PBM Employees Organization v.

Philippine Blooming Mills (PBM) [GR L- Union and its members from the harassment of local police officers. It
31195, 5 June 1973] was to the interest of the firm to rally to the defense of, and to take
Facts: up the cudgels for, its employees, so that they can report to work free
On 1 March 1969, members, and officers of the Philippine Blooming from harassment, vexation or peril and as a consequence perform more
Mills Employees Organization (PBMEO) decided to stage a mass efficiently their respective tasks to enhance its productivity as well as
demonstration at Malacañang on 4 March 1969, in protest against profits. Although the demonstration paralyzed to a large extent the
alleged abuses of the Pasig police, to be participated in by the workers operations of the complainant company, there is no finding involving
in the first shift (from 6 A.M. to 2 P.M.) as well as those in the regular the loss actually sustained by the firm. On the contrary, the company
second and third shifts (from 7 A.M. to 4 P.M. and from 8 A.M. to 5 saved a sizable amount in the form of wages for its hundreds of
P.M., respectively). They informed the Company of their proposed workers, cost of fuel, water, and electric consumption that day. Such
demonstration and proceeded with the demonstration despite pleas savings could have amply compensated for unrealized profits or
from the Philippine Blooming Mills. The Company filed on 4 March 1969 damages it might have sustained by reason of the absence of its
with the lower court, charging the PBMEO officers and participating workers for only one day.
members of violation of Section 4(a) to 6 in relation to Section 13 to
14, as well as Section 15, of Republic Act 875 and with the CBA Lozano v. Martinez [GR L-63419, 18 December 1986]
providing for No Strike and No Lockout. The charge was followed by Facts: Batas Pambansa 22 (BP22; Bouncing Check Law) was approved
the filing of a corresponding complaint on 18 April 1969. Judge on 3 April 1979. The petitions arose from cases involving prosecution
Joaquin Salvador, in an order dated 15 September 1969, found PBMEO of offenses under BP22. (Florentina A. Lozano vs. RTC Judge Antonio
guilty of bargaining in bad faith and declaring the officers and members M. Martinez [Manila, Branch XX] in GR L-63419, Luzviminda F. Lobaton
directly responsible for perpetrating the said unfair labor practice and vs. RTC Executive Judge Glicerio L. Cruz [Lemery Batangas, Branch V]
were considered to have lost their status as employees of the in GR L-66839-42, Antonio and Susan Datuin vs. RTC Judge Ernani C.
company. A motion for reconsideration was filed 15 September 1969, Pano [Quezon City, Branch LXXVIII] in GR 71654, Oscar Violago vs. RTC
which was dismissed in a resolution dated 9 October 1969. On 31 Judge Ernani C. Pano [Quezon City, Branch LXXVIII] in GR 74524-25,
October 1969, PBMEO filed with the Court of Industria Relations (CIR) a Elinor Abad vs. RTC Judge Nicolad A. Gerochi Jr. [Makati, Branch 139]
petition for relief from the order dated 9 October 1969, on the ground in GR 75122-49, Amable and Sylvia Aguiluz vs. Presiding Judge of
that their failure to file their motion for reconsideration on time was Branch 154 of Pasig in GR 75812- 13, Luis M. Hojas vs. RTC Judge
due to excusable negligence and honest mistake committed by the Senen Penaranda [Cagayan de Oro, Branch XX] in GR 72565-67, and
president of the Union and of the office clerk of their counsel. Without People vs. RTC Judge David Nitafan [Manila, Branch 52] and Thelma
waiting for any resolution on their petition for relief, PBMEO filed on 3 Sarmiento in GR 75789]. Lozano, Lobaton, Datuin, Violago, Abad,
November 1969, with the Supreme Court, a notice of appeal. Aguiluz, Hojas and Sarmiento moved seasonably to quash the
informations on the ground that the acts charged did not constitute an
Issue: offense, the statute being unconstitutional. The motions were denied
Whether the Company can prevent its workers from engaging in by the trial courts, except in one case, which is the subject of GR
concerted activity against alleged abuses of policemen, especially if 75789 (People vs. Nitafan), wherein the trial court declared the law
such work stoppage would prejudice the Company’s operation, else its unconstitutional and dismissed the case. The parties adversely affected
profits. have come to the Supreme Court for relief.

Held: Issue:
The demonstration, being directed against alleged abuses of policemen Whether BP 22 is a valid legislative act
and not against their employer, was purely and completely an exercise
of their freedom of expression in general and of their right of assembly Held:
and of petition for redress of grievances in particular before the Yes. It is within the authority of the legislature to enact such a law in
appropriate governmental agency. They exercised their civil and the exercise of the police power. It is within the prerogative of the
political rights for their mutual aid and protection from what they lawmaking body to proscribe certain acts deemed pernicious and
believe were police excesses. It was the duty of the firm to protect the inimical to public welfare. Acts mala in se are not the only acts which
the law can punish. An act may not be considered by society as Held:
inherently wrong, hence, not malum in se, but because of the harm Yes. There is no constitutional infirmity in the Generics Act; rather, it
that it inflicts on the community, it can be outlawed and criminally implements the constitutional mandate for the State "to protect and
punished as malum prohibitum. BP 22 is aimed at putting a stop to or promote the right to health of the people" and "to make essential
curbing the practice of issuing checks that are worthless, i.e. checks goods, health and other social services available to all the people at
that end up being rejected or dishonored for payment. The thrust of affordable cost" (Section 15, Art. II and Section 11, Art. XIII, 1987
the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making of Constitution). The prohibition against the use by doctors of "no
worthless checks and putting them in circulation. The law punishes the substitution" and/or words of similar import in their prescription, is a
act not as an offense against property, but an offense against public valid regulation to prevent the circumvention of the law. It secures to
order. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law the patient the right to choose between the brand name and its
punishes, nor is it intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his generic equivalent since his doctor is allowed to write both the generic
debt. Further, a statute is presumed to be valid. Every presumption and the brand name in his prescription form. If a doctor is allowed to
must be indulged in favor of its constitutionality. Where it is clear that prescribe a brand-name drug with "no substitution," the patient's
the legislature has overstepped the limits of its authority under the option to buy a lower-priced, but equally effective, generic equivalent
constitution, the Court should not hesitate to wield the axe and let it would thereby be curtailed. The law aims to benefit the impoverished
fall heavily on the offending statute. (and often sickly) majority of the population in a still developing
country like ours, not the affluent and generally healthy minority.
Del Rosario v. Bengzon [GR 88265, 21 December 1989]
Facts: Tablarin v. Gutierrez (J) [GR 78164, 31 July 1987]
On 15 March 1989, the full text of Republic Act 6675 was published in Facts:
two newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines. The law took Teresita Tablarin, Ma. Luz Ciriaco, Ma. Nimfa B. Rovira, and Evangelina
effect on 30 March 1989, 15 days after its publication, as provided in S. Labao sought admission into colleges or schools of medicine for the
Section 15 thereof. Section 7, Phase 3 of Administrative Order 62 was school year 1987-1988. However, they either did not take or did not
amended by Administrative Order 76 dated 28 August 1989 by successfully take the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) required
postponing to 1 January 1990 the effectivity of the sanctions and by the Board of Medical Education and administered by the Center for
penalties for violations of the law, provided in Sections 6 and 12 of the Educational Measurement (CEM). On 5 March 1987, Tablarin, et. al., in
Generics Act and Sections 4 and 7 of the Administrative Order. Officers behalf of applicants for admission into the Medical Colleges who have
of the Philippine Medical Association, the national organization of not taken up or successfully hurdled the NMAT, filed with the Regional
medical doctors in the Philippines, on behalf of their professional Trial Court (RTC), National Capital Judicial Region, a Petition for
brethren who are of kindred persuasion, filed a class suit requesting the Declaratory Judgment and Prohibition with a prayer for Temporary
Court to declare some provisions (specifically penal) of the Generics Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction, to enjoin the
Act of 1988 and the implementing Administrative Order 62 issued Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports, the Board of Medical
pursuant thereto as unconstitutional, hence, null and void. The petition Education and the Center for Educational Measurement from enforcing
was captioned as an action for declaratory relief, over which the Court Section 5 (a) and (f) of Republic Act 2382, as amended, and MECS
does not exercise jurisdiction. Nevertheless, in view of the public Order 52 (series of 1985), dated 23 August 1985 [which established a
interest involved, the Court decided to treat it as a petition for uniform admission test (NMAT) as an additional requirement for
prohibition instead. issuance of a certificate of eligibility for admission into medical schools
of the Philippines, beginning with the school year 1986-1987] and
Issue: from requiring the taking and passing of the NMAT as a condition for
Whether the prohibition against the use by doctors of "no securing certificates of eligibility for admission, from proceeding with
substitution" and/or words of similar import in their prescription in the accepting applications for taking the NMAT and from administering the
Generics Act is a lawful regulation. NMAT as scheduled on 26 April 1987 and in the future. After hearing
on the petition for issuance of preliminary injunction, the trial court
denied said petition on 20 April 1987. The NMAT was conducted and
administered as previously scheduled. Tablarin, et. al. accordingly filed
a Special Civil Action for Certiorari with the Supreme Court to set aside persons without his filling up the prescribed form in a lobby open to
the Order of the RTC judge denying the petition for issuance of a writ public view at all times and in his presence, wherein the surname, given
of preliminary injunction. name and middle name, the date of birth, the address, the occupation,
the sex, the nationality, the length of stay and the number of
Issue: companions in the room, if any, with the name, relationship, age and
Whether NMAT requirement for admission to medical colleges sex would be specified, with data furnished as to his residence
contravenes the Constitutional guarantee for the accessibility of certificate as well as his passport number, if any, coupled with a
education to all, and whether such regulation is invalid and/or certification that a person signing such form has personally filled it up
unconstitutional. and affixed his signature in the presence of such owner, manager,
keeper or duly authorized representative, with such registration forms
Held: and records kept and bound together; (3) provides that the premises
No. Republic Act 2382, as amended by Republic Acts 4224 and 5946, and facilities of such hotels, motels and lodging houses would be open
known as the "Medical Act of 1959" defines its basic objectives to for inspection either by the City Mayor, or the Chief of Police, or their
govern (a) the standardization and regulation of medical education; (b) duly authorized representatives. The ordinance also classified motels
the examination for registration of physicians; and (c) the supervision, into two classes and required the maintenance of certain minimum
control and regulation of the practice of medicine in the Philippines. facilities in first class motels such as a telephone in each room, a dining
The Statute created a Board of Medical Education and prescribed room or restaurant and laundry; while second class motels are required
certain minimum requirements for applicants to medical schools. The to have a dining room. It prohibited a person less than 18 years old
State is not really enjoined to take appropriate steps to make quality from being accepted in such hotels, motels, lodging houses, tavern or
education "accessible to all who might for any number of reasons wish common inn unless accompanied by parents or a lawful guardian and
to enroll in a professional school but rather merely to make such made it unlawful for the owner, manager, keeper or duly authorized
education accessible to all who qualify under "fair, reasonable and representative of such establishments to lease any room or portion
equitable admission and academic requirements." The regulation of the thereof more than twice every 24 hours. It provided a penalty of
practice of medicine in all its branches has long been recognized as a automatic cancellation of the license of the offended party in case of
reasonable method of protecting the health and safety of the public. conviction. On 5 July 1963, the Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel
The power to regulate and control the practice of medicine includes Operators Association (EMHMOA), its member Hotel del Mar, and a
the power to regulate admission to the ranks of those authorized to certain Go Chiu filed a petition for prohibition against the mayor of the
practice medicine. Legislation and administrative regulations requiring City of Manila in his capacity as he is charged with the general power
those who wish to practice medicine first to take and pass medical and duty to enforce ordinances of the City of Manila and to give the
board examinations have long ago been recognized as valid exercises necessary orders for the faithful execution and enforcement of such
of governmental power. Similarly, the establishment of minimum ordinances. There was a plea for the issuance of preliminary injunction
medical educational requirements for admission to the medical and for a final judgment declaring the above ordinance null and void
profession, has also been sustained as a legitimate exercise of the and unenforceable. The lower court on 6 July 1963 issued a writ of
regulatory authority of the state. preliminary injunction ordering the Mayor to refrain from enforcing said
Ordinance 4760 from and after 8 July 1963. After the submission of
Ermita Malate Hotel & Motel Operators Association v. City of Manila [GR the memoranda, ruled that the City of Manila lack authority to regulate
L-24693, 31 July 1967] motels and rendering Ordinance 4760 unconstitutional and therefore
Facts: On 13 June 1963, Ordinance 4760 was issued by the municipal null and void. It made permanent the preliminary injunction issued by
board of the City of Manila and approved by Vice Mayor Herminio the Mayor and his agents to restrain him from enforcing the ordinance.
Astorga, who was at the time acting Mayor of the City of Manila. The The Mayor of Manila appealed to the Supreme Court.
ordinance (1) imposes a P6,000.00 fee per annum for first class
motels and P4,500.00 for second class motels; (2) requires the owner, Issue:
manager, keeper or duly authorized representative of a hotel, motel, or Whether the regulations imposed on motels and hotels (increasing
lodging house to refrain from entertaining or accepting any guest or license fees, partially restricting the freedom to contract, and
customer or letting any room or other quarter to any person or restraining the liberty of individuals) is valid and/or constitutional.
Held: and validity of Ordinance 84 and dismissed the cases. Hence the
Yes. The ordinance was enacted to minimize certain practices hurtful petition for certiorari by way of appeal.
to public morals. It was made as there is observed an alarming increase
in the rate of prostitution, adultery and fornication in Manila traceable Issue:
in great part to the existence of motels, which provide a necessary Whether the prohibition on the operation of night clubs, to foster
atmosphere for clandestine entry, presence and exit and thus become public morals, is reasonable and/or valid.
the ideal haven for prostitutes and thrill seekers. The ordinance
proposes to check the clandestine harboring of transients and guests Held:
of these establishments by requiring these transients and guests to fill Reasonableness is consonant with the general powers and purposes of
up a registration form, prepared for the purpose, in a lobby open to municipal corporations, as well as consistency with the laws or policy of
public view at all times, and by introducing several other amendatory the State. Sweeping exercise of a lawmaking power could not qualify
provisions calculated to shatter the privacy that characterizes the under the term reasonable. The objective of fostering public morals, a
registration of transients and guests. The increase in the license fees worthy and desirable end can be attained by a measure that does not
was intended to discourage establishments of the kind from operating encompass too wide a field. On its face, the Ordinance is characterized
for purpose other than legal and to increase the income of the city by overbreadth. The purpose sought to be achieved could have been
government. Further, the restriction on the freedom to contract, attained by reasonable restrictions rather than by an absolute
insofar as the challenged ordinance makes it unlawful for the owner, prohibition. A prohibition is a clear invasion of personal or property
manager, keeper or duly authorized representative of any hotel, motel, rights, personal in the case of those individuals desirous of patronizing
lodging house, tavern, common inn or the like, to lease or rent any those night clubs and property in terms of the investments made and
room or portion thereof more than twice every 24 hours, with a salaries to be earned by those therein employed. Republic Act 938 (An
proviso that in all cases full payment shall be charged, cannot be Act granting municipal or city boards and councils the power to
viewed as a transgression against the command of due process. It is regulate the establishment, maintenance and operation of certain
neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. Precisely it was intended to curb places of amusement within their respective territorial jurisdiction)
the opportunity for the immoral or illegitimate use to which such granted the municipal or city board or council of each chartered city to
premises could be, and, are being devoted. Furthermore, the right of have the power to regulate by ordinance the establishment,
the individual is necessarily subject to reasonable restraint by general maintenance and operation of night clubs, cabarets, dancing schools,
law for the common good. The liberty of the citizen may be restrained pavilions, cockpits, bars, saloons, bowling alleys, billiard pools, and
in the interest of the public health, or of the public order and safety, or other similar places of amusement within its territorial jurisdiction. The
otherwise within the proper scope of the police power. State in order power to regulate, was amended to likewise prohibit on 21 May 1954;
to promote the general welfare may interfere with personal liberty, but the title remained intact. The power granted remains that of
with property, and with business and occupations. Persons and regulation, not prohibition. The power claimed to enact the ordinance is
property may be subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in at the most dubious and under the present Local Government Code
order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the non-existent. The law mandates the sangguniang bayan to "(rr)
state. Regulate cafes, restaurants, beer-houses, hotels, motels, inns, pension
houses and lodging houses, except travel agencies, tourist guides,
De la Cruz v. Paras [GR L-42571-72, 25 July 1983] tourist transports, hotels, resorts, de luxe restaurants, and tourist inns
Facts: of international standards which shall remain under the licensing and
The municipality of Bocaue, Bulacan issued Ordinance 84 (Prohibition regulatory power of the Ministry of Tourism which shall exercise such
and Closure Ordinance of Bocaue, Bulacan) prohibited the operation of authority without infringing on the taxing or regulatory powers of the
night clubs, and such clubs employing hostesses. On 5 November municipality; (ss) Regulate public dancing schools, public dance halls,
1975, two cases for prohibition with preliminary injunction were filed and sauna baths or massage parlors; and (tt) Regulate the
with the CFI Bulacan. The cases were assigned to Judge, now Associate establishment and operation of billiard pools, theatrical performances,
Justice Paras of the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC), who issued a circuses and other forms of entertainment. It is clear that municipal
restraining order on 7 November 1975. The answers were thereafter corporations cannot prohibit the operation of night clubs. They may be
filed. On 15 January 1976, the lower court upheld the constitutionality regulated, but not prevented from carrying on their business.
 other local political subdivisions, is empowered to enact ordinances for
Velasco v. Villegas [GR L-24153, 14 February 1983] the purposes indicated in the Local Government Code. It is expressly
Facts: vested with the police power under what is known as the General
Ordinance 4964 was issued by the city of Manila prohibiting any Welfare Clause embodied in Section 16. Its Sangguniang Panglungsod
operator of any barbershop to conduct the business of massaging derives its powers, duties and functions under Section 458 of said
customers or other persons in any adjacent room(s) of said barber Code. In 1992, following its success in several cities, PAGCOR decided
shop, or in any room(s) within the same building where the barber shop to expand its operations to Cagayan de Oro City. To this end, it leased
is located as long as the operator of the barber shop and the rooms a portion of a building belonging to Pryce Properties Corporation Inc.,
where massaging is conducted is the same person. Tomas Velasco, renovated and equipped the same, and prepared to inaugurate its
Lourdes Ramirez, Sy Pin, Edmundo Unson, Apolonia Ramirez, and casino there during the Christmas season. The reaction of the
Lourdes Lomibao, as component members of the Sta. Cruz Barbershop Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City was swift and hostile.
Association, filed petition for declaratory relief with the lower court, On 7 December 1992, it enacted Ordinance 3353 (An Ordinance
challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance as it allegedly Prohibiting the issuance of business permit and canceling existing
amounts to a deprivation of property of their means of livelihood business permit to any establishment for the using and allowing to be
without due process of law. The petition was denied by the lower court used its premises or portion thereof for the operation of Casino). On 4
as its availability being dependent on there being as yet no case January 1993, it adopted a sterner Ordinance 3375-93 (An Ordinance
involving such issue having been filed. Hence, the appeal. prohibiting the operation of Casino and providing penalty for violation
therefore). Pryce assailed the ordinances before the Court of Appeals,
Issue: where it was joined by PAGCOR as intervenor and supplemental
Whether Ordinance 4964 is a valid police power measure. petitioner. The Court found the ordinances invalid and issued the writ
prayed for to prohibit their enforcement. Reconsideration of the
Held: decision was denied on 13 July 1993. Cagayan de Oro City and its
The objectives behind its enactment are: "(1) To be able to impose mayor filed a petition for review under Rules of Court with the Supreme
payment of the license fee for engaging in the business of massage Court.
clinic under Ordinance 3659 as amended by Ordinance 4767, an
entirely different measure than the ordinance regulating the business Issue:
of barbershops and, (2) in order to forestall possible immorality which Whether the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro can prohibit
might grow out of the construction of separate rooms for massage of the establishment of a casino, or gambling, operated by PAGCOR
customers. The Court has been most liberal in sustaining ordinances through an ordinance or resolution.
based on the general welfare clause. It has made clear the significance
and scope of such a clause, which delegates in statutory form the Held:
police power to a municipality. The clause has been given wide The morality of gambling is not justiciable issue. Gambling is not illegal
application by municipal authorities and has in its relation to the per se. While it is generally considered inimical to the interests of the
particular circumstances of the case been liberally construed by the people, there is nothing in the Constitution categorically proscribing or
courts. Such is the progressive view of Philippine jurisprudence and it penalizing gambling or, for that matter, even mentioning it at all. It is
has continued to be. 10 left to Congress to deal with the activity as it sees fit. In the exercise
of its own discretion, the legislature may prohibit gambling altogether
Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corp. [GR 111097, 20 July 1994] or allow it without limitation or it may prohibit some forms of gambling
Facts: and allow others for whatever reasons it may consider sufficient.
The Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) is a Further, there are two kinds of gambling, to wit, the illegal and those
corporation created directly by Presidential Decree 1869 to help authorized by law. Legalized gambling is not a modern concept; it is
centralize and regulate all games of chance, including casinos on land probably as old as illegal gambling, if not indeed more so. The
and sea within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines (the suggestion that the Local Government Code (LGC) authorize Local
constitutionality of the decree was sustained in Basco v. Philippine Government Units (LGUs) to prohibit all kinds of gambling would erase
Amusements and Gambling Corporation). Cagayan de Oro City, like the distinction between these two forms of gambling without a clear
indication that this is the will of legislature. Ordinances should not merely a doubtful or argumentative contradiction. In short, the conflict
contravene a statute as municipal governments are only agents of the with the Constitution must be shown beyond reasonable doubt. Where
national government. Local councils exercise only delegated legislative doubt exists, even if well-founded, there can be no finding of
powers conferred on them by Congress as the national lawmaking unconstitutionality. To doubt is to sustain. In light of the principles of
body. The delegate cannot be superior to the principal or exercise decentralization and devolution enshrined in the Local Government
powers higher than those of the latter. Code (LGC) and the powers granted therein to local government units
under Section 16 (the General Welfare Clause), and under Sections
Tano v. Socrates [GR 110249, 21 August 1997] 149, 447(a) (1) (vi), 458(a)(1)(vi) and 468(a)(1)(vi), which involve
Facts: the exercise of police power, the validity of the Ordinances cannot be
On 15 December 1992, the Sangguniang Panlungsod ng Puerto doubted. The ordinance also find full support under Republic Act 7611
Princesa City enacted Ordinance 15-92 (taking effect on 1 January (Strategic Environmental Plan for Palawan Act), approved on 19 June
1993; An ordinance banning the shipment of all live fish and lobster 1992; which adopts a comprehensive framework for the sustainable
outside Puerto Princesa City from 1 January 1993 to 1 January 1998, development of Palawan compatible with protecting and enhancing the
and providing exemptions; penalties and for other purposes thereof). natural resources and endangered environment of the province, which
To implement said ordinance, Acting Mayor Amado L. Lucero issued serve to guide the local government of Palawan and the government
Office Order 23 (series of 1993) dated 22 January 1993 authorizing agencies concerned in the formulation and implementation of plans,
the inspection of cargoes shipped out from the Puerto Princesa Airport, programs and projects affecting said province. The first objective (to
Wharf, and any other port within the jurisdiction of the City. On 19 establish a "closed season" for the species of fish or aquatic animals
February 1993, the Sangguniang Lalawigan of Palawan enacted covered therein for a period of five years) is well within the devolved
Resolution 33 [A resolution prohibiting the catching, gathering, power to enforce fishery laws in municipal waters which allows the
possessing, buying, selling, and shipment of live marine coral dwelling establishment of "closed seasons." The second objective (to protect
aquatic organisms, to wit: Family: Scaridae (Mameng), Epine Phelus the coral in the marine waters of the City of Puerto Princesa and the
Fasciatus (Suno), Cromileptes Altivelis (Panther or Senorita), Lobster Province of Palawan from further destruction due to illegal fishing
below 200 grams and spawning, Tridacna Gigas (Takllobo), Pinctada activities) falls within both the general welfare clause of the LGC and
Margaritefera (Mother pearl, Oysters, Giant clams, and other species), the express mandate thereunder to cities and provinces to protect the
Penaeus Monodon (Tiger Prawn, Breeder size or mother), Epinephelus environment and impose appropriate penalties for acts which endanger
Suillus (Loba or Green grouper), and Family: Balistidae (Tropical the environment.
Aquarium Fishes) for a period of 5 years in and coming from Palawan
waters]. Puerto Princesa City and the province of Palawan implemented Bautista v. Juinio [GR L-50908, 31 January 1984]
said ordinances. Tano, et. al., who were criminally charged with Facts:
violating Sangguniang Panlalawigan Resolution 33 and Ordinance 2 of Letter of Instruction 869 was issued on 31 May 1979 to respond to
Palawan in Criminal Case 93-05-C of the 1st MCTC of Palawan; and the protracted oil crisis dating back to 1974, banning the use of
Robert Lim and Virginia Lim, who were charged with violating City private motor vehicles with H and EH plates on weekends and holidays
Ordinance 15-92 of Puerto Princesa City and Ordinance 2 of Palawan from 12 am Saturday to 5:00 am Monday, or 1 am of holiday to 5:00
before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Puerto Princesa, questioned am of the day after the holiday; but exempting service, truck,
the validity of the said ordinances before the Supreme Court. diplomatic, consular corps, and tourist cars. Pursuant thereto, Alfredo
L. Juinio, then Minister of Public Works, Transportation and
Issue: Communications and Romeo P. Edu, then Commissioner of Land
Whether the ordinances in question, which prohibit the fishing of Transportation Commission issued on 11 June 1979, Memorandum
certain marine species in Palawan, are constitutional and/or valid. Circular 39, which imposed "the penalties of fine, confiscation of
vehicle and cancellation of registration on owners of the above-
Held: specified vehicles" found violating such Letter of Instruction.
Laws (including ordinances enacted by local government units) enjoy Memorandum Circular 39 does not impose the penalty of confiscation
the presumption of constitutionality. To overthrow this presumption, but merely that of impounding, fine, and for the third offense that of
there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not cancellation of certificate of registration and for the rest of the year or
for ninety days whichever is longer. Mary Concepcion Bautista and Taxicab Operators v. The Board of Transportation [GR L-59234, 30
Enrique D. Bautista questioned the validity of LOI 869 and MC 39 September 1982]
through a prohibition proceeding with the Supreme Court. Facts:
On 10 October 1977, the Board of Transportation (BT) issued
Issue: Memorandum Circular 77-42 which phases out old and dilapidated
Whether LOI 869 and Memorandum Circular 39, banning certain taxis; refusing registration to taxi units within the National Capitol
vehicles from using the motorways in specified time, are constitutional Region having year models over 6 years old. Pursuant to the above
and/or valid. BOT circular, the Director of the Bureau of Land Transportation (BLT)
issued Implementing Circular 52, dated 15 August 1980, instructing
Held: the Regional Director, the MV Registrars and other personnel of BLT, all
A regulatory measure enjoys a presumption of constitutionality or a within the National Capital Region (NCR), to implement said Circular,
presumption that such an act falls within constitutional limitations. and formulating a schedule of phase-out of vehicles to be allowed and
When a questioned statute deals with a subject clearly within the accepted for registration as public conveyances. In accordance
scope of the police power, and which is asked to be declare void on the therewith, cabs of model 1971 were phase-out in registration year
ground that the specific method of regulation prescribed is 1978; those of model 1972, in 1979; those of model 1973, in 1980;
unreasonable and hence deprives the plaintiff of due process of law, and those of model 1974, in 1981. On 27 January 1981, Taxicab
the presumption of constitutionality must prevail in the absence of Operators of Metro Manila, Inc. (TOMMI), including its members Ace
some factual foundation of record for overthrowing the statute. Herein, Transportation Corporation and Felicisimo Cabigao, filed a petition with
as to LOI 869, the determination of the mode and manner through the BT (Case 80-7553), seeking to nullify MC 77-42 or to stop its
which the objective of minimizing the consumption of oil products and implementation; to allow the registration and operation in 1981 and
measures conducive to energy conservation (require and establish taxi subsequent years of taxicabs of model 1974, as well as those of earlier
stands equipped with efficient telephone and communication systems; models which were phased-out, provided that, at the time of
strict implementation and observance of cargo truck hours on main registration, they are roadworthy and fit for operation. On 16 February
arteries; strict observance of traffic rules; effective solution of traffic 1981, TOMMI, et. al. filed before the BT a "Manifestation and Urgent
problems and decongestion of traffic through rerouting and quick Motion", praying for an early hearing of their petition. The case was
repair of roads and efficient operation of double decker buses; heard on 20 February 1981. On 28 November 1981, TOMMI, et. al.
rationing of gasoline to avoid panic buying and give the private car filed before the same Board a "Manifestation and Urgent Motion to
owner the option and responsibility of deciding on the use of his Resolve or Decide Main Petition" praying that the case be resolved or
allocation; allow neon and electrically devised advertising signs only decided not later than 10 December 1981 to enable them, in case of
from five o'clock p.m. to nine o'clock p.m.; prohibit immediately the denial, to avail of whatever remedy they may have under the law for
importation of heavy and luxury cars and seriously re-examine the car the protection of their interests before their 1975 model cabs are
manufacturing program) are left to the discretion of the political phased-out on 1 January 1982. TOMMI, et. al., through its President,
branches. The question before the Court is limited to whether or not allegedly made personal follow-ups of the case, but was later informed
LOI 869 as implemented by MC 39 is violative of certain constitutional that the records of the case could not be located. On 29 December
rights. On the other hand, as to MC 39, while the imposition of a fine or 1981, TOMMI, et. al., instituted a petition for certiorari, prohibition and
the suspension of registration under the conditions therein set forth is mandamus with preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order
valid under the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, the impounding with the Supreme Court.
of a vehicle finds no statutory justification. To apply that portion of MC
39 would be ultra vires. It must likewise be made clear that a penalty Issue:
even if warranted can only be imposed in accordance with the Whether Memorandum Circular 77-42, phasing out 6-year old taxicabs
procedure required by law. and older, is a valid administrative issuance.

Held:
Presidential Decree 101 grants to the Board of Transportation the
power to fix just and reasonable standards, classification, regulations,
practices, measurements, or service to be furnished, imposed, and adopting a set of policies on Port Administration, Management and
observed, and followed by operators of public utility motor vehicles. Operation. The PPA adopted as its own the Bureau of Customs' policy
The overriding consideration in the issuance of Memorandum Circular of placing on only one organization the responsibility for the operation
77-42 is the safety and comfort of the riding public from the dangers of arrastre and stevedoring services in one port. On 11 April 1980,
posed by old and dilapidated taxis. The State, in the exercise of its President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Letter of Instruction 1005-A
police power, can prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, which, among other things, directed PPA to expeditiously evaluate all
peace, good order, safety and general welfare of the people. It can recognized cargo handling contractors and port-related service
prohibit all things hurtful to comfort, safety and welfare of society. It operators and to determine the qualified contractor or operator in
may also regulate property rights. The necessities imposed by public order to ensure effective utilization of port facilities, etc. This was
welfare may justify the exercise of governmental authority to regulate followed by the President's memorandum to Col. Eustaquio S. Baclig Jr.
even if thereby certain groups may plausibly assert that their interests dated 18 April 1980, directing submission of a report on the
are disregarded. Dispensing with a public hearing prior to the issuance integration of the stevedoring operations in Manila South Harbor and
of the Circulars is not violative of procedural due process. Previous emphasizing the need for such integration as well as the strengthening
notice and hearing is not essential to the validity of general rules or of the PPA in order to remedy the problems therein. On 28 April 1980,
regulations promulgated to govern future conduct of a class or persons the committee submitted its report recommending the award of an
or enterprises, unless the law provides otherwise. It is impractical to exclusive contract for stevedoring services in the South Harbor to
subject every taxicab to constant and recurring evaluation to Ocean Terminal Services, Inc. (OTSI) after finding it the best qualified
determine its road-worthiness, not to speak of the fact that it can among the existing contractors. The PPA submitted the committee
open the door to the adoption of multiple standards, possible collusion, report to the President, who, on 24 May 1980, approved the
and even graft and corruption. A reasonable standard must be adopted recommendation to award an exclusive management contract to OTSI.
to apply to all vehicles affected uniformly, fairly, and justly. The span On 27 June 1980, PPA and OTSI entered into a management contract
of six years supplies that reasonable standard. The product of which provided, among others, for a 5-year exclusive operation by OTSI
experience shows that by that time taxis have fully depreciated, their of stevedoring services in the South Harbor, renewable for another 5
cost recovered, and a fair return on investment obtained. They are also years. The Board of Directors of the PPA gave its approval on 27 June
generally dilapidated and no longer fit for safe and comfortable service 1980. On 23 July 1980, PIPSI instituted an action before the Court of
to the public specially considering that they are in continuous First Instance (CFI) of Manila against PPA and OTSI for the nullification
operation practically 24 hours everyday in three shifts of eight hours of the contract between the two, the annulment of the 10% of gross
per shift. With that standard of reasonableness and absence of stevedoring revenue being collected by PPA, and injunction with
arbitrariness, the requirement of due process has been met. preliminary injunction. An ex-parte restraining order was issued. On 21
August 1980. with leave of court, Anglo-Fil, et al., filed their complaint
Anglo-Fil Trading v. Lazaro [GR L-54958, 2 September 1983 in intervention. The motion was granted and on 22 August 1980, the
Facts: CFI issued another ex-parte restraining order in the case to include
23 contractors, among them the Philippine Integrated Port Services, Anglo-Fil et. al., under the benefits of such order. On 30 August 1980,
Inc. (PIPSI), Anglo-Fil Trading Corporation, Aduana Stevedoring the PPA filed an urgent motion to lift the restraining orders "in view of
Corporation, Anda Stevedoring Corporation, Ben Paz Port Service, Inc., the long delay in the resolution of the injunction incident and the
Manila Stevedoring and Arrastre Services, Inc. (members of the countervailing public interest involved." On 1 September 1980, the CFI
Philippine Association of Stevedoring Operators and Contractors, Inc. dissolved, lifted and set aside the restraining orders without prejudice
[PASOC]), competed at the South Harbor for the performance of to the Court's resolution on the propriety of issuing the writ of
stevedoring work. The licenses of these contractors had long expired preliminary injunction prayed for. On 5 September 1980, PPA sent a
when the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA, created by Presidential letter to the General Manager of PIPSI informing him that due to the
Decree 505 [11 July 1974], later superseded by Presidential Decree lifting of the temporary restraining order, it was withdrawing PIPSI's
857 [23 December 197]5) took over the control and management of holdover authority to operate or provide stevedoring services at South
ports but they continued to operate afterwards on the strength of Harbor effective 7 September 1980. Anglo-Fil, et al., and PIPSI,
temporary permits and hold-over authorities issued by PPA. On 4 May therefore, filed the petitions for certiorari with preliminary injunction
1976, the Board of Directors of PPA passed Resolution 10, approving alleging that the lifting of the restraining orders ex-parte by the CFI
was clearly effected with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack City of Manila v. Chinese Community of Manila [GR14355, 31 October
of jurisdiction. 1919]
Facts:
Issue: On 11 December, 1916, the city of Manila presented a petition in the
Whether the issuance of a Permit to Operate (PTO) depended on the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila praying that certain lands
sound discretion, and on the policies, rules and regulations (extension of Rizal Avenue within Block 3 of the district of Binondo) be
implemented by the latter, or whether the non-issuance thereof is an expropriated for the purpose of constructing a public improvement.
unlawful deprivation of property rights. The Comunidad de Chinos de Manila [Chinese Community of Manila]
Held: alleged in its answer that it was a corporation organized and existing
From the viewpoint of procedure, there was no grave abuse of under and by virtue of the laws of the Philippine Islands, having for its
discretion or want of jurisdiction when the CFI judge lifted ex-parte the purpose the benefit and general welfare of the Chinese Community of
temporary restraining order he had earlier issued also ex-parte. the City of Manila; that it was the owner of parcels one and two of the
Subsequent to the issuance of the questioned order, the CFI heard the land described in paragraph 2 of the complaint; that it denied that it
parties on the application for a writ of preliminary injunction and, after was either necessary or expedient that the said parcels be expropriated
hearing the parties' evidence and arguments, denied the application for for street purposes; that existing street and roads furnished ample
the writ. It is also not grave abuse of discretion when a court dissolves means of communication for the public in the district covered by such
ex-parte abuse of discretion when a court dissolves ex-parte a proposed expropriation; that if the construction of the street or road
restraining order also issued ex-parte. Further, the contention that due should be considered a public necessity, other routes were available,
process was violated resulting to a confiscatory effect on private which would fully satisfy the City's purposes, at much less expense and
property is likewise without merit. In the first place, Anglo-Fil, et. al. without disturbing the resting places of the dead; that it had a Torrens
were operating merely on "hold-over" permits, which were based on title for the lands in question; that the lands in question had been used
PPA Memorandum Order 1 (19 January 1977). All hold-over permits by the Chinese Community for cemetery purposes; that a great number
were by nature temporary and subject to subsequent policy guidelines of Chinese were buried in said cemetery; that if said expropriation be
as may be implemented by PPA. Such should have served as sufficient carried into effect, it would disturb the resting places of the dead,
notice that, at any time, PIPSI's and Anglo-Fil [Link].'s authorities may be would require the expenditure of a large sum of money in the transfer
terminated. Whether PIPSI, and Anglo-Fil, et. al. would be issued a or removal of the bodies to some other place or site and in the
Permit to Operate (PTO) depended on the sound discretion of PPA and purchase of such new sites, would involve the destruction of existing
on the policies, rules and regulations that the latter may implement in monuments and the erection of new monuments in their stead, and
accordance with the statutory grant of power. The latter, therefore, would create irreparable loss and injury to the Chinese Community and
cannot be said to have been deprived of property without due process to all those persons owning and interested in the graves and
because, in this respect, what was given them was not a property right monuments which would have to be destroyed; that the City was
but a mere privilege and they should have taken cognizance of the fact without right or authority to expropriate said cemetery or any part or
that since they have no vested right to operate in the South Harbor, portion thereof for street purposes; and that the expropriation, in fact,
their permits can be withdrawn anytime the public welfare deems it was not necessary as a public improvement. Ildefonso Tambunting,
best to do so. Thus, unless the case justifies it, the judiciary will not answering the petition, denied each and every allegation of the
interfere in purely administrative matters. Such discretionary power complaint, and alleged that said expropriation was not a public
vested in the proper administrative body, in the absence of improvement. Feliza Concepcion de Delgado, with her husband, Jose
arbitrariness and grave abuse so as to go beyond the statutory Maria Delgado, and each of the other defendants, answering
authority, is not subject to the contrary judgment or control of others. separately, presented substantially the same defense as that
In general, courts have no supervisory power over the proceedings and presented by the Comunidad de Chinos de Manila and Ildefonso
actions of the administrative departments of the government. This is Tambunting. Judge Simplicio del Rosario decided that there was no
particularly true with respect to acts involving the exercise of necessity for the expropriation of the strip of land and absolved each
judgment or discretion, and to findings of fact. and all of the defendants (Chinese Community, Tambunting, spouses
Delgado, et. al.) from all liability under the complaint, without any
finding as to costs. From the judgment, the City of Manila appealed.
 Government Sports Facilities." In due time, the Resolution was
Issue: approved by then Municipal Mayor Anuncio C. Bustillo and transmitted
Whether portions of the Chinese Cemetery, a public cemetery, may be to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan for its approval. On 11 September
expropriated for the construction of a public improvement. 1989, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan disapproved said Resolution and
returned it with the comment that "expropriation is unnecessary
Held: considering that there are still available lots in Bunawan for the
No. Section 2429 of Act 2711 (Charter of the city of Manila) provides establishment of the government center." The Municipality of Bunawan
that the city (Manila) may condemn private property for public use. subsequently filed a Petition for Eminent Domain against Percival
The Charter of the city of Manila, however, contains no procedure by Moday before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) at Prosperidad, Agusan del
which the said authority may be carried into effect. Act 190 provides Sur. The complaint was later amended to include the registered
for how right of eminent domain may be exercised. Section 241 of said owners, Percival Moday's parents, Zotico (+) and Leonora Moday, as
Act provides that the Government of the Philippine Islands, or of any party defendants. On 6 March 1991, the municipality filed a Motion to
province or department thereof, or of any municipality, and any person, Take or Enter Upon the Possession of Subject Matter of This Case
or public or private corporation having, by law, the right to condemn stating that it had already deposited with the municipal treasurer the
private property for public use, shall exercise that right in the manner necessary amount in accordance with Section 2, Rule 67 of the Revised
prescribed by Section 242 to 246. The right of expropriation is not an Rules of Court and that it would be in the government's best interest
inherent power in a municipal corporation, and before it can exercise for the municipality to be allowed to take possession of the property.
the right some law must exist conferring the power upon it. When the Despite Moday's opposition and after a hearing on the merits, the RTC
courts come to determine the question, they must not only find (a) granted the municipality's motion to take possession of the land;
that a law or authority exists for the exercise of the right of eminent holding that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan's failure to declare the
domain, but (b) also that the right or authority is being exercised in resolution invalid leaves it effective, and that the duty of the
accordance with the law. Herein, the cemetery in question is public (a Sangguniang Panlalawigan is merely to review the ordinances and
cemetery used by the general community, or neighborhood, or church) resolutions passed by the Sangguniang Bayan under Section 208 (1) of
and seems to have been established under governmental authority, as BP 337 (the old Local Government Code) and that the exercise of
the Spanish Governor-General, in an order creating the same. Where a eminent domain is not one of the two acts enumerated in Section 19
cemetery is open to the public, it is a public use and no part of the thereof requiring the approval of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
ground can be taken for other public uses under a general authority. To Moday's motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court on 31
disturb the mortal remains of those endeared to us in life sometimes October 1991. Moday elevated the case before the Court of Appeals in
becomes the sad duty of the living; but, except in cases of necessity, a petition for certiorari, which was dismissed on 15 July 1992. The
or for laudable purposes, the sanctity of the grave, the last resting appellate court also denied Moday's motion for reconsideration on 22
place of our friends, should be maintained, and the preventative aid of October 1992. Meanwhile, the Municipality of Bunawan had erected
the courts should be invoked for that object. While cemeteries and three buildings on the subject property: the Association of Barangay
sepulchers and the places of the burial of the dead are still within the Councils (ABC) Hall, the Municipal Motorpool, both wooden structures,
memory and command of the active care of the living; while they are and the Bunawan Municipal Gymnasium, which is made of concrete.
still devoted to pious uses and sacred regard, it is difficult to believe Moday filed on 23 November 1992 the petition for review before the
that even the legislature would adopt a law expressly providing that Supreme Court.
such places, under such circumstances, should be violated.
Issue:
Moday vs. Court of Appeals [GR 107916, 20 February 1997] Whether a municipality may expropriate private property by virtue of a
Facts: municipal resolution which was disapproved by the Sangguniang
On 23 July 1989, the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Panlalawigan.
Bunawan in Agusan del Sur passed Resolution 43-89, "Authorizing the
Municipal Mayor to Initiate the Petition for Expropriation of a 1 Hectare Held:
Portion of Lot 6138-Pls-4 Along the National Highway Owned by Eminent domain, the power which the Municipality of Bunawan
Percival Moday for the Site of Bunawan Farmers Center and Other exercised, is a fundamental State power that is inseparable from
sovereignty. It is government's right to appropriate, in the nature of a on 2 February 1956. Soon after its creation in 1947, the Bureau of
compulsory sale to the State, private property for public use or Telecommunications set up its own Government Telephone System by
purpose. Inherently possessed by the national legislature the power of utilizing its own appropriation and equipment and by renting trunk lines
eminent domain may be validly delegated to local governments, other of the PLDT to enable government offices to call private parties. At
public entities and public utilities. For the taking of private property by that time, the Bureau was maintaining 5,000 telephones and had
the government to be valid, the taking must be for public use and 5,000 pending applications for telephone connection. The PLDT, on the
there must be just compensation. The Municipality of Bunawan's power other hand, was also maintaining 60,000 telephones and had also
to exercise the right of eminent domain is not disputed as it is 20,000 pending applications. Through the years, neither of them has
expressly provided for in Batas Pambansa 337, the Local Government been able to fill up the demand for telephone service. The Bureau of
Code in force at the time expropriation proceedings were initiated. The Telecommunications had proposed to the PLDT on 8 January 1958
Sangguniang Panlalawigan's disapproval of Municipal Resolution 43-89 that both enter into an interconnecting agreement, with the
is an infirm action which does not render said resolution null and void. government paying (on a call basis) for all calls passing through the
The law, as expressed in Section 153 of BP 337, grants the interconnecting facilities from the Government Telephone System to
Sangguniang Panlalawigan the power to declare a municipal resolution the PLDT. On 5 March 1958, the Republic, through the Director of
invalid on the sole ground that it is beyond the power of the Telecommunications, entered into an agreement with RCA
Sangguniang Bayan or the Mayor to issue. Thus, the Sangguniang Communications, Inc., for a joint overseas telephone service whereby
Panlalawigan was without the authority to disapprove Municipal the Bureau would convey radio-telephone overseas calls received by
Resolution 43-89 for the Municipality of Bunawan clearly has the power RCA's station to and from local residents. They actually inaugurated
to exercise the right of eminent domain and its Sangguniang Bayan the this joint operation on 2 February 1958, under a "provisional"
capacity to promulgate said resolution, pursuant to the earlier-quoted agreement. On 7 April 1958, PLDT complained to the Bureau of
Section 9 of BP337. Perforce; it follows that Resolution 43-89 is valid Telecommunications that said bureau was violating the conditions
and binding and could be used as lawful authority to petition for the under which their Private Branch Exchange (PBX) is interconnected with
condemnation of Moday's property. the PLDT's facilities, referring to the rented trunk lines, for the Bureau
had used the trunk lines not only for the use of government offices but
Republic vs. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. [GR L-18841, 27 even to serve private persons or the general public, in competition with
January 1969] the business of the PLDT; and gave notice that if said violations were
Facts: not stopped by midnight of 12 April 1958, the PLDT would sever the
The Republic of the Philippines, is a political entity exercising telephone connections. When the PLDT received no reply, it
governmental powers through its branches and instrumentalities, one disconnected the trunk lines being rented by the Bureau at midnight on
of which is the Bureau of Telecommunications. That office was created 12 April 1958. The result was the isolation of the Philippines, on
on 1 July 1947, under Executive Order 94, in addition to certain telephone services, from the rest of the world, except the United
powers and duties formerly vested in the Director of Posts. Sometime States. On 12 April 1958, the Republic commenced suit against PLDT,
in 1933, the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT), and in the Court of First Instance of Manila (CFI, Civil Case 35805), praying
the RCA Communications, Inc., entered into an agreement whereby in its complaint for judgment commanding the PLDT to execute a
telephone messages, coming from the United States and received by contract with the Republic, through the Bureau, for the use of the
RCA's domestic station, could automatically be transferred to the lines facilities of PLDT's telephone system throughout the Philippines under
of PLDT; and vice-versa, for calls collected by the PLDT for such terms and conditions as the court might consider reasonable, and
transmission from the Philippines to the United States. The contracting for a writ of preliminary injunction against PLDT to restrain the
parties agreed to divide the tolls, as follows: 25% to PLDT and 75% to severance of the existing telephone connections and/or restore those
RCA. The sharing was amended in 1941 to 30% for PLDT and 70% for severed. After trial, the lower court rendered judgment that it could
RCA, and again amended in 1947 to a 50-50 basis. The arrangement not compel the PLDT to enter into an agreement with the Bureau
was later extended to radio-telephone messages to and from European because the parties were not in agreement; that under Executive Order
and Asiatic countries. Their contract contained a stipulation that either 94, establishing the Bureau of Telecommunications, said Bureau was
party could terminate it on a 24-month notice to the other. On 2 not limited to servicing government offices alone, nor was there any in
February 1956, PLDT gave notice to RCA to terminate their contract the contract of lease of the trunk lines, since the PLDT knew, or ought
to have known, at the time that their use by the Bureau was to be Barangay San Roque in Talisay, Cebu filed before the Municipal Trial
public throughout the Islands, hence the Bureau was neither guilty of Court (MTC) of Talisay, Cebu (Branch 1) a Complaint to expropriate a
fraud, abuse, or misuse of the poles of the PLDT; and, in view of property of Heirs of Francisco Pastor (Eugenio Sylianco, Teodoro
serious public prejudice that would result from the disconnection of the Sylianco, Isabel Sylianco, Eugenia S. Ong, Lawrence Sylianco, Lawson
trunk lines, declared the preliminary injunction permanent, although it Sylianco, Lawina S. Notario, Leonardo Sylianco, Jr. and Lawford
dismissed both the complaint and the counterclaims. Both parties Sylianco). In an Order dated 8 April 1997, the MTC dismissed the
appealed. Complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It reasoned that
"[e]minent domain is an exercise of the power to take private property
Issue: for public use after payment of just compensation. In an action for
Whether interconnection between PLDT and the Government eminent domain, therefore, the principal cause of action is the exercise
Telephone System can be an valid object for expropriation, i.e. the of such power or right. The fact that the action also involves real
exercise of eminent domain. property is merely incidental. An action for eminent domain is therefore
within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court and
Held: not with this Court." When the complaint was filed with the Regional
Although parties can not be coerced to enter into a contract where no Trial Court (RTC), the RTC also dismissed the Complaint on 29 March
agreement is had between them as to the principal terms and 1999, holding that an action for eminent domain affected title to real
conditions of the contract -- the freedom to stipulate such terms and property; hence, the value of the property to be expropriated would
conditions being of the essence of our contractual system, and by determine whether the case should be filed before the MTC or the RTC;
express provision of the statute, a contract may be annulled if tainted therefore concluding that the action should have been filed before the
by violence, intimidation or undue influence -- and thus the Republic MTC since the value of the subject property was less than P20,000.
may not compel the PLDT to celebrate a contract with it, the Republic The Barangay's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied on 14
may, in the exercise of the sovereign power of eminent domain, require May 1999. The Barangay filed the petition for review on certiorari with
the telephone company to permit interconnection of the government the Supreme Court.
telephone system and that of the PLDT, as the needs of the
government service may require, subject to the payment of just Issue:
compensation to be determined by the court. Normally, of course, the Whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) or the Metropolitan Trial Court
power of eminent domain results in the taking or appropriation of title (MTC) has jurisdiction over expropriation cases.
to, and possession of, the expropriated property; but no cogent reason
appears why the said power may not be availed of to impose only a Held:
burden upon the owner of condemned property, without loss of title The primary consideration in an expropriation suit is whether the
and possession. It is unquestionable that real property may, through government or any of its instrumentalities has complied with the
expropriation, be subjected to an easement of right of way. The use of requisites for the taking of private property. Hence, the courts
the PLDT's lines and services to allow interservice connection between determine the authority of the government entity, the necessity of the
both telephone systems is not much different. In either case private expropriation, and the observance of due process. In the main, the
property is subjected to a burden for public use and benefit. If under subject of an expropriation suit is the government's exercise of
Section 6, Article XIII, of the Constitution, the State may, in the eminent domain, a matter that is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
interest of national welfare, transfer utilities to public ownership upon True, the value of the property to be expropriated is
payment of just compensation, there is no reason why the State may
not require a public utility to render services in the general interest,
provided just compensation is paid therefor. Ultimately, the beneficiary estimated in monetary terms, for the court is duty-bound to determine
of the interconnecting service would be the users of both telephone the just compensation for it. This, however, is merely incidental to the
systems, so that the condemnation would be for public use. expropriation suit. Indeed, that amount is determined only after the
court is satisfied with the propriety of the expropriation. Verily, the
Barangay San Roque v. Heirs of Pastor [GR 138896, 20 June 2000] Court held in Republic of the Philippines v. Zurbano that "condemnation
Facts: proceedings are within the jurisdiction of Courts of First Instance," the
forerunners of the regional trial courts (RTC). The said case was placed in possession of the lands on 10 August 1959. Meanwhile, on
decided during the effectivity of the Judiciary Act of 1948 which, like 21 November 1959, the CFI of Pampanga, dismissed Civil Case 1458,
Batas Pambansa 129 in respect to RTCs, provided that courts of first upon petition of the parties. After the parties filed their respective
instance had original jurisdiction over "all civil actions in which the memoranda, the trial court, on 26 May 1961, rendered its decision,
subject of the litigation is not capable of pecuniary estimation." The finding that the unanimous recommendation of the commissioners of
1997 amendments to the Rules of Court were not intended to change P10.00 per square meter for the 3 lots subject of the action is fair and
these jurisprudential precedents. just; and required the Republic to pay interests. On 21 June 1961 the
Republic filed a motion for a new trial and/or reconsideration, against
Republic vs. Vda. de Castellvi [GR L-20620, 15 August 1974] which motion Castellvi and Toledo- Gozun filed their respective
Facts: oppositions, and which the trial court denied on 12 July 1961. The
The Republic of the Philippines occupied the land of Carmen M. vda. de Republic's record on appeal was finally submitted on 6 December
Castellvi, the judicial administratrix of the estate of the late Alfonso de 1961, after filing various ex-parte motions for extension of time within
Castellvi, from 1 July 1947, by virtue of a contract of lease, on a year which to file its record on appeal. On 27 December 1961 the trial court
to year basis (from July 1 of each year to June 30 of the succeeding dismissed both appeals for having been filed out of time, thereby . On
year). Before the expiration of the contract of lease on 30 June 1956, 11 January 1962 the Republic filed a "motion to strike out the order of
the Republic sought to renew the same but Castellvi refused. When the 27 December 1961 and for reconsideration", and subsequently an
AFP refused to vacate the leased premises after the termination of the amended record on appeal, against which motion Castellvi and Toledo-
contract, Castellvi wrote to the Chief of Staff of the AFP on 11 July Gozun filed their opposition. On 26 July 1962 the trial court issued an
1956, informing the latter that the heirs of the property had decided order, stating that "in the interest of expediency, the questions raised
not to continue leasing the property in question because they had may be properly and finally determined by the Supreme Court," and at
decided to subdivide the land for sale to the general public, demanding the same time it ordered the Solicitor General to submit a record on
that the property be vacated within 30 days from receipt of the letter, appeal containing copies of orders and pleadings specified therein. In
and that the premises be returned in substantially the same condition an order dated 19 November 1962, the trial court approved the
as before occupancy. The Chief of Staff refused, saying that it was Republic's record on appeal as amended. Castellvi did not insist on her
difficult for the army to vacate the premises in view of the permanent appeal. Toledo-Gozun did not appeal.
installations and other facilities worth almost P500,000.00 that were
erected and already established on the property, and that, there being Issue:
no other recourse, the acquisition of the property by means of Whether the taking of Castellvi’s property occurred in 1947 or in
expropriation proceedings would be recommended to the President. 1959.
