due process case digestw

8/20/2019 Due Process Case Digestw

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/due-process-case-digestw 1/33

TANADA VS. TUVERA

J. ESCOLIN

Invoking the people’s right to be informed on matters of public concerns as well as the principle that laws

to be valid and enforceable they must be published in the Official Gazette or otherwise effectivelypromulgated, Lorenzo Taada et al seek a writ of mandamus to compel !uan Tuvera "then e#ecutive

secretary to $resident %erdinand& 'arcos to publish and(or to cause the publication in the Official Gazette

of various $residential )ecrees "$)s&, Letters of Instructions"LOIs&, $roclamations"$$s&, *#ecutive

Orders"*Os&, and +dministrative Orders"+Os& issued by the then president

ISSUE: -hether or not the various $)s et al must be published before they shall take effect

HELD: .es The /upreme 0ourt held that the fact that a $) or LOI states its date of effectivity does not

preclude their publication in the Official Gazette as they constitute important legislative acts, particularly in

the present case where the president may on his own issue laws The clear ob1ective of this provision is

to give the public general ade2uate notice of the various laws which are to regulate their actions and

conduct -ithout such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the application of the

ma#im “ignorantia legis non excusat”.$ublication is indispensable



G3 4o 567899

0'T0 I4T*34+TIO4+L '+3:*TI4G 0O3$O3+TIO4,

vs

;<+GI/ I4T*34+TIO4+L T3+)I4G 0O3$O3+TIO4

%acts

;efore this 0ourt is a $etition for 3eview on 0ertiorari under 3ule 8= of the 3ules of 0ourt assailing the3esolutions dated +ugust 5>, ?77= and 4ovember 5=, ?77= of the %ormer /pecial Twelfth )ivision of the0ourt of +ppeals in 0+@G3 0A 4o 9868? $etitioner instituted a 0omplaint for Bnfair 0ompetitionand(or 0opyright Infringement and 0laim for )amages with $rayer for Temporary 3estraining Order and

-rit of $reliminary In1unction against respondent before the 3egional Trial 0ourt of 'akati "trial court& On%ebruary 58, ?77=, the trial court rendered a )ecision dismissing the complaint filed by petitioner +fterreceiving a copy of the trial court’s )ecision, petitioner seasonably filed a 4otice of +ppeal before the0ourt of +ppeals "appellate court & on 'arch 8, ?77=

Thereafter, the appellate court issued a 4otice to %ile the +ppellant’s ;rief on 'ay ?7, ?77=, which wasreceived by the law office representing petitioner on 'ay C7, ?77=, stating as followsD $ursuant to 3ule88, /ec 6 of the 5>>6 3ules of 0ivil $rocedure you are hereby re2uired to file with this 0ourt within forty@five "8=& days from receipt of this notice, /*A*4 "6& legibly typewritten, mimeographed or printed copiesof the +ppellant’s ;rief with legible copies of the assailed decision of the Trial 0ourt and proof of serviceof two copies upon the appellee(s <owever, despite said notice, petitioner failed to file its appellant’s brief timely <ence, on +ugust 5>, ?77=, the appellate court issued a 3esolution dismissing the appeal filed bypetitioner Bpon receipt of the order of dismissal, petitioner filed its 'otion for 3econsideration with 'otionto +dmit +ppellant’s ;rief , which was filed forty@two "8?& days late from the date of its e#piration on !uly5=, ?77=

On 4ovember 5=, ?77=, the appellate court denied petitioner’s 'otion for 3econsideration with 'otion to +dmit +ppellant’s ;rief It ruled that one of the grounds by which the 0ourt of +ppeals may, on its ownmotion or that of the appellee, dismiss the appeal is the failure on the part of the appellant to serve andfile the re2uired number of copies of his brief within the time prescribed by the 3ules of 0ourt

+ccordingly, petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before this 0ourt 2uestioning the +ugust 5>,?77= and 4ovember 5=, ?77= 3esolutions of the appellate court

/imply, the issue to be resolved is the propriety of the dismissal of petitioner’s appeal for its failure to filethe appellant’s brief within the reglementary period

The 0ourt finds merit in the instant petition Time and again, this 0ourt has emphasized that procedural

rules should be treated with utmost respect and due regard, since they are designed to facilitate thead1udication of cases to remedy the worsening problem of delay in the resolution of rival claims and in theadministration of 1ustice %rom time to time, however, we have recognized e#ceptions to the 3ules, butonly for the most compelling reasons where stubborn obedience to the 3ules would defeat rather thanserve the ends of 1ustice In Obut v 0ourt of +ppeals, this 0ourt reiterated that it Ecannot look with favoron a course of action which would place the administration of 1ustice in a straight1acket, for then the resultwould be a poor kind of 1ustice if there would be 1ustice at all Aerily, 1udicial orders are issued to beobeyed, nonetheless a non@compliance is to be dealt with as the circumstances attending the case maywarrant -hat should guide 1udicial action is the principle that a party@litigant if to be given the fullestopportunity to establish the merits of his complaint of defense rather than for him to lose life, liberty, honor



or property on technicalitiesE The same principle was highlighted in $hilippine 4ational ;ank and)evelopment ;ank of the $hilippines v $hilippine 'illing 0ompany, Incorporated, et al where the 0ourtruled that even if an appellant failed to file a motion for e#tension of time to file his brief on or before thee#piration of the reglementary period, the 0ourt of +ppeals does not necessarily lose 1urisdiction to hearand decide the appealed case, and that the 0ourt of +ppeals has discretion to dismiss or not to dismissappellant’s appeal, which discretion must be a sound one to be e#ercised in accordance with the tenets of

1ustice and fair play having in mind the circumstances obtaining in each case *rgo, where strongconsiderations of substantive 1ustice are manifest in the petition, the strict application of the rules ofprocedure may be rela#ed, in the e#ercise of its e2uity 1urisdiction Thus, a rigid application of the rules ofprocedure will not be entertained if it will obstruct rather than serve the broader interests of 1ustice in thelight of the prevailing circumstances in the case under consideration

In the instant case, it is apparent that there is a strong desire to file an appellant’s brief on petitioner’spart -hen petitioner filed its motion attaching therewith its appellant’s brief, there was a clear intention onthe part of petitioner not to abandon his appeal +s a matter of fact, were it not for its counsel’s act ofinadvertently misplacing the 4otice to %ile ;rief in another file, petitioner could have seasonably filed itsappellant’s brief as its counsel had already prepared the same even way before the receipt of the 4oticeto %ile ;rief It bears stressing at this point then that the rule, which states that the mistakes of counselbinds the client, may not be strictly followed where observance of it would result in outright deprivation ofthe client’s liberty or property, or where the interest of 1ustice so re2uires

In rendering 1ustice, procedural infirmities take a backseat against substantive rights of litigants0orollarily, if the strict application of the rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote 1ustice, thism0ourt is not without power to e#ercise its 1udicial discretion in rela#ing the rules of procedure +lso, itmust be stressed that petitioner had no participatory negligence in the dismissal of its appeal <ence, theensuing dismissal of its appeal was completely attributable to the gross negligence of its counsel %or saidreason, the 0ourt is not averse to suspending its own rules in the pursuit of 1ustice -here reckless orgross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law, or when the interests of 1ustice sore2uire, relief is accorded to the client who suffered by reason of the lawyer’s gross or palpable mistake or negligence

G3+4T*)



Aelasco vs Aillegas

%actsD $etitioners herein are members of the /ta 0ruz ;arbershop +ssociation This is an appeal from

the lower courtFs"L0& order dismissing their suit for declatory relief They are challenging the

constitutionality of Ord 4o 8>8 They contend that it amounts to deprivation of properties and theirmeans of livelihood without due process of law

The assailed ordinance is worded thusD EIt shall be prohibited for any operator of any barber shop to

conduct the business of massaging customers or other persons in any ad1acent room or rooms of said

barber shop, or in any room or rooms within the same building where the barber shop is located as long

as the operator of the barber shop and the room where massaging is conducted is the same personE

3espondent in its reply, said that the Ordinance 4o 8>8 is constitutional and such is 1ust an e#ercise of

the stateFs inherent power "police power&

IssueD -hether or not the assailed Ordinance violated the petitionerFs right to property and their means of

livelihood

<eldD Ordinance is 0onstitutional $etition is dismissed, L0 decision affirmed

*nactment of such "Ordinance& is a valid e#ercise of $olice $ower

The ob1ectives of the Ordinance areD

"5& To impose payment of license fees for engaging in the business of massage clinics, andH

"?& To forestall possible immorality which might grow from the construction of a separate room for

massaging customers

This 0ourt has been most liberal in sustaining ordinances based on the general welfare clause +nd for

that reason, the petitioners’ rights were not violated and they are not deprived of the due process of law



$*O$L* O% T<* $<ILI$$I4*/ A/ ;*4!+'I4 /O3I+

G3 4o 56>7C5 H 58 4ovember ?75?

