Digested Cases

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
DIGESTED CASES CONSTI II Atty. Joan La !o U.S. "# GOME$ Fa%t#& In this case, defendant was found guilty by the trial court with the crime of practicing medicine without a license, in violation of Section 8, Act 30 of the Philippine Commission which provides !"he #oard of $edical %&aminers may refuse to issue any of the following certificates provided for therein to an individual convicted by a court of competent 'urisdiction of any offense involving immoral or dishonorable conduct( In case of such refusal, the reason therefore shall be stated to the applicant in writing( "he #oard may also revo)e any such certificate for li)e cause, or for unprofessional conduct, after due notice to the person holding the certificate, and a hearing, sub'ect to an appeal to the #oard of *ealth for the Philippine Islands, the decision of which shall be final(+ ,efendant contends that the court erred in declaring the aforementioned provision are no in conflict with the provisions of the Philippine #ill of -.0/ and in which he relies on paragraph -, section 0 thereof which states !"hat no law shall be enacted in said Islands which shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or deny to any person therein the e1ual protection of the laws(+ '()*& ,efendant2s contention is not meritorious because the #oard of $edical %&aminers where given such a responsibility through the e&ercise of the State2s police power( T+( #tat( +a# !(n( a) ,o-( to (na%t #.%+ )a-#/ 0n ()at0on to ,( #on#/ an* , o,( ty -0t+0n 0t# 1o *( #/ a# 2ay , o2ot( ,.1)0% +(a)t+/ ,.1)0% 2o a)#/ ,.1)0% #a3(ty/ an* t+( !(n( a) , o#,( 0ty an* -()3a ( o3 0t# 0n+a10tant#( "his power of the state is generally denominated in its police power( It has been held that the state cannot be deprived of its right to e&ercise this power( "he police power and the right to e&ercise it constitute the very foundation, or at least one of the cornerstones of the state( 3or the state to deprive itself or permit it to be deprived of the right to enact laws to promote general prosperity and welfare of its inhabitants, and promote public health, public morals, and public safety, would be to destroy the very purpose and ob'ects of the state( 4o legislature can bargain away the public health, public safety, or the public morals( "he people themselves cannot do it, much less their servants( 5overnments are organi6ed with a view to preservation of these things( "hey cannot deprive themselves of the power to provide for them. (Stone vs. Mississippi) In order to enforce t+( ,o)0%( ,o-( o3 t+( #tat(/ 0t 2ay/ .n*( %( ta0n %on*0t0on# 1(%o2( n(%(##a y to *(, 0"( 0t# %0t04(n# o3 , o,( ty an* o3 a 0!+t , o"0*0n! 3o t+( %ont0n.an%( o3 , o,( ty/ -+(n t+( , o,( ty o t+( (5( %0#( o3 t+( 0!+t 2ay t(n* to *(#t oy t+( ,.1)0% +(a)t+/ t+( ,.1)0% 2o a)#/ t+( ,.1)0% #a3(ty/ an* t+(
!(n( a) -()3a ( an* , o#,( 0ty o3 0t# 0n+a10tant#. (Slaughter House Cases) 7pon police power of the state depends the security of social order, the life and health of the citi6ens, the comfort of an e&istence in a thic)ly populated community, the en'oyment of private and social life, and the beneficial use of property( It e&tends to the protection of the lives, limbs, health, comfort and 1uiet of all persons and the protection of all property within the state( Persons and property are sub'ected to all )inds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state( 6INAY "# DOMINGO Fa%t#& "he #urial Assistance Program 89esolution 4o( :0 ; assisting those who only earn less than P/,000<month of burial assistance in the amount of P000(00= made by $a)ati $ayor >e'omar #inay, in the e&ercise of the police power granted to him by the municipal charter, was referred to the Commission on Audit after the municipal secretary certified the disbursement of four hundred thousand pesos for its implementation was disallowed by said commission of such disbursements because there cannot be seen any perceptible connection or relation between the ob'ective sought to be attained and the alleged public safety, general welfare, etc( of its inhabitants( *ence, this petition revolving around the pivotal issue on whether or not 9esolution 4o( :0 of the $unicipality of $a)ati is a valid e&ercise of police power under the general welfare clause( '()*& 9esolution 4o( :0 of the $unicipality of $a)ati is a valid e&ercise of police power under the general welfare clause( "he police power is a governmental function, an inherent attribute of sovereignty, which was born with civili6ed government( It is founded largely on the ma&ims, !Sic utere tuo et ahenum non laedas+ 8use your property so as not to impair others= and !Salus populi est suprema le&+ 8the welfare of the people is the supreme law=( Its fundamental purpose is securing the general welfare, comfort and convenience of the people( 7o)0%( ,o-( 0# t+( ,o-( to , (#% 01( (!.)at0on# to , o2ot( t+( +(a)t+/ 2o a)#/ ,(a%(/ (*.%at0on/ !oo* o *( o #a3(ty an* !(n( a) -()3a ( o3 t+( ,(o,)(. It is the most essential, insistent, and illimitable of powers( In a sense it is the greatest and most powerful attribute of the government( It is elastic and must be responsive to various social conditions( "he care for the poor is generally recogni6ed as a public duty( "he support for the poor has long been an accepted e&ercise of police power in the promotion of the common good( AGUSTIN "# EDU Fa%t#& "he letter of instruction providing for an early
CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# -1-
warning device for motor vehicles is being assailed in the case at bar as being violative of the constitutional guarantee of due process( Petitioner contends that they are ?infected with arbitrariness because it is harsh, cruel and unconscionable to the motoring public@? -3 are ?oneAsided, onerous and patently illegal and immoral because BtheyC will ma)e manufacturers and dealers instant millionaires at the e&pense of car owners who are compelled to buy a set of the soAcalled early warning device at the rate of P 0:(00 to PD/(00 per set(? -E are unlawful and unconstitutional and contrary to the precepts of a compassionate 4ew Society Bas beingC compulsory and confiscatory on the part of the motorists who could very well provide a practical alternative road safety device, or a better substitute to the specified set of %F,Gs(? '()*& Petitioner2s contention is erroneous because the Hetter of Instruction was issued in the e&ercise of the police power which is !nothing more or less than the powers of government inherent in every sovereignty(+ In the leading case of Calalang v. Williams, >ustice Haurel identified ,o)0%( ,o-( -0t+ #tat( a.t+o 0ty to (na%t )(!0#)at0on t+at 2ay 0nt( 3( ( -0t+ ,( #ona) )01( ty o , o,( ty 0n o *( to , o2ot( t+( !(n( a) -()3a (. Persons and property could thus Ibe sub'ected to all )inds of restraints and burdens in order for the general comfort, health and prosperity of the state(2 "his doctrine was later reiterated again in Primicias v. Fugoso which referred police power as 9t+( ,o-( to , (#% 01( (!.)at0on# to , o2ot( t+( +(a)t+/ 2o a)#/ ,(a%(/ (*.%at0on/ !oo* o *( o #a3(ty/ an* !(n( a) -()3a ( o3 t+( ,(o,)(.: "he concept was set forth in negative terms by >ustice $alcolm in a preJCommonwealth decision as 9t+at 0n+( (nt an* ,)(na y ,o-( 0n t+( Stat( -+0%+ (na1)(# 0t to , o+010t a)) t+0n!# +. t3.) to t+( %o23o t/ #a3(ty an* -()3a ( o3 #o%0(ty.: Its scope, everJe&panding to meet the e&igencies of the times, even to anticipate the future where it could be done, provides enough room for an efficient and fle&ible response to conditions and circumstances thus assuring the greatest benefits( In the language of >ustice Cardo6o I4eeds that were narrow or parochial in the past may be interwoven in the present with the wellJbeing of the nation( Fhat are critical or urgent changes with the time(2 "he police power is thus a dynamic agency, suitably vague and far from precisely defined, rooted in the conception that men in organi6ing the state and imposing upon its government limitations to safeguard constitutional rights did not intend thereby to enable an individual citi6en or a group of citi6ens to obstruct unreasonably the enactment of such salutary measures calculated to communal peace, safety, good order, and welfare(+ IC'ONG "#. 'ERNANDE$
Fa%t#& "his Court has before it the delicate tas) of passing upon the validity and constitutionality of a legislative enactment, fundamental and farA reaching in significance( "he enactment poses 1uestions of due process, police power and e1ual protection of the laws( It also poses an important issue of fact, that is whether the conditions which the disputed law purports to remedy really or actually e&ist( Admittedly springing from a deep, militant, and positive nationalistic impulse, the law purports to protect citi6en and country from the alien retailer( "hrough it, and within the field of economy it regulates, Congress attempts to translate national aspirations for economic independence and national security, rooted in the drive and urge for national survival and welfare, into a concrete and tangible measures designed to free the national retailer from the competing dominance of the alien, so that the country and the nation may be free from a supposed economic dependence and bondage( ,o the facts and circumstances 'ustify the enactmentK '()*& It has been said the ,o)0%( ,o-( 0# #o 3a ; (a%+0n! 0n #%o,(/ t+at 0t +a# 1(%o2( a)2o#t 02,o##01)( to )020t 0t# #-((,. A# 0t *( 0"(# 0t# (50#t(n%( 3 o2 t+( "( y (50#t(n%( o3 t+( Stat( 0t#()3/ 0t *o(# not n((* to 1( (5, (##(* o *(30n(* 0n 0t# #%o,(< 0t 0# #a0* to 1( %o; (5t(n#0"( -0t+ #()3;, ot(%t0on an* #. "0"a)/ an* a# #.%+ 0t 0# t+( 2o#t ,o#0t0"( an* a%t0"( o3 a)) !o"( n2(nta) , o%(##(#/ t+( 2o#t (##(nt0a)/ 0n#0#t(nt an* 0))020ta1)(. %specially is it so under a modern democratic framewor) where the demands of society and of nations have multiplied to almost unimaginable proportions@ t+( 30()* an* #%o,( o3 ,o)0%( ,o-( +a# 1(%o2( a)2o#t 1o.n*)(##/ =.#t a# t+( 30()*# o3 ,.1)0% 0nt( (#t an* ,.1)0% -()3a ( +a"( 1(%o2( a)2o#t a));(21 a%0n! an* +a"( t an#%(n*(* +.2an 3o (#0!+t. Ot+( -0#( #tat(*/ a# -( %annot 3o (#(( t+( n((*# an* *(2an*# o3 ,.1)0% 0nt( (#t an* -()3a ( 0n t+0# %on#tant)y %+an!0n! an* , o! (##0"( -o )*/ #o -( %annot *()020t 1(3o (+an* t+( (5t(nt o #%o,( o3 ,o)0%( ,o-( 1y -+0%+ an* t+ o.!+ -+0%+ t+( Stat( #((># to atta0n o a%+0("( 0nt( (#t o -()3a (. So 0t 0# t+at Con#t0t.t0on# *o not *(30n( t+( #%o,( o (5t(nt o3 t+( ,o)0%( ,o-( o3 t+( Stat(< -+at t+(y *o 0# to #(t 3o t+ t+( )020tat0on# t+( (o3. T+( 2o#t 02,o tant o3 t+(#( a ( t+( *.( , o%(## %)a.#( an* t+( (?.a) , ot(%t0on %)a.#(. 9esuming what we have set forth above we hold that the disputed law was enacted to remedy a real actual threat and danger to national economy posed by alien dominance and control of the retail business and free citi6ens and country from dominance and control@ that the enactment clearly falls within the scope of the police power of the State, thru which and by which it protects its own personality and insures its security and future@ that the law does not violate the e1ual protection
CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# -2-
clause of the Constitution because sufficient grounds e&ist for the distinction between alien and citi6en in the e&ercise of the occupation regulated, nor the due process of law clause, because the law is prospective in operation and recogni6es the privilege of aliens already engaged in the occupation and reasonably protects their privilege@ that the wisdom and efficacy of the law to carry out its ob'ectives appear to us to be plainly evident L as a matter of fact it seems not only appropriate but actually necessary L and that in any case such matter falls within the prerogative of the Hegislature, with whose power and discretion the >udicial department of the 5overnment may not interfere@ that the provisions of the law are clearly embraced in the title, and this suffers from no duplicity and has not misled the legislators or the segment of the population affected@ and that it cannot be said to be void for supposed conflict with treaty obligations because no treaty has actually been entered into on the sub'ect and the police power may not be curtailed or surrendered by any treaty or any other conventional agreement( T'E UNITED STATES "# LUIS TORI6IO Fa%t#& Appellant in the case at bar was charged for the violation of sections 30 M 33 of Act 4o( --ED, an Act regulating the registration, branding, and slaughter of large cattle( %vidence sustained in the trial court found that appellant slaughtered or caused to be slaughtered for human consumption, the carabao described in the information, without a permit from the municipal treasurer of the municipality where it was slaughtered( Appellant contends that he applied for a permit to slaughter the animal but was not given one because the carabao was not found to be !unfit for agricultural wor)+ which resulted to appellant to slaughter said carabao in a place other than the municipal slaughterhouse( Appellant then assails the validity of a provision under Act 4o( --ED which states that only carabaos unfit for agricultural wor) can be slaughtered( '()*& "he e&tent and limits of what is )nown as the police power have been a fruitful sub'ect of discussion in the appellate courts of nearly every State in the 7nion( It is universally conceded to include everything essential to the public safely, health, and morals, and to 'ustify the destruction or abatement, by summary proceedings, of whatever may be regarded as a public nuisance( 7nder this power it has been held that the State may order the destruction of a house falling to decay or otherwise endangering the lives of passersAby@ the demolition of such as are in the path of a conflagration@ the slaughter of diseased cattle@ the destruction of decayed or unwholesome food@ the prohibition of wooden buildings in cities@ the regulation of railways and other means of public conveyance, and of interments in burial
grounds@ the restriction of ob'ectionable trades to certain localities@ the compulsary vaccination of children@ the confinement of the insane or those afficted with contagious deceases@ the restraint of vagrants, beggars, and habitual drun)ards@ the suppression of obscene publications and houses of ill fame@ and the prohibition of gambling houses and places where into&icating li1uors are sold( 6(yon* t+0#/ +o-("( / t+( Stat( 2ay 0nt( 3( ( -+( ("( t+( ,.1)0% 0nt( (#t# *(2an* 0t/ an* 0n t+0# ,a t0%.)a a )a !( *0#% (t0on 0# n(%(##a 0)y "(#t(* 0n t+( )(!0#)at. ( to *(t( 20n(/ not on)y -+at t+( 0nt( (#t# o3 t+( ,.1)0% (?.0 (/ 1.t -+at 2(a#. (# a ( n(%(##a y 3o t+( , ot(%t0on o3 #.%+ 0nt( (#t#. @#arbier vs. Connolly, --3 7( S(, /D@ Nidd vs. Pearson, -/8 7( S(, -(= "o 'ustify the State in thus interposing its authority in behalf of the public, it must appear, first, that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, re1uire such interference@ and, second, that the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly oppressive upon individuals( "he legislature may not, under the guise of protecting the public interests, arbitrarily interfere with private business, or impose unusual and unnecessary restrictions upon lawful occupations( In other words, its determination as to what is a proper e&ercise of its police powers is not final or conclusive, but is sub'ect to the supervision of the court( 3rom what has been said, we thin) 0t 0# %)(a t+at t+( (na%t2(nt o3 t+( , o"0#0on# o3 t+( #tat.t( .n*( %on#0*( at0on -a# (?.0 (* 1y At+( 0nt( (#t# o3 t+( ,.1)0% !(n( a))y/ a# *0#t0n!.0#+(* 3 o2 t+o#( o3 a ,a t0%.)a %)a##<A an* t+at t+( , o+010t0on o3 t+( #)a.!+t( o3 %a a1ao# 3o +.2an %on#.2,t0on/ #o )on! a# t+(#( an02a)# a ( 30t 3o a! 0%.)t. a) -o > o * a3t ,. ,o#(# -a# a A (a#ona1)y n(%(##a yA )020tat0on on , 0"at( o-n( #+0,/ to , ot(%t t+( %o22.n0ty 3 o2 t+( )o## o3 t+( #( "0%(# o3 #.%+ an02a)# 1y t+(0 #)a.!+t( 1y 02, o"0*(nt o-n( #/ t(2,t(* (0t+( 1y ! ((* o3 2o2(nta y !a0n/ o 1y a *(#0 ( to (n=oy t+( ).5. y o3 an02a) 3oo*/ ("(n -+(n 1y #o *o0n! t+( , o*.%t0"( ,o-( o3 t+( %o22.n0ty 2ay 1( 2(a#. a1)y an* *an!( o.#)y a33(%t(*. Chief >ustice 9edfield, in "horpe vs. 9utland M #urlington 9( 9( Co( 8/D Ot(, -E0=, said 8p( -E.= that by this ?general police power of the State, persons and property are sub'ected to all )inds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State@ of the perfect right in the legislature to do which no 1uestion ever was, or, upon ac)nowledge and general principles, ever can be made, so far as natural persons are concerned(? C'URC'ILL "#. RAFFERTY Fa%t#& "he case arises from the fact that defendant,
CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# -B-
Collector of Internal 9evenue, would li)e to destroy or remove any sign, signboard, or billboard, the property of the plaintiffs, for the sole reason that such sign, signboard, or billboard is, or may be offensive to the sight( "he plaintiffs allege otherwise( Fas there valid e&ercise of police power in this caseK '()*& Pes( "here can be no doubt that the e&ercise of the police power of the Philippine 5overnment belongs to the Hegislature and that this power is limited only by the Acts of Congress and those fundamentals principles which lie at the foundation of all republican forms of government( An Act of the Hegislature which is obviously and undoubtedly foreign to any of the purposes of the police power and interferes with the ordinary en'oyment of property would, without doubt, be held to be invalid( #ut -+( ( t+( A%t 0# (a#ona1)y -0t+0n a , o,( %on#0*( at0on o3 an* %a ( 3o t+( ,.1)0% +(a)t+/ #a3(ty/ o %o23o t/ 0t #+o.)* not 1( *0#t. 1(* 1y t+( %o. t#. ?"he power vested in the legislature by the constitution to ma)e, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the constitution, as they shall 'udge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and of the sub'ects of the same(? ?"he police power of the State, so far, has not received a full and complete definition( It may be said, however, to 1( t+( 0!+t o3 t+( Stat(/ o #tat( 3.n%t0ona y/ to , (#% 01( (!.)at0on# 3o t+( !oo* o *( / ,(a%(/ +(a)t+/ , ot(%t0on/ %o23o t/ %on"(n0(n%( an* 2o a)# o3 t+( %o22.n0ty/ -+0%+ *o not ... "0o)at( any o3 t+( , o"0#0on# o3 t+( o !an0% )a-.A ?It Bthe police powerC has for its ob'ect the improvement of social and economic conditioned affecting the community at large and collectively with a view to bring about ?he greatest good of the greatest number(?Courts have consistently and wisely declined to set any fi&ed limitations upon sub'ects calling for the e&ercise of this power( It is elastic and is e&ercised from time to time as varying social conditions demand correction(? ?It may be said in a general way that the police power e&tends to all the great public needs( It 2ay 1( ,.t 3o t+ 0n a0* o3 -+at 0# #an%t0on(* 1y .#a!(/ o +()* 1y t+( , ("a0)0n! 2o a)0ty o #t on! an* , (,on*( ant o,0n0on to 1( ! (at)y an* 022(*0at()y n(%(##a y to t+( ,.1)0% -()3a (.A ?It is much easier to perceive and reali6e the e&istence and sources of this police power than to mar) its boundaries, or to prescribe limits to its e&ercise(? MMDA V#. 6()-A0 V0))a!( Fa%t#& $etropolitan $anila ,evelopment Authority 8$$,A=, petitioner herein, is a 5overnment Agencytas)ed with the delivery of basic services
in $etro $anila( #elJAir OillageAssociation 8#AOA=,respondent herein, received a letter of re1uest from the petitioner to open 4eptune Street of #elJAir Oillage for the use of the public( "he said opening of 4eptune Street will be for the safe and convenient movement of persons and to regulate the flow of traffic in $a)ati City( "his was pursuant to $$,A law or 9epublic Act 4o( D./E( Qn the same day, the respondent wasappraised that the perimeter wall separating thesubdivision and Nalayaan Avenue would bedemolished( "he respondent, to stop the opening of the said street and demolition of the wall, filed a preliminary in'unction and a temporary restraining order( 9espondent claimed that the$$,A had no authority to do so and the lower court decided in favor of the 9espondent( Petitioner appealed the decision of the lower courts and claimed that it has the authority to open 4eptune Street to public traffic because it is an agent of the State that canpractice police power in the delivery of basic services in $etro $anila( I##.(& Fhether or not the $$,A has the mandate to open 4eptune Street to public traffic pursuant to its regulatory and police powers( '()*& "he Court held that the $$,A does not have the capacity to e&ercise police power( Police poweris primarily lodged in the 4ational Hegislature( *owever, police power may be delegated to government units( Petitioner herein is a development authority and not a political governmentunit( "herefore, the $$,A cannot e&ercise police power because it cannot be delegated to them( It is not a legislative unit of the government( 9epublic Act 4o( D./E does not empower the $$,Ato enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of theinhabitants of $anila( "here is no syllable in the said act that grants $$,A police power(It is an agency created for the purpose of laying down policies and coordinating with variousnational government agencies, people2s organi6ations, nonJ governmental organi6ations and theprivate sector for the efficient and e&peditious delivery of basic services in the vast metropolitanarea( CITY OF MANILA VS. C'INESE COMMUNITY Fa%t#& "he City of $anila, plaintiff herein, prayed for the e&propriation of a portion privatecemetery for the conversion into an e&tension of 9i6al Avenue( Plaintiff claims that it is necessarythat such public improvement be made in the said portion of the private cemetery and that thesaid lands are within their 'urisdiction( ,efendants herein answered that the said e&propriation was not necessary because other routeswere available( "hey further claimed that the e&propriation of the cemetery would create
CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# -C-
irreparable loss and in'ury to them and to all those persons owing and interested in thegravesand monuments that would have to be destroyed( "he lower court ruled that the said public improvement was not necessary on the particularJ stripof land in 1uestion( Plaintiff herein assailed that they have the right to e&ercise the power of eminent domain and that the courts have no right to in1uire and determine the necessity of the e&propriation( "hus, the same filed an appeal( I##.(& Fhether or not the courts may in1uire into, and hear proof of the necessity of the e&propriation( '()*& "he courts have the power of restricting the e&ercise of eminent domain to the actual reasonablenecessities of the case and for the purposes designated by the law( "he moment the municipalcorporation or entity attempts to e&ercise the authority conferred, it must comply with theconditions accompanying the authority( "he necessity for conferring the authority upon a municipal corporation to e&ercise the right of eminent domain is admittedly within the power of thelegislature( #ut whether or not the municipal corporation or entity is e&ercising the right in a particular case under the conditions imposed by the general authority, is a 1uestionthat the courts have the right to in1uire to( RE7U6LIC VS. CASTELVI Fa%t#& In -.ED, the republic, through the Armed 3orces of the Philippines 8A3P=, entered into a lease agreement with Castelvi on a yearJtoJyear basis( Fhen Castelvi gave notice to terminate the lease in -.0:, the A3P refused( She then instituted an e'ectment proceeding against the A3P( In -.0., however, the republic commenced the e&propriation proceedings for the land in 1uestion( I##.(& Fhether or 4ot the compensation should be determined as of -.ED or -.0.( '()*& "he Supreme Court ruled that the !ta)ing+ should not be rec)oned as of -.ED, and that 'ust compensation should not be determined on the basis of the value of the property as of that year( "he re1uisites for ta)ing are -= the e&propriator must enter a private property, /= the entry must be for more than a momentary period, 3= it must be under warrant or color of authorities, E= the property must be devoted for public use or otherwise informally appropriated or in'uriously affected, and 0= the utili6ation of the property for public use must be such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial en'oyment of the property( 7nder Sec( E 9ule :D of the 9ules of Court, !'ust compensation+ is to be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint( "he Supreme Court has ruled that when the ta)ing of the property sought to be e&propriated coincides