Castellvi then brought suit in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of
Pampanga (Civil Case 1458), to eject the Philippine Air Force from the Held:
land. While this ejectment case was pending, the Republic filed on 26 A number of circumstances must be present in the "taking" of
June 1959 complaints for eminent domain against Castellvi, and Maria property for purposes of eminent domain. First, the expropriator must
Nieves Toledo Gozun over 3 parcels of land situated in the barrio of enter a private property. Second, the entrance into private property
San Jose, Floridablanca, Pampanga. In its complaint, the Republic must be for more than a momentary period. Third, the entry into the
alleged, among other things, that the fair market value of the above- property should be under warrant or color of legal authority. Fourth,
mentioned lands, according to the Committee on Appraisal for the the property must be devoted to a public use or otherwise informally
Province of Pampanga, was not more than P2,000 per hectare, or a appropriated or injuriously affected. Fifth, the utilization of the
total market value of P259,669.10; and prayed, that the provisional property for public use must be in such a way as to oust the owner and
value of the lands be fixed at P259,669.10, that the court authorizes deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment of the property. The "taking" of
the Republic to take immediate possession of the lands upon deposit of Castellvi's property for purposes of eminent domain cannot be
that amount with the Provincial Treasurer of Pampanga; that the court considered to have taken place in 1947 when the Republic commenced
appoints 3 commissioners to ascertain and report to the court the just to occupy the property as lessee thereof. Two essential elements in
compensation for the property sought to be expropriated, and that the the "taking" of property under the power of eminent domain, namely:
court issues thereafter a final order of condemnation. The Republic was (1) that the entrance and occupation by the condemnor must be for a
permanent, or indefinite period, and (2) that in devoting the property preliminary injunction (Special Proceeding Q-16002) seeking to annul
to public use the owner was ousted from the property and deprived of Section 9 of the Ordinance in question for being contrary to the
its beneficial use, were not present when the Republic entered and Constitution, the Quezon City Charter, the Local Autonomy Act, and
occupied the Castellvi property in 1947. The "taking' of the Castellvi the Revised Administrative Code. There being no issue of fact and the
property should not be reckoned as of the year 1947 when the questions raised being purely legal, both the City Government and
Republic first occupied the same pursuant to the contract of lease, and Himlayang Pilipino agreed to the rendition of a judgment on the
that the just compensation to be paid for the Castellvi property should pleadings. The CFI rendered the decision declaring Section 9 of
not be determined on the basis of the value of the property as of that Ordinance 6118, S-64 null and void. A motion for reconsideration
year. Under Section 4 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, the "just having been denied, the City Government and City Council filed the
compensation" is to be determined as of the date of the filing of the petition or review with the Supreme Court.
complaint. This Court has ruled that when the taking of the property
sought to be expropriated coincides with the commencement of the Issue: Whether the setting aside of 6% of the total area of all private
expropriation proceedings, or takes place subsequent to the filing of cemeteries for charity burial grounds of deceased paupers is
the complaint for eminent domain, the just compensation should be tantamount to taking of private property without just compensation.
determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint. Herein, it is
undisputed that the Republic was placed in possession of the Castellvi Held:
property, by authority of the court, on 10 August 1959. The "taking" There is no reasonable relation between the setting aside of at least
of the Castellvi property for the purposes of determining the just 6% of the total area of all private cemeteries for charity burial grounds
compensation to be paid must, therefore, be reckoned as of 26 June of deceased paupers and the promotion of health, morals, good order,
1959 when the complaint for eminent domain was filed. safety, or the general welfare of the people. The ordinance is actually a
taking without compensation of a certain area from a private cemetery
City Government of Quezon City vs. Ericta [GR L-34915, 24 June to benefit paupers who are charges of the municipal corporation.
1983] Instead of building or maintaining a public cemetery for this purpose,
Facts: the city passes the burden to private cemeteries. The expropriation
Section 9 of Ordinance 6118, S-64, entitled "Ordinance Regulating the without compensation of a portion of private cemeteries is not covered
Establishment, Maintenance and Operation of Private Memorial Type by Section 12(t) of Republic Act 537, the Revised Charter of Quezon
Cemetery Or Burial Ground Within the Jurisdiction of Quezon City and City which empowers the city council to prohibit the burial of the dead
Providing Penalties for the Violation thereof" provides that at least 6% within the center of population of the city and to provide for their
of the total area of the memorial park cemetery shall be set aside for burial in a proper place subject to the provisions of general law
charity burial of deceased persons who are paupers and have been regulating burial grounds and cemeteries. When the Local Government
residents of Quezon City for at least 5 years prior to their death, to be Code, Batas Pambansa 337 provides in Section 177 (q) that a
determined by competent City Authorities, and where the area so Sangguniang panlungsod may "provide for the burial of the dead in
designated shall immediately be developed and should be open for such place and in such manner as prescribed by law or ordinance" it
operation not later than 6 months from the date of approval of the simply authorizes the city to provide its own city owned land or to buy
application. For several years, section 9 of the Ordinance was not or expropriate private properties to construct public cemeteries. This
enforced by city authorities but 7 years after the enactment of the has been the law and practice in the past and it continues to the
ordinance, the Quezon City Council passed a resolution requesting the present. Expropriation, however, requires payment of just
City Engineer, Quezon City, to stop any further selling and/or compensation. The questioned ordinance is different from laws and
transaction of memorial park lots in Quezon City where the owners regulations requiring owners of subdivisions to set aside certain areas
thereof have failed to donate the required 6% space intended for for streets, parks, playgrounds, and other public facilities from the land
paupers burial. Pursuant to this petition, the Quezon City Engineer they sell to buyers of subdivision lots. The necessities of public safety,
notified Himlayang Pilipino, Inc. in writing that Section 9 of Ordinance health, and convenience are very clear from said requirements which
No. 6118, S-64 would be enforced. Himlayang Pilipino reacted by filing are intended to insure the development of communities with salubrious
with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal (Branch XVIII at Quezon and wholesome environments. The beneficiaries of the regulation, in
City), a petition for declaratory relief, prohibition and mandamus with
turn, are made to pay by the subdivision developer when individual lots public plaza is an undue deprivation of the use of the property in
are sold to homeowners. question, and thus a taking without due compensation.

People vs. Fajardo [GR L-12172, 29 August 1958] Held:

Facts: The refusal of the Mayor of Baao to issue a building permit to Fajardo
On 15 August 1950, during the incumbency of Juan F. Fajardo as and Babilonia was predicated on the ground that the proposed building
mayor of the municipality of Baao, Camarines Sur, the municipal council would "destroy the view of the public plaza" by preventing its being
passed Ordinance 7, series of 1950, providing that "any person or seen from the public highway. Even thus interpreted, the ordinance is
persons who will construct or repair a building should, before unreasonable and oppressive, in that it operates — to permanently
constructing or repairing, obtain a written permit from the Municipal deprive the latter of the right to use their own property; hence, it
Mayor," that "a fee of not less than P2.00 should be charged for each oversteps the bounds of police power, and amounts to a taking of the
building permit and P1.00 for each repair permit issued," and that any property without just compensation. But while property may be
violation of the provisions of the ordinance shall make the violator regulated in the interest of the general welfare such as to regard the
liable to pay a fine of not less than P25 nor more than P50 or beautification of neighborhoods as conducive to the comfort and
imprisonment of not less than 12 days nor more than 24 days or both, happiness of residents), and in its pursuit, the State may prohibit
at the discretion of the court; and that if said building destroys the structures offensive to the sight, the State may not, under the guise
view of the Public Plaza or occupies any public property, it shall be of police power, permanently divest owners of the beneficial use of
removed at the expense of the owner of the building or house. 4 years their property and practically confiscate them solely to preserve or
later, after the term of Fajardo as mayor had expired, he and his son- assure the aesthetic appearance of the community. As the case now
in-law, Pedro Babilonia, filed a written request with the incumbent stands, every structure that may be erected on Fajardo's land,
municipal mayor for a permit to construct a building adjacent to their regardless of its own beauty, stands condemned under the ordinance in
gasoline station on a parcel of land registered in Fajardo's name, question, because it would interfere with the view of the public plaza
located along the national highway and separated from the public plaza from the highway. Fajardo would, in effect, be constrained to let their
by a creek. On 16 January 1954, the request was denied, for the land remain idle and unused for the obvious purpose for which it is best
reason among others that the proposed building would destroy the suited, being urban in character. To legally achieve that result, the
view or beauty of the public plaza. On 18 January 1954, Fajardo and municipality must give Fajardo just compensation and an opportunity
Babilonia reiterated their request for a building permit, but again the to be heard.
request was turned down by the mayor. Whereupon, Fajardo and
Babilonia proceeded with the construction of the building without a National Power Corporation vs. Gutierrez [GR 60077, 18 January
permit, because they needed a place of residence very badly, their 1991]
former house having been destroyed by a typhoon and hitherto they Facts:
had been living on leased property. On 26 February 1954, Fajardo and The National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR), a government owned and
Babilonia were charged before and convicted by the justice of the controlled entity, in accordance with Commonwealth Act 120, is
peace court of Baao, Camarines Sur, for violation of Ordinance 7. invested with the power of eminent domain for the purpose of pursuing
Fajardo and Babilonia appealed to the Court of First Instance (CDI), its objectives, which among others is the construction, operation, and
which affirmed the conviction, and sentenced both to pay a fine of P35 maintenance of electric transmission lines for distribution throughout
each and the costs, as well as to demolish the building in question the Philippines. For the construction of its 230 KV Mexico- Limay
because it destroys the view of the public plaza of Baao. From this transmission lines, NAPOCOR's lines have to pass the lands belonging
decision, Fajardo and Babilonia appealed to the Court of Appeals, but to Matias Cruz, Heirs of Natalia Paule and spouses Misericordia
the latter forwarded the records to the Supreme Court because the Gutierrez and Ricardo Malit (covered by tax declarations 907, 4281
appeal attacks the constitutionality of the ordinance in question. and 7582, respectively). NAPOCOR initiated negotiations for the
acquisition of right of way easements over the aforementioned lots for
Issue: the construction of its transmission lines but unsuccessful in this
Whether the refusal of the Mayor of Baao to issue a building permit on regard, NAPOCOR was constrained to file eminent domain proceedings
the ground that the proposed building would destroy the view of the against Gutierrez, et. al. on 20 January 1965. Upon filing of the
corresponding complaint, NAPOCOR deposited the amount of P973.00 Held:
with the Provincial Treasurer of Pampanga, tendered to cover the The acquisition of the right-of-way easement falls within the purview of
provisional value of the land of the Malit and Gutierrez. And by virtue the power of eminent domain. Such conclusion finds support in similar
of which, NAPOCOR was placed in possession of the property of the cases of easement of right-of-way where the Supreme Court sustained
spouses so it could immediately proceed with the construction of its the award of just compensation for private property condemned for
Mexico-Limay 230 KV transmission line. In this connection, by the trial public use. Herein, the easement of right-of-way is definitely a taking
court's order of 30 September 1965, the spouses were authorized to under the power of eminent domain. Considering the nature and effect
withdraw the fixed provisional value of their land in the sum of of the installation of the 230 KV Mexico-Limay transmission lines, the
P973.00. Meanwhile, for the purpose of determining the fair and just limitation imposed by NAPOCOR against the use of the land for an
compensation due Gutierrez, et. al., the court appointed 3 indefinite period deprives spouses Malit and Gutierrez of its ordinary
commissioners, comprised of one representative of NAPOCOR, one for use. For these reasons, the owner of the property expropriated is
the affected families and the other from the court, who then were entitled to a just compensation, which should be neither more nor less,
empowered to receive evidence, conduct ocular inspection of the whenever it is possible to make the assessment, than the money
premises, and thereafter, prepare their appraisals as to the fair and just equivalent of said property. Just compensation has always been
compensation to he paid to the owners of the lots. Hearings were understood to be the just and complete equivalent of the loss which
consequently held before said commissioners and during their hearings, the owner of the thing expropriated has to suffer by reason of the
the case of the Heirs of Natalia Paule was amicably settled by virtue of expropriation. The price or value of the land and its character at the
a Right of Way Grant executed by Guadalupe Sangalang for herself and time it was taken by the Government are the criteria for determining
in behalf of her co-heirs in favor of NAPOCOR. The case against Matias just compensation. The above price refers to the market value of the
Cruz was earlier decided by the court, thereby leaving only the case land which may be the full market value thereof. It appearing that the
against the spouses Malit and Gutierrez still to be resolved. trial court did not act capriciously and arbitrarily in setting the price of
Accordingly, the commissioners submitted their individual reports. With P5.00 per square meter of the affected property, the said award is
the reports submitted, the lower court rendered a decision, ordering proper and not unreasonable.
NAPOCOR to pay Malit and Gutierrez the sum of P10 per square meter
as the fair and reasonable compensation for the right-of-way easement United States vs. Causby [328 US 256, 27 May 1946]
of the affected area, which is 760 squares, or a total sum of Facts:
P7,600.00 and P800.00 as attorney's fees. Dissatisfied with the Causby owns 2.8 acres near an airport outside of Greensboro, North
decision, NAPOCOR filed a motion for reconsideration which was Carolina. It has on it a dwelling house, and also various outbuildings
favorably acted upon by the lower court, and in an order dated 10 June which were mainly used for raising chickens. The end of the airport's
1973, it amended its previous decision, reducing the amount awarded northwest-southeast runway is 2,220 feet from Causby's barn and
to to P5.00 per square meter as the fair and reasonable market value 2,275 feet from their house. The path of glide to this runway passes
of the 760 square meters belonging to the said spouses, in light of the directly over the property-which is 100 feet wide and 1,200 feet long.
classification of the land to be partly commercial and partly The 30 to 1 safe glide angle approved by the Civil Aeronautics
agricultural. Still not satisfied, an appeal was filed by the NAPOCOR Authority passes over this property at 83 feet, which is 67 feet above
with the Court of Appeals but appellate court, on 9 March 1982, the house, 63 feet above the barn and 18 feet above the highest tree.
sustained the trial court. NAPOCOR filed the petition for review on The use by the United States of this airport is pursuant to a lease
certiorari before the Supreme Court. executed in May 1942, for a term commencing 1 June 1942 and
ending 30 June 1942, with a provision for renewals until 30 June
Issue: 1967, or 6 months after the end of the national emergency, whichever
Whether the spouses are deprive of the property’s ordinary use and is the earlier. Various aircraft of the United States, i.e. bombers,
thus the easement of right of way in favor of NAPOCOR constitutes transports and fighters, use this airport. Since the United States began
taking. operations in May 1942, its four-motored heavy bombers, other planes
of the heavier type, and its fighter planes have frequently passed over
Causby's land buildings in considerable numbers and rather close
together. They come close enough at times to appear barely to miss
the tops of the trees and at times so close to the tops of the trees as seisin on the transfer of real estate. The owner's right to possess and
to blow the old leaves off. The noise is startling. And at night the glare exploit the land-that is to say, his beneficial ownership of it-would be
from the planes brightly lights up the place. As a result of the noise, destroyed. It would not be a case of incidental damages arising from a
the Causbys had to give up their chicken business. As many as 6 to 10 legalized nuisance such as was involved in Richards v. Washington
of their chickens were killed in one day by flying into the walls from Terminal Co. (233 U.S. 546). In that case property owners whose lands
fright. The total chickens lost in that manner was about 150. adjoined a railroad line were denied recovery for damages resulting
Production also fell off. The result was the destruction of the use of from the noise, vibrations, smoke and the like, incidental to the
the property as a commercial chicken farm. The Causbys are frequently operations of the trains. Herein, the line of flight is over the land, and
deprived of their sleep and the family has become nervous and the land is appropriated as directly and completely as if it were used
frightened. Although there have been no airplane accidents on their for the runways themselves. However, since the record in the case is
property, there have been several accidents near the airport and close not clear whether the easement taken is a permanent or a temporary
to their place. These are the essential facts found by the Court of one, it would be premature for the Court to consider whether the
Claims. On the basis of these facts, it found that the property had amount of the award made by the Court of Claims was proper, and
depreciated in value. It held that the United States had taken an thus the Court remanded the cause to the Court of Claims so that it
easement over the property on June 1, 1942, and that the value of may make the necessary findings in conformity with the Court's
the property destroyed and the easement taken was $2,000. The opinion.
United States contends that when flights are made within the navigable
airspace (Air Commerce Act of 1926, as amended by the Civil Filstream International Inc. [GR 125218 and GR 128077. 23 January
Aeronautics Act of 1938) without any physical invasion of the 1998]
property of the landowners, there has been no taking of property. It Facts:
says that at most there was merely incidental damage occurring as a Filstream International, Inc., is the registered owner of the properties
consequence of authorized air navigation. consisting of adjacent parcels of land situated in Antonio Rivera Street,
Tondo II, Manila, with a total area of 3,571.10 square meters (TCT
Issue: 203937, 203936, 169198, 169199, 169200 and 169202 of the
Whether there was taking of the Causby’s property, even in the light Register of Deeds of Manila). On 7 January 1993, Filstream filed an
that the United States allegedly has complete and exclusive national ejectment suit before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Manila
sovereignty in the air space over the country. (Branch 15, Civil Case 140817-CV) against the occupants of the
parcels of land (Orlando Malit, Antonio Caguiat, Alicia Cabrera, Armando
Held: Lachica, Jacinto Caguiat, Gloria Antonio, Elizalde Navarra, Dolores
The United States conceded that if the flights over Causby's property Fuentes, Susana Roy, Antonio Ibañez, Benigno Basilio, Luceria
rendered it uninhabitable, there would be a taking compensable under Dematulac, Florencia Gomez, Lazaro Gomez, Jose Gomez, Venancio
the 5th Amendment. It is the owner's loss, not the taker's gain, which Manaloto, Cristino Umali, Demetria Gatus, Priscilla Malong, Domingo
is the measure of the value of the property taken. Market value fairly Aguila, Ramon San Agustin, Julian Ferrer, Jr., Francisco Galang,
determined is the normal measure of the recovery. And that value may Florentino Maliwat, Severina Villar, Trinidad Naguit, Jose Naguit,
reflect the use to which the land could readily be converted, as well as Fortunato Agustin Cabrera, Gaudencio Intal, Danilo David, Enrique
the existing use. If, by reason of the frequency and altitude of the David, Vicente De Guzman, Policarpio Lumba, Belen Palma, Elen
flights, Causby could not use this land for any purpose, their loss would Somvillo, Leonardo Manicad, Opreng Miclat, Benita Mata, Gregorio
be complete. It would be as complete as if the United States had Lopez, Marcelina Sapno, Jesus Mercado, and Calixto Gomez) on the
entered upon the surface of the land and taken exclusive possession of grounds of termination of the lease contract and non-payment of
it. Herein, there was a taking. Though it would be only an easement of rentals. Judgment was rendered by the MTC on September 14, 1993
flight which was taken, that easement, if permanent and not merely ordering private respondents to vacate the premises and pay back
temporary, normally would be the equivalent of a fee interest. It would rentals to Filstream. Not satisfied, malit, et. al. appealed the decision to
be a definite exercise of complete dominion and control over the the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila (Branch 4, Civil Case 93-
surface of the land. The fact that the planes never touched the surface 68130) which in turn affirmed the decision of the MTC. Still not
would be as irrelevant as the absence in this day of the feudal livery of content, Malit, et. al. proceeded to the Court of Appeals via a petition
for review (CA-GR SP 33714). The result however remained the same Meanwhile, owing to the finality of the decision in the ejectment suit
as the appellate court affirmed the decision of the RTC in its decision (Civil Case 140817-CV), the MTC of Manila, Branch 15, upon motion of
dated 25 August 1994. Thereafter, no further action was taken by Filstream, issued a Writ of Execution as well as a Notice to Vacate the
Malit, et. al., as a result of which the decision in the ejectment suit disputed premises. Malit, et. al. filed a Motion to Recall/Quash the Writ
became final and executory. However, during the pendency of the of Execution and Notice to Vacate alleging the existence of a
ejectment proceedings Malit, et. al. filed on 25 May 1993, a complaint supervening event in that the properties subject of the dispute have
for Annulment of Deed of Exchange against Filstream before the RTC already been ordered condemned in an expropriation proceeding in
of Manila (Branch 43, Civil Case 93-66059). It was at this stage that favor of the City of Manila for the benefit of the qualified occupants
City of Manila came into the picture when the city government thereof, thus execution shall be stayed. For its part, the City of Manila
approved Ordinance 7813 on 5 November 1993, authorizing Mayor filed on 13 March 1996, a motion for intervention with prayer to
Alfredo S. Lim to initiate the acquisition by negotiation, expropriation, stay/quash the writ of execution on the ground that it is the present
purchase, or other legal means certain parcels of land which formed possessor of the property subject of execution. In its order dated 14
part of Filstream's properties then occupied by Malit, et. al. March 1996, the MTC of Manila denied Malit, et. al.'s motion as it found
Subsequently, the City of Manila approved Ordinance 7855 declaring the allegations therein bereft of merit and upheld the issuance of the
the expropriation of certain parcels of land situated along Antonio Writ of Execution and Notice to Vacate in Filstream's favor.
Rivera and Fernando Ma. Guerrero streets in Tondo, Manila which were Subsequently, the trial court also denied the motion filed by the City of
owned by Mr. Enrique Quijano Gutierrez, Filstream's predecessor-in- Manila. On 22 April 1996, the trial court issued an order commanding
interest. The said properties were to be sold and distributed to the demolition of the structure erected on the disputed premises. To
qualified tenants of the area pursuant to the Land Use Development avert the demolition, Malit, et. al. filed before the RTC of Manila,
Program of the City of Manila. On 23 May 1994, the City of Manila filed (Branch 14, Civil Case 96-78098) a Petition for Certiorari and
a complaint for eminent domain before the RTC of Manila (Branch 42, Prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining
Civil Case 94-70560), seeking to expropriate the parcels of land owned order and preliminary injunction . On 15 May 1996, the City of Manila
by Filstream which are situated at Antonio Rivera Street, Tondo II, filed its Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for the
Manila. Pursuant to the complaint filed by the City of Manila, the trial issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction
court issued a Writ of Possession in favor of the former which ordered which was raffled to Branch 23 of the RTC of Manila (Civil Case 96-
the transfer of possession over the disputed premises to the City of 78382), seeking the reversal of the orders issued by the MTC of
Manila. Filstream filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for eminent Manila, Branch 14. Thereafter, upon motion filed by the City of Manila,
domain as well as a motion to quash the writ of possession. On 30 an order was issued by the RTC of Manila, Branch 10, ordering the
September 1994, the RTC of Manila issued an order denying Filstream's consolidation of Civil Case 96-78382 with Civil Case 96-78098 pending
motion to dismiss and the motion to quash the Writ of Possession. before Branch 14 of the RTC of Manila. Injunctions were issued.
Filstream filed a motion for reconsideration as well as a supplemental Filstream then filed a motion for reconsideration from the order of
motion for reconsideration seeking the reversal of the order but the denial but pending resolution of this motion, it filed a motion for
same were denied. Still, Filstream filed a subsequent motion to be voluntary inhibition of the presiding judge of the RTC of Manila, Branch
allowed to file a second motion for reconsideration but it was also 14. The motion for inhibition was granted 25 and as a result, the
denied. Aggrieved, Filstream filed on 31 March 1996, a Petition for consolidated cases (Civil Cases 96-78382 and 96-78098) were re-
Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA- GR SP 36904) seeking to set raffled to the RTC of Manila, Branch 33. During the proceedings before
aside the RTC order. On 18 March 1996, the appellate court dismissed the RTC of Manila, Branch 33, Filstream moved for the dismissal of the
the petition. Filsteream filed a motion for reconsideration and attached consolidated cases (Civil Cases 96-78382 and 96-78098) for violation
clearer copies of the pertinent documents and papers pursuant to of Supreme Court Circular 04-94 (forum shopping) because the same
Section 2(a), Rule 6 of the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of parties, causes of action and subject matter involved therein have
Appeals. But on 20 May 1996, the appellate court issued a resolution already been disposed of in the decision in the ejectment
denying the motion as petitioner failed to submit clearer and readable
copies of the pleadings. This prompted Filstream to proceed to the
Supreme Court by filing a petition for review on certiorari. case (Civil Case 140817) which has already become final and
executory prior to the filing of these consolidated cases. On 9
December 1996, the RTC of Manila, Branch 33 ordered the dismissal of the power of eminent domain is not without limitations. Even Section
Civil Cases 96-78382 and 96-78098 due to forum shopping. 19 of the 1991 Local Government Code is very explicit that it must
Immediately thereafter, Filstream filed an Ex-parte Motion for Issuance comply with the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws. Very
of an Alias Writ of Demolition and Ejectment and a supplemental clear from Sections 9 and 10 of Republic Act 7279 (Urban
motion to the same dated January 10 and 13, 1997, respectively, Development and Housing Act of 1992) are the limitations with
before the MTC of Manila, Branch 15, which promulgated the decision respect to the order of priority in acquiring private lands and in
in the ejectment suit (Civil Case No. 140817-CV). 23 On January resorting to expropriation proceedings as a means to acquire the same.
1997, the court granted the motion and issued the corresponding writ Private lands rank last in the order of priority for purposes of socialized
of demolition. As a consequence of the dismissal of the consolidated housing. In the same vein, expropriation proceedings are to be resorted
cases, Malit, et. al. filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with to only when the other modes of acquisition have been exhausted.
prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary Compliance with these conditions must be deemed mandatory because
injunction before the Court of Appeals (CA-GR SP 43101). At the these are the only safeguards in securing the right of owners of private
conclusion of the hearing for the issuance of a writ of preliminary property to due process when their property is expropriated for public
injunction, the Court of Appeals, in its resolution dated 18 February use. There is nothing in the records that would indicate that City of
1997, found merit in Malit, et. al.'s allegations in support of their Manila complied with Section 9 and Section 10 of RA 7279. Filstream's
application of the issuance of the writ and granted the same. Filstream properties were expropriated and ordered condemned in favor of the
filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. City of Manila sans any showing that resort to the acquisition of other
lands listed under Section 9 of RA 7279 have proved futile. Evidently,
Issue: there was a violation of Filstream's right to due process which must
Whether there is violation of due process against Filstream in the accordingly be rectified.
manner its properties were expropriated and condemned in favor of the
City of Manila. Estate or Heirs of the late ex-Justice Jose B. L. Reyes vs. City of Manila
[GR 132431, 13 February 2004];
Held: Facts:
That only a few could actually benefit from the expropriation of the Jose B. L. Reyes and Heirs of Edmundo Reyes are the pro-indiviso co-
property does not diminish its public use character. It is simply not owners in equal proportion of 11 parcels of land with a total area of
possible to provide all at once land and shelter for all who need them. 13,940 square meters situated at Sta. Cruz District, Manila and
Corollary to the expanded notion of public use, expropriation is not covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 24359 issued by the
anymore confined to vast tracts of land and landed estates. It is Register of Deeds of Manila. These parcels of land are being occupied
therefore of no moment that the land sought to be expropriated in this and leased by different tenants, among whom are respondents Dr.
case is less than half a hectare only. Through the years, the public use Rosario Abiog, Angelina Maglonso and members of the Sampaguita
requirement in eminent domain has evolved into a flexible concept, Bisig ng Magkakapitbahay, Incorporated (SBMI). The Reyeses leased to
influenced by changing conditions. Public use now includes the broader Abiog Lot 2-E, Block 3007 of the consolidated subdivision plan (LRC)
notion of indirect public benefit or advantage, including in particular, Psd- 328345, with an area of 191 square meters and to Maglonso, Lot
urban land reform and housing. The Court takes judicial notice of the 2-R, Block 2996 of the same consolidation plan, with an area of 112
fact that urban land reform has become a paramount task in view of square meters. On 9 November 1993 and 26 May 1994, respectively,
the acute shortage of decent housing in urban areas particularly in Jose B.L. Reyes and the Heirs of Edmundo Reyes filed ejectment
Metro Manila. Nevertheless, despite the existence of a serious dilemma, complaints against Abiog and Maglonso, among others. Upon his death,
local government units are not given an unbridled authority when Jose B.L. Reyes was substituted by his heirs. The heirs obtained
exercising their power of eminent domain in pursuit of solutions to favorable judgments in Civil Case 142851-CV (Metropolitan Trial Court
these problems. The basic rules still have to be followed, which are as [MTC] of Manila, Branch 10, 9 May 1994) against Abiog, and in Civil
follows: "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without Case 144205-CV (MTC of Manila, Branch 3, 4 May 1995) against
due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection Maglonso. Abiog and Maglonso appealed the MTC decisions but the
of the laws; private property shall not be taken for public use without same were denied by the RTC of Manila, Branch 28, and the RTC of
just compensation". Thus, the exercise by local government units of Manila, Branch 38, respectively. Their appeals to the Court of Appeals
were likewise denied. As no appeals were further taken, the judgments Manila, Branch 10, issued a writ of execution. On 31 January 1997,
of eviction against respondents Abiog and Maglonso became final and SBMI filed in the Court of Appeals a motion for leave to intervene with
executory in 1998. During the pendency of the two ejectment cases prayer for injunctive relief praying that the ejectment cases be
against Abiog and Maglonso, the City of Manila filed on 25 April 1995 a suspended or that the execution thereof be enjoined in view of the
complaint for eminent domain (expropriation) of the properties of pendency of the expropriation case filed by the City over the same
Reyeses at the RTC of Manila, Branch 9. The properties sought to be parcels of land. Abiog also filed a reiteratory motion for issuance of
acquired by the City included parcels of land occupied by Abiog, TRO and to stop the execution of the order of the MTC of Manila,
Maglonso and members of SBMI. The complaint was based on Branch 10. On 26 August 1997, the Court of Appeals issued a
Ordinance 7818 enacted on 29 November 1993 authorizing the City resolution finding prima facie basis to grant SBMI’s motions, and issued
Mayor of Manila to expropriate certain parcels of land with an a TRO to Judge Salvador, his employees and agents to maintain the
aggregate area of 9,930 square meters, more or less, owned by Jose status quo. On 27 January 1998, the Court of Appeals rendered the
B.L. Reyes and Edmundo Reyes situated along the streets of Rizal decision reversing the trial court judgment and upholding as valid City’s
Avenue, Tecson, M. Natividad, Sampaguita, Oroquieta, M. Hizon, Felix exercise of its power of eminent domain over the Reyeses’ properties.
Huertes, Bulacan, Sulu, Aurora Boulevard, Pedro Guevarra and Kalimbas From the aforementioned decision of the Court of Appeals, the
in the third district of Manila. The complaint alleged that, on 10 March Reyeses filed on 19 March 1998 the petition for review before the
1995, the City thru City Legal Officer Angel Aguirre, Jr. sent the Supreme Court.
Reyeses a written offer to purchase the subject properties for
P10,285,293.38 but the same was rejected. On 15 May 1995, SBMI, a Issue:
registered non-stock corporation composed of the residents of the Whether there is violation of due process against the Reyeses in the
subject properties, filed a motion for intervention and admission of manner their property were expropriated and condemned in favor of
their attached complaint with prayer for injunction. The trial court the City of Manila.
denied the motion for intervention in an order dated 2 June 1995. On
the day SBMI’s motion for intervention was denied, the Reyeses filed a Held:
motion to dismiss the complaint for eminent domain for lack of merit, The Filstream case is substantially similar in facts and issues to the
alleging various grounds, among them, "that instead of expropriating present case. In Filstream vs. Court of Appeals, the Court held that the
the subject property which enjoys the least priority in the acquisition Sections 9 and 10 of Republic Act 7279 are limitations to the exercise
by the City of Manila for socialized housing under Sec. 9(t) of R.A. of the power of eminent domain, specially with respect to the order of
7279, the money to be paid should be channeled to the development priority in acquiring private lands and in resorting to expropriation
of 244 sites in Metro Manila designated as area for priority proceedings as a means to acquire the same. Private lands rank last in
development." On 6 June 1995, the trial court allowed the City to take the order of priority for purposes of socialized housing. In the same
possession of the subject property upon deposit of the amount of vein, expropriation proceedings are to be resorted to only after the
P1,542,793, based on the P10,285,293.38 offer by the City to the other modes of acquisition have been exhausted. Compliance with
Reyeses which the trial court fixed as the provisional amount of the these conditions is mandatory because these are the only safeguards
subject properties. On 14 June 1995, the City filed an opposition to of often-times helpless owners of private property against violation of
the Reyeses’ motion to dismiss. On 3 October 1995, the City’s due process when their property is forcibly taken from them for public
complaint for eminent domain was dismissed. The City’s motion for use. Herein, the City failed to prove strict compliance with the
reconsideration was denied. On 12 January 1996, the City appealed requirements of Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. The City neither
the decision of the trial court to the Court of Appeals. Thereafter, alleged in its complaint nor proved during the proceedings before the
several motions seeking the issuance of a temporary restraining order trial court that it complied with said requirements. Even in the Court of
(TRO) and preliminary injunction were filed by the City to prevent Appeals, the City in its pleadings failed to show its compliance with the
petitioners from ejecting the occupants of the subject premises. On 21 law. The Court of Appeals was likewise silent on this specific
March 1996, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution denying the jurisdictional issue. This is a clear violation of the right to due process
motions for lack of merit. The City’s motion for reconsideration was of the Reyeses.
likewise denied. Meanwhile, on 27 January 1997, in view of the finality
of the judgment in the ejectment case against Abiog, the MTC of
City of Mandaluyong vs. Aguilar [GR 137152, 29 January 2001] "small property owners" whose land is exempt from expropriation
Facts: under Republic Act 7279. The court also found that the expropriation
Antonio, Francisco, Thelma, Eusebio, and Rodolfo N. Aguilar, was not for a public purpose for the City's failure to present any
constructed residential houses several decades ago on a portion of the evidence that the intended beneficiaries of the expropriation are
3 lots located at 9 de Febrero Street, Barangay Mauwag, City of landless and homeless residents of Mandaluyong. The City moved for
Mandaluyong. The Aguilars had since leased out these houses to reconsideration. On 29 December 1998, the court denied the motion.
tenants until the present. On the vacant portion of the lots, other The City filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.
families constructed residential structures which they likewise
occupied. In 1983, the lots were classified by Resolution 125 of the Issue:
Board of the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council as Whether the City has exhausted all means to acquire the land under
an Area for Priority Development for urban land reform under the hands of private persons, but which is within the Areas for Priority
Proclamation 1967 and 2284 of then President Marcos. As a result of Development (APD).
this classification, the tenants and occupants of the lots offered to
purchase the land from the Aguilars, but the latter refused to sell. On 7 Held:
November 1996, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Mandaluyong, upon Presidential Decree (PD) 1517, the Urban Land Reform Act, was issued
petition of the Kapitbisig, an association of tenants and occupants of by then President Marcos in 1978. The decree adopted as a State
the subject land, adopted Resolution 516, Series of 1996 authorizing policy the liberation of human communities from blight, congestion and
Mayor Benjamin Abalos of the City of Mandaluyong to initiate action for hazard, and promotion of their development and modernization, the
the expropriation of the subject lots and construction of a medium-rise optimum use of land as a national resource for public welfare. Pursuant
condominium for qualified occupants of the land. On 10 January 1996, to this law, Proclamation 1893 was issued in 1979 declaring the entire
Mayor Abalos allegedly sent a letter to the Aguilars offering to Metro Manila as Urban Land Reform Zone for purposes of urban land
purchase the said property at P3,000.00 per square meter. On 4 reform. This was amended in 1980 by Proclamation 1967 and in 1983
August 1997, the City filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch by Proclamation 2284 which identified and specified 245 sites in Metro
168, Pasig City a complaint for expropriation, seeking to expropriate 3 Manila as Areas for Priority Development and Urban Land Reform
adjoining parcels of land with an aggregate area of 1,847 square Zones. The acquisition of lands for socialized housing is governed by
meters in the names of the Aguilars, and praying that the fixing of just several provisions in the law. Pursuant to Section 9 of RA 7279, Lands
compensation at the fair market value of P3,000.00 per square meter. for socialized housing are to be acquired in the following order: (1)
In their answer, the Aguilars, except Eusebio who died in 1995, denied government lands; (2) alienable lands of the public domain; (3)
having received a copy of Mayor Abalos' offer to purchase their lots. unregistered or abandoned or idle lands; (4) lands within the declared
They alleged that the expropriation of their land is arbitrary and Areas for Priority Development (APD), Zonal Improvement Program
capricious, and is not for a public purpose; that the subject lots are (ZIP) sites, Slum Improvement and Resettlement (SIR) sites which have
their only real property and are too small for expropriation, while the not yet been acquired; (5) BLISS sites which have not yet been
City has several properties inventoried for socialized housing; and that acquired; and (6) privately- owned lands. Section 9, however, is not a
the fair market value of P3,000.00 per square meter is arbitrary single provision that can be read separate from the other provisions of
because the zonal valuation set by the Bureau of Internal Revenue is the law. It must be read together with Section 10 of RA 7279. Thus,
P7,000.00 per square meter. As counterclaim, the Aguilars prayed for lands for socialized housing under RA 7279 are to be acquired in
damages of P21 million. On 5 November 1997, the City filed an several modes. Among these modes are the following: (1) community
Amended Complaint and named as an additional defendant Virginia N. mortgage;
Aguilar and, at the same time, substituted Eusebio Aguilar with his (2) land swapping, (3) land assembly or consolidation; (4) land
heirs. The City also excluded from expropriation TCT N59870 and banking; (5) donation to the government; (6) joint venture agreement;
thereby reduced the area sought to be expropriated from three (3) (7) negotiated purchase; and (8) expropriation. The mode of
parcels of land to two (2) parcels totalling 1,636 square [Link] expropriation is subject to two conditions: (a) it shall be resorted to
Amended Complaint was admitted by the trial court on 18 December only when the other modes of acquisition have been exhausted; and
1997. On 17 September 1998, the trial court issued an order (b) parcels of land owned by small property owners are exempt from
dismissing the Amended Complaint after declaring the Aguilars as such acquisition. The acquisition of the lands in the priority list must be
made subject to the modes and conditions set forth in the next E. Magno, Alberto Cabuenas, Narciso Cabuenas and Victoria Cabuenas,
provision. In other words, land that lies within the APD may be acquired Eutiquioseno, Heirs of Esperidion Cabuenas (Represented by Alberto
only in the modes under, and subject to the conditions of, Section 10. Cabuenas), Maximina Navaro, Sulpicio Navaro, Eduardo Navaro,
Herein, the City claims that it had faithfully observed the different Martiniano Roma (In Representation of Arcadio Mabini, Deceased),
modes of land acquisition for socialized housing under RA 7279 and Martin Seno, Fausto Arda, Maxima Cabilao, Estrella Seno, Eduvegis S.
adhered to the priorities in the acquisition for socialized housing under Cabilao, Rosario Cabilao, Minors Danilo, Socorro, Josefina and Marites,
said law. It, however, did not state with particularity whether it All Surnamed Cabilao, Juan Borres (Represented by Francisca Borres),
exhausted the other modes of acquisition in Section 9 of the law Ramon Jabadan, Jesus Alipar and Leonila Kabahar, Antonio Labrador,
before it decided to expropriate the subject lots. The law states Heirs of Nicasio Gabisay (Represented by Arsenio Gabisay), Pacifico
"expropriation shall be resorted to when other modes of acquisition Labrador, Demetrio Labrador and Fructosa Tabura, Venancio Del Mar,
have been exhausted." The City alleged only one mode of acquisition, Marino Del Mar, Heirs of Teodora Arcillo (Represented by Brigida Arcillo)
i.e., by negotiated purchase. The City, through the City Mayor, tried to Dionisia Gabunada, Heirs of Buenaventura Francisco (Represented by
purchase the lots from the Aguilars but the latter refused to sell. As to Felicidad Sadaya Francisco), Heirs of Victoria C. Cabuenas (Represented
the other modes of acquisition, no mention has been made. Not even by Alberto Cabuenas) Heirs of Cipriano Gabunada (Represented by
Resolution 516, Series of 1996 of the Sangguniang Panlungsod Claudio Gabunada) filed their oppositions, and had a common allegation
authorizing the Mayor of Mandaluyong to effect the expropriation of in that the taking is allegedly not impressed with public use under the
the subject property states whether the city government tried to Constitution; alleging that there is no specific constitutional provision
acquire the same by community mortgage, land swapping, land authorizing the taking of private property for tourism purposes; that
assembly or consolidation, land banking, donation to the government, assuming that PTA has such power, the intended use cannot be
or joint venture agreement under Section 9 of the law. paramount to the determination of the land as a land reform area; that
limiting the amount of compensation by legislative fiat is
Heirs of Juancho Ardona vs. Reyes [GR L-60549, 60553 to 60555; 26 constitutionally repugnant; and that since the land is under the land
October 1983] reform program, it is the Court of Agrarian Relations and not the Court
Facts: of First Instance (CFI), that has jurisdiction over the expropriation
The Philippine Tourism Authority filed 4 complaints with the Court of [Link] Philippine Tourism Authority having deposited with the
First Instance of Cebu City for the expropriation of some 282 hectares Philippine National Bank, Cebu City Branch, an amount equivalent to
of rolling land situated in barangays Malubog and Babag, Cebu City, 10% of the value of the properties pursuant to Presidential Decree No.
under PTA's express authority "to acquire by purchase, by negotiation 1533, the lower court issued separate orders authorizing PTA to take
or by condemnation proceedings any private land within and without immediate possession of the premises and directing the issuance of
the tourist zones" for the purposes indicated in Section 5, paragraph writs of possession. The Heirs of Ardona, et. al. filed a petition for
B(2), of its Revised Charter (PD 564), more specifically, for the certiorari with preliminary injunction before the Supreme Court.
development into integrated resort complexes of selected and well-
defined geographic areas with potential tourism value, specifically for Issue:
the construction of a sports complex (basketball courts, tennis courts, Whether the expropriation of parcels of land for the purpose of
volleyball courts, track and field, baseball and softball diamonds, and constructing a sports complex, including a golf course, by the Philippine
swimming pools), clubhouse, gold course, children's playground and a Tourism Authority be considered taking for “public use.”
nature area for picnics and horseback riding for the use of the public.
The Heirs of Juancho Ardona (Represented by Gloria Ardona) Anastacio Held:
C. Cabilao, Heirs of Cipriano Cabilao (Represented by Jose Cabilao) There are three provisions of the 1973 Constitution which directly
Modesta Cabilao, Heirs of Roman Cabuenas (Represented by Alberto provide for the exercise of the power of eminent domain. Section 2,
Cabuenas), Agripino Gabisay and Prudencia Mabini, Antonio Labrador Article IV states that private property shall not be taken for public use
and Lucia Gabisay, Geronimo Mabini and Marcelina Sabal, Inocencio without just compensation. Section 6, Article XIV allows the State, in
Mabini and Arsenia Reyes, Patricio Mabini and Gregoria Borres, Aniceto the interest of national welfare or defense and upon payment of just
Gadapan and Maxima Gabisay, Bartolome Magno and Calineca compensation to transfer to public ownership, utilities and other
private enterprises to be operated by the government. Section 13,
Article XIV states that the Batasang Pambansa may authorize upon for immediate possession of the properties. The NHA deposited the
payment of just compensation the expropriation of private lands to be amount of P158,980.00 with the Philippine National Bank, representing
subdivided into small lots and conveyed at cost to deserving citizens. the "total market value" of the subject 25 hectares of land, pursuant
While not directly mentioning the expropriation of private properties to Presidential Decree 1224 which defines "the policy on the
upon payment of just compensation, the provisions on social justice expropriation of private property for socialized housing upon payment
and agrarian reforms which allow the exercise of police power together of just compensation." On 17 January 1978, Judge Buenaventura
with the power of eminent domain in the implementation of Guerrero issued the order issuing a writ of possession in favor of NHA.
constitutional objectives are even more far reaching insofar as taxing Sumulong and Vidanes-Balaoing filed a motion for reconsideration on
of private property is concerned. The restrictive view of public use may the ground that they had been deprived of the possession of their
be appropriate for a nation which circumscribes the scope of property without due process of law. This was, however, denied. They
government activities and public concerns and which possesses big and filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.
correctly located public lands that obviate the need to take private
property for public purposes. Neither circumstance applies to the Issue:
Philippines. The Philippines has never been a laissez faire State, and the Whether the taking of private property for “socialized housing,” which
necessities which impel the exertion of sovereign power are all too would benefit a few and not all citizens, constitutes taking for “public
often found in areas of scarce public land or limited government use.”
resources. There can be no doubt that expropriation for such
traditional purposes as the construction of roads, bridges, ports, Held:
waterworks, schools, electric and telecommunications systems, The exercise of the power of eminent domain is subject to certain
hydroelectric power plants, markets and slaughterhouses, parks, limitations imposed by the constitution (1973), i.e. that private
hospitals, government office buildings, and flood control or irrigation property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation"
systems is valid. However, the concept of public use is not limited to (Art. IV, sec. 9); and that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
traditional purposes. Here as elsewhere the idea that "public use" is property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied
strictly limited to clear cases of "use by the public" has been the equal protection of the laws" (Art. IV, sec. 1). The "public use"
discarded. The Philippine Tourism Authority has stressed that the requirement for a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain is a
development of the 808 hectares includes plans that would give the flexible and evolving concept influenced by changing conditions. The
Heirs of Ardona, et. al. and other displaced persons productive term "public use" has acquired a more comprehensive coverage. To the
employment, higher incomes, decent housing, water and electric literal import of the term signifying strict use or employment by the
facilities, and better living standards. The Court’s dismissal of the public has been added the broader notion of indirect public benefit or
petition is, in part, predicated on those assurances. The right of the advantage. Specifically, urban renewal or redevelopment and the
PTA to proceed with the expropriation of the 282 hectares already construction of low-cost housing is recognized as a public purpose, not
identified as fit for the establishment of a resort complex to promote only because of the expanded concept of public use but also because
tourism is, therefore, sustained. of specific provisions in the Constitution. The 1973 Constitution made
it incumbent upon the State to establish, maintain and ensure
Sumulong vs. Guerrero [GR L-48685, 30 September 1987] adequate social services including housing [Art. II, sec. 7]. Housing is a
Facts: basic human need. Shortage in housing is a matter of state concern
On 5 December 1977 the National Housing Authority (NHA) filed a since it directly and significantly affects public health, safety, the
complaint for expropriation of parcels of land covering approximately environment and in sum, the general welfare. The public character of
25 hectares, (in Antipolo Rizal) including the lots of Lorenzo Sumulong housing measures does not change because units in housing projects
and Emilia Vidanes-Balaoing with an area of 6,667 square meters and cannot be occupied by all but only by those who satisfy prescribed
3,333 square meters respectively. The land sought to be expropriated qualifications. A beginning has to be made, for it is not possible to
were valued by the NHA at P1.00 per square meter adopting the provide housing for all who need it, all at once. "Socialized housing"
market value fixed by the provincial assessor in accordance with falls within the confines of "public use". Provisions on economic
presidential decrees prescribing the valuation of property in opportunities inextricably linked with low-cost housing, or slum
expropriation proceedings. Together with the complaint was a motion clearance, relocation and resettlement, or slum improvement
emphasize the public purpose of the project. Herein, the use to which Series of 1988 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan be declared null and
it is proposed to put the subject parcels of land meets the requisites of void; (b) that the complaints for expropriation be dismissed; and (c)
"public use". The lands in question are being expropriated by the NHA that the order dated December 6, 1989 (i) denying the motion to
for the expansion of Bagong Nayon Housing Project to provide housing dismiss and (ii) allowing the Province of Camarines Sur to take
facilities to low-salaried government employees. The Supreme Court possession of the property subject of the expropriation and the order
holds that "socialized housing" defined in Presidential Decree 1224, as dated February 26, 1990, denying the motion to admit the amended
amended by Presidential Decrees 1259 and 1313, constitutes "public motion to dismiss, be set aside. They also asked that an order be
use" for purposes of expropriation. However, as previously held by the issued to restrain the trial court from enforcing the writ of possession,
Supreme Court, the provisions of such decrees on just compensation and thereafter to issue a writ of injunction. The Court of Appeals set
are unconstitutional. Herein, the Court finds that the Orders issued aside the order of the trial court, and ordered the trial court to
pursuant to the corollary provisions of those decrees authorizing suspend the expropriation proceedings until after the Province of
immediate taking without notice and hearing are violative of due Camarines Sur shall have submitted the requisite approval of the
process. Department of Agrarian Reform to convert the classification of the
property of the San Joaquins from agricultural to non-agricultural land.
The Province of Camarines Sur filed a petition for certiorari before the
Province of Camarines Sur vs. Court of Appeals [GR 103125, 17 May Supreme Court.
1993]
Facts: Issue:
On 22 December 1988, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province Whether the establishment of the Pilot Development Center and the
of Camarines Sur passed Resolution 129, Series of 1988, authorizing housing project are deemed for “public use.”
the Provincial Governor to purchase or expropriate property contiguous
to the provincial capitol site, in order to establish a pilot farm for non- Held:
food and non-traditional agricultural crops and a housing project for Local government units have no inherent power of eminent domain and
provincial government employees. Pursuant to the Resolution, the can exercise it only when expressly authorized by the legislature. In
Province of Camarines Sur, through its Governor, Hon. Luis R. delegating the power to expropriate, the legislature may retain certain
Villafuerte, filed two separate cases for expropriation against Ernesto control or impose certain restraints on the exercise thereof by the local
N. San Joaquin and Efren N. San Joaquin with the Regional Trial Court, governments. While such delegated power may be a limited authority,
Pili, Camarines Sur (Hon. Benjamin V. Panga presiding; Special Civil it is complete within its limits. Moreover, the limitations on the exercise
Action Nos. P-17-89 and P-19-89). Forthwith, the Province of of the delegated power must be clearly expressed, either in the law
Camarines Sur filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession. conferring the power or in other legislations. It is the legislative branch
The San Joaquins failed to appear at the hearing of the motion. The of the local government unit that shall determine whether the use of
San Joaquins moved to dismiss the complaints on the ground of the property sought to be expropriated shall be public, the same being
inadequacy of the price offered for their property. In an order dated 6 an expression of legislative policy. The courts defer to such legislative
December 1989, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss and determination and will intervene only when a particular undertaking has
authorized the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession of the no real or substantial relation to the public use. Statutes conferring the
property upon the deposit with the Clerk of Court of the amount of power of eminent domain to political subdivisions cannot be broadened
P5,714.00, the amount provisionally fixed by the trial court to answer or constricted by implication. Section 9 of BP 337 does not intimate in
for damages that San Joaquin may suffer in the event that the the least that local government units must first secure the approval of
expropriation cases do not prosper. The trial court issued a writ of the Department of Land Reform for the conversion of lands from
possession in an order dated 18 January 1990. The San Joaquins filed agricultural to non-agricultural use, before they can institute the
a motion for relief from the order, authorizing the Province of necessary expropriation proceedings. Likewise, there is no provision in
Camarines Sur to take possession of their property and a motion to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law which expressly subjects the
admit an amended motion to dismiss. Both motions were denied in the expropriation of agricultural lands by local government units to the
order dated 26 February 1990. The San Joaquins filed their petition control of the Department of Agrarian Reform. The rules on conversion
before the Court of Appeals, praying (a) that Resolution No. 129, of agricultural lands found in Section 4 (k) and 5 (1) of Executive Order
129-A, Series of 1987, cannot be the source of the authority of the the land to be a national historical landmark. The resolution was, on 6
Department of Agrarian Reform to determine the suitability of a parcel January 1986, approved by the Minister of Education, Culture and
of agricultural land for the purpose to which it would be devoted by the Sports (MECS). Later, the opinion of the Secretary of Justice was
expropriating authority. While those rules vest on the Department of asked on the legality of the measure. In his opinion 133, Series of
Agrarian Reform the exclusive authority to approve or disapprove 1987, the Secretary of Justice replied in the affirmative. Accordingly,
conversions of agricultural lands for residential, commercial or industrial on 29 May 1989, the Republic, through the office of the Solicitor-
uses, such authority is limited to the applications for reclassification General, instituted a complaint for expropriation before the Regional
submitted by the land owners or tenant beneficiaries. Further, there Trial Court of Pasig for and in behalf of the NHI. At the same time, the
has been a shift from the literal to a broader interpretation of "public Republic filed an urgent motion for the issuance of an order to permit it
purpose" or "public use" for which the power of eminent domain may to take immediate possession of the property. The motion was
be exercised. The old concept was that the condemned property must opposed by the Manoscas. After a hearing, the trial court issued, on 3
actually be used by the general public (e.g. roads, bridges, public August 1989, an order fixing the provisional market (P54,120.00) and
plazas, etc.) before the taking thereof could satisfy the constitutional assessed (P16,236.00) values of the property and authorizing the
requirement of "public use". Under the new concept, "public use" Republic to take over the property once the required sum would have
means public advantage, convenience or benefit, which tends to been deposited with the Municipal Treasurer of Taguig, Metro Manila.
contribute to the general welfare and the prosperity of the whole The Manoscas moved to dismiss the complaint on the main thesis that
community, like a resort complex for tourists or housing project. The the intended expropriation was not for a public purpose and,
expropriation of the property authorized by Resolution 129, Series of incidentally, that the act would constitute an application of public
1988, is for a public purpose. The establishment of a pilot funds, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of Iglesia ni
development center would inure to the direct benefit and advantage of Cristo, a religious entity, contrary to the provision of Section 29(2),
the people of the Province of Camarines Sur. Once operational, the Article VI, of the 1987 Constitution. The trial court issued its denial of
center would make available to the community invaluable information said motion to dismiss. The Manoscas moved for reconsideration
and technology on agriculture, fishery and the cottage industry. thereafter but were denied. The Manoscas then lodged a petition for
Ultimately, the livelihood of the farmers, fishermen and craftsmen certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals. On 15 January
would be enhanced. The housing project also satisfies the public 1992, the appellate court dismissed the petition/A motion for the
purpose requirement of the Constitution. Housing is a basic human reconsideration of the decision was denied by the appellate court on
need. Shortage in housing is a matter of state concern since it directly 23 July 1992. The Manoscas filed a petition for review on certiorari
and significantly affects public health, safety, the environment and in with the Supreme Court.
sum the general welfare. Thus, the decision of the Court of Appeals is
set aside insofar as it (a) nullifies the trial court's order allowing the Issue:
Province of Camarines Sur to take possession of the property of the Whether the setting up of the marker in commemoration of Felix
San Joaquins; (b) orders the trial court to suspend the expropriation Manalo, the founder of the religious sect Iglesia ni Cristo, constitutes
proceedings; and (c) requires the Province of Camarines Sur to obtain “public use.”
the approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform to convert or
reclassify the property of the San Joaquins property from agricultural Held:
to non-agricultural use. Eminent domain, also often referred to as expropriation and, with less
frequency, as condemnation, is, like police power and taxation, an
Manosca vs. Court of Appeals [GR 106440, 29 January 1996] inherent power of sovereignty. It need not be clothed with any
Facts: constitutional gear to exist; instead, provisions in our Constitution on
Alejandro, Asuncion and Leonica Manosca inherited a piece of land the subject are meant more to regulate, rather than to grant, the
located at P. Burgos Street, Calzada, Taguig, Metro Manila, with an area exercise of the power. Eminent domain is generally so described as
of about 492 square meters. When the parcel was ascertained by the "the highest and most exact idea of property remaining in the
National Historical Institute (NHI) to have been the birthsite of Felix Y. government" that may be acquired for some public purpose through a
Manalo, the founder of Iglesia Ni Cristo, it passed Resolution 1, Series method in the nature of a forced purchase by the State. It is a right to
of 1986, pursuant to Section 4 of Presidential Decree 260, declaring take or reassert dominion over property within the state for public use
or to meet a public exigency. It is said to be an essential part of maintained. Finding the said order unacceptable, PEZA interposed an
governance even in its most primitive form and thus inseparable from appeal to the Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, the Estate and PEZA
sovereignty. The only direct constitutional qualification is that "private entered into a compromise agreement, dated 4 January 1993. The
property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation." compromise agreement provides "(1) That plaintiff agrees to withdraw
This prescription is intended to provide a safeguard against possible its appeal from the Order of the Honorable Court dated October 25,
abuse and so to protect as well the individual against whose property 1991 which released lot 1406-A from the expropriation proceedings.
the power is sought to be enforced. The term "public use," not having On the other hand, defendant Estate of Salud Jimenez agrees to waive,
been otherwise defined by the constitution, must be considered in its quitclaim and forfeit its claim for damages and loss of income which it
general concept of meeting a public need or a public exigency. The sustained by reason of the possession of said lot by plaintiff from
validity of the exercise of the power of eminent domain for traditional 1981 up to the present. (2) That the parties agree that defendant
purposes is beyond question; it is not at all to be said, however, that Estate of Salud Jimenez shall transfer lot 1406-B with an area of
public use should thereby be restricted to such traditional uses. The 13,118 square meters which forms part of the lot registered under
idea that "public use" is strictly limited to clear cases of "use by the TCT No. 113498 of the Registry of Deeds of Cavite to the name of the
public" has long been discarded. The purpose in setting up the marker plaintiff and the same shall be swapped and exchanged with lot 434
is essentially to recognize the distinctive contribution of the late Felix with an area of 14,167 square meters and covered by Transfer
Manalo to the culture of the Philippines, rather than to commemorate Certificate of Title No. 14772 of the Registry of Deeds of Cavite which
his founding and leadership of the Iglesia ni Cristo. The attempt to give lot will be transferred to the name of Estate of Salud Jimenez. (3) That
some religious perspective to the case deserves little consideration, for the swap arrangement recognizes the fact that the lot 1406-B covered
what should be significant is the principal objective of, not the casual by TCT No. T-113498 of the estate of defendant Salud Jimenez is
consequences that might follow from, the exercise of the power. The considered expropriated in favor of the government based on Order of
practical reality that greater benefit may be derived by members of the the Honorable Court dated July 11, 1991. However, instead of being
Iglesia ni Cristo than by most others could well be true but such a paid the just compensation for said lot, the estate of said defendant
peculiar advantage still remains to be merely incidental and secondary shall be paid with lot 434 covered by TCT No. T-14772. (4) That the
in nature. Indeed, that only a few would actually benefit from the parties agree that they will abide by the terms of the foregoing
expropriation of property does not necessarily diminish the essence agreement in good faith and the Decision to be rendered based on this
and character of public use. Compromise Agreement is immediately final and executory." The Court
of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for the approval of the
Estate of Salud Jimenez vs. Philippine Export Processing Zone [GR said compromise agreement entered into between the parties,
137285, 16 January 2001] consequent with the withdrawal of the appeal with the Court of
Facts: Appeals. In the Order dated 23 August 1993, the trial court approved
On 15 May 1981, Philippine Export Processing Zone (PEZA), then called the compromise agreement. However, PEZA failed to transfer the title
as the Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA), initiated before the of Lot 434 to the Estate inasmuch as it was not the registered owner
Regional Trial Court of Cavite expropriation proceedings on 3 parcels of of the covering TCT T-14772 but Progressive Realty Estate, Inc. Thus,
irrigated riceland in Rosario, Cavite. One of the lots, Lot 1406 (A and on 13 March 1997, the Estate filed a "Motion to Partially Annul the
B) of the San Francisco de Malabon Estate, with an approximate area of Order dated August 23, 1993." In the Order dated 4 August 1997, the
29,008 square meters, is registered in the name of Salud Jimenez trial court annulled the said compromise agreement entered into
(TCT T-113498 of the Registry of Deeds of Cavite). More than 10 between the parties and directed PEZA to peacefully turn over Lot
years later, the said trial court in an Order dated 11 July 1991 upheld 1406- A to the Estate. Disagreeing with the said Order of the trial
the right of PEZA to expropriate, among others, Lot 1406 (A and B). court, respondent PEZA moved for its reconsideration, which was
Reconsideration of the said order was sought by the Estate of Salud denied in an order dated 3 November 1997. On 4 December 1997, the
Jimenez contending that said lot would only be transferred to a private trial court, at the instance of the Estate, corrected the Orders dated 4
corporation, Philippine Vinyl Corp., and hence would not be utilized for August 1997 and 3 November 1997 by declaring that it is Lot 1406-B
a public purpose. In an Order dated 25 October 1991, the trial court and not Lot 1406-A that should be surrendered and returned to the
reconsidered the Order dated 11 July 1991 and released Lot 1406-A Estate. On 27 November 1997, PEZA interposed before the Court of
from expropriation while the expropriation of Lot 1406-B was Appeals a petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to nullify the
Orders dated 4 August 1997 and 3 November 1997 of the trial court. its original charter, Presidential Decree 66. Accordingly, subject Lot
Acting on the petition, the Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated 25 1406-B was expropriated "for the construction of terminal facilities,
March 1998, partially granted the petition by setting aside the order of structures and approaches thereto." The authority is broad enough to
the trial court regarding "the peaceful turn over to the Estate of Salud give PEZA substantial leeway in deciding for what public use the
Jimenez of Lot 1406- B" and instead ordered the trial judge to expropriated property would be utilized. Pursuant to this broad
"proceed with the hearing of the expropriation proceedings regarding authority, PEZA leased a portion of the lot to commercial banks while
the determination of just compensation over Lot 1406-B." The Estate the rest was made a transportation terminal. Said public purposes were
sought reconsideration of the Decision dated 25 March 1998. even reaffirmed by Republic Act 7916, a law amending PEZA's original
However, the appellate court in a Resolution dated 14 January 1999 charter. As reiterated in various case, the "public use" requirement for
denied the Estate's motion for reconsideration. The Estate filed a a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain is a flexible and
petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. evolving concept influenced by changing conditions. The term "public
use" has acquired a more comprehensive coverage. To the literal
Issue: import of the term signifying strict use or employment by the public
Whether the purpose of the expropriation by PEZA is of “public use.” has been added the broader notion of indirect public benefit or
advantage. What ultimately emerged is a concept of public use which is
Held: just as broad as "public welfare."