$O4*4T*D )el 0astillo

/B;!*0TD3ape

%+0T/D

Aersion of the $rosecutionD

The victim, +++, is the daughter of the accused On %ebruary ?, ?777, +++ and her siblings en1oyed the

spaghetti their father brought home for merienda +fter eating, +++ went to the bedroom to rest

Thereafter, appellant also entered the room and positioned himself on top of +++, took off her clothes and

inserted his penis into her vagina +++ felt intense pain from her breast down to her vagina and thus told

her father that it was painful +t that point, appellant apologized to his daughter, stood up, and left the

room The whole incident was witnessed by +++’s brother, ;;; The pain persisted until +++’s vaginastarted to bleed /he thus told her aunt about it and they proceeded to a hospital for treatment <er

mother was also immediately informed of her ordeal +++ was taken into the custody of the )epartment

of /ocial -elfare and )evelopment

Aersion of the )efenseD

+ppellant admitted that he was at home on the day and time of +++’s alleged rape but denied committing

the same Instead, he claimed that the filing of the rape case against him was instigated by his wife,

whom he confronted about her illicit affair with a man residing in their community +ccording to appellant,

he could not have molested +++ because he treated her well In fact, he was the only one sending hischildren to school since his wife already neglected them and seldom comes home

I//B*D

-hether or not the allegations of the accused is credible to cast a reasonable doubt which would warrant

his ac2uittal

<*L)D

3ape can now be committed either through se#ual intercourse or by se#ual assault 3ape under

paragraph 5 of +rticle ?@+ is referred to as rape through se#ual intercourse 0arnal knowledge is thecentral element and it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt On the other hand, rape under

paragraph ? of +rticle ?@+ is commonly known as rape by se#ual assault The perpetrator commits this

kind of rape by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or ob1ect

into the genital or anal orifice of another person



The 3T0 and the 0+ found the accused guilty of rape through se#ual intercourse but It is evident

from the testimony of +++ that she was unsure whether it was indeed appellant’s penis which touched her

labia and entered her organ +++ stated that she only knew that it was the birdJ of her father which was

inserted into her vagina after being told by her brother ;;; 0learly, +++ has no personal knowledge that

it was appellant’s penis which touched her labia and inserted into her vagina <ence, it would be

erroneous to conclude that there was penile contact based solely on the declaration of +++’s brother,

;;;, which declaration was hearsay due to ;;;’s failure to testify

The court however found it inconse2uential that +++ could not specifically identify the particular

instrument or ob1ect that was inserted into her genital -hat is important and relevant is that indeed

something was inserted into her vagina 'oreover, the prosecution satisfactorily established that

appellant accomplished the act of se#ual assault through his moral ascendancy and influence over +++J

which substituted for violence and intimidation Thus, there is no doubt that appellant raped +++ by

se#ual assault

It is also improbable for appellant’s wife to have dared encourage their daughter +++ to file the charges

publicly e#pose the dishonor of the family unless the rape was indeed committed

+ccused is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of rape by se#ual assault and is also

ordered to pay +++ civil indemnity and damages



G3 4o 5>>79? D /eptember 59, ?75?

!O/* 'IGB*L T +33O.O, $etitioner, v )*$+3T'*4T O% !B/TI0*H 0O''I//IO4 O4 *L*0TIO4/H<O4 L*IL+ )* LI'+, in her capacity as /ecretary of the )epartment of !usticeH <O4 /IKTO

;3ILL+4T*/, !3, in his capacity as 0hairperson of the 0ommission on *lectionsH and the !OI4T )O!@

0O'*L*0 $3*LI'I4+3. I4A*/TIG+TIO4 0O''ITT** and %+0T@%I4)I4G T*+', 3espondents

%+0T/D

The 0omelec issued 3esolution 4o >? approving the creation of a 1oint committee with the )epartment

of !ustice ")O!&, which shall conduct preliminary investigation on the alleged election offenses and

anomalies committed during the ?778 and ?776 elections

The 0omelec and the )O! issued !oint Order 4o 775@?755 creating and constituting a !oint 0ommitteeand %act@%inding Team on the ?778 and ?776 4ational *lections electoral fraud and manipulation cases

composed of officials from the )O! and the 0omelec In its initial report, the %act@%inding Team

concluded that manipulation of the results in the 'ay 58, ?776 senatorial elections in the provinces of

4orth and /outh 0otabato and 'aguindanao were indeed perpetrated The %act@%inding Team

recommended that herein petitioners Gloria 'acapagal@+rroyo "G'+&, et al to be sub1ected to

preliminary investigation for electoral sabotage

+fter the preliminary investigation, the 0O'*L*0 en banc adopted a resolution ordering that

information(s for the crime of electoral sabotage be filed against G'+, et al while that the charges

against !ose 'iguel +rroyo, among others, should be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence

0onse2uently, G'+, et al assail the validity of the creation of 0O'*L*0@)O! !oint $anel and of !ointOrder 4o 775@?755 before the /upreme 0ourt

I//B*/D

I -hether or not the creation of 0O'*L*0@)O! !oint $anel is valid

II -hether or not !oint Order 4o 775@?755 violates the e2ual protection clause

<*L)D $etitions are )I/'I//*)

%I3/T I//B*D The creation of 0O'*L*0@)O! !oint $anel is valid

$OLITI0+L L+-D powers of 0O'*L*0

/ection ?, +rticle IK@0 of the 5>96 0onstitution enumerates the powers and functions of the 0omelec The

grant to the 0omelec of the power to investigate and prosecute election offenses as an ad1unct to the

enforcement and administration of all election laws is intended to enable the 0omelec to effectively insure

to the people the free, orderly, and honest conduct of elections The constitutional grant of prosecutorial

power in the 0omelec was reflected in /ection ?= of ;atas $ambansa ;lg 995, otherwise known as the

Omnibus *lection 0ode



Bnder the above provision of law, the power to conduct preliminary investigation is vested e#clusively with

the 0omelec The latter, however, was given by the same provision of law the authority to avail itself of

the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the government Thus, under the Omnibus *lection 0ode,

while the e#clusive 1urisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation had been lodged with the 0omelec,

the prosecutors had been conducting preliminary investigations pursuant to the continuing delegated

authority given by the 0omelec

Thus, 0omelec 3esolution 4o >?, approving the creation of the !oint 0ommittee and %act@%inding

Team, should be viewed not as an abdication of the constitutional bodys independence but as a means to

fulfill its duty of ensuring the prompt investigation and prosecution of election offenses as an ad1unct of its

mandate of ensuring a free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections

/*0O4) I//B*D !oint Order 4o 775@?755 does not violate the e2ual protection clause

0O4/TITBTIO4+L L+-D e2ual protection

$etitioners claim that the creation of the !oint 0ommittee and %act@%inding Team is in violation of the

e2ual protection clause of the 0onstitution because its sole purpose is the investigation and prosecution

of certain persons and incidents They insist that the !oint $anel was created to target only the +rroyo +dministration as well as public officials linked to the +rroyo +dministration

-hile G'+ and 'ike +rroyo were among those sub1ected to preliminary investigation, not all respondents

therein were linked to G'+ as there were public officers who were investigated upon in connection with

their acts in the performance of their official duties $rivate individuals were also sub1ected to the

investigation by the !oint 0ommittee

The e2ual protection guarantee e#ists to prevent undue favor or privilege It is intended to eliminate

discrimination and oppression based on ine2uality 3ecognizing the e#istence of real differences among

men, it does not demand absolute e2uality It merely re2uires that all persons under like circumstances

and conditions shall be treated alike both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced

$etitions are )I/'I//*)



??& $ark <otel vs /oriano

?75?@7>@57 M G3 4o 565559

%+0T/D

/oriano was initially hired by $ark <otel but was transferred to ;urgos 0orporation Gonzales and ;adillawere employees of ;urgos 0orporation ;urgos is a sister company of $ark <otel <arbutt and $ercy are

the General 'anager and owner, respectively, of $ark <otel $ercy, <arbutt and +tty 3oberto *nri2uez

are also the officers and stockholders of ;urgos 0orporation /oriano, Gonzales and ;adilla were

dismissed from work for allegedly stealing company properties +s a result, respondents filed complaints

for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, before the Labor +rbiter "L+& In their complaints, respondents

alleged that the real reason for their dismissal was that they were organizing a union for the companyFs

employees

I//B*D

-hether or not corporate officers are solidarily and personally liable in a case for illegal dismissal and

unfair labor practice

<*L)D

+ corporation, being a 1uridical entity, may act only through its directors, officers and employees

