Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS (G.R. No. 122156 February 3, 1997)1 4. WON there is grave abuse of discretion
FACTS: RULING:
The controversy arose when respondent GSIS decided to sell through 1. Yes. In seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine Senate on the ground
public bidding 30% to 51% of the outstanding shares of Manila Hotel. that it contravenes the Constitution, the petition no doubt raises a
Only two (2) bidders participated: petitioner Manila Prince Hotel justiciable controversy. Where an action of the legislative branch is
Corporation, a Filipino corporation, which offered to buy 51% shares at seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only
P41.58/share, and a Malaysian firm, at P44.00/share. Pending the the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. The court
declaration of the winning bidder, petitioner matched the bid price of however is limited to determine whether or not there had been a grave
P44.00 per share tendered by the Malaysian Firm which respondent abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction" on the part
GSIS refused to accept. The petitioner posits that since Manila Hotel is of the Senate in ratifying the WTO Agreement and shall not inquire upon
part of the national patrimony, petitioner should be preferred after it has the wisdom of the President and Senate in ratifying the same.
matched the bid offer of the Malaysian firm invoking Sec. 10, second par.,
Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution. 2. No. The principles and state policies enumerated in Article II and some
sections of Article XII are not "self-executing provisions, they do not
ISSUE/S: embody judicially enforceable constitutional rights but guidelines for
1. WON Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution is a self- legislation. Furthermore, Economic Nationalism Should Be Read with
executing provision Other Constitutional Mandates to Attain Balanced Development of
2. Granting that this provision is self-executing, WON Manila Hotel falls Economy While the Constitution indeed mandates a bias in favor of
under the term national patrimony. Filipino goods, services, labor and enterprises, the Constitution did not
3. Granting that the Manila Hotel forms part of the national patrimony, intend to pursue an isolationist policy. While the Constitution does not
WON selling mere 51% shares and not the land itself can be considered encourage the unlimited entry of foreign goods, services and investments
part of national patrimony. into the country, it does not prohibit them either. In fact, it allows an
4. WON GSIS committed grave abuse of discretion. exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity, frowning only on
foreign competition that is unfair.
RULING:
1. Yes. Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of the of the 1987 Constitution is 3. No. By their inherent nature, treaties really limit or restrict the
self-executing which needs no further guidelines or implementing laws or absoluteness of sovereignty. By their voluntary act, nations may
rules for its enforcement. It is per se judicially enforceable The surrender some aspects of their state power in exchange for greater
Constitution mandates that qualified Filipinos shall be preferred. And benefits granted by or derived from a convention or pact.
when our Constitution declares that a right exists in certain specified
circumstances an action may be maintained to enforce such right In its Declaration of Principles and State Policies, the Constitution
notwithstanding the absence of any legislation on the subject. Where "adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of
there is a right there is a remedy. Ubi jus ibi remedium. the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice,
freedom, cooperation and amity, with all nations." 43 By the doctrine of
2. Yes. In its plain and ordinary meaning, the term patrimony pertains to incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of
heritage. 35 When the Constitution speaks of national patrimony, it refers international law, which are considered to be automatically part of our
not only to the natural resources of the Philippines, but also to the cultural own laws. 44 One of the oldest and most fundamental rules in international
heritage of the Filipinos. law is pacta sunt servanda international agreements must be
performed in good faith.
3. Yes. 51% of the equity of the MHC comes within the purview of the
constitutional shelter for it comprises the majority and controlling stock, 4. No. Grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical
so that anyone who acquires or owns the 51% will have actual control exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. 61 Mere abuse
and management of the hotel. In this instance, 51% of the MHC cannot of discretion is not enough. It must be grave abuse of discretion as when
be disassociated from the hotel and the land on which the hotel edifice the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of
stands. passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent and so gross as to
amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform
4. Yes. Since petitioner has already matched the bid price tendered by the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. 62 Failure on the
the foreign firm, respondent GSIS is left with no alternative but to award part of the petitioner to show grave abuse of discretion will result in the
to petitioner the shares of MHC in accordance not only with the bidding dismissal of the petition.
guidelines and procedures but with the Constitution as well. The refusal
of respondent GSIS to execute the corresponding documents with
Wherefore, Petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
petitioner after the latter has matched the bid of the Malaysian firm clearly
constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
Hence, GSIS(respondent) is ordered to accept the matching bid of Domino vs. Comelec (G.R. No. 134015 July 19, 1999)3
petitioner and execute the necessary clearances for the purchase of
the subject 51% MHC shares. FACTS:
On 25 March 1998, DOMINO filed his certificate of candidacy for the
Reasoning: The Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme position of Representative of the Province of Sarangani indicating in his
law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and contract. certificate that he had resided in the constituency where he seeks to be
elected for one (1) year and two (2) months immediately preceding the
election. On 6 May 1998, the COMELEC 2nd Division promulgated a
Tanada vs. Angara (G.R. No. 118295 May 2, 1997)2 resolution declaring DOMINO disqualified as candidate for the position of
representative of Sarangani for lack of the one-year residence
FACTS: requirement and likewise ordered the cancellation of his certificate of
On December 14, 1994, the Philippine Senate adopted Resolution No. 97 candidacy.
which resolved that the Senate concur, in the ratification by the President
of the Philippines of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade ISSUE/S:
Organization. The instant petition before this Court assails the WTO 1. WON a summary proceeding for the exclusion or inclusion of voters in
Agreement for violating the mandate of the 1987 Constitution to "develop the list of voters declaring DOMINO a resident of the province of
a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Sarangani and not of Quezon City acquire the nature of res judicata.
Filipinos . . . (to) give preference to qualified Filipinos (and to) promote 2. WON DOMINO was a resident of the Province of Sarangani for at least
the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally one year immediately preceding the election.
produced goods." 3. Whether the COMELEC or the HRET has jurisdiction over the present
petition of DOMINO.
ISSUE/S: 4. WON, the candidate who received the next highest number of votes
1. WON there is a justiciable controversy? can be proclaimed as the winning candidate in the light of DOMINOs
2. WON the provisions of the WTO Agreement contravene with disqualification?
Sec.19,Art. 2 and Secs. 10 and 12, Art. 12 of the Philippine Constitution?
3. WON the provisions of WTO Unduly impair or interfere with the RULING:
exercise of judicial and legislative power by the court and congress 1.No. The contention of DOMINO that the decision in the exclusion
respectively? proceedings declaring him a resident of the Province of Sarangani and
not of Quezon City is final and conclusive upon the COMELEC cannot be
1 sustained. It is not within the competence of the trial court, in an
A. Fundamental Principles on Constitutional Law and the Bill of
exclusion proceeding, to declare the challenged voter a resident of
Rights
2
A. Fundamental Principles on Constitutional Law and the Bill of
3
Rights A. Fundamental Principles on Constitutional Law and the Bill of
Rights
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 1
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
another municipality. The jurisdiction of the lower court over exclusion winning, no matter how slim. It would be then a senseless sacrifice on the
cases is limited only to determining the right of voter to remain in the list part of the State.
of voters or to declare that the challenged voter is not qualified to vote in
the precinct in which he is registered, specifying the ground of the voter's
disqualification. Yrasuegui vs. PAL (G.R. No. 168081, October 17, 2008)5
Finally, the application of the rule on res judicata is unavailing.For the FACTS:
decision to be a basis for the dismissal by reason of res judicata, it is On June 15, 1993, petitioner was formally informed by PAL that due to his
essential that there must be between the first and the second action inability to attain his ideal weight, "and considering the utmost leniency"
identity of parties, identity of subject matter and identity of causes of extended to him "which spanned a period covering a total of almost five
action. (5) years," his services were considered terminated "effective
immediately."11
2. No. It is doctrinally settled that the term "residence," as used in the law
prescribing the qualifications for suffrage and for elective office, means ISSUE/S:
the same thing as "domicile," which imports not only an intention to reside 1. WON the obesity of petitioner is a ground for dismissal under the Labor
in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with Code.
conduct indicative of such intention. 2. WON the dismissal of petitioner can be predicated on the bona fide
occupational disqualification defense.
3. WON the petitioner can invoke the equal protection clause guaranty
A person's "domicile" once established is considered to continue and will
not be deemed lost until a new one is established. 25 To successfully
RULING:
effect a change of domicile one must demonstrate an actual removal or
1. Yes. It would fall under Article 282 of the Labor Code. A reading of the
an actual change of domicile; a bona fide intention of abandoning the
weight standards of PAL would lead to no other conclusion than that they
former place of residence and establishing a new one and definite acts
constitute a continuing qualification of an employee in order to keep the
which correspond with the purpose. 26 In other words, there must
job. Tersely put, an employee may be dismissed the moment he is unable
basically be animus manendi coupled with animus non revertendi.
to comply with his ideal weight as prescribed by the weight standards.
3. The COMELEC, has jurisdiction over the present petition. The fact of
2. Yes. Though generally, employment in particular jobs may not be
obtaining the highest number of votes in an election does not
limited to persons of a particular sex, religion, or national origin. However,
automatically vest the position in the winning candidate. 41 A candidate
if the employer can show that sex, religion, or national origin is an actual
must be proclaimed and must have taken his oath of office before he can
qualification for performing the job, the qualification is then considered
be considered a member of the House of Representatives. Considering
valid and referred to as bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ).
that DOMINO has not been proclaimed as Congressman-elect in the
Lone Congressional District of the Province of Sarangani he cannot be
Applying the Meiorin Test in determining whether an employment policy
deemed a member of the House of Representatives. Hence, it is the
is justified, the following must concur: (1) the employer must show that it
COMELEC and not the Electoral Tribunal which has jurisdiction over the
adopted the standard for a purpose rationally connected to the
issue of his ineligibility as a candidate.
performance of the job;64 (2) the employer must establish that the
standard is reasonably necessary65 to the accomplishment of that work-
4. NO. The candidate who obtains the second highest number of votes
related purpose; and (3) the employer must establish that the standard is
may not be proclaimed winner in case the winning candidate is
reasonably necessary in order to accomplish the legitimate work-related
disqualified. It would be extremely repugnant to the basic concept of the
purpose.
constitutionally guaranteed right to suffrage if a candidate who has not
acquired the majority or plurality of votes is proclaimed a winner and
The weight standards of PAL are reasonable. The most important activity
imposed as the representative of a constituency, the majority of which
of the cabin crew is to care for the safety of passengers and the
have positively declared through their ballots that they do not choose
evacuation of the aircraft when an emergency occurs. Passenger safety
him.
goes to the core of the job of a cabin attendant. Truly, airlines need cabin
attendants who have the necessary strength to open emergency doors,
the agility to attend to passengers in cramped working conditions, and the
stamina to withstand grueling flight schedules among other reasons.
Pamatong vs. Comelec (G.R. No. 161872, April 13, 2004)4
3. No. In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties
FACTS:
guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked. 87 Put differently, the
The COMELEC declared petitioner and thirty-five (35) others nuisance
Bill of Rights is not meant to be invoked against acts of private
candidates who could not wage a nationwide campaign. Petitioner seeks
individuals. Private actions, no matter how egregious, cannot violate the
to reverse the resolutions which were allegedly rendered in violation of
equal protection guarantee.91
his right to "equal access to opportunities for public service" under
Section 26, Article II of the 1987 Constitution.
ISSUE/S:
WON the constitutional provision ensuring "equal access to opportunities
People vs. Siton6
for public office" grants a constitutional right to run for or hold public office
FACTS:
RULING:
In the case at bar the affidavit of the arresting police officer, lucidly shows
No. What is recognized is merely a privilege subject to limitations
that there was a prior surveillance conducted in view of the reports that
imposed by law. Also, the "equal access" provision is a subsumed part of
vagrants and prostitutes proliferate in the place where the respondents
Article II of the Constitution. The provisions under the Article are generally
(among other women) were wandering and in the wee hours of night and
considered not self-executing.
soliciting male customer. Hence, respondents Evangeline Siton and
Krystel Kate Sagarano were charged with vagrancy pursuant to Article
As earlier noted, the privilege of equal access to opportunities to public
202 (2) of the Revised Penal. In turn, the respondents filed separate
office may be subjected to limitations. Some valid limitations specifically
Motions to Quash on the ground that Article 202 (2) is unconstitutional for
on the privilege to seek elective office are found in the provisions 9 of the
being vague and overbroad.
Omnibus Election Code on "Nuisance Candidates" and outlined instances
wherein the COMELEC may motu proprio refuse to give due course to or
ISSUE/S:
cancel a Certificate of Candidacy.
1. WON the definition of the crime of vagrancy under Article 202 (2) is
unconstitutional for being vague.
As long as the limitations apply to everybody equally without
2. WON Article 202 (2) violated the equal protection clause under the
discrimination, the equal access clause is not violated.
Constitution because it discriminates against the poor and unemployed,
thus permitting an arbitrary and unreasonable classification.
Reasoning: There is a need to limit the number of candidates especially
in the case of candidates for national positions because the election
RULING:
process becomes a mockery even if those who cannot clearly wage a
1 No. The trial court in its assailed ruling relied on the underlying
national campaign are allowed to run. Their names would have to be
principles in Papachristou vs. City of Jacksonville case:
printed in the Certified List of Candidates, Voters Information Sheet and
the Official Ballots. These would entail additional costs to the government
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 2
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
First, that the assailed ordinance fails to give a person of ordinary adduce evidence on their behalf and they did. Lastly, the Discipline Board
intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by a considered all the pieces of evidence submitted to it by all the parties
statute and; before rendering its resolution in Discipline Case No. 9495-3-25121.
The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or as
Second, it encourages or promotes opportunities for the application of applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's
discriminatory law enforcement. side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of.
However, the aforementioned principles do not apply in the case at bar A formal trial-type hearing is not, at all times and in all instances,
since: essential to due process it is enough that the parties are given a fair
and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the
The first principle finds no application here because under our legal controversy and to present supporting evidence on which a fair decision
system, ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith can be based. "To be heard" does not only mean presentation of
and; testimonial evidence in court one may also be heard through pleadings
and where the opportunity to be heard through pleadings is accorded,
Second, the fear exhibited by the respondents, that unfettered discretion there is no denial of due process.
is placed in the hands of the police to make an arrest or search, is
assuaged by the constitutional requirement of probable cause, which is
one less than certainty or proof, but more than suspicion or possibility. Romualdez vs. Comelec8
The requirement of probable cause provides an acceptable limit on police
or executive authority that may otherwise be abused in relation to the FACTS:
search or arrest of persons found to be violating Article 202 (2). Respondent-spouses, Carlos and Erlinda Romualdez registered as new
voters of the Municipality of Burauen, Leyte, in spite of the fact that they
Furthermore, it may be note worthy that the Jacksonville ordinance was were and still are, registered voters of Quezon City. That being the case,
declared unconstitutional for provisions that are not found in the they are guilty of an election offense due to double registration under R.A.
questioned Vagrancy law in the case at bar. 8189, otherwise known as the Voters Registation Act of 1996.
The power to define crimes and prescribe their corresponding penalties is ISSUE/S:
legislative in nature and inherent in the sovereign power of the state to 1. WON the petitioners are accorded due process of law
maintain social order as an aspect of police power. The legislature 2. WON 45(j) of the Voters registration Act can be declared vague on the
however, must inform the citizen with reasonable precision what acts it ground that it contravenes the fair notice requirement of the 1987
intends to prohibit so that he may have a certain understandable rule of Constitution.
conduct and know what acts it is his duty to avoid. This requirement has
come to be known as the void-for-vagueness doctrine which states that RULING:
a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so 1. Yes. The petitioners are accorded due process of law.
vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its Petitioners contend that the election offenses for which they are charged
meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due by private respondent (Section 261(y)(2) and (y)(5) of the Omnibus
process of law. Election Code and Section 12 of the Voters Registration Act) are entirely
different from those which they stand to be accused of before the RTC by
2. No. Article 202 (2) does not violate the equal protection clause; neither the COMELEC(.Section 10(g) and (j), in relation to Section 45(j) of the
does it discriminate against the poor and the unemployed. Offenders of Voters Registration Act). The petitioners contentions are untenable.
public order laws are punished not for their status, as for being poor or The Complaint-Affidavit filed by private respondent with the COMELEC is
unemployed, but for conducting themselves under such circumstances as couched in a language which embraces the allegations necessary to
to endanger the public peace or cause alarm and apprehension in the support the charge for violation of Section 10(g) and (j), in relation to
community. Being poor or unemployed is not a license or a justification to Section 45(j) of Republic Act No. 8189;
act indecently or to engage in immoral conduct.
Petitioners cannot be said to have been denied due process on the claim
Vagrancy must not be so lightly treated as to be considered that the election offenses charged against them by private respondent are
constitutionally offensive. It is a public order crime which punishes entirely different from those for which they stand to be accused of before
persons for conducting themselves, at a certain place and time which the RTC, as charged by the COMELEC. In the first place, there appears
orderly society finds unusual, under such conditions that are repugnant to be no incongruity between the charges as contained in the Complaint-
and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and Affidavit and the Informations filed before the RTC. Evidently, the
morality in a just, civilized and ordered society, as would engender a informations directed to be filed by the Comelec against petitioners, and
justifiable concern for the safety and well-being of members of the which were, in fact, filed with the RTC, were based on the same set of
community. facts as originally alleged in the private respondents Complaint-Affidavit.
FACTS: The void-for-vagueness doctrine holds that a law is facially invalid if men
The private respondents were involved in mauling incidents that were a of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ
result of a fraternity war. On May 3, 1995, the DLSU-CSB Joint Discipline as to its application. However, this Court has imposed certain limitations
Board issued a Resolution finding private respondents guilty. They were by which a criminal statute, as in the challenged law at bar, may be
meted the supreme penalty of automatic expulsion, pursuant to CHED scrutinized. On-its-face" invalidation of criminal statutes is not
Order No. 4. appropriate as such invalidation would constitute a departure from the
usual requirement of "actual case and controversy" and permit decisions
ISSUE/S: to be made in a sterile abstract context having no factual concreteness.
1. WON private respondents accorded due process of law?
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 3
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
The respondents in G.R. No. 179275 admit that the Senate Rules of On March 2, 2009 the COMELEC transferred the Bulacan ballot boxes,
Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation had been published in including those involved in the provincial election contest, to the Senate
newspapers of general circulation only in 1995 and in 2006. However, Electoral Tribunal (SET).
with respect to the present Senate of the 14th Congress, no effort was
undertaken for the publication of these rules. ISSUE:
Whether there were proceedings within the SET premises, entitling the
Respondents justify their non-observance of the constitutionally petitioner to notice and participation, which were denied to him; in other
mandated publication by arguing that the rules have never been words, the issue is whether the petitioners right to due process has been
amended since 1995 and, despite that, they are published in booklet form violated.
available to anyone for free, and accessible to the public at the Senates
internet web page.
RULING:
ISSUE: No. The appropriate due process standards that apply to the COMELEC,
Whether or not the absence of any amendment to the rules dispenses the as an administrative or quasi-judicial tribunal, are those outlined in the
requirement of due publication of the rules of procedure in a legislative seminal case of Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations. These are
inquiry. now commonly referred to as cardinal primary rights in administrative
proceedings to wit;
RULING:
No. The Senate cannot be allowed to continue with the conduct of the (1) The first of these rights is the right to a hearing, which includes the
questioned legislative inquiry without duly published rules of procedure, in right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and
clear derogation of the constitutional requirement under Section 21, submit evidence in support thereof. xxx
Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. (2) Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case
and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he
The absence of any amendment to the rules cannot justify the Senates asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented.
defiance of the clear and unambiguous language of Section 21, Article VI (3) While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to
of the Constitution. The organic law instructs, without more, that the decide right, it does imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded,
Senate or its committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation only namely, that of having something to support its decision. A decision
in accordance with duly published rules of procedure, and does not make with absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity, a place when directly
any distinction whether or not these rules have undergone amendments attached.
or revision. The constitutional mandate to publish the said rules prevails (4) Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or
over any custom, practice or tradition followed by the Senate. conclusion, but the evidence must be "substantial." "Substantial
evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant
Furthermore, the invocation by the respondents of the provisions of R.A. evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
No. 8792, otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, to conclusion."
support their claim of valid publication through the internet is all the more (5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the
incorrect. The law merely recognizes the admissibility in evidence (for hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties
their being the original) of electronic data messages and/or electronic affected.
documents. It does not make the internet a medium for publishing laws, (6) The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges, therefore,
rules and regulations. must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and
facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a
subordinate in arriving at a decision.
Placido vs. NLRC10 (7) The Court of Industrial Relations should, in all controversial
questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the
FACTS: proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for
Petitioners in this case aver that they were denied due process when the decisions rendered. The performance of this duty is inseparable
PLDT refused to furnish them a copy of the Investigation Report and from the authority conferred upon it.
grant them a formal hearing in which they could be represented by
counsel of their choice. The first of the enumerated rights pertain to the substantive rights of a
party at hearing stage of the proceedings. The essence of this aspect of
RULING: due process, is simply the opportunity to be heard, or as applied to
The petition is bereft of merit. administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain ones side or an
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained
The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as of.
applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's
side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling The second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth aspects of the Ang Tibay
complained of. What the law prohibits is absolute absence of the requirements are applicable at the deliberative stage, as the decision-
opportunity to be heard, hence, a party cannot feign denial of due maker decides on the evidence presented during the hearing. These
process where he had been afforded the opportunity to present his side. standards set forth the guiding considerations in deliberating on the case
A formal or trial type hearing is not at all times and in all instances and are the material and substantial components of decision-making.
essential to due process, the requirements of which are satisfied where Finally, the last requirement, relating to the form and substance of the
the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their decision of a quasi-judicial body, further complements the hearing and
side of the controversy. decision-making due process rights and is similar in substance to the
constitutional requirement that a decision of a court must state distinctly
In the present case, petitioners were, among other things, given several the facts and the law upon which it is based.
written invitations to submit themselves to PLDTs Investigation Unit to
explain their side, but they failed to heed them. A hearing, which After consideration of the respondents Comments and the petitioners
petitioners attended along with their union MKP representatives, was petition and Reply, we hold that the contested proceedings at the SET
conducted on June 25, 2001 during which the principal witnesses to the ("contested proceedings) are no longer part of the adversarial aspects of
incident were presented. Petitioners were thus afforded the opportunity to the election contest that would require notice of hearing and the
confront those witnesses and present evidence in their behalf, but they participation of the parties
failed to do so.
What took place at the SET were the internal deliberations of the
COMELEC, as a quasi-judicial body, in the course of appreciating the
Mendoza vs. Comelec11 evidence presented and deciding the provincial election contest on the
merits.
FACTS:
The petitioner and the respondent vied for the position of Governor of the To conclude, the COMELEC is under no legal obligation to notify either
Province of Bulacan. The petitioner was proclaimed winning candidate party of the steps it is taking in the course of deliberating on the merits of
and assumed the office of Governor, while the respondent seasonably the provincial election contest.
filed an election protest with the COMELEC.
The COMELEC approved the parties formal offer of evidence and then
required the parties to submit their respective memoranda. The parties Surigao Electric vs. ERC12
complied with the COMELECs order. The case was thereafter submitted
for resolution. FACTS:
On March 19, 2007, the ERC issued its assailed Order, mandating that
the discounts earned by SURNECO from its power supplier should be
deducted from the computation of the power cost upon ascertaining that
10
C. Due Process in General
11 12
C. Due Process in General C. Due Process in General
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 4
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
the Purchased Power Adjustment (PPA) of SURNECO resulted to an whereas individual petitioners invariably invoke the "transcendental
over-recovery amounting to PhP18,188,794. importance" doctrine and their status as citizens and taxpayers.
While jurisprudence holds that transcendental public importance
dispenses with the requirement that petitioner has experienced or is in
ISSUE: actual danger of suffering direct and personal injury, this does not apply in
WON SURNECO was deprived of the opportunity to be heard in ordering cases involving the constitutionality of penal legislation.
it to refund alleged over-recoveries arrived at by the ERC.
2. Petitioners fail to present an actual case or controversy
RULING: By constitutional fiat, judicial power operates only when there is an actual
In directing SURNECO to refund its over-recoveries based on PPA case or controversy.
policies, which only ensured that the PPA mechanism remains a purely
cost-recovery mechanism and not a revenue-generating scheme for the Herein petitioners have failed to show that the challenged provisions of
electric cooperatives, the ERC merely exercised its authority to regulate RA 9372 forbid constitutionally protected conduct or activity that they
and approve the rates imposed by the electric cooperatives on their seek to do. No demonstrable threat has been established, much less a
consumers. The ERC simply performed its mandate to protect the public real and existing one.
interest imbued in those rates.