This is an expropriation case which involves two (2) orders: an
expropriation order and an order fixing just compensation. Once the Municipality of Meycauayan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court [GR L-
first order becomes final and no appeal thereto is taken, the authority 72126, 29 January 1988]
to expropriate and its public use cannot anymore be questioned. Facts:
Contrary to the Estate's contention, the incorporation of the In 1975, the Philippine Pipes and Merchandising Corporation (PPMC)
expropriation order in the compromise agreement did not subject said filed with the Office of the Municipal Mayor of Meycauayan, Bulacan, an
order to rescission but instead constituted an admission by the Estate application for a permit to fence a parcel of land with a width of 26.8
of PEZA's authority to expropriate the subject parcel of land and the meters and a length of 184.37 meters covered by TCTs 215165 and
public purpose for which it was expropriated. This is evident from 37879. The fencing of said property was allegedly to enable the
paragraph three (3) of the compromise agreement which states that storage of PMC's heavy equipment and various finished products such
the "swap arrangement recognizes the fact that Lot 1406-B covered as large diameter steel pipes, pontoon pipes for ports, wharves, and
by TCT T-113498 of the estate of defendant Salud Jimenez is harbors, bridge components, pre-stressed girders and piles, large
considered expropriated in favor of the government based on the Order diameter concrete pipes, and parts for low cost housing. In the same
of the Honorable Court dated 11 July 1991." It is crystal clear from year, the Municipal Council of Meycauayan, headed by then Mayor Celso
the contents of the agreement that the parties limited the compromise R. Legaspi, passed Resolution 258, Series of 1975, manifesting the
agreement to the matter of just compensation to the Estate. Said intention to expropriate the respondent's parcel of land covered by
expropriation order is not closely intertwined with the issue of payment TCT 37879. An opposition to the resolution was filed by the PPMC with
such that failure to pay by PEZA will also nullify the right of PEZA to the Office of the Provincial Governor, which, in turn, created a special
expropriate. No statement to this effect was mentioned in the committee of four members to investigate the matter. On 10 March
agreement. The Order was mentioned in the agreement only to clarify 1976, the Special Committee recommended that the Provincial Board
what was subject to payment. Since the compromise agreement was of Bulacan disapprove or annul the resolution in question because there
only about the mode of payment by swapping of lots and not about was no genuine necessity for the Municipality of Meycauayan to
the right and purpose to expropriate the subject Lot 1406-B, only the expropriate the respondent's property for use as a public road. On the
originally agreed form of compensation that is by cash payment, was basis of this report, the Provincial Board of Bulacan passed Resolution
rescinded. PEZA has the legal authority to expropriate the subject Lot 238, Series of 1976, disapproving and annulling Resolution 258, Series
1406-B and that the same was for a valid public purpose. PEZA of 1975, of the Municipal Council of Meycauayan. The PPMC, then,
expropriated the subject parcel of land pursuant to Proclamation 1980 reiterated to the Office of the Mayor its petition for the approval of
dated 30 May 1980 issued by former President Ferdinand Marcos. the permit to fence the aforesaid parcels of land. On 21 October 1983,
Meanwhile, the power of eminent domain of respondent is contained in however, the Municipal Council of Meycauayan, now headed by Mayor
Adriano D. Daez, passed Resolution 21, Series of 1983, for the purpose
of expropriating anew PPMC's land. The Provincial Board of Bulacan thereof may be condemned in the exercise of the power of
approved the aforesaid resolution on 25 January 1984. Thereafter, the expropriation, it is still a judicial question whether in the exercise of
Municipality of Meycauayan, on 14 February 1984, filed with the such competence, the party adversely affected is the victim of
Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch VI, a special civil action partiality and prejudice. That the equal protection clause will not allow.
for expropriation. Upon deposit of the amount of P24,025.00, which is The Special Committee's Report, dated 10 March 1976, stated that
the market value of the land, with the Philippine National Bank, the trial "there is no genuine necessity for the Municipality of Meycauayan to
court on 1 March 1984 issued a writ of possession in favor of the expropriate the aforesaid property of the Philippine Pipes and
municipality. On 27 August 1984, the trial court issued an order Merchandizing Corporation for use as a public road. Considering that in
declaring the taking of the property as lawful and appointing the the vicinity there are other available road and vacant lot offered for
Provincial Assessor of Bulacan as court commissioner who shall hold sale situated similarly as the lot in question and lying idle, unlike the lot
the hearing to ascertain the just compensation for the property. PPMC sought to be expropriated which was found by the Committee to be
went to the Intermediate Appellate Court on petition for review. On 10 badly needed by the company as a site for its heavy equipment after it
January 1985, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision. is fenced together with the adjoining vacant lot, the justification to
However, upon motion for reconsideration by PPMC, the decision was condemn the same does not appear to be very imperative and
re-examined and reversed. The appellate court held that there is no necessary and would only cause unjustified damage to the firm. The
genuine necessity to expropriate the land for use as a public road as desire of the Municipality of Meycauayan to build a public road to
there were several other roads for the same purpose and another more decongest the volume of traffic can be fully and better attained by
appropriate lot for the proposed public road. The court, taking into acquiring the other available roads in the vicinity maybe at lesser costs
consideration the location and size of the land, also opined that the without causing harm to an establishment doing legitimate business
land is more ideal for use as storage area for respondent's heavy therein. Or, the municipality may seek to expropriate a portion of the
equipment and finished products. After its motion for reconsideration vacant lot also in the vicinity offered for sale for a wider public road to
was denied, the municipality went to the Supreme Court on petition for attain decongestion of traffic because as observed by the Committee,
review on certiorari on 25 October 1985. the lot of the Corporation sought to be taken will only accommodate a
one-way traffic lane and therefore, will not suffice to improve and
Issue: decongest the flow of traffic and pedestrians in the Malhacan area."
Whether there is genuine necessity to expropriate PPMC’s property for There is absolutely no showing in the petition why the more
the purpose of a connecting road, in light of other appropriate lots for appropriate lot for the proposed road which was offered for sale has
the purpose. not been the subject of the municipalities's attempt to expropriate
assuming there is a real need for another connecting road.
Held:
There is no question here as to the right of the State to take private De Knecht vs. Bautista [GR L-51078, 30 October 1980]
property for public use upon payment of just compensation. What is Facts:
questioned is the existence of a genuine necessity therefor. The In 1970, the government through the Department of Public Works and
foundation of the right to exercise the power of eminent domain is Communications (now Ministy of Public Highways [MPH]) prepared a
genuine necessity and that necessity must be of a public character. plan to extend Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA) to Roxas
Condemnation of private property is justified only if it is for the public Boulevard. The proposed extension, an adjunct of another road-building
good and there is a genuine necessity of a public character. program, the Manila—Cavite Coastal Road Project, would pass through
Consequently, the courts have the power to require into the legality of Cuneta Avenue up to Roxas Boulevard. The route was designed to be a
the exercise of the right of eminent domain and to determine whether straight one, taking into account the direction of EDSA. Preparatory to
there is a genuine necessity therefor. The government may not the implementation of the aforesaid plan, or on 13 December 1974,
capriciously choose what private property should be taken. With due then Secretary Baltazar Aquino of the Department of Public Highways
recognition then of the power of Congress to designate the particular directed the City Engineer of Pasay City not to issue temporary or
property to be taken and how much permanent permits for the construction and/or improvement of
buildings and other structures located within the proposed extension
through Cuneta Avenue. Shortly thereafter the Department of Public manner. It is, as had been stressed so often, the embodiment of the
Highways decided to make the proposed extension go through sporting idea off air play. In that sense, it stands as a guaranty of
Fernando Rein and Del Pan Streets which are lined with old substantial justice. That is the standard that must be met by any governmental
houses. Upon petition of the residents therein to the President of the agency in the exercise of whatever competence is entrusted to it. As
Philippines for the implementation of the original plan, the President was so emphatically stressed by the present Chief Justice, Acts of
referred the matter to the Human Settlements Commission. The Congress, as well as those of the Executive, can deny due process only
Commission submitted its report recommending the reversion to the under pain of nullity. Herein, it is a fact that the Department of Public
original plan passing through Cuneta Avenue. Notwithstanding said Highways originally establish the extension of EDSA along Cuneta
recommendation, the MPH insisted on implementing the plan to make Avenue. It is to be presumed that the Department of Public Highways
the extension of EDSA go through Fernando Rein and Del Pan Streets. made studies before deciding on Cuneta Avenue. It is indeed odd why
In February 1979, the government filed in the Court of First Instance suddenly the proposed extension of EDSA to Roxas Boulevard was
(CFI) of Rizal, Branch III, Pasay City (Judge Pedro JL. Bautista presiding; changed to go through Fernando Rein — Del Pan Streets which the
Civil Case 7001-P), a complaint for expropriation against the owners of Solicitor General concedes "the Del Pan — Fernando Rein Streets line
the houses standing along Fernando Rein and Del Pan Streets, among follows northward and inward direction While admitting "that both
them Cristina de Knecht. De Knecht filed a motion to dismiss dated 9 lines, Cuneta Avenue and Del Pan — Fernando Rein Streets lines, meet
March 1979. An urgent motion dated 28 March 1979 for preliminary satisfactorily planning and design criteria and therefore are both
injunction was also filed. In June 1979 the Republic of the Philippines acceptable", the Solicitor General justifies the change to Del Pan —
filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession of the property Fernando Rein Streets on the ground that the government "wanted to
sought to be expropriated on the ground that said Republic had made minimize the social impact factor or problem involved." It is doubtful
the required deposit with the Philippine National Bank. Judge Bautista whether the extension of EDSA along Cuneta Avenue can be objected
issued a writ of possession dated 14 June 1979 authorizing the to on the ground of social impact. The improvements and buildings
Republic of the Philippines to take and enter upon the possession of along Cuneta Avenue to be affected by the extension are mostly
the properties sought so be condemned. De Knecht filed a petition for motels. Even granting, arguendo, that more people will be affected, the
certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court, praying that Human Settlements Commission has suggested coordinative efforts of
judgment be rendered annulling the order for immediate possession said Commission with the National Housing Authority and other
issued by respondent court in the expropriation proceedings and government agencies in the relocation and resettlement of those
commanding the Republic to desist from further proceedings in the adversely affected. From the facts of record and recommendations of
expropriation action or the order for immediate possession issued in the Human Settlements Commission, it is clear that the choice of
said action. Fernando Rein — Del Pan Streets as the line through which the Epifanio
de los Santos Avenue should be extended to Roxas Boulevard is
Issue: arbitrary and should not receive judicial approval.
Whether the expropriation of the residential lots in Fernando Rein and
Del Pan Streets is genuinely necessary, in light of similar acceptable Republic vs. de Knecht [GR 87335, 12 February 1990]
lots along Cuneta Avenue which were subject of the original plan. Facts:
On 20 February 1979 the Republic of the Philippines filed in the Court
Held: There is no question as to the right of the Republic of the of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal in Pasay City an expropriation
Philippines to take private property for public use upon the payment of proceedings against the owners of the houses standing along Fernando
just compensation. Section 2, Article IV of the Constitution of the Rein- Del Pan streets among them Cristina De Knecht together with
Philippines provides that "Private property shall not be taken for public Concepcion Cabarrus, and some 15 other defendants (Civil Case 7001-
use without just compensation." It is recognized, however, that the P). On 19 March 1979, de Knecht filed a motion to dismiss alleging lack
government may not capriciously or arbitrarily choose what private of jurisdiction, pendency of appeal with the President of the Philippines,
property should be taken. A landowner is covered by the mantle of prematureness of complaint and arbitrary and erroneous valuation of
protection due process affords. It is a mandate of reason. It frowns on the properties. On 29 March 1979 de Knecht filed an ex parte urgent
arbitrariness, it is the antithesis of any governmental act that smacks motion for the issuance by the trial court of a restraining order to
of whim or caprice. It negates state power to act in an oppressive restrain the Republic from proceeding with the taking of immediate
possession and control of the property sought to be condemned. In use upon the payment of the just compensation is so provided in the
June 1979, the Republic filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of Constitution and our laws. Such expropriation proceedings may be
possession of the property to be expropriated on the ground that it undertaken by the Republic not only by voluntary negotiation with the
had made the required deposit with the Philippine National Bank (PNB) land owners but also by taking appropriate court action or by
of 10% of the amount of compensation stated in the complaint. In an legislation. When on 17 February 1983 the Batasang Pambansa passed
order dated 14 June 1979 the lower court issued a writ of possession BP 340 expropriating the very properties subject of the present
authorizing the Republic to enter into and take possession of the proceedings, and for the same purpose, it appears that it was based on
properties sought to be condemned, and created a Committee of three supervening events that occurred after the decision of the Supreme
to determine the just compensation for the lands involved in the Court was rendered in De Knecht in 1980 justifying the expropriation
proceedings. On 16 July 1979, de Knecht filed with this Court a through the Fernando Rein- Del Pan Streets. The social impact factor
petition for certiorari and prohibition (GR No. L-51078) and directed which persuaded the Court to consider this extension to be arbitrary
against the order of the lower court dated 14 June 1979 praying that had disappeared. All residents in the area have been relocated and duly
the Republic be commanded to desist from further proceeding in the compensated. 80% of the EDSA outfall and 30% of the EDSA
expropriation action and from implementing said order. On 30 October extension had been completed. Only De Knecht remains as the solitary
1980, the Supreme Court rendered a decision, granting the petition for obstacle to this project that will solve not only the drainage and flood
certiorari and prohibition and setting aside the 14 June 1979 order of control problem but also minimize the traffic bottleneck in the area.
the Judge Bautista. On 8 August 1981, Maria Del Carmen Roxas Vda. Moreover, the decision, is no obstacle to the legislative arm of the
de Elizalde, Francisco Elizalde and Antonio Roxas moved to dismiss the Government in thereafter making its own independent assessment of
expropriation action in compliance with the dispositive portion of the the circumstances then prevailing as to the propriety of undertaking
aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court which had become final and in the expropriation of the properties in question and thereafter by
order to avoid further damage to latter who were denied possession of enacting the corresponding legislation as it did in this case. The Court
their properties. The Republic filed a manifestation on 7 September agrees in the wisdom and necessity of enacting BP 340. Thus the
1981 stating, among others, that it had no objection to the said anterior decision of this Court must yield to this subsequent legislative
motion to dismiss as it was in accordance with the aforestated fiat.
decision. However, on 2 September 1983, the Republic filed a motion
to dismiss said case due to the enactment of the Batas Pambansa 340 National Housing Authority vs. Heirs f Isidro Guivelondo [GR 154411,
expropriating the same properties and for the same purpose. The lower 19 June 2003]
court in an order of 2 September 1983 dismissed the case by reason Facts:
of the enactment of the said law. The motion for reconsideration On 23 February 1999, the National Housing Authority (NHA) filed with
thereof was denied in the order of the lower court dated 18 December the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 11, an Amended
1986. De Knecht appealed from said order to the Court of Appeals Complaint for eminent domain against Associacion Benevola de Cebu,
wherein in due course a decision was rendered on 28 December 1988, Engracia Urot and the Heirs of Isidro Guivelondo (Civil Case CEB-
setting aside the order appealed from and dismissing the expropriation 23386), alleging that Associacion Benevola de Cebu was the
proceedings. The Republic filed the petition for review with the claimant/owner of Lot 108-C located in the Banilad Estate, Cebu City;
Supreme Court. that Engracia Urot was the claimant/owner of Lots 108-F, 108-I, 108-
G, 6019-A and 6013-A, all of the Banilad Estate; that the Heirs of
Issue: Isidro Guivelondo were the claimants/owners of Cadastral Lot 1613-D
Whether an expropriation proceeding that was determined by a final located at Carreta, Mabolo, Cebu City; and that the lands are within a
judgment of the Supreme Court may be the subject of a subsequent blighted urban center which petitioner intends to develop as a
legislation for expropriation. socialized housing project. On 12 November 1999, the Heirs of Isidro
Guivelondo, filed a Manifestation stating that they were waiving their
Held: objections to the NHA’s power to expropriate their properties. Hence,
While it is true that said final judgment of the Supreme Court on the the trial court issued an Order declaring that the NHA has a lawful right
subject becomes the law of the case between the parties, it is equally to expropriate the properties of the heirs of Isidro Guivelondo.
true that the right of the Republic to take private properties for public Thereafter, the trial court appointed 3 Commissioners to ascertain the
correct and just compensation of the properties of the Heirs. On 17 for Reconsideration. On 5 February 2002, the Court of Appeals
April 2000, the Commissioners submitted their report wherein they summarily dismissed the petition. Immediately thereafter, Sheriff
recommended that the just compensation of the subject properties be Pascual Y. Abordo of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City,
fixed at P11,200.00 per square meter. On 7 August 2000, the trial Branch 11, served on the NHA a Notice of Levy pursuant to the Writ of
court rendered Partial Judgment adopting the recommendation of the Execution issued by the trial court to enforce the Partial Judgment of 7
Commissioners and fixing the just compensation of the lands of the August 2000 and the Omnibus Order of 11 October 2000. On 18
Heirs at P11,200.00 per square meter. The NHA filed two motions for February 2002, the Court of Appeals set aside the dismissal of the
reconsideration dated 30 August 2000 and 31 August 2000, assailing petition and reinstated the same. Thereafter, a temporary restraining
the inclusion of Lots 12, 13 and 19 as well as the amount of just order was issued enjoining the sheriff to preserve the status quo. On
compensation, respectively. The Heirs also filed a motion for 27 May 2002, the sheriff served on the Landbank of the Philippines a
reconsideration of the Partial Judgment. On 11 October 2000, the trial Notice of Third Garnishment against the deposits, moneys and
court issued an Omnibus Order denying the motion for reconsideration interests of NHA therein. Subsequently, the sheriff levied on funds and
of the Heirs and the 31 August 2000 motion of petitioner, on the personal properties of the NHA. On 16 July 2002, the Court of Appeals
ground that the fixing of the just compensation had adequate basis dismissed the petition for certiorari. NHA filed the petition for review
and support. On the other hand, the trial court granted NHA’s 30 before the Supreme Court.
August 2000 motion for reconsideration on the ground that the
Commissioner’s Report did not include Lots 12, 13 and 19 within its Issue:
coverage. The NHA filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for Whether the NHA can abandon an expropriation proceedings if it
certiorari (CA-GR SP 61746). Meanwhile, on 31 October 2000, the trial disagrees with the price recommended by the Commissioners
court issued an Entry of Judgment over the Partial Judgment dated 7 appointed by the court as just compensation.
August 2000 as modified by the Omnibus Order dated 11 October
2000. Subsequently, the Heirs filed a Motion for Execution, which was Held:
granted on 22 November 2000. On 31 January 2001, the Court of Expropriation proceedings consists of two stages: first, condemnation
Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari on the ground that the of the property after it is determined that its acquisition will be for a
Partial Judgment and Omnibus Order became final and executory when public purpose or public use and, second, the determination of just
the NHA failed to appeal the same. NHA’s Motion for Reconsideration compensation to be paid for the taking of private property to be made
and Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for a Clarificatory Ruling were denied in a by the court with the assistance of not more than three
Resolution dated 18 March 2001. A petition for review was filed by the commissioners. The first is concerned with the determination of the
NHA with the Supreme Court (GR 147527). However, the same was authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent domain and
denied in a Minute Resolution dated 9 May 2001 for failure to show the propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts involved in the
that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error. NHA filed a suit. It ends with an order, if not of dismissal of the action, "of
Motion for Reconsideration which was however denied with finality on condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the
20 August 2001. Prior to the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration, property sought to be condemned, for the public use or purpose
NHA, on 16 July 2001, filed with the trial court a Motion to Dismiss described in the complaint, upon the payment of just compensation to
Civil Case CEB-23386, complaint for eminent domain, alleging that the be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint." An order
implementation of its socialized housing project was rendered of dismissal, if this be ordained, would be a final one, of course, since it
impossible by the unconscionable value of the land sought to be finally disposes of the action and leaves nothing more to be done by
expropriated, which the intended beneficiaries can not afford. The the Court on the merits. So, too, would an order of condemnation be a
Motion was denied on 17 September 2001, on the ground that the final one, for thereafter, as the Rules expressly state, in the
Partial Judgment had already become final and executory and there proceedings before the Trial Court, "no objection to the exercise of the
was no just and equitable reason to warrant the dismissal of the case. right of condemnation (or the propriety thereof) shall be filed or
NHA filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied in an Order heard." The second phase of the eminent domain action is concerned
dated 20 November 2001. NHA thus filed a petition for certiorari with with the determination by the Court of "the just compensation for the
the Court of Appeals (CA-GR SP 68670), praying for the annulment of property sought to be taken." This is done by the Court with the
the Order of the trial court denying its Motion to Dismiss and its Motion assistance of not more than three (3) commissioners. The order fixing
the just compensation on the basis of the evidence before, and executed an Affidavit of Waiver of Rights and Fees whereby she waived
findings of, the commissioners would be final, too. It would finally any compensation for damages to crops and improvements which she
dispose of the second stage of the suit, and leave nothing more to be suffered as a result of the construction of a right-of-way on her
done by the Court regarding the issue. Obviously, one or another of the property. The same year, Eslaban offered De Onorio the sum of
parties may believe the order to be erroneous in its appreciation of the P35,000,00 by way of amicable settlement (financial assistance)
evidence or findings of fact or otherwise. Obviously, too, such a pursuant to Executive Order 1035, §18. De Onorio demanded payment
dissatisfied party may seek a reversal of the order by taking an appeal for the taking of her property, but Eslaban/NIA refused to pay.
therefrom. Herein, the NHA did not appeal the Order of the trial court Accordingly, De Onorio filed on 10 December 1990 a complaint against
dated 10 December 1999, which declared that it has a lawful right to Eslaban before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), praying that Eslaban/NIA
expropriate the properties of the Heirs of Isidro Guivelondo. Hence, the be ordered to pay the sum of P111,299.55 as compensation for the
Order became final and may no longer be subject to review or reversal portion of her property used in the construction of the canal
in any court. A final and executory decision or order can no longer be constructed by the NIA, litigation expenses, and the costs. Eslaban
disturbed or reopened no matter how erroneous it may be. Although admitted that NIA constructed an irrigation canal over the property of
judicial determinations are not infallible, judicial error should be De Onorio and that NIA paid a certain landowner whose property had
corrected through appeals, not through repeated suits on the same been taken for irrigation purposes, but Eslaban interposed the defense
claim. The public purpose of the socialized housing project is not in any that: (1) the government had not consented to be sued; (2) the total
way diminished by the amount of just compensation that the court has area used by the NIA for its irrigation canal was only 2.27 hectares, not
fixed. The need to provide decent housing to the urban poor dwellers in 24,600 square meters; and (3) that De Onorio was not entitled to
the locality was not lost by the mere fact that the land cost more than compensation for the taking of her property considering that she
the NHA had expected. It is worthy to note that petitioner pursued its secured title over the property by virtue of a homestead patent under
petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals assailing the amount of Commonwealth Act 141. On 18 October 1993, the trial court rendered
just compensation and its petition for review with the Supreme Court a decision, ordering the NIA to pay to De Onorio the sum of
which eloquently indicates that there still exists a public use for the P107,517.60 as just compensation for the questioned area of 24,660
housing project. It was only after its appeal and petitions for review square meters of land owned by De Onorio and taken by the NIA which
were dismissed that the NHA made a complete turn-around and used it for its main canal plus costs. On 15 November 1993, the NIA
decided it did not want the property anymore. The landowners had appealed to the Court of Appeals which, on 31 October 2000, affirmed
already been prejudiced by the expropriation case. The NHA cannot be the decision of the Regional Trial Court. NIA filed the petition for
permitted to institute condemnation proceedings against respondents review.
only to abandon it later when it finds the amount of just compensation
unacceptable. Issue:
Whether the valuation of just compensation is determined at the time
Eslaban vs. Vda. de Onorio [GR 146062, 28 June 2001] the property was taken or at the time the complaint for expropriation
Facts: is filed.
Clarita Vda. de Onorio is the owner of a lot in Barangay M. Roxas, Sto.
Nino, South Cotabato with an area of 39,512 square meters (Lot Held:
1210-A-Pad-11-000586, TCT T-22121 of the Registry of Deeds, Whenever public lands are alienated, granted or conveyed to applicants
South Cotabato). On 6 October 1981, Santiago Eslaban, Jr., Project thereof, and the deed grant or instrument of conveyance [sales
Manager of the NIA, approved the construction of the main irrigation patent] registered with the Register of Deeds and the corresponding
canal of the NIA on the said lot, affecting a 24,660 square meter certificate and owner's duplicate of title issued, such lands are deemed
portion thereof. De Onorio's husband agreed to the construction of the registered lands under the Torrens System and the certificate of title
NIA canal provided that they be paid by the government for the area thus issued is as conclusive and indefeasible as any other certificate of
taken after the processing of documents by the Commission on Audit. title issued to private lands in ordinary or cadastral registration
Sometime in 1983, a Right- of-Way agreement was executed between proceedings. The only servitude which a private property owner is
De Onorio and the NIA. The NIA then paid De Onorio the amount of required to recognize in favor of the government is the easement of a
P4,180.00 as Right-of-Way damages. De Onorio subsequently "public highway, way, private way established by law, or any
government canal or lateral thereof where the certificate of title does General filed for the Department of Education and Culture (DEC) a
not state that the boundaries thereof have been pre-determined." This complaint against Amerex for the expropriation of said property before
implies that the same should have been pre-existing at the time of the the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case 99190), stating therein
registration of the land in order that the registered owner may be that the property was needed by the government as a permanent site
compelled to respect it. Conversely, where the easement is not pre- for the Manuel de la Fuente High School (later renamed Don Mariano
existing and is sought to be imposed only after the land has been Marcos Memorial High School); that the fair market value of the
registered under the Land Registration Act, proper expropriation property had been declared by Amerex as P2,435,000, and that the
proceedings should be had, and just compensation paid to the assessor had determined its market value as P2,432,042 and assessed
registered owner thereof. Herein, the irrigation canal constructed by it for taxation purposes in the amount of P1,303,470. On 9 October
the NIA on the contested property was built only on 6 October 1981, 1975, the court issued an order directing the sheriff to place the
several years after the property had been registered on 13 May 1976. Republic in possession of the property, after informing the court that
Accordingly, prior expropriation proceedings should have been filed and the assessed value of the property for taxation purposes had been
just compensation paid to the owner thereof before it could be taken deposited with the Philippine National Bank (PNB) in Escolta, Manila on
for public use. With respect to the compensation which the owner of 30 September 1975. The plaintiff took actual possession thereof on
the condemned property is entitled to receive, it is likewise settled 13 October 1975. Amerex filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
that it is the market value which should be paid or "that sum of money stating that while it was not contesting the merits of the complaint,
which a person, desirous but not compelled to buy, and an owner, the same failed to categorically state the amount of just compensation
willing but not compelled to sell, would agree on as a price to be given for the property. It therefore prayed that in consonance with
and received therefor." Further, just compensation means not only the Presidential Decree 794, the just compensation be fixed at
correct amount to be paid to the owner of the land but also the P2,432,042, the market value of the property determined by the
payment of the land within a reasonable time from its taking. Without assessor which was lower than Amerex's own declaration. Alleging that
prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered "just" for then its motion to dismiss merely sought a clarification on the just
the property owner is made to suffer the consequence of being compensation for the property, Amerex filed a motion to withdraw the
immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade Republic's deposit of P1,303,470 with the PNB without prejudice to its
or more before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with entitlement to the amount of P1,128,572, the balance of the just
his loss. Nevertheless, there are instances where the expropriating compensation of P2,432,042 insisted upon. On 3 December 1975, the
agency takes over the property prior to the expropriation suit, in which lower court issued an order vesting the Republic with the lawful right to
case just compensation shall be determined as of the time of taking, take the property upon payment of just compensation as provided by
not as of the time of filing of the action of eminent domain. The value law. On 19 December 1975, after the parties had submitted the names
of the property, thus, must be determined either as of the date of the of their respective recommendees to the appraisal committee, the
taking of the property or the filing of the complaint, "whichever came lower court appointed Atty. Narciso Pena, Aurelio V. Aquino and Atty.
first." Higinio Sunico as commissioners. On 24 January 1977, the
commissioners submitted their appraisal report finding that the fair
Republic vs. Intermediate Appellate Court [GR 71176, 21 May 1990] market value of the property was P2,763,400. Both parties objected
Facts: to the report of the commissioners. On 15 March 1977, the lower
Avegon, Inc., offered 4 parcels of land with a total area of 9,650 court rendered a decision, "fixing the amount of P2,258.018.57 as just
square meters located at 2090 Dr. Manuel L. Carreon Street, Manila, compensation for the property of the defendant and declaring the
for sale to the City School Board of Manila on 21 July 1973 at plaintiff entitled to possess and appropriate it to the public use alleged
P2,300,000. The school board was willing to buy at P1,800,000 but in the complaint and to retain it upon payment of the said amount,
the then Mayor of Manila intervened and volunteered to negotiate with after deducting the amount of P1,303,470.00, with legal interest from
Avegon, Inc. for a better price. Inasmuch as the alleged negotiation did October 13, 1975 when the plaintiff was placed in possession of the
not materialize, on 3 June 1974, Avegon, Inc. sold the property and its real property, and upon payment to each of the commissioners of the
improvements to Amerex Electronics, Phils. Corporation for sum of P35.00 for their attendance during the hearings held on
P1,800,000. Thereafter, TCTs 115571, 115572, 115573 and 115574 January 23, February 16, May 11, July 23, September 17, October 12
were issued in favor of Amerex. On 29 August 1975, the Solicitor and December 10, 1976, plus P500.00 each for the preparation of the
report, and the costs." The Republic elevated the case to the then The reasonableness of the 5 June 1975 appraisal fixing at P2,400,000
Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) for review. On 29 October 1984, it the fair market value of the property, is bolstered by the fact that on 4
affirmed the appealed decision with the modification that the Republic June 1975, Traders Commodities Corporation offered to buy the
of the Philippines be exempted from the payment of the property at P2,750,000. It must be emphasized, however, that legal
commissioners' fees, the P500.00 granted each of them for he interest on the balance of the just compensation of P2,400,000 after
preparation of the report and the costs. Its motion for the deducting the amount of P1,303,470 which had been delivered to
reconsideration of said decision having been denied, the Republic filed Amerex, should be paid by the Republic from the time the government
the petition for review. actually took over the property. Much as the Court realizes the need of
the government, under these trying times, to get the best possible
Issue: price for the expropriated property considering the ceaseless and
Whether the just compensation for the expropriated property should continuing necessity for schools, the Court cannot agree with the
be the price first offered to the Government in 1973. Republic that the just compensation for the property should be the
price it commanded when it was first offered for sale to the City
Held: School Board of Manila.
The determination of just compensation for a condemned property is
basically a judicial function. As the court is not bound by the City of Cebu vs. Dedamo [GR 142971, 7 May 2002]
commissioners' report, it may make such order or render such Facts:
judgment as shall secure to the plaintiff the property essential to the On 17 September 1993, the City of Cebu filed in Civil Case CEB-14632
exercise of its right of condemnation, and to the defendant just a complaint for eminent domain against the spouses Apolonio and
compensation for the property expropriated. For that matter, the Blasa Dedamo, alleging that it needed the latter's parcels of land for a
Supreme Court may even substitute its own estimate of the value as public purpose, i.e., for the construction of a public road which shall
gathered from the record. Hence, although the determination of just serve as an access/relief road of Gorordo Avenue to extend to the
compensation appears to be a factual matter which is ordinarily outside General Maxilum Avenue and the back of Magellan International Hotel
the ambit of its jurisdiction, the Supreme Court may disturb the lower Roads in Cebu City; the lots being the most suitable site for the
court's factual finding on appeal when there is clear error or grave purpose. The total area sought to be expropriated is 1,624 square
abuse of discretion. Herein, the just compensation prescribed by the meters with an assessed value of P1,786.400. The City deposited with
lower court is based on the commissioners' recommendation which in the Philippine National Bank (PNB) the amount of P51,156 representing
turn is founded on the "audited" statements of Amerex that the 15% of the fair market value of the property to enable the City to take
property is worth P2,258,018.57. The Certification from the immediate possession of the property pursuant to Section 19 of
accounting firm issued to Amerex merely compared the figures in the Republic Act (RA) 7160. The spouses, filed a motion to dismiss the
schedules or "audited" statements with those of the records and complaint because the purpose for which their property was to be
books of accounts of Amerex. As no investigation was made as to the expropriated was not for a public purpose but for benefit of a single
veracity of the figures in the account, there was no audit in the real private entity, the Cebu Holdings, Inc., besides that the price offered
sense of the term. Thus, the accuracy of the "audited" statements is was very low in light of the consideration of P20,000 per square meter,
therefore suspect. Besides the fact that the Republic was not furnished more or less, which the City paid to the neighboring lots. On 23 August
a copy of the audited statements which were also not introduced in 1994, the City filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession
evidence, Enrique P. Esteban, vice-president and treasurer of Amerex, pursuant to Section 19 of RA7160. The motion was granted by the
and even a representative of the accounting firm, were likewise not trial court on 21 September 1994. On 14 December 1994, the parties
presented during the trial thereby depriving the Republic of the executed and submitted to the trial court an Agreement wherein they
opportunity to cross-examine them. The Supreme Court having declared that they have partially settled the case. Pursuant to said
declared as unconstitutional the mode of fixing just compensation agreement, the trial court appointed three commissioners to determine
under Presidential Decree 794 in Export Processing Zone Authority vs. the just compensation of the lots sought to be expropriated.
Dulay (GR 59603, 29 April 1987), just compensation should be Thereafter, the commissioners submitted their report, which contained
determined either at the time of the actual taking of the government their respective assessments of and recommendation as to the
or at the time of the judgment of the court, whichever comes first. valuation of the property. On the basis of the commissioners' report
and after due deliberation thereon, the trial court rendered its decision Export Processing Zone Authority vs. Dulay [GR L-59603, 29 April
on 7 May 1996, directing the City to pay the spouses Dedamo the 1987]
amount of P24,865.930.00 representing the compensation. The City Facts:
filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that the On 15 January 1979, the President of the Philippines, issued
commissioners' report was inaccurate since it included an area which Proclamation 1811, reserving a certain parcel of land of the public
was not subject to expropriation (i.e. 478 of 793 square meters only domain situated in the City of Lapu-Lapu, Island of Mactan, Cebu and
of Lot 1528). On 16 August 1996, the commissioners submitted an covering a total area of 1,193,669 square meters, more or less, for
amended assessment for the 478 square meters of Lot 1528 and fixed the establishment of an export processing zone by petitioner Export
it at P12,824.10 per square meter, or in the amount of Processing Zone Authority (EPZA). Not all the reserved area, however,
P20,826,339.50. The assessment was approved as the just was public land. The proclamation included, among others, 4 parcels of
compensation thereof by the trial court in its Order of 27 December land with an aggregate area of 22,328 square meters owned and
1996. Accordingly, the dispositive portion of the decision was registered in the name of the San Antonio Development Corporation.
amended to reflect the new valuation. The City elevated the case to The EPZA, therefore, offered to purchase the parcels of land from the
the Court of Appeals, which affirmed in toto the decision of the trial corporation in accordance with the valuation set forth in Section 92,
court. The City filed with the Supreme Court the petition for review. Presidential Decree (PD) 464, as amended. The parties failed to reach
an agreement regarding the sale of the property. EPZA filed with the
Issue: then Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch XVI, Lapu-Lapu City, a
Whether the valuation of the just compensation that which was complaint for expropriation with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of
recommended by the appointed commissioners. possession against the corporation, to expropriate the aforesaid
parcels of land pursuant to PD 66, as amended, which empowers EPZA
Held: to acquire by condemnation proceedings any property for the
Eminent domain is a fundamental State power that is inseparable from establishment of export processing zones, in relation to Proclamation
sovereignty. It is the Government's right to appropriate, in the nature 1811, for the purpose of establishing the Mactan Export Processing
of a compulsory sale to the State, private property for public use or Zone. On 21 October 1980, Judge Ceferino E. Dulay issued a writ of
purpose. However, the Government must pay the owner thereof just possession authorizing EPZA to take immediate possession of the
compensation as consideration therefor. Herein, the applicable law as premises. At the pre-trial conference on 13 February 1981, the judge
to the point of reckoning for the determination of just compensation is issued an order stating that the parties have agreed that the only issue
Section 19 of Republic Act 7160, which expressly provides that just to be resolved is the just compensation for the properties and that the
compensation shall be determined as of the time of actual taking. pre-trial is thereby terminated and the hearing on the merits is set on
Further, the Court did not categorically rule in the case of NAPOCOR 2 April 1981. On 17 February 1981, the judge issued the order of
vs. Court of Appeals that just compensation should be determined as condemnation declaring EPZA as having the lawful right to take the
of the filing of the complaint. What the Court explicitly stated therein properties sought to be condemned, upon the payment of just
was that although the general rule in determining just compensation in compensation to be determined as of the filing of the complaint. The
eminent domain is the value of the property as of the date of the filing respondent judge also issued a second order appointing certain persons
of the complaint, the rule "admits of an exception: where this Court as commissioners to ascertain and report to the court the just
fixed the value of the property as of the date it was taken and not at compensation for the properties sought to be expropriated. On 19
the date of the commencement of the expropriation proceedings." June 1981, the three commissioners submitted their consolidated
Furthermore, the parties, by a solemn document freely and voluntarily report recommending the amount of P15.00 per square meter as the
agreed upon by them, agreed to be bound by the report of the fair and reasonable value of just compensation for the properties. On
commission and approved by the trial court. Records show that the 29 July 1981, EPZA filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the order of
City consented to conform with the valuation recommended by the 19 February 1981 and Objection to Commissioner's Report on the
commissioners. It cannot detract from its agreement now and assail grounds that PD 1533 has superseded Sections 5 to 8 of Rule 67 of
correctness of the commissioners' assessment. the Rules of Court on the ascertainment of just compensation through
commissioners; and that the compensation must not exceed the
maximum amount set by PD 1533. On 14 November 1981, the trial
court denied EPZA's motion for reconsideration. On 9 February 1982, singled out for expropriation. The values given by provincial assessors
EPZA filed the petition for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary are usually uniform for very wide areas covering several barrios or even
restraining order, enjoining the trial court from enforcing the order an entire town with the exception of the poblacion. Individual
dated 17 February 1981 and from further proceeding with the hearing differences are never taken into account. The value of land is based on
of the expropriation case. such generalities as its possible cultivation for rice, corn, coconuts, or
other crops. Very often land described as "cogonal" has been
Issue: cultivated for generations. Buildings are described in terms of only two
Whether the exclusive and mandatory mode of determining just or three classes of building materials and estimates of areas are more
compensation in Presidential Decree 1533 is valid and constitutional, often inaccurate than correct. Thus, tax values can serve as guides but
and whether the lower values given by provincial assessors be the cannot be absolute substitutes for just compensation.
value of just compensation.
Ansaldo vs. Tantuico [GR 50147, 3 August 1990]
Held: Facts:
Presidential Decree 76 provides that "For purposes of just Two lots of private ownership were taken by the Government and used
compensation in cases of private property acquired by the government for the widening of a road more than forty-three years ago, without
for public use, the basis shall be the current and fair market value benefit of an action of eminent domain or agreement with its owners,
declared by the owner or administrator, or such market value as albeit without protest by the latter. The lots belong to Jose Ma.
determined by the Assessor, whichever is lower." Section 92 of PD 464 Ansaldo and Maria Angela Ansaldo, are covered by title in their names,
provides that "In determining just compensation which private property and have an aggregate area of 1,041 square meters. These lots were
is acquired by the government for public use, the basis shall be the taken from the Ansaldos sometime in 1947 by the Department of
market value declared by the owner or administrator or anyone having Public Works, Transportation and Communication and made part of
legal interest in the property, or such market value as determined by what used to be Sta. Mesa Street and is now Ramon Magsaysay
the assessor, whichever is lower." Section 92 of PD 794, on the other Avenue at San Juan, Metro Manila. Said owners made no move
hand, provides that "In determining just compensation when private whatever until 26 years later. They wrote to ask for compensation for
property is acquired by the government for public use, the same shall their land on 22 January 1973. Their claim was referred to the
not exceed the market value declared by the owner or administrator or Secretary of Justice who rendered an opinion dated 22 February 1973,
anyone having legal interest in the property, or such market value as that just compensation should be paid in accordance with Presidential
determined by the assessor, whichever is lower." Lastly, Section 1 of Decree (PD) 76, and thus advised that the corresponding expropriation
PD 1533 provides that "In determining just compensation for private suit be forthwith instituted to fix the just compensation to be paid to
property acquired through eminent domain proceedings, the the Ansaldos. Pursuant to the said opinion, the Commissioner of Public
compensation to be paid shall not exceed the value declared by the Highways requested the Provincial Assessor of Rizal to make a
owner or administrator or anyone having legal interest in the property redetermination of the market value of the Ansaldos' property in
or determined by the assessor, pursuant to the Real Property Tax accordance with PD 76. The new valuation was made, after which the
Code, whichever value is lower, prior to the recommendation or Auditor of the Bureau of Public Highways forwarded the Ansaldos'
decision of the appropriate Government office to acquire the claim to the Auditor General with the recommendation that payment
property." The provisions of the Decrees on just compensation be made on the basis of the "current and fair market value and not on
unconstitutional and void as the method of ascertaining just the fair market value at the time of taking." The Commission on Audit,
compensation under the said decrees constitutes impermissible however, declined to adopt the recommendation. In a decision handed
encroachment on judicial prerogatives. It tends to render the Supreme down on 26 September 1973, the Acting Chairman ruled that "the
Court inutile in a matter which under the Constitution is reserved to it amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants is to be
for final determination. The valuation in the decree may only serve as a determined as of the time of the taking of the subject lots," i.e. 1947.
guiding principle or one of the factors in determining just compensation The ruling was reiterated by the Commission on 8 September 1978,
but it may not substitute the court's own judgment as to what amount and again on 25 January 1979 when it denied the Ansaldos' motion for
should be awarded and how to arrive at such amount. Further, various reconsideration. The Ansaldos appealed to the Supreme Court.
factors can come into play in the valuation of specific properties
 "Cost-Plus a Percentage" type — meaning, PECORP will be paid a
certain percentage as fee based on the "Actual Final Cost" of the work,
Issue: and what constitutes "Actual Final Cost" is the total cost to NAPOCOR
Whether the valuation of just compensation should be determined at of all the work performed by PECORP which includes cost of materials
the time of taking in 1947, especially in light of the absence of any and supplies, structures, furnitures, charges, etc. and all other
expropriation proceeding undertaken before the said taking. expenses as are inherent in a Cost- Plus and Percentage Contract and
necessary for the prosecution of the work that are approved by
Held: NAPOCOR. In a letter dated 11 July 1974, NAPOCOR communicated to
Where the institution of an expropriation action precedes the taking of PECORP that it was inclined to contract directly and separately with
the property subject thereof, the just compensation is fixed as of the Philippine Grouting and Guniting., Inc. (GROGUN) for the drilling and
time of the filing of the complaint. This is so provided by the Rules of grouting work on the construction project and consequently, PECORP
Court, the assumption of possession by the expropriator ordinarily will not be entitled to any fees for said task. Contending that such
being conditioned on its deposits with the National or Provincial NAPOCOR-GROGUN arrangement will violate its rights under the
Treasurer of the value of the property as provisionally ascertained by NAPOCOR-PECORP contract, PECORP made known to NAPOCOR its
the court having jurisdiction of the proceedings. There are instances, desire to bring the matter to arbitration. The NAPOCOR-GROGUN
however, where the expropriating agency takes over the property prior drilling and grouting contract, nonetheless, pushed through on 23
to the expropriation suit. In these instances, the just compensation August 1974. As a result of such purported "withdrawal", it appeared
shall be determined as of the time of taking, not as of the time of filing that the drilling and grouting work ceased to be a Part of the
of the action of eminent domain. There was undoubtedly a taking of NAPOCOR-PECORP contract. Roughly 5 years after, PECORP on 14 June
the Ansaldos' property when the Government obtained possession 1979 presented to NAPOCOR 4 claims, i.e. (1) Fee on the cost of
thereof and converted it into a part of a thoroughfare for public use. It drilling and grouting which is 10% of the Actual Final Cost of
is as of the time of such a taking, to repeat, that the just P6,962,519.50, or P696.251.95; (2) Fee on the minimum guaranteed
compensation for the property is to be established. The value of the equipment rental which is 10% of the Actual Final Cost of P1.67
Ansaldos' property must be ascertained as of the year 1947, when it million, or P167,000.00; (3) Fee on the inventory of unused stocks
was actually taken, and not at the time of the filing of the and POL, P155,844.95; and (4) Reimbursement of Medical Hospital
expropriation suit, which, by the way, still has to be done. It is as of expenses re: TK-001 Accident case, or P50,085.93, coupled with a
that time that the real measure of their loss may fairly be adjudged. request for arbitration. A board of arbitrators was thereafter convened.
The value, once fixed, shall earn interest at the legal rate until full But after a series of written communications among the board,
payment is effected, conformably with other principles laid down by NAPOCOR and PECORP, it appeared that NAPOCOR was willing to
case law. The Court thus directed the Department of Public Works and arbitrate on claims (3) and (4) only. As NAPOCOR was
Highways to institute the appropriate expropriation action over the uncompromising, PECORP filed an action in the Regional Trial Court of
land in question so that the just compensation due its owners may be Manila to compel NAPOCOR to submit/confirm/certify all the 4 claims
determined in accordance with the Rules of Court, with interest at the for arbitration, where judgment was thereafter rendered in favor of
legal rate of 6% per annum from the time of taking until full payment is PECORP. After the trial court denied NAPOCOR's motion for
made. reconsideration of its decision, the Court of Appeals, on appeal,
affirmed the same but deleted the award of attorney's fees. However,
National Power Corporation vs. Court of Appeals [GR 107631, 26 in affirming said decision which merely ordered NAPOCOR and PECORP
February 1996] to arbitrate on all 4 claims, the appellate court went further in
Facts: disposing of issues which could have been appropriately ventilated and
A contract was forged between the government through the National passed upon in the arbitration proceedings. From the adverse
Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) and PECORP, Inc. (PECORP, formerly judgment, NAPOCOR filed the petition for review with the Supreme
Pacific Equipment Corporation, as party-CONTRACTOR on 27 June Court.
1974 for the construction of the Mariveles Dam 1 and appurtenant
structures of the water supply system of the Bataan Export Processing
Zone at Mariveles, Bataan. It was agreed upon that the contract is of a
Issue: legislative power from the President and started its own deliberations,
Whether PECORP is entitled to the collection of fees for drilling and including extensive public hearings, on the improvement of the
grouting work conducted by GROGUN under the NAPOCOR-GROGUN interests of farmers. The result, after almost a year of spirited debate,
contract. was the enactment of Republic Act (RA) 6657, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, which President Aquino
Held: signed on 10 June 11988. This law, while considerably changing RA
The NAPOCOR-PECORP Contract is for the construction, complete, of 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code, 8 August 1963) and PD 27 (21
the Mariveles Dam 1. Drilling and grouting work is just a part of the October 1972), nevertheless gives them suppletory effect insofar as
complete construction of the total project, hence, covered by and they are not inconsistent with its provisions. [GR 79777] Nicolas
within the scope of the NAPOCOR-PECORP Contract. The word Manaay and his wife owned a 9-hectare riceland worked by 4 tenants,
"Project" is defined in the contract to mean the Dam and Appurtenant while Augustin Hermano Jr. owned a 5-hectare riceland worked by four
Structures. Drilling and Grouting is part of the dam or appurtenant tenants. The tenants therein were declared full owners of these lands
structures, and therefore a part of PECORP's scope of work. Article by EO 228 as qualified farmers under PD 27. Manaay and Hermano
1725 of the New Civil Code, which provides that "The owner may questioned the constitutionality of PD 27, and EOs 228 and 229,
withdraw at will from the construction of the work, although it may before the Supreme Court, in GR 79777, on grounds inter alia of
have been commenced, indemnifying the contractor for all the latter's separation of powers, due process, equal protection and the
expenses, work and the usefulness which the owner may obtain constitutional limitation that no private property shall be taken for
therefrom, and damages," is not applicable herein inasmuch as (a) public use without just compensation. In the amended petition dated
there was actually no withdrawal from the "construction of the work," 22 November 1988, it was contended that PD 27, EOs 228 and 229
but only a transfer of a part of the construction, which is the drilling (except Sections 20 and 21) have been impliedly repealed by RA
and grouting work, and (b) said drilling and grouting still forms part of 6657, but that the latter statute should itself also be declared
the project as a mere NAPOCOR-GROGUN sub- contract. Since the unconstitutional because it suffers from substantially the same
NAPOCOR-GROGUN Contract did not amend nor nullify the "cost plus" infirmities as the earlier measures. A petition for intervention was filed
provision of the NAPOCOR-Pecorp Contract, therefore, appellee Pecorp with leave of court on 1 June 1988 by Vicente Cruz, owner of a 1.83-
is still entitled to the said 10% fee. Further, the allegation that PECORP hectare land, who complained that the department of Agrarian Reform
withdrew its claim for fee on the minimum guaranteed equipment (DAR) was insisting on the implementation of PD 27 and EO 228
rental hours of P167,000.00 is without merit, as it is clear that despite a compromise agreement he had reached with his tenant on
withdrawal is only a proposal conditioned upon NAPOCOR's the payment of rentals. [GR 79310] Arsenio Al. Acuña, Newton Jison,
adjudication, endorsement and approval of all the 3 other claims. Victorino Ferraris, Dennis Jereza, Herminigildo Gustilo, and Paulino D.
