article 8-p.2 cases

7/25/2019 ARTICLE 8-p.2 Cases

1/16

People v. Mahinay, 302 SCRA455 (1999)posted in CONLAW2 casesby katcobingFacts

Appellant Larry Mahinay worked as ahouseboy with Maria Isip, one of histasks was to take care of Isips housewhich was under construction ad!acentto the latters residence" #he $icti% wasa &2'year old girl who used to fre(uentthe residence of Isip"On the late e$ening of 2) *une &++),the $icti% was reported %issing by her

%other" #he following %orning, theAppellant boarded a passenger !eepneyand disappeared"#he $icti%s body was found, lifeless, ataround -./ a% that sa%e day" 0he wasfound in the septic tank wearing herblouse and no underwear" #he autopsyshowed that the $icti% was raped andwas strangled to death"

1pon re'ea%ining the cri%e scene,police%en found a pair of dirty whiteshort pants, a brown belt and a yellowhair ribbon which was identified by the$icti%s %other to belong to herdaughter" Also, they found a pair of blueslippers which Isip identified as that ofthe appellant" Also found in the yard,three ar%slength away fro% the septictank were an underwear, a leatherwallet, a pair of dirty long pants and apliers positi$ely identified by Isip asappellants belongings"#he appellant was soon arrested andeecuted an extra-judicial confessionwherein he narrated how the cri%e wasco%%itted" #he trial ensued and the

lower court con$icted hi% of the cri%e of3ape and was sentenced to death"#he case was forwarded to the0upre%e Court for auto%atic re$iew"

Issues

&" WON the appellants etra'!udicial confession was $alidlytaken and in accordance with hisrights under 0ection &2 of the 4illof 3ights5 and

2" WON the circu%stantial e$idence

presented by the prosecution

sufficient to pro$e his guiltbeyond reasonable doubtRuling#he con$iction of the appellant isaffir%ed"Ratio Decidendi#he Court ruled that the appellantsetra!udicial confession was taken within

the a%bit of the law as e$inced by therecords and testi%ony of the lawyer whoassisted, warned and eplained to hi%his constitutionally guaranteed pre'interrogatory and custodial rights"

As to the second issue, the appellantargues that the circu%stantial e$idencepresented by the prosecution isinsufficient to warrant a con$iction of hisguilt" 6owe$er, the Court ruledotherwise"#he Court recalled the 3ule on7$idence and settled !urisprudence"

Absence of direct proof does notabsol$e the appellant becausecon$iction %ay be had with the
http://casedigestsnikat.wordpress.com/category/conlaw2-cases/http://casedigestsnikat.wordpress.com/author/katcobing/http://casedigestsnikat.wordpress.com/author/katcobing/http://casedigestsnikat.wordpress.com/category/conlaw2-cases/


2/16

concurrence of the following re(uisitesas stated in the 3ules of Court-&" there is %ore than onecircu%stance5

2" the facts fro% which the

inferences are deri$ed arepro$en5 and." the co%bination of all the

circu%stances is such as toproduce a con$iction beyondreasonable doubt"

#he Court recalled the ruling in Peoplev. De Guia, 280 SCRA 141, allcircu%stances %ust be consistent witheach other, consistent with thehypothesis that the accused is guilty,

and at the sa%e ti%e inconsistent withthe hypothesis that he is innocent andwith e$ery other rational hypothesisecept that of guilt"

And also in People v. Alberca, 257SCRA 613 citi! People v. Abitoa, 240SCRA 335, that facts and circu%stancesconsistent with guilt and inconsistentwith innocence, constitute e$idencewhich, in weight and probati$e force,%ay surpass e$en direct e$idence in its

effect upon the court"#he Court agreed with the trial courtsdecision in gi$ing credence to se$eralcircu%stantial e$idence, which is %orethan enough to pro$e appellants guiltbeyond the shadow of reasonabledoubt"#he Court also updated the Mirandarights with the de$elop%ents in law thatpro$ided the rights of suspects undercustodial in$estigation in detail"

A person under custodial in$estigationshould be infor%ed-&" In a language known to andunderstood by hi% of the reason for thearrest and he %ust be shown thewarrant of arrest, if any5 7$ery otherwarnings, infor%ation or co%%unication