[T]he rule established in our jurisdiction is; only statutes on free speech,
It is beyond cavil that the State, in the exercise of police power, can religious freedom, and other fundamental rights may be facially
regulate the rates imposed by a public utility such as SURNECO. challenged. Under no case may ordinary penal statutes be subjected to a
The regulation of rates to be charged by public utilities is founded upon facial challenge.
the police powers of the State and statutes prescribing rules for the
control and regulation of public utilities are a valid exercise thereof. When A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and to one
private property is used for a public purpose and is affected with public which is overbroad because of possible"chilling effect" upon protected
interest, it ceases to be juris privati only and becomes subject to speech. The theory is that "[w]hen statutes regulate or proscribe speech
regulation. The regulation is to promote the common good. Submission to and no readily apparent construction suggests itself as a vehicle for
regulation may be withdrawn by the owner by discontinuing use; but as rehabilitating the statutes in a single prosecution, the transcendent value
long as use of the property is continued, the same is subject to public to all society of constitutionally protected expression is deemed to justify
regulation. allowing attacks on overly broad statutes with no requirement that the
person making the attack demonstrate that his own conduct could not be
We likewise differ from SURNECOs stance that it was denied due regulated by a statute drawn with narrow specificity."
process when the ERC issued its questioned Orders. Administrative due
process simply requires an opportunity to explain ones side or to seek This rationale does not apply to penal statutes. Criminal statutes have
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. It means being general in terrorem effect resulting from their very existence, and, if facial
given the opportunity to be heard before judgment, and for this purpose, challenge is allowed for this reason alone, the State may well be
a formal trial-type hearing is not even essential. It is enough that the prevented from enacting laws against socially harmful conduct. In the
parties are given a fair and reasonable chance to demonstrate their area of criminal law, the law cannot take chances as in the area of free
respective positions and to present evidence in support thereof. speech.
Verily, the PPA confirmation necessitated a review of the electric Vagueness vs. Overbreadth:
cooperatives monthly documentary submissions to substantiate their
PPA charges. The cooperatives were duly informed of the need for other A statute or act suffers from the defect of vagueness when it lacks
required supporting documents and were allowed to submit them comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must
accordingly. In fact, hearings were conducted. Moreover, the ERC necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. It is
conducted exit conferences with the electric cooperatives repugnant to the Constitution in two respects: (1) it violates due
representatives, SURNECO included, to discuss preliminary figures and process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted
to double-check these figures for inaccuracies, if there were any. In by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid; and (2) it leaves law
addition, after the issuance of the ERC Orders, the electric cooperatives enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and
were allowed to file their respective motions for reconsideration. It cannot becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle.
claimed, therefore, that SURNECO was denied due process. The overbreadth doctrine, meanwhile, decrees that a governmental
purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to
state regulations may not be achieved by means which sweep
Southern Hemisphere vs. Anti-Terrorism13 unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected
freedoms. As distinguished from the vagueness doctrine, the
FACTS: overbreadth doctrine assumes that individuals will understand what
Before the Court are six petitions challenging the constitutionality of a statute prohibits and will accordingly refrain from that behavior,
Republic Act No. 9372 (RA 9372), "An Act to Secure the State and even though some of it is protected.
Protect our People from Terrorism," otherwise known as the Human
Security Act of 2007. Facial Challenge vs. As-applied Challenge:
13
C. Due Process in General
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 5
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
Lejano vs. People14 standing admit of several exceptions such as the overbreadth doctrine,
taxpayer suits, third party standing and, especially in the Philippines, the
FACTS: doctrine of transcendental importance.
On December 14, 2010 the Court reversed the judgment of the Court of
Appeals (CA) and acquitted the accused of the charges against them on For this particular set of facts, the concept of third party standing as
the ground of lack of proof of their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. an exception and the overbreadth doctrine are appropriate.
In Powers v. Ohio, the United States Supreme Court wrote that: "We have
Complainant Lauro G. Vizconde, an immediate relative of the victims, recognized the right of litigants to bring actions on behalf of third parties,
asked the Court to reconsider its decision, claiming that it "denied the provided three important criteria are satisfied: the litigant must have
prosecution due process of law; as it seriously misappreciated the facts; suffered an injury-in-fact, thus giving him or her a "sufficiently concrete
and decided the case in a manner that resulted in the miscarriage of interest" in the outcome of the issue in dispute; the litigant must have a
justice; or committed grave abuse in its treatment of the evidence and close relation to the third party; and there must exist some hindrance to
prosecution witnesses." the third party's ability to protect his or her own interests."Herein, it is
clear that the business interests of the petitioners are likewise injured by
But, as a rule, a judgment of acquittal cannot be reconsidered because it the Ordinance. They rely on the patronage of their customers for their
places the accused under double jeopardy. The Constitution provides in continued viability which appears to be threatened by the enforcement of
Section 21, Article III, that: the Ordinance.
Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for
the same offense. x x x Assuming arguendo that petitioners do not have a relationship with their
patrons for the former to assert the rights of the latter, the overbreadth
To reconsider a judgment of acquittal places the accused twice in doctrine comes into play. In overbreadth analysis, challengers to
jeopardy of being punished for the crime of which he has already been government action are in effect permitted to raise the rights of third
absolved. There is reason for this provision of the Constitution. In criminal parties. Generally applied to statutes infringing on the freedom of speech,
cases, the full power of the State is ranged against the accused. If there the overbreadth doctrine applies when a statute needlessly restrains
is no limit to attempts to prosecute the accused for the same offense after even constitutionally guaranteed rights. In this case, the petitioners claim
he has been acquitted, the infinite power and capacity of the State for a that the Ordinance makes a sweeping intrusion into the right to liberty of
sustained and repeated litigation would eventually overwhelm the their clients. We can see that based on the allegations in the petition, the
accused in terms of resources, stamina, and the will to fight. Ordinance suffers from overbreadth. It is thus recognized that the
petitioners have a right to assert the constitutional rights of their clients to
A motion for reconsideration after an acquittal is possible but only for patronize their establishments for a "wash-rate" time frame.
exceptional and narrow grounds such as when the court that absolved
the accused gravely abused its discretion, resulting in loss of jurisdiction, 3. Yes. The said ordinance is unconstitutional.
or when a mistrial has occurred.
3a. The test of a valid ordinance is well established. For an ordinance to
ISSUE: be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the local
WON the complainant was able to specify the violations of due process government unit to enact and pass according to the procedure prescribed
or acts constituting grave abuse of discretion that the Court supposedly by law, it must also conform to the following substantive requirements: (1)
committed. must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; (2) must not be
unfair or oppressive; (3) must not be partial or discriminatory; (4) must
RULING: not prohibit but may regulate trade; (5) must be general and consistent
No. Ultimately, what the complainant actually questions is the Courts with public policy; and (6) must not be unreasonable.
appreciation of the evidence and assessment of the prosecution
witnesses credibility. He ascribes grave error on the Courts finding that The Ordinance prohibits two specific and distinct business practices,
Alfaro was not a credible witness and assails the value assigned by the namely wash rate admissions and renting out a room more than twice a
Court to the evidence of the defense. In other words, private complainant day.
wants the Court to review the evidence anew and render another
judgment based on such a re-evaluation. This is not constitutionally 3b. The primary constitutional question that confronts us is one of due
allowed as it is merely a repeated attempt to secure Webb, et als process. The due process guaranty has traditionally been interpreted as
conviction. The judgment acquitting Webb, et al is final and can no longer imposing two related but distinct restrictions on government, "procedural
be disturbed. due process" and "substantive due process." Procedural due process
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES for lack of merit complainant Lauro G. refers to the procedures that the government must follow before it
Vizcondes motion for reconsideration dated December 28, 2010. deprives a person of life, liberty, or property However, if due process were
confined solely to its procedural aspects, there would arise absurd
situation of arbitrary government action, provided the proper formalities
White Light Corporation vs. City of Manila15 are followed. Substantive due process then completes the protection
envisioned by the due process clause. It inquires whether the
FACTS: government has sufficient justification for depriving a person of life,
On December 3, 1992, City Mayor Alfredo S. Lim signed into law the liberty, or property.
Ordinance prohibiting short time admission in hotels, motels, lodging
houses, pension houses and similar establishments in the City of Manila. 3c. The general test of the validity of an ordinance on substantive due
process grounds is best tested when assessed with the evolved footnote
Petitioners herein are operators of drive-in-hotels and motels in Manila 4 test laid down by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Carolene Products,
which are directly affected by the said ordinance. to wit;
Petitioners argued that the Ordinance is unconstitutional and void since it First, the rational basis examination - laws or ordinances are upheld if
violates the right to privacy and the freedom of movement; it is an invalid they rationally further a legitimate governmental interest.
exercise of police power; and it is an unreasonable and oppressive
interference in their business. Second, the intermediate review - governmental interest is extensively
examined and the availability of less restrictive measures is considered.
ISSUE/S:
1. WON the petitioners has legal standing Third, applying strict scrutiny- the focus is on the presence of compelling,
2. WON the petitioners have the requisite standing to plead for protection rather than substantial, governmental interest and on the absence of less
of their patrons' equal protection rights. restrictive means for achieving that interest.
3. WON the ordinance is unconstitutional
If we were to take the myopic view that an Ordinance should be analyzed
RULING: strictly as to its effect only on the petitioners at bar, then it would seem
1. Yes. Petitioners in this case are owners of establishments offering that the only restraint imposed by the law which we are capacitated to act
"wash-up" rates and their business is being unlawfully interfered with by upon is the injury to property sustained by the petitioners, an injury that
the Ordinance. Standing or locus standi is the ability of a party to would warrant the application of the most deferential standard the
demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law rational basis test. Yet as earlier stated, we recognize the capacity of the
or action challenged to support party's participation in the case. petitioners to invoke as well the constitutional rights of their patrons
those persons who would be deprived of availing short time access or
2. Yes. The requirement of standing is a core component of the judicial wash-up rates to the lodging establishments in question.
system derived directly from the Constitution. In this jurisdiction, the
extancy of "a direct and personal interest" presents the most obvious Viewed cynically, one might say that the infringed rights of these
cause for a petitioner's standing. Nonetheless, the general rules on customers were are trivial since they seem shorn of political
consequence. Still, the Bill of Rights does not shelter gravitas alone.
14 Indeed, it is those "trivial" yet fundamental freedoms which the people
C. Due Process in General reflexively exercise any day without the impairing awareness of their
15
D. Due Process and Police Power
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 6
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
constitutional consequence that accurately reflect the degree of liberty properties for use as parking spaces, but is also mandating that they give
enjoyed by the people. the public access to said parking spaces for free. Such is already an
excessive intrusion into the property rights of respondents. Not only are
3d. It cannot be denied that the primary animus behind the ordinance is they being deprived of the right to use a portion of their properties as they
the curtailment of sexual behavior. Whether or not this depiction of a wish, they are further prohibited from profiting from its use or even just
mise-en-scene of vice is accurate, it cannot be denied that legitimate recovering therefrom the expenses for the maintenance and operation of
sexual behavior among willing married or consenting single adults which the required parking facilities.
is constitutionally protected will be curtailed as well. We cannot discount
other legitimate activities which the Ordinance would proscribe or impair.
There are very legitimate uses for a wash rate or renting the room out for BSP vs ANTONIO-VALENZUELA17
more than twice a day. E.g. Entire families are known to choose pass the
time in a motel or hotel whilst the power is momentarily out in their ISSUE/S:
homes. (1) Are banks entitled copies of ROE (report on examination) or audit
findings?
3e. That the Ordinance prevents the lawful uses of a wash rate depriving (2) Is failure to furnished copy/copies of ROE to a bank is a violation of
patrons of a product and the petitioners of lucrative business ties in with due process?
another constitutional requisite for the legitimacy of the Ordinance
as a police power measure. It must appear that the interests of the HELD:
public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require
an interference with private rights and the means must be reasonably 1. No. There is no provision in the law, nor sections in the procedures
necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly of the BSP that shows that the BSP is required to give the
oppressive of private rights. It must also be evident that no other (audited)banks the copies of ROEs.
alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of
private rights can work. More importantly, a reasonable relation 2. No. Under the law, the sanction of closure could be imposed upon a
must exist between the purposes of the measure and the means bank by the BSP even without notice and hearing. This close now,
employed for its accomplishment, for even under the guise of and hear later scheme is grounded on the practical and legal
protecting the public interest, personal rights and those pertaining considerations to prevent unwarranted dissipation of the banks
to private property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded. assets and as a valid exercise of POLICE POWER to protect the
depositors, creditors, stockholders, and the general public.
Lacking a concurrence of these requisites, the police measure shall be
struck down as an arbitrary intrusion into private rights.
ROXAS & CO vs DAMBA-NFSW18
Based on the foregoing facts, Ordinance No. 7774 is hereby
declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. FACTS:
Petitioner voluntarily offered to sell its Hacienda Palico to DAR pursuant
to CARL. Subsequently, it withdraw its offer believing said hacienda was
Office of the Solicitor vs. City of Manila16 already converted as non-agricultural land, not covered by CARL, under
PP1520 declaring the municipalities of maragondon and ternate in cavite
FACTS: province and the municipality of nasugbu as a TOURIST ZONE and for
Respondents Ayala Land, Robinsons, and Shangri-la maintain and OTHER PURPOSES.
operate shopping malls in various locations in Metro Manila. The
shopping malls operated or leased out by respondents have parking HELD:
facilities for all kinds of motor vehicles, they collect parking fees from the Hacienda Palico was not automatically converted as non-agricultural
persons making use of their parking facilities, regardless of whether said land. Under the whereas clause of PP 1520, it merely recognizes the
persons are mall patrons or not. potential tourism value of certain areas within the general area declared
as tourist zone clearly does not allocated reserve, or intend the entirety of
In 1999, the Senate Committees on Trade and Commerce and on Justice the land area of the zone for non-agricultural purposes.
and Human Rights conducted a joint investigation on which the following
purpose is included: (1) to inquire into the legality of the prevalent CARL is both an exercise of police power and eminent domain. It
practice of shopping malls of charging parking fees. The Committees prescribes retention limits for landowners and it provides for the
found that the collection of parking fees by shopping malls is contrary to compulsory acquisition of private agricultural lands. Objective: the
the National Building Code and is therefor [sic] illegal. expropriation b4 us affects all private agricultural lands whenever found
and for whatever kind as long as they are in excess of the maximum
Respondent SM Prime thereafter received information enjoining retention limits allowed their owners. This kind of expropriation is
respondent SM Prime and similar establishments from collecting parking intended for the benefit not only of a particular community or of a small
fees, and to impose upon said establishments penal sanctions under segment of the population but of the entire Filipino nation, from all levels
Presidential Decree No. 1096. of our society, from the impoverished farmer to the land-glutted owner.
ISSUE:
Whether or not compelling the respondent to provide parking spaces in CHEVRON vs BCDA19
their malls for the use of their patrons or the public in general, free of
charge constitutes: ISSUE/S:
1. Is the royalty charged by the BOD of the CDC(Clark Development
1. A lawful exercise of police power or Dorporation) a tax imposition or a regulation police power?
2. It is an unlawful taking of property without just Compensation? 2. Is royalty fee per liter unreasonable and grossly in excess of
regulation costs?
RULING:
1. The Court finds that in totally prohibiting respondents from collecting HELD:
parking fees from the public for the use of the mall parking facilities, the
State would be acting beyond the bounds of police power. 1. Regulation-police power. The purpose is the determining factor. If it
is primarily to raise revenue, then it will be deemed a tax even
Police power is the power of promoting the public welfare by restraining though the measure results in some form of regulation. If it is
and regulating the use of liberty and property. It is usually exerted in primarily to regulate, then it is deemed a regulation-police power,
order to merely regulate the use and enjoyment of the property of the even though incidentally, revenue is generated. In the case, from the
owner. The power to regulate, however, does not include the power to declaration of policy, it can be gleaned that the policy is issued, first
prohibit. A fortiori, the power to regulate does not include the power to and foremost, to ensure the safety, security and good condition of
confiscate. Police power does not involve the taking or confiscation of the petroleum fuel industry within the CSEZ.
property, with the exception of a few cases where there is a necessity to
confiscate private property in order to destroy it for the purpose of
protecting peace and order and of promoting the general welfare; for
17
instance, the confiscation of an illegally possessed article, such as opium I. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AS LIMITATIONS ON
and firearms. POLICE POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN AND TAXATION, D. Due
Process and Police Power
2. Yes. Although in the present case, title to and/or possession of the 18
parking facilities remain/s with respondents, the prohibition against their I. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AS LIMITATIONS ON
collection of parking fees from the public, for the use of said facilities, is POLICE POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN AND TAXATION, D. Due
already tantamount to a taking or confiscation of their properties. The Process and Police Power
State is not only requiring that respondents devote a portion of the latters 19
I. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AS LIMITATIONS ON
16
POLICE POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN AND TAXATION, D. Due
D. Due Process and Police Power Process and Police Power
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 7
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
2. No. Fuel is highly combustible which, if left unchecked, poses a only requiring that respondents devote a portion of the latters properties
serious threat to the life and property. The reasonable relation for use as parking spaces, but is also mandating that they give the public
between the fee imposed on a per liter basis and the regulation access to said parking spaces for free. Such is already an excessive
sought to be obtained is that the higher the volume of fuel entering intrusion into the property rights of respondents. Not only are they being
the said economic zone, the greater the extent and the frequency of deprived of the right to use a portion of their properties as they wish, they
supervision and inspection required to ensure safety, security, and are further prohibited from its use or even just recovering therefrom the
order within the zone. expenses for the maintenance and operation of the required parking
facilities.
ESPINA vs ZAMORA20 In conclusion, the total prohibition against the collection by respondents
of parking fees from persons who use the mall parking facilities has no
ISSUE: basis in the National Building Code or its IRR. The State also cannot
Is RA 8762(Retail Trade Liberalization Act of 2002) which allow foreign impose the same prohibition by generally invoking police power, since
nationals from engaging in the retail trade business under 4 categories, said prohibition amounts to a taking of respondents property without
unconstitutional(not a valid exercise of police power), because it runs payment of just compensation.
afoul of several provisions in the constitution(denial of Filipinos right to
property and due process)?
ORTEGA VS CITY OF CEBU22
HELD:
No. The control and regulation of the trade in the interest of the public FACTS:
welfare is of course an exercise of the police power of the state. RA 8762, The spouses Ortega are the registered owners of a parcel of land. On
merely lessens the restriction or restraint on the foreigners right to May 23, 1994, the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Cebu City enacted City
property or to engage in an ordinary lawful business. Ordinance No. 1519, giving authority to the City Mayor to expropriate
portion of such land, and appropriating for that purpose the amount of
Filipinos continue to have the right to engage in the kinds of retail P3,284,400.00. The amount will be charged against Account No. 8-93-
business to which the law in question has permitted the entry of foreign 310, Continuing Appropriation, Account No. 101-8918-334.
investors.
Pursuant to said ordinance, Cebu City filed a Complaint for Eminent
In summary Domain before the RTC against the Spouses Ortega. RTC then declared
that [Cebu City] "has the lawful right to take the property subject of the
First, aliens can only engage in retail trade business subject to the 4 instant case, for public use or purpose described in the complaint upon
categories; payment of just compensation."
Second, only nationals from, or judicial entities formed or incorporated in Based on the recommendation of the appointed Commissioners, RTC
countries which allow the entry of Filipino retailers shall be allowed to issued another order, ordering Cebu City to pay the spouses the sum of
engage in ratial trade business; and P31,416,000.00 as just compensation for the expropriated land.
Third, qualified foreign retailers shall not be allowed to engage in certain RTCs decision became final and executory after Cebu City failed to
retailing activities outside their accredited stores thorugh the use of perfect an appeal on time. RTC then issued another order stating that
mobile or rolling stores or carts, the use of sales representatives, door-to- Ordinance No. 1519 appropriating the sum of P3,284,400.00 for payment
door selling, restaurants and sari2 stores and such other similar retailing of the subject lot is chargeable to Account No. 101-8918-334 and is now
activities. subject for execution or garnishment for it is no longer exempted from
execution.
SOLGEN VS AYALA21 Cebu City filed an Omnibus Motion to Stay Execution, Modification of
Judgment and Withdrawal of the Case, contending that the price set by
FACTS: the RTC as just compensation to be paid to the Spouses is way beyond
The respondents, Ayala Land, Robinsons, and Shangri-la maintain and the reach of its intended beneficiaries for its socialized housing program.
operate shopping malls while SM Prime constructs and leases building The motion was denied by the RTC. Cebu Citys Motion for
structures. Reconsideration was likewise denied.
The shopping malls that respondents operate have parking facilities in By virtue of the said order, a Notice of Garnishment was served to
which they collect parking fees from the persons making use of their Philippine Postal Bank.
facilities.
Cebu City then filed before the RTC a Motion to Dissolve, Quash or
In May 2000, a joint investigation conducted by the Senate Committees Recall the Writ of Garnishment, contending that the account mentioned in
on Trade and Commerce and on Justice and Human Rights issued Ordinance No. 1519 is not an existing bank account and the garnishment
Senate Committee Report No. 225 in which they find that the collection of of Cebu Citys bank account with Philippine Postal Bank is illegal,
parking fees by herein respondents are contrary to the National Building because government funds and properties may not be seized under writ
Code. The Code merely requires malls to provide parking spaces, without of execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgement, on obvious
specifying whether it is free or not. reason of public policy. RTC denied the said motion and likewise denied
its Motion for Reconsideration.
On 4 October 2000, the OSG, herein petitioner, filed a petition to the RTC
of Makati praying that the practice of respondents in charging parking On appeal, CA affirmed RTCs denial of Cebu Citys Omnibus Motion to
fees is violative of the National Building Code and its Implementing Rules Modify Judgement and to be allowed to withdraw from the Expropriation
and Regulations. Proceedings.
The RTC ruled in favour of the respondents. Upon appeal, CA denied the ISSUES:
petition and likewise denied the motion for reconsideration. 1. Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTCs denial of Cebu Citys
Omnibus Motion to Modify Judgment and to be Allowed to Withdraw from
ISSUE: the Expropriation Proceedings.
Whether or not the act of OSG is a valid exercise of the power of eminent 2. Whether the deposit of Cebu City with the Philippine Postal Bank,
domain. appropriated for a different purpose by its Sangguniang Panglungsod,
can be subject to garnishment as payment for the expropriated lot
HELD: covered by City Ordinance No. 1519.
No. Eminent domain enables the State to forcibly acquire private lands
intended for public use upon payment of just compensation to the owner. HELD:
1. No. Section 4, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court on Expropriation speaks
Although in the present case, title to and/or possession of the parking of 2 stages:
facilities remain/s with respondents, the prohibition against their collection a. Determination of the authority of the plaintiff to exercise the
of parking fees from the public, for the use of said facilities, is already power of eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise in the context
tantamount to a taking or confiscation of their properties. The State is not of the facts involved in the suit.
b. Determination by the court of the just compensation for the
20 property sought to be taken.
I. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AS LIMITATIONS ON
POLICE POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN AND TAXATION, D. Due
Process and Police Power
21 22
I. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AS LIMITATIONS ON I. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AS LIMITATIONS ON
POLICE POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN AND TAXATION, E. Due POLICE POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN AND TAXATION, E. Due
Process and Eminent Domain Process and Eminent Domain
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 8
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
An order of expropriation denotes the end of the first stage of contended that LBPs valuation was not full and fair equivalent of the
expropriation. Its end then paves the way for the second stagethe property at the time of its taking.
determination of just compensation, and, ultimately, payment. An order of
expropriation puts an end to any ambiguity regarding the right of the LBP countered that the property was acquired by the DAR for CARP
petitioner to condemn the respondents properties. Because an order of coverage in 1993 by compulsory acquisition and not by respondents
expropriation merely determines the authority to exercise the power of voluntary offer to sell; and that it determined the valuation thereof in
eminent domain and the propriety of such exercise, its issuance does not accordance with RA 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of
hinge on the payment of just compensation. After all, there would be no 1998 and pertinent DAR regulations.
point in determining just compensation if, in the first place, the plaintiffs
right to expropriate the property was not first clearly established. The trial court appointed the parties respective nominated
commissioners to appraise the property.