with the commencement of the e&propriation proceedings, or ta)es place subse1uent to the filing of the complaint for eminent domain, the 'ust compensation should be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint( In the instant case, it is undisputed that the 9epublic was placed in possession of the Castelvi property, by authority of court, on August -0, -.0.( "he !ta)ing+ of the Castelvi property for the purposes of determining the 'ust compensation to be paid must, therefore, be rec)oned as of >une /:, -.0. when the complaint for eminent domain was filed( "here is no basis to the contention of the 9epublic that a lease on a yearJtoJyear basis can give rise to permanent right to occupy since by e&press provision a lease made for a determinate time, as was the lease of Castelvi land in the instant case, ceases upon the day fi&ed, without need of a demand 8Art( -::., 4ew Civil Code=( "he Supreme Court, however, did not apply Art( -/00 of the 4ew Civil Code for the ad'ustment of the peso rate in times of e&traordinary inflation or deflation because in eminent domain cases the obligation to pay arises from law independent of contract( AMIGA6LE VS. CUENCA Fa%t#& Oictoria Amigable is the registered owner of a particular lot( At the bac) of her "ransfer Certificate of "itle 8-./E=, there was no annotation in favor of the government of any right or interest in the property( Fithout prior e&propriation or negotiated sale, the government used a portion of the lot for the construction of the $ango and 5orordo Avenues( Qn -.08, Amigable2s counsel wrote the President of the Philippines, re1uesting payment of the portion of the said lot( It was disallowed by the Auditor 5eneral in his .th %ndorsement( Petitioner then filed in the court a 1uo a complaint against the 9epublic of the Philippines and 4icolas Cuenca, in his capacity as Commissioner of Public *ighways for the recovery of ownership and possession of the lot( According to the defendants, the action was premature because it was not filed first at the Qffice of the Auditor 5eneral( According to them, the right of action for the recovery of any amount had already prescribed, that the 5overnment had not given its consent to be sued, and that plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendants( I##.(& Fhether or 4ot, under the facts of the case, appellant may properly sue the government( '()*& In the case of $inisterio v( Court of 3irst Instance of Cebu, it was held that when the government ta)es away property from a private landowner for public use without going through the legal process of e&propriation or negotiated sale, the aggrieved party may properly maintain a suit against the government without violating the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit without its consent( In the case at bar, since no annotation in
CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# -D-
favor of the government appears at the bac) of the certificate of title and plaintiff has not e&ecuted any deed of conveyance of any portion of the lot to the government, then she remains the owner of the lot( She could then bring an action to recover possession of the land anytime, because possession is one of the attributes of ownership( *owever, since such action is not feasible at this time since the lot has been used for other purposes, the only relief left is for the government to ma)e due compensationrice or value of the lot at the time of the ta)ing( RE7U6LIC VS. 7LDT Fa%t#& "he plaintiff 9epublic of the Philippines is a political entity e&ercising government powers throughone of its branches, the #ureau of "elecommunication( *erein defendant, PH," is a publicservice corporation holding a franchise to install operates and maintains a telephone system( After its creation, the #Q" set up its own government telephone system by utili6ing its own appropriations and other e1uipment and by renting trun) lines of the PH," to enable the govtoffices to call privately( #Q" entered into an agreement with the 9CA communications for 'ointoverseas telephone service whereby #Q" would convey overseas calls received by 9CA to localresidents( PH," complained to the #Q" that it was a violation of the condition of their agreementsince the #Q" had used trun) lines only for the use of government offices but even to serveprivate persons or the general public in competition with the business of PH,"( Subse1uently, theplaintiff commenced suit against PH," as)ing the court 'udgment be rendered ordering the PH,"to e&ecute a contract with the plaintiff, through the #Q" for the use of the facilities of PH,"Gs telephone system throughout the country under such conditions as the court may consider reasonable( "he C3I rendered 'udgment stating that it could not compel PH," to enter into such agreement(*ence this petition( I##.(& Fhether or 4ot PH," may be compelled to enter into such agreement( '()*& Pes, the statemay, in the interest of national welfare, transfer utilities to public ownership upon payment of 'ust compensation, there is no reason why the state ma not re1uire a public utility to render services in the general interest provided 'ust compensation is paid( TELE6A7 "#. COMELEC Fa%t#& "%H%#AP and 5$A 4etwor) together filed a petition to challenge the validity of Comelec "ime due to the fact that said provisions 8-= have ta)en properties without due process of law and without 'ust compensation@ 8/= it denied the radio and television broadcast companies the e1ual
protection of the laws@ and 83= that it is in e&cess of the power given to the Comelec to regulate the operation of media communication or information during election period( '()*& PetitionersG argument is without merit, A)) 1 oa*%a#t0n!/ -+(t+( 1y a*0o o 1y t()("0#0on #tat0on#/ 0# )0%(n#(* 1y t+( !o"( n2(nt. A0 -a"( 3 (?.(n%0(# +a"( to 1( a))o%at(* a# t+( ( a ( 2o ( 0n*0"0*.a)# -+o -ant to 1 oa*%a#t t+an t+( ( a ( 3 (?.(n%0(# to a##0!n. E A 3 an%+0#( 0# t+.# a , 0"0)(!( #.1=(%t/ a2on! ot+( t+0n!#/ to a2(n*(* 1y Con! (## 0n a%%o *an%( -0t+ t+( %on#t0t.t0ona) , o"0#0on t+at Aany #.%+ 3 an%+0#( o 0!+t ! ant(* . . . #+a)) 1( #.1=(%t to a2(n*2(nt/ a)t( at0on o (,(a) 1y t+( Con! (## -+(n t+( %o22on !oo* #o (?.0 (#.A Indeed, provisions for CQ$%H%C "ime have been made by amendment of the franchises of radio and television broadcast stations and, until the present case was brought, #.%+ , o"0#0on# +a* not 1((n t+o.!+t o3 a# ta>0n! , o,( ty -0t+o.t =.#t %o2,(n#at0on. A t. FII/ G11 o3 t+( Con#t0t.t0on a.t+o 04(# t+( a2(n*2(nt o3 3 an%+0#(# 3o At+( %o22on !oo*.A W+at 1(tt( 2(a#. ( %an 1( %on%(0"(* 3o t+( %o22on !oo* t+an on( 3o 3 (( a0 t02( 3o t+( 1(n(30t not on)y o3 %an*0*at(# 1.t ("(n 2o ( o3 t+( ,.1)0%/ ,a t0%.)a )y t+( "ot( #/ #o t+at t+(y -0)) 1( 3.))y 0n3o 2(* o3 t+( 0##.(# 0n an ()(%t0onH AIIJt 0# t+( 0!+t o3 t+( "0(-( # an* )0#t(n( #/ not t+( 0!+t o3 t+( 1 oa*%a#t( #/ -+0%+ 0# ,a a2o.nt.A 4or indeed can there be any constitutional ob'ection to the re1uirement that broadcast stations give free air time( %ven in the 7nited States, there are responsible scholars who believe that government controls on broadcast media can constitutionally be instituted to ensure diversity of views and attention to public affairs to further the system of free e&pression( 3or this purpose, broadcast stations may be re1uired to give free air time to candidates in an election( In truth, radio and television broadcasting companies, which are given franchises, do not own the airwaves and fre1uencies through which they transmit broadcast signals and images( "hey are merely given the temporary privilege of using them( Since a franchise is a mere privilege, the e&ercise of the privilege may reasonably be burdened with the performance by the grantee of some form of public service( MANOSCA VS. COURT OF A77EALS Fa%t#& "he 4ational *istorical Institute declared the parcel of land owned by Petitioners as a national
CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# -K-
historical landmar), because it was the site of the birth of 3eli& $analo, the founder of Iglesia ni Cristo( "he 9epublic of the Philippines filed an action to appropriate the land( Petitioners argued that the e&propriation was not for a public purpose( I##.(& Fhether or 4ot the ta)ing or e&ercise of eminent domain may be granted( '()*& Public use should not be restricted to the traditional uses( "he ta)ing is for a public use because of the contribution of 3eli& $analo to the culture and history of the Philippines( E7$A VS. DULAY Fa%t#& "he four parcels of land which are the sub'ect of this case is where the $actan %&port Processing Rone Authority in Cebu 8%PRA= is to be constructed( Private respondent San Antonio ,evelopment Corporation 8San Antonio, for brevity=, in which these lands are registered under, claimed that the lands were e&propriated to the government without them reaching the agreement as to the compensation( 9espondent >udge ,ulay then issued an order for the appointment of the commissioners to determine the 'ust compensation( It was later found out that the payment of the government to San Antonio would be P-0 per s1uare meter, which was ob'ected to by the latter contending that under P, -033, the basis of 'ust compensation shall be fair and according to the fair mar)et value declared by the owner of the property sought to be e&propriated, or by the assessor, whichever is lower( Such ob'ection and the subse1uent $otion for 9econsideration were denied and hearing was set for the reception of the commissioner2s report( %PRA then filed this petition for certiorari and mandamus en'oining the respondent from further hearing the case( I##.(& Fhether or 4ot the e&clusive and mandatory mode of determining 'ust compensation in P, -033 is unconstitutional( '()*& "he Supreme Court ruled that the mode of determination of 'ust compensation in P, -033 is unconstitutional( "he method of ascertaining 'ust compensation constitutes impermissible encroachment to 'udicial prerogatives( It tends to render the courts inutile in a matter in which under the Constitution is reserved to it for financial determination( "he valuation in the decree may only serve as guiding principle or one of the factors in determining 'ust compensation, but it may not substitute the court2s own 'udgment as to what amount should be awarded and how to arrive at such amount( "he determination of 'ust compensation is a 'udicial function( "he e&ecutive department or the
legislature may ma)e the initial determination but when a party claims a violation of the guarantee in the #ill of 9ights that the private party may not be ta)en for public use without 'ust compensation, no statute, decree, or e&ecutive order can mandate that its own determination shall prevail over the court2s findings( $uch less can the courts be precluded from loo)ing into the 'ustness of the decreed compensation( DE 8NEC'T VS. COURT OF A77EALS Fa%t#& "he instant case is an unending se1uel to several suits commenced almost twenty years ago involving a parcel of land located at the corner of the south end of %,SA and 3(#( *arrison in Pasay City( "he land was owned by petitioners Cristina de Nnecht and her son, 9ene Nnecht( Qn the land, the Nnechts constructed eight houses, leased out the seven and occupied one of them as their residence( In -.D., the government filed for the e&propriation of Nnechts2 property( "he government wanted to use the land for the completion of the $anila 3lood Control and ,rainage Pro'ect and the e&tension of the %,SA towards 9o&as #oulevard( In -.8/, the City "reasurer of Pasay discovered that the Nnechts failed to pay real estate ta&es on the property from -.80 to -.8/( As a conse1uence of this deficiency, the City "reasurer sold the property at public auction for the same amount of their deficiency ta&es( "he highest bidders were respondent Spouses Anastacio and 3elisa #abiera 8the #abieras= and respondent Spouses Ale'andro and 3lor Sangalang 8the Sangalangs=( Subse1uently, Sangalang and #abiera sold the land to respondent Salem Investment Corporation( Qn 3ebruary -D, -.83, the #atasang Pambansa passed #(P( #lg( 3E0 authori6ing the national government to e&propriate certain properties in Pasay City for the %,SA %&tension( "he property of the Nnechts was part of those e&propriated under #(P( #lg( 3E0( "he government gave out 'ust compensation for the lands e&propriated under #(P( #lg( 3E0( Salem was included and received partial payment( Seven of the eight houses of the Nnechts were demolished and the government too) possession of the portion of land on which the houses stood( Since the Nnechts refused to vacate their one remaining house, Salem filed a case against them for unlawful detainer( As defense, the Nnechts claimed ownership of the land and building( "he $unicipal "rial Court however ordered the NnechtsG e'ectment thus their residence was demolished( "he Nnechts continuously claimed ownership of the property and allege that they must be given 'ust compensation( I##.(& Fhether or not Nnechts are the lawful owners of the land at sub'ect( '()*& "he Supreme Court held that the Nnechts were not the owners anymore of the said land( "he NnechtsG
CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# -L-
right to the land had been foreclosed after they failed to redeem it one year after the sale at public auction( Since the petitions 1uestioning the order of dismissal were li)ewise dismissed by the Court of Appeals and this Court, the order of dismissal became final and res 'udicata on the issue of ownership of the land( Petitioners contended that they did not receive notice of their ta& delin1uency( 4either did they receive notice of the auction sale( *owever, this 1uestion has been previously raised in the cases which have been already set aside( "he court is not a trier of facts( 9es 'udicata has already set it( "he Nnechts therefore are not the lawful owners of the land and are not any longer accountable for 'ust compensation given by the government( 4ote 9es 'udicata is a ground for dismissal of an action( It is a rule that precludes parties from relitigating Issue actually litigated and determined by a prior and final 'udgment( It pervades every wellJregulated system of 'urisprudence, and is based upon two grounds embodied in various ma&ims of the common law 8 one, public policy and necessity, that there should be a limit to litigation@ and another, the individual should not be ve&ed twice for the same cause( Fhen a right of fact has been 'udicially tried and determined by a court of competent 'urisdiction, or an opportunity for such trial has been given, the 'udgment of the court, so long as it remains unreversed, should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them in law or estate( "o follow a contrary doctrine would sub'ect the public peace and 1uiet to the will and neglect of individuals and prefer the gratification of the litigious disposition of the parties to the preservation of the public tran1uility(9es 'udicata applies when 8-= the former 'udgment or order is final@ 8/= the 'udgment or order is one on the merits@ 83= it was rendered by a court having 'urisdiction over the sub'ect matter and the parties@ 8E= there is between the first and second actions, identity of parties, of sub'ect matter and of cause of action( 7EO7LE VS. FAJARDO Fa%t#& "he municipal council of baao, camarines sur stating among others that construction of a building, which will destroy the view of the pla6a, shall not be allowed and therefore be destroyed at the e&pense of the owner, enacted an ordinance( *erein appellant filed a written re1uest with the incumbent municipal mayor for a permit to construct a building ad'acent to their gasoline station on a parcel of land registered in 3a'ardoGs name, located along the national highway and separated from the public pla6a by a cree)( "he re1uest was denied, for the reason among others that the proposed building would destroy the view or beauty of the public pla6a( ,efendants reiterated their re1uest for a building permit, but again the mayor turned down the re1uest( Fhereupon, appellants proceeded with the construction of the building without a permit,
because they needed a place of residence very badly, their former house having been destroyed by a typhoon and hitherto they had been living on leased property( "hereafter, defendants were charged in violation of the ordinance and subse1uently convicted( *ence this appeal( I##.(&Fhether or 4ot the ordinance is a valid e&ercise of police power( '()*& 4o( It is not a valid e&ercise of police power( "he ordinance is unreasonable and oppressive, in that it operates to permanently deprive appellants of the right to use their own property@ hence, it oversteps the bounds of police power, and amounts to a ta)ing of appellant2s property without 'ust compensation( Fe do not overloo) that the modern tendency is to regard the beautification of neighborhoods as conducive to the comfort and happiness of residents( As the case now stands, every structure that may be erected on appellantsG land, regardless of its own beauty, stands condemned under the ordinance in 1uestion, because it would interfere with the view of the public pla6a from the highway( "he appellants would, in effect, be constrained to let their land remain idle and unused for the obvious purpose for which it is best suited, being urban in character( "o legally achieve that result, the municipality must give appellants 'ust compensation and an opportunity to be heard US "#. L0n! S. Fan/ 10 7+0) 10C Fa%t#& ,efendant, Hing Su 3an, is accused of attempting to e&port Philippine silver coins from the Philippines contrary to Act 4o( -E-- of the Philippine Commission(*is defenses, among others, involved the deprivation of due process due to the confiscation of thecoins( '()*& (((phrase ?due process of law? was defined by >udge Story, in his wor) on Constitutional Haw, as ? the law in its regular course of administration through the courts of 'ustice(? ,ue process of law in each particular case means such an e&ertion of the powers of the government as the settled ma&ims of law permitand sanction, and under such safeguards for the protection of individual rights as those ma&ims prescribed for the class of cases to whichthe one in 1uestion belongs(>udge Cooley, in his wor) on Constitutional Himitations, says ?,ue process of law? is process or proceedings according to the law of the land( ?,ue process of law? is not that the law shal l be according tothe wishes of all the inhabitants of the state, but simply L3irst( "hat there shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the general powers of the legislative department of the 5overnment Second( "hat this law shall be reasonable in its operation@
CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# -M-
"hird( "hat it shall be enforced according to the regular methods of procedure prescribed@ and 3ourth( "hat it shall be applicable ali)e to all the citi6ens of the state or to all of a class( Hower courtGs decision was affirmed convicting him guilty with costs against him W+0t( L0!+t Co ,o at0on "#. C0ty o3 Man0)a Fa%t#& City of $anila passes an Qrdinance preventing hotels, motels, lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments offer ing shorttime admission as well as proJrated or wash up rates for abbreviated stays( Petitioners allege, among others, that the Qrdinance deprives their customers the Constitutional guaranty to the right of due process( '()*& "he purpose of the guaranty is to prevent arbitrary governmental encroachment against the life, liberty and property of individuals( "hedue process guaranty serves as a protection against arbitrary regulation or sei6ure( %ven corporations andpartnerships are protectedby the guaranty insofar as their property is concerned( "he due process guaranty has traditionally been interpreted as imposing two related but distinct restrictions on government,?procedural due process? and ?substantive due process(? Procedural due process refers to the procedures that the government mustfollow before it deprives a person of life, liberty, or property( Procedural due process concerns itself with government action adheringto the established process when it ma)es an intrusion into the private sphere( Substantive due process completes the protection envisioned by the due process clause( It in1uires whether the government hassufficient 'ustification for depriving a person of life, liberty, or property( %ven as the implementation of moral norms remains an indispensable complement to governance, that prerogative is hardly absol ute, especially in the face of the norms of due process of liberty( And while the tension may often be left to the courts to relie ve, it ispossible for the government to avoid the constitutional conflict by employing more 'udicious, less drastic means to promote morality( Petition was granted by the Court and held the Qrdinance unconstitutional( 6an%o E#,aNo) "#. 7a)an%a/ BL 7+0) E21 Fa%t#& %ngracio Palanca "an1uinyeng secured a debt with various parcels of real property in $anila( "he debt amounted to P/-8,/.E(-0 at 8S per annum, payable 1uarterly( PropertyGs estimated value was aboutP/./,008( After the instrumentGs e&ecution, mortgagor returned to Amoy, China and died on >anuary /.,-8-0("he foreclosure proceeding
needed publication pursuant to section 3.. of the Code of Civil Procedure(Publication was made in a newspaper of $anila and an order of the court deposited in the post office ina stamped envelope of the summons and complaint directed to defendant("he cler), however, failed to comply with the mail publication re1uirement( "he ban) was able to foreclose the property without the defendant( After seven years, the administrator of the estate, Oicente Palanca, appeared and re1uested the court to set aside the order of default of >uly /, -.08, and the 'udgment rendered upon >uly 3, -.08, and tovacate all the proceedings subse1uent thereto( "he basis of this application, as set forth in the motionitself, was that the order of default and the 'udgment rendered thereon were void because the courthad never ac1uired 'urisdiction over the defendant or over the sub'ect of the action(*is appeal was denied by the lower court, hence the appeal( *is appeal was denied by the lower court, hence the appeal( I##.(& Fhether or not the procedural aspect of the right to due process has been pre'udiced( '()*& -( "here must be a COURT o TRI6UNAL clothed with 'udicial power to hear and determine the matter before it@ /( JURISDICTION must be lawfully ac1uired over the person of the defendant or over the property which is the sub'ect of the proceeding@ 3( "he defendant must be given the O77ORTUNITY to be heard@ and E( >udgment must be rendered upon lawful 'EARING( "he essentials of procedural fairness inn 'udicial proceedings are Conclusions stated by the court indicated that the 'udgment appealed from is without error, and the same is accordingly affirmed( ANG TI6AY VS. CIR FACTS& Petitioner, Ang "ibay has filed an opposition for both the motion for reconsideration of CI9 and the motion for a new trial by the 4ational Habor 7nion( "he 4ational Habor 7nion2s case they alleged that "oribio "eodoro, who dominated the 4ational For)ers2 #rotherhood of Ang "ibay,made a false claim that there was a shortage of leather soles in A4g "ibay that made it necessary for him to lay off wor)ers, however, claim was unsupported by records of the #ureau of Customs M the accounts of native dealers of leather( Such was 'ust a scheme adapted to systematically discharge all the members of the 4H7, inc(, from wor)( T 7nfair labor practice for discriminating against the 4ational Habor 7nion, Inc(, and un'ustly favoring the 4ational For)ersG #rotherhood(T "hat the e&hibits hereto attached are so inaccessible to the respondents that even with the e&ercise of due
CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# -E-