However, as the record shows, NAPOCOR refused to certify for Tolentino are landowners and sugar planters in the Victorias Mill
arbitration all the said 3 other claims, hence, the withdrawal was District, Victorias, Negros Occidental; while the Planters' Committee,
rendered null and void. These were the findings of the Court of Appeals Inc. is an organization composed of 1,400 planter-members. They filed
which were approved by the Supreme Court. a petition (GR 79310) seeking to prohibit the implementation of
Proclamation 131 and EO 229, claiming that the power to provide for a
Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines Inc. vs. Secretary of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program as decreed by the
Agrarian Reform [GR 78741, 14 July 1989]; Constitution belongs to Congress and not the President; that although
Facts: they agree that the President could exercise legislative power until the
On 17 July 1987, President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive Order Congress was convened, she could do so only to enact emergency
(EO) 228, declaring full land ownership in favor of the beneficiaries of measures during the transition period; and that, even assuming that
Presidential Decree (PD) 27 and providing for the valuation of still the interim legislative power of the President was properly exercised,
unvalued lands covered by the decree as well as the manner of their Proclamation 131 and EO 229 would still have to be annulled for
payment. This was followed on 22 July 1987 by PD 131, instituting a violating the constitutional provisions on just compensation, due
comprehensive agrarian reform program (CARP), and EO 229, providing process, and equal protection. Furthermore, they contend that taking
the mechanics for its implementation. Subsequently, with its formal must be simultaneous with payment of just compensation as it is
organization, the revived Congress of the Philippines took over traditionally understood, i.e., with money and in full, but no such
payment is contemplated in Section 5 of the EO 229. On the contrary, (3) Pabico is denied the right of maximum retention provided for under
Section 6, thereof provides that the Land Bank of the Philippines "shall the 1987 Constitution. [GR 78742] The Association of Small
compensate the landowner in an amount to be established by the Landowners in the Philippines, Inc., Juanito D. Gomez, Gerardo B.
government, which shall be based on the owner's declaration of current Alarcio, Felife A. Guico, Jr., Bernardo M. Almonte, Canuto Ramir B.
fair market value as provided in Section 4 hereof, but subject to Cabrito, Isidro T. Guico, Felisa I. Llamido, Fausto J. Salva, Reynaldo G.
certain controls to be defined and promulgated by the Presidential Estrada, Felisa C. Bautista, Esmenia J. Cabe, Teodoro B. Madriaga,
Agrarian Reform Council." This compensation may not be paid fully in Aurea J. Prestosa, Emerenciana J. Isla, Felicisima C. Apresto, Consuelo
money but in any of several modes that may consist of part cash and M. Morales, Benjamin R. Segismundo, Cirila A. Jose, and Napoleon S.
part bond, with interest, maturing periodically, or direct payment in Ferrer invoke in their petition (GR 78742) the right of retention
cash or bond as may be mutually agreed upon by the beneficiary and granted by PD 27 to owners of rice and corn lands not exceeding 7
the landowner or as may be prescribed or approved by the PARC. A hectares as long as they are cultivating or intend to cultivate the
motion for intervention was filed on 27 August 1987 by the National same. Their respective lands do not exceed the statutory limit but are
Federation of Sugarcane Planters (NASP) which claims a membership of occupied by tenants who are actually cultivating such lands. They claim
at least 20,000 individual sugar planters all over the country. On 10 they cannot eject their tenants and so are unable to enjoy their right
September 1987, another motion for intervention was filed, this time of retention because the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) has so
by Manuel Barcelona, et al., representing coconut and riceland owners. far not issued the implementing rules required under PD 316,
Both motions were granted by the Court. On 11 April 1988, Prudencio implementing PD 27. They therefore ask the Court for a writ of
Serrano, a coconut planter, filed a petition on his own behalf, assailing mandamus to compel the Secretary of Agrarian Reform to issue the
the constitutionality of EO 229. In addition to the arguments already said rules.
raised, Serrano contends that the measure is unconstitutional because
(1) only public lands should be included in the CARP; (2) EO 229 Issue:
embraces more than one subject which is not expressed in the title; Whether just compensation should exclusively be made in money and
(3) The power of the President to legislate was terminated on 2 July not other things of value.
1987; and (4) The appropriation of a P50 billion special fund from the
National Treasury did not originate from the House of Representatives. Held:
[GR 79744] Inocentes Pabico in his petition (GR 79744) alleges that This is not an ordinary expropriation where only a specific property of
the then Secretary of Department of Agrarian Reform, in violation of relatively limited area is sought to be taken by the State from its
due process and the requirement for just compensation, placed his owner for a specific and perhaps local purpose. What is dealt with
landholding under the coverage of Operation Land Transfer. herein is a revolutionary kind of expropriation. The Court assumes that
Certificates of Land Transfer were subsequently issued to Salvador the framers of the Constitution were aware of this difficulty when they
Talento, Jaime Abogado, Conrado Avanceña, and Roberto Taay, who called for agrarian reform as a top priority project of the government.
then refused payment of lease rentals to him. On 3 September 1986, It is a part of this assumption that when they envisioned the
Pabico protested the erroneous inclusion of his small landholding under expropriation that would be needed, they also intended that the just
Operation Land Transfer and asked for the recall and cancellation of compensation would have to be paid not in the orthodox way but a less
the Certificates of Land Transfer in the name of the Talento, et. al. conventional if more practical method. There can be no doubt that
Pabico claims that on 24 December 1986, his petition was denied they were aware of the financial limitations of the government and had
without hearing. On 17 February 1987, he filed a motion for no illusions that there would be enough money to pay in cash and in full
reconsideration, which had not been acted upon when EO 228 and 229 for the lands they wanted to be distributed among the farmers. The
were issued. These orders rendered his motion moot and academic court may therefore assume that their intention was to allow such
because they directly effected the transfer of his land to Talento, et. manner of payment as is now provided for by the CARP Law,
al. Pabico argues that (1) EOs 228 and 229 were invalidly issued by particularly the payment of the balance (if the owner cannot be paid
the President of the Philippines; 92) the said executive orders are fully with money), or indeed of the entire amount of the just
violative of the constitutional provision that no private property shall compensation, with other things of value. The Court has not found in
be taken without due process or just compensation; and the records of the Constitutional Commission any categorical
agreement among the members regarding the meaning to be given the
concept of just compensation as applied to the comprehensive agrarian the amount of P135,482.12. On 24 February 1992, the Landbank
reform program being contemplated. On the other hand, there is reserved in trust P135,482.12 in the name of Emiliano F. Santiago. The
nothing in the records either that militates against the assumptions we beneficiaries stopped paying rentals to the heirs after they signed the
are making of the general sentiments and intention of the members on Actual Tiller's Deed of Undertaking committing themselves to pay
the content and manner of the payment to be made to the landowner rentals to the Landbank (The Landbank, although armed with the
in the light of the magnitude of the expenditure and the limitations of ATDU, allegedly did not collect any amount as rental from the
the expropriator. Accepting the theory that payment of the just substituting beneficiaries). Lastly, the Agricultural Management and
compensation is not always required to be made fully in money, the Development Corporation (AMADCOR) owned properties in San
Court find further that the proportion of cash payment to the other Francisco, Quezon (a parcel of land with an area of 209.9215 hectares,
things of value constituting the total payment, as determined on the TCT 34314; another parcel with an area of 163.6189 hectares, TCT
basis of the areas of the lands expropriated, is not unduly oppressive 10832), and in Tabaco, Albay (a parcel of land with an area of
upon the landowner. It is noted that the smaller the land, the bigger 1,629.4578 hectares, TCT T- 2466 of the Register of Deeds of Albay).
the payment in money, primarily because the small landowner will be Without notice to AMADCOR, a summary administrative proceeding to
needing it more than the big landowners, who can afford a bigger determine compensation of the property covered by TCT 34314 was
balance in bonds and other things of value. No less importantly, the conducted by the DARAB in Quezon City. A decision was rendered on
government financial instruments making up the balance of the 24 November 1992 fixing compensation for the parcel of land covered
payment are "negotiable at any time." The other modes, which are by TCT 34314 with an area of 209.9215 hectares at P2,768,326.34
likewise available to the landowner at his option, are also not and ordering the Landbank to pay or establish a trust account for said
unreasonable because payment is made in shares of stock, LBP bonds, amount in the name of AMADCOR. With respect to AMADCOR's
other properties or assets, tax credits, and other things of value property in Albay, emancipation patents were issued covering an area
equivalent to the amount of just compensation. Admittedly, the of 701.8999 hectares which were registered on 15 February 1988 but
compensation contemplated in the law will cause the landowners, big no action was taken thereafter by the DAR to fix the compensation for
and small, not a little inconvenience. However, this cannot be avoided. said land. On 21 April 1993, a trust account in the name of AMADCOR
was established in the amount of P12,247,217.83, three notices of
Department of Agrarian Reform vs. Court of Appeals [GR 118745, 6 acquisition having been previously rejected by AMADCOR. Thus, Yap,
October 1995]; the Heirs of Santiago, AMADCOR, being landowners whose landholdings
Facts: were acquired by the DAR and subjected to transfer schemes to
On 4 September 1992, the TCTs of Pedro L. Yap were totally cancelled qualified beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law,
by the Registrar of Deeds of Leyte and were transferred in the names and were aggrieved by the alleged lapses of the Department of
of farmer beneficiaries collectively, based on the request of the Agrarian Reform (DAR) and the Landbank with respect to the valuation
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) together with a certification of and payment of compensation for their land pursuant to the provisions
the Landbank that the sum of P735,337.77 and P719,869.54 have of Republic Act (RA) 6657, filed with the Supreme Court a Petition for
been earmarked for Yap for the parcels of lands covered by TCTs 6282 Certiorari and Mandamus with prayer for preliminary mandatory
and 6283 respectively, without notice to Yap and without complying injunction, questioning the validity of DAR Administrative Order 6,
with the requirement of Section 16 (e) of RA 6657 to deposit the Series of 1992 and DAR Administrative Order 9, Series of 1990, and
compensation in cash and Landbank bonds in an accessible bank. On sought to compel the DAR to expedite the pending summary
the other hand, in November and December 1990, without notice to administrative proceedings to finally determine the just compensation
the heirs of Emiliano F. Santiago, the owners of a parcel of land located of their properties, and the Landbank to deposit in cash and bonds the
at Laur, Nueva Ecija (18.5615 hectares, TCT NT-60359 of the registry amounts respectively "earmarked", "reserved" and "deposited in trust
of Deeds of Nueva Ecija), the Landbank (or DAR, according to accounts" for private respondents, and to allow them to withdraw the
Landbank) required and the beneficiaries executed Actual tillers Deed same. Through a Resolution of the Second Division dated 9 February
of Undertaking to pay rentals to the Landbank for the use of their 1994, the Supreme Court referred the petition to respondent Court of
farmlots equivalent to at least 25% of the net harvest. On 24 October Appeals for proper determination and disposition. On 20 October
1991 the DAR Regional Director issued an order directing the Landbank 1994, the Court of Appeals granted the petition, declaring that DAR
to pay the heirs directly or through the establishment of a trust fund in Administrative order 9, Series of 1990, null and void insofar as it
provides for the opening of trust accounts in lieu of deposits in cash or they rejected the DAR's valuation, and notwithstanding that they have
bonds; ordering Landbank to immediately deposit already been deprived of the possession and use of such properties, is
— not merely "earmark," "reserve" or "deposit in trust" — with an an oppressive exercise of eminent domain. The irresistible expropriation
accessible bank designated by DAR in the names of Yap, the Heirs of of Yap, et. al.'s properties was painful enough for them; but DAR
Santiago, and AMADCO the amounts of P1,455,207.31, P135,482.12, rubbed it in all the more by withholding that which rightfully belongs to
and P15,914,127.77 respectively in cash and in government financial Yap, et. al. in exchange for the taking, under an misplaced appreciation
instruments within the parameters of Sec. 18 of the Association of Small Landowners case. It must be noted that the
(1) of RA 6657; ordering the DAR-designated bank to allow Yap, et. al. immediate effect in both situations, the deposit of compensation and
to withdraw the amounts without prejudice to the final determination determination of just compensation, is the same; the landowner is
of just compensation by the proper authorities; and ordering DAR to deprived of the use and possession of his property for which he should
immediately conduct summary administrative proceedings to determine be fairly and immediately compensated. Thus, to reiterate the cardinal
the just compensation for the lands in question giving Yap, et. al. 15 rule, "within the context of the State's inherent power of eminent
days from notice within which to submit evidence and to decide the domain, just compensation means not only the correct determination
cases within 30 days after they are submitted for decision. DAR and of the amount to be paid to the owner of the land but also the
Landbank moved for reconsideration, but were denied on 18 January payment of the land within a reasonable time from its taking. Without
1995. DAR and Landbank filed their respective petitions for review prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered 'just' for the
with the Supreme Court. property owner is made to suffer the consequence of being
immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade
Issue: or more before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with
Whether the deposit may be made in other forms besides cash or LBP his loss."
bonds, and whether there should be a distinction between the deposit
of compensation and the determination of just compensation. Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) vs. Pineda [GR 59791, 13
February 1992]
Held: Facts:
It is very explicit in Section 16(e) of Republic Act 6657 that the For the purpose of constructing a 230 KV Transmission line from Barrio
deposit must be made only in "cash" or in "LBP bonds". Nowhere does Malaya to Tower 220 at Pililla, Rizal, the Manila Electric Company
it appear nor can it be inferred that the deposit can be made in any (MERALCO) needed portions of the land of Teofilo Arayon, Sr., Gil de
other form. If it were the intention to include a "trust account" among Guzman, Lucito Santiago and Teresa Bautista (simple fee owners),
the valid modes of deposit, that should have been made express, or at consisting of an aggregate area of 237,321 square meters. Despite
least, qualifying words ought to have appeared from which it can be MERALCO's offers to pay compensation and attempts to negotiate
fairly deduced that a "trust account" is allowed. In sum, there is no with Arayon, et. al., the parties failed to reach an agreement. On 29
ambiguity in Section 16(e) of RA 6657 to warrant an expanded October 1974, a complaint for eminent domain was filed by MERALCO
construction of the term "deposit". Herein, the DAR clearly against 42 defendants (including Teofilo Arayon Sr., Gil de Guzman,
overstepped the limits of its power to enact rules and regulations when Lucito Santiago, and Teresa Bautista) with the Court of First Instance
it issued Administrative Circular 9. There is no basis in allowing the (now Regional Trial Court) of Rizal, Branch XXII, Pasig, Metro Manila.
opening of a trust account in behalf of the landowner as compensation Despite the opposition of Arayon, et. al., the court issued an Order
for his property because Section 16(e) of RA 6657 is very specific dated 13 January 1975 authorizing MERALCO to take or enter upon
that the deposit must be made only in "cash" or in "LBP bonds". In the the possession of the property sought to be expropriated. On 13 July
same vein, DAR and Landbank cannot invoke LRA Circular 29, 29-A and 1976, Arayon, et. al., filed a motion for withdrawal of deposit claiming
54 because these implementing regulations cannot outweigh the clear that they are entitled to be paid at P40.00 per square meter or an
provision of the law. There should be no distinction between the approximate sum of P272,000.00 and prayed that they be allowed to
deposit of compensation under Section 16(e) of RA 6657 and withdraw the sum of P71,771.50 from MERALCO's deposit-account
determination of just compensation under Section 18. To withhold the with the Philippine National Bank (PNB), Pasig Branch. However,
right of the landowners to appropriate the amounts already deposited Arayon, et. al.'s motion was denied in an order dated 3 September
in their behalf as compensation for their properties simply because 1976. Pursuant to a government policy, MERALCO on 30 October
1979 sold to the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) the power
plants and transmission lines, including the transmission lines traversing Held:
Arayon, et. al.'s property. On 11 February 1980, the court issued an In an expropriation case where the principal issue is the determination
Order appointing the members of the Board of Commissioners to make of just compensation, a trial before the Commissioners is indispensable
an appraisal of the properties. On 5 June 1980, MERALCO filed a to allow the parties to present evidence on the issue of just
motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has lost all its compensation. The appointment of at least 3 competent persons as
interests over the transmission lines and properties under expropriation commissioners to ascertain just compensation for the property sought
because of their sale to the NAPOCOR. In view of this motion, the work to be taken is a mandatory requirement in expropriation cases. While it
of the Commissioners was suspended. On 9 June 1981, Arayon, et. al. is true that the findings of commissioners may be disregarded and the
filed another motion for payment, but despite the opposition of court may substitute its own estimate of the value, the latter may only
MERALCO, the court issued an order dated 4 December 1981 granting do so for valid reasons, i.e., where the Commissioners have applied
the motion for payment of Arayon, et. al. (P20,400 or P3.00 per illegal principles to the evidence submitted to them or where they have
square meter without prejudice to the just compensation that may be disregarded a clear preponderance of evidence, or where the amount
proved in the final adjudication of the case). On 15 December 1981, allowed is either grossly inadequate or excessive (Manila Railroad
Arayon, et. al. filed an Omnibus Motion praying that they be allowed to Company v. Velasquez, 32 Phil. 286) Thus, trial with the aid of the
withdraw an additional sum of P90,125.50 from MERALCO's deposit- commissioners is a substantial right that may not be done away with
account with PNB. By order dated 21 December 1981, the court capriciously or for no reason at all. Moreover, in such instances, where
granted the Omnibus Motion. Arayon, et. al. filed another motion dated the report of the commissioners may be disregarded, the trial court
8 January 1982 praying that MERALCO be ordered to pay the sum of may make its own estimate of value from competent evidence that
P169,200.00. On 12 January 1982, MERALCO filed a motion for may be gathered from the record. The "Joint Venture Agreement on
reconsideration of the Orders and to declare Arayon, et. al. in Subdivision and Housing Projects" executed by ABA Homes and
contempt of court for forging or causing to be forged the receiving Arayon, et. al. relied upon by the judge, in the absence of any other
stamp of MERALCO's counsel and falsifying or causing to be falsified proof of valuation of said properties, is incompetent to determine just
the signature of its receiving clerk in their Omnibus Motion. On 9 compensation. The judge's act of determining and ordering the
February 1982, the court denied MERALCO's motion for payment of just compensation without the assistance of a Board of
reconsideration and motion for contempt. In said order, the Court Commissioners is a flagrant violation of MERALCO's constitutional right
adjudged in favor of Arayon, et. al. the fair market value of their to due process and is a gross violation of the mandated rule
property taken by MERALCO at P40.00 per square meter for a total of established by the Revised Rules of Court.
P369.720.00; the amount to bearing legal interest from 24 February
1975 until fully paid plus consequential damages in terms of attorney's National Power Corporation vs. Henson [GR 129998, 29 December
fees in the sum of P10,000.00; all these sums to be paid by MERALCO 1998]
the former with costs of suit, minus the amount of P102,800.00 Facts:
already withdrawn by Arayon, et. al. Furthermore, the court stressed in On 21 March 1990, the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR)
said order that "at this stage, the Court starts to appoint originally instituted with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Third Judicial
commissioners to determine just compensation or dispenses with them District, Branch 46, San Fernando, Pampanga a complaint for eminent
and adopts the testimony of a credible real estate broker, or the Judge domain, later amended on 11 October 1990, for the taking for public
himself would exercise his right to formulate an opinion of his own as use of 5 parcels of land, owned or claimed by Lourdes Henson (married
to the value of the land in question. Nevertheless, if he formulates such to Eugenio Galvez), Josefina Henson (married to Petronio Katigbak,
an opinion, he must base it upon competent evidence." MERALCO filed Jesusa Henson, Corazon Henson (married to Jose Ricafort), Alfredo
a petition for review on certiorari. Tanchiatco, Bienvenido David, Maria Bondoc Capili (married to Romeo
Capili), and Miguel Manoloto, with a total aggregate area of 58,311
Issue: square meters, for the expansion of the NAPOCOR Mexico Sub-Station.
Whether the court can dispense with the assistance of a Board of On 28 March 1990, NAPOCOR filed an urgent motion to fix the
Commissioners in an expropriation proceeding and determine for itself provisional value of the subject parcels of land. On 20 April 1990,
the just compensation. Henson, et. al. filed a motion to dismiss. They did not challenge
NAPOCOR's right to condemn their property, but declared that the fair the Department of Agrarian Reform. However, the land has been
market value of their property was from P180.00 to P250.00 per reclassified as residential. The nature and character of the land at the
square meter. On 10 July 1990, the trial court denied Henson, et. al.'s time of its taking is the principal criterion to determine just
motion to dismiss, but the court did not declare that NAPOCOR had a compensation to the landowner. Unfortunately, the trial court, after
lawful right to take the property sought to be expropriated. However, creating a board of commissioners to help it determine the market
the court fixed the provisional value of the land at P100.00 per square value of the land did not conduct a hearing on the report of the
meter, for a total area of 63,220 square meters of Henson, et. al.'s commissioners. The trial court fixed the fair market value of subject
property, to be deposited with the Provisional Treasurer of Pampanga. land in an amount equal to the value of lots in the adjacent fully
NAPOCOR deposited the amount on 29 August 1990. On 5 September developed subdivision. This finds no support in the evidence. The
1990, the trial court issued a writ of possession in favor of NAPOCOR, valuation was even higher than the recommendation of anyone of the
and, on 11 September 1990, the court's deputy sheriff placed commissioners (Commissioner Mariano C. Tiglao fixed the fair market
NAPOCOR in possession of the subject land. On 22 November 1990, value at P350.00 per square meter, while Commissioner Arnold P.
and 20 December 1990, the trial court granted the motions of Henson, Atienza fixed it at P375.00 per square meter, and Commissioner
et. al. to withdraw the deposit made by NAPOCOR of the provisional Victorino Oracio fixed it at P170.00 per square meter). Commissioner
value of their property amounting to P5,831,100.00, with a balance of Atienza's recommendation appears to be the closest valuation to the
P690,900.00, remaining with the Provisional Treasurer of Pampanga. market value of lots in the adjoining fully developed subdivision.
On 5 April 1991, the trial court issued an order appointing 3 Considering that the subject parcels of land are undeveloped raw land,
commissioners to aid the in the reception of evidence to determine the price of P375.00 per square meter would appear to the Court as
just compensation for the taking of subject property. After receiving the just compensation for the taking of such raw land.
the evidence and conducting an ocular inspection, the commissioners
submitted to the court their individual reports. However, the trial court National Power Corporation vs. Angas [GR 60225-26, 8 May 1992]
did not conduct a hearing on any of the reports. On 19 May 1993, the Facts:
trial court rendered judgment fixing the amount of just compensation On 13 April and 3 December 1974, the National Power Corporation
to be paid by the NAPOCOR for the taking of the entire area of 63,220 (NAPOCOR), a government- owned and controlled corporation and the
squares meters at P400.00 per square meter, with legal interest agency through which the government undertakes the on-going
thereon computed from 11 September 1990, when NAPOCOR was infrastructure and development projects throughout the country, filed
placed in possession of the land, plus attorney's fees of P20,000.00, two complaints for eminent domain with the Court of First Instance
and costs of the proceedings. In due time, NAPOCOR appealed to the (now Regional Trial Court) of Lanao del Sur (against Lacsamana
Court of Appeals. On 23 July 1997, the Court of Appeals rendered Batugan, and/or Guimba Shipping & Development Corporation,
decision affirming that of the Regional Trial Court, except that the Magancong Digayan, Moctara Lampaco, Lampaco Pasandalan, Dimaporo
award of P20,000.00 as attorney's fees was deleted. NAPOCOR filed a Subang, Hadji Daluma Kinidar, Dimaampao Baute, Pangonotan Cosna
petition for review before the Supreme Court. Tagol, Salacop Dimacaling, Hadji Sittie Sohra Linang Batara, Bertudan
Pimping And/Or Cadurog Pimping, Butuan Tagol, Disangcopan
Issue: Marabong, and Hadji Salic Sawa in Civil Case 2248; and against
Whether the determination of the court would be valid without hearing Mangorsi Casan, Casnangan Batugan, Pundamarug Atocal, Pasayod
on the report of the Commissioners. Pado, Dimaampao Baute, Casnangan Baute, Dimaporo Subang,
Tambilawan Ote, Manisun Atocal, and Masacal Tomiara in Civil Case
Held: 2277). The complaint which sought to expropriate certain specified
The trial court and the Court of Appeals fixed the value of the land at lots situated at Limogao, Saguiaran, Lanao del Sur was for the purpose
P400.00 per square meter, which was the selling price of lots in the of the development of hydro-electric power and production of
adjacent fully developed subdivision, the Santo Domingo Village electricity as well as the erection to such subsidiary works and
Subdivision. The parcels of land sought to be expropriated, however, constructions as may be necessarily connected therewith. Both cases
are undeniably idle, undeveloped, raw agricultural land, bereft of any were jointly tried upon agreement of the parties. After a series of
improvement. Except for the Henson family, all the other landowners hearings were held, on 15 June 1979, a consolidated decision was
were admittedly farmer beneficiaries under operation land transfer of rendered by the lower court, declaring and confirming that the lots
mentioned and described in the complaints have entirely been lawfully contrary, shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the
condemned and expropriated by NAPOCOR, and ordering the latter to absence of stipulation, the legal interest, which is six percent per
pay the landowners certain sums of money as just compensation for annum," and not Central Bank Circular 416, is the law applicable. The
their lands expropriated "with legal interest thereon until fully paid. Central Bank circular applies only to loan or forbearance of money,
Two consecutive motions for reconsideration of the consolidated goods or credits and to judgments involving such loan or forbearance
decision were filed by NAPOCOR. The same were denied by the court. of money, goods or credits. This is evident not only from said circular
NAPOCOR did not appeal on the consolidated decision, which became but also from Presidential Decree 116, which amended Act 2655,
final and executory. Thus, on 16 May 1980, one of the landowners otherwise known as the Usury Law. On the other hand, Article 2209 of
(Sittie Sohra Batara) filed an ex-parte motion for the execution of the the Civil Code applies to transactions requiring the payment of
decision, praying that petitioner be directed to pay her the unpaid indemnities as damages, in connection with any delay in the
balance of P14,300.00 for the lands expropriated from her, including performance of the obligation arising therefrom other than those
legal interest which she computed at 6% per annum. The said motion covering loan or forbearance of money, goods or credits. Herein, the
was granted by the lower court. Thereafter, the lower court directed transaction involved is clearly not a loan or forbearance of money,
the petitioner to deposit with its Clerk of Court the sums of money as goods or credits but expropriation of certain parcels of land for a public
adjudged in the joint decision dated 15 June 1979. NAPOCOR complied purpose, the payment of which is without stipulation regarding
with said order and deposited the sums of money with interest interest, and the interest adjudged by the trial court is in the nature of
computed at 6% per annum. On 10 February 1981, another landowner indemnity for damages. The legal interest required to be paid on the
(Pangonatan Cosna Tagol) filed with the trial court an ex- parte motion amount of just compensation for the properties expropriated is
praying, for the first time, that the legal interest on the just manifestly in the form of indemnity for damages for the delay in the
compensation awarded to her by the court be computed at 12% per payment thereof. Therefore, since the kind of interest involved in the
annum as allegedly "authorized under and by virtue of Circular 416 of joint judgment of the lower court sought to be enforced in this case is
the Central Bank issued pursuant to Presidential Decree 116 and in a interest by way of damages, and not by way of earnings from loans,
decision of the Supreme Court that legal interest allowed in the etc. Article 2209 of the Civil Code shall apply.
judgment of the courts, in the absence of express contract, shall be
computed at 12% per annum." On 11 February 1981, the lower court City of Manila, vs. Serrano [GR 142304, 20 June 2001]
granted the said motion allowing 12% interest per annum. Facts:
Subsequently, the other landowners filed motions also praying that the On 21 December 1993, the City Council of Manila enacted Ordinance
legal interest on the just compensation awarded to them be computed 7833, authorizing the expropriation of certain properties in Manila's
at 12% per annum, on the basis of which the lower court issued on 10 First District in Tondo, covered by TCTs 70869, 105201, 105202, and
March 1981 and 28 August 1981 orders bearing similar import. 138273 of the Register of Deeds of Manila, which are to be sold and
NAPOCOR moved for the reconsideration of the lower court's last order distributed to qualified occupants pursuant to the Land Use
dated 28 August 1981, which the court denied on 25 January 1982. Development Program of the City of Manila. One of the properties
NAPOCOR filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the sought to be expropriated, denominated as Lot 1-C, consists of
Supreme Court. 343.10 square meters, and was in the name of Feliza de Guia. Lot 1-C
was assigned to Edgardo De Guia, one of the heirs of Alberto De Guia,
Issue: in turn one of the heirs of Feliza de Guia. On 29 July 1994, the said
Whether, in the computation of the legal rate of interest on just property was transferred to Lee Kuan Hui, in whose name TCT 217018
compensation for expropriated lands, the rate applicable as legal was issued. The property was subsequently sold on 24 January 1996
interest is 6% (Article 2209 of the Civil Code) or 12% (Central Bank to Demetria De Guia to whom TCT 226048 was issued. On 26
Circular 416). September 1997, the City of Manila filed an amended complaint for
expropriation (Civil Case 94-72282) with the Regional Trial Court,
Held: Branch 16, Manila, against the supposed owners of the lots covered by
Article 2209 of the Civil Code, which provides that "If the obligation TCTs 70869 (including Lot 1-C), 105201, 105202, and 138273,
consists in the payment of a sum of money, and the debtor incurs a which included herein respondents Oscar, Felicitas, Jose, Benjamin,
delay, the indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the Estelita, Leonora, Adelaida, all surnamed Serrano. On 12 November
1997, the Serranos filed a consolidated answer, praying the exemption requirements were satisfied and, therefore, it became the ministerial
of Lot 1-C from expropriation. Upon motion by the City, the trial court duty of the trial court to issue the writ of possession. The distinction
issued an order, dated 9 October 1998, directing the City to deposit between the Filstream and the present case is that in the former, the
the amount of P1,825,241.00 equivalent to the assessed value of the judgment in that case had already become final while herein, the trial
properties. After the City had made the deposit, the trial court issued court has not gone beyond the issuance of a writ of possession.
another order, dated 15 December 1998, directing the issuance of a Hearing is still to be held to determine whether or not petitioner indeed
writ of possession in favor of the City. The Serranos filed a petition for complied with the requirements provided in RA 7279. Whether the City
certiorari with the Court of Appeals. On 16 November 1999, the Court has complied with these provisions requires the presentation of
of Appeals rendered a decision holding that although Lot 1-C is not evidence, although in its amended complaint petitioner did allege that
exempt from expropriation because it undeniably exceeds 300 square it had complied with the requirements. The determination of this
meters which is no longer considered a small property within the question must await the hearing on the complaint for expropriation,
framework of RA 7279, the other modes of acquisition of lands particularly the hearing for the condemnation of the properties sought
enumerated in §§59-10 of the law must first be tried by the city to be expropriated. Expropriation proceedings consists of two stages:
government before it can resort to expropriation, and thus enjoined first, condemnation of the property after it is determined that its
the City from expropriating Lot 1-C. In its resolution, dated 23 acquisition will be for a public purpose or public use and, second, the
February 2000, the Court of Appeals likewise denied two motions for determination of just compensation to be paid for the taking of private
reconsideration filed by the City. The City filed a petition for review on property to be made by the court with the assistance of not more than
certiorari before the Supreme Court. three commissioners.

Issue: City of Baguio vs. National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority [GR L-
Whether it was premature to determine whether the requirements of 12032, 31 August 1959]
RA 7279, §§9-10 have been complied with. Facts:
The City of Baguio filed on 25 April 1956, in the Court of First Instance
Held: of Baguio, a complaint for declaratory relief against the National
Rule 67, §2 provides that "Upon the filing of the complaint or at any Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NAWASA), a public corporation
time thereafter and after due notice to the defendant, the plaintiff created by Republic Act 1383, contending that said Act does not
shall have the right to take or enter upon the possession of the real include within its purview the Baguio Waterworks System; that
property involved if he deposits with the authorized government assuming that it does, said Act is unconstitutional because it has the
depositary an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property effect of depriving the City of the ownership, control and operation of
for purposes of taxation to be held by such bank subject to the orders said waterworks system without compensation and without due
of the court. Such deposit shall be in money, unless in lieu thereof the process of law, and that it is oppressive, unreasonable and unjust to
court authorizes the deposit of a certificate of deposit of a plaintiff and other cities, municipalities and municipal districts similarly
government bank of the Republic of the Philippines payable on demand situated. On 22 May 1956, NAWASA filed a motion to dismiss. On 21
to the authorized government depositary. If personal property is June 1956, the Court, acting on the motion to dismiss as well as on
involved, its value shall be provisionally ascertained and the amount to the answer and rejoinder filed by both parties, denied the motion and
be deposited shall be fixed by the court. After such deposit is made ordered NAWASA to file its answer to the complaint. On 6 July 1956,
the court shall order the sheriff or other proper officer to forthwith NAWASA filed its answer reiterating and amplifying the grounds already
place the plaintiff in possession of the property involved and promptly advanced in its motion to dismiss. On 14 August 1956, the parties
submit a report thereof to the court with service of copies to the submitted a written stipulation of facts and filed written memoranda.
parties." Thus, a writ of execution may be issued by a court upon the And after allowing the City to file a supplementary complaint, the Court
filing by the government of a complaint for expropriation sufficient in on 5 November 1956, rendered decision holding that the waterworks
form and substance and upon deposit made by the government of the system of the City of Baguio falls within the category of "private
amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property subject to property," as contemplated by our Constitution and may not be
expropriation. Upon compliance with these requirements, the issuance expropriated without just compensation. NAWASA filed a motion for
of the writ of possession becomes ministerial. Herein, these reconsideration, and upon its denial, it took the present appeal.
 Province. The lots are utilized as the Capitol Site (1 lot), School site (3
lots), Hospital site (3 lots), Leprosarium (3 lots), Curuan school (1 lot),
Issue: Trade school (1 lot), Burleigh school (2 lots), burleigh (9 lots), high
Whether the Baguio Waterworks partakes of the nature of public school playground (2 lots), hydro-electric site (1 lot), san roque (?1
property or private/patrimonial property of the City. lot), and another 23 vacant lots. In 1945, the capital of Zamboanga
Province was transferred to Dipolog and on 16 June 1948, Republic
Held: Act (RA) 286 created the municipality of Molave and making it the
The Baguio Waterworks System is not like any public road, park, street capital of Zamboanga Province. On 26 May 1949, the Appraisal
or other public property held in trust by a municipal corporation for the Committee formed by the Auditor General, pursuant to CA 39, fixed
benefit of the public but it is rather a property owned by the City in its the value of the properties and buildings in question left by Zamboanga
proprietary character. While the cases may differ as to the public or Province in Zamboanga City at P1,294,244.00. However, on 14 July
private character of waterworks, the weight of authority as far as the 1951, a Cabinet Resolution was passed, conveying all the said 50 lots
legislature is concerned classes them as private affairs. (sec. 239, Vol. and buildings thereon to Zamboanga City for P1.00, effective as of
I, Revised, McQuillin Municipal Corporations, p. 239; Shrik vs. City of 1945, when the provincial capital of the Zamboanga Province was
Lancaster, 313 Pa. 158, 169 Atl. 557). And in this jurisdiction, this transferred to Dipolog. On 6 June 1952, RA 711 was approved dividing
Court has already expressed the view that a waterworks system is the province of Zamboanga into Zamboanga del Norte and Zamboanga
patrimonial property of the city that has established it. (Mendoza vs. del Sur. As to how the assets and obligations of the old province were
De Leon, 33 Phil. 509). And being owned by a municipal corporation in to be divided between the two new ones, Section 6 of the law provided
a proprietary character, waterworks cannot be taken away without that “upon the approval of the Act, the funds, assets and other
observing the safeguards set by our Constitution for the protection of properties and the obligations of the province of Zamboanga shall be
private property. The State may, in the interest of National welfare, divided equitably between the Province of Zamboanga del Norte and
transfer to public ownership any private enterprise upon payment of the Province of Zamboanga del Sur by the President of the Philippines,
just compensation. At the same time, one has to bear in mind that no upon the recommendation of the Auditor General." On 11 January
person can be deprived of his property except for public use and upon 1955, the Auditor General apportioned the assets and obligations of
payment of just compensation. Unless the City is given its due the defunct Province of Zamboanga, apportioning 54.39% for
compensation, the City cannot be deprived of its property even if Zamboanga del Norte and 45.61% for Zamboanga del Sur. On 17 March
NAWASA desires to take over its administration in line with the spirit of 1959, the Executive Secretary, by order of the President, issued a
the law (Republic Act 1383). The law, insofar as it expropriates the ruling holding that Zamboanga del Norte had a vested right as owner
waterworks in question without providing for an effective payment of (should be co-owner pro-indiviso) of the properties mentioned in
just compensation, violates our Constitution. Section 50 of CA 39, and is entitled to the price thereof, payable by
Zamboanga City. This effectively revoked the Cabinet Resolution of 14
Province of Zamboanga del Norte v. City of Zamboanga [G.R. No. L- July 1951. The Secretary of Finance then authorized the Commissioner
24440. March 28, 1968.] of Internal Revenue to deduct an amount equal to 25% of the regular
Facts: internal revenue allotment for the City of Zamboanga for the quarter
Prior to its incorporation as a chartered city, the Municipality of ending 31 March 1960, then for the quarter ending 30 June 1960, and
Zamboanga used to be the provincial capital of the then Zamboanga again for the first quarter of the fiscal year 1960-1961. The
Province. On 12 October 1936, Commonwealth Act (CA) 39 was deductions, all aggregating P57,373.46 was credited to the province
approved converting the Municipality of Zamboanga into Zamboanga of Zamboanga del Norte, in partial payment of the P704,220,05 due it.
City. Section 50 of the Act also provided that "buildings and properties However, on 17 June 1961, RA 3039 was approved amending Section
which the province shall abandon upon the transfer of the capital to 50 of CA 39 by providing that "all buildings, properties and assets
another place will be acquired and paid for by the City of Zamboanga at belonging to the former province of Zamboanga and located within the
a price to be fixed by the Auditor General." The properties and City of Zamboanga are hereby transferred, free of charge, in favor of
buildings referred to consisted of 50 lots and some buildings the said City of Zamboanga." On 12 July 1961, the Secretary of
constructed thereon, located in the City of Zamboanga and covered Finance ordered the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to stop from
individually by Torrens certificates of title in the name of Zamboanga effecting further payments to Zamboanga del Norte and to return to
Zamboanga City the sum of P57,373.46 taken from it out of the province. Even the capitol site, the hospital and leprosarium sites, and
internal revenue allotment of Zamboanga del Norte. Zamboanga City the school sites will be considered patrimonial for they are not for
admits that since the enactment of RA 3039, P43,030.11 of the public use inasmuch as they would not fall under the phrase "public
P57,373.46 has already been returned to it. This constrained works for public service." Under the ejusdem generis rule, such public
Zamboanga del Norte to file on 5 March 1962, a complaint entitled works must be for free and indiscriminate use by anyone, just like the
"Declaratory Relief with Preliminary Mandatory Injunction" in the CFI preceding enumerated properties in the first paragraph of Article 424.
Zamboanga del Norte against Zamboanga City, the Secretary of The playgrounds, however, would fit into this category. The records do
Finance and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. On 4 June 1962, not disclose, however, whether the buildings were constructed at the
the lower court ordered the issuance of preliminary injunction as expense of the former Province of Zamboanga. Considering however
prayed for. After trial and on 12 August 1963, judgment was rendered the fact that said buildings must have been erected even before 1936
declaring RA 3039 unconstitutional as it deprives the province of its when CA 39 was enacted and the further fact that provinces then had
private properties, ordered the city to pay the province the sum of no power to authorize construction of buildings at their own expense,
P704,200.05 and in relation to this ordered the finance secretary to it can be assumed that said buildings were erected by the National
direct the Commissioner of Internal revenue to deduct from its regular Government, using national funds. Hence, Congress could very well
quarterly internal revenue allotment equivalent to 25%, 25% from the dispose of said buildings in the same manner that it did with the lots in
regular quarterly internal revenue allotment for the City and to remit question. On the other hand, Republic Act 3039 cannot be applied to
the same to the province until the sum has been fully paid; ordered the deprive Zamboanga del Norte of its share in the value of the rest of the
province to execute the corresponding public instrument deeding to 26 remaining lots which are patrimonial properties since they are not
the city the 50 parcels of land and the improvements thereon under being utilized for distinctly governmental purposes. The fact that these
the certificates of title upon full payment; dismissed the counterclaim 26 lots are registered strengthens the proposition that they are truly
of the city; and declared permanent the preliminary mandatory private in nature. Thus, Zamboanga del Norte is still entitled to collect
injunction issued on 8 June 1967. The province filed a motion to from the City of Zamboanga the former's 54.39% share in the 26
reconsider praying that the City be ordered instead to pay the properties which are patrimonial in nature, said share to be computed
P704,220.05 in lump sum with 6% interest per annum. Over the city’s on the basis of the valuation of said 26 properties as contained in
opposition, the lower court granted the province’s motion. Hence, the Resolution 7, dated 26 March 1949, of the Appraisal Committee
appeal to the Supreme Court. formed by the Auditor General. The share, however, cannot be paid in
lump sum, except as to the P43,030.11 already returned to the City,
Issue: as the return of said amount to the city was without legal basis. RA
Whether Zamboanga del Norte is entitled to its share of the value of 3039 took effect only on 17 June 1961 after a partial payment of
the properties belonging to the former Zamboanga province that were P57,373.46 had already been made. Since the law did not provide for
transferred to the City of Zamboanga. retroactivity, it could not have validly affected a completed act. Hence,
the amount of P43,030.11 should be immediately returned by the City
Held: to the province. The remaining balance, if any, in the amount of
Article 423 of the Civil Code provides that “the property of provinces, plaintiff's 54.39% share in the 26 lots should then be paid by the City
cities and municipalities, is divided into property for public use and in the same manner originally adopted by the Secretary of Finance and
patrimonial properly." Article 424 of the same code provides that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and not in lump sum.
“property for public use, in the provinces, cities, and municipalities,
consists of the provincial roads, city streets, municipal streets, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Algue [GR L-28896, 17 February
squares, fountains, public waters, promenades, and public works for 1988]
public service paid for by said provinces, cities, or municipalities. All Facts:
other property possessed by any of them is patrimonial and shall be The Philippine Sugar Estate Development Company (PSEDC) appointed
governed by this Code, without prejudice to the provisions of special Algue Inc. as its agent, authorizing it to sell its land, factories, and oil
laws." Applying the norm in the Civil Code, all the properties in manufacturing process. The Vegetable Oil Investment Corporation
question, except the two (2) lots used as High School playgrounds, (VOICP) purchased PSEDC properties. For the sale, Algue received a
could be considered as patrimonial properties of the former Zamboanga commission of P125,000 and it was from this commission that it paid
Guevara, et. al. organizers of the VOICP, P75,000 in promotional fees. and the Integrated National Police (INP) enforced the search and
In 1965, Algue received an assessment from the Commissioner of seizure warrants, and seized and confiscated 6 tanks of scotch whisky,
Internal Revenue in the amount of P83,183.85 as delinquency income 417 cartons of 1doz. Johnny Walker black, 109 empty bottles, among
tax for years 1958 amd 1959. Algue filed a protest or request for others, found in the premises of the Hercules Bottling at Paco, Manila.
reconsideration which was not acted upon by the Bureau of Internal The articles seized remained in the premises of Hercules guarded and
Revenue (BIR). The counsel for Algue had to accept the warrant of secured by BII personnel. On 2 January 1979, the Collector of Customs
distraint and levy. Algue, however, filed a petition for review with the for the Port of Manila issued a warrant of seizure and detention and
Court of Tax Appeals. ordered the immediate seizure and turnover of the seized items to its
Auction and Cargo Disposal Division at the Port of Manila. Seizure and
Issue: forfeiture proceedings were then initiated against the articles for
Whether the assessment from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue alleged violation of Section 2530 (f) of the Tariff and Customs Code, in
was reasonable. relation to RA 3720. On 29 January 1979, the CFI issued an order
authorizing the transfer and delivery of the seized articles to the
Held: customs warehouse located at South Harbor, Port of Manila. The City
No. Taxes are the lifeblood of the government and so should be Fiscal of Manila proceeded with the preliminary investigation of the
collected without unnecessary hindrance. Every person who is able to criminal cases and the Bureau of Customs also resumed hearing the
pay must contribute his share in the running of the government. The seizure and forfeiture proceedings over the said articles. On 11 June
Government, for his part, is expected to respond in the form of 1982, the Distiller Co. Ltd. of England objected to the continuation by
tangible and intangible benefits intended to improve the lives of the the Collector of Customs of the seizure proceedings claiming that
people and enhance their moral and material values. This symbiotic these proceedings would hamper or even jeopardize the preliminary
relationship is the rationale of taxation and should dispel the erroneous investigation being conducted by the fiscal. The Collector of Customs
notion that is an arbitrary method of exaction by those in the seat of ignored the objections. On 24 September 1982, the company filed a
power. Tax collection, however, should be made in accordance with law petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction and/or TRO (Civil
as any arbitrariness will negate the very reason for government itself. Case 82-12721) to enjoin the Hearing Officer of the Bureau of
For all the awesome power of the tax collector, he may still be stopped Customs from taking further action in the seizure proceedings of the
in his tracks if the taxpayer can demonstrate that the law has not been subject goods. The petition was heard not before the CFI-MANILA
observed. Herein, the claimed deduction (pursuant to Section 30 [a] which originally issued the search warrants, but before another sala,
[1] of the Tax Code and Section 70 [1] of Revenue Regulation 2: as to that of Judge Ramon P. Makasiar of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 35,
compensation for personal services) had been legitimately by Algue Manila. The judge issued a TRO on 29 September 1982. Subsequently,
Inc. It has further proven that the payment of fees was reasonable and a writ for preliminary injunction was issued as well. On 20 July 1987,
necessary in light of the efforts exerted by the payees in inducing the judge rendered a decision holding that the Collector of Customs
investors (in VOICP) to involve themselves in an experimental acted in excess of its jurisdiction in issuing the warrant of seizure and
enterprise or a business requiring millions of pesos. The assessment detention considering that the subject goods had already come under
was not reasonable. the legal custody of the CFI. Hence, the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, represented by the Solicitor General, filed the instant petition
Commissioner of Customs v. Makasiar [GR 79307, 29 August 1989] on 11 August 1987. In the meantime, Howard Sosis and company were
Facts: charged for violation of Chapter VI, Sec. 11(a) & (e) of RA 3720
On 7 December 1978, the then Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila (Criminal Case 88-63157) and for violation of Article 188 of the
issued Search and Seizure Warrants in Criminal Cases 8602 and 8603 Revised Penal Code (Criminal Case 88-63156) before the RTC and the
(People v. Sosis) for violation of Section 11 (a) and/or 11(e) of MTC Manila.
Republic Act 3720, and violation of Article 188 of the Revised Penal
Code (Substituting and altering trademarks, tradenames, or service Issue:
marks; in this case, Johnnie Walker Scotch Whisky), respectively. On 8 Whether the Regional Trial Court has the power to review the acts of
December 1978, a composite team from the Ministry of Finance the Collector of Custom.
Bureau of Investigation and Intelligence (BII), the Bureau of Customs
Held: thereon. It was paid under protest and this action begun to recover it
Tariff and customs duties are taxes constituting a significant portion of on the ground that the property was exempt from taxation under the
the public revenue which are the lifeblood that enables the government charter of the city of Manila. The decision was made in favor of the
to carry out functions it has been instituted to perform. The Regional city, and the association appealed.
Trial Courts (RTCs) are devoid of any competence to pass upon the
validity or regularity of seizure and forfeiture proceedings conducted in Issue:
the Bureau of Customs, and to enjoin, or otherwise interfere with, Whether the institution must be devoted exclusive for religious
these proceedings. The Collector of Customs sitting in seizure and purposes, or exclusively for charitable purposes, or exclusively to
forfeiture proceedings has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine educational purposes, to be entitled to tax exemption.
all questions touching on the seizure and forfeiture of dutiable goods.
The RTCs are precluded from assuming cognizance over such matters Held:
even through petitions of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus. The It may be admitted that there are 64 persons occupying rooms in the
provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code and that of RA 1125 specify main building as lodgers or roomers and that they take their meals at
the proper fora for the ventilation of any legal objections or issues the restaurant below. These facts, however, are far from constituting a
raised concerning these proceedings. Actions of the Collector of business in the ordinary acceptation of the word; as there is no profit
Customs are appealable to the Commissioner of Customs, whose realized by the association in any sense; and that the purpose of the
decisions, in turn, are subject to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of association is not, primarily, to obtain the money which comes from
the CTA. Thereafter, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court through the the lodgers and boarders. The real purpose is to keep the membership
appropriate petition for review by writ of certiorari. Undeniably, RTCs continually within the sphere of influence of the institution; and
do not share these review powers. The rule is anchored upon the policy thereby to prevent, as far as possible, the opportunities which vice
of placing no unnecessary hindrance on the government's drive not presents to young men in foreign countries who lack home or other
only to prevent smuggling and other frauds upon customs, but also, similar influences. There is no doubt about the correctness of the
and more importantly, to render effective and efficient the collection contention that an institution must devote itself exclusively to one or
of import and export duties due the state. the other of the purposes mentioned in the statute before it can be
exempt from taxation; but the statute does not say that it must be
YMCA v. Collector of Internal Revenue [GR 7988, 19 January 1916] devoted exclusively to any one of the purposes therein mentioned. It
Facts: may be a combination of two or three or more of those purposes and
The Young Men's Christian Association came to the Philippines with the still be entitled to exemption. The YMCA cannot be said to be an
army of occupation in 1898. The association is nonsectarian, it is institution used exclusively for religious purposes, or exclusively for
preeminently religious; and the fundamental basis and groundwork is charitable purposes, or exclusively to educational purposes; but the
the Christian religion. All of the officials of the association are devoted Court believed that it is an institution used exclusively for all three
Christians, members of a church, and have dedicated their lives to the purposes. As such, it is entitled to be exempted from taxation.
spread of the Christian principles and the building of Christian
character. Its building is located in Calle Concepcion, Ermita, which was Bishop of Nueva Segovia v. Provincial Board, Ilocos Norte [GR 27588,
formally dedicated on 20 October 1909. The building is composed of 31 December 1927]
three parts. The main structure is three stories high and includes a Facts:
reception hall, social hall and game rooms, lecture room, library, reading The Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, represented by the Bishop of
room and rooming apartments. The small building lying to the left of Nueva Segovia, possesses and is the owner of a parcel of land in the
the principal structure is the kitchen and servants' quarters. The municipality of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, all four sides of which face on
bowling alleys, swimming pool, locker rooms and gymnasium - public streets. On the south side is a part of the church yard, the
auditorium are located at the large wing to the right (athletic building). convent and an adjacent lot used for a vegetable garden, containing an
The association claimed exemption from taxation on ground that it is a area of 1,624 square meters, in which there is a stable and a well for
religious, charitable and educational institution combined, under the use of the convent. In the center is the remainder of the
Section 48 of the Charter of the City of Manila. The city of Manila, churchyard and the church. On the north side is an old cemetery with
contending that the property is taxable, assessed it and levied a tax two of its walls still standing, and a portion where formerly stood a
tower, the base of which may still be seen, containing a total area of construction of a new Catholic Church in the locality. The total amount
8,955 square meters. As required by the provincial board, the Church was actually spent for the purpose intended. On 3 March 1958, MB
paid on 3 July 1925, under protest, the land tax on the lot adjoining Estate filed the donor's gift tax return. Under date of 29 April 1960,
the convent and the lot which formerly was the cemetery with the the Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued as assessment for
portion where the tower stood. The Church filed an action for the donee's gift tax against the Catholic Parish of Victorias, Negros
recovery of the sum paid by it to Board by way of land tax, alleging Occidental, of which petitioner was the priest. The tax amounted to
that the collection of this tax is illegal. The lower court absolved the P1,370.00 including surcharges, interest of 1% monthly from 15 May
Board from the complaint in regard to the lot adjoining the convent 1958 to 15 June 1960, and the compromise for the late filing of the
and declared that the tax collected on the lot, which formerly was the return. Petitioner lodged a protest to the assessment and requested
cemetery and on the portion where the tower stood, was illegal. Both the withdrawal thereof. The protest and the motion for reconsideration
parties appealed from this judgment. presented to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue were denied. The
petitioner appealed to the CTA on 2 November 1960. After hearing,
Issue: the CTA affirmed the decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Whether the churchyard, the adjacent lot used for a vegetable garden, except the imposition of compromise penalty of P20. Fr. Lladoc
and the old cemetery, besides the church and the convent, are exempt appealed to the Supreme Court.
from land taxes.
Issue:
Held: Whether a donee’s gift tax may be assessed against the Catholic
The exemption in favor of the convent in the payment of the land tax Church.
(sec. 344 [c] Administrative Code) refers to the home of the priest
who presides over the church and who has to take care of himself in Held:
order to discharge his duties. It therefore must, in this sense, include The phrase "exempt from taxation," as employed in the Constitution
not only the land actually occupied by the church, but also the supra should not be interpreted to mean exemption from all kinds of
adjacent ground destined to the ordinary incidental uses of man. taxes. Section 22(3), Art. VI of the Constitution of the Philippines,
Except in large cities where the density of the population and the exempts from taxation cemeteries, churches and personages or
development of commerce require the use of larger tracts of land for convents, appurtenant thereto, and all lands, buildings, and
buildings, a vegetable garden belongs to a house and, in the case of a improvements used exclusively for religious purposes. The exemption is
convent, its use is limited to the necessities of the priest, which comes only from the payment of taxes assessed on such properties
under the exemption. Also, land used as a lodging house by the people enumerated, as property taxes, as contra-distinguished from excise
who participate in religious festivities, which constitutes an incidental taxes. A donee’s gift tax is not a property tax but an excise tax
use in religious functions, not for commercial purposes, comes within imposed on the transfer of property by way of gift inter vivos. Its
the exemption. It cannot be taxed according to its former use assessment was not on the property themselves. It does not rest upon
(cemetery). general ownership, but an excise upon the use made of the properties,
upon the exercise of the privilege of receiving the properties. The
Lladoc v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue [GR L-19201, 16 June imposition of such excise tax on property used for religious purposes
1965] do not constitute an impairment of the Constitution.
Facts:
Sometime in 1957, the MB Estate Inc., of Bacolod City, donated Abra v. Hernando [GR L-49336, 31 August 1981]
P10,000.00 in cash to Fr. Crispin Ruiz then parish priest of Victorias, Facts:
Negros Occidental, and predecessor of Fr. Casimiro Lladoc, for the The provincial assessor made a tax assessment on the properties of
the Roman Catholic Bishop of Bangued. The bishop claims tax
exemption from real estate tax, through an action for declaratory
relief. Judge Hernando of the CFI Abra presided over the case. The
Province of Abra filed a motion to dismiss, based on lack of jurisdiction,
which was denied. It was followed by a summary judgment granting the educational purposes. Instead of perfecting an appeal, the College
exemption without hearing the side of the province. availed of the petition for review on certiorari with prayer for
preliminary injunction before the Supreme Court, by filing said petition
Issue: on 17 August 1974.
Whether the properties of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Bangued are
tax exempt. Issue:
Whether the College is exempt from realty taxes.
