Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
blindly obeyed, to any other psychological element that may curtail the
mental faculty of choice or the unhampered exercise of the will. If the
actual effect of such psychological spell is to place a person at the
mercy of another, the victim is entitled to the protection of courts of
justice as much as the individual who is illegally deprived of liberty by
duress or physical coercion.
Ratio:
On the hypothesis that petitioner is really indebted, such is not a valid
reason for respondents to obstruct, impede or interfere with her desire
to leave. Such indebtedness may be multiplied by thousands or
millions but would not in any way subtract an iota from the
fundamental right to have a free choice of abode. The fact that power
to control said freedom may be an effective means of avoiding
monetary losses to the agency is no reason for jeopardizing a
fundamental human right. The fortunes of business cannot be
controlled by controlling a fundamental human freedom. Human
dignity is not merchandise appropriate for commercial barters or
business bargains. Fundamental freedoms are beyond the province of
commerce or any other business enterprise.
Also, under the Revised Penal Code, penalties are imposed "upon any
person who, in order to require or enforce the payment of a debt, shall
compel the debtor to work for him, against his will, as household
servant or farm laborer."
Moral restraint is a ground for the issuance of this writ, as where a
housemaid is prevented from leaving her employ because of the
influence of the person detaining her.
one year from the time when the first information was filed, seems as
far away from a definite resolution of her troubles as she was when
originally charged.
Issue: Whether or Not petitioner has been denied her right to a speedy
and impartial trial.
Held: Philippine organic and statutory law expressly guarantee that in
all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to have a
speedy trial. Aurelia Conde, like all other accused persons, has a right
to a speedy trial in order that if innocent she may go free, and she has
been deprived of that right in defiance of law. We lay down the legal
proposition that, where a prosecuting officer, without good cause,
secures postponements of the trial of a defendant against his protest
beyond a reasonable period of time, as in this instance for more than a
year, theaccused is entitled to relief by a proceeding in mandamus to
compel a dismissal of the information, or if he be restrained of his
liberty, by habeas corpus to obtain his freedom.
Suspension of the privilege of WOHC
239 Lansang v. Garcia, 42 SCRA 448
Facts: On the evening of August 21, 1971, two grenades were thrown
at the miting the avance of the Liberal Party killing 8 persons and
injuring many. Thus, on August 23 then President Marcos issued
proclamation 889, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Herein
petitioners
were
apprehended
by
members
of
the
Philippine
previous proclamation.
September 18: proclamation 889-B issued; lifting the suspension on
selected provinces/cities.
September 25: proclamation 889-C issued; lifting the suspension on
selected provinces/cities.
October 4: proclamation 889-D issued; same as 889-C on selected
areas.
In view thereof, 18 provinces, 2 sub-provinces and 18 cities are still
under the suspension of writ of habeas corpus
Issue: Whether the court would adhere to its previous decision in
Barcelon vs. Baker and Montenegro vs. Castaneda?
Held: First, Proclamation 889-A superseded the original proclamation
and that flaws attributed thereto are formal in nature. Which actually
emphasize the actuality of the intent to rise in arms. Second, The court
intervention: In Sterling vs. Constantin, Chief Justice Hughes declared
that when there is a substantial showing that the exertion of state
power has overridden private rights secured by the Constitution, the
subject is necessarily one for judicial review. Thus, the grant of power
to suspend the privilege of writ is neither absolute or unqualified
The declaration of a rebellion as argued by the petitioners need not to
be a wide-scale event, it may be declared even if it only involves a
small part of the country. The president decision to suspend the writ
was by fact constitutional hence VALID, as he has three available
courses to suppress rebellion. First, to call out the military, second to
suspend the privilege of writ and lastly to declare martial law.
Petitions
DENIED;
investigations
the
CFI
is
directed
to
conduct
preliminary
Concepcion, JJ.)
Criminal due process
242 Sales v. Sandiganbayan, ___
Facts: The petitioner, the incumbent mayor of Pagudpud Ilocos Norte,
shot the former mayor and his political rival Atty. Benemerito. After the
shooting, he surrendered himself and hence the police inspector and
wife of the victim filed a criminal complaint for murder against him.
The judge after conducting the preliminary examination (p.e. for
brevity) found probable cause and issued a warrant of arrest. Also after
conducting the preliminary investigation (p.i. for brevity), he issued a
resolution forwarding the case to the prosecutor for appropriate action.
Petitioner received a subpoena directing him to file his counter
affidavit, affidavit of witnesses and other supporting documents. He did
it the following day. While proceedings are ongoing, he filed a petition
for habeas corpus with the C.A alleging that: the warrant was null and
void because the judge who issued it was a relative by affinity of the
private respondent and the p.e. and the p.i. were illegal and irregular
as the judge doesnt have jurisdiction on the case. The C.A. granted
the petition holding that the judge was a relative by affinity by 3rd
degree to the private respondent and the p.i. he conducted has 2
stages, the p.e. and the p.i. proper. The proceeding now consists only
of one stage. He conducted the requisite investigation prior to the
issuance of warrant of arrest. Moreover he did not complete it. He only
examined the witness of the complainant. But the prosecution instead
of conducting p.i. of his own forwarded the records to the Ombudsman
(OMB for brevity) for the latter to conduct the same. The OMB directed
the petitioner to submit his counter affidavit, but he did not comply
with it finding the same superfluous. The graft investigator
recommended the filing of information for murder which the OMB
The same Court majority denied petitioners' motion for a new 5-day
period counted from receipt of respondent Tanodbayan's memorandum
for the prosecution (which apparently was not served on them).