diligence they could not be e&pected to have obtained them and offered as evidence in the Court of Industrial 9elations( "hat the attached documents and e&hibits are of such farJreaching importance and effect that their admission would necessarily mean the modification and reversal of the 'udgment rendered herein( 'ELD& motion for reconsideration denied, motion for new trial granted( ,iscussion of the 4ature of the CI9 to emphasi6e certain guiding principles which should be observed in the trial of cases brought before it( Court of Industrial 9elations -0 an administrative court J e&ercises 'udicial or 1uasiJ'udicial functions in the determination of disputes between employers and employees J has 'urisdiction over the entire Philippines, to consider, investigate, decide, and settle any 1uestion, matter controversy or dispute arising between, and<or affecting employers and employees or laborers, and regulate the relations between them, sub'ect to, and in accordance with, the provisions of Commonwealth Act 4o( -03 8section -=( "here is in reality here a mingling of e&ecutive and 'udicial functions, which is a departure from the rigid doctrine of the separation of governmental powers( In the case of Goseco vs. Court of Industrial Court of Industrial 9elations is not na o-)y %on#t a0n(* 1y t(%+n0%a) .)(# o3 , o%(*. (, and the Act re1uires it to Aa%t a%%o *0n! to =.#t0%( an* (?.0ty an* #.1#tant0a) 2( 0t# o3 t+( %a#(/ -0t+o.t (!a * to t(%+n0%a)0t0(# o )(!a) 3o 2# and shall not be bound by any technicalities or legal forms and shall not 1( 1o.n* 1y any t(%+n0%a) .)(# o3 )(!a) ("0*(n%( but may inform its mind in such manner as it may deem 'ust and e1uitable(? 8Section /0, Commonwealth Act 4o( -03(= re1uirements of due process in trials and investigations of an administrative character( -( 0!+t to a +(a 0n!, which includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof( /( t 01.na) must consider t+( ("0*(n%( , (#(nt(*. 3( +a"( #o2(t+0n! to #.,,o t t+( *(%0#0on E( ("0*(n%( 2.#t 1( A#.1#tant0a).A J such relevant evidence as a (a#ona1)( 20n* a%%(,t# a# a*(?.at( to #.,,o t a %on%).#0on.A 0( "he *(%0#0on 2.#t 1( (n*( (* on t+( ("0*(n%( , (#(nt(* at t+( +(a 0n!/ or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected( Qnly by confining the administrative tribunal to the evidence disclosed to the parties, can the latter be protected in their right to )now and meet the case against them( :( "he Court of Industrial 9elations or any of its
'udges, therefore, 2.#t a%t on 0t# o +0# o-n 0n*(,(n*(nt %on#0*( at0on o3 t+( )a- an* 3a%t# o3 t+( %ont o"( #y/ an* not #02,)y a%%(,t t+( "0(-# o3 a #.1o *0nat( 0n a 0"0n! at a *(%0#0on. It may be that the volume of wor) is such that it is literally 9elations personally to decide all controversies coming before them( D("he Court of Industrial 9elations should, in all controversial 1uestions, r(n*( 0t# *(%0#0on 0n #.%+ a 2ann( t+at t+( ,a t0(# to t+( , o%((*0n! %an >no- t+( "a 0o.# 0##.(# 0n"o)"(*/ an* t+( (a#on# 3o t+( *(%0#0on (n*( (*. "he performance of this duty is inseparable from the authority conferred upon it( "he court observed that, e&cept as to the alleged agreement between the Ang "ibay and the 4ational For)erGs #rotherhood, the record is barren and does not satisfy the thirst for a factual basis upon which to predicate, in a national way, a conclusion of law( "herefore, in the interest of 'ustice, a new trial should commence giving the movant the opportunity to present new evidence( D0o#*a*o G.42an "# Nat0ona) Un0"( #0ty Fa%t#& Petitioners ,iosdado 5u6man, 7lysses 7rbi6tondo and Ariel 9amacula, students of respondent 4ational 7niversity, have come to this Court to see) relief from what they describe as their schoolGs ?continued and persistent refusal to allow them to enrol(? In their petition ?for e&traordinary legal and e1uitable remedies with prayer for preliminary mandatory in'unction? dated August D, -.8E, they alleged that they were denied due to the fact that they were active participation in peaceful mass actions within the premises of the 7niversity( "he respondents on the other hand claimed that the petitioners2 failure to enroll for the first semester of the school year -.8EJ-.80 is due to their own fault and not because of their alleged e&ercise of their constitutional and human rights( "hat as regards to 5u6man, his academic showing was poor due to his activities in leading boycotts of classes( "hat 5u6man !is facing criminal charges for malicious mischief before the $etropolitan "rial Court of $anila in connection with the destruction of properties of respondent 7niversity( "he petitioners have !failures in their records, and are not of good scholastic standing(+ '()*& Immediately apparent from a reading of respondentsG comment and memorandum is the fact that they had never conducted proceedings of any sort to determine whether or not petitionersJ students had indeed led or participated ?in activities within the university premises, conducted without prior permit from school authorities, that disturbed or disrupted classes therein? 3 or perpetrated acts of ?vandalism,
CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 10 -
coercion and intimidation, slander, noise barrage and other acts showing disdain for and defiance of 7niversity authority(? E Parenthetically, the pendency of a civil case for damages and a criminal case for malicious mischief against petitioner 5u6man, cannot, without more, furnish sufficient warrant for his e&pulsion or debarment from reJenrollment( Also apparent is the omission of respondents to cite this Court to any duly published rule of theirs by which students may be e&pelled or refused reJenrollment for poor scholastic standing( "here are withal minimum standards which must be met to satisfy the demands of procedural due process@ and these are, that @1O t+( #t.*(nt# 2.#t 1( 0n3o 2(* 0n - 0t0n! o3 t+( nat. ( an* %a.#( o3 any a%%.#at0on a!a0n#t t+(2< @2O t+(y #+a! +a"( t+( 0!+t to an#-( t+( %+a !(# a!a0n#t t+(2/ -0t+ t+( a##0#tan%( o3 %o.n#()/ 03 *(#0 (*< @BO t+(y #+a)) 1( 0n3o 2(* o3 t+( ("0*(n%( a!a0n#t t+(2< @CO t+(y #+a)) +a"( t+( 0!+t to a**.%( ("0*(n%( 0n t+(0 o-n 1(+a)3< an* @DO t+( ("0*(n%( 2.#t 1( *.)y %on#0*( (* 1y t+( 0n"(#t0!at0n! %o220tt(( o o330%0a) *(#0!nat(* 1y t+( #%+oo) a.t+o 0t0(# to +(a an* *(%0*( t+( %a#(. "*% P%"I"IQ4 FAS 59A4"%, A4, "*% 9%SPQ4,%4"S A9% ,I9%C"%, "Q AHHQF "*% P%"I"IQ4%9S "Q 9%J%49QHH FI"*Q7" P9%>7,IC% "Q A4P ,ISCIPHI4A9P P9QC%%,I45S( Ynot "# Int( 2(*0at( A,,())at( Co. t Fa%t#& "he case was about the constitutionality of %Q :/:JA which prohibits interprovincial movement of carabaos( "he petitioner had transported si& carabaos in a pump boat from $asbate to Iloilo on >anuary -3, -.8E, when they were confiscated by the police station commander of #arotac 4uevo, Iloilo, for violation of the above measure( "he petitioner sued for recovery, and the 9egional "rial Court of Iloilo City issued a writ of replevin upon his filing of a supersedeas bond of P-/,000(00( After considering the merits of the case, the court sustained the confiscation of the carabaos and, since they could no longer be produced, ordered the confiscation of the bond( "he court also declined to rule on the constitutionality of the e&ecutive order, as raise by the petitioner, for lac) of authority and also for its presumed validity( '()*& T+( *.( , o%(## %)a.#( -a# >(,t 0nt(nt0ona))y "a!.( #o 0t -o.)* (2a0n a)#o %on"(n0(nt)y (#0)0(nt. "his was felt necessary because due process is not, li)e some provisions of the fundamental law, an ?iron rule? laying down an
implacable and immutable command for all seasons and all persons( 3le&ibility must be the best virtue of the guaranty( "he very elasticity of the due process clause was meant to ma)e it adapt easily to every situation, enlarging or constricting its protection as the changing times and circumstances may re1uire( T+( 20n02.2 (?.0 (2(nt# o3 *.( , o%(## a ( not0%( an* +(a 0n! -+0%+/ !(n( a))y #,(a>0n!/ 2ay not 1( *0#,(n#(* -0t+ 1(%a.#( t+(y a ( 0nt(n*(* a# a #a3(!.a * a!a0n#t o330%0a) a 10t a 0n(##. It is a gratifying commentary on our 'udicial system that the 'urisprudence of this country is rich with applications of this guaranty as proof of our fealty to the rule of law and the ancient rudiments of fair play( Fe have consistently declared that every person, faced by the awesome power of the State, is entitled to ?the law of the land,? which ,aniel Febster described almost two hundred years ago in the famous ,artmouth College Case, as ?the law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon in1uiry and renders 'udgment only after trial(? It has to be so if the rights of every person are to be secured beyond the reach of officials who, out of mista)en 6eal or plain arrogance, would degrade the due process clause into a worn and empty catchword( It +a# a) (a*y 1((n (2a >(* t+at t+( ( a ( o%%a#0on# -+(n not0%( an* +(a 0n! 2ay 1( "a)0*)y *0#,(n#(* -0t+ not-0t+#tan*0n! t+( .#.a) (?.0 (2(nt 3o t+(#( 20n02.2 !.a ant((# o3 *.( , o%(##. It 0# a)#o %on%(*(* t+at #.22a y a%t0on 2ay 1( "a)0*)y ta>(n 0n a*20n0#t at0"( , o%((*0n!# a# , o%(*. a) *.( , o%(## 0# not n(%(##a 0)y =.*0%0a) on)y. In t+( (5%(,t0ona) %a#(# a%%(,t(*/ +o-("( t+( ( 0# a =.#t030%at0on 3o t+( o20##0on o3 t+( 0!+t to a , ("0o.# +(a 0n!/ to -0t/ t+( 022(*0a%y o3 t+( , o1)(2 #o.!+t to 1( %o (%t(* an* t+( . !(n%y o3 t+( n((* to %o (%t 0t. ,ue process is violated because the owner of the property confiscated is denied the right to be heard in his defense and is immediately condemned and punished( %Q :/:JA was declared unconstitutional( Tana*a "# T."( a Fa%t#& ,ue process was invo)ed by the petitioners in demanding the disclosure of a number of presidential decrees which they claimed had not been published as re1uired by law( "he government argued that while publication was necessary as a rule, it was not so when it was ?otherwise provided,? as when the decrees themselves declared that they were to become effective immediately upon their approval( I##.(& FQ4 publication is needed for laws that were to become effective immediately(
'()*& It is not correct to say that under the disputed clause publication may be dispensed with altogether( "he reason is that such omission would offend due process insofar as it would deny the public )nowledge of the laws that are supposed to govern the legislature could validly provide that a law is effective immediately upon its approval notwithstanding the lac) of publication 8or after an unreasonably short period after publication=, it is not unli)ely that persons not aware of it would be pre'udiced as a result and they would be so not because of a failure to comply with but simply because they did not )now of its e&istence, Significantly, this is not true only of penal laws as is commonly supposed( Qne can thin) of many nonJpenal measures, li)e a law on prescription, which must also be communicated to the persons they may affect before they can begin to operate( "he term ?laws? should refer to all laws and not only to those of general application, for strictly spea)ing all laws relate to the people in general albeit there are some that do not apply to them directly( An e&ample is a law granting citi6enship to a particular individual, li)e a relative of President $arcos who was decreed instant naturali6ation( It surely cannot be said that such a law does not affect the public although it un1uestionably does not apply directly to all the people( "he sub'ect of such law is a matter of public interest which any member of the body politic may 1uestion in the political forums or, if he is a proper party, even in the courts of 'ustice( In fact, a law without any bearing on the public would be invalid as an intrusion of privacy or as class legislation or as an ultra vires act of the legislature( "o be valid, the law must invariably affect the public interest even if it might be directly applicable only to one individual, or some of the people only, and t to the public as a whole( Fe hold therefore that all statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fi&ed by the legislature( 'a)0)0 "# 7.1)0% S( "0%( Co220##0on Fa%t#& A petition for certiorari was filed see)ing for the revocation and annulment of an order by respondent Public Service Commission dated >uly 3, -.0/ which changed part of the route of the bus service established by the respondent CA$ "ransit Co(, Inc(, between #alara and City *all, $anila( Petitioner herein is the holder of various certificates of public convenience to operate autoJ truc) services between #alara and various points in the City of $anila and its suburbs( Qn >uly /, -.0/, CA$ "ransit Co(, Inc( filed a petition with the respondent Commission alleging that the route authori6ed in its City *all8$anila=J #alara line is entirely different from that supported by the evidence presented in the hearing, and
praying that the certificate be amended( Qn the following day, >uly 3, and without previous notice to the petitioner or a previous hearing thereon, ordered the modification of the line in accordance with the petition( I##.(& FQ4 the order of the amendment of the route, without notice to the petitioner and other interested parties, or hearing in which the latter may be given opportunity to be present, was lawfully and validly issued by the Commission( FQ4 petitioner2s right to due process was violated( '()*& "he order by the Commission of amending the route was not validly issued and petitioner2s right to due process was violated( In the first place, the power to issue provisional permits is e&pressly authori6ed( In the second place, the change ordered is not provisional merely, li)e that granted in a provisional permit, but final and permanent in character( In the third place, even if the Commission is not bound by the rules in 'udicial proceedings, it must bow its head to he constitutional mandate that no person shall be deprived of a right without due process of law( "he A*.( , o%(## o3 )a-A %)a.#( o3 t+( Con#t0t.t0on 10n*# not on)y t+( Go"( n2(nt o3 t+( R(,.1)0% o3 t+( 7+0)0,,0n(#/ 1.t a)#o (a%+ an* ("( yon( o3 0t# 1 an%+(#/ a!(n%0(#/ (t%. 8-: C(>(S(, --E.(=?,ue process of law, or, in the mean accord with the procedure outlines in the law, or, in the absence of e&press procedure, under such safeguards for the protection of individual rights as the settled ma&ims of law permit and sanction for the particular class of cases to which the one in 1uestion belongs,? 8-: C(>(S(, --E-(= In the case at bar, the Public Service Act does not include the amendment made in the disputed order among those may be ordered without notice or hearing in accordance with Section -D of the Act( Is the amendment, without notice or hearing, permitted by the well settled ma&ims of lawK Fe declare it is not, because *.( , o%(## o3 )a!.a ant((# not0%( an* o,,o t.n0ty to 1( +(a * to ,( #on# -+o -o.)* 1( a33(%t(* 1y t+( o *( o a%t %ont(2,)at(*. In a 5eneral sense it means the 0!+t to 1( +(a * 1(3o ( #o2( t 01.na) +a"0n! =. 0#*0%t0on to *(t( 20n( t+( ?.(#t0on 0n *0#,.t(. 6y A*.( , o%(## o3 )a-A 0# 2(ant o *( )y , o%((*0n! a*o,t(* to t+( nat. ( o3 t+( %a#(/ 1(3o ( a t 01.na) +a"0n! =. 0#*0%t0on/ -+0%+ , o%((*# .,on not0%(/ -0t+ an o,,o t.n0ty to 1(( +(a */ -0t+ 3.)) ,o-( to ! ant ()0(3. Some legal procedure in which the person proceeded against, if he is to be concluded thereby, shall have an opportunity to defend himself(
A course of proceeding according to these rules and principles which have been established in our system of 'urisprudence for the protection and enforcement of private rights( S( ano "# Co220##0on Nat0ona) La1o R()at0on#
Fa%t#& A petition was filed see)ing a review of a resolution made by the 4ational Habor relations commission which reversed the decision rendered by theHaborArbiter and dismissed petitionerGs complaint for illegal dismissal and denied his motion for reconsideration( Petitioner was hired by private respondent Isetann ,epartment Store( Sometime in -..-, as a costJ cutting measure, said respondent decided to phase out its entire security section and engage the services of an independent security agency( A memorandum was subse1uently wrote to petitioner informing him of his termination immediately 8date of effectivity of termination was e&actly the same as the date the memorandum was made=( I##.(& FQ4 there was a violation of petitionerGs right to due process when respondentJemployer failed to give the re1uired - month notice provided in the Habor Code( '()*& ?It is now settled that where the dismissal of one employee is in fact for a 'ust and valid cause and is so proven to be but he is not accorded his right to due process, i(e(, he was not furnished the twin re1uirements of notice and opportunity to be heard, the dismissal shall be upheld but the employer must be sanctioned for nonJcompliance with the re1uirements of, or for failure to observe, due process(? "here are three reasons why, on the other hand, violation by the employer of the notice re1uirement cannot be considered a denial of due process resulting in the nullity of the employeeGs dismissal or layoff( "he first is that the ,ue Process Clause of the Constitution is a limitation on governmental powers( It does not apply to the e&ercise of private power, such as the termination of employment under the Habor Code( "his is plain from the te&t of Art( III, U- of the Constitution, vi6( ?4o person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law( ( ( (? "he reason is simple Qnly the State has authority to ta)e the life, liberty, or property of the individual( "he purpose of the ,ue Process Clause is to ensure that the e&ercise of this power is consistent with what are considered civili6ed methods( "he second reason is that notice and hearing are re1uired under the ,ue Process Clause before the
power of organi6ed society are brought to bear upon the individual( "his is obviously not the case of termination of employment under Art( /83( *ere the employee is not faced with an aspect of the adversary system( "he purpose for re1uiring a 30J day written notice before an employee is laid off is not to afford him an opportunity to be heard on any charge against him, for there is none( "he purpose rather is to give him time to prepare for the eventual loss of his 'ob and the ,QH% an opportunity to determine whether economic causes do e&ist 'ustifying the termination of his employment( "he third reason why the notice re1uirement under Art( /83 can not be considered a re1uirement of the ,ue Process Clause is that the employer cannot really be e&pected to be entirely an impartial 'udge of his own cause( "his is also the case in termination of employment for a 'ust cause under Art( /8/( Fe hold, therefore, that, with respect to Art( /83 of the Habor Code, the employerGs failure to comply with the notice re1uirement does not constitute a denial of due process but a mere failure to observe a procedure for the termination of employment which ma)es the termination of employment merely ineffectual( Indeed, under the Habor Code, only the absence of a 'ust cause for the termination of employment can ma)e the dismissal of an employee illegal( Lao G0 " Co. t o3 A,,(a)# Fa%t#& *erein petitioner faces a charge for deportation when a 'udgment was rendered cancelling his citi6enship 8obtained from a prior 'udgment= on the ground that it was founded on fraud and misrepresentation( Petitioners were re1uired to register as aliens but refused( "hey filed a motion for reconsideration of the of the order directing them to register as aliens and to oppose the motion for their arrest but was denied by Acting Commissioner 4ituda( Petitioners filed for certiorari in the C3I of $anila which was dismissed fo lac) of legal basis( Petition for certiorari was also dismissed on appeal in the CA and a motion for reconsideration was also denied( *ence, the present petition( I##.(& FQ4 petitioners are entitled to the right to due process even if they are aliens( '()*& "he power to deport an alien is an act of the State( It is an act by or under the authority of the sovereign power( It is a police measure against undesirable aliens whose presence in the country is found to be in'urious to the public good and domestic tran1uility of the people( Although a *(,o tat0on , o%((*0n! *o(# not ,a ta>( o3 t+( nat. ( o3 a % 020na) a%t0on/ +o-("( / %on#0*( 0n! t+at 0t 0# a +a #+ an*
CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 1B -
(5t ao *0na y a*20n0#t at0"( , o%((*0n! a33(%t0n! t+( 3 ((*o2 an* )01( ty o3 a ,( #on/ t+( %on#t0t.t0ona) 0!+t o3 #.%+ ,( #on to *.( , o%(## #+o.)* not 1( *(n0(*. T+.#/ t+( , o"0#0on# o3 t+( R.)(# o3 Co. t o3 t+( 7+0)0,,0n(# ,a t0%.)a )y on % 020na) , o%(*. ( a ( a,,)0%a1)( to *(,o tat0on , o%((*0n!#. 7nder Section 3D8c= of the Philippine Immigration Act of -.E0 as amended, it is provided c=4o alien shall be deported without being informed of the specific grounds for deportation nor without being given a hearing under rules of procedure to be prescribed by the Commissioner of Immigration( *ence, the charge against an alien must specify the acts or omissions complained of which must be stated in ordinary and concise language to enable a person of common understanding to )now on what ground he is intended to be deported and enable the CI, to pronounce a proper 'udgment( Petition is hereby granted and the 1uestioned order of the respondent commission on immigration and deportation is hereby set aside( 7'ILI77INE JUDGES ASSO. VS. 7RADO Fa%t#& "he Philippine Postal Corporation issued circular 4o( ./J/8 to implement Section 30 of 9A D30E withdrawing the fran)ing privilege from the SC, CA, 9"Cs, $e"Cs, $"Cs and Hand 9egistration Commission and with certain other government offices( It is alleged that 9A D30E is discriminatory because while withdrawing the fran)ing privilege from 'udiciary, it retains the same for the President M OiceJPresident of the Philippines, Senator M members of the *ouse of 9epresentatives, CQ$%H%C, 4ational Census M Statistics Qffice and the general public( "he respondents counter that there is no discrimination because the law is based on a valid classification in accordance with the e1ual protection clause( I##.(& Fhether or 4ot Section 30 of 9A D30E is constitutional( '()*& "he e1ual protection of the laws is embraced in the concept of due process, as every unfair discrimination offends the re1uirements of 'ustice and fair play( It has nonetheless been embodied in a separate clause in Article III Section - of the Constitution to provide for amore specific guarantee against any form of undue favoritism or hostility from the government( Arbitrariness in general may be challenged on the basis of the due process clause( #ut if the particular act assailed parta)es of an unwarranted partiality or pre'udice, the sharper weapon to cut it down is the e1ual protection clause( %1ual protection simply re1uires that all persons or things similarly situated should
be treated ali)e, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed( Fhat the clause re1uires is e1uality among e1uals as determined according to a valid classification( Section 30 of 9A D30E is declared unconstitutional( Circular 4o( ./J/8 is set aside insofar 7EO7LE VS. CAYAT Fa%t#& !Haw prohibits any member of a nonJChristian tribe to buy, receive, have in his possession, or drin), any into&icating li1uors of any )ind(+ "he law, Act 4o( -:3., e&empts only the soJcalled native wines or li1uors which the members of such tribes have been accustomed to ta)e( I##.(& Fhether or 4ot the law denies e1ual protection to one prosecuted and sentenced for violation of said law( '()*& 4o( It satisfies the re1uirements of a valid classification, one of which is that the classification under the law must rest on real or substantial distinctions( "he distinction is reasonable( "he classification between the members of the nonJ Christian and the members of the Christian tribes is not based upon accident of birth or parentage but upon the degree of civili6ation and culture( "he term InonJChristian tribes2 refers to a geographical area and more directly to natives of the Philippines of a low grade civili6ation usually living in tribal relationship apart from settled communities( "he distinction is reasonable for the Act was intended to meet the peculiar conditions e&isting in the nonJ Christian tribes+ "he prohibition is germane to the purposes of the law( It is designed to insure peace and order in and among the nonJ Christian tribes has often resulted in lawlessness and crime thereby hampering the efforts of the government to raise their standards of life and civili6ation( "his law is not limited in its application to conditions e&isting at the time of the enactment( It is intended to apply for all times as long as those conditions e&ist( "he Act applies e1ually to all members of the class( "hat it may be unfair in its operation against a certain number of nonJ Christians by reason of their degree of culture is not an argument against the e1uality of its operation nor affect the reasonableness of the classification thus established( RU6I VS. 7ROVINCIAL 6OARD OF MINDORO Fa%t#& "his is an application for habeas corpus in favor of 9ubi and other $anguianes of the Province of $indoro( "he provincial board of $indoro adopted resolution 4o( /0 which states that !provincial governor of any province in which nonJChristian inhabitants 8uncivili6ed tribes= are found is authori6ed, when such a course is deemed necessary in the interest of law and order, to direct such inhabitants to ta)e up their habitation on
CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 1C -
sites on unoccupied public lands to be selected by him and approved by the provincial board+( It is resolved that under section /0DD of the Administrative Code, 800 hectares of public land in the sitio of "igbao on 4au'an Ha)e be selected as a site for the permanent settlement of $angyanes in $indoro( 3urther, $angyans may only solicit homesteads on this reservation providing that said homestead applications are previously recommended by the provincial governor( "hereafter, the provincial governor of $indoro issued e&ecutive order 4o( /, which says that the provincial governor has selected a site in the sitio of "igbao on 4au'an Ha)e for the permanent settlement of $angyanes in $indoro( In that case, pursuant to Section /-E0 of the 9evised Administrative Code, all the $angyans in the townships of 4au'an and Pola and the $angyans east of the #aco 9iver including those in the districts of ,ulangan and 9ubiGs place in Calapan, were ordered to ta)e up their habitation on the site of "igbao, 4au'an Ha)e( Also, that any $angyan who shall refuse to comply with this order shall upon conviction be imprisoned not e&ceed in si&ty days, in accordance with section /D0. of the revised Administrative Code( Said resolution of the provincial board of $indoro were claimed as necessary measures for the protection of the $angyanes of $indoro as well as the protection of public forests in which they roam, and to introduce civili6ed customs among them( It appeared that 9ubi and those living in his rancheria have not fi&ed their dwelling within the reservation of "igbao and are liable to be punished( It is alleged that the $anguianes are being illegally deprived of their liberty by the provincial officials of that province( 9ubi and his companions are said to be held on the reservation established at "igbao, $indoro, against their will, and one ,abalos is said to be held under the custody of the provincial sheriff in the prison at Calapan for having run away form the reservation( I##.(& Fhether or 4ot Section /-E0 of the Administrative Code deprive a person of his liberty without due process of law( Fhether or 4ot Section /-E0 of the Administrative Code of -.-D is constitutional( '()*& "he Court held that section /-E0 of the Administrative Code does not deprive a person of his liberty without due process of law and does not deny to him the e1ual protection of the laws, and that confinement in reservations in accordance with said section does not constitute slavery and involuntary servitude( "he Court is further of the opinion that section /-E0 of the Administrative Code is a legitimate e&ertion of the police power, somewhat analogous to the Indian policy of the 7nited States( Section /-E0 of the Administrative Code of -.-D is constitutional( "he preamble of the resolution of the provincial board of $indoro which set apart the "igbao reservation, it will be read, assigned as reasons fort the action, the following
8-= "he failure of former attempts for the advancement of the nonJChristian people of the province@ and 8/= the only successfully method for educating the $anguianes was to oblige them to live in a permanent settlement( "he SolicitorJ 5eneral adds the following@ 83= "he protection of the $anguianes@ 8E= the protection of the public forests in which they roam@ 80= the necessity of introducing civili6ed customs among the $anguianes( Considered purely as an e&ercise of the police power, the courts cannot fairly say that the Hegislature has e&ceeded its rightful authority( It is, indeed, an unusual e&ercise of that power( #ut a great malady re1uires an e1ually drastic remedy( Qne cannot hold that the liberty of the citi6en is unduly interfered without when the degree of civili6ation of the $anguianes is considered( "hey are restrained for their own good and the general good of the Philippines( 4or can one say that due process of law has not been followed( 4one of the rights of the citi6en can be ta)en away e&cept by due process of law( "o constitute ?due process of law,? as has been often held, a 'udicial proceeding is not always necessary( In some instances, even a hearing and notice are not re1uisite a rule which is especially true where much must be left to the discretion of the administrative officers in applying a law to particular cases( "he idea of the provision in 1uestion is to unify the people of the Philippines so that they may approach the highest conception of nationality( "he public policy of the 5overnment of the Philippine Islands is shaped with a view to benefit the 3ilipino people as a whole( "he $anguianes, in order to fulfill this governmental policy, must be confined for a time, as we have said, for their own good and the good of the country( "herefore, petitioners are not unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty( *abeas corpus can, therefore, not issue( V0))(!a# "# 'o Fa%t#& A petition for certiorari is filed to review the decision rendered by the C3I of $anila wherein Qrdinance :03D, which prohibits aliens from being employed or to engage or participate in any position or occupation or business without first securing an employment permit from the $ayor of $anila and paying the permit fee of fifty pesos &&&, was declared null and void for it is arbitrary, oppressive and unreasonable, being applied only to aliens who are thus deprived of their rights to life, liberty and property and therefore violates the due process and e1ual protection clauses of the Constitution( I##.(& FQ4 respondent 'udge committed a serious and patent error of law in ruling that ordinance :03D violated the due process and e1ual protection clauses of the Constitution(
CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 1D -
'()*& 4o, respondent 'udge did not commit the errors assigned( "he ordinance in 1uestion violates the due process of law and e1ual protection rule of the Constitution( 9e1uiring a person before he can be employed to get a permit from the City $ayor of $anila who may withhold or refuse it at will is tantamount to denying him the basic right of the people in the Philippines to engage in a means of livelihood( Fhile it is true that the Philippines as a State is not obliged to admit aliens within its territory, once an alien is admitted, he cannot be deprived of life without due process of law( "his guarantee includes the means of livelihood( T+( #+()t( o3 , ot(%t0on .n*( t+( *.( , o%(## an* (?.a) , ot(%t0on %)a.#( 0# !0"(n to a)) ,( #on#/ 1ot+ a)0(n# an* %0t04(n#. Int( nat0ona) S%+oo) A))0an%( o3 E*.%ato # "# P.0#.210n! Fa%t#& Petitioners are employees 8teachers= of respondentGs school who are receiving less than their counterparts hired abroad and now cry discrimination( "he school contends that a foreignJ hire would necessarily uproot himself from his home country, leave his family and friends, and ta)e the ris) of devaiting from a promising career path J all for the purpose of pursuing his profession as an educator, but this time in a foreign land and such person does not en'oy security of tenure as well so the compensation scheme is simply the SchoolGs adaptive measure to remain competitive on an international level in terms of attracting competent pruofessionals in the field of international education( "he schoolGs classification between foreignJhires and localJhires was in the pointJofJhire so foreigners hired locally are being classified as localJhires( Petitioner claims that such classification is discriminatory to 3ilipinos and that the grant of higher salaries to foreignJhires constitutes racial discrimination( Qn the other hand, the Acting Secretary of Habor upheld the pointJof hire classification for the distinction in salary rates( *e also stated that "he 7nion cannot also invo)e the e1ual protection clause to 'ustify its claim of parity( It is an established principle of constitutional law that the guarantee of e1ual protection of the laws is not violated by legislation or private covenants based on reasonable classification( A classification is reasonable if it is based on substantial distinctions and apply to all members of the same class( Oerily, there is a substantial distinction between foreign hires and local hires, the former en'oying only a limited tenure, having no amenities of their own in the Philippines and have to be given a good compensation pac)age in order to attract them to 'oin the teaching faculty of the School( *ence the present petition(
I##.(& FQ4 the Acting secretary erred in upholding the reasonableness of the classification made by respondentJschool( '()*& Pes( "hat public policy abhors ine1uality and discrimination is beyond contention( Qur Constitution and laws reflect the policy against these evils( "he Constitution 8 in the Article on Social >ustice and *uman 9ights e&horts Congress to ?give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political ine1ualities(? "he very broad Article -. of the Civil Code re1uires every person, ?in the e&ercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, BtoC act with 'ustice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith( "he Constitution -8 also directs the State to promote ?e1uality of employment opportunities for all(? Similarly, the Habor Code -. provides that the State shall ?ensure e1ual wor) opportunities regardless of se&, race or creed(? It would be an affront to both the spirit and letter of these provisions if the State, in spite of its primordial obligation to promote and ensure e1ual employment opportunities, closes its eyes to une1ual and discriminatory terms and conditions of employment( "he Constitution en'oins the State to ?protect the rights of wor)ers and promote their welfare,? /0 ?to afford labor full protection(? "he State, therefore, has the right and duty to regulate the relations between labor and capital( "hese relations are not merely contractual but are so impressed with public interest that labor contracts, collective bargaining agreements included, must yield to the common good( Should such contracts contain stipulations that are contrary to public policy, courts will not hesitate to stri)e down these stipulations( In this case, we find the pointJofJhire classification employed by respondent School to 'ustify the distinction in the salary rates of foreignJhires and local hires to be an invalid classification( "here is no reasonable distinction between the services rendered by foreignJhires and localJhires( "he practice of the School of according higher salaries to foreignJhires contravenes public policy and, certainly, does not deserve the sympathy of this Court( R(,.1)0% "# San*0!an1ayan Fa%t#& Immediately upon her assumption to office following the successful %,SA 9evolution, then President Cora6on C( A1uino issued %&ecutive Qrder 4o( - 8!%Q 4o( -+= creating the Presidential Commission on 5ood 5overnment 8!PC55+=( %Q 4o( - primarily tas)ed the PC55 to recover all illJ gotten wealth of former President 3erdinand %( $arcos, his immediate family, relatives,
CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 1K -
subordinates and close associates( %Q 4o( vested the PC55 with the power !8a= to conduct investigation as may be necessary in order to accomplish and carry out the purposes of this order+ and the power !8h= to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of this order(+ Accordingly, the PC55, through its then Chairman >ovito 9( Salonga, created an A3P AntiJ5raft #oard 8!A3P #oard+= tas)ed to investigate reports of une&plained wealth and corrupt practices by A3P personnel, whether in the active service or retired( #ased on its mandate, the A3P #oard investigated various reports of alleged une&plained wealth of respondent $a'or 5eneral >osephus V( 9amas 8!9amas+=( Qn /D >uly -.8D, the A3P #oard issued a 9esolution on its findings and recommendation on the reported une&plained wealth of 9amas( %vidence in the record showed that respondent is the owner of a house and lot located at -0JPa)an St(, Ha Oista, Vue6on City( *e is also the owner of a house and lot located in Cebu City( "he lot has an area of 3,3/D s1uare meters( "he value of the property located in Vue6on City may be estimated modestly at PD00,000(00( "he e1uipment<items and communication facilities which were found in the premises of %li6abeth ,imaano and were confiscated by elements of the PC Command of #atangas were all covered by invoice receipt in the name of CAP"( %39%4 SAHI,Q, 9SQ Command Coy, $SC, PA( "hese items could not have been in the possession of %li6abeth ,imaano if not given for her use by respondent Commanding 5eneral of the Philippine Army( Aside from the military e1uipment<items and communications e1uipment, the raiding team was also able to confiscate money in the amount of P/,8D0,000(00 and W00,000 7S ,ollars in the house of %li6abeth ,imaano on 3 $arch -.8:( Affidavits of members of the $ilitary Security 7nit, $ilitary Security Command, Philippine Army, stationed at Camp %ldridge, Hos #aXos, Haguna, disclosed that %li6abeth ,imaano is the mistress of respondent( "hat respondent usually goes and stays and sleeps in the alleged house of %li6abeth ,imaano in #arangay "engga, Itaas, #atangas City and when he arrives, %li6abeth ,imaano embraces and )isses respondent( "hat on 3ebruary /0, -.8:, a person who rode in a car went to the residence of %li6abeth ,imaano with four 8E= attache cases filled with money and owned by $5en 9amas( Sworn statement in the record disclosed also that %li6abeth ,imaano had no visible means of income and is supported by respondent for she was formerly a mere secretary( "a)ing in toto the evidence, %li6abeth ,imaano could not have used the military e1uipment<items sei6ed in her house on $arch 3, -.8: without the consent of respondent, he being the Commanding 5eneral of the Philippine Army( It is also impossible for %li6abeth ,imaano to claim
that she owns the P/,8D0,000(00 and W00,000 7S ,ollars for she had no visible source of income( "his money was never declared in the Statement of Assets and Hiabilities of respondent( "here was an intention to cover the e&istence of these money because these are all illJgotten and une&plained wealth( Fere it not for the affidavits of the members of the $ilitary Security 7nit assigned at Camp %ldridge, Hos #aXos, Haguna, the e&istence and ownership of these money would have never been )nown( "he Statement of Assets and Hiabilities of respondent were also submitted for scrutiny and analysis by the #oard2s consultant( Although the amount of P/,8D0,000(00 and W00,000 7S ,ollars were not included, still it was disclosed that respondent has an une&plained wealth of P-0E,-3E( :0( I##.(& FQ4 the bill of rights was operative at the time of President A1uino issued %(Q( R.)0n!& "he %,SA 9evolution too) place on /3J/0 3ebruary -.8:( As succinctly stated in President A1uino2s Proclamation 4o( 3 dated /0 $arch -.8:, the %,SA 9evolution was done in defiance of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution( "he resulting government was indisputably a revolutionary government bound by no constitution or legal limitations e&cept treaty obligations that the revolutionary government, as the de ure government in the Philippines, assumed under international law( "he correct issues are 8-= whether the revolutionary government was bound by the #ill of 9ights of the -.D3 Constitution during the interregnum, that is, after the actual and effective ta)eJover of power by the revolutionary government following the cessation of resistance by loyalist forces up to /E $arch -.8: 8immediately before the adoption of the Provisional Constitution=@ and 8/= whether the protection accorded to individuals under the International Covenant on Civil and Political 9ights 8!Covenant+= and the 7niversal ,eclaration of *uman 9ights 8!,eclaration+= remained in effect during the interregnum( Fe hold that the #ill of 9ights under the -.D3 Constitution was not operative during the interregnum( *owever, we rule that the protection accorded to individuals under the Covenant and the ,eclaration remained in effect during the interregnum( ,uring the interregnum, the directives and orders of the revolutionary government were the supreme law because no constitution limited the e&tent and scope of such directives and orders( Fith the abrogation of the -.D3 Constitution by the successful revolution, there was no municipal law higher than the directives and orders of the revolutionary government( "hus, during the interregnum, a person could not invo)e any e&clusionary right under a #ill of 9ights because there was neither a constitution nor a #ill of 9ights
CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 1L -
during the interregnum( It is widely known that rs. !"uino#s rise to the presidency was not due to constitutional processes$ in fact% it was achieved in violation of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution as a &atasang 'am(ansa resolution had earlier declared r. arcos as the winner in the 19)* presidential election. "hus it can be said that the organi6ation of $rs( A1uino2s 5overnment which was met by little resistance and her control of the state evidenced by the appointment of the Cabinet and other )ey officers of the administration, the departure of the $arcos Cabinet officials, revamp of the >udiciary and the $ilitary signaled the point where the legal system then in effect% had ceased to (e o(eyed (y the +ilipino. ,uring the interregnum, the government in power was concededly a revolutionary government bound by no constitution( 4o one could validly 1uestion the se1uestration orders as violative of the #ill of 9ights because there was no #ill of 9ights during the interregnum( *owever, upon the adoption of the 3reedom Constitution, the se1uestered companies assailed the se1uestration orders as contrary to the #ill of 9ights of the 3reedom Constitution( Mana)0)0 " CA @GR 11BCCLO O%t. E/ 1EEL Fa%t#& At about / -0 P$ on April --, -.88, Police AntiJ 4arcotics 7nit of Naloo)an City conducted surveillance along A( $abini Street, in front of the Naloo)an City Cemetery( "his was done after receiving information that drug addicts were roaming around said area( 7pon reaching the cemetery, the policemen chanced upon a male person, the petitioner, in front of the cemetery who appeared high on drugs( "he petitioner had reddish eyes and was wal)ing in a swaying manner( Petitioner was trying to avoid the policemen, but the officers were able to introduce themselves and as)ed him what he was holding in his hands( Petitioner resisted( Policeman %spiritu as)ed him if he could see what the petitioner had in his hands( "he petitioner showed his wallet and allowed the officer to e&amine it( Policeman %spiritu found suspected crushed mari'uana residue inside( *e )ept the wallet and its mari'uana contents and too) petitioner to head1uarters to be further investigated( "he suspected mari'uana was sent to the 4#I 3orensic Chemistry Section for analysis( I##.(& Fhether or not the search and sei6ure of the suspected mari'uana is unreasonable, and hence inadmissible as evidence( '()*& "he general rule is a search and sei6ure must be
validated by a previously secured 'udicial warrant@ otherwise, such a search and sei6ure is unconstitutional and sub'ect to challenge( Any evidence obtained in violation of this constitutionally guaranteed right is legally inadmissible in any proceeding( "he e&ceptions to the rule are 8-= search incidental to a lawful arrest, 8/= search of moving vehicles, 83= sei6ure in plain view, 8E= customs search, and 80= waiver by the accused of their right against unreasonable search and sei6ure( In these cases, the search and sei6ure may be made only with probable cause( Probable cause being at best defined as a reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in the belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged@ or the e&istence of such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the item8s=, article8s= or ob'ect8s= sought in connection with said offense or sub'ect to sei6ure and destruction by is in the place to be searched( Additionally, stopJandJfris) has already been adopted as another e&ception to the general rule against a search without a warrant( In the present case, petitioner effectively waived the inadmissibility of the evidence illegally obtained when he failed to raise the issue or ob'ect thereto during the trial( "he Supreme Court affirmed with modifications the assailed ,ecision and 9esolution of the respondent court( A!%ao0)0 "# Mo)0na Fa%t#& In the aforecited order, complainant 'udge alleged that respondent, in conducting the preliminary investigation of the aboveJmentioned criminal case, failed to e&ercise utmost care in the issuance of a warrant of arrest against the accused, 9olando Anama, based as it was, merely on the statements of two 8/= witnesses who had no personal )nowledge of the commission of the offense charged( Such action, complainant 'udge averred, was a clear violation of section /, Article III of the -.8D Constitution which re1uires that before a warrant of arrest is issued, ?the 'udge must personally determine the e&istence of probable cause from an e&amination under oath of the complainant and his witnesses(? / $ere hearsay evidence cannot be the basis that probable cause e&ists, stated complainant 'udge( "here must be something more concrete( Conse1uently, in the same order, complainant 'udge recalled the warrant of arrest and the order directing its issuance and directed the 4ational #ureau of Investigation, through 9egional Qffice 4o( /, Ilagan, Isabela, to conduct an investigation in order to avoid a possible miscarriage of 'ustice( In his Comment, respondent admitted that he was
CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 1M -
the in1uest 'udge in the preliminary investigation of the above entitled case and finding the e&istence of probable cause, he ordered the issuance of the warrant of arrest against the accused and as the case was cogni6able by the 9egional "rial Court, it was forwarded to the Provincial ProsecutorGs Qffice in Aparri, Cagayan( 3 9espondent e&plained that since the case was cogni6able by the 9egional "rial Court, the Provincial ProsecutorGs Qffice, which has the final say and disposition on the e&istence of probable cause on cases cogni6able by the 9egional "rial Court, should carry the brunt of the responsibility for ?erroneous? finding of probable cause( E 9espondent 'udge argued that the findings of complainant 'udge in his . August -..3 order is his opinionJargument and contended that ?the proper remedy for a seemingly wea) probable cause finding is a reinvestigation(? 0 I##.(& FQ4 there was probable cause in the issuance of a warrant( R.)0n!& Section :8b=, 9ule --/ of the 4ew 9ules of Criminal Procedure re1uires that a warrant of arrest shall be issued only when the ?municipal trial 'udge conducting the preliminary investigation is satisfied after an e&amination in writing in the form of searching 1uestions and answers, that a probable cause e&ists and that there is a necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of 'ustice(? "his is in conformity with the constitutional mandate that no ?warrant of arrest shall issue e&cept upon probable cause to be determined personally by the 'udge after e&amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce( In turn, probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest has been defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested( M Although the foregoing provisions seemingly grant 'udges wide latitude and unbridled discretion in determining probable cause, an elementary legal principle must not be compromised L hearsay evidence cannot be the basis of probable cause( "he rules on evidence are e&plicit( A witness can testify only to those facts which he )nows of his personal )nowledge@ that is, which are derived from his own perception( E *earsay evidence, therefore, has no probative value whatsoever( 7EO7LE VS ESTRADA FACTS& A petition for review was filed see)ing the reversal of respondent >udge %stradaGs order that granted private respondentGs motion to 1uash search warrant .08 as well as the denial of petitionerGs motion for reconsideration( "he pertinent facts of