Held:
Exemption from taxation is not favored and is never presumed, so that Held:
if granted it must be strictly construed against the taxpayer. No. The test of exemption from taxation is the use of the property for
Affirmatively put, the law frowns on exemption from taxation, hence, purposes mentioned in the Constitution. While the Court allows a more
an exempting provision should be construed strictissimi juris. Herein, liberal and non-restrictive interpretation of the phrase "exclusively used
the judge accepted at its face the allegation of Bishop – that the for educational purposes," reasonable emphasis has always been made
certain parcels of land owned by it, are used "actually, directly and that exemption extends to facilities which are incidental to and
exclusively" as sources of support of the parish priest and his helpers reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the main purposes.
and also of the Bishop – instead of demonstrating that there is The use of the school building or lot for commercial purposes is neither
compliance with the constitutional provision that allows an exemption. contemplated by law, nor by jurisprudence. Herein, the lease of the
There was an allegation of lack of jurisdiction (contesting that the first floor of the building to the Northern Marketing Corporation cannot
validity of the assessment may be questioned before the Local Board by any stretch of the imagination be considered incidental to the
of Assessment Appeals and not the court), and of lack of cause of purpose of education.
action (contesting that declaratory relief is not proper, as there had
been breach or violation of the right of government to assess and American Bible Society v. City of Manila [GR L-9637, 30 April 1957]
collect taxes on such property), which should have compel the judge to Facts:
accord a hearing to the petitioner rather than deciding the case In the course of its ministry, American Bible Society's Philippine agency
immediately in favor of the Bishop. has been distributing and selling bibles and/or gospel portions thereof
(since 1898, but except during the Japanese occupation) throughout
Abra Valley College v. Aquino [GR L-39086, 15 June 1988] the Philippines and translating the same into several Philippine dialects.
Facts: On 29 May 1953, the acting City Treasurer of the City of Manila
Abra Valley College rents out the ground floor of its college building to informed the Society that it was conducting the business of general
Northern Marketing Corporation while the second floor thereof is used merchandise since November 1945, without providing itself with the
by the Director of the College for residential purposes. On 6 July 1972, necessary Mayor's permit and municipal license, in violation of
the Municipal and Provincial treasurers (Gaspar Bosque and Armin Ordinance 3000, as amended, and Ordinances 2529, 3028 and 3364,
Cariaga, respectively) and issued a Notice of Seizure upon the and required the Society to secure, within 3 days, the corresponding
petitioner for the college lot and building (OCT Q-83) for the permit and license fees, together with compromise covering the period
satisfaction of said taxes thereon. The treasurers served upon the from the 4th quarter of 1945 to the 2nd quarter of 1953, in the total
College a Notice of Sale on 8 July 1972, the sale being held on the sum of P5,821.45. On 24 October 1953, the Society paid to the City
same day. Dr. Paterno Millare, then municipal mayor of Bangued, Abra, Treasurer under protest the said permit and license fees, giving at the
offered the highest bid of P 6,000 on public auction involving the sale same time notice to the City Treasurer that suit would be taken in
of the college lot and building. The certificate of sale was court to question the legality of the ordinances under which the said
correspondingly issued to him. The College filed a complaint on 10 July fees were being collected, which was done on the same date by filing
1972 in the court a quo to annul and declare void the "Notice of the complaint that gave rise to this action. After hearing, the lower
Seizure" and the "Notice of Sale" of its lot and building located at court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. the Society appealed
Bangued, Abra, for non-payment of real estate taxes and penalties to the Court of Appeals, which in turn certified the case to the
amounting to P5,140.31. The trial court ruled for the government, Supreme Court for the reason that the errors assigned involved only
holding that the property is not being used “exclusively” for questions of law.
 professions, such as those were Silvestre M. Punsalan, et. al. belong.
Issue: Punsalan, et. al. (2 lawyers, a medical practitioner, a public accountant,
Whether the Society is required to secure municipal permit to allow it a dental surgeon and a pharmacist) filed a suit in the Court of First
to sell and distribute bibles and religious literature, and to pay taxes Instance (CFI) of Manila in their own behalf and in behalf of other
from the sales thereof. professionals practicing in the City of Manila, calling for the annulment
of Ordinance 3398 of the City of Manila together with the provision of
Held: the Manila charter authorizing it and the refund of taxes collected
No. Section 27 (e) of Commonwealth Act 466 (NIRC) exempts under the ordinance but paid under protest (as they have paid their
corporations or associations organized and operated exclusively for occupation tax under Section 201 of the National Internal Revenue
religious, charitable, or educational purposes, Provided however, That Code [NIRC]). The lower court upheld the validity of the provision of
the income of whatever kind and character from any of its properties, law authorizing the enactment of the ordinance but declared the
real or personal, or from any activity conducted for profit, regardless of ordinance itself illegal and void on the ground that the penalty therein
the disposition made of such income, shall be liable to the tax imposed provided for non-payment of the tax was not legally authorized. Both
under the Code. Herein, the act of distributing and selling bibles, etc. is parties appealed to the Supreme Court.
purely religious and cannot be made liable for taxes or fees therein.
Further, Ordinance 2529, as amended, cannot be applied to the Issue:
Society, for in doing so it would impair its free exercise and enjoyment Whether professionals in Manila are being subjected to double taxation,
of its religious profession and worship as well as its rights of in light of the municipal occupation tax imposed against them by the
dissemination of religious beliefs. The fact that the price of the bibles City of Manila.
and other religious pamphlets are little higher than the actual cost of
the same does not necessarily mean that it is already engaged in the Held:
business or occupation of selling said “merchandise” for profit. The Legislature may, in its discretion, select what occupations shall be
Furthermore, Ordinance 3000 of the City of Manila is of general taxed, and in the exercise of that discretion it may tax all, or it may
application and it does not contain any provisions whatsoever select for taxation certain classes and leave the others untaxed. Manila,
prescribing religious censorship nor restraining the free exercise and as the seat of the National Government and with a population and
enjoyment of any religious profession. The ordinance is not applicable volume of trade many times that of any other Philippine city or
to the Society, as its business, trade or occupation is not particularly municipality, offers a more lucrative field for the practice of the
mentioned in Section 3 of the Ordinance, and the record does not show professions, so that it is but fair that the professionals in Manila be
that a permit is required therefor under existing laws and ordinances made to pay a higher occupation tax than their brethren in the
for the proper supervision and enforcement of their provisions provinces. The ordinance imposes the tax upon every person
governing the sanitation, security and welfare of the public and the "exercising" or "pursuing" any one of the occupations named, but does
health of the employees engaged in the business of the Society. not say that such person must have his office in Manila. There is no
distinction found in the ordinance between professionals having offices
Punsalan v. Municipal Board of Manila [GR L-4817, 26 May 1954] in manila and outsiders who have no offices in the city but practice
Facts: their profession therein. Where one tax is imposed by the state and the
Ordinance 3398 was approved by the municipal board of the City of other is imposed by the city, the argument against double taxation
Manila on 25 July 1950. It imposes a municipal occupation tax on may not be invoked, as there is nothing inherently obnoxious in the
persons exercising various professions in the city and penalizes non- requirement that license fees or taxes be exacted with respect to the
payment of the tax by a fine of not more than P200 or by same occupation, calling or activity by both the state and the political
imprisonment of not more than 6 months, or by both such fine and subdivisions thereof.
imprisonment in the discretion of the court. The ordinance was enacted
pursuant to paragraph (1) of section 18 of the Revised Charter of
the City of Manila (as amended by RA 409), which empowers the
Municipal Board of said city to impose a municipal occupation tax, not
to exceed P50 per annum, on persons engaged in the various
Physical Therapy Organization v. Municipal Board of Manila [GR L-
10448, 30 August 1957] Hurtado vs. People of State of California [3 March 1884]
Facts: Facts:
The Physical Therapy Organization , an association of registered The constitution of the state of California adopted in 1879, in article 1,
massagists and licensed operators of massage clinics in the City of 8, provides as follows: "Offenses heretofore required to be prosecuted
Manila and other parts of the country, filed an action in the Court of by indictment, shall be prosecuted by information, after examination
First Instance (CFI) of Manila for declaratory judgment regarding the and commitment by a magistrate, or by indictment, with or without
validity of Municipal Ordinance 3659, promulgated by the Municipal such examination and commitment, as may be prescribed by law. A
Board and approved by the City Mayor (Enacted 27 August 1954, and grand jury shall be drawn and summoned at least once a year in each
approved and effective 7 September 1954). To stop the City from county." In pursuance of the foregoing provision of the constitution,
enforcing said ordinance, the Organization secured an injunction upon and of the several sections of the penal Code of California, the district
filing of a bond in the sum of P1,000.00. A hearing was held, but the attorney of Sacramento county, on 20 February 1882, filed an
parties without introducing any evidence submitted the case for information against Joseph Hurtado, charging him with the crime of
decision on the pleadings, although they submitted written murder in the killing of one Jose Antonio Stuardo. Upon this
memoranda. Thereafter, the trial court dismissed the petition and later information, and without any previous investigation of the cause by
dissolved the writ of injunction previously issued. The Organization any grand jury, Hurtado was arraigned on 22 March 1882, and pleaded
appealed said order of dismissal directly to the Supreme Court. not guilty. A trial of the issue was thereafter had, and on 7 May 1882,
the jury rendered its verdict, in which it found Hurtado guilty of murder
Issue: in the first degree. On 5 June 1882, the superior court of Sacramento
Whether the license fees imposed by the Ordinance against massage county rendered its judgment upon said verdict, that Hurtado be
clinic operators is unreasonable. punished by the infliction of death, and the day of his execution was
fixed for 20 July 1882. From this judgment an appeal was taken, and
Held: the supreme court of the State of California affirmed the judgment. On
No. The purpose of the Ordinance is not to regulate the practice of 6 July 1883, the superior court of said county of Sacramento ordered
massage, much less to restrict the practice of licensed and qualified that Hurtado be in court on 11 July 1883, in order that a day for the
massagists of therapeutic massage in the Philippines. The end sought execution of the judgment in said cause should be fixed. In pursuance
to be attained in the Ordinance is to prevent the commission of of said order, Hurtado, with his counsel, appeared in court, and upon
immorality and the practice of prostitution in an establishment the court's inquiry, objected to the execution of said judgment and to
masquerading as a massage clinic where the operators thereof offer to any order which the court might make fixing a day for the execution of
massage or manipulate superficial parts of the bodies of customers for the same, upon the grounds (1) that it appeared upon the face of the
hygienic and aesthetic purposes. The permit fee is made payable not judgment that Hurtado had never been legally, or otherwise, indicted or
by the masseur or massagist, but by the operator of a massage clinic presented by any grand jury, and that he was proceeded against by
who may not be a massagist himself. Compared to permit fees required information made and filed by the district attorney of the county of
in other operations, P100.00 may appear to be too large and rather Sacramento, after examination and commitment by a magistrate of the
unreasonable, but much discretion is given to municipal corporations in said county; (2) that the said proceedings, as well as the laws and
determining the amount of said fee without considering it as a tax for constitution of California, attempting to authorize them, and the
revenue purposes. There is a marked distinction between license fees alleged verdict of the jury, and judgment of the said superior court of
imposed upon useful and beneficial occupations which the sovereign said county of Sacramento, were in conflict with and prohibited by
wishes to regulate but not restrict, and those which are inimical and Amendments 5 and 14 of the constitution of the United States, and
dangerous to public health, morals or safety. In the latter case the fee that they were therefore void; (3) that Hurtado had been held to
may be very large without necessarily being a tax. Evidently, the Manila answer for the said crime of murder by the district attorney of the said
Municipal Board considered the practice of hygienic and aesthetic county of Sacramento, upon an information filed by him, and had been
massage not as a useful and beneficial occupation which will promote tried and illegally found guilty of the said crime, without any
and is conducive to public morals, and consequently, imposed the said presentment or indictment of any grand or other jury, and that the
permit fee for its regulation. judgment rendered upon the alleged verdict of the jury in such case
was and is void, and if executed would deprive Hurtado of his life or principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and
liberty without due process of law. Thereupon the court overruled the political institutions, and the greatest security for which resides in the
said objections, and fixed 13 August 1883, as the time for the right of the people to make their own laws, and alter them at their
execution of the sentence. From this latter judgment, Hurtado pleasure. The 14th amendment does not profess to secure to all
appealed to the supreme court of the state. On 18 September 1883, persons in the United States the benefit of the same laws and the
the supreme court of the state affirmed the said judgment. A review of same remedies. Great diversities in these respects may exist in two
which, by a writ of error, by the US Supreme Court was allowed. states separated only by an imaginary line. On one side of this line
there may be a right of trial by jury, and on the other side no such
Issue: right. Each state prescribes its own modes of judicial proceeding.
Whether Hurtado was denied due process by being tried and found Further, any legal proceeding enforced by public authority, whether
guilty without being presented or indicted by a grand jury. sanctioned by age and custom, or newly devised in the discretion of
the legislative power in furtherance of the general public good, which
Held: regards and preserves these principles of liberty and justice, must be
The clause of the 14th article of amendment to the constitution of the held to be due process of law. Herein, the Court is unable to say that
United States, provides that "Nor shall any state deprive any person of the substitution for a presentment or indictment by a grand jury of the
life, liberty, or property without due process of law." The phrase is to proceeding by information after examination and commitment by a
be construed by the usus loquendi of the constitution itself. The same magistrate, certifying to the probable guilt of the defendant, with the
words are contained in the 5th amendment. That article makes specific right on his part to the aid of counsel, and to the cross-examination of
and express provision for perpetuating the institution of the grand jury, the witnesses produced for the prosecution, is not due process of law.
so far as relates to prosecutions for the more aggravated crimes under The Court found no error and thus affirmed the judgment of the
the laws of the United States. It declares that "no person shall be held supreme court of California.
to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a
presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in Villegas v. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho [GR L-29646, 10 Nov 1978]
the land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time Facts:
of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same On 22 February 1968, Ordinance 6537 (An ordinance making it
offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall he be unlawful for any person not a citizen of the Philippines to be employed
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." It then in any place of employment or to be engaged in any kind of trade,
immediately adds: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without business or occupation within the City of Manila without first securing
due process of law." The natural and obvious inference is that, in the an employment permit from the mayor of Manila; and for other
sense of the constitution, "due process of law" was not meant or purposes) was passed by the Municipal Board of Manila and signed by
intended to include, ex vi termini, the institution and procedure of a Manila Mayor Antonio J. Villegas on 27 March 1968. The Ordinance
grand jury in any case. The conclusion is equally irresistible, that when prohibits aliens from employment and trade in the City of Manila
the same phrase was employed in the 14th amendment to restrain the without the requisite mayor’s permit; but excepting persons employed
action of the states, it was used in the same sense and with no greater in the diplomatic or consular missions of foreign countries, or in the
extent; and that if in the adoption of that amendment it had been part technical assistance programs of both the Philippine Government and
of its purpose to perpetuate the institution of the grand jury in all the any foreign government, and those working in their respective
states, it would have embodied, as did the 5th amendment, express households, and members of religious orders or congregations, sect or
declarations to that effect. Due process of law in the latter refers to denomination, who are not paid monetarily or in kind. The permit fee is
that law of the land which derives its authority from the legislative P50, and the penalty is imprisonment of 3 to 6 months or fine of
powers conferred upon congress by the constitution of the United P100-200, or both. On 4 May 1968, Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho, who was
States, exercised within the limits therein prescribed, and interpreted employed in Manila, filed a petition, with the Court of First Instance
according to the principles of the common law. In the fourteenth (CFI) of Manila (Civil Case 72797), praying for (1) the issuance of the
amendment, by parity of reason, it refers to that law of the land in writ of preliminary injunction and restraining order to stop the
each state which derives its authority from the inherent and reserved implementation of the ordinance, and (2) judgment to declare the
powers of the state, exerted within the limits of those fundamental ordinance null and void. On 24 May 1968, Judge Francisco Arca (CFI
Manila, Branch I) issued the writ of preliminary injunction and on 17 comply with the order with imprisonment of not exceeding 60 days, in
September 1968, the Judge rendered a decision declaring the accordance with section 2759 of the Revised Administrative Code. Rubi
ordinance null and void, and the preliminary injunction is made and those living in his rancheria have not fixed their dwellings within
permanent. Mayor Villegas filed a petition for certiorari to review the the reservation of Tigbao and are prosecuted in accordance with
decision of the CFI. section 2759 of Act No. 2711. On the other hand, Doroteo Dabalos,
was detained by the sheriff of Mindoro by virtue of the provisions of
Issue: Articles 2145 and 2759 of Act 2711, for having run away from the
Whether the Ordinance, requiring aliens - however economically reservation. Rubi and other Manguianes of the Province of Mindoro
situated - to secure working permits from the City of Manila at a applied for writs of habeas corpus, alleging that the Manguianes are
uniform fee of P50, is reasonable. being illegally deprived of their liberty by the provincial officials of that
province.
Held:
The ordinance is arbitrary, oppressive and unreasonable, being applied Issue:
only to aliens who are thus, deprived of their rights to life, liberty and Whether due process was followed in the restraint of the Manguianes’
property and therefore, violates the due process and equal protection liberty, either on their confinement in reservations and/or
clauses of the Constitution. Requiring a person, before he can be imprisonment due to violation of Section 2145 of the Administrative
employed, to get a permit from the City Mayor of Manila, who may Code.
withhold or refuse it at will is tantamount to denying him the basic
right of the people in the Philippines to engage in a means of livelihood. Held:
The shelter of protection under the due process and equal protection None of the rights of the citizen can be taken away except by due
clause is given to all persons, both aliens and citizens. The ordinance process of law. The meaning of "due process of law" is, that "every
does not lay down any criterion or standard to guide the Mayor in the citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, and immunities under the
exercise of his discretion, thus conferring upon the mayor arbitrary and protection of the general rules which govern society." To constitute
unrestricted powers. The ordinance’s purpose is clearly to raise money "due process of law," a judicial proceeding is not always necessary. In
under the guise of regulation by exacting P50 from aliens who have some instances, even a hearing and notice are not requisite, a rule
been cleared for employment. The amount is unreasonable and which is especially true where much must be left to the discretion of
excessive because it fails to consider differences in situation among the administrative officers in applying a law to particular cases. Neither
aliens required to pay it, i.e. being casual, permanent, full-time, part- is due process a stationary and blind sentinel of liberty. Any legal
time, rank-an-file or executive. proceeding enforced by public authority, whether sanctioned by age
and custom, or newly devised in the discretion of the legislative power,
Rubi, et. al. vs. Provincial Board of Mindoro [GR 14078, 7 March 1919] in furtherance of the public good, which regards and preserves these
Facts: principles of liberty and justice, must be held to be due process of law.
On 1 February 1917, the Provincial Board of Mindoro adopted Due process of law" means simply that "first, that there shall be a law
Resolution 25 creating a reservation / permanent settlement for prescribed in harmony with the general powers of the legislative
Mangyans (Mangyanes) in an 800-hectare public land in the sitio of department of the Government; second, that this law shall be
Tigbao on Naujan Lake, and resolving that Mangyans may only solicit reasonable in its operation; third, that it shall be enforced according to
homesteads on the reservation provided that said homestead the regular methods of procedure prescribed; and fourth, that it shall
applications be previously recommended by the provincial governor. On be applicable alike to all the citizens of the state or to all of a class."
21 February 1917, the Secretary of Interior approved Resolution 25. What is due process of law depends on circumstances. It varies with
On 4 December 1917, the provincial governor of Mindoro issued the subject-matter and necessities of the situation. The pledge that no
Executive Order 2 which directed all Mangyans in the vicinities of the person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws is not infringed
townships of Naujan and Pola and the Mangyans east of the Baco River by a statute which is applicable to all of a class. The classification must
including those in the districts of Dulangan and Rubi's place in Calapan, have a reasonable basis and cannot be purely arbitrary in nature.
to take up their habitation on the site of Tigbao, Naujan Lake, not later Herein, one cannot hold that the liberty of the citizen is unduly
than 31 December 1917, and penalizing any Mangyan who refused to interfered with when the degree of civilization of the Manguianes is
considered. They are restrained for their own good and the general to be evident that it deals with a subject that should be covered by
good of the Philippines. Nor can one say that due process of law has law. The Order is a law, negating claims that it confers no right,
not been followed. To go back to our definition of due process of law imposes no duty, affords no protection, and creates no office. Under it,
and equal protection of the laws. There exists a law; the law seems to a citizen cannot transact business with government agencies delivering
be reasonable; it is enforced according to the regular methods of basic services to the people without the contemplated identification
procedure prescribed; and it applies alike to all of a class. Action card. No citizen will refuse to get this identification card for no one can
pursuant to Section 2145 of the Administrative Code does not deprive avoid dealing with government. It is thus clear that without the ID, a
a person of his liberty without due process of law and does not deny to citizen will have difficulty exercising his rights and enjoying his
him the equal protection of the laws, and that confinement in privileges. Administrative Order 308 does not merely implements the
reservations in accordance with said section does not constitute Administrative Code of 1987, but establishes for the first time a
slavery and involuntary servitude. We are further of the opinion that National Computerized Identification Reference System. An
Section 2145 of the Administrative Code is a legitimate exertion of the administrative order is an ordinance issued by the President which
police power, somewhat analogous to the Indian policy of the United relates to specific aspects in the administrative operation of
States. Rubi and the other Manguianes are not unlawfully imprisoned or government. It must be in harmony with the law and should be for the
restrained of their liberty. Habeas corpus can, therefore, not issue. sole purpose of implementing the law and carrying out the legislative
policy. The authority to prescribe rules and regulations is not an
Ople v. Torres [ GR 127685, 23 July 1998] independent source of power to make laws. AO 308 was beyond the
Facts: power of the President to issue.
On 12 December 1996, President Fidel V. Ramos issued Administrative
Order 308, entitled "Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Lawrence and Garner vs. Texas [539 US 558, 26 June 2003]
Reference System." It was published in 4 newspapers of general Facts:
circulation on 22 and 23 January 1997. On 24 January 1997, Senator Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence,
Blas F. Ople, as a Senator, taxpayer and member of the Government Houston police entered John Geddes Lawrence’s apartment and saw
Service Insurance System (GSIS), filed instant petition against then him and another adult man, Tyron Garner, engaging in a private,
Executive Secretary Ruben Torres and the heads of the government consensual sexual act. Petitioners were arrested and convicted of
agencies, who as members of the Inter-Agency Coordinating deviate sexual intercourse in violation of a Texas statute forbidding
Committee are charged with the implementation of Administrative two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual
Order 308. conduct. The two were arrested, held in custody over night, and
charged and convicted before a Justice of the Peace. The two
Issue: exercised their right to a trial de novo in Harris County Criminal Court.
Whether the Philippine President can issue an Administrative Order for They challenged the statute as a violation of the Equal Protection
the adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference Clause of the 14th Amendment and of a like provision of the Texas
System, independent of a legislative act. Constitution. Those contentions were rejected. The two, having
entered a plea of nolo contendere, were each fined $200 and assessed
Held: court costs of $141.25. The Court of Appeals for the Texas
Administrative Order 308 establishes a system of identification that is Fourteenth District considered the two accused’s federal constitutional
all-encompassing in scope, affects the life and liberty of every Filipino arguments under both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of
citizen and foreign resident, and more particularly, violates their right the Fourteenth Amendment. After hearing the case en banc the court,
to privacy. Such a system requires a delicate adjustment of various in a divided opinion, rejected the constitutional arguments and affirmed
contending state policies: the primacy of national security, the extent the convictions. The majority opinion indicated that the Court of
of privacy interest against dossier-gathering by government, the Appeals considered the US Supreme Court decision in Bowers v.
choice of policies, etc. As said administrative order redefines the Hardwick (478 US 186 [1986]), to be controlling on the federal due
parameters of some basic rights of our citizenry vis-a-vis the State as process aspect of the case. The US Supreme Court granted certiorari
well as the line that separates the administrative power of the (537 U. S. 1044 [2002], to consider 3 questions: (1) whether the
President to make rules and the legislative power of Congress, it ought criminal convictions under the Texas “Homosexual Conduct” law violate
the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws; (2) and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with
Whether the criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy the present opinion.
in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected
by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment; and (3) Whether Estrada v. Sandiganbayan [GR 148560, 19 November 2001]
Bowers v. Hardwick (478 US 186 [1986]), should be overruled. Facts:
On 4 April 2001, the Office of the Ombudsman filed before the
Issue: Sandiganbayan 8 separate Information, docketed as: (a) Criminal Case
Whether the statute and the Bower decision denies homosexual 26558, for violation of Republic Act (RA) 7080, as amended by RA
persons the autonomy of decisions involving relationships available to 7659; (b) Criminal Cases 26559 to 26562, inclusive, for violation of
heterosexual ones. Sections 3, paragraph (a), 3, paragraph (a), 3, paragraph (e), and 3,
paragraph (e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act),
Held: respectively; (c) Criminal Case 26563, for violation of Section 7,
The laws involved in Bowers and here are, to be sure, statutes that paragraph (d), of RA 6713 (The Code of Conduct and Ethical
purport to do no more than prohibit a particular sexual act. Their Standards for Public Officials and Employees); (d) Criminal Case 26564,
penalties and purposes, though, have more far-reaching consequences, for Perjury (Article. 183 of The Revised Penal Code); and, (e) Criminal
touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in Case 26565, for Illegal Use Of An Alias (Commonwealth Act 142, as
the most private of places, the home. The statutes do seek to control amended by RA 6085). On 11 April 2001, Joseph Estrada filed an
a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal Omnibus Motion for the remand of the case to the Ombudsman for
recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose preliminary investigation with respect to specification "d" of the
without being punished as criminals. This, as a general rule, should charges in the Information in Criminal Case 26558; and, for
counsel against attempts by the State, or a court, to define the reconsideration / reinvestigation of the offenses under specifications
meaning of the relationship or to set its boundaries absent injury to a "a," "b," and "c" to give the accused an opportunity to file counter-
person or abuse of an institution the law protects. It suffices for us to affidavits and other documents necessary to prove lack of probable
acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in cause. The grounds raised were only lack of preliminary investigation,
the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain reconsideration / reinvestigation of offenses, and opportunity to prove
their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in lack of probable cause. The purported ambiguity of the charges and
intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one the vagueness of the law under which they are charged were never
element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected raised in that Omnibus Motion thus indicating the explicitness and
by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this comprehensibility of the Plunder Law. On 25 April 2001, the
choice. Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to Sandiganbayan, Third Division, issued a Resolution in Criminal Case No.
personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, 26558 finding that "a probable cause for the offense of plunder exists
family relationships, child rearing, and education. These matters, to justify the issuance of warrants for the arrest of the accused." On
involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in 25 June 2001 petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by
a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are the Sandiganbayan. On 14 June 2001, Estrada moved to quash the
central to the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment. At the heart Information in Criminal Case 26558 on the ground that the facts
of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of alleged therein did not constitute an indictable offense since the law on
meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs which it was based was unconstitutional for vagueness, and that the
about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood Amended Information for Plunder charged more than one (1) offense.
were they formed under compulsion of the State. Persons in a On 9 July 2001, the Sandiganbayan denied petitioner's Motion to
homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just Quash.
as heterosexual persons do. The decision in Bowers would deny them
this right. The case of Bowers was not correct when it was decided, Issue:
and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Whether the Plunder law, and the information, are clear to inform
Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled. Thus, the judgment Estrada of the accusations against him as to enable him to prepare for
of the Court of Appeals for the Texas Fourteenth District is reversed, an intelligent defense.
Held: law." The overbreadth doctrine, on the other hand, decrees that "a
As it is written, the Plunder Law contains ascertainable standards and governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep
well-defined parameters which would enable the accused to determine unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected
the nature of his violation. Section 2 is sufficiently explicit in its freedoms." The doctrines of strict scrutiny, overbreadth, and
description of the acts, conduct and conditions required or forbidden, vagueness are analytical tools developed for testing "on their faces"
and prescribes the elements of the crime with reasonable certainty and statutes in free speech cases. "On its face" invalidation of statutes has
particularity. As long as the law affords some comprehensible guide or been described as "manifestly strong medicine," to be employed
rule that would inform those who are subject to it what conduct would "sparingly and only as a last resort," and is generally disfavored.
render them liable to its penalties, its validity will be sustained. It must
sufficiently guide the judge in its application; the counsel, in defending Tanada v. Tuvera [ GR L-63915, 29 December 1986]
one charged with its violation; and more importantly, the accused, in Facts:
identifying the realm of the proscribed conduct. Indeed, it can be Invoking the people's right to be informed on matters of public concern
understood with little difficulty that what the assailed statute punishes (Section 6, Article IV of the 1973 Philippine Constitution) as well as
is the act of a public officer in amassing or accumulating ill-gotten the principle that laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in
wealth of at least P50,000,000.00 through a series or combination of the Official Gazette or otherwise effectively promulgated, Lorenzo M.
acts enumerated in Section 1, paragraph (d), of the Plunder Law. Tañada, Abraham F. Sarmiento, and the Movement of Attorneys for
Herein, the amended Information itself closely tracks the language of Brotherhood, Integrity and Nationalism, Inc. [MABINI] sought a writ of
the law, indicating with reasonable certainty the various elements of mandamus to compel Hon. Juan C. Tuvera, in his capacity as Executive
the offense which Estrada is alleged to have committed. There was Assistant to the President, Hon. Joaquin Venus, in his capacity as
nothing that is vague or ambiguous that will confuse Estrada in his Deputy Executive Assistant to the President, Melquiades P. De La Cruz,
defense. Factual assertions clearly show that the elements of the crime in his capacity as Director, Malacañang Records Office, and Florendo S.
are easily understood and provide adequate contrast between the Pablo, in his capacity as Director, Bureau of Printing, to publish, and or
innocent and the prohibited acts. Upon such unequivocal assertions, cause the publication in the Official Gazette of various presidential
Estrada is completely informed of the accusations against him as to decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations,
enable him to prepare for an intelligent defense. There is no basis for executive orders, letter of implementation and administrative orders.
Estrada's claim that the Supreme Court review the Anti-Plunder Law on On 24 April 1985, the Court affirmed the necessity for the publication
its face and in its entirety. A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a to the Official Gazette all unpublished presidential issuances which are
vague statute and to one which is overbroad because of possible of general application, and unless so published, they shall have no
"chilling effect" upon protected speech. The theory is that "[w]hen binding force and effect. The decision was concurred only by 3
statutes regulate or proscribe speech and no readily apparent justices. Tanada, et. al. move for reconsideration / clarification of the
construction suggests itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating the statutes decision on various questions. They suggest that there should be no
in a single prosecution, the transcendent value to all society of distinction between laws of general applicability and those which are
constitutionally protected expression is deemed to justify allowing not; that publication means complete publication; and that the
attacks on overly broad statutes with no requirement that the person publication must be made forthwith in the Official Gazette. The
making the attack demonstrate that his own conduct could not be Solicitor General avers that the motion is a request for advisory
regulated by a statute drawn with narrow specificity." This rationale opinion. Meanwhile, the February EDSA Revolution took place, which
does not apply to penal statutes. Criminal statutes have general in subsequently required the new Solicitor General to file a rejoinder on
terrorem effect resulting from their very existence, and, if facial the issue (under Rule 3, Section 18 of the Rules of Court).
challenge is allowed for this reason alone, the State may well be
prevented from enacting laws against socially harmful conduct. In the Issue:
area of criminal law, the law cannot take chances as in the area of free Whether laws should be published in full and in the Official Gazette
speech. The void-for- vagueness doctrine states that "a statute which only.
either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that
men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and
differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of
Held: governmental entity were enumerated under Sections 5 and 6 thereof.
Omission of publication would offend due process insofar as it would On 9 August 1976, the late President Ferdinand Marcos issued Letter
deny the public knowledge of the laws that are supposed to govern it. of Instruction (LOI) 444, directing, inter alia, that trade (export or
it is not unlikely that persons not aware of it would be prejudiced as a import of all commodities) between the Philippines and any of the
result; and they would be so not because of a failure to comply with it Socialist and other Centrally Planned Economy Countries (SOCPEC),
but simply because they did not know of its existence. Publication is including the People's Republic of China (PROC) shall be undertaken or
required, even if their enactment is “otherwise provided” or effective coursed through the PITC. After the EDSA Revolution, or more
immediately. The term "laws" should refer to all laws and not only to specifically on 27 February 1987, then President Corazon C. Aquino
those of general application, for strictly speaking all laws relate to the promulgated Executive Order (EO) 133 reorganizing the DTI
people in general albeit there are some that do not apply to them empowering the said department to be the "primary coordinative,
directly. To be valid, the law must invariably affect the public interest promotive, facilitative and regulatory arm of the government for the
even if it might be directly applicable only to one individual, or some of country's trade, industry and investment activities." The PITC was
the people only, and not to the public as a whole. Publication made one of DTI's line agencies. Sometime in April 1988, following the
requirements applies to (1) all statutes, including those of local State visit of President Aquino to the PROC, the Philippines and PROC
application and private laws; (2) presidential decrees and executive entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) wherein the two
orders promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative countries agreed to make joint efforts within the next five years to
powers whenever the same are validly delegated by the legislature or expand bilateral trade and to strive for a steady progress towards
directly conferred by the Constitution; (3) Administrative rules and achieving a balance between the value of their imports and exports
regulations for the purpose of enforcing or implementing existing law during the period. Conformably with the MOU, the Philippines and PROC
pursuant also to a valid delegation; (4) Charter of a city entered into a Trade Protocol for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991,
notwithstanding that it applies to only a portion of the national under which was specified the commodities to be traded between
territory and directly affects only the inhabitants of that place; (5) them. On August 1989, PITC issued Administrative Order (AO) SOCPEC
Monetary Board circulars to "fill in the details" of the Central Bank Act 89-08-01 under which, applications to the PITC for importation from
which that body is supposed to enforce. Publication requirements does China (PROC) must be accompanied by a viable and confirmed Export
not apply to (1) interpretative regulations and those merely internal in Program of Philippine Products to PROC carried out by the importer
nature, i.e. regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency himself or through a tie-up with a legitimate importer in an amount
and not the public; (2) Letters of Instructions issued by administrative equivalent to the value of the importation from PROC being applied for
superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to be followed by their or 1:1 ratio. Remington Industrial Sales Corp. and Firestone Ceramics,
subordinates in the performance of their duties; and (3) instructions of both domestic corporations, organized and existing under Philippine-
Ministry heads on case studies. Further, publication must be in full or it laws, individually applied for authority to import from PROC with PITC.
is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of the They were granted such authority. Subsequently, for failing to comply
contents of the laws. It should be published in the Official Gazette and with their undertakings to submit export credits equivalent to the value
not elsewhere. Even if newspapers of general circulation could better of their importations, further import applications were withheld by PITC
perform the function of communicating the laws to the people as such from Remington and Firestone, such that the latter were both barred
periodicals are more easily available, have a wider readership, and come from importing goods from PROC. On 20 January 1992, Remington
out regularly, this kind of publication is not the one required or filed a Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus, with prayer for issuance
authorized by existing law. of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction
against PITC in the Regional Trial Court (RTC, Makati Branch 58). On 4
Philippine International Trading Corp. (PITC) v. Angeles [GR 108461, January 1993, Judge Zosimo Z. Angeles (Presiding Judge) upheld the
21 October 1996] petition for prohibition and mandamus of Remington and Firestone
Facts: (Civil Case 92-158), and declaring PITC AO SOCPEC 89-08-01 and its
On 6 August 1973, the Philippine International Trading Corporation regulations null, void, and unconstitutional. PITC filed the petition
(PITC) was created as a government owned or controlled corporation seeking the reversal of Angeles’ decision.
under Presidential Decree (PD) 252. On 9 May 1977, PD 1071 revised
the provisions of PD 252, where the purposes and powers of the said Issue: Whether AO SOCPEC 89-08-01 binds Remington and Firestone.
 affected parties. Subsequently, hearings were conducted on the
Held: amended application. But before Bayantel could complete the
The PITC was legally empowered to issue Administrative Orders, as a presentation of its evidence, the NTC issued an Order dated 19
valid exercise of a power ancillary to legislation. Administrative Order December 1993 stating that in view of the recent grant of 2 separate
SOCPEC 89-08-01 is not, however, a valid exercise of such quasi- Provisional Authorities in favor of ISLACOM and GMCR, Inc., which
legislative power. The original AO issued on 30 August 1989, under resulted in the closing out of all available frequencies for the service
which the respondents filed their applications for importation, was not being applied for by Bayantel, and in order that the case may not
published in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general remain pending for an indefinite period of time, the case was ordered
circulation. The questioned Administrative Order, legally, until it is archived without prejudice to its reinstatement if and when the
published, is invalid within the context of Article 2 of Civil Code. The requisite frequency becomes available. On 17 May 1999, Bayantel filed
AO under consideration is one of those issuances which should be an Ex-Parte Motion to Revive Case, citing the availability of new
published for its effectivity, since its purpose is to enforce and frequency bands for CMTS operators. On 1 February 2000, the NTC
implement an existing law pursuant to a valid delegation, i.e., PD 1071, granted BayanTel's motion to revive the latter's application and set the
in relation to LOI 444 and EO 133. It was only on 30 March 1992 when case for hearings on February 9, 10, 15, 17 and 22, 2000. The NTC
the amendments to the said Administrative Order were filed in the UP noted that the application was ordered archived without prejudice to
Law Center, and published in the National Administrative Register as its reinstatement if and when the requisite frequency shall become
required by the Administrative Code of [Link] fact that the available. Express Telecommunication Co., Inc. (Extelcom) filed in NTC
amendments to AO SOCPEC 89 08-01 were filed with, and published Case 92-486 an Opposition (With Motion to Dismiss) praying for the
by the UP Law Center in the National Administrative Register, does not dismissal of Bayantel's application; arguing that Bayantel's motion
cure the defect related to the effectivity of the Administrative Order. sought the revival of an archived application filed almost 8 years ago,
Further, the Administrative Order, without force and effect due to the and thus, the documentary evidence and the allegations of Bayantel in
lack of publication, thus cannot exact any obligation from Remington said application are all outdated and should no longer be used as basis
and Firestone, specifically, charges for the 0.5% Counter Export of the necessity for the proposed CMTS service. On 3 May 2000, the
Development Service. NTC issued an Order granting in favor of Bayantel a provisional
authority to operate CMTS service, applying Rule 15, Section 3 of its
Republic vs. Express Telecommunications Co. Inc. (Extelcom) [GR 1978 Rules of Practice and Procedure. Extelcom filed with the Court of
147096, 15 January 2002] Appeals a petition for certiorari and prohibition (CA-GR SP 58893),
Facts: seeking the annulment of the Order reviving the application of
On 29 December 1992, the International Communications Corporation Bayantel, the Order granting Bayantel a provisional authority to
(now Bayan Telecommunications, Inc. or Bayantel) filed an application construct, install, operate and maintain a nationwide CMTS, and
with the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) for a Memorandum Circular 9-3-2000 allocating frequency bands to new
Certificate of Public Convenience or Necessity (CPCN, NTC Case 92- public telecommunication entities which are authorized to install,
486) to install, operate and maintain a digital Cellular Mobile Telephone operate and maintain CMTS. On 13 September 2000, the Court of
System/Service (CMTS) with prayer for a Provisional Authority (PA). Appeals granted the writs of certiorari and prohibition prayed for,
Shortly thereafter, or on 22 January 1993, the NTC issued annulling and setting aside the NTC orders dated 1 February and 3 May
Memorandum Circular 4-1-93 directing all interested applicants for 2000 in NTC Case 92-486, dismissing Bayantel's Amended Application
nationwide or regional CMTS to file their respective applications before without prejudice to the filing of a new CMTS application. Bayantel and
the Commission on or before 15 February 1993, and deferring the the NTC, the latter being represented by the Office of the Solicitor
acceptance of any application filed after said date until further orders. General (OSG), filed a motion for reconsideration of the above decision.
On 6 May 1993, and prior to the issuance of any notice of hearing by On the other hand, Extelcom filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration,
the NTC with respect to Bayantel's original application, Bayantel filed praying that NTC Memorandum Circular 9-3- 2000 be also declared null
an urgent ex-parte motion to admit an amended application. On 17 and void. On 9 February 2001, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution
May 1993, the notice of hearing issued by the NTC with respect to this denying all of the motions for reconsideration of the parties for lack of
amended application was published in the Manila Chronicle. Copies of merit. Hence, the
the application as well as the notice of hearing were mailed to all
NTC and Bayantel filed their petitions for review on certiorari (GR shall take effect only after their publication in a newspaper of general
147096, and GR 147210 respectively). In the present petition, circulation. In the absence of such publication, therefore, it is the 1978
Extelcom contends, among others, that the NTC should have applied Rules that governs.
the Revised Rules which were filed with the Office of the National
Administrative Register on 3 February 1993. These Revised Rules Tanada v. Philippine Atomic Energy Commission [GR 70632, 11
deleted the phrase "on its own initiative;" accordingly, a provisional February 1986]
authority may be issued only upon filing of the proper motion before Facts:
the Commission. The NTC, on the other hand, issued a certification to The Official Philippine Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) pamphlet,
the effect that inasmuch as the 1993 Revised Rules have not been entitled "The Philippine Nuclear Power Plant-1" was published in 1985
published in a newspaper of general circulation, the NTC has been when Commissioners Manuel Eugenio, Quirino Navarro, and Alejandro
applying the 1978 Rules. Ver Albano had already been appointed to their present positions.
Other pamphlets entitled "Nuclear Power – Safe, Clean, Economical, and
Issue: Available," and “Nuclear Power Plant and Environmental Safety” were
Whether the 1978 or 1993 NTC Rules of Practice and Procedure issued earlier, but the majority of the Commissioners even then were
should govern in the approval of Bayantel’s application. already occupying positions of responsibility in the PAEC. Commissioner
Eugenio was Acting Chief of the PAEC Department on Nuclear
Held: Technology and Engineering from June, 1980 to July, 1984;
The absence of publication, coupled with the certification by the Commissioner Navarro was PAEC Chief Science Research Specialist
Commissioner of the NTC stating that the NTC was still governed by from May, 1980 to September, 1984; and Commissioner Albano was
the 1978 Rules, clearly indicate that the 1993 Revised Rules have not PAEC Deputy Commissioner from March, 1980 to September, 1984.
taken effect at the time of the grant of the provisional authority to These pamphlets continued to be distributed by PAEC as late as March
Bayantel. The fact that the 1993 Revised Rules were filed with the UP 1985. Their official distribution continued after the filing of National
Law Center on February 3, 1993 is of no moment. There is nothing in Power Corporation (Napocor)'s motion for conversion on 27 June 1984
the Administrative Code of 1987 which implies that the filing of the and even after PAEC had issued its order dated 26 February 1985
rules with the UP Law Center is the operative act that gives the rules formally admitting the said motion for conversion. In GR 70632, the
force and effect. The National Administrative Register is merely a competence of the PAEC Commissioners to pass judgment on the
bulletin of codified rules and it is furnished only to the Office of the safety of the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant-1 (PNPP-1) was
President, Congress, all appellate courts, the National Library, other questioned; (2) the validity of Napocor's motion/application for the
public offices or agencies as the Congress may select, and to other conversion of its construction permit into an operating license for
persons at a price sufficient to cover publication and mailing or PNPP-1 was assailed, and (3) PAEC Commissioners were charged with
distribution costs. Still, publication in the Official Gazette or a bias and prejudgment.
newspaper of general circulation is a condition sine qua non before
statutes, rules or regulations can take effect. The Rules of Practice and Issue:
Procedure of the NTC, which implements Section 29 of the Public Whether the PAEC Commissioner may sit in judgment in determining
Service Act (Commonwealth Act 146, as amended), fall squarely within the safety of PNPP-1.
the scope of these laws, as explicitly mentioned in the case Tañada v.
Tuvera. Administrative rules and regulations must be published if their Held:
purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid The PAEC Commissioners would be acting with grave abuse of
delegation. The only exceptions are interpretative regulations, those discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction were they to sit in
merely internal in nature, or those so-called letters of instructions judgment upon the safety of the plant, absent the requisite objectivity
issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules and guidelines that must characterize such an important inquiry because they already
to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties. have prejudged the safety of PNPP- 1. The PAEC Commissioners cannot
Hence, the 1993 Revised Rules should be published in the Official escape responsibility from the official pamphlets, which clearly indicate
Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation before it can take the prejudgment that PNPP-1 is safe. The official distribution of the
effect. Even the 1993 Revised Rules itself mandates that said Rules pamphlets continued when the Commissioners had already been
appointed to their present positions and and even after PAEC had recommended by the Civil Service Commission" (meaning Chairman
issued its order dated 26 February 1985 formally admitting Napocor’s Clave himself and Commissioner Melo), Dr. Venzon should be appointed
motion for conversion. to the contested position but that Dr. Anzaldo's appointment to the
said position should be considered "valid and effective during the
Anzaldo v. Clave [GR L-54597, 15 December 1982] pendency" of Dr. Venzon's protest. In a resolution dated 14 August
Facts: 1980, Presidential Executive Assistant Clave denied Dr. Anzaldo's
In 1974, the position of Science Research Supervisor II (Medical motion for reconsideration. On 25 August 1980, Dr. Anzaldo filed in
Research Department) became vacant when the incumbent, Dr. the Supreme Court the special civil action of certiorari.
Kintanar, became Director of the Biological Research Center of the
National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) . Dr. Anzaldo and Issue:
Dr. Venzon were both next-in-rank to the vacant position, both holding Whether CSC Commissioner Jacobo Clave can concur with the
positions of Scientist Research Associate IV. Dr. Anzaldo finished BS recommendation of the Presidential Executive Assistant, who is
Pharmacy (1950, College of Pharmacy, UP), and MS Pharmacy (1962, himself, in the appointment of Dr. Venzon.
CEU), Doctor of Pharmacy (1965, CEU). Aside from her civil service
eligibility as a pharmacist, she is a registered medical technologist and Held:
supervisor (unassembled). She started working in the NIST in 1954 and The 20 March 1980 decision of Presidential Executive Assistant Clave
has served for 28 years. On the other hand, Dr. Venzon finished implemented the 23 August 1979 Resolution (1178) of Clave (as CSC
Medicine (1957, UST) . She started working in the NIST in 1960 and Chairman), concurred with by Commissioner Melo, recommending the
has served for 21 years. Dr. Anzaldo is senior to her in point of service. appointment of Dr. Venzon as Science Research Supervisor II in place
Dr. Quintin Kintanar recommended Dr. Venzon for the position. Dr. of Dr. Anzaldo. When Presidential Executive Assistant Clave said in his
Anzaldo protested against such recommendation, to which the NIST decision that he was "inclined to concur in the recommendation of the
Reorganization Committee found such protest to be valid and Civil Service Commission", what he meant was that he was concurring
meritorious. Due to the impasse, the NIST Commissioner, however, did with Chairman Clave's recommendation: he was concurring with himself
not resolve the issue. The position was not filled up. Dr. Pedro Afable, . It is evident that Doctor Anzaldo was denied due process of law when
Vice Chairman, later became OIC of the NIST. He appointed Dr. Anzaldo Presidential Executive Assistant Clave concurred with the
to the position effective 4 January 1978, after thorough study and recommendation of Chairman Clave of the Civil Service Commission
screening of the qualifications of both doctors and upon (See also Zambales Chromite Mining Co. vs. Court of Appeals).
recommendation of the NIST Staff Evaluation (88-61 votes). The Civil Common sense and propriety dictate that the commissioner in the Civil
Service Commission approved the appointment. Dr. Venzon appealed Service Commission, who should be consulted by the Office of the
to the Office of the President of the Philippines (addressed to President, should be a person different from the person in the Office of
Presidential Executive Assistant Jacobo Clave, who was concurrently the President who would decide the appeal of the protestant in a
the Chairman of the CSC). The appeal was forwarded to the NIS OIC contested appointment.
Jose P. Planas, who reiterated Dr. Afable’s decision. The appeal-protest
was later sent to the CSC. CSC Chairman Clave and Commissioner Jose Tumey vs. Ohio [273 US 510, 7 March 1927]
A. Melo recommended In Resolution 1178 dated 23 August 1979 that Facts:
Dr. Venzon be appointed to the position, in conflict with the 1978 Tumey was arrested at White Oak, and was brought before Mayor
appointment of Dr. Anzaldo which was duly attested and approved by Pugh, of the village of North College Hill, charged with unlawfully
the CSC. The Resolution was made in pursuance to Section 19(6) of possessing intoxicating liquor. He moved for his dismissal because of
the Civil Service Decree of the Philippines (PD 807, 6 October 1975), the disqualification of the mayor to try him under the 14th
which provides that "before deciding a contested appointment, the Amendment. The mayor denied the motion, proceeded to the trial,
Office of the President shall consult the Civil Service Commission." On convicted Tumey of unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor within
5 January 1980, after denial of her motion for the reconsideration of Hamilton county as charged, fined him $100, and ordered that he be
the resolution, Dr. Anzaldo appealed to the Office of the President of imprisoned until the fine and costs were paid. Tumey obtained a bill of
the Philippines. Presidential Executive Assistant Clave in his decision of exceptions and carried the case on error to the court of common pleas
20 March 1980 revoked Dr. Anzaldo's appointment and ruled that, "as of Hamilton county. That court heard the case and reversed the
judgment, on the ground that the mayor was disqualified as claimed. prospective loss by the mayor should weigh against his acquittal. But
The state sought review by the Court of Appeals of the First Appellate the pecuniary interest of the mayor in the result of his judgment is not
District of Ohio, which reversed the common pleas and affirmed the the only reason for holding that due process of law is denied to the
judgment of the mayor. On 4 May 1926, the state Supreme Court defendant here. The statutes were drawn to stimulate small
refused Tumey's application to require the Court of Appeals to certify municipalities, in the country part of counties in which there are large
its record in the case. Tumey then filed a petition in error in that court cities, to organize and maintain courts to try persons accused of
as of right, asking that the judgment of the mayor's court and of the violations of the Prohibition Act everywhere in the county. The
appellate court be reversed on constitutional grounds. On 11 May inducement is offered of dividing between the state and the village the
1926, the Supreme Court adjudged that the petition be dismissed for large fines provided by the law for its violations. The trial is to be had
the reason that no debatable constitutional question was involved in before a mayor without a jury, without opportunity for retrial, and with
the cause. The judgment was then brought to the US Supreme Court a review confined to questions of law presented by a bill of exceptions,
upon a writ of error allowed by the Chief Justice of the state Supreme with no opportunity by the reviewing court to set aside the judgment
Court, to which it was rightly directed. on the weighing of evidence, unless it should appear to be so
manifestly against the evidence as to indicate mistake, bias, or willful
Issue: disregard of duty by the trial court. Thus, no matter what the evidence
Whether the pecuniary interest of the Mayor and his village, and the was against him, the defendant had the right to have an impartial
system of courts in prosecuting violations of the Prohibition Act, judge. He seasonably raised the objection, and was entitled to halt the
renders the mayor disqualified from hearing the case. trial because of the disqualification of the judge, which existed both
because of his direct pecuniary interest in the outcome, and because
Held: of his official motive to convict and to graduate the fine to help the
All questions of judicial qualification may not involve constitutional financial needs of the village. There were thus presented at the outset
validity. Thus matters of kinship, personal bias, state policy, both features of the disqualification. The judgment of the Supreme
remoteness of interest would seem generally to be matters merely of Court of Ohio is reversed, and the cause remanded for further
legislative discretion. But it certainly violates the 14th Amendment and proceedings not inconsistent with the present opinion.
deprives a defendant in a criminal case of due process of law to subject
his liberty or property to the judgment of a court, the judge of which People v. CA [GR 118882, 26 September 1996]
has a direct, personal, substantial pecuniary interest in reaching a Facts:
conclusion against him in his case. Herein, the mayor has authority, The are no preliminary facts provided regarding CA-GR SP No. 31733,
which he exercised in the case, to order that the person sentenced to "People vs. Hon. Pedro S. Espina et al." (in Court of Appeals), Criminal
pay a fine shall remain in prison until the fine and costs are paid. The Case 93-01-38, "People vs. Cristeta Reyes, et al.," and Criminal Case
mayor thus has a direct personal pecuniary interest in convicting the 93-01-39, "People of the Philippines vs. Jane C. Go" (both in RTC
defendant who came before him for trial, in the $12 of costs imposed branch presided by Judge Pedro Espina, Branch 7, RTC, 8th Judicial
in his behalf, which he would not have received if the defendant had Region: Tacloban) in the present resolution; except the fact that Jane
been acquitted. This was not exceptional, but was the result of the Go is the principal accused in the killing of her husband Dominador Go.
normal operation of the law and the ordinance. The system by which an The Office of the Solicitor General filed a petition for review with
inferior judge is paid for his service only when he convicts the urgent prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or restraining
defendant has not become so embedded by custom in the general order to annul and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
practice, either at common law or in this country, that it can be GR SP 31733 in so far as it denied People’s prayer for the inhibition of
regarded as due process of law, unless the costs usually imposed are Judge Espina in hearing Criminal cases 93-01- 38 and 93-01-39, and
so small that they may be properly ignored as within the maxim "de enjoining the judge from conducting further proceedings in such
minimis non curat lex." The Court cannot regard the prospect of criminal cases, before the Supreme Court. On 3 April 1995, the Court
receipt or loss of such an emolument in each case as a minute, remote, resolved to require Cristeta Reyes and Roger Doctora, Johny Santos
trifling, or insignificant interest. It is certainly not fair to each and Antonio Alegro, and Jane C. Go to comment within 10 days from
defendant brought before the mayor for the careful and judicial notice, to issue the temporary restraining order prayed for, and to
consideration of his guilt or innocence that the prospect of such a enjoin Judge Pedro S. Espina from taking further action in Criminal
Cases 93-01-38 and 93-01-39 until further orders from the Court. Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan [GR 103501-03, 17 February 1997]
Reyes, Doctora, Santos, Alegro, and Go failed to file their respective Facts:
comments within the reglementary period, nor within the second Then President Marcos instructed Luis Tabuena over the phone to pay
deadline. As the latter are already in detention and that sanction directly to the president's office and in cash what the Manila
relating to delay in the submission of the comments may not amount International Airport Authority (MIAA) owes the Philippine National
to much, and as not to unduly delay the disposition of Criminal Cases Construction Corporation (PNCC), pursuant to the 7 January 1985
93-01-38 and 93-01-39, the Court resolved to dispense with the memorandum of then Minister Trade and Industry Roberto Ongpin.
latter's comments and to proceed with the disposition of the petition. Tabuena agreed. About a week later, Tabuena received from Mrs. Fe
Roa -Gimenez, then private secretary of Marcos, a Presidential
Issue: Memorandum dated 8 January 1986 reiterating in black and white such
Whether the decision of a Judge favorable to the accused in a different verbal instruction. In obedience to President Marcos' verbal instruction
special civil proceeding is enough basis to render the Judge to be and memorandum, Tabuena, with the help of Gerardo G. Dabao and
partial or bias in the present criminal case. Adolfo Peralta, caused the release of P55 Million of MIAA funds by
means of three (3) withdrawals. On 10 January 1986, the first
Held: withdrawal was made for P25 Million, following a letter of even date
One of the essential requirements of procedural due process in a signed by Tabuena and Dabao requesting the PNB extension office at
judicial proceeding is that there must be an impartial court or tribunal the MIAA the depository branch of MIAA funds, to issue a manager's
clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it. check for said amount payable to Tabuena. The check was encashed,
Thus, every litigant, including the State, is entitled to the cold however, at the PNB Villamor Branch. Dabao and the cashier of the PNB
neutrality of an impartial judge. The judge must not only be impartial Villamor branch counted the money after which, Tabuena took delivery
but must also appear to be impartial as an added assurance to the thereof. The P25 Million in cash was delivered on the same day to the
parties that his decision will be just. They should be sure that when office of Mrs. Gimenez. Mrs. Gimenez did not issue any receipt for the
their rights are violated they can go to a judge who shall give them money received. Similar circumstances surrounded the second
justice. They must believe in his sense of fairness, otherwise they will withdrawal/encashment and delivery of another P25 Million, made on
not seek his judgment. Due process is intended to insure that 16 January 1986. The third and last withdrawal was made on 31
confidence by requiring compliance with the rudiments of fair play. Fair January 1986 for P5 Million. Peralta was Tabuena's co-signatory to the
play calls for equal justice. There cannot be equal justice where a suitor letter- request for a manager's check for this amount. Peralta
approaches a court already committed to the other party and with a accompanied Tabuena to the PNB Villamor branch as Tabuena
judgment already made and waiting only to be formalized after the requested him to do the counting of the P5 Million. After the counting,
litigants shall have undergone the charade of a formal hearing. The the money was loaded in the trunk of Tabuena's car. Peralta did not go
Judge will reach his conclusions only after all the evidence is in and all with Tabuena to deliver the money to Mrs. Gimenez' office. It was only
the arguments are filed, on the basis of the established facts and the upon delivery of the P5 Million that Mrs. Gimenez issued a receipt for all
pertinent law. Herein, Judge Pedro Espina cannot be considered to the amounts she received from Tabuena. The receipt was dated
adequately possess such cold neutrality of an impartial judge as to January 30, 1986. Tabuena and Peralta were charged for malversation
fairly assess both the evidence to be adduced by the prosecution and of funds, while Dabao remained at large. One of the justices of the
the defense in view of his previous decision in Special Civil Action 92- Sandiganbayan actively took part in the questioning of a defense
11-219 wherein he enjoined the preliminary investigation at the witness and of the accused themselves; the volume of the questions
Regional State Prosecutor's Office level against Jane Go, the principal asked were more the combined questions of the counsels. On 12
accused in the killing of her husband Dominador Go. Judge Espina's October 1990, they were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
decision in favor of Jane Go serves as sufficient and reasonable basis Tabuena and Peralta filed separate petitions for review, appealing the
for the prosecution to seriously doubt his impartiality in handling the Sandiganbayan decision dated 12 October 19990 and the Resolution
criminal cases. It would have been more prudent for Judge Espina to of 20 December 1991.
have voluntarily inhibited himself from hearing the criminal cases.
