"h allegations in "ausing the issuan"e of the 8uestioned sear"h
warrant.
,esides, respondent 0udge did not take the deposition of the appli"ant as re8uired by the
&ules of Court. As held in &oan vs. 2onGales, 1:D SC&A ;.:, Hmere affidavits of the
"omplainant and his witnesses are thus insuffi"ient. !he e(amining 0udge 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 8uestions asked by the respondent 0udge be"ause as shown
by the re"ord, his 8uestions were too brief and short and did not e(amine the "omplainant
and his witnesses in the form of sear"hing 8uestions and answers. 1n the "ontrary, the
8uestions asked were leading as they "alled for a simple HyesH or HnoH answer. As held in
Ruintero vs. 3,4, <une /6, 1.77, Hthe 8uestions propounded are not suffi"iently sear"hing
to establish probable "ause. Asking of leading 8uestions 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
re8uirements for the issuan"e of a valid sear"h warrant.H
!he Court avails of this de"ision to reiterate the stri"t re8uirements for determination of
probable "ause in the valid issuan"e of a sear"h warrant as enun"iated in earlier "ases. !rue,
this re8uirements 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.
". !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.
F+*1S1, :7 %54*. 17='. 4n the "ase at bar, the warrant des"ribed the pla"e to be sear"hed
as the premises of the %A%, more parti"ularly the offi"es of the Department of S"ien"e and
!a"ti"s as well as the 1ffi"e of the %resident, 3emesio %rudente.
1/6
!here is also no violation of the Hone spe"ifi" offenseH re8uirement "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 17;;.
d. C4&CA*A& 31. 1. 1$ !5+ SA%&+)+ C1A&! 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 re8uirements are "omplied with.
a. 5A,+&! >+,, FS. D+ *+13, /:- SC&A ;D=
&ead also:
1. AlvareG vs. C$4, ;: %hil. 66 >hen the appli"ant is basing his knowledge from an
informant, the same is not valid'
/. *una vs. %laGa, /; SC&A 616
6. De )ulata vs. 4riGari, ;/ SC&A /1=
:. )arinas vs. Sio"hi, 1=: SC&A :/6
D. &oan vs. 2onGales, 1:D ;7-
;. )ata vs. ,ayona, 1/7 SC&A 677 Depositions of the appli"ants and witnesses
should be atta"hed to the re"ord of the "ase'
-. Corro vs. *ising, 16- SC&A D:1
7. 3olas"o vs %ano, 1:- SC&A D=.
.. ,urgos vs. Chief of Staff, 166 SC&A 7==
1=. %. vs. ,urgos, September 1:,1.7;
11. %. vs. Aminnudin J Ahni, <uly ;,1.77
1/. %onsi"a vs. 4gnalaga, <uly 61,1.7- >hen 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 valid'
16. Aber"a vs. Fer, April 1D,1.77
/. %anganiban vs. Cesar, 1D. SC&A D..
6. %+3D13 FS. CA, 3ovember 1;, 1..=. >hen the 8uestions 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 8uestions'
0. >arrantless sear"hes and seiGures--when valid
or not.
&ead:
1. RICAR/O VALMO-TE VS. :E- RE-ATO /E VILLA, :R -o. 63966,
Sep#e$8er 99, 1969
>arrantless sear"hes and seiGures#
validity of "he"kpoints
%adilla, <.
$a"ts:

1/:
1. 1n <anuary /=, 1.7-, the 3ational Capital &egion Distri"t Command 3C&DC' 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. As part of its duty to maintain pea"e and
order, the 3C&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 sub0e"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.
/. 1n <uly ., 1.77 at dawn, the apprehensions of the residents of FalenGuela in"reased
be"ause ,en0amin %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.
4ssue:

>hether 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
5eld:

%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.
3ot all sear"hes and seiGures are prohibited. !hose whi"h are reasonable are not
forbidden. A 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.
>here, 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.= )> /7.', or simply looks
into a vehi"le State vs. 2aina, .- S+ ;/', or flashes a light therein &owland vs.
Commonwealth, /D. S> 66', 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. 4n this "onne"tion, the Court may take 0udi"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 3%ASs Hsparrow units,H not to mention the
abundan"e of unli"ensed firearms.
,+!>++3 !5+ 435+&+3! &425! 1$ !5+ S!A!+ !1 %&1!+C! 4!S
+Q4S!+3C+ A3D %&1)1!+ %A,*4C >+*$A&+ A3D A3 43D4F4DAA*SS &425!
A2A43S! A >A&&A3!*+SS S+A&C5 >54C5 4S 51>+F+& &+AS13A,*J
C13DAC!+D, !5+ $1&)+& S5A** %&+FA4*.
1/D
!rue, the manning of these "he"kpoints by the military is sus"eptible of abuse by the
men in uniform, in the same manner that all governmental power is sus"eptible to abuse.
,A! , A! !5+ C1S! 1$ 1CCAS413A* 43C13F+34+3C+, D4SC1)$1&! A3D
+F+3 4&&4!A!413 !1 !5+ C4!4O+3, !5+ C5+CM%143!S DA&432 !5+S+
A,31&)A* !4)+S A&+ %A&! 1$ !5+ %&4C+ >+ %AJ $1& A3 1&D+&*J
S1C4+!J A3D %+AC+$A* C1))A34!J.
$inally, it must be emphasiGed that on <uly 1-, 1.77, 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 3C&DC Chief.
CruG and Sarmiento, <<., dissenting:
!he bland de"laration by the ma0ority 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.
RESOL3TIO- O- THE MOTIO- .OR RECO-SI/ERATIO-,
J3-E 11, 199;

Fery 4mportant:
!he Supreme Court in its &esolution of the )otion for &e"onsideration dated 1D <une,
1..=, 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, 1"tober 1-, 1..=
1-". %. vs. Castiller, August ;, 1..=
1-d. %. vs. 1laes, <uly 6=, 1..=
/. %apa vs. )ago, // SC&A 7D-
6. &oldan vs. Ar"a, ;D SC&A 66;
:. %. vs. C$4, 1=1 SC&A 7;
D. %a"is vs. %amaran, D; SC&A 1;
;. *opeG vs. Commisioner, ;D SC&A 66;
-. % vs. CruG, 1;D SC&A 16D
7. 3olas"o vs. %ano, 1:- SC&A D=. P 16. SC&A 1D/
.. % vs. Claudio, 1;= SC&A ;:; !here is a valid warrantless sear"h when a
3A&C1) now %D+A' offi"er arrests the person who owns a bag whi"h "ontains
mari0uana whi"h he found out when he smelled the same. 5ere , there is a probable "ause
sin"e he has personal knowledge due to his e(pertise on drugs'
11. 5EO5LE VS. /EL ROSARIO, July 1;, 1992 . After the informant was given by the
poli"e the amount of %1==.==, he went to buy mari0uana from the a""used then returned to
1/;
the poli"e head8uarters 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
116'
*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-0udi"ial offi"er issue a warrant of arrestN 31'
&ead:
1. 5arvey vs. )iriam Defensor-Santiago, <une /;,1.77
/. )oreno vs. Fivo, /= SC&A D;/
6. *im vs. %on"e de *eon, ;; SC&A /..
:. 51&!+3C4A SA*AOA& FS. 513 !1)AS AC5AC1S1, 2.&. 31. 71D1=, )ar"h 1:,
1..= +n ban"'
D. %residential Anti\Dollar Salting !ask $or"e vs. CA, )ar"h 1;, 1.7.
l. %roperties sub0e"t to seiGure
&ead:
1 1. Se". /, &ule 1/;,1.7D &ules on Crimial %ro"edure, as amended
2
/. +S%A31 FS. CA, /77 SC&A DD7
m. >arrantless sear"hes and arrests
&ead:
1. %. vs. ,ati, August /-, 1..=
1-a. )anuel et al., vs. <udge !irso Felas"o, 2& 3o. 7:;;;, $ebruary ., 1.7.
1-b. 2ar"ia-%adilla vs. +nrile,1/1 SC&A :- P 16- SC&A ;:-
1-". %. vs. )aspil, <r., August /=, 1..= Compare with %. vs. Aminnudin, <uly ;,
1.77, supra'
1-d. %osadas vs. CA, Aug. /, 1..=
1-e. %. vs. De la CruG
1-f. %. vs. ortiG, De". 6, 1..=
1-g. &olito 2o vs. CA, $eb. 11, 1../
1-h. %eople vs. )ati, <anuary 17, 1..1
/. )orales vs. %on"e +nrile, 1/1 SC&A D67
/-a. % vs. ,urgos, 1:: SC&A 1
/-b. %eople vs. de la CruG, 17: SC&A :1;
/-". 2at"halian vs. ,oard, )ay 61, 1..1
/-d. %eople vs. Su"ro, )ar"h 17, 1..1
/-e. %+1%*+ FS. S1*AJA1, /;/ SC&A /DD
/-f. %+1%*+ FS. CA4S13, /D; SC&A 6/D
/-g. %+1%*+ FS. DA)AS1, /1/ SC&A D:-
/-h. 1%1SADAS FS. CA, /D7 SC&A 177
1/-
/-i. %+1%*+ FS. <AA!A3, /;= SC&A D6/ ,uy-bust operation'
6. Se". ;, &ule 116, 1.7D &ules on Criminal %ro"edure, as amended
n. +ffe"t posting bail or entering a plea during the arraignment, if the arrest was illegal.
!he alleged illegality of the arrest is deemed waived upon posting of the bond by the
a""used'
5EO5LE VS. :ALVE>, 311 SCRA 926 5EO5LE VS. :ALVE>, 311 SCRA 926
)endoGa, <.
!he poli"eman arrested the a""used-appellant on the basis solely of what &eynaldo
Castro had told him and not be"ause he saw the a""used-appellant "ommit the "rime
"harged against him. 4ndeed, the prose"ution admitted that there was no warrant of arrest
issued against a""used-appellant when the latter was taken into "ustody. Considering that
the a""used-appellant was not "ommitting a "rime at the time he was arrested nor did the
arresting offi"er have any personal knowledge of fa"ts indi"ating that a""used-appellant
"ommitted a "rime, his arrest without a warrant "annot be 0ustified.
5owever, by entering a plea of not guilty during the arraignment, the a""used-
appellant waived his right to raise the issue of illegality of his arrest. 4! 4S 31>
S+!!*+D !5A! 1,<+C!413 !1 A >A&&A3! 1$ A&&+S! 1& !5+ %&1C+DA&+
,J >54C5 A C1A&! ACRA4&+S <A&4SD4C!413 1F+& !5+ %+&S13 1$ A3
ACCAS+D )AS! ,+ )AD+ ,+$1&+ 5+ +3!+&S 54S %*+A, 1!5+&>4S+, !5+
1,<+C!413 4S D++)+D >A4F+D. !5+ $AC! !5A! !5+ A&&+S! >AS 4**+2A*
D1+S 31! &+3D+& !5+ SA,S+RA+3! %&1C++D432S F14D A3D D+%&4F+
!5+ S!A!+ 1$ 4!S &425! !1 C13F4C! !5+ 2A4*!J >5+3 A** !5+ $AC!S
%143! !1 !5+ CA*%A,4*4!J 1$ !5+ ACCAS+D.
&ead:
1. Callanta vs. Fillanueva, -- SC&A 6--
/. %+1%*+ FS. 3AOA&+31, /;= SC&A /D;
6. $4*1!+1 FS. SA3D42A3,AJA3, /;6 SC&A ///
:. %+1%*+ FS. 3AOA&+31, /;= SC&A /D;
D. %+1%*+ FS. *A%A&A, /DD SC&A 7D
;. %+1%*+ FS. S4*A3, /D: SC&A :.1
o . %enalty for illegal arrest
&ead:
%alon vs. 3A%1*C1), )ay /7, 1.7.
p. <udi"ial pronoun"ements on illegally seiGed eviden"e, 1=; SC&A 66;
8. !he e("lusionary rule,1DD SC&A :.:
1/7
n. >hat is the status of a do"ument obtained through subpoenaN
&ead:
Dianalan vs. %ros., 1ffi"e of the !anodbayan, 3ov. /-, 1..=
r. Sear"h warrant for pirated video tapes
1. Century $o( vs. CA, 1;: SC&A ;DD !he master "opy of the allegedly pirated tape should
be presented before the 0udge in order to "onvin"e him of the e(isten"e of probable "ause'
/. C1*A),4A %4C!A&+S FS. CA, /;1 SC&A 1::
AJ FS. ,4&, 6:: SC&A 6; AJ FS. ,4&, 6:: SC&A 6;
!he following are the re8uisites of a valid sear"h warrant:
1. !he warrant must be issued upon probable "ause#
/. !he probable "ause must be determined by the 0udge himself and not by appli"ant or any
other person#
6. 4n determining probable "ause, the 0udge must e(amine under oath and affirmation the
"omplainant and su"h witnesses as the latter may produ"e# and
:. !he warrant issued must parti"ularly des"ribe the pla"e to be sear"hed and the person or
things to be seiGed.
A 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. 4n 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
0udge 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.
%+1%*+ FS. FA*D+O, 6:1 SC&A /D
!he prote"tion against unreasonable sear"h and seiGure "overs both inno"ent and
guilty alike against any form of highhandedness of law enfor"es.
!he 8plain !ie'A dotrine, whi"h may 0ustify a sear"h without warrant, A55LIES
O-LY 0HERE THE 5OLICE O..ICER IS -OT SEARCHI-: .OR EVI/E-CE
A:AI-ST THE ACC3SE/, 43T I-A/VERTE-TLY COMES ACROSS A-
I-CRIMI-ATI-: O4JECT.
<ust be"ause the mari0uana plants were found in an unfen"ed lot does nor prevent
the appellant from invoking the prote"tion afforded by the Constitution. !he right against
unreasonable sear"h and seiGure is the immunity of one9s person, whi"h in"ludes his
residen"e, papers and other possessions. $or a person to be immune against unreasonable
1/.
sear"hes and seiGures, he need not be in his home or offi"e, within a fen"ed yard or private
pla"e.
5EO5LE VS. 4A3LA, 322 SCRA 663
4n "ase of "onsented sear"hes or waiver of the "onstitutional guarantee against
obtrusive sear"hes, i# i7 (u')"$e'#"l #%"# #o co'7#i#u#e w"i*er, IT M3ST A55EAR
THAT THE RI:HT EDISTS+ THE 5ERSO-S I-VOLVE/ HA/ E-O0LE/:E,
EITHER ACT3AL OR CO-STR3CTIVE, o( #%e eAi7#e'ce o( 7uc% ri&%#. !he third
"ondition did not e(ist in the instant "ase. 3either was the sear"h in"idental to a valid
warrantless arrest. %+1%*+ FS. $4$A+&1A, <uly ;, /===' An alleged "onsent to a
warrantless sear"h and seiGure "annot be based merely on the presumption of regularity in
the performan"e of offi"ial duty. !5+ %&+SA)%!413 ,J 4!S+*$, CA331! %&+FA4*
A2A43S! !5+ C13S!4!A!413A**J %&1!+C!+D &425!S 1$ A3 43D4F4DAA*,
A3D O+A* 43 !5+ %A&SA4! 1$ C&4)43A*S CA331! +331,*+ !5+ AS+ 1$
A&,4!&A&J )+!51DS !5A! !5+ C13S!4!A!413 4!S+*$ A,51&S.
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 eAcep# upo' l"w(ul or)er o( #%e cour#, or w%e' pu8lic 7"(e#y
or or)er reBuire7 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'&.
&ead:
&ead:
31!+: Appli"able provisions of the 5uman Se"urity A"tEAnti-!errorism *aw, &epubli"
A"t 3o. .6-/, Approved on )ar"h ;, /==- and effe"tive on <uly 1D, /==- !his *aw shall
be automati"ally suspended one 1' month before and two /' months after the holding of
any ele"tion'
%lease observe the pro"edure in obtaining the @T%e 0"rr"'# <or Or)er= o(
Sur*eill"'ceC, not found in the 1.7- %hilippine Constitution.
SA&F+4**A3C+ 1$ SAS%+C!S A3D 43!+&C+%!413 A3D &+C1&D432 1$
C1))A34CA!413S 1$ SAS%+C!S 1& C5A&2+D 1$ !+&&1&4S)
1etion 7. Surveillan"e of suspe"ts and inter"eption and re"ording of
"ommuni"ations. !he provisions of &A :/== Anti->iretapping *aw' 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 Appeals, listen to, inter"ept and re"ord, with the use of
16=
any mode, form or kind or type of ele"troni" or other surveillan"e e8uipment 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 0udi"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, 0ournalists and their sour"es and "onfidential
business "orresponden"e shall not be authoriGed.
1etion 8. $ormal Appli"ation for <udi"ial AuthoriGation.- !he written order of the
authoriGing division of the Court of Appeals 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 Appeals A%13 A3 +Q-
%A&!+ written appli"ation of a poli"e or law enfor"ement offi"ial who has been duly
authoriGed in writing by the Anti-!errorism Coun"il "reated in Se"tion D6 of this A"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:
!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"8uiring su"h eviden"e.
1e. ?. Classifi"ation and Contents of the 1rder of the Court. !he written order
granted by the authoriGing division of the Court of Appeals 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 Anti-!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 Appeals whi"h
issued said written order. !he written order of the authoriGing division of the "ourt of
Appeals 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 otherwise' "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
161
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 sub0e"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 organiGation' of the
members of his team 0udi"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.
1etion. 10. +ffe"tive %eriod of <udi"ial AuthoriGation. Any authoriGation granted
by the authoriGing division of the "ourt of AppealsVshall only be effe"tive for the length
of time spe"ified in the written order of the authoriGing division of the Court of Appeals,
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 Appeals by the appli"ant poli"e or law enfor"ement
offi"ial.
!he CA 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 Anti-terrorism Coun"il in
writing.
4f 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 sub0e"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 sub0e"t of surveillan"e of
the termination of the surveillan"e, monitoring, inter"eption and re"ording shall be
penaliGed to 1= years and 1 day to 1/ years.
1etion 15. +videntiary Falue of Deposited )aterials. Any listened to, inter"epted,
and re"orded "ommuni"ations, messages, "onversationsV>54C5 5AF+ ,++3
S+CA&+D 43 F41*A!413 1$ !5+ %+&!43+3! %&1F4S413S 1$ !54S AC!,
S5A** A,S1*A!+*J 31! ,+ AD)4SS4,*+ A3D ASA,*+ AS +F4D+3C+
A2A43S! A3J,1DJ 43 A3J <AD4C4A*, RAAS4-<AD4C4A*, *+24S*A!4F+, 1&
AD)434S!&A!4F+ 43F+S!42A!413, 43RA4&J, %&1C++D432, 1& 5+A&432.
J3/ICIAL A3THORI>ATIO- TO EDAMI-E 4A-E /E5OSITS, ACCO3-TS,
A-/ RECOR/S O. S3S5ECTE/ OR CHAR:E/ TERRORISTS
Se"tion /-. 0udi"ial authoriGation re8uired to e(amine bank deposits, a""ounts and
re"ords.
!he 0usti"es of CA designated as spe"ial "ourt to handle anti-terrorism "ases after
satisfying themselves of the e(isten"e of probable "ause in a hearing "alled for that purpose
that:
A person "harged with or suspe"ted of the "rime of terrorism or "onspira"y to "ommit
terrorism#
1f a 0udi"ially de"lared and outlawed terrorist organiGation or group of persons#
16/
1f a member of su"h 0udi"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 Appeals.
1e. 28. Appli"ation to e(amine deposits, a""ounts and re"ords.
!he written order of the CA authoriGing the e(amination of bank deposits,
pla"ements, trust a""ounts, assets and re"ords:
A person "harged with or suspe"ted of the "rime of terrorism or "onspira"y to "ommit
terrorism#
1f a 0udi"ially de"lared and outlawed terrorist organiGation or group of persons#
1f a member of su"h 0udi"ially de"lared and outlawed organiGation, asso"iation or group of
persons, in a bank or finan"ial institution-
-S5A** 13*J ,+ 2&A3!+D ,J !5+ AA!51&4O432 D4F4S413 1$ !5+
CA A%13 A3 +Q-%A&!+ A%%*4CA!413 !1 !5A! +$$+C! 1$ A %1*4C+ 1& *A>
+3$1&C+)+3! 1$$4C4A* who has been duly authoriGed by the Anti-!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 0ustify the
need and urgen"y of e(amining and freeGing the bank deposits, pla"ements, trust a""ounts,
assets and re"ords:
1f A person "harged with or suspe"ted of the "rime of terrorism or "onspira"y to "ommit
terrorism#
1f a 0udi"ially de"lared and outlawed terrorist organiGation or group of persons#
1f a member of su"h 0udi"ially de"lared and outlawed organiGation, asso"iation or group of
persons.
1etion =5. +videntiary value of deposited bank materials.- Any information, data,
e("erpts, summaries, notes, memoranda, work sheets, reports or do"uments a"8uired from
the e(amination of the bank deposits, pla"ements, trust a""ounts, assets and re"ords of:
A person "harged with or suspe"ted of the "rime of terrorism or "onspira"y to "ommit
terrorism#
1f a 0udi"ially de"lared and outlawed terrorist organiGation or group of persons#
1f a member of su"h 0udi"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 A"t, shall absolutely
not be admissible and usable as eviden"e against anybody in any 0udi"ial, 8uasi-0udi"ial,
legislative or administrative investigation, in8uiry, pro"eeding or hearing.
166
1. %+1%*+ FS. CA,A*RA43!1, September 1., /==;, D=/ SC&A :1.
9. >3L3ETA VS. CA, .e8ru"ry 1;, 1996
!he wife for"ibly opened the drawers at the "lini" of her do"tor-husband 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 0ustify the breaking of "abinets to
determine marital infidelity.
3. O5LE VS. TORRES, July 93, 1996
%uno, <.
$a"ts:
1n De"ember 1/, 1..;, then %resident $4D+* F. &A)1S issued Administrative
1rder 3o. 6=7 entitled ?AD1%!413 1$ A 3A!413A* C1)%A!+&4O+D
4D+3!4$4CA!413 &+$+&+3C+ SJS!+)@.
!he A1 seeks to have all $ilipino "itiGens and foreign residents to have a
%opulation &eferen"e 3umber %&3' generated by the 3ational Statisti"s 1ffi"e 3S1'
through the use of ,41)+!&4CS !+C531*12J .
!he A1 was 8uestioned by Senator 1ple on the following grounds:
1. !he establishment of the %&3 without any law is an un"onstitutional usurpation of the
legislative powers of the Congress of the %hilippines#
/. !he appropriation of publi" funds for the implementation of the said A1 is un"onstitutional
sin"e Congress has the e("lusive authority to appropriate funds for su"h e(penditure# and
6. !he A1 violates the "itiGen9s right to priva"y prote"ted by the ,ill of &ights of the
Constitution.
5eld:
1. !he A1 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 Administrative 1rder issued
by the %resident. Administrative %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. 4t 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, A1 6=7 involves a sub0e"t that is not appropriate
to be "overed by an Administrative 1rder. An 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. 4t 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 sub0e"t of A1 6=7
16:
therefore is beyond the power of the %resident to issue and it is a usurpation of legislative
power.
/. !he A1 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 ,41)+!&4CS !+C531*12J. ,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. 4t is the
"onfirmation of an individual9s identity through a fingerprint, retinal s"an, hand geometry
or fa"ial features. !hrough the %&3, 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 A1 does not even tells us in "lear and une8uivo"al terms how these
informations gathered shall be handled. 4t 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. J+!, !5+&+ A&+ 31
C13!&1*S !1 2AA&D A2A43S! *+AMA2+ 1$ 43$1&)A!413S. >5+3 !5+
ACC+SS C1D+ 1$ !5+ C13!&1* %&12&A)S 1$ !5+ %A&!4CA*A&
C1)%A!+& SJS!+) 4S ,&1M+3, A3 43!&AD+&, >4!51A! $+A& 1$
SA3C!413 1& %+3A*!J, CA3 )AM+ AS+ 1$ !5+ DA!A $1& >5A!+F+&
%A&%1S+, 1& >1&S+, )A34%A*A!+ !5+ DA!A S!1&+D >4!543 !5+
SJS!+).
A1 3o. 6=7 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 "itiGen9s right to priva"y.
4ILUSAN" MA'O UNO VS5 E0ECUTIVE SECRETAR' E(UAR(O ERMITA. ET
AL5. A1)il 16. 2007 8 9une 20. 2007
4AYA- M3-A VS. EDEC3TIVE SECRETARY E/3AR/O ERMITA, ET AL.,
April 19, 9;;6 G Ju'e 9;, 9;;6
Carpio, <.
%resident 2loria )a"apagal-Arroyo issued 5re7i)e'#i"l 5rocl"$"#io' -o. 29; #%"#
$"')"#e7 #%e A)op#io' o( " 3'i(ie), Mul#iFpurpo7e I)e'#i(ic"#io' Sy7#e$ 8y "ll
:o*er'$e'# A&e'cie7 i' #%e EAecu#i*e /ep"r#$e'#. !his is so despite the fa"t that the
Supreme Court held in an +n ,an" de"ision in 1..7 1%*+ FS. +Q+CA!4F+
S+C&+!A&J &A,+3 !1&&+S Administrative 1rder 3o. 6=7B3ational "omputeriGed
4dentifi"ation &eferen"e SystemC issued by then %resident $idel F. &amos that the same is
un"onstitutional be"ause ?a national 4D "ard system re8uires legislation be"ause it "reates a
new national data "olle"tion and "ard issuan"e system, where none e(isted before@. !he
16D
Supreme Court likewise held that +1 6=7 as un"onstitutional for it violates the "itiGen9s
right to priva"y.
,ased on the 1ple ruling, the petitioners "laimed that %ro"lamation 3o. :/= is
un"onstitutional on two /' grounds:
a. usurpation of legislative powers# and
b. it infringes on the "itiGen9s right to priva"y
5eld:
!he said +(e"utive 1rder 3o. :/= does not violate the "itiGen9s right to priva"y sin"e it does
not re8uire all the "itiGens to be issued a national 4D as what happened in A1 6=7. 1nly
those dealing or employed with the said government entities who are re8uired to provide
the re8uired information for the issuan"e of the said 4D.
CAMILO L. SA4IO *7. :OR/O-, 2.&. 3o. 1-:6:=, 1"tober 1-, /==;, D=: SC&A
-=:
Sandoval-2utierreG, <.
T%e ."c#7H
1n $ebruary /=, /==;, Senator )iriam Defensor Santiago introdu"ed %hilippine
Senate &esolution 3o. :DD Senate &es. 3o. :DD',
6;B:C
?dire"ting an in8uiry in aid of
legislation on the anomalous losses in"urred by the %hilippines 1verseas
!ele"ommuni"ations Corporation %1!C', %hilippine Communi"ations Satellite
Corporation %54*C1)SA!', and %54*C1)SA! 5oldings Corporation %5C' due to the
alleged improprieties in their operations by their respe"tive ,oard of Dire"tors.@
1n )ay 7, /==;, Chief of Staff &io C. 4no"en"io, under the authority of Senator
&i"hard <. 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 0ointly
"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. 3o. :DD.
6-B;C
1n )ay ., /==;, Chairman Sabio and other "ommissioners of the %C22 de"lined the
invitation be"ause of prior "ommitment.
67B-C
A# #%e 7"$e #i$e, #%ey i'*oLe) Sec#io' 2,8!
o( E.O. -o. 1 earlier 8uoted.
6;B:C
Anne( ?+@ of the %etition in 2.&. 3o. 1-:617.
6-B;C
Anne( ?$@ of the %etition in 2.&. 3o. 1-:617.
67B-C
Anne( ?2@ of the %etition in 2.&. 3o. 1-:617.
16;
1n September 1/, /==;, at around 1=::D a.m., )a0or 2eneral ,ala0adia arrested
Chairman Sabio in his offi"e at 4&C ,uilding, 3o. 7/ +DSA, )andaluyong City and
brought him to the Senate premises where he was detained.
5en"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 <oker %.
Arroyo and )embers.
I S S 3 E SH
4s the investigation "ondu"ted on the petitioners violative of their right to priva"yN
H E L /H
Oones of priva"y are re"ogniGed and prote"ted in our laws.
6.B:;C
>ithin 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,@
:=B:-C
but also from our adheren"e to the Aniversal De"laration of
5uman &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.F
3.3C85
1ur ,ill of &ights, enshrined in Arti"le 444 of the Constitution, provides at least two
guarantees that e(pli"itly "reate Gones of priva"y. 4t highlights a person9s ?rig2t to 'e let
alone@ or the ?rig2t to determine ?2at, 2o? muc2, to ?2om and ?2en information a'out
2imself s2all 'e disclosed.@
:/B:.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
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'&.@
6.B:;C
MarCue5 v. %esierto, 2.&. 3o. 16D77/, <une /-, /==1, 6D. SC&A --/.
:=B:-C
See Morfe v. Mutuc 3o. *-/=67-, <anuary 61, 1.;7, // SC&A :/:.
:1 B:7C
Arti"le 1/ of the Aniversal De"laration of 5uman &ights. See also Arti"le 1- 1' and /' of the 4nternational Covenant on Civil
and %oliti"al &ights.
:/ B:.C
Constitutional and *egal Systems of AS+A3 Countries, Sison, A"ademy of AS+A3 *aw and <urispruden"e, 1..=, at //1, "iting
4.&. Cortes, !he Constitutional $oundations of %riva"y, - 1.-='.
16-
4n evaluating a "laim for violation of the right to priva"y, a "ourt must determine
whether a person has e(hibited a reasonable e(pe"tation of priva"y and, if so, whether that
e(pe"tation has been violated by unreasonable government intrusion.
:6BD=C
Applying this
determination to these "ases, the important in8uiries are: (ir7#, did the diretor" and
offier" of &hilo("at :oldin*" Corporation e%hi.it a rea"ona.le e%petation of
pri!ayD + "') 7eco'), did the *o!ern(ent !iolate "#h e%petation R
!he answers are in the negative. %etitioners were invited in the Senate9s publi"
hearing to deliberate on Senate &es. 3o. :DD, parti"ularly @o' #%e "'o$"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.C 1bviously, the in8uiry fo"us on petitioners9 a"ts
"ommitted in the dis"harge of their duties as offi"ers and dire"tors of the said "orporations,
parti"ularly %hil"omsat 5oldings Corporation. Co'7eBue'#ly, #%ey %"*e 'o re"7o'"8le
eApec#"#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#. 4n Morfe v. Mutuc,
333515
the Court, in line with
D2alen v. $oe,
383525
employed the rational basis relationship test when it held that there was
no infringement of the individual9s right to priva"y as the re8uirement 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.
:;BD6C
4n *almonte v. elmonte,
3/35C5
the Court remarked that as pu8lic (i&ure7,
#%e Me$8er7 o( #%e (or$er 4"#"7"'& 5"$8"'7" e'Ioy " $ore li$i#e) ri&%# #o pri*"cy
"7 co$p"re) #o or)i'"ry i')i*i)u"l7, and their a"tions are sub0e"t to "loser s"rutiny.
!aking this into "onsideration, the Court ruled that the right of the people to a""ess
information on matters of publi" "on"ern prevails over the right to priva"y of finan"ial
transa"tions.
Ander the present "ir"umstan"es, the alleged anomalies in the %54*C1)SA!, %5C
and %1!C, ranging in millions of pesos, and the "onspiratorial parti"ipation of the %C22
and its offi"ials are co$pelli'& re"7o'7 for the Senate to e(a"t vital information from the
dire"tors and offi"ers of %hil"omsat 5oldings 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 %C229s
:6 BD=C
urro?s v. "uperior Court of "an ernardino County, 16 Cal. 6d /67, D/. % /d D.= 1.-:'. See Sat5 v. !nited states 1.;-',
67. A.S. 6:-, 6D=-6D/, 77 S. Ct. D=-, 1. *. +d. /d D-;# #eople v. Srivda 1.-1' D Cal. 6d 6D-, 6;:, .; Cal. &ptr. ;/, :7; %. /d 1/;/# 7
Cal. 6d ;/6-;/:,1=D Cal. &ptr. D/1, D=: %. /d :D-. 43S+&! 5errera9s 5andbook on Arrest, Sear"h and SeiGure.
::BD1C
"upra.
:DBD/C
:/. A.S. D7. 1.--'.
:;BD6C
Justice #uno, *e"ture on *egislative 4n8uiry and &ight to %riva"y, p. ;=.
:-BD:C
1-= SC&A /D; 1.7.'
167
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 sub0e"t "overed by Senate &es. 3o. :DD, 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.
4n fine, %C22 Chairman Camilo Sabio and Commissioners &i"ardo Ab"ede,
3ar"iso 3ario, 3i"asio Conti, and !ereso <avier# and )anuel Andal and <ulio <alandoni,
%C229s nominees to %hil"omsat 5oldings Corporation, as well as its dire"tors and offi"ers,
$u7# co$ply wi#% #%e 1#.poenae Ad Te"tifiand#( i77ue) 8y re7po')e'# Se'"#e
Co$$i##ee7 )irec#i'& #%e$ #o "ppe"r "') #e7#i(y i' pu8lic %e"ri'&7 rel"#i*e #o Se'"#e
Re7olu#io' -o. 211.
CHA5TER V F .REE/OM O. S5EECH,
5RESS, ED5RESSIO-, e#c.
Sec#io' 2. -o l"w 7%"ll 8e p"77e) "8ri)&i'& #%e (ree)o$
o( 7peec%, o( eApre77io', or o( #%e pre77, or #%e ri&%# o( #%e
people pe"ce"8ly #o "77e$8le "') pe#i#io' #%e &o*er'$e'#
(or #%e re)re77 o( #%eir &rie*"'ce7.
31!+: Appli"able provisions of the 5uman Se"urity A"tEAnti-!errorism *aw, &epubli"
A"t 3o. .6-/, Approved on )ar"h ;, /==- and effe"tive on <uly 1D, /==- !his *aw shall
be automati"ally suspended one 1' month before and two /' months after the holding of
any ele"tion'
1etion 24 provides that persons who have been "harged with terrorism or
"onspira"y to "ommit terrorism---even if they have been granted bail be"ause eviden"e of
guilt is not strongX"an be:
Detained under house arrest#
&estri"ted from traveling# andEor
%rohibited from using any "ellular phones, "omputers, or other means of "ommuni"ations
with people outside their residen"e.
1. &ule on "riti"isms against a"ts of publi" offi"ers
&ead:
16.
1. +spuelas vs. %eople, .= %hil. D/:
/. AS vs. ,ustos, 6- %hil. -61 ,A pu8lic o((ici"l 7%oul) 'o# 8e o'io'F7Li''e) wi#%
re(ere'ce #o co$$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 "(("ir7'
6. %. vs. %ereG, :D %hil. D..
:. )er"ado vs. C$4, 11; SC&A .6
/. $reedom of the press, in general
&ead:
4A:3IO MI/LA-/ CO3RIER G CECILLE A.A4LE VS. CO3RT O. A55EALS
G RAMO- LA4O, JR., 222 SCRA 96 <-o*e$8er 91, 9;;2=
$reedom of +(pression# the publi" has the right to be informed on the mental, moral and
physi"al fitness of "andidates for publi" offi"e.
$AC!S:
1. 4n the <anuary 6, 1.77 issue of the ,aguio )idland Courier ,)C', Ce"ille Afable, the
+ditor-in-Chief, in her "olumn ?4n and 1ut of ,aguio@ made the following "omments:
?1f all the "andidates for )ayor of ,aguio City', *abo has the most imponderables
about him. %eople would ask: ?"an he read and write@N >hy is he always talking about his
<apanese father-in-lawN 4s he really a <apanes Senator or a barrio MapitanN 4s it true that he
will send %17) aid to ,aguioN Somebody wanted to put an advertisement of *abo in the
)idland Courier but was refused be"ause he has not yet paid his a""ount of the last time he
was a "andidate for Congress. >e will a""ept all advertisements for him if he pays his old
a""ount first.@
/. 4n the same "olumn, Ce"ille Afable wrote the following "omments in her <anuary 1=, 1.77
"olumn at the Courier:
?4 heard that the KDumpty in the +gg9 is "ampaigning for Cortes. 3ot fair. Some
real do"tors are also busy "ampaigning against *abo be"ause he has not also paid their
medi"al servi"es with them. Sin"e he is donating millions he should also settle his small
debts like the reportedly insignifi"ant amount of %/-,=== only. 4f he wins, several tea"hers
were signifying to resign and leave ,aguio forever, and %angasinan will be the fran"a-li8ua
of ,aguio.@
6. As a result of the above arti"les, &amon *abor, <r. filed a "omplaint for Damages before
the regional trial Court of ,aguio City as he "laimed said arti"les were libelous. 5e
likewise filed a separate "riminal "omplaint before the 1ffi"e of the City %rose"utor of
,aguio but was dismissed#
:. *abo "laimed that the said arti"les were tainted with mali"e be"ause he was allegedly
des"ribed as ?Dumpty in the +gg@ or one ?who is a failure in his business@ whi"h is false
be"ause he is a very su""essful businessman or to mean ?Gero or a big lie@# that he is a
?balasubas@ due to his alleged failure to pay his medi"al e(penses#
1:=
D. !he petitioners, however, were able to prove that *abo has an unpaid obligation to the
Courier in the amount of %/-,:1D.== for the ads pla"ed by his "ampaigners for the 1.7:
,atasang %ambansa ele"tions#
;. !he &egional !rial Court, ,ran"h ;, ,aguio City, in its De"ision dated <une 1:, 1..=
dismissed *abo9s "omplaint for damages on the ground that the arti"le of petitioner Afable
was privileged and "onstituted fair "omment on matters of publi" interest as it dealt with
the integrity, reputation and honesty of private respondent *abo who was a "andidate for
)ayor of ,aguio City#
-. 1n <anuary -, 1../, the Court of Appeals reversed the &!C De"ision and ordered the
petitioners to pay &amon *abo, <r. damages in the total amount of %6D=,===.== after
"on"luding that the ?Dumpty in the +gg@ refers to no one but *abo himself.
5en"e, the %etition to the Supreme Court.
4SSA+S:
A. 0AS LA4O THE @/3M5TY I- THE E::C /ESCRI4E/ I- THE M3ESTIO-E/
ARTICLEK
4. 0ERE THE ARTICLES S34JECT O. THE CASE LI4ELO3S OR 5RIVILE:E/K
5+*D:
1. !he Court of Appeals is wrong when it held that *abo is the ?Dumpty in the +gg@ in the
8uestioned arti"le. !his is so be"ause the arti"le stated that ?!he Dumpty in the +gg is
"ampaigning for Cortes@, another "andidate for mayor and opponent of *abo himself. 4t is
unbelievable that *abo "ampaigned for his opponent and against himself. Although su"h
gra"ious attitude on the part of *abo would have been "ommendable, it is "ontrary to
"ommon human e(perien"e. As pointed out by the petitioners, had he done that, it is
doubtful whether he "ould have won as City )ayor of ,aguio in the 1.77 ele"tions, whi"h
he a"tually did. 4n line with the do"trine in ,1&<A* FS. CA, 61= SC&A 1, that Kit is also
not suffi"ient that the offended party re"ogniGed himself as the person atta"ked or defamed,
but it must be shown that at least a 6
rd
person "ould identify him as the ob0e"t of the
libelous publi"ation9, the "ase should be dismissed sin"e *abo utterly failed to dispose of
this responsibility.
9. *abo "laims that the petitioners "ould not invoke ?publi" interest@ to 0ustify the publi"ation
sin"e he was not yet a publi" offi"ial at that time. !his argument is without merit sin"e he
was already a "andidate for City mayor of ,aguio. As su"h, the arti"le is still within the
mantle of prote"tion guaranteed by the freedom of e(pression provided in the Constitution
sin"e it is the publi"9s right to be informed of the mental, moral and physi"al fitness of
"andidates for publi" offi"e. !his was re"ogniGed as early as the "ase o( 3S VS. SE/A-O,
12 5%il. 336 <19;9C and the "ase of -E0 YORE TIMES VS. S3LLIVA-, 36 3.S. 912
where the AS Supreme Court held:
?Vit is of the utmost "onse8uen"e that the people should dis"uss the
"hara"ter and 8ualifi"ations of "andidates for their suffrages. !he importan"e to the
State and to so"iety of su"h dis"ussions is so vast, and the advantages derived so
1:1
great, that they more than "ounterbalan"e the in"onvenien"e of private persons
whose "ondu"t may be involved, and o""asional in0ury to the reputations of
individuals must yield to the publi" welfare, although at times su"h in0ury may be
great. !he publi" benefit from publi"ity is so great and the "han"e of in0ury to
private "hara"ter so small, that su"h dis"ussion must be privileged. ?
Clearly, the 8uestioned arti"les "onstitute fair "omment on a matter of publi"
interest as it dealt with the "hara"ter of the private respondent who was running for the top
ele"tive post in ,aguio City at that time.
&A+9/TO <. 1AN/>A> <1. COM,9,C,
2.&. 31. .=7-7, <anuary /., 1..=
$reedom of e(pression and of the press
)edialdea, <.
$a"ts:

1. 1n 1"tober /6, 1.7., &A ;-;;, entitled HA3 AC! %&1F4D432 $1& A3 1&2A34C
AC! $1& !5+ C1&D4**+&A AA!131)1AS &+2413H was ena"ted into law#
/. %ursuant to said law, the City of ,aguio and %rovin"es of ,enguet, Abra, )t. %rovin"e,
4fugao and Malinga-Apayao, all "omprising the autonomous region shall take part in a
plebis"ite originally s"heduled for De"ember /-, 1.7. but was reset to <anuary 6=, 1..=
spe"ifi"ally for the ratifi"ation or re0e"tion of the said a"t#
6. ,y virtue of the 1.7- Constitution and the 1mnibus +le"tion Code ,% 771', the
Comele" issued Comele" &esolution 3o. /1;-, 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
:. 1n 3ovember /=, 1.7., petitioner %A,*4!1 F. SA34DAD who is a "olumnist
H1F+&F4+>H' 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 in0un"tion against the
Comele" to en0oin the latter from enfor"ing Se"tion 1. of resolution 3o. /1;-. %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 subse8uent punishment
for those who violate the same#
D. 1n 3ovember /7, 1.7., the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order
en0oining the respondent from enfor"ing Se"tion 1. of &esolution 3o. /1;-#
1:/
;. 1n <anuary ., 1..=, 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 3o.
/1;- does not absolutely bar the petitioner from e(pressing his views be"ause under
Se"tion .= and ./ of ,% 771, he may still e(press his views or "ampaign for or against the
a"t through the Comele" spa"e and airtime.
5eld:

>hat is granted by Art. 4Q-C of the Constitution to the Comele" is the power to
supervise and regulate the use and en0oyment of fran"hises, permits or other grants issued
for the operation of transportation or other publi" utilities to the end that e8ual opportunity,
time and spa"e, and the right to reply, in"luding reasonable, e8ual 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 re8uired to take a leave of absen"e
from his work during the "ampaign period if he is a "andidate.
51>+F+&, 3+4!5+& A&!4C*+ 4Q-C 1$ !5+ C13S!4!A!413 31& S+C!413
11,', /3D %A&. 1$ &A ;;:; CA3 ,+ C13S!&A+D !1 )+A3 !5A! !5+
C1)+*+C 5AS A*S1 ,++3 2&A3!+D !5+ &425! !1 SA%+&F4S+ A3D
&+2A*A!+ !5+ +Q+&C4S+ ,J )+D4A %&AC!4!413+&S !5+)S+*F+S 1$
!5+4& &425! !1 +Q%&+SS413 DA&432 !5+ %*+,4SC4!+ %+&41DS. )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. 4n fa"t, there are no "andidates in a plebis"ite.
>hile it is true that the petitioner is not absolutely barred from "ampaigning for or
against the 1rgani" A"t, said fa"t does not "ure the "onstitutional infirmity of Se"tion 1.,
Comele" &esolution 3o. /1;-. !his is so be"ause 4! 4S S!4** A &+S!&4C!413 13 54S
C514C+ 1$ !5+ $1&A) >5+&+ 5+ )AJ +Q%&+SS 54S F4+>.
%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, 43C*AD432 !5+ $1&A). !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.
ACC1&D432*J, Se"tion 1. of Comele" &esolution 3o. /1;- is hereby de"lared
A3C13S!4!A!413A*.

&ead also:
1. 4n re: &amon !ulfo,)ar"h 1., 1..
/. 4n re: Atty. +mil <urado, <uly 1/, 1..=
6. ,urgos vs. Chief of Staff, 166 SC&A 7==
:. Corro vs. *ising, 16- SC&A ::7
D. ,abst vs. 34,, 16/ SC&A 61;
;. +liGalde vs. 2utierreG,-; SC&A ::7 ,I' or)er #%"# "'y 'ew7 i#e$ rel"#i'& #o " Iu)ici"l
procee)i'& will 'o# 8e "c#io'"8le (or 8ei'& li8elou7, #%e 7"$e $u7# 8e <"= " #rue "')
1:6
("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&A 1:7
7. *opeG vs. CA, 6: SC&A 11;
.. 3ew Jork !imes vs. Sullivan,6-; A.S./D:
1=. *iwayway %ublishing vs. %C22, April 1D,l.77
6. $reedom of e(pression in general
&ead:
1. &A3DJ DAF4D FS. A&&1J1, )ay 6, /==;, :7. SC&A 1;=#
/. Adiong vs. Comele", )ar"h 61, 1../ pu##i'& o( )ec"l7 "') 7#icLer7 i' o'eN7 c"r i7
wi#%i' #%e pro#ec#e) (ree)o$ o( eApre77io'!
6. 3ational %ress Club vs. Comele", )ar"h D, 1../. &eal also the dissenting and separate
opinions of the 0usti"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!
:. Oaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan, 2& 3o. -.;=--=- P Oaldivar vs. 2onGales, 2& 3o.
7=D-7, $ebruary 1, 1.7.
D. +astern ,road"asting vs. Dans,16- SC&A ;/7
;. 3ewsweek vs. 4AC, 1:/ SC&A 1-1
-. Mapisanan vs. Camara Shoes, 11 SC&A :--
7. 43 &+: Atty. !ipon, -. SC&A 6-/
.. *a"sa vs. 4AC, )ay /6,1.77
1=. Mapunan vs. De Filla, De"ember ;, 1.77

:. 3ot within the prote"tion of the freedom of e(pression "lause of the Constitution
1. 1bs"enity# test of
&ead:
a. %. vs. Mottinger, :D %hil. 6D/
b. % vs. 21 %43, August 7, 1.DD
Te7#7H
". 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 7eAu"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, 6- *. +d. /d :1.
d. 2insberg vs. 3ew Jork,6.= A.S. ;/.
e. 5i#" *7. CA, 16 SCRA 369 A 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 0udge at the same time. 5e should obtain a sear"h warrant
from a 0udge'
1::
/. *ibel or slander# test of-
&ead:
a. *opeG and )anila !imes "ases, supra
b. Ruisumbing vs. *opeG, .; %hil. D1=
6. Cases undersub-0udi"e
&ead:
a. %. vs. Alar"on, ;. %hil. /;D
D. $reedom of assembly and to petition the government for redress of grievan"es
I-TE:RATE/ 4AR O. THE 5HILI55I-ES VS. MA-ILA MAYOR
JOSE @LITOC ATIE->A, :.R. -o. 11921, .e8ru"ry 92, 9;1;
CAR5IO MORALES, J.H
%etitioners 4ntegrated ,ar of the %hilippines 4,%' and lawyers 5. 5arry *. &o8ue and <oel
&. ,utuyan appeal the <une /7, /==; De"ision and the 1"tober /;, /==; &esolution of the Court of
Appeals that found no grave abuse of dis"retion on the part of respondent <ose ?*ito@ AtienGa, the
then mayor of )anila, in granting a permit to rally in a venue other than the one applied for by the
4,%.
1n <une 1D, /==;, the 4,%, through its then 3ational %resident <ose Anselmo CadiG CadiG',
filed with the 1ffi"e of the City )ayor of )anila a letter appli"ation for a permit to rally at the
foot of )endiola ,ridge on <une //, /==; from /:6= p.m. to D:6= p.m. to be parti"ipated in by 4,%
offi"ers and members, law students and multi-se"toral organiGations.
&espondent issued a permit dated <une 1;, /==; allowing the 4,% to stage a rally on given
date but indi"ated therein %laGa )iranda as the venue, instead of )endiola ,ridge, whi"h permit
the 4,% re"eived on <une 1., /==;.
Aggrieved, petitioners filed on <une /1, /==; before the Court of Appeals a petition for
"ertiorari do"keted as CA-2.&. S% 3o. .:.:.. !he petition having been unresolved within /:
hours from its filing, petitioners filed before this Court on <une //, /==; a petition for "ertiorari
do"keted as 2.&. 3o. 1-/.D1 whi"h assailed the appellate "ourt9s ina"tion or refusal to resolve the
petition within the period provided under the %ubli" Assembly A"t of 1.7D.
!he Court, by &esolutions of <uly /;, /==;, August 6=, /==; and 3ovember /=, /==;,
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 CA-2.&. S% 3o. .:.:., and denied the motion for
re"onsideration.
1:D
!he rally pushed through on <une //, /==; at )endiola ,ridge, after CadiG dis"ussed with
%ESupt. Arturo %aglinawan whose "ontingent from the )anila %oli"e Distri"t )%D' earlier barred
petitioners from pro"eeding thereto. %etitioners allege that the parti"ipants voluntarily dispersed
after the pea"eful "ondu"t of the program.
!he )%D thereupon instituted on <une /;, /==; a "riminal a"tion, do"keted as 4.S. 3o. =;4-
1/D=1, against CadiG for violating the %ubli" Assembly A"t in staging a rally at a venue not
indi"ated in the permit, to whi"h "harge CadiG filed a Counter-Affidavit of August 6, /==;.
4n the meantime, the appellate "ourt ruled, in CA-2.&. S% 3o. .:.:., by the first assailed
issuan"e, that the petition be"ame moot and la"ked merit. !he appellate "ourt also denied
petitioners9 motion for re"onsideration by the se"ond assailed issuan"e.
5en"e, the filing of the present petition for review on "ertiorari, to whi"h respondent filed
his Comment of 3ovember 17, /==7 whi"h merited petitioners9 &eply of 1"tober /, /==..
4SSA+:
!he main issue is whether the appellate "ourt erred in holding that the modifi"ation of the
venue in 4,%9s 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"
Assembly A"t and *iol"#e7 #%eir co'7#i#u#io'"l ri&%# #o (ree)o$ o( eApre77io' "') pu8lic
"77e$8ly.
5+*D:
!he Court shall first resolve the preliminary issue of mootness.
Andoubtedly, the petition filed with the appellate "ourt on <une /1, /==; be"ame moot upon
the passing of the date of the rally on <une //, /==;.
A moot and a"ademi" "ase is one that "eases to present a 0usti"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 0urisdi"tion over su"h "ase or dismiss it on ground of mootness. 5owever, 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 "' eAcep#io' #o #%e rule o' $oo#'e77, cour#7 will )eci)e " Bue7#io'
o#%erwi7e $oo# i( i# i7 c"p"8le o( repe#i#io', ye# e*")i'& re*iew.
4n the present "ase, the 8uestion 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 assembly. !he sus"eptibility of re"urren"e "ompels the Court to
definitively resolve the issue at hand.
Se"tion ; of the %ubli" Assembly A"t reads:
Se"tion ;. Action to 'e ta@en on t2e application -
1:;

a' 4t 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.

b' !he mayor or any offi"ial a"ting in his behalf shall a"t on the appli"ation within
two /' 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.

"' 4f 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.

d' !he a"tion on the permit shall be in writing and served on the appli"ation BsicC
within twenty-four hours.

e' 4f 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.

f' 4n "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
4ntermediate Appellate Court, its de"isions may be appealed to the appropriate "ourt
within forty-eight :7' hours after re"eipt of the same. 3o appeal bond and re"ord on
appeal shall be re8uired. A de"ision granting su"h permit or modifying it in terms
satisfa"tory to the appli"ant shall, be immediately e(e"utory.

g' All "ases filed in "ourt under this Se"tion shall be de"ided within twenty-four
/:' hours from date of filing. Cases filed hereunder shall be immediately endorsed
to the e(e"utive 0udge for disposition or, in his absen"e, to the ne(t in rank.

h' 4n all "ases, any de"ision may be appealed to the Supreme Court.

i' !elegraphi" appeals to be followed by formal appeals are hereby allowed.
unders"oring supplied'
4n ayan, Sarapatan, Silusang Mag'u'u@id ng #ilipinas 6SM#9 v. Ermita, the Court
reiterated:
( ( ( $reedom of assembly "onnotes the right of the people to meet
pea"eably for "onsultation and dis"ussion of matters of publi" "on"ern. 4t is entitled
to be a""orded the utmost deferen"e and respe"t. I# i7 'o# #o 8e li$i#e), $uc% le77
)e'ie), eAcep# o' " 7%owi'&, "7 i7 #%e c"7e wi#% (ree)o$ o( eApre77io', o( " cle"r
"') pre7e'# )"'&er o( " 7u87#"'#i*e e*il #%"# #%e 7#"#e %"7 " ri&%# #o pre*e'#.
+ven prior to the 1.6D Constitution, <usti"e )al"olm had o""asion to stress that it is
1:-
a ne"essary "onse8uen"e of our republi"an institutions and "omplements the right of
free spee"h. !o paraphrase the opinion of <usti"e &utledge, speaking for the ma0ority
of the Ameri"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. All these rights, while not identi"al, are
inseparable. 4n every "ase, therefore, where there is a limitation pla"ed on the
e(er"ise of this right, the 0udi"iary is "alled upon to e(amine the effe"ts of the
"hallenged governmental a"tuation. T%e 7ole Iu7#i(ic"#io' (or " li$i#"#io' o' #%e
eAerci7e o( #%i7 ri&%#, 7o (u')"$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$$i'e'#, o( " 7eriou7
e*il #o pu8lic 7"(e#y, pu8lic $or"l7, pu8lic %e"l#%, or "'y o#%er le&i#i$"#e pu8lic
i'#ere7#. emphasis supplied'
!he Court in ayan stated that the provisions of the %ubli" Assembly A"t of 1.7D pra"ti"ally
"odified the 1.76 ruling in $eyes v. agatsing. 4n 0u(taposing Se"tions : to ; of the %ubli"
Assembly A"t with the pertinent portion of the $eyes "ase, the Court elu"idated as follows:
( ( ( B!he publi" offi"ial "on"erned shallC appraise whether there may be valid ob0e"tions
to the grant of the permit or to its grant but at another publi" pla"e. 4t is an indispensable
"ondition to su"h refusal or modification that the "lear and present danger test be the
standard for the de"ision rea"hed. 4f he is of the view that there is su"h an imminent and
grave danger of a substantive evil, the appli"ants must be heard on the matter. !hereafter,
his de"ision, whether favorable or adverse, must be transmitted to them at the earliest
opportunity. !hus if so minded, they "an have re"ourse to the proper 0udi"ial authority.
itali"s and unders"oring supplied'
4n modifying the permit outright, re7po')e'# &r"*ely "8u7e) %i7 )i7cre#io' w%e' %e )i)
'o# i$$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% $o)i(ic"#io'. 3othing in the issued permit adverts to an
imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil, whi"h ?blank@ denial or modifi"ation would,
when granted imprimatur as the appellate "ourt would have it, render illusory any 0udi"ial s"rutiny
thereof.
4t is true that the li"ensing offi"ial, here respondent )ayor, is not devoid of dis"retion in
determining whether or not a permit would be granted. 4t is not, however, unfettered dis"retion.
>hile pruden"e re8uires that there be a realisti" appraisal not of what may possibly o""ur but of
what may pro'a'ly o""ur, given all the relevant "ir"umstan"es, still the assumption I espe"ially so
where the assembly is s"heduled for a spe"ifi" publi" pla"e I is that the permit must be for the
assembly being held there. T%e eAerci7e o( 7uc% " ri&%#, i' #%e l"'&u"&e o( Ju7#ice Ro8er#7,
7pe"Li'& (or #%e A$eric"' Supre$e Cour#, i7 'o# #o 8e O"8ri)&e) o' #%e ple" #%"# i# $"y 8e
eAerci7e) i' 7o$e o#%er pl"ce.C emphasis and unders"oring supplied'
1:7
3otably, respondent failed to indi"ate in his Comment any basis or e(planation for his
a"tion. 4t sma"ks of whim and "apri"e for respondent to 0ust impose a "hange of venue for an
assembly that was slated for a spe"ifi" publi" pla"e. 4t is thus reversible error for the appellate
"ourt not to have found su"h grave abuse of dis"retion.
!he Court D+C*A&+S that respondent "ommitted grave abuse of dis"retion in modifying
the rally permit issued on <une 1;, /==; insofar as it altered the venue from )endiola ,ridge to
%laGa )iranda.

:ESITE e# "l. *7. CO3RT O. A55EALS, 222 SCRA 11
$reedom of publi" s"hool tea"hers to pea"eably assemble and petition the government for
redress of grievan"es# right of publi" s"hool tea"hers to form union.
!he petitioners admitted that they parti"ipated in "on"erted mass a"tions in )etro
)anila from September to the first half of 1"tober, 1..= whi"h temporarily disrupted
"lasses in )etro )anila but they "laimed that they were not on strike. !hey "laimed that
they were merely e(er"ising their "onstitutional right to pea"eably assemble and petition
the government for redress of their grievan"es. !hus, they may not be penaliGed
administratively.
5+*D:
!he issue of whether or not the mass a"tion laun"hed by the publi" s"hool tea"hers
during the period from September up to the 1
st
half of 1"tober, 1..= was a strike or not has
been de"ided in the "ase of )A34*A %A,*4C SC511* !+AC5+&S ASS1C4A!413
FS. *A2A41, /== SC&A 6/6 where it was held that ?these mass a"tions were to all intents
and purposes a strike# they "onstituted a "on"erted and unauthoriGed stoppage of, or
absen"e from, work whi"h it was the tea"hers9 duty to perform, undertaken for essentially
e"onomi" reasons.@
4t is undisputed fa"t that there was a work stoppage and that petitioners9 purpose
was to realiGe their demands by withholding their servi"es. !he fa"t that the "onventional
term ?strike@ was not used by the striking employees to des"ribe their "ommon "ourse of
a"tion is in"onse8uential, S43C+ !5+ SA,S!A3C+ 1$ !5+ S4!AA!413, A3D 31!
4!S A%%+A&A3C+, >4** ,+ D++)+D C13!&1**432.
Despite the "onstitutional right to form asso"iations under the Constitution,
employees in the publi" servi"e may not engage in strikes, mass leaves, walkouts and other
forms of mass a"tions that will lead to temporary stoppage or disruption of publi" servi"e.
!he right of government employees to organiGe 4S *4)4!+D !1 !5+ $1&)A!413S 1$
A3413S 1& ASS1C4A!413S 13*J, >4!51A! 43C*AD432 !5+ &425! !1
S!&4M+. ,angalisan vs. CA, /-; SC&A ;1.'
!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.
1:.
4AYA-, EARA5ATA-, EIL3SA-: MA:4343EI/ -: 5ILI5I-AS ,EM5!, "')
:A4RIELA vs. E/3AR/O ERMITA, in his "apa"ity as +(e"utive Se"retary, )anila
City )ayor LITO ATIE->A, Chief of the %hilippine 3ational %oli"e, 2en. ART3RO M.
LOMI4AO, -CR5O Chief M"I. :e'. VI/AL M3EROL, and >estern %oli"e Distri"t
Chief :e'. 5E/RO 43LAO-:, 2.&. 3o. 1;.7:7, )ay, /==;
A>C3-A, J.H
T%e ."c#7H
%etitioners "ome in three groups.

!he first petitioners, 4"y"', e# "l., in 2.&. 3o. 1;.767, 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 1"tober ;, /==D was violently dispersed by
poli"emen implementing ,atas %ambansa ,.%.' 3o. 77=.

!he se"ond group "onsists of /; individual petitioners, Je77 )el 5r")o, e# "l., in
2.&. 3o. 1;.7:7, who allege that they were in0ured, arrested and detained when a pea"eful
mass a"tion they held on September /;, /==D was preempted and violently dispersed by the
poli"e. !hey further assert that on 1"tober D, /==D, 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 in0uries.

!he third group, Eilu7"'& M"yo 3'o ,EM3!, e# "l., petitioners in 2.&. 3o.
1;.771, 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 3o. 77= and the poli"y of ?Calibrated
%reemptive &esponse@ C%&' being followed to implement it.

EM3, e# "l., "laim that on 1"tober :, /==D, a rally M)A "o-sponsored 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 in0uries to several of their members. !hey
further allege that on 1"tober ;, /==D, a multi-se"toral rally whi"h M)A also "o-sponsored
was s"heduled to pro"eed along +spaTa Avenue in front of the Aniversity 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
in0uries on one of them. !hree other rallyists were arrested.

All petitioners assail ,atas %ambansa 3o. 77=, some of them in toto and others only
Se"tions :, D, ;, 1/, 16a', and 1:a', 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.
,.%. 3o. 77=, ?!he %ubli" Assembly A"t of 1.7D,@ provides:
1D=
,atas %ambansa ,lg. 77=

An A3t En2u)in- T:e !)ee E;e)3i2e y T:e Peo1le O< T:ei) Ri-:t Pea3ea%ly
To A22em%le And Petition T:e "o+e)nment =And> !o) Ot:e) Pu)1o2e2

e it enacted 'y t2e atasang #am'ansa in session assem'led1

S+C!413 1. &itle . I !his A"t shall be known as ?!he %ubli" Assembly A"t of
1.7D.@

S+C. /. %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 pre0udi"e to the rights of others to life, liberty and e8ual prote"tion of the
law.

S+C. 6. %efinition of terms. I $or purposes of this A"t:

b' ?%ubli" pla"e@ shall in"lude any highway, boulevard, avenue, road, street,
bridge or other thoroughfare, park, plaGa s8uare, andEor any open spa"e of publi" ownership
where the people are allowed a""ess.

"' ?)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.

S+C. :. #ermit ?2en reCuired and ?2en not reCuired.-- A written permit shall be
re8uired for any person or persons to organiGe and hold a publi" assembly in a publi" pla"e.
5owever, no permit shall be re8uired 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 re8uired, or in the
"ampus of a government-owned and operated edu"ational institution whi"h shall be sub0e"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 A"t.
S+C. D. Application reCuirements.-- All 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 the duty and responsibility of appli"ant
under Se"tion 7 hereof.

6. !he appli"ation shall be filed with the offi"e of the mayor of the "ity or
muni"ipality in whose 0urisdi"tion the intended a"tivity is to be held, at least five D'
working days before the s"heduled publi" assembly.
1D1

:. Apon 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.

S+C. ;. Action to 'e ta@en on t2e application. I

1. 4t 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 /' 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.

6. 4f 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.

:. !he a"tion on the permit shall be in writing and served on the appli"aBntC
within twenty-four hours.

D. 4f 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.

;. 4n "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 4ntermediate
Appellate "ourt, its de"isions may be appealed to the appropriate "ourt within forty-eight
:7' hours after re"eipt of the same. 3o appeal bond and re"ord on appeal shall be
re8uired. A de"ision granting su"h permit or modifying if in terms satisfa"tory to the
appli"ant shall be immediately e(e"utory.

-. All "ases filed in "ourt under this se"tion shall be de"ided within twenty-
four /:' hours from date of filing. Cases filed hereunder shall be immediately endorsed to
the e(e"utive 0udge for disposition or, in his absen"e, to the ne(t in rank.

7. 4n all "ases, any de"ision may be appealed to the Supreme Court.

C%&, on the other hand, is a poli"y set forth in a press release by )ala"aTang dated
September /1, /==D, shown in Anne( ?A@ to the %etition in 2.&. 3o. 1;.7:7, thus:

)ala"aTang 1ffi"ial
)anila, %hilippines 3+>S

1D/
&elease 3o. / September /1, /==D

STATEME-T O. EDEC3TIVE SECRETARY E/3AR/O ERMITA

On !nla?ful Mass Actions

4n view of intelligen"e reports pointing to "redible plans of anti-government groups
to inflame the politi"al situation, sow disorder and in"ite people against the duty "onstituted
authorities, we have instru"ted the %3% 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( $"Ai$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'& $"77 o( people "') i'ci#i'& #%e$ 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.

Anlawful mass a"tions will be dispersed. !he ma0ority of law-abiding "itiGens have
the right to be prote"ted by a vigilant and proa"tive government.

>e 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 %resident9s "all for unity and re"on"iliation stands, based on the rule of law.

%etitioners 4"y"', e# "l., "ontend that ,atas %ambansa 3o. 77= is "learly a
violation of the Constitution and the 4nternational Covenant on Civil and %oliti"al &ights
and other human rights treaties of whi"h the %hilippines is a signatory.

!hey argue that ,.%. 3o. 77= re8uires a permit before one "an stage a publi"
assembly regardless of the presen"e or absen"e of a "lear and present danger. 4t 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. Also,
the phrase ?ma(imum toleran"e@ shows that the law applies to assemblies against the
government be"ause they are being tolerated. As a "ontent-based legislation, it "annot pass
the stri"t s"rutiny test.

$urthermore, the law delegates powers to the )ayor without providing "lear
standards. !he two standards stated in the laws "lear and present danger and imminent
and grave danger' are in"onsistent.
&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 ,.%. 3o. 77=, aside from being void for being
vague and for la"k of publi"ation.

1D6
$inally, petitioners EM3, e# "l., argue that the Constitution sets no limits on the
right to assembly and therefore ,.%. 3o. 77= "annot put the prior re8uirement of se"uring a
permit. And 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 five-
day re8uirement to apply for a permit is too long as "ertain events re8uire instant publi"
assembly, otherwise interest on the issue would possibly wane.

As 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 ,.%. 3o. 77= 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 "0

:. 1n the "onstitutionality of ,atas %ambansa 3o. 77=, spe"ifi"ally Se"tions :, D, ;, 1/ 16a'
and 1:a' thereof, and &epubli" A"t 3o. -1;=:

1. Are these "ontent-neutral or "ontent-based regulationsN
/. Are they void on grounds of overbreadth or vaguenessN
6. Do they "onstitute prior restraintN
:. Are they undue delegations of powers to )ayorsN
D. Do they violate international human rights treaties and the Aniversal De"laration of 5uman
&ightsN

D. 1n the "onstitutionality and legality of the poli"y of Calibrated %reemptive &esponse
C%&':

1. 4s the poli"y void on its fa"e or due to vaguenessN
/. 4s it void for la"k of publi"ationN
6. 4s the poli"y of C%& void as applied to the rallies of September /; and 1"tober :, D and ;,
/==DN
H e l )H
%etitioners9 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 ,.%. 3o. 77= whi"h re8uires a permit for all who would
publi"ly assemble in the nation9s streets and parks. !hey have, in fa"t, purposely engaged
in publi" assemblies without the re8uired permits to press their "laim that no su"h permit
"an be validly re8uired 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 : of Arti"le 444 of the Constitution provides:

1D:
S+C. :. 3o 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 en0oys 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. As 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 8uestion as to the petitioners9 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 : and 7 of the ,ill of &ights, Se"tion /D' of Arti"le 4Q, and Se"tion 6 of Arti"le
Q444. <urispruden"e abounds with hallowed pronoun"ements defending and promoting the
people9s e(er"ise of these rights. As 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:

?4t 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. 4f 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.@

Again, 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.
3e(t, however, it must be remembered that the right, while sa"rosan"t, is not
absolute. 4n #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 in0urious to the e8ual
1DD
en0oyment of others having e8ual rights, nor in0urious 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. 4t 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 8uite e(pli"it: ?3o 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 subse8uent 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. 4t is entitled to be a""orded the utmost deferen"e and respe"t. 4t 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. +ven
prior to the 1.6D Constitution, <usti"e )al"olm had o""asion to stress that it is a ne"essary
"onse8uen"e of our republi"an institutions and "omplements the right of free spee"h. !o
paraphrase the opinion of <usti"e &utledge, speaking for the ma0ority of the Ameri"an
Supreme Court in !homas 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 right of
the people pea"eably to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievan"es.
All these rights, while not identi"al, are inseparable. 4n every "ase, therefore, where there
is a limitation pla"ed on the e(er"ise of this right, the 0udi"iary is "alled upon to e(amine
the effe"ts of the "hallenged governmental a"tuation. !he sole 0ustifi"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.