Obligations incurred by them, while acting as corporate agents, are not their personal liability but the

direct accountability of the corporation they represent <owever, corporate officers may be deemed

solidarily liable with the corporation for the termination of employees if they acted with malice or bad faith

In the present case, the lower tribunals unanimously found that $ercy and <arbutt, in their capacity as

corporate officers of ;urgos, acted maliciously in terminating the services of respondents without any

valid ground and in order to suppress their right to self@organization /ection C5 of the 0orporation 0ode

makes a director personally liable for corporate debts if he willfully and knowingly votes for or assents to

patently unlawful acts of the corporation It also makes a director personally liable if he is guilty of gross

negligence or bad faith in directing the affairs of the corporation Thus, $ercy and <arbutt, having acted in

bad faith in directing the affairs of ;urgos, are 1ointly and severally liable with the latter for respondentsF

dismissal



G.R. No. 196231 September ! 2"12

E#ILIO A. GON$ALES III! vsO%%ICE O% THE &RESIDENT O% THE &HILI&&INES! '(t)*+ t,ro-+,

'* repre/e*te b0 EECUTIVE SECRETAR &AUITO N. OCHOA! JR

# @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ #

G.R. No. 196232

4ENDELL 5ARRERASSULIT! $etitioner, vs O%%ICE O% THE &RESIDENT

&ERLAS5ERNA5E! J.:

These two petitions have been because they raise a common thread of issues relating to the President's

exercise of the power to remove from office herein petitioners who claim the protective cloak of

independence of the constitutionally-created office to which they belong - the ffice of the mbudsman.

The cases, G3 4o 5>?C5 and G3 4o 5>?C? pr)m'r)70 /ee8/ to e(7're '/ -*(o*/t)t-t)o*'7

Se(t)o* 2; o< Rep-b7)( A(t R.A.; No. 6=="! ot,er>)/e 8*o>* '/ t,e Omb-/m'* A(t o< 199!

>,)(, +)?e/ t,e &re/)e*t t,e po>er to )/m)// ' Dep-t0 Omb-/m'* o< t,e O<<)(e o< t,e

Omb-/m'*

%ACTS: G.R. No. 196231: + formal charge for Grave 'isconduct "robbery, grave threats, robbery

e#tortion and physical in1uries& was filed before $4$@403 against 'anila $olice )istrict /enior Inspector

"$(/ Insp& 3olando 'endoza and four others$rivate complainant, 0hristian ' :alaw, before the Office

of the 0ity $rosecutor, filed a similar charge -hile said cases were still pending, the Office of the

3egional )irector of the 4ational $olice 0ommission "4$0& turned over, upon the re2uest of petitioner

Gonzales III, all relevant documents and evidence in relation to said case to the Office of the )eputy

Ombudsman for appropriate administrative ad1udication /ubse2uently a case for Grave 'isconduct was

lodged against $(/ Insp 3olando 'endoza and his fellow police officers in the Office of the

Ombudsman'eanwhile, the case filed before the Office of the city $rosecutor was dismissed upon a

finding that the material allegations made by the complainant had not been substantiated Eby any

evidence at all to warrant the indictment of respondents of the offenses chargedE /imilarly, the Internal

+ffairs /ervice of the $4$ issued a 3esolution recommending the dismissal without pre1udice of the

administrative case against the same police officers, for failure of the complainant to appear in three "C&

consecutive hearings despite due notice <owever, upon the recommendation of petitioner Gonzales III, a

)ecision finding $(/ Insp 3olando 'endoza and his fellow police officers guilty of Grave 'isconduct was

approved by the Ombudsman'endoza and his colleagues filed for a motion for reconsideration whichwas forwarded to Ombudsman Gutierrez for final approval, in whose office it remained pending for final

review and action when $(/ Insp 'endoza hi1acked a bus@load of foreign tourists on that fateful day of

+ugust ?C, ?757 in a desperate attempt to have himself reinstated in the police service

In the aftermath of the hostage@taking incident, which ended in the tragic murder of eight <ong:ong

0hinese nationals, the in1ury of seven others and the death of $(/ Insp 3olando 'endoza, a public

outcry against the blundering of government officials prompted the creation of the Incident Investigation



and 3eview 0ommittee "II30& It was tasked to determine accountability for the incident through the

conduct of public hearings and e#ecutive sessions T,e IIRC <o-* Dep-t0 Omb-/m'* Go*@'7e/

(omm)tte /er)o-/ '* )*e(-/'b7e *e+7)+e*(e '* +ro// ?)o7't)o* o< t,e)r o>* r-7e/ o<

pro(e-re b0 '77o>)*+ #e*o@'B/ mot)o* <or re(o*/)er't)o* to 7'*+-)/, <or more t,'* *)*e 9;

mo*t,/ >)t,o-t '*0 -/t)<)('t)o*! )* ?)o7't)o* o< t,e Omb-/m'* pre/(r)be r-7e/ to re/o7?e

mot)o*/ <or re(o*/)er't)o* )* 'm)*)/tr't)?e )/()p7)*'r0 ('/e/ >)t,)* <)?e ; '0/ <rom

/-bm)//)o*. The inaction is gross, considering there is no opposition thereto The prolonged inaction

precipitated the desperate resort to hostage@taking $etitioner was dismissed from service <ence the

petition

G.R. No. 196232: +cting )eputy /pecial $rosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman charged 'a1or

General 0arlos % Garcia, his wife 0larita ) Garcia, their sons Ian 0arl Garcia, !uan $aulo Garcia and

Timothy 'ark Garcia and several unknown persons with $lunder and 'oney Laundering before the

/andiganbayan The /andiganbayan denied 'a1or General GarciaFs urgent petition for bail holding that

strong prosecution evidence militated against the grant of bail <owever, the government, represented by

petitioner, /pecial $rosecutor ;arreras@/ulit and sought the /andiganbayanFs approval of a $lea

;argaining +greement "E$L*;+3+E& entered into with the accused The /andiganbayan issued a

3esolution finding the change of plea warranted and the $L*;+3+ compliant with 1urisprudentialguidelines

O-tr'+e b0 t,e b'(8room e'7 t,'t (o-7 '77o> #'or Ge*er'7 G'r()' to +et o<< t,e ,oo8 >)t,

*ot,)*+ b-t ' /7'p o* t,e ,'* *ot>)t,/t'*)*+ t,e pro/e(-t)o*B/ 'pp're*t70 /tro*+ e?)e*(e o<

,)/ (-7p'b)7)t0 <or /er)o-/ p-b7)( o<<e*/e/! t,e Ho-/e o< Repre/e*t't)?e/B Comm)ttee o* J-/t)(e

(o*-(te p-b7)( ,e'r)*+/ o* t,e &LE5ARA. At t,e (o*(7-/)o* o< t,e/e p-b7)( ,e'r)*+/! t,e

Comm)ttee o* J-/t)(e p'//e '* 'opte Comm)ttee Re/o7-t)o* No. 3! re(omme*)*+ to t,e

&re/)e*t t,e )/m)//'7 o< pet)t)o*er 5'rrer'/S-7)t <rom t,e /er?)(e '* t,e <)7)*+ o< 'ppropr)'te

(,'r+e/ '+')*/t ,er Dep-t)e/ '* A//)/t'*t/ be<ore t,e 'ppropr)'te +o?er*me*t o<<)(e <or ,'?)*+

(omm)tte '(t/ '*or om)//)o*/ t'*t'mo-*t to (-7p'b7e ?)o7't)o*/ o< t,e Co*/t)t-t)o* '*

betr'0'7 o< p-b7)( tr-/t! >,)(, 're ?)o7't)o*/ -*er t,e A*t)Gr'<t '* Corr-pt &r'(t)(e/ A(t '*

+ro-*/ <or remo?'7 <rom o<<)(e -*er t,e Omb-/m'* A(t.<ence the petition

ISSUE: 4,et,er t,e O<<)(e o< t,e &re/)e*t ,'/ -r)/)(t)o* to eer()/e 'm)*)/tr't)?e )/()p7)*'r0

po>er o?er ' Dep-t0 Omb-/m'* '* ' Spe()'7 &ro/e(-tor >,o be7o*+ to t,e (o*/t)t-t)o*'770

(re'te O<<)(e o< t,e Omb-/m'*.