Issue: Sections 15 and 16 of RA 6425, as amended (Dangerous Drugs Act of
Whether Tabuena and Peralta were denied due process by the active 1972).
participation of a Sandiganbayan justice in the questioning witnesses in
the trial. Issue:
Whether judges are allowed to asked clarificatory questions.
Held:
Due process requires no less than the cold neutrality of an impartial Held:
judge. Bolstering this requirement, we have added that the judge must A single noted instance of questioning cannot justify a claim that the
not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial, to give trial judge was biased. The Court have exhaustively examined the
added assurance to the parties that his decision will be just. The transcript of stenographic notes and determined that the trial judge
parties are entitled to no less than this, as a minimum guaranty of due was more than equitable in presiding over the hearings of this case.
process. Our courts should refrain from showing any semblance of one- Moreover, a judge is not prohibited from propounding clarificatory
sided or more or less partial attitude in order not to create any false questions on a witness if the purpose of which is to arrive at a proper
impression in the minds of the litigants. For obvious reasons, it is the and just determination of the case. “The trial judge must be accorded
bounden duty of all to strive for the preservation of the people's faith a reasonable leeway in putting such questions to witnesses as may be
in our courts. Respect for the Constitution is more important than essential to elicit relevant facts to make the record speak the truth. It
securing a conviction based on a violation of the rights of the accused. cannot be taken against him if the clarificatory questions he propounds
The Court was struck by the way the Sandiganbayan actively took part happen to reveal certain truths which tend to destroy the theory of
in the questioning of a defense witness and of the accused themselves, one party.
as shown in the records. The volume of questions hurled by the
Sandiganbayan was more the combined questions of the counsels. Webb v. de Leon [GR 121234, 23 August 1995]
More importantly, the questions of the court were in the nature of Facts:
cross examinations characteristic of confrontation, probing and This was a highly-publicized case (dubbed as Vizconde Massacre, and
insinuation. We have not adopted in this country the practice of involves a son of a Philippine Senator). On 19 June 1994, the National
making the presiding judge the chief inquisitor. It is better to observe Bureau of Investigation (NBI) filed with the Department of Justice
our time-honored custom of orderly judicial procedure, even at the (DOJ) a letter-complaint charging petitioners Hubert Webb, Michael
expense of occasional delays. The impartiality of the judge; his Gatchalian. Antonio J. Lejano and 6 other persons, with the crime of
avoidance of the appearance of becoming the advocate of either one Rape with Homicide. Forthwith, the DOJ formed a panel of prosecutors
side or the other of the pending controversy is a fundamental and headed by Assistant Chief State prosecutor Jovencito R. Zuño to
essential rule of special importance in criminal cases. conduct the preliminary investigation of those charged with the rape
and killing on 30 June 1991 of Carmela N. Vizconde, her mother
People v. Medenilla [GR 131638-39, 26 March 2001] Estrellita Nicolas-Vizoonde, and sister Anne Marie Jennifer in their home
Facts: at Parañaque. During the preliminary investigation, the NBI presented
On 16 April 1996, Loreto Medenilla y Doria was caught for illegal the sworn statements of Maria Jessica Alfaro, 2 former housemaids of
possession and unlawfully selling 5.08g of shabu (Criminal Case 3618- the Webb family, Carlos Cristobal (a plane passenger), Lolita Birrer (live
D), was in unlawful possession of 4 transparent plastic bags of shabu -in partner of Biong), 2 of Vizconde’s maids, Normal White (a security
weighing 200.45g (Criminal Case 3619-D) in Mandaluyong City. guard) and Manciano Gatmaitan (an engineer). The NBI also submitted
Versions of facts leading to the arrest are conflicting; the prosecution the autopsy report involving Estrellita (12 stab wounds), Carmela (9
alleging buy-bust operations, while defense claim illegal arrest, search stab wounds), and Jennifer (19 stab wounds); and the genital
and seizure. Arraigned on 25 June 1996, Medenilla pleaded not guilty. examination of Carmela confirming the presence of spermatozoa. The
The judge therein, for the purpose of clarification, propounded a NBI submitted photocopies of the documents requested by Webb in his
question upon a witness during the trial. On 26 November 1997, the Motion for Production and Examination of Evidence and Documents,
Regional Trial Court of Pasig (Branch 262) found Medenilla, in Criminal granted by the DOJ Panel. Webb claimed during the preliminary
Cases 3618-D and 3619-D, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating investigation that he did not commit the crime as he went to the
United States on 1 March 1991 and returned to the Philippines on 27
October 1992. The others — Fernandez, Gatchalian, Lejano, Estrada, al. seek the disqualification of any member of the DOJ Panel on the
Rodriguez and Biong — submitted sworn statements, responses, and a ground of bias resulting from their bombardment of prejudicial
motion to dismiss denying their complicity in the rape-killing of the publicity. Further , on the contention of the denial of their
Vizcondes. Only Filart and Ventura failed to file their counter-affidavits constitutional right to due process and violation of their right to an
though they were served with subpoena in their last known address. On impartial investigation, records show that the DOJ Panel did not
8 August 1995, the DOJ Panel issued a 26-page Resolution "finding conduct the preliminary investigation with indecent haste. Webb, et. al.
probable cause to hold respondents for trial" and recommending that were given fair opportunity to prove lack of probable cause against
an Information for rape with homicide be filed against Webb, et. al. On them. Still, the Supreme Court reminds a trial judge in high profile
the same date, it filed the corresponding Information against Webb, et. criminal cases of his/her duty to control publicity prejudicial to the fair
al. with the RTC Parañaque. Docketed as Criminal Case 95-404 and administration of justice. The ability to dispense impartial justice is an
raffled to Branch 258 presided by Judge Zosimo V. Escano. It was, issue in every trial and in every criminal prosecution, the judiciary
however, Judge Raul de Leon, pairing judge of Judge Escano, who always stands as a silent accused. More than convicting the guilty and
issued the warrants of arrest against Webb, et. al. On 11 August 1995, acquitting the innocent, the business of the judiciary is to assure
Judge Escano voluntarily inhibited himself from the case to avoid any fulfillment of the promise that justice shall be done and is done, and
suspicion about his impartiality considering his employment with the that is the only way for the judiciary to get an acquittal from the bar of
NBI before his appointment to the bench. The case was re-raffled to public opinion.
branch 274, presided by Judge Amelita Tolentino who issued new
warrants of arrest against Webb, et. al. On 11 August 1995, Webb People v. Sanchez [GR 121039-45, 18 October 2001]
voluntarily surrendered to the police authorities at Camp Ricardo Papa Facts:
Sr., in Taguig. Webb, et. al. filed petitions for the issuance of the (The Sarmenta-Gomez rape- slay) On 28 June 1993, Luis and Rogelio
extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with "Boy" Corcolon approached Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez, forcibly
application for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction took the two and loaded them at the back of the latter's van, which
with the Supreme Court to: (1) annul and set aside the Warrants of was parked in front of Café Amalia, Agrix Complex, Los Banos, Laguna.
Arrest issued against petitioners by respondent Judges Raul E. de Leon George Medialdea, Zoilo Ama, Baldwin Brion and Pepito Kawit also
and Amelita Tolentino in Criminal Case No. 95-404; (2) enjoin the boarded the van while Aurelio Centeno and Vicencio Malabanan, who
respondents from conducting any proceeding in the aforementioned were also with the group, stayed in the ambulance. Both vehicles then
criminal case; and (3) dismiss said criminal case or include Jessica headed for Erais Farm situated in Barangay Curba, which was owned by
Alfaro as one of the accused therein. Gatchalian and Lejano likewise Mayor Antonio Sanchez of Calauan, Laguna. The two youngsters were
gave themselves up to the authorities after filing their petitions before then brought inside the resthouse where Eileen was taken to the
the Court. Mayor’s room. Allan was badly beaten up by Luis, Boy, Ama and
Medialdea and thereafter thrown out of the resthouse. At around 1:00
Issue: a.m. of the next day, a crying Eileen was dragged out of the resthouse
Whether the attendant publicity of the case deprived Webb, [Link], of by Luis and Medialdea – her hair disheveled, mouth covered by a
their right to fair trial. handkerchief, hands still tied and stripped of her shorts. Eileen and
Allan were then loaded in the Tamaraw van by Medialdea, et. al. and
Held: headed for Calauan, followed closely by the ambulance. En route to
Pervasive and prejudicial publicity under certain circumstances can Calauan, gunfire was heard from the van. The van pulled over
deprive an accused of his due process right to fair trial. Herein, whereupon Kawit dragged Allan, whose head was already drenched in
however, nothing in the records that will prove that the tone and blood, out of the vehicle onto the road and finished him off with a
content of the publicity that attended the investigation of petitioners single gunshot from his armalite. The ambulance and van then sped
fatally infected the fairness and impartiality of the DOJ Panel. The DOJ away. Upon reaching a sugarcane field in Sitio Paputok, Kilometro 74 of
Panel is composed of an Assistant Chief State Prosecutor and Senior Barangay Mabacan, Eileen was gang-raped by Luis Corcolon, Medialdea,
State Prosecutors; and their long experience in criminal investigation is Rogelio Corcolon, Ama, Brion and Kawit. After Kawit’s turn, Luis
a factor to consider in determining whether they can easily be blinded Corcolon shot Eileen with his baby armalite. Moments later, all 8 men
by the klieg lights of publicity. At no instance in the case did Webb, et. boarded the ambulance and proceeded to Calauan, leaving the
Tamaraw van with Eileen’s remains behind. Initially, the crime was court evidence and on camera performances of parties to a litigation.
attributed to one Kit Alqueza, a son of a feared general (Dictador Their mere exposure to publications and publicity stunts does not per
Alqueza). Luis and Rogelio Corcolon were also implicated therein. se fatally infect their impartiality. To warrant a finding of prejudicial
However, further investigation, and forensic findings, pointed to the publicity, there must be allegation and proof that the judges have been
group of Mayor Sanchez. Centeno and Malabanan bolstered the unduly influenced by the barrage of publicity. Records herein do not
prosecution's theory. On 11 March 1995, Judge Harriet O. Demetriou show that the trial judge developed actual bias against Mayor Sanchez,
of the Regional Trial Court (Pasig City, Branch 70) found Mayor et. al., as a consequence of the extensive media coverage of the pre-
Sanchez, Medialdea, Ama, Brion, Luis Corcolon, Rogelio Corcolon and trial and trial of his case. The totality of circumstances of the case
Kawit guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with does not prove that the trial judge acquired a fixed position as a result
homicide, ordering them to pay Eileen Sarmenta the amount of of prejudicial publicity which is incapable of change even by evidence
P50,000 and additionally, the amount of P700,000.00 to the heirs of presented during the trial. Mayor Sanchez, et. al., has the burden to
Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez as additional indemnity. On 25 prove this actual bias and he has not discharged the burden.
January 1999, the Supreme Court, through Justice Martinez, affirmed
in toto the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court. Antonio Summary Dismissal Board v. Torcita [GR 130442, 6 April 2000]
Sanchez, Zoilo Ama, Baldwin Brion and Pepito Kawit seasonably filed Facts:
their respective motions for reconsideration. The Office of the Solicitor On 26 April 1994, a red Cortina Ford, driven by C/Insp. Lazaro Torcita,
General filed its Comment on 6 December 1999. Sanchez avers that he with his aide, PO2 Java, in the front seat and his wife with two ladies at
is a victim of trial and conviction by publicity, besides claims that the backseat, were overtaken by a Mazda pick-up owned by
principal witness Centeno and Malabanan lack credibility, that the Congressman Manuel Puey and driven by one Reynaldo Consejo with
testimony of his 13-year old daughter should have been given full faith four (4) passengers in the persons of Alex Edwin del Rosario, Rosita
and credit, and that the gargantuan damages awarded have no factual Bistal, Carmen Braganza and Cristina Dawa. After the Mazda pick-up
and legal bases. Ama, Brion and Kawit maintain that Centeno and has overtaken the red Cortina Ford, and after a vehicular collision
Malabanan were sufficiently impeached by their inconsistent almost took place, it accelerated speed and proceeded to Hacienda
statements pertain to material and crucial points of the events at Aimee, a sugarcane plantation owned by the congressman. The red
issue, besides that independent and disinterested witnesses have Cortina Ford followed also at high speed until it reached the hacienda
destroyed the prosecution’s version of events. On 2 February 1999, where Torcita and Java alighted and the confrontation with del Rosario
Justice Martinez retired in accordance with AM 99-8-09. The motions and Jesus Puey occurred. Torcita identified himself but the same had
for reconsideration was assigned to Justice Melo for study and no effect. PO2 Java whispered to him that there are armed men around
preparation of the appropriate action on 18 September 2001. them and that it is dangerous for them to continue. That at this point,
they radioed for back-up. Torcita,upon the arrival of the back-up force
Issue: of PNP Cadiz City, proceeded to the place where Capt. Jesus Puey and
Whether the publicity of the case impaired the impartiality of the judge Alex Edwin del Rosario were. On 6 July 1994, 12 verified administrative
handling the case. complaints were filed against Torcita for Conduct Unbecoming of a
Police Officer, Illegal Search, Grave Abuse of Authority and Violation of
Held: Domicile, and Abuse of Authority and Violation of COMELEC Gun Ban.
Pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused The 12 administrative complaints were consolidated into 1 major
to fair trial. The mere fact that the trial of Mayor Sanchez, et. al., was complaint for conduct unbecoming of a police officer. The Summary
given a day-to-day, gavel-to-gavel coverage does not by itself prove Dismissal Board, however, did not find sufficient evidence to establish
that publicity so permeated the mind of the trial judge and impaired his that Torcita threatened anybody with a gun, nor that a serious
impartiality. The right of an accused to a fair trial is not incompatible to confrontation took place between the parties, nor that the urinating
a free press. Responsible reporting enhances an accused's right to a incident took place, and held that the charges of violation of domicile
fair trial. The press does not simply publish information about trials but and illegal search were not proven. Still, while the Board found that
guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting the police, Torcita was "in the performance of his official duties" when the
prosecutors, and judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and incident happened, he allegedly committed a simple irregularity in
criticism. Our judges are learned in the law and trained to disregard off- performance of duty (for being in the influence of alcohol while in
performance of duty) and was suspended for 20 days and salary Even if he was prosecuted for irregular performance of duty, he could
suspended for the same period of time. Torcita appealed his conviction not have been found to have the odor or smell of alcohol while in the
to the Regional Appellate Board of the Philippine National Police (PNP, performance of duty because he was not on duty at the time that he
Region VI, Iloilo City), but the appeal was dismissed for lack of had a taste of liquor; he was on a private trip fetching his wife.
jurisdiction. Whereupon, Torcita filed a petition for certiorari in the
Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City (Branch 31), questioning the legality Justice Secretary v. Lantion [GR 139465, 17 October 2000]
of the conviction of an offense for which he was not charged (lack of Facts:
procedural due process of law). The Board filed a motion to dismiss, On 13 January 1977, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued
which was denied. The RTC granted the petition for certiorari and Presidential Decree 1069 "Prescribing the Procedure for the Extradition
annulled the dispositive portion of the questioned decision insofar as it of Persons Who Have Committed Crimes in a Foreign Country". On 13
found Torcita guilty of simple irregularity in the performance of duty. November 1994, then Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon,
The Board appealed from the RTC decision, by petition of review to the representing the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, signed
Court of Appeals, which affirmed the same for the reason that the in Manila the "Extradition Treaty Between the Government of the
respondent could not have been guilty of irregularity considering that Republic of the Philippines and the Government of the United States of
the 12 cases were eventually dismissed. The Board filed the petition America. "The Senate, by way of Resolution 11, expressed its
for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court. concurrence in the ratification of said treaty. It also expressed its
concurrence in the Diplomatic Notes correcting Paragraph (5)(a),
Issue: Article 7 thereof (on the admissibility of the documents accompanying
Whether Torcita may be proceeded against or suspended for breach of an extradition request upon certification by the principal diplomatic or
internal discipline, when the original charges against him were for consular officer of the requested state resident in the Requesting
Conduct Unbecoming of a Police Officer, Illegal Search, Grave Abuse of State). On 18 June 1999, the Department of Justice received from the
Authority and Violation of Domicile, and Abuse of Authority and Department of Foreign Affairs U. S. Note Verbale 0522 containing a
Violation of COMELEC Gun Ban. request for the extradition of Mark Jimenez to the United States.
Attached to the Note Verbale were the Grand Jury Indictment, the
Held: warrant of arrest issued by the U.S. District Court, Southern District of
Notification of the charges contemplates that the respondent be Florida, and other supporting documents for said extradition. Jimenez
informed of the specific charges against him. The absence of was charged in the United States for violation of (a) 18 USC 371
specification of the offense for which he was eventually found guilty is (Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States, 2
not a proper observance of due process. There can be no short-cut to counts), (b) 26 USC 7201 (Attempt to evade or defeat tax, 4 counts),
the legal process. While the definition of the more serious offense is (c) 18 USC 1343 (Fraud by wire, radio, or television, 2 counts), (d) 18
broad, and almost all -encompassing a finding of guilt for an offense, USC 1001 (False statement or entries, 6 counts), and (E) 2 USC 441f
no matter how light, for which one is not properly charged and tried (Election contributions in name of another; 33 counts). On the same
cannot be countenanced without violating the rudimentary day, the Secretary issued Department Order 249 designating and
requirements of due process. Herein, the 12 administrative cases filed authorizing a panel of attorneys to take charge of and to handle the
against Torcita did not include charges or offenses mentioned or made case. Pending evaluation of the aforestated extradition documents,
reference to the specific act of being drunk while in the performance of Jimenez (on 1 July 1999) requested copies of the official extradition
official duty. There is no indication or warning at all in the summary request from the US Government, as well as all documents and papers
dismissal proceedings that Torcita was also being charged with breach submitted therewith, and that he be given ample time to comment on
of internal discipline consisting of taking alcoholic drinks while in the the request after he shall have received copies of the requested
performance of his duties. The omission is fatal to the validity of the papers. The Secretary denied the request. On 6 August 1999, Jimenez
judgment finding him guilty of the offense for which he was not filed with the Regional Trial Court a petition against the Secretary of
notified nor charged. Further, the cursory conclusion of the Dismissal Justice, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and the Director of the
Board that Torcita "committed breach of internal discipline by taking National Bureau of Investigation, for mandamus (to compel the Justice
drinks while in the performance of same" should have been Secretary to furnish Jimenez the extradition documents, to give him
substantiated by factual findings referring to this particular offense. access thereto, and to afford him an opportunity to comment on, or
oppose, the extradition request, and thereafter to evaluate the request involved as well as the private interest that has been affected by
impartially, fairly and objectively); certiorari (to set aside the Justice governmental action." The concept of due process is flexible for "not
Secretary’s letter dated 13 July 1999); and prohibition (to restrain the all situations calling for procedural safeguards call for the same kind of
Justice Secretary from considering the extradition request and from procedure." Thus, the temporary hold on Jimenez's privilege of notice
filing an extradition petition in court; and to enjoin the Secretary of and hearing is a soft restraint on his right to due process which will not
Foreign Affairs and the Director of the NBI from performing any act deprive him of fundamental fairness should he decide to resist the
directed to the extradition of Jimenez to the United States), with an request for his extradition to the US. There is no denial of due process
application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ as long as fundamental fairness is assured a party.
of preliminary injunction. The trial court ruled in favor of Jimenez. The
Secretary filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court. On People v. Estrada [GR 130487, 19 June 2000]
18 January 2000, by a vote of 9-6, the Supreme Court dismissed the Facts:
petition and ordered the Justice Secretary to furnish Jimenez copies of On 27 December 27, 1994, Roberto Estrada y Lopez sat at the
the extradition request and its supporting papers and to grant him a bishop’s chair while the sacrament of confirmation was being
reasonable period within which to file his comment with supporting performed at the St. John’s Cathedral, Dagupan City. Rogelio Mararac,
evidence. On 3 February 2000, the Secretary timely filed an Urgent the security guard at the cathedral, was summoned by some
Motion for Reconsideration. churchgoers. Mararac went near Estrada and told him to vacate the
Bishop's chair. Mararac twice tapped Estrada’s hand with his nightstick.
Issue: When Mararac was about to strike again, Estrada drew a knife from his
Whether Jimenez had the right to notice and hearing during the back, lunged at Mararac and stabbed him, hitting him below his left
evaluation stage of an extradition process. throat. Mararac fell. Wounded and bleeding, Mararac slowly dragged
himself down the altar. SP01 Conrado Francisco received a report of
Held: the commotion inside the cathedral, went inside the cathedral,
Presidential Decree (PD) 1069 which implements the RP-US Extradition approached Estrada who was sitting on the chair, and advised the
Treaty provides the time when an extraditee shall be furnished a copy latter to drop his knife. Estrada obeyed. However, when Chief Inspector
of the petition for extradition as well as its supporting papers, i.e., Wendy Rosario, Deputy Police Chief, who was also at the confirmation
after the filing of the petition for extradition in the extradition court rites, went near Estrada, Estrada embraced Rosario and two wrestled
(Section 6). It is of judicial notice that the summons includes the with each other. Rosario was able to subdue Estrada. Estrada was
petition for extradition which will be answered by the extraditee. There brought to the police station and placed in jail. Maranac expired a few
is no provision in the Treaty and in PD 1069 which gives an extraditee minutes after arrival at the hospital. On 29 December 1994, Estrada
the right to demand from the Justice Secretary copies of the was charged with the crime of murder for the killing of Mararac. On 6
extradition request from the US government and its supporting January 1995, at the arraignment, the Public Attorney's Office, filed an
documents and to comment thereon while the request is still "Urgent Motion to Suspend Arraignment and to Commit Accused to
undergoing evaluation. The DFA and the DOJ, as well as the US Psychiatric Ward at Baguio General Hospital." It was alleged that
government, maintained that the Treaty and PD 1069 do not grant the Estrada could not properly and intelligently enter a plea because he
extraditee a right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of was suffering from a mental defect; that before the commission of the
an extradition process. It is neither an international practice to afford a crime, he was confined at the psychiatric ward of the Baguio General
potential extraditee with a copy of the extradition papers during the Hospital in Baguio City. The motion was opposed by the City
evaluation stage of the extradition process. Jimenez is, thus, bereft of Prosecutor. The trial court, motu proprio, propounded several
the right to notice and hearing during the extradition process’ questions on Estrada. Finding that the questions were understood and
evaluation stage. Further, as an extradition proceeding is not criminal in answered by him "intelligently," the court denied the motion that same
character and the evaluation stage in an extradition proceeding is not day. The arraignment proceeded and a plea of not guilty was entered
akin to a preliminary investigation, the due process safeguards in the by the court on Estrada's behalf. On 23 June 1997, the trial court
latter do not necessarily apply to the former. The procedural due (RTC Dagupan City, Branch 44, Criminal Case 94-00860-D) rendered a
process required by a given set of circumstances "must begin with a decision upholding the prosecution evidence and found Estrada guilty
determination of the precise nature of the government function of the crime charged and thereby sentenced him to death, and ordered
him to pay P50,000 for indemnity, P18,870 for actual expenses, and prohibitory preliminary injunction. However, despite the trial court’s
P100,000 as moral damages. Estrada’s counsel appealed. order, Lim still issued a closure order on the Bistro’s operations
effective 23 January 1993, even sending policemen to carry out his
Issue: closure order. Lim insisted that the power of a mayor to inspect and
Whether a mental examination of the accused should be made before investigate commercial establishments and their staff is implicit in the
the accused may be subjected to trial. statutory power of the city mayor to issue, suspend or revoke business
permits and licenses. This statutory power is expressly provided for in
Held: Section 11 (l), Article II of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila and
The rule barring trial or sentence of an insane person is for the in Section 455, paragraph 3 (iv) of the Local Government Code of
protection of the accused, rather than of the public. It has been held 1991. On 25 January 1993, the Bistro filed an "Urgent Motion for
that it is inhuman to require an accused disabled by act of God to make Contempt" against Lim and the policemen who stopped the Bistro’s
a just defense for his life or liberty. To put a legally incompetent operations on January 23, 1993. At the hearing of the motion for
person on trial or to convict and sentence him is a violation of the contempt on 29 January 1993, the Bistro withdrew its motion on
constitutional rights to a fair trial and due process of law. Section 12, condition that Lim would respect the court’s injunction. However, on
Rule 116 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure speaks of a "mental February 12, 13, 15, 26 and 27, and on March 1 and 2, 1993, Lim,
examination." An intelligent determination of an accused's capacity for acting through his agents and policemen, again disrupted the Bistro’s
rational understanding ought to rest on a deeper and more business operations. Meanwhile, on 17 February 1993, Lim filed a
comprehensive diagnosis of his mental condition than laymen can make motion to dissolve the injunctive order and to dismiss the case. The
through observation of his overt behavior. Once a medical or trial court denied Lim’s motion to dissolve the injunction and to dismiss
psychiatric diagnosis is made, then can the legal question of the case in an order dated 2 March 1993. On 10 March 1993, Lim filed
incompetency be determined by the trial court. By depriving appellant with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari, prohibition and
of a mental examination, the trial court effectively deprived appellant mandamus against the Bistro and Judge Wilfredo Reyes. The Court of
of a fair trial. The trial court's negligence was a violation of the basic Appeals sustained the RTC orders in a decision on 25 March 1993, and
requirements of due process; and for this reason, the proceedings denied Lim's motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated 13 July
before the said court must be nullified. 1993. On 1 July 1993, Manila City Ordinance 778314 took effect. On
the same day, Lim ordered the Western Police District Command to
Lim vs. Court of Appeals [GR 111397, 12 August 2002] permanently close down the operations of the Bistro, which order the
Facts: police implemented at once. Lim filed the petition for review on
On 7 December 1992, Bistro Pigalle Inc. filed before the trial court a certiorari before the Supreme Court.
petition for mandamus and prohibition, with prayer for temporary
restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction, against Alfredo Lim in Issue:
his capacity as Mayor of the City of Manila. The Bistro filed the case Whether the Bistro should be given an opportunity to rebut the
because policemen under Lim’s instructions inspected and investigated allegations that it violated the conditions of its licenses and permits.
the Bistro’s license as well as the work permits and health certificates
of its staff. This caused the stoppage of work in the Bistro’s night club Held:
and restaurant operations (i.e. the New Bangkok Club and the Exotic From the language of Section 11 (l), Article II of the Revised Charter of
Garden Restaurant). Lim also refused to accept the Bistro’s application the City of Manila and Section 455 (3) (iv) of the Local Government
for a business license, as well as the work permit applications of the Code, it is clear that the power of the mayor to issue business licenses
Bistro’s staff, for the year 1993. Acting on the Bistro’s application for and permits necessarily includes the corollary power to suspend,
injunctive relief, the trial court issued the temporary restraining order revoke or even refuse to issue the same. However, the power to
on 29 December 1992, ordering Lim and/or his agents to refrain from suspend or revoke these licenses and permits is expressly premised on
inspecting or otherwise interfering in the operation of the the violation of the conditions of these permits and licenses. The laws
establishments of the Bistro. At the hearing, the parties submitted specifically refer to the "violation of the condition(s)" on which the
their evidence in support of their respective positions. On 20 January licenses and permits were issued. Similarly, the power to refuse to
1993, the trial court granted the Bistro’s application for a writ of issue such licenses and permits is premised on non-compliance with the
prerequisites for the issuance of such licenses and permits. The mayor P292,778.00 per unit of fire truck, or a total of P19,030,570.00 for all
must observe due process in exercising these powers, which means 65 fire trucks. The Commission on Audit discovered the irregularities in
that the mayor must give the applicant or licensee notice and the bidding, awarding and purchase of the 65 fire trucks, thus
opportunity to be heard. True, the mayor has the power to inspect and prompting then DILG Secretary Rafael Alunan III to file a complaint on
investigate private commercial establishments for any violation of the 12 February 1993 for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act 3019
conditions of their licenses and permits. However, the mayor has no before the Ombudsman, against (1) Dir. Gen. Cesar Nazareno, PNP, (2)
power to order a police raid on these establishments in the guise of Dep. Dir. Manuel Roxas, PNP, (3) Fire Marshal Mario Tanchanco, (4) Fire
inspecting or investigating these commercial establishments. Lim has B/Gen. Diosdado Godoy (Ret.), (5) P/Sr. Supt. Ahmed Nacpil, PNP, (6)
no authority to close down Bistro’s business or any business P/Supt. Juhan Kairan, PNP, (7) Insp. Reynaldo Osea, PNP, (8) Dep. Dir.
establishment in Manila without due process of law. Lim cannot take Gen. Gerardo Flores, PNP, (9) Dir. Nicasio Custodio, PNP, (10) Supt.
refuge under the Revised Charter of the City of Manila and the Local Obedio Espeña, PNP, (11) Former DILG Secretary Luis Santos, and (12)
Government Code. There is no provision in these laws expressly or Ms. Generosa Ramirez. The Deputy Ombudsman for the Military
impliedly granting the mayor authority to close down private conducted a preliminary investigation where the accused submitted
commercial establishments without notice and hearing, and even if their respective counter-affidavits. On 19 March 1993, it
there is, such provision would be void. The due process clause of the recommended the indictment of all, except Generosa Ramirez. On
Constitution requires that Lim should have given the Bistro an review, the Office of the Special Prosecutor Review Committee
opportunity to rebut the allegations that it violated the conditions of recommended the dismissal of the complaints against Roxas, Nacpil,
its licenses and permits. Codoy, Kairan and Ramirez. This latter recommendation was approved
by the Special Prosecutor and the Ombudsman in a Memorandum dated
Roxas vs. Vasquez [GR 114944, 19 June 2001] 15 April 1993. Accordingly, the appropriate Information was filed by
Facts: the Ombudsman before the Sandiganbayan (Criminal Case 18956),
Manuel C. Roxas and Ahmed S. Nacpil were Chairman and Member, against Nazareno, Flores, Tanchanco, Custodio, Osea, Espena and
respectively, of the Bids and Awards Committee of the PC-INP. Santos. Roxas, Nacpil, Codoy, Kairan and Ramirez were not included
Sometime in September 1990, the PC-INP invited bids for the supply among the accused. However, upon motion of Generals Flores and
purchase of 65 units of fire trucks, and accordingly, the public bidding Tanchanco, a reinvestigation was conducted by the Office of the
was held on 14 September 1990. The lowest bidder, Aeolus Philippines, Special Prosecutor. On 19 October 1993, without any notice to or
was disqualified since its fire trucks had a water tank capacity of only participation of Roxas and Nacpil, the Office of the Special Prosecutor
1,800 liters, far below the required 3,785 liter capacity. After ocular issued an Order, dismissing the charges against Flores and Tanchanco,
inspections made by a A Technical Evaluation Committee, two fire and recommending that Roxas, Nacpil, and Kairan be likewise indicted.
trucks, namely Morita Isuzu and Nikki-Hino, were recommended. The Deputy Special Prosecutor Jose de Ferrer voted for the approval of the
Bids and Awards Committee, however, voted to award the contract in recommendation, while Special Prosecutor Aniano A. Desierto
favor of the Korean company CISC, which offered Ssangyong fire dissented. Ombudsman Conrado M. Vasquez approved the
trucks. To avoid the possibility of failure to bid, the Bids and Awards recommendation. Roxas and Nacpil, together with Kairan, filed a Motion
Committee reviewed its recommendations, and thus limited its choice for Reconsideration. The Review Committee of the Office of the Special
to the two brands recommended by Gen. Tanchanco and, by majority Prosecutor recommended that the Motion be granted and the charge
vote, elected Nikki-Hino of the Tahei Co., Ltd. as the lower bidder. against the movants be dismissed. However, Deputy Special Prosecutor
Thereafter, the Contract of Purchase and Sale of 65 units of Nikki-Hino de Ferrer and Ombudsman Vasquez disapproved the recommendation
fire trucks was executed between Gen. Nazareno, on behalf of the PC- in the second assailed Order dated 10 February 1994. Thus, on 27
INP, and Tahei Company, Ltd. The corresponding Purchase Order was March 1994, the Office of the Ombudsman filed an Amended
then prepared. Pursuant to a disbursement voucher, the PNP paid Tahei Information with respondent Sandiganbayan, impleading Roxas and
Co., Ltd. the amount of P167,335,177.24, representing marginal Nacpil as additional accused. Roxas and Nacpil filed a petition for
deposit for the 65 units of fire truck. The Disbursement Voucher certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court.
showed that, while the bid price of Tahei Co. was only P2,292,784.00
per unit, the price appearing on the Purchase Order was
P2,585,562.00 per unit. Hence, there was a discrepancy of
Issue: ITT, and Capitol Wireless or their predecessors-in-interest. The satellite
Whether the lack of notice to Roxas and Nacpil at the reinvestigation services thus provided by PHILCOMSAT enable said international
render the issuance of Office of the Ombudsman null and void. carriers to serve the public with indispensable communication services,
such as overseas telephone, telex, facsimile, telegrams, high speed
Held: data, live television in full color, and television standard conversion
It is not material either that no new matter or evidence was presented from European to American or vice versa. It was exempt from the
during the reinvestigation of the case. It should be stressed that jurisdiction of the then Public Service Commission, now National
reinvestigation, as the word itself implies, is merely a repeat Telecommunications Commission (NTC). However, pursuant to
investigation of the case. New matters or evidence are not Executive Order (EO) 196 issued on 17 June 1987, it was placed under
prerequisites for a reinvestigation, which is simply a chance for the the jurisdiction, control and regulation of NTC, including all its facilities
prosecutor, or in this case the Office of the Ombudsman, to review and and services and the fixing of rates. Implementing said executive order,
re-evaluate its findings and the evidence already submitted. Neither do NTC required PHILCOMSAT to apply for the requisite certificate of
the lack of notice to, or participation of, Roxas and Nacpil at the public convenience and necessity covering its facilities and the services
reinvestigation render the questioned issuances of Office of the it renders, as well as the corresponding authority to charge rates
Ombudsman null and void. At any rate, Roxas and Nacpil cannot argue therefor. On 9 September 1987, PHILCOMSAT filed with NTC an
that they have been deprived of due process. The rule is well application for authority to continue operating and maintaining the
established that due process is satisfied when the parties are afforded same facilities it has been continuously operating and maintaining since
fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy 1967, to continue providing the international satellite communications
or an opportunity to move for a reconsideration of the action or ruling services it has likewise been providing since 1967, and to charge the
complained of. Herein, the record clearly shows that petitioners not current rates applied for in rendering such services. Pending hearing, it
only filed their respective Counter-Affidavits during the preliminary also applied for a provisional authority so that it can continue to
investigation, they also filed separate Motions for Reconsideration of operate and maintain the facilities, provide the services and charge
the 19 October 1993 Order of the Ombudsman impleading them as therefor the aforesaid rates therein applied for. On 16 September
accused in Criminal Case 18956. 1987, PHILCOMSAT was granted a provisional authority to continue
operating its existing facilities, to render the services it was then
Philcomsat v. Alcuaz [GR 84818, 18 December 1989] offering, and to charge the rates it was then charging. This authority
Facts: was valid for 6 months from the date of said order. When said
By virtue of Republic Act 5514, the Philippine Communications Satellite provisional authority expired on 17 March 1988, it was extended for
Corporation (PHILCOMSAT) was granted "a franchise to establish, another 6 months, or up to 16 September 1988. Thereafter, the NTC
construct, maintain and operate in the Philippines, at such places as further extended the provisional authority of PHILCOMSAT for another
the grantee may select, station or stations and associated equipment 6 months, counted from 16 September 1988, but it directed
and facilities for international satellite communications," the authority PHILCOMSAT to charge modified reduced rates through a reduction of
to "construct and operate such ground facilities as needed to deliver 15% on the present authorized rates. PHILCOMSAT assailed said order.
telecommunications services from the communications satellite system
and ground terminal or terminals." By designation of the Republic of Issue:
the Philippines, it is also the sole signatory for the Philippines in the Whether the NTC is not required to provide notice and hearing to
Agreement and the Operating Agreement relating to the International PHILCOMSAT in its rate-fixing order, which fixed a temporary rate
Telecommunications Satellite Organization (INTELSAT), as well as in pending final determination of PHILCOMSAT’s application.
the Convention and the Operating Agreement of the International
Maritime Satellite Organization (INMARSAT), which two global Held:
commercial telecommunications satellite corporations were collectively The NTC, in the exercise of its rate-fixing power, is limited by the
established by various states in line with the principles set forth in requirements of public safety, public interest, reasonable feasibility and
Resolution 1721 (XVI) of the United Nations’s General Assembly. Since reasonable rates, which conjointly more than satisfy the requirements
1968, It has been leasing its satellite circuits to PLDT, Philippine Global of a valid delegation of legislative power. The NTC order violates
Communications, Eastern Telecom, Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. procedural due process because it was issued motu proprio, without
notice to PHILCOMSAT and without the benefit of a hearing. Said order present enrolled in school. On 31 January 1955, Alicia Nubla
was based merely on an "initial evaluation," which is a unilateral subscribed and swore to a complaint charging Suntay with seduction
evaluation, but had PHILCOMSAT been given an opportunity to present which was filed, in the Court of First Instance (CFI) Quezon City, after
its side before the order in question was issued, the confiscatory preliminary investigation had been conducted (Criminal case Q-1596).
nature of the rate reduction and the consequent deterioration of the On 9 February 1955 the private prosecutor filed a motion praying the
public service could have been shown and demonstrated to NTC. The Court to issue an order "directing such government agencies as may be
order pertains exclusively to PHILCOMSAT and to no other. Reduction concerned, particularly the National Bureau of Investigation and the
of rates was made without affording PHILCOMSAT the benefit of an Department of Foreign Affairs, for the purpose of having the accused
explanation as to what particular aspect or aspects of the financial brought back to the Philippines so that he may be dealt with in
statements warranted a corresponding rate reduction. PHILCOMSAT accordance with law." On 10 February 1955 the Court granted the
was not even afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the inspector motion. On 7 March 1955 the Secretary cabled the Ambassador to the
who issued the report on which NTC based its questioned order. While United States instructing him to order the Consul General in San
the NTC may fix a temporary rate pending final determination of the Francisco to cancel the passport issued to Suntay and to compel him
application of PHILCOMSAT, such rate-fixing order, temporary though it to return to the Philippines to answer the criminal charges against him.
may be, is not exempt from the statutory procedural requirements of However, this order was not implemented or carried out in view of the
notice and hearing, as well as the requirement of reasonableness. commencement of this proceedings in order that the issues raised may
Assuming that such power is vested in NTC, it may not exercise the be judicially resolved. On 5 July 1955, Suntay’s counsel wrote to the
same in an arbitrary and confiscatory manner. Categorizing such an Secretary requesting that the action taken by him be reconsidered, and
order as temporary in nature does not perforce entail the applicability filed in the criminal case a motion praying that the Court reconsider its
of a different rule of statutory procedure than would otherwise be order of 10 February 1955. On 7 July 1955, the Secretary denied
applied to any other order on the same matter unless otherwise counsel's request and on 15 July 1955 the Court denied the motion
provided by the applicable law. NTC has no authority to make such for reconsideration. Suntay filed the petition for a writ of certiorari.
order without first giving PHILCOMSAT a hearing, whether the order be
temporary or permanent, and it is immaterial whether the same is Issue:
made upon a complaint, a summary investigation, or upon the Whether Suntay should be accorded notice and hearing before his
commission's own motion. passport may be cancelled.

Suntay v. People [GR L-9430, 29 June 1957] Held:

Facts: Due process does not necessarily mean or require a hearing. When
On 26 June 1954, Dr. Antonio Nubla, father of Alicia Nubla, a minor of discretion is exercised by an officer vested with it upon an undisputed
16 years, filed a verified complaint against Emilio Suntay in the Office fact, such as the filing of a serious criminal charge against the passport
of the City Attorney of Quezon City, alleging that on or about 21 June holder, hearing may be dispensed with by such officer as a prerequisite
21954, the accused took Alicia Nubla from St. Paul's College in Quezon to the cancellation of his passport; lack of such hearing does not
City with lewd design and took her to somewhere near the University violate the due process of law clause of the Constitution; and the
of the Philippines (UP) compound in Diliman and was then able to have exercise of the discretion vested in him cannot be deemed whimsical
carnal knowledge of her. On 15 December 1954, after an investigation, and capricious because of the absence of such hearing. If hearing
an Assistant City Attorney recommended to the City Attorney of should always be held in order to comply with the due process of law
Quezon City that the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit. On 23 clause of the Constitution, then a writ of preliminary injunction issued
December 1954 attorney for the complainant addressed a letter to the ex parte would be violative of the said clause. Hearing would have been
City Attorney of Quezon City wherein he took exception to the proper and necessary if the reason for the withdrawal or cancellation of
recommendation of the Assistant City Attorney referred to and urged the passport were not clear but doubtful. But where the holder of a
that a complaint for seduction be filed against Suntay. On 10 January passport is facing a criminal charge in our courts and left the country
1955, Suntay applied for and was granted a passport by the to evade criminal prosecution, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in the
Department of Foreign Affairs (5981 [A39184]). On 20 January 1955, exercise of his discretion (Section 25, EO 1, S. 1946, 42 OG 1400) to
Suntay left the Philippines for San Francisco, California, where he is at revoke a passport already issued, cannot be held to have acted
whimsically or capriciously in withdrawing and cancelling such passport.
Suntay’s suddenly leaving the country in such a convenient time, can until proper and legal proceedings are conducted by the Board of
reasonably be interpreted to mean as a deliberate attempt on his part Commissioners of the Bureau of Immigrations in connection with the
to flee from justice, and, therefore, he cannot now be heard to application for extension of stay filed by de Bisschop with said Board.
complain if the strong arm of the law should join together to bring him The Commissioner of Immigration appealed.
back to justice.
Issue:
De Bisschop v. Galang [GR 18365, 31 May 1963] Whether the right to notice and hearing is essential to due process in
Facts: administrative proceedings, and whether the Board of Commissioners
George de Bisschop, an American citizen, was allowed to stay in this are required to render written decisions on petitions for extension of
country for 3 years, expiring 1 August 1959, as a prearranged stay.
employee of the Bissmag Production, Inc., of which he is president and
general manager. He applied for extension of stay with the Bureau of Held:
Immigration, in a letter dated 10 July 1959. In view, however, of The administration of immigration laws is the primary and exclusive
confidential and damaging reports of the Immigration Office, Benjamin responsibility of the Executive branch of the government. Extension of
de Mesa, to the effect that the Bissmag Production, Inc., is more of a stay of aliens is purely discretionary on the part of immigration
gambling front than the enterprise for promotions of local and authorities. Since CA 613 (Philippines Immigration Act of 1940) is
imported shows that it purports to be, and that de Bisschop is silent as to the procedure to be followed in these cases, the Courts are
suspected of having evaded payment of his income tax, the inclined to uphold the argument that courts have no jurisdiction to
Commissioner of Immigration (Emilio L. Galang), in a communication of review the purely administrative practice of immigration authorities of
10 September 1959, advised him that his application for extension of not granting formal hearings in certain cases as the circumstances may
stay as a prearranged employee has been denied by the Board of warrant, for reasons of practicability and expediency. This would not
Commissioners, and that he should depart within 5 days. Thereafter, violate the due process clause as, in the case at bar, the letter of
counsel of de Bisschop requested for a copy of the adverse decision of appellant-commissioner advising de Bisschop to depart in 5 days is a
said Board, but the legal officer of the Bureau of Immigration replied mere formality, a preliminary step, and, therefore, far from final,
that, pursuant to immigration practice and procedure and as is usual in because, as alleged in paragraph 7 of appellant's answer to the
such cases where the result is a vote for denial, for reasons of complaint, the "requirement to leave before the start of the
practicability and expediency, no formal decision, order or resolution is deportation proceedings is only an advice to the party that unless he
promulgated by the Board. Thereafter, Mr. Bisschop was simply advised departs voluntarily, the State will be compelled to take steps for his
of said denial as per letter dated 10 September 1959. No request for expulsion". It is already a settled rule in this jurisdiction that a day in
reinvestigation was made with the Bureau of Immigration. Instead, to court is not a matter of right in administrative proceedings. Further,
forestall his arrest and the filing of the corresponding deportation the immigration laws specifically enumerate when the decisions of the
proceedings, de Bisschop filed the case on 18 September 1959. Board of Commissioners shall be in writing, to wit: (1) in cases of
Pending resolution of the main case for prohibition, a writ of preliminary appeal from a decision of the Board of Special Inquiry as to matters of
injunction was issued ex-parte by the Court of First Instance (CFI) admission or exclusion of aliens, as provided in Section 27(c) of the
Manila (with Judge Antonio Canizares presiding, Civil Case 41477) on Immigration Act; and (2) the decision of the Board of Commissioners in
the same day ordering the Commissioner of Immigration to desist from cases of deportation under Section 37, paragraph (a) and (c). There is
arresting and detaining de Bisschop. During the hearing, only nothing in the immigration law which provides that the Board of
documentary evidence were presented. On 27 March 1961, the lower Commissioners must render written decisions on petitions for extension
court granted the petition for prohibition and ordered the of stay. Section 8 of the Immigration Act merely refers to the number
Commissioner of Immigration to desist and refrain from arresting and of “votes” necessary to constitute the decision of said Board.
expelling de Bisschop from the Philippines unless and
Var-Orient Shipping v. Achacoso [GR L-81805, 31 May 1988] 1987, the companies, through new counsel, Atty. Quintin Aseron, Jr.,
Facts: filed an "Urgent Motion to Recall Writ of Execution" on the ground that
Var-Orient Shipping Co. Inc. and Comninos Bros. filed a complaint with the decision had not been received by them, hence, it was not yet final
the Workers' Assistance and Adjudication Office (WAAO), Philippine and executory. On 19 January 1988, the POEA Administrator (Tomas
Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) against the Edgar T. D. Achacoso). In due time, the companies filed the petition for
Bunyog, Vedasto Navarro, Eugenio Capalad, Raul Tumasis, Antonio certiorari.
Tanio-an, Celestino Cason, Danilo Manela and Roberto Genesis, crew
members of the MPV "Silver Reefer," for having allegedly violated their Issue:
Contracts of Employment with them, which supposedly resulted in Whether the decision of the POEA administrator has been received,
damages arising from the interdiction of the vessel by the International rendering said decision final and unappealable.
Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) at Kiel Canal, Germany, in March
1986. After joinder of the issues, the case was heard on 4 March 1987 Held:
with both parties required to submit memoranda. Only the seamen The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or, as
submitted memoranda. On 10 June 1987, the seamen filed a motion to applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's
resolve, which the companies' counsel did not oppose. Thus, on the side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
basis of the pleadings and memoranda, Achacoso rendered a decision complained of. Herein, the parties agreed that they would file their
on 9 September 1987 ordering (1) the dismissal of the case with a respective memoranda at the 4 March 1987 hearing and thereafter
reprimand and against Navarro, Capalad, Tumasis, Tanio- an, Cagon, consider the case submitted for decision. This procedure is authorized
Manela and Genesis, against the commission of the same or similar by law to expedite the settlement of labor disputes. Atty. Figura's
offense otherwise it shall be dealt with more severe penalty; (2) affidavit involving that he has not received the decision is self- serving.
exclusion of Llanes from the case; (3) reprimanding Var-Orient Shipping The companies failed to submit an affidavit of the receptionist Marlyn
Co. for failure to comply with its obligations pursuant to POEA rules Aquino explaining what she did with the decision which she received for
and regulations and warning against committing the same or a similar Atty. Figura. Under the circumstances, the Administrator's ruling that
offense otherwise it shall be dealt with more severely; (4) archiving the the decision had been properly served on companies' counsel and that
case of Arsolon, A. dela Cruz, Montero and D. de la Cruz with their it is now final and unappealable, should be sustained. The issuance of
names included in the POEA watchlist until they shall have voluntarily the writ of execution is therefore not premature.
submitted themselves to WAAO’s jurisdiction; (5) payment by the
companies jointly and severally, unto Navarro, Capalad, Tumasis, Tanio- Ang Tibay v. CIR [GR 46496, 27 February 1940]
an, Cason, Manela and Genesis the amount of P1,550.59 each, Facts:
representing deductions from allotments, plus P1,000.00 as and for Toribio Teodoro, the manager and proprietor of Ang Tibay, laid off 89
attorney's fees; and (6) payment by the companies jointly and laborers, who were members of the National Labor Union (NLU), due to
severally unto Bunyog the amount of US$4,680.00 or its peso alleged shortages of leather materials. The National Labor Union filed a
equivalent at the time of payment representing his salaries for the complaint for unfair labor practice against Ang Tibay, alleging therein,
unserved portion of his employment contract plus P4,000.00 as and among others, that Toribio dominates the National Workers’
for attorney's fees; to be tendered thru WAAO, 10 days from receipt Brotherhood (NWB) of Ang Tibay, another union in the company, and
of the decision. A copy of the decision was sent by registered mail and that Toribio discriminated against the NLU and unjustly favoring the
delivered by the postman to the companies' counsel, then Attorney NWB, which he allegedly dominated. The Court of Industrial Relations
Francisco B. Figura through the receptionist, Marlyn Aquino on 21 ruled in favor of NLU, due to the failure of Ang Tibay to present
September 1987. Atty. Figura alleged he did not receive the envelope records of the Bureau of Customs and Books of Accounts of native
containing the decision. The companies allegedly learned about the dealers in leather and thus to disprove NLU’s allegation that the lack of
decision only when the writ of execution was served on them on 20 leather materials as a scheme to discharge NLU members. The
November 1987 by National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Supreme Court, however, reversed the decision, finding no substantial
Deputy Sheriff Rene Masilungan and Attorney Wilfredo Ong. Previously, evidence that the 89 workers were dismissed due to their union
on 19 October 1987, the seamen filed "Motion for Execution of affiliation or activities. Thus, the Solicitor General, in behalf of the
Decision," the companies' counsel did not oppose. On 23 November Court of Industrial Relations filed a motion for reconsideration, while
the NLU filed a motion for new trial, praying that the case be remanded admission of matter which would be deemed incompetent in judicial
to the Court of Industrial Relations. proceedings would not invalidate the administrative order. But this
assurance of a desirable flexibility in administrative procedure does not
Issue: go so far as to justify orders without a basis in evidence having rational
Whether the CIR’s freedom from the rigidity of procedural requirements probative force. Mere uncorroborated hearsay or rumor does not
prescribe special requirements of due process in administrative cases. constitute substantial evidence. e. The decision must be rendered on
the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the
Held: record and disclosed to the parties affected. Only by confining the
The Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) is not narrowly constrained by administrative tribunal to the evidence disclosed to the parties, can the
technical rules of procedure, and the Act requires it to "act according latter be protected in their right to know and meet the case against
to justice and equity and substantial merits of the case, without regard them. It should not, however, detract from their duty actively to see
to technicalities or legal forms and shall not be bound by any technical that the law is enforced, and for that purpose, to use the authorized
rules of legal evidence but may inform its mind in such manner as it legal methods of securing evidence and informing itself of facts
may deem just and equitable." The fact, however, that the CIR may be material and relevant to the controversy. Boards of inquiry may be
said to be free from the rigidity of certain procedural requirements appointed for the purpose of investigating and determining the facts in
does not mean that it can, in justiciable cases coming before it, any given case, but their report and decision are only advisory.
entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements (Section 9, CA 103.) The CIR may refer any industrial or agricultural
of due process in trials and investigations of an administrative dispute of any matter under its consideration or advisement to a local
character. There are cardinal primary rights which must be respected board of inquiry, a provincial fiscal, a justice of the peace or any public
even in proceedings of this character, to wit: a. Right to a hearing official in any part of the Philippines for investigation, report and
which includes the right of the party interested or affected to present recommendation, and may delegate to such board or public official
his own case and submit evidence in support thereof. The liberty and such powers and functions as the CIR may deem necessary, but such
property of the citizen shall be protected by the rudimentary delegation shall not affect the exercise of the Court itself of any of its
requirements of fair play. b. The tribunal must consider the evidence powers (Section 10) f. The CIR or any of its judges, therefore,
presented, after the party is given an opportunity to present his case must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and
and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a
asserts. The right to adduce evidence, without the corresponding duty subordinate in arriving at a decision. It may be that the volume of work
on the part of the board to consider it, is vain. Such right is is such that it is literally impossible for the titular heads of the CIR
conspicuously futile if the person or persons to whom the evidence is personally to decide all controversies coming before them. There is no
presented can thrust it aside without notice or consideration. statutory authority to authorize examiners or other subordinates to
c. Wile the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to render final decision, with right to appeal to board or commission, to
decide right, it does imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded, solve the difficulty. g. The CIR should, in all controversial questions,
namely, that of having something to support its decision. A decision render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding
with absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity, a place when directly can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions
attached. This principle emanates from the more fundamental principle rendered. The performance of this duty is inseparable from the
that the genius of constitutional government is contrary to the vesting authority conferred upon it.
of unlimited power anywhere. Law is both a grant and a limitation upon
power. d. Not only must there be some evidence to support a Montemayor v. Araneta University [GR L-44251, 31 May 1977]
finding or conclusion but the evidence must be "substantial." Facts:
Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such Felix Montemayor was a full-time professor of Araneta University
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to Foundation (AUF), serving as head of its Humanities and Psychology
support a conclusion." The statute provides that 'the rules of evidence Department. On 17 April 1974, a complaint for immorality lodged
prevailing in courts of law and equity shall not be controlling.' The against him by the Chaplain of the AUF for alleged immorality. Its then
obvious purpose of this and similar provisions is to free administrative President, Dr. Juan Salcedo, Jr., created a committee to investigate
boards from the compulsion of technical rules so that the mere such charge. The accusation centered on conversations on sex and
immoral advances committed against the person of Leonardo de Lara.