/. 3owhere 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 <usti"e
$rankfurter: ?4t must never be forgotten, however, that the ,ill of &ights was the "hild of
the +nlightenment. ,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. 4t 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.@ >hat was rightfully
stressed is the abandonment of reason, the utteran"e, whether verbal or printed, being in a
1D;
"onte(t of violen"e. 4t 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. 3or is this the sole
reason for the e(pression of dissent. 4t means more than 0ust the right to be heard of the
person who feels aggrieved or who is dissatisfied with things as they are. 4ts 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. >hat is guaranteed is
pea"eable assembly. 1ne 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 re8uired. As pointed out in an early %hilippine
"ase, penned in 1.=- to be pre"ise, Anited States v. Apurado: ?4t 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.@ 4t bears repeating that for the "onstitutional right to be invoked,
riotous "ondu"t, in0ury to property, and a"ts of vandalism must be avoided. !o give free
rein to one9s destru"tive urges is to "all for "ondemnation. 4t 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 ob0e"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 1.6.
vintage of, <usti"e &oberts in 5ague v. C41: ?>henever 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" 8uestions. 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 Anited States to use the streets and parks for "ommuni"ation of
views on national 8uestions 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 8uoted with approval in %rimi"ias v. $ugoso.
%rimi"ias made e(pli"it what was impli"it in )uni"ipality of Cavite v. &o0as, 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.

:. 3either "an there be any valid ob0e"tion to the use of the streets to the gates
of the AS embassy, hardly two blo"ks away at the &o(as ,oulevard. %rimi"ias v. $ugoso
has resolved any lurking doubt on the matter. 4n 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: ?1ur "on"lusion finds support in the de"ision in the "ase of
>illis Co( v. State of 3ew 5ampshire, 61/ A.S., D;.. 4n that "ase, the statute of 3ew
1D-
5ampshire %.*. "hap. 1:D, 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,9 was "onstrued by
the Supreme Court of 3ew 5ampshire as not "onferring upon the li"ensing board
unfettered dis"retion to refuse to grant the li"ense, and held valid. And the Supreme Court
of the Anited States, in its de"ision 1.:1' penned by Chief <usti"e 5ughes affirming the
0udgment of the State Supreme Court, held that Ka statute re8uiring 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. ?3or should the point
made by Chief <usti"e 5ughes in a subse8uent 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.
>here 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.@
( ( (

;. ( ( ( !he prin"iple under Ameri"an do"trines was given utteran"e by Chief
<usti"e 5ughes in these words: ?!he 8uestion, 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. 4t 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. 4t is not, however, unfettered dis"retion. >hile pruden"e re8uires 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 <usti"e &oberts, speaking for the
Ameri"an Supreme Court, is not to be ?abridged on the plea that it may be e(er"ised in
some other pla"e.@

( ( (

7. ,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$e 'hen i# will #"Le pl"ce. <8= I( i# were " pri*"#e pl"ce, o'ly #%e co'7e'# o( #%e
ow'er or #%e o'e e'#i#le) #o i#7 le&"l po77e77io' i7 reBuire). <c= Suc% "pplic"#io'
1D7
7%oul) 8e (ile) well "%e") i' #i$e #o e'"8le #%e pu8lic o((ici"l co'cer'e) #o "ppr"i7e
w%e#%er #%ere $"y 8e *"li) o8Iec#io'7 #o #%e &r"'# o( #%e per$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 0udi"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. 4t "annot be too strongly stressed that on the
0udi"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. 3o verbal
formula, no san"tifying phrase "an, of "ourse, dispense with what has been so feli"itously
termed by <usti"e 5olmes ?as the sovereign prerogative of 0udgment.@ 3onetheless, the
presumption must be to in"line the weight of the s"ales of 0usti"e on the side of su"h rights,
en0oying as they do pre"eden"e and prima"y. ( ( (.

,.%. 3o. 77= was ena"ted after this Court rendered its de"ision in $eyes.

!he provisions of ,.%. 3o. 77= pra"ti"ally "odify the ruling in $eyes:


Reye7 *.
4"&"#7i'&
2.&. 3o. *-;D6;;,
3ovember ., 1.76,
1/D SC&A DD6,
D;.'

7. ,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. 4f it were a
private pla"e, only the
"onsent of the owner or the
one entitled to its legal
possession is re8uired. 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 ob0e"tions to
the grant of the permit or to
its grant but at another publi"
pla"e. 4t is an indispensable
"ondition to su"h refusal or

4.5. -o.
66;



S+C. :. #ermit ?2en
reCuired and ?2en not
reCuired.-- A written
permit shall be re8uired for
any person or persons to
organiGe and hold a publi"
assembly in a publi" pla"e.
5owever, no permit shall
be re8uired 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
re8uired, or in the "ampus
of a government-owned
and operated edu"ational
institution whi"h shall be
sub0e"t to the rules and
1D.
modifi"ation that the "lear
and present danger test be the
standard for the de"ision
rea"hed. 4f 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 0udi"ial
authority.






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 A"t.
S+C. D. Application
reCuirements.-- All
appli"ations for a permit
shall "omply with the
following guidelines:
a' !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.
b' !he appli"ation shall
in"orporate the duty and
responsibility of appli"ant
under Se"tion 7 hereof.
"' !he appli"ation shall
be filed with the offi"e of
the mayor of the "ity or
muni"ipality in whose
0urisdi"tion the intended
a"tivity is to be held, at
least five D' working days
before the s"heduled publi"
assembly.
d' Apon 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.

1;=
S+C. ;. Action to 'e
ta@en on t2e application. I
a' 4t 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.
b' !he mayor or any
offi"ial a"ting in his behalf
shall a"t on the appli"ation
within two /' 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.
"' 4f 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.
d' !he a"tion on the
permit shall be in writing
and served on the
appli"aBntC within twenty-
four hours.
e' 4f the mayor or any
offi"ial a"ting in his behalf
denies the appli"ation or
1;1
modifies the terms thereof
in his permit, the appli"ant
may "ontest the de"ision in
an appropriate "ourt of law.
f' 4n "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 4ntermediate Appellate
Court, its de"isions may be
appealed to the appropriate
"ourt within forty-eight
:7' hours after re"eipt of
the same. 3o appeal bond
and re"ord on appeal shall
be re8uired. A de"ision
granting su"h permit or
modifying it in terms
satisfa"tory to the appli"ant
shall be immediately
e(e"utory.
g' All "ases filed in
"ourt under this se"tion
shall be de"ided within
twenty-four /:' hours
from date of filing. Cases
filed hereunder shall be
immediately endorsed to
the e(e"utive 0udge for
disposition or, in his
absen"e, to the ne(t in
rank.
h' 4n all "ases, any
de"ision may be appealed
to the Supreme Court.
i' !elegraphi" appeals
to be followed by formal
appeals are hereby
allowed.



4t 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,
:7
where the Court referred to it as
:7
2.&. 3o. 16//61, )ar"h 61, 1..7, /77 SC&A ::-.
1;/
a ?"ontent-neutral@ regulation of the time, pla"e, and manner of holding publi"
assemblies.
:.

A fair and impartial reading of ,.%. 3o. 77= thus readily shows that it refers to "ll
kinds of publi" assemblies
D=
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. 3either are the words
?opinion,@ ?protesting@ and ?influen"ing@ in the definition of publi" assembly "ontent
based, sin"e they "an refer to any sub0e"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 Aniversal
De"laration of 5uman &ights and the 4nternational Covenant on Civil and %oliti"al &ights.

-ei#%er i7 #%e l"w o*er8ro"). 4t 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.
As 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". ;a'. !he referen"e to
?imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil@ in Se". ;"' substantially means the
same thing and is not an in"onsistent standard. As to whether respondent )ayor has the
same power independently under &epubli" A"t 3o. -1;=
D1
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:

S+C. 1D. Areedom par@s. I +very "ity and muni"ipality in the "ountry shall within
si( months after the effe"tivity of this A"t establish or designate at least one suitable
?freedom park@ or mall in their respe"tive 0urisdi"tions whi"h, as far as pra"ti"able, shall be
:.
I'id, p. :-7.
D=
+("ept pi"keting and other "on"erted a"tion in strike areas by workers and employees resulting from a labor dispute, whi"h are governed
by the *abor Code and other labor laws# politi"al meeting or rallies held during any ele"tion "ampaign period, whi"h are governed by the +le"tion
Code and other ele"tion related laws# and publi" assemblies in the "ampus of a government-owned and operated edu"ational institution, whi"h shall
be sub0e"t to the rules and regulations of said edu"ational institution. Se". 6BaC and Se". : of ,.%. 3o. 77='.
D1
!he *o"al 2overnment Code. Spe"ifi"ally, Se"tion 1; stating the general welfare "lause, thus:
S+C. 1;. +eneral Delfare. I +very lo"al government unit shall e(er"ise the powers e(pressly granted, those ne"essarily implied
therefrom, as well as powers ne"essary, appropriate, or in"idental for its effi"ient and effe"tive governan"e, and those whi"h are essential to the
promotion of the general welfare. >ithin their respe"tive territorial 0urisdi"tions, lo"al government units shall ensure and support among other
things, the preservation and enri"hment of "ulture, promote health and safety, enhan"e the right of the people to a balan"ed e"ology, en"ourage and
support the development of appropriate and self-reliant s"ientifi" and te"hnologi"al "apabilities, improve publi" morals, enhan"e e"onomi"
prosperity and so"ial 0usti"e, promote full employment among their residents, maintain pea"e and order, and preserve the "omfort and "onvenien"e
of their inhabitants.
1;6
"entrally lo"ated within the pobla"ion where demonstrations and meetings may be held at
any time without the need of any prior permit.

4n 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 A"t.

/
!he Court now "omes to the matter of the C%&. As 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 toleran"e poli"y set forth in ,.%. 3o. 77=. !his is
stated in the Affidavit of respondent +(e"utive Se"retary +duardo +rmita, 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 6 "' of ,.%.
,lg. 77=, 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.@ Anfortunately, however, the phrase ?ma(imum toleran"e@ has a"8uired 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. 77=.

4t should be emphasiGed that the poli"y of ma(imum toleran"e is provided under the
same law whi"h re8uires 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 re8uired is dependent on how
pea"eful or unruly a mass a"tion is. 1ur 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 4 stated that "alibrated preemptive response is being enfor"ed in lieu of
ma(imum toleran"e 4 "learly was not referring to its legal definition but to the distorted and
mu"h abused definition that it has now a"8uired. 4 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. 4 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 4 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 3one of these is at loggerheads
with the letter and spirit of ,atas %ambansa ,lg. 77=. 4t is thus absurd for "omplainants to
even "laim that 4 ordered my "o-respondents to violate any law.

4n 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
1;:
so-"alled "alibrated preemptive response poli"y has no pla"e in our legal firmament and
must be stru"k down as a darkness that shrouds freedom. 4t merely "onfuses our people
and is used by some poli"e agents to 0ustify abuses. 1n the other hand, ,.%. 3o. 77=
"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 sub0e"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 ,C5R', 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 re8uirements of ma(imum toleran"e.

Re")H
1. &ight of assembly..61 SC&A -6: and -:/
/. +vangelista vs. +arnshaw, D- %hil /DD
6. %rimi"ias vs. $uguso, 7= %hil. -1
:. De la CruG vs. +la, .. %hil. 6:;
D. 3avarro vs. Fillegas, 61 SC&A -61
;. %hilippine ,looming )ills Case,D1 SC&A 17.
-. &eyes vs. ,agatsing, 1/D SC&A DD6#see guidelines
7. &uiG vs. 2ordon, 1/; SC&A /66
.. Fillar vs. !4%, 16D SC&A -=D
1=. )alabanan vs. &amento, 1/. SC&A 6D.
11. Carpio vs. 2uevara, 1=; SC&A ;7D
1/. 3estleS %hils. vs. San"heG, 1D: SC&A D:/
16. ArreGa vs. Araneta Aniversity $oundation, 16- SC&A .:
;. $reedom from prior restraint
Closing a radio station is definitely prior restraint
-E0SO3-/S 4ROA/CASTI-: -ET0ORE I-C. "') CO-SOLI/ATE/
4ROA/CASTI-: SYSTEM, I-C.HO-. CEASAR :. /Y, .ELICISIMO :. MEER,
4A:-OS MADIMO, RACMA .ER-A-/E>F:ARCIA "') THE CITY O.
CA3AYA-, :.R. -o7. 1;9; G19211, April 9, 9;;9

!432A, J.:
,ombo &adyo %hilippines ?,ombo &adyo@' operates several radio stations under
the A) and $) band throughout the %hilippines. !hese stations are operated by
"orporations organiGed and in"orporated by ,ombo &adyo, parti"ularly petitioners
3ewsounds ,road"asting 3etwork, 4n". ?3ewsounds@' and Consolidated ,road"asting
System, 4n". ?C,S@'. Among the stations run by 3ewsounds is ,ombo &adyo DO3C
Cauayan DO3C', an A) radio broad"ast station operating out of Cauayan City, 4sabela.
C,S, in turn, runs Star $) D>4! Cauayan ?Star $)@', also operating out of Cauayan
City, airing on the $) band. !he servi"e areas of DO3C and Star $) e(tend from the
1;D
provin"e of 4sabela to throughout &egion 44 and the Cordillera region.
D/B;C
!5+ 13*J
1!5+& S!A!413 1%+&A!432 43 CAAAJA3 C4!J, 4SA,+*A, is owned by the
family of respondent )ayor Dy.
4n 1..;, 3ewsounds "ommen"ed relo"ation of its broad"asting stations,
management offi"e and transmitters on property lo"ated in )inante /, Cauayan City,
4sabela. !he property is owned by C,S Development Corporation CDC', an affiliate
"orporation under the ,ombo &adyo network whi"h holds title over the properties used by
,ombo &adyo stations throughout the "ountry.
D6B-C
1n /7 <une 1..;, 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.
D:B7C
1n D <uly 1..;, the 5ousing and *and
Ase &egulatory ,oard 5*A&,' issued a Ooning De"ision "ertifying the property as
"ommer"ial.
DDB.C
!hat same day, the 1ffi"e of the )uni"ipal %lanning and Development
Coordinator 1)%DC' 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.@
D;B1=C
Similar "ertifi"ations would be issued by 1)%DC
from 1..- to /==1.
D-B11C
A building was "onse8uently ere"ted on the property, and therefrom, DO3C and
Star $) operated as radio stations. ,oth stations su""essfully se"ured all ne"essary
operating do"uments, in"luding mayor9s permits from 1..- to /==1.
D7B1/C
During that
period, CDC paid real property ta(es on the property based on the "lassifi"ation of the land
as "ommer"ial.
D.B16C
All that "hanged beginning in /==/. 1n 1D <anuary of that year, petitioners applied
for the renewal of the mayor9s permit. !he following day, the City Assessor9s 1ffi"e in
Cauayan City noted on CDC9s De"laration of &eal %roperty filed for /==/ "onfirmed that
based on the e(isting file, CDC9s property was "lassified as ?"ommer"ial.@
;=B1:C
1n /7
<anuary, representatives of petitioners formally re8uested then City Ooning Administrator-
Designate ,agnos )a(imo )a(imo' to issue a Goning "learan"e for the property.
;1B1DC
)a(imo, however, re8uired petitioners to submit ?either an approved land "onversion
papers from the Department of Agrarian &eform DA&' showing that the property was
D/
B;C
$ollo 2.&. 3o. 1-.:11', p. 16.
D6
B-C
4d.
D:
B7C
4d. at .=.
DDB.C
4d. at .1.
D;
B1=C
4d. at ./.
D-
B11C
4d. at .6-.-.
D7
B1/C
4d. at .7-1=/.
D.
B16C
4d. at 1=6-11=.
;=
B1:C
4d. at 1=6.
;1
B1DC
4d. at 111.
1;;
"onverted from prime agri"ultural land to "ommer"ial land, or an approved resolution from
the "angguniang ayan or "angguniang #anglungsod authoriGing the re-"lassifi"ation of
the property from agri"ultural to "ommer"ial land.@
;/B1;C
%etitioners had never been re8uired
to submit su"h papers before, and from 1..; to /==1, the 1)%DC had "onsistently
"ertified that the property had been "lassified as "ommer"ial. !5+&+A$!+&, !5+
)A34C4%A* 1$$4C4A*S %AD*1CM+D !5+ &AD41 S!A!413S ,AS+D 13 !5+
2&1A3D !5A! !5+ %+!4!413+&S $A4*+D !1 SA,)4! !5+ re8uisite Goning
"learan"e needed for the issuan"e of the mayor9s permit be"ause there was allegedly no
DA& De"ision "onverting said land from agri"ultural to "ommer"ial.
%etitioners filed a petition for mandamus, do"keted as SCA 3o. /=-1-1, with the
&!C of Cauayan City, ,ran"h /= 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 in0un"tion, both provisional reliefs
being denied by the &!C through an 1rder dated /= April /==:. !hereafter, the petition
was dismissed by the &!C as well as the Court of Appeals.
5en"e, this "ase before the Supreme Court.
4 S S A +:
4s the "losure of the petitioners9 radio stations "onstitutionalN
HEL/H
!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.
;6B6/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 subse8uent 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.
;:B66C
%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. 4n their tale, there is undeniable politi"al
"olor. !hey admit that in /==1, ,ombo &adyo ?was aggressive in e(posing the widespread
ele"tion irregularities in 4sabela that appear to have favored respondent Dy and other
members of the Dy politi"al dynasty.@
;DB6:C
&espondent Ceasar Dy is the brother of $austino
Dy, <r., governor of 4sabela from /==1 until he was defeated in his re-ele"tion bid in /==:
by 2ra"e %ada"a, a former assistant station manager at petitioners9 own DO3C ,ombo
;/
B1;C
4d. at 17-1..
;6
B6/C
Arti"le 6, Se". :.
;:
B66C
+on5ales v. COMELEC, 16- %hil. :-1, :./ 1.;.'.
;D
B6:C
&ollo 2.&. 3o. 1-=/-=', p. /-.
1;-
&adyo.
;;B6DC
A rival A) radio station in Cauayan City, D>DJ, is owned and operated by
the Dy family.
;-B6;C
%etitioners likewise dire"t our attention to a /= $ebruary /==: arti"le
printed in the %hilippine Daily 4n8uirer where Dy is 8uoted as intending ?to file
disenfran"hisement pro"eedings against DO3C-A).@
;7B6-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 authorities. ,eginning in /==/, 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. >hile 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. An
elementary s"hool "hild with a basi" understanding of "ivi"s lessons will re"ogniGe that
free spee"h animates these "ases.
>ithout 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$7 o(
eApre77io' i' ")*"'ce o( "c#u"l pu8lic"#io' or )i77e$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 0udi"ial soli"itude for free spee"h, meaning that
governmental a"tion dire"ted at e(pression must satisfy a greater burden of 0ustifi"ation
than governmental a"tion dire"ted at most other forms of behavior.
-/B:1C
>e 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. 4ndeed, 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
;;
B6DC
See !< ,urgonio, ?Isa'ela gov ?2o ended a dynasty ?ins $M pri5e,@ %hilippine Daily 4n8uirer 1 August /==7', at
http:EEopinion.in8uirer.netEin8uireropinionEletterstotheeditorEview E/==7=7=1-1D1.D=E4sabela-gov-who-ended-a-dynasty-wins-&)-
priGe
;-
B6;C
$ollo 2.&. 3o. 1-=/-=', p. 1-.
;7
B6-C
$ollo 2.&. 3o. 1-.:11', p. 1:/.
;.
B67C
C2ave5 v. +on5ales, 2.&. 3o. 1;7667, 1D $ebruary /==7, D:D SC&A ::1, :.1.
-=
B6.C
"ocial Deat2er "tations, Inc. v. COMELEC, :=. %hil. D-1, D7D /==1'# "iting (e? )or@ &imes v. !nited "tates, :=6 A.S.
-16, -1:, /. *. +d. /d 7//, 7/: 1.-1'.
-1
B:=C
C2ave5 v. +on5ales, 2.&. 3o. 1;766D, 1D $ebruary /==7, D:D SC&A ::1, :./.
-/
B:1C
2A3!5+&, et al., C13S!4!A!413A* *A> 1:th ed., /==1', at .;:.
1;7
heavy burden of showing 0ustifi"ation for the enfor"ement of su"h restraint.9 !here is thus a
reversal of the normal presumption of validity that inheres in every legislation.@
-6B:/C
At the same time, 0urispruden"e distinguishes between a co'#e'#F
'eu#r"l regulation, i.e., merely "on"erned with the in"idents of the spee"h, or one that
merely "ontrols the time, pla"e or manner, and under well defined standards# and
a co'#e'#F8"7e) restraint or "ensorship, i.e., the restri"tion is based on the sub0e"t matter
of the utteran"e or spee"h.
-:B:6C
Content-based laws are generally treated as more suspe"t
than "ontent-neutral laws be"ause of 0udi"ial "on"ern with dis"rimination in the regulation
of e(pression.
-DB::C
Content-neutral regulations of spee"h or of "ondu"t that may amount to
spee"h, are sub0e"t to lesser but still heightened s"rutiny.
-;B:DC
1stensibly, the a"t of an *2A re8uiring 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 *2A.
5owever, the "ir"umstan"es of this "ase di"tate that we view the a"tion of the
respondents as a "ontent-based restraint. 4n their petition for mandamus filed with the
&!C, petitioners make the following relevant allegations:
;.1. >ith spe"ifi" referen"e to DO3C, 3ewsounds, 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 4sabela, in"luding Cauayan City. 4n view of its wide
"overage, DO3C has been a primary medium for the e(er"ise of the people of 4sabela of
their "onstitutional right to free spee"h. Corollarily, DO3C has always been at the forefront
of the struggle to maintain and uphold freedom of the press, and the people9s "orollary right
to freedom of spee"h, e(pression and petition the government for redress of grievan"es.
;./. 3ewsound9s only rival A) station in Cauayan and the rest of 4sabela, D>DJ,
is owned and operated by the family of respondent Dy.
--B:;C

( ( ( (
6D. &espondents "losure of petitioners9 radio stations is "learly tainted with ill
motives.
6D.1. 4t must be pointed out that in the /==1 ele"tions, ,ombo &adyo was
aggressive in e(posing the widespread ele"tion irregularities in 4sabela that appear to have
favored respondent Dy and other members of the Dy politi"al dynasty. 4t is 0ust too
-6
B:/C
"D" v. COMELEC, supra note 6..
-:
B:6C
C2ave5 v. +on5ales, 2.&. 3o. 1;7667, 1D $ebruary /==7, D:D SC&A ::1, :.6.
-D
B::C
2A3!5+&, et al., supra note ::.
-;
B:DC
4d. at .D-.
--
B:;C
$ollo 2.&. 3o. 1-.:11', p. 1-=.
1;.
"oin"idental that it was only after the /==1 ele"tions i.e., /==/' that the )ayor9s 1ffi"e
started 8uestioning petitioners9 appli"ations for renewal of their mayor9s permits.
6D./. 4n an arti"le found in the %hilippine Daily in8uirer dated /= $ebruary /==:,
respondent Dy was 8uoted as saying that he will ?disenfran"hise the radio station.@ Su"h
statement manifests and "onfirms that respondents9 denial of petitioners9 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 latter9s voi"e. !his
is a blatant violation of the petitioners9 "onstitutional right to press freedom.
6D.6. !he timing of respondents9 "losure of petitioners9 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.
-7B:-C

All those "ir"umstan"es lead us to believe that the steps employed by respondents to
ultimately shut down petitioner9s radio station were ultimately "ontent-based. !he Anited
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 Amendment.
-.BD6C
!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 e8ual prote"tion.
7=BD:C
!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 petitioners9 "onstitutional rights. As "ontent
regulation "annot be done in the absen"e of any "ompelling reason,
71BDDC
the burden lies with
the government to establish su"h "ompelling reason to infringe the right to free e(pression.
4t is thus evident that respondents had no valid "ause at all to even re8uire
petitioners to se"ure ?approved land "onversion papers from the DA& showing that the
property was "onverted from prime agri"ultural land to "ommer"ial land.@ !hat
re8uirement, assuming that it "an be demanded by a lo"al government in the "onte(t of
approving mayor9s permits, should only obtain upon "lear proof that the property from
where the business would operate was "lassified as agri"ultural under the *2A9s land use
plan or Goning ordinan"es and other relevant laws. 3o eviden"e to that effe"t was presented
by the respondents either to the petitioners, or to the "ourts.
-7
B:-C
4d. at 1-7-1-..
-.
BD6C
2A3!5+& et. al., supra note ::.
7=
BD:C
See D2ite Lig2t v. Court of Appeals, 2.&. 3o. 1//7:;, /= <anuary /==..
71
BDDC
OsmeGa v. COMELEC, 6D1 %hil. ;./, -11 1..7'.
1-=
5aving established that respondents had violated petitioners9 legal and
"onstitutional rights, let us now turn to the appropriate reliefs that should be granted.
>e turn to the issue of damages. %etitioners had sought to re"over from respondents
%7 )illion in temperate damages, %1 )illion in e(emplary damages, and %1 )illion in
attorney9s fees. 2iven respondents9 "lear violation of petitioners9 "onstitutional guarantee
of free e(pression, the right to damages from respondents is s8uarely assured by Arti"le 6/
/' of the Civil Code, whi"h provides:
Art. 6/. Any 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:
( ( ( (
/' $reedom of spee"h#
>e noted in Lim v. #once de Leon that ?BpCubli" offi"ials in the past have abused
their powers on the prete(t of 0ustifiable motives or good faith in the performan"e of their
dutiesV BandC the ob0e"t of BArti"le 6/ of the Civil CodeC is to put an end to offi"ial abuse
by plea of the good faith.@
7/B7DC
!he appli"ation of Arti"le 6/ not only serves as a measure of
pe"uniary re"overy to mitigate the in0ury to "onstitutional rights, it likewise serves noti"e to
publi" offi"ers and employees that any violation on their part of any person9s guarantees
under the ,ill of &ights will meet with final re"koning.
!he present prayer for temperate damages is premised on the e(isten"e of pe"uniary
in0ury to petitioner due to the a"tions of respondents, the amount of whi"h nevertheless
being diffi"ult to prove.
76B7;C
!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.
7:B7-C
!he e(isten"e of pe"uniary in0ury 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 <une /==: until this Court
issued a writ of preliminary in0un"tion in <anuary /==;.
7DB77C
!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, %7
)illion, for temperate damages. !he said amount is ?reasonable under the
"ir"umstan"es.@
7;B7.C
7/
B7DC
1;= %hil. ..1, 1==1 1.-D'. See also MH# +arments, Inc., v. Court of Appeals, 2.&. 3o. 7;-/=, / September 1..:, /6;
SC&A //-, /6D.
76
B7;C
$ollo 2.&. 3o. 1-.:11', p. 176.
7:
B7-C
See C4F4* C1D+, Art. ///:.
7D
B77C
A""ording to an arti"le posted on the offi"ial website of ,ombo &adyo, DO3C a""ordingly resumed broad"ast on 7
$ebruary /==;. See http:EEwww.bomboradyo."omEar"hiveE newEstationprofile Ebombo"auayanEinde(.htm last visited, ; )ar"h /==.'
7;
B7.C
See C4F4* C1D+, Art. ///D.
1-1
+(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".@
7-B.=C
&espondents, by purposely
denying the "ommer"ial "hara"ter of the property in order to deny petitioners9 the e(er"ise
of their "onstitutional rights and their business, manifested bad faith in a wanton,
fraudulent, oppressive and malevolent manner.
77B.1C
!he amount of e(emplary damages
need not be proved where it is shown that plaintiff is entitled to temperate damages,
7.B./C
and
the sought for amount of %1 )illion is more than appropriate. >e likewise deem the prayer
for %1 )illion in attorney9s fees as suitable under the "ir"umstan"es.
0HERE.ORE, the petitions are :RA-TE/. !he assailed de"isions of the Court
of Appeals and the &egional !rial Court of Cauayan City, ,ran"h /:, are hereby reversed
and set aside.
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-/ TELEVISIO- REVIE0 A-/
CLASSI.ICATIO- 4OAR/, :.R. -O. 16261, A5RIL 99, 9;;9
VELASCO, JR., J.H
1n August 1=, /==:, at around 1=:== p.m., petitioner, as host of the program Ang
%ating %aan, aired on A3!F 6-, 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 <essie *. 2alapon and seven other private respondents, all
members of the 4glesia ni Cristo 43C', against petitioner in "onne"tion with the above
broad"ast. &espondent )i"hael ). Sandoval, who felt dire"tly alluded to in petitioner9s
remark, was then a minister of 43C and a regular host of the !F program Ang &amang
%aan.
.=B6C
$orthwith, the )!&C, sent petitioner a noti"e of the hearing on August 1;,
7-
B.=C
B+(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. -;, 7/ 1.7/'.
77
B.1C
?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 7-, at 7D# "iting Ong )iu v. CA, .1 SC&A //6.
7.
B./C
#atricio v. Hon. Leviste, 2.&. 3o. *-D176/, /; April 1.7..
.= B6C
4d. at ./:, %rivate &espondents9 )emorandum.
1-/
/==: in relation to the alleged use of some "uss words in the August 1=, /==: episode of
Ang %ating %aan.
.1B:C

After a preliminary "onferen"e in whi"h petitioner appeared, the )!&C,, by 1rder
of August 1;, /==:, preventively suspended the showing of Ang %ating %aan program for
/= days, in a""ordan"e with Se"tion 6d' of %residential De"ree 3o. %D' 1.7;, "reating
the )!&C,, in relation to Se". 6, Chapter Q444 of the /==: 4mplementing &ules and
&egulations 4&&' of %D 1.7; and Se". -, &ule F44 of the )!&C, &ules of %ro"edure.
./BDC
!he same order also set the "ase for preliminary investigation.
!he following day, petitioner sought re"onsideration of the preventive suspension
order, praying that Chairperson ConsoliGa %. *aguardia and two other members of the
ad0udi"ation board re"use themselves from hearing the "ase.
.6B;C
!wo days after, however,
petitioner sought to withdraw
.:B-C
his motion for re"onsideration, followed by the filing with
this Court of a petition for "ertiorari and prohibition,
.DB7C
do"keted as 2.&. 3o. 1;:-7D, to
nullify the preventive suspension order thus issued.
1n September /-, /==:, in Adm. Case 3o. =1-=:, the )!&C, issued a de"ision,
disposing as follows:
>5+&+$1&+, in view of all the foregoing, a De"ision is hereby rendered, finding
respondent Soriano liable for his utteran"es and thereby imposing on him a penalty of three
6' months suspension from his program, ?Ang Dating Daan@.
S1 1&D+&+D.
.;B.C
%etitioner then filed this petition for "ertiorari and prohibition with prayer for
in0un"tive relief, do"keted as 2.&. 3o. 1;D;6;.
4n 2.&. 3o. 1;:-7D, petitioner raises the following issues:
!5+ 1&D+& 1$ %&+F+3!4F+ SAS%+3S413 %&1)A*2A!+D ,J &+S%13D+3!
B)!&C,C DA!+D 1; AA2AS! /==: A2A43S! !5+ !+*+F4S413 %&12&A) A(+
%A&I(+ %AA( ( ( ( 4S 3A** A3D F14D $1& ,+432 4SSA+D >4!5 2&AF+
A,AS+ 1$ D4SC&+!413 A)1A3!432 !1 *ACM 1& +QC+SS 1$ <A&4SD4C!413
A' ,J &+AS13 !5A! !5+ B4&&C 4S 43FA*4D 43S1$A& AS 4! %&1F4D+S $1& !5+
4SSAA3C+ 1$ %&+F+3!4F+ SAS%+3S413 1&D+&S#
,',J &+AS13 1$ *ACM 1$ DA+ 5+A&432 43 !5+ CAS+ A! ,+3C5#
C'$1& ,+432 F41*A!4F+ 1$ +RAA* %&1!+C!413 A3D+& !5+ *A>#
D' $1& ,+432 F41*A!4F+ 1$ $&++D1) 1$ &+*42413# A3D
+' $1& ,+432 F41*A!4F+ 1$ $&++D1) 1$ S%++C5 A3D +Q%&+SS413.
.-B1=C
.1 B:C
4d. at 11=.
./ BDC
4d. at 11/-116, &ules of %ro"edure in the Condu"t of 5earing for Fiolations of %D 1.7; and the 4&&.
.6 B;C
4d. at 1:1-1D1.
.: B-C
4d. at 1D/-1D:.
.D B7C
4d. at 1;;-/D/.
.; B.C
4d. at 6-7.
.- B1=C
4d. at 17/.
1-6
4n 2.&. 3o. 1;D;6;, petitioner relies on the following grounds:
S+C!413 6C' 1$ B%DC 1.7;, 4S %A!+3!*J A3C13S!4!A!413A* A3D +3AC!+D
>4!51A! 1& 43 +QC+SS 1$ <A&4SD4C!413 ( ( ( C13S4D+&432 !5A!:
4
S+C!413 6C' 1$ B%DC 1.7;, AS A%%*4+D !1 %+!4!413+&, A3DA*J 43$&432+S
13 !5+ C13S!4!A!413A* 2AA&A3!++ 1$ $&++D1) 1$ &+*42413, S%++C5,
A3D +Q%&+SS413 AS 4! %A&!AM+S 1$ !5+ 3A!A&+ 1$ A SA,S+RA+3!
%A34S5)+3! CA&!A4*432 !5+ SA)+# C13S+RA+3!*J, !5+
4)%*+)+3!432 &A*+S A3D &+2A*A!413S, &A*+S 1$ %&1C+DA&+, A3D
1$$4C4A* AC!S 1$ !5+ )!&C, %A&SAA3! !5+&+!1, 4.+. D+C4S413 DA!+D
/- S+%!+),+& /==: A3D 1&D+& DA!+D 1. 1C!1,+& /==:, A&+ *4M+>4S+
C13S!4!A!413A**J 43$4&) AS A%%*4+D 43 !5+ CAS+ A! ,+3C5#
44
S+C!413 6C' 1$ B%DC 1.7;, AS A%%*4+D !1 %+!4!413+&, A3DA*J 43$&432+S
13 !5+ C13S!4!A!413A* 2AA&A3!++ 1$ DA+ %&1C+SS 1$ *A> A3D
+RAA* %&1!+C!413 A3D+& !5+ *A># C13S+RA+3!*J, !5+ B4&&C, &A*+S
1$ %&1C+DA&+, A3D 1$$4C4A* AC!S 1$ !5+ )!&C, %A&SAA3! !5+&+!1,
4.+., D+C4S413 DA!+D /- S+%!+),+& /==: A3D 1&D+& DA!+D 1. 1C!1,+&
/==:, A&+ *4M+>4S+ C13S!4!A!413A**J 43$4&) AS A%%*4+D 43 !5+ CAS+
A! ,+3C5# A3D
444
B%DC 1.7; 4S 31! C1)%*+!+ 43 4!S+*$ A3D D1+S 31! %&1F4D+ $1& A
SA$$4C4+3! S!A3DA&D $1& 4!S 4)%*+)+3!A!413 !5+&+,J &+SA*!432 43
A3 A3DA+ D+*+2A!413 1$ *+24S*A!4F+ %1>+& ,J &+AS13 !5A! 4! D1+S
31! %&1F4D+ $1& !5+ %+3A*!4+S $1& F41*A!413S 1$ 4!S %&1F4S413S.
C13S+RA+3!*J, !5+ B4&&C, &A*+S 1$ %&1C+DA&+, A3D 1$$4C4A* AC!S 1$
!5+ )!&C, %A&SAA3! !5+&+!1, 4.+. D+C4S413 DA!+D /- S+%!+),+& /==:
A3D 1&D+& DA!+D 1. 1C!1,+& /==:, A&+ *4M+>4S+ C13S!4!A!413A**J
43$4&) AS A%%*4+D 43 !5+ CAS+ A! ,+3C5
.7B11C
:.R. -o. 16261
>e shall first dispose of the issues in 2.&. 3o. 1;:-7D, regarding the assailed order
of preventive suspension, although its implementability had already been overtaken and
veritably been rendered moot by the e8ually assailed September /-, /==: de"ision.
4t is petitioner9s threshold posture that the preventive suspension imposed against
him and the relevant 4&& provision authoriGing it are invalid inasmu"h as %D 1.7; does
not e(pressly authoriGe the )!&C, to issue preventive suspension.
%etitioner9s "ontention is untenable.
.7 B11C
4d. at :;.
1-:
Administrative agen"ies have powers and fun"tions whi"h may be administrative,
investigatory, regulatory, 8uasi-legislative, or 8uasi-0udi"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.
1==B16C
And in
determining whether an agen"y has "ertain powers, the in8uiry should be from the law
itself. ,ut on"e as"ertained as e(isting, the authority given should be liberally "onstrued.
1=1
B1:C
A perusal of the )!&C,9s basi" mandate under %D 1.7; reveals the possession by
the agen"y of the authority, albeit impliedly, to issue the "hallenged order of preventive
suspension. And this authority stems naturally from, and is ne"essary for the e(er"ise of, its
power of regulation and supervision.

Se". 6 of %D 1.7; pertinently provides the following:
Se"tion 6. %owers and $un"tions.X!he ,1A&D shall have the following
fun"tions, powers and duties:

( ( ( (
"' !o approve or disapprove, delete ob0e"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 sub0e"t of the pre"eding paragraph, whi"h, in the
0udgment of the board applying "ontemporary $ilipino "ultural values as standard, are
ob0e"tionable for being immoral, inde"ent, "ontrary to law andEor good "ustoms, in0urious
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:
( ( ( (
vi' !hose whi"h are libelous or defamatory to the good name and reputation of any person,
whether living or dead#

( ( ( (
d' !o 7uper*i7e, re&ul"#e, and grant, deny or "an"el, permits for the ( ( ( produ"tion,
"opying, distribution, sale, lease, eA%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 ,1A&D to be ob0e"tionable in
a""ordan"e with paragraph "' hereof shall be ( ( ( produ"ed, "opied, reprodu"ed,
distributed, sold, leased, eA%i8i#e) "')Kor 8ro")c"7# 8y #ele*i7io'#
( ( ( (
.. B1/C
A5arcon v. "andigan'ayan, 2.&. 3o. 11;=66, $ebruary /;, 1..-, /;7 SC&A -:-.
1== B16C
#imentel v. COMELEC, 3os. *-D6D71-76, De"ember 1., 1.7=, 1=1 SC&A -;..
1=1 B1:C
Agpalo, AD)434S!&A!4F+ *A> /==D'# "iting Matien5on v. A'ellera, 2.&. 3o. --;6/, <une 7, 1.77, 1;/ SC&A 1.
1-D
k' !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 ob0e"tives of this A"t ( ( (. +mphasis added.'
!he issuan"e of a preventive suspension "omes well within the s"ope of the
)!&C,9s authority and fun"tions e(pressly set forth in %D 1.7;, more parti"ularly under
its Se". 6d', as 8uoted 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 ,1A&D to be ob0e"tionable in
a""ordan"e with paragraph "' hereof shall be ( ( ( e(hibited andEor broad"ast by
television.@
Surely, the power to issue preventive suspension forms part of the )!&C,9s
e(press regulatory and supervisory statutory mandate and its investigatory and dis"iplinary
authority subsumed in or implied from su"h mandate. Any 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.
1=/B1DC
And the power to dis"ipline and
impose penalties, if granted, "arries with it the power to investigate administrative
"omplaints and, during su"h investigation, to preventively suspend the person sub0e"t of the
"omplaint.
1=6B1;C
!o reiterate, preventive suspension authority of the )!&C, springs from its
powers "onferred under %D 1.7;. !he )!&C, did not, as petitioner insinuates, empower
itself to impose preventive suspension through the medium of the 4&& of %D 1.7;. 4t is
true that the matter of imposing preventive suspension is embodied only in the 4&& of %D
1.7;. Se". 6, Chapter Q444 of the 4&& provides:

Se". 6. %&+F+3!413 SAS%+3S413 1&D+&.IIAny 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 1rder
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 /=' days from the date of
issuan"e.
,ut the mere absen"e of a provision on preventive suspension in %D 1.7;, 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 petitioner9s assertion, the
afore8uoted Se". 6 of the 4&& neither amended %D 1.7; nor e(tended the effe"t of the law.
3either did the )!&C,, by imposing the assailed preventive suspension, outrun its
1=/ B1DC
Lastimoso v. *asCue5, 2.&. 3o. 11;7=1, April ;, 1..D, /:6 SC&A :.-.
1=6 B1;C
Alon5o v. Capulong, 2.&. 3o. 11=D.=, )ay 1=, 1..D, /:: SC&A 7=# e=a v. Court of Appeals, 2.&. 3o. .-1:., )ar"h
61, 1../, /=- SC&A ;7..
1-;
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,9s duty of regulating or
supervising television programs, pending a determination of whether or not there has
a"tually been a violation. 4n the final analysis, Se". 6, Chapter Q444 of the /==: 4&& merely
formaliGed a power whi"h %D 1.7; bestowed, albeit impliedly, on )!&C,.
Se". 6"' and d' of %D 1.7; finds appli"ation to the present "ase, suffi"ient to
authoriGe the )!&C,9s assailed a"tion. %etitioner9s restri"tive reading of %D 1.7;,
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". 6k' of %D 1.7;
"learly intends to grant the )!&C, a wide room for fle(ibility in its operation. Se". 6k',
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 purposes and ob0e"tives of this A"t ( ( (.@ 4ndeed, the
power to impose preventive suspension is one of the implied powers of )!&C,. As
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.
1=:
B1-C
As we held in Angara v. Electoral Commission, when a general grant of power is
"onferred or a duty en0oined, 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.
1=DB17C
Clearly, the power
to impose preventive suspension pending investigation is one of the implied or inherent
powers of )!&C,.
>e "annot agree with petitioner9s assertion that the afore8uoted 4&& provision on
preventive suspension is appli"able only to motion pi"tures and publi"ity materials. !he
s"ope of the )!&C,9s authority e(tends beyond motion pi"tures. >hat the a"ronym
)!&C, stands for would suggest as mu"h. And 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 1.7;. Again, the )!&C, would regretfully be rendered ineffe"tive should it be
sub0e"t to the restri"tions petitioner envisages.
<ust as untenable is petitioner9s argument on the nullity of the preventive suspension
order on the ground of la"k of hearing. As 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 respondents9 "omplaint. 3o less than petitioner admitted that the order
was issued after the ad0ournment of the hearing,
1=;B1.C
proving that he had already appeared
before the )!&C,. Ander Se". 6, Chapter Q444 of the 4&& of %D 1.7;, preventive
suspension shall issue ?BaCny time during the penden"y of the "ase.@ 4n this parti"ular "ase,
it was done after )!&C, duly apprised petitioner of his having possibly violated %D
1.7;
1=-B/=C
and of administrative "omplaints that had been filed against him for su"h
violation.
1=7B/1C

1=: B1-C
C2ave5 v. (ational Housing Aut2ority, 2.&. 3o. 1;:D/-, August 1D, /==-, D6= SC&A /6D, /.D-/.;# "iting A5arcon,
supra note 1/, at -;1# $adio Communications of t2e #2ilippines, Inc. v. "antiago, 3os. *-/./6; P /./:-, August /1, 1.-:, D7 SC&A
:.6, :.-.
1=D B17C
;6 %hil. 16., 1-- 1.6;'.
1=; B1.C
$ollo 2.&. 3o. 1;:-7D', p. 1/.
1=- B/=C
4d. at .:.
1=7 B/1C
4d. at .D.
1--
At any event, that preventive suspension "an validly be meted out even without a
hearing.
1=.B//C


%etitioner ne(t faults the )!&C, for denying him his right to the e8ual prote"tion
of the law, arguing that, owing to the preventive suspension order, he was unable to answer
the "riti"isms "oming from the 43C ministers.
%etitioner9s position does not persuade. !he e8ual prote"tion "lause demands that
?all persons sub0e"t to legislation should be treated alike, under like "ir"umstan"es and
"onditions both in the privileges "onferred and liabilities imposed.@
11=B/6C
4t guards against
undue favor and individual privilege as well as hostile dis"rimination.
111B/:C
Surely,
petitioner "annot, under the premises, pla"e himself in the same shoes as the 43C 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,9s dis"iplinary a"tion. 4f 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 e8ual 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 43C 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 ine8uality.

%etitioner ne(t in0e"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 petitioner9s utteran"es in 8uestion "an
"ome within the pale of Se". D, Arti"le 444 of the 1.7- Constitution on religious freedom.
!he se"tion reads as follows:
3o 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 en0oyment of religious profession and worship,
without dis"rimination or preferen"e, shall forever be allowed. 3o religious test shall be
re8uired for the e(er"ise of "ivil or politi"al rights.
!here is nothing in petitioner9s statements sub0e"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
dire"ted at another person "annot be elevated to the status of religious spee"h.
2.&. 3o. 1;D;6; 2.&. 3o. 1;D;6;
1=. B//C
e=a, supra note 1;# Espiritu v. Melgar, 2.&. 3o. 1==7-:, $ebruary 16, 1../, /=; SC&A /D;.
11= B/6C
1 De *eon, %54*4%%43+ C13S!4!A!413A* *A> /-: /==6'.
111 B/:C
&iu v. +uingona, 2.&. 3o. 1/-:1=, <anuary /=, 1..., 6=1 SC&A /-7# "iting Ic2ong v. Hernande5, 1=1 %hil. 11DD 1.D-'
and other "ases.
1-7
%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". :, Art. 444
of the Constitution, whi"h reads:
3o 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.
5e would also have the Court de"lare %D 1.7;, its Se". 6"' in parti"ular,
un"onstitutional for reasons arti"ulated in this petition.
4t 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
+a"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, en0oying a lesser degree
of prote"tion.
116B/;C
<ust as settled is the rule that restri"tions, be it in the form of prior
restraint, e.g., 0udi"ial in0un"tion against publi"ation or threat of "an"ellation of
li"enseEfran"hise, or subse8uent 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.
11:B/-C
!he freedom of e(pression, as with the
other freedoms en"ased in the ,ill of &ights, is, however, not absolute. 4t may be regulated
to some e(tent to serve important publi" interests, some forms of spee"h not being
prote"ted. As 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/7C
4n the oft-8uoted
e(pression of <usti"e 5olmes, the "onstitutional guarantee ?obviously was not intended to
give immunity for every possible use of language.@
11;B/.C
$rom Lucas v. $oyo "omes this
line: ?B!Che freedom to e(press one9s sentiments and belief does not grant one the li"ense
to vilify in publi" the honor and integrity of another. Any sentiments must be e(pressed
within the proper forum and with proper regard for the rights of others.@
11-B6=C
4ndeed, as noted in C2aplins@y v. "tate of (e? Hamps2ire,
117B61C
?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.@ 4n 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.B6/C
A spee"h would fall under the unprote"ted type if the utteran"es
11/B/DC
!" v. #aramount #ictures, 66: A.S. 161# Eastern roadcasting Corporation v. %ans, Jr., 3o. *-D.6/., <uly 1., 1.7D,
16- SC&A ;/7.
116

B/;C
Eastern roadcasting Corporation v. %ans, Jr., supra note /D# "iting ACC v. #acifica Aoundation, :67 A.S. -/;#
+on5ales v. Sala? Satig'a@, 3o. *-;.D==, <uly //, 1.7D, 16- SC&A -1-.
11:

B/-C
<.2. ,ernas, S.<., !5+ C13S!4!A!413 1$ !5+ &+%A,*4C 1$ !5+ %54*4%%43+S: A C1))+3!A&J /=D
1..;'.
11D

B/7C
Lagunsad v. "oto vda. %e +on5ales, 3o. *-6/=;;, August ;, 1.-., ./ SC&A :-;.
11;

B/.C
&ro2?er@ v. !nited "tates, /:. A.S. /=: 1.1.'# "ited in ,ernas, supra at /17.
11- B6=C
2.&. 3o. 16;17D, 1"tober 6=, /===, 6:: SC&A :71, :.=.
117B61C
61D A.S. D;7 1.:/'.
11.B6/C
Agpalo, %54*4%%43+ C13S!4!A!413A* *A> 6D7 /==;'.
1-.
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/=B66C
,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,
1/1B6:C
or, with like effe"t, determining whi"h of the "lashing
interests should be advan"ed.
%etitioner asserts that his utteran"e in 8uestion is a prote"ted form of spee"h.
!he Court rules otherwise. 4t has been established in this 0urisdi"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 in0ury or tend to in"ite an immediate brea"h of pea"e
and e(pression endangering national se"urity.
!he Court finds that petitioner9s statement "an be treated as obs"ene, at least with
respe"t to the average "hild. 5en"e, it is, in that "onte(t, unprote"ted spee"h. 4n 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( @o87ce'i#yC 8u# #%e l"#e7# wor) i7 #%"# o(
Miller !. California w%ic% e7#"8li7%e) 8"7ic &ui)eli'e7 , to wit: a' whether to the average
person, applying "ontemporary standards would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to
the prurient interest# b' 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 "' 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.@ ( ( ( >hat remains "lear is that
obs"enity is an issue proper for 0udi"ial determination and should be treated on a "ase to
"ase basis and on the 0udge9s sound dis"retion.
1//B6DC
$ollowing the "onte(tual lessons of the "ited "ase of Miller v. California,
1/6B6;C
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.

A "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. 4n
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.
1/=B66C
C2aplins@y, supra note 61# "ited in ,ernas, supra note /-, at /:7.
1/1B6:C
,ernas, supra note /-, at /:7.
1//

B6DC
2.&. 3o. 1D.-D1, De"ember ;, /==;, D1= SC&A 6D1, 6;=-6;1.
1/6

B6;C
:16 A.S. 1D.
17=
>hile 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. >ithout 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 0ust 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 in8uisitive as to why Sandoval is different from a female
prostitute and the reasons for the dissimilarity. And upon learning the meanings of the
words used, young minds, without the guidan"e of an adult, may, from their end, view this
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. 4n this parti"ular "ase, where "hildren
had the opportunity to hear petitioner9s 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 adult9s 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.
Andeniably the sub0e"t spee"h is very suggestive of a female se(ual organ and its fun"tion
as su"h. 4n this sense, we find petitioner9s utteran"es obs"ene and not entitled to prote"tion
under the umbrella of freedom of spee"h.
+ven if we "on"ede that petitioner9s 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. >ith respe"t to the young minds, said utteran"es are to be treated as unprote"ted
spee"h.
3o doubt what petitioner said "onstitutes inde"ent or offensive utteran"es. ,ut
while a 0urisprudential 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 0urisdi"tion, made the fo"al point. Aederal Communications Commission ACC'
v. #acifica Aoundation,
1/:B6-C
a 1.-7 Ameri"an landmark "ase "ited in Eastern roadcasting
Corporation v. %ans, Jr.
1/DB67C
and C2ave5 v. +on5ales,
1/;B6.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.
4n ACC, seven of what were "onsidered ?filthy@ words
1/-B:=C
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. Apon the "omplaint of a man who heard the pre-re"orded monologue
1/: B6-C
:67 A.S. -/;.
1/D B67C
Supra note /D.
1/; B6.C
2.&. 3o. 1;7667, $ebruary 1D, /==7, D:D SC&A ::1.
1/- B:=C
?Shit, piss, fu"k, tits, et".@
171
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. A"ting on the
8uestion of whether the $CC "ould regulate the sub0e"t utteran"e, the AS Supreme Court
ruled in the affirmative, owing to two spe"ial features of the broad"ast medium, to wit: 1'
radio is a pervasive medium and /' broad"asting is uni8uely a""essible to "hildren. !he
AS 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 $CC9s
"ontent-based regulatory a"tion under s"rutiny.
!he Court in C2ave5
1/7B:1C
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. A
"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 sub0e"t "ontent-based restraint to stri"t s"rutiny.
>ith the view we take of the "ase, the suspension )!&C, imposed under the
premises was, in one perspe"tive, permissible restri"tion. >e 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/.B:/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.
Ander Se". /A' of Chapter 4F of the 4&& of the )!&C,, a show for general patronage is
?BsCuitable for all ages,@ meaning that the ?material for television ( ( ( in the 0udgment of
the ,1A&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. >here a language is "ategoriGed as
inde"ent, as in petitioner9s utteran"es on a general-patronage rated !F program, it may be
readily pros"ribed as unprote"ted spee"h.
A view has been advan"ed that unprote"ted spee"h refers only to pornography,
16=B:6C
false or misleading advertisement,
161B::C
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. >ithout going into spe"ifi"s, it may be
stated without fear of "ontradi"tion that AS de"isional law goes beyond the aforesaid
general e("eptions. As 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. As unprote"ted spee"h, petitioner9s utteran"es "an be sub0e"ted to restraint or
regulation.
1/7 B:1C
Supra note 6..
1/. B:/C
Supra note /;.
16=B:6C
+on5ales v. Sala? Satig'a@, supra.
161B::C
#2armaceutical and Healt2 Care Association of t2e #2ilippines v. Healt2 "ecretary Arancisco &. %uCue III, 2.&. 3o.
1-6=6:, 1"tober ., /==-, D6D SC&A /;D.
17/
Despite the settled ruling in ACC whi"h has remained undisturbed sin"e 1.-7,
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.
16/B:DC

%etitioner9s 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 <usti"e 5olmes, a""ords
prote"tion for utteran"es so that the printed or spoken words may not be sub0e"t to prior
restraint or subse8uent 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.
166B:;C
Ander 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. As it were, said do"trine evolved in the "onte(t of
prose"utions for rebellion and other "rimes involving the overthrow of government.
16:B:-C
4t
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
"onse8uen"es on the se"urity and publi" order of the "ommunity.
16DB:7C
!he "lear and
present danger rule has been applied to this 0urisdi"tion.
16;B:.C
As 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 0udgment 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.
16-BD=C
As 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.@
167BD1C
!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. Capulong
16.BD/C
and +on5ales v. COMELEC,
1:=BD6C
applied the balan"ing of interests test. $ormer Chief <usti"e $red &uiG Castro, in +on5ales
v. COMELEC, elu"idated in his Separate 1pinion 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,@
1:1BD:C
then the ?balan"ing of interests@ test "an be applied.
16/ B:DC
ayan v. Ermita, 2.&. 3o. 1;.767, April /D, /==;, :77 SC&A //;.
166B:;C
1;A Am <ur. /d Constitutional *aw Se". :.6# "c2enc@ v. !nited "tates, /:. A.S. :-.
16:B:-C
,ernas, supra note /-, at /1.-//=.
16DB:7C
+on5ales v. COMELEC, 3o. *-/-766, April 17, 1.;., /- SC&A 76D.
16;B:.C
A"-C( roadcasting Corp. v. COMELEC, 2.&. 3o. 166:7;, <anuary /7, /===, 6/6 SC&A 711# Adiong v.
COMELEC, 2.&. 3o. 1=6.D;, )ar"h 61, 1../, /=- SC&A -1/.
16-BD=C
Ualdivar v. "andigan'ayan, 2.&. 3os. -.;.=--=- P 7=D-7, $ebruary 1, 1.7., 1-= SC&A 1.
167BD1C
Supra note /D, at ;6D.
16.BD/C
3o. *-7/67=, April /., 1.77, 1;= SC&A 7;1.
1:=

BD6C
Supra note :7.
1:1 BD:C
Supra at 7.7.
176
!he Court e(plained also in +on5ales v. COMELEC the ?balan"ing of interests@
test:
>hen 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. ( ( ( >e 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 en0oyment of
rights ( ( (.
4n enun"iating standard premised on a 0udi"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 A.S. Supreme
Court. ,riefly stated, the ?balan"ing@ test re8uires a "ourt to take "ons"ious and detailed
"onsideration of the interplay of interests observable in a given situation or type of
situation.
( ( (
Although the urgen"y of the publi" interest sought to be se"ured by Congressional
power restri"ting the individual9s freedom, and the so"ial importan"e and value of the
freedom so restri"ted, ?are to be 0udged 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
e8uilibrium. Among these are a' the so"ial value and importan"e of the spe"ifi" aspe"t of
the parti"ular freedom restri"ted by the legislation# b' 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#
"' the value and importan"e of the publi" interest sought to be se"ured by the legislationII
the referen"e here is to the nature and gravity of the evil whi"h Congress seeks to prevent#
d' 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 e' 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.
1:/BDDC

!his balan"ing of interest test, to borrow from %rofessor Mauper,
1:6BD;C
rests on the
theory that it is the "ourt9s 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 0udgment where the greater weight shall be
pla"ed. 4f, 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. 4n short, the balan"e-of-interests 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
1:/BDDC
Supra at 7..-.==.
1:6BD;C
Mauper, C4F4* *4,+&!4+S A3D !5+ C13S!4!A!413 116 1.;;'# "ited in +on5ales v. COMELEC, supra note :7#
also "ited in <.2. ,ernas, S.<., !5+ 1.7- C13S!4!A!413 1$ !5+ &+%A,*4C 1$ !5+ %54*4%%43+S: A C1))+3!A&J
/==6'.
17:
important interests.
1::BD-C
!o the mind of the Court, the balan"ing of interest do"trine is the
more appropriate test to follow.
4n the "ase at bar, petitioner used inde"ent and obs"ene language and a three 6'-
month suspension was slapped on him for brea"h of )!&C, rules. 4n this setting, the
assertion by petitioner of his en0oyment 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.
After 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 government9s
interest to prote"t and promote the interests and welfare of the "hildren ade8uately
buttresses the reasonable "urtailment and valid restraint on petitioner9s prayer to "ontinue
as program host of Ang %ating %aan during the suspension period.
3o 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 en0oyment of su"h right, a free,
stable, effe"tive, and progressive demo"rati" state would be diffi"ult to attain. Arrayed
against the freedom 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". 16, Art. 44 of the 1.7- 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
pre0udi"e their general well-being. !he Arti"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.@
1:DBD7C

4ndisputably, 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. 4t has a "ompelling interest in helping parents, through regulatory
me"hanisms, prote"t their "hildren9s minds from e(posure to undesirable materials and
"orrupting e(perien"es. !he Constitution, no less, in fa"t en0oins 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.
1:;
BD.C
4n 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.
1:-B;=C
%etitioner9s offensive and obs"ene language uttered in a television broad"ast,
without doubt, was easily a""essible to the "hildren. 5is statements "ould have e(posed
"hildren to a language that is una""eptable in everyday use. As su"h, the welfare of
"hildren and the State9s mandate to prote"t and "are for them, as parens patriae,
1:7B;1C
"onstitute a substantial and "ompelling government interest in regulating petitioner9s
utteran"es in !F broad"ast as provided in %D 1.7;.
1:: BD-C
4d.
1:D BD7C
,ernas, supra note /-, at 71.
1:; BD.C
C13S!4!A!413, Art. 44, Se". 16.
1:- B;=C
4d., id., Se". 1/.
1:7 B;1C
4d.
17D
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
pre0udi"ed by offensive language, thus:
B,Croad"asting is uni8uely a""essible to "hildren, even those too young to read.
Although Cohen9s written message, B?$u"k the Draft@C, might have been in"omprehensible
to a first grader, %a"ifi"a9s broad"ast "ould have enlarged a "hild9s vo"abulary in an instant.
1ther forms of 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. >e held in +ins'erg v.
(e? )or@ that the government9s interest in the ?well-being of its youth@ and in supporting
?parents9 "laim to authority in their own household@ 0ustified 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 0ustify 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:
( ( ( 4t 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. As was
observed by Cir"uit Court of Appeals <udge <erome $rank, it is hardly the "on"ern of the
law to deal with the se(ual fantasies of the adult population. 4t "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.
1:.B;/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 0ustified the restraint
on the !F broad"ast grounded on the following "onsiderations: 1' the use of television
with its uni8ue a""essibility to "hildren, as a medium of broad"ast of a patently offensive
spee"h# /' the time of broad"ast# and 6' the ?2@ rating of the Ang %ating %aan program.
And in agreeing with )!&C,, the "ourt takes sto"k of and "ites with approval the
following e("erpts from ACC:
4t 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 +liGabethan "omedy. >e have not de"ided that an o""asional e(pletive in
either setting would 0ustify any san"tion. ( ( ( !he B$$C9sC de"ision rested entirely on a
nuisan"e rationale under whi"h "onte(t is all important. !he "on"ept re8uires "onsideration
of a host of variables. !he time of day was emphasiGed by the B$$CC. !he "ontent of the
program in whi"h the language is used will affe"t the "omposition of the audien"e ( ( (. As
)r. <usti"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.9 >e simply hold that when the B$CCC finds
that a pig has entered the parlor, the e(er"ise of its regulatory power does not depend on
proof that the pig is obs"ene. Citation omitted.'
1:. B;/C
Supra note /;, at -/..
17;
!here "an be no 8uibbling that the remarks in 8uestion petitioner uttered on prime-
time television are blatantly inde"ent if not outright obs"ene. 4t is the kind of spee"h that
%D 1.7; pros"ribes ne"essitating the e(er"ise by )!&C, of statutory dis"iplinary powers.
4t is the kind of spee"h that the State has the inherent prerogative, nay duty, to regulate and
prevent should su"h a"tion served and further "ompelling state interests. 1ne who utters
inde"ent, insulting, or offensive words on television when unsuspe"ting "hildren are in the
audien"e is, in the graphi" language of ACC, a ?pig in the parlor.@ %ubli" interest would be
served if the ?pig@ is reasonably restrained or even removed from the ?parlor.@
,r*o , pe#i#io'erN7 o((e'7i*e "') i')ece'# l"'&u"&e c"' 8e 7u8Iec#e) #o prior
re7#r"i'#.
%etitioner theoriGes that the three 6'-month suspension is either prior restraint or
subse8uent punishment that, however, in"ludes prior restraint, albeit indire"tly.
A(#er " re*iew o( #%e ("c#7, #%e Cour# (i')7 #%"# w%"# MTRC4 i$po7e) o'
pe#i#io'er i7 "' ")$i'i7#r"#i*e 7"'c#io' or 7u87eBue'# pu'i7%$e'# (or %i7 o((e'7i*e
"') o87ce'e l"'&u"&e i' An* >atin* >aan .
!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 pre0udi"ial effe"ts of
unprote"ted spee"h. %D 1.7; was passed "reating the ,oard of &eview for )otion
%i"tures and !elevision now )!&C,' and whi"h re8uires 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 <usti"e &eynato S. %uno, the Court wrote:
>e thus re0e"t petitioner9s postulate that its religious program is per se beyond
review by the respondent ,oard. 4ts 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. !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. ( ( (
( ( (
>hile the thesis has a lot to "ommend itself, we are not ready to hold that B%D
1.7;C is un"onstitutional for Congress to grant an administrative body 8uasi-0udi"ial power
to preview and "lassify !F programs and enfor"e its de"ision sub0e"t to review by our
"ourts. As far ba"k as 1./1, we upheld this setup in "otto vs. $ui5, viG:
17-
?!he use of the mails by private persons is in the nature of a privilege whi"h "an be
regulated in order to avoid its abuse. %ersons possess no absolute right to put into the mail
anything they please, regardless of its "hara"ter.@
1D=B;6C
,ernas adds:
Ander the de"ree a movie "lassifi"ation board is made the arbiter of what movies
and television programs or parts of either are fit for publi" "onsumption. 4t de"ides what
movies are ?immoral, inde"ent, "ontrary to law andEor good "ustoms, in0urious to the
prestige of the &epubli" of the %hilippines or its people,@ and what ?tend to in"ite
subversion, insurre"tion, rebellion or sedition,@ or ?tend to undermine the faith and
"onfiden"e of the people in their government andEor duly "onstituted authorities,@ et".
)oreover, its de"isions are e(e"utory unless stopped by a "ourt.
1D1B;:C
)oreover, in M&$C v. A"-C( roadcasting Corporation,
1D/B;DC
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 re8uired to get a permit before they
air their television programs. Conse8uently, their right to en0oy their freedom of spee"h is
sub0e"t to that re8uirement. As lu"idly e(plained by <usti"e Dante 1. !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 other9s signals. 4n this s"heme,
station owners and broad"asters in effe"t waived their right to the full en0oyment of their
right to freedom of spee"h in radio and television programs and impliedly agreed that said
right may be sub0e"t to prior restraintXdenial of permit or subse8uent punishment, like
suspension or "an"ellation of permit, among others.
T%e #%ree ,3! $o'#%7 7u7pe'7io' i' #%i7 c"7e i7 'o# " prior re7#r"i'# o' #%e ri&%#
o( pe#i#io'er #o co'#i'ue wi#% #%e 8ro")c"7# o( An* >atin* >aan "7 " per$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 7u87eBue'# 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* >atin* >aan . 4t is a san"tion that the )!&C, may validly
impose under its "harter without running afoul of the free spee"h "lause. And the
imposition is separate and distin"t from the "riminal a"tion the ,oard may take pursuant to
Se". 6i' of %D 1.7; and the remedies that may be availed of by the aggrieved private party
under the provisions on libel or tort, if appli"able. As 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 petitioner9s 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
en0oyment of his freedom of spee"h to regulation under %D 1.7; and its 4&& as television
1D= B;6C
2.&. 3o. 11.;-6, <uly /;, 1..;, /D. SC&A D/., D::, DD/.
1D1 B;:C
Supra note D;, at /6D.
1D/ B;DC
2.&. 3o. 1DD/7/, <anuary 1-, /==D, ::7 SC&A D-D.
177
station owners, program produ"ers, and hosts have impliedly a""epted the power of
)!&C, to regulate the broad"ast industry.
3either "an petitioner9s virtual inability to speak in his program during the period of
suspension be plausibly treated as prior restraint on future spee"h. $or viewed in its proper
perspe"tive, the suspension is in the nature of an intermediate penalty for uttering an
unprote"ted form of spee"h. 4t is definitely a lesser punishment than the permissible
"an"ellation of e(hibition or broad"ast permit or li"ense. 4n fine, the suspension meted was
simply part of the duties of the )!&C, in the enfor"ement and administration of the law
whi"h it is tasked to implement. Fiewed in its proper "onte(t, the suspension sought to
penaliGe past spee"h made on prime-time ?2@ rated !F program# it does not bar future
spee"h of petitioner in other television programs# it is a permissible subse8uent
administrative san"tion# it should not be "onfused with a prior restraint on spee"h. >hile
not on all fours, the Court, in M&$C,
1D6B;;C
sustained the power of the )!&C, to penaliGe
a broad"ast "ompany for e(hibitingEairing a pre-taped !F episode without ,oard
authoriGation in violation of Se". - of %D 1.7;.
Any 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. As 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 sub0e"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 petitioner9s television program is 0ustified, and does not "onstitute
prohibited prior restraint. 4t behooves the Court to respond to the needs of the "hanging
times, and "raft 0urispruden"e to refle"t these times.
$inally, petitioner argues that there has been undue delegation of legislative power,
as %D 1.7; 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.
4n Edu v. Ericta, the Court dis"ussed the matter of undue delegation of legislative
power in the following wise:
4t 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, sub0e"t to the e("eption that lo"al governments may over lo"al affairs
parti"ipate in its e(er"ise. >hat "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 in8uiry must be dire"ted to the
1D6 B;;C
Supra note ;D.
17.
s"ope and definiteness of the measure ena"ted. !he legislature does not abdi"ate its
fun"tions when it des"ribes what 0ob must be done, who is to do it, and what is the s"ope of
his authority. $or a "omple( e"onomy, that may indeed be the only way in whi"h the
legislative pro"ess "an go forward. A distin"tion has rightfully been made between
delegation of power to make laws whi"h ne"essarily involves a dis"retion as to what it shall
be, whi"h "onstitutionally may not be done, and delegation of authority or dis"retion as to
its e(e"ution to be e(er"ised under and in pursuan"e of the law, to whi"h no valid ob0e"tion
"an be made. !he Constitution is thus not to be regarded as denying the legislature the
ne"essary resour"es of fle(ibility and pra"ti"ability.
!o avoid the taint of unlawful delegation, there must be a standard, whi"h implies at
the very least that the legislature itself determines matters of prin"iple and lays down
fundamental poli"y. 1therwise, the "harge of "omplete abdi"ation may be hard to repel. A
standard thus defines legislative poli"y, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and
spe"ifies the publi" agen"y to apply it. 4t indi"ates the "ir"umstan"es under whi"h the
legislative "ommand is to be effe"ted. 4t is the "riterion by whi"h legislative purpose may
be "arried out. !hereafter, the e(e"utive or administrative offi"e designated may in
pursuan"e of the above guidelines promulgate supplemental rules and regulations.
1D:B;-C
,ased on the foregoing pronoun"ements and analyGing the law in 8uestion,
pe#i#io'erN7 pro#e7#"#io' "8ou# u')ue )ele&"#io' o( le&i7l"#i*e power (or #%e 7ole
re"7o' #%"# 5/ 1966 )oe7 'o# pro*i)e (or " r"'&e o( pe'"l#ie7 (or *iol"#io' o( #%e l"w
i7 u'#e'"8le. Hi7 #%e7i7 i7 #%"# MTRC4, i' pro$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.
%etitioner9s posture is flawed by the erroneous assumptions holding it together, the
first assumption being that %D 1.7; does not pres"ribe the imposition of, or authoriGe the
)!&C, to impose, penalties for violators of %D 1.7;. As 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 ob0e"tionable pi"tures, programs, and materials shall be
e(hibited andEor broad"ast by television. Complementing this provision is Se". 6k' 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 ob0e"tives of Bthe lawC.@ As
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.
As the Court said in C2ave5 v. (ational Housing Aut2ority:
( ( ( B>Chen a general grant of power is "onferred or duty en0oined, every
parti"ular power ne"essary for the e(er"ise of the one or the performan"e of the other is
also "onferred. ( ( ( B>Chen the statute 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.
1DDB;7C
1D: B;-C
3o. *-6/=.;, 1"tober /:, 1.-=, 6D SC&A :71, :.;-:.-.
1DD B;7C
Supra note 1-# "iting Angara v. Electoral Commission, ;6 %hil. 16. 1.6;'# #rovident &ree Aarms, Inc. v. atario, Jr.,
2.&. 3o. .//7D, )ar"h /7, 1..:, /61 SC&A :;6.
1.=
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. And 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 4&& of %D 1.7; in a""ordan"e with Se". 6a' 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 A"t, and the
a""omplishment of its purposes and ob0e"tives ( ( (.@ And Chapter Q444, Se". 1 of the 4&&
providing:
Se"tion 1. F41*A!413S A3D AD)434S!&A!4F+ SA3C!413S.II>ithout
pre0udi"e to the immediate filing of the appropriate "riminal a"tion and the immediate
seiGure of the pertinent arti"les pursuant to Se"tion 16, "'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
Administrative %enalties atta"hed without pre0udi"e to the power of the ,oard to amend it
when the need arises. 4n the meantime the e(isting revised !able of Administrative
%enalties shall be enfor"ed. +mphasis added.'
!his is, in the final analysis, no more than a measure to spe"ifi"ally implement the
afore8uoted provisions of Se". 6d' and k'. Contrary to what petitioner implies, the 4&&
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".