HELD: ES. T,e Omb-/m'*B/ 'm)*)/tr't)?e)/()p7)*'r0 po>er o?er ' Dep-t0Omb-/m'* '*

Spe()'7 &ro/e(-tor )/ *ot e(7-/)?e. -hile the OmbudsmanFs authority to discipline administratively is

e#tensive and covers all government officials, whether appointive or elective, with the e#ception only of

those officials removable by impeachment such authority is by no means e#clusive $etitioners cannot

insist that they should be solely and directly sub1ect to the disciplinary authority of the Ombudsman %or,

while /ection ?5 of 3+ 667 declares the OmbudsmanFs disciplinary authority over all government

officials, /ection 9"?&, on the other hand, grants the $resident e#press power of removal over a )eputy

Ombudsman and a /pecial $rosecutor + harmonious construction of these two apparently conflicting

provisions in 3+ 4o 667 leads to the inevitable conclusion that 0ongress had intended the

Ombudsman and the $resident to e#ercise concurrent disciplinary 1urisdiction over petitioners as )eputy

Ombudsman and /pecial $rosecutor, respectivelyIndubitably, the manifest intent of 0ongress in enacting

both provisions @ /ection 9"?& and /ection ?5 @ in the same Organic +ct was to provide for an e#ternal



authority, through the person of the $resident, that would e#ercise the power of administrative discipline

over the )eputy Ombudsman and /pecial $rosecutor without in the least diminishing the constitutional

and plenary authority of the Ombudsman over all government officials and employees /uch legislative

design is simply a measure of Echeck and balanceE intended to address the lawmakersF real and valid

concern that the Ombudsman and his )eputy may try to protect one another from administrative liabilities

50 +r'*t)*+ epre// /t't-tor0po>er to t,e &re/)e*t to remo?e' Dep-t0 Omb-/m'* '* '

Spe()'7 &ro/e(-tor! Co*+re//mere70 <)77e '* ob?)o-/ +'p )*t,e 7'>. -hile the removal of the

Ombudsman himself is also e#pressly provided for in the 0onstitution, which is by impeachment under

/ection ? of the same +rticle, there is, however, no constitutional provision similarly dealing with the

removal from office of a )eputy Ombudsman, or a /pecial $rosecutor, for that matter ;y enacting

/ection 9"?& of 3+ 667, 0ongress simply filled a gap in the law without running afoul of any provision in

the 0onstitution or e#isting statutes In fact, the 0onstitution itself, under /ection ?, authorizes 0ongress

to provide for the removal of all other public officers, including the )eputy Ombudsman and /pecial

$rosecutor, who are not sub1ect to impeachment

T,e &o>er o< t,e &re/)e*t toRemo?e ' Dep-t0 Omb-/m'*'* ' Spe()'7 &ro/e(-tor )/Imp7)e

<rom ,)/ &o>er toAppo)*t.In giving the $resident the power to remove a )eputy Ombudsman and/pecial $rosecutor, 0ongress simply laid down in e#press terms an authority that is already implied from

the $residentFs constitutional authority to appoint the aforesaid officials in the Office of the

OmbudsmanThe integrity and effectiveness of the )eputy Ombudsman for the 'OL*O as a military

watchdog looking into abuses and irregularities that affect the general morale and professionalism in the

military is certainly of primordial importance in relation to the $residentFs own role as0ommander@in@0hief

of the +rmed %orces It would not be incongruous for 0ongress, therefore, to grant the $resident

concurrent disciplinary authority over the )eputy Ombudsman for the military and other law enforcement

offices

Gr'*t)*+ t,e &re/)e*t t,e &o>erto Remo?e ' Dep-t0 Omb-/m'*oe/ *ot D)m)*)/, t,e

I*epe*e*(e o< t,e O<<)(e o< t,eOmb-/m'*. he claim that /ection 9"?& of 3+ 4o 667 granting

the $resident the power to remove a )eputy Ombudsman from office totally frustrates, if not resultantly

negates the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman is tenuous The independence which the

Office of the Ombudsman is vested with was intended to free it from political considerations in pursuing its

constitutional mandate to be a protector of the people -hat the 0onstitution secures for the Office of the

Ombudsman is, essentially, political independence This means nothing more than that Ethe terms of

office, the salary, the appointments and discipline of all persons under the officeE are Ereasonably

insulated from the whims of politiciansE

&et)t)o*er Go*@'7e/ m'0 *ot beremo?e <rom o<<)(e >,ere t,eF-e/t)o*e '(t/! <'77)*+ /,ort o<

(o*/t)t-t)o*'7 /t'*'r/! o *ot(o*/t)t-te betr'0'7 o< p-b7)( tr-/t.$etitionerFs act of directing the

$4$@I+/ to endorse $(/ Insp 'endozaFs case to the Ombudsman without citing any reason therefor

cannot, by itself, be considered a manifestation of his undue interest in the case that would amount towrongful or unlawful conduct +fter all, taking cognizance of cases upon the re2uest of concerned

agencies or private parties is part and parcel of the constitutional mandate of the Office of the

Ombudsman to be the Echampion of the peopleE The factual circumstances that the case was turned

over to the Office of the Ombudsman upon petitionerFs re2uestH that administrative liability was

pronounced against $(/ Insp 'endoza even without the private complainant verifying the truth of his

statementsH that the decision was immediately implementedH or that the motion for reconsideration thereof

remained pending for more than nine months cannot be simply taken as evidence of petitionerFs undue



interest in the case considering the lack of evidence of any personal grudge, social ties or business

affiliation with any of the parties to the case that could have impelled him to act as he did There was

likewise no evidence at all of any bribery that took place, or of any corrupt intention or 2uestionable

motivationThe O$Fs pronouncement of administrative accountability against petitioner and the imposition

upon him of the corresponding penalty of dismissal must be reversed and set aside, as the findings of

neglect of duty or misconduct in office do not amount to a betrayal of public trust <ence, the $resident,

while he may be vested with authority, cannot order the removal of petitioner as )eputy Ombudsman,

there being no intentional wrongdoing of the grave and serious kind amounting to a betrayal of public

trust

T,e O<<)(e o< t,e &re/)e*t )/ ?e/te>)t, /t't-tor0 '-t,or)t0 to pro(ee'm)*)/tr't)?e70 '+')*/t

pet)t)o*er5'rrer'/S-7)t to eterm)*e t,ee)/te*(e o< '*0 o< t,e +ro-*/ <or,er remo?'7 <rom

o<<)(e '/ pro?)e<or -*er t,e Co*/t)t-t)o* '* t,eOmb-/m'* A(t.

4HERE%ORE, in G.R. No. 196231, the decision of the Office of the $resident in O$ 0ase 4o 57@!@87

is REVERSED '* SET ASIDE $etitioner *milio + Gonzales III is ordered REINSTATED with payment

of backwages corresponding to the period of suspension effective immediately, even as the Office of the

Ombudsman is directed to proceed with the investigation in connection with the above case againstpetitioner In G.R. No. 196232, -eA%%IR# the continuation of O$@)0 0ase 4o 55@;@77C against

/pecial $rosecutor -endell ;arreras@/ulit for alleged acts and omissions tantamount to culpable violation

of the 0onstitution and a betrayal of public trust, in accordance with /ection 9"?& of the Ombudsman +ct

of 5>9>

T,e (,'77e*+e to t,e (o*/t)t-t)o*'7)t0 o< Se(t)o* 2; o< t,e Omb-/m'* A(t )/ ,ereb0 DENIED.



T+KI0+; O$*3+TO3/ O% '*T3O '+4IL+, I40 vs T<* ;O+3) O% T3+4/$O3T+TIO4 "5>9?&

T+KI0+; O$*3+TO3/ O% '*T3O '+4IL+, I40 vs T<* ;O+3) O% T3+4/$O3T+TIO4 "5>9?&

'*L*40IO@<*33*3+, !D

N On October 57, 5>66, ;OT issued 'emorandum 0ircular 4o 66@8? that aimed to phase out and

replace old dilapidated ta#is to insure only safe comfortable units are used by the public, to respond to

complaints by metro manila residents regarding the old dilapidated ta#is, to make the commuting public

more comfortable, have more convenience and safety years is enough for ta#i operators to get back

cost of unit plus profits no car beyond years can still be operated as ta#i

N Ta#is model 5>65 were considered withdrawn on )ec C5, 5>66 applied it to succeeding years 1ust

add one year to both dates they had to surrender the e#pired ta#i’s plates to the ;oT for turnover to

Land Transpo 0ommission

N $ursuant to the above ;OT circular, respondent )irector of the ;ureau of Land Transportation

";LT& issued Implementing 0ircular 4o =?, dated +ugust 5=, 5>97, instructing the 3egional )irector, the

'A 3egistrars and other personnel of ;LT, all within the 403, to implement the phasing out of the ta#is

N On !anuary ?6, 5>95, petitioners filed a $etition with the ;OT, docketed as 0ase 4o 97@6==C,

seeking to nullify '0 4o 66@8? or to stop its implementationH to allow the registration and operation in

5>95 and subse2uent years of ta#icabs of model 5>68, as well as those of earlier models which were

phased@out, provided that, at the time of registration, they are roadworthy and fit for operation

The issues were in the form of 2uestions that the petitioners presented to the /0 through a 2uery