The first hearing, which took place on 24 April 1974, was attended by Held:
Montemayor as well as the complainant with his two witnesses. In procedural due process, there must be a hearing before
Montemayor sought the postponement of the investigation to 3 May condemnation, with the investigation to proceed in an orderly manner,
1974, which was granted. On 28 May 1974, he filed a motion to and judgment to be rendered only after such inquiry. Academic due
dismiss or to hold the hearing in abeyance, and on 17 June 1974, he process, a term coined, is a system of procedure designed to yield the
filed an affidavit to sustain his defense. On 8 July 1974, the report and best possible judgment when an adverse decision against a professor
recommendation of the investigating committee came, and was may be the consequence with stress on the clear, orderly, and fair way
adverse to Montemayor. The recommendation was for his demotion in of reaching a conclusion. Every university or college teacher should be
rank by one degree. On 5 August 1974, Salcedo adopted such entitled before dismissal or demotion, to have the charges against him
recommendation and thereafter referred the same to the Board of stated in writing, in specific terms and to have a fair trial on these
Trustees of the AUF for appropriate action. On 8 November 1974, new charges before a special or permanent judicial committee of the faculty
charges were filed by Professor Luis R. Almazan, one Jaime Castañeda, or by the faculty at large. At such trial the teacher accused should
and Jesus Martinez against Montemayor for conduct unbecoming of a have full opportunity to present evidence. Herein, the procedure
faculty member. Another committee was appointed. Montemayor followed in the first investigation of Montemayor (June 1974) satisfied
moved to postpone the hearing set for 18 and 19 November 1974, the procedure due process requisite. The second investigation
but was denied. The hearing proceeded in his absence. On 5 December (November 1974), however, did not. The motion for postponement
1974, the Committee submitted its report finding the charges against therein was denied, the hearing proceeded as scheduled in the absence
Montemayor to have been sufficiently established and recommending of Montemayor, and the committee lost no time in submitting its
to the President and the Board of Trustees of the AUF his separation report finding the charges against Montemayor to have been
from the University, in accordance with Sections 116 and 351 of the sufficiently established and recommending his removal. The deficiency,
Manual of Policies of the University. On 10 December 1974, his however, was remedied, as Montemayor was able to present his case
dismissal was ordered effective 15 November 1974, the date of his before the Labor Commission. Denial of due process happened only in
preventive suspension. On 12 December 1974, the University filed with the proceeding he had before the investigating committees and not in
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a report of his the proceedings before the NLRC wherein he was given the fullest
suspension and application for clearance to terminate his employment. opportunity to present his case, the latter being the subject matter of
Meanwhile, on 21 November 1974, Montemayor in turn lodged a the petition for certiorari. Montemayor was afforded his day in court.
complaint with the NLRC against AUF for reinstatement and payment
of back wages and salaries, with all the privileges, benefits and Meralco vs. PSC [GR L-13638-40, 30 June 1964]
increments attendant thereto. There was a motion to dismiss on the Facts:
part of the latter. Both the labor arbiter and the NLRC found in favor of On 10 March 1955, the Manila Electric Company (Meralco) filed two
Montemayor. He was ordered reinstated to his former position with applications with the Public Service Commission (PSC), one, for revision
back wages and without loss of seniority and other privileges. and reduction of its rates for commercial and other non-residential
Montemayor's complaint for unfair labor practice was, however, customers for general lighting, heating and/or power purposes (PSC
dismissed. AUF appealed to the Secretary of Labor who, on 14 July Case 85889) and the other for revision and reduction of its residential
1976, set aside the Commission's order for his reinstatement, finding meter rate, schedule RM-3 (PSC Case 85890). These applications were
Montemayor's dismissal justified. The AUF was, however, required to approved by the PSC in a decision rendered on 24 September 1955.
pay Montemayor the amount of P14,480.00 representing the latter's On 24 August 1955, the Meralco filed another application for revision
accrued back wages which the former voluntarily offered to extend and reduction of its general power rate, Schedule GP-2 (PSC Case
him. Dissatisfied with the Secretary's decision, Montemayor filed a 89293), which was provisionally approved on 31 August 1955.
petition for certiorari. Previous to these applications, Meralco filed 7 other applications for
revision and reduction rates. On 9 June 1954, upon petition of Dr.
Issue: Pedro Gil, the Commission requested the Auditor General to cause an
Whether Montemayor was absolutely denied of due process in the audit and examination of Meralco's books of accounts. The General
proceedings relating to his dismissal from AUF. Auditing Office (GAO) examined and audited the books and under date
of 11 May 1956, it presented a report which was submitted to the was duly authorized to receive the evidence of the parties", and the
Commission on 28 May 1956. On 30 May 1956, the PSC, thru record shows that the hearing held before the said Commissioner was
Commissioner Feliciano Ocampo, reset the hearing of the cases for 22 merely an informal hearing because, using his own words, "I said at the
June 1956 "for the purpose of considering such further revision of beginning that this is only preliminary because I want that the parties
applicant's rates as may be found reasonable." On said date, the could come to some kind of understanding." Meralco has not been
parties appeared and Atty. Venancio L. de Peralta, Technical Assistant given its day in court. The decision of 27 December 1957 was not
and Chief of the Finance and Rate Division of the PSC, who was duly promulgated "upon proper notice and hearing", as required by law, and
authorized to receive the evidence of the parties, announced that the that therefore it can not serve as a legal basis for requiring the Meralco
hearing was an "informal hearing", and its purpose was to hear any to put in effect the reductions ordered in the decision. It is the cardinal
remarks or statements of the parties and to define the issues "so that right of a party in trials and administrative proceedings to be heard,
at the hearing we know exactly what are disputed at this informal which includes the right of the party interested or affected to present
hearing". Dr. Pedro Gil submitted the 3 cases on the report of the GAO his own case and submit evidence in support thereof and to have such
dated 11 May 1956 and on a letter dated 7 June 1956 he sent to the evidence presented considered by the tribunal. Even if the Commission
Commission, in which he asked the Commission, inter alia, to allow the is not bound by the rules of judicial proceedings, it must how its head
Meralco "a rate of return of only 8% on its invested capital.". The to the constitutional mandate that no person shall be deprived of right
Solicitor General submitted the case on the same report and letter of without due process of law, which binds not only the government of
Dr. Gil and on a letter-report addressed by the Deputy Auditor General the Republic, but also each and everyone of its branches, agencies,
to the Commission on 21 November 1955. Other parties made etc. Due process of law guarantees notice and opportunities to be
common cause with Dr. Gil. Meralco was given by the Commission a heard to persons who would be affected by the order or act
period of 30 days within which to file an answer, specifying its contemplated.
objections to the report of the GAO. On 31 July 1956, the Meralco
filed its answer to the GAO's report, specifying its objection, and Ateneo v. CA [GR L-56180, 16 October 1986]
prayed that the cases be reset for hearing to enable the parties to Facts:
present their proofs. Without having (1) first reset the said 3 cases for On 12 December 1967, Juan Ramon Guanzon (from Bacolod, son of
hearing; (2) Without having given the Meralco an opportunity, as Romeo Guanzon and Teresita Regalado), first year student of AdMU
requested by it, to cross-examine the officers of the GAO who Loyola Heights, and boarder at the Cervini Hall) struck at the left
prepared the report dated May 11, 1956, on which report the temple of Carmelita Mateo, a waitress in the Cervini Hall cafeteria.
Commission based its decision; and (3) Without having given the Other boarders held him from striking again, but the boarders hid the
Meralco an opportunity, as requested by it, to present evidence in incident from Fr. Campbell. The university conducted an investigation
support of its answer to refute the facts alleged in said report and of the slapping incident. On the basis of the investigation results, Juan
controverted by Meralco, on 27 December 1957, the PSC handed down Ramon was dismissed from the university. The dismissal of Juan Ramon
a decision, granting the petition for the reduction of rates. The motion triggered off the filing of a complaint for damages by his parents
for reconsideration and to set aside decision, filed on 14 January 1958 against the university in the then Court of First Instance (CFI) of
by Meralco, was denied by the Commission on a 2 to 1 vote, on 3 Negros Occidental at Bacolod City. The complaint states that Juan
March 1958. Meralco filed the petition for review with preliminary Ramon was expelled from school without giving him a fair trial in
injunction before the Supreme Court. violation of his right to due process and that they are prominent and
well known residents of Bacolod City, with the unceremonious expulsion
Issue: of their son causing them actual, moral, and exemplary damages as
Whether the informal hearing held 22 June 1956 serves the purpose of well as attorney's fees. In its answer, the university denied the material
“proper notice and hearing” in administrative cases. allegations of the complaint and justified the dismissal of Juan Ramon
on the ground that his unbecoming behavior is contrary to good
Held: morals, proper decorum, and civility, that such behavior subjected him
The record shows that no hearing was held. On 22 June 1956, parties as a student to the university's disciplinary regulations' action and
appeared before "Attorney Vivencio L. Peralta, Technical Assistant, sanction and that the university has the sole prerogative and authority
and Chief, Finance and Rate Division, Public Service Commission, who at any time to drop from the school a student found to be undesirable
in order to preserve and maintain its integrity and discipline so Alcuaz v. PSBA [GR 76353, 2 May 1988]
indispensable for its existence as an institution of learning. After due Facts:
trial, the lower court found for the Guanzons and ordered the Sophia Alcuaz, Ma. Cecilia Alindayu, Bernadette Ang, Irna Anonas, Ma.
university to pay them P92.00 as actual damages; P50,000.00 as Remedios Baltazar, Corazon Bundoc, John Carmona, Anna Shiela
moral damages; P5,000.00 as attorney's fees and to pay the costs of Dinoso, Rafael Encarnacion, et. al., are all bonafide students of the
the suit. Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals by the university, the Philippine School of Business Administration (PSBA) Quezon City. As
trial court's decision was initially reversed and set aside. However, upon early as 22 March 1986, the students and the PSBA, Q.C. had already
motion for reconsideration filed by the Guanzons, the appellate court agreed on certain matters which would govern their activities within
reversed its decision and set it aside through a special division of five. the school. In spite of the agreement, the students felt the need to
The motion for reconsideration had to be referred to a special division hold dialogues. Among others they demanded the negotiation of a new
of five in view of the failure to reach unanimity on the resolution of the agreement, which demand was turned down by the school, resulting in
motion, the vote of the regular division having become 2 to 1. Hence, mass assemblies and barricades of school entrances. Subsequently
the University filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court. dialogues proved futile. Finally, on 8 October 1996, the students
received uniform letters from PSBA giving them 3 days to explain why
Issue: the school should not take/mete out any administrative sanction on
Whether the absence of notice to the dismissed student’s parents their direct participation and/or conspiring with others in the
negates the compliance of the requirements of administrative due commission of tumultuous and anarchic acts on October 2, 3, and 7.
process. On 22 October 1982, the letter was answered by the counsel for the
students in a reply letter. During the regular enrollment period, the
Held: students were allegedly blacklisted and denied admission for the
Besides the administrative body undertaking a fair and objective second semester of SY 1986-1987. On 28 October 1986 the
investigation of the incident, due process in administrative proceedings President of the Student Council filed a complaint with the Director of
also requires consideration of the evidence presented and the the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports (MECS) against the PSBA
existence of evidence to support the decision. Herein, the original for barring the enrollment of the Student Council Officers and student
Court of Appeals decision (penned by Justice Gancayco) showed that leaders. Simultaneously on the same date, the student council wrote
the procedures in the expulsion case were fair, open, exhaustive, and the President, Board of Trustees, requesting for a written statement of
adequate. There were nothing in the records to reverse the findings in the schools final decision regarding their enrollment. Another demand
the reconsideration. Clearly, there was absolutely no indication of letter was made by Counsel for the students Atty. Alan Romullo Yap,
malice, fraud, and improper or wilful motives or conduct on the part of also to the President, Board of Trustees, to enroll his clients within 48
the Ateneo de Manila University. Juan Ramon was given notice of the hours. All these notwithstanding, no relief appeared to be forthcoming.
proceedings. He actually appeared to present his side. The The students filed a petition for review on certiorari and prohibition
investigating board acted fairly and objectively. All requisites of with preliminary mandatory injunction.
administrative due process were met. It cannot be negated by the fact
that the parents of Juan Ramon were not given any notice of the Issue:
proceedings. Juan Ramon, who at the time was 18 years of age, was Whether the students were deprived of due process in the refusal of
already a college student, intelligent and mature enough to know his PSBA to readmit them.
responsibilities. He was fully cognizant of the gravity of the offense he
committed as he asked if he could be expelled for what he did. When Held:
informed about the 19 December 1967 meeting of the Board of After the close of the first semester, the PSBA-QC no longer has any
Discipline, he was asked to seek advice and assistance from his existing contract either with the students or with the intervening
guardian and or parents. The fact that he chose to remain silent and teachers. The contract having been terminated, there is no more
did not inform them about his case, not even when he went home to contract to speak of. The school cannot be compelled to enter into
Bacolod City for his Christmas vacation, was not the fault of the another contract with said students and teachers. The right of the
University. school to refuse re-enrollment of students for academic delinquency
and violation of disciplinary regulations has always been recognized by
the Court, as it is sanctioned by law. Section 107 of the Manual of to the school, but the trial court dismissed the petition in an order
Regulations for Private Schools considers academic delinquency and dated 8 August 1988. A motion for reconsideration was filed, but this
violation of disciplinary regulations as valid grounds for refusing re- was denied by the trial court on 24 February 1989; stating that they
enrollment of students. Due process in disciplinary cases involving waived- their privilege to be admitted for re-enrollment with
students does not entail proceedings and hearings similar to those respondent college when they adopted, signed, and used its enrollment
prescribed for actions and proceedings in courts of justice. Such form for the first semester of school year 1988-89. In addition, for the
proceedings may be summary and cross-examination is not even an same semester, they duly signed pledges "to abide and comply with all
essential part thereof. Accordingly, the minimum standards laid down the rules and regulations laid down by competent authorities in the
by the Court to meet the demands of procedural due process are: (1) College Department or School in which I am enrolled." Hence, the
the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of affected students filed the petition for certiorari with prayer for
any accusation against them; (2) they shall have the right to answer preliminary mandatory injunction before the Supreme Court.
the charges against them, with the assistance of counsel, if desired:
(3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them; (4) they shall Issue:
have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; and (5) the Whether the school exclude students because of failing grades when
evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or the cause for the action taken against them relates to possible
official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the breaches of discipline.
case. Herein, conditions 3, 4 and 5 had not been complied with. The
Court, however, ordered an investigation to be conducted by the Held:
school authorities in the interest of justice. Further, it is well settled The contract between the school and the student is not an ordinary
that by reason of their special knowledge and expertise gained from contract. It is imbued with public interest, considering the high priority
the handling of specific matters falling under their respective given by the Constitution to education and the grant to the State of
jurisdictions, the Court ordinarily accords respect if not finality to supervisory and regulatory powers over all educational institutions. The
factual findings of administrative tribunals, unless the factual findings authority for schools to refuse enrollment to a student on the ground
are not supported by evidence; where the findings are vitiated by that his contract, which has a term of one semester, has already
fraud, imposition or collusion; where the procedure which led to the expired, cannot be justified. Still, institutions' discretion on the
factual findings is irregular; when palpable errors are committed; or admission and enrollment of students as a major component of the
when a grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, or capriciousness is academic freedom guaranteed to institutions of higher learning. The
manifest. Herein, a careful scrutiny of the Report and Recommendation right of an institution of higher learning to set academic standards,
of the Special Investigating Committee shows it does not fall under any however, cannot be utilized to discriminate against students who
of the above exceptions. Thus, the Supreme Court dismissed the exercise their constitutional rights to speech and assembly, for
petition, but in the light of compassionate equity, students who were, otherwise there will be a violation of their right to equal protection.
in view of the absence of academic deficiencies, scheduled to graduate Thus, an institution of learning has a contractual obligation to afford its
during the school year when the petition was filed, should be allowed students a fair opportunity to complete the course they seek to
to re-enroll and to graduate in due time. pursue. However, when a student commits a serious breach of
discipline or fails to maintain the required academic standard, he
Non v. Dames [GR 89317, 20 May 1990] forfeits his contractual right; and the court should not review the
Facts: discretion of university authorities. Excluding students because of
Ariel Non, Rex Magana, Alvin Agura, Normandy Occiano, Jorge Dayaon, failing grades when the cause for the action taken against them
Lourdes Banares, Bartolome Ibasco, Emmanuel Barba, Sonny Moreno. undeniably related to possible breaches of discipline not only is a denial
Giovani Palma, Joselito Villalon, Luis Santos and Daniel Torres, students of due process but also constitutes a violation of the basic tenets of
in Mabini Colleges, Inc. in Daet, Camarines Norte, were not allowed to fair play. Further, the failures in one or two subjects by some cannot
re-enroll by the school for the academic year 1988-1989 for leading or be considered marked academic deficiency. Neither can the academic
participating in student mass actions against the school in the deficiency be gauged from the academic standards of the school due
preceding semester. They thus filed a petition in the Regional Trial to insufficiency of information. Herein, the students could have been
Court of Daet (Branch 38) seeking their readmission or re-enrollment subjected to disciplinary proceedings in connection with the mass
actions, but the penalty that could have been imposed must be
commensurate to the offense committed and it must be imposed only Issue:
after the requirements of procedural due process have been complied Whether Department Order 1 unduly discriminates against women.
with (Paragraph 145, Manual of Regulations for Private Schools). But
this matter of disciplinary proceedings and the imposition of Held:
administrative sanctions have become moot and academic; as the Department Order 1 applies only to "female contract workers," but it
students have been refused readmission or re-enrollment and have does not thereby make an undue discrimination between the sexes.
been effectively excluded from for 4 semesters, have already been ‘Equality before the law" under the Constitution does not import a
more than sufficiently penalized for any breach of discipline they might perfect identity of rights among all men and women. It admits of
have committed when they led and participated in the mass actions classifications, provided that (1) such classifications rest on substantial
that resulted in the disruption of classes. To still subject them to distinctions; (2) they are germane to the purposes of the law; (3) they
disciplinary proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would only are not confined to existing conditions; and (4) they apply equally to
further aggravate the strained relations between the students and the all members of the same class. The classification made — the
officials of the school which necessarily resulted from the heated legal preference for female workers — rests on substantial distinctions. The
battle. sordid tales of maltreatment suffered by migrant Filipina workers, even
rape and various forms of torture, confirmed by testimonies of
returning workers, are compelling motives for urgent Government
PASEI [Philippine Association of Service Exporters Inc] v. Drilon [GR L- action. As precisely the caretaker of Constitutional rights, the Court is
81958, 30 June 1988] called upon to protect victims of exploitation. In fulfilling that duty, the
Facts: Court sustains the Government's efforts. There is no evidence that,
The Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI) is a firm except perhaps for isolated instances, Filipino men abroad have been
"engaged principally in the recruitment of Filipino workers, male and afflicted with an identical predicament. Discrimination in this case is
female, for overseas placement." It challenged the Constitutional justified. Further, the impugned guidelines are applicable to all female
validity of DOLE’s Department Order 1 (series of 1988), in the domestic overseas workers, not all Filipina workers. Had the ban been
character of "Guidelines Governing the Temporary Suspension of given universal applicability, then it would have been unreasonable and
Deployment of Filipino Domestic and Household Workers," in a petition arbitrary, due to the fact that not all of them are similarly
for certiorari and prohibition. The measure is assailed (1) for circumstanced. What the Constitution prohibits is the singling out of a
"discrimination against males or females;" that it "does not apply to all select person or group of persons within an existing class, to the
Filipino workers but only to domestic helpers and females with similar prejudice of such a person or group or resulting in an unfair advantage
skills;" (2) for being violative of the right to travel, and (3) for being an to another person or group of persons. Where the classification is
invalid exercise of the lawmaking power, police power being legislative, based on such distinctions that make a real difference as infancy, sex,
and not executive, in character. PASEI also invoked Section 3 of Article and stage of civilization of minority groups, the better rule is to
XIII of the Constitution providing for worker participation "in policy and recognize its validity only if the young, the women, and the cultural
decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may minorities are singled out for favorable treatment.
be provided by law as Department Order No. 1, as contended, was
passed in the absence of prior consultations. It also claimed that it Sison v. Ancheta [GR L-59431, 25 July 1984]
violated the Charter's non-impairment clause, in addition to the "great Facts:
and irreparable injury" that PASEI members face should the Order be Antero M. Sison Jr., as taxpayer, alleges that Section 1 of BP 135
further enforced. On 25 May 1988, the Solicitor General, on behalf of (allegedly modifying Section 21 of the 1977 National Internal Revenue
the Secretary of Labor and Administrator of the POEA, filed a Code, which provides for rates of tax on citizens or residents on [a]
Comment informing the Court that on 8 March 1988, the Labor taxable compensation income, [b] taxable net income, [c] royalties,
Secretary lifted the deployment ban in the states of Iraq, Jordan, prizes, and other winnings, [d] interest from bank deposits and yield or
Qatar, Canada, Hongkong, United States, Italy, Norway, Austria, and any other monetary benefit from deposit substitutes and from trust
Switzerland. In submitting the validity of the challenged "guidelines," fund and similar arrangements, [e] dividends and share of individual
the Solicitor General invokes the police power of the Philippine State. partner in the net profits of taxable partnership, [f] adjusted gross
income. ) unduly discriminated against him by the imposition of higher A.B.S. alias A.B., (5) Andres Baisa, Jr. alias Ben alias Andy (6) Genaro
rates of tax upon his income arising from the exercise of his profession de la Cruz alias Gonzalo alias Gorio alias Arong, (7) Aquilino Bunsol alias
vis-a-vis those which are imposed upon fixed income or salaried Anong, (8) Adriano Samson alias Danoy, (9) Juan J. Cruz alias Johnny
individual taxpayers. He characterizes the above section as arbitrary 2, alias Jessie Wilson alias William, (10) Jacobo Espino, (11) Amado
amounting to class legislation, oppressive and capricious in character; Racanday, (12) Fermin Rodillas, and (13) Julian Lumanog alias Manue,
that there is a transgression of both the equal protection and due were accused of the crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons and
process clauses of the Constitution as well as of the rule requiring robberies. The prosecution maintained that Hernandez is charged with
uniformity in taxation. rebellion complexed with murders, arsons and robberies, for which the
capital punishment may be imposed. The defense contends, among
Issue: other things, that rebellion can not be complexed with murder, arson,
Whether professionals and businessmen, like Sison, are unduly or robbery. The lower court sentenced Hernandez merely to life
discriminated for not being entitled to deductions for income tax imprisonment. A petition for bail was filed by Amado Hernandez on 28
purposes. December 1953, which was denied by a resolution of the Supreme
Court dated 2 February 1954. A similar petition for bail was filed by
Held: Hernandez on 26 June 1954 and renewed on 22 December 1955.
The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. This requirement is
met when the tax operates with the same force and effect in every Issue:
place where the subject may be found. The rule of uniformity does not Whether Hernandez is entitled to right to bail.
call for perfect uniformity or perfect equality, because this is hardly
attainable. Taxpayers may be classified into different categories. It is Held:
enough that the classification must rest upon substantial distinctions Inasmuch as the acts specified in Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code
that make real differences. In the case of the gross income taxation constitute one single crime, it follows necessarily that said acts offer
embodied in BP 135, the discernible basis of classification is the no occasion for the application of Article 48, which requires therefor
susceptibility of the income to the application of generalized rules the commission of, at least, two crimes. Hence, the Supreme court has
removing all deductible items for all taxpayers within the class and never in the past convicted any person of the "complex crime of
fixing a set of reduced tax rates to be applied to all of them. Taxpayers rebellion with murder". What is more, it appears that in every one of
who are recipients of compensation income are set apart as a class. As the cases of rebellion published in the Philippine Reports (US vs.
there is practically no overhead expense, these taxpayers are not Lagnason, 3 Phil. 472; US vs. Baldello, 3 Phil. 509, US vs. Ayala, 6 Phil.
entitled to make deductions for income tax purposes because they are 151; League vs. People, 73 Phil. 155), the defendants therein were
in the same situation more or less. On the other hand, in the case of convicted of simple rebellion, although they had killed several persons,
professionals in the practice of their calling and businessmen, there is sometimes peace officers. The ingredients of a crime form part and
no uniformity in the costs or expenses necessary to produce their parcel thereof, and, hence, are absorbed by the same and cannot be
income. It would not be just then to disregard the disparities by giving punished either separately therefrom or by the application of Article 48
all of them zero deduction and indiscriminately impose on all alike the of the Revised Penal Code. The law punishing rebellion (Article 135,
same tax rates on the basis of gross income. There is ample Revised Penal Code) specifically mentions the act of engaging in war
justification to adopt the gross system of income taxation to and committing serious violence among its essential elements, thus
compensation income, while continuing the system of net income clearly indicating that everything done in the prosecution of said war,
taxation as regards professional and business income. as a means necessary therefor, is embraced therein. National, as well
as international, laws and jurisprudence overwhelmingly favor the
People v. Hernandez [GR L-6025-26, 18 July 1956] proposition that common crimes, perpetrated in furtherance of a
Facts: political offense, are divested of their character as "common" offenses
(1) Amado V. Hernandez alias Victor alias Soliman alias Amado alias and assume the political complexion of the main crime of which they
AVH alias Victor Soliman, (2) Guillermo Capadocia alias Huan Bantiling are mere ingredients, and, consequently, cannot be punished
alias Cap alias G. Capadocia, (3) Mariano P. Balgos alias Bakal alias Tony separately from the principal offense, or complexed with the same, to
Collantes alias Bonifacio, (4) Alfredo Saulo alias Elias alias Fred alias justify the imposition of a graver penalty. The policy of our statutes on
rebellion is to consider all acts committed in furtherance thereof as products (the stealing of coconuts) more heavily than the taking away
constituting only one crime, punishable with one single penalty. of similar produce (rice and sugar) and thereby denies Moro Isinain
Further, the settled policy of our laws on rebellion, since the beginning equal protection of the laws.
of the century, has been one of decided leniency, in comparison with
the laws enforce during the Spanish regime. Although the Government Issue:
has, for the past 5 or 6 years, adopted a more vigorous course of Whether the harsher penalties in the theft of coconuts over other
action in the apprehension of violators of said law and in their objects of theft renders the penal law contrary to the constitutional
prosecution the established policy of the State, as regards the guaranty on equal protection of the law.
punishment of the culprits has remained unchanged since 1932.
Furthermore, to deny bail it is not enough that the evidence of guilt is Held:
strong; it must also appear that in case of conviction the defendant's No. Although the constitutional guaranty requires the treatment alike,
criminal liability would probably call for a capital punishment. Thus, in in the same place and under like circumstances and conditions, of all
conclusion, under the allegations of the amended information against persons subjected to state legislation; a state, as a part of its police
Hernandez, the murders, arsons and robberies described therein are power, may exercise a large measure of discretion, without violating
mere ingredients of the crime of rebellion allegedly committed by said the equal protection guaranty, in creating and defining criminal
defendants, as means "necessary" for the perpetration of said offense offenses, and may make classifications as to persons amenable to
of rebellion; that the crime charged in the amended information is, punishment, so long as the classifications are reasonable and the
therefore, simple rebellion, not the complex crime of rebellion with legislation bears equally on all in the same class, and, where a
multiple murder, arsons and robberies; that the maximum penalty reasonable classification is made as between persons or corporations,
imposable under such charge cannot exceed 12 years of prision mayor the persons or corporations in each class may be dealt with in a
and a fine of P20,000; and that, in conformity with the policy of the manner different from that employed with regard to the persons or
Supreme Court in dealing with accused persons amenable to a similar corporations in other classes. Herein, on the theft of coconuts, the
punishment, said defendant may be allowed bail. purpose of the heavier penalty is to encourage and protect the
development of the coconut industry as one of the sources of the
People v. Isinain [GR L-2857, 28 February 1950] national economy. Unlike rice and sugar cane farms where the range of
Facts: vision is unobstructed, coconut groves can not be efficiently watched
In the morning of 7 March 1947, Urbano Cruz, the encargado of the because of the nature of the growth of coconut trees; and without a
coconut grove of Arturo Eustaquio in Latuan and Balagtasan, City of special measure to protect this kind of property, it will be the favorite
Zamboanga, was informed by one of the guards that there were 3 resort of thieves. There is therefore, some reason for the special
persons stealing coconuts in the said plantation. Cruz called Ernesto treatment accorded the industry and as it can not be said that the
Fargas, Eustaquio’s truck driver, and accompanied by some laborers, classification is entirely without basis.
proceeded to the plantation. There the group saw 3 persons, chopping
coconuts. When they approached, the trespassers started to run away, Chavez v. PCGG [GR 130716, 9 December 1998]
but Cruz fired a shot into the air, and one stopped and was Facts:
apprehended. He turned out to be Moro Isnain, who, upon investigation Francisco I. Chavez, as "taxpayer, citizen and former government
by the precinct commander of the police station (Lt. Bucoy) official who initiated the prosecution of the Marcoses and their cronies
acknowledged his culpability, asked for pardon and identified his who committed unmitigated plunder of the public treasury and the
confederates as Moros Addi and Akik (who are still at large). Before the systematic subjugation of the country's economy," alleges that what
justice of the peace he pleaded guilty to the charge. However, in the impelled him to bring the action were several news reports bannered in
Court of First Instance (CFI), he changed his mind. He admitted he had a number of broadsheets sometime in September 1997 referring to (1)
been arrested during the raid, but submitted the flimsy excuse that he the alleged discovery of billions of dollars of Marcos assets deposited in
had merely gone to the place because he was thirsty, and confessed various coded accounts in Swiss banks; and (2) the reported execution
that he joined the other two thieves in order to drink coconut water. of a compromise, between the government (through PCGG) and the
His attorney de officio raised the constitutionality of Article 310 of the Marcos heirs, on how to split or share these assets. Chavez, invoking
Revised Penal Code, as it allegedly punishes the larceny of such his constitutional right to information and the correlative duty of the
state to disclose publicly all its transactions involving the national such as by mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation or undue influence —
interest, demands that the Presidential Commission on Good or when there is forgery, or if the terms of the settlement are so
Government (PCGG) make public any and all negotiations and palpably unconscionable. In the latter instances, the agreement may be
agreements pertaining to PCGG's task of recovering the Marcoses' ill- invalidated by the courts. In the absence of an express prohibition, the
gotten wealth. He claimed that any compromise on the alleged billions rule on compromises in civil actions under the Civil Code is applicable to
of ill-gotten wealth involves an issue of "paramount public interest," PCGG cases. Such principle is pursuant to the objectives of Executive
since it has a "debilitating effect on the country's economy" that Order (EO) 14, particularly the just and expeditious recovery of ill-
would be greatly prejudicial to the national interest of the Filipino gotten wealth, so that it may be used to hasten economic recovery.
people. PCGG claimed Chavez’s action is premature as he has not asked However, any compromise relating to the civil liability arising from an
the PCGG to disclose the negotiations and agreements and that the offense does not automatically terminate the criminal proceeding
proposed terms of the Agreements have not become effective and against or extinguish the criminal liability of the malefactor. While a
binding. They further aver that the Marcos heirs have submitted the compromise in civil suits is expressly authorized by law, there is no
subject Agreements to the Sandiganbayan for its approval, which the similar general sanction as regards criminal liability. The authority must
Republic has opposed as it has not been ratified nor submitted to the be specifically conferred. The power to grant criminal immunity was
President for approval; and that the Marcos heirs have failed to comply conferred on PCGG by Section 5 of EO 14, as amended by EO 14-A.
with the undertakings, particularly the collation and submission of an From the wording of the law, however, it can be easily deduced that
inventory of their assets. On 19 August 1998, Gloria, Celnan, Scarlet the person referred to is a witness in the proceeding, not the principal
and Teresa, all surnamed Jopson, filed before the Court a Motion for respondent, defendant or accused. Herein, the General and
Intervention, attaching thereto their Petition in Intervention. They aver Supplemental Agreements between the PCGG and the Marcos heirs
that they are "among the 10,000 claimants whose right to claim from have serious legal flaws. First, the Agreements do not conform to the
the Marcos Family and/or the Marcos Estate is recognized by the above requirements of EO 14 and 14-A. Criminal immunity under
decision in In re Estate of Ferdinand Marcos, Human Rights Litigation, Section 5 cannot be granted to the Marcoses, who are the principal
Maximo Hilao, et al., Class Plaintiffs No. 92-15526, U .S. Court of defendants in the spate of ill-gotten wealth cases pending before the
Appeals for the 9th Circuit US App. Lexis 14796, June 16, 1994 and Sandiganbayan. Second, under Item 2 of the General Agreement, the
the Decision of the Swiss Supreme Court of December 10, 1997"; and PCGG commits to exempt from all forms of taxes the properties to be
as such, they claim to have personal and direct interest in the subject retained by the Marcos heirs. This is a clear violation of the
matter of the case, since a distribution or disposition of the Marcos Constitution. The power to tax and to grant tax exemptions is vested
properties may adversely affect their legitimate claims. In a minute in the Congress and, to a certain extent, in the local legislative bodies.
Resolution issued on 24 August 1998, the Court granted their motion The PCGG has absolutely no power to grant tax exemptions, even
to intervene. under the cover of its authority to compromise ill-gotten wealth cases.
Third, the government binds itself to cause the dismissal of all cases
Issue: against the Marcos heirs, pending before the Sandiganbayan and other
Whether the civil and criminal liabilities of the Marcoses may be courts. This is a direct encroachment on judicial powers, particularly in
compromised, as embodied in the General and Supplemental regard to criminal jurisdiction. Once a case has been filed before a
Agreements between the PCGG and the Marcoses. court of competent jurisdiction, the matter of its dismissal or
pursuance lies within the full discretion and control of the judge, once
Held: jurisdiction is acquired by the trial court. The PCGG, as the government
In general, the law encourages compromises in civil cases, except with prosecutor of ill-gotten wealth cases, cannot guarantee the dismissal
regard to the following matters: (1) the civil status of persons, (2) the of all such criminal cases against the Marcoses pending in the courts,
validity of a marriage or a legal separation, (3) any ground for legal for said dismissal is not within its sole power and discretion. Fourth, the
separation, (4) future support, (5) the jurisdiction of courts, and (6) government also waives all claims and counterclaims, "whether past,
future legitime. And like any other contract, the terms and conditions present, or future, matured or inchoate," against the Marcoses. Again,
of a compromise must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, this all-encompassing stipulation is contrary to law. Under the Civil
public policy or public order. A compromise is binding and has the force Code, an action for future fraud may not be waived. The stipulation in
of law between the parties, unless the consent of a party is vitiated — the Agreement does not specify the exact scope of future claims
against the Marcoses that the government thereby relinquishes. This is Held:
a palpable violation of the due process and equal protection guarantees The Constitution provided for but did not create a special Court, the
of the Constitution. It effectively ensconces the Marcoses beyond the Sandiganbayan, with "jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases involving
reach of the law. It also sets a dangerous precedent for public graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses committed by
accountability. It is a virtual warrant for public officials to amass public public officers and employees, including those in government-owned or
funds illegally, since there is an open option to compromise their controlled corporations, in relation to their office as may be determined
liability in exchange for only a portion of their ill-gotten wealth. Fifth, by law." It came into existence with the issuance in 1978 of a
the Agreements do not provide for a definite or determinable period Presidential Decree. Classification must be based on substantial
within which the parties shall fulfill their respective prestations. It may distinctions which make real differences; it must be germane to the
take a lifetime before the Marcoses submit an inventory of their total purposes of the law; it must not be limited to existing conditions only,
assets. Sixth, the Agreements do not state with specificity the and must apply equally to each member of the class. The constitution
standards for determining which assets shall be forfeited by the specifically makes mention of the creation of a special court, the
government and which shall be retained by the Marcoses. While the Sandiganbayan, precisely in response to a problem, i.e. dishonesty in
Supplemental Agreement provides that the Marcoses shall be entitled the public service, the urgency of which cannot be denied. It follows
to 25% of the $356 million Swiss deposits (less government recovery that those who may thereafter be tried by such court ought to have
expenses), such sharing arrangement pertains only to the said been aware as far back as 17 January 1973, when the present
deposits. No similar splitting scheme is defined with respect to the Constitution came into force, that a different procedure for the
other properties. Neither is there, anywhere in the Agreements, a accused therein, whether petitioner is a private citizen or a public
statement of the basis for the 25-75 percent sharing ratio. Finally, the official, is not necessarily offensive to the equal protection clause of
absence of then President Ramos' approval of the principal Agreement, the Constitution. Further, the omission of the Court of Appeals as
and express condition therein, renders the compromise incomplete and intermediate tribunal does not deprive protection of liberty. The
unenforceable. Nevertheless, even if such approval were obtained, the innocence or guilt of an accused in the Sandiganbayan is passed upon
Agreements would still not be valid. by 3-judge court of its division. Moreover, a unanimous vote is
required, failing which "the Presiding Justice shall designate two other
Nunez v. Sandiganbayan [GR L-50581-50617, 30 January 1982] justices from among the members of the Court to sit temporarily with
Facts: them, forming a division of five justices, and the concurrence of a
Information were filed against Rufino V. Nunez before Sandiganbayan majority of such division shall be necessary for rendering judgment." If
on 21 February and 26 March 1979 for the crime of estafa through convicted, the Sandiganbayan en banc has the duty if he seeks a
falsification of public and commercial documents committed in review to see whether any error of law was committed to justify a
connivance with his co-accused, all public officials, in several cases. reversal of the judgment.
Thereafter, on 15 May, upon being arraigned, he filed a motion to
quash on constitutional and juridical grounds. A week later, the UNIDO v. Comelec [GR 56515, 3 April 1981]
Sandiganbayan denied the motion. A motion for reconsideration was Facts:
filed a day later, and was likewise denied. Nunez filed a petition for UNIDO IS a political organization or aggrupation campaigning for "NO"
certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court, claiming that votes to the amendments to the Constitution of the Philippines of
Presidential Decree 1486, which created the Sandiganbayan, is 1973 proposed by the Batasang Pambansa. Comelec issued 3
violative of the due process, equal protection, and ex post facto resolutions all dated 5 March 1981 (Resolution 1467 providing for
clauses of the Constitution. Rules and Regulations for "equal opportunity" on public discussions and
debates on the plebiscite questions to be submitted to the people on 7
Issue: April 1981; Resolution 1468 providing "equal time on the use of the
Whether the trial of the accused, a public official, by the broadcast media [radio and television] in the plebiscite campaign"; and
Sandiganbayan unduly discriminates against the accused, in light of the Resolution 1469 providing for "equal space on the use of the print
difference of the procedures (especially appellate) in the media in the 1981 plebiscite of 7 April 1981".) UNIDO addressed a
Sandiganbayan vis-a-vis regular courts. letter to Comelec on 10 March 1981 to grant it the same opportunity
as given President Marcos, who was campaigning for “YES”. It also
requested radio and television coverage for its Plaza Miranda meeting Flores, and Chairman of the Committee on Legal Aid, Jesus G.
on a letter dated 17 March 1981. Comelec issued a resolution on 18 Bersamira, Presiding Judges of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 85,
March1981 denying the request of UNIDO; stating that Marcos conduct Quezon City and Branches 160, 167 and 166, Pasig, Metro Manila,
his pulong-pulong in light of the official government thrust to amend respectively); the National Confederation of the Judges Association of
the constitution and in his capacity as President/Prime Minister and not the Philippines (composed of the Metropolitan Trial Court Judges
as head of any political party to which the UNIDO or any of its leaders Association represented by its President, Reinato Quilala of the
does not have the same constitutional prerogatives vested in the Municipal Trial Circuit Court, Manila); and the Municipal Judges League
President/Prime Minister, as such, it has no right to "demand" equal of the Philippines (represented by its President, Tomas G. Talavera); by
coverage by media accorded President Marcos. UNIDO sent a letter themselves and in behalf of all the Judges of the Regional Trial and
serving as its motion for reconsideration. The Comelec denied the Shari'a Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts and Municipal Courts
letter-motion for lack of merit in its resolution of 22 March 1981. throughout the Country, filed the petition assailing the constitutionality
UNIDO appealed to the Supreme Court. of Republic Act 7354 (An Act Creating the Philippine Postal
Corporation, Defining its Power, Functions and Responsibilities,
Issue: Providing for Regulation of the Industry and for Other Purposes
Whether the opposition should be given the same opportunity and Connected Therewith), as implemented by the Philippine Postal
facilities given to the President to communicate and dialogue with the Corporation through its Circular 92-28, on the grounds that: (1) its
people on matters affecting the plan of government or of public title embraces more than one subject and does not express its
interest. purposes; (2) it did not pass the required readings in both Houses of
Congress and printed copies of the bill in its final form were not
Held: distributed among the members before its passage; and (3) it is
It is undeniable and but natural that the head of state of every country discriminatory and encroaches on the independence of the Judiciary;
in the world must, from the very nature of his position, be accorded contending that their official functions as judges will be prejudiced by
certain privileges not equally available to those who are opposed to the withdrawal of franking privilege. The National Land Registration
him in the sense that, since the head of state has the grave and Authority (NLRA) has taken common cause with them insofar as its
tremendous responsibility of planning and implementing the plan of own activities, such as the sending of requisite notices in registration
government itself, either by virtue of the popular mandate given to him cases, affect judicial proceedings. On its motion, it has been allowed to
under the corresponding provisions of the Constitution and the laws or intervene.
any other duly recognized grant of power and authority, the opposition
cannot be placed at par with him, since logically the opposition can Issue:
only fiscalize the administration and punctualize its errors and Whether the withdrawal of the franking privilege of the Judiciary
shortcomings to the end that when the duly scheduled time for the violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
people to exercise their inalienable power to make a better choice, the
opposition may have the chance to make them accept the alternative Held:
they can offer. Therefore, when the head of state is afforded the The equal protection of the laws is embraced in the concept of due
opportunity or when he feels it incumbent upon him to communicate process, as every unfair discrimination offends the requirements of
and dialogue with the people on any matter affecting the plan of justice and fair play. It has nonetheless been embodied in a separate
government or any other matter of public interest, no office or entity clause in Article III Sec. 1, of the Constitution to provide for a more
of the government is obliged to give the opposition the same facilities specific guaranty against any form of undue favoritism or hostility from
by which its contrary views may be ventilated. the government. Arbitrariness in general may be challenged on the
basis of the due process clause. But if the particular act assailed
Philippine Judges Association [GR 105371, 11 November 1993] partakes of an unwarranted partiality or prejudice, the sharper weapon
Facts: to cut it down is the equal protection clause. Equal protection simply
The Philippine Judges Association (duly represented by its President, requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated
Bernardo P. Abesamis, Vice-President for Legal Affairs Mariano M. alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. Similar
Umali, Director for Pasig, Makati and Pasay, Metro Manila Alfredo C. subjects, in other words, should not be treated differently, so as to
give undue favor to some and unjustly discriminate against others. The Olivarez v. Sandiganbayan [GR 118533, 4 October 1995]
equal protection clause does not require the universal application of Facts:
the laws on all persons or things without distinction. What the clause On 15 December 1992, Baclaran Credit Cooperative, Inc. (BCCI),
requires is equality among equals as determined according to a valid through its board member Roger de Leon, charged Parañaque Mayor
classification. By classification is meant the grouping of persons or Dr. Pablo R. Olivarez with Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
things similar to each other in certain particulars and different from all Practices Act for unreasonably refusing to issue a mayor's permit
others in these same particulars. The withdrawal of franking privilege despite request and follow-ups to implement Parañaque Sangguniang
from the Judiciary would further deepen the problem in the delay in the Bayan Resolution 744, (series of 1992) which Olivarez himself
administration of justice. The Court are dependent on the postal approved on 6 October 1992. Resolution 744 authorized BCCI to set
service for communicating with lawyers and litigants as part of the up a night manufacturer's fair during the Christmas fiesta celebration
judicial process. It should not be hard to imagine the increased of and at Baclaran for 60 days from 11 November 1992 to 15
difficulties of our courts if they have to affix a purchased stamp to February 1993 for which they will use a portion of the service road of
every process they send in the discharge of their judicial functions, Roxas Boulevard. Allegedly, BCCI exerted all possible efforts to secure
considering that the Judiciary has the lowest appropriation in the the necessary permit but Olivarez simply refused to issue the same
national budget compared to the Legislative and Executive unless BCCI gives money to the latter. Attached to BCCI’s Reply-
Departments (.84% of P309 billion budgeted for 1993). The repealing Affidavit was a copy of Executive Order dated 23 November 1992
clause is a discriminatory provision that denied the Judiciary the equal issued by Olivarez granting a group of Baclaran-based
protection of the laws guaranteed for all persons or things similarly organizations/associations of vendors the holding of "Christmas Agro-
situated. The distinction made by the law is superficial. It is not based Industrial Fair Sa Baclaran" from 28 November 1992 to 28 February
on substantial distinctions that make real differences between the 1993 using certain portions of the National and Local Government
Judiciary and the grantees of the franking privilege (The President of Roads/Streets in Baclaran for fund raising. Graft Investigation Officer
the Philippines; the Vice President of the Philippines; Senators and (GIO) III Ringpis conducted a preliminary investigation and issued on 22
Members of the House of Representatives; the Commission on September 1993 a resolution recommending the prosecution of
Elections; former Presidents of the Philippines; widows of former Olivarez for violation of Section 3(f) of Republic Act (RA) 3019, as
Presidents of the Philippines; the National Census and Statistics Office; amended. On 16 February 1994, the information was filed against
and the general public in the filing of complaints against public offices Olivares (Criminal Case 20226). On 17 January 1994, Olivarez filed a
or officers). In lumping the Judiciary with the other offices (the Office Motion for Reconsideration and/or Reinvestigation allegedly to rectify
of Adult Education; the Institute of National Language; the error of law and on ground of newly discovered evidence. The motion
Telecommunications Office; the Philippine Deposit Insurance was granted on 24 January 1994. On 9 February 1993, Ombudsman
Corporation; the National Historical Commission; the Armed Forces of disapproved the recommendation to withdraw the information as
the Philippines; the Armed Forces of the Philippines Ladies Steering Olivarez does not refute the allegation and that bad faith is evident
Committee; the City and Provincial Prosecutors; the Tanodbayan or the with his persistent refusal to issue permit. On 18 February 1994,
Office of Special Prosecutor; the Kabataang Barangay; the Commission Olivarez voluntarily surrendered and posted a cash bail bond with the
on the Filipino Language; the Provincial and City Assessors; and the Sandiganbayan for his temporary release. On 21 February 1994,
National Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons.) from which the Olivarez filed an Omnibus Motion for a re-examination and re-
franking privilege has been withdrawn, Section 35 has placed the assessment of the prosecution's report and documentary evidence
courts of justice in a category to which it does not belong. If it with a view to set aside the determination of the existence of probable
recognizes the need of the President of the Philippines and the cause and ultimately the dismissal of the case; which was denied by
members of Congress for the franking privilege, there is no reason why the Sandiganbayan on 3 March 1994 in Open Court. In view of
it should not recognize a similar and in fact greater need on the part of Olivarez's refusal to enter any plea, the court ordered a plea of "not
the Judiciary for such privilege. guilty" entered into his record. On 8 March 1994, the prosecution filed
a Motion to suspend Accused Pendente Lite. On March 9, 14 and 15,
1994, Olivarez filed a Motion to Set Aside Plea and To Reduce Denial
Order Into Writing (With Entry of Appearance), Supplemental Motion to
Set Aside Plea and Opposition to Motion to Suspend Accused and
Supplemental Pleading with Additional Opposition to Motion to Suspend department, but which paradoxically he refused to do. Whether
Accused; which were denied by the Sandiganbayan on 4 April 1994. Olivarez was impelled by any material interest or ulterior motive may
The Sandiganbayan, however, set aside the proceedings conducted on be beyond the Court for the moment since this is a matter of evidence,
3 March 1994 including Olivarez's arraignment thus revoking the plea but the environmental facts and circumstances are sufficient to create
of "not guilty" entered in his record in the interest of justice and to a belief in the mind of a reasonable man that this would not be
avoid further delay in the prompt adjudication of the case due to completely improbable, absent countervailing clarification. Lastly, it
technicalities. On 20 April 1994, Olivarez filed a motion for may not be amiss to add that Olivarez, as a municipal mayor, is
reconsideration which was granted on 15 May 1994. Consequently, the expressly authorized and has the power to issue permits and licenses
case was remanded to the Office of the Ombudsman for another for the holding of activities for any charitable or welfare purpose,
reinvestigation to be terminated within 30 days from notice. The pursuant to Section 444 (b) (3) (iv and v) of the Local Government
reinvestigation was reassigned to SPO III Angel C. Mayoralgo who on 3 Code of 1991 (Republic Act 7160). Hence, he cannot really feign total
November 1994, recommended the dismissal of the case. On 9 lack of authority to act on the letter-application of BCCI.
December 1994, DSP Jose de G. Ferrer reversed the recommendation,
finding Olivarez liable by giving unwarranted benefit thru manifest Tiu v. Court of Appeals [GR 127410, 20 January 1999]
partiality to another group on the flimsy reason that complainant failed Facts:
to apply for a business permit. The Ombudsman approved the reversal On 13 March 1992, Congress, with the approval of the President,
and on 27 December 1994 directed the prosecution to proceed under passed into law Republic Act 7227 ("An Act Accelerating the
the existing information. On 13 January 1995, Olivarez filed a Motion Conversion of Military Reservations Into Other Productive Uses,
for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum to DSP Creating the Bases Conversion and Development Authority for this
Jose de G. Ferrer, SPO III Roger Berbano, Sr., and SPO III Angel Purpose, Providing Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes.”). Section
Mayoralgo, Jr. and on 16 January 1995, Olivarez filed a Motion to 12 thereof created the Subic Special Economic Zone and granted
Strike Out and/or Review Result of Reinvestigation. The latter motion thereto special privileges, such as tax exemptions and duty-free
was denied by Sandiganbayan. Olivarez filed the petition for certiorari importation of raw materials, capital and equipment to business
and prohibition. enterprises and residents located and residing in the said zones. On 10
June 1993, President Ramos issued Executive Order (EO) 97 clarifying
Issue: the application of the tax and duty incentives. On 19 June 1993, the
Whether Olivarez exhibited partiality in the denial of / inaction over President issued EO 97-A, specifying the area within which the tax-and-
BCCI’s application for license. duty-free privilege was operative (i.e. the secured area consisting of
the presently fenced-in former Subic Naval Base). On 26 October
Held: 1994, Conrado L. Tiu, Juan T. Montelibano Jr. and Isagani M. Jungco
Olivarez's suspected partiality may be gleaned from the fact that he challenged before the Supreme Court the constitutionality of EO 97-A
issued a permit in favor of the unidentified Baclaran-based vendors' for allegedly being violative of their right to equal protection of the
associations by the mere expedient of an executive order, whereas so laws, inasmuch as the order granted tax and duty incentives only to
many requirements were imposed on BCCI before it could be granted businesses and residents within the "secured area" of the Subic Special
the same permit. Worse, Olivarez failed to show, in apparent disregard Economic Zone and denying them to those who live within the Zone but
of BCCI's right to equal protection, that BCCI and the unidentified outside such "fenced-in" territory. In a Resolution dated 27 June 1995,
Baclaran-based vendors' associations were not similarly situated as to the Supreme Court referred the matter to the Court of Appeals,
give at least a semblance of legality to the apparent haste with which pursuant to Revised Administrative Circular 1-95. Incidentally, on 1
said executive order was issued. It would seem that if there was any February 1995, Proclamation 532 was issued by President Ramos,
interest served by such executive order, it was that of Olivarez. As the delineating the exact metes and bounds of the Subic Special Economic
mayor of the municipality, the officials referred to were definitely under and Free Port Zone, pursuant to Section 12 of RA 7227. The Court of
his authority and he was not without recourse to take appropriate Appeals denied the petition as there is no substantial difference
action on the letter-application of BCCI although the same was not between the provisions of EO 97-A and Section 12 of RA 7227,
strictly in accordance with normal procedure. There was nothing to holding that EO 97-A cannot be claimed to be unconstitutional while
prevent him from referring said letter-application to the licensing maintaining the validity of RA 7227; that the intention of Congress to
confine the coverage of the SSEZ to the secured area and not to investment capital can always avail of the same benefits by channeling
include the entire Olongapo City and other areas rely on the his or her resources or business operations into the fenced-off free
deliberations in the Senate; and that the limited application of the tax port zone.
incentives is within the prerogative of the legislature, pursuant to its
"avowed purpose [of serving] some public benefit or interest. Tiu, et. International School Alliance of Educators (ISAE) vs. Quisumbing [GR
al.’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and hence, they filed a 128845, 1 June 2000]
petition for review with the Supreme Court. Facts:
The International School, Inc., pursuant to Presidential Decree 732, is a
Issue: domestic educational institution established primarily for dependents of
Whether there was a violation of the equal protection of the laws when foreign diplomatic personnel and other temporary residents. To enable
EO 97-A granted tax and duty incentives only to businesses and the School to continue carrying out its educational program and
residents within the "secured area" of the Subic Special Economic Zone improve its standard of instruction, Section 2(c) of the same decree
and denied such to those who live within the Zone but outside such authorizes the School to employ its own teaching and management
"fenced-in" territory. personnel selected by it either locally or abroad, from Philippine or
other nationalities, such personnel being exempt from otherwise
Held: applicable laws and regulations attending their employment, except
The EO 97-A is not violative of the equal protection clause; neither is it laws that have been or will be enacted for the protection of employees.
discriminatory. The fundamental right of equal protection of the laws is Accordingly, the School hires both foreign and local teachers as
not absolute, but is subject to reasonable classification. The members of its faculty, classifying the same into two: (1) foreign-hires
classification occasioned by EO 97-A was not unreasonable, capricious and (2) local-hires. The School employs four tests to determine
or unfounded. It was based, rather, on fair and substantive whether a faculty member should be classified as a foreign- hire or a
considerations that were germane to the legislative purpose. There are local hire, i.e. (a) What is one's domicile? (b) Where is one's home
substantial differences between the big investors who are being lured economy? (c) To which country does one owe economic allegiance?
to establish and operate their industries in the so-called "secured area" (d) Was the individual hired abroad specifically to work in the School
and the present business operators outside the area. On the one hand, and was the School responsible for bringing that individual to the
we are talking of billion- peso investments and thousands of new jobs, Philippines? The School grants foreign-hires certain benefits not
and on the other hand, definitely none of such magnitude. In the first, accorded local-hires. These include housing, transportation, shipping
the economic impact will be national; in the second, only local. Even costs, taxes, and home leave travel allowance. Foreign-hires are also
more important, at this time the business activities outside the paid a salary rate 25% more than local-hires. The School justifies the
"secured area" are not likely to have any impact in achieving the difference on two "significant economic disadvantages" foreign-hires
purpose of the law, which is to turn the former military base to have to endure, namely: (a) the "dislocation factor" and (b) limited
productive use for the benefit of the Philippine economy. There is, tenure. The compensation scheme is simply the School's adaptive
then, hardly any reasonable basis to extend to them the benefits and measure to remain competitive on an international level in terms of
incentives accorded in RA 7227. Additionally, it will be easier to attracting competent professionals in the field of international
manage and monitor the activities within the "secured area," which is education. The compensation package given to local-hires has been
already fenced off, to prevent "fraudulent importation of merchandise" shown to apply to all, regardless of race. There are foreigners who
or smuggling. The classification applies equally to all the resident have been hired locally and who are paid equally as Filipino local hires.
individuals and businesses within the "secured area." The residents, When negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement were held
being in like circumstances or contributing directly to the achievement on June 1995, the International School Alliance of Educators (ISAE), "a
of the end purpose of the law, are not categorized further. Instead, legitimate labor union and the collective bargaining representative of all
they are all similarly treated, both in privileges granted and in faculty members" of the School, contested the difference in salary
obligations required. The equal -protection guarantee does not require rates between foreign and local-hires. This issue, as well as the
territorial uniformity of laws. As long as there are actual and material question of whether foreign-hires should be included in the appropriate
differences between territories, there is no violation of the bargaining unit, eventually caused a deadlock between the parties. On
constitutional clause. Herein, anyone possessing the requisite 7 September 1995, ISAE filed a notice of strike. The failure of the
National Conciliation and Mediation Board to bring the parties to a under similar working conditions. The School cannot invoke the need to
compromise prompted the Department of Labor and Employment entice foreign- hires to leave their domicile to rationalize the distinction
(DOLE) to assume jurisdiction over the dispute. On 10 June 1996, the in salary rates without violating the principle of equal work for equal
DOLE Acting Secretary, Crescenciano B. Trajano, issued an Order pay. The point-of-hire classification employed by respondent School to
resolving the parity and representation issues in favor of the School. justify the distinction in the salary rates of foreign-hires and local hires
Then DOLE Secretary Leonardo A. Quisumbing subsequently denied to be an invalid classification. There is no reasonable distinction
ISAE's motion for reconsideration in an Order dated 19 March 1997. between the services rendered by foreign-hires and local-hires. The
ISAE sought relief from the Supreme Court. practice of the School of according higher salaries to foreign-hires
contravenes public policy.
