Soriano vs. MTRCB, et al.

Facts:
On August 10, 2004, at around 10:00 p.m., petitioner, as host of the program Ang Dating
Daan, aired on UNTV 37, made some obscene remarks. Two days after, before the MTRCB,
separate but almost identical affidavit-complaints were lodged by Jessie L. Galapon and
seven other private respondents, all members of the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC),1 against
petitioner in connection with the above broadcast. Respondent Michael M. Sandoval, who
felt directly alluded to in petitioners remark, was then a minister of INC and a regular host of
the TV program Ang Tamang Daan. After a preliminary conference in which petitioner
appeared, the MTRCB, by Order of August 16, 2004, preventively suspended the showing of
Ang Dating Daan program for 20 days,
ISSUE:
Whether or not Soriano’s statements during the televised “Ang Dating Daan” part of the
religious discourse and within the protection of Section 5, Art.III?
RULING:
No. The SC ruled that ―Soriano‘s statement can be treated as
obscene, at least with respect to the average child,‖ and
thus his utterances cannot be considered as protected speech. The SC also said ―that the
suspension is not a prior restraint, but rather a ―form of permissible administrative sanction
or subsequent punishment
There are few, if any, thoughts that cannot be expressed by the use of less offensive language

Furthermore, it cannot be properly asserted that petitioner’s suspension was an undue

curtailment of his right to free speech either as a prior restraint or as a subsequent
punishment. Aside from the reasons given above, a requirement that indecent language be
avoided has its primary effect on the form, rather than the content, of serious communication.
 Macayan, Jr. y Malana vs. People of the Philippines
Facts:
In 1995, Annie Uy Jao hired Macayan. It came to her attention that Macayan and his wife
accepted work for a rival company. Thus, Jao confronted Macayan to impress upon him the
need to prioritize work at Lanero. Macayan still took his work at Lanero for granted, so Jao
confronted him again after the confrontation, Macayan then stopped reporting for work.
Jao was surprised to find out that Macayan had filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal against
her. Immediately after the postponement of the conference on February 12, 2001, Macayan
allegedly threatened Jao that her family would be harmed and/or kidnapped if she did not
give him 200,000.00. The following day, Macayan allegedly called Jao to reiterate his threat
and to specify the time and place in which the 200,000.00 should be handed to him.
Fearing for her family’s safety, Jao sought assistance from the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) and asked that an entrapment operation be set up.
Macayan arrived and Jao handed him an envelope containing the marked bills. Macayan
pulled the bills halfway out of the envelope, and the NBI operatives accosted him.10
On the other hand, Macayan, testifying for himself, emphasized that he enjoyed a relatively
trouble-free employment with Lanero. However, sometime in 1999, he discovered that Jao
had not been remitting required premiums to the Social Security System.
Macayan inquired with Jao regarding his Medicare benefits which displeased Jao. The
following day, she prevented him from performing his tasks at work. Construing this as
harassment, he stopped reporting for work.13
Thereafter, Macayan filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal against Jao. Macayan recalled
that in one of these conferences, he expressed to Angel, Jao’s secretary, his willingness to
settle the case for 40,000.00.
On February 16, 2001, Angel called Macayan. She told him that Jao was ready to settle the
illegal dismissal case.Macayan arrived and approached Angel. he was surprised to see Jao
present. Jao then brought out of her bag a piece of paper indicating that Macayan received the
settlement amount for the illegal dismissal case. Macayan signed this and Jao then pulled out
a white envelope, handed it to Macayan.
Issue:
Whether or not Petitioner Nilo Macayan, Jr. y Malana be ACQUITTED of the crime of
robbery
Held:
Yes, the prosecution failed to establish the elements of unlawful taking and of violence
against or intimidation of a person. Reasonable doubt persists. As is settled in jurisprudence,
where the basis of conviction is flawed, this court must acquit an accused.
In criminal cases, the prosecution has the onus probandi of establishing the guilt of the
accused. Ei incumbit probatio non qui negat. He who asserts - not he who denies - must
prove. The burden must be discharged by the prosecution on the strength of its own evidence,
not on the weakness of that for the defense. Hence, circumstantial evidence that has not been
adequately established, much less corroborated, cannot be the basis of conviction. Suspicion
alone is insufficient, the required quantum of evidence being proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Indeed, "the sea of suspicion has no shore, and the court that embarks upon it is without
rudder or compass."