+ )id ;OT and ;LT promulgate the 2uestioned memorandum circulars in accord with the manner

re2uired by $residential )ecree 4o 575, thereby safeguarding the petitionersF constitutional right to

procedural due process

; Granting, arguendo, that respondents did comply with the procedural re2uirements imposed by

$residential )ecree 4o 575, would the implementation and enforcement of the assailed memorandum

circulars violate the petitionersF constitutional rights to

"5& *2ual protection of the lawH

"?& /ubstantive due processH and

"C& $rotection against arbitrary and unreasonable classification and standard

<*L)D

The court here did not answer the 2ueries directly they 1ust dealt with the ff issues



5 -O4 the procedural and substantive due process rights of the ta#i operators were violated 4O

? -O4 their e2ual protection rights were violated 4O

On $rocedural and /ubstantive )ue $rocessD

$residential )ecree 4o 575 grants to the ;oard of Transportation the power

8 To fi# 1ust and reasonable standards, classification, regulations, practices, measurements, or service to

be furnished, imposed, observed, and followed by operators of public utility motor vehicles

/ection ? of said )ecree provides procedural guidelines for said agency to follow in the e#ercise of its

powersD

/ec ? *#ercise of powers P In the e#ercise of the powers granted in the preceding section, the ;oard

shall proceed promptly along the method of legislative in2uiry

+part from its own investigation and studies, the ;oard, in its discretion, may re2uire the cooperation andassistance of the ;ureau of Transportation, the $hilippine 0onstabulary, particularly the <ighway $atrol

Group, the support agencies within the )epartment of $ublic -orks, Transportation and 0ommunications,

or any other government office or agency that may be able to furnish useful information or data in the

formulation of the ;oard of any policy, plan or program in the implementation of this )ecree

The ;oard may also call conferences, re2uire the submission of position papers or other documents,

information, or data by operators or other persons that may be affected by the implementation of this

)ecree, or employ any other suitable means of in2uiry

N $*T claim that they were denied due process because they were not asked to submit position

papers or to attend conferences regarding the assailed circ

o /0 held that the $) provides a wide leeway as to how the board will choose to gather data in

formulating its policy 4OT +LL O$TIO4/ +3* 3*QBI3*) TO ;* )O4* %O3 $OLI0. TO ;* A+LI)

the board has the choice of which avenue to pursue in collecting data

N $*T also claim that year limit was arbitrarily set oppressive they want each ta#i cab to be

inspected regarding their condition -O4 it was still safe and roadworthy despite age

o 0ourt held that their proposed standard is not practicable and can open the door to multiple standards

and corruption

o 0ourt furthers aid that years is a reasonable time based on e#perience and based on cost and fair

returns on the units

o 0ourt held that a uniform standard is best and fair



On *2ual $rotection of the LawD

$*T allege that the circular targets and singles out the ta#i industry R violation of their e2ual protection

rights

S 0ourt said 4O 0ircs of the same kind are also being implemented in other cities like 0ebu and is also

in the process of conducting the same studies and policy formulations in other cities

S 'anila was first because of the heavier traffic pressure and the more constant use of the ta#is in ''

S /B;/T+4TI+L )I/TI40TIO4 the traffic conditions in the various cities

0O40LB/IO4/D

S 'anila has more traffic which means that ta#is in 'etro 'anila are more heavily used and more likely

to deteriorate

S The public has a right to convenience, comfort and safety in their public commute

S The danger posed by the dilapidated and old ta#is is a valid nuisance that the ;oard can abate through

the circular that it passed

S +bsent a clear showing of any repugnancy of the circular it is deemed valid

$etition )I/'I//*)



$<IL0O'/+T A/ +L0B+

;y virtue of 3epublic +ct 4o ==58, the $hilippine 0ommunications /atellite 0orporation "$<IL0O'/+T&

was granted the authority to construct and operate such ground facilities as needed to deliver

telecommunications services from the communications satellite system and ground terminal or terminalsJ

in the $hilippines $<IL0O'/+T provides satellite services to companies like Globe 'ackay "now Globe&

and $L)T

Bnder /ection = of the same law, $<IL0O'/+T was e#empt from the 1urisdiction, control and regulation

of the $ublic /ervice 0ommission later known as the 4ational Telecommunications 0ommission "4T0&

<owever, *#ecutive Order 4o 5> was later promulgated and the same has placed $<IL0O'/+T under

the 1urisdiction of the 4T0 0onse2uently, $<IL0O'/+T has to ac2uire permit to operate from the 4T0

in order to continue operating its e#isting satellites 4T0 gave the necessary permit but it however directed $<IL0O'/+T to reduce its current rates by 5=U 4T0 based its power to fi# the rates on *O

=8

$<IL0O'/+T now sues 4T0 and its commissioner "!ose Luis +lcuaz& assailed the said directive and

holds that the enabling act "*O =8& of the 4T0, empowering it to fi# rates for public service

communications, does not provide the necessary standards which were constitutionally re2uired, hence,

there is an undue delegation of legislative power, particularly the ad1udicatory powers of 4T0

$<IL0O'/+T asserts that nowhere in the provisions of *O =8, providing for the creation of 4T0 and

granting its rate@fi#ing powers, nor of *O 5>, placing $<IL0O'/+T under the 1urisdiction of 4T0, can it

be inferred that 4T0 is guided by any standard in the e#ercise of its rate@fi#ing and ad1udicatory powers

$<IL0O'/+T subse2uently clarified its said submission to mean that the order mandating a reduction of

certain rates is undue delegation not of legislative but of 2uasi@1udicial power to 4T0, the e#ercise of

which allegedly re2uires an e#press conferment by the legislative body

ISSUE: -hether or not there is an undue delegation of power

HELD: 4o There is no undue delegation The power of the 4T0 to fi# rates )/ 7)m)te b0 t,e

reF-)reme*t/ o< p-b7)( /'<et0! p-b7)( )*tere/t! re'/o*'b7e <e'/)b)7)t0 '* re'/o*'b7e r'te/! >,)(,

(o*o)*t70 more t,'* /'t)/<0 t,e reF-)reme*t/ o< ' ?'7) e7e+'t)o* o< 7e+)/7't)?e

po>er %undamental is the rule that delegation of legislative power may be sustained only upon the

ground that some standard for its e#ercise is provided and that the legislature in making the delegation

has prescribed the manner of the e#ercise of the delegated power

Therefore, when the administrative agency concerned, 4T0 in this case, establishes a rate, its act must

both be non@confiscatory and must have been established in the manner prescribed by the legislatureH



otherwise, in the absence of a fi#ed standard, the delegation of power becomes unconstitutional In case

of a delegation of rate@fi#ing power, the only standard which the legislature is re2uired to prescribe for the

guidance of the administrative authority is that the rate be reasonable and 1ust <owever, it has been held

that even in the absence of an e#press re2uirement as to reasonableness, this standard may be implied

<owever, in this case, it appears that the manner of fi#ing the rates was done without due process since

no hearing was made in ascertaining the rate imposed upon $<IL0O'/+T



$*O$L* A %+!+3)O "5>=9&

3eyes, !;L

%acts

+ug 5=, 5>=7 @ !uan %a1ardo was the mayor of ;aoo, 0amarines /ur )uring his term the municipal

council passed Ordinance 4o 6 which prohibited the construction or repair of any building without a

written permit from the mayor prior to construction or repairing

5>=8 @ %a1ardo and ;abillonia "%a1ardo’s son@in@law& applied for a permit to construct a building ad1acent

to their gas station, still on %a1ardo’s private land, separated from public plaza by a creek

!an 5, 5>=8 V re2uest denied because it would destroy the view of the public plaza

o +pplicants appealed but were turned down again on !an 59, 5>=8

%a1ardo and ;abillonia proceeded to construct even without a permit because they claimed that they

needed a residence badly due to a typhoon destroying their previous place of residence

%eb ?, 5>=8 V %a1ardo et at, were charged and convicted by peace court of ;aoo for violating

Ordinance no 6

o 0%I V +ffirmed

o 0+ forwarded the case to the /0 because the appeal attacks the constitutionality of the ordinance in

2uestionJ

Issue(<eldD -(4 Ordinance 4o 6 is a valid e#ercise police power in its regulation of property



4O Ordinance 4o 6 went beyond the authority that the municipality could enact and is therefore null and

void %a1ardo et al, ac2uitted

3atioD

W The ordinance is not merely lacking in providing standards to guide and(or control the discretion

vested by the ordinance /T+4)+3)/ +3* *4TI3*L. L+0:I4G I4 T<I/ 0+/*

o Ordinance grants mayor arbitrary and unrestricted power to grant(deny construction(repair permits

W Legislation may validly regulate property in the interest of general welfare

$rohibition of offensive structures <O-*A*3, Xthe state may not under the guise of police power

permanently divest owners of the beneficial use of their property and practically confiscate them solely to

preserve or assure the aesthetic appearance of the community’

o I4 T<I/ 0+/*D /tructures regardless of their own beauty and regardless of the fact that they are built

on private land are condemned by the ordinance appellants constrained would be constrained to leavetheir land to idle without receiving 1ust compensation for the virtual confiscation of their private land

W 'unicipal government 1ustified the ordinance under 3evised +dministrative 0ode V /ec ??8C V 0 V

that municipal council shall have authority to e#ercise discretionary powers regarding establishing fire

limits in populous centers empowers municipal government to re2uire construction(repair permits, to

charge fees for such permits

o I4 T<I/ 0+/*D there were no fire limits or safety regulations that the municipal council promulgated in

order to set a standard in the type of building that can be safely constructed in the public plaza



Luis A. Tabuena, et al. vs. Sandiganbayan (268 SCRA 332, February 17, 17!