4n Se". 6"', 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 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 ob0e"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.
1D;B;.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-=C
Administrative 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 sub0e"ts of governmental regulations, and the
in"reased diffi"ulty of administering the law.@
1D7B-1C
Allowing 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
1D; B;.C
#eople v. Maceren, 3o. *-6/1;;, 1"tober 17, 1.--, -. SC&A :D=, :D7.
1D- B-=C
4d.
1D7 B-1C
4d.
1.1
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 1.7;, i#7 )eci7io' #o 7u7pe') pe#i#io'er $u7# 8e $o)i(ie), (or
'ow%ere i' #%"# i77u"'ce, p"r#icul"rly #%e powerF)e(i'i'& Sec. 3 'or i' #%e MTRC4
Sc%e)ule o( A)$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"$7. !he )!&C,, to be sure, may prohibit the broad"ast of
su"h television programs or "an"el permits for e(hibition, but it may not suspend television
personalities, for su"h would be beyond its 0urisdi"tion. !he )!&C, "annot e(tend its
e(er"ise of regulation beyond what the law provides. 1nly persons, offenses, and penalties
"learly falling "learly within the letter and spirit of %D 1.7; will be "onsidered to be within
the de"ree9s penal or dis"iplinary operation. And when it e(ists, the reasonable doubt must
be resolved in favor of the person "harged with violating the statute and for whom the
penalty is sought. !hus, the )!&C,9s de"ision in Administrative Case 3o. =1-=: dated
September /-, /==: and the subse8uent order issued pursuant to said de"ision must be
modified. T%e 7u7pe'7io' 7%oul) co*er o'ly #%e #ele*i7io' pro&r"$ 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.
4n ending, what petitioner obviously advo"ates is an unrestri"ted spee"h paradigm
in whi"h absolute permissiveness is the norm. %etitioner9s flawed belief that he may
simply utter gutter profanity on television without adverse "onse8uen"es, under the guise of
free spee"h, does not lend itself to a""eptan"e in this 0urisdi"tion. >e 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 Adm. Case 3o. =1-=: dated
September /-, /==: is hereby A..IRME/ with the MO/I.ICATIO- of limiting the
suspension to the program Ang %ating %aan. As thus modified, the fallo of the )!&C,
shall read as follows:
>5+&+$1&+, in view of all the foregoing, a De"ision is hereby rendered,
imposing a penalty of THREE ,3! MO-THS S3S5E-SIO- o' #%e #ele*i7io' pro&r"$,
An* >atin* >aan, sub0e"t of the instant petition.
/ISSE-TI-: O5I-IO-, Ju7#ice A'#o'io C"rpio.
4 dissent be"ause the three-month suspension of petitioner9s !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'& @%elloC #o *iewer7, i' %i7 TV pro&r"$. !he suspension bars the publi" airing of
petitioner9s !F program regardless of whatever sub0e"t matter petitioner, or anyone else,
wishes to dis"uss in petitioner9s !F program.
1./
!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 ( ( (.@
159[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. 1ur libels laws punish with fine, imprisonment or
damages libelous language already #ttered or p#.li"hed.
160[2]
1ur tort laws also allow
re"overy of damages for tortious spee"h already #ttered or p#.li"hed.
161[3]
5owever, 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 en0oin or punish an e(pression that has yet to be uttered or written.
4ndeed, 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. 1therwise, many of the radio and !F politi"al programs will have to be
banned for the fre8uent use of "usswords and other libelous language. +ven 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.
4n the present "ase, the three-month preventive suspension of petitioner9s !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' EApre77io'
!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 "ensor9s prior re7#r"i'# on e(pression.
!he leading Ameri"an "ase of (ear v. Minnesota
162[4]
tea"hes us that #%e pri$or)i"l
purpo7e o( #%e .ree EApre77io' Cl"u7e i7 #o pre*e'# prior re7#r"i'# o' eApre77io'.
1D.
B1C
Se"tion :, Arti"le 444, Constitution.
1;=
B/C
Arti"le 6D6-6D., &evised %enal Code# Arti"le 66, Civil Code.
1;1
B6C
Arti"le /;, Civil Code.
1;/
B:C

/76 A.S. ;.- 1.61'.
1.6
!his well-settled rule, however, is sub0e"t to e("eptions narrowly "arved out by
"ourts over time be"ause of ne"essity. 4n this 0urisdi"tion, we re"ogniGe only four
e("eptions, namely: por'o&r"p%y,
17?

=@>
("l7e or $i7le")i'& ")*er#i7e$e'#,
17A

=7>
")*oc"cy
o( i$$i'e'# l"wle77 "c#io',
17@

=B>
"') )"'&er #o '"#io'"l 7ecuri#y .
166[8]
1nly in these
instan"es may e(pression be sub0e"t to prior restraint. All o#%er eApre77io' i7 'o# 7u8Iec#
#o prior re7#r"i'#.
Although pornography, false or misleading advertisement, advo"a"y of imminent
lawless a"tion, and e(pression endangering national se"urity may be sub0e"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 0ustifying su"h prior restraint.
167[9]

!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 sub0e"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'#.
168[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.@
169[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 sub0e"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 sub0e"t
"ontent-neutral restraint to intermediate s"rutiny.
Su87eBue'# 5u'i7%$e'# o( EApre77io'
1;6
BDC
+on5ales v. Sala?-Satig'a@, /// %hil. //D 1.7D'.
1;:
B;C
#2armaceutical and Healt2 Care Association of t2e #2ilippines v. %uCue III, 2.&. 3o. 1-6=6:, . 1"tober /==-, D6D
SC&A /;D.
1;D
B-C
Eastern roadcasting Corporation v. %ans, 3o. /// %hil. 1D1 1.7D'.
1;;
B7C
4d.
1;-
B.C
Iglesia ni Cristo 6I(C9 v. Court of Appeals, 2.&. 3o. 11.;-6, /; <uly 1..;, /D. SC&A D/.# (e? )or@ &imes v.
!nited "tates, :=6 A.S. -16 1.-1'.
1;7
B1=C
ayan v. Ermita, 2.&. 3os. 1;.767, 1;.7:7 and 1;.771, /D April /==;, :77 SC&A //;.
1;.
B11C
Se"tion 11/', Arti"le QF4, Constitution.
1.:
!he rule is also well-settled that e(pression "annot be sub0e"t to subse8uent
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 ( ( (.@ 5owever,
"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 sub0e"t to prior
restraint. 4f a "ertain e(pression is sub0e"t to prior restraint, its utteran"e or publi"ation in
violation of the lawful restraint naturally sub0e"ts the person responsible to subse8uent
punishment. !hus, a"ts of pornography,
170[12]
false or misleading advertisement,
171[13]
advo"a"y of imminent lawless a"tion,
172[14]
and endangering national se"urity,
173[15]
are all
punishable under the law.
!wo other e("eptions are defamation,
174[16]
whi"h in"ludes libel and slander, and
tortious spee"h.
175[17]
Defamatory and tortious spee"h, per se, are not sub0e"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. 1n"e defamatory or tortuous spee"h rises to the level of
advo"a"y of imminent lawless a"tion, then it may be sub0e"t to prior restraint be"ause it is
seditious
176[18]
but not be"ause it is defamatory or tortious. Defamation and tortious "ondu"t,
however, may be sub0e"t to subse8uent punishment, "ivilly or "riminally.
$ighting words are not sub0e"t to subse8uent 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 sub0e"t
to subse8uent punishment.
177[19]
As aptly stated, ?one man9s vulgarity may be another
man9s lyri".@
178[20]

I( pro("'e or *ul&"r l"'&u"&e liLe @.ucL #%e )r"(#C i7 'o# 7u8Iec# #o
7u87eBue'# pu'i7%$e'#, #%e' wi#% $ore re"7o' i# c"''o# 8e 7u8Iec# #o prior re7#r"i'#.
>ithout a law punishing the a"tual utteran"e or publi"ation of an e(pression, an e(pression
"annot be sub0e"t to prior restraint be"ause su"h e(pression is not unlawful or illegal.
1-=
B1/C
Arti"le /=1, &evised %enal Code.
1-1
B16C
Se"tion ;a', )ilk Code.
1-/
B1:C
Arti"le 1:/, &evised %enal Code.
1-6
B1DC
Arti"le 167, &evised %enal Code.
1-:
B1;C
See note /.
1-D
B1-C
See note 6.
1-;
B17C
Arti"les 167 and 1:/, &evised %enal Code.
1--
B1.C
Co2en v. California, :=6 A.S. 1D 1.-1'.
1-7
B/=C
4d.
1.D
%rior restraint is more deleterious to freedom of e(pression than subse8uent
punishment. Although subse8uent 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 three-month suspension of petitioner9s !F program, being a prior
restraint on e(pression, has far graver ramifi"ations than any possible subse8uent
punishment of petitioner.
T%reeFMo'#% Su7pe'7io' i7 " 5ro%i8i#e) 5rior Re7#r"i'#
!he three-month suspension of petitioner9s !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. A prior restraint may
be 0ustified only if the e(pression falls under any of the four types of e(pression that may
be sub0e"t to prior restraint, namely, pornography, false or misleading advertisement,
advo"a"y of imminent lawless a"tion, and danger to national se"urity.
1bviously, what petitioner uttered does not fall under any of the four types of
e(pression that may be sub0e"t to prior restraint. >hat 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
3o matter how offensive, profane or vulgar petitioner9s 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, petitioner9s offensive, profane or vulgar
language "annot be sub0e"t to prior restraint but may be sub0e"t to subse8uent punishment
if defamatory or tortious.
Any prior restraint is strongly presumed to be un"onstitutional and the government
bears a heavy burden of 0ustifying su"h prior restraint.
179[21]
Su"h prior restraint must pass
the "lear and present danger test. T%e $"Iori#y opi'io', w%ic% i$po7e7 " prior re7#r"i'#
o' eApre77io', 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 0ustifi"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. +ven
1-.
B/1C
See note ..
1.;
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 people9s right to speak
freely be"ause of su"h past utteran"es.
4n 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 @"8ri)&i'& #%e (ree)o$ o( 7peec%, o(
eApre77io', or o( #%e pre77.C 4f Congress "annot pass su"h a law, neither "an respondent
)!&C, promulgate a rule or a de"ision suspending for three months petitioner9s
"onstitutional right to freedom of e(pression. And 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, 16- SC&A -1-
/. 3ew Jork !imes vs. A.S., :=6 A.S. -16 Any system of prior restraints of e(pression
"omes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its validity'
6. 3ear vs. )innesota, /76 A.S. ;.-
:. !imes $ilm vs. City of Chi"ago, 6;D A.S. :6
D. $reedman vs. )aryland, 67= A.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, 1=/ %hil. 1D/
/. &ead again the &eyes and &uiG "ases, supra
6. &ead again Oaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan, 2& 3o. -.;=--=-P Oaldivar vs.
2onGales, 2& 3o. 7=D-7, $ebruary 1, 1.7.
7. T%e 8"l"'ci'&Fo(Fi'#ere7# #e7# ,0%e' " p"r#icul"r co')uc# i7 re&ul"#e) i' #%e
i'#ere7# o( #%e pu8lic or)er, "') #%e re&ul"#io' re7ul#7 i' "' i')irec#, co')i#io'"l,
p"r#i"l "8ri)&$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&A :-;
1.-
/. 2itlow vs. 3ew Jork, /;7 A.S. ;D/, in"luding the "riti"ism on this test by
<usti"e 5olmes
6. See also Oaldivar "ase above
CHA5TER VI F THE -O-FESTA4LISHME-T
O. RELI:IO- CLA3SE
Sec#io' 1. -o l"w 7%"ll 8e $")e re7pec#i'& #%e
e7#"8li7%$e'# o( reli&io', or pro%i8i#i'& #%e (ree eAerci7e
#%ereo(. T%e (ree eAerci7e "') e'Ioy$e'# o( reli&iou7
pro(e77io' "') wor7%ip, wi#%ou# )i7cri$i'"#io' or
pre(ere'ce 7%"ll (ore*er 8e "llowe). -o reli&iou7 #e7# 7%"ll
8e reBuire) (or #%e eAerci7e 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, <.
&espondent is the Court interpreter of &!C ,ran"h /D6, *as %inas City.
Complainant re8uested 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. +strada believes that +s"ritor is "ommitting a grossly immoral a"t whi"h
tarnishes the image of the 0udi"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, <r. more than /=
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 <ehovah9s >itnesses and the >at"h !ower So"iety#
!hat the "on0ugal arrangement was in "onformity with their religious beliefs#
!hat the "on0ugal arrangement with Ruilapio has the approval of her "ongregation.
+s"ritor likewise "laimed that she had e(e"uted a ?D+C*A&A!413 1$ %*+D2432
$A4!5$A*3+SS@ in a""ordan"e with her religion whi"h allows members of the <ehovah9s
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.
5+*D:
+s"ritor9s "on0ugal 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 en0oyed. 43 !5+ A&+A 1$ &+*4241AS +Q+&C4S+ AS A %&+$+&&+D
1.7
$&++D1), 51>+F+&, )A3 S!A3DS ACC1A3!A,*+ !1 A3 AA!51&4!J
5425+& !5A3 !5+ S!A!+, 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. 4n the absen"e of a showing that the state interest e(ists, man must be allowed to
subs"ribe to the 4nfinite.
+s"ritor was therefore held not administratively liable for grossly immoral "ondu"t.
$&++D1) 1$ &+*42413 $&++D1) 1$ &+*42413
-any spe"ifi" system of belief, worship or "ondu"t, often involving a "ode of ethi"s
and philosophy.
-A 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.
81tron* fene" (a)e *ood nei*h.or"A. !he idea is to delineate the boundaries
between two institutions and prevent en"roa"hments by one against the other.
!he do"trine "uts both ways. 4t is not only the State that is prohibited from
interfering in purely e""lesiasti"al affairs# the Chur"h is likewise barred from meddling in
purely se"ular matters.
313-S!A,*4S5)+3! C*AAS+:
4t simply means ?that the State "annot set up a "hur"h# nor pass laws whi"h aids one
religion# aid all religion, or prefer one religion over another nor for"e nor influen"e a
person to go to or remain away from "hur"h against his will# or for"e him to profess a belief
or disbelief# that the State "annot openly or se"retly parti"ipate in the affairs of any
religious organiGation or group and vi"e versa@ +F+&S13 FS. ,1A&D 1$
+DACA!413, 66= AS 1'
!his "lause seeks to prote"t:
Foluntarism---must "ome into e(isten"e through the voluntary support of its members#
4nsulation from politi"al pro"essXgrowth through voluntary support of its members will
not take pla"e if there is intervention from the State.
!here will be no violation of the non-establishment "lause if:
the statute has a se"ular legislative purpose#
its prin"ipal or primary effe"t is one that neither advan"es nor inhibits religion# and
it does not foster an e("essive government entanglement with religion. *+)13 FS.
MA&!O)A3, :=6 AS ;=/'
!he government is neutral and while prote"ting all, it prefers none and disparages none.
?All@ here applies both to the believer and the non-believer. $&++D1) 1$ &+*42413
1..
43C*AD+S $&++D1) $&1) &+*42413# !5+ &425! !1 >1&54% 43C*AD+S
!5+ &425! 31! !1 >1&S54%.
SCHOOL 5RAYER CASE ,E-:EL VS. VITALE, 3; 3S 291!
4t is un"onstitutional for a s"hool to re8uire the students to re"ite a prayer
"omposed by the ,oard of &egents at the starts of the day9s "lass. ?4t is no part of the
business of government to "ompose offi"ial prayers for any group of the Ameri"an %eople.@
SCHOOL /ISTRICT O. A4I-:TO- VS. SCHEM55, 32 3S 9;3
4t is un"onstitutional for a law to re8uire that at least 1= verses from the 5oly ,ible
be read daily without "omment be"ause the same "onstitute a religious e(er"ise whi"h
violates the non-establishment "lause.
+OAR> O6 ,>@CAT/ON <1. A99,N, =?2 @1 2=4 +OAR> O6 ,>@CAT/ON <1. A99,N, =?2 @1 2=4
A law re8uiring the ,oard of +du"ation to lend te(tbooks free of "harge to all
students from grades --1/ of paro"hial s"hool. !his is "onstitutional sin"e it is not the
paro"hial s"hool whi"h gets the benefits but the parents.
E*E$"O( *". OA$% OA E%!CA&IO(, ::, !" . E*E$"O( *". OA$% OA E%!CA&IO(, ::, !" .
!he law authoriGing reimbursement of transportation e(penses of s"hool "hildren
going to and from paro"hial s"hools is not violative of the non-establishment "lause
be"ause it will be the parents who get benefits, not the paro"hial s"hool.
RI:HT TO RELI:IO3S 5RO.ESSIO- A-/ 0ORSHI5 HAS T0O AS5ECTSH
". .ree)o$ #o 8elie*e+ "')
8. .ree)o$ #o "c#.
43 the first, su"h freedom is absolute. 5e may indulge in his own theories about life
and death# worship any god he "hooses, or none at all. 5e may not be punished even if he
"annot prove what he believes.
4n the se"ond, if the individual e(ternaliGes what he believes, his freedom to do so
be"omes sub0e"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. +(ample: ?2o forth and multiply---
"annot marry several times 0ust to "omply.
%+1%*+ FS. *A2)A3 P O1SA, 67 1.2. 1;-; %+1%*+ FS. *A2)A3 P O1SA, 67 1.2. 1;-;
Avoiding military duties based on religious grounds is not allowed in the
%hilippines be"ause of Se"tion :, Arti"le 44X!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<. I( $E "!MME$", :08 !" 8<.
!he a"t of the 4llinois 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 4llinois
whi"h re8uires mandatory servi"e in the military in times of war was reversed by the AS
Supreme Court stating that this "onstitutes a violation of the 1
st
Amendment whi"h
guarantees religious freedom.
1. &eligious freedom in relation to impairment of "ontra"ts and the right to 0oin
asso"iations,6; SC&A ::D
/. &ead:
1. Aglipay vs. &uiG, ;: %hil. /=1
/. 2ar"es vs. +stenGo, 1=: SC&A D1=
6. 43M vs. 2ironella, 1=; SC&A 1
:. Ameri"an ,ible So"iety vs. City of )anila, 1=1 %hil. 6.7
D. 2erona vs. Se". of +du"ation, 1=; %hil. 11
;. %amil vs. !eleron, 3ovember /=, 1.-7
-. Fi"toriano vs. +liGalde &ope, D. SC&A D:
-. 2erman vs. ,arangan, 16D SC&A D1:
A-: LA/LA/ L:4T 5ARTY VS. COMELEC, :.R. -o. 19;169, April , 9;1;
/EL CASTILLO, J.H
!his is a %etition for Certiorari under &ule ;D of the &ules of Court, with an appli"ation for a writ
of preliminary mandatory in0un"tion, filed by Ang Ladlad *2,! %arty Ang Ladlad' against the
&esolutions of the Commission on +le"tions C1)+*+C' dated 3ovember 11, /==. the $irst Assailed
&esolution' and De"ember 1;, /==. the Se"ond Assailed &esolution' in S%% 3o. =.-//7 %*'
"olle"tively, the Assailed &esolutions'. !he "ase has its roots in the C1)+*+C9s refusal to a""redit Ang
Ladlad as a party-list organiGation under &epubli" A"t &A' 3o. -.:1, otherwise known as the %arty-*ist
System A"t.
Ang Ladlad is an organiGation "omposed of men and women who identify themselves as lesbians,
gays, bise(uals, or trans-gendered individuals *2,!s'. 4n"orporated in /==6, Ang Ladlad first applied for
registration with the C1)+*+C in /==;. !he appli"ation for a""reditation was denied on the ground that
the organiGation had no substantial membership base. 1n August 1-, /==., Ang Ladlad again filed a
%etition for registration with the C1)+*+C.
,efore the C1)+*+C, petitioner argued that the *2,! "ommunity is a marginaliGed and under-
represented se"tor that is parti"ularly disadvantaged be"ause of their se(ual orientation and gender identity#
that *2,!s are vi"tims of e("lusion, dis"rimination, and violen"e# that be"ause of negative so"ietal
attitudes, *2,!s are "onstrained to hide their se(ual orientation# and that Ang Ladlad "omplied with the 7-
point guidelines enun"iated by this Court in Ang agong ayani-OAD La'or #arty v. Commission on
Elections . Ang Ladlad laid out its national membership base "onsisting of individual members and
organiGational supporters, and outlined its platform of governan"e.
/=1
1n 3ovember 11, /==., after admitting the petitioner9s eviden"e, the C1)+*+C Se"ond
Division' dismissed the %etition on moral grounds, stating that:
; ; ; T:i2 Petition i2 di2mi22i%le on mo)al -)ound25 Petitione) de<ine2 t:e
!ili1ino Le2%ian. "ay. i2e;ual and T)an2-ende) (L"T$ Community. t:u2&
( ( ( 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:

( ( ( refers to a person9s "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 A32 *AD*AD apparently advo"ates se(ual immorality as indi"ated in the %etition9s par.
;$: KConsensual partnerships or relationships by gays and lesbians who are already of age9. 4t is further
indi"ated in par. /: of the %etition whi"h waves for the re"ord: K4n /==-, )en 5aving Se( with )en or
)S)s in the %hilippines were estimated as ;-=,=== 2enesis 1. is the history of Sodom and 2omorrah'.

*aws are deemed in"orporated in every "ontra"t, permit, li"ense, relationship, or a""reditation.
5en"e, pertinent provisions of the Civil Code and the &evised %enal Code are deemed part of the
re8uirement to be "omplied with for a""reditation.

A32 *AD*AD "ollides with Arti"le ;.D of the Civil Code whi"h defines nuisan"e as KAny a"t,
omission, establishment, business, "ondition of property, or anything else whi"h ( ( ( 6' sho"ks, defies# or
disregards de"en"y or morality ( ( (

4t also "ollides with Arti"le 16=; 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. Art 1:=. of the Civil Code provides that
KContra"ts whose "ause, ob0e"t or purpose is "ontrary to law, morals, good "ustoms, publi" order or publi"
poli"y9 are ine(istent and void from the beginning.

$inally to safeguard the morality of the $ilipino "ommunity, the &evised %enal Code, as
amended, penaliGes K4mmoral do"trines, obs"ene publi"ations and e(hibitions and inde"ent shows9 as
follows:

Art. /=1. 4mmoral 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#

>hen Ang Ladlad sought re"onsideration to the C1)+*+C +3 ,A3C, three "ommissioners
voted to overturn the $irst Assailed &esolution Commissioners 2regorio J. *arraGabal, &ene F.
Sarmiento, and Armando Felas"o', while three "ommissioners voted to deny Ang LadladLs )otion for
/=/
&e"onsideration Commissioners 3i"odemo !. $errer, *u"enito 3. !agle, and +lias &. Jusoph'. !he
C1)+*+C Chairman, breaking the tie and speaking for the ma0ority in his Separate 1pinion, upheld the
$irst Assailed &esolution, stating that:
Ladlad is applying for a""reditation as a se"toral party in the party-list system. +ven assuming
that it has properly proven its under-representation and marginaliGation, it "annot be said that Ladlad9s
e(pressed se(ual orientations per se would benefit the nation as a whole.

Se"tion / of the party-list law une8uivo"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 5ouse of &epresentatives.

4f 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#yFli7# 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' 9adlad i7 "8le #o Iu7#i(y #%"# %"*i'& $iAe) 7eAu"l
orie'#"#io'7 "') #r"'7&e')er i)e'#i#ie7 i7 8e'e(ici"l #o #%e '"#io', i#7 "pplic"#io' (or "ccre)i#"#io'
u')er #%e p"r#yFli7# 7y7#e$ will re$"i' Iu7# #%"#.

!hus, even if so"iety9s understanding, toleran"e, and a""eptan"e of *2,!9s 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 C1)+*+C likewise used the 5oly ,ible and the Moran in denying *adlad9s appli"ation.
1n <anuary :, /=1=, Ang Ladlad filed this %etition, praying that the Court annul the Assailed
&esolutions and dire"t the C1)+*+C to grant Ang LadladLs appli"ation for a""reditation. Ang Ladlad
also sought the issuan"e e> parte of a preliminary mandatory in0un"tion against the C1)+*+C, whi"h had
previously announ"ed that it would begin printing the final ballots for the )ay /=1= ele"tions by <anuary
/D, /=1=.
1n <anuary ;, /=1=, the 1ffi"e of the Soli"itor 2eneral 1S2 was ordered to file its Comment on
behalf of C1)+*+C not later than 1/:== noon of <anuary 11, /=1=. 4nstead of filing a Comment,
however, the 1S2 filed a )otion for +(tension, re8uesting that it be given until <anuary 1;, /=1= to
Comment. Somewhat surprisingly, the 1S2 later filed a Comment in support of petitioner9s appli"ation.
!hus, in order to give C1)+*+C the opportunity to fully ventilate its position, we re8uired it to file its
own "omment. !he C1)+*+C, through its *aw Department, filed its Comment on $ebruary /, /=1=.
4n the meantime, due to the urgen"y of the petition, a temporary restraining order was issued on
<anuary 1/, /=1=, effe"tive immediately and "ontinuing until further orders from this Court, dire"ting the
C1)+*+C to "ease and desist from implementing the Assailed &esolutions.
Also, on <anuary 16, /=1=, the Commission on 5uman &ights C5&' filed a )otion to 4ntervene
or to Appear as Ami"us Curiae, atta"hing thereto its Comment-in-4ntervention. !he C5& opined that the
/=6
denial of Ang LadladLs petition on moral grounds violated the standards and prin"iples of the Constitution,
the Aniversal De"laration of 5uman &ights AD5&', and the 4nternational Covenant on Civil and %oliti"al
&ights 4CC%&'. 1n <anuary 1., /=1=, we granted the C5&9s motion to intervene.
5+*D:
>e grant the petition.
Co(pliane 'ith the Re$#ire(ent" of the Con"tit#tion and Rep#.li At No. 7?C1
!he C1)+*+C denied Ang LadladLs appli"ation for registration on the ground that the *2,!
se"tor is neither enumerated in the Constitution and &A -.:1, 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$e', you#%, *e#er"'7,
o*er7e"7 worLer7, "') pro(e77io'"l7' may be registered under the party-list system. As we e(pli"itly
ruled in Ang agong ayani-OAD La'or #arty v. Commission on Elections, @#%e e'u$er"#io' o(
$"r&i'"liJe) "') u')erFrepre7e'#e) 7ec#or7 i7 'o# eAclu7i*eC. !he "ru"ial element is not whether a
se"tor is spe"ifi"ally enumerated, but whether a parti"ular organiGation "omplies with the re8uirements of
the Constitution and &A -.:1.

A "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 ;-=,=== persons# that it had 1;,1== affiliates and members around the
"ountry, and :,=:: 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:@
Abra 2ay Asso"iation
Aklan ,utterfly ,rigade A,,' I Aklan
Albay 2ay Asso"iation
Arts Center of Cabanatuan City I 3ueva +"i0a
,oys *egion I )etro )anila
Cagayan de 1ro %eople *ike As CD1 %*AS'
Can9t *ive in the Closet, 4n". C*4C' I )etro )anila
Cebu %ride I Cebu City
Cir"le of $riends
Dipolog 2ay Asso"iation I Oamboanga del 3orte
2ay, ,ise(ual, P !ransgender Jouth Asso"iation 2A,AJ'
2ay and *esbian A"tivists 3etwork for 2ender +8uality 2A*A32' I )etro )anila
2ay )en9s Support 2roup 2)S2' I )etro )anila
2ay Anited for %ea"e and Solidarity 2A%S' I *anao del 3orte
4loilo City 2ay Asso"iation I 4loilo City
Mabulig >riter9s 2roup I Camarines Sur
/=:
*esbian Advo"ates %hilippines, 4n". *+A%'
*A)43A I ,aguio City
)arikina 2ay Asso"iation I )etro )anila
)etropolitan Community Chur"h )CC' I )etro )anila
3aga City 2ay Asso"iation I 3aga City
13+ ,ACA&D4
1rder of St. Aelred 1SAe' I )etro )anila
%A% *AMA3
&ADA& %&4D+>+A&
&ainbow &ights %ro0e"t &-&ights', 4n". I )etro )anila
San <ose del )onte 2ay Asso"iation I ,ula"an
Sining Mayumanggi &oyal $amily I &iGal
So"iety of !ranse(ual >omen of the %hilippines S!&A%' I )etro )anila
Soul <ive I Antipolo, &iGal
!he *ink I Davao City
!ayabas 2ay Asso"iation I RueGon
>omen9s ,ise(ual 3etwork I )etro )anila
Oamboanga 2ay Asso"iation I Oamboanga City
Against this ba"kdrop, we find that Ang Ladlad has suffi"iently demonstrated its "omplian"e with
the legal re8uirements for a""reditation. 4ndeed, aside from C1)+*+C9s moral ob0e"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 8ualified to register as a party-list organiGation under any of the re8uisites under &A -.:1 or the
guidelines in Ang agong ayani. !he differen"e, C1)+*+C "laims, lies in Ang LadladLs morality, or
la"k thereof.
1ur Constitution provides in Ar#icle III, Sec#io' 1 #%"# @<'=o l"w 7%"ll 8e $")e re7pec#i'& "'
e7#"8li7%$e'# o( reli&io', or pro%i8i#i'& #%e (ree eAerci7e #%ereo(.C At bottom, what our non-
establishment "lause "alls for is @&o*er'$e'# 'eu#r"li#y i' reli&iou7 $"##er7.C Cle"rly, @&o*er'$e'#"l
reli"'ce o' reli&iou7 Iu7#i(ic"#io' i7 i'co'7i7#e'# wi#% #%i7 policy o( 'eu#r"li#y.C >e thus find that it was
grave violation of the non-establishment "lause for the C1)+*+C to utiliGe the ,ible and the Moran to
0ustify the e("lusion of Ang Ladlad.
&ather than relying on religious belief, the legitima"y of the Assailed &esolutions should depend,
instead, on whether the C1)+*+C is able to advan"e some 0ustifi"ation for its rulings beyond mere
"onformity to religious do"trine. 1therwise stated, government must a"t for se"ular purposes and in ways
that have primarily se"ular effe"ts. As 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. <usti"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
1therwise, if government relies upon religious beliefs in formulating publi" poli"ies and morals, the
resulting poli"ies and morals would re8uire "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. As a result,
/=D
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.
>e 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. 4t 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. 3onetheless, we re"all that
the %hilippines has not seen fit to "riminaliGe homose(ual "ondu"t. +vidently, therefore, these ?generally
a""epted publi" morals@ have not been "onvin"ingly transplanted into the realm of law.
!he Assailed &esolutions have not identified any spe"ifi" overt immoral a"t performed by Ang
Ladlad. +ven the 1S2 agrees that ?there should have been a finding by the C1)+*+C that the group9s
members have "ommitted or are "ommitting immoral a"ts.@ !he 1S2 argues:
( ( ( A 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. 4f immoral thoughts "ould be penaliGed, C1)+*+C
would have its hands full of dis8ualifi"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 re8uired for the youth. 3either has the C1)+*+C "ondes"ended to 0ustify its position that
petitioner9s admission into the party-list system would be so harmful as to irreparably damage the moral
fabri" of so"iety. >e, 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. 3onetheless, 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. 4n 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.
>e also find the C1)+*+C9s referen"e to purported violations of our penal and "ivil laws flimsy,
at best# disingenuous, at worst. Arti"le ;.: 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 0udi"ial pro"eedings. A violation of Arti"le /=1 of the &evised %enal
Code, on the other hand, re8uires proof beyond reasonable doubt to support a "riminal "onvi"tion. 4t 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 0udi"ial determination
of liability or "ulpability.
As su"h, we hold that moral disapproval, without more, is not a suffi"ient governmental interest to
0ustify e("lusion of homose(uals from parti"ipation in the party-list 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. &espondent9s blanket
0ustifi"ations give rise to the inevitable "on"lusion that the C1)+*+C targets homose(uals themselves as a
"lass, not be"ause of any parti"ular morally reprehensible a"t. 4t is this sele"tive targeting that impli"ates
our e8ual prote"tion "lause.
/=;
,$#al &rotetion
Despite the absolutism of Arti"le 444, 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. ?+8uality,@ said Aristotle, ?"onsists in the same treatment of similar persons.@
!he e8ual prote"tion "lause guarantees that no person or "lass of persons shall be deprived of the same
prote"tion of laws whi"h is en0oyed by other persons or other "lasses in the same pla"e and in like
"ir"umstan"es.
&e"ent 0urispruden"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. 4n Central an@ Employees Association, Inc. v. an@o "entral
ng #ilipinas, we de"lared that ?BiCn our 0urisdi"tion, the standard of analysis of e8ual prote"tion
"hallenges ( ( ( have followed the Krational basis9 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 une8uivo"al brea"h of the Constitution.@
!he C1)+*+C posits that the ma0ority of the %hilippine population "onsiders homose(ual
"ondu"t as immoral and una""eptable, and this "onstitutes suffi"ient reason to dis8ualify the petitioner.
Anfortunately for the respondent, the %hilippine ele"torate has e(pressed no su"h belief. 3o law e(ists to
"riminaliGe homose(ual behavior or e(pressions or parties about homose(ual behavior. 4ndeed, even if we
were to assume that publi" opinion is as the C1)+*+C des"ribes it, the asserted state interest here I that is,
moral disapproval of an unpopular minority I is not a legitimate state interest that is suffi"ient to satisfy
rational basis review under the e8ual prote"tion "lause. !he C1)+*+C9s differentiation, and its
unsubstantiated "laim that Ang Ladlad "annot "ontribute to the formulation of legislation that would benefit
the nation, furthers no legitimate state interest other than disapproval of or dislike for a disfavored group.
4t bears stressing that our finding that C1)+*+C9s a"t of differentiating *2,!s from
heterose(uals insofar as the party-list system is "on"erned does not imply that any other law distinguishing
between heterose(uals and homose(uals under different "ir"umstan"es would similarly fail. >e disagree
with the 1S29s position that homose(uals are a "lass in themselves for the purposes of the e8ual prote"tion
"lause. >e are not prepared to single out homose(uals as a separate "lass meriting spe"ial or differentiated
treatment. >e have not re"eived suffi"ient eviden"e to this effe"t, and it is simply unne"essary to make
su"h a ruling today. %etitioner itself has merely demanded that it be re"ogniGed under the same basis as all
other groups similarly situated, and that the C1)+*+C made ?an unwarranted and impermissible
"lassifi"ation not 0ustified by the "ir"umstan"es of the "ase.@
6reedo( of ,%pre""ion and A""oiation
$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.
Any restri"tion imposed in this sphere must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Absent any
"ompelling state interest, it is not for the C1)+*+C or this Court to impose its views on the popula"e.
1therwise stated, the C1)+*+C 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. 4t follows that both e(pressions "on"erning one9s homose(uality and the a"tivity of forming a
politi"al asso"iation that supports *2,! individuals are prote"ted as well.
/=-
1ther 0urisdi"tions have gone so far as to "ategori"ally rule that even overwhelming publi"
per"eption that homose(ual "ondu"t violates publi" morality does not 0ustify "riminaliGing same-se(
"ondu"t. +uropean and Anited 3ations 0udi"ial de"isions have ruled in favor of gay rights "laimants on
both priva"y and e8uality grounds, "iting general priva"y and e8ual prote"tion provisions in foreign and
international te(ts. !o the e(tent that there is mu"h to learn from other 0urisdi"tions that have refle"ted on
the issues we fa"e here, su"h 0urispruden"e is "ertainly illuminating. !hese foreign authorities, while not
formally binding on %hilippine "ourts, may nevertheless have persuasive influen"e on the Court9s analysis.

4n the area of freedom of e(pression, for instan"e, Anited States "ourts have ruled that
e(isting free spee"h do"trines prote"t gay and lesbian rights to e(pressive "ondu"t. 4n order to
0ustify 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.@
>ith respe"t to freedom of asso"iation for the advan"ement of ideas and beliefs, in +urope, with its
vibrant human rights tradition, the +uropean Court of 5uman &ights +C5&' has repeatedly stated that a
politi"al party may "ampaign for a "hange in the law or the "onstitutional stru"tures of a state if it uses legal
and demo"rati" means and the "hanges it proposes are "onsistent with demo"rati" prin"iples. !he +C5&
has emphasiGed that politi"al ideas that "hallenge the e(isting order and whose realiGation is advo"ated by
pea"eful means must be afforded a proper opportunity of e(pression through the e(er"ise of the right of
asso"iation, even if su"h ideas may seem sho"king or una""eptable to the authorities or the ma0ority of the
population. A politi"al group should not be hindered solely be"ause it seeks to publi"ly debate "ontroversial
politi"al issues in order to find solutions "apable of satisfying everyone "on"erned. 1nly if a politi"al party
in"ites violen"e or puts forward poli"ies that are in"ompatible with demo"ra"y does it fall outside the
prote"tion of the freedom of asso"iation guarantee.
>e do not doubt that a number of our "itiGens may believe that homose(ual "ondu"t is distasteful,
offensive, or even defiant. !hey are entitled to hold and e(press that view. 1n the other hand, *2,!s and
their supporters, in all likelihood, believe with e8ual fervor that relationships between individuals of the
same se( are morally e8uivalent to heterose(ual relationships. !hey, too, are entitled to hold and e(press
that view. 5owever, as far as this Court is "on"erned, our demo"ra"y pre"ludes using the religious or moral
views of one part of the "ommunity to e("lude from "onsideration the values of other members of the
"ommunity.
1f "ourse, none of this suggests the impending arrival of a golden age for gay rights litigants. 4t
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. >e 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 /IVISIO- S35ERI-TE-/E-T O.
SCHOOLS O. CE43, M"rc% 1, 1993
2rino--A8uino, <.
/=7
$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
<ehovahSs >itnesses#
/. !hat they rrefused to take part in the flag "eremony whi"h in"ludes playing by a band or
singing the %hilippine 3ational Anthem, 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 21D#
6. !hat be"ause of their refusal to perform the foregoing a"ts as re8uired by &A 1/;D of
<uly 11, 1.DD and by Department 1rder 3o. 7 dated <uly /1, 1.DD of the D+CS making the
flag "eremony "ompulsory in all edu"ational institutions, they were e(pelled by the
respondent s"hool authorities.
5en"e this petition.
4ssue:
------
)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
5eld:

!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. Ander 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, &A 1/;D was likewise in"orporated in +(e"utive 1rder 3o. /.-,
September /1, 1.77.
1ur task is e(tremely diffi"ult for the 6=-year old de"ision of this Court in
2+&13A 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 0ob
or be e(pelled in s"hool, 4S A*4+3 !1 !5+ C13SC4+3C+ 1$ !5+ %&+S+3!
2+3+&A!413 1$ $4*4%431S >51 CA! !5+4& !++!5 13 !5+ ,4** 1$ &425!S
>54C5 2AA&A3!++S !5+4& &425!S !1 $&++ S%++C5 A3D !5+ $&++
+Q+&C4S+ 1$ &+*4241AS %&1$+SS413 A3D >1&S54% Se"tion D, Art. 444, 1.7-
Constitution'.
/=.
&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 <usti"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 sub0e"t to regulation where the belief is translated
into e(ternal a"ts that affe"t the publi" welfare.
!he sole 0ustifi"ation for a prior restraint or limitation on the e(er"ise of religious
freedom a""ording the $ormer Chief 0usti"e !eehankee in his dissenting opinion in
2erman vs. ,aranagan' 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. Absent
su"h a threat to publi" safety, the e(pulsion of the petitioners from the s"hools is not
0ustified sin"e they are not doing anything that "ould warrant their e(pulsion sin"e during
flag "eremonies, they 0ust 8uietly stand at attention to show their respe"t for the rights of
others who "hoose to parti"ipate in the solemn pro"eedings.
4n *ictoriano vs. Eli5alde $ope Dor@ers !nion, 8- "C$A 83, we upheld the
e(emption of the members of the 4glesia 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 0oin any labor group.
>e hold that a similar e(emption may be a""orded to the <ehovahSs >itnesses 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 F 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$p"ire)
eAcep# upo' l"w(ul or)er o( #%e cour#. -ei#%er 7%"ll #%e
ri&%# #o #r"*el 8e i$p"ire) eAcep# i' #%e i'#ere7# o(
'"#io'"l 7ecuri#y, pu8lic 7"(e#y, or pu8lic %e"l#%, "7 $"y
8e pro*i)e) 8y l"w.
31!+: !5+ A%%*4CA,*+ %&1F4S413 1$ !5+ 5A)A3 S+CA&4!J AC! 13 !5+
&425! !1 !&AF+*
1etion 24 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:
/1=
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.
Apon appli"ation of the prose"utor, the suspe"t9s 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.
!hese restri"tions shall be terminated upon a"8uittal 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, 1/. SC&A
/. &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
+n ban"
Cortes, <.

!his is a petition for mandamus and prohibition asking the Supreme Court to 1rder the
respondents to issue travel do"uments to the petitioners and to en0oin 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. 3o person shall be deprived of life liberty or property without due pro"ess of
law, nor shall any person be denied e8ual prote"tion of the laws.
Se"tion ;. !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. 3or
may the %resident impair the right to travel be"ause no law has authoriGed her to do so.
/11
Also, the petitioners "laim that under international law, parti"ularly the Aniversal
De"laration of 5um0an &ights guaranteed the right of the )ar"oses to return to the
%hilippines. !hus:
Ar#. 13 1' +veryone has the right to freedom of movement and residen"e within the
borders of ea"h state.
/' +veryone has the right to leave any "ountry, in"luding his own, A3D !1 &+!A&3 !1
54S C1A3!&J.
*ikewise, under the 4nternational Covenant on Civil and %oliti"al &ights, whi"h had
been ratified by the %hilippines, provides:
Ar#. 19
:' 3o 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 8uestion whi"h is
therefore beyond the 0urisdi"tion of the Court. $urthermore, they argue that the right of the
state to national se"urity prevails over individual rights, "iting Se"tion :, Art. 44 of the 1.7-
%hilippine Constitution.
4ssue:

>hether 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. 4s this a politi"al 8uestionN
/. Assuming that the %resident has the power to bar former %res. )ar"os and his family
from returning to the %hilippines, in the interest of national se"urity, publi" safety or publi"
health, has the %resident made a finding that the return of the petitioners to the %hilippines
is a "lear and present danger to national se"urity, publi" welfare or publi" health. And if she
has made that finding, have the re8uirements of due pro"ess been "omplied with in making
su"h findingN 5as there been prior noti"e to the petitionersN
5eld:

4t 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 %hilippines. !hese are what the
right to travel "onnote. +ssentially, 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 Aniversal de"laration of 5uman &ights and the 4nternational Covenant on Civil
and %oliti"al &ights treat the right to freedom of movement and abode within the territory
/1/
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-ERS 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 0ELLFCO-SI/ERE/ VIE0 THAT THE RI:HT TO RET3R-
MAY 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 eAerci7e o( ri&%#7 o( cer#"i' i')i*i)u"l7. T%e power i'*ol*e)
i7 #%e 5re7i)e'#R7 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". >ith 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, Art. F444 of the Constitution, 0udi"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 0urisdi"tion on the
part of any bran"h or instrumentality of the government.H
31!+:
!he main opinion was "on"urred in by - 0usti"es C< $ernan, 3arvasa, )elen"io-
5errera, 2an"ay"o, 2rino-A8uino, )edialdea and &egalado' or a total of 7 0usti"es in
voting in favor of D4S)4SS432 the petition. Seven 0usti"es filed separate dissenting
opinions 2utierreG, <r., CruG, %aras, $eli"iano, %adilla, ,idin and Sarmiento'.
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
2utierreG, <r., <., dissenting.

>ith all due respe"t for the ma0ority in the Court that the main issue in this "ase is not
one of power but one on &425!S. 4f 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. ,A! !5+ D+34A* 1$ !&AF+* %A%+&S 4S 31! 13+ 1$ !51S+ %1>+&S
,+CAAS+ !5+ ,4** 1$ &425!S SAJ S1. !5+&+ 4S 31 *A> %&+SC&4,432
+Q4*+ 43 $1&+423 *A3D AS !5+ %+3A*!J $1& 5A&!432 !5+ 3A!413.
. !he fears e(pressed by its representatives were based on mere "on0e"tures of politi"al and
e"onomi" destabiliGation without any single pie"e of "on"rete eviden"e to ba"k up their
apprehensions.
/16
AmaGingly, however, the ma0ority 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. CA, April 7, 1..1
&ead also:
1. Caun"a vs. SalaGar, 7/ %hil. 7D1
/. Mwong vs. %C22, De"ember -,l.7-
M"'o#oc *7. CA, 129 SCRA 129
1. %etitioner &i"ardo )anoto", <r. has ; "riminal "ases for estafa pending against him. 4n
said "ases he was admitted to bail with the $2A 4nsuran"e Corporation as surety.
5e is also involved in a "ase pending before the Se"urities and +("hange Commission.
/. !he S+C re8uested the Commissioner on 4mmigration not to "lear petitioner for
departure pending disposition of the "ase involving him. !he same was granted by the
Commissioner.
6. %etitioner subse8uently 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 Anited
States, Hrelative to his business transa"tions and opportunitiesH.
:. !he motion was denied by the lower "ourts and the matter was elevated to the Court of
Appeals whi"h also denied the same. %etitioner 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 S+C would have
0urisdi"tion over his liberty.
HEL/H
%etition denied.
a. A "ourt has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the %hilippines.
!his is a ne"essary "onse8uen"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 re8uires
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 0urisdi"tion of the %hilippines, be"ause, otherwise, said orders and pro"esses
will be nugatory, and inasmu"h as the 0urisdi"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 0urisdi"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.
/1:
d. %etitioner "ites the Court of Appeals "ase of %eople vs. Shepherd C.A.-2.&. 3o.
/6D=D-&, $eb. 16, 1.7=' as authority for his "laim that he "ould travel. !he S.C. held
however that said "ase is not s8uarely on all fours with the "ase at bar. Anlike 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. 4t 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.
:. Fillavi"en"io vs. *ukban, 6. %hil. --7
D. &oan vs. 2onGales, supra.
;. Salonga vs. 5ermoso, .- SC&A 1/1
-. &ead also the $erdinand )ar"os Cases of August P 1"tober, 1.7.
C:A&T,R </// E T:, CON1T/T@T/ONA9
RI:HT TO I-.ORMATIO-
Sec#io' . T%e ri&%# o( #%e people #o i'(or$"#io' o'
$"##er7 o( pu8lic co'cer' 7%"ll 8e reco&'iJe). Acce77 #o
o((ici"l recor)7P7%"ll 8e "((or)e) #%e ci#iJe' 7u8Iec# #o
7uc% li$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.&. 3o. 1-:6:=, 1"tober 1-, /==;, D=: SC&A
-=:
Sandoval-2utierreG, <.
T%e ."c#7H
1n $ebruary /=, /==;, Senator )iriam Defensor Santiago introdu"ed %hilippine
Senate &esolution 3o. :DD Senate &es. 3o. :DD',
17=B:C
?dire"ting an in8uiry in aid of
legislation on the anomalous losses in"urred by the %hilippines 1verseas
!ele"ommuni"ations Corporation %1!C', %hilippine Communi"ations Satellite
Corporation %54*C1)SA!', and %54*C1)SA! 5oldings Corporation %5C' due to the
alleged improprieties in their operations by their respe"tive ,oard of Dire"tors.@ !he
pertinent portions of the &esolution read:
17=B:C
Anne( ?+@ of the %etition in 2.&. 3o. 1-:617.
/1D
0HEREAS, in the last 8uarter of /==D, the representation and entertainment
e(pense of the %5C skyro"keted to %:.6 million, as "ompared to the previous year9s mere
%1=; thousand#
>5+&+AS, some board members established wholly owned %5C subsidiary "alled
!ele"ommuni"ations Center, 4n". !C4', where %5C funds are allegedly siphoned# in 17
months, over %-6 million had been allegedly advan"ed to !C4 without any a""ountability
report given to %5C and %54*C1)SA!#
>5+&+AS, the #2ilippine "tar, in its 1/ $ebruary /==/ issue reported that the
e(e"utive "ommittee of %hil"omsat has pre"ipitately released %/;D 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, sub0e"ting the "ompany to an estimated interest in"ome loss of %11./D
million in /==:#
>5+&+$1&+, 8e i# re7ol*e) #%"# #%e proper Se'"#e Co$$i##ee 7%"ll co')uc#
"' i'Buiry i' "i) o( le&i7l"#io', o' #%e "'o$"lou7 lo77e7 i'curre) 8y #%e 5%ilippi'e
O*er7e"7 Teleco$$u'ic"#io'7 Corpor"#io' ,5OTC!, 5%ilippi'e Co$$u'ic"#io'7
S"#elli#e Corpor"#io' ,5HILCOMSAT!, "') 5%ilco$7"# Hol)i'&7 Corpor"#io'7
,5HC! )ue #o #%e "lle&e) i$proprie#ie7 i' #%e oper"#io'7 8y #%eir re7pec#i*e 8o"r) o(
)irec#or7.
1n )ay 7, /==;, Chief of Staff &io C. 4no"en"io, under the authority of Senator
&i"hard <. 2ordon, wrote Chairman Camilo *. Sabio of the %C22, one of the herein
petitioners, inviting him to be one of the resour"e persons in the publi" meeting 0ointly
"ondu"ted by the Committee on +overnment Corporations and #u'lic Enterprises and
Committee on #u'lic "ervices. !he purpose of the publi" meeting was to deliberate on
Senate &es. 3o. :DD.
171B;C
1n )ay ., /==;, Chairman Sabio de"lined the invitation be"ause of prior
"ommitment.
17/B-C
A# #%e 7"$e #i$e, %e i'*oLe) Sec#io' 2,8! o( E.O. -o. 1 earlier
8uoted. 1n September 1/, /==;, at around 1=::D a.m., )a0or 2eneral ,ala0adia arrested
Chairman Sabio in his offi"e at 4&C ,uilding, 3o. 7/ +DSA, )andaluyong City and
brought him to the Senate premises where he was detained. 5en"e, Chairman Sabio filed
with the Supreme Court a petition for 2a'eas corpus against the Senate Committee on
+overnment Corporations and #u'lic Enterprises and Committee on #u'lic "ervices, their
Chairmen, Senators &i"hard 2ordon and <oker %. Arroyo and )embers. !he "ase was
do"keted as 2.&. 3o. 1-:6:=.
I S S 3 E SH
171B;C
Anne( ?$@ of the %etition in 2.&. 3o. 1-:617.
17/B-C
Anne( ?2@ of the %etition in 2.&. 3o. 1-:617.
/1;
4s the refusal of the petitioners to testify in Congress by virtue of +1 3o. 1,
Se"tion : BbC violates the "onstitutional provision on information on matters of publi"
"on"ernN
5 + * D:
Jes.
Se"tion :b' of +.1. 3o.1 whi"h was invoked by the petitioners in support of their
refusal to testify in the Senate limits the power of legislative in8uiry by e(empting all
%C22 members or staff from testifying in any 0udi"ial, legislative or administrative
pro"eeding, thus:
-o $e$8er or 7#"(( o( #%e Co$$i77io' 7%"ll 8e reBuire) #o #e7#i(y or pro)uce
e*i)e'ce i' "'y Iu)ici"l, le&i7l"#i*e or ")$i'i7#r"#i*e procee)i'& co'cer'i'& $"##er7
wi#%i' i#7 o((ici"l co&'iJ"'ce.
Su"h provision of +1 3o. 1 is un"onstitutional be"ause it violates the
"onstitutional provision ensuring the people9s a""ess to information on matters of publi"
4A-TAY RE534LIC ACT VS. COMELEC, MAY 2, 9;;, 193 SCRA 1
T%e pe#i#io'er reBue7#e) #%e COMELEC #o pu8li7% #%e i')i*i)u"l 'o$i'ee7 o(
"ll #%e p"r#yFli7# &roup7 i' or)er #%"# #%ey will 8e &ui)e) o' w%"# p"r#yFli7# &roup
7%"ll 8e 7uppor#e) 8y #%e$. T%e COMELEC %el) #%"# u')er #%e 5"r#yFli7# Ac#, 7uc%
li7# o( 'o$i'ee7 i7 co'(i)e'#i"l "') 7%oul) 'o# 8e pu8li7%e).
Hel)H
T%e COMELEC 7%oul) pu8li7% #%e li7# o( 'o$i'ee7 o( "ll #%e p"r#yFli7# &roup7.
T%i7 i7 i' "ccor)"'ce wi#% #%e ri&%# #o i'(or$"#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, <.
$a"ts:

/1-
1. 1n <une :, 1.7;, petitioner Falmonte wrote the respondent asking the latter to furnish
him "opies of former members of the ,atasang %ambansa who were able to se"ure a H"lean
loanH from the 2S4S prior to the $ebruary -, 1.7; ele"tions#
/. 1n <une 1-, 1.7;, respondent through "ounsel refused to give the petitioner a list of said
lawmakers who obtained H"lean loansH from the 2S4S on the ground that there is a
"onfidential relationship between the 2S4S and its borrowers and it would be proper for
them to preserve the same#
6. 1n <uly 1., 1.7;, the petitioners filed this instant petition.
4ssues:

1. >hether or not the "ase should be dismissed for failure to e(haust administrative
remediesN
/. >hether or not the petitioners are entitled to the do"uments sought in a""ordan"e with
their "onstitutional right to informationN
5eld:

1. 4t is well-settled in our 0urisdi"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.
4n the "ase at bar, the de"ision of the 2eneral )anager of the 2S4S is
appealableEreviewable by the 2S4S ,oard of !rustees. %etitioners did not ask the ,oard of
!rustees to review the de"ision of the respondent.
5owever, the rule on e(haustion of administrative remedies is not appli"able when only
8uestions of law is involved. %as"ual vs. %rovin"ial ,oard, 1=; %hil. :;;# Aguilar vs.
Falen"ia, := SC&A /1=# )alabanan vs. &amento, 1/. SC&A 6D..
!his is not the first time that the "ourt is "onfronted with a "ase involving the right to
information. 4n !anada vs. !uvera, 16; SC&A /-, we upheld the "itiGenSs right to
information as well as in *egaspi vs. CSC, 1D= SC&A D6= 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 -, Art. 444 whi"h provides:
!he right of the people to information on matters of publi" "on"ern shall be re"ogniGed.
A""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, sub0e"t to su"h limitations as may be
provided for by law.
!he postulate of publi" offi"e is a publi" trust as institutionaliGed in the Constitution
Se". 1, Art. Q4' 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.
/17
%etitioners are members of the media. As 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 ad0un"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. 4t is
sub0e"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 sub0e"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
2S4S is the trustee of "ontributions from the government and its employees. !he funds of
the 2S4S 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 sub0e"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. 1Gaeta,
7= %hil. 676C
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"8uire 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 ,atasang %ambansa, as petitioners may
spe"ify, sub0e"t to reasonable rules and regulations as the 2S4S may deem ne"essary.
SE-ATE O. THE 5HILI55I-ES, repre7e'#e) 8y SE-ATE 5RESI/E-T
.RA-ELI- /RILO-, ET AL., VS. EDEC. SEC. E/3AR/O ERMITA, ET AL.,
:.R. -o. 169, April 9;, 9;;6

CAR5IO MORALES, J.H

T%e ."c#7H
4n the e(er"ise of its legislative power, the Senate of the %hilippines, through its
various Senate Committees, "ondu"ts in8uiries or investigations in aid of legislation whi"h
/1.
"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 1wned and Controlled
Corporations, the Armed $or"es of the %hilippines A$%', and the %hilippine 3ational
%oli"e %3%'.

1n September /1 to /6, /==D, the Committee of the Senate as a whole issued
invitations to various offi"ials of the +(e"utive Department for them to appear on
September /., /==D as resour"e speakers in a publi" hearing on the railway pro0e"t of the
3orth *uGon &ailways Corporation with the China 3ational )a"hinery and +8uipment
2roup hereinafter 3orth &ail %ro0e"t'. !he publi" hearing was sparked by a privilege
spee"h of Senator <uan %on"e +nrile urging the Senate to investigate the alleged
overpri"ing and other unlawful provisions of the "ontra"t "overing the 3orth &ail %ro0e"t.

1n September /7, /==D, the %resident of the %hilippines issued +.1. :;:,
?+3SA&432 1,S+&FA3C+ 1$ !5+ %&43C4%*+ 1$ S+%A&A!413 1$ %1>+&S,
AD5+&+3C+ !1 !5+ &A*+ 13 +Q+CA!4F+ %&4F4*+2+ A3D &+S%+C! $1&
!5+ &425!S 1$ %A,*4C 1$$4C4A*S A%%+A&432 43 *+24S*A!4F+ 43RA4&4+S
43 A4D 1$ *+24S*A!413 A3D+& !5+ C13S!4!A!413, A3D $1& 1!5+&
%A&%1S+S,@ whi"h, pursuant to Se"tion ; thereof, took effe"t immediately. !he salient
provisions of the 1rder are as follows:

S+C!413 1. Appearance 'y Heads of %epartments efore Congress. I 4n a""ordan"e with
Arti"le F4, Se"tion // of the Constitution and to implement the Constitutional provisions
on the separation of powers between "o-e8ual bran"hes of the government, "ll %e")7 o(
)ep"r#$e'#7 o( #%e EAecu#i*e 4r"'c% o( #%e &o*er'$e'# 7%"ll 7ecure #%e co'7e'# o(
#%e 5re7i)e'# prior #o "ppe"ri'& 8e(ore ei#%er Hou7e o( Co'&re77.
>hen the se"urity of the State or the publi" interest so re8uires and the %resident so states
in writing, the appearan"e shall only be "ondu"ted in e(e"utive session.
S+C!413. /. (ature, "cope and Coverage of E>ecutive #rivilege. H
a' 3ature 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.&. 3o. .D6;-, /6 )ay 1..D'. $urther, &epubli"
A"t 3o. ;-16 or the Code of Condu"t and +thi"al Standards for %ubli" 1ffi"ials and
+mployees provides that %ubli" 1ffi"ials and +mployees shall not use or divulge
"onfidential or "lassified information offi"ially known to them by reason of their offi"e and
not made available to the publi" to pre0udi"e the publi" interest.
b' 0%o "re co*ere). I !he following are "overed by this e(e"utive order:
1. Senior offi"ials of e(e"utive departments w%o i' #%e Iu)&$e'# o( #%e )ep"r#$e'#
%e")7 are "overed by the e(e"utive privilege#
/. 2enerals and flag offi"ers of the Armed $or"es of the %hilippines and su"h other
offi"ers who in the 0udgment of the Chief of Staff are "overed by the e(e"utive privilege#
//=
6. %hilippine 3ational %oli"e %3%' offi"ers with rank of "hief superintendent or
higher and su"h other offi"ers who in the 0udgment of the Chief of the %3% are "overed by
the e(e"utive privilege#
:. Senior national se"urity offi"ials who in the 0udgment of the 3ational Se"urity
Adviser are "overed by the e(e"utive privilege# and
D. Su"h other offi"ers as may be determined by the %resident.

I S S 3 E SH

1. >hether +.1. :;: violates the right of the people to information on matters of
publi" "on"ern# and


H E L /H
+.1 :;: 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 in8uiry 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 for"e as a
su'poena duces tecum issued by Congress. 3either 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:

4t 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'# $"y percei*e "') 8e re7po'7i*e #o #%e
peopleN7 will. Ye#, #%i7 ope' )i"lo&ue c"' 8e e((ec#i*e o'ly #o #%e eA#e'# #%"# #%e
ci#iJe'ry i7 i'(or$e) "') #%u7 "8le #o (or$ul"#e i#7 will i'#elli&e'#ly. 1nly 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.
176
+mphasis and unders"oring supplied'

!he impairment of the right of the people to information as a "onse8uen"e of +.1.
:;: is, therefore, in the sense e(plained above, 0ust as dire"t as its violation of the
legislature9s power of in8uiry.
1-a. *egaspi vs. CSC, 1D= SC&A D6=
1-b. ,rilliantes vs. Chang, Aug. 1:, 1..=
1-". Canlas vs. FaG8ueG, <uly 6, 1..=
176
2.&. 3o. -:.6=, $ebruary 16, 1.7., 1-= SC&A /D;.
//1
1-d. A8uino-Sarmiento vs. )anuel )orato, 3ovember 16, 1..1
/. !anada vs. !uvera, 1:; SC&A ::
6. ,aldoGa vs. Dimaano, -1 SC&A 1:
:. *anta"o vs. *llamas, 1=7 SC&A D=/
D. Subido vs. 1Gaeta, 7= %hil. 676
CHA5TER ID F THE CO-STIT3TIO-AL
RI:HT TO .ORM A-/ JOI- ASSOCIATIO-S RI:HT TO .ORM A-/ JOI- ASSOCIATIO-S
Sec#io' 6. T%e ri&%# o( #%e people, i'clu)i'& #%o7e
e$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. $reedom of Asso"iation, 1== SC&A 1==
/. !he fundamental right of self-organiGation,1=7 SC&A 6.=
6. !he right of self-organiGation of managerial employees,:- SC&A :6:
:. &ead:
1. 4n re: A!!J. +D4**13, 7: SC&A DD:
/. !arnate vs. 3oriel, 1== SC&A .6
6. Samahan ng )anggagawa vs. 3oriel, 1=7 SC&A 671
:. Fillar vs. 4n"iong, April /=,l.76
D. %. vs. $errer, :7 SC&A 67/
;. %. vs. $errer, D; SC&A -.6 &ead the dissenting opinion of <usti"e $+&3A3D1
in both "ases'
C:A&T,R F E T:, &OG,R
O. EMI-E-T /OMAI-
Sec#io' 9. 5ri*"#e proper#y 7%"ll 'o# 8e #"Le' (or pu8lic
u7e wi#%ou# Iu7# co$pe'7"#io'
1. !he inherent power of eminent domain,.6 SC&A ;;6
/. >ho may e(er"ise itN 5ow about a barangayN Jes with the %resident9s 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# +(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'# proIec#7# >rit of possession
when it shall be issued by the "ourt# when &ule ;- of the &ules of Court and when &A
7.-: shall apply# full payment of 0ust "ompensation before government takes over.
RE534LIC O. THE 5HILI55I-ES VS. J3/:E :I-:OYO-, 26 SCRA 22
!inga, <.
$a"ts:
4n /==6, the Supreme Court held in A:A- VS. 5IATCO, 2;9 SCRA 619 that the
C13C+SS413 A2&++)+3! $1& !5+ ,A4*D 1%+&A!+ !&A3S$+&
A&&A32+)+3! 1$ !5+ 3431J ARA431 43!+&3A!413A* A4&%1&!
%ASS+32+& !+&)43A* 44 between the %hilippine 2overnment and the %hilippine
4nternational Air !erminals Co., 4n". %4A!C1' as well as the amendments thereto is void
for being "ontrary to law and publi" poli"y. 1n )otion for &e"onsideration ,29; SCRA
29;', the Supreme Court held that:
?!his Court, however, is not unmindful of the reality that the stru"tures "omprising
the 3A4A 4%! 444 fa"ility are almost "omplete and that funds have been spent by %4A!C1
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-/ I-
ACCOR/A-CE 0ITH LA0 A-/ EM3ITY .OR THE :OVER-ME-T CA- -OT
3-J3STLY E-RICH ITSEL. AT THE ED5E-SE O. 5IATCO A-/ ITS
I-VESTORS.C
1n De"ember /1, /==:, 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 3A4A 6 fa"ilities and deposited the amount of %6.=, in "ash
with *and ,ank of the %hilippines representing the assessed value of the terminal9s
assessed value for ta(ation purposes.
1n the same day, <udge 2ingoyon issued an 1rder dire"ting the issuan"e of a writ
of possession to the government to ?take or enter upon the possession of the 3A4A 6
fa"ilities@. 4t held that it is the ministerial duty of the government to issue writ of
possession upon deposit of the assessed value of the property sub0e"t of e(propriation.
5owever, on <anuary :, /==D, <udge 2ingoyon issued another 1rder supplementing
the De"ember /1, /==: 1rder. 4t pointed out that the earlier orders to the amount to be
deposited by the government was based on Se"tion /, &ule ;- when what should be
appli"able is &A 7.-: and therefore ordered that the amount of AS];/,6:6,1-D.-- be
released to %4A!C1 instead of the amount in the De"ember /1, /==: 1rder.
1n <anuary -, /==D, <udge 2ingoyon issued another 1rder dire"ting the
appointment of three 6' Commissioners to determine 0ust "ompensation for the 3A4A 6
Comple(.
//6
,oth 1rders were 8uestioned by the government as having been issued with grave
abuse of dis"retion.
ISS3ESH
1. >hat law is appli"able in this e(propriation "ase: &ule ;- of the &ules of Court
or &A 7.-:N
/. 4f &A 7.-: will be used, may the "ourt used the provision of &ule ;- on the 6
"ommissioners to determine 0ust "ompensation.
HEL/H
1.
Appli"ation of &ule ;- would violate the A2A3 Do"trine whi"h provides that ?for the
government to take over the said 3A4A 6 fa"ility, 4! 5AS !1 C1)%+3SA!+
&+S%13D+3! %4A!C1 AS ,A4*D+& 1$ !5+ SA4D S!&AC!A&+S@. 4f Se"tion /,
&ule ;- will be applied, %4A!C1 would be en0oined from re"eiving the 0ust "ompensation
even if the government takes over the 3A4A 6 fa"ility. 4t is suffi"ient that the government
deposits the amount e8ual to the assessed value of the fa"ilities. 4t would violate the
pros"ription in the A2A3 De"ision that the government must pay first the 0ust
"ompensation before taking over the fa"ilities.
So when shall &ule ;- be used in e(propriation "ases and when shall &A 7.-: be usedN
4n all ?-"#io'"l &o*er'$e'# proIec#7@ or ?'"#io'"l i'(r"7#ruc#ure proIec#7@, like
those "overed by the ?,uild-1perate-!ransfer@, &A 7.-: shall be followed. !he rest, &ule
;- shall apply.
Differen"es between the two laws on e(propriation:
a. Ander &ule ;-, the government ?merely deposits@ the assessed value of the property
sub0e"t of e(propriation and "an have a writ of possession over the same while under &A
7.-:, the s"heme of immediate payment 1==Y' shall be followed.
b. Ander &ule ;-, there "an be writ of possession even if the owner of the property has not
re"eived a single "entavo while under &A 7.-:, as in this "ase, >rit of %ossession may not
be issued in favor of the government A3!4* AC!AA* &+C+4%! by %4A!C1 of the
preferred value of 0ust "ompensation.
Apon issuan"e of the writ in favor of the government, however, it "ould already
e(er"ise a"ts of ownership over the 3A4A 6 fa"ilities.
!he 0ust "ompensation to be paid by the government shall be determined within ;=
days from the finality of the de"ision based on Se"tion :, &A 7.-:.
/
&ule ;- on the appointment of three 6' "ommissioners to determine 0ust
"ompensation may be used sin"e &A 7.-: does not provide for su"h pro"edure.
//:
<ust Compensation# Amount to be deposited in "ourt before a >rit of %ossession may be
issued by the "ourt in favor of the government# >hen to apply &ule ;- and when to apply
&A 3o. 7.-:# >ho 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. 1921;, April 12, 9;;6
THE .ACTSH
1n /. De"ember /===, petitioner &epubli" of the %hilippines, represented by the
!oll &egulatory ,oard !&,', filed with the &!C a Consolidated Complaint for
+(propriation against landowners whose properties would be affe"ted by the "onstru"tion,
rehabilitation and e(pansion of the 3orth *uGon +(pressway. !he suit was do"keted as
Civil Case 3o. 7;.-)-/=== and raffled to ,ran"h 7D, )alolos, ,ula"an. &espondent 5oly
!rinity &ealty and Development Corporation 5!&DC' was one of the affe"ted
landowners.
1n 17 )ar"h /==/, !&, filed an Argent +(-%arte )otion for the issuan"e of a >rit
of %ossession, manifesting that it deposited a suffi"ient amount to "over the payment of
1==Y of the Gonal value of the affe"ted properties, in the total amount of %/7,:=;,-==.==,
with the *and ,ank of the %hilippines, South 5arbor ,ran"h *,%-South 5arbor', an
authoriGed government depository. !&, maintained that sin"e it had already "omplied
with the provisions of Se"tion : of &epubli" A"t 3o. 7.-:
17:BDC
in relation to Se"tion / of
&ule ;- 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 /==/, an 1rder for the 4ssuan"e of a >rit of
%ossession.