Thus, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging that the
dismissal did not indicate the legal ground for such action and urging
that the case be set for a full hearing on the merits that the people are
entitled to due process.
However, respondent Sandiganbayan issued its decision acquitting all
the accused of the crime charged, declaring them innocent and totally
absolving them of any civil liability. Respondents submitted that with
the Sandiganbayan's verdict of acquittal, the instant case had become
moot
and
academic.
Thereafter,
same
Court
majority
denied
alleging
that
respondents
committed
serious
deliberate dispatch and with careful regard for the requirements of due
process.
Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera (made his expose 15 months later
when former Pres. was no longer around) affirmed the allegations in
the second motion for reconsideration that he revealed that the
Sandiganbayan Justices and Tanodbayan prosecutors were ordered by
Marcos to whitewash the Aquino-Galman murder case. Malacaang
wanted dismissal to the extent that a prepared resolution was sent to
the Investigating Panel. Malacaang Conference planned a scenario of
trial where the former President ordered then that the resolution be
revised by categorizing the participation of each respondent; decided
that the presiding justice, Justice Pamaran, (First Division) would
personally handle the trial. A conference was held in an inner room of
the Palace. Only the First Lady and Presidential Legal Assistant Justice
Lazaro were with the President. The conferees were told to take the
back door in going to the room where the meeting was held,
presumably to escape notice by the visitors in the reception hall
waiting to see the President. During the conference, and after an
agreement was reached, Pres. Marcos told them 'Okay, mag moromoro na lamang kayo;' and that on their way out of the room Pres.
Marcos expressed his thanks to the group and uttered 'I know how to
reciprocate'.
The Court then said that the then President (code-named Olympus)
had stage-managed in and from Malacaang Palace "a scripted and
predetermined manner of handling and disposing of the AquinoGalman murder case;" and that "the prosecution in the Aquino-Galman
case and the Justices who tried and decided the same acted under the
compulsion of some pressure which proved to be beyond their capacity
to resist. Also predetermined the final outcome of the case" of total
and
by
Malacaang
personnel.
The
partiality
of
was
clearly
obvious.
The
evidence
presented
by
the
The record shows that the then President misused the overwhelming
resources of the government and his authoritarian powers to corrupt
and make a mockery of the judicial process in the Aquino-Galman
murder cases. "This is the evil of one-man rule at its very worst." Our
Penal Code penalizes "any executive officer who shall address any
order or suggestion to any judicial authority with respect to any case or
business coming within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of
justice."
Impartial court is the very essence of due process of law. This criminal
collusion as to the handling and treatment of the cases by public
respondents at the secret Malacaang conference (and revealed only
after fifteen months by Justice Manuel Herrera) completely disqualified
respondent Sandiganbayan and voided ab initio its verdict. The courts
would have no reason to exist if they were allowed to be used as mere
tools of injustice, deception and duplicity to subvert and suppress the
truth. More so, in the case at bar where the people and the world are
entitled to know the truth, and the integrity of our judicial system is at
stake.
There was no double jeopardy. Courts' Resolution of acquittal was a
void judgment for having been issued without jurisdiction. No double
jeopardy attaches, therefore. A void judgment is, in legal effect, no
judgment at all. By it no rights are divested. It neither binds nor bars
anyone. All acts and all claims flowing out of it are void.
Motion to Disqualify/Inhibit should have been resolved ahead. In this
case, petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the abrupt dismissal of
their petition and lifting of the TRO enjoining the Sandiganbayan from
rendering its decision had been taken cognizance of by the Court which
had
required
the
respondents',
including
the
Sandiganbayan's,
to dislodge the capsules from Appellants mouth, the officers took the
Appellant to a hospital. At the hospital, the Appellants stomach was
pumped against his will to induce vomiting. Two capsules containing
morphine were found within the vomited material.
Issue. Can the police forcibly extract evidence from a persons
stomach?
Held. No. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the
United States Constitution (Constitution) prohibits the use of coerced
confessions. There is no distinction between a coerced verbal
confession and a coerced physical confession. To hold otherwise would
be to sanction police brutality in obtaining physical evidence, while
prohibiting
police
brutality
in
obtaining
verbal
confession.
Held:
Sec.149, paragraph (3) of BP 337 explicitly requires a public bidding
before a government contract may be awarded, and the term of the
contract is not to exceed 5 years. Thus, the 25-year term of the lease
contract violates the BP 337 provision.
As stated in Spouses Terrado vs Court of Appeals, since Ordinance No.
8 granted fishery privileges without the benefit of public bidding and
for a period exceeding 5 years, the said ordinance and the contract of
managementwere null and void ab initio xxx.
There is tenability in petitioners submission that subject lease contract
was grossly disadvantageous to the Government. The Court, mindful of
economic realities, perceives that the projected monthly rental of P51,
243 in 1990 would have greatly reduced by 2015 when the lease
contract would have ended if not earlier rescinded. Also, KBMBPMs
failure to comply with the contractual stipulations under the Health and
Sanitation clause of the contract cannot be overlooked.
In finding and concluding that petitioners acted in bad faith in the
implementation of said directives, the respondent court equated
legal steps to legal actions, so much so that petitioners failure to
sue the Cooperative for rescission of the contract was adjudged by the
Sandiganbayan as non-compliance with the MMC and CoAs directives.
Prior to the takeover of the new public market, posters announced the
municipalitys intended takeover in the vicinity of the market place
where the KBMMPMs offices were located. The cooperative also
participated in the public hearing of Resolution No. 45. Thus,
respondents were duly notified of the intent to takeover by the
municipality.
Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019 provides that causing any undue injury to any
partythe discharge of his official administrative pr judicial function
constitute a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.