FACTS"

Then Pres. Ferdinand Marcos instructed Luis Tabuena, General Manager of the Manila

International Airport Authority (MIAA), oer the phone to pay directly to the president!s

office and in cash "hat the MIAA o"es the Phil. #ational $onstruction $orp. The erbal

instruction "as reiterated in a Presidential %e%orandu%.

In obedience to Pres. Marcos! instruction, Tabuena, "ith the help of Gerardo &abao and

Adolfo Peralta, the Asst. Gen. Mgr. and the Acting Finance 'erices Mgr. of MIAA,

respectiely, caused the release of PM of MIAA funds of three () "ithdra"als and

deliered the %oney to Mrs. Fe *oa+Gi%ene, priate secretary of Marcos. Gi%ene issued

a receipt for all the a%ounts she receied fro% Tabuena. Later, it turned out that P#$$

neer receied the %oney.

The case inoles t"o (-) separate petitions for reie" by Luis Tabuena and Adolfo Peralta.

They appeal the 'andiganbayan decision conicting the% of %alersation of MIAA funds in

the a%ount of PM.

Further, petitioners clai%ed that they "ere charged "ith intentional %alersation, as alleged

in the a%ended infor%ation, but it "ould appear that they "ere conicted for %alersation

"ith negligence. ence, their coniction of a cri%e different fro% that charged iolated

their constitutional right to be infor%ed of the accusation.

#SS$%"

(/) 0hether or not the 'andiganbayan conicted the% of a cri%e not charged in thea%ended infor%ation1 and

(-) 0hether or not Tabuena and Peralta acted in good faith.

&%L'"

(/) #o. Malersation is co%%itted either intentionally or by negligence. The dolo or the

culpa present in the offense is only a %odality in the perpetration of the felony. 2en if

the %ode charged differs fro% the %ode proed, the sa%e offense of %alersation isinoled.

(-) 3es. Tabuena acted in strict co%pliance "ith the MA*$4' Me%orandu%. The ordere%anated fro% the Office of the President and bears the signature of the President

hi%self, the highest official of the land. It carries "ith it the presu%ption that it "as



regularly issued. And on its face, the %e%orandu% is patently la"ful for no la" %a5esthe pay%ent of an obligation illegal. This fact, coupled "ith the urgent tenor for its

e6ecution constrains one to act s"iftly "ithout 7uestion.

o"eer, a %ore co%pelling reason for the A$89ITTAL is the iolation of the accused:s basic

constitutional right to due process. *ecords sho" that the 'andiganbayan actiely too5 part

in the 7uestioning of a defense "itness and of the accused the%seles. The 7uestions of thecourt "ere in the nature of cross e6a%inations characteristic of confrontation, probing and

insinuation. Tabuena and Peralta %ay not hae raised the issue as an error, there is

neertheless no i%pedi%ent for the court to consider such %atter as additional basis for a

reersal since the settled doctrine is that an appeal thro"s the "hole case open to reie",

and it beco%es the duty of the appellate court to correct such errors as %ay be found in the

;udg%ent appealed fro% "hether they are %ade the sub;ect of assign%ents of error or not.

The <cold neutrality of an impartial judge< re7uire%ent of due process "as certainly denied

Tabuena and Peralta "hen the court, "ith its oerealousness, assu%ed the dual role of

%agistrate and adocate. Ti%e and again the $ourt has declared that due process re7uires

no less than the cold neutrality of an i%partial ;udge. That the ;udge %ust not only be

i%partial but %ust also appear to be i%partial, to gie added assurance to the parties that

his decision "ill be ;ust. The parties are entitled to no less than this, as a %ini%u% guaranty

of due process.

2#$2, Luis Tabuena and Adolfo Peralta are ac7uitted of the cri%e of %alersation.



'+30O/ vs '+4GL+$B/

%actsD This case involves a petition of mandamus and prohibition asking the court to order the

respondents /ecretary of %oreign +ffairs, etc To issue a travel documents to former $res 'arcos and the

immediate members of his family and to en1oin the implementation of the $residentFs decision to bar their

return to the $hilippines $etitioners assert that the right of the 'arcoses to return in the $hilippines is

guaranteed by the ;ill of 3ights, specifically /ections 5 and They contended that $res +2uino is

without power to impair the liberty of abode of the 'arcoses because only a court may do so within the

limits prescribed by law 4or the $resident impair their right to travel because no law has authorized her to

do so

They further assert that under international law, their right to return to the $hilippines is guaranteed

particularly by the Bniversal )eclaration of <uman 3ights and the International 0ovenant on 0ivil and

$olitical 3ights, which has been ratified by the $hilippines

IssueD -hether or not, in the e#ercise of the powers granted by the constitution, the $resident "+2uino&

may prohibit the 'arcoses from returning to the $hilippines

<eldD EIt must be emphasized that the individual right involved is not the right to travel from the $hilippines

to other countries or within the $hilippines These are what the right to travel would normally connote

*ssentially, the right involved in this case at bar is the right to return to oneFs country, a distinct right under

international law, independent from although related to the right to travel Thus, the Bniversal )eclarationof <uman 3ights and the International 0ovenant on 0ivil and $olitical 3ights treat the right to freedom of

movement and abode within the territory of a state, the right to leave the country, and the right to enter

oneFs country as separate and distinct rights -hat the )eclaration speaks of is the Eright to freedom of

movement and residence within the borders of each stateE On the other hand, the 0ovenant guarantees

the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence and the right to be free to leave any

country, including his own /uch rights may only be restricted by laws protecting the national security,

public order, public health or morals or the separate rights of others <owever, right to enter oneFs country

cannot be arbitrarily deprived It would be therefore inappropriate to construe the limitations to the right to

return to ones country in the same conte#t as those pertaining to the liberty of abode and the right to

travel

The ;ill of rights treats only the liberty of abode and the right to travel, but it is a well considered view thatthe right to return may be considered, as a generally accepted principle of International Law and under

our 0onstitution as part of the law of the land

The court held that $resident did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining that

the return of the %ormer $res 'arcos and his family poses a serious threat to national interest and

welfare $resident +2uino has determined that the destabilization caused by the return of the 'arcoses

would wipe away the gains achieved during the past few years after the 'arcos regime



The return of the 'arcoses poses a serious threat and therefore prohibiting their return to the $hilippines,

the instant petition is hereby )I/'I//*)

G'7m'* V/. S'*)+'*b'0'*

1 SCRA 3

G.R. No.=26="

September 12! 196

%'(t/: +ssassination of former /enator ;enigno E4inoyE +2uino, !r <e was killed from his plane

that had 1ust landed at the 'anila International +irport <is brain was smashed by a bullet fired point@

blank into the back of his head by an assassin The military investigators reported within a span of

three hours that the man who shot +2uino "whose identity was then supposed to be unknown andwas revealed only days later as 3olando Galman& was a communist@hired gunman, and that the

military escorts gunned him down in turn

$resident was constrained to create a %act %inding ;oard to investigate due to large masses of

people who 1oined in the ten@day period of national mourning yearning for the truth, 1ustice and

freedom

The fact is that both ma1ority and minority reports were one in re1ecting the military version stating

that Ethe evidence shows to the contrary that 3olando Galman had no subversive affiliations Only

the soldiers in the staircase with /en +2uino could have shot himH that 4inoyFs assassination was

the product of a military conspiracy, not a communist plot Only difference between the two reports is

that the ma1ority report found all the twenty@si# private respondents above@named in the title of the

case involved in the military conspiracyH E while the chairmanFs minority report would e#clude

nineteen of them

Then $res 'arcos stated that evidence shows that Galman was the killer

$etitioners pray for issuance of a T3O en1oining respondent court from rendering a decision in the

two criminal cases before it, the 0ourt resolved by nine@to@two votes 55 to issue the restraining order

prayed for The 0ourt also granted petitioners a five@day period to file a reply to respondentsF

separate comments and respondent Tanodbayan a three@day period to submit a copy of his 98@pagememorandum for the prosecution