1n 6 )ar"h /==6, 5!&DC filed with the &!C a )otion to >ithdraw Deposit,
praying that the respondent or its duly authoriGed representative be allowed to withdraw the
amount of %//,.;7,===.==, out of !&,9s advan"e deposit of %/7,:=;,-==.== with *,%-
South 5arbor, 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 0ust "ompensation.
!he private respondent elevated the issue to the Court of Appeals whi"h ruled that
the respondent is entitled to the interest by way of a""ession.
5en"e, this petition of the government before the Supreme Court.
I S S 3 EH
17:
//D
>ho 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/H
!he petition is without merit.
!he !&, "laims that there are two stages
17DB11C
in e(propriation pro"eedings, the
determination of the authority to e(er"ise eminent domain and the determination of 0ust
"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
.;<3125
and (ational #o?er Corporation v. Angas.
17-B16C
!he !&, further points out that the e(propriation a""ount with *,%-South 5arbor
is not in the name of 5!&DC, but of D%>5. !hus, the said e(propriation a""ount
in"ludes the "ompensation for the other landowners named defendants in Civil Case 3o.
7;.-)-/===, 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" A"t 3o. 7.-: and &ule ;- of the &ules of Court.
&epubli" A"t 3o. 7.-: and &ule ;- 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 pro0e"ts. !hus, in $epu'lic v. +ingoyon,
177B1:C
we held:
!here are at least two "ru"ial differen"es between the respe"tive pro"edures under
&ep. A"t 3o. 7.-: and &ule ;-. 3')er #%e 7#"#u#e, #%e :o*er'$e'# i7 reBuire) #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 reBuire) o'ly
#o $"Le "' i'i#i"l )epo7i# wi#% "' "u#%oriJe) &o*er'$e'# )epo7i#"ry. )oreover, &ule
;- pres"ribes that the initial deposit be e8uivalent to the assessed value of the property for
purposes of ta(ation, unlike &ep. A"t 3o. 7.-: 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 4nternal &evenue ,4&', whi"hever is
higher, and the value of the improvements andEor stru"tures using the repla"ement "ost
method.
( ( ( (
&ule ;- 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. And then there is &ep. A"t 3o. 7.-:,
17D
17;
17-
177
//;
whi"h "overs e(propriation pro"eedings intended for national government infrastru"ture
pro0e"ts.
&ep. A"t 3o. 7.-:, whi"h provides for a pro"edure eminently more favorable to the
property owner than &ule ;-, ines"apably applies in instan"es when the national
government e(propriates property ?for national government infrastru"ture pro0e"ts.@ !hus,
if e(propriation is engaged in by the national government for purposes other than national
infrastru"ture pro0e"ts, the assessed value standard and the deposit mode pres"ribed in &ule
;- "ontinues to apply.
!here is no 8uestion that the pro"eedings in this "ase deal with the e(propriation of
properties intended for a national government infrastru"ture pro0e"t. !herefore, the &!C
"orre"tly applied the pro"edure laid out in &epubli" A"t 3o. 7.-:, by re8uiring the deposit
of the amount e8uivalent to 1==Y 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.
>hether the Court of Appeals was "orre"t in holding that the interest earned by the
deposited amount in the e(propriation a""ount would a""rue to 5&!DC by virtue of
a""ession, hinges on the determination of who a"tually owns the deposited amount, sin"e,
under Arti"le ::= of the Civil Code, the right of a""ession is "onferred by ownership of the
prin"ipal property:
Art. ::=. !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%>5 whi"h pertains parti"ularly to 5!&DC. Su"h amount,
determined to be %//,.;7,===.== of the %/7,:=;,-==.== total deposit, was already ordered
by the &!C to be released to 5!&DC or its authoriGed representative. !he Court of
Appeals further re"ogniGed that the deposit of the amount was already deemed a
"onstru"tive delivery thereof to 5!&DC:
>hen 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 1==Y Gonal valuation of the e(propriated property. Sin"e B5!&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.
17.B1DC
Sin"e the Court of Appeals found that the 5!&DC is the owner of the deposited
amount, then the latter should also be entitled to the interest whi"h a""rued thereon.
17.
//-
!he deposit was made in order to "omply with Se"tion : of &epubli" A"t 3o. 7.-:,
whi"h re8uires nothing less than the immediate payment of 1==Y of the value of the
property, based on the "urrent Gonal valuation of the ,4&, to the property owner. !hus,
going ba"k to our ruling in $epu'lic v. +ingoyon
.-,3145
:
4t is the plain intent of &ep. A"t 3o. 7.-: to supersede the system of deposit under
&ule ;- with the s"heme of ?immediate payment@ in "ases involving national government
infrastru"ture pro0e"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%>5 was
"learly to "omply with the re8uirement of immediate payment in &epubli" A"t 3o. 7.-:, so
that it "ould already se"ure a writ of possession over the properties sub0e"t of the
e(propriation and "ommen"e implementation of the pro0e"t. 4n fa"t, !&, did not ob0e"t to
5!&DC9s )otion to >ithdraw Deposit with the &!C, for as long as 5!&DC shows 1'
that the property is free from any lien or en"umbran"e and /' that respondent is the
absolute owner thereof.
1./B17C

A "lose s"rutiny of !&,9s arguments would further reveal that it does not dire"tly
"hallenge the Court of Appeals9 determinative pronoun"ement that the interest earned by
the amount deposited in the e(propriation a""ount a""rues to 5!&DC by virtue of
a""ession. !&, only asserts that 5!&DC is ?entitled only to an amount e8uivalent to the
Gonal value of the e(propriated property, nothing more and nothing less.@
>e agree in !&,9s 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 : of &epubli" A"t 3o. 7.-:, i.e.,
an amount e8uivalent to 1==Y of the Gonal value of the e(propriated properties. 5owever,
!&, already "omplied therewith by depositing the re8uired amount in the e(propriation
a""ount of D%>5 with *,%-South 5arbor. ,y depositing the said amount, !&, is already
"onsidered to have paid the same to 5!&DC, and 5!&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 5!&DC. !he interest is paid by *,%-South
5arbor on the deposit, and the !&, "annot "laim that it paid an amount more than what it
is re8uired to do so by law.
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.
>e are not persuaded by !&,9s "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 0ust "ompensation whi"h should
be determined in the se"ond stage of the pro"eedings only. >e find that neither "ase is
appli"able herein.
1.=
1.1
1./
//7
!he issue in Angas is whether or not, in the "omputation of the legal rate of interest
on 0ust "ompensation for e(propriated lands, the appli"able law is Arti"le //=. of the Civil
Code whi"h pres"ribes a ;Y legal interest rate, or Central ,ank Cir"ular 3o. :1; whi"h
fi(ed the legal rate at 1/Y per annum. >e 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, Arti"le //=. of the Civil Code pres"ribing
the ;Y interest shall apply. 4n 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 0ust
"ompensation.
!he "ase at bar, however, does not involve interest as damages for delay in payment
of 0ust "ompensation. 4t "on"erns interest earned by the amount deposited in the
e(propriation a""ount.
Ander Se"tion : of &epubli" A"t 3o. 7.-:, the implementing agen"y of the
government pays 0ust "ompensation twi"e: 1' immediately upon the filing of the
"omplaint, where the amount to be paid is 1==Y of the value of the property based on the
"urrent relevant Gonal valuation of the ,4& initial payment'# and /' when the de"ision of
the "ourt in the determination of 0ust "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 0ust "ompensation as determined by the "ourt final payment9
As a final note, !&, does not ob0e"t to 5!&DC9s withdrawal of the amount of
%//,.;7,===.== from the e(propriation a""ount, provided that it is able to show 1' that the
property is free from any lien or en"umbran"e and /' 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
5!&DC pending the latter9s "omplian"e therewith. Arti"le 117- 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.@ 5en"e, when
5!&DC "omplied with the given "onditions, as determined by the &!C in its 1rderdated
/1 April /==6, 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%>5.
I"LAN"*AWA VS5 9U("E ACALLA. ?@A SCRA @72
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- ED5RO5RIATIO- CASES AREH
". #%e (ili'& o( " co$pl"i'# (or eApropri"#io' 7u((icie'# i' (or$ "') 7u87#"'ce+ "')
b. #%e $"Li'& o( " )epo7i# eBui*"le'# #o #%e ASSESSE/ VAL3E O. THE 5RO5ERTY
S34JECT TO ED5RO5RIATIO-.
!he owners of the e(propriated land are entitled to legal interest on the "ompensation
eventually ad0udged from the date the "ondemnor takes possession of the land until the full
"ompensation is paid to them or deposited in "ourt.
//.
ReBui7i#e7 8e(ore i$$e)i"#e po77e77io' or wri# o( po77e77io' $"y 8e i77ue) i' eApropri"#io'
c"7e7, i'*ol*i'& loc"l &o*er'$e'# u'i#7 "7 #%e eApropri"#i'& "&e'cyH
1. Co$pl"i'# 7u((icie'# i' (or$ "') 7u87#"'ce+ "')
9. 5"y$e'# o( 11S o( #%e M"rLe# *"lue "7 "ppe"ri'& i' #%e l"#e7# T"A /ecl"r"#io'.
THE CITY O. ILOILO VS. J3/:E LE:AS5I, RTC 99, ILOILO CITY, 222 SCRA
969
&e8uisites before the e(propriator is allowed immediate entry on the property sub0e"t of
e(propriation if the e(propriator is a lo"al government unit.
!he e(propriator may immediately enter the property sub0e"t of e(propriation
pro"eedings if the following re8uisites are present:
1. the "omplaint for e(propriation filed in "ourt is suffi"ient in
form and substan"e# and
9. #%e eApropri"#or $u7# )epo7i# #%e "$ou'# eBui*"le'# #o
11S o( #%e ("ir $"rLe# *"lue o( #%e proper#y #o 8e eApropri"#e) 8"7e) o' i#7 curre'#
#"A )ecl"r"#io'.
4u# i( #%e &o*er'$e'# ("il7 #o u7e #%e proper#y
eApropri"#e) (or #%e purpo7e (or w%ic% i# w"7 i'#e')e),
#%e l"')ow'er %"7 #%e ri&%# #o 8uyF8"cL #%e 7"$e.
MACTA-FCE43 I-TER-ATIO-AL AIR5ORT A3THORITY "')
AIR TRA-S5ORTATIO- O..ICE *7. 4ER-AR/O LO>A/A, JR.,
ET AL., :.R. -o. 16691, .e8ru"ry 91, 9;1;
-ACH3RA, J.H
Sub0e"t of this "ase is *ot 3o. 77-S>1-/D=:/ *ot 3o. 77', with an area of 1,=1- s8uare
meters, more or less, lo"ated in *ahug, Cebu City. 4ts original owner was Anasta"io Deiparine
when the same was sub0e"t to e(propriation pro"eedings, initiated by the &epubli" of the
%hilippines &epubli"', represented by the then Civil Aeronauti"s Administration CAA', for the
e(pansion and improvement of the *ahug Airport. !he "ase was filed with the then Court of $irst
4nstan"e of Cebu, !hird ,ran"h, and do"keted as Civil Case 3o. &-1771.
As early as 1.:-, the lots were already o""upied by the A.S. Army. !hey were turned over
to the Surplus %roperty Commission, the ,ureau of Aeronauti"s, the 3ational Airport Corporation
and then to the CAA.
During the penden"y of the e(propriation pro"eedings, respondent ,ernardo *. *oGada, Sr.
a"8uired *ot 3o. 77 from Deiparine. Conse8uently, !ransfer Certifi"ate of !itle !C!' 3o. .=:D
was issued in *oGada9s name.
/6=
1n De"ember /., 1.;1, the trial "ourt rendered 0udgment in favor of the &epubli" and
ordered the latter to pay *oGada the fair market value of *ot 3o. 77, ad0udged at %6.== per s8uare
meter, with "onse8uential damages by way of legal interest "omputed from 3ovember 1;, 1.:-X
the time when the lot was first o""upied by the airport. *oGada re"eived the amount of %6,=17.==
by way of payment.
!he affe"ted landowners appealed. %ending appeal, the Air !ransportation 1ffi"e A!1',
formerly CAA, 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 A!1 would abandon the *ahug Airport, pursuant to an
established poli"y involving similar "ases. ,e"ause of this promise, *oGada did not pursue his
appeal. !hereafter, *ot 3o. 77 was transferred and registered in the name of the &epubli" under
!C! 3o. /D=D-.
!he pro0e"ted improvement and e(pansion plan of the old *ahug Airport, however, was not
pursued.
*oGada, with the other landowners, "onta"ted then CAA Dire"tor Fi"ente &ivera, <r.,
re8uesting to repur"hase the lots, as per previous agreement. !he CAA replied that there might
still be a need for the *ahug Airport to be used as an emergen"y DC-6 airport. 4t reiterated,
however, the assuran"e that ?should this 1ffi"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 1ffi"e is to give priority to the
former owners sub0e"t to the approval of the %resident.@
1n 3ovember /., 1.7., then %resident CoraGon C. A8uino issued a )emorandum to the
Department of !ransportation, dire"ting the transfer of general aviation operations of the *ahug
Airport to the )a"tan 4nternational Airport before the end of 1..= and, upon su"h transfer, the
"losure of the *ahug Airport.
Sometime in 1..=, the Congress of the %hilippines passed &epubli" A"t &.A.' 3o. ;.D7,
entitled ?An A"t Creating the )a"tan-Cebu 4nternational Airport Authority, !ransferring +(isting
Assets of the )a"tan 4nternational Airport and the *ahug Airport to the Authority, Festing the
Authority with %ower to Administer and 1perate the )a"tan 4nternational Airport and the *ahug
Airport, and $or 1ther %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 airport' was never a"tually initiated, realiGed,
or implemented. 4nstead, the old airport was "onverted into a "ommer"ial "omple(. *ot 3o. 77
be"ame the site of a 0ail known as agong u2ay $e2a'ilitation Comple>, while a portion thereof
was o""upied by s8uatters. !he old airport was "onverted into what is now known as the Ayala
4.!. %ark, a "ommer"ial area.
!hus, on <une :, 1..;, petitioners initiated a "omplaint for the re"overy of possession and
re"onveyan"e of ownership of *ot 3o. 77. !he "ase was do"keted as Civil Case 3o. C+,-177/6
and was raffled to the &egional !rial Court &!C', ,ran"h D-, Cebu City.
/61
4n their Answer, 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 3o. 77 to
respondents in the event that the property would no longer be needed for airport operations.
%etitioners instead asserted that the 0udgment of "ondemnation was un"onditional, and respondents
were, therefore, not entitled to re"over the e(propriated property notwithstanding non-use or
abandonment thereof.
After pretrial, but before trial on the merits, the parties stipulated on the following set of
fa"ts:
1' !he lot involved is *ot 3o. 77-S>1-/D=:/ of the ,anilad +state, situated in
the City of Cebu, "ontaining an area of 1ne !housand Seventeen 1,=1-'
s8uare 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.;1 of the C$4 of Cebu in Civil Case 3o. &-1771#

6' !he publi" purpose for whi"h the property was e(propriated was for the
purpose of the *ahug Airport#

:' After the e(pansion, the property was transferred in the name of )C4AA#
BandC

D' 1n 3ovember /., 1.7., then %resident CoraGon C. A8uino dire"ted the
Department of !ransportation and Communi"ation to transfer general aviation
operations of the *ahug Airport to the )a"tan-Cebu 4nternational Airport
Authority and to "lose the *ahug Airport after su"h transfer.

1n 1"tober //, 1..., the &!C rendered its De"ision, disposing as follows:
>5+&+$1&+, in the light of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders
0udgment 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, <r., 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 4nternational Airport Authority )C4AA' and
Air !ransportation 1ffi"e A!1':

1. ordering )C4AA and A!1 to restore to plaintiffs the possession and
ownership of their land, *ot 3o. 77 %sd-7/1 S>1-/67=6', 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 3o. B77C, "an"elling !C! 3o. /=6D- in
the name of defendant )C4AA 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 ).
/6/
*oGada, )ario ). *oGada, )ar"ia *. 2odineG, Firginia *. $lores, ,ernardo ).
*oGada, <r., Dolores *. 2a"asan, So"orro *. Cafaro and &osario ). *oGada.

3o pronoun"ement as to "osts.
Aggrieved, petitioners interposed an appeal to the CA. After the filing of the ne"essary
appellate briefs, the CA rendered its assailed De"ision dated $ebruary /7, /==;, denying
petitioners9 appeal and affirming in toto the De"ision of the &!C, ,ran"h D-, Cebu City.
%etitioners9 motion for re"onsideration was, likewise, denied in the 8uestioned CA &esolution
dated $ebruary -, /==-.
5en"e, this petition arguing that: 1' the respondents utterly failed to prove that there was a
repur"hase agreement or "ompromise settlement between them and the 2overnment# /' the
0udgment in Civil Case 3o. &-1771 was absolute and un"onditional, giving title in fee simple to
the &epubli"# and 6' the respondents9 "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 3o. 77 for the e(pansion of the *ahug Airport 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"8uires 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
4f ( ( ( 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"8uires the property so e(propriated. 4f ( ( ( land is e(propriated for a publi"
street and the e(propriation is granted upon "ondition that 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. ( ( (. 4f, 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"8uired by the
e(propriation pro"eedings. ( ( (.

>hen land has been a"8uired 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"8uired, 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
/66
)oreover, respondent )C4AA has brought to our attention a signifi"ant and
telling portion in the %ecision in Civil Case 3o. &-1771 validating our dis"ernment
that the e(propriation by the prede"essors of respondent was ordered under the
running impression that *ahug Airport would "ontinue in operationX

As for the publi" purpose of the e(propriation pro"eeding, it
"annot now be doubted. Although )a"tan Airport is being
"onstru"ted, it does not take away the a"tual usefulness and
importan"e of the *ahug Airport: 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 3orth 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. 4t is up to the other departments of the
2overnment to determine said matters. !he Court "annot substitute
its 0udgment 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.

>hile in the trial in Civil Case 3o. &-1771 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 Airport, 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 Airport was no
longer Ein operation.F !his inferen"e further implies two /' things: a' after the
*ahug Airport "eased its undertaking as su"h and the e(propriated lots were not
being used for any airport e(pansion pro0e"t, the rights vis-U-vis the e(propriated
*ots 3os. .1; and ./= as between the State and their former owners, petitioners
herein, must be e8uitably ad0usted# and b' 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 inade8uate sin"e the dispositive
portion is not in a""ord with the findings as "ontained in the body thereof.
4ndeed, the De"ision in Civil Case 3o. &-1771 should be read in its entirety, wherein it is
apparent that the a"8uisition by the &epubli" of the e(propriated lots was sub0e"t to the "ondition
that the *ahug Airport 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"8uire the
e(propriated property.
1n 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.
4nstead 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 <uan $ery, the former owner of the lots e(propriated, sought to
re"over his properties. 5owever, as he had admitted that, in 1.1D, respondent Cabanatuan
a"8uired a fee simple title to the lands in 8uestion, 0udgment was rendered in favor of the
muni"ipality, following Ameri"an 0urispruden"e, parti"ularly City of Aort Dayne v. La@e "2ore V
/6:
M.". $). Co., McConi2ay v. &2eodore Drig2t, and $eic2ling v. Covington Lum'er Co., all
uniformly holding that the transfer to a third party of the e(propriated real property, whi"h
ne"essarily resulted in the abandonment of the parti"ular publi" purpose for whi"h the property
was taken, is not a ground for the re"overy of the same by its previous owner, the title of the
e(propriating agen"y being one of fee simple.
1bviously, Aery was not de"ided pursuant to our now sa"redly held "onstitutional right that
private property shall not be taken for publi" use without 0ust "ompensation. 4t is well settled that
the taking of private property by the 2overnment9s power of eminent domain is sub0e"t to two
mandatory re8uirements: 1' that it is for a parti"ular publi" purpose# and /' that 0ust
"ompensation be paid to the property owner. !hese re8uirements partake of the nature of implied
"onditions that should be "omplied with to enable the "ondemnor to keep the property
e(propriated.
)ore parti"ularly, with respe"t to the element of publi" use, the e(propriator should "ommit
to use the property pursuant to the purpose stated in the petition for e(propriation filed, failing
whi"h, it should file another petition for the new purpose. 4f not, it is then in"umbent upon the
e(propriator to return the said property to its private owner, if the latter desires to rea"8uire the
same. 1therwise, the 0udgment of e(propriation suffers an intrinsi" flaw, as it would la"k one
indispensable element for the proper e(er"ise of the power of eminent domain, namely, the
parti"ular publi" purpose for whi"h the property will be devoted. A""ordingly, the private property
owner would be denied due pro"ess of law, and the 0udgment would violate the property owner9s
right to 0usti"e, fairness, and e8uity.
4n light of these premises, we 'ow eApre77ly %ol) #%"# #%e #"Li'& o( pri*"#e proper#y,
co'7eBue'# #o #%e :o*er'$e'#N7 eAerci7e o( i#7 power o( e$i'e'# )o$"i', i7 "lw"y7 7u8Iec# #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, $"y 7eeL #%e
re*er7io' o( #%e proper#y, 7u8Iec# #o #%e re#ur' o( #%e "$ou'# o( Iu7# co$pe'7"#io' recei*e).
I' 7uc% " c"7e, #%e eAerci7e o( #%e power o( e$i'e'# )o$"i' %"7 8eco$e i$proper (or l"cL o(
#%e reBuire) ("c#u"l Iu7#i(ic"#io'.
1n the matter of the repur"hase pri"e, while petitioners are obliged to re"onvey *ot 3o. 77
to respondents, the latter must return to the former what they re"eived as 0ust "ompensation for the
e(propriation of the property, plus legal interest to be "omputed from default, whi"h in this "ase
runs from the time petitioners "omply with their obligation to respondents.
&espondents must likewise pay petitioners the ne"essary e(penses they may have in"urred in
maintaining *ot 3o. 77, as well as the monetary value of their servi"es in managing it to the e(tent
that respondents were benefited thereby.
:A4ATI- VS. LA-/ 4A-E O. THE 5HILI55I-ES, 222 SCRA 16
>hat is the basis of the 0ust "ompensation for e(propriation pro"eedings in
"onne"tion with the agrarian reform program of the government.
/6D
5eld:
!he taking of private lands under the agrarian reform program of the government
partakes of the nature of an e(propriation pro"eedings. As su"h, i' co$pu#i'& #%e Iu7#
co$pe'7"#io', i# i7 #%e *"lue o( #%e l"') "# #%e #i$e o( #%e #"Li'&, 'o# "# #%e #i$e o( #%e
re')i#io' o( #%e Iu)&$e'#, w%ic% 7%oul) 8e #"Le' i'#o co'7i)er"#io'.
4A-E O. THE 5HILI55I-E ISLA-/S VS. CO3RT O. A55EALS, 221 SCRA 63
Ju7# co$pe'7"#io' i' eApropri"#io' c"7e7+ *"lue o( #%e proper#y w%e'T
<ust "ompensation is defined as the full and fair e8uivalent of the property taken
from its owner by the e(propriator. !he measure is not the taker9s gain, but the owner9s
loss. )arket value is that sum of money whi"h a person desirous but not "ompelled to buy,
and an owner willing but not "ompelled to sell, would agree on as a pri"e to be given and
re"eived therefore.
!he 0ust "ompensation is determined as of the date of taking of the property or the
filing of the "omplaint for e(propriation, >54C5+F+& C1)+S $4&S!.
:. ,asis of 0ust "ompensation
&ead:
a. 3%C vs. <o"son, $ebruary /D, 1../
a-1. Ansaldo vs. !antui"o, Aug. 6, 1..=
b. )un. of )akati vs. CA, 1"t. 1, 1..=
". &eubli" vs. 4AC, 17D SC&A D-/
d. )un. of !alisay vs. &amireG, 176 SC&A D/7
e. 3%C vs. CA, 1/. SC&A ;;D
f. )addumba vs. 2S4S, 17/ SC&A /71
&ead also:
1. )eaning of 0ust "ompensation in eminent domain pro"eedings, /. SC&A 7;7
,asis of 0ust "ompensation +("eptional "ase'
4EREE-EOTTER, I-C. VS. CO3RT O. A55EALS A-/ RE534LIC O. THE
5HILI55I-ES, /ece$8er 12, 1999
CruG, <.
$a"ts:
/6;
1. 1n <une 17, 1.7/, Fi"ente Firay, then %resident of Apolinario Apa"ible S"hool of
$isheries, a government institution in 3asugbu, ,atangas, sent the petitioner a written offer
to buy the property of the latter with an area of 1=,;:= s8uare meters for its D-year
e(pansion program#
/. !hat the petitioner e(pressed willingness to sell at %D=.== per s8uare meter in its reply#
6. Firay then re8uested the 1ffi"e of the %rovin"ial Assessor of the %rovin"e of ,atangas to
appraise the land and the latter fi(ed its market value at %6/.== per s8uare meter#
:. Firay then wrote the petitioner and e(pressed willingness to buy the latterSs property at
%6/.== per s8uare 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 %1==.== per s8uare meter#
D. 1n 1"tober /7, 1.76, 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 Appraisal Committee of the %rovin"ial Assessor of ,atangas in the amount of
%6/.==. !he government likewise sought immediate possession of the property upon
deposit of 1=Y of the total assessment in a""ordan"e with %D :7#
;. ,erkenkotter originally 8uestioned the purpose of the e(propriation but later abandoned
this ob0e"tion and "on"entrated only on what it "alled the HunderappraisalH of the sub0e"t
land#
-. !he &!C then appointed a panel of "ommissioners in a""ordan"e with &ule ;-, e"tion D,
of the &ules of Court, to determine the 0ust "ompensation to be paid for the land#
7. 1n September /6, 1.7D, the panel of "ommissioners submitted its report to the trial
"ourt and pegged the market value at %7D.== per s8uare meter#
.. !he &epubli" of the %hilippines ob0e"ted and pointed to three 6' "ontra"ts of sale
e(e"uted by the petitioner in 1.7D whereby it sold three 6' tra"ts of land similar in
topography and ad0a"ent to the property in 8uestion for the unit pri"e of only %1..17 per
s8uare meter#
1=. !he "ourt dire"ted the "ommissioners to "onvene anew and to re"eive additional
eviden"e. 5owever, in its se"ond report dated April 1, 1.7-, the panel reiterated its
original re"ommendation of %7D.==Es8. m. or a total of %.=:,:==.== for the entire area
sought to be e(propriated. !he trial "ourt a"ting on this re"ommendation rendered
0udgment re8uiring the &epubli" to pay the petitioner the amount of %.=:,:==.== for the
entire area sought to be e(propriated#
11. !he government appealed the trial "ourtSs de"ision to the Court of Appeals whi"h
rendered a de"ision &+F+&S432 !5+ *1>+& C1A&!SS D+C4S413 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..17, the market value a""ording set by the
petitioner if we follow the three 6' deeds of sale it e(e"uted in favor of three 6' different
individuals#
/6-
1/. !he petitioner was therefore "onstrained to file this instant petition "laiming that the
Court of Appeals erred in holding that %1..17 per s8uare meter should be the basis of
the "omputation for the 0ust "ompensation of its property be"ause:
a. Firay even offered the amount of %6/.== per s8uaremeter as the fair market value#
b. that %6/.== per s8uare meter was the appraised value made by the 1ffi"e of the
%rovin"ial Assessor of ,atangas# and
". the "omplaint itself prays that the market value be pegged at %6/.== per s8uare meter.
4ssue:

>5A! S51A*D ,+ !5+ ,AS4S 43 !5+ C1)%A!A!413 1$ !5+ <AS!
C1)%+3SA!413: %6/.==ESR. ). 43 ACC1&A3C+ >4!5 !5+ A%%&A4SA* 1$
!5+ %&1F43C4A* ASS+SS1&# %1==.==ESR.). AS C*A4)+D ,J !5+ 1>3+&#
%7D.==ESR. ). AS &+C1))+3D+D ,J !5+ ,1A&D 1$ C1))4SS413+&S
A%%143!+D ,J !5+ C1A&! !1 +FA*AA!+ !5+ SA)+, 1& %1..17 %+& SRAA&+
)+!+& >54C5 >AS !5+ S+**432 %&4C+ 43 A3 AD<AC+3! *1! S1*D ,J
!5+ %+!4!413+& !1 !5&++ %&4FA!+ 43D4F4DAA*S.
5eld.

!he basis in the "omputation of 0ust "ompensation shall be %1..17 per s8uare
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 0ust "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 s8uare meter was only %1..17. 4f this was the purpose of the
petitioner when it e(e"uted the 6 deeds of sale, then 4! 4S SA&+*J 514S! 31> ,J 4!S
1>3 %+!A&D. A3D &425!*J S1, $1& 4! CA331! ,+ A**1>+D !1 %&1$4!
$&1) 4!S 1>3 D+C+%!413 A3D C*A4) !5A! !5+ SA,<+C! %&1%+&!J
S51A*D ,+ ASS+SS+D A! !5+ 5425+& &A!+ 4! C*A3D+S!43+*J A2&++D
A%13 >4!5 !5+ ,AJ+&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.
/67
!he fa"t that the petitioner sold the 6 other par"els of land at %1..17 per s8uare
meter whi"h are admittedly of the same topography as that sub0e"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,
!5A! >5A! 4S SAAC+ $1& !5+ 211S+ 4S A*S1 SAAC+ $1& !5+ 2A3D+&.
Just compensation is defined as the full and fair e8uivalent 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
0ust, must be fair not only to the owner but also to the taker.
!o determine 0ust "ompensation, the trial "ourt should first as"ertain the market
value of the property, to whi"h should be added the "onse8uential 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 "reH
1. co7# o( "cBui7i#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 #"A )ecl"r"#io'7 #%ereo'.
$inally, note that as held in the "ase of &epubli" vs. Santos, 1:1 SC&A 6=, the
market value as re"ommended by the board of "ommissioners appointed by the "ourt were
at best only ADF4S1&J A3D %+&SAAS4F+ A3D ,J 31 )+A3S $43A* 1&
,43D432.
/. 35A vs. &eyes, 1/6 SC&A /:D
6. )anotok vs. CA, )ay /1,1.7-
:. +%OA vs. Dulay, April /.,l.7-
D. *agunGad vs. CA, 1D: SC&A 1..
>hen it is "onsidered for Hpubli" useH:
;. Sumulong vs. 2uererro, 1D: SC&A :;1
-. &epubli" vs. CA, 1D: SC&A :/7
7.Cos"ulluela vs. CA, 1;: SC&A 6.6
D. &e8uisite of HtakingH in eminent domain "ases
&ead:
1. Rep. *7. C"7#ell*i, 16 SCRA 336
/6.
&e8uisites of taking:
". #%e eApropri"#or $u7# e'#er #%e proper#y+
8. #%e e'#r"'ce $u7# 'o# 8e (or Iu7# " $o$e'#"ry perio)+
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"').
/. 4gna"io vs. 2uererro, 1D= SC&A 6;.
6. 2ar"ia vs. CA, 1=/ SC&A D.-
;. 3ot a valid e(er"ise of eminent domain
&ead:
1. City of )anila vs. Chinese Community, := %hil. 6:. A private property whi"h
is devoted to publi" use may not be e(propriated for another publi" purpose.'
/. De Mne"ht vs. ,autista, 1== SC&A ;;=
RE534LIC O. THE 5HILI55I-ES VS. CRISTI-A /E E-ECHT A-/ THE
CO3RT O. A55EALS, :.R. -O. 6331, .e8ru"ry 19, 1969
+(propriation
2an"ay"o, <.

$a"ts:

1. 1n $ebruary /=, 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 3o. -==1-%#
/. 4n <une, 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 %3, 1=Y of the amount of "ompensation stated in the "omplaint# that on <une 1:,
1.-., the *ower Court issued a writ of possession authoriGing the &epubli" to enter into the
properties "ondemned and "reated a "ommittee to determine 0ust "ompensation#
6. 1n <uly 1;, 1.-., De Mne"ht went to the Supreme Court on a petition for "ertiorari and
prohibition dire"ted against the <une 1:, 1.-. order of the lower "ourt#
:. 1n 1"tober 6=, 1.7=, the Supreme Court rendered its de"ision granting the petition for
"ertiorari and prohibition and dire"ting that the 1rder of the respondent <udge dated <une
1:, 1.-. be S+! AS4D+ and the respondent <udge is permanently en0oined from taking
any further a"tion on Civil Case 3o. -==1-%#
/:=
D. 1n August 7, 1.71, the defendants in Civil Case 3o. -==1- moved for the dismissal of
said "ase sin"e the de"ision of the Supreme Court is already final#
;. 1n September /, 1.76, the &epubli" moved for the dismissal of the "ase due to the
ena"tment of ,% 6:= e(propriating the same properties for the same purpose. 1n 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 1rder dismissing the "ase to the Court of Appeals who on
De"ember /7, 1.77 issued its de"ision setting aside the 1rder 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 +DSA should be
e(tended is arbitrary and should not re"eive 0udi"ial approval#
7. !he &epubli" of the %hilippines filed a %etition for &eview with the Supreme Court.
4ssue:

>hether 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 +DSA is arbitraryN
5eld:

4t 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 0udi"ial
approval. 5owever, it is e8ually true that the Constitution and our laws may e(propriate
private properties after the payment of 0ust "ompensation. >hen on $ebruary 1-, 1.76, the
,atasang %ambansa passed ,% 6:= e(propriating the same properties for the same purpose,
4! A%%+A&S !5A! !5+ SA)+ >AS ,AS+D 13 SA%+&F+3432 +F+3!S !5A!
1CCA&&+D after the de"ision of the SC in De Mne"ht vs. ,autista in 1.7=. !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
D+ M3+C5! now is left while her property is only 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 6:= !5+&+$1&+ +$$+C!4F+*J SA%+&S+D+D !5+ A$1&+SA4D
$43A* A3D +Q+CA!1&J D+C4S413 1$ !5+ SA%&+)+ C1A&!. Q ( ( !5+
C1A&! A2&++S 43 !5+ >4SD1) A3D 3+C+SS4!J 1$ +3AC!432 ,% 6:=. !5AS
!5+ A3!+&41& D+C4S413 1$ !54S C1A&! )AS! J4+*D !1 !54S
SA,S+RA+3! *+24S*A!4F+ $4A!.
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
CruG, <., "on"urring

Supervening events have "hanged the fa"tual basis of the SCSs de"ision to 0ustify the
subse8uent ena"tment of the statute. 4f we are sustaining the legislation, it is not be"ause
/:1
we "on"ede that the lawmakers "an nullify the findings of the Court in the e(er"ise of its
dis"retion. 4t is simply be"ause we ourselves have found that under the "hanged situation,
the present e(propriation is no longer arbitrary.
4 )AS! ADD !5A! !54S D+C4S413 4S 31! A &+F+&SA* 1$ !5+ 1&4243A*
D+ M3+C5! CAS+, >54C5 >AS D+C4D+D A3D+& A D4$$+&+3! S+! 1$
$AC!S.
6. &+%A,*4C 1$ !5+ %54*4%%43+S FS. C&4S!43A D+ M3+C5! A3D !5+
C1A&! 1$ A%%+A*S, 2.&. 31. 7-66D, $ebruary 1/, 1.7.
6-a. *imitations of the power of e(propriation, 6 SC&A -=;
-. >hen 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
7. +minent domain "ases, in general
&ead:
1. City of ,aguio vs. 3A>ASA, 1=; %hil. 1::
/. 2ar"ia vs. CA, 1=/ SC&A ;/=
6. )uni"ipality of Daet vs. CA, .6 SC&A D=6
:. Salas vs. <aren"io, :; SC&A -6:
D. Ar"e vs. 2enito, $eb. /-, 1.-;
;. 2uido vs. &%A, 7: %hil. 7:-
-. &ep. vs. ,aylosis, .; %hil. :;1
7. )ataas na *upa vs. Dimayuga, 16= SC&A 6=
.. San Diego vs. Faldellon, 7= SC&A 6=D
1=. 5aguisan vs. +milia, 161 SC&A D1-
11. 5eirs of Ardona vs. &eyes, 1/D SC&A //=
1/. Commissioner vs. ,urgos, )ar"h 61,1.7=
16. &epubli" vs. <uan, ./ SC&A /.
CHA5TER DI F THE -O-FIM5AIRME-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. 35A, De"ember 17,l.7-
/. Clements vs. 3olting, :/ %hil. -=/
6. Co vs. %3,, 11: SC&A 7:/
:. *oGano vs. )artineG,1:; SC&A 6/6
D. &utter vs. +steban,.6 %hil. ;7
;. 4lusorio vs. CA&, 1- SC&A /D
-. 1rtigas vs. $eati ,ank, .: SC&A D66
/:/
7. 2anGon vs. 4nsierto, 1/6 SC&A -16
.. Del &osario vs. De los Santos, )ar"h /1, 1.;7
1=. Abella vs. 3*&C, 1D/ SC&A 1:=
11. %F,+A vs. %F,, 17. SC&A 1:
Se"tion 11. $ree a""ess to the "ourts and 8uasi-0udi"ial bodies
and ade8uate legal assistan"e shall not be denied to any
person by reason of poverty.
CHA5TER DII F RI:HTS /3RI-:
C3STO/IAL I-VESTI:ATIO-
Se"tion 1/. 1' Any 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. 4f 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.
/' 3o 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.
6' Any "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 8#"todial detentionA for one suspe"ted or arrested as a
terrorist.
31!+: Appli"able provisions of the 5uman Se"urity A"tEAnti-!errorism *aw, &epubli"
A"t 3o. .6-/, Approved on )ar"h ;, /==- and effe"tive on <uly 1D, /==- !his *aw shall
be automati"ally suspended one 1' month before and two /' months after the holding of
any ele"tion'
1etion 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. 4f 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 4,% or the %ubli" attorney9s
/:6
offi"e %A1'. 4t shall be the duty of the free legal assistan"e unit of the 4,% or the %A19s
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#
6. allowed to "ommuni"ate freely with his legal "ounsel and to "onfer with them at any time
without restri"tion#
:. 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 /6. ReBuire$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#
6. the name and address of the physi"ianEs who e(amined him physi"ally and medi"ally#
:. 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#
;. 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#
7. summary of the physi"al and medi"al findings after ea"h interrogation#
.. names and addresses of the members of his family and relatives#
1=. 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 re8uested to "ommuni"ate or "onfer with his
lawyer#
16. the date and time of visits by his legal "ounsel and the date and time of departure# and
1:. all other important events bearing on all relevant details regarding the treatment of the
detained person while under "ustodial arrest or detention.
Se"tion /:. 3o torture or "oer"ion in 4nvestigation and interrogation. 3o 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 0udi"ial, 8uasi-0udi"ial, legislative, or
administrative investigation, in8uiry, 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 "') Iuri7pru)e'ce.
THE 5EO5LE O. THE 5HILI55I-ES VS. MAHI-AY, :.R. -o. 199261, .e8ru"ry
1, 1999
%er Curiam:
Considering the heavy penalty of death "') i' or)er #o e'7ure #%"# e*i)e'ce
"&"i'7# "' "ccu7e) were o8#"i'e) #%rou&% l"w(ul $e"'7, the Court, as guardian of the
rights of the people, lays down the %&1C+DA&+, 2A4D+*43+S, A3D DA!4+S >54C5
!5+ A&&+S!432, D+!A43432, 43F4!432 1& 43F+S!42A!432 1$$4C+& 1& 54S
C1)%A3413S )AS! 1,S+&F+ A! !5+ !4)+ 1$ )AM432 !5+ A&&+S! A3D
A2A43 A! A3D DA&432 !5+ !4)+ 1$ !5+ CAS!1D4A* 43F+S!42A!413 1&
43!+&&12A!413 43 ACC1&DA3C+ with the Constitution, 0urispruden"e and
Repu8lic Ac# -o. 236. I# i7 %i&% #i$e #o e)uc"#e our l"w e'(orce$e'# "&e'cie7 w%o
'e&lec# ei#%er 8y i&'or"'ce or i')i((ere'ce #%e 7oFc"lle) Mir"')" ri&%#7 w%ic% %")
8eco$e i'7u((icie'# "') w%ic% #%e cour# $u7# up)"#e i' #%e li&%# o( 'ew le&"l
)e*elop$e'#7.
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# +very other warnings, information or
"ommuni"ation must be in a language known to and understood by said person#
/. 5e 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#
6. 5e 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#
:. 5e 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#
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 appointed', 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 non-
governmental organiGation. 4! S5A** ,+ !5+ &+S%13S4,4*4!J 1$ !5+ 1$$4C+&
!1 +3SA&+ !5A! !54S 4S ACC1)%*4S5+D#
/:D
-. 5e 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#
7. 4n addition, if the person arrested waives his right to a lawyer, he must be informed that it
must be done in writing A3D 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 8uestioned 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#
1=. !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 8uestions or
volunteered some information or statements#
11. 5e must be informed that any statement 1& +F4D+3C+, as the "ase may be, obtained in
violation of any of the foregoing, whether in"ulpatory or e("ulpatory, in whole or in part,
S5A** ,+ 43AD)4SS4,*+ 43 +F4D+3C+.
31!+: Any 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 &A-:67, not to
mention the possible "riminal liability of said persons under e(isting laws'.
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., 21
SCRA 926
Jnares-Santiago, <.
."c#7H
$or allegedly diverting and "olle"ting funds of the 3ational %ower Corporation
intended for the pur"hase of AS Dollars from the Anited Co"onut %lanters ,ank AC%,',
the a""used-appellants were "harged of )alversation through $alsifi"ation of Commer"ial
Do"uments as defined and penaliGed under Arts. /1- and 1-1 B7C in relation to Arti"le :7 of
the &evised %enal Code. After trial, all a""used were "onvi"ted by the Sandiganbayan.
>hile the 4nformation "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'eAcu7"8le
'e&li&e'ce.
/:;
A""used 1"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 3%C personnel and the report of the 3,4. 5e 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. 5e was not assisted by "ounsel nor he was apprised of his
"onstitutional rights when he e(e"uted the affidavit. 5e 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)H
1. +ven if the information "harges willful malversation, "onvi"tion for malversation through
negligen"e may still be ad0udged if the eviden"e ultimately proves that mode of
"ommission of the offense. DiaG vs. Sandiganbayan, 6=/ SC&A 117'. !his was the
do"trine laid down in the "ase of Samson vs. Court of appeals, 1=6 %hil. /--.
/. !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 8uestions 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 in8uiry 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'. Clearly, therefore, the rights enumerated by the a""used are not available
,+$1&+ 21F+&3)+3! 43F+S!42A!1&S +3!+& !5+ %4C!A&+. !he prote"tive
mantle of se"tion 1/, arti"le 444 does not apply to administrative investigations ,5eople *7.
Ju)&e Ay7o', 11 SCRA 916!# "onfession to a private individual ,Ei$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 63'# or even to a )ayor approa"hed as a
personal "onfidante and not in his offi"ial "apa"ity 5eople *7. >uel", 393 SCRA 169'. 4n
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(tra0udi"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;'.
Clearly, the "onfession of the a""used was obtained during an administrative
investigation by 3%C and therefore, the same was not "overed by Se"tion 1/, Art. 444 of the
Constitution.
,-OTEH I' 5eople *7. A')"$, #%e co'(e77io' $")e 8e(ore " Mu'icip"l M"yor
w"7 %el) ")$i77i8le "7 e*i)e'ce!.
5EO5LE VS. .I:3EROA, 331 SCRA 329
Ander Art. 444, Se"tion 1/ B1C of the Constitution, a suspe"t in "ustodial investigation must
be:
/:-
1. informed of his right to remain silent#
/. warned that anything he says "an be and will be used against him#
6. told that he has the right to "ounsel, and that if he is indigent, a lawyer will be
appointed to represent him.
4n this "ase, a""used-appellant was given no more than a perfun"tory re"itation of
his rights, signifying nothing more than a feigned "omplian"e with the "onstitutional
re8uirements. %eople vs. Samolde, <uly 61, /==='
4t is always in"umbent on the prose"ution to prove at the trial that, prior to in-
"ustody 8uestioning, the "onfessant was informed of his "onstitutional rights. !he
presumption of regularity of offi"ial a"ts does not prevail over the "onstitutional
presumption of inno"en"e. 5en"e, in the absen"e of proof that the arresting offi"ers
"omplied with the above "onstitutional safeguards, e(tra0udi"ial statements, whether
in"ulpatory or e("ulpatory, made during the "ustodial investigation, are inadmissible not
only against the D+C*A&A3! but with more so against 6
rd
persons. !54S 4S S1 +F+3 4$
SAC5 S!A!+)+3!S A&+ 21S%+* !&A!5 A3D F1*A3!A&4*J 24F+3.
Su"h statements are useless +QC+%! AS +F4D+3C+ A2A43S! !5+ F+&J
%1*4C+ AA!51&4!4+S >51 F41*A!+D !5+ SAS%+C!9S &425!S.
5EO5LE VS. 4ARIM3IT, 321 SCRA 6;;
>hen "ustodial investigation is deemed to have started.
!he prote"tion under Se"tion 1/ , Art. 444 of the Constitution begins when a person
is taken into "ustody for investigation of his possible parti"ipation in the "ommission of a
"rime, or from the time he is singled out as a suspe"t in the "ommission of the "rime,
although not yet in "ustody.
Custodial investigation begins when it is no longer a general in8uiry into an
unsolved "rime but starts to fo"us on a parti"ular person as a suspe"t, i.e., when the poli"e
investigator starts interrogating or e(a"ting "onfession from the suspe"t in "onne"tion with
an alleged offense.
THE 5LACE O. I-TERRO:ATIO- IS -OT /ETERMI-ATIVE O. THE
EDISTE-CE OR A4SE-CE O. C3STO/IAL I-VESTI:ATIO- 43T THE TO-E
A-/ MA--ER O. M3ESTIO-I-: 4Y THE 5OLICE A3THORITIES. !hus, there
was "ustodial investigation when the poli"e authorities, upon their arrest of some of the
a""used, immediately asked them regarding their parti"ipation in the "ommission of the
"rime , even while they were still walking along the highway on their way to the poli"e
station. !his is line with the provisions of &A -:67 whi"h makes it appli"able even when a
person is merely invited for 8uestioning.
5EO5LE VS. /A-O, :.R. -O. 1169;, 339 SCRA 111, SE5T. 1, 9;;;+ 5EO5LE VS.
MAYOR:A, :.R. -O. 1312;1, 326 SCRA 216, -OVEM4ER 99, 9;;;.
/:7
5owever, 7po'#"'eou7 7#"#e$e'#7 *olu'#"rily &i*e', "7 w%ere "ppell"'# or"lly
")$i##e) Lilli'& #%e *ic#i$ 8e(ore #%e 8"r"'&"y c"p#"i' who is neither a poli"e offi"er
nor a law enfor"ement agent', do not fall under "ustodial investigation. Su"h admission,
even without the assistan"e of a lawyer, does not violate appellant9s "onstitutional rights
A3D !5+&+$1&+ AD)4SS4,*+ 43 +F4D+3C+.
5EO5LE VS. /A-O, :.R. -O. 1169;, 339 SCRA 111, SE5T. 1, 9;;;+ 5EO5LE VS.
SAMOL/E, :.R. -O. 196111, 336 SCRA 639, J3L. 31, 9;;;.
!o be admissible in eviden"e, an e(tra0udi"ial "onfession must be:
,i! *olu'#"ry+
,ii! $")e wi#% #%e a""i"tane of o(petent and independent o#n"el+
,iii! eApre77+ "')
,i*! i' wri#i'&.
A suspe"t9s "onfession, whether verbal or non-verbal, when taken without the
assistan"e of "ounsel, without a valid waiver of su"h assistan"e, regardless of the absen"e
of "oer"ion or the fa"t that it had been voluntarily given, i7 i'")$i77i8le i' e*i)e'ce, e*e'
i( "ppell"'#N7 co'(e77io' were &o7pel #ru#%.
ReBui7i#e7 o( " *"li) eA#r"Iu)ici"l co'(e77io'
5EO5LE O. THE 5HILI55I-ES *7. ROM3LO T3-IACO, ET AL.,
:.R. -o. 1611;, J"'u"ry 1;, 9;1;
A4A/, J.:
!his "ase is about the re8uirements of a valid e(tra0udi"ial "onfession and the establishment
of the e(isten"e of corpus delicti in murder "ases.
T%e ."c#7 "') #%e C"7e
!he "ity prose"utor of 2eneral Santos City "harged the a""used &omulo !unia"o, <effrey
Datulayta, and Ale( Aleman with murder before the &egional !rial Court &!C' of 2eneral Santos
City in Criminal Case 76-=.
,ased on the findings of the &!C, in the morning of <une 16, 1../ some poli"e offi"ers
from the *agao %oli"e Sub-Station re8uested poli"e offi"er <aime !abu"on of the Central %oli"e
Station of 2eneral Santos City homi"ide division to take the statement of a""used Ale( Aleman
regarding the slaying of a "ertain Dondon CorteG. 1n his arrival at the sub-station, !abu"on noted
the presen"e of Atty. &uperto ,esinga, <r. of the %ubli" Attorney9s 1ffi"e %A1' who was
"onversing with those taken into "ustody for the offense. >hen 8ueried if the suspe"ts would be
willing to give their statements, Atty. ,esinga said that they were.
/:.
Some other poli"e offi"er first took the statement of a""used <effrey Datulayta. 1ffi"er
!abu"on ne(t took the statement of a""used Aleman, whom he observed to be in good physi"al
shape.
,efore anything else, offi"er !abu"on informed a""used Aleman 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. Aleman answered in the affirmative. >hen asked if he
had any "omplaint to make, Aleman said that he had none. >hen Aleman said that he had no
lawyer, !abu"on pointed to Atty. ,esinga who "laimed that he was assisting all the suspe"ts in the
"ase. !abu"on warned Aleman that anything he would say may be used against him later in "ourt.
Afterwards, the poli"e offi"er started taking down Aleman9s statement.
A""used Aleman said that in the "ourse of a drinking bout with a""used Datulayta and
!unia"o at around . p.m. on <une ;, 1../, Dondon CorteG threatened to report his drinking
"ompanions9 illegal a"tivities to the poli"e unless they gave him money for his forth"oming
marriage. A""ording to Aleman, 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 Apopong near the dump site and, as they were
walking, a""used Aleman turned on CorteG and stabbed him on the stoma"h. A""used Datulayta,
on the other hand, drew out his single shot homemade )1; pistol and shot CorteG on the head,
"ausing him to fall. Datulayta handed over the gun to Aleman who fired another shot on CorteG9s
head. A""used !unia"o used the same gun to pump some bullets into CorteG9s body. !hen they
"overed him with ri"e husks.
After taking down the statement, !abu"on e(plained the substan"e of it to a""used Aleman
who then signed it in the presen"e of Atty. ,esinga.
1n <une 1D, 1../ the poli"e brought Aleman to the City %rose"utor9s 1ffi"e where he
swore to his statement before an assistant "ity prose"utor. 4n the afternoon, a""used Datulayta and
Aleman led !abu"on, the "ity prose"utor, and a poli"e inspe"tor, to the dump site where they left
their vi"tim9s body. After some sear"h, the group found a spot "overed with burnt ri"e husks and a
partially burnt body of a man. About a foot from the body, they found the shells of a D.D; "aliber
gun and an armalite rifle.
1n being arraigned, all three a""used, assisted by Atty. ,esinga, pleaded not guilty to the
murder "harge. After 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. 1n being re-arraigned
at his re8uest, a""used Datulayta pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of 5omi"ide. !he trial "ourt
senten"ed him to imprisonment of si( years and one day and to pay %D=,===.== to the vi"tim9s
family.
$or some reason, the trial "ourt had Aleman sub0e"ted to psy"hiatri" e(amination at the
Davao )ental 5ospital. ,ut, shortly after, the hospital sent word that Aleman had es"aped. 5e
was later re"aptured. >hen trial in the "ase resumed, Aleman9s new %A1 lawyer raised the
defense of insanity. !his prompted the "ourt to re8uire the %rovin"ial <ail >arden to issue a
"ertifi"ation regarding Aleman9s behavior and mental "ondition while in 0ail to determine if he was
/D=
fit to stand trial. !he warden "omplied, stating that Aleman had been observed to have good
mental "ondition and did not "ommit any infra"tion while in 0ail.
Although the prose"ution and defense stipulated that Atty. ,esinga assisted a""used Aleman
during the taking of his e(tra0udi"ial "onfession, the latter, however, re"anted what he said to the
poli"e during the trial. 5e testified that sometime in 1../, some poli"e offi"ers took him from his
aunt9s house in %urok %alen, *abangal, 2eneral Santos City, and brought him to the *agao poli"e
station. 5e was there asked to admit having taken part in the murder of CorteG. >hen he refused,
they tortured him until he agreed to sign a do"ument admitting his part in the "rime.
A""used Aleman also testified that he "ould not remember having been assisted by Atty.
,esinga during the poli"e investigation. 5e even denied ever knowing the lawyer. Aleman further
denied prior asso"iation with a""used !unia"o and Datulayta. 5e said that he met them only at the
"ity 0ail where they were detained for the death of CorteG.
1n 1"tober 7, /==1 the &!C rendered 0udgment, finding a""used Aleman 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 %-=,===.== and moral damages of
%D=,===.== to the heirs of CorteG.
1n appeal to the Court of Appeals CA' in CA-2.&. C&-5C ==611, the "ourt rendered
0udgment on <anuary /1, /==7, affirming the de"ision of the &!C with the modifi"ation that
dire"ted a""used Aleman and Datulayta to indemnify the heirs of CorteG, 0ointly and severally, in
the amounts of %D=,===.== as "ivil indemnity# %D=,===.== as moral damages# %/D,===.== as
temperate damages# and %/D,===.== as e(emplary damages. Aleman appealed to this Court.
T%e I77ue7 5re7e'#e)
A""used Aleman raises two issues: a' whether or not the prose"ution was able to present
eviden"e of corpus delicti# and b' whether or not a""used Aleman9s e(tra0udi"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: a' that a "ertain result has been established, for
e(ample, that a man has died and b' 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"tim9s body or
even by the testimony of the physi"ian who e(amined su"h body. >hile su"h report or testimony
is useful for understanding the nature of the in0uries the vi"tim suffered, they are not indispensable
/D1
proof of su"h in0uries or of the fa"t of death. 3or 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.
5ere, the poli"e authorities found the remains of CorteG at the pla"e pointed to by a""used
Aleman. !hat physi"al "onfirmation, "oming after his testimony of the gruesome murder,
suffi"iently establishes the corpus delicti of the "rime. 1f "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! eApre77+
"') )! i' wri#i'&. !hese re8uirements were met here. A lawyer, not working with or was not
beholden to the poli"e, Atty. ,esinga, assisted a""used Aleman during the "ustodial investigation.
1ffi"er !abu"on testified that he saw a""used Aleman, before the taking of his statement,
"onversing with "ounsel at the poli"e station. Atty. ,esinga did not dispute this "laim.
Aleman 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. 4t 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. 5ere, although Aleman
"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.
A""used Aleman "laims, "iting #eople v. +alit, that long 8uestions followed by
monosyllabi" answers do not satisfy the re8uirement that the a""used is amply informed of his
rights. ,ut this does not apply here. !abu"on testified that he spoke to Aleman "learly in the
language he knew. Aleman, 0oined by Atty. ,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, Aleman asserts that he was la"king in edu"ation and so he did not fully realiGe the
"onse8uen"es of a "onfession. ,ut as the CA said, no law or 0urispruden"e re8uires the poli"e
offi"er to as"ertain the edu"ational attainment of the a""used. All 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 Aleman9s
"onfession and 0ust for"ed him to sign it. !he "onfession has details that only the person who
"ommitted the "rime "ould have possibly known. >hat is more, a""used Datulayta9s "onfession
"orroborate that of Aleman in important details. Ander 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 @4"'#"y 4"y"' Me$8er7
reBuire7 #%"# #%e 7u7pec# 8e i'(or$e) o( %i7 EAp"')e)
Mir"')" Ri&%#7+ o#%erwi7e, #%e e*i)e'ce o8#"i'e) 7%"ll 8e
i'")$i77i8le i' e*i)e'ce.
/D/
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 6at"
4n an 4nformation dated /1 September /===, the appellant was a""used of the "rime of
RAA*4$4+D &A%+ allegedly "ommitted as follows:
!hat on or about the 1Dth day of )ar"h /===, in the evening, at ,arangay
(((, muni"ipality of (((, provin"e of ,ukidnon, %hilippines, and within the
0urisdi"tion of this 5onorable Court, the above-named a""used, being the father of
AAA 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
AAA, a 16 yearBsCold minor against her will.
1n 1/ 1"tober /===, appellant entered a plea of not guilty. During the pre-trial "onferen"e,
the prose"ution and the defense stipulated and admitted: a' the "orre"tness of the findings
indi"ated in the medi"al "ertifi"ate of the physi"ian who e(amined AAA# b' that AAA was only
thirteen 16' years old when the alleged offense was "ommitted# and "' that AAA is the daughter
of the appellant. 1n trial, three 6' witnesses testified for the prose"ution, namely: vi"tim AAA#
her brother ,,,# and one )oises ,oy ,anting, a ?'antay 'ayan@ in the 'arangay. !heir
testimonies revealed the following:
4n the afternoon of 1D )ar"h /===, AAA was left alone at home. AAA9s father, the
appellant, was having a drinking spree at the neighbor9s pla"e. 5er mother de"ided to leave
be"ause when appellant gets drunk, he has the habit of mauling AAA9s mother. 5er only brother
,,, also went out in the "ompany of some neighbors.
At around 1=:== o9"lo"k in the evening, appellant woke AAA up# removed his pants, slid
inside the blanket "overing AAA 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.
5e pro"eeded to mash her breast, kiss her repeatedly, and ?inserted his penis inside her vagina.@
Soon after, ,,, arrived and found AAA "rying. Appellant "laimed he s"olded her for
staying out late. ,,, de"ided to take AAA with him. >hile on their way to their maternal
grandmother9s house, AAA re"ounted her harrowing e(perien"e with their father. Apon rea"hing
their grandmother9s house, they told their grandmother and un"le of the in"ident, after whi"h, they
sought the assistan"e of )oises ,oy ,anting.
/D6
)oises ,oy ,anting found appellant in his house wearing only his underwear. 5e invited
appellant to the poli"e station, to whi"h appellant obliged. At the poli"e outpost, he admitted to
him that he raped AAA be"ause he was unable to "ontrol himself.
!he following day, AAA submitted herself to physi"al e(amination. Dra. <osefa Arlita *.
Alsula, )uni"ipal 5ealth 1ffi"er of ( ( (, ,ukidnon, issued the )edi"al Certifi"ate, whi"h reads:
hyperemi" vulvae with : o9"lo"k P ; o9"lo"k freshly la"erated hymen# ^'
minimal to moderate bloody dis"harges /_ to an alleged raping in"ident
1n the other hand, only appellant testified for the defense. 5e 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. 5e
went further to narrate how his day was on the date of the alleged rape.
!he lone assignment of error in the appellant9s 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: 1' there were in"onsisten"ies in the testimonies of AAA and her
brother ,,,# /' his e(tra0udi"ial "onfession before )oises ,oy ,anting was without the
assistan"e of a "ounsel, in violation of his "onstitutional right# and 6' AAA9s a""usation was ill-
motivated.
:,9>
Appellant "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""i.ility in ,!idene of an ,%tra2#diial Confe""ion .efore a
8+antay +ayanA
Appellant 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 re8uirement.
!he "ase of #eople v. Malngan is the authority on the s"ope of the )iranda do"trine
provided for under Arti"le 444, Se"tion 1/1' and 6' of the Constitution. 4n Malngan, appellant
8uestioned the admissibility of her e(tra0udi"ial "onfessions given to the barangay "hairman and a
neighbor of the 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'. >hen a""used-
appellant was brought to the barangay hall in the morning of / <anuary /==1, 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. A""used-appellant9s "onfession to ,arangay Chairman ( ( ( was
made in response to the Kinterrogation9 made by the latter I admittedly "ondu"ted
without first informing a""used-appellant of her rights under the Constitution or
/D:
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"8uittal. ( ( ( B!Che "onstitutional
safeguards during "ustodial investigations )o 'o# "pply #o #%o7e 'o# elici#e)
#%rou&% Bue7#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""used-appellant admitted to )er"edita )endoGa, one of the neighbors ( ( ( Bof
the private "omplainantC. 6Emp2asis supplied9
$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
Arti"le 444, Se"tion 1/ of the Constitution.
4n #eople of t2e #2ilippines v. uendia, this Court had the o""asion to mention #%e '"#ure
o( " @ .antay .ayan ,C #%"# i7, @" &roup o( $"le re7i)e'#7 li*i'& i' <#%e= "re" or&"'iJe) (or #%e
purpo7e o( Leepi'& pe"ce i' #%eir co$$u'i#y<,w%ic% i7= "' "ccre)i#e) "uAili"ry o( #%e A A A
5-5.C
Also, it may be worthy to "onsider that pursuant to Se"tion 1g' of +(e"utive 1rder 3o.
6=. issued on 11 3ovember 1.7-, as amended, a %ea"e and 1rder Committee in ea"h 'arangay
shall be organiGed ?to serve as implementing arm of the CityE)uni"ipal %ea"e and 1rder Coun"il
at the arangay level.@ !he "omposition of the Committee in"ludes, among others: 1' the
#unong arangay as Chairman# /' the Chairman of the "angguniang Sa'ataan# 6' a )ember of
the Lupon &agapamayapa# :' a arangay &anod# and D' "# le"7# #%ree ,3! Me$8er7 o( eAi7#i'&
+aran*ayF4"7e) A'#iFCri$e or 'ei&%8or%oo) 0"#c% :roup7 or " -o' :o*er'$e'#
Or&"'iJ"#io' Repre7e'#"#i*e wellFL'ow' i' %i7 co$$u'i#y.
T%i7 Cour# i7, #%ere(ore, co'*i'ce) #%"# .aran*ay F8"7e) *olu'#eer or&"'iJ"#io'7 i' #%e
'"#ure o( w"#c% &roup7, "7 i' #%e c"7e o( #%e @ .antay .ayan ,C "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
.aran*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'Buiry %e $"Le7 %"7 #%e color o( " 7#"#eF
rel"#e) (u'c#io' "') o8Iec#i*e i'7o("r "7 #%e e'#i#le$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).
>e, therefore, find the e(tra0udi"ial "onfession of appellant, whi"h was taken without a
"ounsel, inadmissible in eviden"e.
,e that as it may, >e agree with the Court of Appeals that the "onvi"tion of the appellant
was not dedu"ed solely from the assailed e(tra0udi"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.
/DD
5EO5LE O. THE 5HILI55I-ES VS. VICTOR VILLARI-O, :.R.-O.
161;19, MARCH 1, 9;1;
.ACTSH
1n April /7, 1..D, ?,,,@, together with her 1=-year old daughter ?AAA@ 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.
1n even date, from -:== o9"lo"k to .:== o9"lo"k in the evening, S%1: <esus 2enoguin S%1:
2enoguin' was in his house in arangay ?D@ entertaining his guests, one of whom was appellant. >hile
personally serving food and drinks to appellant, S%=: 2enoguin noti"ed that the latter was wearing a
bra"elet and a ne"kla"e with pendant. Appellant even allowed S%1: 2enoguin to put on the bra"elet.
1n April /., 1..D, at around .:== o9"lo"k in the morning, the appellant who was on his way to
arangay ?D@, passed by the house of &odrigo 1la0e &odrigo'. At that time, &odrigo noti"ed appellant
wearing a bra"elet and a ne"kla"e with pendant. 5e was also wearing a white sleeveless t-shirt sando'.
At 11:== o9"lo"k in the morning, appellant was at the house of ?,,,9s@ aunt. ?,,,@ offered him
food. ?,,,@ also noti"ed that he was dressed in a white sando and that he wore 0ewelry "onsisting of a
bra"elet and a ne"kla"e with pendant. At 1:== o9"lo"k in the afternoon, he was seen wearing the same
sando and 0ewelry while drinking at the basketball "ourt in arangay ?D@.
At around 6:== o9"lo"k in the afternoon, ?,,,@ told ?AAA@ to go home to arangay ?D1@ to get
a t-shirt for her brother. ?AAA@ obeyed. 5owever, she no longer returned. >hile ?,,,@ was an(iously
waiting for ?AAA@ 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 "hild9s body as that
of her daughter, ?AAA@.
At around ::== o9"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. 5e 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%1: 2enoguin also went to the "rime s"ene after being informed by his "ommander. Apon
arrival, he saw the "orpse of a little girl behind a big boulder that was about 1= meters away from the trail
0un"tion of the 'arangays. %eople had gathered seven to 1= meters away from the dead body, but no one
dared to approa"h.
?AAA9s@ lifeless body lay fa"e up with her butto"ks on top of a small ro"k. 5er 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. >rapped around her right hand, whi"h
was positioned near her right ear, was a white sando.
?AAA9s@ panty was found a meter away from her body, while her short pants was about two
meters farther. A bra"elet and a pendant were also re"overed from the "rime s"ene. &odrigo and ?,,,@
identified these pie"es of 0ewelry as those seen on the appellant. !hey also identified the sando on
?AAA9s@ arm as the appellant9s. !hus, the hunt for appellant began.
/D;
1n the same day, the appellant was found in the house of Aurelia Susmena near the seashore of
arangay ?D1@. 5e was drunk and violent. 5e resisted arrest and had to be bodily "arried to the
motorboat that would take him to the muni"ipal building in Almagro, Samar. !he arresting team made the
appellant take off his "lothes sin"e they were wet. >hen he "omplied, his briefs revealed bloodstains.
1n )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. >hile waiting for a boat ride at ::== o9"lo"k in the morning, the
poli"e team took a "offee break. S%1: 2enoguin was momentarily left alone to guard the appellant.
During this short period, the appellant voluntarily admitted to S%1: 2enoguin that he "ommitted the "rime
"harged. 5e also told S%1: 2enoguin that he "ould keep the pendant and bra"elet if he would retrieve the
t-shirt and throw it into the sea. S%1: 2enoguin re0e"ted the appellant9s offer and reminded him of his
right to a "ounsel and that everything the appellant said "ould be used against him in "ourt. Anperturbed,
the appellant reiterated his offer.
>hen they boarded the motorboat, the appellant repeatedly offered to give S%1: 2enoguin
% /=,===.== if he would throw the sando into the sea. 5owever, the poli"e offi"er ignored the offer and
instead reported the matter to the Chief of %oli"e of Almagro, S%1: ,asilio ). Jabao. *ater, the
appellant9s mother, $eli"idad )abute y *egaspi, asked him not to testify against her son.
At the Calbayog Distri"t 5ospital, Senior &esident %hysi"ian Dr. <ose F. 1ng, found that
appellant9s body had 1= 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.
1n August 6, 1..D, an 4nformation was filed "harging appellant Fi"tor Fillarino y )abute with the
spe"ial "omple( "rime of rape with homi"ide. !he 4nformation "ontained the following a""usatory
allegations:
!hat on or about the /.
th
day of April, 1..D, at about D:== o9"lo"k in the afternoon,
at ,arangay ?D1@, )uni"ipality of Almagro, %rovin"e of Samar, %hilippines, and within
the 0urisdi"tion of this 5onorable 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 1=' years Bsi"C, ?AAA@, without the
latter9s "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 ?AAA@ mortal wounds
on ( ( ( different parts of her body, whi"h "aused her untimely death.