%ust be in a language known to andunderstood by said person52" #hat he has a right to re%ain silentand that any state%ent he %akes %aybe used as e$idence against hi%5

." #hat he has the right to be assisted atall ti%es and ha$e the presence of anindependent and co%petent lawyer,preferably of his own choice58" #hat if he has no lawyer or cannotafford the ser$ices of a lawyer, one willbe pro$ided for hi%5 and that a lawyer%ay also be engaged by any person inhis behalf, or %ay be appointed by thecourt upon petition of the personarrested or one acting in his behalf5

)" #hat no custodial in$estigation in anyfor% shall be conducted ecept in thepresence of his counsel or after a $alidwai$er has been %ade59" #hat, at any ti%e, he has the right toco%%unicate or confer by the %ostepedient %eans : telephone, radio,letter or %essenger : with his lawyer;either retained or appointed


3/16

he does not wish to be (uestioned withwarning that once he %akes suchindication, the police %ay not interrogatehi% if the sa%e had not yetco%%enced, or the interrogation %ust

ceased if it has already begun5&/" #hat his initial wai$er of his right tore%ain silent, the right to counsel or anyof his rights does not bar hi% fro%in$oking it at any ti%e during theprocess, regardless of whether he %ayha$e answered so%e (uestions or$olunteered so%e state%ents5&&" #hat any state%ent or e$idence, asthe case %ay be, obtained in $iolation ofany of the foregoing, whether

inculpatory or eculpatory, in whole or inpart, shall be inad%issible in e$idence"

CSC vs. ANDAL !.R. No. "#$%&'Dece()er "* +,,'

AC#0-6er%inigildo L" Andal, respondent, holdsthe position of Securit !uard II in theSandigan)aan" 6e filed an applicationto take the Career 0er$ice Brofessional

7a%ination'Co%puter Assisted #est;C0B7'CA#edthat in case of $iolation of the Ci$il0er$ice Law by a court personnel, thestandard procedure is for the C0C tobring its co%plaint against a !udiciale%ployee before the Office of the Court

Ad%inistrator of the 0upre%e Court, forthe filing of the appropriatead%inistrati$e case against hi%"

56D!D7 MAC7DA vs. 8M36DSMAN

AS967:

Facts;3espondent Napoleon Abiera of

BAO filed a co%plaint before the Office


4/16

of the O%buds%an against petitioner

R2C 5udge 3onifacio San0 Maceda.

3espondent Abiera alleged that

1etitioner Maceda has falsified his

certificate of service by certifying thatall ci$il and cri%inal cases which ha$e

been sub%itted for decision for a period

of +/ days ha$e been deter%ined and

decided on or before *anuary .&, &+?+,

when in truth and in fact, petitioner

Maceda knew that no decision had been

rendered in ) ci$il and &/ cri%inal cases

that ha$e been sub%itted for decision"

3espondent Abiera alleged that

petitioner Maceda falsified his

certificates of ser$ice for & %onths"

Issue;Whether or not the in$estigation

%ade by the O%buds%an constitutes an

encroach%ent into the 0Cs

constitutional duty of super$ision o$er all

inferior courts


5/16

he signed the 3eport of 7a%ination inblank presented to hi% by Auditing7a%iner Mai%o Bielago, thus %akingthe procedure irregular" Auditing7a%iner Bielago candidly ad%itted that

he (ade the accused sign the Re1ortof 7xa(ination in )lan even )eforean exa(ination could be conductedbecause upon his first de%and to theBetitioner for the production of his cashand cash ite%s the latter told hi% thathe had nothing to account for anyonesince he ceased %aking collection"Bielago proceeded with the auditea%ination of Betitionersaccountability fro% the official records"

6e was found guilty for Mal$ersation ofpublic funds" Betitioner contends that hisaccountability was not established asthe 3eport of 7a%ination wasdeno%inated by Bielago asGpreli%inaryH"

Issue; Can the Betitioner be held guiltyof %al$ersation based on a Gpreli%inaryHaudit reportE


6/16

Issue- W=N the *4Cs practice of ha$ing

%e%bers fro% the 0enate and the

6ouse of 3epresentati$es to be

unconstitutional as pro$ided in Art DIII

0ec ? of the constitution"