;ut ten days later, the 0ourt by the same nine@to@two@vote ratio in reverse, resolved to dismiss the

petition and to lift the T3O issued ten days earlier en1oining the /andiganbayan from rendering its

decision The same 0ourt ma1ority denied petitionersF motion for a new =@day period counted from

receipt of respondent TanodbayanFs memorandum for the prosecution "which apparently was not

served on them&



Thus, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging that the dismissal did not indicate the

legal ground for such action and urging that the case be set for a full hearing on the merits that the

people are entitled to due process

<owever, respondent /andiganbayan issued its decision ac2uitting all the accused of the crimecharged, declaring them innocent and totally absolving them of any civil liability 3espondents

submitted that with the /andiganbayanFs verdict of ac2uittal, the instant case had become moot and

academic Thereafter, same 0ourt ma1ority denied petitionersF motion for reconsideration for lack of

merit

<ence, petitioners filed their motion to admit their second motion for reconsideration alleging that

respondents committed serious irregularities constituting mistrial and resulting in miscarriage of

1ustice and gross violation of the constitutional rights of the petitioners and the sovereign people of

the $hilippines to due process of law

I//-e:

• -hether or not petitioner was deprived of his rights as an accused

• -hether or not there was a violation of the double 1eopardy clause

He7: $etitionersF second motion for reconsideration is granted and ordering a re@trial of the said

cases which should be conducted with deliberate dispatch and with careful regard for the

re2uirements of due process

)eputy Tanodbayan 'anuel <errera "made his e#pose 5= months later when former $res was no

longer around& affirmed the allegations in the second motion for reconsideration that he revealed

that the /andiganbayan !ustices and Tanodbayan prosecutors were ordered by 'arcos to

whitewash the +2uino@Galman murder case 'alacaang wanted dismissal to the e#tent that a

prepared resolution was sent to the Investigating $anel 'alacaang 0onference planned a scenario

of trial where the former $resident ordered then that the resolution be revised by categorizing the

participation of each respondentH decided that the presiding 1ustice, !ustice $amaran, "%irst )ivision&

would personally handle the trial + conference was held in an inner room of the $alace Only the

%irst Lady and $residential Legal +ssistant !ustice Lazaro were with the $resident The conferees

were told to take the back door in going to the room where the meeting was held, presumably to

escape notice by the visitors in the reception hall waiting to see the $resident )uring the

conference, and after an agreement was reached, $res 'arcos told them FOkay, mag moro@moro na

lamang kayoHF and that on their way out of the room $res 'arcos e#pressed his thanks to the group

and uttered FI know how to reciprocateF

The 0ourt then said that the then $resident "code@named Olympus& had stage@managed in and from

'alacaang $alace Ea scripted and predetermined manner of handling and disposing of the +2uino@

Galman murder caseHE and that Ethe prosecution in the +2uino@Galman case and the !ustices who

tried and decided the same acted under the compulsion of some pressure which proved to be

beyond their capacity to resist +lso predetermined the final outcome of the caseE of total absolution

of the twenty@si# respondents@accused of all criminal and civil liability $res 'arcos came up with a



public statement aired over television that /enator +2uino was killed not by his military escorts, but

by a communist hired gun It was, therefore, not a source of wonder that $resident 'arcos would

want the case disposed of in a manner consistent with his announced theory thereof which, at the

same time, would clear his name and his administration of any suspected guilty participation in the

assassination such a procedure would be a better arrangement because, if the accused are

charged in court and subse2uently ac2uitted, they may claim the benefit of the doctrine of double 1eopardy and thereby avoid another prosecution if some other witnesses shall appear when

$resident 'arcos is no longer in office

'ore so was there suppression of vital evidence and harassment of witnesses The disappearance

of witnesses two weeks after 4inoyFs assassination +ccording to ! <errera, Enobody was looking for

these persons because they said 'arcos was in power The assignment of the case to $residing

!ustice $amaranH no evidence at all that the assignment was indeed by virtue of a regular raffle,

e#cept the uncorroborated testimony of !ustice $amaran himself The custody of the accused and

their confinement in a military camp, instead of in a civilian 1ail The monitoring of proceedings and

developments from 'alacaang and by 'alacaang personnel The partiality of /andiganbayan

betrayed by its decisionD That $resident 'arcos had wanted all of the twenty@si# accused to be

ac2uitted may not be denied In rendering its decision, the /andiganbayan overdid itself in favoring

the presidential directive Its bias and partiality in favor of the accused was clearly obvious The

evidence presented by the prosecution was totally ignored and disregarded

The record shows that the then $resident misused the overwhelming resources of the government

and his authoritarian powers to corrupt and make a mockery of the 1udicial process in the +2uino@

Galman murder cases EThis is the evil of one@man rule at its very worstE Our $enal 0ode penalizes

Eany e#ecutive officer who shall address any order or suggestion to any 1udicial authority with

respect to any case or business coming within the e#clusive 1urisdiction of the courts of 1usticeE

Impartial court is the very essence of due process of law This criminal collusion as to the handling

and treatment of the cases by public respondents at the secret 'alacaang conference "and

revealed only after fifteen months by !ustice 'anuel <errera& completely dis2ualified respondent

/andiganbayan and voided ab initio its verdict The courts would have no reason to e#ist if they were

allowed to be used as mere tools of in1ustice, deception and duplicity to subvert and suppress the

truth 'ore so, in the case at bar where the people and the world are entitled to know the truth, and

the integrity of our 1udicial system is at stake

There was no double 1eopardy 0ourtsF 3esolution of ac2uittal was a void 1udgment for having been

issued without 1urisdiction 4o double 1eopardy attaches, therefore + void 1udgment is, in legal effect,

no 1udgment at all ;y it no rights are divested It neither binds nor bars anyone +ll acts and all

claims flowing out of it are void

'otion to )is2ualify(Inhibit should have been resolved ahead In this case, petitionersF motion for

reconsideration of the abrupt dismissal of their petition and lifting of the T3O en1oining the

/andiganbayan from rendering its decision had been taken cognizance of by the 0ourt which had

re2uired the respondentsF, including the /andiganbayanFs, comments +lthough no restraining order



was issued anew, respondent /andiganbayan should not have precipitately issued its decision of

total absolution of all the accused pending the final action of this 0ourt +ll of the acts of the

respondent 1udge manifest grave abuse of discretion on his part amounting to lack of 1urisdiction

which substantively pre1udiced the petitioner

-ith the declaration of nullity of the proceedings, the cases must now be tried before an impartialcourt with an unbiased prosecutor 3espondents accused must now face trial for the crimes charged

against them before an impartial court with an unbiased prosecutor with all due process

The function of the appointing authority with the mandate of the people, under our system of

government, is to fill the public posts !ustices and 1udges must ever realize that they have no

constituency, serve no ma1ority nor minority but serve only the public interest as they see it in

accordance with their oath of office, guided only the 0onstitution and their own conscience and

honor



T+T+) vs /+4)IG+4;+.+4

%actsD The complainant, +ntonio de los 3eyes, originally filed what he termed Ea reportE with the Legal

$anel of the $residential /ecurity 0ommand "$/0& on October 5>68, containing charges of alleged

violations of 3ep +ct 4o C75> against then /ecretary of $ublic Information %rancisco / Tatad The

EreportE was made to EsleepE in the office of the $/0 until the end of 5>6> when it became widely known

that /ecretary "then 'inister& Tatad had a falling out with $resident 'arcos and had resigned from the

0abinet On )ecember 5?, 5>6>, the 5>68 complaint was resurrected in the form of a formal complaint

filed with the Tanodbayan The Tanodbayan acted on the complaint on +pril 5, 5>97 which was around

two months after petitioner TatadFs resignation was accepted by $res 'arcos by referring the complaint

to the 0I/, $residential /ecurity 0ommand, for investigation and report On !une 5, 5>97, the 0I/ report

was submitted to the Tanodbayan, recommending the filing of charges for graft and corrupt practices

against former 'inister Tatad and +ntonio L 0antero ;y October ?=, 5>9?, all affidavits and counter@affidavits were in the case was already for disposition by the Tanodbayan <owever, it was only on !une

=, 5>9= that a resolution was approved by the Tanodbayan %ive criminal informations were filed with the

/andiganbayan on !une 5?, 5>9=, all against petitioner Tatad alone "5& /ection C, paragraph "e& of 3+

C75> for giving )F Group, a private corporation controlled by his brother@in@law, unwarranted benefits,

advantage or preference in the discharge of his official functionsH "?& Aiolation of /ection C, paragraph "b&

for receiving a check of $5?=,77777 from 3oberto Aallar, $resident(General 'anager of +mity Trading