C13!&A&J !1 *A>.
Appellant pleaded not guilty to the "rime "harged. After 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 5omi"ide
and senten"ed to Death.
ISS3EH
4s a""used-appellant9s voluntary "onfession to S%1: 2enoguin admissible in eviden"eN
HEL/H
/D-
4n the instant "ase, appellant voluntarily "onfessed to raping and killing ?AAA@ to S%1:
2enoguin. 5e even offered to give the pie"es of 0ewelry to the latter if his sando is thrown into the sea.
!he appellant did not deny this a""usation nor assail its truthfulness.
>hen appellant "onfessed to the "rime, he was alone with S%1: 2enoguin, and no for"e or
intimidation was employed against him. !he "onfession was spontaneously made and not eli"ited through
8uestioning. !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.
4n #eople v. %y, we held that:
Contrary to the defense "ontention, the oral "onfession made by the A""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., 1"tober 1-, 1.7:,
pp. ;-.', 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 16=,
&ules of Court'. 4t 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. An oral
"onfession need not be repeated verbatim, but in su"h a "ase it must be given in substan"e
/6 C.<.S. 1.;, "ited in #eople v. &a?at, 2.&. 3o. ;/7-1, )ay /D, 1.7D, 1/. SC&A :61'.

>hat was told by the A""used to %at. %adilla was a spontaneous statement not
eli"ited through 8uestioning, but given in an ordinary manner. 3o written "onfession was
sought to be presented in eviden"e as a result of formal "ustodial investigation. #eople v.
&aylaran, 2.&. 3o. *-1.1:., 1"tober 61, 1.71, 1=7 SC&A 6-6'. !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 +rror F44.
At 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. >hen "onsidered together, the "ir"umstan"es point
to the appellant as the "ulprit.

/. 2uidelines for poli"e investigation
&ead:
1.+s"obedo vs. 4llinois, 6-7 AS :-7
/. )iranda vs. AriGona, 67: AS :6;
6. %. vs. Duero, 1=: SC&A 6-.
/-a. Duties of the %oli"e or Arresting 1ffi"ers
&ead:
1. %. vs. )atos-Fiduya, Sept. 11, 1..=
/D7
1-a. % vs. 3i"andro, 1:1 SC&A /7.
/. % vs. Duhan, 1:/ SC&A 1==
6. % vs. Caguioa, .D SC&A /
:. % vs. &amos, 1// SC&A 61/
6. !o be informed of the &ight to remain silent# "ases in parti"ular
&ead:
1. Constitutional right to remain silent,1=: SC&A 6.1
1-a. %eople vs. )ar"os <imeneG, De". 1=, 1..1
+(tra0udi"ial "onfession# "ounsel of "hoi"e
&ight to "ounsel during "ustodial investigation# while making an e(tra0udi"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 4,% 1ffi"e
where a lawyer assisted him in his e(tra0udi"ial "onfession.
>e are in"lined to believe that when he was brought to the 4,% 1ffi"e, his body and
his will were in no position to raise any ob0e"tion mu"h less to "omplaint to the 4,% lawyer
about what he has gone through. 4n fa"t, the 4,% lawyer was working on an appeal in
another "ase while the e(tra0udi"ial "onfession was being taken.
!he mere presen"e of a lawyer is not suffi"ient "omplian"e with the "onstitutional
re8uirement of assistan"e of "ounsel. Assistan"e of "ounsel must be effe"tive, vigilant and
independent. A lawyer who "ould 0ust hear the investigation going on while working on
another "ase hardly satisfies the minimum re8uirements of effe"tive assistan"e of "ounsel.
3ot only was the a""used sub0e"ted to "ustodial investigation without "ounsel, he was
likewise denied effe"tive assistan"e of "ounsel during the taking of his e(tra-0udi"ial
"onfession.
5EO5LE V. JIME-E>
:.R.-o. 696;2. /ece$8er 1;, 1991

3A&FASA, <.:
$AC!S:
1n August 16, 1.7D, poli"e authorities, a"ting upon a report, "ame upon the "orpse
of %elagio <imeneG below a "liff near a balite tree. !he poli"e investigators learned that
)ar"os, the son of the de"eased %elagio <imeneG told his mother that his father had not
"ome home the previous night: that the sear"h for the de"eased, who was living separately
from them, "ommen"ed a day earlier but it was not until the morning of the following day,
/D.
August 16, 1.7D, that de"eased %elagio was finally found dead. !hey also learned from the
persons they interviewed of "ir"umstan"es that drew their suspi"ion to the son, )ar"os and
&obert, su"h as# the bathing at the artesian well Has if washing away stains of bloodH# the
de"easedSs violent 8uarrels with his "hildren and o""asions that he had been bo(ed and hit
by his "hildren. !he poli"e had invited the de"easedSs widow and her sons for 8uestioning
about the killing. A draft of the "onfession was prepared by the investigating offi"er but
)ar"os was not able to sign the same due to the absen"e of the 0udge before whom it is
supposed to be sworn and signed. )ar"os agreed to "ome ba"k and sign his statement, but
upon his return, he, assisted by a former 0udge whose presen"e was re8uested by the poli"e
authorities, refused to sign his statement. Subse8uently, an information for parri"ide was
filed against the widow and her sons, )ar"os, &obert, and >ilkins. 4n an order dated <uly
/1, 1.7;, the trial "ourt absolved the widow and >ilkins of any parti"ipation in the filling
for la"k of proof. 1n De"ember 1/. 1.7;, the trial "ourt found )ar"os and &obert guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the "rime of parri"ide, noting that the unsigned "onfession is
admissible in eviden"e inasmu"h as eviden"e aliunde "orroborated su"h "onfession. ,oth
a""used "ontest su"h ruling. 5en"e this appeal.
4SSA+:
4s the e(tra0udi"ial "onfession of )ar"os admissible in eviden"eN
5+*D:
3o. De"ision reversed.
Se"tion 1/ 1', Arti"le 444 1$ !5+ 1.7- Constitution de"lares that a person being
investigated by the poli"e as a suspe"t in an offense has the right, among others, 1' 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 /' 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"##erR7 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$er Iu)&e w%o7e "77i7#"'ce w"7 reBue7#e) 8y #%e police
w"7 e*i)e'#ly 'o# o( M"rco7 Ji$e'eJR ow' c%oice+ 7%e w"7 #%e police o((icer7R 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 0udge was not present when )ar"os was being interrogated
by the poli"e. >hile 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 re0e"ted by
)ar"os. 5en"e, the supposed waiver made therein of his "onstitutional right to "ounsel of
his own "hoi"e.
/;=
3either "an the "onfession pre0udi"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 <imeneG 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. 4n view of the inadmissibility in eviden"e of the "onfession, the rest
of the eviden"e of the prose"ution is inade8uate to over"ome the presumption of inno"en"e
raised by the fundamental law in favor of both the a""used.
+(tra0udi"ial "onfession without the assistan"e of "ounsel, inadmissible as eviden"e#
e("eption
%+1%*+ FS. %A3$4*1 CA,4*+S, /7: SC&A 1..# %+1%*+ FS. !A3, /7; SC&A /=-
)elo, <.
+ven if the "onfession of the a""used speaks of the truth, if it was made without the
assistan"e of "ounsel, it is inadmissible in eviden"e regardless of the absen"e of "oer"ion or
even if it was voluntarily given.
4n order that a "onfession is admissible, the following re8uisites must be present:
a. the "onfession must be voluntary#
b. the "onfession must be made with the assistan"e of a "ompetent and independent "ounsel#
". the "onfession must be e(press# and
d. the "onfession must be in writing.
!he above re8uirements, however, are not appli"able when the suspe"t makes an
spontaneous statement, not eli"ited through 8uestioning by the authorities, ,A! 24F+3
43 A3 1&D43A&J )A33+& >5+&+,J !5+ ACCAS+D 1&A**J AD)4!!+D
5AF432 C1))4!!+D !5+ C&4)+. !his was the de"ision of the Supreme Court in the
"ase of %+1%*+ FS. A3DA3, )ar"h 6, 1..- when the a""used made a voluntary and
verbal "onfession to the )uni"ipal )ayor that he "ommitted the "rime imputed to him. As
su"h, his un"ounselled "onfession is ")$i77i8le i' e*i)e'ce.
5EO5LE VS. O4RERO, 339 SCRA 19;
)endoGa, <.
!here are two /' kinds of involuntary or "oer"ed "onfessions under Art. 444,
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 >arnings.
/;1
!here is no "omplian"e of the "onstitutional re8uirement 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 >%D, Atty. De los &eyes, while being
investigated by other poli"emen of the same poli"e station be"ause the interest of the poli"e
is naturally adverse to the a""used. 4n fa"t, the SC in the "ase of %+1%*+ FS. <A3AA&41,
/;- SC&A ;=7 held that a lawyer applying for a position in the 3,4 "ould not validly assist
an a""used being investigated then by the 3,4.
1-b. %. vs. Aspili, 3ovember /1, 1..=
1-". 5eople *7. Ju)&e Ay7o', 11 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$e) o( %i7 ri&%#7 )uri'& cu7#o)i"l i'*e7#i&"#io'7 7i'ce 7"i)
o((ici"l7 "re 'o# 8ou') 8y #%e reBuire$e'#7 o( Sec#io' 19, Ar#. III o( #%e Co'7#i#u#io'!
1-d. %. vs. %inla", 1;D SC&A ;-D
1-e. %eople vs. *overia, 17- SC&A :-
1-f. 2amboa vs. <udge CruG, 1;/ SC&A ;-D
/. %. vs. 2alit, 16D SC&A :;D
6. % vs. Alegre, .: SC&A 1=.
:. Dra"ulan vs. Donato, 7D SC&A /;;
D. %. vs. ,orromeo, <une /.,l.76
;. % vs. Camalog, 2& 3o. --11;, <anuary 61, 1.7.
4n"luding the duty of %oli"e 1ffi"ers in "onne"tion with said right'
-. % vs. Cui, <r., 1;/ SC&A //=
6-a. 5ow about if the a""used gives an spontaneous statement before he "ould be advised
of his right to remain silentN
&ead:
Aballe vs. %eople, 176 SC&A 1.;
6-b. >hen shall the "onstitutional rights of the a""used as mentioned above
demandableN During poli"e line-upN
&ead:
1. % vs. Asman 5assan, 1D- SC&A /;1
/. 2amboa vs. <udge CruG, 1;/ SC&A ;:/
3 6. D+ *A !1&&+ FS. CA, /.: SC&A 1.;
:. %+1%*+ FS. 5A!!13
!he right to "ounsel#
5EO5LE VS. JERE>, 961 SCRA 393
A 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 ob0e"tion
against the former9s appointment during the "ourse of the investigation A3D !5+
/;/
ACCAS+D !5+&+A$!+& SA,SC&4,+S !1 !5+ F+&AC4!J 1$ 54S S!A!+)+3!
,+$1&+ !5+ S>+A&432 1$$4C+&.
31!+: 4n the "ase of 5EO5LE VS. J3A-ERIO, .e8ru"ry , 199, the SC held
that a lawyer who was at the 3,4 1ffi"e applying for a position therein and who was
appointed as "ounsel for a suspe"t being then investigated by the 3,4 "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 3,4 as one of its agents.'
T%e 'eA# c"7e i7 *ery i$por#"'#. 4t 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. 4t 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.
163;;, M"rc% 1, 9;;9
C54C1-3AOA&41, J.:
1n 11 August 1..., an 4nformation
1.6B:C
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 <usti"e hereby a""uses
Domingo &eyes y %a0e, Alvin Arnaldo y Avena and <oselito $lores y Fi"torio of the "rime
of kidnapping for ransom with homi"ide defined and penaliGed under Arti"le /;- of the
&evised %enal Code, as amended, "ommitted as follows:
!hat on or about 11:== p.m. on <uly 1;, 1..., at Sitio *ambakin, barangay Sto.
Cristo, San <ose del )onte, ,ula"an, %hilippines and within the 0urisdi"tion of this
5onorable Court, the above-named a""used "onspiring, "onfederating and mutually helping
one another and grouping themselves together with <uanito %ataray y Cayaban, $ederi"o
%ataray y Cabayan and &ommel *ibarnes y A"e0o, who are still at large, did then 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,===,===.==', that
during the detention of Chua 1ng %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 pre0udi"e of their heirs in su"h amount as may be awarded to them by
this 5onorable Court.
1.6B:C
&e"ords, pp. :/-:6.
/;6
!he prose"ution presented as witnesses <ona Abagatnan Abagatnan', &obert Jao
&obert', Jao San, %oli"e 1ffi"er 6 %16' Ale( Alberto, %16 &oberto <abien, A##y.
.lori$o') Rou7 Atty. &ous' and A##y. C"rlo 3$i'&" Atty. Aminga'. !heir
testimonies, taken together, attest to the following:
!he Jao family is "omposed of Jao San father', Chua 1ng %ing Sim mother',
&obert and &aymond "hildren', *enny daughter-in-law, wife of &obert', )atthew and
Charlene grand"hildren', and <ona Abagatnan and <osephine 1rtea housemaids'. !he
Jao family owns and operates a poultry farm in ,arangay Santo Cristo, San <ose del
)onte, ,ula"an.
1n 1; <uly 1..., at about 11:== p.m., the Jao family, on board a )aGda )F% van,
arrived at the their poultry farm in ,arangay Sto. Cristo, San <ose del )onte, ,ula"an. Jao
San alighted from the van to open the gate of the farm. At this 0un"ture, appellant &eyes
and a "ertain <uanito %ataray %ataray' approa"hed, poked their guns at Jao San, and
dragged him inside the van. Appellant &eyes and %ataray also boarded the van. !hereupon,
appellants Arnaldo and $lores, with two male "ompanions, all armed with guns, arrived and
immediately boarded the van. Appellant $lores took the driver9s seat and drove the van.
Appellants &eyes and Arnaldo and their "ohorts then blindfolded ea"h member of the Jao
family inside the van with pa"kaging tape.
1.:B;C
After about 6= minutes of traveling on the road, the van stopped. %er order of
appellants and their "ohorts, Chua 1ng %ing Sim, &obert, &aymond and <ona Abagatnan
Abagatnan' stepped out of the van with appellants &eyes and Arnaldo, %ataray and one of
their male "ompanions.
1.DB-C
Appellant $lores, with the other male "ompanion, drove the
van with the remaining members of the Jao family inside the vehi"le.
1.;B7C
*ater, the van stopped again. Appellant $lores and his male "ompanion told Jao
San to produ"e the amount of five million pesos %D,===,===.==' as ransom in e("hange for
the release of Chua 1ng %ing Sim, &obert, &aymond and Abagatnan. !hereafter, appellant
$lores and his male "ompanion left the van and fled# while Jao San, *enny, )atthew,
Charlene and <osephine remained inside the van. Apon 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 1ng %ing Sim, &obert, &aymond and Abagatnan were taken on
foot by appellants &eyes and Arnaldo, %ataray and one male "ompanion to a safe-house
situated in the mountainous part of San <ose Del )onte, ,ula"an where they spent the
whole night.
1.7B1=C
1n the morning of the following day, at around ::== 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 Abagatnan to look for Jao San in the poultry farm.
Appellants &eyes and Arnaldo and one male "ompanion es"orted Abagatnan in pro"eeding
1.:B;C
!S3, /; 1"tober 1..., pp. 6-1:# !S3, 11 August /===, pp. 6--# !S3, /1 September /===, pp. /- 7.
1.DB-C
!S3, /; 1"tober 1..., pp. 1;-1-# !S3, 11 August /===, p. -.
1.;B7C
&e"ords, p. 6:.
1.-B.C
4d.
1.7B1=C
!S3, /; 1"tober 1..., pp. 1;-/6# !S3, - De"ember 1..., pp. /-D# !S3, 11 August /===, pp. 7- ..
/;:
to the poultry farm. Apon arriving therein, Abagatnan sear"hed for Jao San, but the latter
"ould not be found. Appellants &eyes and Arnaldo told Abagatnan to remind Jao San
about the ransom demanded. !hereafter, appellants &eyes and Arnaldo and their male
"ompanion left Abagatnan in the poultry farm and went ba"k to the safe-house.
1..B11C
4n the safe-house, appellants told &obert that they would release him so he "ould
help Abagatnan 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. Apon 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 1ng %ing Sim
and &aymond were still held by appellants and their "ohorts.
/==B1/C
1n 17 <uly 1..., appellants "alled Jao San through a "ellular phone and demanded
the ransom of %D million for Chua 1ng %ing Sim and &aymond. Jao San a""eded to
appellants9 demand. Appellants allowed Jao San to talk with Chua 1ng %ing Sim.
/=1B16C
1n the morning of 1. <uly 1..., appellants again "alled Jao San via a "ellular
phone and threatened to kill Chua 1ng %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 1ng %ing
Sim and &aymond. Appellants then instru"ted Jao San to appear and bring with him the
ransom of %D million at 6:== p.m. in the Asan dumpsite, *ite( &oad, $airview, RueGon
City. Jao San arrived at the designated pla"e of the pay-off at ::== p.m., but none of the
appellants or their "ohorts showed up. Jao San waited for appellant9s "all, but none "ame.
!hus, Jao San left.
/=/B1:C
1n /6 <uly 1..., the "orpses of Chua 1ng %ing Sim and &aymond were found at
the *a )esa Dam, 3ovali"hes, RueGon City.
/=6B1DC
,oth died of asphy(ia by
strangulation.
/=:B1;C
1n /; <uly 1..., appellant Arnaldo surrendered to the %residential Anti-1rganiGed
Crime !ask $or"e %A1C!$' at Camp Crame, RueGon City. !hereupon, appellant
Arnaldo, with the assistan"e of Atty. Aminga, e(e"uted a written e(tra-0udi"ial "onfession
narrating his parti"ipation in the in"ident. Appellant Arnaldo identified appellants &eyes
and $lores, %ataray and a "ertain !ata and Akey as his "o-parti"ipants in the in"ident.
Appellant Arnaldo also des"ribed the physi"al features of his "ohorts and revealed their
whereabouts.
/=DB1-C
Subse8uently, appellant &eyes was arrested in Sto. Cristo, San <ose del )onte,
,ula"an. !hereafter, appellants Arnaldo and &eyes were identified in a poli"e line-up by
Jao San, &obert and Abagatnan as their kidnappers.
/=;B17C
1..B11C
!S3, - De"ember 1..., pp. :--.
/==B1/C
4d. at --7# !S3, 11 August /===, pp. 1=-1/.
/=1B16C
&e"ords, p. 6D.
/=/B1:C
4d# !S3, 11 August /===, pp. 1/-1:.
/=6B1DC
!S3, - De"ember 1..., pp. 7-.# !S3, 11 August /===, pp. 1:-1D# &e"ords, p. 6D.
/=:B1;C
&e"ords, pp. 1D-1-.
/=DB1-C
4d. at D, 7, 1/, P /:-/7.
/=;B17C
4d. at 16-1: P 66, 6D, P 67.
/;D
1n 1= August 1..., agents of the %A1C!$ arrested appellant $lores in ,alayan,
,atangas. Afterwards, appellant $lores, with the assistan"e of Atty. &ous, e(e"uted a
written e(tra-0udi"ial "onfession detailing his parti"ipation in the in"ident. Appellant
$lores identified appellants &eyes and Arnaldo, %ataray and a "ertain !ata and Akey as his
"o-parti"ipants in the in"ident. Appellant $lores was subse8uently identified in a poli"e
line-up by Jao San, &obert and Abagatnan as one of their kidnappers.
/=-B1.C
$or its part, the defense presented the testimonies of appellants, )arina &eyes,
4rene $lores Celestino, >ilfredo Celestino, <r., &a"hel C. &amos, and 4sidro Arnaldo.
Appellants denied any liability and interposed alibis and the defense of frame-up. !heir
testimonies, as "orroborated by their witnesses, are as follows:
Appellant Arnaldo testified that he was an ?asset@ of the %A1C!$. 5e narrated that
on /D <uly 1..., while he was at the tri"y"le terminal of ,rgy. Sto. Cristo, San <ose del
)onte, ,ula"an, a poli"e offi"er named *iwanag of the %A1C!$ 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 Aguirre and ,autista families. 5e
a""epted the invitation. Subse8uently, he pro"eeded to Camp Crame and met therein
Colonel Cesar )an"ao 444 Colonel )an"ao' of the %A1C!$. Colonel )an"ao told him
that the %A1C!$ 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. 5e refused to do so be"ause he feared
,rgy. Capt. &amos. !he day after, Colonel )an"ao "alled appellant Arnaldo to his offi"e.
Apon 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
%D==,===.==. 5e a""epted Jao San9s offer under the "ondition that he would identify a
different set of suspe"ts. *ater, Colonel )an"ao gave him %6=,===.==.
/=7B61C
Subse8uently, he pointed to appellants &eyes and $lores as his "ohorts in
kidnapping the Jao family. 5e 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.
/=.B6/C
5e denied having met with Atty. Aminga. 5e was not assisted by the latter when
he was for"ed by the %A1C!$ to make a written e(tra-0udi"ial "onfession on the
kidnapping of the Jao family. $urther, he "laimed that while he was under the "ustody of
%A1C!$, a "ertain )a0or %aulino utiliGed him as a drug pusher. Apon failing to remit the
pro"eeds of the drug sale, he was beaten up by %A1C!$ agents and thereafter in"luded as
a""used with appellants &eyes and $lores for the kidnapping of the Jao family.
/1=B66C
1n the other hand, appellant &eyes testified that he slept in his house with his
family from ;:== p.m. of 1; <uly 1... until the morning of the ne(t day# that on the early
morning of /; <uly 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
/=-B1.C
4d. at :;-:7, ;6-;: P 6=/-6=;.
/=7B61C
!S3, - <une /==1, pp. 6-/1.
/=.B6/C
!S3, 1= <uly /==1, pp. 6-;.
/1=B66C
4d. at 1=-1;# !S3, /1 August /==1, pp. 6-1:.
/;;
Camp Crame, where he was subse8uently tortured# that he knew the Jao family be"ause he
worked as a "arpenter in the family9s poultry farm at ,rgy. Sto. Cristo, San <ose del )onte,
,ula"an# that he had no involvement in the kidnapping of the family# and that appellant
Arnaldo impli"ated him in the kidnapping of the family be"ause appellant Arnaldo held a
grudge against him.
/11B6:C
$or his part, appellant $lores testified that he stayed in his sister9s house at Antipolo
City from 1/ <uly 1... up to 6= <uly 1...# that he went to her house on 1/ <uly 1...
be"ause it was the birthday of her "hild# that he worked as a "onstru"tion worker during his
stay in his sister9s 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(tra-0udi"ial "onfession# that he never
met nor did he know Atty. &ous# that he knew the Jao family be"ause he lived near the
family9s 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 Arnaldo impli"ated him in the
kidnapping of the family be"ause he and appellant &eyes had mauled appellant Arnaldo
several years ago.
/1/B6DC
!he defense proffered do"umentary and ob0e"t eviden"e to buttress their foregoing
"laims, to wit: 1' prayer booklet of appellant Arnaldo +(hibit 1 for appellant Arnaldo'#
/16
B6;C
/' "alling "ard of Colonel )an"ao +(hibit / for appellant Arnaldo'#
/1:B6-C
and 6'
pi"tures allegedly showing appellant $lores working as a "arpenter in Antipolo City
+(hibits 1 P / for appellant $lores'.
/1DB67C
After trial, the &!C rendered a De"ision dated /; $ebruary /==/ "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. Appellants were also
ordered to pay 0ointly and severally the Jao family %1D=,===.== as "ivil indemnity,
%D==,===.== as moral damages and the "osts of the pro"eedings. !he dispositive portion of
the &!C De"ision reads:
>5+&+$1&+, finding herein three 6' a""used D1)4321 &+J+S y %A<+,
A*F43 A&3A*D1 y AF+3A, and <1S+*4!1 $*1&+S y F4C!1&41 guilty as
prin"ipals beyond reasonable doubt of the "rime of M4D3A%%432 $1& &A3S1) >4!5
D1A,*+' 51)4C4D+ as "harged, they are hereby senten"ed ea"h to suffer the supreme
penalty of D+A!5 as mandated by law, to 0ointly and severally indemnify the heirs of
de"eased Chua 1ng %ing Sim and &aymond Jao in the amount of 1ne 5undred $ifty
!housand %esos %1D=,===.==', and all the private offended parties or vi"tims, in"luding
the heirs of the de"eased, in the amount of $ive 5undred !housand %esos %D==,===.==' as
moral damages, sub0e"t to the "orresponding filing fee as a first lien, and to pay the "osts of
the pro"eedings.
/1;B6.C
/11B6:C
!S3, ; )ar"h /==1, pp. 6-1=.
/1/B6DC
!S3, /: )ay /==1, pp. /-..
/16B6;C
&e"ords, Folume F4, 4nde( of +(hibits.
/1:B6-C
4d.
/1DB67C
&e"ords, p. 6D-.
/1;B6.C
CA rollo, p. ;1.
/;-
,y reason of the death penalty imposed on ea"h of the appellants, the instant "ase
was elevated to us for automati" review. 5owever, pursuant to our ruling in #eople v.
Mateo,
/1-B:=C
we remanded the instant "ase to the Court of Appeals for proper disposition.
1n 1: August /==;, the Court of Appeals 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. 4t also de"reased the amount of "ivil indemnity from %1D=,===.== to
%1==,===.==. $urther, it dire"ted appellants to pay 0ointly and severally the Jao family
%1==,===.== as e(emplary damages. !he fallo of the Court of Appeals9 de"ision states:
>5+&+$1&+, premises "onsidered, the De"ision of the &egional !rial Court of
)alolos, ,ula"an, ,ran"h 1/, dated $ebruary /;, /==/, in Criminal Case 3o. 1;11-)-..
"onvi"ting a""used-appellants of the "rime of Midnapping $or &ansom with Double'
5omi"ide, is hereby A$$4&)+D with )1D4$4CA!413S in that:
1' a""used-appellants are instead senten"ed to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua#
/' the award of "ivil indemnity e> delicto is hereby redu"ed to %1==,===# and
6' a""used-appellants are further ordered to pay private "omplainants the
amount of %1==,===.== as e(emplary damages.
/17B:1C
Appellants filed a motion for re"onsideration of the Court of Appeals9 De"ision but
this was denied. 5en"e, appellants filed their 3oti"e of Appeal on /D August /==;.
1ne of the main issues raised is:
THE TRIAL CO3RT ERRE/ I- :IVI-: 0EI:HT A-/ CRE/E-CE TO THE
EDTRAFJ3/ICIAL CO-.ESSIO-S O. A55ELLA-T AR-AL/O A-/
A55ELLA-T .LORES+
Appellant &eyes "laims that his alleged parti"ipation in the kidnapping of the Jao
family was based solely on the written e(tra-0udi"ial "onfessions of appellants Arnaldo and
$lores. 5e maintains, however, that said e(tra-0udi"ial "onfessions are inadmissible in
eviden"e, be"ause they were obtained in violation of his "o-appellants9 "onstitutional right
to have an independent "ounsel of their own "hoi"e during "ustodial investigation.
Appellant &eyes alleges that the agents of the %A1C!$ 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 %A1C!$ suggested the
availability of Atty. Aminga and Atty. &ous to his "o-appellants# and that Atty. Aminga
and Atty. &ous were asso"iates of the %A1C!$. Appellant &eyes also asseverates that the
e(tra-0udi"ial "onfessions of appellants Arnaldo and $lores "annot be utiliGed against him.
Appellant $lores argues that his written e(tra-0udi"ial "onfession is inadmissible in
eviden"e, be"ause it was obtained in violation of his "onstitutional right to have an
/1-B:=C
2.&. 3os. 1:-;-7-7-, - <uly /==:, :66 SC&A ;:=.
/17B:1C
$ollo, p. 6:.
/;7
independent "ounsel of his own "hoi"e during "ustodial investigation. 5e insists that his
written e(tra-0udi"ial "onfession was eli"ited through for"e, torture and without the
assistan"e of a lawyer. 5e avers that he was not assisted by any lawyer from the time he
was arrested until he was "oer"ed to sign the purported "onfession# that he was for"ed to
sign it be"ause he "ould not anymore endure the beatings he suffered at the hands of the
%A1C!$ agents# and that he never met or knew Atty. &ous who, a""ording to the
%A1C!$, had assisted him during the "ustodial investigation.
Appellant Arnaldo "ontends that his written e(tra-0udi"ial "onfession should be
e("luded as eviden"e, as it was pro"ured in violation of his "onstitutional right to have an
independent "ounsel of his own "hoi"e during "ustodial investigation. 5e "laims that he
was not given freedom to "hoose his "ounsel# that the agents of the %A1C!$ did not ask
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 %A1C!$ suggested the
availability of Atty. Aminga to him.
!hus, we have held that an e(tra-0udi"ial "onfession is admissible in eviden"e if the
following re8uisites 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 eApre77+ "')
,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 #%"' Iu7# #%e
cere$o'i"l "') per(u'c#ory reci#"#io' o( "' "87#r"c# co'7#i#u#io'"l pri'ciple.
//=B;.C
Su"h right "ontemplates effe"tive "ommuni"ation whi"h results in the sub0e"t
understanding what is "onveyed.
//1B-=C
!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
8uestions to eli"it information andEor "onfessions or admissions from the a""used.
//6B-/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. 4f 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.
//:B-6C
A "ompetent and independent "ounsel is logi"ally
re8uired to be present and able to advi"e and assist his "lient from the time the latter
answers the first 8uestion 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 "onse8uen"e of his e(tra-
0udi"ial "onfession vis-a-vis his "onstitutional rights.
//DB-:C
5owever, 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
/1.B;-C
#eople v. ase, 67D %hil. 7=6, 71D /==='.
//=B;.C
#eople v. "aya'oc, :;: %hil. 7/:, 76. /==:'.
//1B-=C
#eople v. Agustin, 61= %hil. D.:, ;1/ 1..D'.
///B-1C
#eople v. Olermo, :D: %hil. 1:-, 1;D /==6'.
//6B-/C
+am'oa v. Cru5, 2.&. 3o. *-D;/.1, /- <une 1.77, 1;/ SC&A ;:/, ;D6.
//:B-6C
#eople v. %eniega, 2.&. 3o. 1=6:.., /. De"ember 1..D, /D1 SC&A ;/;, ;6-.
//DB-:C
#eople v. *elarde, :6: %hil. 1=/, 11. /==/'.
/;.
is being "oer"ed to admit although untrue. !o be an effe"tive "ounsel, a lawyer need not
"hallenge all the 8uestions 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% $i&%# i'cri$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#%.
//;B-DC
>e have gone over the re"ords and found that the %A1C!$ investigators have duly
apprised appellants Arnaldo 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'ali
00/3745
of appellants Arnaldo and $lores9s written e(tra-0udi"ial
"onfessions "learly shows that before they made their respe"tive "onfessions, the %A1C!$
investigators had informed them that the interrogation about to be "ondu"ted on them
referred to the kidnapping of the Jao family. !hereafter, the %A1C!$ 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.
>hen asked if they had a lawyer of their own, appellant Arnaldo replied that he would be
assisted by Atty. Aminga, while appellant $lores agreed to be represented by Atty. &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.
Appellants Arnaldo and $lores and their respe"tive "ounsels, Atty. Aminga and Atty. &ous,
also signed and thumbmarked the e(tra-0udi"ial "onfessions. Atty. Aminga and Atty. &ous
attested to the vera"ity of the afore-"ited fa"ts in their respe"tive "ourt testimonies.
//7B--C
4ndeed, the appraisal of appellants9 "onstitutional rights was not merely perfun"tory,
be"ause it appeared "ertain that appellants had understood and, in fa"t, e(er"ised their
fundamental rights after being informed thereof.
&e"ords refle"t that appellants Arnaldo and &eyes were likewise a""orded their
right to "ompetent and independent "ounsel during their respe"tive "ustodial investigations.
As regards appellant Arnaldo, Atty. Aminga testified that prior to the 8uestioning of
appellant Arnaldo about the in"ident, Atty. Aminga told the %A1C!$ investigators and
agents to give him and appellant Arnaldo spa"e and priva"y, so that they "ould freely
"onverse. After the %A1C!$ investigators and agents left them, he and appellant Arnaldo
went to a "ubi"le where only the two of them were present. 5e interviewed appellant
Arnaldo in the !agalog language regarding the latter9s personal "ir"umstan"es and asked
him why he was in the %A1C!$ offi"e and why he wanted a lawyer. Appellant Arnaldo
replied that he wanted to make a "onfession about his parti"ipation in the kidnapping of the
Jao family. !hereupon, he asked appellant Arnaldo if the latter would a""ept his
assistan"e as his lawyer for purposes of his "onfession. Appellant Arnaldo agreed. 5e
warned appellant Arnaldo that he might be senten"ed to death if he "onfessed involvement
in the in"ident. Appellant Arnaldo answered that he would fa"e the "onse8uen"es be"ause
//;B-DC
#eople v. ase, supra note ;-.
//-B-;C
&e"ords, pp. 61/-617.
//7B--C
!S3, /D September /==1 and /- September /==1.
/-=
he was bothered by his "ons"ien"e. 5e in8uired from appellant Arnaldo if he was harmed
or intimidated into giving self-in"riminating statements to the %A1C!$ investigators.
Appellant Arnaldo answered in the negative. 5e re8uested appellant Arnaldo to remove his
shirt for him to "he"k if there were torture marks on his body, but he found none. 5e also
observed that appellant Arnaldo9s appearan"e and movements were normal. 5is
"onferen"e with appellant Arnaldo lasted for 1D minutes or more. !hereafter, he allowed
the %A1C!$ investigators to 8uestion appellant Arnaldo.
//.B-7C

$urther, Atty. Aminga sat beside appellant Arnaldo during the in8uiry and listened
to the latter9s entire "onfession. After the taking of appellant Arnaldo9s "onfession, Atty.
Aminga re8uested the %A1C!$ investigators to give him a "opy of appellant Arnaldo9s
"onfession. Apon obtaining su"h "opy, he read it entirely and thereafter gave it to appellant
Arnaldo. 5e instru"ted appellant Arnaldo to read and "omprehend the same "arefully. 5e
told appellant Arnaldo to ask him for "larifi"ation and "omment if he did not agree or
understand any part of his written "onfession. Appellant Arnaldo read his entire written
"onfession and handed it to him. Atty. Aminga asked him if he had ob0e"tions to it.
Appellant Arnaldo replied in the negative. 5e then reminded appellant Arnaldo that the
latter "ould still "hange his mind, and that he was not being for"ed to sign. Appellant
Arnaldo manifested that he would sign his written "onfession. *ater, he and appellant
Arnaldo affi(ed their signatures to the written "onfession.
/6=B-.C
>ith respe"t to appellant $lores, Atty. &ous de"lared that before the %A1C!$
investigators began 8uestioning appellant, Atty. &ous interviewed him in !agalog inside a
room, where only the two of them were present. 5e asked appellant $lores about his
personal "ir"umstan"es. Appellant $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. 5e asked appellant $lores whether he would a""ept his assistan"e as his lawyer.
Appellant $lores affirmed that he would. 5e asked appellant $lores why he wanted to give
su"h "onfession. Appellant $lores answered that he was bothered by his "ons"ien"e. Atty.
&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. Appellant $lores told him that he
wanted to tell the truth and unload the burden on his mind. 5e re8uested appellant $lores
to lift his shirt for the former to verify if there were torture marks or bruises on his body,
but found none. Again, he "autioned appellant $lores about the serious "onse8uen"es of his
"onfession, but the latter maintained that he wanted to tell the truth. !hereafter, he
permitted the %A1C!$ investigators to 8uestion appellant $lores.
/61B7=C
Additionally, Atty. &ous stayed with appellant $lores while the latter was giving
statements to the %A1C!$ investigators. After the taking of appellant $lores9 statements,
he instru"ted appellant $lores to read and "he"k his written "onfession. Appellant $lores
read the same and made some minor "orre"tions. 5e also read appellant $lores9 written
"onfession. Afterwards, he and appellant $lores signed the latter9s written "onfession.
/6/B71C
4t is true that it was the %A1C!$ whi"h "onta"ted and suggested the availability of
Atty. Aminga and Atty. &ous to appellants Arnaldo and $lores, respe"tively. 3onetheless,
//.B-7C
!S3, /- September /==1, pp. D-..
/6=B-.C
4d. at .-1D.
/61B7=C
!S3, /D September /==1, pp. /-1:.
/6/B71C
4d. at 1:-1..
/-1
this does not automati"ally imply that their right to "ounsel was violated. >hat the
Constitution re8uires is the presen"e of "ompetent and independent "ounsel, one who will
effe"tively undertake his "lient9s defense without any intervening "onfli"t of interest.
/66B7/C
!here was no "onfli"t of interest with regard to the legal assistan"e rendered by Atty.
Aminga and Atty. &ous. ,oth "ounsels had no interest adverse to appellants Arnaldo and
$lores. Although Atty. Aminga testified that he was a former 3ational ,ureau of
4nvestigation 3,4' agent, he, nevertheless, "larified that he had been separated therefrom
sin"e 1..:
/6:B76C
when he went into private pra"ti"e. Atty. Aminga de"lared under oath that
he was a private pra"titioner when he assisted appellant Arnaldo during the "ustodial
investigation.
/6DB7:C
4t appears that Atty. Aminga was "alled by the %A1C!$ to assist
appellant Arnaldo, be"ause Atty. Aminga9s telephone number was listed on the dire"tory of
his former 3,4 offi"emates detailed at the %A1C!$. Atty. &ous, on the other hand, was a
member of the $ree *egal Aid Committee of the 4ntegrated ,ar of the %hilippines, RueGon
City at the time he rendered legal assistan"e to appellant $lores.
/6;B7DC
%art of Atty. &ous9
duty as member of the said group was to render legal assistan"e to the indigents in"luding
suspe"ts under "ustodial investigation. !here was no eviden"e showing that Atty. &ous had
organiGational or personal links to the %A1C!$. 4n fa"t, he pro"eeded to the %A1C!$
offi"e to assist appellant $lores, be"ause he happened to be the lawyer manning the offi"e
when the %A1C!$ "alled.
/6-B7;C
I' &eople !. 6a.ro ,
/67B7-C
we stated:
!he Constitution further re8uires 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. Atty. <ung"o does not
fall under any of said enumeration. 3or 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 4ntegrated ,ar of the %hilippines, and not a la"key of the lawmen.
$urther, as earlier stated, under Se"tion 1/1', Arti"le 444 of the 1.7- 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 e8ually
"ompetent and independent attorneys from handling the defense. 1therwise, 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.
/6.B77C
>hile 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 re0e"t the "ounsel "hosen for him
and ask for another one. A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the
a""used when he does not raise any ob0e"tion to the "ounsel9s appointment during the
"ourse of the investigation, and the a""used thereafter subs"ribes to the vera"ity of the
/66B7/C
#eople v. *elarde, supra note -:.
/6:B76C
!S3, /- September /==1, p. D.
/6DB7:C
4d.
/6;B7DC
!S3, /D September /==1, pp. :-D.
/6-B7;C
4d. at ;.
/67B7-C
Supra note ;D at -/;.
/6.B77C
#eople v. Mo=ello, :;7 %hil. .::, .D: /==:'.
/-/
statement before the swearing offi"er.
/:=B7.C
Appellants Arnaldo and $lores did not ob0e"t to
the appointment of Atty. Aminga and Atty. &ous as their lawyers, respe"tively, during their
"ustodial investigation. %rior to their 8uestioning, appellants Arnaldo and $lores "onferred
with Atty. Aminga and Atty. &ous. Appellant Arnaldo manifested that he would be
assisted by Atty. Aminga, while appellant $lores agreed to be "ounseled by Atty. &ous.
Atty. Aminga and Atty. &ous "ountersigned the written e(tra-0udi"ial "onfessions of
appellants Arnaldo and $lores, respe"tively. 5en"e, appellants Arnaldo and $lores are
deemed to have engaged the servi"es of Atty. Aminga and Atty. &ous, respe"tively.
Sin"e the prose"ution has suffi"iently established that the respe"tive e(tra-0udi"ial
"onfessions of appellant Arnaldo 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.
/:1B.=C
Conse8uently, the burden of proving that undue pressure or duress was used to pro"ure the
"onfessions rests on appellants Arnaldo and $lores.
/:/B.1C
4n the "ase at bar, appellants Arnaldo and $lores failed to dis"harge their burden of
proving that they were for"ed or "oer"ed to make their respe"tive "onfessions. 1ther than
their self-serving statements that they were maltreated by the %A1C!$ 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 sub0e"ted to violen"e or torture. 3either
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. Appellants
Arnaldo 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. 1n
the "ontrary, appellants Arnaldo 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.
/:6B./C
!heir
physi"al e(amination reports "ertify that no e(ternal signs of physi"al in0ury or any form of
trauma were noted during their e(amination.
/::B.6C
I' &eople !. &ia ,
921

<92=
we %el) #%"# #%e
(ollowi'& ("c#or7 i')ic"#e *olu'#"ri'e77 o( "' eA#r"FIu)ici"l co'(e77io'H ,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$7el*e7 eA"$i'e) 8y "
repu#"8le p%y7ici"' #o 8u##re77 #%eir cl"i$.
4t should also be noted that the e(tra-0udi"ial "onfessions of appellants Arnaldo and
$lores are replete with details on the manner in whi"h the kidnapping was "ommitted,
thereby ruling out the possibility that these were involuntarily made. !heir e(tra-0udi"ial
"onfessions "learly state how appellants and their "ohorts planned the kidnapping as well as
/:=B7.C
#eople v. ase, supra note ;-.
/:1B.=C
#eople v. agnate, 2.&. 3os. 166;7D-7;, /= )ay /==:, :/7 SC&A ;66, ;D1.
/:/B.1C
#eople v. Aa'ro, supra note ;D.
/:6B./C
&e"ords, p. 17.
/::B.6C
4d. at 1..
/:DB.:C
//. %hil. D--, D7/ 1.7;'.
/-6
the se8uen"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.
/:;B.DC
>ith respe"t to appellant &eyes9s "laim that the e(tra-0udi"ial "onfessions of
appellants Arnaldo and $lores "annot be used in eviden"e against him, we have ruled that
although an e(tra-0udi"ial "onfession is admissible only against the "onfessant,
0urispruden"e makes it admissible as "orroborative eviden"e of other fa"ts that tend to
establish the guilt of his "o-a""used.
/:-B.;C
4n #eople v. Alvare5,
/:7B.-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. 4n #eople v.
Encipido
03-3?85
we elu"idated as follows:
4t is also to be noted that A%%+**A3!S9 e(tra0udi"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 "o-a""used impli"ated therein to show the probability
of the latter9s 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(tra0udi"ial
"onfessionsEadmissions are admissible in eviden"e only against the de"larants thereof.
Appellants Arnaldo 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 &eyes9 guilt.
&425! !1 C1A3S+*
!he person who assisted him in "ourt during his arraignment and pre-trial is not a lawyer.
5E/RO CO-S3LTA VS. 5EO5LE, :.R. -o. 1929, .e8ru"ry 19, 9;;9
CAR5IO MORALES, J.H
1n the matter of a""used-appellant9s "laim of having been denied due pro"ess, an
e(amination of the re"ords shows that while a""used-appellant was represented by Atty.
<o"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 <uly /7, /=== and
subse8uently, approved by the &!C in its 1rder dated August :, /===. !hereafter, a""used-
appellant was represented by Atty. &ainald C. %aggao from the %ubli" Defender9s
Attorney9s' 1ffi"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
/:;B.DC
#eople v. agnate, supra note .=.
/:-B.;C
"antos v. "andigan'ayan, :== %hil. 11-D, 1/=; /==='.
/:7B.-C
2.&. 3o. 77:D1, D September 1..1, /=1 SC&A 6;:, 6--.
/:.B.7C
/6= %hil. D;=, D-: 1.7;'.
/-:
unsu""essfully, then he "annot now be heard to "omplain about having been denied of due
pro"ess.
/D=B6C
Anders"oring supplied'
!hat appellant9s first "ounsel may not have been a member of the bar does not dent
the proven fa"t that appellant prevented 3elia and "ompany from pro"eeding to their
destination. $urther, appellant was afforded "ompetent representation by the %ubli"
Attorneys9 1ffi"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
/D1B:C
enlightens:
?As 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 +lesterio was undeniably "arrying an unli"ensed firearm when
he was arrested. At 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 appellant9s brief.@ Anders"oring
supplied'
&ead also:
1. !he right to "ounsel, D- SC&A :71
1-a. % vs. 3olas"o, 1;6 SC&A ;/6
1-b. % vs. 5ernandeG, 1;/ SC&A ://
1-". %. vs. Ampo-an, <uly :, 1..=
1-d. %. vs. Saludar, <uly 61, 1..=
1-e. %. vs. Midagan, August /=, 1..=
1-f. +sta"io vs. Sandiganbayan, 176 SC&A 1/
1-g. %. vs. ,uenaflor, 171 SC&A //D
/. % vs. !ampus, .; SC&A ;/:
6. % vs. !aylaran, 1=7 SC&A 6-6
:. % vs. !awat, 1/. SC&A :61
D. % vs. )ar"os, 1:- SC&A /=: 3ote that this de"ision is widely "riti"iGed by
"onstitutionalists'
;. % vs. *adrera, 1D= SC&A 116
-. %. 3ulla, 1D6 SC&A :-1
7. % vs. )ar8ueG, 1D6 SC&A -==
.. % vs. 1lvis, 1D: SC&A D16
1=. % vs. Caguioa, <anuary 1-, 1.7=
ll. % vs. %e"ardal, 1:D SC&A ;/:
1/. % vs. *asa", 1:7 SC&A ;/:
16. % vs. %ena, 7= SC&A D7.
1:. % vs. <ara, 1:: SC&A D1;

5ow 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(tra0udi"ial "onfession is inadmissible as eviden"e.
&ead:
/D= B6C
$ollo, p. 1;.
/D1 B:C
2.&. 3o. ;6.-1, )ay ., 1.7., 1-6 SC&A /:6, /:..
/-D
%. vs. Alegria, September /7, 1..=
Could the $is"al also represent the a""used during "ustodial investigation to satisfy
the re8uirement of the Constitution that the a""used is assisted by "ounselN 3o. !he $is"al
is the "ounsel for the State, not the a""used or the suspe"t.
&ead:
%. vs. )atos-Fiduaya, September 11, 1..=
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 +ffe"t of its non-observan"e by the
investigator
&ead:
1. % vs. Albofera, 1D/ SC&A 1/6
1-a. % vs. *asanas, 1D/ SC&A /-
1-b. % vs. 1lvis, 1D: SC&A D16
1-". % vs. Capitin, 1;D SC&A :-
1-a. 2amboa vs. CruG, 1;/ SC&A ;:/
1-b. % vs. 5iGon, 1;6 SC&A -;=
1-". % vs. Felas"o, 11= SC&A 61.
/. Diokno vs. +nrile, 11= SC&A 1:=
6. )orales vs. %on"e +nrile, 1/1 SC&A D67
:. % vs. &o0as, <anuary 7, l.7-
D. % vs. Santiago, <anuary -,1.7-
;. % vs. De"ierdo, 1:. SC&A :.;
D-a. 4s the right to "ounsel indispensable in non-"riminal pro"eedingsN
&ead:
1. 3era vs. Auditor 2enral, 1;: SC&A 1
;. %resumptions on e(tra0udi"ial "onfessionsthat offi"ial a"ts were regularly performed as
against the presumption against waiver of "onstitutional rights'
&ead:
1. % vs. Duero, 1=: SC&A 6-.
/. % vs. <ara, 1:: SC&A D1;
6. % vs. Abano, 1:D SC&A DDD
:. % vs. !olentino, 1:D SC&A D.-
D. % vs. Salig, 166 SC&A D.
;. % vs. CruG, 166 SC&A :/;
-. % vs. %rudente,, 166 SC&A ;D1
7 % vs. !rinidad, 1;/ SC&A -1:, when the presumption of regularity does not
apply
/-;
-. >ho "an ob0e"t to the admissibility of an e(tra0udi"ial "onfessionN
&ead:
1. Stonehill vs. Diokno, supra
/. % vs. <ara, 1:: SC&A D-;
6. %. vs. loveria, <uly /, 1..=
7. 4nadmissible as eviden"e
a. !he do"trine of the Hfruit of the poisoned treeH
+ven if the e(tra0udi"ial "onfession is inadmissible as eviden"e, a""used still held guilty by
the Supreme Court.
5EO5LE VS. ROLA-/O .ELIDMI-IA y CAMACHO
:R -o. 191333, M"rc% 9;, 9;;9
+n ,an"
$a"ts:
1. 4n the morning of September 1., 1..D, a""used-appellant and his "ousin, &1334+
2A&C4A were drinking gin in a "anteen in Ardaneta, %angasinan#
/. At around 1= a.m. of the same day, &osita )angunay saw both persons walking along
Ambrosio St., in the pobla"ion and noti"ed that they smelled li8uor when they greeted her#
6. 4n the early afternoon of the same day, a""used-appellant and his "ousin went to look for
;-year old )aria *ourdes 2alinato, also known as !isay and found her playing inside a
0eepney and took her#
:. At around /::D p.m. of the same day, )angunay again saw the a""used-appellant walking
along Ambrosio 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 6 to : p.m., prose"ution witness 3atividad ,ernardo, saw a""used-appellant pass
their house "arrying a "hild who looked about D-; years old.
;. At 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 ;: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#
7. )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#
/--
.. Apon 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, Ardaneta,
%angasinan, pro"eeded to the house of the a""used-appellant#
1=. As they approa"hed the house, the a""used-appellant 0umped out of the window "arrying a
bla"k bag. !he poli"e authorities gave "hase and finally "aught him after twenty /='
e(hausting hours#
11. After his arrest, a""used-appellant was brought to the Ardaneta %oli"e Station where he
admitted that he raped, killed and buried )aria *ourdes near the )a"along &iver in
,arangay San Fi"ente, Ardaneta, %angasinan, while A3D+& 43F+S!42A!413
>4!51A! !5+ ASS4S!A3C+ 1$ A *A>J+&. 43D++D, !5+ ,1DJ 1$ !4SAJ
>AS $1A3D 43 !5+ %*AC+ >54C5 5+ D+SC&4,+D DA&432 54S CAS!1D4A*
43F+S!42A!413.
1/. After trial, the trial "ourt &!C :D presided over by <AD2+ <1F+3 C1S!A*+S' rendered
a 0udgment of "onvi"tion and imposing the penalty of death to the a""used-appellant. !he
"ourt admitted as eviden"e the e(tra0udi"ial "onfession of the a""used-appellant and used
the same as one of the grounds in support of the 0udgment of "onvi"tion.
A. I S S 3 E S
1. 4s the e(tra0udi"ial "onfession of the a""used Iappellant admissible in eviden"eN
/. >hether the lower "ourt erred in "onvi"ting in "onvi"ting the a""used-appellantN
5eld:
1
!he alleged e(tra0udi"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 1.7- Constitution, the said rights "ould not be waived
e("ept in the presen"e of "ounsel. As su"h, in a""ordan"e with the do"trine of the Kfruit of
the poisoned tree9, the same is inadmissible in eviden"e.
Any 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.
/
!hough the e(tra0udi"ial "onfession of the a""used-appellant is inadmissible as
eviden"e, his "onvi"tion by the trial "ourt is "orre"t. !his is so be"ause B1C the
"ompromising "ir"umstan"es were duly proven whi"h were "onsistent with ea"h other and
whi"h lead with moral "ertainty to the "on"lusion that he was guilty of the "rime "harged#
/-7
and B/C the totality of su"h "ir"umstan"es eliminated beyond doubt the possibility of his
inno"en"e. 4n %eople vs. )ahinay, it was held that "onvi"tion may be had on "ir"umstantial
eviden"e provided the following re8uisites are present: BaC there is more than one
"ir"umstan"e# BbC the fa"ts from whi"h the inferen"es are derived are proven# and B"C the
"ombination of all "ir"umstan"es is su"h as to produ"e a "onvi"tion beyond reasonable
doubt.
!he eviden"e in this "ase are more than suffi"ient to prove the a""used-appellant9s
beyond reasonable doubt. Cir"umstantial eviden"e is not a weaker form of eviden"e vis-U-
vis dire"t eviden"e and "ases have re"ogniGed that "ir"umstantial eviden"e in its weight and
probative for"e, may surpass dire"t eviden"e in its effe"t upon the Supreme Court.
-OTE: !he indemnifi"ation for the death of a person in a rape with 5omi"ide "ases was
in"reased from %D=,===.== to %1/D,===.==. !he said indemnity shall also be appli"able
where the death penalty is authoriGed by appli"able amendatory laws''
b. !he e("lusionary rule, 1:D SC&A -==
&ead:
1. % vs. ,urgos, 1:: SC&A D1;
/. % vs. Al"araG,16; SC&A -:
6. Does it also in"lude the "onfession of a witness, not the a""usedN
&ead:
1. % vs. ,ombesa, 1;/ SC&A :=/
/. p. vs. Jutu", <uly /;, 1..=
.. Se". 1//'
&ead:
1. DiGon vs. 2en. +duardo, )ay 6,1.77
/. % vs. +ligino, August 11,1.77
6. Contado vs. !an, April 1D, 1.77
1=. +(tra0udi"ial "onfession# when admissible or inadmissible
&ead:
1. !he admissibility of an e(tra0udi"ial "onfession in a "riminal prose"ution,1:/
SC&A 11=
/. Admissibility of an e(tra0udi"ial "onfession,16D SC&A :1. and 1= SC&A
D/=
6. 4nadmissibility of an admission obtained by for"e, 11: SC&A /6:
/-.
:. Confession as eviden"e against the a""used, .; SC&A ;6-
&ead:
D. % vs. Camalog, <anuary 61, 1.7.
D-a. % vs. Capulong, 1;= SC&A D66
D-b. % vs. *agahan, De"ember 7, 1.77
D-". % vs. Dino, 1;= SC&A 1.-
D-d. % vs. Caramonte, .: SC&A 1D=
D-e. % vs. +n"iso, 1;= SC&A -/7
D-d. % vs. Abano, 1:D SC&A D;D
D-e. % vs. RuiGon, 1:/ SC&A 6;/
D-f. % vs. 1lvis, 1D: SC&A D16
D-g. % vs. &obles, 1=: SC&A :D=
D-h. % vs. +ligino, 1;: SC&A /;=
D-i. % vs. Abe0ero, )ay 1-,l.7=
D-0. %. vs. ,agano, 171 SC&A 6:
D-k. %. vs. +stevan, 17; SC&A 17:
D-l. %. vs. &amos, 17; SC&A 17:
D-m. %. vs. $lores, 17; SC&A 6=6
D-n. %. vs. <ung"o, 17; SC&A -1:
D-o. %. vs. Arsenio, 17: SC&A /=D
;. % vs. Fillanueva, 1/7 SC&A :77
-. % vs. De0ares"o, 1/. SC&A D-;
7. % vs. !uvera, 16= SC&A 1;.
.. % vs. )aternal, 16= SC&A ;/D
1=. % vs. 3ilos, 1/- SC&A /=-
11. % vs. San"heG, 16/ SC&A 1=6
1/. % vs. %iGarro, 161 SC&A :17
16. % vs. Sabilano, 16/ SC&A 76
1:. % vs. Feloso, 1:7 SC&A ;=
1D. )agtoto vs. )anguera, ;6 SC&A :
1;. % vs. 2apasin, 1:D SC&A 1-7
1-. % vs. %alo, 1:- SC&A 1-7
17. %. vs. De <esus, 1:D SC&A D/1
1.. % vs. %ia, 1:D SC&A D71
/=. % vs. +n"ipiado, 1:; SC&A :-7
/1. % vs. Canumay, 16= SC&A 6=1
//. % vs. )arino, 16= SC&A D.D
/6. % vs. 3atipravat, 1:D SC&A :76
/:. % vs. CruG, 166 SC&a :/;--when "onfession is valid
/D. %. vs. De *a CruG, 176 SC&A -;6---when "onfession is inadmissible but a""used is
still liable
11. +viden"e of la"k of "voluntariness
&ead:
1. % vs. <ara, 1:: SC&A D1;
/7=
/. % vs. Abayon, 11: SC&A 1.-
1/. 4s the testimony of the arresting offi"er on the alleged oral "onfession of the a""used
admissibleN
&ead:
1. % vs. Dy, 1D7 SC&A 111
CHA5TER DIII F THE CO-STIT3TIO-AL RI:HT TO 4AIL CHA5TER DIII F THE CO-STIT3TIO-AL RI:HT TO 4AIL
Se"tion 16. All 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.
+("essive bail shall not be re8uired.
1. !he right to bail, 1=: SC&A 6-/
/. ,ail, 71 SC&A 177
Ei')7 o( 8"il+ w%e' 'o# "pplic"8le.
&e"ogniGan"eEbail for a "onvi"t
ATTY. J3LIA-A A/ALIMF0HITE VS. J3/:E AR-3L.O 43:TAS, RTC 9
4ORO-:A-, SAMAR, 21 SCRA 11
Austria-)artineG, <.
$a"ts:
)anuel ,agaporo, <r. was "onvi"ted of frustrated murder and was senten"ed four
years and two months to eight years and one day of imprisonment. 5e started serving his
senten"e and subse8uently, he filed an appli"ation for release on re"ogniGan"e. 4n support
of his appli"ation, the %rovin"ial <ail >arden issued a "ertifi"ation that ,agaoporo has been
"onfined at the %rovin"ial <ail sin"e $ebruary ., 1..; and is already entitled to parole.
Another "ertifi"ation was issued by the Supervising %arole and %robation 1ffi"er showing
that ,agaporo applied for parole in lieu of the D1<9s )aagang %aglaya %rogram.
,y virtue of the above "ertifi"ations, respondent 0udge ordered the release of
,agaporo upon re"ogniGan"e of the %rovin"ial <ail >arden of +astern Samar. 5e likewise
0ustified 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.
/71
5eld:
&espondent <udge 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.
4t is patently erroneous to release a "onvi"t on re"ogniGan"e. Se"tion /:, &ule 11:
provides that there shall no bail for a "onvi"t after final 0udgment. !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 1; of &ule 11: of the &ules of Court on the different kinds of bail'
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 5ERSO- CO-VICTE/ 4Y .I-AL J3S:ME-T A-/ ALREA/Y SERVI-:
SE-TE-CE.
<udge ,ugtas was therefore fined %:=,===.== 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.
6. &ead:
+("essive bail:
1. De la Camara vs. +nage, :1 SC&A 1
1-a. %estano vs. <udge Felas"o, <uly 6, 1..=
>aiver of the right to bail:
1-b. %. vs. Donato, <une D, 1..1
/. Almeda vs. FillaluG, ;; SC&A 67
6. )ar"os vs. CruG, ;- and -= %hil.
:. Fillasenor vs. Abano, /1 SC&A 61/
D. % vs. 4AC, <anuary 1=,1.7-, 1:- SC&A /1.
;. )anoto" vs. CA, )ay 6=,1.7;
-. 2ar"ia vs. Domingo, D/ SC&A 1:6
7. % vs. San Diego, /; SC&A D//
:. See Se"tion 1=, &ule 11:, 1.7D &ules on Criminal %ro"edure
4 a. %ro"edure when prose"utor does not ob0e"t to the petition for bail in "apital
offenses:
4"il i' EA#r")i#io' c"7e7.
1
3-ITE/ STATES VS. J3/:E 53R3::A-A- G MARE J3ME-E>
3ovember, /==/
/7/
A person fa"ing e(tradition pro"eedings is not entitled to bail even if the "rime he
was "harged of in a foreign "ountry is bailable. !his is so be"ause the "onstitutional
provision on the right to bail under Art. 444 of the 1.7- Constitution applies only to "riminal
"ases, not in e(tradition pro"eedings.
&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.
/
E/3AR/O RO/RI:3E> VS. THE 5RESI/I-: J3/:E, RTC 1, MA-ILA, 263
SCRA 99;
Ruisumbing, <.
4n SECRETARY O. J3STICE VS. J3/:E LA-TIO-, 399 SCRA 16; !he
)ark <imeneG Case' , the Supreme Court on a .-; vote held that the e(traditee is entitled to
noti"e and hearing even when a re8uest for e(tradition by another "ountry is still being
evaluated. 5owever, on )otion for &e"onsideration in the same "ase, in a .-; 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.
4t 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. 1therwise, his right to due
pro"ess of law will be violated.
31!+: 4n the "ase of AS vs. <udge %urugganan, 67. SC&A ;/6', 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.'
6
:OVER-ME-T O. HO-:EO-: S5ECIAL A/MI-ISTRATIVE
RE:IO- VS. HO-. .ELID4ERTO OLALIA, JR., 191 SCRA 2;
4n A34!+D S!A!+S FS. <AD2+ %A&A22A3A3, 67. SC&A ;/6, it was held
that the "onstitutional provision on bail does not available in e(tradition pro"eedings. 4t
applies only in "riminal pro"eedings be"ause of the word ?"onvi"tion.
5owever, 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. As su"h, the right to bail
was applied in a deportation pro"eedings, i.e., )+<1$$ FS. D4&+C!1& 1$ %&4S13S, .=
%hil. -= B1.D1C and 0ustified the same with the Aniversal de"laration of 5uman &ights. 4f
the right to bail is available in deportation "ases, then there is no reason why it is not
allowed in e(tradition pro"eedings.
/76
4E.ORE A 5ROS5ECTIVE EDTRA/ITEE IS ALLO0E/ TO 53T 35
4AIL, HE M3ST 5ROVE 4Y @CLEAR A-/ CO-VI-CI-: EVI/E-CEC THAT
HE IS -OT A .LI:HT RISE A-/ 0ILL A4I/E 0ITH ALL OR/ERS A-/
5ROCESSES O. THE EDTRA/ITIO- CO3RT.
CHA5TER DIV F /3E 5ROCESS
I- CRIMI-AL 5ROCEE/I-:S
1. 4n general:
1. % vs. !errobias, 1=6 SC&A 6/1
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' "cBui##"l "7 " re7ul# o' co'(lic#i'& "') i'co'7i7#e'# #e7#i$o'ie7 o( #%e
pro7ecu#io'N7 wi#'e77e7H

-o'Fco$pli"'ce o( Sec#io' 91, Repu8lic Ac# -o. 9161,
*iol"#e7 #%e pre7u$p#io' o( i''oce'ce o' #%e p"r# o( #%e
"ccu7e) "') #%ere(ore, %e 7%oul) 8e "cBui##e).
5EO5LE O. THE 5HILI55I-ES VS. RO-AL/O /E :3>MA-,
:.R. -o. 166296, M"rc% 96, 9;1;
1n <une 1=, /==6, a "onfidential informant reported De 2uGman9s drug pushing a"tivities
to Al"ala, %angasinan9s Chief of %oli"e, Sotero Soriano, <r. Soriano immediately formed a team to
"ondu"t a buy-bust operation. After a short briefing, the team pro"eeded to De 2uGman9s house.
1n"e there, the "onfidential informant introdu"ed appellant to Senior %oli"e 1ffi"er S%1'1 Daniel
*lanillo, who was designated as poseur-buyer. *lanillo tried to buy %/== worth of shabu. 5e
handed two marked %1== 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. Appellant was arrested and frisked. !he team re"overed
from De 2uGman two pa"ks of empty transparent sa"hets, three disposable lighters, and %6,67=.==
in "ash, whi"h in"luded the marked money paid by S%11 *lanillo. !he team then brought De
2uGman to the poli"e station in Al"ala, %angasinan.
At the poli"e station, De 2uGman and the items seiGed during the buy-bust operation were
turned over to the poli"e investigator, S%16 +duardo Jadao. S%16 Jadao entered the in"ident in
the poli"e blotter. 5e then pla"ed his initials on the pa"kets of suspe"ted shabu, whi"h were later
submitted to the %hilippine 3ational %oli"e %3%' Crime *aboratory in Ardaneta City.
Confirmatory tests revealed that the substan"e in the pa"kets that appellant handed to S%11
*lanillo was indeed shabu.
At the trial, appellant denied the "harges against him. 5e "laimed that, on the morning of
<une 1=, /==6, he was on the se"ond floor of his house wat"hing television when he was informed
/7:
by his wife that poli"e offi"ers were looking for him. 5e "laimed that S%11 *lanillo informed him
about a report that he De 2uGman' was repa"king shabu, whi"h he denied. !hereafter, the poli"e
offi"ers frisked him and took the %6,===.== 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.
After trial, the &!C rendered a de"ision, finding De 2uGman guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of violating &.A. 3o. .1;D. 5e was senten"ed to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
%D==,===.==.
De 2uGman elevated the matter to the Supreme Court on %etition for &eview after the
Court of Appeals affirmed the &!C De"ision. 5e argues that the prose"ution failed to show that
the poli"e offi"ers "omplied with the mandatory pro"edures under &.A. 3o. .1;D. 4n 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 <usti"e D1<'# and that
no photographs were taken of the seiGed items and of appellant. Appellant 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 +nfor"ement Agen"y %D+A', and the
failure to observe the re8uirements of &.A. 3o. .1;D have effe"tively overturned the presumption
of regularity in the performan"e of the poli"e offi"ers9 duties.
HEL/H
A review of the re"ords of this "ase reveals that "ir"umstan"es warrant a reversal of the trial
"ourt9s 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 8uantum of eviden"e re8uired.
Conse8uently, "ourts are re8uired 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 re8uires them to take a
more than "asual "onsideration of every "ir"umstan"e or doubt favoring the inno"en"e of the
a""used.
>hen 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"8uit.
!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.
/7D
4n a prose"ution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven:
1' that the transa"tion or sale took pla"e# /' that the corpus delicti or the illi"it drug was
presented as eviden"e# and 6' that the buyer and seller were identified. >hat 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 2uGman9s "ontention, the trial "ourt "orre"tly found that the buy-bust
transa"tion took pla"e. !he buyer S%11 *lanillo' and seller De 2uGman' 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. 5owever, there is a problem in the prose"ution9s effort to establish the integrity of the
corpus delicti.
!he identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral "ertainty. Apart 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 re8uirement 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 &.A. 3o. .1;D 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 %D+A 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 instrumentsEparaphernalia andEor laboratory
e8uipment so "onfis"ated, seiGed andEor surrendered, for proper disposition in the
following manner:

1' !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 <usti"e
D1<', and any ele"ted publi" offi"ial who shall be re8uired 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 &.A. 3o. .1;D and its 4&&.
S%11 *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.
/7;
!he failure to follow the pro"edure mandated under &.A. 3o. .1;D and its 4&& $u7# 8e
")eBu"#ely eApl"i'e). !he 0ustifiable 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.
A""ordingly, non-"omplian"e with the pro"edure shall not render void and invalid the
seiGure and "ustody of the drugs only when: 1' su"h non-"omplian"e is attended by 0ustifiable
grounds# and /' the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seiGed items are properly preserved
by the apprehending team. !here must be proof that these two /' re8uirements were met before
su"h non-"omplian"e may be said to fall within the s"ope of the proviso.
4n this "ase, it was admitted that it was S%16 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
re8uired by &.A. 3o. .1;D and its 4&&. !here was also no mention that representatives from the
media and from the D1<, and any ele"ted offi"ial, were present during this inventory. !he
prose"ution never e(plained the reasons for these lapses.
As a method of authenti"ating eviden"e, the "hain of "ustody rule re8uires that the
admission of an e(hibit be pre"eded by eviden"e suffi"ient to support a finding that the matter in
8uestion is what the proponent "laims it to be. 4t 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 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 witness9 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. 4ndeed, 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.
A""ordingly, the failure to establish, through "onvin"ing proof, that the integrity of the
seiGed items has been ade8uately 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. Absolute "ertainty of guilt is not demanded by the law to "onvi"t a
person "harged with a "rime, but moral "ertainty is re8uired as to every proposition of proof
re8uisite to "onstitute the offense. A "onvi"tion "annot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on
the identity of the drug.