6eld- #he practice is unconstitutional5

the court held that the phrase Ga

representati$e of congressH should be

construed as to ha$ing only one

representati$e that would co%e fro%

either house, not both" #hat the fra%ers

of the constitution only intended for one

seat of the *4C to be allotted for thelegislati$e" #he %otion was denied"

Nitafan vs. CIR !R L-%#%#, +? 5ul

"'#%

Facts;#he Chief *ustice has pre$iously

issued a directive to the iscal

Manage%ent and 4udget Office to

continue the deduction of

/ithholding taxes fro( salaries of the

5ustices of the Su1re(e Court and

other (e()ers of the judiciar. #his

was affir%ed by the 0upre%e Court en

banc on 8 @ece%ber &+?"

Betitioners are the duly appointed and

(ualified *udges presiding

o$er 4ranches )2, &+ and ).,

respecti$ely, of the 3#C, National

Capital *udicial 3egion, all with stations

in Manila" #hey seek to prohibit and=or

perpetually en!oin the Co%%issioner of

Internal 3e$enue and the inancial

Officer of the 0upre%e Court, fro%

%aking any deduction

of withholding taes fro% their salaries"

With the filing of the petition, the Court

dee%ed it best to settle the issue

through !udicial pronounce%ent, e$en if

it had dealt with the %atter

ad%inistrati$ely"

Issue;Whether or not %e%bers of the

*udiciary are ee%pt fro% inco%e taes"

ed the

continuation of the deduction of

the withholding ta fro% the salaries of

the %e%bers of the 0upre%e Court, as
http://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/03/nitafan-vs-cir-gr-l-78780-23-july-1987.htmlhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/03/nitafan-vs-cir-gr-l-78780-23-july-1987.htmlhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/03/nitafan-vs-cir-gr-l-78780-23-july-1987.htmlhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/03/nitafan-vs-cir-gr-l-78780-23-july-1987.html


7/16

well as fro% the salaries of all other

%e%bers of the *udiciary" #he Court

hereby %akes of record that it had then

discarded the ruling in Berfecto $s" Meer

and 7ndencia $s" @a$id"

#he &+. Constitution has pro$ided that

Gno salary or any for% of e%olu%ent of

any public officer or e%ployee, including

constitutional officers, shall be ee%pt

fro% pay%ent of inco%e ta ;0ection 9,

Article D


8/16

plain that the Constitution authori>es

Congress to pass a law fiing another

rate of co%pensation of *ustices and

*udges but such rate %ust be higher

than that which they are recei$ing at the

ti%e of enact%ent, or if lower, it would

be applicable only to those appointed

after its appro$al" It would be a strained

construction to read into the pro$ision

an ee%ption fro% taation in the light

of the discussion in the Constitutional

Co%%ission"

=7RF7C28 S. M77R >F6LL@

7ND7NCIA vs. DAID

Separatio o" Po#er$

0aturnino @a$id, the then Collector ofInternal 3e$enue, ordered the taing of*ustice Bastor 7ndencias and *ustice

ernando *ugos salary pursuant to 0ec&. of 3A )+/ which pro$ides that G07C"&." No salary where$er recei$ed byany public officer of the 3epublic of theBhilippines shall be considered asee%pt fro% the inco%e ta, pay%ent ofwhich is hereby declared not to be adi%inution of his co%pensation fied bythe Constitution or by law"H According tothe brief of the 0olicitor Feneral onbehalf of appellant Collector of Internal

3e$enue, our decision in the case ofBerfecto $s" Meer, supra, was notrecei$ed fa$orably by Congress,because i%%ediately after itspro%ulgation, Congress enacted3epublic Act No" )+/" #o bring ho%e hispoint, the 0olicitor Feneral reproduceswhat he considers the pertinent

discussion in the Lower 6ouse of 6ouse4ill No" &&2 which beca%e 3epublic

Act No" )+/"