0orporation as consideration for the release of a check of $=99,77777 to said corporation for printing

services rendered for the 0onstitutional 0onvention 3eferendum in 5>6CH "C& Aiolation of /ection 6 on

three "C& counts for his failure to file his /tatement of +ssets and Liabilities for the calendar years 5>6C,

5>6 and 5>69 + motion to 2uash the information was made alleging that the prosecution deprived

accused of due process of law and of the right to a speedy disposition of the cases filed against him It

was denied hence the appeal

IssueD -hether or not petitioner was deprived of his rights as an accused

<eldD .*/ )ue process "$rocedural& and right to speedy disposition of trial were violated %irstly, the

complaint came to life, as it were, only after petitioner Tatad had a falling out with $resident 'arcos

/econdly, departing from established procedures prescribed by law for preliminary investigation, which

re2uire the submission of affidavits and counter@affidavits by the complainant and the respondent and

their witnesses, the Tanodbayan referred the complaint to the $residential /ecurity 0ommand for finding

investigation and report The law "$) 4o >55& prescribes a ten@day period for the prosecutor to resolve

a case under preliminary investigation by him from its termination -hile we agree with the respondent

court that this period fi#ed by law is merely Edirectory,E yet, on the other hand, it can not be disregarded or

ignored completely, with absolute impunity + delay of close to three "C& years can not be deemedreasonable or 1ustifiable in the light of the circumstance obtaining in the case at bar



-ebb v )e Leon

G3 4o 5?5?C8

+ugust ?C, 5>>=

%+0T/D

On !une 5>, 5>>8, the 4ational ;ureau of Investigation filed with the )O! a letter@complaint charging

petitioners <ubert -ebb, 'ichael Gatchalian, +ntonio ! Le1ano and other persons with the crime of

3ape and <omicide of 0armela 4 Aizconde, her mother *strellita 4icolas@Aizconde, and her sister +nne

'arie !ennifer in their home at 4umber 97 - Ainzons, /t, ;% <omes, $arana2ue, 'etro 'anila on !uneC7, 5>>5

%orthwith, the )O! formed a panel of prosecutors headed by +sst 0hief /tate $rosecutor !ovencio 3

uno to conduct the preliminary investigation

$etitionersD fault the )O! $anel for its finding of probable cause They assail the credibility of !essica

+lfaro as inherently weak and uncorroborated due to her inconsistencies between her +pril ?9, 5>>= and

'ay ??, 5>>= sown statements They criticize the procedure followed by the )O! $anel when it did not

e#amine witnesses to clarify the alleged inconsistencies

charge that respondent !udge 3aul de Leon and respondent !udge +melita Tolentino issued warrants

of arrest against them without conducting the re2uired preliminary e#amination

0omplain about the denial of their constitutional right to due process and violation of their right to an

impartial investigation They also assail the pre1udicial publicity that attended their preliminary

investigation

I//B*/D

"5& )id the )O! $anel gravely abuse its discretion in holding that there is probable cause to charge

accused with crime of rape and homicide

"?& )id respondent 1udges de Leon and Tolentino gravely abuse their discretion when they failed toconduct a preliminary e#amination before issuing warrants of arrest against the accused

"C& )id the )O! $anel deny them their constitutional right to due process during their preliminary

investigation

"8& )id the )O! $anel unlawfully intrude into 1udicial prerogative when it failed to charge !essica +lfaro in

the information as an accused



<*L)D

"5& 4O Aalid determination @@ + probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely

than not, a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspects $robable cause need not be

based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable

doubt and definitely, not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt

"?& 4O Aalid arrest @@ In arrest cases, there must be a probable cause that a crime has been committed

and that the person arrested committed it

/ection of 3ule 55? provides that V upon filing of an information, the 3T0 may issue a warrant for the

accusedJ

0learly then, our laws repudiate the submission that respondent 1udges should have conductedsearching e#amination of witnessesJ before issuing warrants of arrest against them

"C& 4O There is no merit in this contention because petitioners were given all the opportunities to be

heard

The )O! $anel precisely re2uested the parties to adduce more evidence in their behalf and for the panel

to study the evidence submitted more fully

"8& 4O

$etitionerFs argument lacks appeal for it lies on the faulty assumption that the decision whom to prosecute

is a 1udicial function, the sole prerogative of courts and beyond e#ecutive and legislative interference

In truth, the prosecution of crimes appertains to the e#ecutive department whose principal power and

responsibility is to see that our laws are faithfully e#ecuted + necessary component of this right is to

prosecute their violators



G3 4o 99>>@>7C 'ay 5=, 5>9>

56C /03+ 87> @ )eloso vs /andiganbayan

This petition seeks to annul and set aside the resolution of the /andiganbayan which preventively

suspended petitioner +mor ) )eloso "accused in the criminal cases& from his position as provincial

governor of ambales and from any office that he may be holding

)eloso was the duly elected mayor of ;otolan, ambales in the local elections of 4ovember 5>65 -hile

he occupied the position of mayor, a certain !uan Aillanueva filed a complaint with the Tanodbayan

accusing him of having committed acts in violation of the +nti@Graft Law "3epublic +ct C75>& for issuing to

certain )aniel %errer a tractor purchased by the 'unicipality of ;otolan thru a loan financed by the Land

;ank of the $hilippines for lease to local farmers at reasonable cost, without any agreement as to the

payment of rentals for the use of tractor by the latter, thereby, causing undue in1ury to the 'unicipality of

;otolan

)eloso was, then, elected governor of the $rovince of ambales in the !anuary 59, 5>99 local elections

I//B*

-hether or not the petitioner be suspended indefinitely

<*L)

It would be most unfair to the people of ambales who elected the petitioner to the highest provincial

office in their command if they are deprived of his services for an indefinite period with the termination of

his case possibly e#tending beyond his entire term

The 0ourt rules that a preventive suspension of an elective public officer under /ection 5C of 3epublic

+ct C75> should be limited to the ninety ">7& days under /ection 8? of $residential )ecree 4o 976, the

0ivil /ervice )ecree, which period also appears reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances of

this case

The petitioner may still be suspended but for specifically e#pressed reasons and not from an automatic

application of /ection 5C of the +nti@Graft and 0orrupt $ractices +ct

-<*3*%O3*, the instant petition is G3+4T*) The preventive suspension limited to only ninety ">7&days after which )eloso will assume once again the functions of governor of ambales



G3 4o 5=67C, !une >, ?778

+ mere license is always revocable

%+0T/D

This case is about the ban on the carrying of firearms outside of residence in order to deter the rising

crime rates $etitioner 2uestions the ban as a violation of his right to property

I//B*D

-hether or not the revocation of permit to carry firearms is unconstitutional

-hether or not the right to carry firearms is a vested property right

<*L)D

$etitioner cannot find solace to the above@2uoted 0onstitutional provision

In evaluating a due process claim, the first and foremost consideration must be whether life, liberty or

property interest e#ists The bulk of 1urisprudence is that a license authorizing a person to en1oy a certain

privilege is neither a property nor property right In Tan vs The )irector of %orestry, we ruled that a

license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful, and is not a contract

between the authority granting it and the person to whom it is grantedH neither is it property or a property

right, nor does it create a vested rightJ In a more emphatic pronouncement, we held in Oposa vs%actoran, !r thatD

4eedless to say, all licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by e#ecutive action It is not a contract,

property or a property right protected by the due process clause of the 0onstitutionJ

In our 1urisdiction, the $4$ 0hief is granted broad discretion in the issuance of $T0%O3 This is evident

from the tenor of the Implementing 3ules and 3egulations of $) 4o 59 which state that the 0hief of

0onstabulary may, in meritorious cases as determined by him and under such conditions as he may

impose, authorize lawful holders of firearms to carry them outside of residenceJ %ollowing the +merican

doctrine, it is indeed logical to say that a $T0%O3 does not constitute a property right protected under our

0onstitution

0onse2uently, a $T0%O3, 1ust like ordinary licenses in other regulated fields, may be revoked any time It

does not confer an absolute right, but only a personal privilege to be e#ercised under e#isting restrictions,

and such as may thereafter be reasonably imposed + licensee takes his license sub1ect to such

conditions as the Legislature sees fit to impose, and one of the statutory conditions of this license is that it

might be revoked by the selectmen at their pleasure /uch a license is not a contract, and a revocation of

it does not deprive the defendant of any property, immunity, or privilege within the meaning of these words

in the )eclaration of 3ights The B/ /upreme 0ourt, in )oyle vs 0ontinental Ins 0o, heldD The



correlative power to revoke or recall a permission is a necessary conse2uence of the main power + mere

license by the /tate is always revocableJ

due process case digestw

Documents