4ndeed, the prose"ution9s 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"ution9s "ase.
$inally, the prose"ution "annot find sola"e in its invo"ation of the presumption of regularity
in the apprehending offi"ers9 performan"e of offi"ial duty.
T%e pre7u$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.
/7-
)oreover, the failure to observe the proper pro"edure negates the operation of the presumption of
regularity a""orded to poli"e offi"ers. As 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"ution9s 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.
EL5I/IO 4O-/A/, JR. VS. 5EO5LE, :.R. -o. 136;2, E/ece$8er 1;, 9;;6
CAR5IO MORALES, J.H
+lpidio ,ondad, <r., y ,ura" appellant' was "harged before the &egional !rial
Court &!C' of )arikina City
/D/B1C
for violation of Se"tion D, paragraph /6', Arti"le 44 of
&epubli" A"t 3o. .1;D &.A. 3o. .1;D' or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs A"t of
/==/, allegedly "ommitted as follows:
/D6B/C
!hat on or about the /.
th
day of <anuary /==:, in the City of )arikina, %hilippines
and within the 0urisdi"tion of this 5onorable Court, the above-named a""used, without
being authoriGed by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and
knowingly sell to poseur buyer =.=/ gram of )ethamphetamine 5ydro"hloride shabu'
"ontained in one 1' heat-sealed transparent plasti" sa"het, a dangerous drug, in violation of
the above-"ited law.
/D:B6C
Anders"oring supplied'
5e was likewise "harged for violation of Se"tion 11, par. /6', Arti"le 44 also of
&.A. 3o. .1;D, allegedly "ommitted as follows:
!hat on or about the /.
th
day of <anuary /==:, in the City of )arikina, %hilippines,
and within the 0urisdi"tion of this 5onorable 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
=.=: gram of white "rystalline substan"e "ontained in two /' heat-sealed plasti" sa"hets
whi"h gave positive result to the test for )ethamphetamine 5ydro"hloride shabu', whi"h
is a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-"ited law.
/DDB:C
Anders"oring supplied'
At around -:=D p.m. of <anuary /., /==:, while %1/ $erdinand ,rubio, %11
Christopher Anos, and %11 &oberto )uega were at the Station Anti 4llegal Drug Spe"ial
1perations !ask $or"e SA4DS1!$', 1ffi"e of the )arikina City %oli"e Station, %1/
3elson Arribay 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 Avenue, ,arangka, )arikina City and named a "ertain alias ?<un@ as the vendor.
/D/ B1C
$ollo, pp. -6--:.
/D6 B/C
&e"ords, p. /.
/D: B6C
&e"ords, p. / - 4nformation dated $ebruary /, /==:.
/DD B:C
4d. at p. ;.
/77
!he Chief of the SA4DS1!$, %ESr. 4nsp. &am"hrisen 5averia, <r., at on"e formed a
buy-bust team "omposed of, among others, %1/ &amiel Soriano and %1/ Dano who was
designated as the poseur-buyer. %1/ Dano was given a one hundred peso bill bearing
Serial 3o. R:7-.:D to be used as buy-bust money. 4t was agreed that %1/ Dano9s 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 +nfor"ement Agen"y %D+A' whi"h gave it "ontrol
number 31C-=1/.=:-/7.
!he buy-bust team, together with the "onfidential informant, pro"eeded to 6 C9s
billiard hall at the "orner of ). CruG St. and ,onifa"io Avenue in ,arangka, )arikina City.
1n entering the hall, the "onfidential informant pointed to appellant who was then holding
a "ue sti"k beside the billiard table as the alias ?<un.@ !he "onfidential informant
approa"hed appellant and talked to him. >ithin minutes, appellant approa"hed %1/ Dano
and asked him if he wanted to buy s2a'u, to whi"h %1/ Dano answered ?piso lang.@
Appellant at on"e took out a ?Fi"ks@ "ontainer from his right front po"ket
/D;BDC
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 %1/ Dano gave
the marked one hundred peso bill. At that instant, %1/ Dano removed his "ap.
As the ba"k-up poli"e offi"ers were "losing-in, %1/ Dano grabbed appellant9s arm,
identified himself, and apprised appellant of his "onstitutional rights. Apon %1/ Dano9s
order, appellant returned the buy-bust money, handed the ?Fi"ks@ "ontainer, and gave his
name as
+lpidio ,ura" ,ondad, <r.
Still at the pla"e of arrest, %1/ Dano pla"ed the markings ?+,,-+D ,AJ,AS!
=1E/.E=:@ on the substan"e-filled sa"het sold to him, and ?+,,-+D, %1S 1 and /,
=1E/.E=:@ 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 <anuary /., /==:
/D-B;C
was prepared by
%ESr. 4nsp. Chief 5averia, <r., addressed to the Chief of the +astern %oli"e Distri"t Crime
*aboratory 1ffi"e, re8uesting for the "ondu"t of laboratory e(amination on the seiGed items
to determine the presen"e of dangerous drugs and their weight. %1/ Dano also re8uested
that appellant be sub0e"ted to a drug test.
/D7B-C
!he following day or on <anuary 6=, /==:, at 6:== %.)., upon re"eipt of three
sa"hets, a laboratory e(amination was "ondu"ted thereon by %oli"e Senior 4nspe"tor
Annalee &. $orro, $orensi" Chemi"al 1ffi"er of the +astern %oli"e Distri"t Crime
*aboratory 1ffi"e, who, in %hysi"al S"ien"e &eport 3o. D-==.:-=:+
/D.B7C
, re"orded, among
other things, the spe"imen submitted, her findings and "on"lusion as follows:
S%+C4)+3 SA,)4!!+D:
/D; BDC
3o spe"ifi"ation if it was a po"ket of the shirt or of the pants.
/D- B;C
4d. at p. 1D
/D7 B-C
!S3, <une 1D, /==:, p. :1
/D. B7C
&e"ords, p. 1-
/7.
!hree 6' heat-sealed transparent plasti" sa"hets with markings marked as A
through C respe"tively, ea"h "ontaining white "rystalline substan"e with following
re"orded net weights and markings:
A ` =.=/ gram?+,,-+D ,AJ,AS! =1E/.E=:@
, ` =.=/ gram?+,,-+D %1SS 1 =1E/.E=:@
C ` =.=/ gram?+,,-+D %1SS / =1E/.E=:@
(-(-( (-(-( (-(-(
$ 4 3 D 4 3 2 S: ( ( (
Rualitative e(amination "ondu"ted on the above-stated spe"imen gave &O1/T/<, result to
the tests for Metha(pheta(ine :ydrohloride, a dangerous drug.
(-(-( (-(-( (-(-(
C 1 3 C * A S 4 1 3:
Spe"imens A through C "ontain Metha(pheta(ine :ydrohloride, a dangerous drug.
/;=B.C
4tali"s and emphasis in the original'
Denying the "harges against him, appellant, a former poli"e offi"er, "laimed that he
was framed up and gave the following version:
1n <anuary /., /==:, while he was playing inside 6 C9s billiard hall, %1/ ,rubio,
whom he knew was a poli"eman, entered the billiard hall. After greeting %1/ ,rubio in
icolano, he "ontinued playing but %1/ ,rubio suddenly hand"uffed him and asked him
?"umama @a muna.@ Another person who was at his ba"k pushed him out of the billiard
hall in the "ourse of whi"h he felt %1/ ,rubio rea"hing his appellant9s' right front
po"ket,
/;1B1=C
drawing him to restrain the hand of %1/ ,rubio, telling him ?pera @o yana@
Aware that his son was inside the billiard hall, appellant summoned and handed him
his wallet "ontaining %/,===. %1/ ,rubio, however, took the wallet from his son, telling
him ?Hu?ag @a ma@ialam dito.@ 5e was then made to board a "ar and taken to the 1ffi"e
of the SA4DS1!$ at the poli"e station.
Appellant9s defense was "orroborated by his son Christian <effrey C. ,ondad, and
&oberto A. )ata who was a ?spotter@ referee' 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:
>5+&+$1&+, foregoing premises "onsidered, the Court finds the a""used
+*%4D41 ,13DAD, <&. y ,A&AC guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the "rime of
Fiolation of Se". 11 par. /6', Art. 44 of &.A. .1;D and is senten"ed to suffer the penalty of
/;= B.C
+(hibit ?C@, folder of e(hibits, p. /
/;1B1=C
!here is also no spe"ifi"ation if it was a po"ket of the shirt or the pants
/.=
imprisonment for a period of !>+*F+ 1/' J+A&S and 13+ 1' DAJ and to pay the
fine of !5&++ 5A3D&+D !51ASA3D %+S1S %h%6==,===.==' as provided for in Se".
11 par. /6', Art. 44 of &A .1;D. !he a""used is likewise found guilty of the "rime of
Fiolation of Se". D Art. 44 of &A .1;D and is senten"ed to suffer the penalty of *4$+
4)%&4S13)+3! and fine of $4F+ 5A3D&+D !51ASA3D %+S1S %h%D==,==.=='
pursuant to Se". D, Art. 44 of &A .1;D the methamphetamine hydro"hloride shabu' is
ordered "onfis"ated in favor of the government for proper destru"tion by the proper agen"y.
S1 1&D+&+D.
/;/B11C
Anders"oring supplied'
,y De"ision of $ebruary 7, /==;,
/;6B1/C
the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial
"ourt9s de"ision with modifi"ation, disposing as follows:
>5+&+$1&+, in the light of the foregoing, the appeal is D4S)4SS+D for la"k of
merit. !he assailed de"ision is A$$4&)+D with the )1D4$4CA!413 that the a""used-
appellant is senten"ed to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of twelve 1/'
years and one 1' day, as minimum, to thirteen 16' years, as ma(imum and to pay a fine of
!hree 5undred !housand %esos %6==,===.=='.
S1 1&D+&+D.
/;:B16C
Anders"oring supplied'
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, a' the a""used is in possession of an item or an ob0e"t identified to be a
prohibited or a regulated drug, b' su"h possession is not authoriGed by law and "' the
a""used freely and "ons"iously possessed said drug.
Ander Se"tion 11, %ar. / B6C of &.A. .1;D, 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.
/;DB1:C
4tali"s in the original, unders"oring
supplied'
5en"e, the present %etition for &eview on Certiorari, appellant faulting the appellate
"ourt:
/;/ B11C
CA rollo, p. 1/:.
/;6 B1/C
%enned by <usti"e Amelita 2. !olentino with the "on"urren"e of <usti"es %ortia AliTo 5orma"huelos and Fi"ente S.+.
Feloso, CA rollo, pp. /6/-/D:.
/;: B16C
$ollo, p. ;7.
/;D B1:C
4d. at p. ;; "itations omitted'..
/.1
44. . . . 43 AD)4!!432 !5+ +F4D+3C+ 1$ !5+ %&1S+CA!413
D+S%4!+ CLEAR VIOLATIO- O. SECTIO- 91 ,1! O. R.A. 9161+
As 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.
Appellant "laims that there was failure to follow the re8uirements of Se". /1 of
&.A. 3o. .1;D, hen"e, it "ompromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the allegedly
seiGed items.
Se". /1 of &.A. 3o .1;D provides:
Sec#io' 91. C#"tody and >i"po"ition of Confi"ated, 1eiBed, andHor 1#rrendered
>an*ero#" >r#*", &lant 1o#re" of >an*ero#" >r#*", Controlled &re#r"or" and
,""ential Che(ial", /n"tr#(ent"H&araphernalia andHor 9a.oratory ,$#ip(ent. U !he
%D+A shall 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
instrumentsEparaphernalia andEor laboratory e8uipment so "onfis"ated, seiGed and or
surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
1' !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 <usti"e D1<', and any ele"ted publi" offi"ial w%o 7%"ll 8e
reBuire) #o 7i&' #%e copie7 o( #%e i'*e'#ory "') 8e &i*e' " copy #%ereo( # ( ( (
+mphasis and unders"oring supplied'
Appellant "laims that no physi"al inventory and photographing of the drugs took
pla"e. A reading of the testimony of the poseur-buyer, %1/ Dano indeed "onfirms
appellant9s "laim, vi5:
Atty. %uentebella:
>hen you brought him to the poli"e, it was there that the items taken from him were
inventoried, is it notN
>itness:
>e did 'o# make inventory be"ause we simply brought the eviden"e "onfis"ated.
( ( (
Atty. %uentebella:
Jou also did not take photographs of the items taken from the a""usedN
>itness:
Jes, sir.
/./
Atty. %uentebella:
And you know for a fa"t that under the new drugs law, this is a re8uirement for the
apprehending team to do, is it notN
%ros. 2apuGan:
Counsel is asking for a "on"lusion of law. 4 will ob0e"t.
Court:
>itness may answer the 8uestion.
>itness:
Jes, sir.
( ( ( (
Atty. %uentebella:
So it is very "lear now )r. >itness 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 <usti"e, or the media, that9s very "learN
>itness:
Jes, sir.
Atty. %uentebella:
Sin"e you did not make any inventory, it follows that you did not re8uire them to sign your
inventory as re8uired by lawN
>itness:
Jes, sir.
/;;B1;C
+mphasis and unders"oring supplied'
Clearly then, the apprehending poli"e offi"ers failed to "omply with the above-
8uoted provision of Se"tion /1 of &.A. 3o. .1;D.
&eople !. &rin*a" holds, however:
3on-"omplian"e by the apprehendingEbuy-bust team with Se"tion /1 is not fatal as
long as there is Iu7#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$7, "re properly pre7er*e) 8y #%e
"ppre%e')i'& o((icerK#e"$. 4ts non-"omplian"e will not render an a""usedSs arrest illegal
or the items seiGedE"onfis"ated from him inadmissible. >hat 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.
/;-B1-C
Citation omitted, emphasis, itali"s and unders"oring supplied'
/;; B1;C
!S3, <une 1D, /==:, pp. 7=-7-.
/;- B1-C
2.&. 3o. 1-D./7. August 61, /==-, D61 SC&A 7/7, 7:/-7:6
/.6
!he Court9s pronoun"ement in #ringas is based on the provision of Se"tion /1a' of
the 4mplementing &ules and &egulations
/;7B17C
of &.A. 3o. .1;D, vi5:
( ( ( %rovided, further, that non-"omplian"e with these re8uirements under Iu7#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 offi"erEteam, 7%"ll 'o# re')er *oi) "') i'*"li) 7uc%
7eiJure7 o( "') cu7#o)y o*er 7"i) i#e$7# +mphasis and unders"oring supplied'
4n the present "ase, by %1/ Dano9s "laim, he immediately marked the seiGed items
whi"h were brought to the Crime *aboratory for e(amination. 4y %i7 ")$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$7 w"7 #"Le'. T%ere w"7 #%u7 ("ilure #o ("i#%(ully (ollow #%e reBuire$e'#7 o( #%e
l"w.
%arentheti"ally, unlike in #ringas, the defense in the present "ase 8uestioned early
on, during the "ross e(amination of %1/ Dano, the failure of the apprehending offi"ers to
"omply with the inventory and photographing re8uirements of Se"tion /1 of &.A. 3o.
.1;D
/;.B1.C
, despite %1/ Dano9s awareness of su"h re8uirements. And the defense raised it
again during the offer of eviden"e by the prose"ution, thus:
Atty. %uentebella:
( ( ( (
+(hibits ?,@ whi"h is the brown envelope, ?,-1@, ?,-/@ and ?,-6@ are ob0e"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#
/-=B/=C
emphasis supplied'
43 $43+, as the failure to "omply with the aforesaid re8uirements 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"8uittal 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, +lpidio ,ondad <r., y ,ura", is ACRA4!+D of the "rimes
"harged.
5EO5LE VS. SAM3EL O4MIRA-IS, 2.&. 3o. 171:./, De"ember 1;, /==7
!432A, J.:
/;7B17C
!ook effe"t on 3ovember /-, /==/.
/;. B1.C
*ide !S3, <une 1D, /==:, pp. 71-7D.
/-= B/=C
!S3, August 1=, /==:, pp. ;--.
/-1 B/1C
#eople v. La>a, :1: %hil. 1D;, 1-= /==1' "iting #eople v. $igodon, /67 SC&A /- 1..:'.
/.:
!his is an appeal filed by Samuel 1bmiranis y 1reta appellant' who was "harged
with violation of Se"tion D in relation to Se"tion /; of &epubli" A"t &.A.' 3o. .1;D.
/-/B1C
5e was allegedly "aught in a buy-bust operation by elements of the )anila >estern %oli"e
Distri"t )>%D' 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
&!C' of )anila, ,ran"h /
/-6B/C
a""used him as follows:
!hat on or about )ay 17, /==:, 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 1' transparent plasti" sa"het "ontaining !>1 %143! +425! O+&1
O+&1 /.7==' grams of white "rystalline substan"e known as ?S5A,A@ "ontaining
methylamphetamine hydro"hloride, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.
/-:B6C
At the pre-trial, both the prose"ution and the defense stipulated on the 8ualifi"ation
of $orensi" Chemist +lisa &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"eXwhi"h yielded positive for methylamphetamine hydro"hloride
"ontentXdid not have personal knowledge of the ultimate sour"e of the drug.
/-DB:C
Appellant was brought to trial after having entered a negative plea.
/-;BDC
!he
prose"ution then pro"eeded to prove the "harge against him through the lone testimony of
poli"e offi"er <erry Felas"o Felas"o'. Felas"o was the alleged leader of the raiding team
that apprehended appellant on 17 )ay /==: at the "orner of 2.!uaGon and <ho"son Streets
in Sampalo", )anila.
/--B;C
!he narrative woven by Felas"o established the following fa"ts: 1n 1- )ay /==:,
%oli"e Superintendent )ar"elino %edroGo %edroGo' of the )>%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 1ffi"ers >ilfredo Cin"o, +dgardo %alabay, &oberto
,eniteG and one
/-7B-C
"onfidential informant as members.
/-.B7C
%edroGo gave the team a
marked D==-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 +nfor"ement Agen"y %D+A' of
the impending operation,
/7=B.C
entered the same in the blotter
/71B1=C
and pro"eeded to
,ambang in 2.!uaGon Street 0ust before 1/ a.m. of 17 )ay /==:Xthe appointed time and
date that the "onfidential informant and appellant had agreed to meet. !he informant 0oined
/-/
/-6
/-:
/-D
/-;
/--
/-7
/-.
/7=
/71
/.D
Felas"o in his "ar, and they awaited the arrival of appellant at the "orner of 2.!uaGon and
<ho"son Streets.
/7/B11C
At 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. Appellant 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. >hen appellant asked for payment, he seemed to have
re"ogniGed Felas"o9s "o-offi"er be"ause he uttered the words, ?May pulis yata.F At that
point, he was arrested 0ust as he was trying to get ba"k to his "ar.
/76B1/C
A""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. 5e further stated that immediately after the arrest,
he and his team brought the seiGed item to the poli"e head8uarters and there, in his
presen"e, Cin"o marked the same with the initials ?S11.@ At 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.
/7:B16C
!he "hemistry report issued at the instan"e of %edroGo and signed by $orensi"
Chemi"al 1ffi"er )aritess )ariano of the %3% Crime *aboratory revealed that the
spe"imen supposedly seiGed from appellant yielded positive of methylamphetamine
hydro"hloride "ontent.
/7DB1:C
!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. 5e "laimed that he was taken by Felas"o and his
team not on 17 )ay /==: but rather on 1- )ay /==: at -:== p.m. along Santa !eresita
Street, Sampalo", )anila#
/7;B1DC
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
%/==,===.==# 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 0ust find for
them someone who sells drugs in large-s"ale ?Magturo @a ng nag'e'enta ng droga, iyong
mala@i2an 2aT@'# that be"ause he said he did not know anyone who was into selling drugs,
he was taken to the A.3. Avenue poli"e head8uarters# that he was not detained at the
/7/
/76
/7:
/7D
/7;
/.;
head8uarters but rather, he was brought to the se"ond floor where the two arresting offi"ers
demanded %D=,===.== from him# that the demand was then redu"ed to %6=,===.== in
e("hange for the mitigation of his "ase.
/7-B1;C
1livia 4smael, another defense witness who
introdu"ed herself as a friend of appellant9s girlfriend and who admitted having witnessed
appellant9s arrest, "orroborated the material points of appellant9s testimony.
/77B1-C
4n its /6 $ebruary /==; De"ision, the &!C found appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense "harged. 5e was senten"ed to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment, and to pay a %D==,===.== fine without subsidiary imprisonment as well as
the "osts.
/7.B17C

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.
/.=B1.C
$or its part, the %eople, through the 1ffi"e of the Soli"itor 2eneral 1S2',
posited that the fa"t that all the essential elements of a "onsummated sale 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/=C
4t also
maintained that the "hain of "ustody of the seiGed s2a'u had been duly established be"ause
the re8uirements in taking "ustody of seiGed nar"oti"s provided for in Dangerous Drugs
,oard &egulation 3o. 1, series of /==/
/./B/1C
admit of liberal interpretation.
/.6B//C
4n its : September /==- De"ision,
/.:B/6C
the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the
trial "ourt9s de"ision.
T%e "ppe"l %"7 #o 8e &r"'#e).
4n "riminal prose"utions, fundamental is the re8uirement that the elemental a"ts
"onstituting the offense be established with moral "ertainty as this is the "riti"al and only
re8uisite to a finding of guilt. 4n 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 0udgment of "onvi"tion beyond reasonable doubt.
/.DB/-C
4t is therefore of prime
importan"e that in these "ases, the identity of the dangerous drug be likewise established
beyond reasonable doubt.
/.;B/7C
4n 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 re8uirement performs
/7-
/77
/7.
/.=
/.1
/./
/.6
/.:
/.D
/.;
/.-
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 3o. 1, series of /==/ 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 e8uipment 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.@ As a method of authenti"ating eviden"e, the "hain of "ustody rule
re8uires that the admission of the e(hibit be pre"eded by eviden"e suffi"ient to
support a finding that the matter in 8uestion is what the proponent "laims it to be.
/.7B6=C
4t
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
same would admit how and from whom it was re"eived, where it was and what happened to
it while in the witness9 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.
/..
B61C
4t 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. 1f 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 uni8ueness 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 ?S11@ at the poli"e
station, was not even presented in "ourt to dire"tly observe the uni8ueness 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. Aside
from that, it was not reasonably e(plained why these same witnesses were not able to
testify in "ourt. >hile indeed the prose"ution and the defense had stipulated on the
8ualifi"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
+lisa 2. &eyes and not to $orensi" Chemi"al 1ffi"er )aritess )ariano who, based on the
"hemistry report, was the one who e(amined the "ontents of the plasti" sa"het at the "rime
laboratory.
4n view of these loopholes in the eviden"e addu"ed against appellant, it "an be
reasonably "on"luded that the prose"ution was unable to establish the identity of the
dangerous drug and in effe"t failed to obliterate the hypothesis of appellant9s guiltlessness.
/.-
/.7
/..
/.7
,e that as it may, although testimony about a perfe"t "hain does not always have to
be the standard be"ause it is almost always impossible to obtain, "' u'8roLe' c%"i' o(
cu7#o)y i')ee) 8eco$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. A uni8ue "hara"teristi" of nar"oti" substan"es su"h as s2a'u is that
they are not distin"tive and are not readily identifiable as in fa"t they are sub0e"t to
s"ientifi" analysis to determine their "omposition and nature.
6==B6/C
And 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,
6=1B66C
substitution and e("hangeX
6=/B6:C
whether the alteration, tampering, "ontamination,
substitution and e("hange be inadvertent or otherwise not.
6=6B6DC
4t is by reason of this
distin"tive 8uality that the "ondition of the e(hibit at the time of testing and trial is
"riti"al.
6=:B6;C
5en"e, in authenti"ating nar"oti" spe"imens, a standard more stringent than
that applied to ob0e"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.
6=DB6-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.
6=;B67C
+ra2am v. "tate
6=-B6.C
in fa"t a"knowledged this danger. 4n 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. 4t 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=7B:=C
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. Sec#io' 91
3;9

<21=
o( R.A. -o. 9161 $"#eri"lly reBuire7
#%e "ppre%e')i'& #e"$ %"*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$7 were co'(i7c"#e) "')Kor 7eiJe), or %i7K%er repre7e'#"#i*e or cou'7el, "
6==
6=1
6=/
6=6
6=:
6=D
6=;
6=-
6=7
6=.
/..
repre7e'#"#i*e (ro$ #%e $e)i" "') #%e /ep"r#$e'# o( Ju7#ice, "') "'y elec#e) pu8lic
o((ici"l w%o <2= 7%"ll 8e reBuire) #o 7i&' #%e copie7 o( #%e i'*e'#ory "') 8e &i*e' "
copy #%ereo(. !he same re8uirements are also found in Se"tion /
61=B:/C
of its implementing
rules
611B:6C
as well as in Se"tion /
61/B::C
of the Dangerous Drugs ,oard &egulation 3o. 1,
series of /==/.
616B:DC
!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 re8uirements 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. 4t was at the poli"e stationX
and not at the pla"e where the item was seiGed from appellantXwhere a""ording to him
Felas"o', Cin"o had pla"ed the initials ?S11@ on the spe"imen. Felas"o never even
mentioned that the identifying mark on the spe"imen was pla"ed in appellant9s presen"e# he
"ould not even remember whether or not the spe"imen had been properly inventoried and
photographed at least in appellant9s presen"e. +ven more telling is the fa"t that, as eli"ited
from Felas"o himself during his "ross-e(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.
61:B:;C
All 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"ution9s "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.
>hat we "an fairly assume is that the Court of Appeals 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"o9s 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.
4t 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. 1therwise, where the offi"ial a"t in 8uestion is irregular on its
fa"e, an adverse presumption arises as a matter of "ourse.
61DB:7C
!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
61=
611
61/
616
61:
61D
6==
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
61;B:.C
and #eople v. +anenas
61-BD=C
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 0ust thatXa mere presumption disputable
by "ontrary proof and whi"h when "hallenged by the eviden"e "annot be regarded as
binding truth.
617BD1C

4t must be emphasiGed at this 0un"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 anti-nar"oti"s "ampaign. A member of the anti-nar"oti"s
division of the poli"e sin"e 1..-,
61.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.
6/=BD6C
5owever, for
reasons as obvious as intimated above, even this presumption is unworthy of "redit.
All 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. +ven granting that
we must blindly rely on the "redibility of Felas"o9s testimony, still, the prose"ution
eviden"e would fall short of satisfying the 8uantum of eviden"e re8uired 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 appellant9s "onvi"tion. 4n
Mallillin v. #eople,
6/1BD:C
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 "onse8uential reason, we will not hesitate to reverse the 0udgment of "onvi"tion in
the present appeal.
1ne final word. 4n 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. >hen moral "ertainty as to "ulpability hangs in the balan"e,
a"8uittal on reasonable doubt inevitably be"omes a matter of right.
6//BDDC
61;
61-
617
61.
6/=
6/1
6//
6=1
>5+&+$1&+, the assailed De"ision of the Court of Appeals in CA-2.&. C&.-5.C.
3o. =/1D7 affirming the 0udgment of "onvi"tion rendered by the &egional !rial Court of
)anila, ,ran"h /, is REVERSE/ and SET ASI/E. Appellant Samuel 1bmiranis y 1reta
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. 19913 , April 3;, 9;;6
!5+ $AC!S:
1n 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 : $ebruary /==6. !he team was headed by %E4nsp.
Catalino ,olanos ,olanos', with %16 &oberto +sternon +sternon', S%11 %edro Do"ot,
S%11 Danilo *asala and S%1/ &omeo 2allinera 2allinera' 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, 3ormaXallegedly yielded two /' plasti" sa"hets of s2a'u
and five D' empty plasti" sa"hets "ontaining residual morsels of the said substan"e.
A""ordingly, petitioner was "harged with violation of Se"tion 11, Arti"le 44 of
&epubli" A"t 3o. .1;D, otherwise known as !he Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs A"t of
/==/.
!hat on or about the :
th
day of $ebruary /==6, at about 7::D 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 /' plasti"
sa"hets of methamphetamine hydro"hloride BorC ?s2a'u@ with an aggregate weight of
=.=-:6 gram, and four empty sa"hets "ontaining ?s2a'u@ residue, without having been
previously authoriGed by law to possess the same.
C13!&A&J !1 *A>.
%etitioner entered a negative plea. At the ensuing trial, the prose"ution presented
,olanos, Arroyo and +sternon 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 +sternon and 'arangay @aga?ad *i"up, whose assistan"e
had previously been re8uested 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
+sternonXa dis"overy that was made in the presen"e of petitioner.
6/6B1=C
1n "ross
6/6
6=/
e(amination, ,olanos admitted that during the sear"h, he was e(plaining its progress to
petitioner9s mother, 3orma, but that at the same time his eyes were fi(ed on the sear"h
being "ondu"ted by +sternon.
+sternon 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.
6/:B1/C
1n "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#
6/DB16C
that he brought the seiGed items to the
,alogo %oli"e Station for a ?true inventory,@ then to the trial "ourt
6/;B1:C
and thereafter to the
laboratory.
6/-B1DC

Supt. *orlie Arroyo Arroyo', 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.
6/7B1;C
She further admitted that all seven sa"hets were delivered to the laboratory
by +sternon 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. 1felia 2ar"ia who re"eived the items from +sternon 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 +sternon began the sear"h of the
bedroom with *i"up and petitioner himself inside. 5owever, it was momentarily
interrupted when one of the poli"e offi"ers de"lared to ,olanos that petitioner9s wife,
Sheila, was tu"king something inside her underwear. $orthwith, a lady offi"er arrived to
"ondu"t the sear"h of Sheila9s body inside the same bedroom. At that point, everyone
e("ept +sternon 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 nothing
was found on Sheila9s body.
6/.B17C
Sheila was ordered to transfer to the other bedroom
together with her "hildren.
B1=C
!S3, // April /==6, pp. ;-..
6/:
B1/C
!S3, /6 <uly /==6, pp. ;--, 1=.
6/DB16C
4d. at 1;-1-.
6/;B1:C
!S3, /6 <uly /==6, pp. 16-1D.
6/-B1DC
4d. at ..
6/7
B1;C
!S3, /7 )ay /==6, p. 1:. !he results of the "hemi"al analysis are embodied in Chemistry &eport 3o. D-=6--=6. See re"ords, p. 17.
6/.
B17C
!S3, / De"ember /==6, pp. ;-1=.
6=6
%etitioner asserted that on his return from the errand, he was summoned by
+sternon to the bedroom and on"e inside, the offi"er "losed the door and asked him to lift
the mattress on the bed. And as he was doing as told, +sternon stopped him and ordered
him to lift the portion of the headboard. 4n that instant, +sternon showed him ?sa"het of
shabu@ whi"h a""ording to him "ame from a pillow on the bed.
66=B/=C
%etitioner9s a""ount in
its entirety was "orroborated in its material respe"ts by 3orma, 'arangay @aga?ad *i"up
and Sheila in their testimonies. 3orma 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
+sternon 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. 5e 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, +sternon, who was left
inside the bedroom, e("laimed that he had 0ust found two filled sa"hets.
C

1n /= <une /==: 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/' and one 1' day to twenty /=' years and to pay a fine of %6==,===.==.
!he trial "ourt reasoned that the fa"t that s2a'u was found in the house of petitioner was
prima facie eviden"e of petitioner9s 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. 4t also noted petitioner9s failure to as"ribe ill
motives to the poli"e offi"ers to fabri"ate "harges against him.
5en"e, this Appeal.
5+*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
0udgment 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 reasonable mind the moral "ertainty
re8uired to sustain a finding of guilt. )ore than 0ust 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 re8uisite to
make a finding of guilt. !he "hain of "ustody re8uirement performs this fun"tion in that it
ensures that unne"essary doubts "on"erning the identity of the eviden"e are removed.
As a method of authenti"ating eviden"e, the "hain of "ustody rule re8uires that the
admission of an e(hibit be pre"eded by eviden"e suffi"ient to support a finding that the
matter in 8uestion is what the proponent "laims it to be. 4t 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 witness9
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
66=B/=C
4d. at 11-1/.
6=:
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.
4ndeed, 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.
661B:1C
+ra2am vs. "tate
66/B:/C
positively a"knowledged this danger. 4n 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. 4t 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 laboratory9s findings is inadmissible.
666B:6C
A uni8ue "hara"teristi" of nar"oti" substan"es is that they are not readily
identifiable as in fa"t they are sub0e"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 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. 5en"e, in authenti"ating the same, a standard more
stringent than that applied to "ases involving ob0e"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.
A 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. 1f the people who "ame
into dire"t "onta"t with the seiGed ob0e"ts, only +sternon and Arroyo testified for the
spe"ifi" purpose of establishing the identity of the eviden"e. 2allinera, to whom +sternon
supposedly handed over the "onfis"ated sa"hets for re"ording and marking, as well as
2ar"ia, the person to whom +sternon 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 sub0e"t items. Any reasonable mind might then ask the
8uestion: Are the sa"hets of s2a'u allegedly seiGed from petitioner the very same ob0e"ts
laboratory tested and offered in "ourt as eviden"eN
!he prose"ution9s 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
+sternon 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 +sternon, what she did with them
661B:1C
+ra2am v. "tate, /DD 3.+/d ;D/, ;DD.
66/B:/C
+ra2am v. "tate, /DD 3.+/d ;D/.
666
B:6C
+ra2am v. "tate, /DD 3.+/d ;D/, ;DD.
6=D
during the time they were in her possession until before she delivered the same to Arroyo
for analysis.
2iven the foregoing deviations of poli"e offi"er +sternon 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 Appeals on the
presumption of regularity in the "ondu"t of poli"e duty is manifestly mispla"ed. !he
presumption of regularity is merely 0ust thatXa mere presumption disputable by "ontrary
proof and whi"h when "hallenged by the eviden"e "annot be regarded as binding truth.
66:BD/C
Suffi"e it to say that this presumption "annot preponderate over the presumption of
inno"en"e that prevails if not overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
66DBD6C
4n 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.
4n 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.
66;BD:C
In du'io pro reo. >hen moral "ertainty as to
"ulpability hangs in the balan"e, a"8uittal on reasonable doubt inevitably be"omes a matter
of right.
T%e EBuipoi7e Rule+ E*i)e'ce o( &uil# "') e*i)e'ce o( i''oce'ce "re "8ou# e*e'+
e((ec# o( 'o'Fpre7e'#"#io' o( (ore'7ic c%e$i7# w%o eA"$i'e) #%e 7%"8u or $"riIu"'"
?&rou') (or "cBui##"l.
5EO5LE O. THE 5HILI55I-ES *7. MO-ALY- CERVA-TES, :.R. -o. 161292,
)ar"h 1-, /==.

VELASCO, JR., J.H
!his is an appeal from the De"ision dated <uly 1., /==- of the Court of Appeals
CA' in CA-2.&. C&-5.C. 3o. ==:-; whi"h affirmed the April /6, /==: De"ision in
Criminal Case 3o. ==-171./. of the &egional !rial Court &!C', ,ran"h D6 in )anila.
!he &!C found a""used-appellant )onalyn Cervantes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of Se"tion 1D, Arti"le 444 of &epubli" A"t 3o. &A' ;:/D or the %angerous %rugs
Act of .-/0, as amended.
!he re"ords show the following fa"ts:
4n an 4nformation dated April -, /===, a""used-appellant and three others were
"harged with violation of Se". 1D, Art. 444 of &A ;:/D selling or distributing a regulated
drug', allegedly "ommitted as follows:
66:BD/C
#eople v. Am'rosio, 2.&. 3o. 16D6-7, 1: April /==:, :/- SC&A 61/, 617 "iting #eople v. &an, 67/ SC&A :1. /==/'.
66DBD6C
#eople v. Am'rosio, 2.&. 3o. 16D6-7, 1: April /==:, :/- SC&A 61/, 617 "iting #eople v. &an, 67/ SC&A :1. /==/'.
66;
BD:C
#eople v. La>a, id.
6=;
!hat, on or about April D, /===, in the City of )anila, %hilippines, and within the
0urisdi"tion of this 5onorable Court, a""used 4S4D&1 A&2AS13 y A&+3D+*A, b
!isoy, )13A*J3 BC+&FA3!+SC y S1*A& b )ona, >4*S13 D+* )13!+ b
>ilson and &4C5A&D &+RA4O b &i"hard, "onspiring, "onfederating and mutually
helping one another, a"ting in "ommon a""ord, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, for the amount of $4F+ 5A3D&+D !51ASA3D %D==,===.==' %+S1S,
%hilippine Curren"y, sell, deliver and give away to a poseur-buyer, $1A& 5A3D&+D
S+F+3!J !5&++ %143! S+F+3!J S4Q :-6.-;' 2&A)S 1$
)+!5A)%5+!A)43+ B5JD&1C5*1&4D+C, "ommonly known as shabu, a regulated
drug, without authority of law or the "orresponding li"ense therefor.
C13!&A&J !1 *A>.
66-B1C
A""used-appellant and her "o-a""used pleaded not guilty to the "harge. 4n the
ensuing trial, the prose"ution presented in eviden"e the oral testimonies of >illiam
!odavia, %16 &eynaldo &amos of the %hilippine 3ational %oli"e &egional 1ffi"e 4F %3%
&-4F', and %ESr. 4nspe"tor *orna !ria, a forensi" "hemi"al offi"er of the same regional
offi"e.
!he %eople9s version of the in"ident, as summariGed by the CA in the de"ision now
on appeal, is as follows:
1n April D, /===, the &egional Spe"ial 1perations 2roup 4F &S12-4F', 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 4sidro Arguson operating in Cavite. A"ting
on this bit of information, a team led by S%1/ 2eronimo %astrana, %16 &amos, and %1/
+merson ,alosbalos arranged a buy-bust operation to be "ondu"ted at Arguson9s rest house
in arangay *ambingan, !anGa, Cavite.
667B/C
Apon arriving at the rest house, %16 &amos
and %1/ ,alosbalos, a"ting as poseur-buyers, were introdu"ed by the D%A to Arguson as
the buyers of %h% D==,=== worth of s2a'u, simultaneously showing him a bundle of
money. Sin"e Arguson 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.
At about three o9"lo"k in the afternoon of that day, in front of the )"Donald9s
bran"h in %. 1"ampo St., %asay City,
66.B6C
Arguson instru"ted the would-be-buyers to wait
for someone who will "ome out from the nearby +strella St. Fery mu"h later, a""used-
appellant emerged from +strella St. and approa"hed %16 &amos to "he"k if he still had the
money. After being shown the money bundle, a""used-appellant left, only to return a few
minutes later this time with Arguson, >ilson Del )onte, who was holding a bla"k plasti"
bag, and &i"hard &e8uiG. Arguson then took from Del )onte the bag, later found to
"ontain :-6.-; grams of s2a'u pa"ked in si( small self-sealing transparent bags, and
handed it to %1/ ,alosbalos, who in turn gave him the bundle of boodle money. $inally,
%16 &amos gave the pre-arranged signal to indi"ate the "onsummation of the drug deal and
introdu"ed himself as poli"eman. A""used-appellant and her s"ampering "ompanions were
later arrested and brought to and booked at Camp Fi"ente *im.
66-B1C
$ollo, pp. ;--.
667B/C
4d. at D.
66. B6C
!he )"Donald9s bran"h in %. 1"ampo St. was later determined to be in )anila.
6=-
!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 %16 &amos prepared the
booking sheets and arrest reports and the re8uest for a 8ualitative analysis of the seiGed
items. &egional Crime *aboratory 1ffi"e 4F Chief 4nspe"tor CE4' )ary <ean 2eronimo
then "ondu"ted the standard physi"al and "hemi"al e(aminations on the spe"imen referred
to her.
1n April ;, /===, CE4 2eronimo prepared and "ompleted Chemistry &eport 3o. D-
11D7== on the "rystalline substan"e. %er her report, the substan"e tested positive for
methamphetamine hydro"hloride or s2a'u.
Apart from the witnesses9 affidavits and other do"uments, the prose"ution, in the
hearing of )ar"h :, /==/, offered in eviden"e the following e(hibits,
6:=B:C
in"lusive of its
sub markings, whi"h, as may be e(pe"ted, were ob0e"ted to by the defense: a' EA%i8i# @4@
I Chemistry &eport 3o. D-11D7== prepared by CE4 2eronimo# b' EA%i8i# @C@ I
)emorandum of &S12-4F dated April D, /=== to the Chief, *aboratory Servi"e,
re8uesting for 8ualitative analysis of the "ontents of the si( transparent plasti" bags# "'
EA%i8i#7 @/C "') @/F1C #o @/F6@ I ,la"k plasti" bag with markings# and si( ;' self-
sealing transparent bags allegedly "ontaining the "onfis"ated s2a'u# and d' EA%i8i# @.C I
&e"eipt of property seiGed signed by %1/ ,alosbalos and by !odavia and %16 &amos as
witnesses.

T%e CA )eci7io' liLewi7e 7u$$"riJe) #%e )e(e'7eN7 "ccou'# o( w%"# purpor#e)ly
#r"'7pire), #o wi#H
A""used-appellant testified that after she did laundry works at her house in +strella
Street near $.,. 5arrison on April :, /===, her youngest "hild asked her to go to
B)"Donald9sC, Fito CruG bran"h, to buy i"e "ream. >hen they arrived thereat at about ::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 /' younger male persons, whom she later "ame to know as D+* )13!+
and &+RA4O, 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
A&2AS13 for the first time.
1n the other hand, a""used D+* )13!+ testified that he was a parking boy
around Fito CruG and that on the day in 8uestion, while he was wat"hing a vehi"le near
B)"Donald9sC, Fito CruG bran"h, a "ommotion happened near his post. As 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 C+&FA3!+S and &+RA4O, whom he
did not know prior to that in"ident.
$or his part, a""used &+RA4O testified that on the date and time in 8uestion, he was
riding a borrowed bi"y"le on his way to the Cultural Center, passing by $.,. 5arrison St.,
when he bumped a parked van, wherefrom a man alighted and "ursed him, saying ?pulis
6:= B:C
&e"ords, pp. 17D-17-.
6=7
a@o ?ag @ang aalis dyanNTO @ !he man left and when he returned, a""used C+&FA3!+S
was with him. !hereafter, he was boarded into the van together with the other a""used.
6:1BDC
>hile not stated in the CA 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.
6:/B;C
!hese testimonies remained
un"ontroverted.
Arguson died during the "ourse of the trial resulting
in the dismissal of the "ase against him.
6:6B-C
1n April /6, /==:, the &!C rendered 0udgment a"8uitting Del )onte and &e8uiG
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:
>5+&+$1&+, in view of the foregoing, 0udgment is hereby rendered:
1. $inding a""used )13A*J3 C+&FA3!+S J S1*A& 2A4*!J beyond reasonable
doubt of violation of Se". 1D, Arti"le 444, of &epubli" A"t 3o. ;:/D as amended, and is
senten"ed to $eclusion #erpetua and to pay a fine in the amount of %hpD==,===.==# and
/. $inding the prose"ution9s eviden"e insuffi"ient to prove the guilt of a""used >4*S13
D+* )13!+ and &4C5A&D &+RA4O beyond reasonable doubt, and who are hereby
ACRA4!!+D.
S1 1&D+&+D.
6::B7C
1n )ay 17, /==:, a""used-appellant filed a 3oti"e of Appeal, pursuant to whi"h the
&!C forwarded the re"ords of the "ase to this Court.
Conformably with #eople v. Mateo,
6:DB.C
the Court dire"ted the transfer of the "ase to
the CA where it was do"keted as CA-2.&. C&-5.C. 3o. ==:-;. ,efore the appellate "ourt,
a""used-appellant urged her a"8uittal 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.@
6:;B1=C
,y its De"ision
6:-B11C
dated <uly 1., /==-, the CA, finding the elements ne"essary for
the prose"ution of illegal sale of drugs
6:7B1/C
to have suffi"iently been satisfied and the
identifi"ation of a""used-appellant having been established, affirmed her "onvi"tion.
6:1 BDC
$ollo, pp. --7.
6:/ B;C
!S3, <anuary /=, /==6, pp. 1=-11.
6:6 B-C
$ollo, p. 7.
6:: B7C
CA rollo, p. 6=. %enned by <udge &eynaldo A. Alhambra.
6:D B.C
2.&. 3os. 1:-;-7-7-, <uly -, /==:, :66 SC&A ;:=.
6:; B1=C
CA rollo, pp. 71-7/.
6:- B11C
$ollo, pp. :-1=. %enned by Asso"iate <usti"e +stela ). %erlas-,ernabe and "on"urred in by Asso"iate <usti"es Fi"ente R.
&o(as and *u"as %. ,ersamin.
6:7 B1/C
a' identity of the buyer and the seller, the ob0e"t and the "onsideration# and b' the delivery of the thing sold and payment
therefor.
6=.
T%e CA reIec#e) "ccu7e)F"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# @c"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' A A "re pri$" ("cie e*i)e'ce o( #%e ("c#7
#%erei' 7#"#e).C 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#.
1n August 1-, /==-, a""used-appellant filed a 3oti"e of Appeal of the CA
affirmatory de"ision.
1n )ar"h /:, /==7, this Court re8uired 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 CA, whi"h on the part of a""used-appellant would be:
!5+ BCAC 2&AF+*J +&&+D 43 $43D432 !5+ ACCAS+D-A%%+**A3!
2A4*!J 1$ !5+ 1$$+3S+ C5A&2+D D+S%4!+ !5+ 43SA$$4C4+3CJ 1$
+F4D+3C+ $1& !5+ %&1S+CA!413.
$or its part, the %eople, thru the 1ffi"e of the Soli"itor 2eneral, "ounters that the
prose"ution has established that the buy-bust transa"tion took pla"e, has identified a""used-
appellant and her "ompli"ity in Arguson9s illegal trade, and has presented the corpus
delicti, as eviden"e.
T%e Cour#N7 Ruli'&
After a "ir"umspe"t study, the Court resolves to a"8uit a""used-appellant,
"onsidering "ertain "ir"umstan"es engendering reasonable doubt as to her guilt.
>e start off with the most basi", the testimony of the prose"ution9s prin"ipal
witness, %16 &amos, who identified a""used-appellant and des"ribed her role in the
"onspira"y to sell s2a'u. 4n the witness bo(, %16 &amos testified that, after being told by
Arguson to wait for someone who will "ome out from the street when"e Arguson would
enter, a""used-appellant emerged from said street, "he"ked on the pur"hase money, asked
the operatives to wait, and later re-appeared. >hat happened ne(t is "aptured by the
following answers of %16 &amos to the prose"utor9s 8uestions:
M: >hat did you see when Cervantes already returnedN A: >hen )onalyn return the one
holding the plasti" bag was >ilson, sir.
M: >ilsonN A: Jes, sir, together with &i"hard, >ilson, Arguson, they were four :'.
A##y. CruJ: Jour honor, may we move to strike that out ( ( (.
.i7c"l .or$o7o: !hat9s part of the answer ( ( ( now, when all these a""used here return
with )onalyn Cervantes, what happenBedCN
61=
A: Arguson took the plasti" bag from >ilson, sir and handed it to ,alosbalos, ,alosbalos
gave Arguson the boodle money while 4 flash the signal ( ( ( then we apprehended them.
6:.
B16C

As may be noted, %16 &amos "ategori"ally stated that Del )onte was among the
four who emerged with Arguson from a street. >ithout hesitation, %16 &amos pointed to
Del )onte as the one holding the plasti" bag allegedly "ontaining the prohibited substan"e
until Arguson took it from him and handed it over to %1/ ,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"8uitted &e8uiG and Del )onte, but "onvi"ted a""used-
appellant, stating: ?Clearly, a""used )onalyn Cervantes9 "ompli"ity with a""used 4sidro
Arguson in the sale of s2a'u has been established by the testimony of %16 &amos.@
6D=B1:C
,ut two paragraphs later, the &!C went on to write:
( ( ( >hile %16 &amos testified that the bag was initially held by a""used Del
)onte and then taken from him by a""used Arguson, there is no other eviden"e whi"h "an
support the "harge of "onspira"y with Arguson 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. +ven if %16 &amos saw him to have held the bag for Arguson, it "ould
have been possible that he was merely asked by Cervantes or Arguson to "arry the bag.
6D1B1DC
,efore us then is a situation where two personsII"ccu7e)F"ppell"'#, a laundry
woman# and /el Mo'#e, a "ar park boy, in the "ompany of the ostensible pusher, Arguson,
during the a"tual buy bustIIare 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. 1n the other hand, Del )onte "ame
a""ompanying Arguson "arrying the drug-"ontaining plasti" bag no less. As 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 0ust happened to be near or passing by
)"Donald9s at about ::6= in the afternoon of April :, /=== when they were apprehended.
,ut the trial "ourt, in its observation that ?it "ould have been possible that BDel )onteC was
merely asked by ( ( ( Arguson to "arry the bag,@ e(tended to Del )onte the ?benefit of the
doubt,@ a benevolen"e denied to a""used-appellant without so mu"h of an a""eptable
e(planation. Any reasonable mind might ask: >hy the "ontrasting treatmentN >hy
"onsider %16 &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
6:. B16C
!S3, 1"tober /6, /==1, pp. 1/-1;.
6D= B1:C
CA rollo, p. /7.
6D1 B1DC
4d. at /7-/..
611
"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.
6D/B1;C
,ut even if we were to "ast aside the foregoing e8uipoise rule, a reversal of the
appealed de"ision is indi"ated on another but more "ompelling ground. >e 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-appellant9s guilt. >e shall e(plain.
4n every prose"ution for illegal sale of dangerous drug, what is "ru"ial is the identity
of the buyer and seller, the ob0e"t and its "onsideration, the delivery of the thing sold, and
the payment for it. 4mpli"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 ob0e"t
eviden"e being an integral part of the corpus
6D6B1-C
delicti
6D:B17C
of the "rime of possession or
selling of regulatedEprohibited drug.
6DDB1.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.
6D;B/=C
+ssential, 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. And as we stressed in Malillin v. #eople, the ?c%"i' o( cu7#o)y reBuire$e'#
per(or$7 #%i7 (u'c#io' i' #%"# i# e'7ure7 #%"# u''ece77"ry )ou8#7 co'cer'i'& #%e
i)e'#i#y o( #%e e*i)e'ce "re re$o*e).@
6D-B/1C
So it is that in a slew of "ases the Court has
"onsidered the prose"ution9s failure to ade8uately 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"8uittal.
6D7B//C

Sec. 1,8! o( #%e /"'&erou7 /ru&7 4o"r) Re&ul"#io' -o. 1, Serie7 o( 9;;9, or #%e
@:ui)eli'e7 o' #%e Cu7#o)y "') /i7po7i#io' o( SeiJe) /"'&erou7 /ru&7, Co'#rolle)
5recur7or7 "') E77e'#i"l C%e$ic"l7, "') L"8or"#ory EBuip$e'#,C )e(i'e7 @c%"i' o(
cu7#o)y,C #%u7lyH
8Chain of C#"todyA 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
6D/ B1;C
#eople v. (avarro, 2.&. 3o. 1-6-.=, 1"tober 11, /==-, D6D SC&A ;::, ;D6.
6D6 B1-C
A *atin word whi"h signifies ?body.@
6D: B17C
*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 $imorin, "r. v. #eople, 2.&. 3o. 1:;:71, April 6=, /==6, :=/ SC&A 6.6, :==.
6DD B1.C
#eople v. "anc2e5, 2.&. 3o. 1-D76/, 1"tober 1=, /==7# "iting *alde5 v. #eople, 2.&. 3o. 1-=17=, 3ovember /6, /==-,
D67 SC&A ;11.
6D; B/=C
*alde5, supra note 1., at ;/7-;/.# "iting #eople v. Ong, 2.&. 3o. 16-6:7, <une /1, /==:, :6/ SC&A :-=.
6D- B/1C
2.&. 3o. 1-/.D6, April 6=, /==7, DD6 SC&A ;1., ;6/# "iting Ameri"an 0urispruden"e.
6D7 B//C
*alde5, supra# Ong, supra note /=.
61/
transfer of "ustody BwasC made in the "ourse of safekeeping and use in "ourt as eviden"e,
and the final disposition.
6D.B/6C
As a mode of authenti"ating eviden"e, the "hain of "ustody rule re8uires that the
admission of an e(hibit be pre"eded by eviden"e suffi"ient to support a finding that the
matter in 8uestion is what the proponent "laims it to be. 4n "onte(t, this would ideally
in"lude testimony about every link in the "hain, from the seiGure of the prohibited drug up
to the time it is offered into eviden"e, in su"h a way that everyone who tou"hed the e(hibit
would des"ribe how and from whom it was re"eived, where it was and what happened to it
while in the witness9 possession, the "ondition in whi"h it was re"eived, and the "ondition
in whi"h it was delivered to the ne(t link in the "hain.
6;=B/:C
!he need for the pun"tilious
observan"e of the "hain-of-"ustody pro"ess in drug-related "ases is e(plained in Malillin in
the following wise:
>hile testimony about a perfe"t "hain is not always the standard be"ause it is almost
always impossible to obtain, "' u'8roLe' c%"i' o( cu7#o)y 8eco$e7 i')i7pe'7"8le "')
e77e'#i"l w%e' #%e i#e$ o( re"l e*i)e'ce i7 'o# )i7#i'c#i*e "') i7 'o# re"lly i)e'#i(i"8le,
or when its "ondition at the time of testing or trial is "riti"al, or when a witness has failed to
observe its uni8ueness. !he same standard likewise obtains in "ase the eviden"e is
sus"eptible to alteration, tampering, "ontamination and even substitution and e("hange. 4n
other words, the e(hibit9s level of sus"eptibility to fungibility, alteration or tamperingII
without regard to whether the same is advertent or otherwise notIIdi"tates the level of
stri"tness in the appli"ation of the "hain of "ustody rule.
( ( ( (
A uni8ue "hara"teristi" of nar"oti" substan"es is that they are not readily identifiable as in
fa"t they are sub0e"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 links in the "hain of "ustody over the same there "ould have been tampering,
alteration or substitution of substan"es from other "asesIIby a""ident or otherwiseIIin
whi"h similar eviden"e was seiGed or in whi"h similar eviden"e was submitted for
laboratory testing. 5en"e, in authenti"ating the same, a standard more stringent than that
applied to "ases involving ob0e"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.
6;1B/DC
+mphasis added.'
As 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 %16 &amos
testified for the spe"ifi" purpose of identifying the eviden"e. 4n 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. 5e 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.
>hat is on re"ord is +(hibit ?C,@ whi"h, as earlier des"ribed, is a memorandum
6;/B/;C
%16
6D. B/6C
4n a""ordan"e with Se". /1, Art. 44 of the 4mplementing &ules and &egulations 4&&' of &A .1;D or the Compre2ensive
%angerous %rugs Act of 0,,0 in relation to Se". 71b', Art. 4Q of &A .1;D.
6;= B/:C
Malillin, supra note /1.
6;1 B/DC
4d. at ;66-;6:.
6;/ B/;C
&e"ords, p. 66.
616
&amos prepared
6;6B/-C
dated April D, /=== from the &S12-4F Dire"tor to the Chief, %3% &-
4F Crime *aboratory Servi"e, submitting for 8ualitative analysis the white "rystalline
substan"e "onfis"ated by the buy-bust group. 3eedless 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. And CE4 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. As the Court observed aptly in
#eople v. Ong, ?B!Chese 8uestions should be answered satisfa"torily to determine whether
the integrity of the eviden"e was "ompromised in any way. 1therwise, the prose"ution
"annot maintain that it was able to prove the guilt of appellants beyond reasonable
doubt.@
6;:B/7C
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 eA%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". /11', Art. 44 of &A .1;D, 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 reBuire) #o 7i&' #%e copie7 o( #%e i'*e'#ory "') 8e &i*e' " copy #%ereo(.
361

<99

C
4n 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. %16 &amos admitted as mu"h, thus:
M. 3ow, you were able to arrest all the a""used here, after their arrest, what did you
doN A. After informing their rights and the reason why we arrest them we brought them
immediately to our offi"e in Canlubang.
( ( ( (
M. 3ow, what about this Shabu, who was in possession of this Shabu ( ( ( when
you left the pla"e and pro"eeded to CanlubangN A. %1/ ,alosbalos, sir.
( ( ( (
6;6 B/-C
!S3, 1"tober /6, /==1, p. /=.
6;: B/7C
Supra note /=, at :.=.
6;DB/.C
!he 4&& of &A .1;D provides further, ?'o'Fco$pli"'ce wi#% #%e7e reBuire$e'#7 u')er Iu7#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$7.@
61:
M. 3ow, when you rea"h your offi"e, what did you do thereN A. 4 made the booking
sheet and 4 re8uested for their medi"alEphysi"al e(amination ( ( (.
6;;B6=C
<ust as "lear is the fa"t that the e(a"ting "hain of "ustody rule was not observed.
>ithal, #%ere i7 'o re"7o'"8le "77ur"'ce #%"# 'o #"$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 RFIV %e")Bu"r#er7 i' C"'lu8"'&,
L"&u'". 4n 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 Arguson were the very same ob0e"ts tested by CE4 2eronimo and
offered in "ourt in proving the corpus delicti.
Adding a negative dimension to the prose"ution9s "ase is the non-presentation of
CE4 2eronimo and the presentation in her stead of 4nspe"tor !ria to testify on the "hemi"al
report CE4 2eronimo prepared. >hile 4nspe"tor !ria "an plausibly testify on the fa"t that
CE4 2eronimo prepared the "hemi"al report in the regular "ourse of her duties, she,
4nspe"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"8uittal. 4n 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:
( ( ( 4n %eople vs. Ay, 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 :: of &ule 16=, ( ( ( 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.
1mero9s 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 Atty. +nri8ueG r"i7e7 %i7 o8Iec#io' to the 4nitial
*aboratory &eport and Chemistry &eport 3o. D-1D7D-== o'ly 'ow. 5e should have
ob0e"ted to their admissibility at the time they were being offered. 1therwise, the ob0e"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 0urisdi"tion is that the
admissibility of "ertain do"uments ( ( ( "annot be raised for the first time on appeal.
6;-B61C
+mphasis added.'
4t should be pointed out, however, that the andang ruling was "ast against a
different ba"kdrop where: 1' 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#
/' there was a "ompelling reason for not presenting the e(amining forensi" "hemist, i.e.,
6;;

B6=C
!S3, 1"tober /6, /==1, pp. 17-1..
6;-B61C
2.&. 3o. 1D161:, <une 6, /==:, :6= SC&A D-=, D7;-D7-.
61D
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.
4n this "ase, CE4 2eronimo9s resignation from the servi"e is not, standing alone, a 0ustifying
fa"tor for the prose"ution to dispense with her testimony# and 6' a""used ,andang, et al.
did not raise any ob0e"tion to the "hemi"al report during trial, unlike here where a""used-
appellant ob0e"ted to 4nspe"tor !ria9s "ompeten"y to testify on the 2eronimo "hemi"al
report.
At any rate, 4nspe"tor !ria9s testimony on, and the presentation of, the "hemistry
report in 8uestion only established, at best, the e(isten"e, due e(e"ution, and authenti"ity of
the results of the "hemistry analysis.
6;7B6/C
4t does not prove "omplian"e with the re8uisite
"hain of "ustody over the "onfis"ated substan"e from the time of seiGure of the eviden"e. 4n
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 ob0e"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,
6;.B66C
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@
6-=B6:C
be observed, a demand whi"h may be addressed by hewing to the "hain-of-"ustody rule.
+vidently, the prose"ution has not proved that the substan"e seiGed in front of the
)"Donald9s 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-appellant9s
guilt.
6-1B6DC
,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 %16 &amos and other
%3% 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#
6-/B6;C
any taint of
irregularity vitiates the performan"e and negates the presumption. And 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 %3% &-4F "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.
6-6B6-C
>e 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-appellant9s "onvi"tion be"ause, ?BfCirst, the presumption is pre"isely
0ust thatXa mere presumption. 1n"e "hallenged by eviden"e, as in this "ase, ( ( ( BitC
"annot be regarded as binding truth. Se"ond, the presumption of regularity in the
6;7 B6/C
"anc2e5, supra note 1..
6;. B66C
Supra note /1, at ;6:.
6-= B6:C
2.&. 3o. 16=7=D, April /-, /==:, :/7 SC&A D1, -=.
6-1 B6DC
4d.
6-/ B6;C
"evilla v. Cardenas, 2.&. 3o. 1;-;7:, <uly 61, /==;, :.- SC&A :/7, ::6# "iting Ma'sucang v. Judge algos, ::; %hil.
/1-, //: /==6'.
6-6 B6-C
#eople v. CaGete, 2.&. 3o. 167:==, <uly 11, /==/, 67: SC&A :11, :/:.
61;
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.@
6-:B67C
$or failure then of the prose"ution to establish the guilt of a""used-appellant beyond
reasonable doubt, she must perfor"e be e(onerated from "riminal liability. !he fa"ts and the
law of the "ase "all for this kind of disposition.
4u# " (i'"l co'7i)er"#io'. T%e Cour# i7 co&'iJ"'# o( #%e c"$p"i&' o( #%e police
"') o#%er )ru& e'(orce$e'# "&e'cie7 "&"i'7# #%e &rowi'& )ru& $e'"ce i' #%e cou'#ry.
3'(or#u'"#ely, #%eir 8e7# e((or#7, p"r#icul"rly 7ucce77(ul %o'e7#F#oF&oo)'e77 8uyF8u7#
oper"#io'7, 7o$e#i$e7 7#ill e') up i' #%e "cBui##"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'("$ili"ri#y o( police oper"#i*e7 o( eA#"'# rule7 "') proce)ure7
&o*er'i'& #%e cu7#o)y, co'#rol, "') %"')li'& o( 7eiJe) )ru&7. T%i7 i7, #%u7, "'
oppor#u'e #i$e #o re$i') "ll co'cer'e) "8ou# #%e7e rule7 "') proce)ure7 "') #%e
&ui)i'& Iuri7pru)e'ce. A') #o pu# #%i'&7 i' #%e proper per7pec#i*e, 'o'Fco$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 !. 1anheB , 'o# 'ece77"rily ("#"l #o #%e pro7ecu#io' o( )ru&F
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), "') eApl"i'e) i' #er$7 o( #%eir Iu7#i(i"8le
&rou')7, "') #%e i'#e&ri#y "') e*i)e'#i"ry *"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$e).
0HERE.ORE, the CA De"ision dated <uly 1., /==- in CA-2.&. C&-5.C. 3o.
==:-;, affirming that of the &!C, ,ran"h D6 in )anila whi"h found her guilty of violating
Se". 1D, Art. 444 of &A ;:/D and imposed upon her the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a
fine of %h% D==,===, is hereby REVERSE/ and SET ASI/E. A""used-appellant )onalyn
Cervantes y Solar is ACM3ITTE/ on the ground of reasonable doubt and is a""ordingly
immediately RELEASE/ from "ustody unless she is being lawfully held for some lawful
"ause.
5re7u$p#io' o( i''oce'ce le")7 #o #%e "ccu7e)N7 "cBui##"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 "cBui##"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. 11666, April 3;, 9;;6
$AC!S:
1n 1"tober 1, 1..D, at -:/= in the evening, armed men robbed the house of spouses 2eorge and
6-: B67C
#eople v. &an, 2.&. 3o. 1/.6-;, )ay /., /==/, 67/ SC&A :1., :::.
61-
&osemarie 2ante in ,arangay %ug-os, Cabugao, 4lo"os Sur, for"ibly taking with them several
valuables, in"luding "ash amounting to %;==,===.==.
6-DB6C
$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
)!C' of Cabugao, 4lo"os Sur.
6-;B:C
!he )!C issued Sear"h >arrant 3o. D-.D,
6--BDC
dire"ting a sear"h
of the items stolen from the vi"tims, as well as the firearms used by the perpetrators. 1ne of the target
premises was the residen"e of petitioner, named as one of the several suspe"ts in the "rime.
1n 1"tober ;, 1..D, armed with the warrant, poli"emen sear"hed the premises of petitionerSs house
lo"ated in Sitio %adual, ,arangay %ug-os, Cabugao, 4lo"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,
"onse8uently, the filing of a "riminal "ase, do"keted as Criminal Case 3o. 1;D1-M, for violation of
%.D. 3o. 17;; or 4llegal %ossession of $irearms, against petitioner before the &!C.
!hereafter, trial ensued. !he prose"ution presented eight witnesses namely: 1' %E4nsp.
Anselmo ,aldovino
6-7B-C
%E4nsp. ,aldovino', a poli"e investigator and the appli"ant for the sear"h
warrant# /' &osemarie 2ante 2ante', the vi"tim of the robbery and private "omplainant# 6' 4gna"io
Jabes Jabes', a )uni"ipal *o"al 2overnment 1perations 1ffi"er of the Department of 4nterior and
*o"al 2overnment who was the "ivilian witness to the sear"h# :' %ESupt. ,onifa"io Abian
6-.B7C
%ESupt. Abian', Deputy %rovin"ial Dire"tor of the %hilippine 3ational %oli"e and part of the sear"h
team# D' S%1: )arino %eneyra S%1: %eneyra'# ;' S%11 $ranklin Cabaya S%11 Cabaya'# -'
S%11 <ames <ara S%11 <ara'# and 7' S%1/ $lorentino &enon S%1/ &enon'.
!he prose"utionSs "ase "entered mainly on eviden"e that during the enfor"ement of the sear"h
warrant against petitioner, a .67 "aliber revolver firearm was found in the latterSs house.
67=B.C
4n
parti"ular, S%11 Cabaya testified that while poking at a "losed rattan "abinet near the door, he saw a
firearm on the lower shelf.
671

B1=C
!he gun is a .67 "aliber revolver
67/

B11C
with five live ammunitions,
676

B1/C



whi"h he immediately turned over to his superior, %E4nsp. ,aldovino.
67:B16C

%etitioner an"hored his defense on denial and frame-up. !he petitioner and his wife *orna
assert that petitioner does not own a gun.
67DB1:C
*orna testified that she saw a ?military@ man planting
the gun.
67;B1DC
After trial, the &!C rendered its De"ision
67-B1;C
dated <uly -, 1..., finding petitioner guilty
beyond reasonable doubt.
%etitioner filed an appeal with the CA, whi"h rendered the assailed De"ision
677B17C
dated
6-D
6-;
6--
6-7
6-.
67=
671
67/
676
67:
67D
67;
67-
677
617
<anuary //, /==6, affirming with modifi"ation the de"ision of the trial "ourt, thus:
>5+&+$1&+, e("ept for the )1D4$4CA!413 redu"ing and "hanging the ma(imum of
the prison term imposed to $ive D' Jears $our :' )onths and !wenty /=' Days, the appealed
De"ision is otherwise A$$4&)+D.
5en"e, the instant %etition for &eview, on the prin"ipal ground that the CA 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%11
Cabaya the presumption of regularity in the performan"e of duty despite the "laim of *orna that the .
67 "aliber revolver was planted.
%etitioner insists that the trial "ourt and the CA "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. 5e 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/H
!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.
4t is a well-entren"hed rule that appeal in "riminal "ases opens the whole "ase wide open for
review.
67.B/=C
4n "onvi"ting petitioner, the &!C relied heavily on the testimony of S%11 Cabaya, who
testified that he dis"overed the sub0e"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 0ustified
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.
6.=B/1C

>eighing 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 CA have overlooked "ertain fa"ts and "ir"umstan"es that
would have inter0e"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 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
67.
6.=
61.
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.
6.1B/:C
As held in !nited "tates v.
EstraGa,
6./B/DC
a material matter is the main fa"t whi"h is the sub0e"t of in8uiry 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 7u8Iec# o( i'Buiry 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. +spe"ially damaged is the "redibility of S%11 Cabaya, none of whose
de"larations on material points 0ibes with those of the other prose"ution witnesses. 4n the fa"e of the
vehement and "onsistent protestations of frame-up by petitioner and his wife, the trial "ourt and the
CA 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 8uestion of whether or not S%11 Cabaya really found a firearm
in the house of petitioner.
S%11 Cabaya testified that he entered the house with four other poli"emen, among whom
were S%11 <ara, S%1: %eneyra, S%16 ,ernabe 1"ado S%16 1"ado' and another one whose name
he does not remember.
6.6

B/;C
>hile sear"hing, he dis"overed the firearm in the kit"hen, inside a "losed
"abinet near the door.
6.:B/-C
5e said that S%11 <ara was standing right behind him, at a distan"e of 0ust
one meter, when he Cabaya' saw the firearm#
6.DB/7C
and that he pi"ked up the gun, held it and showed
it to S%11 <ara.
6.;B/.C
5e asserted that S%1/ &enon was not one of those who went inside the
house.
6.-B6=C

5owever, S%11 <ara, the best witness who "ould have "orroborated S%11 CabayaSs
testimony, related a different story as to the "ir"umstan"es of the firearmSs dis"overy. S%11 <ara
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.
6.7

B6/C
S%11 <ara testified that he remained outside the house throughout the
sear"h, and when S%11 Cabaya shouted and showed a gun, he was seven to eight meters away from
him.
6..

B66C
5e "ould not see the inside of the house and "ould see Cabaya only from his "hest up .
:==B6:C
5e 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.
:=1B6DC
He i7 cer#"i' #%"# %e w"7 'o# wi#% C"8"y" "# #%e
#i$e #%e l"##er )i7co*ere) #%e (ire"r$.
:=/B6;C
5e further testified that S%16 1"ado, who, a""ording
to S%11 Cabaya was one of those near him when he Cabaya' dis"overed the firearm, stayed outside
and did not enter or sear"h the house.
:=6B6-C

%E4nsp. ,aldovino testified that only S%1/ &enon "ondu"ted the sear"h and entered the
6.1
6./
6.6
6.:
6.D
6.;
6.-
6.7
6..
:==
:=1
:=/
:=6
6/=
house together with S%11 Cabaya,
:=:

B67C
dire"tly "ontradi"ting S%11 CabayaSs testimony that he,
together with S%11 <ara, S%1: %eneyra, S%16 1"ado, and another one whose name he "annot re"all,
were inside the house when he dis"overed the gun
:=D

B6.C
and that S%1/ &enon did not enter the house
of petitioner.
:=;B:=C
!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%1: %eneyra testified that Jabes stayed outside of the during
the sear"h#
:=-

BD.C
whereas S%11 <ara testified that Jabes was inside, at the sala , but the latter saw the
gun only when S%11 Cabaya raised it.
:=7B;=C

Although the Court has held that frame-up is inherently one of the weakest defenses,
:=.