ISS67; Whether or not 0ec &. of 3A

)+/ is constitutional"

ed elsewhere thatthe legislature cannot pass anydeclaratory act, or act declaratory ofwhat the law was before its passage, soas to gi$e it any binding weight with the

courts" A legislati$e definition of a wordas used in a statute is not conclusi$e ofits %eaning as used elsewhere5otherwise, the legislature would beusurping a !udicial function in defining ater%" %% &'e rea$o be'i( t'ee)e*ptio i t'e Co$titutio, a$iterprete( b+ t'e ite( State$ -e(eralSupre*e Court a( t'i$ Court, i$ to

pre$erve t'e i(epe(ece o" t'eu(iciar+, ot ol+ o" t'i$ /i!' &ribualbut o" t'e ot'er court$, #'o$e pre$et*e*ber$'ip u*ber *ore t'a 0

u(icial o""icial$. &'e i(epe(ece o"t'e u(!e$ i$ o" "ar !reater i*portacet'a a+ reveue t'at coul( co*e "ro*ta)i! t'eir $alarie$.


9/16

#he doctrine laid down in the case ofBerfecto $s" Meer, to the effect that thecollection of inco%e ta on the salary ofa !udicial officer is a di%inution thereofand so $iolates the Constitution" #he

interpretation and application of theConstitution and of statutes is within theeclusi$e pro$ince and !urisdiction of the

!udicial depart%ent, and that in enactinga law, the Legislature %ay not legallypro$ide therein that it be interpreted insuch a way that it %ay not $iolate aConstitutional prohibition, thereby tyingthe hands of the courts in their task oflater interpreting said statute, especiallywhen the interpretation sought and

pro$ided in said statute runs counter toa pre$ious interpretation already gi$enin a case by the highest court of theland"

D7 LA LLANA vs. AL3A

In &+?&, 4atas Ba%bansa 4lg" &2+, entitledGAn Act 3eorgani>ing the *udiciary,

Appropriating unds #herefor and for Other

BurposesH, was passed" Fualberto @e la

Llana, a !udge in Olongapo, was assailing its

$alidity because, first of all, he would be one

of the !udges that would be re%o$ed because

of the reorgani>ation and second, he said

such law would contra$ene the constitutional

pro$ision which pro$ides the security of tenure

of !udges of the courts" 6e a$erred that only

the 0upre%e Court can re%o$e !udges NO#

the Congress"

ISS67; Whether or not a !udge like *udge @e

La Llana can be $alidly re%o$ed by the

legislature by such statute ;4B &2+


10/16

icu*bet$ ve$te( i t'i$ &ribual i$ i!ore(

or (i$re!ar(e(. &'e c'alle!e( Act #oul(

t'u$ be "ree "ro* a+ uco$titutioal tait,

eve oe ot rea(il+ (i$cerible e)cept to

t'o$e pre(i$po$e( to vie# it #it' (i$tru$t.

oreover, $uc' a co$tructio #oul( be iaccor(ace #it' t'e ba$ic priciple t'at i t'e

c'oice o" alterative$ bet#ee oe #'ic'

#oul( $ave a( aot'er #'ic' #oul(

ivali(ate a $tatute, t'e "or*er i$ to be

pre"erre(.

!ARCIA vs. MACARAI!

3 SCRA 106 : Political ;a# : Separatio o"

Po#er$

*udge Catalino Macaraig, *r" took his oath as

*udge of the CI of Laguna and 0an Bablo

City on *une 2+, &+/" #he court, being one of

the &&2 ne/l created CFI )ranches had to

)e organi0ed fro( scratch" ro% *uly &,

&+/ to ebruary 2?, &+&, Macaraig was not

able to assu%e the duties and functions of a

!udge due to the fact that his Court 3oo% can

not be properly established due to proble%s

as to location and as to appropriations to

%ake his Court up and running" When

Macaraig reali>ed that it would be so%e ti%e

before he could actually preside o$er his

court, he a11lied for an extended leave

;during the &9 years he had worked in the

@epart%ent of *ustice, he had, due to

pressure of duties, ne$er gone on etended

lea$e, resulting in his forfeiting all the lea$e

benefits he had earned beyond the %ai%u%

ten %onths allowed by the law


11/16

the specific constitutional precepts on check

and balance between and a%ong the%, ha$e

long been acknowledged as %ore para%ount

than the ser$ing of any te%porary or passing

go$ern%ental con$eniences or eigencies" It

is thus of gra$e i%portance to the !udiciaryunder our present constitutional sche%e of