Conversely, as is evident from the foregoing, an order by the trial court
fixing just compensation does not affect a prior order of expropriation. As Commissioner Jesus S. Empleo, LBPs nominee, appraised the property
applied to the case at bar, Cebu City can no longer ask for modification of based on, among other things, the applicable DAR issuances, average
the judgment, much less, withdraw its complaint, after it failed to appeal gross production, and prevailing selling prices of the crops planted
even the first stage of the expropriation proceedings. thereon which included coconut, abaca, coffee, and rice. He arrived at a
valuation of P13,449,579.08.
It is well-settled in jurisprudence that the determination of just
compensation is a judicial prerogative.7 In Export Processing Zone Commissioner Amando Chua of Cuervo Appraisers, Inc., respondents
Authority v. Dulay, we declared: nominee, used the market data approach which relies primarily on sales
and listings of comparable lots in the neighborhood. Excluding the
The determination of "just compensation" in eminent domain cases is a secondary crops planted thereon, he valued the property at P29,925,725.
judicial function. The executive department or the legislature may make
the initial determinations but when a party claims a violation of the The trial court then found the market data approach to be more realistic
guarantee in the Bill of Rights that private property may not be taken for and consistent with law and jurisprudence on the full and fair equivalent
public use without just compensation, no statute, decree, or executive of the property. RTC then denied LBPs Motion for Reconsideration.
order can mandate that its own determination shall prevail over the
courts findings. Much less can the courts be precluded from looking into Upon appeal, CA sustained RTCs decision.
the "just-ness" of the decreed compensation.
LBP contends that its determination should be given weight since its
Likewise, in the recent cases of National Power Corporation v. dela valuation of the property was based on the factors mentioned in RA 6657
Cruz and Forfom Development Corporation v. Philippine National and the formula prescribed by DAR; and the taking of private property for
Railways, we emphasized the primacy of judicial prerogative in the agrarian reform is not a traditional exercise of the power of eminent
ascertainment of just compensation as aided by the appointed domain as it also involves the exercise of police power, hence, part of the
commissioners, to wit: loss is not compensable.
LBP VS JOCSON24
LBP VS RUFINO23
FACTS:
FACTS: Respondents are the registered owners of two parcels of tenanted rice
Respondents are the registered owners in equal share of a parcel of land. land located at Negros Occidental. The property was placed under the
coverage of the governments Operation Land Transfer (OLT) pursuant to
By respondents claim, in 1989, they voluntarily offered the aforesaid Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27 and awarded to the tenant-beneficiaries
property to the government for CARP coverage at P120,000 per hectare. by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), which valued the
Acting thereon, petitioner Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued a compensation therefor in the total amount of P250,563.80 following the
Notice of Land Valuation and Acquisition dated October 21, 1996 formula prescribed in PD No. 27 and EO No. 228.
declaring that out of the total area indicated in the title, 138.4018 hectares
was subject to immediate acquisition at a valuation of P8,736,270.40 The valuation was later increased to P903,637.03 after computing the 6%
based on the assessment of petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines annual interest increment due on the property per DAR Administrative
(LBP). Order No. 13, series of 1994.
Respondents having found the valuation unacceptable, the matter was Finding the DARs offer of compensation for the property to be grossly
referred by the provincial agrarian reform officer of Sorsogon to the DAR inadequate, respondent filed a complaint before the RTC, sitting as a
Adjudication Board (DARAB) for the conduct of summary administrative Special Agrarian Court (SAC), praying that petitioner and DAR be
proceedings to determine just compensation. DARAB then sustained ordered to compute the just compensation for the property in accordance
LBPs valuation upon respondents failure to present any evidence to with the guidelines laid down in Section 17 of RA No. 6657 or the
warrant increase. Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1998.
On February 23, 1998, respondents lodged with Sorsogon RTC a In their respective Answers, petitioner and the DAR claimed that the
complaint for determination of just compensation. Respondents property was acquired by the government under its OLT program and
23 24
I. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AS LIMITATIONS ON I. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AS LIMITATIONS ON
POLICE POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN AND TAXATION, E. Due POLICE POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN AND TAXATION, E. Due
Process and Eminent Domain Process and Eminent Domain
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 9
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
their valuation thereof constituted just compensation, having been made Constitution provides that private property shall not be taken for public
pursuant to the guidelines set by E.O. No. 228 and P.D. No. 27. use without just compensation.
The RTC, after noting the report of the Commissioners appointed, fixed In Forform Development Corporation vs Philippine National Railways, the
the just compensation at P2,564,403.58. court declared that recovery of possession of the property by the
landowner can no longer be allowed on the grounds of estoppel and,
Petitioner filed a MR of the SAC decision which was denied. more importantly, of public policy which imposes upon the public utility the
obligation to continue its services to the public. The non-filing of the case
Upon appeal, the appellate court dismissed the petition for lack of for expropriation will not necessarily lead to the return of the property to
jurisdiction. the landowner. What is left to the landowner is the right of compensation.
It is settled that non-payment of just compensation does not entitle the
ISSUE: private landowners to recover possession of their expropriated lot. Herein
Whether or not PD No. 27 and EO No. 228, as claimed by petitioner, or respondents also failed to question the taking of their property for a long
RA No. 6657, as claimed by respondent, should govern in determining period of time (from 1980 until the early 1990s).
the value of the property.
The prevailing doctrine on judicial determination of just compensation is
HELD: that set forth in Forfom. Therein, the Court ruled that even if there are no
RA No 6657 should govern in determining the value of the property. Citing expropriation proceedings instituted to determine just compensation, the
the case of Land Bank of the Philippines vs Chico, the Court declared in trial court is still mandated to act in accordance with the procedure
no uncertain terms that RA No. 6657 is the relevant law in determining provided for in Section 5, Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
just compensation after noting several decided cases where the Court requiring the appointment of not more than three competent and
found it more equitable to determine just compensation based on the disinterested commissioners to ascertain and report to the court the just
value of the property at the time of payment. compensation for the subject property. The Court reiterated its ruling
in National Power Corporation v. Dela Cruz that trial with the aid of
P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228 vis a vis R.A. No. 6657 was applied to cases commissioners is a substantial right that may not be done away with
involving lands placed under the coverage of P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228 capriciously or for no reason at all. It was also emphasized therein that
where payment of just compensation had not been completed. When in although ascertainment of just compensation is a judicial prerogative, the
the interim R.A. No. 6657 was passed before the full payment of just commissioners findings may only be disregarded or substituted with the
compensation, as in the case at bar, the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 on trial courts own estimation of the propertys value only if the
just compensation control. commissioners have applied illegal principles to the evidence submitted
to them, where they have disregarded a clear preponderance of
The determination of just compensation in eminent domain cases is evidence, or where the amount allowed is either grossly inadequate or
a judicial function, and the Court does not find the SAC to have acted excessive.
capriciously or arbitrarily in setting the price at P93,657.00 per hectare as
the said amount does not appear to be grossly exorbitant or otherwise With regard to the time as to when just compensation should be fixed, it
unjustified. For the Court notes that the SAC properly took into account is settled jurisprudence that where property was taken without the benefit
various factors such as the nature of the land, when it is irrigated, the of expropriation proceedings, and its owner files an action for recovery of
average harvests per hectare (expressed as AGP based on three normal possession thereof before the commencement of expropriation
crop years) at 117.73 cavans per hectare, and the higher valuation proceedings, it is the value of the property at the time of taking that is
applied by the DAR. controlling.
In this case, the trial court should have fixed just compensation for the
EUSEBIO VS LUIS25 property at its value as of the time of taking in 1980, but there is nothing
on record showing the value of the property at that time. The trial court,
FACTS: therefore, clearly erred when it based its valuation for the subject land on
Respondents are the registered owners of a parcel of land which was the price paid for properties in the same location, taken by the city
taken by the City of Pasig sometime in 1980 and was used as a government only sometime in the year 1994.
municipal road.
On February 1, 1983, the Sanggunian of Pasig City passed City of Iloilo vs. Contreras and Javellana (G.R. No. 168967)26
Resolution No. 15 authorizing payments to respondents for said parcel of
land. However, the Appraisal Committee assessed the value of the land Facts:
only at P150/sqm. In a letter dated June 26, 1995, respondents Petitioner filed a Complaint for eminent domain against private
requested the Appraisal Commiitte to consider P2,000/sqm as the value respondent Elpidio T. Javellana and Southern Negros Development Bank,
of their land. the latter as mortgagee which sought to expropriate two parcels of land
registered in Javellanas name to be used as a school site for Lapaz High
Respondents counsel sent a letter to Mayor Eusebio, demanding the School. Petitioner alleged that the Subject Property was declared for tax
amount of P5,000.00/sqm as just compensation for respondents property. purposes to have a value of P60.00 per square meter, or a total value
In his reply, Mayor Eusebio said that the City of Pasig cannot pay them of P43,560.00. Javellana also claimed that the true fair market value of
more than the amount set by the Appraisal Committee. his property was no less than P220.00 per square meter. Petitioner was
able to take physical possession of the properties sometime in the middle
Thus, on October 8, 1996, respondents filed a complaint before the RTC of 1985. Private respondent thus demanded his just compensation as
praying that the property be returned to them with payment of reasonable well as interest. Private respondent alleged that since he had not been
rental for 16 years of use, or in the event said property can no longer be compensated for the Subject Property, petitioners possession was illegal,
returned, that petitioners be ordered to pay just compensation. and he was entitled to recovery of possession of his lots. Private
respondent could only demand for the payment of just compensation.
RTC ruled in favor of the respondents. Upon appeal, CA affirmed the
decision of the RTC and denied the petitioners motion for
reconsideration. Issue:
Whether or not just compensation should be based on the fair market
ISSUE: value of a property at the time of the filing of complaint.
Whether or not property taken without the benefit of expropriation
proceeding required by law in the taking of private property for public use Held:
can be regained. When the taking of the property sought to be expropriated coincides with
the commencement of the expropriation proceedings, or takes place
subsequent to the filing of the complaint for eminent domain, the just
compensation should be determined as of the date of the filing of the
HELD: complaint. Just compensation is to be determined as of the date of filing
Citing the case of Republic of the Philippines vs Court of Appeals, the of the complaint. The reckoning date should be in 2004 because of the
Court emphasized that where private property is taken by the clear injustice to the private respondent who all these years has been
Government for public use without first acquiring title thereto either deprived of the beneficial use of his properties. City of Iloilo is held liable for
through expropriation or negotiated sale, the owners action to recover the damages for taking private respondents property without payment of just
land or the value thereof does not prescribe. The Court went on to remind compensation.
government agencies not to exercise the power of eminent domain with
wanton disregard for property rights as Section 9, Article III of the
25 26
I. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AS LIMITATIONS ON I. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AS LIMITATIONS ON
POLICE POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN AND TAXATION, E. Due POLICE POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN AND TAXATION, E. Due
Process and Eminent Domain Process and Eminent Domain
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 10
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
RP vs. MANGOTARA27 but never got around to do so and the Republic itself altogether forgot
about it. Consequently, the Republic should be deemed entitled to
FACTS: possession pending the Mendozas formal transfer of ownership to it
Dona Demetria owns two parcels of land and has titles to prove upon payment of just compensation. Where the owner agrees voluntarily
ownership. 83 years later authenticity of said ownership was still in doubt to the taking of his property by the government for public use, he thereby
and the government filed a case of expropriation against occupants of the waives his right to the institution of a formal expropriation proceeding
land (not really the owners, just renters). The occupants questioned the covering such property. As to the time when just compensation should be
expropriation case contending that expropriation cases can only be filed fixed, it is settled that where property was taken without the benefit of
against owners, not mere occupants, of the land. The government also expropriation proceedings and its owner filed an action for recovery of
filed a case of Reversion against Dona Demetrias heirs contending two possession before the commencement of expropriation proceedings, it is
parcels of land were fraudulently acquired. The owners of the land the value of the property at the time of taking that is controlling.
questioned the case for Reversion contending that, since they filed a
case for Reconstitution of Titles in 1914 and they still have said titles at
present, the government has no right to the land. LBP vs. Livioco (G.R. No. 170685)29
ISSUE/S: Facts:
1. WON owners of parcels of land are indispensable parties to an Livioco offered his sugarland to the Department of Agrarian Reform
expropriation proceeding? NO (DAR) for acquisition under the CARP at P30.00 per square meter, for a
2. WON the government erred in filing both a case for expropriation total of P9, 189,870.00. The voluntary-offer-to-sell (VOS) form submitted
and a case for Reversion against the occupants and the owners of to the DAR indicated that the said property is adjacent to residential
the land? NO subdivisions and to an international paper mill. LBP set the price at P3.21
3. WON, in filing the case for Reversion, the government is barred by per square meter. Liviocos request for a reevaluation of the compensation on
res judicata and prescription? NO the ground that its value had already appreciated from the time it was first offered
for sale was denied by the reason that there was already a perfected sale.
HELD:
1. The defendants in an expropriation case are not limited to the Livioco finally filed a petition for judicial determination of just
owners of the property condemned. They include all other persons, compensation against respondents maintaining that the location of his
owning, occupying or claiming to own the property. When property is property has become predominantly residential hence he should be paid
taken by eminent domain, the owner is not an indispensable party to his propertys value as such.
the proceeding.
Issue:
2. The Republic is not engaging in contradictions when it instituted Whether or not the compensation for respondents property was
both expropriation/reversion proceedings for the same parcels of determined in accordance with law.
land. Rule 67, Section 1 of the Rules of Court allows filing of
expropriation even when the title to any property sought to be Held:
condemned appears to be the Republic, although occupied by In expropriation cases (including cases involving lands for agrarian reform), the
private individuals. propertys character refers to its actual use at the time of taking, not its potential
uses. Respondent himself admitted that his property was agricultural at the time
3. (a prior case filed by an heir asking for a Reconstitution of titles was he offered it for sale to DAR in 1988. The coverage of RA 6657 only extends
to agricultural lands; respondents property should be conclusively treated
granted and said titles are still with said heir up to the time of the
as an agricultural land and valued as such. LBPs valuation is not in
filing of the case for Reversion. They have titles to prove
accordance with Section 17 of R.A. 6675. It is reminded to adhere strictly
ownership. However, the 1914 case for Reconstitution of Title never
to the doctrine that just compensation must be valued at the time of
delved into the issue of ownership, only reconstitution of title and it
taking. The time of taking is the time when the landowner was deprived
turns out said two lands were questionably acquired by Dona
of the use and benefit of his property, such as when title is transferred to
Demetria. Government, then, still has the right to impugn ownership
the Republic. Valuation of property must be based on the values
claimed by Demetria and her heirs)
prevalent in 1994 for agricultural lands.
Elementary is the rule that prescription does not run against the
State. The indefeasibility of a Title over land previously public is not
a bar to an investigation by the Director of Lands as to how such title
has been acquired, if the purpose of such investigation is to
APO Fruits Corp. vs. LBP (G.R. No. 164195)30
determine w/n fraud had been committed in securing such title in
order that the appropriate action for reversion may be filed by the
Facts:
government.
AFC and HPI received separate notices of land acquisition and valuation
of their properties from the DAR-PARO. HPI and AFC rejected the
valuations of DAR-PARO for being very low. DAR requested the Land
Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to deposit P26, 409,549.86 in AFCs bank
account and P45, 481,706.76 in HPIs bank account, which amounts the
petitioners then withdrew. AFC and HPI filed separate petitions for
determination of just compensation with the DARAB which the latter
Republic vs. Mendoza (G.R. No. 185091)28
failed to act upon thus forcing AFC and HPI to file separate complaints for
determination of just compensation. The RTC fixed the just compensation
Facts:
for the petitioners 1,338.6027 hectares of land at P1, 383,179,000.00,
PPS has been using 1,149 square meters of land in Lipa City, Batangas
with interest on this amount at the prevailing market interest rates,
since 1957 for its school. However some portions of the property were
computed from the taking of the properties on December 9, 1996 until
registered in the name of respondents Primo and Maria Mendoza. The
fully paid, minus the amounts the petitioners already received under the
Republic claimed that, while no title was issued in the name of the City
initial valuation.
Government of Lipa, the Mendozas had relinquished to it their right over
the school lot as evidenced by the consolidation and subdivision plan.
The Mendozas claim, on the other hand, that although PPS sought Issue:
permission from them to use the property as a school site, they never Whether or not just compensation was given to AFC and HPI.
relinquished their right to it.
Held:
Issue: The 5% initial payments made by the LBP when the petitioners
Whether or not the Mendozas were entitled to evict the Republic from the landholdings were taken, although promptly withdrawn by the petitioners,
subject property that it had used for a public school. could not by any means be considered a fair exchange of values at the
time of taking; in fact, the LBPs actual deposit could not be said to be
Held: substantial even from the original LBP valuation of P251,379,103.90.
The Mendozas remedy is an action for the payment of just Deposits were not enough to compensate the petitioners for the potential
compensation, not ejectment. It may be assumed that income the landholdings could have earned for them if no immediate
the Mendozas agreed to transfer ownership of the land to the government taking had taken place. Without prompt payment, compensation cannot
27 29
I. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AS LIMITATIONS ON I. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AS LIMITATIONS ON
POLICE POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN AND TAXATION, E. Due POLICE POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN AND TAXATION, E. Due
Process and Eminent Domain Process and Eminent Domain
28 30
I. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AS LIMITATIONS ON I. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AS LIMITATIONS ON
POLICE POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN AND TAXATION, E. Due POLICE POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN AND TAXATION, E. Due
Process and Eminent Domain Process and Eminent Domain
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 11
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
be considered "just" if the property is immediately taken as the property R.A. 8676 provides that all elective officials are not deemed resigned
owner suffers the immediate deprivation of both his land and its fruits or upon filing of their certificate of candidacy, however, appointive officials
income. Petitioners were made to wait for more than a decade after the are considered deemed resigned upon filing of the COCs.
taking of their property before they actually received the full amount of the
principal of the just compensation due them. When the LBP took the
Issue:
petitioners landholdings without the corresponding full payment, it
Whether or not Section 4 (a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678 is
became liable to the petitioners for the income the landholdings would
violative of the equal protection clause.
have earned had they not immediately been taken from the petitioners.
Held:
2009 Decision
Spouses Abad vs. Fil-Homes Realty (G.R. No. 189239)31
Facts: Yes. Persons holding appointive positions as ipso facto resigned upon
On June 30, 2004, the City of Paraaque filed expropriation proceedings filing of CoCs, but not considering resigned all other civil servants,
covering the lots owned by respondents before the Regional Trial Court specifically elective ones, the law duly discriminates against the first class
of Paraaque with the intention of establishing a socialized housing (appointive officials). Applying the four requisites of valid classification,
project therein for distribution to the occupants including petitioners. No the Court finds that treatment of persons holding appointive officers as
payment had been made to respondents for the lots therefore they still opposed to those holding elective ones is not germane to the purposes of
maintain ownership. law (Requisite No. 2). There is no valid justification to treat appointive
officials differently from the elective ones. The classification simply fails to
Issue: meet the test that it should be germane to the purposes of law.
Whether or not there was just compensation.
2010 Decision
Held: Section 4(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678 is not violative of the
In the exercise of the power of eminent domain, the State expropriates equal protection clause.
private property for public use upon payment of just compensation. A
socialized housing project falls within the ambit of public use as it is in There is substantial distinction. Elective officials are elected by his
furtherance of the constitutional provisions on social justice. the mere constituents, if they are deemed resigned, the constituents will be
issuance of a writ of possession in the expropriation proceedings did not affected. On the other hand, in the case of appointive officials, they do not
transfer ownership of the lots in favor of the City. Such issuance was only have ordinary succession, thus, there will be vacancy during resignation.
the first stage in expropriation. It is only upon the completion of these two
stages that expropriation is said to have been completed. The process is The dichotomized treatment of appointive and elective officials is
not complete until payment of just compensation. To effectuate the therefore germane to the purposes of the law. For the law was made not
transfer of ownership, it is necessary to pay the property owners the final merely to preserve the integrity, efficiency, and discipline of the public
just compensation. There is even no evidence that judicial deposit had service; the Legislature, whose wisdom is outside the rubric of judicial
been made in favor of respondents prior to the Citys possession of the scrutiny, also thought it wise to balance this with the competing, yet
lots. equally compelling, interest of deferring to the sovereign will.
Facts:
COMELEC (Second Division) dismissed the Petition on moral grounds.
LGBT tolerates immorality, sexual immorality and will be exposing our
Dumlao vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. L-52245)32 youth to an environment that does not conform to the teachings of our
faith.
Issue:
Whether or Not Sec. 4 of BP.52 is unconstitutional being contrary to the Issue:
equal protection and due process rights. Whether or not denying the application of Ang Ladlad is violative of the equal
protection clause.
Held:
No. The guarantee of equal protection is subject to rational classification Held:
based on reasonable and real differentiations. In the present case, Yes. COMELEC made an unwarranted and impermissible classification
employees 65 years of age have been classified differently from younger not justified by the circumstances of the case. According to COMELEC,
employees. The former are subject to compulsory retirement while the the majority of Filipinos considers homosexual conduct as immoral and
latter are not. unacceptable. Such reason is sufficient to disqualify the petitioner.
Homosexuals are a class in themselves for the purposes of equal
protection clause. Moral disapproval of an unpopular minority is not a
In respect of election to provincial, city, or municipal positions, to require
legitimate state interest that is sufficient to satisfy the rational basis
that candidates should not be more than 65 years of age at the time they
review under the equal protection clause. LGBT has the same interest in
assume office, if applicable to everyone, might or might not be a
participating in the party-list system. Laws of general application should
reasonable classification although, as the Solicitor General has intimated,
apply with equal force to LGBTs.
a good policy of the law should be to promote the emergence of younger
blood in our political elective echelons.
Trillanes vs. Pimentel (G.R. No. 179817)35
The equal protection clause does not forbid all legal classification. What
is proscribed is a classification which is arbitrary and unreasonable.
Facts:
There is reason to disqualify a 65 year old elective official who is trying to
Petitioner Trillanes IV is on trial for coup dtat in relation to the Oakwood
run for office because there is the need for new blood to assume
Incident. In the 2007 elections, he won a seat in the Senate with a six-
relevance. When an official has retired he has already declared himself
year term commencing at noon on June 30, 2007. Petitioner now asks
tired and unavailable for the same government work.
the Court that he be allowed to attend all official functions of the Senate,
alleging mainly that his case is distinct from that of Jalosjos as his case is
The first paragraph of section 4 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 52 is valid.
still pending resolution whereas that in the Jalosjos case, there was
already conviction. He asserts that he continues to enjoy civil and political
rights since the presumption of innocence is still in his favor. Petitioner
Quinto vs. COMELEC (G. R. No. 189698)33
also illustrates that Jalosjos was charged with crimes involving moral
turpitude, whereas he is indicted for coup d'etat which is regarded as a
Facts: "political offense."
Issue:
31
I. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AS LIMITATIONS ON
POLICE POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN AND TAXATION, E. Due
Process and Eminent Domain
32 34
I. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AS LIMITATIONS ON I. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AS LIMITATIONS ON
POLICE POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN AND TAXATION, F. Equal POLICE POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN AND TAXATION, F. Equal
Protection, 2. Political Equality Protection, 2. Political Equality
33 35
I. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AS LIMITATIONS ON I. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AS LIMITATIONS ON
POLICE POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN AND TAXATION, F. Equal POLICE POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN AND TAXATION, F. Equal
Protection, 2. Political Equality Protection
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 12
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
Whether or not petitioner may be allowed to attend the Senate sessions. another, he offers no proof that the said ministers, in their TV programs,
use language similar to that which he used in his own, necessitating the
MTRCBs disciplinary action. If the immediate result of the preventive
Held:
suspension order is that petitioner remains temporarily gagged and is
No. The distinctions cited by petitioner were not elemental in the
unable to answer his critics, this does not become a deprivation of the
pronouncement in Jalosjos that election to Congress is not a reasonable
equal protection guarantee.
classification in criminal law enforcement as the functions and duties of
the office are not substantial distinctions which lift one from the class of
prisoners interrupted in their freedom and restricted in liberty of
League of Cities vs. COMELEC (GR No. 176951)38
movement. The Constitution provides:
The 11th Congress enacted into law 33 bills converting 33 municipalities
All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion
into cities. However, it did not act on bills converting 24 other
perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be
municipalities into cities. Subsequently, the 12th Congress enacted
bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be
Republic Act No. 9009 (RA 9009), which took effect on 20 June 2001,
provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the
amending Section 450 of the Local Government Code by increasing the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall
annual income requirement for conversion of a municipality into a city
not be required.
from P20million to P100million. 16 municipalities filed cityhood bills
containing a common provision exempting all the 16 municipalities from
The cited provisions apply equally to rape and coup d'etat cases, both
the P100million income requirement of R.A. 9009. The cityhood bills were
being punishable by reclusion perpetua. Within the class of offenses
approved by the House of Representatives and the Senate, and lapsed
covered by the stated range of imposable penalties, there is clearly no
into law without the Presidents signature. Said Cityhood Laws directed
distinction as to the political complexion of or moral turpitude involved in
the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to hold plebiscites to
the crime charged.
determine whether the voters in each municipality approved of the
conversion. Petitioners sought to declare the 16 Cityhood Laws
unconstitutional for violation the equal protection clause.