B;1C as it is


both easily "on"o"ted and diffi"ult to prove,

:1=

B;/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

reBuiri'& " cl"i$ o( (r"$eFup #o 8e 7uppor#e) 8y cle"r "') co'*i'ci'&


e*i)e'ce

211

<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

.
As
the Court held
in #eople of t2e
#2ilippines v. Am'i2:
:1/B;:C
B>Chile 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. 4t 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$p#io' i7 #%"# #%e "ccu7e) i7 i''oce'# e*e'
i( %i7 )e(e'7e i7 we"L "7 lo'& "7 #%e pro7ecu#io' i7 'o# 7#ro'& e'ou&% #o co'*ic# %i$.
:16B;DC
+mphasis supplied'
4n #eople of t2e #2ilippines v. +on5ales,
:1:B;;C
the Court held that where there was material
and une(plained in"onsisten"y between the testimonies of two prin"ipal prose"ution witnesses
relating not to in"onse8uential details but to the alleged transa"tion itself whi"h is sub0e"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 0ust dis"ard the improbable testimony of one offi"er and adopt the
testimony of the other that is more plausible. 4n su"h a situation, both testimonies lose their probative
value. !he Court further held:
>hy should two /' poli"e offi"ers give two /' "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 >e must "on"lude that a reasonable doubt was generated as to whether or not the
Hbuy-bustH operation ever took pla"e.
:1DB;.C
4n the present "ase, to repeat, the glaring "ontradi"tory testimonies of the prose"ution
:=:
:=D
:=;
:=-
:=7
:=.
:1=
:11
:1/
:16
:1:
:1D
6/1
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"8uitted of the "rime he was
with.
&ead also:
%. vs. ,ernardino, <anuary /7, 1..1
1-a. % vs. $lores, 1;D SC&A -1
1-b. Aguirre vs. %., 1DD SC&A 66-
1-". %. vs. 2uinto, 17: SC&A /7-
1-d. %. vs. Solis, 17/ SC&A 17/
1-e. %. vs. Capilitan, 17/ SC&A 616
/. Alonso vs. 4AC, 1D1 SC&A DD/
6. % vs. *opeG, -: SC&A /=D
:. % vs. Ruiason, -7 SC&A D16
D. % vs. <ose, 6- SC&A :D=
;. % vs. %oblador, -; SC&A ;6:
-. Dumlao vs. Comele", .D SC&A 6./
6. %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 16
>hat is the EM3I5OISE R3LET
A. 4f the eviden"e in a "riminal "ase is evenly balan"ed, the "onstitutional presumption of
inno"en"e tilts the s"ale of 0usti"e in favor of the a""used and he should be a"8uitted from
the "rime "harged.
>here 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. Ale0andro vs. %epito, .; SC&A 6//
6. Sa"ay vs. Sandiganbayan, <uly 1=,l.7;
SACAY VS. SA-/I:A-4AYA-
2.&. 3o. *-;;:.--.7,<uly 1=, 1.7;
.ACTSH
6//
1. At 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. 3o
ob0e"tion was interposed by the a""used or his "ounsel.
/. 1n 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". 6, &ule 11. of the &ules of Court. 5e also
"ites the "ase of Ale0andro vs. %epito, .; SC&A 6//, wherein the S.C. ruled that : H4t
behooved the respondent <udge to have followed the se8uen"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
re8uires that the prose"ution should go forward and present all of its proof in the first
instan"e.H
HEL/H
!he "ase of Ale0andro vs. %epito is not appli"able inasmu"h as the a""used in the "ase at
bar did not ob0e"t to the pro"edure followed. 4n fa"t in the said Ale0andro "ase, the Court
also stated:
H4t 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 pre0udi"ed.
!here is one radi"al differen"e, however, sin"e in that "ase no ob0e"tion was entered in the
Court below to the pro"edure followed in the presentation of proof. 4n this "ase, the "hange
in the order of trial made by respondent <udge was promptly and timely ob0e"ted to by the
defense.H
4n fa"t it should be noted that under the newly adopted 1.7D &ules of Criminal
%ro"edure Se". 6e', &ule 11.'the said pro"edure is now e(pressly san"tioned. !hus:
H5owever, 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
6.Se". 66', &ule 11. , 1.7D &ules on Criminal %ro"edure , as amended.
:. 1ther "ases -
&ead:
1. % vs. 1pida, <une 16,1.7;
/. % vs. !empongko, 1"tober /,1.7;
6. % vs. Drammayo, :/ SC&A D.
:. % vs. $ernando, 1:D SC&A 1D1
D. % vs. !olentino, 1:D SC&A D.-
;. Castillo vs. $ilte(, September 6=,1.76
-. Dumlao vs. C1)+*+C, supra
6/6
D. &ight to "ounsel-during trial
1. &eason behind the re8uirement
/. 1bligation of the 0udge to an a""used who appears in "ourt without a lawyer to
assist him
&ead:
1. % vs. 5olgado,7D %hil. -D/
/. /el&")o *7. CA, 121 SCRA 31
6. % vs. Cuison, 1.6 %hil. /.;
D-a. !he right to be heard by himself and "ounsel during trial
+ffe"t of the fa"t that a""used was represented by a 313-*A>J+& at the early part of the
trial but a full-pledged lawyer took over as his "ounsel when he presented his eviden"e.
Also important in your "riminal law as to the distin"tions between robbery and grave
"oer"ion'
5E/RO CO-S3LTA VS. 5EO5LE, 2.&. 3o. 1-.:;/, $ebruary 1/, /==.
CAR5IO MORALES, J.H
!he Court of Appeals having, by De"ision of April /6, /==-,
:1;B1C
affirmed the
De"ember ., /==: De"ision of the &egional !rial Court of )akati City, ,ran"h 16.
"onvi"ting %edro C. Consulta appellant' of &obbery with 4ntimidation of %ersons,
appellant filed the present petition.
!he a""usatory portion of the 4nformation against appellant reads:
!hat on or about the -
th
day of <une, 1..., in the City of )akati, %hilippines and
within the 0urisdi"tion of this 5onorable Court, the above-named 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 "omplainant9s 3+*4A &.
S4*F+S!&+ gold ne"kla"e worth %6,D==.==, belonging to said "omplainant, to the damage
and pre0udi"e of the owner thereof in the aforementioned amount of %6,D==.==.
C13!&A&J !1 *A>.
:1-B/C
+mphasis in the original, unders"oring supplied'
$rom the eviden"e for the prose"ution, the following version is gathered:
At about /:== o9"lo"k in the afternoon of <une -, 1..., private "omplainant 3elia
&. Silvestre 3elia', together with )aria Fiovi"ente )aria' and Feroni"a Amar
Feroni"a', boarded a tri"y"le on their way to %embo, )akati City. Apon rea"hing Ambel
:1; B1C
%enned by Asso"iate <usti"e +stela ). %erlas-,ernabe, with the "on"urren"e of Asso"iate <usti"es )arina *. ,uGon and *u"as %.
,ersamin# CA rollo, pp. 1;;-1-;.
:1- B/C
&e"ords, p. 1.
6/:
Street, appellant and his brother +dwin Consulta +dwin' blo"ked the tri"y"le and under
their threats, the driver alighted and left. Appellant and +dwin at on"e shouted inve"tives
at 3elia, saying E#utang ina mong matanda @a, ?alang2iya @a, @apal ng mu@2a mo,
papatayin @a namin.F Appellant added ?#utang ina @ang matanda @a, ?ala @ang @adala
dala, sina'i2an na @ita na @a2it saan @ita matiempu2an, papatayin @ita.F
Appellant thereafter grabbed 3elia9s 17M gold ne"kla"e with a "ru"ifi( pendant
whi"h, a""ording to an ?ala0era@ in the provin"e, was of 17k gold, and whi"h was worth
%6,D==, 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
3elia 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 7 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
in0uries they suffered were e(pe"ted to manifest.
3ine days after the in"ident or on <une 1;, 1..., 3elia 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:
5e and his family used to rent the ground floor of 3elia9s house in %ateros. 3elia is
his godmother. !he ad0a"ent house was o""upied by 3elia9s parents with whom she often
8uarreled as to whom the rental payments should be remitted. ,e"ause of the per"eption of
the parents of 3elia that his family was partial towards her, her parents disliked his family.
3elia9s father even filed a "ase for maltreatment against him whi"h was dismissed and, on
learning of the maltreatment "harge, 3elia 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"8uitted.
Appellant went on to "laim that despite fre8uent transfers of residen"e to avoid
3elia, she would tra"k his whereabouts and "ause s"andal.
Appellant9s witness Darius %a"aTa testified that on the date of the alleged robbery,
3elia, together with her two "ompanions, approa"hed him while he was at Ambel Street in
the "ompany of )i"hael $ontanilla and <immy Sembrano, and asked him %a"aTa' if he
knew a bald man who is bigEstout with a big tummy and with a sister named )aria. As he
replied in the affirmative, 3elia at on"e asked him to a""ompany them to appellant9s house,
to whi"h he a""eded. As soon as the group rea"hed appellant9s house, appellant, on his
%a"aTa9s' "all, emerged and on seeing the group, told them to go away so as not to "ause
trouble. &etorting, 3elia uttered ?Mga 2ayop @ayo, 2indi @o @ayo titigilan.@
Another defense witness, !helma Fuesa, "orroborated %a"aTa9s a""ount.
6/D
!he trial "ourt, holding that intent to gain on appellant9s part ?is presumed from the
unlawful taking@ of the ne"kla"e, and brushing aside appellant9s denial and "laim of
harassment, "onvi"ted appellant of &obbery, disposing as follows:
>5+&+$1&+, premises "onsidered, this Court finds a""used %+D&1 C.
C13SA*!A guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as prin"ipal of the felony of &obbery with
4ntimidation of %ersons defined and penaliGed under Arti"le /.:, paragraph 3o. D, in
relation to Arti"le /.6 of the &evised %enal Code and hereby senten"es him to suffer the
penalty of imprisonment from one 1' year, seven -' months and eleven 11' days of
arresto mayor, as minimum, to eight 7' years, eight 7' months and one 1' day of prision
mayor, as ma(imum, applying the 4ndeterminate 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 3elia Silvestre the
amount of %6,D==.== representing the value of her ne"kla"e taken by him and to pay the
"osts of this suit.
S1 1&D+&+D. 4tali"s in the original, unders"oring supplied'
!he appellate "ourt affirmed appellant9s "onvi"tion with modifi"ation on the
penalty.
4n his present appeal, appellant raises the following issues:
1' >hether or not appellant was validly arraigned#
/' >hether 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 "ourt9s de"ision, were resolved in the negative
in this wise:
1n the matter of a""used-appellant9s "laim of having been denied due pro"ess, an
e(amination of the re"ords shows that while a""used-appellant was represented by Atty.
<o"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 <uly /7, /=== and
subse8uently, approved by the &!C in its 1rder dated August :, /===. !hereafter, a""used-
appellant was represented by Atty. &ainald C. %aggao from the %ubli" Defender9s
Attorney9s' 1ffi"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.
:17B6C
Anders"oring supplied'
!hat appellant9s first "ounsel may not have been a member of the bar does not dent
the proven fa"t that appellant prevented 3elia and "ompany from pro"eeding to their
destination. $urther, appellant was afforded "ompetent representation by the %ubli"
:17 B6C
$ollo, p. 1;.
6/;
Attorneys9 1ffi"e during the presentation by the prose"ution of the medi"o-legal offi"er
and during the presentation of his eviden"e. &eople !. ,le"terio
:1.B:C
enlightens:
?As for the "ir"umstan"e that the defense "ounsel turned out later to be a non-
lawyer, it is observed that he was "hosen by the a""used himself and that his representation
does not "hange the fa"t that +lesterio was undeniably "arrying an unli"ensed firearm when
he was arrested. At any rate, he has sin"e been represented by a member of the %hilippine
bar, who prepared the petition for 2a'eas corpus and the appellant9s brief.@ Anders"oring
supplied'
+F+3 4$ !5+ D+C4S413 1$ C13F4C!413 4S
A*&+ADJ $43A* A3D +Q+CA!1&J, !5+ CAS+ )AJ
S!4** ,+ &+-1%+3+D 4$ !5+&+ 4S 2&1SS-
3+2*42+3C+ 13 !5+ %A&! 1$ ACCAS+D9S
C1A3S+* !5+&+,J F41*A!432 54S &425! !1 DA+
%&1C+SSEC1A3S+*.
JOH- HILARIO VS. 5EO5LE O. THE 5HILI55I-ES, :.R. -o. 161;;, April 12,
9;;6
!5+ $AC!S:
%etitioner, together with one 2ilbert Ali0id Ali0id', was "harged with two "ounts
:/=B6C
of
)urder in the &egional !rial Court &!C', ,ran"h -;, RueGon City to whi"h petitioner, assisted by
"ounsel de parte, pleaded not guilty.
During trial, Atty. &aul &ivera of the %ubli" AttorneySs 1ffi"e %A1', "ounsel of Ali0id, took
over representing petitioner in view of the death of the latterSs "ounsel.
1n De"ember D, /==1, the &!C rendered its De"ision
:/1B:C
finding petitioner and his "o-
a""used Ali0id guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the "rime of homi"ide and senten"ing them to suffer
imprisonment of eight 7' years and one 1' day of prision mayor to fourteen 1:' years and eight 7'
months of reclusion temporal in ea"h "ount.
1n )ay 1=, /==/, petitioner, this time unassisted by "ounsel, filed with the &!C a %etition
for &elief
://BDC
from the De"ision dated De"ember D, /==1 together with an affidavit of merit. 4n his
petition, petitioner "ontended that at the time of the promulgation of the 0udgment, he was already
"onfined at RueGon City <ail and was dire"ted to be "ommitted to the 3ational %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 /, /==/, he was already in"ar"erated at the 3ew ,ilibid %risons, )untinlupa City and
learned from the grapevine of his impending transfer to the 4wahig %enal Colony, %alawan# that
believing that the noti"e of appeal filed by his "ounsel prevented the De"ision dated De"ember D,
/==1 from be"oming final to warrant his transfer, he instru"ted his representative to get a "opy of the
:1. B:C
2.&. 3o. ;6.-1, )ay ., 1.7., 1-6 SC&A /:6, /:..
:/= B6C
Do"keted as Criminal Case 3os. R-==-.1;:--:7.
:/1 B:C
%enned by <udge )onina A. Oenarosa, rollo, pp. 6;-D/.
:// BDC
4d. at D6-;=.
6/-
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, /==/ and yet the "ounsel did not inform him of any a"tion taken thereon.
4 S S A +:
>hether 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 3oti"e of Appeal, "onstitutes e("usable negligen"e
to entitle the undersigned detention prisonerE petitioner to pursue his appealN
>hether or not pro 2ac vice, the mere invo"ation of 0usti"e warrants the review of a final and
e(e"utory 0udgmentN
5+*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 pre0udi"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 %A1,
who broke the fidu"iary relationship# that the assailed CA &esolutions both harped on te"hni"alities to
uphold the dismissal by the &!C of his petition for relief# that relian"e on te"hni"alities to the
pre0udi"e of petitioner who is serving 1: 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 0usti"e
for the CA to have dire"ted the petitioner to "omplete the re"ords instead of dismissing the petition
outright.
4n his Comment, the 1S2 argues that the mere invo"ation of 0usti"e does not warrant the
review of an appeal from a final and e(e"utory 0udgment# that perfe"tion of an appeal in the manner
and within the period laid down by law is not only mandatory but 0urisdi"tional and failure to perfe"t
the appeal renders the 0udgment sought to be reviewed final and not appealable# and that petitionerSs
appeal after the finality of 0udgment of "onvi"tion is an e(er"ise in futility, thus the &!C properly
dismissed petitionerSs petition for relief from 0udgment. !he 1S2 further "laims that noti"e to "ounsel
is noti"e to "lients and failure of "ounsel to notify his "lient of an adverse 0udgment would not
"onstitute e("usable negligen"e and therefore binding on the "lient.
>e grant the petition.
A li#i&"'# w%o i7 'o# " l"wyer i7 'o# eApec#e) #o L'ow #%e rule7 o( proce)ure.
I' ("c#, e*e' #%e $o7# eAperie'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 0ust as for"efully as in "riminal "ases, espe"ially so
:/6 B1/C
See &elan v. Court of Appeals, 2.&. 3o. .D=/;, 1"tober :, 1..1, /=/ SC&A D6:, D:1.
:/: B16C
4d.
6/7
when as a "onse8uen"e, life, liberty, or property is sub0e"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
Iu)&$e'# %") 8eco$e (i'"l "') eAecu#ory, i# $"y 7#ill 8e rec"lle), "') #%e "ccu7e) "((or)e) #%e
oppor#u'i#y #o 8e %e"r) 8y %i$7el( "') cou'7el.
( ( ( (
+ven the most e(perien"ed lawyers get tangled in the web of pro"edure. !he demand as
mu"h from ordinary "itiGens whose only compelle intrare is their sense of right would turn the legal
system into an intimidating monstrosity where an individual may be stripped of his property rights not
be"ause he has no right to the property but be"ause he does not know how to establish su"h right.
!he right to "ounsel is absolute and may be invoked at all times. )ore so, in the "ase of an
on-going litigation, it is a right that must be e(er"ised at every step of the way, with the lawyer
faithfully keeping his "lient "ompany.
-o "rr"'&e$e'# or i'#erpre#"#io' o( l"w coul) 8e "7 "87ur) "7 #%e po7i#io' #%"# #%e
ri&%# #o cou'7el eAi7#7 o'ly i' #%e #ri"l cour#7 "') #%"# #%ere"(#er, #%e ri&%# ce"7e7 i' #%e pur7ui#
o( #%e "ppe"l.
:/DB1:C
+mphasis supplied'
!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.
:/;B1DC
4t is even more important to note that petitioner was not assisted by
"ounsel when he filed his petition for relief from 0udgment with the &!C.
4t "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. 4n that way,
the ends of 0usti"e would be served better.
:/-B1;C
>hile 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" !. &adilla
:/7B1-C
we held:
5owever, this Court has rela(ed this rule in order to serve substantial 0usti"e "onsidering "!
$"##er7 o( li(e, li8er#y, %o'or or proper#y, ,8! #%e eAi7#e'ce o( 7peci"l or co$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'Iu7#ly
preIu)ice) #%ere8y.
:/DB1:C
4d. at D:=-D:1.
:/; B1DC
4d. at D:1.
:/- B1;C
+arcia v. #2ilippine Airlines, Inc., supra note 11, at -71.
:/7 B1-C
2.&. 3o. 1;=-D6, September 6=, /==:, :6. SC&A ;-D.
6/.

4nvariably, rules of pro"edure should be viewed as mere tools designed to fa"ilitate the
attainment of 0usti"e. !heir stri"t and rigid appli"ation, whi"h would result in te"hni"alities that tend to
frustrate rather than promote substantial 0usti"e, must always be es"hewed. +ven 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.
4n De 2uGman v. Sandiganbayan, this Court, speaking through the late <usti"e &i"ardo <.
$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 0usti"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 0udi"ial dis"retion. !hat is pre"isely why "ourts in rendering
0usti"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 <usti"e )akalintal, Hshould give way to the realities of
the situation.

4ndeed, the emerging trend in the rulings of this Court is to afford every party litigant the
amplest opportunity for the proper and 0ust determination of his "ause, free from the "onstraints of
te"hni"alities.
:/.B17C
&ules of pro"edure are mere tools designed to e(pedite the de"ision or resolution of "ases and
other matters pending in "ourt. A stri"t and rigid appli"ation of rules that would result in te"hni"alities
that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial 0usti"e must be avoided.
:6=B/1C
E*e' i( #%e Iu)&$e'# %") 8eco$e (i'"l "') eAecu#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
5owever, instead of
remanding the "ase to the CA 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.
4n 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 Appeals
:6/B/-C
where we ruled that an appeal is an essential part of our 0udi"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 0ust 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 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"wyerR7 'e&li&e'ce "') 'o# "# "ll
"##ri8u#e) #o pe#i#io'er.
:/. B17C
4d. at ;7;-;7-.
:6= B/1C
Cusi-Hernande5 v. "pouses %ia5, 6.= %hil. 1/:D, 1/D/ /==='.
:61 B//C
&elan v. Court of Appeals, supra note 1/, at D:=-D:1# #eople of t2e #2ilippines v. Holgado, 7D %hil. -D/, -D;--D- 1.D='# Alores
v. Judge $ui5, 1-. %hil. 6D1, 6DD 1.-.'# %elgado v. Court of Appeals, //. %hil. 6;/, 6;; 1.7;'.
:6/
66=
5EO5LE VS. -A/ERA, JR., 392 SCRA 29; 5EO5LE VS. -A/ERA, JR., 392 SCRA 29;
)endoGa, <.
!he "avalier attitude of Atty. )anolo ,rotonel of the %A1 "annot go unnoti"ed. 4t
is dis"ernible in BaC his refusal to "ross-e(amine 1leby 3adera the "omplainant for
&A%+'# BbC the manner in whi"h he "ondu"ted )ari"ris 3adera9s "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. 1nly the faithful performan"e by "ounsel of his duty towards
his "lient "an give meaning and substan"e to the a""used9s right to due pro"ess and to be
presumed inno"ent until proven otherwise. 5en"e, a lawyer9s duty, espe"ially that of a
defense "ounsel, must not be taken lightly. 4t must be performed with all the Geal and vigor
at his "ommand to prote"t and safeguard the a""used9s fundamental rights.
4t may be so that the defense "ounsel really found 1leby9s testimony to be
believable. 3onetheless, he had the bounden duty to s"rutiniGe private "omplainant9s
testimony to ensure that the a""used9s "onstitutional right to "onfront and e(amine the
witnesses against him was not rendered for naught. 4t 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 "omplainant9s testimony
"annot be a""epted with pre"ipitate "redulity without denying the a""used9s "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.
31!+: $or your *egal P <udi"ial +thi"s'
Atty. ,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. 5is duty was no less be"ause he was "ounsel de ofi"io.
!he De"ision of the &!C "onvi"ting the a""used is S+! AS4D+ and the "ase is
remanded for further pro"eedings "onsistent with this de"ision.
&ead:
1. % vs. Dis"hoso, .; SC&A .D-
/. &ead also:
5EO5LE VS. YAM4OT, :.R. -O. 19;31;, 323 SCRA 9;, OCT. 3;, 9;;;+ 5EO5LE
VS. 4A-IHIT, :.R. -O. 139;21, 339 SCRA 66, A3:. 91, 9;;;.
&ight to be 5eard by himself and "ounsel and to present eviden"e for his defense.
661
4n this "ase, the non-appearan"e of "ounsel for the a""used on the s"heduled hearing was
not "onstrued as waiver by the a""used of his right to present eviden"e for his defense.
Denial of due pro"ess "an be su""essfully invoked where no valid waiver of rights had been
made as in this "ase.
4n another "ase, the a""used-appellant validly waived his right to present eviden"e. !his is
in "onsonan"e with the do"trine that everyone has a right to waive the advantage of a law
or rule made solely for the benefit and prote"tion of the individual in his private "apa"ity, if
it "an be dispensed with and relin8uished without infringing on any publi" right, and
without detriment to the "ommunity at large.
;. !he right to be present during trial
&ead:
1. A8uino vs. )ilitary Commission, ;6 SC&A D:;
/. % vs. <udge, 1/D SC&A /;.
6. >aiver of the defendantSs presen"e in a "riminal prose"ution,-- SC&A :6=
!he right to a speedy trial# not a "ase of# &e8uisites of double 0eopardy#
/A-TE TA- VS. 5EO5LE, :.R. -o. 1363, April 91, 9;;9
C54C1-3AOA&41, J.:
,efore this Court is a %etition for &eview on Certiorari filed under &ule :D of the
&evised &ules of Court seeking the reversal and setting aside of the De"ision
:66B1C
dated //
$ebruary /==; and &esolution
:6:B/C
dated 1- <uly /==; issued by the Court of Appeals in
CA-2.&. S% 3o. 76=;7 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 3o. 11.76=, earlier dismissed by
the trial "ourt due to an alleged violation of petitioner Dante !. !an9s right to speedy trial.
!he assailed &esolution denied his )otion for &e"onsideration and )otion to 4nhibit.
!he fa"tual and pro"edural ante"edents of the instant petition are as follows:
1n 1. De"ember /===, a %anel of %rose"utors of the Department of <usti"e D1<',
on behalf of the #eople of t2e #2ilippines %eople', filed three 4nformations against Dante
!. !an petitioner' before the &egional !rial Court &!C' of %asig City. !he "ases were
do"keted as Criminal Cases 3o. 11.76=, 3o. 11.761 and 3o. 11.76/, all entitled, ?#eople
of t2e #2ilippines v. %ante &an.@
:66 B1C
%enned by Asso"iate <usti"e $ernanda *ampas %eralta with Asso"iate <usti"es <osefina 2uevara-Salonga and
Sesinando +. Fillon, "on"urring# rollo, pp. .=-1==.
:6: B/C
4d. at 1=/-11/.
66/
Criminal Case 3o. 11.76=
:6DB6C
pertains to allegations that petitioner employed
manipulative devises in the pur"hase of ,est >orld &esour"es Corporation ,>' shares.
1n the other hand, Criminal Cases 3o. 11.761
:6;B:C
and 3o. 11.76/
:6-BDC
involve the alleged
failure of petitioner to file with the Se"urities and +("hange Commission S+C' a sworn
statement of his benefi"ial ownership of ,> shares.
4n two other related "ases, two 4nformations were filed against a "ertain <immy <uan
and +duardo 2. *im for violation of the &evised Se"urities A"t involving ,> shares of
sto"k. !hese were do"keted as Criminal Cases 3o. 11.7/7 and 3o. 11.7/..
1n the same day, the D1<, through Assistant Chief State %rose"utor 3ilo C.
)ariano, filed a )otion for Consolidation praying that Criminal Cases 3o. 11.76=, 3o.
11.761 and 3o. 11.76/ be "onsolidated together with Criminal Cases 3o. 11.7/7 and 3o.
11.7/., whi"h the trial "ourt granted.
1n /1 De"ember /===, Criminal Cases 3o. 11.76=, 3o. 11.761 and 3o. 11.76/
were raffled off to the %asig &!C, ,ran"h 1D6, presided by <udge ,ri""io C. Jgana.
Criminal Cases 3o. 11.7/7 and 3o. 11.7/. also went to the same "ourt.
%etitioner was arraigned on 1; <anuary /==1, and pleaded not guilty to the
"harges.
:67B;C

1n ; $ebruary /==1, the pre-trial was "on"luded, and a pre-trial order set, among
other things, the first date of trial on /- $ebruary /==1.
:6.B-C
Atty. Celia Sande0as of the Se"urities and +("hange Commission S+C', under the
dire"t "ontrol and supervision of %ubli" %rose"utor 3estor *aGaro, entered her appearan"e
for the %eople# Atty. Agnes )aranan for petitioner Dante !an# Atty. Sigfrid $ortun for
+duardo *im, <r.# and Atty. &udolf ,rittani"o for <immy <uan. State %rose"utors Susan
Da"anay and +dna Fillanueva later on took over as lawyers for the %eople.
!he %eople insists that during the penden"y of the initial hearing on /- $ebruary
/==1, the parties agreed that Criminal Cases 3o. 11.761 and 3o. 11.76/ would be tried
ahead of Criminal Case 3o. 11.76=, and that petitioner would not interpose any ob0e"tion
to its manifestation, nor would the trial "ourt disapprove it.
!hereafter, the %eople presented eviden"e for Criminal Cases 3o. 11.761 and 3o.
11.76/. 1n 17 September /==1, 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.
After 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 3o. 11.761 and 3o.
11.76/ on /D 3ovember /==6.
::=B7C
:6DB6C
4d. at //7-/6=.
:6;B:C
4d. at /61-/6/.
:6-BDC
4d. at /66-/6D.
:67B;C
&e"ords, p. 1.:.
:6.B-C
4d. at /D6-/D..
::= B7C
$ollo, pp. /:--/D6.
666
1n / De"ember /==6, petitioner moved to dismiss Criminal Case 3o. 11.76= due
to the %eople9s 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 0ustifi"ation for the delay. A""ording to petitioner,
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 pre0udi"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 3o. 11.76= until after that of Criminal
Cases 3o. 11.761-11.76/, 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 3o. 11.761-11.76/, 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
6;a'-1
::1B.C
in relation to Se"tions 6/a'-1
::/B1=C
and D;
::6B11C
of ,atas %ambansa ,ilang 1-7,
otherwise known as the ?&evised Se"urities A"t.@ Criminal Case 3o. 11.76= pertains to
alleged violation of Se"tion /- b',
:::B1/C
in relation to Se"tion D; of said a"t.
1n // De"ember /==6, <udge ,ri""io C. Jgana of the %asig &!C, ,ran"h 1D6,
ruled that the delays whi"h attended the pro"eedings of petitioner9s "ase Criminal Case
3o. 11.76=' were ve(atious, "apri"ious and oppressive, resulting in violation of
petitioner9s right to speedy trial. !he &!C ordered
::DB16C
the dismissal of Criminal Case 3o.
11.76=, disposing as follows:
::1 B.C
Se"tion 6;. %irectors, officers and principal stoc@2olders.X
a' +very person who is dire"tly or indire"tly the benefi"ial owner of more than ten per "entum of any "lass of any e8uity
se"urity whi"h is registered pursuant to this A"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 e8uity 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.
::/ B1=C
Se"tion 6/. $eports. I a' 1' Any person who, after a"8uiring dire"tly or indire"tly the benefi"ial ownership of any
e8uity se"urity of a "lass whi"h is registered pursuant to this A"t, is dire"tly or indire"tly the benefi"ial owner of more than
ten 1=Y' per centum of su"h "lass shall, within ten days after su"h a"8uisition 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 ( ( (.
::6 B11C
#enalties. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this A"t, or the rules and regulations promulgated by
the Commission under authority thereof, or any person who, in a registration statement filed under this A"t, makes any
untrue statement of a material fa"t of omits to state any material fa"t re8uired 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,===.==' pesos nor
more than five hundred thousand %D==,===.==' pesos or imprisonment of not less than seven -' years nor more than twenty
one /1' years, or both in the dis"retion of the "ourt. 4f the offender is a "orporation, partnership or asso"iation or other
0uridi"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. 4t shall be unlawful for any person, dire"tly or indire"tly, by the
use of any fa"ility of any e("hange I
( ( ( (
b' !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.
::D B16C
$ollo, pp. 76D-7DD.
66:
>5+&+$1&+, foregoing premises duly "onsidered and finding the motion to
dismiss to be meritorious, the Court hereby orders Criminal Case 3o. 11.76=
D4S)4SS+D.
1n motion for re"onsideration, the prose"ution insisted that the parties agreed to
hold separate trials of the ,> "ases, with petitioner a"8uies"ing to the prose"ution of
Criminal Cases 3o. 11.761 and 3o. 11.76/ ahead of Criminal Case 3o. 11.76=. 4n an
1rder dated /= <anuary /==:, the &!C denied the )otion for &e"onsideration for la"k of
merit.
!he &!C9s order of dismissal was elevated to the Court of Appeals via a petition
for certiorari, with the %eople "ontending that:
&+S%13D+3! <AD2+ 2&AF+*J A,AS+D 54S D4SC&+!413 43 &A*432 !5A!
!5+ %+1%*+ F41*A!+D DA3!+ !A39S &425! !1 S%++DJ !&4A*, A*,+4!, !5+
*A!!+& A3D &+S%13D+3! <AD2+ 54)S+*$ 5AF+ C13$1&)+D !1 !5+
D+$+&)+3! 1$ C&4)43A* CAS+ 31. 11.76= %+3D432 5+A&432 1$ !5+ !>1
1!5+& &+*A!+D CAS+S.
Setting aside the trial "ourt9s order of dismissal, the Court of Appeals granted the
petition for certiorari in its De"ision dated // $ebruary /==;. 4n resolving the petition, the
appellate "ourt reinstated Criminal Case 3o. 11.76= in this wise:
>5+&+$1&+, the petition is granted and the assailed 1rders dated De"ember //,
/==6 and <anuary /=, /==: are set aside. Criminal Case 3o. 11.76= is reinstated and the
trial "ourt is ordered to "ondu"t further pro"eedings in said "ase immediately.
::;B1:C
%etitioner moved for a re"onsideration of the De"ision and filed a motion for
inhibition of the <usti"es who de"ided the "ase.
1n 1- <uly /==;, the Court of Appeals denied both motions.
%etitioner Dante !an, hen"eforth, filed the instant petition for review on certiorari,
raising the following issues:
4.
>5+!5+& 1& 31! !5+ AC!432 S+C&+!A&J 1$ <AS!4C+ )AJ FA*4D*J
+Q+CA!+ !5+ C+&!4$4CA!+ 1$ 313-$1&A) S51%%432 A!!AC5+D !1 !5+
%+!4!413 $1& C+&!41&A&4 $4*+D ,J !5+ %+1%*+ >4!5 !5+ C1A&! 1$
A%%+A*S +F+3 !51A25 !5+ C&4)43A* AC!413 >AS 43S!4!A!+D ,J A
C1)%*A43! SA,SC&4,+D ,J !5+ AA!51&4O+D 1$$4C+&S 1$ !5+
S+CA&4!4+S A3D +QC5A32+ C1))4SS413.
44.
>5+!5+& 1& 31! !5+ %+!4!413 $1& C+&!41&A&4 F41*A!+D !A39S &425!
A2A43S! D1A,*+ <+1%A&DJ.
::;B1:C
4d. at ..-1==.
66D
444.
>5+!5+& 1& 31! C&4)43A* CAS+ 31. 11.76= >AS C1&&+C!*J D4S)4SS+D
,J !5+ !&4A* C1A&! 13 !5+ 2&1A3D 1$ F41*A!413 1$ !A39S &425! !1
S%++DJ !&4A*.
4F.
>5+!5+& 1& 31! !5+ !&4A* C1A&! C1))4!!+D 2&AF+ A,AS+ 1$
D4SC&+!413.
>e first resolve the preliminary issues.
4n an attempt at having the instant petition dismissed, petitioner "ontends that the
"ertifi"ate of non-forum shopping atta"hed to the %eople9s appeal before the Court of
Appeals should have been signed by the Chairman of the S+C as "omplainant in the "ases
instead of A"ting D1< Se"retary )er"editas 3. 2utierreG.
%etitioner9s argument is futile. !he Court of Appeals was "orre"t in sustaining the
authority of A"ting D1< Se"retary )er"editas 2utierreG to sign the "ertifi"ate of non-forum
shopping of the petition for certiorari before said "ourt. 4t must be stressed that the
"ertifi"ation against forum shopping is re8uired to be e(e"uted by the plaintiff.
::-B1DC
Although the "omplaint-affidavit was signed by the %rose"ution and +nfor"ement
Department of the S+C, the petition before the Court of Appeals originated from Criminal
Case 3o. 11.76=, where the plaintiff or the party instituting the "ase was the %eople of the
%hilippines. Se"tion /, &ule 11= 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,
the offended party in "riminal "ases. )oreover, pursuant to Se"tion 6, paragraph /' of the
&evised Administrative Code, the D1< 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. 4t is the D1<, through its prose"utors, whi"h is authoriGed to prose"ute
"riminal "ases on behalf of the %eople of the %hilippines.
::7B1;C
%rose"utors "ontrol and
dire"t the prose"ution of "riminal offenses, in"luding the "ondu"t of preliminary
investigation, sub0e"t to review by the Se"retary of <usti"e. Sin"e it is the D1< whi"h is the
government agen"y tasked to prose"ute "riminal "ases before the trial "ourt, the D1< is best
suited to attest whether a similar or related "ase has been filed or is pending in another
"ourt of tribunal. A"ting D1< Se"retary )er"editas 3. 2utierreG, being the head of the
D1<, therefore, had the authority to sign the "ertifi"ate of non-forum shopping for Criminal
Case 3o. 11.76=, 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.
At the "ru( of the "ontroversy is the issue of whether there was a violation of
petitioner Dante !an9s right to speedy trial.
::-B1DC
&egalado, &+)+D4A* *A>, p. -/..
::7B1;C
&evised Administrative Code, Se"tion 6/'.
66;
%etitioner Dante !an assails the De"ision and &esolution of the Court of Appeals in
CA-2.&. S% 3o. 76=;7. !he appellate "ourt determined that he ?impliedly agreed@ that
Case 3o. 11.76= would not be tried until after termination of Criminal Cases 3o. 11.761-
11.76/, whi"h finding was grounded entirely on spe"ulations, surmises and "on0e"tures.
,oth parties "on"ede that this issue is fa"tual. 4t 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.
::.B1-C
&ule :D of the &ules of Court provides that only
8uestions of law may be raised in this Court in a petition for review on certiorari.
:D=B17C
!he
reason is that the Court is not a trier of fa"ts.
:D1B1.C
5owever, the rule is sub0e"t to several
e("eptions.
:D/B/=C
Ander 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 Appeals are
absurd, "ontrary to the eviden"e on re"ord, impossible, "apri"ious or arbitrary, or based on
a misappre"iation of fa"ts.
4n this "ase, the Court is "onvin"ed that the findings of the Court of Appeals on the
substantial matters at hand, while "onfli"ting with those of the &!C, are ade8uately
supported by the eviden"e on re"ord. >e, therefore, find no reason to deviate from the
0urisprudential holdings and treat the instant "ase differently.
An a""used9s right to ?have a speedy, impartial, and publi" trial@ is guaranteed in
"riminal "ases by Se"tion 1:/' of Arti"le 444 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 ob0e"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 . 4ntimating histori"al perspe"tive on the evolution of
the right to speedy trial, we reiterate the old legal ma(im, ?0usti"e delayed is 0usti"e
denied.@ !his oft-repeated adage re8uires 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 1.7- Constitution, &epubli" A"t 3o.
7:.6, otherwise known as ?!he Speedy !rial A"t of 1..7,@ was ena"ted, with Se"tion ; of
said a"t limiting the trial period to 17= days from the first day of trial . Aware of problems
resulting in the "logging of "ourt do"kets, the Court implemented the law by issuing
Supreme Court Cir"ular 3o. 67-.7, whi"h has been in"orporated in the /=== &ules of
Criminal %ro"edure, Se"tion / of &ule 11. .
4n 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
::. B1-C
Centeno v. *iray, ::= %hil. 771, 77- /==/'.
:D= B17C
usmente, Jr. v. (ational La'or $elations Commission, 2.&. 3o. -6;:-, 7 April 1..1, 1.D SC&A -1=, -16.
:D1 B1.C
&ad-y v. #eople, 2.&. 3o. 1:77;/, 11 August /==D, :;; SC&A :-:, :./# $omago Electric Co., Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, 677 %hil. .;:, .-D /==='.
:D/ B/=C
#alon v. (ino, :=D %hil. ;-=, ;71 /==1'.
66-
prose"ution suspended over him for an indefinite time, and to prevent delays in the
administration of 0usti"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.
>hile 0usti"e is administered with dispat"h, the essential ingredient is orderly,
e(peditious and not mere speed. 4t "annot be definitely said how long is too long in a
system where 0usti"e is supposed to be swift, but deliberate. 4t is "onsistent with delays and
depends upon "ir"umstan"es. 4t se"ures rights to the a""used, but it does not pre"lude the
rights of publi" 0usti"e. Also, 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:
A 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.
4n 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: a' length of
delay# b' the reason for the delay# "' the defendant9s assertion of his right# and d'
pre0udi"e to the defendant. ( ( (.
Closely related to the length of delay is the reason or 0ustifi"ation of the State for
su"h delay. Different weights should be assigned to different reasons or 0ustifi"ations
invoked by the State. ( ( (.
:D6B/;C

+(haustively e(plained in Corpu5 v. "andigan'ayan, an a""used9s right to speedy
trial is deemed violated only when the pro"eeding is attended by ve>atious, capricious, and
oppressive delays. 4n determining whether petitioner was deprived of this right, the fa"tors
to "onsider and balan"e are the following: a' duration of the delay# b' reason therefor# "'
assertion of the right or failure to assert it# and d' pre0udi"e "aused by su"h delay.
:D:B/-C

$rom the initial hearing on /- $ebruary /==1 until the time the prose"ution filed its
formal offer of eviden"e for Criminal Cases 3o. 11.761-11.76/ on /D 3ovember /==6,
both prose"ution and defense admit that no eviden"e was presented for Criminal Case 3o.
11.76=. 5en"e, for a period of almost two years and eight months, the prose"ution did not
present a single eviden"e for Criminal Case 3o. 11.76=.
!he 8uestion we have to answer now is whether there was ve(atious, "apri"ious,
and oppressive delay. !o this, we apply the four-fa"tor test previously mentioned.
:D6B/;C
4d. at 616-61:.
:D: B/-C
A'ardo v. "andigan'ayan, :=- %hil. .7D, ...-1=== /==1'# %ela #ena v. "andigan'ayan, :1/ %hil. ./1, ./.
/==1'.
667
>e emphasiGe that in determining the right of an a""used to speedy trial, "ourts are
re8uired to do more than a mathemati"al "omputation of the number of postponements of
the s"heduled hearings of the "ase. A mere mathemati"al re"koning of the time involved is
"learly insuffi"ient,
:DDB/7C
and parti"ular regard must be given to the fa"ts and "ir"umstan"es
pe"uliar to ea"h "ase.
:D;B/.C

4n Alvi5o v. "andigan'ayan,
:D-B6=C
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 fre8uent 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 0urisdi"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 pre0udi"e "aused by the delay to the a""used.
4n %efensor-"antiago v. "andigan'ayan,
:D7B61C
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.
4n Cadalin v. #2ilippine Overseas Employment AdministrationLs Administrator,
:D.
B6/C
the Court, "onsidering also the "omple(ity of the "ases and the "ondu"t of the parties9
lawyers, held that the right to speedy disposition was not violated therein.
%etitioner9s ob0e"tion to the prose"ution9s stand that he gave an implied "onsent to
the separate trial of Criminal Case 3o. 11.76= is belied by the re"ords of the "ase. 3o
ob0e"tion was interposed by his defense "ounsel when this matter was dis"ussed during the
initial hearing.
:;=B66C
%etitioner9s "onformity thereto "an be dedu"ed from his non-ob0e"tion
at the preliminary hearing when the prose"ution manifested that the eviden"e to be
presented would be only for Criminal Cases 3o. 11.761-11.76/. 5is failure to ob0e"t to
the prose"ution9s 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 in0usti"e.
:;1B6:C
4n fa"t, petitioner9s a"8uies"en"e is evident from the
trans"ript of stenographi" notes during the initial presentation of the %eople9s eviden"e in
the five ,> "ases on /- $ebruary /==1, herein 8uoted below:
C1A&!: Atty. Sande0as, "all your witness.
A!!J. SA3D+<AS BS+C %rose"uting *awyerC: )ay we make some manifestation first, your
5onor, before we "ontinue presenting our witness. $irst of all, this witness will only be
te"tifyin* a" to t'o I2J of the har*e"0 nonEdi"lo"#re of .enefiial o'ner"hip of >ante
Tan ( ( (.
( ( ( (
:DD B/7C
"ocrates v. "andigan'ayan, 6/: %hil. 1D1, 1-= 1..;'# &ai Lim v. Court of Appeals, 6-D %hil. .-1, .-- 1...'.
:D; B/.C
"antiago v. +arc2itorena, 2.&. 3o. 1=./;;, / De"ember 1..6, //7 SC&A /1:, //1.
:D- B6=C
2.&. 3o. 1=1;7., 1- )ar"h 1..6, //= SC&A DD.
:D7 B61C
:=7 %hil. -;- /==1'.
:D. B6/C
2.&. 3o. 1=:--;, D De"ember 1..:, /67 SC&A -/1.
:;= B66C
!S3, /- $ebruary /==1.
:;1 B6:C
#roducers an@ of t2e #2ilippines v. Court of Appeals, :6= %hil. 71/, 7/6 /==/'# #eople v. Hernande5, 6/7 %hil.
11/6, 11:6 1..;'.
66.
C1A&!: to Atty. Sande0as' Call your witness.
A!!J. SA3D+<AS: 1ur witness is )r. >ilfredo ,altaGar of the Se"urities and +("hange
Commission, your 5onor. >e are presenting this witness for the purpose of non-dis"losure
of benefi"ial ownership "aseV
C1A&!: 4 would advise the "ounsel from the S+C to make it very "lear your purpose in
presenting your first witness.
A!!J. SA3D+<AS: Jes, your 5onor. Can 4 borrow the fileN
C1A&!: Show it to "ounsel.
A!!J. SA3D+<AS: Crim. Case 3os. 11.761 and 11.76/, for Fiolation of &A &ule 6;a'1, in
relation to Se". 6/ a'-1 of the &evised Se"urities A"t when he failed to dis"lose his
benefi"ial ownership amounting to more than 1=Y whi"h re8uires dis"losure of su"h fa"t.
:;/
B6DC

During the same hearing, the %eople manifested in open "ourt that the parties had
agreed to the separate trials of the ,> Cases:
%&1S+CA!1& *AOA&1:
)ay we be allowed to speak, your 5onorN
Jour 5onor please, as we ( ( ( understand, this is not a 0oint trial but a separate trial ( ( (
so as manifested by the S+C lawyer, the witness is being presented insofar as 11.761 and
11.76/ as against Dante !an only ( ( (.
:;6B6;C
!he trans"ript of stenographi" notes taken from the 6 April /==1 hearing further
"larifies that only the two "ases against Dante !an were being prose"uted:
A!!J. D+ *A C&AO Bnew "ounsel for a""used +duardo *im, <r.C:
Jour 5onor, please, may 4 re8uest "larifi"ation from the prose"utors regarding the purpose
of the testimony of the witness in the stand. >hile the %rivate %rose"utor stated the purpose
of the testimony of the witness. .
%&1S+CA!1& *AOA&1:
4 was present during the last hearing. 4 was then going over the trans"ript of this
"ase, well, 4 believe the testimony ( ( ( mainly BisC on a""used Dante !an, your 5onor. As
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 0oint trial be"ause it involves separate
:;/B6DC
!S3, /- $ebruary /==1, pp. 6--# CA rollo, pp. 7--.1.
:;6B6;C
4d. at -1--:# id. at 1DD-1D;.
6:=
"harges, involving different do"uments, your 5onor. !hat is why the witness already
testified only "on"erning Dante !an. %er the 8uery made by Atty. $ortun, be"ause at that
time, Atty. $ortun was still representing )r. *im, 4 believe, your 5onor, then 4 understand
that the testimony of this witness "annot 0ust be adopted insofar as the other a""used, your
5onor.
A!!J. )A&A3A3:
>e "onfirm that, your 5onor, 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.
%&1S. *AOA&1:
)r. Dante !an, involving the / two' "ases.
:;:B6-C
)oreover, although periods for trial have been stipulated, these periods are not
absolute. >here periods have been set, "ertain e("lusions are allowed by law.
:;DB67C
After
all, this Court and the law re"ogniGe that it is but a fa"t that 0udi"ial pro"eedings do not
e(ist in a va"uum and must "ontend with the realities of everyday life. 4n spite of the
pres"ribed time limits, 0urispruden"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.
:;;B6.C
As to the assertion that delay in the presentation of eviden"e for Criminal Case 3o.
11.76= has pre0udi"ed petitioner be"ause the witnesses for the defense may no longer be
available at this time, suffi"e it to say that the burden of proving his guilt rests upon the
prose"ution.
:;-B:=C
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"8uitted. 4t is safely
entren"hed in our 0urispruden"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.
:;7B:1C

4n 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.
:;.B:/C
)ore importantly, in failing to interpose a
timely ob0e"tion to the prose"ution9s manifestation during the preliminary hearings that the
"ases be tried separately, one after the other, petitioner was deemed to have a"8uies"ed and
waived his ob0e"tion thereto.
$or the reasons above-stated, there is "learly insuffi"ient ground to "on"lude that
the prose"ution is guilty of violating petitioner9s 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
:;: B6-C
!S3, 6 April /==1, pp. D-1=# id. at //D-/6=.
:;D B67C
"olar &eam Entertainment, Inc. v. Judge Ho?, 6.6 %hil. 1-/, 17: /==='.
:;; B6.C
4d.
:;- B:=C
$epu'lic v. "andigan'ayan and Marcos, :;1 %hil. D.7, ;1D /==6'.
:;7 B:1C
#eople v. +anguso, 2.&. 3o 11D:6=, /6 3ovember 1..D, /D= SC&A /;7, /-:-/-D# #eople v. A'ellanosa, 66/
%hil. -;=, -77 1..;', "iting #eople v. aclayon, 2.&. 3o. 11=76-, /. )ar"h 1..:, /61 SC&A D-7, D7:, "iting #eople v.
+arcia, 2.&. 3o. .:17-, : 3ovember 1../, /1D SC&A 6:., 6D7-6D..
:;. B:/C
"antiago v. +arc2itorena, supra note /..
6:1
of 0udgment as is e8uivalent to la"k of 0urisdi"tion.@ Any "apri"ious or whimsi"al e(er"ise
of 0udgment in dismissing a "riminal "ase is e8uivalent to la"k of 0urisdi"tion. !his is true
in the instant "ase.
!here is also no merit to petitioner9s "laim that a reversal of the &!C9s 1rder
dismissing Criminal Case 3o. 11.76= is a violation of his "onstitutional right against
double 0eopardy whi"h dismissal was founded on an alleged violation of his right to speedy
trial.
!he "onstitutional prote"tion against double 0eopardy shields one from a se"ond or
later prose"ution for the same offense. Arti"le 444, Se"tion /1 of the 1.7- Constitution
de"lares that no person shall be twi"e put in 0eopardy 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"8uittal 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:
S+C. -. Aormer conviction or acCuittalB dou'le =eopardy. I >hen an a""used has
been "onvi"ted or a"8uitted, or the "ase against him dismissed or otherwise terminated
without his e(press "onsent by a "ourt of "ompetent 0urisdi"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"8uittal 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 0eopardy to atta"h then, the following elements in the first "riminal "ase
must be present:
a' !he "omplaint or information or other formal "harge was suffi"ient in form and
substan"e to sustain a "onvi"tion#
b' !he "ourt had 0urisdi"tion#
"' !he a""used had been arraigned and had pleaded# and
d' 5e was "onvi"ted or a"8uitted or the "ase was dismissed or otherwise terminated
without the e(press "onsent of the a""used.
:-=B:6C
Among the above-"ited elements, we are "on"erned with the fourth element,
"onvi"tion or a"8uittal, 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"8uittal, made with the e(press "onsent of the
:-=B:6C
Condrada v. #eople, ::; %hil. ;6D, ;:1 /==6'.
6:/
a""used or upon his own motion, will not pla"e the a""used in double 0eopardy.
:-1B::C
!his
rule, however, admits of two e("eptions, namely: insuffi"ien"y of eviden"e and denial of
the right to speedy trial.
:-/B:DC
>hile indeed petitioner was in fa"t the one who filed the
)otion to Dismiss Criminal Case 3o. 11.76=, the dismissal thereof was due to an alleged
violation of his right to speedy trial, whi"h would otherwise put him in double 0eopardy
should the same "harges be revived. %etitioner9s situation is different. Double 0eopardy has
not atta"hed, "onsidering that the dismissal of Criminal Case 3o. 11.76= 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 0urisdi"tion. >here the right of the a""used to
speedy trial has not been violated, there is no reason to support the initial order of
dismissal.
$ollowing this Court9s ruling in Almario v. Court of Appeals,
:-6B:;C
as petitioner9s
right to speedy trial was not transgressed, this e("eption to the fourth element of double
0eopardy I that the defendant was a"8uitted or "onvi"ted, or the "ase was dismissed or
otherwise terminated without the e(press "onsent of the a""used I was not met. >here the
dismissal of the "ase was allegedly "apri"ious, "ertiorari lies from su"h order of dismissal
and does not involve double 0eopardy, 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
0urisdi"tion, whi"h prevents double 0eopardy from atta"hing.
:-:B:-C
As this Court ruled in #eople v. &ampal,
:-DB:7C
reiterated in #eople v. Leviste,
:-;B:.C
where we overturned an order of dismissal by the trial "ourt predi"ated on the right to
speedy trial I
4t 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 e8uivalent to an a"8uittal that would bar further
prose"ution of the a""used for the same offense. 4t 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 0eopardy
atta"hed when said &!C order was reversed by the Court of Appeals. Double 0eopardy
does not apply to this "ase, "onsidering that there is no violation of petitioner9s right to
speedy trial.
!he old adage that 0usti"e delayed is 0usti"e denied has never been more valid than
in our 0urisdi"tion, where it is not a rarity for a "ase to drag in our "ourts for years and years
and even de"ades. 4t was this diffi"ulty that inspired the "onstitutional re8uirement that the
rules of "ourt to be promulgated by the Supreme Court shall provide for a simplified and
:-1B::C
4d.
:-/ B:DC
4d.# #2ilippine "avings an@ v. ermoy, 2.&. 3o. 1D1.1/, /; September /==D, :-1 SC&A .:, 1=;, "iting #eople v.
ans, 2.&. 3o. 1=:1:-, 7 De"ember 1..:, /6. SC&A :7, DD.
:-6B:;C
:=- %hil. /-. /==/'.
:-:B:-C
&egalado, &+)+D4A* *A> C1)%+3D4A) Fol. 44, /==1', p. D=6.
:-DB:7C
61: %hil. 6D, :D 1..D'.
:-;B:.C
6/D %hil. D/D, D6- 1..;'.
6:6
ine(pensive pro"edure for the speedy trial and disposition of "ases.
:--BD=C
4ndeed, for 0usti"e
to prevail, the s"ales must balan"e, for 0usti"e is not to be dispensed for the a""used
alone.
:-7BD1C

+vidently, the task of the pillars of the "riminal 0usti"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 0usti"e are afforded a fair opportunity to present their side. As
"orre"tly observed by the Court of Appeals, Criminal Case 3o. 11.76= is 0ust one of the
many "ontroversial "ases involving the ,> 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. A hasty dismissal, instead of un"logging
do"kets, has a"tually in"reased the workload of the 0usti"e system and unwittingly
prolonged the litigation.
:-.BD/C
$inally, we reiterate that the rights given to the a""used by the Constitution and the
&ules of Court are shields, not weapons. Courts are tasked to give meaning to that intent.
!here being no "apri"ious, ve(atious, oppressive delay in the pro"eedings, and no
postponements un0ustifiably sought, we "on"ur in the "on"lusions rea"hed by the Court of
Appeals.
Spee)y )i7po7i#io' o( c"7e7 8e(ore ")$i'i7#r"#i*e 8o)ie7+
e((ec# o( u')ue )el"y
CA5T. 0IL.RE/O ROM3ERO VS. THE CHA-CELLOR O. 35F
MA-ILA, ET AL., :.R. -o. 161611, M"rc% 9, 9;1;
5ERE>, J.0
%etitioner >ildredo 2. &o8uero is an employee of A%-)anila assigned at the %hilippine
2eneral 5ospital %25' Se"urity Division as Spe"ial %oli"e Captain. %rivate respondent 4melda
1. Abutal is a *ady 2uard of +(-,ataan Se"urity Agen"y who was applying for a position in the
se"urity for"e assigned at A%-%25.

!he instant "ontroversy arose from a "omplaint by private respondent Abutal with then
Chan"ellor of A%-)anila %erla D. Santos-1"ampo for 2rave )is"ondu"t against petitioner Capt.
&o8uero. !he formal "harge filed on 1 1"tober 1..7 and do"keted as A/M C"7e -o. 35MFAC
9F;; reads as follows:

After preliminary investigation duly "ondu"ted in a""ordan"e with
the &ules and &egulations on the Dis"ipline of A% $a"ulty and
+mployees, a prima fa"ie "ase has been found to e(ist against you
for 2&AF+ )4SC13DAC! punishable under the Aniversity &ules
and &egulations on the Dis"ipline of A% $a"ulty and +mployees in
relation to the Civil Servi"e *aw, "ommitted as follows:
:-- BD=C
<usti"e 4sagani CruG, %54*4%%43+ %1*4!4CA* *A>, p. /./.
:-7 BD1C
%imatulac v. *illon, 6D7 %hil. 6/7, 6;; 1..7'# #eople v. "u'ida, 2.&. 3o. 1:D.:D, /- <une /==;, :.6 SC&A 1/D,
16-.
:-. BD/C
#eople v. Leviste, supra note :..
6::

!hat you, Capt. >ilfredo &o8uero of the A% )anila
%oli"e $or"e, sometime in April 1..;, while "ondu"ting an
interview on )S. 4)+*DA A,A!A* who was then
applying for the position of *ady 2uard of +(-,ataan
Se"urity Agen"y to be assigned at A%-%25, 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. A,A!A* re0e"ted your proposal, you still
insisted on demanding said se(ual favor from her# that you,
therefore, are liable for 2&AF+ )4SC13DAC! under
Se"tion //, paragraph "' of &ule Q4F of the 1mnibus &ules
4mplementing ,ook F of +.1. /./ on Civil &ules.

1n 1 1"tober 1..7, the petitioner was pla"ed under preventive suspension for ninety .='
days by Chan"ellor Santos-1"ampo, the material portion of said 1rder reads:

Considering the gravity of the offense "harged and pursuant to
Se"tion 1. of &ules and &egulations on the Dis"ipline of A% $a"ulty
)embers and +mployees and Se"tion /; and /- &ule Q4F of ,ook
F of +(e"utive 1rder 3o. /./ and 1mnibus &ules, you are hereby
preventively suspended for ninety .=' days effe"tive upon re"eipt
hereof.

>hile on preventive suspension, you are hereby re8uired to appear
before the Administrative Dis"iplinary !ribunal AD!' whenever
your presen"e is ne"essary.

!hereafter, the Administrative Dis"iplinary !ribunal AD!' "omposed of Atty. Oaldy ,.
Do"ena, +den %erdido and 4sabella *ara, was organiGed to hear the instant "ase. Atty. %aul A.
$lor, as Aniversity %rose"utor, represented the prose"ution. 5e was later on repla"ed by Atty.
Asteria $eli"en. %etitioner was represented by Atty. *eo 2. *ee of the %ubli" Attorneys 1ffi"e
%A1' who was then repla"ed by %ubli" Attorney %hilger 4nove0as.

!he %rose"ution presented its only witness, private respondent Abutal. After the
"ompletion of the "ross-e(amination on the prose"ution9s only witness, the prose"ution agreed to
submit its $ormal 1ffer of +viden"e on or before 1; <uly 1....

!he prose"ution, however, failed to submit its formal offer of eviden"e within the period
agreed upon.

!hereafter, on 1= August 1..., when the "ase was "alled, only petitioner and his "ounsel
appeared. Atty. $lor merely "alled by telephone and re8uested Atty. Do"ena to reset the "ase to
another date. Atty. Do"ena then ordered the resetting of the hearing on the following dates: 11
August and /1 August 1.... 1n 11 August 1..., only petitioner and his "ounsel "ame. 3o
representative from the prose"ution appeared before the AD!. Atty. $lor again "alled and asked
for the postponement of the hearing. ,y reason thereof, Atty. Do"ena issued an 1rder, whi"h
reads as follows:

6:D
!he "ontinuation of the hearing of this "ase is hereby set to
September /., 1... at /:== 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.

S1 1&D+&+D.

11 August 1....

1n 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 eA%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 AD! was not able to a"t on the said )otion for almost five D' years. Due to the
unreasonable delay, petitioner, on 1. )ay /==: 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 AD! had failed to a"t
on the motion filed on // 1"tober 1...# that the unfounded "harges in the administrative
"omplaint were filed 0ust to harass him# and that he is entitled to a 0ust and speedy disposition of
the "ase.

1n /; )ay /==:, the prose"ution, represented by Atty. $eli"en in view of the resignation
of Atty. $lor in August 1..., filed its CommentE1pposition to the )otion to Dismiss. !he
prose"ution alleged that a .or$"l O((er o( /ocu$e'#"ry EA%i8i#7 %") 8ee' (ile) o' 92
J"'u"ry 9;;2, of whi"h a "opy thereof was re"eived by Atty. *ee, petitioner9s "ounsel, on 6=
<anuary /==:, per registry return re"eipt. 5owever, petitioner has not filed his "omment to the said
$ormal 1ffer.

$urthermore, the prose"ution e(plained in its CommentE1pposition that in view of the
resignation of Atty. $lor in August 1... but who had been on leave by mid-<uly 1..., the $ormal
1ffer "ould not be prepared by another "ounsel until all the trans"ript of stenographi" notes have
been furnished to the "ounsel that repla"ed Atty. $lor. )eanwhile, the stenographer, <amie
*imbaga, had been in and out of the hospital due to a serious illness, thus the delay in the filing of
the prose"utor9s $ormal 1ffer of Do"umentary +(hibits.

1n 7 <une /==:, Atty. Do"ena issued the assailed 1rder denying petitioner9s motion to
dismiss, to wit:

A"ting on respondent9s )otion to Dismiss, as well as the
Aniversity %rose"utor9s Comment andEor 1pposition to said )otion,
and finding that said )otion to Dismiss to be bereft of merit, the
same is hereby D+34+D.

4n view of the failure of the respondent to file his "omment
on the %rose"ution9s $ormal 1ffer of +viden"e, the +(hibit9s ?A@ to
6:;
?2-1@' of the %rose"ution are hereby AD)4!!+D for the purpose
for whi"h the same have been offered.

!he respondent is hereby dire"ted to present his eviden"e on
<une //, /==: at 1=:6= in the morning.

S1 1&D+&+D.

A motion for re"onsideration was filed by petitioner but the same was denied in an 1rder
dated . 3ovember /==:.
%etitioner Captain >ilfredo &o8uero then filed with the Court of Appeals a %etition for
Certiorari under &ule ;D, do"keted as CA-2.&. S% 3o. 7---;, alleging therein that the AD!
"ommitted grave abuse of dis"retion when it denied the motion to dismiss the administrative "ase
filed against him.
4n a De"ision dated // )ar"h /==-, the 5onorable Court of Appeals denied the petition with
prayer for !&1 of &o8uero reasoning that the AD! did not "ommit grave abuse of dis"retion in
issuing the assailed orders.
5en"e, this %etition.
!he "ore issue of this "ase is whether the failure of the AD! to resolve &o8uero9s )otion
to de"lare "omplainant 4melda Abutal to have waived her right to submit her $ormal 1ffer of
+(hibit' whi"h he seasonably filed on // 1"tober 1... and the assailed 1rder of the AD! dated 7
<une /==: admitting the $ormal 1ffer of +(hibit of "omplainant 4melda Abutal despite having
filed after almost five years violated the "onstitutional right of &o8uero to a speedy disposition of
"ases.
5+*D:
4ndeed, while Se"tion /- of the Aniform &ules on Administrative Cases in Civil Servi"e
states #%"# #%e ("ilure #o 7u8$i# #%e (or$"l o((er o( e*i)e'ce wi#%i' #%e &i*e' perio) 7%"ll 8e
co'7i)ere) "7 w"i*er #%ereo(, the AD! in fa"t allowed the prose"ution to present its formal offer
almost five D' years later or on /: <anuary /==:. Starting on that date, petitioner was presented
with the "hoi"e to either present his eviden"e or to, as he did, file a motion to dismiss owing to the
e(traordinary length of time that AD! failed to rule on his motion.
>e "annot a""ept the finding of the Court of Appeals that there was no grave abuse of
dis"retion on the part of the AD! be"ause @" (or$"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.C !he admission by AD! on
7 <une /==: of the formal offer of e(hibits belatedly filed did not "ure the D-year delay in the
resolution of petitioner9s 1... motion to deem as waived su"h formal offer of eviden"e. 4ndeed,
the delay of almost five D' years "annot be 0ustified.