go$ern%ent that no !udge of e$en the lowest

court in this 3epublic should place hi%self in a

position where his actuations on %atters

sub%itted to hi% for action or resolution would

be sub!ect to re$iew and prior appro$al and,

worst still, re$ersal, before they can ha$e legal

effect, by any authority other than the Court of

Appeals or the 0upre%e Court, as the case

%ay be" Needless to say, the Court feels $ery

strongly that it is best that this 1ractice is

discontinued"

MANILA 7L7C2RIC vs. =ASAB

2RANS=8R2A2I8N >see SCRI3D@

L8=7: vs. R8EAS

17 SCRA 756 : Political ;a# : Co$titutioal

;a# :u(icial Po#er De"ie(

ernando Lope> and Ferardo 3oas were the

candidates for Dice Bresident in the &+9)

elections" Lope> won the election" 3oas

appealed his loss before the Bresidential

7lectoral #ribunal ;B7#

a$erred that the B7# is unconstitutional for it

was not pro$ided for in the constitution" Also,

since the B7# is co%posed of the Chief

*ustice and the other ten %e%bers of the 0C

any decision of the B7# cannot be $alidlyappealed before the 0C or that there %ay be

conflict that %ay arise once a B7# decision is

appealed before the 0C"

ISS67; Whether or not the B7# is a $alid

body"


12/16

legislati$e action- ;&< defining such

enforceable and de%andable rights and=or

prescribing re%edies for $iolations thereof5

and ;2< deter%ining the court with !urisdiction

to hear and decide said contro$ersies or

disputes, in the first instance and=or onappeal" or this reason, the Constitution

ordains that GCongress shall ha$e the power

to define, prescribe, and apportion the

!urisdiction of the $arious courtsH, sub!ect to

the li%itations set forth in the funda%ental law"

#he 0C ruled that the B7# is not in conflict

with the constitution" 3A &+. %erely added

the courts !urisdiction and such can be $alidly

legislated by Congress" It %erely conferred

upon the 0C additional functions i"e", the

functions of the B7#" #his is $alid because the

deter%ining of election contests is essentially

!udicial"

IN R7; 56D!7 R8D8LF8 MAN:AN8

Facts:

Judge Manzano filed a petition allowing

him to accept the appointment by Ilocos

Sur Governor Rodolfo Farinas as the

member of Ilocos Norte provincial

Committee on Justicecreated pursuant

to a Presidential Order. He petitioned that

his membership in the Committeewill not

in any way amount to an abandonment

to his present position as Executive

Judge of Branch XIX, RTC, 1st Judicialregion and as a member of judiciary.

Issue:

What is an administrative agency? Where

does it draw the line insofar as

administrative functions are concerned?

Ruling:

The petition is denied. The Constitution

prohibits the designation of members of

the Judiciary to any agency performing

Quasi-Judicial or Administrative

functions(Sec.12,Art.VIII, 1987

Constitution).

Quasi-Judicialhas a fairly clear

meaning and Judges can confidently

refrain from participating in the work of

any Administrative Agency which

adjudicates disputes & controversies

involving the rights of parties within itsjurisdiction.

Administrative functions are those

whichinvolve the regulation and

control over the conduct & afairs o

individuals or their own welareand

thepromulgation o rules and

regulations to better carry out the

policy o the Legislatureor such as

are devolved upon the

administrative agency by the

organic law o its existence.

Administrative functions as used in Sec.

12 refers to the Governmentsexecutive

machineryand its performance of

governmental acts. It refers to the

management actions, determinations, and

orders of executive officials as they

administer the laws and try to make

government effective. There is an element

of positive action, of supervision or

control.


13/16

In the dissenting opinion of Justice

Gutierrez:

Administrative functions are those which

involve the regulation and control over the

conduct and affairs of individuals for their

own welfare and the promulgation of rules

and regulations to better carry out the

policy of the legislature or such as are

devolved upon the administrative agency

by the organic law of its existence we can

readily see that membership in the

Provincial or City Committee on Justice

would not involve any regulation or controlover the conduct and affairs of individuals.