ABAKADA v. Purisima (G.R. No. 166715)36
ISSUE:
Facts: Whether the Cityhood Laws violate the equal protection clause.
Petit ioners are cha llenging the constitutionality of R.A. 9335, a tax
reform legislation to optimize the revenue-generation capability and HELD:
collection of the BIR and the BOC . They contend that, by 2008 Ruling
establishing a system of rewards and incentives, the law "transform[s] the Cityhood laws are violative of the equal protection clause. Section 450 of
officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC into mercena ri es the Local Government Code, as amended by R.A. 9009, does not contain
and boun ty hun ters" as they wi ll do their best onl y any exemption to theP100 million annual income requirement. Even if the
in c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f s u c h r e w a r d s . T h u s , t h e s y s t e m o exemption provision in the Cityhood Laws were written in Section 450 of
f rewards and incentives invites corrup tion and the Local Government Code, exemption would still be unconstitutional for
undermine s the con stitutionall y manda ted du ty o f these violation of the equal protection clause. The exemption provision merely
o fficial s and employees. states, "Exemption from Republic Act No. 9009 The City of x x x shall
be exempted from the income requirement prescribed under Republic Act
Issue: No. 9009." This one sentence exemption provision contains no
Whether or not the limitation of the scope of the system of rewards and classification standards or guidelines differentiating the exempted
incentives only to officials and employees of BIR and BOC is violative of municipalities from those that are not exempted.
the equal protection clause.
In the 11th Congress, the exemption which is based solely on the fact that
the 16 municipalities had cityhood bills that were pending when RA 9009
Held: was enacted is not a valid classification between those entitled and those
N o . The classification and treatment accorded to the BIR and the BOC not entitled to exemption from the P100 million income requirement. The
under R.A. 9335 does not violate the equal protection clause. The subject classification in the present case must be based on substantial
of the law is the revenue- generation capability and collection of the BIR distinctions, rationally related to a legitimate government objective which
and the BOC, the incentives and/or sanctions provided in the law should is the purpose of the law, not limited to existing conditions only, and
logically pertain to the said agencies. The law concerns only the BIR and applicable to all similarly situated. The mere pendency of a cityhood bill in
the BOC because they have the common distinct primary function of the 11th Congress is not a material difference to distinguish one
generating revenues for the national government through the collection of municipality from another for the purpose of the income requirement. The
taxes, customs duties, fees and charges. Both the BIR and the BOC classification criterion mere pendency of a cityhood bill in the
are bureaus under the DOF. They principally perform the special function 11th Congress is not rationally related to the purpose of the law which is
of being the instrumentalities through which the State exercises one of to prevent fiscally non-viable municipalities from converting into cities.
its great inherent functions - taxation. Indubitably, such substantial
distinction is germane and intimately related to the purpose of the law. 2009 Ruling
Petitioner LCP and the intervenors cannot plausibly invoke the equal
protection clause, precisely because no deprivation of property results by
Soriano v. Laguardia (G.R. No. 164785)37 virtue of the enactment of the cityhood laws. The LCPs claim that the IRA
of its member-cities will be substantially reduced on account of the
Facts: conversion into cities of the respondent LGUs would not suffice to bring it
The MTRCB gave a 20-day preventive suspension to Sorianos And within the ambit of the constitutional guarantee. The favorable treatment
Dating Daan TV program for defamatory utterances against an INC accorded the sixteen (16) municipalities by the cityhood laws rests on
minister. Soriano was later imposed with a three-month suspension from substantial distinction. Indeed, respondent LGUs, which are subjected
his TV program only to the erstwhile PhP 20 million income criterion instead of the
stringent income requirement prescribed in RA 9009, are substantially
Issue: different from other municipalities desirous to be cities. The exemption of
Whether or not the preventive suspension order by the MTRCB denied respondent LGUs/municipalities from the P100M income requirement
him his right to the equal protection clause. was meant to reduce the inequality occasioned by the passage of the
amendatory RA 9009 and also to insure that fairness and justice would
Held: be accorded respondent LGUs making the classification is also germane
Petitioner next faults MTRCBs preventive suspension order which made to the purpose of the law. The non-retroactive effect of RA 9009 is not
him unable to answer the criticisms coming from the INC ministers. limited in application only to conditions existing at the time of its
Petitioners position does not persuade. The equal protection clause enactment because it is intended to apply for all time. The uniform
demands that "all persons subject to legislation should be treated alike, exemption clause would apply to all municipalities that had pending
under like circumstances and conditions both in the privileges conferred cityhood bills before the passage of R.A. 9009 and were compliant with
and liabilities imposed." It guards against undue favor and individual the LGC of 1991.
privilege as well as hostile discrimination. Surely, petitioner cannot, under
the premises, place himself in the same shoes as the INC ministers, who, 2010 Ruling
for one, are not facing administrative complaints before the MTRCB. For 2008 ruling is reinstated. No substantial distinction between municipalities
with pending cityhood bills in the 11th Congress and municipalities that did
36 not have pending bills. The mere pendency of a cityhood bill in the
I. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AS LIMITATIONS ON 11th Congress is not a material difference to distinguish one municipality
POLICE POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN AND TAXATION, F. Equal from another for the purpose of the income requirement. Pendency of a
Protection
37 38
I. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AS LIMITATIONS ON I. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AS LIMITATIONS ON
POLICE POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN AND TAXATION, F. Equal POLICE POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN AND TAXATION, F. Equal
Protection Protection
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 13
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
cityhood bill in the 11th Congress limits the exemption to a specific intentional as can be gleaned from the fact that it was underscored at
condition existing at the time of passage of RA 9009therefore violating least three times in the assailed executive order. The Arroyo
the requirement that a valid classification must not be limited to existing administration is but just a member of a class, that is, a class of past
conditions only (pendency of the cityhood bills adverted to can no longer administrations. It is not a class of its own. Executive Order No. 1 suffers
be repeated). Limiting the exemption only to the 16 municipalities violates from arbitrary classification.
the requirement that the classification must apply to all similarly situated.
The Court stressed that Congress clearly intended that the local Held:
government units covered by the Cityhood Laws be exempted from the Atty. Morales argues that the pleadings were acquired from his personal
coverage of RA 9009, which imposes a higher income requirement of computer without any valid search and seizure order and without his
PhP100 million for the creation of cities. consent, such evidence should be considered as the fruits of a poisonous
tree as it violated his right to privacy. Consent must be voluntary in order
to validate an otherwise illegal search. To constitute a valid consent or
Chamber of Real vs. Romulo (G.R. No. 160756)39 waiver of the constitutional guarantee against obtrusive searches, it must
be shown that (1) the right exists; (2) that the person involved had
knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the existence of such right;
Facts:
and (3) the said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right.
Petitioner Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Associations, Inc. is
There is no showing that Atty. Morales had an actual intention to
questioning the constitutionality of Section 27 (E) of Republic Act 8424
relinquish his right. He may have agreed to the opening of his personal
and the revenue regulations issued by the BIR to implement said
computer and the printing of files in the presence of DCA Dela Cruz, his
provision and those involving creditable withholding taxes. Imposition of
staff and some NBI agents during the spot investigation, it is also of
minimum corporate income tax (MCIT) on corporations and creditable
record that Atty. Morales immediately filed an administrative case against
withholding tax (CWT) on sales of real properties classified as ordinary
said persons questioning the validity of the investigation, specifically
assets. CWT is being levied only on real estate enterprises.
invoking his constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure.
The Court cannot use the evidence obtained from his personal computer
Issue:
against him for it violated his constitutional right. The case has been
Whether or not the revenue regulations are violative of the equal
dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
protection clause.
Held:
People vs. Nunez (G.R. No. 177148)42
The equal protection clause under the Constitution as applied in this case
means that all persons belonging to the same class shall be taxed alike.
Facts:
It follows that the guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not
Laguna Police Detectives and IID Mobile Force conducted a search in the
violated by legislation based on a reasonable classification. The taxing
house of Raul R. Nuez based on reports of drug possession. Police
power has the authority to make reasonable classifications for purposes
officers found thirty-one (31) packets of shabu, lighters, improvised
of taxation. Inequalities which result from a singling out of one particular
burners, tooters, and aluminum foil with shabu residue and a ladys wallet
class for taxation, or exemption, infringe no constitutional limitation. The
containing P4,610 inside appellants dresser.
real estate industry is a class and can be validly treated differently from
other business enterprises.
Issue:
Whether or not the search warrant was invalid for failing to state the exact
address to be searched.
Biraogo vs. Philippine Truth Commission (G.R. No. 192935)40
Held:
Facts:
The right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures, like any
EO No. 1 was issued by President Aquino to investigate reported cases
other right, can be waived and the waiver may be made expressly or
of graft and corruption of previous administration. The petitioners assail
impliedly. This right has been deemed waived by Nunez for failing to raise
EO No. 1 is violative of the constitutional safeguard because it does not
any objection to the legality of the search warrant and the admissibility of
apply equally to all members of the same class such that the intent of
the evidence obtained during trial.
singling out the "previous administration" as its sole object makes the
PTC an "adventure in partisan hostility." To be accorded with validity, the
commission must also cover reports of graft and corruption in virtually all
DEL ROSARIO vs. DONATO, SR. (G.R. No. 180595, 5-MAR-2010)43
administrations previous to that of former President Arroyo.
HELD:
Issue:
A judicially ordered search warrant that fails to yield the described illicit
Whether or not the Truth Commission is violative of the equal protection
article does not allege that respondents NBI agents violated their right by
clause.
fabricating testimonies to convince the RTC of Angeles City to issue the
search warrant. Their allegation that the NBI agents used an unlawfully
Held:
obtained search warrant is a mere conclusion of law. While in a motion to
Executive Order No. 1 should be struck down as violative of the equal
dismiss assumes as true the fact alleged in the complaint, such
protection clause. For a classification to meet the requirements of
constitutionality, it must include or embrace all persons who naturally
belong to the class. The clear mandate of the envisioned truth 41
commission is to investigate and find out the truth concerning the II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS,
reported cases of graft and corruption during the previous administration SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 1.
only. The previous administration was picked out was deliberate and Requirements for Search Warrants: Rule 126 of the Revised Rule on
Criminal Procedure
39 42
II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS, II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS,
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 1. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 1.
Requirements for Search Warrants: Rule 126 of the Revised Rule on Requirements for Search Warrants: Rule 126 of the Revised Rule on
Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure
40 43
II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS, II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS,
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 1. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 1.
Requirements for Search Warrants: Rule 126 of the Revised Rule on Requirements for Search Warrants: Rule 126 of the Revised Rule on
Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 14
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
44 46
II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS, II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS,
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 1. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 1.
Requirements for Search Warrants: Rule 126 of the Revised Rule on Requirements for Search Warrants: Rule 126 of the Revised Rule on
Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure
45 47
II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS, II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS,
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 1. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 1.
Requirements for Search Warrants: Rule 126 of the Revised Rule on Requirements for Search Warrants: Rule 126 of the Revised Rule on
Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 15
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
FACTS:
Upon receiving a call from an informant that a jeepney with Plate No. AYB
ANIAG vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 104961, 7-OCT-1994)48 117 at Km. 96, Atok, Benguet was loaded with Benguet pine lumber, the
PNP swiftly established a checkpoint. As the jeepney was spotted, the
FACTS: PNP flagged it down but the jeepney did not stop. Hence, they chased
Pursuant to the Gun Ban, the Sergeant-at-Arms wrote to petitioner, the jeepney loaded with vegetables, beneath it are the pine lumbers. Pine
requesting the return of the two firearms issued to him. Thereafter, lumbers were also carried without any valid permit to do so.
petitioner instructed his driver to pick the firearms from petitioners house
and return them to Congress. Upon heading to the Congress, the driver
was apprehended at a checkpoint. The car was searched and the gun ISSUE:
was found neatly packed in their cases.
48 49
II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS, II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS,
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 2. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 2.
Valid Instances of Warrantless Searches and Seizures, a.) Search of Valid Instances of Warrantless Searches and Seizures, a.) Search of
Moving Vehicles Moving Vehicles
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 16
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
Whether the police officers have a probable cause to believe that the borders on the impossible in the case of smuggling effected by the use of
subject vehicle was loaded with illegal cargo and that, therefore, it can be a moving vehicle that can transport contraband from one place to another
stopped and searched without warrant. YES. with impunity. We might add that a warrantless search of a moving
vehicle is justified on the ground that "it is not practicable to secure a
HELD: warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or
YES. Section 3(2), also of Article III, provides that any evidence obtained jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought."
in violation of the above provision shall be inadmissible for any purpose in
any proceeding. Nevertheless, the exception from securing a search warrant when it
comes to moving vehicles does not give the police authorities unbridled
Hence, as a general rule, a search and seizure must be carried through discretion to conduct a warrantless search of an automobile. To do so
with judicial warrant, otherwise, such search and seizure constitutes would render the aforementioned constitutional stipulations inutile and
derogation of a constitutional right. expose the citizenry to indiscriminate police distrust which could amount
to outright harassment. Surely, the policy consideration behind the
The above rule, however, is not devoid of exceptions. In People v. exemption of search of moving vehicles does not encompass such
Sarap, we listed the exceptions where search and seizure may be arbitrariness on the part of the police authorities. In recognition of the
conducted without warrant, thus: (1) search incident to a lawful arrest; (2) possible abuse, jurisprudence dictates that at all times, it is required that
search of a moving motor vehicle; (3) search in violation of customs laws; probable cause exist in order to justify the warrantless search of a
(4) seizure of the evidence in plain view; (5) search when the accused vehicle.
himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures; (6)
stop and frisk; and (7) exigent and emergency circumstances. The only In Caballes v. Court of Appeals, the term "probable cause" was explained
requirement in these exceptions is the presence of probable to mean
cause. Probable cause is the existence of such facts and circumstances [A] reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances
which would lead a reasonable, discreet, and prudent man to believe that sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious mans belief that
an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged; or
with the offense are in the place to be searched. In People v. Aruta, we the existence of such facts and circumstances which could lead a
ruled that in warrantless searches, probable cause must only be based reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been
on reasonable ground of suspicion or belief that a crime has been committed and that the items, articles or objects sought in connection
committed or is about to be committed. There is no hard and fast rule or with said offense or subject to seizure and destruction by law is in the
fixed formula in determining probable cause for its determination varies place to be searched. The required probable cause that will justify a
according to the facts of each case. warrantless search and seizure is not determined by a fixed formula but
is resolved according to the facts of the case.
We recall that at around 2:30 p.m. of September 6, 1998, a confidential
informer disclosed to SPO2 Ngina that a passenger jeepney with Plate When a vehicle is flagged down and subjected to an extensive search,
No. AYB 117 loaded with Benguet pine lumber was at Km. 96, Atok, such a warrantless search has been held to be valid as long as the
Benguet. The lumber was covered with assorted vegetables. A PNP officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to
roadblock was then placed in Acop, Tublay, Benguet to intercept the believe prior to the search that they would find the instrumentality or
jeepney. At around 4:00 p.m. of that same day, the police spotted the evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be searched.
vehicle. They flagged it down but it did not stop, forcing the police
to chase it until it reached Shilan, La Trinidad. A search of the In this case, we hold that the police had probable cause to effect the
vehicle disclosed several pieces of Benguet pine warrantless search of the Gemini car driven by appellant. A confidential
lumber. Petitioners could not produce the required DENR permit to informer tipped them off that said car was going to deliver shabu at
cut and transport the same. Marville Subdivision. Pursuing said lead, the Antipolo City police sent a
team to Marville Subdivision to monitor said vehicle. The information
In People v. Vinecarao, we ruled that where a vehicle sped away after provided by the informer turned out to be correct as, indeed, the Gemini
noticing a checkpoint and even after having been flagged down by police car was spotted in the place where it was said to be bringing shabu.
officers, in an apparent attempt to dissuade the police from proceeding When they stopped the car, they saw a gun tucked in appellants waist.
with their inspection, there exists probable cause to justify a reasonable Appellant did not have any document to support his possession of said
belief on the part of the law enforcers that the persons on board said firearm which all the more strengthened the polices suspicion. After he
vehicle were officers of the law or that the vehicle contained objects was told to step out of the car, they found on the drivers seat plastic
which were instruments of some offense. This ruling squarely applies to sachets containing white powdery substance. These circumstances,
the present case. Verily, the Court of Appeals did not err in holding that taken together, are sufficient to establish probable cause for the
respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to warrantless search of the Gemini car and the eventual admission into
lack or excess of jurisdiction when she ruled that the warrantless search evidence of the plastic packets against appellant.
is valid and that the lumber seized is admissible in evidence against
petitioners. In any case, appellant failed to timely object to the admissibility of the
evidence against him on the ground that the same was obtained through
a warrantless search. His failure amounts to a waiver of the objection on
PEOPLE vs. TUAZON (G.R. No. 175783, 3-SEPT-2007)50 the legality of the search and the admissibility of the evidence obtained
by the police. It was only proper for the trial court to admit said evidence.
FACTS:
Upon receiving through phone call a confidential information that a
Gemini car bearing plate no. PFC 411 would deliver an unspecified PEOPLE vs. MARIACOS (G.R. No. 188611, 16-JUN-2010)51
amount of shabu in Mariville Subd., Antipolo City, the PNP then
dispatched a team of policemen to the area to conduct a surveillance. FACTS:
Upon arriving to the place stated, they saw the Gemini car and flagged it The O.K. bag that was described to have in it the marijuana as reported
down, 5 sachets of shabu were then found on the drivers seat, 2 more by a confidential informant was found by the policeman. He then asked
were also found in appellants pocket when he was frisked. the other passengers in the jeepney who owns the bag, but nobody knew.
Meanwhile, as the jeepney reached its destination, the bag was carried
ISSUE: by accused-appellant, hence, the police caught them up and introduced
Whether or not there was a valid warrantless arrest. YES. himself as a policeman.
HELD: ISSUE:
YES. Police officers are presumed to have acted regularly in the Whether or not there was probable cause to warrant the warrantless
performance of their official functions in the absence of clear and arrest. YES.
convincing proof to the contrary or that they were moved by ill-will.
HELD:
In the case of People v. Lo Ho Wing, this Court had the occasion to YES. Indeed, the search of a moving vehicle is one of the doctrinally
elucidate on the rationale for the exemption of searches of moving accepted exceptions to the Constitutional mandate that no search or
vehicles from the requirement of search warrant, thus: seizure shall be made except by virtue of a warrant issued by a judge
after personally determining the existence of probable cause.
[T]he rules governing search and seizure have over the years been
steadily liberalized whenever a moving vehicle is the object of the search In People v. Bagista, the Court said:
on the basis of practicality. This is so considering that before a warrant The constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures
could be obtained, the place, things and persons to be searched must be admits of certain exceptions. Aside from a search incident to a lawful
described to the satisfaction of the issuing judge a requirement which
50 51
II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS, II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS,
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 2. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 2.
Valid Instances of Warrantless Searches and Seizures, a.) Search of Valid Instances of Warrantless Searches and Seizures, a.) Search of
Moving Vehicles Moving Vehicles
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 17
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
For this rule to apply, it is imperative that there be a prior valid arrest.
Although, generally, a warrant is necessary for a valid arrest, the Rules of
Court provides the exceptions therefor, to wit: 52
II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS,
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 2.
SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful A peace officer Valid Instances of Warrantless Searches and Seizures, b.) Search
or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: Incident to a Valid Arrest
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 18
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
This interdiction against warrantless searches and seizures, ABENES vs. CA (G.R. No. 156320, 14-FEB-2007)56
however, is not absolute and such warrantless searches and
seizures have long been deemed permissible by jurisprudence in HELD:
instances of (1) search of moving vehicles, (2) seizure in plain view, In the instant case, the firearm was seized from the petitioner when in
(3) customs searches, (4) waiver or consented searches, (5) stop plain view, the policemen saw it tucked into his waist uncovered by his
and frisk situations (Terry search), and search incidental to a lawful shirt.
arrest. The last includes a valid warrantless arrest, for, while as a
rule, an arrest is considered legitimate [if] effected with a valid Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the "plain view" of an
warrant of arrest, the Rules of Court recognize permissible officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject
warrantless arrest, to wit: (1) arrest in flagrante delicto, (2) arrest to seizure and may be presented as evidence.18 The "plain view" doctrine
effected in hot pursuit, and (3) arrest of escaped prisoners. applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement
officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or
The prosecution was able to establish the abovementioned rule. is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery
of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (c) it is immediately
apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a
PEOPLE vs. RACHO (G.R. No. L-186529, 3-AUG-2010)54 crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.
53 55
II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS, II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS,
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 2. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 2.
Valid Instances of Warrantless Searches and Seizures, b.) Search Valid Instances of Warrantless Searches and Seizures, b.) Search
Incident to a Valid Arrest Incident to a Valid Arrest
54 56
II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS, II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS,
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 2. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 2.
Valid Instances of Warrantless Searches and Seizures, b.) Search Valid Instances of Warrantless Searches and Seizures, c.) When
Incident to a Valid Arrest things seized are within plain view of a searching party
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 19
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 20
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
FACTS:
HELD: Shortly after a phone call received in the Western Police District, that
there was a suspicious-looking persons (one of whom was holding his
1. An arrest without a warrant may be effected by a peace officer or abdomen, and both men looking from side-to-side) at the corner of Juan
private person, among others, when in his presence the person to Luna and North Bay Boulevard, Pat. Mercado and Alberto Juan
be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting proceeded to the said place and approached these persons and identified
to commit an offense; or when an offense has in fact just been themselves as policemen, whereupon the two tried to run away but were
committed, and he has personal knowledge of the facts indicating unable to escape because the other lawmen surrounded them. Suspects
that the person arrested has committed it. were searched, and one of them was found a revolver with live bullets in
the chamber, the other (MENGOTE) had a fan knife secreted in his front
At the time the peace officers in this case identified themselves and right pants pocket. They were then turned over to the HQ for
apprehended the petitioner as he attempted to flee they did not investigation. Thereafter, they were accused of violation of PD 1866.
know that he had committed, or was actually committing the offense
of illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions. They just ISSUE:
suspected that he was hiding something in the buri bag. They did 1. WON the warrantless arrest was valid. NO
now know what its contents were. The said circumstances did not 2. WON the evidence obtained was inadmissible evidence. YES
justify an arrest without a warrant.
HELD:
2. There are many instances where a warrant and seizure can be
effected without necessarily being preceded by an arrest, foremost Warrantless search in broad daylight of a person merely looking
of which is the "stop and search" without a search warrant at military from side to side and holding his stomach is illegal.
or police checkpoints, the constitutionality or validity of which has
been upheld by this Court in Valmonte vs. de Villa, 7 as follows: These requirements have not been established in the case at bar. At the
time of the arrest in question, the accused-appellant was merely "looking
Petitioner Valmonte's general allegation to the effect that he had from side to side" and "holding his abdomen," according to the arresting
been stopped and searched without a search warrant by the military officers themselves. There was apparently no offense that had just been
manning the checkpoints, without more, i.e., without stating the committed or was being actually committed or at least being attempted by
details of the incidents which amount to a violation of his light Mengote in their presence.
against unlawful search and seizure, is not sufficient to enable the
Court to determine whether there was a violation of Valmonte's right The Solicitor General submits that the actual existence of an offense was
against unlawful search and seizure. Not all searches and seizures not necessary as long as Mengote's acts "created a reasonable suspicion
are prohibited. Those which are reasonable are not forbidden. A on the part of the arresting officers and induced in them the belief that an
reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed formula but offense had been committed and that the accused-appellant had
is to be resolved according to the facts of each case. committed it." The question is, What offense? What offense could
possibly have been suggested by a person "looking from side to side"
Where, for example, the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a and "holding his abdomen" and in a place not exactly forsaken?
vacant vehicle which is parked on the public fair grounds, or simply
looks into a vehicle or flashes a light therein, these do not constitute A person may not be stopped and frisked in broad daylight on a
unreasonable search. busy street on mere unexplained suspicion.