the present case are as follows Y Atty( Cabanlas, Chief of the Hegal, Information and Compliance ,ivision 8HIC,= of #3A, filed an application for the issuance of a search warrant against Aiden Hanu6a 8private respondent= of 0-: San >ose de la $ontana Street, $abolo, Cebu City for violation of Article E08)= of 9A D.3E 8"he Consumer Act of the Philippines=( *owever, the application ended with a statement that the warrant is to search the premises of another person at a different address 8#elen Cabanero at 4ew 3rontier Oillage, "alisay, Cebu J who happened to be the sub'ect on whom another search was applied for by the same applicant= Y9espondent >udge issued search warrant .08 on >une /D, -..0 which was served the ne&t day( "he present petition stated that, during the search, the team discovered that said address 80-: &&= was actually a 0,000Jmeter compound containing at least -0 structures( "he policemen proceeded to search the residence of private respondent Hanu6a at Hot E- of said address( 3ailure to find any drug products prompted the policemen to proceed to search a nearby warehouse at Hot 38 which yielded 0/ cartons of assorted drug products( Y Qn August //, -..0, private respondent Hanu6a filed a motion to 1uash the search warrant on the ground that the search warrant is illegal and null and void( 9espondent 'udge granted Hany6a2s motion to 1uash the search warrant and denied petitioner2s motion for reconsideration( *ence, the present petition( ISSUE& FQ4 respondent 'udge erred in granting Hanu6a2s motion to 1uash Search Farrant .08( '()*& "here are, however, two 8/= serious grounds to 1uash the search warrant( 3irstly, we cannot fault the respondent >udge for nullifying the search warrant as she was not convinced that there was probable cause for its issuance due to the failure of the applicant to present documentary proof indicating that private respondent Aiden Hanu6a had no license to sell drugs( Fe hold that to establish the e&istence of probable cause sufficient to 'ustify the issuance of a search warrant, the applicant must show ?facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the ob'ects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched( "he facts and circumstances that would show probable cause must be the best evidence that could be obtained under the circumstances( "he introduction of such evidence is necessary especially in cases where the issue is the e&istence or the negative ingredient of the offense charged L for instance, the absence of a license re1uired by law, as in the present case L and such evidence is within the )nowledge and control of the applicant who could easily produce the same(
CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 1E -
#ut if the best evidence could not be secured at the time of application, the applicant must show a 'ustifiable reason therefore during the e&amination by the 'udge( "he necessity of re1uiring stringent procedural safeguards before a search warrant can be issued is to give meaning to the constitutional right of a person to the privacy of his home and personalities( In the case at bar, the best evidence procurable under the circumstances to prove that private respondent Aiden Hanu6a had no license to sell drugs is the certification to that effect from the ,epartment of *ealth( SPQE $anuel Cabiles could have easily procured such certification when he went to the #3A, to verify from the registry of licensed persons or entity( 4o 'ustifiable reason was introduced why such certification could not be secured( $ere allegation as to the nonJe&istence of a license by private respondent is not sufficient to establish probable cause for a search warrant( Secondly, the place sought to be searched had not been described with sufficient particularity in the 1uestioned search warrant, considering that private respondent Aiden Hanu6aGs residence is actually located at Hot 4o( E-, 0-: San >ose de la $ontana St(, $abolo, Cebu City, while the drugs sought to be sei6ed were found in a warehouse at Hot 4o( 38 within the same compound( "he said warehouse is owned by a different person( "his Court has held that the applicant should particularly describe the place to be searched and the person or things to be sei6ed, wherever and whenever it is feasible( /8 In the present case, it must be noted that the application for search warrant was accompanied by a s)etch /. of the compound at 0-: San >ose de la $ontana St(, $abolo, Cebu City( "he s)etch indicated the /J storey residential house of private respondent with a large ?Z? enclosed in a s1uare( Fithin the same compound are residences of other people, wor)shops, offices, factories and warehouse( Fith this s)etch as the guide, it could have been very easy to describe the residential house of private respondent with sufficient particularity so as to segregate it from the other buildings or structures inside the same compound( #ut the search warrant merely indicated the address of the compound which is 0-: San >ose de la $ontana St(, $abolo, Cebu City( "his description of the place to be searched is too general and does not pinpoint the specific house of private respondent( "hus, the inade1uacy of the description of the residence of private respondent sought to be searched has characteri6ed the 1uestioned search warrant as a general warrant, which is violative of the constitutional re1uirement( Ston(+0)) " D0o>no Fa%t#& 3ortyJtwo 8E/= search warrants were issued at different dates against petitioners and the corporations of which they were officers( Peace officers were directed to search the persons of the petitioners and<or their premises of their offices,
warehouses and<or residences( #oo)s of accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, 'ournals, portfolios, credit 'ournals, typewriters, and other documents and<or papers showing all business transactions including disbursements receipts, balance sheets, and profit and loss statements and #obbins were to be sei6ed( Petitioner contends that the issued search warrants were null and void as having contravened the Constitution and the 9ules of Court for, among others, it did not describe the documents, boo)s and things to be sei6ed PA9"IC7HA9HP( I##.(& Fhether or not the search warrant has been validly issued( Fhether or not the sei6ed articles may be admitted in court( '()*& "he authority of the warrants in 1uestion may be split in two ma'or groups 8a= those found and sei6ed in the offices of the corporations@ and 8b= those found and sei6ed in the residences of the petitioners( "he petitioners have no cause of action against the contested warrants on the first ma'or group( "his is because corporations have their respective personalities, separate and distinct from the personality of their officers, directors and stoc)holders( "he legality of a sei6ure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired, the ob'ection to an unlawful search and sei6ure purely being personal cannot be availed by third parties( As to the second ma'or group, two important 1uestions need be settled 8-= whether the search warrants in 1uestion, and the searches and sei6ures made under authority thereof, are valid or not@ and 8/= if the answer is no, whether said documents, papers and things may be used in evidence against petitioners( "he Constitution protects the rights of the people from unreasonable searches and sei6ure( "wo points must be stressed in connection to this constitutional mandate 8-= no warrant shall be issued e&cept if based upon probable cause determined personally by the 'udge by the manner set in the provision@ and 8/= the warrant shall describe the things to be sei6ed with particularly( In the present case, no specific offense has been alleged in the warrant2s application( "he averments of the offenses committed were abstract and therefore, would ma)e it impossible for 'udges to determine the e&istence of probable cause( Such impossibility of such determination naturally hinders the issuance of a valid search warrant( "he Constitution also re1uires the things to be sei6ed described with particularity( "his is to eliminate general warrants( "he Court held that the warrants issued for the search of three residences of petitioners are null and void(
7(o,)( "# Co. t o3 A,,(a)# Fa%t#& "he properties consisted of /D units of distribution transformers of various si6es sold to the 7niversity of the PhilippinesJIloilo 87P, for short= and delivered on >une -0, -.8D( "he agreed price, including installation cost, was W3.,0-:(00 and was fully paid by 7P to the seller, Oarona "rading, through its general manager, ,anilo Oarona( Qn >une /D, -.8D, these same properties were pulled out by Oarona on the e&cuse that they had certain factory defects that had to be repaired( Fhen Oarona failed to comply with 7PGs demand for their return pending their replacement, 7P referred the matter to the 4ational #ureau of Investigation, which found that the properties were in the warehouse of 9uben Siao, herein private respondent( 4#I applied for and secured the 1uestioned search warrant, 1 which was issued by >udge Abelardo $( ,ayrit of the 9egional "rial Court of $anila on September /0, -.8D( Qn the strength of this warrant, 4#I sei6ed the said transformers, which were later ascertained to be the same transformers sold to 7P, not only by their serial numbers but also because the crates where they were contained were mar)ed ?7PJIloilo(? Qn September /8, Siao filed an urgent motion to 1uash the search warrant on the ground that 4issenJ,en)i Philippine Corporation, of which he was the manager, had bought the said transformers from Oarona for the sum of PD0/,E83(00( "he motion was denied on ,ecember -0, -.8D, after a lengthy e&change of pleadings between the parties( *owever, on >uly D, -.88, again after a spirited debate between the petitioner and the private respondent, >udge ,ayrit granted SiaoGs motion for reconsideration and dissolved the search warrant( *e also ordered the 4#I to return the sei6ed transformers to Siao( 7P had filed a complaint for estafa against Oarona and Siao and the City Prosecutor of Iloilo City had lodged the corresponding information before the 9egional "rial Court of Iloilo( 7pon reJ investigation of the complaint, however, it was found that there was no cause to hold Siao for trial and accordingly, on motion of the prosecution, the case against him was dismissed by the trial court on Qctober -3, -.8.( I##.(& WON t+( #(a %+ -a ant -a# "a)0*. R.)0n!& "he search warrant issued by the trial court left the space in the caption intended for the nature of the offense in blan), indicating the uncertainty of petitioner and the court as to the crime committed and for which the search warrant was issued( Qn the other hand, all that the body of the search warrant stated was that the transformers were ?Stolen or %mbe66led and proceeds or fruits of the offense, used or intended to be used as the means of committing the offense(? #ut, since the particular offense was not
mentioned, the reason for the issuance of the search warrant could be anything under the sun( "here is no 1uestion that the search warrant did not relate to a specific offense, in violation of the doctrine announced in Stonehill v( ,io)no 2 and of Section 3 of 9ule -/: providing as follows Sec( 3( !e"uisites for issuing search #arrant( $ A search warrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection #ith one specific offense to be determined personally by the 'udge after e&amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to searched and the things to be sei6ed( 8%mphasis supplied(= Significantly, the petitioner has not denied this defect in the search warrant and has merely said that there was probable cause, omitting to continue that it was in connection with one specific offense( *e could not, of course, for the warrant was a scatterJshot warrant that could refer, in >udge ,ayritGs own words ?to robbery, theft, 1ualified theft or estafa(? Qn this score alone, the search warrant was totally null and void and was correctly declared to be so by the very 'udge who had issued it( Probable cause is defined as referring to ?such facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of the warrant that in themselves are sufficient to induce a cautious person to rely on them, and to act in pursuance thereof(? B At the time he issued the search warrant, there was in >udge ,ayritGs view probable cause that a crime had been committed by Siao, who had possession of the sub'ect properties( *owever, such probable cause no longer e&ists now because the information for estafa against Siao has already been dismissed by the 9egional "rial Court of $anila on motion of the prosecution itself( SiaoGs guilt is no longer open for con'ecture( A1*.)a "# G.0an0 Fa%t#& A petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the warrant of arrest issued by herein respondent >apal guiani, then presiding 'udge of #ranch -E of 9"C of Cotabato City, was filed before the Supreme Court( A complaint for murder was filed but was dismissed by the provincial prosecutor on the gorund that there was no prima facie case for murder again a number of accused 8:=( *owever, he recommended the filing of an information for murder against one of the respondents 8accused= only before the sala of the respondent 'udge 5uiani( 5uiani returned the case to the provincial prosecutor for further investigation since there was no necessary resolution re1uired under the 9ules of Court to show how the investigating prosecutor arrived at such a conclusion 8charging only one of the 8 respondentJaccused=( 7pon the return of the records of the case, it was assigned for
reinvestigation to another prosecutor who then recommended the filing of charges against 0 accused, / of whom are herein petitioners( Qn >anuary /, -..0, an information was filed against petitionerJspouses and 3 others( "he following day, >anuary 3, respondent >udge issued a warrant for the arrest of petitioners( Qn >anuary E, petitioners filed an urgent %&JParte motion for the setting aside of saide warrant of arrest( Qn >anuary --, a petition for review was filed with the ,Q>( ,espite said filing, respondent 'udge did not act upon petitioner2s pending $otion to Set Aside the Farrant of Arrest( *ence, this Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition praying the warrant of Arrest be set aside and declared void ab initio( I##.(& FQ4 the Farrant of Arrest should be set aside and declared void ab initio( '()*& Section /, Art( III, -.8D Constititution !"he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and sei6ures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and 4Q S%A9C* FA99A4" Q9 FA99A4" Q3 A99%S" S*AHH ISS7% %ZC%P" 7PQ4 P9Q#A#H% CA7S% "Q #% ,%"%9$I4%, P%9SQ4AHHP #P "*% >7,5% A3"%9 %ZA$I4A"IQ4 74,%9 QA"* Q9 A33I9$A"IQ4 Q3 "*% CQ$PHAI4A4" A4, "*% FI"4%SS%S *% $AP P9Q,7C% and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be sei6ed(+ It must be stressed that the -.8D Constitution re1uires the 'udge to determine probable cause ?personally,? a re1uirement which does not appear in the corresponding provisions of our previous constitutions( "his emphasis evinces the intent of the framers to place a greater degree of responsibility upon trial 'udges than that imposed under previous Constitutions( Fhat the Constitution underscores is the e&clusive and personal responsibility of the issuing 'udge to satisfy himself of the e&istence of probable cause( In satisfying himself of the e&istence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the 'udge is not re1uired to personally e&amine the complainant and his witnesses( 3ollowing established doctrine and procedure, he shall @1O ,( #ona))y ("a).at( t+( (,o t an* t+( #.,,o t0n! *o%.2(nt# #.120tt(* 1y t+( 30#%a) (!a *0n! t+( (50#t(n%( o3 , o1a1)( %a.#( an*/ on t+( 1a#0# t+( (o3/ 0##.( a -a ant o3 a (#t< o @2O 03 on t+( 1a#0# t+( (o3 +( 30n*# no , o1a1)( %a.#(/ +( 2ay *0# (!a * t+( 30#%a)Q# (,o t an* (?.0 ( t+( #.120##0on o3 #.,,o t0n! a330*a"0t# o3 -0tn(##(# to a0* +02 0n a 0"0n! at a %on%).#0on a# to t+( (50#t(n%( o3 , o1a1)( %a.#(. *o vs( People E- summari6es e&isting 'urisprudence on the matter as follows Hest we be too repetitive, we only wish to
emphasi6e three vital matters once more 3irst, as held in Inting, the determination of probable cause by the prosecutor is for a purpose different from that which is to be made by the 'udge( Fhether there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and should be held for trial is what the prosecutor passes upon( "he 'udge, on the other hand, determines whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused, i(e(, whether there is a necessity for placing him under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of 'ustice( Second, since their ob'ectives are different, the 'udge cannot rely solely on the report of the prosecutor in finding probable cause to 'ustify the issuance of a warrant of arrest( "he 'udge must decide independently( *ence, he must have supporting evidence, other than the prosecutorGs bare report, upon which to legally sustain his own findings on the e&istence 8or none&istence= of probable cause to issue an arrest order( "his responsibility of determining personally and independently the e&istence or none&istence of probable cause is lodged in him by no less than the most basic law of the land( Hastly, it is not re1uired that the complete or entire records of the case during the preliminary investigation be submitted to and e&amined by the 'udge(Fhat is re1uired, rather, is that the 'udge must have sufficient supporting documents 8such as the complaint, affidavits, counterJaffidavits, sworn statements of witnesses or transcript of stenographic notes, if any= upon which to ma)e his independent 'udgment or, at the very least, upon which to verify the findings of the prosecutor as to the e&istence of probable cause( "he point is he cannot rely solely and entirely on the prosecutorGs recommendation, as 9espondent Court did in this case( In the case at bench, respondent admits that he issued the 1uestioned warrant as there was ?no reason for 8him= to doubt the validity of the certification made by the Assistant Prosecutor that a preliminary investigation was conducted and that probable cause was found to e&ist as against those charged in the information filed(? "he statement is an admission that respondent relied solely and completely on the certification made by the fiscal that probable cause e&ists as against those charged in the information and issued the challenged warrant of arrest on the sole basis of the prosecutorGs findings and recommendations( *e adopted the 'udgment of the prosecutor regarding the e&istence of probable cause as his own( CQ4S%V7%4"HP, "*% FA99A4" Q3 A99%S" S*Q7H, #% ,%CHA9%, 47HH A4, OQI,( 7ICO7 "#. A#.n%0on GR 1220E2 May 1E/ 1EEE Fa%t#& Qn >anuary /0, -..0, Police Chief Inspector 4apoleon #( Pascua applied for a search warrant before the Vue6on City 9"C, stating
1. "he management of PICQP located at PICQP
compound, #arangay "abon, #islig, Surigao del Sur, represented by its Sr( Oice President 9icardo 5( Santiago, is in possession or has in its control high powered firearms, ammunitions, e&plosives, which are the sub'ect of the offense, or used or intended to be used in committing the offense, and which [ are being )ept and concealed in the premises described( 2. "hat the Search Farrant should be issued to enable any agent of the law to ta)e possession and bring to this *onorable Court the following described properties a. D0 $-: Armalite rifles cal( 0(0: b. -0 $-: 7S rifles c. / ANJED rifles d. / 7RI submachine guns e. / $/03 5renade Haunchers cal( E0mm f. -0 cal( E0 pistols g. -0 cal( 38 revolvers h. / ammunition reloading machines i. Assorted ammunitions for said calibers of firearms j. -0 hand grenades After propounding several 1uestions to SPQ3 #acolod, >udge Asuncion issued the contested search warrant( I##.(& Fhether or not the search warrant issued by >udge Asuncion complied with the re1uisites for a valid issuance( '()*& Sections 3 M E of 9ule -/: of the 9ules of Court provide in detail the re1uisites for the valid issuance of search warrants( "he re1uisites are 8-= probable cause is present@ 8/= such presence is determined personally by the 'udge@ 83= the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce are personally e&amined by the 'udge, in writing and under oath or affirmation@ 8E= the applicant and the witnesses testify on facts personally )nown to them@ and 80= the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be sei6ed( In the present case, the search warrant is I4OAHI, because 8-= the trial court failed to e&amine personally the complainant and the other deponents@ 8/= SPQ3 #acolod had no personal )nowledge that the petitioners were not licensed to possess the sub'ect firearms@ and 83= the place to be searched was not described with particularity( Chief Inspector Pascua was as)ed was not as)ed nor said anything more in his application( *e even failed to affirm it( "he trial 'udge failed to propound 1uestions, let alone probing 1uestions( >udge Asuncion heavily relied on their affidavits( $ere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are not sufficient( It is a&iomatic that the e&amination must be probing and e&haustive, not merely routinary or proJforma( "he 'udge must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit but must ma)e
his own in1uiry on the intent and 'ustification of the application( SPQ3 #acolod appeared during the hearing and was e&tensively e&amined by the 'udge( *owever, his testimony showed that he did not have personal )nowledge that the petitioners were not licensed to possess firearms, ammunitions or e&plosives in violation of P, -8::( Hastly, the search warrant failed to describe particularly the place to be searched( It merely authori6ed the search of the aforementioned premises( "he warrant thus gives the police officers unbridled and thus illegal authority to search all the structures found inside the PICQP compound( "he particulari6ation of the description of the place to be searched may properly be done only by the 'udge, and only in the warrant itself@ it cannot be left to the discretion of the police officers conducting the search( Since the evidences are illegally obtained, they are deemed inadmissible in Court( "he petition for certiorari and prohibition is 59A4"%,, M the Search Farrant declared 47HH M OQI,( 7EO7LE VS CA @2E1 SCRA C00O FACTS A petition for certiorari has been filed to invalidate the order of >udge Casanova which 1uashed search warrant issued by >udge #acalla and declared inadmissible for any purpose the items sei6ed under the warrant( YAn application for a search warrant was made by S<Insp #rillantes against $r( A6far *ussain who had allegedly in his possession firearms and e&plosives at Abigail Oariety Store, Apt -/0D Area 3( #agon #uhay Avenue, Sarang Palay, San >ose ,el $onte, #ulacan( "he following day Search Farrant 4o( -0:8 was issued but was served not at Abigail Oariety Store but at Apt( 4o( -, immediately ad'acent to Abigail Oariety Store resulting in the arrest of E Pa)istani nationals and the sei6ure of a number of different e&plosives and firearms( ISSUE& FQ4 a search warrant was validly issued as regard the apartment in which private respondents were then actually residing, or more e&plicitly, FQ4 that particular apartment had been specifically described in the warrant( 'ELD& "he ambiguity lies outside the instrument, arising from the absence of a meeting of minds as to the place to be searched between the applicants for the warrant and the >udge issuing the same@ and what was done was to substitute for the place that the >udge had written down in the warrant, the premises that the e&ecuting officers had in their mind( "his should not have been done( It is neither fair nor licit to allow police officers to search a place different from that stated in the warrant on the claim that the place actually searched L although not that specified in the warrant L is e&actly what they had in view when they applied
CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 2B -