Neither will the Committee on Justice

promulgate rules and regulations nor

exercise any quasi-legislative functions.

Its work is purely advisory. A member of

the judiciary joining any study group which

concentrates on the administration of

justice as long as the group merely

deliberates on problems involving the

speedy disposition of cases particularly

those involving the poor and needy

litigants-or detainees, pools the expertise

and experiences of the members, and

limits itself to recommendations which

may be adopted or rejected by those who

have the power to legislate or administer

the particular function involved in their

implementation.

AIR FRANC7 vs. CARRASC8S8

Civil ;a# : &ort$ a( Da*a!e$ : e!li!ece

: al"ea$ace : ?ua$i=Delict

Re*e(ial ;a# : vi(ece : /ear$a+ Rule :

Re$ Ge$tae : Startli! vet

In March &+)?, 3afael Carrascoso and

se$eral other ilipinos were tourists en route

to 3o%e fro% Manila" Carrascoso was issued

a first class round trip ticket by Air rance" 4ut

during a stop'o$er in 4angkok, he was asked

by the plane %anager of Air rance to $acate

his seat because a white %an allegedly has a

Gbetter rightH than hi%" Carrascoso protested

but when things got heated and upon ad$ise

of other ilipinos on board, Carrascoso ga$e

up his seat and was transferred to the planes

tourist class"

After their tourist trip when Carrascoso was

already in the Bhilippines, he sued Air rance

for da%ages for the e%barrass%ent he

suffered during his trip" In court, Carrascoso

testified, a%ong others, that he when he was

forced to take the tourist class, he went to the

planes pantry where he was approached by a

plane purser who told hi% that he noted in the

planes !ournal the following-

-ir$t=cla$$ pa$$e!er #a$ "orce( to !o to t'e

touri$t cla$$ a!ai$t 'i$ #ill, a( t'at t'e

captai re"u$e( to itervee

#he said testi%ony was ad%itted in fa$or of

Carrascoso" #he trial court e$entually

awarded da%ages in fa$or of Carrascoso"

#his was affir%ed by the Court of Appeals"

Air rance is assailing the decision of the trialcourt and the CA" It a$ers that the issuance of

a first class ticket to Carrascoso was not an

assurance that he will be seated in first class

because allegedly in truth and in fact, that

was not the true intent between the parties"


14/16

Air rance also (uestioned the ad%issibility of

Carrascosos testi%ony regarding the note

%ade by the purser because the said note

was ne$er presented in court"

ISS67 "; Whether or not Air rance is liablefor da%ages and on what basis"

ISS67 +; Whether or not the testi%ony of

Carrasoso regarding the note which was not

presented in court is ad%issible in e$idence"


15/16

N6NAL vs. CA >SCRI3D@

MAN!7L7N vs. CA >F6LL@

37DR6: vs. 8FFIC7 8F 2F6LL@

!7RMAN MACF6LL@

MARC7LIN8 vs. CR6:

121 SCRA 51 : Political ;a# : Co$titutioal

;a# : Perio( to Re$olve a Ca$e "ro* Date o"

Sub*i$$io : Pro*ul!atio v$ Re(itio o"

u(!*et = Co$titutioal Perio( to Deci(e

ot a(ator+

4ernardino Marcelino was charged for the

cri%e of rape" On August 8, &+), the

prosecution finished presenting e$idence

against Marcelino and rested its case" On thesa%e date, the attorneys of both parties in the

cri%inal case %o$ed for ti%e within which to

sub%it their respecti$e %e%oranda" #he

presiding !udge, ernando Cru>, *r", ga$e

the% ./ days or until 0epte%ber 8, &+)"

Only Marcelino sub%itted a %e%oranda"

On No$e%ber 2?, &+), *udge Cru> filed with

the Clerk of Court a copy of his decision, his

decision bears the sa%e date of No$e%ber

2?, &+)" #he pro%ulgation of the decisions

was scheduled in *anuary &+9" Marcelino is

now contending that the court can no longer

pro%ulgate !udg%ent because by *anuary

&+9, the .'%onth period ;+/ day period

article 8-p.2 cases

Documents