The setting up of the questioned checkpoints in Valenzuela (and On the other hand, there could have been a number of reasons, all of
probably in other areas) may be considered as a security measure them innocent, why his eyes were darting from side to side and be was
to enable the NCRDC to pursue its mission of establishing effective holding his abdomen. If they excited suspicion in the minds of the
territorial defense and maintaining peace and order for the benefit of arresting officers, as the prosecution suggests, it has nevertheless not
the public. Checkpoints may also be regarded as measures to been shown what their suspicion was all about. In fact, the policemen
thwart plots to destabilize the government in the interest of public themselves testified that they were dispatched to that place only because
security. In this connection, the Court may take judicial notice of the of the telephone call from the informer that there were "suspicious-
shift to urban centers and their suburbs of the insurgency looking" persons in that vicinity who were about to commit a robbery at
movement, so clearly reflected in the increased killings in cities of North Bay Boulevard. The caller did not explain why he thought the men
police and military men by NPA "sparrow units," not to mention the looked suspicious nor did he elaborate on the impending crime.
abundance of unlicensed firearms and the alarming rise in
lawlessness and violence in such urban centers, not all of which are The truth is that they did not know then what offense, if at all, had been
reported in media, most likely brought about by deteriorating committed and neither were they aware of the participation therein of the
economic conditions which all sum up to what one can rightly accused-appellant. It was only later, after Danganan had appeared at the
consider, at the very least, as abnormal times. Between the inherent Police headquarters, that they learned of the robbery in his house and of
right of the state to protect its existence and promote public welfare Mengote's supposed involvement therein. As for the illegal possession of
and an individual's right against a warrantless search which is the firearm found on Mengote's person, the policemen discovered this
however reasonably conducted, the former should prevail. only after he had been searched and the investigation conducted later
revealed that he was not its owners nor was he licensed to possess it.
True, the manning of checkpoints by the military is susceptible of
abuse by the men in uniform in the same manner that all
governmental power is susceptible of abuse. But, at the cost of MANALILI vs. CA (G.R. No. 113447, 9-OCT-1997)61
occasional inconvenience, discomfort and even irritation to the
citizen, the checkpoints during these abnormal times, when FACTS:
conducted within reasonable limits, are part of the price we pay for Due to the information that drug addicts were roaming the area of
an orderly society and a peaceful community. Kalookan City; a surveillance was conducted by Pat. Espiritu and Pat.
Lumabas. Upon reaching the city, they alighted from the official car of the
Thus, as between a warrantless search and seizure conducted at Police Station. Thereafter, they chanced upon a male (MANALILI) whose
military or police checkpoints and the search thereat in the case at eyes were reddish and was walking in a swaying manner. Manalili tried to
bar, there is no question that, indeed, the latter is more reasonable avoid them; policemen approached him and introduced their selves as
considering that unlike in the former, it was effected on the basis of a police officers. Police then asked what Manalili was holding in his hands,
probable cause. The probable cause is that when the petitioner but he tried to resist. Espiritu again asked Manalili of what he was
acted suspiciously and attempted to flee with the buri bag there was holding, then the latter showed his wallet and allowed Espiritu to examine
a probable cause that he was concealing something illegal in the the same. Espiritu took the wallet and examined it, found suspected
bag and it was the right and duty of the police officers to inspect the crushed marijuana residue inside; kept it.
same.
Thereafter, an examination was conducted to Manalili and to the
It is too much indeed to require the police officers to search the bag confiscated marijuana. Results are all positive.
in the possession of the petitioner only after they shall have
obtained a search warrant for the purpose. Such an exercise may
prove to be useless, futile and much too late. ISSUE:
WON there was a valid warrantless search and arrest. YES.
60 61
II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS, II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS,
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 2. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 2.
Valid Instances of Warrantless Searches and Seizures, d.) Stop and Valid Instances of Warrantless Searches and Seizures, d.) Stop and
Frisk Frisk
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 21
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
62 63
II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS, II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS,
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 2. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 2.
Valid Instances of Warrantless Searches and Seizures, e.) Express Valid Instances of Warrantless Searches and Seizures, e.) Express
Waiver Waiver
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 22
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
Respondents cite the statement of the Court of Appeals that regular The search of a moving vehicle is recognized on this jurisdiction as
courts still retain jurisdiction "where, as in this case, for lack of probable a valid exception to the requirement for a search warrant. We recall
cause, there is serious doubt as to the propriety of placing the articles that at the time of the search, petitioner and his co-accused were on
under Customs jurisdiction through seizure/forfeiture board a moving PAL aircraft tow truck. As stated earlier, the search of a
proceedings."[11] They overlook the fact, however, that under the law, the moving vehicle is recognized in this jurisdiction as a valid exception to the
question of whether probable cause exists for the seizure of the requirement for a search warrant. Such exception is easy to understand.
subject sacks of rice is not for the Regional Trial Court to determine. A search warrant may readily be obtained when the search is made in a
The customs authorities do not have to prove to the satisfaction of store, dwelling house or other immobile structure. But it is impracticable
the court that the articles on board a vessel were imported from to obtain a warrant when the search is conducted in a mobileship,
abroad or are intended to be shipped abroad before they may aircraft or other motor vehicle since they can quickly be moved out of the
exercise the power to effect customs searches, seizures, or arrests locality or jurisdiction where the warrant must be sought.
provided by law and continue with the administrative hearings.
It is noteworthy that because of the indiscriminate issuance of writs of People vs. Rolando De Gracia67
injunction, the Supreme Court issued on June 25, 1999 Administrative G.R.Nos.102009-10,July 6,1994
Circular No. 07-99 to all judges of lower courts entitled re: exercise
of utmost caution, prudence, and judiciousness in issuance of FACTS:
temporary restraining orders and writs of preliminary injunction. The On the height of the coup detat in December 1989 headed by the
circular states in part: elements of Reform the Armed Forces Movement-Soldiers of the Filipino
People (RAM-SFP) against the Government, a team from the Intelligence
Finally, judges should never forget what the Court categorically Division of the NCR Defense Command conducted a surveillance of the
declared in Mison v. Natividad (213 SCRA 734, 742 [1992]) that "[b]y Eurocar Sales office in Quezon City pursuant to an intelligence report
express provision of law, amply supported by well-settled received by the division that said establishment was being occupied by
jurisprudence, the Collector of Customs has exclusive jurisdiction elements of the RAM-SFP as a communication command post. While
over seizure and forfeiture proceedings, and regular courts cannot conducting the said surveillance, a group of 5 men approached the car of
interfere with his exercise thereof or stifle or put it to naught." the surveillance team and started firing at them. As a consequence, a
searching team was sent to raid the Eurocar Sales office (without search
The Office of the Court Administrator shall see to it that this circular is warrants because of the disorder during that time and the courts are
immediately disseminated and shall monitor implementation thereof. consequently closed.) where they found ammunitions, dynamites and
molotoy bombs. As a result of the raid, the appellant who was found to
be a former Philippine Constabulary and 2 other men who were janitors
RIETA vs. PEOPLE (G.R. No. 147817, 12-AUG-2004)65 of the said building were arrested.
64
II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS,
custom laws
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 2. 66
Valid Instances of Warrantless Searches and Seizures, f.) Search of II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS,
Warehouse in Violation of Customs and Tariff Code or to enforce SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 2.
custom laws Valid Instances of Warrantless Searches and Seizures, f.) Search of
65 Warehouse in Violation of Customs and Tariff Code or to enforce
II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS,
custom laws
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 2. 67
Valid Instances of Warrantless Searches and Seizures, f.) Search of Valid Instances of Warrantless Searches and Seizures - (G)
Warehouse in Violation of Customs and Tariff Code or to enforce Exigency
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 23
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
The accused appellant herein was charged in two separate informations Waterous Drug vs NLRC69
for illegal possession of ammunition and explosives in furtherance of G.R.NO. 113271; 16 OCT 1997
rebellion, and for attempted homicide which were tried jointly by the RTC
of Quezon City. Appellant was convicted for the first charge, but was FACTS:
acquitted of the latter. He was then sentenced to serve the penalty of Antonia Catolico was hired as a pharmacist by petitioner Waterous Drug
*reclusion perpetua, * with a recommendation that he be extended with Corporation on 15 August 1988. On 31 July 1989, Catolico received
executive clemency after serving a jail term of five (5) years of good memorandum from WATEROUS Vice President-General Manager Emma
behavior. Thus this appeal. R. Co warning her not to dispense medicine to employees chargeable to
the latter's accounts as it was a prohibited practice and not to negotiate
The appellant principally contends that he cannot be held guilty of illegal with suppliers of medicine without consulting the Purchasing Department,
possession of firearms for the reason that he did not have either physical as this would impair the company's control of purchases and, besides she
or constructive possession thereof considering that he had no intent to was not authorized to deal directly with the suppliers.
possess the same; he is neither the owner nor a tenant of the building
where the ammunition and explosives were found; he was merely Catolico did not deny her responsibility but explained that her act was
employed asan errand boy; he was guarding the explosives for and in "due to negligence". In a memorandum dated 21 November 1989,
behalf of a certain Col. Matillano; and he did not have actual possession WATEROUS Supervisor Luzviminda E. Bautro warned Catolico against
of the explosives. He claims that intent to possess is necessary before the "rush delivery of medicines without the proper documents." On 29
one can be convicted under Presidential Decree No. 1866. January 1990, WATEROUS Control Clerk Eugenio Valdez informed Co
that he noticed an irregularity involving Catolico and Yung Shin
ISSUE: Pharmaceuticals, Inc., wherein it was found that there was a discrepancy
Whether or not there has been a valid search and seizure in this case. in the per bottle price of Voren tablets between the recent and previous
Purchase Orders. Upon verification, the discrepancy showed that the cost
RULING: per bottle in the recent Purchase Order was overpriced.
Yes, given the circumstances, the instant case falls under one of the
exceptions against a warrantless search. The military operatives in this The Accounting Department of Yung Shin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. then
case had reasonable ground to believe that a crime was being confirmed that the refund for the jack-up price of ten bottles of Voren
committed. tablets was paid to Ms. Catolico. Valdez talked to Ms. Catolico regarding
There was consequently more than sufficient probable cause to warrant the check but she denied having received it and that she is unaware of
their action. Furthermore, under the situation then prevailing, the raiding the overpriced.
team had no opportunity to apply for and secure a search warrant from
the courts. The trial judge himself manifested that on the day when the However, upon conversation with Ms. Saldana, Pharmacy Clerk, she
raid was conducted, his court was closed. Under such urgency and confirmed that the check amounting to P640.00 was actually received by
exigency of the moment, a search warrant could lawfully be dispensed Ms. Catolico.
with.
As a matter of fact, Ms. Catolico even asked Ms. Saldana if she opened
the envelope containing the check but Ms. Saldana answered her
People vs. Andre68 "talagang ganyan, bukas." It appears that the amount in question
G.R. No. 81561, January 18, 1991 (P640.00) had been pocketed by Ms. Catolico.
FACTS: Co asked Catolico to explain, within twenty-four hours, her side of the
The appellant and his common-law wife, Shirley Reyes, attempted to reported irregularity. Catolico asked for additional time to give her
send 4 gift wrapped packages containing marijuana through a packing explanation, and she was granted a 48-hour extension. However, before
and forwarder company owned by Anita Reyes and her husband Job the 48-hour extension expires, she was informed she would be placed on
Reyes. The appellant disguised the said packages by stacking it with preventive suspension to protect the interests of the company.
books, gloves and cigars. However before delivery of the package, as a
Standard Operating Procedure, Mr. Job Reyes opened the boxes for final Catolico, through her counsel, explained that the check she received from
inspection and found marijuana leaves inside. He then reported the YSP was a Christmas gift and not a "refund of overprice." She also
incident to the NBI and sent a sample of the suspected marijuana leaves averred that the preventive suspension was ill-motivated, as it sprang
for examination. The NBI Forensics was able to determine that the from an earlier incident between her and Co's secretary, Irene Soliven.
samples were indeed marijuana leaves and so they seized the package
and located the appellant. The appellant was charged for violation of On 5 March 1990, Waterous Supervisor Luzviminda Bautro, issued a
R.A. 6425 and was consequently convicted by the RTC, thus this appeal. memorandum notifying Catolico of her termination. On 5 May 1990,
The appellant contends that the evidence against him is not admissible Catolico filed before the Office of the Labor Arbiter a complaint for unfair
as evidence because it was obtained in violation of his constitutional right labor practice, illegal dismissal, and illegal suspension. In his decision of
against unreasonable search and seizure and privacy of communication. 10 May 1993, Labor Arbiter Alex Arcadio Lopez found no proof of unfair
labor practice against petitioners. Nevertheless, he decided in favor of
ISSUE Catolico because petitioners failed to "prove what alleged as
Whether or not there has been a violation of the appellants constitutional complainant's dishonesty," and to show that any investigation was
right thereby making the obtained evidence inadmissible. conducted. Hence, the dismissal was without just cause and due
process. He thus declared the dismissal and suspension illegal but
RULING disallowed reinstatement.
No. There has been no violation of the appellants Constitutional Right,
specifically his right against unreasonable search and seizure. It must be Petitioners appealed the decision and urged the NLRC to set it aside
noted that the evidence obtained was not procured by the state through because the Labor Arbiter erred in finding that Catolico was denied due
its law enforcers or other authorized government agencies but through a process and that there was no just cause to terminate her services.
private individual acting in his private capacity and without the
intervention and participation of State authorities. In the absence of The NLRC affirmed the findings of the Labor Arbiter on the ground that
governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution petitioners were not able to prove a just cause for Catolico's dismissal
cannot be invoked against the State. Furthermore, the search and from her employment. It found that petitioner's evidence consisted only of
seizure clauses are restraints upon the government and its agents, not the check of P640.00 drawn by YSP in favor of complainant, which her
upon private individuals. co-employee saw when the latter opened the envelope. But, it declared
that the check was inadmissible in evidence pursuant to Sections 2 and
If the search is made upon the request of law enforcers, a warrant must 3(1 and 2) of Article III of the Constitution.
generally be first secured if it is to pass the test of constitutionality.
However, if the search is made at the behest or initiative of the proprietor The NLRC then dismissed the appeal for lack of merit, but modified the
of a private establishment for its own and private purposes, as in the case dispositive portion of the appealed decision by deleting the award for
at bar, and without the intervention of police authorities, the right against illegal suspension as the same was already included in the computation
unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked for only the act of of the aggregate of the awards in the amount of P35,401.86.
private individual, not the law enforcers, is involved.
Having their motion for reconsideration denied, petitioners filed special
The contraband in the case at bar having come into possession of the civil action for *certiorari*, which is anchored on the following grounds:
Government without the latter transgressing appellant's rights against I. Public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in its findings of
unreasonable search and seizure, the Court sees no cogent reason why facts.
the same should not be admitted against him in the prosecution of the II. Due process was duly accorded to private respondent.
offense charged. III. Public respondent gravely erred in applying Section 3, Article III of the
1987 Constitution.
ISSUE
68 69
(H) Search and Seizure by Private Persons (H) Search and Seizure by Private Persons
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 24
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
70 71
(H) Search and Seizure by Private Persons (H) Search and Seizure by Private Persons
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 25
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
exposure of their persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting houses, papers and effects against unreasonable
a lack of subjective expectation of privacy, which expectation society is searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose
prepared to recognize as reasonable. Such recognition is implicit in shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of
airport security procedures. With increased concern over airplane arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
hijacking and terrorism has come increased security at the nations personally by the judge after examination under oath or
airports. Passengers attempting to board an aircraft routinely pass affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
through metal detectors; their carry-on baggage as well as checked produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched
luggage are routinely subjected to x-ray scans. Should these procedures and the persons or things to be seized.
suggest the presence of suspicious objects, physical searches are
conducted to determine what the objects are. There is little question that Sec. 3.
such searches are reasonable, given their minimal intrusiveness, the
gravity of the safety interests involved, and the reduced privacy (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding
expectations associated with airline travel. section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.
The packs of methamphetamine hydrochloride having thus been obtained
through a valid warrantless search, they are admissible in evidence However, the prohibition against warrantless searches and seizures is not
against the accused-appellant herein. Corollarily, her subsequent arrest, absolute. There are recognized exceptions established by jurisprudence:
although likewise without warrant, was justified since it was effected upon (1)search of moving vehicles; (2) seizure in plain view; (3) customs
the discovery and recovery of shabu in her person in flagrante delicto. searches; (4) waiver or consented searches; (5) stop and frisk situations
(Terry search); and (6) search incidental to a lawful arrest.
Further the court held that the accused was validly arrested without
warrant pursuant to the provisions of Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search in any particular
Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides: case is a judicial question, determinable from a consideration of the
circumstances involved. The rule is that the Constitution bars State
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a intrusions to a person's body, personal effects or residence except if
private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: conducted by virtue of a valid search warrant issued in compliance with
the procedure outlined in the Constitution and reiterated in the Rules of
(a) when in his presence, the person to be arrested has Court.
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
an offense; In the present case, the search was made pursuant to routine airport
security procedure, which is allowed under Section 9 of Republic Act No.
(b) when an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has 6235 reading as follows:
personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
arrested has committed it; SEC. 9. Every ticket issued to a passenger by the airline or air carrier
concerned shall contain among others the following condition printed
The circumstances surrounding the arrest of the accused above falls in thereon: Holder hereof and his hand-carried luggage(s) are subject to
either paragraph (a) or (b) of the Rule above cited. search for, and seizure of, prohibited materials or substances. Holder
refusing to be searched shall not be allowed to board the aircraft,
which shall constitute a part of the contract between the passenger
People of the Philippines vs. Susan Canton73 and the air carrier.
G.R.No. 148825. December 27, 2002
This constitutes another exception to the proscription against warrantless
FACTS searches and seizures.
On February 12, 1998 at about 1:30pm accused, Susan Canton was at
the Ninoy Aquino International Airport, being a departing passenger The Court also found the ruling in *People v. Johnson* *(see previous
bound for Saigon, Vietman. When she passed through the metal detector case)*to be applicable to the instant case, which involves similar facts
and issues.
72
(I) Airport Security
73
(I) Airport Security
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 26
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
(a) When, in his presence the person to be arrested has The setting up of the questioned checkpoints in Valenzuela (and probably
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit in other areas) may be considered as a security measure to enable the
an offense; NCRDC to pursue its mission of establishing effective territorial defense
and maintaining peace and order for the benefit of the public.
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he Checkpoints may also be regarded as measures to thwart plots to
has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of destabilize the government, in the interest of public security. In this
facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has connection, the Court may take judicial notice of the shift to urban centers
committed it; and and their suburbs of the insurgency movement, so clearly reflected in the
increased killings in cities of police and military men by NPA sparrow
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has units, not to mention the abundance of unlicensed firearms and the
escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is alarming rise in lawlessness and violence in such urban centers, not all of
serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is which are reported in media, most likely brought about by deteriorating
pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one economic conditions which all sum up to what one can rightly consider,
confinement to another. at the very least, as abnormal times. Between the inherent right of the
state to protect its existence and promote public welfare and an
None of the above circumstances is present in this case. Appellants were individual's right against a warrantless search which is
merely walking along Tandang Sora Avenue and were not committing any however reasonably conducted, the former should prevail.
crime. Neither can it be said that the crime had just been committed. Five True, the manning of checkpoints by the military is susceptible of abuse
days had already passed from the time of the robbery with homicide. It by the men in uniform, in the same manner that all governmental power is
cannot also be said that the arresting officers had probable cause based susceptible of abuse. But, at the cost of occasional inconvenience,
on personal knowledge. PO3 Sevillano admitted that they learned about discomfort and even irritation to the citizen, the checkpoints during these
the suspects from Apollo Romero and certain unnamed informants. The abnormal times, when conducted within reasonable limits, are part of the
third circumstance is patently not present. The lapse of five days gave the price we pay for an orderly society and a peaceful community.
police more than enough time to conduct surveillance of the appellants
and apply for a warrant of arrest. Clearly, appellants' rights provided in
Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution were violated. VALMONTE vs.DE VILLA76
G.R. No. 83988, May 24, 1990
Unfortunately, appellants did not assert their constitutional rights prior to
their arraignment. This is fatal to their case. An accused is estopped from FACTS
assailing the legality of his arrest if he failed to move for the quashing of In the Court's decision dated 29 September 1989, petitioners' petition for
the Information against him before his arraignment. When the appellants prohibition seeking the declaration of the checkpoints as unconstitutional
entered their pleas on arraignment without invoking their rights to and their dismantling and/or banning, was dismissed. Petitioners have
question any irregularity, which might have accompanied their arrests, filed the instant motion and supplemental motion for reconsideration of
they voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court and said decision.
the judicial process. Any objection, defect, or irregularity attending their
arrests should had been made before they entered their pleas. It is much ISSUE
too late for appellants to raise the question of their warrantless arrests.
Their pleas to the information upon arraignment constitute clear waivers
of their rights against unlawful restraint of liberty. RULING
The Motion and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration are DENIED.
74
(J) Jail Safety 75
3) Constitutionality of checkpoints and areal target zonings
76
3) Constitutionality of checkpoints and areal target zonings
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 27
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
The routine checkpoint stop does intrude, to a certain extent, on course thereof. In view of such waiver, the court is bound to admit the
motorist's right to "free passage without interruption", but it cannot be evidence. But even assuming arguendo that there was no waiver, still
denied that, as a rule, it involves only a brief detention of travellers during appellant's contention deserves scant consideration. There are indeed
which the vehicle's occupants are required to answer a brief question or instances where search and seizure can be effected without necessarily
two. 1 For as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants being preceded by an arrest. The instant case is an incident to or an
subjected to a body search, and the inspection of the vehicle is limited to offshoot of a lawful "stop-and-search" at a military or police checkpoint.
a visual search, said routine checks cannot be regarded as violative of an The checkpoint in the instant case was established in line with
individual's right against unreasonable search. "Operational Bakal" the main object of which was to search for unlicensed
firearms and other prohibited items in the possession of unauthorized
These routine checks, when conducted in a fixed area, are even less persons passing through it. When the jeep carrying the contraband
intrusive. passed through the checkpoint, it was flagged down and the occupants
were asked routine questions. In the course thereof, Pfc. Galang noticed
Vehicles are generally allowed to pass these checkpoints after a routine a black leather bag the sides of which were bulging. He asked what the
inspection and a few questions. If vehicles are stopped and extensively contents of the bag were. None of the accused answered. At that
searched, it is because of some probable cause which justifies a moment, the demeanor of the accused changed; they became
reasonable belief of the men at the checkpoints that either the motorist is suspiciously quiet and nervous as if they were concealing something from
a law-offender or the contents of the vehicle are or have been Pfc. Galang. The accused clearly appeared to be in abject fear of being
instruments of some offense. discovered. Such peculiar apprehensiveness if not restrained reaction of
the accused, which did not appear normal, provided the probable cause
The Court's decision on checkpoints does not, in any way, validate nor justifying a more extensive search that led to the opening of the bag and
condone abuses committed by the military manning the checkpoints. The the discovery of the prohibited stuff. Significantly, there was no sign of
Court's decision was concerned with power, i.e. whether the government any protest or objection to the search. The accused remained silent even
employing the military has the power to install said checkpoints. Once after their arrest. Their submissive stance after the discovery of the bag of
that power is acknowledged, the Court's inquiry ceases. True, power marijuana, as well as the absence of any protest on their part when
implies the possibility of its abuse. But whether there is abuse in a arrested, not only casts serious doubts on their professed innocence but
particular situation is a different "ball game" to be resolved in the also confirms their acquiescence to the search. Clearly then, there was
constitutional arena. waiver of the right against unreasonable search and seizure.