!he AD! admitted this e(planation of the prose"utor hook, line and sinker without asking
why it took him almost five D' years to make that e(planation. 4f the e("uses were true, the
6:-
prose"ution "ould have easily manifested with the AD! of its predi"ament right after &o8uero filed
his motion to de"lare the waiver of the formal offer. 4t 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. And, the
stenographer who had been in and out of the hospital due to serious illness should have been
repla"ed sooner.
>hile 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 0udi"ial pro"eedings, the same however
should not violate the "onstitutional right of respondents to a speedy disposition of "ases.
Se"tion 1;, Arti"le 444 of the 1.7- Constitution provides:
Se"tion 1;. All person shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their
"ases before all 0udi"ial, 8uasi-0udi"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 0udi"ial and 8uasi-0udi"ial hearings. 5en"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 0usti"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 un0ustified postponements of the trial are asked for and se"ured# or e*e' wi#%ou# c"u7e or
Iu7#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). +8ually 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 pre0udi"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.
5en"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: 1' the length of delay# /' the
reasons for the delay# 6' the assertion or failure to assert su"h right by the a""used# and :' the
pre0udi"e "aused by the delay.
Applying 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: 1' the
delay of almost five D' years on the part of AD! in resolving the motion of petitioner, whi"h
resolution petitioner reasonably found ne"essary before he "ould present his defense# /' the
unreasonableness of the delay# and 6' the timely assertions by petitioner of the right to an early
disposition whi"h he did through a motion to dismiss. 1ver and above this, the delay was
pre0udi"ial to petitioner9s "ause as he was under preventive suspension for ninety .=' days, and
during the interregnum of almost five years, the trial of the a""usation against him remained
stagnant at the prose"ution stage.
!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 0usti"e by
6:7
our 0udi"ial and 8uasi-0udi"ial tribunals. !he ad0udi"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 0usti"e. +("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 Administrative Dis"iplinary
!ribunal AD!' of the Aniversity of the %hilippines-)anila, Atty. Oaldy ,. Do"ena, +den %erdido
and 4sabella *ara, in their "apa"ities as Chairman and )embers of the AD! respe"tively, are
hereby OR/ERE/ to /ISMISS the administrative "ase against Capt. >ilfredo 2. &o8uero 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. 1n August 1:, 1..1, the petitioner and several others were "harged of violation of Se"tion
6 BeC of &A 6=1., otherwise known as the Anti-graft and Corrupt %ra"ti"es A"t#
/. 1n August /6, 1..: after the presentation of the parties9 eviden"e, the "ase was deemed
submitted for de"ision before the /
nd
Division#
6. !hereafter, the "ase was unloaded to the newly "reated D
th
Division, parti"ularly to <usti"e
2odofredo *egaspi and later re-assigned to <usti"e )a. Cristina CorteG-+strada upon her
assumption of offi"e on 3ovember 6, 1..7.
:. 4n the early part of /==/ while <usti"e +strada was writing the de"ision of the "ase, she
found out that the 3ovember /;, 1..6 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 April 1., /==/ to dis"uss the matter.
D. 4nstead 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
subse8uent )otion for &e"onsideration. 5en"e, this %etition.
4ssue:
>as there violation of the petitioner9s right to a speedy disposition of his "ase when
the same was not de"ided for almost 7 years from the time it was ?deemed submitted for
de"isionN@
5eld:
3o. !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. As held in the "ase of D+ *A %+3A FS.
SA3D42A3,AJA3, "ertain fa"tors shall be "onsidered and balan"ed to determine if there
is delay, as follows:
3. Le'&#% o( #%e )el"y+
6:.
2. Re"7o'7 (or #%e )el"y+
1. A77er#io' or ("ilure #o "77er# 7uc% ri&%# 8y #%e "ccu7e)+ "')
6. 5reIu)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 7-year
period prior to April 1., /==/, petitioner did not "omplain about the long delay in de"iding
his "ase.
a. &ead Admin. Cir"ular 3o. : of the Supreme Court dated September //, 1.77
b. Department of <usti"e Cir"ular 3o. /-, dated September 1;, 1.77
". >hen shall this right starts
&ead:
1. % vs. 1rsal, 116 SC&A //;
d. !o what pro"eedings is this right available
&ead:
1. Caballero vs. Alfonso, 1D6 SC&A 1D6
e. 4n general
&ead:
1. !he right to speedy trial, /7 SC&A ;=1
/. Conde vs. &ivera, D. %hil. ;D=
6. Fentura vs. %eople, 3ov. ;,1.-;
:. )artin vs. Fer, <uly /D, 1.76
D. ,ermisa vs. CA, ./ SC&a
;. *uneta vs. )il. Com., 1=/ SC&A D;
-. % vs. ,alad0ay, 116 SC&A /7:
7. % vs. Araula, 111 SC&A D.7
.. &egaspi vs. Castillo, ;. SC&A 1;=
1=. A"evedo vs. Sarmiento, 6; SC&A /:-
11. 3epumu"eno vs. Se"retary,1=7 SC&A ;D7
1/. !atad vs. S,, 1D. SC&A -=
16. % vs. C$4 of &iGal, 1;1 SC&A /:.
1:. % vs. *aya, 1;1 SC&A 6/-
1D. Sal"edovs. )endoGa, 77 SC&A 711
1;. DA!+&!+ FS. SA3D42A3,AJA3, /7. SC&A -/1
17. A32C5A32C1 FS. 1),ADS)A3, /;. SC&A 6=1
S3M4A-: VS. :E-. CO3RT MARTIAL, :.R. -O. 12;166, 33 SCRA 99, A3:.
3, 9;;;+ 4LA-CO VS. SA-/I:A-4AYA-, :.R. -OS. 1361 U 16, 326 SCRA 1;6,
6D=
-OV. 9, 9;;;+ SOLAR TEAM E-TERTAI-ME-T, I-C. HO-. HO0, :.R. -O.
12;663, 336 SCRA 11, A3:. 99, 9;;;.
Speedy Disposition of Cases.
i' !he determination of whether an a""used had been denied the right to speedy trial
depends on the surrounding "ir"umstan"es of ea"h "ase. Although it took about 7 years
before the trial of this "ase was resumed, su"h delay did not amount to violation of
petitioner9s right to speedy trial "onsidering that su"h delay was not by attributable to the
prose"ution.
$a"tors to "onsider in determining whether or not su"h right has been violated:
1. length of delay,
/. reasons for su"h delay, and
6. assertion or failure to assert su"h rights by the a""used
and the pre0udi"e "aused by the delay.
ii' Speedy !rial A"t of 1..7. !he authority of the Se"retary of <usti"e to review
resolutions of his subordinates even after an information has already been filed in "ourt
does not present an irre"on"ilable "onfli"t with the 6=-day period pres"ribed in Se". - of the
Speedy !rial A"t of 1..7.
7. !he right to an impartial trial
&ead:
1. % vs. 1pida, <une 16,1.7;
1-a. % vs. !uaGon, 1D. SC&A 61-
/. 1laguer vs. Chief of Staff, )ay //, 1.7-
6. )ateo, <r. vs. FillaluG,.= SC&A 1;
:. % vs. Sendaydiego, 71 SC&A 1/=
D. Dima"uha vs. Con"ep"ion, 11- SC&A ;6=
.. &ight to a publi" trial
&ead:
1. 2ar"ia vs. Domingo, <uly /D,1.-6
/. % vs. !ampus, )ar"h /7,1.7=
1=. !he right to be informed of the nature and "ause of a""usation. >hen the same is
"onsidered waived.
THE 5EO5LE O. THE 5HILI55I-ES VS. JERRY -A>ARE-O, :.R. -o. 1616,
April 6, 9;;6
THE .ACTSH
6D1
1n )ar"h 1-, 1..., appellant <erry 3aGareno was indi"ted for violation of Arti"le
/;;-A of the &evised %enal Code in Criminal Case 3o. /;67 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 0urisdi"tion of this 5onorable 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 1: years
old against her will.
!he 4nformation is worded thus:
!hat from sometime in <anuary 1..= up to De"ember 1..7 in arangay Codon,
muni"ipality of San Andres, Catanduanes, and within the 0urisdi"tion of the 5onorable
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 AAA, then
five years old up to the time when she was 1D-years-old against her will.
C13!&A&J !1 *A>.
:7=B17C
After trial , the a""used was found guilty of 8ualified rape in both "ases. 5e
appealed his "onvi"tion to the Court of Appeals in a""ordan"e with the %eople vs. )ateo
Do"trine but the Court of Appeals affirmed the &!C De"ision. 5en"e, this %etition before
the Supreme Court.
I S S 3 EH

4s 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 /H
!he argument is spe"ious. An information is intended to inform an a""used of the
a""usations against him in order that he "ould ade8uately 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.
:71B/-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
:7=B17C
&e"ords, Fol. 44, p. 17.
:71
B/-C
#eople v. 4uitlong, 6D: %hil. 6-/, 677 1..7', "iting &ules of Criminal %ro"edure /===', &ule 11=, Se"s. ; and 7.
6D/
bearing on the "ulpability and liability of the a""used, so that he "an properly prepare for
and undertake his defense.
:7/B/7C
5owever, 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.
:76B/.C
4n #eople v. ugayong,
:7:B6=C
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 "ommitted at
any time within the period of the statute of limitations and before the "ommen"ement of the
a"tion.
4n #eople v. +ianan,
:7DB61C
the Court ruled that the time of the "ommission of rape is
not an element of the said "rime as it is defined in Arti"le 66D 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.: 1' by using for"e or intimidation# /' when the woman is deprived
of reason or otherwise un"ons"ious# and 6' when the woman is under twelve years of age
or is demented. 4n a""ordan"e with &ule 11=, Se"tion 11 of the /=== &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. "alalima
:7;B6/C
and in
#eople v. Li5ada.
:7-B66C

4n the "ase under review, the information in Criminal Case 3o. /;67 alleged that
the rape of ,,, transpired ?sometime and between <anuary 1../ up to De"ember ;, 1..7
in arangay Codon, )uni"ipality of San Andres, %rovin"e of Catanduanes.@ 4n Criminal
Case 3o. /;D=, the information averred that ?from sometime in <anuary 1..= up to
De"ember 1..7 in arangay Codon, )uni"ipality of San Andres, %rovin"e of
Catanduanes,@ AAA was raped by appellant. !o the mind of the Court, the re"itals in the
informations suffi"iently "omply with the "onstitutional re8uirement that the a""used be
informed of the nature and "ause of the a""usation against him.
4n #eople v. +arcia,
:77B6:C
the Court upheld a "onvi"tion for ten "ounts of rape based
on an 4nformation whi"h alleged that the a""used "ommitted multiple rapes ?from
3ovember 1..= up to <uly /1, 1..:.@ 4n #eople v. Espe=on,
:7.B6DC
the Court found the
appellant liable for rape under an information "harging that he perpetrated the offense
?sometime in the year 1.7/ and dates subse8uent thereto@ and ?sometime in the year 1..D
and subse8uent thereto.@
:7/B/7C
4d.
:76
B/.C
#eople v. "antos, 6.= %hil. 1D=, 1;1 /==='# &ules of Criminal %ro"edure /===', &ule 11=, Se". 11 reads:
Se". 11. %ate of commission of t2e offense. I 4t 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.
:7:B6=C
2.&. 3o. 1/;D17, De"ember /, 1..7, /.. SC&A D/7.
:7DB61C
2.&. 3os. 16D/77-.6, September 1D, /===, 6:= SC&A :--.
:7;B6/C
2.&. 3os. 16-.;.--1, August 1D, /==1, 6;6 SC&A 1./.
:7-B66C
2.&. 3os. 1:6:;7--1, <anuary /:, /==6, 6.; SC&A ;/.
:77B6:C
2.&. 3o. 1/==.6, 3ovember ;, 1..-, /71 SC&A :;6.
:7.B6DC
2.&. 3o. 16:-;-, $ebruary /=, /==/, 6-- SC&A :1/.
6D6
4n the "ase under review, the information in Criminal Case 3o. /;67 alleged that
the rape of ,,, transpired ?sometime and between <anuary 1../ up to De"ember ;, 1..7
in arangay Codon, )uni"ipality of San Andres, %rovin"e of Catanduanes.@ 4n Criminal
Case 3o. /;D=, the information averred that ?from sometime in <anuary 1..= up to
De"ember 1..7 in arangay Codon, )uni"ipality of San Andres, %rovin"e of
Catanduanes,@ AAA was raped by appellant. !o the mind of the Court, the re"itals in the
informations suffi"iently "omply with the "onstitutional re8uirement that the a""used be
informed of the nature and "ause of the a""usation against him.
4ndeed, this Court has ruled that allegations that rapes were "ommitted ?before and
until 1"tober 1D, 1..:,@
:.=B6;C
?sometime in the year 1..1 and the days thereafter,@
:.1B6-C
and
?on or about and sometime in the year 1.77@
:./B67C
"onstitute suffi"ient "omplian"e with
&ule 11=, Se"tion 11 of the /=== &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
0urisdi"tion that ob0e"tions as to matter of form or substan"e in the information "annot be
made for the first time on appeal.
:.6

B6.C
Appellant failed to raise the issue of defe"tive
informations before the trial "ourt. 5e "ould have moved to 8uash the informations or at
least for a bill of parti"ulars. 5e did not. Clearly, he slumbered on his rights and awakened
too late.
!oo, appellant did not ob0e"t to the presentation of the eviden"e for the %eople
"ontending that the offenses were "ommitted ?sometime and between <anuary 1../ up to
De"ember ;, 1..7@ for Criminal Case 3o. /;6/ and ?sometime in <anuary 1..=, up to
De"ember 1..7@ in Criminal Case 3o. /;D=. 1n 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.
ACC3SATIO-
/E LA CR3> VS. 5EO5LE O. THE 5HILI55I-ES , :.R. -o. 11999, /ece$8er
16, 9;;6

4t 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.
:.:B77C
!he Constitution uses the word
?shall,@ hen"e, the same is mandatory. A violation of this right prevents the "onvi"tion of
the a""used with the "rime "harged in the 4nformation.
:.=B6;C
#eople v. ugayong, supra note 6=.
:.1B6-C
#eople v. Mag'anua, 2.&. 3o. 1/7777, De"ember 6, 1..., 61. SC&A -1..
:./B67C
#eople v. "antos, 2.&. 3os. 1611=6 P 1:6:-/, <une /., /===, 66: SC&A ;DD.
:.6B6.C
#eople v. $a5ona'le, 67; %hil. --1, -7= /==='.
:.:
6D:
!he "onstitutional guaranty has a #%reeF(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"8uittal 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.
:.DB7.C
&ead:
1. Sales vs. CA, 1;: SC&A -1-
1-a. % vs. Crisologo, 1D= SC&A ;D6
1-b. % vs. Corral, 1D- SC&A ;-7
1-". % vs. &esavaga, 1D. SC&A :/;
1-d. $ormilleGa vs. S,, 1D. SC&A
/. % vs. *abado, .7 SC&A -6=
6. Mo ,u *in vs. CA, 117 SC&A D-6
:. %. vs. Cabale, 17D SC&A 1:=
D. %eople vs. &egala, April /-, 1.7/
11. !he right to meet witnesses fa"e to fa"e or the right of "onfrontation
&ead:
1. %. vs. !alingdan, 3ov. ., 1..=
1-a. % vs. FillaluG, 1"tober /=, 1.76
/. % vs. Falero, 11/ SC&A ;;1
6. % vs. ,undalian, 11- SC&A -17
:. !alino vs. Sandiganbayan, )ar"h 1;,1.7-
D. % vs. Seneris, .. SC&A ./
;. 1rtigas, <&. vs. *ufthansa, ;: SC&A ;1=
-. !oledo vs. %eople, /= SC&A D:
7. % vs. ,arda0e, .. SC&A 677
.. % vs. Santos, 16. SC&A 676
1=. Soliman vs. Sandiganbayan, 1:D SC&A ;:=
11. % vs. *a"una, 7- SC&A 6;:
1/. % vs. Clores, 1== SC&A //-
16. Carredo vs. %eople, 176 SC&A /-6
1:. $ulgado vs. CA, 17/ SC&A 71
1/. !rial in absentia
&ead:
1. ,or0a vs. )endoGa, -- SC&A :/=
/. 3olas"o vs. +nrile, 16. SC&A D=/
6. % vs. Salas, 1:6 SC&A 1;6# 3ote the purpose
of this provision'
:. % vs. <udge %rieto, <uly /1,1.-7
D. 2imeneG vs. 3aGareno, 1;= SC&A 1
:.D
6DD
;. Carredo vs. %eople, 176 SC&A /-6
16. &ight to se"ure witnesses and produ"tion of eviden"e.
&ead:
1. Cavili vs. 5on. $lorendo, 1D: SC&A ;1=
/. $a0ardo vs. 2ar"ia, .7 SC&A D1:
C5A%!+& QF - 5A,+AS C1&%AS
&ead:
1In t2e matter of t2e #etition for Ha'eas Corpus of Aerdinand Marcos, etc, +$ (o.
;;,/-, May .;, .-;- and August V Octo'er, .-;-.
1-a. 5arvey vs. Santiago, supra
/. CruG vs. <uan %on"e +nrile, April 1D,1.77
6. Abadilla vs. $idel &amos, De"ember 1,1.7-
CHA#&E$ 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. 116;, -OVEM4ER 3, 9;;6+
ATTY. MA-3EL J. LASER-A, JR. VS. /A-:ERO3S /R3:S
4OAR/, :.R. -o. 116633, -OVEM4ER 3, 9;;6

As far as pertinent, the "hallenged se"tion reads as follows:

S+C. 6;. Aut2ori5ed %rug &esting.XAuthoriGed drug testing shall be done by any
government forensi" laboratories or by any of the drug testing laboratories a""redited and
monitored by the D15 to safeguard the 8uality of the test results. ( ( ( !he drug testing
shall employ, among others, two /' 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 sub0e"ted to
undergo drug testing:
( ( ( (
"' 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"hool9s
student handbook and with noti"e to the parents, undergo a random drug testing ( ( (#
d' 1ffi"ers and employees of publi" and private offi"es.X1ffi"ers and employees
of publi" and private offi"es, whether domesti" or overseas, shall be sub0e"ted to undergo a
random drug test as "ontained in the "ompany9s work rules and regulations, ( ( ( for
purposes of redu"ing the risk in the workpla"e. Any offi"er or employee found positive for
6D;
use of dangerous drugs shall be dealt with administratively whi"h shall be a ground for
suspension or termination, sub0e"t to the provisions of Arti"le /7/ of the *abor Code and
pertinent provisions of the Civil Servi"e *aw#
( ( ( (
f' All persons "harged before the prose"utor9s offi"e with a "riminal offense having
an imposable penalty of imprisonment of not less than si( ;' years and one 1' day shall
undergo a mandatory drug test#
:.R. -o. 116; "ocial Justice "ociety v. %angerous
%rugs oard and #2ilippine %rug Enforcement Agency'
4n its %etition for %rohibition under &ule ;D, petitioner So"ial <usti"e So"iety S<S', a registered
politi"al party, seeks to prohibit the Dangerous Drugs ,oard DD,' and the %hilippine Drug +nfor"ement
Agen"y %D+A' from enfor"ing paragraphs "', d', f', and g' of Se". 6; of &A .1;D 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 e8ual prote"tion "lause inasmu"h as they "an be used to harass a
student or an employee deemed undesirable. And for a third, a person9s "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 Agency'
%etitioner Atty. )anuel <. *aserna, <r., as "itiGen and ta(payer, also seeks in his %etition for
Certiorari and %rohibition under &ule ;D that Se". 6;"', d', f', and g' of &A .1;D be stru"k down as
un"onstitutional for infringing on the "onstitutional right to priva"y, the right against unreasonable sear"h
and seiGure, and the right against self-in"rimination, and for being "ontrary to the due pro"ess and e8ual
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". 6;"', d', and f' of &A .1;D for se"ondary and tertiary level
students and publi" and private employees, while mandatory, is a random and suspi"ionless arrangement.
!he ob0e"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
pro0e"ts.@
:.;B1:C
!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. D:
and DD of &A .1;D are "lear on this point:
:.;B1:C
&A .1;D, Se". /.
6D-
Se". D:. *oluntary "u'mission of a %rug %ependent to Confinement, &reatment
and $e2a'ilitation.XA drug dependent or any person who violates Se"tion 1D of this A"t
may, by himselfEherself or through hisEher parent, B"lose relativesC ( ( ( apply to the ,oard
( ( ( for treatment and rehabilitation of the drug dependen"y. Apon 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. 4f 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.XA 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 A"t sub0e"t to the following "onditions:
( ( ( (
S"hool "hildren, the AS 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 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.
:.-
B1DC

!he right to priva"y has been a""orded re"ognition in this 0urisdi"tion as a fa"et of the right
prote"ted by the guarantee against unreasonable sear"h and seiGure
:.7B1;C
under Se". /, Art. 444
:..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 0urisdi"tion, made the fo"al point. !hus, the issue
tendered in these pro"eedings is veritably one of first impression.
AS 0urispruden"e is, however, a ri"h sour"e of persuasive 0urispruden"e. >ith respe"t to random
drug testing among s"hool "hildren, we turn to the tea"hings of *ernonia "c2ool %istrict 3/J v. Acton
*ernonia' and oard of Education of Independent "c2ool %istrict (o. -0 of #otta?atomie County, et al.
v. Earls, et al. oard of Education',
D==B17C
both fairly pertinent AS Supreme Court-de"ided "ases involving
the "onstitutionality of governmental sear"h.
4n *ernonia, s"hool administrators in Fernonia, 1regon wanted to address the drug mena"e in their
respe"tive institutions following the dis"overy of fre8uent drug use by s"hool athletes. After "onsultation
with the parents, they re8uired random urinalysis drug testing for the s"hool9s athletes. <ames A"ton, a
high s"hool student, was denied parti"ipation in the football program after he refused to undertake the
:.- B1DC
*ernonia "c2ool %istrict 3/J v. Acton, D1D A.S. ;:; 1..D', ;;1.
:.7 B1;C
Ople v. &orres, 2.&. 3o. 1/-;7D, <uly /6, 1..7, /.6 SC&A 1:1, 1;.# "iting Morfe v. Mutuc, 3o. *-/=67-, <anuary 61, 1.;7, //
SC&A :/:, :::-::D.
:..
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 0udge 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.
D== B17C
D6; A.S. 7// /==/'# "ited in / ,ernas, C13S!4!A!413A* &425!S A3D S1C4A* D+)A3DS //:-//- /==:'.
6D7
urinalysis drug testing. A"ton forthwith sued, "laiming that the s"hool9s drug testing poli"y violated, inter
alia, the $ourth Amendment
D=1B1.C
of the AS Constitution.
!he AS Supreme Court, in fashioning a solution to the issues raised in *ernonia, "onsidered the
following: 1' s"hools stand in loco parentis over their students# /' s"hool "hildren, while not shedding
their "onstitutional rights at the s"hool gate, have less priva"y rights# 6' athletes have less priva"y rights
than non-athletes sin"e the former observe "ommunal undress before and after sports events# :' by
0oining the sports a"tivity, the athletes voluntarily sub0e"ted themselves to a higher degree of s"hool
supervision and regulation# D' re8uiring urine samples does not invade a student9s priva"y sin"e a student
need not undress for this kind of drug testing# and ;' there is need for the drug testing be"ause of the
dangerous effe"ts of illegal drugs on the young. !he AS Supreme Court held that the poli"y "onstituted
reasonable sear"h under the $ourth
D=/B/=C
and 1:th Amendments and de"lared the random drug-testing
poli"y "onstitutional.
4n oard of Education, the ,oard of +du"ation of a s"hool in !e"umseh, 1klahoma re8uired a
drug test for high s"hool students desiring to 0oin e(tra-"urri"ular a"tivities. *indsay +arls, 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 1:th Amendments. As +arls
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 AS Supreme Court, "iting *ernonia, upheld the "onstitutionality of drug testing even among
non-athletes on the basis of the s"hool9s "ustodial responsibility and authority. 4n so ruling, said "ourt
made no distin"tion between a non-athlete and an athlete. 4t 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. And 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.
4n sum, what "an reasonably be dedu"ed from the above two "ases and applied to this 0urisdi"tion
are: 1' s"hools and their administrators stand in loco parentis with respe"t to their students# /' minor
students have "onte(tually fewer rights than an adult, and are sub0e"t to the "ustody and supervision of
their parents, guardians, and s"hools# 6' 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 :' s"hools have the right to impose "onditions on appli"ants for admission that
are fair, 0ust, and non-dis"riminatory.

2uided by *ernonia and oard of Education, the Court is of the view and so holds that the
provisions of &A .1;D re8uiring mandatory, random, and suspi"ionless drug testing of students are
"onstitutional. 4ndeed, it is within the prerogative of edu"ational institutions to re8uire, 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 sub0e"t to fair, reasonable, and e8uitable re8uirements.
D=1 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 >arrants shall issue, but upon probable "ause, supported by 1ath or affirmation, and parti"ularly des"ribing the
pla"e to be sear"hed, and the persons or things to be seiGed.
D=/ B/=C
!he $ourth Amendment is almost similar to Se". /, Art. 444 of the Constitution, e("ept that the latter limited the determination of
probable "ause to a 0udge after an e(amination under oath of the "omplainant and his witnesses. 5en"e, pronoun"ements of the AS $ederal
Supreme Court and State Appellate Court may be "onsidered do"trinal in this 0urisdi"tion, unless they are manifestly "ontrary to our
Constitution. "ee 5errera, 5A3D,11M 13 A&&+S!, S+A&C5 A3D S+4OA&+ 7 /==6'.
6D.
!he Court "an take 0udi"ial noti"e of the proliferation of prohibited drugs in the "ountry that
threatens the well-being of the people,
D=6B/1C
parti"ularly the youth and s"hool "hildren who usually end up
as vi"tims. A""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 3ation9s
s"hool"hildren is as important as enhan"ing effi"ient enfor"ement of the 3ation9s 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 0ust upon the users, but upon the entire student body and fa"ulty.
D=:B//C
3eedless 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.
<ust as in the "ase of se"ondary and tertiary level students, the mandatory but random drug test
pres"ribed by Se". 6; of &A .1;D for offi"ers and employees of publi" and private offi"es is 0ustifiable,
albeit not e(a"tly for the same reason. !he Court notes in this regard that petitioner S<S, other than saying
that ?sub0e"ting almost everybody to drug testing, without probable "ause, is unreasonable, an
unwarranted intrusion of the individual right to priva"y,@
D=DB/6C
has failed to show how the mandatory,
random, and suspi"ionless drug testing under Se". 6;"' and d' of &A .1;D violates the right to priva"y
and "onstitutes unlawful andEor un"onsented sear"h under Art. 444, Se"s. 1 and / of the Constitution.
D=;B/:C
%etitioner *aserna9s lament is 0ust as simplisti", sweeping, and gratuitous and does not merit serious
"onsideration. Consider what he wrote without elaboration:
!he AS Supreme Court and AS Cir"uit Courts of Appeals have made various
rulings on the "onstitutionality of mandatory drug tests in the s"hool and the workpla"es.
!he AS "ourts have been "onsistent in their rulings that the mandatory drug tests violate a
"itiGen9s "onstitutional right to priva"y and right against unreasonable sear"h and seiGure.
!hey are 8uoted e(tensively hereinbelow.
D=-B/DC
!he essen"e of priva"y is the right to be left alone.
D=7B/;C
4n "onte(t, the right to priva"y means the
right to be free from unwarranted e(ploitation of one9s person or from intrusion into one9s private
a"tivities in su"h a way as to "ause humiliation to a person9s ordinary sensibilities.
D=.B/-C
And 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 seiGures9 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.
D1=B/7C
Authorities are agreed though that the right to priva"y yields to "ertain paramount rights of
the publi" and defers to the state9s e(er"ise of poli"e power.
D11B/.C
D=6 B/1C
&olentino v. Alconcel, 3o. *-;6:==, )ar"h 17, 1.76, 1/1 SC&A ./, .D-.;.
D=: B//C
$ollo 2.&. 3o. 1D7;66', p. /=:, respondents9 Consolidated )emorandum.
D=D B/6C
$ollo 2.&. 3o. 1D-7-=', p. 1=.
D=; B/:C
Sec#io' 1. 3o person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due pro"ess of law, nor shall any person be denied the
e8ual 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 0udge 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.
D=- B/DC
$ollo 2.&. 3o. 1D7;66', p. ..
D=7B/;C
Ople, supra note 1;, at 1D6# "iting Cooley on !orts, Se". 16D, Fol. 1, :th ed., B1.6/C.
D=. B/-C
;/ Am. <ur. /d, #rivacy, Se". 1.
D1= B/7C
67- A.S. D/6# "ited in / ,ernas, supra note 17, at /6/.
D11 B/.C
;/ Am. <ur. /d, #rivacy, Se". 1-.
6;=
As the warrantless "lause of Se". /, Art 444 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/B6=C
And whether a
sear"h at issue hews to the reasonableness standard is 0udged by the balan"ing of the government-
mandated intrusion on the individual9s priva"y interest against the promotion of some "ompelling state
interest.
D16B61C
4n the "riminal "onte(t, reasonableness re8uires showing of probable "ause to be personally
determined by a 0udge. 2iven that the drug-testing poli"y for employeesIIand students for that matterII
under &A .1;D 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 re8uired 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 8uestion.
!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". /, Art. 444 of the Constitution,
intrudes. 4n 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 re8uirement. !he employees9 priva"y
interest in an offi"e is to a large e(tent "ir"ums"ribed by the "ompany9s 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.
<ust as defining as the first fa"tor is the "hara"ter of the intrusion authoriGed by the "hallenged law.
&edu"ed to a 8uestion 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@N
D1:B6/C
!he poser should be answered in the affirmative. $or one, Se". 6; of &A .1;D and its
implementing rules and regulations 4&&', 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. >hile every offi"er and employee in a private establishment is under the law deemed
forewarned that he or she may be a possible sub0e"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. And as may be observed, Se". 6;d' of &A .1;D itself pres"ribes what, in Ople, is a narrowing
ingredient by providing that the employees "on"erned shall be sub0e"ted to ?random drug test as "ontained
in the "ompany9s work rules and regulations ( ( ( for purposes of redu"ing the risk in the work pla"e.@
$or another, the random drug testing shall be undertaken under "onditions "al"ulated to prote"t as
mu"h as possible the employee9s priva"y and dignity. As 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 5ealth D15' to safeguard against results tampering and to
ensure an a""urate "hain of "ustody.
D1DB66C
4n addition, the 4&& issued by the D15 provides that a""ess to
the drug results shall be on the ?need to know@ basis#
D1;B6:C
that the ?drug test result and the re"ords shall be
D1/B6=C
*ernonia P oard of Education, supra notes 1D P 17.
D16 B61C
"@inner v. $ail?ay La'or E>ecutives Assn., :7. A.S. ;=/, ;1. 1.7.'# "ited in *ernonia, supra.
D1: B6/C
Supra note 1;, at 1;; P 1;..
D1D B66C
Ander Se". - B6C of the D15 4&& 2overning *i"ensing and A""reditation of Drug *aboratories, a laboratory is re8uired to use
do"umented "hain of "ustody pro"edures to maintain "ontrol and "ustody of spe"imens.
D1; B6:C
D15 4&& 2overning *i"ensing and A""reditation of Drug *aboratories, Se". - B1=.6C provides that the original "opy of the test
results form shall be given to the "lientEdonor, "opy furnished the D15 and the re8uesting agen"y.
6;1
BkeptC "onfidential sub0e"t to the usual a""epted pra"ti"es to prote"t the "onfidentiality of the test
results.@
D1-B6DC
3otably, &A .1;D 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. All told, therefore, the intrusion into the
employees9 priva"y, under &A .1;D, is a""ompanied by proper safeguards, parti"ularly against
embarrassing leakages of test results, and is relatively minimal.
!o reiterate, &A .1;D 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.
D17B6;C
!o the Court, the need
for drug testing to at least minimiGe illegal drug use is substantial enough to override the individual9s
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. And 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 investor9s 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 "ondu"t of the random testing, we hold that the
"hallenged drug test re8uirement 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.B6-C
And if &A .1;D 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 re8uired to be a""ountable at all times to the people and to serve
them with utmost responsibility and effi"ien"y.
D/=B67C

%etitioner S<S9 ne(t posture that Se". 6; of &A .1;D is ob0e"tionable on the ground of undue
delegation of power hardly "ommends itself for "on"urren"e. Contrary to its position, the provision in
8uestion is not so e(tensively drawn as to give unbridled options to s"hools and employers to determine
the manner of drug testing. Se". 6; 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. 4t enumerates the
persons who shall undergo drug testing. 4n 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. 1n the part of
offi"ersEemployees, the testing shall take into a""ount the "ompany9s work rules. 4n either "ase, the
random pro"edure shall be observed, meaning that the persons to be sub0e"ted to drug test shall be pi"ked
D1- B6DC
4d., Se". - B1=.:C.
D17 B6;C
Se"s. :- and :7 of &A .1;D "harge the Department of *abor and +mployment 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.
D1.B6-C
C1D+ 1$ C13DAC! A3D +!54CA* S!A3DA&DS $1& %A,*4C 1$$4C+&S A3D +)%*1J++S, Se". /.
D/= B67C
C13S!4!A!413, Art. Q4, Se". 1.
6;/
by "han"e or in an unplanned way. And in all "ases, safeguards against misusing and "ompromising the
"onfidentiality of the test results are established.
*est it be overlooked, Se". .: of &A .1;D "harges the DD, to issue, in "onsultation with the
D15, Department of the 4nterior and *o"al 2overnment, Department of +du"ation, and Department of
*abor and +mployment, among other agen"ies, the 4&& ne"essary to enfor"e the law. 4n net effe"t then,
the parti"ipation of s"hools and offi"es in the drug testing s"heme shall always be sub0e"t to the 4&& of
&A .1;D. 4t 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 8uiet area in the "onstitutional lands"ape.
D/1B6.C
4n 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!
Anlike the situation "overed by Se". 6;"' and d' of &A .1;D, the Court finds no valid
0ustifi"ation for mandatory drug testing for persons a""used of "rimes. 4n 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. 4n 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 re8uirement.
>e find the situation entirely different in the "ase of persons "harged before the publi"
prose"utor9s offi"e with "riminal offenses punishable with si( ;' years and one 1' day imprisonment.
!he operative "on"epts in the mandatory drug testing are ?randomness@ and ?suspi"ionless.@ 4n the "ase
of persons "harged with a "rime before the prose"utor9s 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. >hen 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"utor9s 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//B:=C
!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 ob0e"tives of &A .1;D. Drug testing in this "ase would violate a persons9 right to
priva"y guaranteed under Se". /, Art. 444 of the Constitution. >orse still, the a""used persons are veritably
for"ed to in"riminate themselves.
1. Self-in"rimination, /: SC&A ;./
/. &ead
1. ChaveG vs. CA, /: SC&A ;;6
D/1 B6.C
&atad, supra note ;, at 6D1.
D// B:=C
Leona #asion *iuda de +arcia v. Locsin, ;D %hil. ;7., ;.D 1.67'# "iting Cooley, C13S!. *4). ;6= 7th ed.'.
6;6
/. 2alman vs. %amaran, 167 SC&A /.:, read in"luding the "on"urring and
dissenting opinions
6. Fillaflor vs. Summers, :1 %hil. ;/
:. ,eltran vs. Samson, D= %hil. D-=
D. ,agadiong vs. 2onGales, .: SC&A .=;
;. ,AS+C1 vs. %C22, supra
-. 4sabela Sugar vs. )a"adaeg, .7 %hil. ..D
7. $ernando vs. )aglano", .D %hil. :61
.. AS vs. !ang !eng, /6 %hil. 1:D
1=. % vs. 1tadora, 7; %hil. /::
11. % vs. 1lvis, 1D: SC&A D16
1/. % vs. ,oholst-Amadore, 1D/ SC&A /;6
16. % vs. &osas, 1:7 SC&A :;:
1:. % vs. &uallo, 1D/ SC&A ;6D
1D. % vs. %oli"arpio, 1D7 SC&A 7D Compare with the &osas P ,oholst "ases'
1;. % vs. *umayok, 16. SC&A 1
1-. Cabal vs. Mapunan, <r. De"ember /., 1.;/
5EO5LE VS. 4A-IHIT, :.R. -O. 139;21, 339 SCRA 66, A3:. 91, 9;;;+ 5EO5LE
VS. CO-TI-E-TE, :.R. -OS. 1;;6;1F ;9, 339 SCRA 1, A3:. 91, 9;;;.
!he essen"e of this right against self-in"rimination is testimonial "ompulsion or the giving
of eviden"e against oneself through a testimonial a"t. 5en"e, an a""used may be "ompelled
to submit to physi"al e(amination and have a substan"e taken from his body for medi"al
determination as to whether he was suffering from a disease that was "ontra"ted by his
vi"tim without violating this right.
CHA#&E$ W*II - &HE $I+H& A+AI("&
I(*OL!(&A$) "E$*I&!%E
1. &ead:
1. A"lara"ion vs. 2atmaitan, ;: SC&A 161
/. Caun"a vs. SalaGar, supra
CHA#&E$ W*III - $I+H& A+AI("&
C$!EL A(% !(!"!AL #!(I"HME(&
a. 4s the Death %enalty already abolished by the 1.7- ConstitutionN
&ead:
1. % vs. 2avarra, 1DD SC&a 6/-
/. % vs. )asangkay, 1DD SC&A 116
6. % vs. Aten"io, 1D; SC&A /:/
:. % vs. 4ntino, September /;, 1.77
D. %eople vs. )unoG, 1-= SC&A 1=-
b. 4s death as a penalty a "ruel or unuasual punishmentN
6;:
3o. Death through lethal in0e"tion is the most humane way of implementing the death
%enalty *eo +"hegaray vs. Se"retary of <usti"e'
&ead:
1. % vs. +stoista, .6 %hil. ;:-
/. % vs. Fillanueva,, 1/7 SC&A :77
6. Feniegas vs. %eople, 11D SC&A -.
:. % vs. Camano, 11D SC&A ;77
/. 1n the death penalty whether it was abolished or not
&ead:
a. % vs. 4dnay, 1;: SC&A 6D7
C:A&T,R F/F E R/G:T AGA/N1T
-O-FIM5RISO-ME-T .OR /E4T
1. &ead:
1. 9oBano !". MartineB, 1C4 1CRA =2=
/. A0eno vs. 4n"ierto, -1 SC&A 1;;
C:A&T,R FF E T:, R/G:T
AGA/N1T >O@+9, J,O&AR>K
1. &e8uisites present before this right "an be invoked
5EO5LE VS. ALMARIO, 311 SCRA 1 5EO5LE VS. ALMARIO, 311 SCRA 1
!here is double 0eopardy when there is:
B1C valid indi"tment#
B/C before a "ompetent "ourt#
B6C after arraignment#
B:C when a valid plea has been entered# and
BDC when the defendant was "onvi"ted or a"8uitted, or the "ase was dismissed or
otherwise terminated without the e(press "onsent of the a""used.
4f the dismissal is through the instan"e of the a""used or with his e(press "onsent,
there is no double 0eopardy and the "ase "ould be reinstated. 5owever, this rule admits of
two /' e("eptions:
1' the motion to dismiss is based on insuffi"ien"y of eviden"e# and
/' the motion to dismiss is based on the denial of the a""used9s right to speedy trial.
6;D
!his is so be"ause the ?dismissal@ is a"tually an ?a"8uittal@ and therefore, all the re8uisites
of double 0eopardy are "omplete.
JE..REY RESO /AYA5 *7. 5RET>YFLO3 SE-/IO-:,
:E-ESA SE-/IO-:, ELVIE SY "') /EDIE /3RA-, :.R. -o. 196;,
J"'u"ry 99, 9;;9

!he "ase had its origins in the filing of an 4nformation
D/6B:C
on /. De"ember /==: by
the %rovin"ial %rose"utor9s 1ffi"e, Sibulan, 3egros 1riental, "harging herein petitioner
<effrey &eso Dayap with the "rime of &e"kless 4mpruden"e resulting to 5omi"ide, *ess
Serious %hysi"al 4n0uries, and Damage to %roperty. !he pertinent portion of the
information reads:
!hat at about 11:DD o9"lo"k in the evening of /7 De"ember /==: at ,rgy. )aslog,
Sibulan, 3egros 1riental, %hilippines, and within the 0urisdi"tion of this 5onorable Court,
the above-named a""used, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously drive in
a re"kless and imprudent manner a 1=-wheeler "argo tru"k with plate number A*%-.DD,
"olor blue, fully loaded with sa"ks of "o"onut shell, registered in the name of &uben
Fillabeto of Sta. Agueda %amplona, 3egros 1riental, thereby hitting an automobile, a Colt
2alant with plate number 3*D-6-. driven by *ou 2ene &. Sendiong who was with two
female passengers, namely: De(ie Duran and +lvie Sy, thus "ausing the instantaneous
death of said *ou 2ene &. Sendiong, less serious physi"al in0uries on the bodies of De(ie
Duran and +lvie Sy and e(tensive damage to the above-mentioned Colt 2alant whi"h is
registered in the name of Cristina %. >eyer 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 above-mentioned.
An a"t defined and penaliGed by Arti"le 6;D of the &evised %enal Code.
1n 1= <anuary /==D, before the )uni"ipal !rial Court )!C' of Sibulan, 3egros
1riental, petitioner was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty to the "harge.
D/:BDC

1n 1- <anuary /==D, respondents %retGy-*ou %. Sendiong, 2enesa Sendiong and
De(ie Duran filed a motion for leave of "ourt to file an amended information.
D/DB;C
!hey
sought to add the allegation of abandonment of the vi"tims by petitioner, thus: ?!he driver
of the 1=-wheeler "argo tru"k abandoned the vi"tims, at a time when said B*ou-2eneC &.
Sendiong was still alive inside the "ar# he was only e(tra"ted from the "ar by the by-
standers.@
D/;B-C
D/6
B:C
&e"ords, p. 6/.
D/:
BDC
$ollo, p. ::# See 1rder dated 1= <anuary /==D.
D/D
B;C
&e"ords, pp. 6:-6;.
D/;
B-C
4d. at 6-.
6;;
1n /1 <anuary /==D, however, the %rovin"ial %rose"utor filed an 1mnibus )otion
praying that the motion to amend the information be "onsidered withdrawn.
D/-B7C
1n /1
<anuary /==6, the )!C granted the withdrawal and the motion to amend was "onsidered
withdrawn.
D/7B.C

%re-trial and trial of the "ase pro"eeded. &espondents testified for the prose"ution.
After 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 +viden"e
D/.B1=C
dated 1D April
/==D grounded on the prose"ution9s failure to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is
"riminally liable for re"kless impruden"e, to whi"h respondents filed a Comment
D6=B11C
dated
/D April /==D.
4n the 1rder
D61B1/C
dated 1; )ay /==D, the )!C granted the demurrer and a"8uitted
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 4nformation. %ertinent
portions of the order state:
An 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. 4t is elementary in the rules of eviden"e that a party must
prove his own affirmative allegations.

( ( ( (
3owhere in the eviden"e of the prose"ution "an this Court find that it was the
a""used who "ommitted the "rime as "harged. 4ts 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 who "ommitted the "rime or asked 8uestions 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 in0uries on the bodies of De(ie Duran and +lvie
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 in0uries. !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 in0uries to De(ie Duran and +lvie Sy, in"luding the damage to
D/-
B7C
4d. at :1.
D/7
B.C
$ollo, p. DD.
D/.
B1=C
&e"ords, pp. 7=-./.
D6=
B11C
4d. at .6-.:.
D61
B1/C
$ollo, pp. -/--:.
6;-
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"ution9s 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. 4t 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 latter9s
inner fender and tires. +(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 19s 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. 4t was this a""ident that "aused the swerving, not of
BsicC any negligent a"t of the a""used.
( ( ( (
+very "riminal "onvi"tion re8uires 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 is the perpetrator of the "rime. Sad to say, the
prose"ution has miserably failed to prove these two things. >hen 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.
( ( ( (
>5+&+$1&+, premises "onsidered, the demurrer is granted and the a""used
<+$$&+J &+S1 DAJA% is hereby "cBui##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.
S1 1&D+&+D.
D6/B16C
&espondents thereafter filed a petition for "ertiorari under &ule ;D,
D66B1:C
alleging
that the )!C9s 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 &!C' of 3egros 1riental, ,r. 6/.
D6/
B16C
4d. at -/ and -:.
D66
B1:C
&e"ords, pp. 6-11.
6;7
4n the order
D6:B1DC
dated /6 August /==D, the &!C affirmed the a"8uittal 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 )!C9s 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""used9s demurrer to
eviden"e, the filing of whi"h is allowed under Se". /6, &ule 11.. !he &!C however agreed
that the )!C failed to rule on the a""used9s "ivil liability, espe"ially sin"e the 0udgment of
a"8uittal 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:
>5+&+$1&+, the 8uestioned order of the )uni"ipal !rial Court of Sibulan on
a""used9s a"8uittal is A$$4&)+D. !he "ase is &+)A3D+D to the "ourt of origin or its
su""essor for further pro"eedings on the "ivil aspe"t of the "ase. 3o "osts.
S1 1&D+&+D.
D6DB1;C

,oth parties filed their motions for re"onsideration of the &!C order, but these were
denied for la"k of merit in the order
D6;B1-C
dated 1/ September /==D.
&espondents then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals under &ule
:/, do"keted as CA-2.&. S%. 3o. =11-.. !he appellate "ourt subse8uently rendered the
assailed de"ision and resolution. !he Court of Appeals ruled that there being no proof of
the total value of the properties damaged, the "riminal "ase falls under the 0urisdi"tion of
the &!C and the pro"eedings before the )!C are null and void. 4n so ruling, the appellate
"ourt "ited &ulor v. +arcia "orre"t title of the "ase is Cuyos v. +arcia'
D6-B17C
whi"h ruled
that in "omple( "rimes involving re"kless impruden"e resulting in homi"ide or physi"al
in0uries and damage to property, the 0urisdi"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 in0uries "harged. 4t also
found support in Se". 6; of the <udi"iary &eorganiGation A"t of 1.7= and the 1..1 &ule 7
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 %1=,===.==. As there was no proof of the total value of the property
damaged and respondents were "laiming the amount of %1,D==,===.== as "ivil damages, the
"ase falls within the &!C9s 0urisdi"tion. !he dispositive portion of the De"ision dated 1-
August /==; reads:
D6:
B1DC
$ollo, pp. -D-71.
D6D
B1;C
4d. at 71.
D6;
B1-C
4d. at 7.-.=.
D6-
B17C
3o. *-:;.6:, 1D April 1..7, .
6;.
>5+&+$1&+, premises "onsidered, 0udgment is hereby rendered by As
&+)A3D432 the "ase to the &egional !rial Court &!C', <udi"ial &egion, ,ran"h 6/,
3egros 1riental for proper disposition of the merits of the "ase.
S1 1&D+&+D.
D67B1.C

%etitioner moved for re"onsideration of the Court of Appeals de"ision,
D6.B/=C
arguing
that 0urisdi"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". 6; of the <udi"iary &eorganiGation
A"t of 1.7= "an be the basis of the &!C9s 0urisdi"tion over the "ase. 5owever, the Court
of Appeals denied the motion for re"onsideration for la"k of merit in the &esolution dated
/D April /==-.
D:=B/1C
4t reiterated that it is the &!C that has proper 0urisdi"tion "onsidering
that the information alleged a willful, unlawful, felonious killing as well as abandonment of
the vi"tims.
4n the present petition for review, petitioner argues that the )!C had 0urisdi"tion to
hear the "riminal "ase for re"kless impruden"e, owing to the ena"tment of &epubli" A"t
&.A.' 3o. -;.1,
D:1B//C
whi"h "onfers 0urisdi"tion to first-level "ourts on offenses involving
damage to property through "riminal negligen"e. 5e asserts that the &!C "ould not have
a"8uired 0urisdi"tion on the basis of a legally unfiled and offi"ially withdrawn amended
information alleging abandonment. &espondents are also faulted for "hallenging the
)!C9s order a"8uitting petitioner through a spe"ial "ivil a"tion for "ertiorari under &ule ;D
in lieu of an ordinary appeal under &ule :/.
!he petition has merit. 4t should be granted.
!he first issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that 0urisdi"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 4nformation
dated /. De"ember /==: "harging petitioner only with the "omple( "rime of re"kless
impruden"e resulting to homi"ide, less serious physi"al in0uries and damage to property.
!he Court of Appeals 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. 4t appears from the re"ords however that respondents9 attempt to amend the
information by "harging the aggravated offense was unsu""essful as the )!C had
approved the %rovin"ial %rose"utor9s motion to withdraw their motion to amend the
information. !he information filed before the trial "ourt had remained unamended.
D:/B/6C
!hus, petitioner is deemed to have been "harged only with the offense alleged in the
original 4nformation without any aggravating "ir"umstan"e.
D67
B1.C
$ollo, p. 6D.
D6.
B/=C
4d. at .=-.:.
D:=
B/1C
Supra note /.
D:1
B//C
+ntitled ?A3 AC! +Q%A3D432 !5+ <A&4SD4C!413 1$ !5+ )+!&1%1*4!A3 !&4A* C1A&!S, )A34C4%A* !&4A*
C1A&!S A3D )A34C4%A* C4&CA4! !&4A* C1A&!S, A)+3D432 $1& !5+ %A&%1S+ ,A!AS %A),A3SA ,*2. 1/.,
1!5+&>4S+ M31>3 AS !5+ <AD4C4A&J &+1&2A34OA!413 AC! 1$ 1.7=,@ whi"h took effe"t on 1: April 1..:.
D:/
B/6C
See notes 7 and ..
6-=
Arti"le 6;D 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. >hen 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 in0uries and damage to property, a "omple( "rime. >here a
re"kless, imprudent, or negligent a"t results in two or more grave or less grave felonies, a
"omple( "rime is "ommitted.
D:6B/:C
Arti"le :7 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 Arti"le :7 speaks of
felonies, it is appli"able to "rimes through negligen"e in view of the definition of felonies
in Arti"le 6 as ?a"ts or omissions punishable by law@ "ommitted either by means of de"eit
dolo' or fault culpa'.
D::B/DC
!hus, the penalty imposable upon petitioner, were he to be
found guilty, is prision correccional in its medium period / years, : months and 1 day to :
years' and ma(imum period : years, / months and 1 day to ; years'.
Appli"able as well is the familiar rule that the 0urisdi"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.
D:DB/;C
>hen this "ase was
filed on /. De"ember /==:, Se"tion 6//' of ,atas %ambansa ,ilang 1/. had already been
amended by &.A. 3o. -;.1. &.A. 3o. -;.1 e(tended the 0urisdi"tion of the first-level
"ourts over "riminal "ases to in"lude all offenses punishable with imprisonment not
e("eeding si( ;' years irrespe"tive of the amount of fine, and regardless of other
imposable a""essory or other penalties in"luding those for "ivil liability. 4t e(pli"itly states
?that in offenses involving damage to property through "riminal negligen"e, they
shall have e("lusive original 0urisdi"tion thereof.@ 4t follows that "riminal "ases
for re"kless
impruden"e punishable with prision correccional in its medium and ma(imum periods
should fall within the 0urisdi"tion of the )!C and not the &!C. Clearly, therefore,
0urisdi"tion to hear and try the same pertained to the )!C and the &!C did not have
original 0urisdi"tion over the "riminal "ase.
D:;B/-C
Conse8uently, the )!C of Sibulan,
3egros 1riental had properly taken "ogniGan"e of the "ase and the pro"eedings before it
were valid and legal.
As the re"ords show, the )!C granted petitioner9s demurrer to eviden"e and
a"8uitted 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
D:6
B/:C
#eople v. de los "antos, :=- %hil. -/:, -:: /==1, "iting $eodica v. Court of Appeals, /./ SC&A 7-, 1=/ 1..7'.
D::
B/DC
#eople v. de los "antos, :=- %hil. -/: /==1'.
D:D
B/;C
*enancio Aigueroa y Cervantes v. #eople of t2e #2ilippines, 2.&. 3o. 1:-:=;, 1: <uly /==7, "iting Alarilla v. "andigan'ayan,
6.6 %hil. 1:6, 1DD /===' and Escovar v. Justice +arc2itorena, :;; %hil. ;/D, ;6D /==:'.
D:;
B/-C
*enancio Aigueroa y Cervantes v. #eople of t2e #2ilippines, 2.&. 3o. 1:-:=;, 1: <uly /==7.
6-1
its "ase,@ and when the same is granted, it "alls ?for an appre"iation of the eviden"e
addu"ed by the prose"ution and its suffi"ien"y to warrant "onvi"tion beyond reasonable
doubt, resulting in a dismissal of the "ase on the merits, tantamount to an a"8uittal of the
a""used.@
D:-B/7C
Suc% )i7$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 Ieop"r)y.
D:7
B/.C
,ut while the dismissal order "onse8uent to a demurrer to eviden"e is not sub0e"t to
appeal, the same is still reviewable but only by "ertiorari under &ule ;D 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"8uitting the
a""used, "ommitted grave abuse of dis"retion amounting to la"k or e("ess of 0urisdi"tion or
a denial of due pro"ess, thus rendering the assailed 0udgment void.
D:.B6=C

A""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 )!C9s
"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.
!he se"ond issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the remand of
the "ase of the matter of "ivil liability for the re"eption of eviden"e.
>e disagree with the Court of Appeals 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"8uittal of the a""used does not automati"ally pre"lude a 0udgment 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: a' the a"8uittal is based on reasonable doubt as
only preponderan"e of eviden"e is re8uired# b' the "ourt de"lares that the liability of the
a""used is only "ivil# and "' 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"8uitted.
DD=B61C
5owever, the "ivil a"tion
based on deli"t may be deemed e(tinguished if there is a finding on the final 0udgment in
the "riminal a"tion that the a"t or omission from whi"h the "ivil liability may arise did not
e(ist
DD1B6/C
or where the a""used did not "ommit the a"ts or omission imputed to him.
DD/B66C

D:-
B/7C
#eople v. "andigan'ayan, :77 %hil. /.6, 61= /==:', "iting #eople v. City of "ilay, 3o. *-:6-.=, . De"ember 1.-;, -: SC&A
/:-.
D:7
B/.C
4d.
D:.
B6=C
#eople v. !y, 2.&. 3o. 1D71D-, 6= September /==D, :-1 SC&A ;;7.
DD=
B61C
Hun Hyung #ar@ v. Eung Don C2oi, 2.&. 3o. 1;D:.;, 1/ $ebruary /==-, D1D SC&A D=/, D16.
DD1
B6/C
&A*+S 1$ C1A&!, &ule 111, Se". /, last par.
DD/
B66C
"ala5ar v. #eople, :D7 %hil. D=: /==6'.
6-/
!hus, if demurrer is granted and the a""used is a"8uitted 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.
DD6B6:C
!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. >hat the trial "ourt should do is issue an order or partial
0udgment granting the demurrer to eviden"e and a"8uitting 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 0udgment on the "ivil aspe"t of the "ase.
DD:B6DC

A s"rutiny of the )!C9s de"ision supports the "on"lusion that the a"8uittal 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,
petitioner9s "ivil liability has been e(tinguished by his a"8uittal. 4t should be noted that the
)!C "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. 4t 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.
Conse8uently, 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 petitioner9s a"8uittal has e(tinguished his "ivil liability.
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
4t 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.@ 4t is only when there is a "lear violation
of the a""used9s right to speedy trial that the dismissal results in double 0eopardy.
6. Double 0eopardy, 1=/ SC&A :: and 1/ SC&A D;1
:. >hen the a"t is punished by both a law and an ordinan"e:
5EO5LE VS. RELOVA, 126 SCRA 999
4f the a""used was "harged of ?theft of ele"tri"ity@ based on the City 1rdinan"e of
,atangas and not based on the &evised %enal Code and later on the "ase is dismissed by the
0udge 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 0eopardy has set in.
&ead:
1. % vs. Duero, 1=: SC&A 6-.
/. CAD4A FS. CA, /7: SC&A 1-6
DD6
B6:C
4d. at ;=-.
DD:
B6DC
4d. at D17-D1..
6-6
6. CA4S13 FS. CA, /7. SC&A 1D.
/. % vs. <ara, 1:: SC&A D1;
6. % vs. Abano, 1:D SC&A DDD
:. % vs. !olentino, 1:D SC&A D.-
D. % vs. Salig, 166 SC&A D.
;. % vs. CruG, 166 SC&A :/;
-. % vs. %rudente,, 166 SC&A ;D1
7 % vs. !rinidad, 1;/ SC&A -1:, when the presumption of regularity does-, 1.;;
/. % vs. City Court,1D: SC&A 1-D
6. 2alman vs. %amaran, 1:: SC&A :6
:. % vs. )olero, 1:: SC&A 6.-
D. % vs. Ruibate, 161 SC&A 71
;. % vs. 1bania, <une /.,1.;7
-. Dionaldo vs. Da"uy"uy, 1=7 SC&A -6;
7. % vs. <udge 5ernando, 1=7 SC&A 1/1
.. +smena vs. <udge %ogoy, 1=/ SC&A 7;1
1=. )aGo vs. )un. Court, 116 SC&A /1-
11. Andres vs. Ca"da", 116 SC&A /1-
1/. ,uerano vs. CA, 11D SC&A 7/
16. % vs. )ilitante, 11- SC&A .1=
1:. % vs. $uentebella, 1== SC&A ;-/
1D. *aGaro vs. %, 11/ SC&A :6=
1;. $lores vs. +nrile, 11D SC&A /6;
1-. ,ernarte vs. Se". ,11; SC&A :6
17. Mo ,u *in vs. CA, 117 SC&A D-6
1.. % vs. Duran, 1=-D SC&A .-.
/=. % vs. Cuevo, 1=: SC&A 61/
/1. <imeneG vs. )ilitary Commission, 1=/ SC&A 6.
//. % vs. *iwanag, -6 SC&A :-6
/6. % vs. Araula, <anuary 6=, 1.7/
/:. % vs. ,alad0ay, )ar"h 6=, 1.7/
/D. % vs. City Court of Silay, -: SC&A /:-
/7. % vs. %ilpa, -. SC&A 71
/.. % vs. 2loria, De"ember /., 1.--
6=. % vs. 2alano, -D SC&A 1.6
61. !a"as vs. Carias"o, -/ SC&A D/-
6/. % vs. *edesma, -6 SC&A --
66. % vs. Consulta, -= SC&A /--
6:. % vs. 4nting, -= SC&A /7.
6D. De 2uGman vs. +s"alona, .- SC&A ;1.
6;. % vs. %ablo, .7 SC&A /7.
6-. CruG vs. +nrile, 1;= SC&A -==
67. !angan vs. %, 1DD SC&A :6D
6.. % vs. RueGada, 1;= SC&A D1;
:=. CaniGano vs. %, 1D. SC&A D..
:1. ,ustamante vs. )a"eren, :7 SC&A 1::
!here is no double 0eopardy in this "ase:
6-:
5EO5LE VS. MOLERO
2.& 3o. *-;-7:/, September /:, 1.7;
.ACTSH
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 H16th day of
$ebruary 1.-;H.
/. )olero was arraigned and pleaded H3ot 2uiltyH#
6. During the trial, the "omplainant testified that she was raped by her father on $ebruary
D, 1.-; and not $ebruary 16, 1.-; as alleged in the "omplaint#
:. !he $is"al filed a motion for leave to amend the "omplaint. !he motion was granted but
was subse8uently 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 $ebruary D, 1.-;#
D. A new "omplaint was therefore filed dated )ar"h 6=, 1.-7
;. )olero "laims that the new "omplaint pla"es him in double 0eopardy.
HEL/H
!here is no double 0eopardy.
a. Dismissal of the first "ase "ontemplated by the rule against double 0eopardy
presupposes a definite and un"onditional dismissal whi"h terminates the "ase.,J"c" *7.
4l"'co, 66 5%il. 219+ 5eople *7. M"'l"p"7, 1 SCRA 663+ 5eople *7. Mo&ol, 131 SCRA
996! A') O(or )i7$i77"l #o 8e " 8"r u')er #%e Ieop"r)y cl"u7e o( #%e Co'7#i#u#io', i#
$u7# %"*e #%e e((ec# o( "cBui##"l.,5eople *7. A&o'cillo, 2; SCRA 19!+
b. 4t is 8uite "lear that the order of the trial "ourt dismissal the original "omplaint was
without pre0udi"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"8uittal.
". 4n fa"t there was no need for the trial "ourt to have adopted su"h a "umbersome
pro"edure. 4t "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 16, 1.-; to $ebruary D, 1.-; , a differen"e of 7 days was
only a matter of form under the fa"ts of this "ase and did not pre0udi"e the rights of the
a""used.
6-D
e. !he relian"e of the a""used on the "ase of 5eople *7. Ope$i", 96 5%il. 696 i7 'o# wellF
#"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"8uittal. 4n effe"t,
the order of dismissal does not "onstitute a proper basis for a "laim of double 0eopardy.
,5eople *7. 4oc"r, 136 SCRA 166!
D. )ay the government appeal a 0udgment of a"8uittal or for the in"rease of the penalty
imposedN 3o.
5EO5LE VS. HO-. VELASCO, :.R. -O. 19222, 32; SCRA 9;, SE5T. 13, 9;;;.
Double <eopardy. +volution of do"trine. Appeal by the 2overnment from verdi"ts of
a"8uittal.
As mandated by the Constitution, statutes and "ognate 0urispruden"e, an a"8uittal is final
and unappealable on the ground of double 0eopardy, whether it happens at the trial "ourt of
a 0udgment of a"8uittal brought before the Supreme Court on "ertiorari "annot be had
unless there is a finding of mistrial, as in +alman vs. "andigan'ayan.
;. )ay the appellate "ourt of the Supreme Court in"rease the pernalty imposed by the trial
"ourt on appeal by the a""usedN Jes.
5EO5LE VS. /OMI-:O, :.R. -o. 162323, M"rc% 9, 9;;9
Appellant <esus Domingo assails the De"ision
DDDB1C
of the Court of Appeals dated 6=
April /==7 in CA-2.&. C& 3o. 6=D11, modifying the De"ision
DD;B/C
dated 16 3ovember
/==; of ,ran"h 16 of the &egional !rial Court &!C' of )alolos, ,ula"an. !he Court of
Appeals found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder in Criminal Cases 3o.
1:.;-)-/=== and 3o. 1:.--)-/===, attempted murder in Criminal Cases 3o. 1:.7-)-
/=== and 3o. 1D=1-)-/===, frustrated murder in Criminal Case 3o. 1D==-)-/===, and
frustrated homi"ide in Criminal Case 3o. 1:..-)-/===.
1n - September /===, appellant, with the assistan"e of "ounsel, was arraigned and
he entered separate pleas of ?3ot 2uilty@ to the "rimes "harged. !hereafter, pre-trial
"onferen"e was held, and trial ensued a""ordingly.
DD-B:C

!he a""used was "onvi"ted of 5omi"ide, instead of )urder. 1n Appeal to the Court
of Appeals, the CA held that the "rime proven by the prose"ution is )urder and therefore
in"reased the penalty from 5omi"ide to )urder.
DDD B1C
%enned by Asso"iate <usti"e $ernanda *ampas %eralta with Asso"iate <usti"es +dgardo %. CruG and Apolinario D.
,ruselas, <r., "on"urring# rollo, pp. /-/D.
DD;B/C
%enned by %residing <udge Andres ,. Soriano# CA rollo, pp. 11-/6.
DD-B:C
4d. at 16.
6-;
I7 i'cre"7e i' #%e pe'"l#y *"li)T
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. CA, 2& 3o. :17D., )ar"h 7, 1.7.
1-a. % vs. )ontemayor, <anuary 6=, 1.;., /; SC&A ;7-
/. % vs. &uiG,71 SC&A :DD
6. AS vs. Jam !ung >ay, /1 %hil. ;-
:. % vs. Ang ho Mio, .D %hil. :-D
;. !he HSupervening $a"t Do"trine.H
&ead:
1. -; SC&A :;.
/. % vs. !arok, -6 %hil. /;=
6. % vs. Fillasis, :; 1.2. /;7
:. )elo vs. %eople, 7D %hil. -;;
D. % vs. ,uling, 1=- %hil. -1/
D-a. % vs. Adil, -; SC&A :;/
D-b. %. vs. !a"-an, 17/ SC&A ;=1
;. % vs. City Court of )anila, 1/1 SC&A ;6-
-. &ead also Se". -, &ule 11-, 1.7D &ules on Criminal %ro"edure
CHA#&E$ WWI
$I+H& A+AI("& EW-#O"& AAC&O LAD,
ILL OA A&&AI(E$, E&C.
&ead:
1. 3uneG vs. Sandiganbayan, 111 SC&A :66
/-*ACS13 FS. SA3D42A3,AJA3, <anuary /=, 1...
5A-.ILO M. LACSO- VS. THE EDEC3TIVE SECRETARY, THE
SA-/I:A-4AYA-, ET AL.
ROMEO ACO5 G .RA-CISCO >34IA, JR., 5e#i#io'er7FI'#er*e'or7
:.R. -o. 196;96, J"'u"ry 9;, 1999
!he petitioner seeks to stop the Sandiganbayan from trying the multiple murder
"ase against him and /; other poli"e offi"ers for the death of 11 Muratong ,aleleng
members in the early morning of )ay 17, 1..D at Commonwealth Avenue, RueGon City.
!he poli"e offi"ers "laimed that it was a shoot-out between them and the Muratong
,aleleng )embers while S%1/ +duardo de los &eyes "laimed it was a summary e(e"ution
or rub-out.
6--
!he preliminary investigation "ondu"ted by the Deputy 1mbudsman for )ilitary
Affairs resulted in the dismissal of the "ases after finding that the in"ident was ?a legitimate
poli"e operation.@ 5owever, the &eview ,oard led by Deputy 1mbudsman $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.
Apon 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 1ffi"e of the 1mbudsman
who A)+3D+D the 11 information9s on )ar"h 1, 1..; "harging the petitioner , &1)+1
AC1% and $&A3C4SC1 OA,4A, <&., as mere a""essories.
1n )ar"h D-;,1..;, the a""used 8uestioned the 0urisdi"tion of the Sandiganbayan
over the 11 "riminal "ases sin"e under &epubli" A"t 3o. -.-D, parti"ularly Se"tion /,
paragraphs BaC and B"C, the said "ourt has 0urisdi"tion only if one or more of the prin"ipal
a""used has a rank of ,rigadier 2eneral Chief Superintendent' or higher and sin"e the
highest %3% offi"er "harged as a prin"ipal a""used is merely Chief 4nspe"tor, the &egional
!rial Court of RueGon City has 0urisdi"tion to try and de"ide the same.
1n )ay 7, 1..;, the Sandiganbayan issued a &esolution transferring the "ase to the
&!C of RueGon City whi"h has original and e("lusive 0urisdi"tion over the "ases under &A
-.-D. 1n )ay 1-, 1..;, the 1ffi"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.
>hile the )otions for &e"onsideration were pending before the Sandiganbayan,
Congress passed into law &epubli" A"t 3o. 7/:. whi"h was approved by the %resident on
$ebruary D, 1..- entitled ?A3 AC! $A&!5+& D+$43432 !5+ <A&4SD4C!413 1$
!5+ SA3D42A3,AJA3, A)+3D432 $1& !54S %A&%1S+ %D 1;=;, AS
A)+3D+D, %&1F4D432 $A3DS !5+&+$1&@ whi"h deleted the word ?%&43C4%A*@
in Se"tion /, paragraphs BaC and B"C of &A -.-D thereby giving 0urisdi"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.
1n )ar"h D, 1..-, the Sandiganbayan issued its &esolution denying the )otion for
&e"onsideration of the 1ffi"e of the Spe"ial %rose"utor and ruled that it ?stands pat in its
&esolution dated )ay 7, 1..;@ ordering the transfer of the 11 "riminal "ases to the &!C of
RueGon City. 1n the same day, however, the Sandiganbayan issued an ADD+3DA) to its
)ar"h D, 1..- &esolution where it that with the passage of &A 7/:., ?the "ourt admitted
the amended information9s in these "ases and by the unanimous vote of : with 1 neither
"on"urring nor dissenting, retained 0urisdi"tion to try and de"ide the "ases@.
!he petitioner 8uestioned the said &esolution of the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme
Court on the following grounds:
1. their right to due pro"ess of law and e8ual 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 0urisdi"tion over
6-7
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#
6. the title of the law is misleading in that it "ontains the aforesaid inno"uous provisions in
Se"tions : and - whi"h a"tually e(pands rather than defines the old Sandiganbayan law
thereby violating the one title one sub0e"t re8uirement of Se"tion /; B1C Arti"le F4 of the
Constitution.
!he petitioners-intervenors "laimed that while the law Se"tions : and -'
inno"uously appears to have merely e(panded the 0urisdi"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"8uire under &A -.-D before re"ourse to the
Supreme Court "ould be made.
5eld:
1. !he "ontention that the law violates petitioner9s right to due pro"ess and e8ual prote"tion of
the law is too shallow to deserve merit. 4t is an established pre"ept in "onstitutional law that
the guaranty of the e8ual 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:
a. it must rest on real and substantial distin"tions#
b. it must be germane to the purposes of the law#
". must not be limited to e(isting "onditions only# and
d. must apply e8ually to all members of the same "lass-
all 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 0urisdi"tion under &A 7/:., 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. 4n the 1
st
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 0urisdi"tion of the "ourts, it "an be reasonably anti"ipated that an
alteration of that 0urisdi"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@. 4t 0ust happened
that the Muratong ,aleleng "ases are one of those affe"ted by the law. )oreover, those
6-.
"ases where trial has already begun are not affe"ted by the transitory provision under
Se"tion - of the new law &A 7/:.'.
/. !he petitioners9 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"8uired under &A -.-D is without merit.
4n order that a law is an e( post fa"to law, the same must be oneX
". 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$$i##e), "') pu'i7%e7 7uc% "c#io'+
8. w%ic% "&&r"*"#e7 " cri$e or $"Le7 i# &re"#er #%"' w%e' i# w"7 co$$i##e)+
c. w%ic% c%"'&e7 #%e pu'i7%$e'# "') i'(lic#7 " &re"#er pu'i7%$e'# #%"' #%e l"w
"''eAe) #o #%e cri$e w%e' i# w"7 co$$i##e)+
). w%ic% "l#er7 #%e le&"l rule7 o( e*i)e'ce "') recei*e7 le77 or )i((ere'# #e7#i$o'y
#%"' #%e l"w reBuire) " #%e #i$e o( #%e co$$i77io' o( #%e o((e'7e i' or)er #o co'*ic#
#%e )e(e')"'#+
e. e*ery l"w w%ic%, i' rel"#io' #o #%e o((e'7e or i#7 co'7eBue'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$er co'*ic#io' or "cBui##"l, or "
procl"$"#io' o( "$'e7#y ,EAY VILLE:AS EAMI, 31 SCRA 299+ MEJIA VS.
5AMARA-, 16; SCRA 21+ TA- VS. 4ARRIOS, 19; SCRA 666+ 5EO5LE VS.
SA-/I:A-4AYA-, 911 SCRA 921!.
+( post fa"to law prohibits the retrospe"tivity of penal laws. &A 7/:. is not a penal
law. 4t is a substantive law on 0urisdi"tion whi"h is not penal in "hara"ter.
!he other "ontention that their right to a two-tiered appeal whi"h they a"8uired
under &A -.-D has been diluted by the ena"tment of &A 7/:. is in"orre"t. !he same
"ontention had been re0e"ted by the "ourt several times in the "ases of &1D&42A+O FS.
SA3D42A3,AJA3, /=D %hil. D;-# A*F4A& FS. SA3D42A3,AJA3, 16- SC&A ;6#
3A3+O FS. SA3D42A3,AJA3, 111 SC&A :66# D+ 2AO)A3 FS. %+1%*+,
De"ember 1D, 1.7/ "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.
6. !he "ontention that the new Sandiganbayan law violates the one title-one sub0e"t provision
of the Constitution is without merit. !he petitioners "laim that the new does not define the
0urisdi"tion of the Sandiganbayan but e(pands the same. ,ut even assuming that that is
true, the e(pansion of the 0urisdi"tion, does not have to be e(pressly stated in the title of
the law be"ause su"h is the ne"essary "onse8uen"e of the amendments. !he re8uirement
that every bill must only have one sub0e"t e(pressed in the title is satisfied if the title is
"omprehensive enough, as in this "ase, to in"lude sub0e"ts related to the general purpose
67=
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 /, Arti"le F444 of the Constitution itself
empowers the legislative body to ?define, pres"ribe and apportion the 0urisdi"tion of
various "ourts.
31!+: !hough the Supreme Court re0e"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
information9s failed to alleged that they "ommitted the "rimes in relation to their publi"
offi"e whi"h is a 0urisdi"tional re8uirement 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 D4S)4SS+D the 11 murder "ases as a result of the retra"tion made by the
eyewitnesses. !he same was revived by the D1< in April, /==1. !he same was returned to
the RC &!C to determine if the /-year provisional rule under the /=== &ules on Criminal
%ro"edure is appli"able'
/.a. May Fillegas Mami, 6D SC&A :/.
6. Seville0a vs. C1)+*+C, 1=- SC&A 1:1
:. % vs. $errer, :; P D; SC&A
D. !an vs. ,arrios, 1"tober 17, 1..=
671