for the warrant and had demarcated in their supporting evidence( What is material in determining the validit% of a search is the place stated in the #arrant itself& not #hat the applicants had in their thoughts& or had represented in the proofs the% su'mitted to the court issuing the #arrant. "he place to be searched, as set out in the warrant, cannot be amplified or modified by the officersG own personal )nowledge of the premises, or the evidence they adduced in support of their application for the warrant( Such a change is proscribed by the Constitution which re1uires inter alia the search warrant to particularly describe the place to be searched as well as the persons or things to be sei6ed( It would concede to police officers the power of choosing the place to be searched, even if it not be that delineated in the warrant( It would open wide the door to abuse of the search process, and grant to officers e&ecuting a search warrant that discretion which the Constitution has precisely removed from them( "he particulari6ation of the description of the place to be searched may properly be done only by the >udge, and only in the warrant itself@ it cannot be left to the discretion of the police officers conducting the search( VALLEJO VS CA FACTS& A SF was applied for and subse1uently issued by respondents to be served in the 9egistry of ,eeds, provincial capitol of Isabela in which it enumerated the things to be sei6ed -( 7ndetermined number of 3a)e Hand "itles, Qfficial 9eceipts in the CashierGs Qffice, >udicial 3orm 4o( 3. )nown as Primary %ntry #oo) under 4o( E.: and other pertinent documents related therewith@ /( #lan) 3orms of Hand "itles )ept inside the drawers of every table of employees of the 9egistry 8sic= of ,eeds@ 3( 7ndetermined number of land "ransfer transactions without the corresponding payment of Capital 5ains "a& and payment of documentary Stamps( A motion to 1uash the SF was filed by the respondent contending that the things to be sei6ed were not described with particularity and was in a nature of a general warrant, therefore, is a violation of the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and sei6ures but was denied by the 9"C and the CA( *ence, the present petition for certiorari( 8"he QS5 in its comment agreed with petitioners(= ISSUE& FQ4 the warrant issued by the 9"C was valid(
'ELD& Sec( E( !e"uisites for issuing search #arrant( ; A search warrant shall not issue e&cept upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the 'udge after e&amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be sei6ed which may be anywhere in the Philippines( Sec( 0( ()amination of complainant* record( ; "he 'udge must, before issuing the warrant, personally e&amine in the form of searching 1uestions and answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts personally )nown to them and attach to the record their sworn statements, together with the affidavits submitted( "he things to be sei6ed must be described with particularity( "echnical precision of description is not re1uired( It is only necessary that there be (a#ona1)( ,a t0%.)a 0ty an* %( ta0nty a# to t+( 0*(nt0ty o3 t+( , o,( ty to 1( #(a %+(* 3o an* #(04(*, so that the warrant shall not be a mere roving commission( Any *(#% 0,t0on o3 t+( ,)a%( o t+0n! to 1( #(a %+(* t+at -0)) (na1)( t+( o330%( 2a>0n! t+( #(a %+ -0t+ (a#ona1)( %( ta0nty to )o%at( #.%+ ,)a%( o t+0n! 0# #.330%0(nt( ,hus% the specific property to (e searched for should (e so particularly descri(ed as to preclude any possi(ility of sei-ing any other property.test of particularity/. As correctly pointed out by the petitioner and the QS5, the terms e&pressly used in the warrant were too allJembracing, with the obvious intent of sub'ecting all the records pertaining to all the transactions of the petitionerGs office at the 9egister of ,eeds to search and sei6ure( Such tenor of a sei6ure warrant contravenes the e&plicit command of the Constitution that there be a particular description of the things to be sei6ed( 7EO7LE VS LAGUIO JR. FACTS& 9espondent was ac1uitted on 3 different cases filed against him 8dangerous drugs act, illegal possession of firearms and comelec gun ban= after his demurrer to evidence 8inadmissibility of the evidence= was granted due to the illegal<unlawful arrest, search and sei6ure that was conducted by the police officers contending that he was arrested in flagrante delicto but the defense further presented that respondent did not do any overt act to ma)e him be sub'ect to a warrantless arrest under the e&ceptions in section 0 of rule --3( ISSUE& Fhether there was lawful arrest, search and sei6ure by the police operatives in this case despite the absence of a FQA and<or SF( 'ELD& "here are actually two 8/= acts involved in this
CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 2C -
case, namely, the warrantless arrest and the warrantless search( "here is no 1uestion that warrantless search may be conducted as an incident to a valid warrantless arrest( "he law re1uires that there be first a lawful arrest before a search can be made@ the process cannot be reversed( *owever, if there are valid reasons to conduct lawful search and sei6ure which thereafter shows that the accused is currently committing a crime, the accused may be lawfully arrested in flagrante delicto without need for a warrant of arrest( S(%t0on D/ , o"0*(# t+ (( @BO 0n#tan%(# -+(n -a ant)(## a (#t 2ay 1( )a-3.))y (33(%t(*& @aO a (#t o3 a #.#,(%t 0n 3)a! ant( *()0%to< @1O a (#t o3 a #.#,(%t -+( (/ 1a#(* on ,( #ona) >no-)(*!( o3 t+( a (#t0n! o330%( / t+( ( 0# , o1a1)( %a.#( t+at #a0* #.#,(%t -a# t+( a.t+o o3 a % 02( -+0%+ +a* =.#t 1((n %o220tt(*< @%O a (#t o3 a , 0#on( -+o +a# (#%a,(* 3 o2 %.#to*y #( "0n! 30na) =.*!2(nt o t(2,o a 0)y %on30n(* -+0)( +0# %a#( 0# ,(n*0n!. Fo a -a ant)(## a (#t o3 an a%%.#(* %a.!+t 0n 3)a! ant( *()0%to .n*( ,a a! a,+ @aO o3 S(%t0on D to 1( "a)0*/ t-o (?.0#0t(# 2.#t %on%. & @1O t+( ,( #on to 1( a (#t(* 2.#t (5(%.t( an o"( t a%t 0n*0%at0n! t+at +( +a# =.#t %o220tt(*/ 0# a%t.a))y %o220tt0n!/ o 0# att(2,t0n! to %o220t a % 02(< an* @2O #.%+ o"( t a%t 0# *on( 0n t+( , (#(n%( o -0t+0n t+( "0(- o3 t+( a (#t0n! o330%( . "he facts and circumstances surrounding the present case did not manifest any suspicious behavior on the part of private respondent Hawrence Fang that would reasonably invite the attention of the police( *e was merely wal)ing from the $aria Qrosa Apartment and was about to enter the par)ed #$F car when the police operatives arrested him, fris)ed and searched his person and commanded him to open the compartment of the car, which was later on found to be owned by his friend, ,avid Hee( *e was not committing any visible offense then( "herefore, there can be no valid warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto under paragraph 8a= of Section 0( It 0# #(tt)(* t+at A ()0a1)( 0n3o 2at0onA a)on(/ a1#(nt any o"( t a%t 0n*0%at0"( o3 a 3()on0o.# (nt( , 0#( 0n t+( , (#(n%( an* -0t+0n t+( "0(- o3 t+( a (#t0n! o330%( #/ 0# not #.330%0(nt to %on#t0t.t( , o1a1)( %a.#( t+at -o.)* =.#t03y an 0n 3)a! ant( *()0%to a (#t. "he inevitable conclusion, as correctly made by the trial court, is that the warrantless arrest was illegal( Ipso 'ure, the warrantless search incidental to the illegal arrest is li)ewise unlawful( 7EO7LE VS. TA6AR
FACTS& 9espondentJaccused was charged, together with her nephew, for violation of the ,angerous ,rugs Act in an information which provided that "hat on or about the 8th day of 3ebruary -.8., at about 3 00 P$( in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the 'urisdiction of this *onorable Court, the said accused, conniving and confederating together and mutually helping each other, with deliberate intent, did then and there sell and deliver, without authority of law, "hree 83= stic)s of mari'uana cigarettes, a 8sic= prohibited drugs, to a person who posted himself as a buyer, in Oiol( of Sec( E, Art( --, of 9A :E/0, as amended, otherwise )nown as the ,angerous Act of -.D/( "he accused were then convicted of the offense charged against them in the trial court( Qn appeal, respondent presented her argument that the lower court erred in admitting the evidence against her when there wasn2t any search warrant( "herefore, violating the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and sei6ures( ISSUE& FQ4 there was a violation against the constitutional guarantee of individuals against unreasonable searches and sei6ures( RULING& "he second assigned error is without merit( "he evidence for the prosecution discloses that the appellant placed the pac)s of mari'uana stic)s under the rolled pair of pants which she was then carrying at the time she hurriedly left her shanty after noticing the arrest of 9ommel( Fhen she was as)ed to spread it out, which she voluntary did, the pac)age containing the pac)s of mari'uana stic)s were thus e&posed in plain view to the member of the team( A crime was thus committed in the presence of the policemen( Pursuant to Section 0, 9ule --3 and Section -/ 9ule -/: of the 9evised 9ules of Court, she could lawfully be arrested and searched for anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense without the corresponding arrest and search warrants %ven assuming e) gratia argumenti that the seach and sei6ure were without a warrant, the appellant had effectively waived her constitutional right relative thereto by voluntarily submitting to the seach and sei6ure( In People vs. Malasugui, 20 this Court ruled W+(n on( "o).nta 0)y #.120t# to a #(a %+ an* %on#(nt to +a"( 0t 2a*( o3 +0# ,( #on o , (20#(#/ +( 0# , (%).*(* 3 o2 )at( %o2,)a0n0n! t+( (o3. T+( 0!+t to 1( #(%. ( 3 o2 .n (a#ona1)( #(a%+ 2ay/ )0>( ("( y 0!+t/ 1( -a0"(* an* #.%+ -a0"( 2ay 1( 2a*( (0t+( (5, (##)y o 02,)0(*)y. 7EO7LE VS. DORIA
CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 2D -
FACTS& A buyJbust operation was conducted by the police which caught accused ,oria redJhanded of selling prohibited drugs and during the operation the police officers searched for the mar)ed bills that they used in buying said drugs which happened to be in the house of 5addao, according to ,oria( Fhen they reached her house, the police officers came upon a bo&( *e saw that one of the bo&Gs flaps was open and inside the bo& was something wrapped in plastic( "he plastic wrapper and its contents appeared similar to the mari'uana earlier ?sold? to him by ?>un(? *is suspicion aroused, PQ3 $anlangit entered ?4enethGs? house and too) hold of the bo&( *e pee)ed inside the bo& and found that it contained ten 8-0= bric)s of what appeared to be dried mari'uana leaves( #oth accused were convicted of the crime chared( *ence, this present petition( ISSUE& FQ4 the warrantless arrest of 5addao, the search of her person and house, and the admissibility of the pieces of evidence obtained therefrom was valid( 'ELD& Fe hold that the warrantless arrest of accusedJ appellant ,oria is not unlawful( Farrantless arrests are allowed in three instances as provided by Section 0 of 9ule --3( 7nder Section 0 8a=, a person may be arrested without a warrant if he ?has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense(? Appellant ,oria was caught in the act of committing an offense( Fhen an accused is apprehended in flagrante delicto as a result of a buyJbust operation, the police are not only authori6ed but dutyJbound to arrest him even without a warrant( "he warrantless arrest of appellant 5addao, the search of her person and residence, and the sei6ure of the bo& of mari'uana and mar)ed bills are different matters( Qur Constitution proscribes search and sei6ure without a 'udicial warrant and any evidence obtained without such warrant is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding( 10D "he rule is, however, not absolute( S(a %+ an* #(04. ( 2ay 1( 2a*( -0t+o.t a -a ant an* t+( ("0*(n%( o1ta0n(* t+( ( 3 o2 2ay 1( a*20##01)( 0n t+( 3o))o-0n! 0n#tan%(#& @1O #(a %+ 0n%0*(nt to a )a-3.) a (#t< 2O #(a %+ o3 a 2o"0n! 2oto "(+0%)(< @BO #(a %+ 0n "0o)at0on o3 %.#to2# )a-#< @CO #(04. ( o3 ("0*(n%( 0n ,)a0n "0(-< @DO -+(n t+( a%%.#(* +02#()3 -a0"(# +0# 0!+t a!a0n#t .n (a#ona1)( #(a %+(# an* #(04. (#. AccusedJappellant 5addao was not caught redJhanded during the buyJbust operation to give ground for her arrest under Section 0 8a= of 9ule --3( She was not committing any crime( Contrary to the finding of the trial court, there was no occasion at all for
appellant 5addao to flee from the policemen to 'ustify her arrest in ?hot pursuit(?11C In fact, she was going about her daily chores when the policemen pounced on her( "his brings us to the 1uestion of whether the trial court correctly found that the bo& of mari'uana was in plain view, ma)ing its warrantless sei6ure valid( T+( A,)a0n "0(-A *o%t 0n( a,,)0(# -+(n t+( 3o))o-0n! (?.0#0t(# %on%. & @aO t+( )a(n3o %(2(nt o330%( 0n #(a %+ o3 t+( ("0*(n%( +a# a , 0o =.#t030%at0on 3o an 0nt .#0on o 0# 0n a ,o#0t0on 3 o2 -+0%+ +( %an "0(- a ,a t0%.)a a (a< @1O t+( *0#%o"( y o3 t+( ("0*(n%( 0n ,)a0n "0(- 0# 0na*"( t(nt< @%O 0t 0# 022(*0at()y a,,a (nt to t+( o330%( t+at t+( 0t(2 +( o1#( "(# 2ay 1( ("0*(n%( o3 a % 02(/ %ont a1an* o ot+( -0#( #.1=(%t to #(04. (. "he law enforcement officer must lawfully ma)e an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the area( In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused( ,he o(0ect must (e open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent. It 0# %)(a t+at an o1=(%t 0# 0n ,)a0n "0(- 03 t+( o1=(%t 0t#()3 0# ,)a0n)y (5,o#(* to #0!+t. T+( *0330%.)ty a 0#(# -+(n t+( o1=(%t 0# 0n#0*( a %)o#(* %onta0n( . W+( ( t+( o1=(%t #(04(* -a# 0n#0*( a %)o#(* ,a%>a!(/ t+( o1=(%t 0t#()3 0# not 0n ,)a0n "0(- an* t+( (3o ( %annot 1( #(04(* -0t+o.t a -a ant. 'o-("( / 03 t+( ,a%>a!( , o%)a02# 0t# %ont(nt#/ -+(t+( 1y 0t# *0#t0n%t0"( %on30!. at0on/ 0t# t an#,a (n%y/ o 03 0t# %ont(nt# a ( o1"0o.# to an o1#( "( / t+(n t+( %ont(nt# a ( 0n ,)a0n "0(- an* 2ay 1( #(04(*. In ot+( -o *#/ 03 t+( ,a%>a!( 0# #.%+ t+at an (5,( 0(n%(* o1#( "( %o.)* 0n3( 3 o2 0t# a,,(a an%( t+at 0t %onta0n# t+( , o+010t(* a t0%)(/ t+(n t+( a t0%)( 0# *((2(* 0n ,)a0n "0(-. It must be immediately apparent to the police that the items that they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise sub'ect to sei6ure( "he mari'uana was not in plain view and its sei6ure without the re1uisite search warrant was in violation of the law and the Constitution( 1BD It was fruit of the poisonous tree and should have been e&cluded and never considered by the trial court( 7EO7LE VS. MALMSTEDT Fa%t#& In an information filed against the accusedJ appellant $i)ael $almstead was charged before the 9"C of Ha "rinidad, #enguet, for violation of Section E, Art( II of 9epublic Act :E/0, as amended, otherwise )nown as the ,angerous ,rugs Act of -.D/, as amended( Accused $i)ael $almstedt, a Swedish national, entered the Philippines for the
CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 2K -
third time in ,ecember -.88 as a tourist( *e had visited the country sometime in -.8/ and -.80( In the evening of D $ay -.8., accused left for #aguio City( 7pon his arrival thereat in the morning of the following day, he too) a bus to Sagada and stayed in that place for two 8/= days( "hen in the D in the morning of $ay --, -.8., the accused went to 4angonogan bus stop in Sagada( At about 8 00 oGcloc) in the morning of that same day 8-- $ay -.8.=, Captain Alen Oasco, the Commanding Qfficer of the 3irst 9egional Command 84A9CQ$= stationed at Camp ,angwa, ordered his men to set up a temporary chec)point at Nilometer -E, Acop, "ublay, $ountain Province, for the purpose of chec)ing all vehicles coming from the Cordillera 9egion( "he order to establish a chec)point in the said area was prompted by persistent reports that vehicles coming from Sagada were transporting mari'uana and other prohibited drugs( $oreover, information was received by the Commanding Qfficer of 4A9CQ$, that same morning that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had in his possession prohibited drugs( "he group composed of seven 8D= 4A9CQ$ officers, in coordination with "ublay Police Station, set up a chec)point at the designated area at about -0 00 oGcloc) in the morning and inspected all vehicles coming from the Cordillera 9egion( "he two 8/= 4A9CQ$ officers started their inspection from the front going towards the rear of the bus( Accused who was the sole foreigner riding the bus was seated at the rear thereof( ,uring the inspection, CIC 5alutan noticed a bulge on accusedGs waist( Suspecting the bulge on accusedGs waist to be a gun, the officer as)ed for accusedGs passport and other identification papers( Fhen accused failed to comply, the officer re1uired him to bring out whatever it was that was bulging on his waist( "he bulging ob'ect turned out to be a pouch bag and when accused opened the same bag, as ordered, the officer noticed four 8E= suspiciousJloo)ing ob'ects wrapped in brown pac)ing tape, prompting the officer to open one of the wrapped ob'ects( "he wrapped ob'ects turned out to contain hashish, a derivative of mari'uana( "hereafter, accused was invited outside the bus for 1uestioning( #ut before he alighted from the bus, accused stopped to get two 8/= travelling bags from the luggage carrier( 7pon stepping out of the bus, the officers got the bags and opened them( A teddy bear was found in each bag( 3eeling the teddy bears, the officer noticed that there were bulges inside the same which did not feel li)e foam stuffing( It was only after the officers had opened the bags that accused finally presented his passport( Accused was then brought to the head1uarters of the 4A9CQ$ at Camp ,angwa, Ha "rinidad, #enguet for further investigation( At the investigation room, the officers opened the teddy bears and they were found to also contain hashish( 9epresentative samples were ta)en from the hashish found among the personal effects of accused and the same were brought to the PC Crime Haboratory for chemical analysis( In the chemistry report, it was established that the ob'ects e&amined were hashish( a prohibited drug
which is a derivative of mari'uana( "hus, an information was filed against accused for violation of the ,angerous ,rugs Act( ACC7S%,2S ,%3%4S% ,uring the arraignment, accused entered a plea of ?not guilty(? 3or his defense, he raised the issue of illegal search of his personal effects( *e also claimed that the hashish was planted by the 4A9CQ$ officers in his pouch bag and that the two 8/= travelling bags were not owned by him, but were merely entrusted to him by an Australian couple whom he met in Sagada( *e further claimed that the Australian couple intended to ta)e the same bus with him but because there were no more seats available in said bus, they decided to ta)e the ne&t ride and as)ed accused to ta)e charge of the bags, and that they would meet each other at the ,angwa Station( "he trial court found the guilt of the accused $i)ael $almstedt established beyond reasonable doubt( See)ing the reversal of the decision of the trial court finding him guilty of the crime charged, accused argues that the search of his personal effects was illegal because it was made without a search warrant and, therefore, the prohibited drugs which were discovered during the illegal search are not admissible as evidence against him( I##.(& Fhether or 4ot the contention of the accused is valid, and therefore the 9"C ruling be reversed( '()*& "he Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and sei6ures( *owever, where the search is made pursuant to a lawful arrest, there is no need to obtain a search warrant( A lawful arrest without a warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private person under the following circumstances( Sec( 0 Arrest without warrant@ when lawful( J A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person 8a= Fhen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense@ 8b= Fhen an offense has in fact 'ust been committed, and he has personal )nowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it@ and 8c= Fhen the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final 'udgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another( Accused was searched and arrested while transporting prohibited drugs 8hashish=( A crime was actually being committed by the accused and he was caught in flagrante delicto( "hus, the search made upon his personal effects falls s1uarely under paragraph 8-= of the foregoing provisions of law, which allow a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest( Fhile it is true that the
CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 2L -
4A9CQ$ officers were not armed with a search warrant when the search was made over the personal effects of accused, however, under the circumstances of the case, there was sufficient probable cause for said officers to believe that accused was then and there committing a crime( Probable cause has been defined as such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonable, discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and that the ob'ects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched( Farrantless search of the personal effects of an accused has been declared by this Court as valid, because of e&istence of probable cause, where the smell of mari'uana emanated from a plastic bag owned by the accused, -0 or where the accused was acting suspiciously, and attempted to flee( "he appealed 'udgment of conviction by the trial court is hereby affirmed( Costs against the accusedJappellant( 7EO7LE VS. AMINUDIN Fa%t#& Idel Aminnudin, accusedJappellant was arrested on >une /0, -.8E, shortly after disembar)ing from the $<O Filcon . at about 8 30 in the evening, in Iloilo City( "he PC officers who were in fact waiting for him because of a tip from one their informers simply accosted him, inspected his bag and finding what loo)ed li)ed mari'uana leaves too) him to their head1uarters for investigation( "he two bundles of suspect articles were confiscated from him and later ta)en to the 4#I laboratory for e&amination( It was found to contain three )ilos of what were later analy6ed as mari'uana leaves by an 4#I forensic e&aminer( An information for violation of the ,angerous ,rugs Act was filed against him( Hater, the information was amended to include 3arida Ali y *assen, who had also been arrested with him that same evening and li)ewise investigated( #oth were arraigned and pleaded not guilty( Subse1uently, the fiscal filed a motion to dismiss the charge against Ali on the basis of a sworn statement of the arresting officers absolving her after a thorough investigation(? "he motion was granted, and trial proceeded only against the accused appellant, who was eventually convicted ( In his defense, Aminnudin disclaimed the mari'uana, averring that all he had in his bag was his clothing consisting of a 'ac)et, two shirts and two pairs of pants( *e alleged that he was arbitrarily arrested and immediately handcuffed( *is bag was confiscated without a search warrant( At the PC head1uarters, he was manhandled to force him to admit he was carrying the mari'uana, the investigator hitting him with a piece of wood in the chest and arms even as he parried the blows while he was still handcuffed( *e insisted he did not even )now what mari'uana loo)ed li)e and that his business was selling watches and sometimes cigarettes( *owever the 9"C re'ected his allegations( Saying that he only has two watches during that time and that he did not sufficiently proved the in'uries allegedly sustained(
I##.(& Fhether or not search of defendant2s bag is legal( '()*& "he search was illegal( ,efendant was not caught in flagrante delicto, which could allow warrantless arrest or search( At the moment of his arrest, he was not committing a crime( 4or was he about to do so or had 'ust done so( "o all appearances, he was li)e any of the other passengers innocently disembar)ing from the vessel( "he said mari'uana therefore could not be appreciated as evidence against the defendant, and furthermore he is ac1uitted of the crime as charged( MALACAT "#. CA Fa%t#& Petitioner was arrested for having in his possession a hand grenade after he was searched by a group of policemen when he was said to be acting suspici ously when he was hanging around Pla6a $iranda with his eyes moving fast together with other $usli mJloo)ing men( Fhen the policemen approached t he group of men, they scattered in all directions w hich prompted the police to give chase and petitio ner was then apprehended and a search was made on his person( *e was then convicted under P, -8:: in the lower court( *ence, the present petition wherein petition er contended that the lower court erred in holding that the search made on him and the sei6ure of th e hand grenade from him was an appropriate incid ent to his arrest and that it erred in admitting the h and grenade as evidence since it was admissible b ecause it was a product of an unreasonable and ill egal search( I##.(& FQ4 the search and sei6ure conducted by t he police was valid( '()*& "he general rule as regards arrests, searches and sei6ures is that a warrant is needed in order to validly effect the same( B1 "he Constitutional prohibition against unreasonable arrests, searches and sei6ures refers to those effected without a validly issued warrant, B2 sub'ect to certain e&ceptions( As regards valid warrantless arrests, these are found in Section 0, 9ule --3 of the 9ules of Court, which reads, in part Sec( 0( L Arrest, without warrant@ when lawful L A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person 8a= Fhen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense@ 8b= Fhen an offense has in fact 'ust been committed, and he has personal )nowledge of
CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 2M -
facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it@ and 8c= Fhen the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped ( ( ( A warrantless arrest under the circumstances contemplated under Section 08a= has been denominated as one ?in flagrante delicto,? while that under Section 08b= has been described as a ?hot pursuit? arrest( "urning to valid warrantless searches, they are limited to the following 8-= customs searches@ 8/= search of moving vehicles@ 83= sei6ure of evidence in plain view@ 8E= consent searches@ BB 80= a search incidental to a lawful arrest@BC and 8:= a ?stop and fris)(2 At the outset, we note that the trial court confused the concepts of a ?stopJandJfris)? and of a search incidental to a lawful arrest( "hese two types of warrantless searches differ in terms of the re1uisite 1uantum of proof before they may be validly effected and in their allowable scope( In a #(a %+ 0n%0*(nta) to a )a-3.) a (#t/ a# t+( , (%(*(nt a (#t *(t( 20n(# t+( "a)0*0ty o3 t+( 0n%0*(nta) #(a %+/ t+( )(!a)0ty o3 t+( a (#t 0# ?.(#t0on(* 0n a )a !( 2a=o 0ty o3 t+(#( %a#(#/ e.g./ -+(t+( an a (#t -a# 2( ()y .#(* a# a , (t(5t 3o %on*.%t0n! a #(a %+. BK In t+0# 0n#tan%(/ t+( )a- (?.0 (# t+at t+( ( 30 #t 1( a )a-3.) a (#t 1(3o ( a #(a %+ %an 1( 2a*( R t+( , o%(## %annot 1( ("( #(*. BL At 1otto2/ a##.20n! a "a)0* a (#t/ t+( a (#t0n! o330%( 2ay #(a %+ t+( ,( #on o3 t+( a (#t(( an* t+( a (a -0t+0n -+0%+ t+( )att( 2ay (a%+ 3o a -(a,on o 3o ("0*(n%( to *(#t oy/ an* #(04( any 2on(y o , o,( ty 3o.n* -+0%+ -a# .#(* 0n t+( %o220##0on o3 t+( % 02(/ o t+( 3 .0t o3 t+( % 02(/ o t+at -+0%+ 2ay 1( .#(* a# ("0*(n%(/ o -+0%+ 20!+t 3. n0#+ t+( a (#t(( -0t+ t+( 2(an# o3 (#%a,0n! o %o220tt0n! "0o)(n%(. Fe now proceed to the 'ustification for and allowable scope of a ?stopJandJfris)? as a ?limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons,? as laid down in +err%, thus Fe merely hold today that where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his e&perience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and ma)es reasonable in1uiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear
for his own or othersG safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him( Such a search is a reasonable search under the 3ourth Amendment ( ( Qther notable points of "erry are that while probable cause is not re1uired to conduct a ?stop and fris),? it nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a ?stop and fris)(? A !(n.0n( (a#on 2.#t (50#t/ 0n )0!+t o3 t+( ,o)0%( o330%( Q# (5,( 0(n%( an* #. o.n*0n! %on*0t0on#/ to -a ant t+( 1()0(3 t+at t+( ,( #on *(ta0n(* +a# -(a,on# %on%(a)(* a1o.t +02. F0na))y/ a A#to,-an*3 0#>A #( "(# a t-o-3o)* 0nt( (#t& @1O t+( !(n( a) 0nt( (#t o3 (33(%t0"( % 02( , ("(nt0on an* *(t(%t0on/ -+0%+ .n*( )0(# t+( (%o!n0t0on t+at a ,o)0%( o330%( 2ay/ .n*( a,, o, 0at( %0 %.2#tan%(# an* 0n an a,, o, 0at( 2ann( / a,, oa%+ a ,( #on 3o ,. ,o#(# o3 0n"(#t0!at0n! ,o##01)( % 020na) 1(+a"0o ("(n -0t+o.t , o1a1)( %a.#(< an* @2O t+( 2o ( , (##0n! 0nt( (#t o3 #a3(ty an* #()3-, (#( "at0on -+0%+ ,( 20t t+( ,o)0%( o330%( to ta>( #t(,# to a##. ( +02#()3 t+at t+( ,( #on -0t+ -+o2 +( *(a)# 0# not a 2(* -0t+ a *(a*)y -(a,on t+at %o.)* .n(5,(%t(*)y an* 3ata))y 1( .#(* a!a0n#t t+( ,o)0%( o330%( . GO VS. CA FACTS& Petitioner was the primary suspect of )illing of $aguan when he was seen by a security officer near the place where his and the victim2s car almost collided at the corner of a street, after which he went of out of his car and shot $aguan, which caused his death later on, then went bac) to his car and left the scene( *e was then arrested days after the crime happened( ISSUE& FQ4 a lawful warratless arrest had been effected by the San >uan Police in respect of petitioner 5o( 'ELD& Fe do not believe that the warrantees ?arrest? or detention of petitioner in the instant case falls within the terms of Section 0 of 9ule --3 of the -.80 9ules on Criminal Procedure( 7(t0t0on( Q# Aa (#tA too> ,)a%( #05 @KO *ay# a3t( t+( #+oot0n! o3 Ma!.an. T+( Aa (#t0n!A o330%( # o1"0o.#)y -( ( not , (#(nt/ -0t+0n t+( 2(an0n! o3 S(%t0on D@aO/ at t+( t02( ,(t0t0on( +a* a))(!(*)y #+ot Ma!.an. N(0t+( %o.)* t+( Aa (#tA (33(%t(* #05 @KO *ay# a3t( t+( #+oot0n! 1( (a#ona1)y (!a *(* a# (33(%t(* A-+(n It+( #+oot0n! +a*J 0n 3a%t =.#t 1((n %o220tt(*A -0t+0n t+( 2(an0n! o3 S(%t0on D@1O. Mo (o"( / non( o3 t+( Aa (#t0n!A o330%( # +a* any A,( #ona)
CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 2E -
>no-)(*!(A o3 3a%t# 0n*0%at0n! t+at ,(t0t0on( -a# t+( !.n2an -+o +a* #+ot Ma!.an. "he information upon which the police acted had been derived from statements made by alleged eyewitnesses to the shooting L one stated that petitioner was the gunman@ another was able to ta)e down the alleged gunmanGs carGs plate number which turned out to be registered in petitionerGs wifeGs name( "hat information did not, however, constitute ?personal )nowledge(? It is thus clear to the Court that there was no lawful warrantless arrest of petitioner within the meaning of Section 0 of 9ule --3( 7EO7LE V. MENGOTE Fa%t#& "he Festern Police ,istrict received a telephone call from an informer that there were three suspicious loo)ing persons at the corner of >uan Huna and 4orth #ay #oulevard in "ondo, $anila( A surveillance team of plainclothesmen was forthwith dispatched to the place( "he patrolmen saw two men loo)ing from side to side, one of whom holding his abdomen( "hey approached the persons and identified themselves as policemen, whereupon the two tried to run but unable to escape because the other lawmen surrounded them( "he suspects were then searched( Qne of them the accusedJappellant was found with a (38 caliber with live ammunitions in it, while his companion had a fan )nife( "he weapons were ta)en from them and they were turned over to the police head1uarters for investigation( Information was filed before the 9"C convicting the accused of illegal possession of firearm arm( A witness testified that the weapon was among the articles stolen at his shop, which he reported to the police including the revolver( 3or his part, $engote made no effort to prove that he owned the fire arm or that he was licensed to possess it but instead, he claimed that the weapon was planted on him at the time of his arrest( *e was convicted for violation of P(,(-8:: and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua( In his appeal he pleads that the weapon was not admissible as evidence against him because it had been illegally sei6ed and therefore the fruit of a poisonous tree( I##.(& Fhether or not the warrantless search and arrest was illegal( '()*& %vidence obtained as a result of an illegal search and sei6ure inadmissible in any proceeding for any purpose as provided by Art( III sec 3/ of the Constitution( 9ule --3 sec(0 of the 9ules of Court, provides arrest without warrant lawful when 8a= the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense, 8b= when the offense in fact has 'ust been committed, and he has personal )nowledge of the facts indicating the person arrested has committed it and 8c= the person to be arrested has escaped from a penal establishment or a place where he is
serving final 'udgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another( "hese re1uirements have not been established in the case at bar( At the time of the arrest in 1uestion, the accused appellant was merely loo)ing from side to side and holding his abdomen, according to the arresting officers themselves( "here was apparently no offense that has 'ust been committed or was being actually committed or at least being attempt by $engote in their presence( $oreover a person may not be stopped and fris)ed in a broad daylight or on a busy street on une&plained suspicion( >udgment is reversed and set aside( AccusedJappellant is ac1uitted( UMIL VS. RAMOS Fa%t#& Qn - 3ebruary -.88, military agents were dispatched to the St( Agnes *ospital, 9oosevelt Avenue, Vue6on City, to verify a confidential information which was received by their office, about a ?sparrow man? 84PA member= who had been admitted to the said hospital with a gunshot wound( "hat the wounded man in the said hospital was among the five 80= male ?sparrows? who murdered two 8/= Capcom mobile patrols the day before, or on 3- >anuary -.88 at about -/ 00 oGcloc) noon, before a road hump along $acanining St(, #agong #arrio, Caloocan City( "he wounded manGs name was listed by the hospital management as ?9onnie >avellon,? twentyJtwo 8//= years old of #loc) -0, Hot E, South City *omes, #inan, Haguna however it was disclosed later that the true name of the wounded man was 9olando ,ural( In view of this verification, 9olando ,ural was transferred to the 9egional $edical Servicesof the CAPCQ$, for security reasons( Fhile confined thereat, he was positively identified by the eyewitnesses as the one who murdered the / CAPCQ$ mobile patrols( I##.(& Fhether or 4ot 9olando was lawfully arrested( '()*& 9olando ,ural was arrested for being a member of the 4PA, an outlawed subversive organi6ation. S.1"( #0on 1(0n! a %ont0n.0n! o33(n#(/ t+( a (#t -0t+o.t -a ant 0# =.#t030(* a# 0t %an 1( #a0* t+at +( -a# %o220tt0n! a# o33(n#( -+(n a (#t(*. "he crimes rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance therefore in connection therewith constitute direct assaults against the state and are in the nature of continuing crimes( 7EO7LE VS. LEILA JO'NSON Fa%t#& Heila >ohnson was arrested at the airport after she was found to have in her possession more than
CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - B0 -
000 grams of shabu when she was initially fris)ed by a security personnel at a gate in the airport( "he security personnel felt something hard in respondent2s abdominal area and when as)ed she said that she had to wear / girdles because of an operation( 7nconvinced, the security personnel went to her supervisor( Subse1uently, after a thorough search on respondent, pac)ets of shabu were sei6ed from her( Accused 8respondent= was subse1uently convicted and sentenced to reclusion perpetua( In the present appeal, respondent contended that the search made upon her was not valid and that her constitutional rights were infringed when such search was conducted( I##.(& FQ4 a valid search was made( '()*& "he constitutional right of the accused was not violated as she was never placed under custodial investigation but was validly arrested without warrant pursuant to the provisions of Section 0, 9ule --3 of the -.80 9ules of Criminal Procedure which provides Sec( 0( Arrest without warrant@ when lawful( A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person 8a= when in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense@ when an offense has in fact 'ust been committed, and he has personal )nowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it@ and[
luggage are routinely sub'ected to &Jray scans( Should these procedures suggest the presence of suspicious ob'ects, physical searches are conducted to determine what the ob'ects are( "here is little 1uestion that such searches are reasonable, given their minimal intrusiveness, the gravity of the safety interests involved, and the reduced privacy e&pectations associated with airline travel( Indeed, travelers are often notified through airport public address systems, signs, and notices in their airline tic)ets that they are sub'ect to search and, if any prohibited materials or substances are found, such would be sub'ect to sei6ure( "hese announcements place passengers on notice that o *0na y %on#t0t.t0ona) , ot(%t0on# a!a0n#t -a ant)(## #(a %+(# an* #(04. (# *o not a,,)y to o.t0n( a0 ,o t , o%(*. (#. "he pac)s of methamphetamine hydrochloride having thus been obtained through a valid warrantless search, they are admissible in evidence against the accusedJappellant herein( Corollarily, +( #.1#(?.(nt a (#t/ a)t+o.!+ )0>(-0#( -0t+o.t -a ant/ -a# =.#t030(* #0n%( 0t -a# (33(%t(* .,on t+( *0#%o"( y an* (%o"( y o3 S#+a1.T 0n +( ,( #on in flagrante delicto. 7A7A VS. MAGO Fa%t#& $ago, the owner of the goods that were sei6ed, when the truc) transporting the goods was intercepted by the #QC, 1uestioned the validity of the search conducted by them since it was made without any search warrant and whether the #QC has 'urisdiction over the forfeited goods( I##.(& Fas the search conducted by the #QC validK '()*& Petitioner $artin Alagao and his companion policemen had authority to effect the sei6ure without any search warrant issued by a competent court( "he "ariff and Customs Code does not re1uire said warrant in the instant case( "he Code authori6es persons having police authority under Section //03 of the "ariff and Customs Code to enter, pass through or search any land, inclosure, warehouse, store or building, not being a dwelling house@ and also to inspect, search and e&amine any vessel or aircraft and any trun), pac)age, or envelope or any person on board, or to stop and search and e&amine any vehicle, beast or person suspected of holding or conveying any dutiable or prohibited article introduced into the Philippines contrary to law, without mentioning the need of a search warrant in said cases( -: #ut in the search of a dwelling house, the Code provides that said ?dwelling house may be entered and searched onl% upon #arrant issued by a 'udge or 'ustice of the peace( ( ( (? -D It is our considered view, therefor, that e&cept in the case of the search of a dwelling house, persons e&ercising
8b=
"he circumstances surrounding the arrest of the accused above falls in either paragraph 8a= or 8b= of the 9ule above cited, hence the allegation that she has been sub'ected to custodial investigation is far from being accurate(B-8C "he methamphetamine hydrochloride sei6ed from her during the routine fris) at the airport was ac1uired legitimately pursuant to airport security procedures( 7( #on# 2ay )o#( t+( , ot(%t0on o3 t+( #(a %+ an* #(04. ( %)a.#( 1y (5,o#. ( o3 t+(0 ,( #on# o , o,( ty to t+( ,.1)0% 0n a 2ann( (3)(%t0n! a )a%> o3 #.1=(%t0"( (5,(%tat0on o3 , 0"a%y/ -+0%+ (5,(%tat0on #o%0(ty 0# , (,a (* to (%o!n04( a# (a#ona1)(. Such recognition is implicit in airport security procedures( Fith increased concern over airplane hi'ac)ing and terrorism has come increased security at the nation2s airports( Passengers attempting to board an aircraft routinely pass through metal detectors@ their carryJon baggages as well as chec)ed
police authority under the customs law may effect search and sei6ure without a search warrant in the enforcement of customs laws( In, Carroll vs 7S, 0t -a# 2a*( )a-3.) 3o %.#to2# o330%( # not on)y to 1oa * an* #(a %+ "(##()# -0t+0n t+(0 o-n an* a*=o0n0n! *0#t 0%t#/ 1.t a)#o to #to,/ #(a %+ an* (5a20n( any "(+0%)(/ 1(a#t o ,( #on on -+0%+ o -+o2 t+(y #+o.)* #.#,(%t t+( ( -a# 2( %+an*0#( -+0%+ -a# #.1=(%t to *.ty/ o +a* 1((n 0nt o*.%(* 0nto t+( Un0t(* Stat(# 0n any 2ann( %ont a y to )a-/ -+(t+( 1y t+( ,( #on 0n %+a !( o3 t+( "(+0%)( o 1(a#t o ot+( -0#(/ an* 03 t+(y #+o.)* 30n* any !oo*#/ -a (#/ o 2( %+an*0#( t+( (on/ -+0%+ t+(y +a* , o1a1)y %a.#( to 1()0("( +a* 1((n #o .n)a-3.))y 1 o.!+t 0nto t+( %o.nt y/ to #(04( an* #(%. ( t+( #a2(/ an* t+( "(+0%)( o 1(a#t a# -())/ 3o t 0a) an* 3o 3(0t. (. RO6IN 7ADILLA VS. CA Fa%t#& Petitioner was involved in a hit and run accident and was later apprehended by the police after he was chased by them( ,uring the arrest, petitioner was found to have in his possession two different firearms and / other firearms were found inside his vehicle after the policemen saw the first two firearms he was carrying( Petitioner was then convicted of illegal possession of firearms( *ence the present petition( I##.(& FQ4 the warrantless search and arrest conducted on petitioner was valid '()*& Farrantless arrests are sanctioned in the following instances Sec( 0( Arrest without warrant@ when lawful( L A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person 8a= Fhen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense@ 8b= Fhen an offense has in fact 'ust been committed, and he has personal )nowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it( 8c= Fhen the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final 'udgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another( Paragraph 8a= re1uires that the person be arrested
8i= after he has committed or while he is actually committing or is at least attempting to commit an offense, 8ii= in the presence of the arresting officer or private person( 2E #oth elements concurred here, as it has been established that petitionerGs vehicle figured in a hit and run L an offense committed in the ?presence? of $anarang, a private person, who then sought to arrest petitioner( It must be stressed at this point that ?presence? does not only re1uire that the arresting person sees the offense, but also when he ?hears the disturbance created thereby A4, proceeds at once to the scene(? B0 As testified to by $anarang, he heard the screeching of tires followed by a thud, saw the sideswiped victim 8'alut vendor=, reported the incident to the police and thereafter gave chase to the erring Pa'ero vehicle using his motorcycle in order to apprehend its driver( After having sent a radio report to the P4P for assistance, $anarang proceeded to the Abacan bridge where he found responding policemen SPQ/ #or'a and SPQ/ $iranda already positioned near the bridge who effected the actual arrest of petitioner( "he five 80= wellJsettled instances when a warrantless search and sei6ure of property is valid, CC are as follows -( warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recogni6ed under Section -/, 9ule -/: of the 9ules of CourtCD and by prevailing 'urisprudence CK, /( Sei6ure of evidence in ?plain view?, the elements of which are 8a=( a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties@ 8b=( the evidence was inadvertentl% discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are@ 8c=( the evidence must be immediately apparent, and 8d=( ?plain view? 'ustified mere sei,ure of evidence without further search( 3( search of a moving vehicle( CE *ighly regulated by the government, the vehicleGs inherent mobility reduces e&pectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity( E( consented warrantless search, and 0( customs search(
In conformity with respondent courtGs observation, it indeed appears that the authorities stumbled upon petitionerGs firearms and ammunitions without even underta)ing any active search which, as it is commonly understood, is a prying into hidden places for that which is concealed( D1 "he sei6ure of the Smith M Fesson revolver and an $J -: rifle maga6ine was 'ustified for they came within ?plain view? of the policemen who inadvertentl% discovered the revolver and maga6ine tuc)ed in petitionerGs waist and bac) poc)et respectively, when he raised his hands after alighting from his Pa'ero( "he same 'ustification applies to the confiscation of the $J-: armalite rifle which wasimmediatel% apparent to the policemen as they too) a casual glance at the Pa'ero and saw said rifle lying hori6ontally near the driverGs seat( D2 "hus it has been held that 8F=hen in pursuing an illegal action or in the commission of a criminal offense, the ( ( ( police officers should happen to discover a criminal offense being committed by any person, they are not precluded from performing their duties as police officers for the apprehension of the guilty person and the ta)ing of the, corpus delicti( DB Qb'ects whose possession are prohibited by law inadvertently found in plain view are sub'ect to sei6ure even without a warrant( Fith respect to the #erreta pistol and a blac) bag containing assorted maga6ines, petitioner voluntarily surrendered them to the police( "his latter gesture of petitioner indicated a waiver of his right against the alleged search and sei6ure DK, and that his failure to 1uash the information estopped him from assailing any purported defect( %ven assuming that the firearms and ammunitions were products of an active search done by the authorities on the person and vehicle of petitioner, their sei6ure without a search warrant nonetheless can still be 'ustified under a search incidental to a lawful arrest 8first instance=( Qnce the lawful arrest was effected, the police may underta)e a protective search DM of the passenger compartment and containers in the vehicle DE which are within petitionerGs grabbing distance regardless of the nature of the offense( K0 "his satisfied the twoJ tiered test of an incidental search 8i= the item to be searched 8vehicle= was within the arresteeGs custody or area of immediate control K1 and 8ii= the search was contemporaneous with the arrest( K2 "he products of that search are admissible evidence not e&cluded by the e&clusionary rule( Another 'ustification is a search of a moving vehicle 8third instance=( In connection therewith, a warrantless search is constitutionally permissible when, as in this case, the officers conducting the search have reasonable or
probable cause to believe, before the search, that either the motorist is a lawJoffender 8li)e herein petitioner with respect to the hit and run= or the contents or cargo of the vehicle are or have been instruments or the sub'ect matter or the proceeds of some criminal offense( 7EO7LE VS. MARIACOS Fa%t#& 9espondent was found guilty of violation of the dangerous drugs act( She was arrested after she was carrying a bag alleged to have prohibited drugs inside( "he bag, before it came to her possession was found inside a passenger 'eepney with no owner so the policeman loo)ed inside it only to find pac)s of mari'uana( "he policeman was acting on a report made about the bag by an agent of the #arangay Intelligence 4etwor)( I##.(& FQ4 the warrantless search conducted was valid( '()*&3irstly, this Court opines that the invocation of Section /, Article III of the Constitution is misplaced( At the time, when PQ/ Pallayoc loo)ed into the contents of the suspicious bags, there was no identified owner( *e as)ed the other passengers atop the 'eepney but no one )new who owned the bags( "hus, there could be no violation of the right when no one was entitled thereto at that time( "hirdly, & & & the search was conducted in a moving vehicle( "ime and again, a search of a moving vehicle has been 'ustified on the ground that the mobility of motor vehicles ma)es it possible for the vehicle to move out of the locality or 'urisdiction in which the warrant must be sought( "hus, under the facts, PQ/ Pallayoc could not be e&pected to secure a search warrant in order to chec) the contents of the bags which were loaded on top of the moving 'eepney( Qtherwise, a search warrant would have been of no use because the motor vehicle had already left the locality(-3 "he constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and sei6ures admits of certain e&ceptions( Aside from a search incident to a lawful arrest, a warrantless search had been upheld in cases of a moving vehicle, and the sei6ure of evidence in plain view( It is well to remember that in the instances we have recogni6ed as e&ceptions to the re1uirement of a 'udicial warrant, it is necessary that the officer effecting the arrest or sei6ure must have been impelled to do so because of probable cause( "he essential re1uisite of probable cause must be satisfied before a warrantless search and sei6ure can be lawfully conducted(-D Fithout probable cause, the articles sei6ed cannot be admitted in evidence against the person arrested(-8
CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - BB -