The Court, like all other concerned members of the community, has
become aware of how some checkpoints have been used as points of GUANZON vs. DE VILLA78
thievery and extortion practiced upon innocent civilians. Even the 181 SCRA 623 (1990)
increased prices of foodstuffs coming from the provinces, entering the
Metro Manila area and other urban centers, are largely blamed on the FACTS
checkpoints, because the men manning them have reportedly become This is a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction to prohibit the
"experts" in mulcting travelling traders. This, of course, is a national military and police officers represented by public respondents from
tragedy . conducting "Areal Target Zonings" or "Saturation Drives" in Metro Manila.
Petitioners allege that the saturation drives abused their human rights.
But the Court could not a priori regard in its now assailed decision that According to the petitioners, the "areal target zonings" or saturation
the men in uniform are rascals or thieves. The Court had to assume that drives" are in critical areas pinpointed by the military and police as places
the men in uniform live and act by the code of honor and they are where the subversives are hiding. Raiders, without any search warrant or
assigned to the checkpoints to protect, and not to abuse, the warrant of arrest went destroying the doors of the houses of the
citizenry. 6 The checkpoint is a military "concoction." It behooves the petitioners rousing them from their sleeps early in the morning. The public
military to improve the QUALITY of their men assigned to these respondents stressed two points, First, the respondents have legal
checkpoints. For no system or institution will succeed unless the men authority to conduct saturation drives. And second, they allege that the
behind it are honest, noble and dedicated. accusations of the petitioners about a deliberate disregard for human
rights are total lies.
In any situation, where abuse marks the operation of a checkpoint, the
citizen is not helpless. For the military is not above but subject to the law. ISSUE
And the courts exist to see that the law is supreme. Soldiers, including Whether or not the saturation drives were unconstitutional.
those who man checkpoints, who abuse their authority act beyond the
scope of their authority and are, therefore, liable criminally and civilly for HELD
their abusive acts; 7 This tenet should be ingrained in the soldiery in the The case did not rule on the constitutionality of the saturation drives.
clearest of terms by higher military authorities. Instead, the case was remanded to the lower court for further reception of
evidence. The Constitution grants to Government the power to seek and
cripple subversive movements which would bring down constituted
PEOPLE VS. EXALA77 authority and substitute a regime where individual liberties are
221 SCRA 494 (1993) suppressed as a matter of policy in the name of security of the State.
However, all police actions are governed by the limitations of the Bill of
FACTS Rights. Where a violation of human rights specifically guaranteed by the
On November 2, 1982, a private jeepney driven by the accused- Constitution is involved, it is the duty of the court to stop the
appellant, Restituto Bocalan,was stopped at a police checkpoint for transgression and state where even the awesome power of the state may
routing inspection regarding unlicensed firearms and other prohibited not encroach upon the rights of the individual. It is the duty of the court to
items. Along with Bocalan were his co-accused Jaime Fernandez and take remedial action even in cases such as the present petition where the
Rodelio Exala. Pfc. Ricardo Galang, a member of the inspection team, petitioners do not complain that they were victims of the police actions,
went near the jeep and asked the occupants if there were firearms inside, where no names of any of the thousands of alleged victims are given,
and in which the occupants answered in the negative. Pfc. Galang then and where the prayer is a general one to stop all police "saturation
noticed a black bag inside the jeepney, as he became suspicious, he drives," as long as the Court is convinced that the event actually
asked the occupants of what the bag contained, but nobody answered. happened. On one hand, Under Article VII, Section 18 of the Constitution
Pfc. Galang then opened the bag and found a number of marijuana. it is stated that The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all
Thereafter, the accused were brought to the police station for further armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he
investigation. The accused were all charged for violation of Section 4, may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence,
Article II of R.A. 6425, as amended. Bocalan now assails his conviction. invasion or rebellion. There can be no question that under ordinary
He contends that the trial court erred in admitting the bag as evidence circumstances, the police action of the nature described by the petitioners
against him since it was obtained through a warrantless search. would be illegal and blantantly violative of the express guarantees of the
Bill of Rights. If the military and the police must conduct concerted
ISSUE campaigns to flush out and catch criminal elements, such drives must be
Whether or not the warrantless search was valid and legal, thus proper in consistent with the constitutional and statutory rights of all the people
using the marijuana as evidence for convicting the accused (Bocalan) of affected by such actions. According to the court, Saturation drives and
the crime charged against him. other police measures are not illegal, the problem only arises in the
manner on which the police action is executed.
HELD
Yes. Since the search was conducted prior to the arrest, Bocalan argues
that it was not incident to a lawful arrest. This issue was never raised in ABENES vs. CA79
the proceedings. Bocalan never objected to the admissibility of the G.R. No. 156320, February 14, 2007
evidence on the ground that the same was obtained in a warrantless
search. Consequently, he is deemed to have waived his objection on the
legality of the search and the admissibility of the evidence obtained in the
78
3) Constitutionality of checkpoints and areal target zonings
77 79
3) Constitutionality of checkpoints and areal target zonings 3) Constitutionality of checkpoints and areal target zonings
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 28
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
FACTS applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement
Three days prior to the May 11, 1998 national and local elections, the officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or
Philippine National Police (PNP) of Pagadian City, created a team is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery
composed of seven policemen with a directive to establish and man a of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (c) it is immediately
checkpoint in Barangay Danlugan, for the purpose of enforcing the Gun apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a
Ban which was then being implemented by the COMELEC. crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.
The Team leader SPO3 Pascua coordinated with the Barangay Chairman All the foregoing requirements are present in the instant case. The law
of Danlugan, and the team put up a road block with the marking enforcement officers lawfully made an initial intrusion because of the
"COMELEC GUN BAN". Vehicles passing through the road block were enforcement of the Gun Ban and were properly in a position from which
required by the team to stop and their occupants were then politely they particularly viewed the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion,
requested to alight in order to allow routine inspection and checking of the policemen came inadvertently across a piece of evidence
their vehicles. Motorists who refused the request were not forced to do incriminating the petitioner where they saw the gun tucked into his waist.
so. The gun was in plain view and discovered inadvertently when the
petitioner alighted from the vehicle.
At about 10:30 in the morning of the same day, a red Tamaraw FX trying
to pass through the check point was stopped by the team and directed to
park at the side of the road. As the occupants within the vehicle could not GAANAN vs.IAC80
be seen through its tinted windows, SPO1 Eliezer Requejo, a member of G.R. No. L-69809 October 16, 1986
the team, knocked on the vehicles window and requested the occupants
to step down for a routine inspection. The eight occupants, which FACTS
included the accused-appellant Rodolfo Abenes who is the Barangay Complainant Atty. Pintor and Montebon offered to withdraw the complaint
Chairman of Tawagan Norte, Labangan, Zamboanga Del Sur, alighted for direct assault they filed against Laconico after demanding P8,000
from the vehicle. from him. This demand was heard by Atty. Gaanan through a telephone
extension as requested by Laconico so as to personally hear the
SPO1 Requejo and SPO3 Pascua noticed that a holstered firearm was proposed conditions for the settlement. Atty. Pintor was subsequently
tucked at the right waist of Abenes. The firearm was readily visible to the arrested in an entrapment operation upon receipt of the money. Since
policemen; it was not covered by the shirt worn by Abenes. Abenes was Atty. Gaanan listened to the telephone conversation without
then asked by SPO3 Pascua whether he had a license and authority to complainant''s consent, complainant charged Gaanan and Laconico with
carry the firearm, and whether his possession was exempted from the violation of the Anti- Wiretapping Act (RA 4200).
Gun Ban being enforced by the COMELEC. Accused answered in the
affirmative. The policemen then demanded for the pertinent documents to ISSUE
be shown to support Abenes claim. He could not show any. Hence, Whether or not an extension telephone is among the prohibited devices
SPO1 Requejo confiscated Abenes firearm, which was later identified as in Section 1 of the Act, such that its use to overhear a private
a Norinco .45 caliber pistol bearing Serial No. 906347, including its conversation would constitute unlawful interception of communications
magazine containing seven live ammunitions. between the two parties using a telephone line.
Subsequently SPO3 Pascua brought Abenes to the PNP Headquarters. RULING
The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner was acquitted of
A certification dated May 18, 1998 from the Firearms and Explosives the crime of violation of Rep. Act No. 4200, otherwise known as the Anti-
License Processing Section of the PNP, Pagadian City disclosed that Wiretapping Act.
Abenes is not a registered nor a licensed firearm holder.
Because of technical problems caused by the sensitive nature of
ISSUE electronic equipment and the extra heavy loads which telephone cables
1. Was the check-point validly established? are made to carry in certain areas, telephone users often encounter what
2. Was the petitioners constitutional right against unlawful search and are called "crossed lines". An unwary citizen who happens to pick up his
seizure violated? telephone and who overhears the details of a crime might hesitate to
inform police authorities if he knows that he could be accused under Rep.
RULING Act 4200 of using his own telephone to secretly overhear the private
The Court upheld the validity of the checkpoint. communications of the would be criminals. Surely the law was never
the production of the mission order is not necessary in view of the fact intended for such mischievous results.
that the checkpoint was established three days before the May 11, 1998
elections; and, the circumstances under which the policemen found the The main issue in the resolution of this petition, however, revolves around
gun warranted its seizure without a warrant. the meaning of the phrase "any other device or arrangement." Is an
extension of a telephone unit such a device or arrangement as would
This Court has ruled that not all checkpoints are illegal. Those which are subject the user to imprisonment ranging from six months to six years
warranted by the exigencies of public order and are conducted in a way with the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification for a
least intrusive to motorists are allowed. For, admittedly, routine public officer or deportation for an alien?
checkpoints do intrude, to a certain extent, on motorists right to "free
passage without interruption," but it cannot be denied that, as a rule, it The law refers to a "tap" of a wire or cable or the use of a "device or
involves only a brief detention of travelers during which the vehicles arrangement" for the purpose of secretly overhearing, intercepting, or
occupants are required to answer a brief question or two. For as long as recording the communication. There must be either a physical interruption
the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body through a wiretap or the deliberate installation of a device or arrangement
search, and the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search, said in order to overhear, intercept, or record the spoken words.
routine checks cannot be regarded as violative of an individuals right
against unreasonable search. In fact, these routine checks, when An extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category as a
conducted in a fixed area, are even less intrusive. dictaphone, dictagraph or the other devices enumerated in Section 1 of
The checkpoint herein conducted was in pursuance of the gun ban RA No. 4200 as the use thereof cannot be considered as "tapping" the
enforced by the COMELEC. The COMELEC would be hard put to wire or cable of a telephone line. The telephone extension in this case
implement the ban if its deputized agents were limited to a visual search was not installed for that purpose. It just happened to be there for
of pedestrians. It would also defeat the purpose for which such ban was ordinary office use. It is a rule in statutory construction that in order to
instituted. Those who intend to bring a gun during said period would know determine the true intent of the legislature, the particular clauses and
that they only need a car to be able to easily perpetrate their malicious phrases of the statute should not be taken as detached and isolated
designs. expressions, but the whole and every part thereof must be considered in
fixing the meaning of any of its parts.
The facts adduced do not constitute a ground for a violation of the
constitutional rights of the accused against illegal search and seizure. Further, our lawmakers intended to discourage, through punishment,
PO3 Suba admitted that they were merely stopping cars they deemed persons such as government authorities or representatives of organized
suspicious, such as those whose windows are heavily tinted just to see if groups from installing devices in order to gather evidence for use in court
the passengers thereof were carrying guns. At best they would merely or to intimidate, blackmail or gain some unwarranted advantage over the
direct their flashlights inside the cars they would stop, without opening the telephone users. Consequently, the mere act of listening, in order to be
cars doors or subjecting its passengers to a body search. There is punishable must strictly be with the use of the enumerated devices in RA
nothing discriminatory in this as this is what the situation demands. 4200 or others of similar nature. An extension telephone is not among
such devices or arrangements.
In the instant case, the firearm was seized from the petitioner when in
plain view, the policemen saw it tucked into his waist uncovered by his
shirt.
Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the "plain view" of an
officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject
to seizure and may be presented as evidence. The "plain view" doctrine 80
4) Wire tapping
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 29
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
STONEHILL vs DIOKNO81 requirements of the fundamental law. Upon the other hand, if he has no
G.R. No. L-19550 June 19, 1967 such competent evidence, then it is not possible for the Judge to find that
there is probable cause, and, hence, no justification for the issuance of
FACTS the warrant. The only possible explanation (not justification) for its
Respondents issued, on different dates, 42 search warrants against issuance is the necessity of fishing evidence of the commission of a
petitioners personally, and/or corporations for which they are officers crime. But, then, this fishing expedition is indicative of the absence of
directing peace officers to search the persons of petitioners and premises evidence to establish a probable cause.
of their offices, warehouses and/or residences to search for personal
properties books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, Moreover, the theory that the criminal prosecution of those who secure an
correspondence, receipts, ledgers, journals, portfolios, credit journals, illegal search warrant and/or make unreasonable searches or seizures
typewriters, and other documents showing all business transactions would suffice to protect the constitutional guarantee under consideration,
including disbursement receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss overlooks the fact that violations thereof are, in general, committed By
statements and Bobbins(cigarettes) as the subject of the offense for agents of the party in power, for, certainly, those belonging to the minority
violations of Central Bank Act, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal could not possibly abuse a power they do not have. Regardless of the
Revenue Code, and Revised Penal Code. handicap under which the minority usually but, understandably finds
itself in prosecuting agents of the majority, one must not lose sight of the
Upon effecting the search in the offices of the aforementioned fact that the psychological and moral effect of the possibility of securing
corporations and on the respective residences of the petitioners, there their conviction, is watered down by the pardoning power of the party for
seized documents, papers, money and other records. Petitioners then whose benefit the illegality had been committed.
were subjected to deportation proceedings and were constrained to
question the legality of the searches and seizures as well as the
admissibility of those seized as evidence against them. PASTRANO vs. CA82
G.R. No. 104504 October 31, 1997
On March 20, 1962, the SC issued a writ of preliminary injunction and
partially lifted the same on June 29, 1962 with respect to some FACTS
documents and papers. A group of students went to see Capt. Rodolfo Maoza, then intelligence
operations officer of the Philippine Constabulary, at Camp Naranjo, at
ISSUE Oroquieta City. They reported having seen Clyde Pastrano beaten up by
Whether or not the search warrant issue is valid. his father, petitioner Pedrito Pastrano. The students were willing to testify
but expressed fear of the petitioner who, according to them, had firearms.
RULING Clyde Pastrano had died and it was suspected he had been the victim of
The SC ruled in favor of Stonehill et al. foul play. Two sons of Pedrito Pastrano by his estranged wife also saw
Capt. Maoza, seeking his assistance in connection with the death of
The SC emphasized however that Stonehill et al cannot assail the validity their brother Clyde. The brothers reported that their father and his
of the search warrant issued against their corporation for Stonehill are not common-law wife were keeping unlicensed firearms in their house. They
the proper party hence has no cause of action. It should be raised by the executed a joint affidavit which they stated that they had personal
officers or board members of the corporation. knowledge of the fact that their father Pedrito Pastrano was keeping three
(3) firearms of different calibers in the bedroom of his house.
The constitution protects the peoples right against unreasonable search
and seizure. It provides; On the basis of the affidavit of the Pastrano brothers, Capt. Maoza
(1) that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined applied for a search warrant on the same day.
by the judge in the manner set forth in said provision; and
(2) that the warrant shall particularly describe the things to be seized. In After examining complainant and the two brothers, Judge Teodorico M.
the case at bar, none of these are met. The warrant was issued from Durias of the Municipal Trial Court of Oroquieta City (Branch I) issued a
mere allegation that Stonehill et al committed a violation of Central Bank search warrant which Capt. Maoza and his men later served at the
Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised residence of Pedrito Pastrano at Capitol Drive, Oroquieta City. Seized
Penal Code. In other words, no specific offense had been alleged in said from petitioner's dwelling was a sack containing the following:
applications. The averments thereof with respect to the offense
committed were abstract. As a consequence, it was impossible for the One (1) Revolver Cal. 22 Magnum with Serial No. 07345. Made in
judges who issued the warrants to have found the existence of probable Germany ROHMGMBH SONTHEM/BRENZ;
cause, for the same presupposes the introduction of competent proof that
the party against whom it is sought has performed particular acts, or One (1) round ammunition for Cal. 22 Magnum;
committed specific omissions, violating a given provision of our criminal
laws. As a matter of fact, the applications involved in this case do not One (1) Revolver Cal. 32 with Serial No. 233833 Colt Made in U.S.A.;
allege any specific acts performed by herein petitioners. It would be a
legal heresy, of the highest order, to convict anybody of a violation of Six rounds of live Ammunition for Cal. 32 revolver.
Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code)
and Revised Penal Code, as alleged in the aforementioned On the basis of the evidence thus seized, petitioner Pedrito Pastrano y
applications without reference to any determinate provision of said Capapas and his common-law wife, Erlinda Ventir y Sanchez, were
laws or codes. charged with Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition as
penalized under P.D. No. 1866, 1.
The grave violation of the Constitution made in the application for the
contested search warrants was compounded by the description therein ISSUE
made of the effects to be searched for and seized, to wit: Whether or not the Search Warrant issued by Judge Teodorico Durias is
invalid for failure to comply with the basic requirements of the
Books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, journals, Constitution.
correspondence, receipts, ledgers, portfolios, credit journals,
typewriters, and other documents and/or papers showing all business RULING
transactions including disbursement receipts, balance sheets and The Court held that petitioner waived any objection based on the illegality
related profit and loss statements. of the search.
Thus, the warrants authorized the search for and seizure of records Petitioner assails the absence of a written deposition showing that the
pertaining to all business transactions of Stonehill et al, regardless of judge had examined the complainant and his witnesses by means of
whether the transactions were legal or illegal. The warrants sanctioned searching questions in writing and under oath as required by Rule 126,
the seizure of all records of Stonehill et al and the aforementioned 4 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.
corporations, whatever their nature, thus openly contravening the explicit
command of the Bill of Rights that the things to be seized be Rule 126, 4 indeed requires the examination of the complainant and his
particularly described as well as tending to defeat its major objective: witnesses to be put in writing and under oath. But although this is a
the elimination of general warrants. The Moncado doctrine is likewise ground for quashing a search warrant in this case, petitioner did nothing
abandoned and the right of the accused against a defective search to this end. He did not move to quash the information before the trial
warrant is emphasized. court. Nor did he object to the presentation of the evidence obtained as
being the product of an illegal search.
Indeed, the non-exclusionary rule is contrary, not only to the letter, but
also, to the spirit of the constitutional injunction against unreasonable Petitioner thus waived any objection based on the illegality of the search.
searches and seizures. To be sure, if the applicant for a search warrant As held in People v. Omaweng, the right to be secure against
has competent evidence to establish probable cause of the commission unreasonable searches and seizures, like any other right, can be waived
of a given crime by the party against whom the warrant is intended, then and the waiver may be made either expressly or impliedly.
there is no reason why the applicant should not comply with the
81 82
6) Remedies in Cases of Violation a) Exclusionary Rule 6) Remedies in Cases of Violation a)Exclusionary Rule
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 30
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
team then helped him get up. He saw the police officers searching the
The Court find that the prosecution clearly established the elements of premises and finding shabu and firearms, which were on top of a table or
the crime charged and that the Court of Appeals and the trial court drawer.
correctly found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of When he asked the reason for his apprehension, he was told that it was
Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition. because he was a companion of Boy Bicol. He denied under oath that the
gun and drugs seized were found in his possession and testified that he
was only invited by Boy Bicol to get the motorcycle from his house.
ABERCA vs. VER83 The RTC acquitted accused-appellant of illegal possession of firearm and
G.R. No. L-69866 April 15, 1988 ammunition but convicted him of possession of dangerous drugs.
FACTS ISSUE
Petitioners brought suit alleging that General Fabian Ver had ordered the Whether or not the warrantless arrest was valid.
Task Force Makabansa of the AFP to conduct "preemptive strikes against
known communist terrorists'' underground houses" in Metro Manila. The RULING
TFM raided some places using defective warrants; they seized personal
belongings of petitioners; they had been interrogated in violation of their The Court ruled that since the accused-appellant was not in possession
right to silence and to counsel; they had been tortured and intimidated. of the illegal drugs in Boy Bicol's nipa hut, his subsequent arrest was also
Petitioners asked for payment of damages for violations of their invalid. Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure on warrantless
constitutional rights. arrest provides:
ISSUE Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.--A peace officer or a private
Whether or not the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
corpus bars a civil action for damages for illegal searches conducted by a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
military personnel and other violations of rights and liberties guaranteed actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
under the Constitution. b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause
to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that
RULING the person to be arrested has committed it; and
The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does not c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
destroy petitioners right and cause of action for damages for illegal arrest penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is
and detention and other violations of their constitutional rights. The temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while
suspension does not render valid an otherwise illegal arrest or detention. being transferred from one confinement to another.
What is suspended is merely the right of the individual to seek release
from detention through the writ of habeas corpus as a speedy means of The warrantless arrest of accused-appellant was effected under Sec.
obtaining his liberty. 5(a), arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto. For this type of warrantless
arrest to be valid, two requisites must concur:
Moreover, as pointed out by petitioners, their right and cause of action for (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he
damages are explicitly recognized in PD 1755 which amended Art. 1146 has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a
of the Civil Code by adding the following text: However, when the action crime; and
(for injury to the rights of the plaintiff or for quasi-delict) arises from or out (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the
of any act, activity or conduct of any public officer involving the exercise arresting officer.
of powers or authority arising from martial law including the arrest,
detention and/or trial of the plaintiff, the same must be brought within one Accused-appellant's act of pointing a firearm at the buy-bust team would
year. have been sufficient basis for his arrest in flagrante delicto; however, the
prosecution was not able to adequately prove that accused-appellant was
Even assuming that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas committing an offense. Although accused-appellant merely denied
corpus suspends petitioners right of action for damages for illegal arrest possessing the firearm, the prosecution's charge was weak absent the
and detention, it does not and cannot suspend their rights and causes of presentation of the alleged firearm. He was eventually acquitted by the
action for injuries suffered because of respondents confiscation of their trial court because of this gaffe. His arrest, independent of the buy-bust
private belongings, the violation of their right to remain silent and to operation targeting Boy Bicol, was therefore not lawful as he was not
counsel and their right to protection against unreasonable searches and proved to be committing any offense.
seizures and against torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment.
The question became moot and academic since the suspension of the PEOPLE v. AGOJO85
PWHC had been lifted with the issuance of then Pres. Corazon Aquino of GR. NO. 181318 APRIL 16, 2009
Proclamation No. 2 on March 25, 1986.
FACTS
AGOJO was arrested via a buy-bust operation, wherein he was selling
PP vs. DELA CRUZ84 and delivering (4) plastic bags of methamphetamine hydrochloride
G.R. No. 182348, November 20, 2008 commonly known as "shabu,", with a total weight of 206.32 grams, a
regulated dangerous drug. AGOJO also have in his possession, custody
FACTS and control one (1) caliber .45 pistol Ithaca with defaced serial number,
In the morning of October 20, 2002, an informant tipped off the Drug one (1) magazine and seven (7) rounds of live ammunitions for caliber .
Enforcement Unit of the Marikina Police Station that wanted drug pusher 45, without having secured the necessary license and/or permit from the
Wifredo Loilo alias "Boy Bicol" was at his nipa hut hideout in San Mateo, proper authorities to possess the same. Subsequently, he waqs convicted
Rizal. A team was organized to arrest Boy Bicol. They saw Boy Bicol by a by the trial court and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death. On the
table talking with accused-appellant. They shouted "Boy Bicol sumuko ka other hand, AGOJO assails his arrest by giving his own version of the
na may warrant of arrest ka. Upon hearing this, Boy Bicol engaged them story, that he was in fact framed-up by the buy-bust team.
in a shootout and was fatally shot. He dropped his shotgun when a police
officer pointed his firearm at him. The team entered the nipa hut and ISSUE
apprehended accused-appellant. They saw a plastic bag of Whether or not the ARREST of AGOJO is proper even though the
suspected shabu, a digital weighing scale, drug paraphernalia, ARREST was made WITHOUT A WARRANT?
ammunition, and magazines lying on the table. PO1 Calanoga, Jr. put the
markings "CVDC," the initials of accused-appellant, on the bag containing RULING
the seized drug. In this case, appellant points to the arrest not being in flagrante delicto,
the existence of discrepancies in the serial numbers of the buy-bust
Accused-appellant was subsequently arrested. The substance seized money and a prior attempt to frame him up as proofs of the frame-up.
from the hideout was sent to the Philippine National Police crime However, the fact that the arrest was not in flagrante delicto is of no
laboratory for examination and tested positive for methamphetamine consequence. The arrest was validly executed pursuant to Section 5,
hydrochloride or shabu. He was thus separately indicted for violation of paragraph (b) of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, which states:
RA 9165 and for illegal possession of firearm.
According to the defense, accused-appellant was at Boy Bicol's house Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or
having been asked to do a welding job for Boy Bicol's motorcycle. While a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
accused-appellant was there, persons who identified themselves as (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
police officers approached the place, prompting accused-appellant to committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
scamper away. He lied face down when gunshots rang. The buy-bust offense;
83
6) Remedies in Cases of Violation b)Civil Action for Damages
84 85
7) Requirements of Issuance of Warrants of Arrest 7) Requirements of Issuance of Warrants of Arrest
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 31
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
(b) When an offense has in fact been committed and he has Facts: Petitioner Elvira O. Ong filed a criminal complaint against
personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be respondent Jose Genio for Robbery. The information states that
arrested has committed it; and, respondent carry away kitchen and canteen equipment as well as her
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has personal things valued at Php 700,000.00.
escaped from penal establishment or place where he is serving
final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Case for Lack of Probable
or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to Cause Pursuant to Sec. 6(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court and, in View
another. of Compelling Grounds for the Dismissal of the Case to Hold in Abeyance
the Issuance of the Warrant of Arrest (Motion to Dismiss).
The second instance of lawful warrantless arrest covered by paragraph
(b) cited above necessitates two stringent requirements before a RTC of Makati City dismissed the case because the other elements of the
warrantless arrest can be effected: (1) an offense has just been crime of Robbery, specifically the elements of intent to gain, and either
committed; and (2) the person making the arrest has personal knowledge violence against or intimidation of any person or force upon things, were
of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. A not specifically alleged in the Information filed. The RTC held that the
review of the records shows that both requirements were met in this evidence on record failed to establish probable cause to charge
case. respondent with the crime of Robbery.
Issue: WON the court erred in not finding probable cause to merit the
People vs. Tan G.R. No. 182310 December 9, 200986 issuance of the warrant of arrest and dismissal of the case.
Facts: Francisco "Bobby" Tan, his wife and one of his daughters was
killed at their residence. The suspects of the brutal killing was his two Held: Section 6(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
illegitimate sons by another woman, herein respondents, Archie and Jan clearly provides:
Michael (Jan-Jan) who are living with them.
SEC. 6. When warrant of arrest may issue.
According to respondents, prior to the incident they climbed down the
high concrete fence of the compound at about 12:45 a.m to go out. They (a) By the Regional Trial Court. ' Within ten (10) days from the filing of the
returned home at around 3:30 a.m. Respondent Jan-Jan entered the complaint or information, the judge shall personally evaluate the
house ahead of his brother. On reaching the door of his room at the end resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may
of the hallway, he noticed his stepsister Katherine, lying on the floor near immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to
the masters bedroom. As Jan-Jan switched on the light in his room, he establish probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a
beheld her lying on a pool of blood. He quickly stepped into the masters warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the accused has already been
bedroom and there saw his father, Bobby, lying on the bed with his chest arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by the judge who conducted the
drenched in blood. Almost simultaneously, respondent Archie who had preliminary investigation or when the complaint or information was filed
come into the house after his brother Jan-Jan noticed that the door of his pursuant to section 7 of this Rule. In case of doubt on the existence of
room, which he locked earlier, was partly open. As he went in and probable cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to present additional
switched on the light, he saw his stepmother Cindy, lying in her blood evidence within five (5) days from notice and the issue must be resolved
near the wall below the air conditioner. by the court within thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint or
A few days after the incident police officers from the Regional CIDG information.
submitted their investigation report to the City Prosecutors Office of Iloilo
City, which pointed to respondents as principal suspects on the killing of Pursuant to the aforementioned provision, the RTC judge, upon the filing
their parents and stepsister. Separate informations for two (2) murders of an Information, has the following options:
and parricide were filed at RTC against respondents.
(1) dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly failed to establish
Thereafter respondents filed a motion for judicial determination of probable cause;
probable cause with a prayer to suspend the issuance of warrants of (2) if he or she finds probable cause, issue a warrant of arrest; and
arrest against them. (3) in case of doubt as to the existence of probable cause, order the
prosecutor to present additional evidence within five days from notice, the
Judge Globert Justalero, took over the RTC, and thereafter, reversed the issue to be resolved by the court within thirty days from the filing of the
order of the previous presiding judge. He found probable cause against information.
respondents and ordered the issuance of warrants for their arrest.
Respondents filed the present petition for certiorari with the CA. CA It bears stressing that the judge is required to personally evaluate the
granted the petition, set aside the RTC order of Judge Justalero, and resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may
annulled the warrants of arrest issued. The CA also dismissed the immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to
criminal cases against the respondents. establish probable cause. This, the RTC judge clearly complied with in
this case.
Issue: WON there was probable cause to issue a warrant for the arrest of
respondents.
People vs Pepino GR No. 183479 June 29, 2010
Held: What is probable cause? Probable cause assumes the existence of
facts that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe Facts: On October 18, 1997 in Quezon City, Metro Manila
that a crime has been committed and that it was likely committed by the accused/appellant Pepino, Daisy and Pelenio (died in a shootout) kidnap
person sought to be arrested. It requires neither absolute certainty nor Anita Ching, a businesswoman, and brought her to a safehouse for the
clear and convincing evidence of guilt. The test for issuing a warrant of purpose of demanding ransom in the amount of P500,000.00, after which
arrest is less stringent than that used for establishing the guilt of the it was paid the victim was released.
accused. As long as the evidence shows a prima facie case against the
accused, the trial court has sufficient ground to issue a warrant for his An information for the crime of kidnapping for ransom with serious illegal
arrest. detention was filed against accused.
Here, admittedly, the evidence against respondents is merely RTC, by Decision found Pepino and Daisy guilty beyond reasonable
circumstantial. The prosecution evidence shows that they had motive in doubt as principal and accomplice, respectively, of the crime charged.
that they had been at odds with their father and stepmother. They had
opportunity in that they were still probably home when the crime took Pepino did not testify, and for that matter presented no evidence to defeat
place. Archie took two pairs of new gloves from his car late that evening. or attenuate the charge or evidence brought against him. All he did in his
Cindy was apparently executed inside Archies room. The separate rooms defense was to raise the constitutional presumption of innocence, and to
of the two accused had, quite curiously, been wiped clean even of their present his kins (Renato, Larex, Zeny to testify that they and Pepino were
own fingerprints. A trial, unlike preliminary investigations, could yield more illegally arrested. He challenged his warrantless arrest for kidnapping as
evidence favorable to either side after the interrogations of the witnesses illegal.
either on direct examination or on cross-examination. What is important is
that there is some rational basis for going ahead with judicial inquiry into Issue: WON accused Pepino was illegally arrested.
the case. This Court does not subscribe to the CAs position that the
prosecution had nothing to go on with. Held:
Pepino assails his conviction on, among others, the illegality of his
arrest.
Ong vs. Genio G.R. No.182336 December 23, 200987
The court opines that as to the alleged illegality of Pepinos arrest, it is
settled that any irregularity attending the arrest of an accused should be
86 87
II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS, II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS,
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 7. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 7.
Requirements for Issuance of Warrants of Arrest Requirements for Issuance of Warrants of Arrest
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 32
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
timely raised in a motion to quash the Information at any time before opinion and reasonable belief, it does not import absolute certainty.
arraignment, failing which he is deemed to have waived. Since Pepino did Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of
not raise such alleged irregularity early on, he is now estopped. guilt, as the investigating officer acts upon reasonable belief. Probable
cause implies probability of guilt and requires more than bare suspicion,
but less than evidence which would justify a conviction.
Rebellion vs People G.R. No. 175700 July 5, 201088
The general rule is that this Court does not review factual findings of the
Held: Petitioners claim that his warrantless arrest is illegal lacks merit. trial court, which include the determination of probable cause for the
We note that nowhere in the records did we find any objection interposed issuance of a warrant of arrest. It is only in exceptional cases where this
by petitioner to the irregularity of his arrest prior to his arraignment. It has Court sets aside the conclusions of the prosecutor and the trial court
been consistently ruled that an accused is estopped from assailing any judge on the existence of probable cause, such as cases when the Court
irregularity of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the finds it necessary in order to prevent the misuse of the strong arm of the
quashal of the information against him on this ground before arraignment. law or to protect the orderly administration of justice. The facts obtaining
Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the in this case do not warrant the application of the exception.
court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made
before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. 5 In Moreover, we respect the findings of the CA when it held that Judge
this case, petitioner was duly arraigned, entered a negative plea and Reyes did not solely rely on the findings of the City Prosecutor in
actively participated during the trial. Thus, he is deemed to have waived reversing her earlier Order. We observed, among others, that when
any perceived defect in his arrest and effectively submitted himself to the Judge Reyes quoted our ruling in People v. CA, she underscored a
jurisdiction of the court trying his case. At any rate, the illegal arrest of an portion thereof, clearly indicative of her reliance on said jurisprudence.
accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment Thus, it cannot be validly argued that Judge Reyes simply and blindly
rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error. It will not adhered to the recommendation of the City Prosecutor in rendering the
even negate the validity of the conviction of the accused. assailed Order, bereft of any factual and legal basis. Furthermore, we
also accord respect to the factual findings of the City Prosecutor and the
A lawful arrest without a warrant may be made by a peace officer or a CA that petitioner indeed encashed these allegedly anomalous checks.
private individual under any of the following circumstances: Suffice it to state that a finding of probable cause does not require an
inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction
Sec 5. Arrest without warrant, when lawful A peace officer or a private it is enough that there is a reasonable belief that the act or omission
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: complained of constitutes the offense charged.
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing or is attempting to commit an offense;
People vs, Martinez G.R. No. 191366 Dec. 13, 201090
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause
to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that Held: Paragraph (c) of Rule 113 is clearly inapplicable to this case.
the person to be arrested has committed it; and Paragraphs (a) and (b), on the other hand, may be applicable and both
require probable cause to be present in order for a warrantless arrest to
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a be valid. Probable cause has been held to signify a reasonable ground of
penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while warrant a cautious mans belief that the person accused is guilty of the
being transferred from one confinement to another. offense with which he is charged.
At first, Judge Reyes found probable cause to hold Francisco liable, while People vs. Quebral G.R. No. 185379 Nov. 27, 200991
ordered the dismissal of the case against Aquino and petitioner for
absence of probable cause. Aggrieved, the bank filed its MR. Held:
The accused-appellants invoke the rule that a person may be arrested
Judge Reyes, acting on the banks MR, issued an Order reversing her even without a warrant only a) if he is caught in the act of committing a
earlier ruling, this time finding probable cause against Aquino and crime, b) if he has just committed a crime and the arresting officer
petitioner and directing the issuance of warrants of arrest to all the pursued him, or c) if he escaped from a legal confinement. But in the first
accused. No bail was recommended. two instances, the officer must have personal knowledge of the facts
Petitioner filed petition for certiorari before CA, which was denied for lack underlying the arrest. The target persons observable acts must clearly
of merit. spell a crime. If no crime is evident from those acts, no valid arrest can be
Hence, this Petition ascribe grave abuse of discretion to the CA for made. An informant whispering to the police officers ear that the person
decision and resolution which are inconsistent with and not supported by walking or standing on the street has committed or is committing a crime
the law, the facts, and the settled jurisprudence laid down by the SC on will not do. The arresting officer must himself perceive the manifestations
the matter of filing of criminal cases against the accused where there is of a crime.
no evidence sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that an offense
was committed. As the lower court aptly put it in this case, the law enforcers already had
an inkling of the personal circumstances of the persons they were looking
Issue: for and the criminal act they were about to commit. That these
WON there is probable cause in this case. circumstances played out in their presence supplied probable cause for
the search. The police acted on reasonable ground of suspicion or belief
Held: supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a
Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and cautious man to believe that a crime has been committed or is about to
circumstances as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence be committed. Since the seized shabu resulted from a valid search, it is
to entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person charged is admissible in evidence against the accused.
guilty of the crime subject of the investigation. Being based merely on
90
II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS,
88
II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 7.
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 7. Requirements for Issuance of Warrants of Arrest
Requirements for Issuance of Warrants of Arrest 91
II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS,
89
II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 8.
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 7. When arrest may be made without warrant, a.) Strict enforcement of
Requirements for Issuance of Warrants of Arrest rule
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 33
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
Esquillo vs People G.R. No. 82010 Aug. 25, 201093 effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature
and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant
Held: of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
That a search may be conducted by law enforcers only on the strength of personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
a valid search warrant is settled. The same, however, admits of complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
exceptions, viz: describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be
seized.
(1) consented searches; (2) as an incident to a lawful arrest; (3) searches The police investigation work in this case, which led to the unlawful
of vessels and aircraft for violation of immigration, customs, and drug warrantless arrest of the accused, is nothing but sloppy: (1) they chose to
laws; (4) searches of moving vehicles; (5) searches of automobiles at rely solely on the sworn statement of one eyewitness (Alejo); (2) they
borders or constructive borders; (6) where the prohibited articles are in failed to obtain any description of the suspects from other eyewitnesses,
"plain view;" (7) searches of buildings and premises to enforce fire, including the owner of the Kia Pride which was forcefully obtained by the
sanitary, and building regulations; and (8) "stop and frisk" operations. suspects as a get-away car; (3) they showed Alejo a picture of Joel to
assist him in identifying the "suspect"; and (4) they arrested the other
In the instances where a warrant is not necessary to effect a valid search accused based entirely on the illegally extracted extrajudicial confession
or seizure, the determination of what constitutes a reasonable or of Joel.
unreasonable search or seizure is purely a judicial question, taking into
account, among other things, the uniqueness of the circumstances
involved including the purpose of the search or seizure, the presence or People vs Araneta G.R. No. 191064 Oct. 20, 201095
absence of probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure
was made, the place or thing searched, and the character of the articles Held:
procured. The Court also holds that the seized items were admissible. A search
warrant or warrant of arrest was not needed because it was a buy-bust
operation and the accused were caught in flagrante delicto in possession
of, and selling, dangerous drugs to the poseur-buyer. It was definitely
legal for the buy-bust team to arrest, and search, them on the spot
because a buy-bust operation is a justifiable mode of apprehending drug
pushers. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and
means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the
lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. In this jurisdiction, the
Lumanog vs. People G.R. No.182555 Sept. 7, 201094 operation is legal and has been proven to be an effective method of
apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to constitutional and
Held: legal safeguards is undertaken.
The police arrested Joel, without any warrant, on 19 June 1996 or six
days after the killing. Six days is definitely more than enough to
secure an arrest warrant, and yet the police opted to arrest Joel and People v Penaflorida 551 SCRA 111 (2008)
the other accused, without any warrant, claiming that it was
conducted in "hot pursuit." In law enforcement, "hot pursuit" can refer Facts: SPO3 Vicente Competente narrated that in his capacity as chief of
to an immediate pursuit by the police such as a car chase. Certainly, the the Investigation and Operation Division of the PNP station in Tigaon,
warrantless arrrest of Joel, made six days after the murder, does not fall Camarines Sur, that he received a tip from an asset that a bundle of
within the ambit of "hot pursuit." The question now is whether the marijuana was being transported by appellant to Huyon-huyon from
successive warrantless arrests of the accused are legal. The pertinent another barangay in Tigaon, Camarines Sur. Major Domingo Agravante,
provisions of Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure on warrantless chief of police in Tigaon, then organized a team composed of
arrest provide: Competente as team leader, SPO2 Callo, SPO1 Portugal, PO3 Pillos and
PO2 Edgar Latam. The team boarded the police mobile car and
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a private proceeded to Sitio Nasulan in Barangay Huyon-huyon. They overtook
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: appellant who was on a bicycle. The police officers flagged appellant
down and found marijuana wrapped in a cellophane and newspaper
together with other grocery items. The amount of P1550.00 was also
found in appellants possession. The police officers confiscated these
92
II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS, items and took photographs thereof. Appellant was then brought to the
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 8. headquarters where he was booked.
When arrest may be made without warrant, a.) Strict enforcement of
rule Major Lorlie Arroyo, a forensic chemist at the PNP Crime Laboratory
93 Regional Office No. V, was presented as an expert witness to identify the
II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS, subject marijuana leaves. She related that after taking a representative
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 8. sample from the 928-gram confiscated dried leaves, the same was tested
When arrest may be made without warrant, a.) Strict enforcement of positive of marijuana.
rule
94 95
II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS, II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS,
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 8. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 8.
When arrest may be made without warrant, a.) Strict enforcement of When arrest may be made without warrant, a.) Strict enforcement of
rule rule
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 34
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
were allowed under the circumstances. The search, incident to his lawful
Appellant denied the accusations against him. That on his way home, arrest, needed no warrant to sustain its validity. Thus, there is no doubt
they met Boyet Obias (Obias) who requested appellant to bring a that the sachets of shabu recovered during the legitimate buy-bust
package wrapped in a newspaper to Jimmy Gonzales, he placed it in the operation, are admissible and were properly admitted in evidence against
basket in front of his bicycle and Gonzales proceeded to the Tiagon town him.
proper. On his way home, he was flagged down by the police and was
invited to go with them to the headquarters. Appellants defenses of denial and frame-up are both self-serving and
uncorroborated, and must fail in light of straightforward and positive
TC ruled that there was violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act testimony of poseur-buyer identifying him as the seller of shabu. The twin
(R.A.) No. 6425, otherwise known as The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, defenses of denial and frame-up hold little weight vis--vis the strong
hence, the instant case is now before this Court on automatic review. evidence gathered by the prosecution in proving his complicity to the
offenses. To recall, PO1 Manaols testimony was corroborated on
In assailing his conviction, appellant submits that there is doubt that he material points by PO1 Bagay, who identified appellant as the one who
had freely and consciously possessed marijuana. One of the issues handed the sachet of shabu to PO1 Manaol after being handed two (2)
raised is that, upon receipt of the information from the asset, the One Hundred Peso bills. Contrary to the defenses claim, it is not
police officers should have first investigated and tried to obtain a impossible for a buy-bust operation to be conducted in broad daylight, as
warrant of arrest against appellant, instead of arbitrarily arresting in the case at bar. Frame-up, like denial, is viewed by this Court with
him. disfavor for it can easily be concocted.
Jurisprudence defines transport as to carry or convey from one place to The 1987 Constitution states that a search and consequent seizure must
another. In the instant case, appellant was riding his bicycle when he be carried out with a judicial warrant; otherwise, it becomes unreasonable
was caught by the police. He admitted that he was about to convey the and any evidence obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible for any
package, which contained marijuana, to a certain Jimmy Gonzales. purpose in any proceeding. Said proscription, however, admits of
exceptions, namely:
Appellant, denies any knowledge that the package in his possession
contained marijuana. But TC rejected his contention, noting that it was 1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;
impossible for appellant not to be aware of the contents of the package 2. Search of evidence in "plain view;"
because marijuana has a distinct sweet and unmistakable aroma which 3. Search of a moving vehicle;
would have alarmed him. 4. Consented warrantless search;
5. Customs search;
Taking one step further, the appellate court went on to declare that being 6. Stop and Frisk; and
mala prohibita, one commits the crime under RA No. 6425 by mere 7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.
possession of a prohibited drug without legal authority. Intent, motive or
knowledge thereof is not necessary. Obviously, this is an instance of seizure of the "fruit of the poisonous
tree," hence, the confiscated item is inadmissible in evidence consonant
Finally, the lower courts correctly sentenced appellant to suffer the with Article III, Section 3(2) of the 1987 Constitution, "any evidence
penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of one million pesos by obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible
virtue of the amendment to Section 4, RA No. 6425 by RA No. 7659. for any purpose in any proceeding." Without the confiscated shabu,
appellants conviction cannot be sustained based on the remaining
TCs decision is affirmed. evidence. Thus, an acquittal is warranted, despite the waiver of appellant
of his right to question the illegality of his arrest by entering a plea and his
active participation in the trial of the case. As earlier mentioned, the
People vs. Sembrano G.R. No.185848 Aug. 16, 201096 legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the
person of the accused. A waiver of an illegal, warrantless arrest does not
Held: On the legality of the warrantless arrest, We reiterate that appellant carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an
was arrested during an entrapment operation where he was caught in illegal warrantless arrest.
flagrante delicto selling shabu. When an arrest is made during an
entrapment operation, it is not required that a warrant be secured in line
with the provisions of Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Revised Rules of PEOPLE vs. BIYOC 532 SCRA 20198
Court allowing warrantless arrests, to wit:
Facts:
Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a At 4pm of Dec 5, 2000, private complainant AAA was in a room on the 2 nd
private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: floor of the family house taking care of here one year old sister. Her
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is father, herein appellant, entered the room and touched here genitals,
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. after which he told her to lie down on the floor.
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 35
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
Overcome by fear, AAA did lie down on the floor as told. Appellant at
once pulled her short pants down and touched her genitals again, after Ruling: At the outset, we observe that nowhere in the records can we
which he went on top of her and tried to insert his penis into her vagina. find any objection by petitioner to the irregularity of his arrest before his
Appellant was not able to fully penetrate AAAs vagina, however, as her arraignment. Considering this and his active participation in the trial of the
elder sister BBB went up the 2nd floor and saw appellant sitting in front of case, jurisprudence dictates that petitioner is deemed to have submitted
AAA who was lying down, face up. Appellant immediately warned BBB to the jurisdiction of the trial court, thereby curing any defect in his arrest.
not to tell their mother about what she saw. After BBB left appellant The legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court
inserted his penis inside AAAs vagina. over his person. Petitioners warrantless arrest therefore cannot, in
itself, be the basis of his acquittal.
BBB lost no time to report that same day to her mother CCC, live-in
partner of appellant, what she saw, CCC thus immediately confronted However, to determine the admissibility of the seized drugs in evidence, it
AAA who did confirm that appellant had inserted his penis inside her is indispensable to ascertain whether or not the search which yielded the
vagina that afternoon, and that appellant had been doing the same act to alleged contraband was lawful. The search, conducted as it was without a
her since she was nine years old. Incensed, CCC accompanied AAA the warrant, is justified only if it were incidental to a lawful arrest. Evaluating
following day, December 6, 2000, DSWD to report the incident, and also the evidence on record in its totality, as earlier intimated, the reasonable
to the police officers. conclusion is that the arrest of petitioner without a warrant is not lawful as
well.
PO1 Javier, together with AAA and CCC thereafter proceeded to the
family home and on their way, they met appellant. PO1 Javier at once Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides the only
informed him of his rights, arrested him and brought him to the police occasions on which a person may be arrested without a warrant, to wit:
station. AAAs and CCCs statements were thereupon taken. Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.A peace officer or a
private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
TC ruled that appellant is guilty for the crime of rape. In his brief, (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
appellant raised the issue that the trial court failed to consider the fact actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
that the accuseds arrest was legally objectionable. He claims that his (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause
arrest was illegal because a warrantless arrest was effected even before to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that
the statement of the private complainant was taken. the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
Issue penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or
WON the contention of the accused-appellant is correct? temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while
being transferred from one confinement to another.
xxx
Ruling It is obvious that based on the testimonies of the arresting barangay
NO. Objections to the legality of arrests must, however, be made tanod, not one of these circumstances was obtaining at the time
prior to the entry of plea at arraignment; otherwise, they are petitioner was arrested. By their own admission, petitioner was not
considered waived. committing an offense at the time he alighted from the bus, nor did he
appear to be then committing an offense. 20 The tanod did not have
We have also ruled that an accused may be stopped from assailing the probable cause either to justify petitioners warrantless arrest.
illegality of his arrest if he fails to move for the quashing of the information
against him before his arraignment. And since the legality of an arrest For the exception in Section 5(a), Rule 113 to operate, this Court has
affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused, ruled that two (2) elements must be present: (1) the person to be arrested
any defect in his arrest may be deemed cured when he voluntarily must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is
submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court as what was done by the actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such
appellants in the instant case. Not only did they enter their pleas during overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting
arraignment, but they also actively participated during the trial which officer.21 Here, petitioners act of looking around after getting off the bus
constitutes a waiver of any irregularity in their arrest. was but natural as he was finding his way to his destination. That he
purportedly attempted to run away as the tanod approached him is
In the present case, appellant failed to question the illegality of his arrest irrelevant and cannot by itself be construed as adequate to charge the
before entering his please, hence, he is deemed to waive the same. tanod with personal knowledge that petitioner had just engaged in, was
actually engaging in or was attempting to engage in criminal activity. More
importantly, petitioner testified that he did not run away but in fact spoke
Valdez v People 538 SCRA 611 (2007)99 with the barangay tanod when they approached him.