Probable cause is defined as a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to induce a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense charged( It refers to the e&istence of such facts and circumstances that can lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and that the items, articles or ob'ects sought in connection with said offense or sub'ect to sei6ure and destruction by law are in the place to be searched(-. "he grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense is based on actual facts, i(e(, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested( A reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers ma)ing the arrest( 7EO7LE VS. SU$U8I Fa%t#& Appellant was found guilty of illeal possession of prohibited drugs and was sentenced to death( *ence, the instant review( "he facts of the case are Appellant was in the airport for his flight to $anila( PASCQ$ and 4A9CQ$ agents were in the airport to follow on reports on drug traffic)ing( Fhen he wal)ed through the metal detector, the alarm sounded( *e was bodily fris)ed and nothing was found on his person so they proceeded to chec) his luggage but appellant refused then consented eventually and opened it( "here they found pac)s of aluminum foil and when opened, it was found to be mari'uana( I##.(& FQ4 the PASCQ$ agents were authori6ed to conduct the search( FQ4 accused consented to the search( FQ4 the search was conducted was incidental to a lawful arrest( FQ4 the confiscated items were in plain view( '()*& In PPvs(Canton and PPvs(>ohnson we validated the search conducted on the departing passengers and the conse1uent sei6ure of the sha'u found in their persons, thus ?Persons may lose the protection of the search and sei6ure clause by e&posure of their persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting a lac) of sub'ective e&pectation of privacy, which e&pectation society is prepared to recogni6e as reasonable(&&&? It should be stressed, however, that whenever the right against unreasonable search and sei6ure is challenged, an individual may choose between invo)ing the constitutional protection or waiving
his right by giving consent to the search or sei6ure(. *ere, appellant voluntarily gave his consent to the search conducted by the PASCQ$ agents( It is a&iomatic that a reasonable search is not to be determined by any fi&ed formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case(-/ 5iven the circumstances obtaining here, we find the search conducted by the airport authorities reasonable and, therefore, not violative of his constitutional rights( *ence, when the search of the bo& of pia%a revealed several mari'uana fruiting tops, appellant is deemed to have been caught in flagrante delicto, 'ustifying his arrest even without a warrant under Section 08a=, 9ule --3 of the 9ules of Criminal Procedure(-3 "he pac)s of mari'uana obtained in the course of such valid search are thus admissible as evidence against appellant(-E 4onetheless, we find the trial court2s reliance on the plain view doctrine misplaced( Such doctrine finds application only when the incriminating nature of the ob'ect is in the ?plain view? of the police officer(-0 *ere, it is beyond cavil that the mari'uana sei6ed from appellant is contained in the bo& of pia%a& wrapped in aluminum foil and not immediately apparent to the airport authorities( 4either was the search incidental to a lawful arrest since appellant was not yet arrested at the time of the search( "o be considered a search incidental to a lawful arrest, the law re1uires that there must be a lawful arrest before the search can be made( SALVADOR VS. 7EO7LE Fa%t#& Petitioners, PAH ground crew employees were allegedly caught with dutiable goods 8branded watches, etc= after PA3 officers were observing their conduct and found it to be suspicious during a special mission given to them to ma)e a routine surveillance to chec) on reports of alleged traffic)ing and smuggling being facilitated by PAH employees( Petitioners were convicted( *ence, the present petition( I##.(& FQ4 the sei6ed items are admissible in evidence( '()*& *ere, it should be noted that during the incident in 1uestion, the special mission of the PA3 operatives was to conduct a surveillance operation to verify reports of drug traffic)ing and #2.!!)0n! by certain PAH personnel in the vicinity of the airport( In other words, the search made by the PA3 team on petitioner and his coJaccused was in the nature of a %.#to2# #(a %+( As such, the team properly effected the search and sei6ure without a search warrant since it e&ercised police authority under
CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - BC -
the customs law(
In Papa vs. Mago, involving a customs search, we held that law enforcers who are tas)ed to effect the enforcement of the customs and tariff laws are authori6ed to search and sei6e, without a search warrant, any article, cargo or other movable property when there is reasonable cause to suspect that the said items have been introduced into the Philippines in violation of the tariff and customs law( "hey may li)ewise conduct a warrantless search of any vehicle or ,( #on suspected of holding or conveying the said articles, as in the case at bar( In short, Mago clearly recogni6es the power of the State to foil any fraudulent schemes resorted to by importers who evade payment of customs duties( "he 5overnment2s policy to combat the serious malady of smuggling cannot be reduced to futility and impotence on the ground that dutiable articles on which the duty has not been paid are entitled to the same Constitutional protection as an individual2s private papers and effects( *ere, we see no reason not to apply this State policy which we have continued to affirm(
E7IE JR. VS. ULAT-MARREDO Fa%t#& Petitioners were caught to have in their possession lumber and subse1uently could not produce any permit from the ,%49 for them to cut and transport the same( Such incident happened after the police came about a report of a vehicle transporting lumber without permit and after which set up a roadbloc) to catch said vehicle( After the described vehicle was spotted by the police they intercepted it( "hey flagged it down but it did not stop, forcing the police to chase it until it reached Shilan, Ha "rinidad( A search of the vehicle disclosed several pieces of #enguet pine lumber( Petitioners could not produce the re1uired ,%49 permit to cut and transport the same( I##.(& FQ4 the police officers have a probable cause to believe that the sub'ect vehicle was loaded with illegal cargo and that, therefore, it can be stopped and searched without a warrant( '()*& In People v. Sarap&D we listed the e&ceptions where search and sei6ure may be conducted without warrant, thus 8-= search incident to a lawful arrest@ 8/= search of a moving motor vehicle@ 83= search in violation of customs laws@ 8E= sei6ure of the evidence in plain view@ 80= search when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and sei6ures@ 8:= stop and fris)@ and 8D= e&igent and emergency
circumstances( "he only re1uirement in these e&ceptions is the presence of probable cause( Probable cause is the e&istence of such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonable, discreet, and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the ob'ects sought in connection with the offense are in the place to be searched(8 In People v. -ruta,. we ruled that in warrantless searches, probable cause must only be based on reasonable ground of suspicion or belief that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed( "here is no hard and fast rule or fi&ed formula in determining probable cause for its determination varies according to the facts of each case( *ere, the search involved a moving vehicle, an instance where a warrantless search and sei6ure may be conducted by peace officers( "he only issue we should determine is whether there was probable cause to 'ustify such warrantless search and sei6ure( In People v. .inecarao,-0 we ruled that where a vehicle sped away after noticing a chec)point and even after having been flagged down by police officers, in an apparent attempt to dissuade the police from proceeding with their inspection, there e&ists probable cause to 'ustify a reasonable belief on the part of the law enforcers that the persons on board said vehicle were officers of the law or that the vehicle contained ob'ects which were instruments of some offense( "his ruling s1uarely applies to the present case( VALMONTE VS. GEN. DE VILLA FACTS Qn >anuary /0, -.8D, the 4C9,C was activated with the mission of conducting security operationswithhin its area of responsibility and peripheral areas for thepurpose of establishing an effective territorialdefense, maintaining peace and order, and providing an atmosphere conducive to the social, economic and political development of the 4C9( As part of its duty to maintain peace and order, the 4C9,C installed chec)points in various parts of Oalen6uela and $etro $anila( Petitioners aver that because of the institution of said chec)points, the Oelan6uela residents are worried of being harassed and of their safety being placed at the arbitrary, capricious and whimsical disposition of the military manning the chec)points considering that their cars and vehicles are being sub'ected to regular searches and chec)Jups especially at night or at dawn without a search warrant or a court order( "heir alleged fear for their safety increased when #en'amin Parpon was gunned down allegedly in cold blood by members of the 4C9,C for ignoring and<or continuing to speed off inspite of warning shots fired in the air( 'ELD& Petitioner2s concern for their safety and apprehension at being harassed by the military manning the chec)points are not sufficient grounds to declare the chec)points per se illegal(
CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - BD -
4o proof has been presented before the Court to show that, in the course of their routine chec)s, the military, indeed, committed specific violations of petitioners2 right against unlawful search and sei6ure of other rights( "he constitutional right against unreasonable searches and sei6ures is a personal right invocable only by those whose rights have been infringed, or threatened to be infringed( 4ot all searches and sei6ures are prohibited( "hose which are reasonable are not forbidden( "he setting up of the 1uestioned chec)points may be considered as a security measure to enable the 4C9,C to pursue its mission of establishing effective territorial defense and maintaining peace and order for the benefit of the public( Chec)points may not also be regarded as measures to thwart plots to destabili6e the government, in the interest of public security( 6(t-((n t+( 0n+( (nt 0!+t o3 t+( #tat( to , ot(%t 0t# (50#t(n%( an* , o2ot( ,.1)0% -()3a ( an* an 0n*0"0*.a):# 0!+t a!a0n#t a -a ant)(## #(a %+ -+0%+ 0#/ +o-("( / (a#ona1)y %on*.%t(*/ t+( 3o 2( #+o.)* , ("a0). "rue, the manning of chec)points by the military is susceptible of abuse by the military in the same manner that all governmental power is susceptible of abuse( 6.t/ at t+( %o#t o3 o%%a#0ona) 0n%on"(n0(n%(/ *0#%o23o t an* 0 0tat0on to t+( %0t04(n/ t+( %+(%>,o0nt# *. 0n! t+(#( a1no 2a) t02(#/ -+(n %on*.%t(* -0t+0n (a#ona1)( )020t#/ a ( ,a t o3 t+( , 0%( -( ,ay 3o an o *( )y #o%0(ty an* a ,(a%(3.) %o22.n0ty. 7EO7LE VS ESCANO Fa%t#& AccusedJappellants were violation of P, -8:: and violation of gun ban due to a chec)point search the police which search was 1uestioned by herein petitioners( convicted of the CQ$%H%C conducted by subse1uently
.n (a#ona1)( #(a %+. In 3a%t/ t+(#( o.t0n( %+(%>#/ -+(n %on*.%t(* 0n a 305(* a (a/ a ( ("(n )(## 0nt .#0"(. Fe see no need for chec)points to be announced, as the accused have invo)ed( 4ot only would it be impractical, it would also forewarn those who intend to violate the ban( %ven so, badges of legitimacy of chec)points may still be inferred from their fi&ed location and the regulari6ed manner in which they are operated(E. 7sana and Hope6 also 1uestion the validity of the search( "he trial court, in convicting the three accused for violation of 9(A( 4o( :E/0, accepted as aboveboard the search done by the $a)ati Police of the trun) of the car( >urisprudence recogni6es si& generally accepted e&ceptions to the warrant re1uirement 8-= search incidental to an arrest@ 8/= search of moving vehicles@ 83= evidence in plain view@ 8E= customs searches@ 80= consented warrantless search@ and 8:= stopJandJfris) situations( W'O VS. APUINO Fa%t#& An original action for certiorari and prohibition to set aside respondent 'udgeGs refusal to 1uash a search warrant issued by him at the instance of respondents CQSAC 8Constabulary Qffshore Action Center= officers for the search and sei6ure of the personal effects of petitioner official of the F*Q 8Forld *ealth Qrgani6ation= notwithstanding his being entitled to diplomatic immunity, as duly recogni6ed by the e&ecutive branch of the Philippine 5overnment and to prohibit respondent 'udge from further proceedings in the matter( I##.(& FQ4 diplomatic immunity is applicable( '()*& It is a recogni6ed principle of international law and under our system of separation of powers that diplomatic immunity is essentially a political 1uestion and courts should refuse to loo) beyond a determination by the e&ecutive branch of the government, M and where the plea of diplomatic immunity is recogni6ed and affirmed by the e&ecutive branch of the government as in the case at bar, it is then the duty of the courts to accept the claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion by the principal law officer of the government, the Solicitor 5eneral in this case, or other officer acting under his direction( E *ence, in adherence to the settled principle that courts may not so e&ercise their 'urisdiction by sei6ure and detention of property, as to embarrass the e&ecutive arm of the government in conducting foreign relations, it is accepted doctrine that ?in such cases the 'udicial department of 8this= government follows the action of the political branch and will not embarrass the latter by assuming an antagonistic 'urisdiction(?
I##.(& FQ4 the chec)point search conducted validK '()*& "his Court has ruled that not all chec)points are illegal( "hose which are -a ant(* 1y t+( (50!(n%0(# o3 ,.1)0% o *( an* a ( %on*.%t(* 0n a -ay )(a#t 0nt .#0"( to 2oto 0#t# a ( a))o-(*.CL Fo / a*20tt(*)y/ o.t0n( %+(%>,o0nt# *o 0nt .*(/ to a %( ta0n (5t(nt/ on 2oto 0#t#Q 0!+t to A3 (( ,a##a!( -0t+o.t 0nt( .,t0on/A 1.t 0t %annot 1( *(n0(* t+at/ a# a .)(/ 0t 0n"o)"(# on)y a 1 0(3 *(t(nt0on o3 t a"()( # *. 0n! -+0%+ t+( "(+0%)(Q# o%%.,ant# a ( (?.0 (* to an#-( a 1 0(3 ?.(#t0on o t-o. Fo a# )on! a# t+( "(+0%)( 0# n(0t+( #(a %+(* no 0t# o%%.,ant# #.1=(%t(* to a 1o*y #(a %+/ an* t+( 0n#,(%t0on o3 t+( "(+0%)( 0# )020t(* to a "0#.a) #(a %+/ #a0* o.t0n( %+(%># %annot 1( (!a *(* a# "0o)at0"( o3 an 0n*0"0*.a)Q# 0!+t a!a0n#t
CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - BK -
7EO7LE VS. MA'INAY FACTS 9espondent was charged with the crime of rape with homicide in which he was convicted in the lower court( "he information provides "hat on or about the /:th day of >une -..0 in Oalen6uela, $etro $anila and within the 'urisdiction of this *onorable Court the aboveJ named accused, by means of force and intimidation employed upon the person of $A9IA OIC"Q9IA C*A4 y CA#AHH%9Q, age -/ years old, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie with and have se&ual intercourse with said $A9IA OIC"Q9IA C*A4 P CA#AHH%9Q against her will and without her consent@ that on the occasion of said se&ual assault, the aboveJnamed accused, cho)e and strangle said $A9IA OIC"Q9IA C*A4 P CA#AHH%9Q as a result of which, said victim died( Contrary to law( B 9espondent made an e&traJ'udicial confession during the custodial investigation which was then admitted as evidence against him but he subse1uently pleaded not guilty of the offense charged against him and further contended that when he was apprehended, he heard the police officerGs plan to salvage him if he would not admit that he was the one who raped and )illed the victim( Scared, he e&ecuted an e&traJ'udicial confession( *e claimed that he was assisted by Atty( 9estituto Oiernes only when he was forced to sign the e&traJ'udicial confession but evidence proved otherwise( 'ELD& Hastly, considering the heavy penalty of death and in order to ensure that the evidence against an accused were obtained through lawful means, the Court, as guardian of the rights of the people lays down the procedure, guidelines and duties which the arresting, detaining, inviting, or investigating officer or his companions must do and observe at the time of ma)ing an arrest and again at and during the time of the custodial interrogation C0 in accordance with the Constitution, 'urisprudence and 9epublic Act 4o( DE38 C1 It is highJtime to educate our lawJenforcement agencies who neglect either by ignorance or indifference the soJ called $iranda rights which had become insufficient and which the Court must update in the light of new legal developments -( "he person arrested, detained, invited or under custodial investigation must be 0n3o 2(* 0n a )an!.a!( >no-n to an* .n*( #too* 1y +02 o3 t+( (a#on 3o t+(
a (#t and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any@ %very other warnings, information or communication must be in a language )nown to and understood by said person@ /( *e must be -a n(* t+at +( +a# a 0!+t to (2a0n #0)(nt an* t+at any #tat(2(nt +( 2a>(# 2ay 1( .#(* a# ("0*(n%( a!a0n#t +02@ 3( *e must be informed that he has the 0!+t to 1( a##0#t(* at a)) t02(# an* +a"( t+( , (#(n%( o3 an 0n*(,(n*(nt an* %o2,(t(nt )a-y( / , (3( a1)y o3 +0# o-n %+o0%(< E( *e must be informed that 03 +( +a# no )a-y( o %annot a33o * t+( #( "0%(# o3 a )a-y( / on( -0)) 1( , o"0*(* 3o +02@ and that a lawyer may also be engaged by any person in his behalf, or may be appointed by the court upon petition of the person arrested or one acting in his behalf@ 0( "hat whether or not the person arrested has a lawyer, he must be 0n3o 2(* t+at no %.#to*0a) 0n"(#t0!at0on 0n any 3o 2 #+a)) 1( %on*.%t(* (5%(,t 0n t+( , (#(n%( o3 +0# %o.n#() o a3t( a "a)0* -a0"( +a# 1((n 2a*(< :( "he person arrested must be informed that, at any t02(/ +( +a# t+( 0!+t to %o22.n0%at( o %on3( 1y t+( 2o#t (5,(*0(nt 2(an# J telephone, radio, letter or messenger J with his lawyer 8either retained or appointed=, any 2(21( o3 +0# 022(*0at( 3a20)y/ o any 2(*0%a) *o%to / , 0(#t o 20n0#t( %+o#(n 1y +02 o 1y any on( 3 o2 +0# 022(*0at( 3a20)y o 1y +0# %o.n#()/ o 1( "0#0t(* 1yU%on3( -0t+ *.)y a%% (*0t(* nat0ona) o 0nt( nat0ona) non-!o"( n2(nt o !an04at0on( It shall be the responsibility of the officer to ensure that this is accomplished@ D( *e must be informed that he has the 0!+t to -a0"( any o3 #a0* 0!+t# , o"0*(* 0t 0# 2a*( "o).nta 0)y/ >no-0n!)y an* 0nt())0!(nt)y an* (n#. ( t+at +( .n*( #too* t+( #a2(< 8( In addition, if the ,( #on a (#t(* -a0"(# +0# 0!+t to a )a-y( / +( 2.#t 1( 0n3o 2(* t+at 0t 2.#t 1( *on( 0n - 0t0n! AND 0n t+( , (#(n%( o3 %o.n#()/ ot+( -0#(/ +( 2.#t 1( -a n(* t+at t+( -a0"( 0# "o0* even if he insist on his waiver and chooses to spea)@
CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - BL -
.( "hat the person arrested must be 0n3o 2(* t+at +( 2ay 0n*0%at( 0n any 2ann( at any t02( o #ta!( o3 t+( , o%(## t+at +( *o(# not -0#+ to 1( ?.(#t0on(* -0t+ -a n0n! t+at on%( +( 2a>(# #.%+ 0n*0%at0on/ t+( ,o)0%( 2ay not 0nt( o!at( +02 03 t+( #a2( +a* not y(t %o22(n%(*/ o t+( 0nt( o!at0on 2.#t %(a#(* 03 0t +a# a) (a*y 1(!.n@ -0( "he person arrested must be 0n3o 2(* t+at +0# 0n0t0a) -a0"( o3 +0# 0!+t to (2a0n #0)(nt/ t+( 0!+t to %o.n#() o any o3 +0# 0!+t# *o(# not 1a +02 3 o2 0n"o>0n! 0t at any t02( *. 0n! t+( , o%(##, regardless of whether he may have answered some 1uestions or volunteered some statements@ --( *e must also be 0n3o 2(* t+at any #tat(2(nt o ("0*(n%(/ a# t+( %a#( 2ay 1(/ o1ta0n(* 0n "0o)at0on o3 any o3 t+( 3o (!o0n!/ -+(t+( 0n%.),ato y o (5%.),ato y/ 0n -+o)( o 0n ,a t/ #+a)) 1( 0na*20##01)( 0n ("0*(n%(( 7EO7LE VS. ALMAN$AR FACTS AccusedJappellant was charged with the crime of rape in an information which provides "hat on or about the --th day of $arch -..E, in the $unicipality of $a)ati, $etro $anila, Philippines and within the 'urisdiction of this *onorable Court, the aboveJnamed accused, with lewd designs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously abduct, ta)e and carry away the herein complainant while wal)ing along $a)ati Avenue, Ayala Center, $a)ati, $etro $anila near Handmar) ,epartment Store on her way to >ollibee, 5reenbelt #ranch, where she wor)s as a service crew, by means of force, violence and intimidation, to wit by introducing himself as a $ari)ina police, po)ing a handgun on the left side of the complainantGs body, and then pulling her and forcing her to board inside the front passenger seat of the accusedG car and threatening to shoot her and brought her to a secluded area within $a)ati, where said accused at gunpoint and intimidation, ordered herein complainant to undress by ta)ing off her "J shirt, pants and panty, and by means of force, violence and intimidation, succeeded in having se&ual intercourse with her against her will(/0#phi/.n1t Contrary to law(Alman6ar was then convicted of the offense
charged against him( *ence the present review because of the death penalty( Qne issues raised by the accused was that the lower court erred in convicting accusedJappellant on the ground that he was positively identified by complainant( AccusedJappellant primarily assails the testimony of Sally, the complainant in this case( At the outset, he 8accusedJappellant= impugns SallyGs positive identification of him as her assailant( Specifically, accusedJappellant assails the police lineJup where he was identified by the complainant claiming that police lineJups are inherently unreliable as they are ?peculiarly riddled with innumerable dangers and variable factors(?/0 $oreover, the identification of accusedJ appellant during the police lineJup is allegedly inadmissible in evidence being a fruit of an illegal arrest and violative of accusedJappellantGs constitutional right to counsel( 'ELD AccusedJappellantGs allegation with respect to the conduct of the police lineJup is futile( "hat he was without counsel at the time of the police lineJup does not render the same irregular or invalid( "he guarantees of Section -/8-=, Article III of the -.8D Constitution, or the soJcalled $iranda rights, may be invo)ed only by a person while he is under custodial investigation( C.#to*0a) 0n"(#t0!at0on #ta t# -+(n t+( ,o)0%( 0n"(#t0!at0on 0# no )on!( a !(n( a) 0n?.0 y 0nto an .n#o)"(* % 02( 1.t +a# 1(!.n to 3o%.# on a ,a t0%.)a #.#,(%t ta>(n 0nto %.#to*y 1y t+( ,o)0%( -+o #ta t# t+( 0nt( o!at0on an* , o,o.n*# ?.(#t0on# to t+( ,( #on to ()0%0t 0n% 020nat0n! #tat(2(nt#. A ,o)0%( )0n(-., 0# not ,a t o3 t+( %.#to*0a) 0n"(#t0!at0on< +(n%(/ t+( 0!+t to %o.n#() %annot y(t 1( 0n"o>(* at t+0# #ta!(. It appears from the record that accusedJappellant was not under custodial investigation when he was brought to the $a)ati police station( "he police did not, as yet, interrogate him or elicit incriminating statements from him( *e was brought to the police station to be presented, along with other men, to Sally and to be identified by her( "he presence of counsel at that stage was not therefore necessary(
CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - BM -

Digested Cases

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Digested Cases

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 10 -

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 11 -

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 12 -

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 1B -

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 1C -

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 1D -

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 1K -

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 1L -

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 1M -

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 1E -

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 20 -

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 21 -

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 22 -

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

1. "he management of PICQP located at PICQP

CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 2B -

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 2C -

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 2D -

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 2K -

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 2L -

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 2M -

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - 2E -

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - B0 -

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - B1 -

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - B2 -

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - BB -

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o. %(# - BC -

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2ND SEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

the customs law(