Facts: Bautista testified that at around 8:00pm of March 17, 2003, he Indeed, the supposed acts of petitioner, even assuming that they
was conducting the routing patrol along the National Highway La Union appeared dubious, cannot be viewed as sufficient to incite suspicion of
together with Aratas and Ordono when they noticed petitioner, lugging a criminal activity enough to validate his warrantless arrest. 26 If at all, the
bag, alight from a mini-bus. The tanods observed that petitioner, who search most permissible for the tanod to conduct under the prevailing
appeared suspicious to them, seemed to be looking for something. They backdrop of the case was a stop-and-frisk to allay any suspicion they
thus approached him but the latter purportedly attempted to run away. have been harboring based on petitioners behavior. However, a stop-
They chased him, put him under arrest and thereafter brought him to the and-frisk situation, following Terry v. Ohio,27 must precede a warrantless
house of Barangay Captain Orencio Mercado (Mercado) where he, as arrest, be limited to the persons outer clothing, and should be grounded
averred by Bautista, was ordered by Mercado to open his bag. upon a genuine reason, in light of the police officers experience and
Petitioners bag allegedly contained a pair of denim pants, eighteen surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained has
pieces of eggplant and dried marijuana leaves wrapped in newspaper weapons concealed about him.
and cellophane. It was then that petitioner was taken to the police station
for further investigation. Ruling in Issue No. 2
Police Inspector Laya, the forensic chemist who conducted the Accordingly, petitioners waiver of his right to question his arrest
examination of the marijuana allegedly confiscated from petitioner. Laya notwithstanding, the marijuana leaves allegedly taken during the search
maintained that the specimen submitted to him for analysis, a sachet of cannot be admitted in evidence against him as they were seized during a
the substance weighing 23.10 grams and contained in a plastic bag, warrantless search which was not lawful. 29 As we pronounced in People
tested positive of marijuana. The charges were denied by petitioner. TC v. Bacla-an
ruled in favour of the prosecution. A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not also mean a waiver of
the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest.
In appeal, petitioner prays for his acquittal and asserts that his guilt of the The following searches and seizures are deemed permissible by
crime charged had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. He jurisprudence: (1) search of moving vehicles (2) seizure in plain view (3)
argues, albeit for the first time on appeal, that the warrantless arrest customs searches (4) waiver or consent searches (5) stop and frisk
effected against him by the barangay tanod was unlawful and that the situations (Terry Search) and (6) search incidental to a lawful arrest. The
warrantless search of his bag that followed was likewise contrary to law. last includes a valid warrantless search and seizure pursuant to an
Consequently, he maintains, the marijuana leaves purportedly seized equally valid warrantless arrest, for, while as a rule, an arrest is
from him are inadmissible in evidence for being the fruit of a poisonous considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest, the Rules
tree. of Court recognize permissible warrantless arrests, to wit: (1) arrests in
flagrante delicto, (2) arrests effected in hot pursuit, and, (3) arrests of
Issue: Whether or not there was an illegal arrest? YES. What is the effect escaped prisoners.30
of the declaration of illegal arrest? When petitioner was arrested without a warrant, he was neither caught in
flagrante delicto committing a crime nor was the arrest effected in hot
99 pursuit. Verily, it cannot therefore be reasonably argued that the
II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS,
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 8. warrantless search conducted on petitioner was incidental to a lawful
When arrest may be made without warrant, d.) Effects of Declaration arrest.
of Illegal Arrest
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 36
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
In its Comment, the Office of the Solicitor General posits that apart from valid information ha been filed, the accused arraigned, trial commenced
the warrantless search being incidental to his lawful arrest, petitioner had and completed, and a judgment of conviction rendered against him.
consented to the search. We are not convinced. As we explained in
Caballes v. Court of Appeals31 Nevertheless, our ruling in Pp vs Cabugatan provides that:
Doubtless, the constitutional immunity against unreasonable searches
and seizures is a personal right which may be waived. The consent must The rule is settled that an arrest made after entrapment does not require
be voluntary in order to validate an otherwise illegal detention and a warrant inasmuch as it Is considered as valid warrantless arrest
search, i.e., the consent is unequivocal, specific, and intelligently given, pursuant to Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court.
uncontaminated by any duress or coercion. Hence, consent to a search is
not to be lightly inferred, but must be shown by clear and convincing
evidence. The question whether a consent to a search was in fact
voluntary is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of all the Ople v Torres 293 SCRA 141 (1998)101
circumstances. Relevant to this determination are the following
characteristics of the person giving consent and the environment in which Facts: Petitioner Ople prays that this Court invalidate Administrative
consent is given: (1) the age of the defendant; (2) whether he was in a Order No. 308 entitled Adoption of a National Computerized
public or secluded location; (3) whether he objected to the search or Indentification Reference System on two important constitutional
passively looked on; (4) the education and intelligence of the defendant; grounds, viz: one, it is usurpation of the power of Congress to legislate,
(5) the presence of coercive police procedures; (6) the defendant's belief and two, it impermissibly intrudes on our citizenrys protected zone of
that no incriminating evidence will be found; (7) the nature of the police privacy.
questioning; (8) the environment in which the questioning took place; and
(9) the possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person consenting. It is Issue:
the State which has the burden of proving, by clear and positive Whether or not AO No. 308 violates the constitutional right to privacy.
testimony, that the necessary consent was obtained and that it was freely
and voluntarily given. Ruling: Yes.
A final word. We find it fitting to take this occasion to remind the courts to Zones of privacy are recognized and protected in our laws. The Civil
exercise the highest degree of diligence and prudence in deliberating Code provides that every person shall respect the dignity, personality,
upon the guilt of accused persons brought before them, especially in light privacy and peace of mind of his neighbours and other persons and
of the fundamental rights at stake. Here, we note that the courts a quo punishes as actionable torts several acts by a person of meddling and
neglected to give more serious consideration to certain material issues in prying into the privacy of another. It also holds a public officer or
the determination of the merits of the case. We are not oblivious to the employee or any private individual liable for damages for any violation of
fact that in some instances, law enforcers resort to the practice of the rights and liberties of another person, and recognizes the privacy of
planting evidence to extract information or even harass civilians. letter and other private communications. The Revised Penal Code makes
Accordingly, courts are duty-bound to be "[e]xtra vigilant in trying drug a crime the violation of secrets by an officer, the revelation of trade and
cases lest an innocent person be made to suffer the unusually severe industrial secrets, and trespass to dwelling. Invasion of privacy is an
penalties for drug offenses."52 In the same vein, let this serve as an offense in special laws like the Anti-Wiretapping Law, the Secrecy of Bank
admonition to police officers and public officials alike to perform their Deposits Act and the Intellectual Property Code. The Rules of Court on
mandated duties with commitment to the highest degree of diligence, privileged communication likewise recognize the privacy of certain
righteousness and respect for the law. information.
SC reversed the decision of the lower courts and acquitted the accused. Unlike the dissenters, we rescind from the premise that the right to
privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution; hence, it is
the burden of government to show that AO No. 308 is justified by some
PEOPLE vs. SANTOS 555 SCRA 578100 compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn. AO No. 308 is
predicated on two considerations: (1) the need to provide our citizens and
Facts: foreigners with the facility to conveniently transact business with basic
On March 8, 2003, the SDEU operatives of the Pasig City Police service and social security providers and other government
conducted a buy-bust operation in a residential area along Dr. Sixto instrumentalities and (2) the need to reduce, if not totally eradicate,
Antonio Avenue, on the basis of reports that a certain alias Monching fraudulent transaction and misrepresentations by person seeking basic
Labo was selling illegal drugs in the said locality. Accompanied by a services. It is debatable whether these interests are compelling enough to
confidential informant, the police team, proceeded to the ratget area at warrant the issuance of AO No. 308. But what is not arguable is the
around 1:15 to 1:20 a.am. PO3 Carlo Luna was to act as the poseur- broadness, the vagueness, the overbreadth of AO No. 308 which if
buyer, whereas the other members of the team were to serve as his implemented will put our peoples right to privacy in clear and present
backup. danger.
The informant the pointed to 2 pesons standing along the target area, AO No. 308 falls short of assuring that personal information which will be
one of whom was Monching Labo, later indentified as appellant Ramon gathered about our people will only be processed for unequivocally
Catoc Picayo. After approaching , the informant introduced PO3 Luna as specified purposes. That lack of proper safeguards in this regard od AO
a shabu customer to one of the persons, later identified as appellant No. 308 may interfere with individuals liberty of abode and travel by
Jerry Santos. Appellant Santos then asked PO3 Luna how much worth of enabling authorities to track down his movement; it may also enable
shabu he was buying and asked for the money. PO3 Luna gave appellant unscrupulous persons to access confidential information and circumvent
Santos the buy-bust money consisting of a pre-marked p100 bill. Santos the right against self-incrimination; it may pave the way for fishing
handed this money to appellant Catoc, who took out from his pocket a expeditions by government authorities and evade the right against
sealed transparent plastic sachet containing a white crystalline unreasonable searches and seizures. The possibilities of abuse and
substance, which he handed back to appellant Santos. When Santos misuse of PRN, biometrics and computer technology are accentuated
gave the plastic sachet to PO3 Luna, the latter nabbed the former and when we consider that the individual lacks control over what can be read
introduced himself as a policeman. or placed on his ID, much less verify the correctness of the date encoded.
They threaten the very abuses that the Bill of Rights seeks to prevent.
Appellants contend that the trial court erred in convicting the, as their guilt
was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, considering that the The right to privacy is one of the most threatened rights of man
prosecution failed to prove that a buy-bust operation took place and that living in a mass society. The threats emanate from various sources
their arrests without warrant were not legally effected. governments, journalists, employers, social scientists, etc. In the
case at bar, the threat comes from the executive branch of government
Issue which by issuing AO No. 308 pressures the people to surrender their
WON the arrest was legally effected? privacy by giving information about themselves on the pretext that it will
facilitate delivery of basic services. Given the record-keeping power of
Ruling the computer, only the indifferent fail to perceive the danger that AO No.
YES. The claim of appellants that their warrantless arrests were illegal 308 gives the government the power to compile a devastating dossier
lacks merit. The Court notes that nowhere in the records did we find any against unsuspecting citizens. It is timely to take not of the well-worded
objection by appellants to the irregularity of their arrests prior to their warning of Kalvin, Jr., the disturbing result could be that everyone will
arraignment. We have held in a number of cases that the illegal arrest of live burdened by an unerasable record of his past and his limitations. In a
an accused is not a sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment way, the threat is that because of its record-keeping, the society will have
rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error; such lost its benign capacity to forget. Oblivious to this counsel, the dissents
arrest does not negate the validity of the conviction of the accused. It is still say we shout not be too quick in labelling the right to privacy as a
much too late in the day to complain about the warrantless arrest after a fundamental right. We close with the statement that the right to privacy
was not engraved in our Constitution for flattery.
100
II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS,
101
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 8. II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS,
When arrest may be made without warrant, d.) Effects of Declaration SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 10.
of Illegal Arrest Privacy & 11. Privacy of Communications
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 37
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
In evaluating a claim for violation of the right to privacy, a court The poser should be answered in the affirmative. For one, Sec. 36 of RA
must determine whether a person has exhibited a reasonable 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR), as couched,
expectation of privacy and if so, whether that expectation has been contain provisions specifically directed towards preventing a situation that
violated by unreasonable government intrusion. Applying this would unduly embarrass the employees or place them under a
determination to these cases, the important inquiries are: first, did the humiliating experience. While every officer and employee in a private
directors and officers of Philcomsat Holdings Corporation exhibit a establishment is under the law deemed forewarned that he or she may be
reasonable expectation; and second, did the government violate such a possible subject of a drug test, nobody is really singled out in advance
expectation? for drug testing. The goal is to discourage drug use by not telling advance
anyone when and who is to be tested. And as may be observed, Sec.
The answers are in the negative. Petitioners were invited in the Senates 36(d) of RA 9165 itself prescribes what, in Ople, is a narrowing ingredient
public hearing to deliberate on Senate Res. No. 455, particularly on the by providing that the employee concerned shall be subjected to random
anomalous losses incurred by the Philippines Overseas drug test as contained in the companys work rules and regulations x x x
Telecommunications Corporation (POTC), Philippines Communications for purposes of reducing the risk in the work place.
Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT), and Philcomsat Holdings
102 103
II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS, II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS,
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 10. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 10.
Privacy & 11. Privacy of Communications Privacy
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 38
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
For another, the random drug testing shall be undertaken under medical test as a tool for criminal prosecution, contrary to the stated
conditions calculated to protect as much as possible the employees objectives of RA 9165. Drug testing in this case would violate a persons
privacy and dignity. As to the mechanics of the test, the law specifies that right to privacy guaranteed under Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution.
the procedure shall employ two testing methods, i.e., the screening test Worse still, the accused persons are veritably forced to incriminate
and the confirmatory test, doubtless to ensure as much as possible the themselves.
trustworthiness of the results. But the more important consideration lies in
the fact that the test shall be conducted by trained professionals in
access-controlled laboratories monitored by the Department of Health Lee vs CA G.R. No. 177861 July 13, 2010104
(DOH) to safeguard against results tampering and to ensure an accurate
chain of custody. In addition, the IRR issued by the DOH provides that Held:
access to the drug results shall be on the need to know basis; that the Petitioner Emma Lee claims that the RTC correctly quashed the
drug test result and the records shall be kept confidential subject to the subpoena ad testificandum it issued against Tiu on the ground that it was
usual accepted practices to protect the confidentiality of the tests results. unreasonable and oppressive, given the likelihood that the latter would be
Notably, RA 9165 does not oblige the employer concerned to report to the badgered on oral examination concerning the Lee-Keh childrens theory
prosecuting agencies any information or evidence relating to the violation that she had illicit relation with Lee and gave birth to the other Lee
of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act received as a result of the children.
operation of the drug testing. All told, therefore, the intrusion into the
employees privacy, under RA 9165, is accompanied by proper But, as the CA correctly ruled, the grounds citedunreasonable and
safeguards, particularly against embarrassing leakages of test results, oppressiveare proper for subpoena ad duces tecum or for the
and is relatively minimal. production of documents and things in the possession of the witness, a
command that has a tendency to infringe on the right against invasion of
To reiterate, RA 9165 was enacted as a measure to stamp out illegal drug privacy. Section 4, Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, thus provides:
in the country and thus protect the well-being of the citizens, especially
the youth, from the deleterious effects of dangerous drugs. The law SECTION 4. Quashing a subpoena. The court may quash a subpoena
intends to achieve this through the medium, among others, of promoting duces tecum upon motion promptly made and, in any event, at or before
an resolutely pursuing a national drug abuse policy in the workplace via a the time specified therein if it is unreasonable and oppressive, or the
mandatory random drug test. To the Court, the need for drug testing to at relevancy of the books, documents or things does not appear, or if the
least minimize illegal drug use is substantial enough to override the person in whose behalf the subpoena is issued fails to advance the
individuals privacy interest under the premises. The Court can consider reasonable cost of the production thereof.
that the illegal drug menace cuts across gender, age group, and social
economic lines. And it may not be amiss to state that the sale,
manufacture, or trafficking of illegal drugs, with their ready market, would Manila Electric Company vs. Lim G.R. No. 184769 October 5, 2010105
be an investors dream were it not for the illegal and immoral components
of any such activities. The drug problem has already abated since the Held:
martial law public execution of a notorious drug trafficker. The state can Respondents plea that she be spared from complying with MERALCOs
no longer assume a laid back stance with respect to this modern-day Memorandum directing her reassignment to the Alabang Sector, under
scourge. Drug enforcement agencies perceive a mandatory random drug the guise of a quest for information or data allegedly in possession of
test to be an effective way of preventing and deterring drug use among petitioners, does not fall within the province of a writ of habeas data.
employees in private offices, the threat of detection by random testing Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data provides:
being higher than other modes. The Court holds that the chosen method
is a reasonable and enough means to lick the problem. Section 1. Habeas Data. The writ of habeas data is a remedy available
to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated
Taking into account the foregoing factors, i.e., the reduced expectation of or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
privacy on the part of the employees, the compelling state concern likely employee or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering,
to be met by the search, and the well-defined limits set forth in the law to collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family,
properly guide authorities in the conduct of the random testing, we hold home and correspondence of the aggrieved party. (emphasis and
that the challenged drug test requirement is, under the limited context of underscoring supplied)
the case, reasonable and, ergo, constitutional.
The habeas data rule, in general, is designed to protect by means of
Like their counterparts in the private sector, government officials and judicial complaint the image, privacy, honor, information, and freedom of
employees also labour under reasonable supervision and restrictions information of an individual. It is meant to provide a forum to enforce
imposed by the Civil Service Law and other laws on public officers, all ones right to the truth and to informational privacy, thus safeguarding the
enacted to promote a high standard of ethics in the public service. And if constitutional guarantees of a persons right to life, liberty and security
RA 9165 passes the norm of reasonableness for private employees, the against abuse in this age of information technology.
more reason that it should pass the test for civil servants, who, by
constitutional command, are required to be accountable at all times to the It bears reiteration that like the writ of amparo, habeas data was
people and to serve them with utmost responsibility and efficiency. conceived as a response, given the lack of effective and available
remedies, to address the extraordinary rise in the number of killings and
Issue2: Whether or not the mandatory drug testing of persons charged enforced disappearances. Its intent is to address violations of or threats
before the prosecutors office with certain offenses is in violation of right to the rights to life, liberty or security as a remedy independently from
to privacy. those provided under prevailing Rules.
Ruling: Yes. Castillo v. Cruz underscores the emphasis laid down in Tapuz v. del
Rosario that the writs of amparo and habeas data will NOT issue to
Unlike the situation covered by Sec. 36(c) and (d) of RA 9165, protect purely property or commercial concerns nor when the grounds
the Court finds no valid justification for mandatory drug testing for invoked in support of the petitions therefor are vague or doubtful.
persons accused of crimes. In the case of students, the constitutional Employment constitutes a property right under the context of the due
viability of the mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing for process clause of the Constitution. It is evident that respondents
students emanates primarily from the waiver by the students of their right reservations on the real reasons for her transfer - a legitimate concern
to privacy when they seek entry to the school, and from their voluntarily respecting the terms and conditions of ones employment - are what
submitting their persons to the parental authority of school authorities. In prompted her to adopt the extraordinary remedy of habeas data.
the case of private and public employees, the constitutional soundness of Jurisdiction over such concerns is inarguably lodged by law with the
the mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing proceeds from the NLRC and the Labor Arbiters.
reasonableness of the drug test policy and requirement.
In another vein, there is no showing from the facts presented that
We find the situation entirely different in the case of persons charged petitioners committed any unjustifiable or unlawful violation of
before the public prosecutors office with criminal offenses punishable respondents right to privacy vis-a-vis the right to life, liberty or security.
with six (6) years and one (1) day imprisonment. The operative concepts To argue that petitioners refusal to disclose the contents of reports
in the mandatory drug testing are randomness and suspicionless. In allegedly received on the threats to respondents safety amounts to a
the case of persons charged with a crime before the prosecutors office, a violation of her right to privacy is at best speculative. Respondent in fact
mandatory drug testing can never be random or suspicionless. The ideas trivializes these threats and accusations from unknown individuals in her
of randomness and being suspicionless are antiethical to their being earlier-quoted portion of her July 10, 2008 letter as "highly suspicious,
made defendants in a criminal complaint. They are not randomly picked;
neither are they beyond suspicion. When persons suspected of 104
committing a crime charged, they are singled out and are impleaded II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS,
against their will. The persons thus charged, by the bare fact of being SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 10.
hauled before the prosecutors office and peaceably submitting Privacy
themselves to drug testing, if that be the case do not necessarily consent 105
II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS,
to the procedure, let alone waive their right to privacy. To impose SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 10.
mandatory drug testing on the accused is a blatant attempt to harness a Privacy
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 39
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
doubtful or are just mere jokes if they existed at all." And she even The letters alleged to have been read by the ISAFP authorities were not
suspects that her transfer to another place of work "betray[s] the real confidential letters between the detainees and their lawyers. The
intent of management]" and could be a "punitive move." Her posture petitioner who received the letters from detainees Trillanes and
unwittingly concedes that the issue is labor-related. Maestrecampo was merely acting as the detainees personal courier and
not as their counsel when he received the letters for mailing. In the
present case, since the letters were not confidential communication
Zulueta v CA 253 SCRA 699 (1996)106 between the detainees and their lawyers, the officials of the ISAFP
Detention Center could read the letters. If the letters are marked
Facts: Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of private respondent Alfredo confidential communication between the detainees and their
Martin. On March 26, 1982, petitioner entered the clinic of her husband, a lawyers, the detention officials should not read the letters but only
doctor of medicine, and in the presence of her mother, a driver and open the envelopes for inspection in the presence of the detainees.
private respondents secretary, forcibly opened the drawers and cabinet
in her husbands clinic and took 157 documents consisting of private That a law is required before an executive officer could intrude on a
correspondence between Dr. Martin and his alleged paramours, greeting citizens privacy rights is a guarantee that is available only to the public at
cards, cancelled checks, diaries, Dr. Martins passport, and photographs. large but not to persons who are detained or imprisoned. The right to
The documents and papers were seized for use in evidence in a case for privacy of those detainees is subject to Section 4 of RA 7438, as well as
legal separation and for disqualification from the practice of medicine to the limitations inherent in lawful detention or imprisonment. By the very
which petitioner had filed against her husband. fact of their detention, pre-trial detainees and convicted prisoners have a
diminished expectation of privacy rights.
Issue:
Whether or not the documents and papers seized were admissible in
evidence. KMU v Director 487 SCRA 623 (2006)108
Ruling: No. a. The date to be recorded and stored, which shall be used only
for purposes of establishing the identity of a person, shall be
The opening and reading of the detainees letters in the present case did limited to those specified in Section 3 of this executive order;
not violate the detainees right to privacy of communication. The letters b. In no case shall the collection or compilation of other data in
were not in sealed envelope. The inspection of the folded letters is a valid violation of a persons right to privacy be allowed or tolerated
measure as it serves the same purpose as the opening of sealed letters under this order;
for the inspection of contraband. c. Stringent systems of access control to data in the identification
system shall be instituted;
d. Data collected and stored for this purpose shall be kept and
treated as strictly confidential and a personal or written
106 authorization of the Owner shall be required for access and
II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS, disclosure of data;
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 11.
Privacy of Communications
107 108
II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS, II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE: A. ARRESTS,
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 11. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS, 11.
Privacy of Communications Privacy of Communications
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 40
Constitutional Law 2 Cases
Petitioners have not shown how EO 420 will violate their right to privacy.
Petitioners cannot show such violation by a mere facial examination of
EO 420 because EO 420 narrowly draws the data collection, recording
and exhibition while prescribing comprehensive safeguards. Ople v
Torres is not authority to hold that EO 420 violates the right to privacy
because in that case, the assailed executive issuance, broadly drawn and
devoid of safeguards, was annulled solely on the ground that the subject
matter required legislation. As the Associate Justice, now Chief Justice
Artemio V. Panganiban noted in his concurring opinion in Ople v Torres,
The voting is decisive only on the need for appropriate legislation, and it
is only on this ground that the petition is granted by this Court.
In the present case, EO 420 does not establish a national ID system but
makes the existing sectoral card systems of government entities like
GSIS, SSS, Philhealth and LTO less costly, more efficient, reliable, and
user-friendly to the public. Hence, EO 420 is a proper subject of
executive issuance under the Presidents constitutional power of control
over government entities in the Executive department, as well as under
the Presidents constitutional duty to ensure that laws are faithfully
executed.
[for the class of Atty. Pascua - Ateneo de Davao College of Law] Page 41