Issue:
Whether the School unduly discriminated against the local-hires. Philippine Rural Electric Cooperative Association Inc. (PHILRECA), et. al.
vs. Secretary of Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG)
Held: [GR 143076, 10 June 2003]
That public policy abhors inequality and discrimination is beyond Facts:
contention. Our Constitution and laws reflect the policy against these Under Presidential Decree (PD) 269, as amended, or the National
evils. The Constitution in the Article on Social Justice and Human Electrification Administration Decree, it is the declared policy of the
Rights exhorts Congress to "give highest priority to the enactment of State to provide “the total electrification of the Philippines on an area
measures that protect and enhance the right of all people to human coverage basis” the same “being vital to the people and the sound
dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities." The very development of the nation.” Pursuant to this policy, PD 269 aims to
broad Article 19 of the Civil Code requires every person, "in the “promote, encourage and assist all public service entities engaged in
exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, [to] act with supplying electric service, particularly electric cooperatives” by “giving
justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. every tenable support and assistance” to the electric cooperatives
International law, which springs from general principles of law, likewise coming within the purview of the law. From 1971 to 1978, in order to
proscribes discrimination. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, finance the electrification projects envisioned by PD 269, as amended,
the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the the Philippine Government, acting through the National Economic
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Council (now National Economic Development Authority) and the NEA
Discrimination, the Convention against Discrimination in Education, the (National Electrification Administration), entered into 6 loan
Convention (No. 111) Concerning Discrimination in Respect of agreements with the government of the United States of America
Employment and Occupation 16 — all embody the general principle through the United States Agency for International Development
against discrimination, the very antithesis of fairness and justice. The (USAID) with electric cooperatives, including Agusan Del Norte Electric
Philippines, through its Constitution, has incorporated this principle as Cooperative, Inc. (ANECO); Iloilo I Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ILECO I);
part of its national laws. In the workplace, where the relations between and Isabela I Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ISELCO I), as beneficiaries. The
capital and labor are often skewed in favor of capital, inequality and 6 loan agreements involved a total amount of approximately
discrimination by the employer are all the more reprehensible. If an US$86,000,000.00. These loan agreements are existing until today.
employer accords employees the same position and rank, the The loan agreements contain similarly worded provisions on the tax
presumption is that these employees perform equal work. This application of the loan and any property or commodity acquired
presumption is borne by logic and human experience. If the employer through the proceeds of the loan. On 23 May 2000, a class suit was
pays one employee less than the rest, it is not for that employee to filed by the Philippine Rural Electric Cooperatives Association, Inc.
explain why he receives less or why the others receive more. That (PHILRECA); ANECO, ILECO I and ISELCO I; in their own behalf and in
would be adding insult to injury. The employer has discriminated behalf of other electric cooperatives organized and existing under PD
against that employee; it is for the employer to explain why the 269, against the Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local
employee is treated unfairly. Herein, the International School has failed Government (DILG) and the Secretary of the Department of Finance,
to discharge this burden. There is no evidence here that foreign-hires through a petition for prohibition, contending that pursuant to the
perform 25% more efficiently or effectively than the local-hires. Both provisions of PD 269, as amended, and the provision in the loan
groups have similar functions and responsibilities, which they perform agreements, they are exempt from payment of local taxes, including
payment of real property tax. With the passage of the Local sources to finance the development and operations of the electric
Government Code, however, they allege that their tax exemptions have cooperatives. Consequently, amendments to PD 269 were primarily
been invalidly withdrawn, in violation of the equal protection clause and geared to expand the powers of the NEA over the electric cooperatives
impairing the obligation of contracts between the Philippine to ensure that loans granted to them would be repaid to the
Government and the United States Government. government. In contrast, cooperatives under RA 6938 are envisioned
to be self-sufficient and independent organizations with minimal
Issue: government intervention or regulation. Lastly, the transitory provisions
Whether the Local Government Code unduly discriminated against of RA 6938 are indicative of the recognition by Congress of the
electric cooperatives organized and existing under PD 269, in violation fundamental distinctions between electric cooperatives organized
of the equal protection clause, by providing a different tax treatment under PD 269, as amended, and cooperatives under the new
between the former and cooperatives created under RA 6938. Cooperative Code. Article 128 of the Cooperative Code provides that
all cooperatives registered under previous laws shall be deemed
Held: registered with the CDA upon submission of certain requirements
The equal protection clause under the Constitution means that “no within one year. However, cooperatives created under PD 269, as
person or class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection of amended, are given three years within which to qualify and register
laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same with the CDA, after which, provisions of PD 1645 which expand the
place and in like circumstances.” Thus, the guaranty of the equal powers of the NEA over electric cooperatives, would no longer apply.
protection of the laws is not violated by a law based on reasonable
classification. Classification, to be reasonable, must (1) rest on Rutter v. Esteban [GR L-3708, 18 May 1953]
substantial distinctions; (2) be germane to the purposes of the law; Facts:
(3) not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) apply equally to On 20 August 1941, Royal L. Rutter sold to Placido J. Esteban 2
all members of the same class. There is reasonable classification under parcels of land situated in the City of Manila. To secure the payment of
the Local Government Code to justify the different tax treatment said balance of P4,800, a first mortgage over the same parcels of land
between electric cooperatives covered by PD 269, as amended, and has been constituted in favor of Rutter. The deed of sale having been
electric cooperatives under RA 6938 (Cooperative Code of the registered, a new title was issued in favor of Placido J. Esteban with
Philippines). First, nowhere in PD 269, as amended, does it require the mortgage duly annotated on the back thereof. Esteban failed to
cooperatives to make equitable contributions to capital. Under the pay the two installments as agreed upon, as well as the interest that
Cooperative Code, the articles of cooperation of a cooperative applying had accrued thereon, and so on 2 August 1949, Rutter instituted an
for registration must be accompanied with the bonds of the action in the Court of First Instance (CFI) Manila to recover the balance
accountable officers and a sworn statement of the treasurer elected by due, the interest due thereon, and the attorney's fees stipulated in the
the subscribers showing that at least 25% of the authorized share contract. The complaint also contains a prayer for the sale of the
capital has been subscribed and at least 25% of the total subscription properties mortgaged in accordance with law. Esteban admitted
has been paid and in no case shall the paid-up share capital be less averments of the complaint but set up defense on the moratorium
than P2,000.00. Second, another principle adhered to by the clause embodied in RA 342 (approved 26 July 1948), allowing a war
Cooperative Code is the principle of subsidiarity. Pursuant to this sufferer 8 years from the settlement of his claim by the Philippine War
principle, the government may only engage in development activities Damage Commission. After a motion for summary judgment has been
where cooperatives do not possess the capability nor the resources to presented by Esteban, and the requisite evidence submitted covering
do so and only upon the request of such cooperatives. In contrast, PD the relevant facts, the court rendered judgment dismissing the
269, as amended by PD 1645, is replete with provisions which grant complaint holding that the obligation which Rutter seeks to enforce is
the NEA, upon the happening of certain events, the power to control not yet demandable under the moratorium law. Rutter filed a motion
and take over the management and operations of cooperatives for reconsideration wherein he raised for the first time the
registered under it. The extent of government control over electric constitutionality of the moratorium law, but the motion was denied.
cooperatives covered by PD 269, as amended, is largely a function of Rutter appealed.
the role of the NEA as a primary source of funds of these electric
cooperatives. It is crystal clear that NEA incurred loans from various
Issue: the mercy of the debtors. Their hope to effect collection becomes
Whether Republic Act 342 is unconstitutional for being violative of the extremely remote, more so if the credits are unsecured. And the
constitutional provision forbidding the impairment of the obligation of injustice is more patent when, under the law, the debtor is not even
contracts. required to pay interest during the operation of the relief. Thus, the
Court declared that the continued operation and enforcement of
Held: Republic Act 342 at the present time is unreasonable and oppressive,
Statutes declaring a moratorium on the enforcement of monetary and should not be prolonged a minute longer, and the same should be
obligations are not of recent enactment. These moratorium laws are declared null and void and without effect. This also holds true as
not new. Moratorium laws have been adopted "during times of financial regards Executive Orders 25 and 32, considering that said Orders
distress, especially when incident to, or caused by, a war." The contain no limitation whatsoever in point of time as regards the
Moratorium Law is a valid exercise by the State of its police power, suspension of the enforcement and effectivity of monetary obligations.
being an emergency measure. Although conceding that the obligations This pronouncement is most especially needed in view of the revival
of the contract were impaired, the impairment was within the police clause embodied in said Act if and when it is declared unconstitutional
power of the State as that power was called into exercise by the public or invalid.
economic emergency which the legislature had found to exist. Not only
is the constitutional provision (contract clause) qualified by the
measure of control which the State retains over remedial processes, Ortigas v. Feati [GR L-24670, 14 December 1979]
but the State also continues to possess authority to safeguard the Facts:
vital interest of its people. It does not matter that legislation Ortigas, Madrigal & Sia is a limited partnership and Feati Bank and Trust
appropriate to that end "has the result of modifying or abrogating Co., is a corporation duly organized and existing in accordance with the
contracts already in effect." Not only are existing laws read into laws of the Philippines. Ortigas is engaged in real estate business,
contracts in order to fix obligations as between the parties, but the developing and selling lots to the public, particularly the Highway Hills
reservation of essential attributes of sovereign power is also read into Subdivision along EDSA, Mandaluyong. On 4 March 1952, Ortigas, as
contracts as a postulate of the legal order. The policy of protecting vendor, and Augusto Padilla and Natividad Angeles, as vendees,
contracts against impairment presupposes the maintenance of a entered in separate agreements of sale on installments over two
government by virtue of which contractual relations are worth while, a parcels of land. On 19 July 1962, the vendees transferred their rights
government which retains adequate authority to secure the peace and and interests over the lots in favor of Emma Chavez. Both agreements
good order of society. Some of these laws, however, have also been contained stipulations or restrictions as to the removal of soil, the
declared "void as to contracts made before their passage where the materials of the buildings, and sanitary installations, which were
suspension of remedies prescribed is indefinite or unreasonable in annotated in the TCTs with the Rizal Registry of Deeds. Feati Bank
duration." The true test, therefore, of the constitutionality of a eventually acquired said lots on 23 July 1962, one bought directly
moratorium statute lies in the determination of the period of from Chavez, and the other from Republic Flour Mills (to whom Chavez
suspension of the remedy. It is required that such suspension be sold it previously). On 5 May 1963, Feati Bank began laying the
definite and reasonable, otherwise it would be violative of the foundation and commenced the construction of a building to be
constitution. Herein, obligations had been pending since 1945 as a devoted to banking purposes, but which could also be devoted to, and
result of the issuance of Executive Orders 25 and 32 and at present used exclusively for, residential purposes. The following day, Ortigas
their enforcement is still inhibited because of the enactment of demanded that Feati Bank stop the construction of the commercial
Republic Act 342 and would continue to be unenforceable during the building on the lots, claiming that the restrictions annotated were
8-year period granted to prewar debtors to afford them an opportunity imposed as part of its general building scheme designated for the
to rehabilitate themselves, which in plain language means that the beautification and development of Highway Hills Subdivision. Feati Bank
creditors would have to observe a vigil of at least 12 years before they refused to comply with the demand, contending that the building was
could effect a liquidation of their investment dating as far back as being constructed in accordance with the zoning regulations
1941. This period seems to be unreasonable, if not oppressive. While (Resolution 27, dated 4 February 1960 by Municipal Council of
the purpose of Congress is plausible, and should be commended, the Mandaluyong), that it has filed building and planning permit applications
relief accorded works injustice to creditors who are practically left at with the municipality of Mandaluyong, and that it had accordingly
obtained building and planning permits to proceed with the circumstances in passing the subject resolution. The motives behind
construction. Ortigas filed the complaint with the lower court (Civil the passage of the questioned resolution being reasonable, and it being
Case 7706), seeking the issuance of "a writ of preliminary injunction to a "legitimate response to a felt public need," not whimsical or
prevent the construction of a commercial bank building in the premises oppressive, the non-impairment of contracts clause of the Constitution
in view of the building restrictions annotated in the Feati Bank's TCTs. will not bar the municipality's proper exercise of the power. Further,
The trial court dismissed the complaint holding that the restrictions laws and reservation of essential attributes of sovereign power are
were subordinate to Municipal Resolution 27, rendering the restrictions read into contracts agreed upon by the parties. Not only are existing
ineffective and unenforceable. On 2 March 1965, Ortigas filed a motion laws read into contracts in order to fix obligations as between the
for reconsideration. The trial court denied the motion for parties, but the reservation of essential attributes of sovereign power
reconsideration in its order of 26 March 1965. On 2 April 1965 Ortigas is also read into contracts as a postulate of the legal order. The policy
filed its notice of appeal, its record on appeal, and a cash appeal bond. of protecting contracts against impairments presupposes the
On 14 April 1965, the appeal was given due course by the appellate maintenance of a government by virtue of which contractual relations
court and the records of the case were elevated directly to the are worthwhile, a government which retains adequate authority to
Supreme Court, since only questions of law were raised. secure the peace and good order of society. The law forms part of, and
is read into, every contract, unless clearly excluded therefrom in those
Issue: cases where such exclusion is allowed.
Whether the constitutional guarantee of non-impairment of contracts
is absolute. Villanueva v. Castaneda [GR L-61311, 21 September 1987]
Facts:
Held: On 7 November 1961, the municipal council of San Fernando
While non-impairment of contracts is constitutionally guaranteed, the (Pampanga) adopted Resolution 218 authorizing some 24 members of
rule is not absolute, since it has to be reconciled with the legitimate the Fernandino United Merchants and Traders Association (FUMTA) to
exercise of police power, i.e., "the power to prescribe regulations to construct permanent stalls and sell along Mercado street, on a strip of
promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety land measuring 12 by 77 meters (talipapa). The action was protested
and general welfare of the people." Invariably described as "the most on 10 November 1961 by Felicidad Villanueva, Fernando Caisip,
essential, insistent, and illimitable of powers" and "in a sense, the Antonio Liang, Felina Miranda, Ricardo Puno, Florencio Laxa, and Rene
greatest and most powerful attribute of government," the exercise of Ocampo (claiming that they were granted previous authorization by
the power may be judicially inquired into and corrected only if it is the municipal government to conduct business therein), in Civil Case
capricious, whimsical, unjust or unreasonable, there having been a 2040, where the Court of First Instance (CFI) Pampanga, Branch 2,
denial of due process or a violation of any other applicable issued a writ of preliminary injunction that prevented the FUMTA
constitutional guarantee. Police power "is elastic and must be members from constructing the said stalls until final resolution of the
responsive to various social conditions; it is not confined within narrow controversy. On 18 January 1964, while the case was pending, the
circumscriptions of precedents resting on past conditions; it must municipal council of San Fernando adopted Resolution 29, which
follow the legal progress of a democratic way of life. Public welfare declared the subject area as "the parking place and as the public plaza
when clashing with the individual right to property should prevail of the municipality," thereby impliedly revoking Resolution 218 (series
through the state's exercise of its police power. Herein, the of 1961). On 2 November 1968, Judge Andres C. Aguilar decided the
municipality of Mandaluyong exercised police power to safeguard or aforesaid case and held that the land occupied by Villanueva, et. al.,
promote the health, safety, peace, good order and general welfare of being public in nature, was beyond the commerce of man and therefore
the people in the locality. EDSA, a main traffic artery which runs could not be the subject of private occupancy. The writ of preliminary
through several cities and municipalities in the Metro Manila area, injunction was made permanent. The decision was not enforced as the
supports an endless stream of traffic and the resulting activity, noise petitioners were not evicted from the place. The number of vendors in
and pollution are hardly conducive to the health, safety or welfare of the area (talipapa) ballooned to 200. The area deteriorated
the residents in its route. Having been expressly granted the power to increasingly to the great prejudice of the community in general, as the
adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances or regulations, the Municipal makeshift stalls render the area as virtual fire trap. The problem
Council of Mandaluyong was reasonably justified under the festered for some more years under a presumably uneasy truce among
the protagonists, none of whom made any move, for some reason. On comfort, and convenience of the municipality and the inhabitants
12 January 1982, the Association of Concerned Citizens and thereof, and for the protection of property therein. Thus, police power
Consumers of San Fernando filed a petition for the immediate cannot be surrendered or bargained away through the medium of a
implementation of Resolution 29, to restore the property to its original contract. Every contract affecting the public interest suffers a
and customary use as a public plaza. Acting thereon after an congenital infirmity in that it contains an implied reservation of the
investigation conducted by the municipal attorney, OIC (Office of the police power as a postulate of the existing legal order. This power can
Mayor) Vicente Macalino issued on 14 June 1982 a resolution requiring be activated at any time to change the provisions of the contract, or
the municipal treasurer and the municipal engineer to demolish the even abrogate it entirely, for the promotion or protection of the
stalls beginning 1 July 1982. The Villanueva, et. al. filed a petition for general welfare. Such an act will not militate against the impairment
prohibition with the CFI Pampanga (Civil Case 6470) on 26 June 1982. clause, which is subject to and limited by the paramount police power.
The judge denied the petition on 19 July 1982, and the motion for
reconsideration on 5 August 1982, prompting Villanueva, et. al. to file Sangalang v. Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) [GR 71169, 22
a petition on certiorari with the Supreme Court. Paterno Guevarra, who December 1988]
replaced Macalino as OIC of San Fernando, was impleaded. Bel-Air Village Association Inc. (BAVA) vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
[GR 74376]
Issue: Bel-Air Village Association Inc. (BAVA) vs. Court of Appeals [GR
Whether the Ordinance impairs the alleged lease contracts between the 76394],
market stall vendors occupying the municipal plaza and the Bel-Air Village Association Inc. (BAVA) vs. Court of Appeals [GR
Government. 78182]
Bel-Air Village Association Inc. (BAVA) vs. Court of Appeals [GR
Held: 82281]
A public plaza is beyond the commerce of man and so cannot be the Facts:
subject of lease or any other contractual undertaking. The lease of a [GR 71169] Bel-Air Village is located north of Buendia Avenue
public plaza of a municipality in favor of a private person is null and extension across a stretch of commercial block from Reposo Street in
void. A plaza cannot be used for the construction of market stalls, the west up to Zodiac Street in the east. When Bel-Air Village was
specially of residences, and that such structures constitute a nuisance planned, this block between Reposo and Zodiac Streets adjoining
subject to abatement according to law. Town plazas are properties of Buendia Avenue in front of the village was designated as a commercial
public dominion, to be devoted to public use and to be made available block. Bel-Air Village was owned and developed into a residential
to the public in general. They are outside the commerce of man and subdivision in the 1950s by Makati Development Corporation (MDC),
cannot be disposed of or even leased by the municipality to private which in 1968 was merged with Ayala Corporation. Spouses Sangalang
parties. Also, a portion of a public sidewalk is likewise beyond the reside at 110 Jupiter St. between Makati Ave. and Reposo St.; Spouses
commerce of man. Any contract entered into in connection with the Gaston reside at 64 Jupiter St. between Makati Ave. and Zodiac St.;
sidewalk, is ipso facto null and ultra vires. The sidewalk was intended Spouses Briones reside at 66 Jupiter St.; while Bel- Air Village
for and was used by the public, in going from one place to another. The Association, Inc. (BAVA) is the homeowners' association in Bel-Air
streets and public places of the city shall be kept free and clear for the Village which takes care of the sanitation, security, traffic regulations
use of the public, and the sidewalks and crossings for the pedestrians, and general welfare of the village. The lots which were acquired by the
and the same shall only be used or occupied for other purposes as Sangalangs, the Gastons, the Brioneses in 1960, 1957 and 1958,
provided by ordinance or regulation; stalls block the free passage of respectively, all sold by MDC subject to certain conditions and
pedestrians resulting to clogged with vehicular traffic. On the other easements contained in Deed Restrictions which formed a part of each
hand, police power under the general welfare clause authorizes the deed of sale (i.e. being automatic members of Bel-Air Association who
municipal council to enact such ordinances and make such regulations, must abide by the rules and regulations laid down by the Association
not repugnant to law, as may be necessary to carry into effect and [as per sanitation, security and general welfare of the community];
discharge the powers and duties conferred upon it by law and such as that lots cannot be subdivided and only used for residential purposes;
shall seem necessary and proper to provide for the health and safety, that single family house be constructed in single lot; no commercial or
promote the prosperity, improve the morals, peace, good order, advertising signs placed or erected on the lot; no farm animals allowed,
pets allowed; easement of 2 meters within lot; lot not used for immoral junction), Zodiac (Mercedes-Buendia), Jupiter (Zodiac-Reposo,
or illegal trade or activity; grass always trimmed; Restrictions in force connecting Metropolitan avenue to Pasong Tamo and V. Cruz
for 50 years starting 15 January 1957). MDC constructed a fence on extension), Neptune (Makati ave.-Reposo), Orbit ([Link]/ Candelaria
the commercial block along Jupiter Street in 1966, although it was not intersection –Jupiter Paseo de Roxas; Mercedes- Buendia) streets of
part of the original plan. The fence was partially destroyed in 1970 due Bel-Air Village for public use. On 10 February, BAVA replied, expressing
to a typhoon. The fence was subsequently rebuilt by the Ayala. Jupiter concern of the residents about the opening of the streets to general
Street was widened in 1972, and the fence had to be destroyed. Upon public and requesting the indefinite postponement of the plan to open
request of BAVA, the wall was rebuilt inside the boundary of the Jupiter St. to public vehicles. BAVA, however, voluntarily opened the
commercial block. Ayala finally decided to subdivide and sell the lots in other streets. On 12 August 1977, the municipal officials of Makati
the commercial block between Buendia and Jupiter. BAVA requested allegedly opened, destroyed and removed the gates constructed at the
confirmation of use of the commercial lots. On 30 June 1972, Ayala corner of Reposo St. and Jupiter St. as well as gates/fences
likewise informed BAVA that in a few months it shall subdivided and constructed at Jupiter Street and Makati Avenue forcibly; thereby
sell the commercial lots bordering the north side of Buendia Avenue opening Jupiter street to public traffic. Increased traffic was observed
Extension from Reposo St. up to Zodiac St. Deed restrictions (building along Jupiter Street after its opening to public use. Purchasers of the
having set back of 19 meters, and matters RE entrances and exits) are commercial lots started constructing their respective buildings and
imposed in such commercial lots to harmonize and blend with the demolished the fence or wall within the boundary of their lots. Many
development and welfare of Bel-Air Village. Ayala further applied for owners constructed their own fences and walls and employed their own
special membership in BAVA of the commercial lot owners, the security guards. On 27 January 1978, Ayala donated the entire Jupiter
application submitted to BAVA’s board of governors for decision. On Street from Metropolitan Avenue to Zodiac Street to BAVA. With the
25 September 1972, height limitations for buildings were increased opening of the entire Jupiter street to public traffic, the residential lots
from 12.5 meters to 15 meters and Jupiter street is widened by 3.5 located in the northern side of Jupiter Street ceased to be used for
meters. The widening of the street reduced the association dues to be purely residential purposes, and became commercial in character. On
remitted to BAVA, inasmuch that it now applies to 76,726 sq.m. rather 29 October 1979, spouses Sangalang filed an action for damages
than 81,590 sq.m. Due rates have increased from P0.5/sq.m in 1972 against Ayala predicated on both breach of contract and on tort or
to P3/sq.m in 1980. On 4 April 1975, Makati enacted Ordinance 81, quasi-delict. A supplemental complaint was later filed by the
providing for the zonification of Makati, which classified Bel-Air Village Sangalangs to augment the reliefs prayed for in the original complaint
as a Class A Residential Zone, with its boundary in the south extending because of alleged supervening events which occurred during the trial
to the center line of Jupiter Street (Chapter 3, Article 1, Section 3.03, of the case. Claiming to be similarly situated, spouses Gaston, Briones,
paragraph F). The Buendia Avenue extension area was classified as and BAVA intervened in the case. The CFI Pasig rendered a decision in
Administrative Office Zone with its boundary in the North-North East favor of the Sangalangs awarding them P500,000 as actual and
Extending also up to the center line of Jupiter Street (Chapter 3, consequential damages, P2M as moral damages, P500,000 as
Article 1, Section 3.05, paragraph C). The Residential Zone and the exemplary damages, P100,000 as attorney’s fees, and the cost of suit.
Administrative Office Zone have a common boundary along the center The intervenors Gaston and Briones were awarded P400,000 as
line of Jupiter Street. The zoning was later followed under the consequential damages, P500,000 as moral damages, P500,000 as
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for the National Capital Region exemplary damages, P50,000 as attorney’s fees, and the cost of suit;
adopted by the Metro Manila Commission as Ordinance 81- 01 on 14 each. Intervenor BAVA was awarded the same except for moral
March 1981, with modification that Bel-Air Village is simply bounded in damages. The damages awarded bear legal interest from the filing of
the South-Southeast by Jupiter Street, and the block-deep strip along the complaint. Ayala was also ordered to restore/reconstruct the
the northwest side of Buendia Avenue Extension from Reposo to EDSA perimeter wall at the original position in 1966 at its own expense
as High Intensity Commercial Zone. Under the zoning classification, within 6 months from finality of judgment. On appeal, the Court of
Jupiter Street is a common boundary of Bel-Air Village and the Appeals reversed and set aside the decision for not being supported by
commercial zone. On 17 January 1977, the Office of the Mayor of facts and law on the matter; and entered another, dismissing the case
Makati directed BAVA, in the interest of public welfare and purpose of for lack of cause of action; without pronouncement as to costs.
easing traffic congestion, the opening of the Amapola (Estrella- Sangalang appealed.
Mercedes; Palma gate-Villena), Mercedes (EDSA-Imelda/Amapola
[GR 74376] The Bel-Air Village Association (BAVA) filed and action to Resolution, dated 29 April 1988, the case was consolidated with GR
enforce the restrictions stipulated in the deeds of sale executed by the 74376 and 82281.
Ayala Corporation. BAVA originally brought the complaint in the RTC
Makati, principally for specific performance, BAVA alleging that Rosario [GR 78182] Dolores Filley leased her building and lot situated at 205
de Jesus Tenorio allowed Cecilia Gonzalvez to occupy and convert the Reposo Street to the advertising firm J. Romero and Associates, in
house at 60 Jupiter Street into a restaurant, without its knowledge and alleged violation of deed restrictions which stipulated that Filley's lot
consent, and in violation of the deed restrictions which provide that could only be used for residential purposes. The Bel -Air Village
the lot and building thereon must be used only for residential purposes Association (BAVA) sought judgment from the lower court ordering
upon which the prayed-for main relief was for Tenorio and Gonzalves to the Filley and [Link] to permanently refrain from using the premises
permanently refrain from using the premises as commercial and to in question as commercial and to comply with the terms of the deed
comply with the terms of the Deed Restrictions. The trial court restrictions. The trial court granted the relief sought for by BAVA with
dismissed the complaint on a procedural ground, i.e., pendency of an the a additional imposition of exemplary damages of P50,000.00 and
identical action, Civil Case 32346 (BAVA v. Tenorio). The Court of attorney's fees of P10,000.00. The trial court gave emphasis to the
Appeals affirmed, and held, in addition, that Jupiter Street "is classified restrictive clauses contained in Filley's deed of sale from BAVA, which
as High density commercial (C-3) zone as per Comprehensive Zoning made the conversion of the building into a commercial one a violation.
Ordinance 81-01 for NCR following its own ruling in AC-GR 66649 Appeal was made claiming that the restrictions in the deed of sale are
(BAVA v. Hy-Land Realty & Development Corp.). BAVA appealed. outmoded. BAVA on the other hand relied on a rigid interpretation of
the contractual stipulations agreed upon with Filley, in effect arguing
[GR 76394] Spouses Eduardo Romualdez and Buena Tioseco are the that the restrictions are valid ad infinitum. The Court of Appeals
owners of a house and lot located at 108 Jupiter St (TCT 332394, overturned the lower court, observing that J. Romero & Associates had
Registry of Deeds Rizal).At the time they acquired the subject house been given authority to open a commercial office by the Human
and lot, several restrictions were already annotated on the reverse side Settlements Regulatory Commission.
of their title. The restriction(s) remain in force for 50 years from 15
January 1957, unless sooner cancelled in its entirety by 2/3 vote of [GR 82281] Violeta Moncal, owner of a parcel of land with a residential
the members in good standing of the Bel-Air Village Association house constructed thereon situated at 104 Jupiter Street, leased her
(BAVA). However, the Association may from time to time, add new property to Majal Development Corporation, without the consent of the
ones, amend or abolish particular restrictions or parts thereof by Bel-Air Village Association (BAVA). She purchased the lot from Makati
majority rule. During the early part of 1979, BAVA noted that certain Development Corporation. The lot in question is restricted to be used
renovations and constructions were being made by the spouses on the for residential purposes only as part of the deed restrictions annotated
premises. The latter failed to inform BAVA of the activity, even upon on its title. It is on the same side of the street where there are
request, that prompted BAVA to send its chief security officer to visit restaurants, clinics, placement or employment agencies and other
the premises on 23 March 1979 and found out that the spouses were commercial or business establishments. These establishments,
putting up a bake and coffee shop. The spouses were reminded that however, were sued by BAVA in the proper court. The trial court
they were violating the deed restriction, but the latter proceeded with dismissed the BAVA's complaint, a dismissal affirmed on appeal. The
the construction of the bake shop. On 30 April 1979, BAVA wrote the appellate court declared that the opening of Jupiter Street to human
spouses to desist from using the premises for commercial purposes, and vehicular traffic, and the commercialization of the Municipality of
with threat of suit. Despite the warning, the spouses proceeded with Makati in general, were circumstances that had made compliance by
the construction of their bake shop. The trial court adjudged in favor of Moncal with the aforesaid "deed restrictions" "extremely difficult and
BAVA. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision on the unreasonable, a development that had excused compliance altogether
strength of its holding in AC-GR 66649. BAVA elevated the matter to under Article 1267 of the Civil Code. BAVA appealed.
the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari. The Court
initially denied the petition for lack of merit, for which BAVA sought a Short Facts:
reconsideration. Pending resolution, the case was referred to the GR 74376, 76394, 78182, and 82281 are efforts to enforce the
Second Division and thereafter, to the Court En Banc en consulta. Per "deed restrictions" against specific residents of Jupiter Street and,
with respect to GR 78182, Reposo Street. The residents have allegedly
converted their residences into commercial establishments (a circumscriptions of precedents resting on past conditions; it must
restaurant in GR 74376, a bakery and coffee shop in GR 76394, an follow the legal progress of a democratic way of life. Public welfare,
advertising firm in GR 78182; and a construction company, apparently, when clashing with the individual right to property, should be made to
in GR 82281) in violation of the said restrictions. Their mother case, GR prevail through the state's exercise of its police power. Herein, the
71169 is, on the other hand, a petition to hold the vendor itself, Ayala MMC Ordinance represents a legitimate exercise of police power, as the
Corporation (formerly Makati Development Corporation), liable for ordinance is neither capricious or arbitrary or unreasonable; but that it
tearing down the perimeter wall along Jupiter Street that had is based on compelling interests of general welfare. The restrictive
theretofore closed its commercial section from the residences of Bel- easements are similar to any other contract, and should not deter the
Air Village and ushering in, as a consequence, the full valid exercise of police power. The MMC has reclassified Jupiter Street
"commercialization" of Jupiter Street, in violation of the very into a “high density commercial zone, pursuant to Ordinance 81-01.
restrictions it had authored. The Court of Appeals dismissed all 5 Sangalang, BAVA, et. al., thus have no cause of action on the strength
appeals on the basis primarily of its ruling in AC-GR 66649, "Bel-Air alone of said “deed restrictions.”
Village, Inc. v. Hy-Land Realty Development Corporation, et al.," in
which the appellate court explicitly rejected claims under the same Ortigas v. Court of Appeals [GR 126102, 4 December 2000]
"deed restrictions" as a result of Ordinance 81 enacted by the Facts:
Government of the Municipality of Makati, as well as Comprehensive On 25 August 1976, Ortigas & Company sold to Emilia Hermoso, a
Zoning Ordinance 8101 promulgated by the Metropolitan Manila parcel of land located in Greenhills Subdivision IV, San Juan, Metro
Commission, which two ordinances allegedly allowed the use of Jupiter Manila (TCT 0737) with conditions duly annotated on the certificate of
Street both for residential and commercial purposes. It was likewise title issued to Emilia. In 1981, the Metropolitan Manila Commission
held that these twin measures were valid as a legitimate exercise of (now MMDA) enacted MMC Ordinance 81-01 (Comprehensive Zoning
police power. Area for the National Capital Region), which reclassified as a
commercial area a portion of Ortigas Avenue from Madison to
Issue: Roosevelt Streets of Greenhills Subdivision where the lot is located. On
Whether the constitutional guarantee on non-impairment of contracts 8 June 1984, Ismael Mathay III leased the lot from Emilia Hermoso and
can be raised as a deterrent to the exercise of police power. J.P. Hermoso Realty Corp.. The lease contract did not specify the
purposes of the lease. Thereupon, Mathay constructed a single story
Held: commercial building for Greenhills Autohaus, Inc., a car sales company.
All contracts are subject to the overriding demands, needs, and On 18 January 1995, Ortigas filed a complaint against Emilia Hermoso
interests of the greater number as the State may determine in the with the RTC Pasig (Branch 261, Civil Case 64931), seeking the
legitimate exercise of police power. The Court guarantees sanctity of demolition of the said commercial structure for having violated the
contract and is said to be the "law between the contracting parties," terms and conditions of the Deed of Sale. The complaint was later
but while it is so, it cannot contravene "law, morals, good customs, amended to implead Ismael G. Mathay III and J.P. Hermoso Realty Corp.,
public order, or public policy." Above all, it cannot be raised as a which have 10% interest in the lot. In his answer, Mathay III denied any
deterrent to police power, designed precisely to promote health, knowledge of the restrictions on the use of the lot and filed a cross-
safety, peace, and enhance the common good, at the expense of claim against the Hermosos. On 16 June 1995, the trial court issued
contractual rights, whenever necessary. Police power is the power to the writ of preliminary injunction. On 29 June 1995, Mathay III moved
prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, education, to set aside the injunctive order, but the trial court denied the motion.
good order or safety and general welfare of the people. Invariably Mathay III then filed with the CA a special civil action for certiorari (CA-
described as "the most essential, insistent, and illimitable of powers" GR SP 39193), ascribing to the trial court grave abuse of discretion in
and "in a sense, the greatest and most powerful attribute of issuing the writ of preliminary injunction. He claimed that MMC
government," the exercise of the power may be judicially inquired into Ordinance 81-01 classified the area where the lot was located as
and corrected only if it is capricious, whimsical, unjust or unreasonable, commercial area and said ordinance must be read into the 25 August
there having been a denial of due process or a violation of any other 1976 Deed of Sale as a concrete exercise of police power. Ortigas &
applicable constitutional guarantee. Police power is elastic and must be Company averred that restrictions duly annotated on the title must
responsive to various social conditions; it is not confined within narrow prevail over the ordinance. On 25 March 1996, the appellate court
granted the petition, nullified and set aside the assailed orders. The Tiro v. Hontanosas [GR L-32312, 25 November 1983]
appellate court held that the MMC Ordinance effectively nullified the Facts:
restrictions allowing only residential use of the property in question. Zafra Financing Enterprise extended loans to public school teachers in
Ortigas seasonably moved for reconsideration, but the appellate court Cebu City and the teachers concerned executed promissory notes and
denied it on 13 August 1996. Ortigas filed the petition for review. special powers of attorney in favor of Zafra to take and collect their
salary checks from the Division Office in Cebu City of the Bureau of
Issue: Public Schools. Aurelio Tiro, Superintendent of Schools in Cebu City,
Whether ordinances, in exercise of police power, be given retroactive forbade the collection of checks by persons other than the employees
effect and impair vested rights and contracts. concerned with Circular 21 (series of 1969, Memorandum Order 93 of
the Executive Office dated 5 February 1968 was quoted) dated 5
Held: December 1969. Zafra sued Tiro with the now defunct Court of First
In general, laws are to be construed as having only prospective Instance (CFI) Cebu (Civil Case 11616). Zafra sought to compel Tiro to
operation. Lex prospicit, non respicit. Equally settled, only laws existing honor the special powers of attorney, to declare Circular 21 to be
at the time of the execution of a contract are applicable thereto and illegal, and to make Tiro pay attorney’s fees and damages. The trial
not later statutes, unless the latter are specifically intended to have court granted the prayer but the claim for money was disallowed on
retroactive effect. A later law which enlarges, abridges, or in any the ground that he acted in good faith in implementing Circular 21. Tiro
manner changes the intent of the parties to the contract necessarily seeks in the petition for review before the Supreme Court a reversal of
impairs the contract itself and cannot be given retroactive effect the trial court’s decision.
without violating the constitutional prohibition against impairment of
contracts. One exception involves police power. A law enacted in the Issue:
exercise of police power to regulate or govern certain activities or Whether Circular 21 impairs the obligations of contracts between Zafra
transactions could be given retroactive effect and may reasonably Financing Enterprise and the teachers.
impair vested rights or contracts. Police power legislation is applicable
not only to future contracts, but equally to those already in existence. Held:
Non-impairment of contracts or vested rights clauses will have to yield The salary check of a government officer or employee such as a
to the superior and legitimate exercise by the State of police power to teacher does not belong to him before it is physically delivered to him.
promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order, safety, and Until that time the check belongs to the Government. Accordingly,
general welfare of the people. Moreover, statutes in exercise of valid before there is actual delivery of the check, the payee has no power
police power must be read into every contract. MMC Ordinance 81-01 over it; he cannot assign it without the consent of the Government.
is a legitimate police power measure as previously held in Sangalang vs. The Circular, further, is authorized by relevant statutes such as the
IAC. Thus, following the ruling in Ortigas & Co., Ltd. vs. Feati Bank & Revised Administrative Code (Section 79b, Power to regulate) and the
Trust Co., 94 SCRA 533 (1979), the contractual stipulations Magna Carta for Teachers (RA 4670, Section 21, Deductive
annotated on the Torrens Title must yield to the ordinance. When that prohibited). The Circular does not impair the obligation of contracts
stretch was reclassified, the restrictions in the contract of sale were with the teachers as the Circular does not prevent Zafra from
deemed extinguished by the retroactive operation of the zoning collecting the loans but merely makes the Government a non-
ordinance and could no longer be enforced. While Philippine legal participant in their collection.
system upholds the sanctity of contract so that a contract is deemed
law between the contracting parties, nonetheless, stipulations in a Caleon v. Agus Development Corp. [GR 77365, 7 April 1992]
contract cannot contravene "law, morals, good customs, public order, Facts:
or public policy." Otherwise such stipulations would be deemed null and Agus Development Corporation (ADC) is the owner of a parcel of land
void. located at Lealtad, Sampaloc, Manila, which it leased to Rita Caleon for
a monthly rental of P180.00. ADC constructed on the lot leased a 4-
door apartment building. Without the consent of ADC, Caleon sub-
leased 2 of the 4 doors of the apartment to Rolando Guevarra and
Felicisima Estrada for a monthly rental of P350.00 each. Upon learning
of the sub-lease, ADC through counsel demanded in writing that Caleon July 1971 (effectivity date of RA 6539), so that the applicability
vacate the leased premises. For Caleon’s failure to comply with the thereof to existing contracts cannot be denied.
demand, ADC filed a complaint for ejectment with Metropolitan Trial
Court (MTC) of Manila (Branch 12), citing the provisions of Batas Meralco v. Laguna [GR 131359, 5 May 1999]
Pambansa 25, Section 5, as ground, which is the unauthorized sub- Facts:
leasing of part of the leased premises to third persons without securing On various dates, certain municipalities of the Province of Laguna,
the consent of the lessor within the required 60-day period from the including, Biñan, Sta. Rosa, San Pedro, Luisiana, Calauan and Cabuyao,
promulgation of the new law (BP 25). After trial, the court a quo by virtue of existing laws then in effect, issued resolutions through
rendered its decision ordering Caleon and all persons claiming their respective municipal councils granting franchise in favor of the
possession under her (a) to vacate the premises alluded to in the Manila Electric Company (Meralco) for
complaint; (b) to remove whatever improvement she introduced on the the supply of electric light, heat and power within their concerned
property; (c) to pay ADC the amount of P2,000.00 as attorney's fees; areas. On 19 January 1983, Meralco was likewise granted a franchise
and (d) to pay the costs. Caleon appealed the decision to the Regional by the National Electrification Administration to operate an electric
Trial Court (RTC) and on 24 November 1980, the RTC affirmed in toto light and power service in the Municipality of Calamba, Laguna. On 12
the decision of the MTC. The RTC decision was appealed to the Court September 1991, Republic Act 7160 (1991 Local Government Code
of Appeals for review. The appellate court, on 28 January 1987, [LGC]) was enacted to take effect on 1 January 1992 enjoining local
dismissed the petition outright for not being prima facie meritorious. government units to create their own sources of revenue and to levy
Caleon filed the petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme taxes, fees and charges, subject to the limitations expressed therein,
Court. consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. Pursuant to the
provisions of the Code, Laguna enacted Provincial Ordinance 01-92,
Issue: effective 1 January 1993, which provided a Franchise Tax (Section
Whether legislation, appropriate to safeguard vital interests of the 2.09) . On the basis of the ordinance, Provincial Treasurer sent a
people, may modify or abrogate contracts already in effect. demand letter to Meralco for the corresponding tax payment. Meralco
paid the tax under protest. A formal claim for refund was thereafter
Held: sent by Meralco to the Provincial Treasurer of Laguna claiming that the
The constitutional guaranty of non- impairment of obligations of franchise tax it had paid and continued to pay to the National
contract is limited by and subject to the exercise of police power of Government pursuant to PD 551 (Section 1) already included the
the State in the interest of public health, safety, morals and general franchise tax imposed by the Provincial Tax Ordinance. On 28 August
welfare. In spite of the constitutional prohibition, the State continues 1995, the claim for refund of Meralco was denied in a letter signed by
to possess authority to safeguard the vital interests of its people. Governor Lina. In denying the claim, the province relied on a more
Legislation appropriate to safeguarding said interest may modify or recent law, RA 7160 (1991 LGC), than the old decree invoked by
abrogate contracts already in effect. Every contract affecting public Meralco (PD 551). On 14 February 1996, Meralco filed with the
interest suffers a congenital infirmity in that it contains an implied Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Sta. Cruz, Laguna, a complaint for refund,
reservation of the police power as a postulate of the existing legal with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or
order. This power can be activated at anytime to change the provisions TRO, against the Province of Laguna and Balazo in his capacity as the
of the contract, or even abrogate it entirely, for the promotion or Provincial Treasurer of Laguna. The trial court, in its assailed decision
protection of the general welfare. Such an act will not militate against of 30 September 1997, dismissed the complaint and declared the
the impairment clause, which is subject to and limited by the ordinance valid, binding, reasonable, and enforceable. Hence, the
paramount police power. Batas Pambansa 25, "An Act Regulating petition.
Rentals of Dwelling Units or of Land On Which Another's Dwelling is
Located and For Other Purposes" shows that the subject matter is the Issue:
regulation of rentals and is intended only for dwelling units with Whether the withdrawal of tax exemption to Meralco by the local
specified monthly rentals constructed before the law became effective. government unit (province) violates the non-impairment clause of the
BP 25 is derived from PD 20 which has been declared by the Court as a Constitution.
police power legislation, applicable to leases entered into prior to 14
Held: which, on 1 December 1945, he filed a petition, demanding the return
The Local Government Code of 1991 has incorporated and adopted, by of the papers allegedly seized and taken from his house. Alvero also
and large, the provisions of the now repealed Local Tax Code (PD 231 filed a petition for bail, at the hearing of which the prosecution
pursuant to Section 2, Article XI, 1973 Constitution; in effect since 1 presented certain papers and documents, which were admitted as part
July 1973). The 1991 Code explicitly authorizes provincial of its evidence, and said petition was denied. At the trial of the case on
governments, notwithstanding "any exemption granted by any law or the merits, the prosecution again presented said papers and
other special law to impose a tax on businesses enjoying a franchise documents, which were admitted as part of its evidence, and were
(Section 137). Indicative of the legislative intent to carry out the marked as exhibits. On 26 February 1946, the judges issued an order
Constitutional mandate of vesting broad tax powers to local denying the petition for the return of the documents, and admitted as
government units, the Local Government Code has effectively competent evidence the documents presented by the prosecution. On
withdrawn tax exemptions or incentives theretofore enjoyed by certain the same date that said order was issued, denying the petition for the
entities (Section 193). While tax exemptions contained in special return of said documents, Alvero asked for the reconsideration of said
franchises are in the nature of contracts and a part of the inducement order, which was also denied. Alvero filed a petition for certiorari with
for carrying on the franchise, these exemptions, nevertheless are far injunction with the Supreme Court.
from being strictly contractual in nature. Contractual tax exemptions,
in the real sense of the term and where the non-impairment clause of Issue:
the Constitution can rightly be invoked, are those agreed to by the Whether the documents seized by United States Army personnel at
taxing authority in contracts, such as those contained in government Alvero’s home can be used as evidence against the latter.
bonds or debentures, lawfully entered into by them under enabling laws
in which the government, acting in its private capacity, sheds its cloak Held:
of authority and waives its governmental immunity. Truly, tax The right of officers and men of the United States Army to arrest
exemptions of this kind may not be revoked without impairing the Alvero, as a collaborationist suspect, and to seize his personal papers,
obligations of contracts. These contractual tax exemptions, however, without any search warrant, in the zone of military operations, is
are not to be confused with tax exemptions granted under franchises. unquestionable, under the provisions of article 4, Chapter II, Section I,
A franchise partakes the nature of a grant which is beyond the purview of the Regulations relative to the Laws and Customs of War on Land of
of the non-impairment clause of the Constitution. Indeed, Article XII, the Hague Conventions of 1907, authorizing the seizure of military
Section 11, of the 1987 Constitution, like its precursor provisions in papers in the possession of prisoners of war; and also under the
the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions, is explicit that no franchise for proclamation, dated 29 December 1944, issued by Gen. Douglas
the operation of a public utility shall be granted except under the MacArthur, as Commander in Chief of the United States Army,
condition that such privilege shall be subject to amendment, alteration declaring his purpose to remove certain citizens of the Philippines, who
or repeal by Congress as and when the common good so requires. had voluntarily given aid and comfort to the enemy, in violation of the
Indeed, Article XII, Section 11, of the 1987 Constitution is explicit that allegiance due the Governments of the United States and the
no franchise for the operation of a public utility shall be granted except Commonwealth of the Philippines, when apprehended, from any
under the condition that such privilege shall be subject to amendment, position of political and economic influence in the Philippines and to
alteration or repeal by Congress as and when the common good so hold them in restraint for the duration of the war. The purpose of the
requires. constitutional provisions against unlawful searches and seizures is to
prevent violations of private security in person and property, and
Alvero vs. Dizon [GR L-342, 4 May 1946] unlawful invasions of the sanctity of the home, by officers of the law
Facts: acting under legislative or judicial sanction, and to give remedy against
On 12 February 1945, while the battle for Manila was raging, soldiers such usurpations when attempted. But it does not prohibit the
of the United States Army, accompanied by men of Filipino Guerrilla Government from taking advantage of unlawful searches made by a
Forces, placed Aurelio S. Alvero under arrest, having been suspected of private person or under authority of state law. Herein, as the soldiers
collaboration with the enemy, and seized and took certain papers from of the United States Army, that took and seized certain papers and
his house in Pasay, Rizal. On or about 4 October 1945, Alvero was documents from the residence of Alvero, were not acting as agents or
accused of treason, in criminal case 3 of the People's Court; after on behalf of the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines;
and that those papers and documents came into the possession of the After trial, the Special Criminal Court of Manila (Regional Trial Court,
authorities of the Commonwealth Government, through the Office of Branch XLIX) rendered the decision, convicting Marti of violation of
the CIC of the United States Army in Manila, the use and presentation Section 21 (b), Article IV in relation to Section 4, Article 11 and
of said papers and documents, as evidence for the prosecution against Section 2 (e)(i), Article 1 of Republic Act 6425, as amended,
Alvero, at the trial of his case for treason, before the People's Court, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act. Marti appealed.
cannot now be legally attacked, on the ground of unlawful or
unreasonable searches and seizures, or on any other constitutional Issue:
ground, as declared by the Supreme Court of the United States in Whether an act of a private individual, allegedly in violation of the
similar cases. (See Burdeau vs. McDowell, 256 U. S., 465; Gambino vs. accused's constitutional rights, be invoked against the State.
United States, 275 U. S., 310.)
Held:
People vs. Andre Marti [GR 81561, 18 January 1991] In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed
Facts: by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State. The
On 14 August 1987, Andre Marti and his common-law wife, Shirley contraband herein, having come into possession of the Government
Reyes, went to the booth of the Manila Packing and Export Forwarders without the latter transgressing the accused's rights against
in the Pistang Pilipino Complex, Ermita, Manila, carrying with them 4 unreasonable search and seizure, the Court sees no cogent reason why
gift-wrapped packages. Anita Reyes (the proprietress and no relation the same should not be admitted against him in the prosecution of the
to Shirley Reyes) attended to them. Marti informed Anita Reyes that he offense charged. The mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert
was sending the packages to a friend in Zurich, Switzerland. Marti filled the reasonable search effected by Reyes into a warrantless search and
up the contract necessary for the transaction, writing therein his name, seizure proscribed by the Constitution. Merely to observe and look at
passport number, the date of shipment and the name and address of that which is in plain sight is not a search. Having observed that which
the consignee, namely, "WALTER FIERZ, Mattacketr II, 8052 Zurich, is open, where no trespass has been committed in aid thereof, is not
Switzerland." Anita Reyes did not inspect the packages as Marti search. Where the contraband articles are identified without a trespass
refused, who assured the former that the packages simply contained on the part of the arresting officer, there is not the search that is
books, cigars, and gloves and were gifts to his friend in Zurich. In view prohibited by the constitution. The constitutional proscription against
of Marti's representation, the 4 packages were then placed inside a unlawful searches and seizures therefore applies as a restraint directed
brown corrugated box, with styro-foam placed at the bottom and on only against the government and its agencies tasked with the
top of the packages, and sealed with masking tape. Before delivery of enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be invoked against the
Marti's box to the Bureau of Customs and/or Bureau of Posts, Mr. Job State to whom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable
Reyes (proprietor) and husband of Anita (Reyes), following standard exercise of power is imposed. If the search is made upon the request of
operating procedure, opened the boxes for final inspection, where a law enforcers, a warrant must generally be first secured if it is to pass
peculiar odor emitted therefrom. Job pulled out a cellophane wrapper the test of constitutionality. However, if the search is made at the
protruding from the opening of one of the gloves, and took several behest or initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for its
grams of the contents thereof. Job Reyes forthwith prepared a letter own and private purposes, as in the case at bar, and without the
reporting the shipment to the NBI and requesting a laboratory intervention of police authorities, the right against unreasonable search
examination of the samples he extracted from the cellophane wrapper. and seizure cannot be invoked for only the act of private individual, not
At the Narcotics Section of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the law enforcers, is involved. In sum, the protection against
the box containing Marti's packages was opened, yielding dried unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be extended to acts
marijuana leaves, or cake-like (bricks) dried marijuana leaves. The NBI committed by private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of
agents made an inventory and took charge of the box and of the alleged unlawful intrusion by the government.
contents thereof, after signing a "Receipt" acknowledging custody of
the said effects. Thereupon, the NBI agents tried to locate Marti but to
no avail, inasmuch as the latter's stated address was the Manila Central
Post Office. Thereafter, an Information was filed against Marti for
violation of RA 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act.
Bache & Co. (Phil.) Inc. vs. Ruiz [GR L-32409, 27 February 1971] based on the documents thus seized. The corporation and Seggerman
Facts: filed an action for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus.
On 24 February 1970, Misael P. Vera, Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, wrote a letter addressed to Judge Vivencio M. Ruiz Issue:
requesting the issuance of a search warrant against Bache & Co. (Phil.), Whether the corporation has the right to contest the legality of the
Inc. and Frederick E. Seggerman for violation of Section 46(a) of the seizure of documents from its office.
National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), in relation to all other pertinent
provisions thereof, particularly Sections 53, 72, 73, 208 and 209, and Held:
authorizing Revenue Examiner Rodolfo de Leon to make and file the The legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose
application for search warrant which was attached to the letter. In the rights have been impaired thereby, and that the objection to an
afternoon of the following day, De Leon and his witness, Arturo unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of
Logronio, went to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal. They by third parties. In Stonehill, et al. vs. Diokno, et al. (GR L-19550, 19
brought with them the following papers: Vera's letter-request; an June 1967; 20 SCRA 383) the Supreme Court impliedly recognized the
application for search warrant already filled up but still unsigned by De right of a corporation to object against unreasonable searches and
Leon; an affidavit of Logronio subscribed before De Leon; a deposition seizures; holding that the corporations have their respective
in printed form of Logronio already accomplished and signed by him personalities, separate and distinct from the personality of the
but not yet subscribed; and a search warrant already accomplished but corporate officers, regardless of the amount of shares of stock or the
still unsigned by Judge. At that time the Judge was hearing a certain interest of each of them in said corporations, whatever, the offices
case; so, by means of a note, he instructed his Deputy Clerk of Court they hold therein may be; and that the corporate officers therefore
to take the depositions of De Leon and Logronio. After the session had may not validly object to the use in evidence against them of the
adjourned, the Judge was informed that the depositions had already documents, papers and things seized from the offices and premises of
been taken. The stenographer, upon request of the Judge, read to him the corporations, since the right to object to the admission of said
her stenographic notes; and thereafter, the Judge asked Logronio to papers in evidence belongs exclusively to the corporations, to whom
take the oath and warned him that if his deposition was found to be the seized effects belong, and may not be invoked by the corporate
false and without legal basis, he could be charged for perjury. The officers in proceedings against them in their individual capacity. The
Judge signed de Leon's application for search warrant and Logronio's distinction between the Stonehill case and the present case is that: in
deposition. Search Warrant 2-M-70 was then signed by Judge and the former case, only the officers of the various corporations in whose
accordingly issued. 3 days later (a Saturday), the BIR agents served offices documents, papers and effects were searched and seized were
the search warrant to the corporation and Seggerman at the offices of the petitioners; while in the latter, the corporation to whom the seized
the corporation on Ayala Avenue, Makati, Rizal. The corporation's documents belong, and whose rights have thereby been impaired, is
lawyers protested the search on the ground that no formal complaint itself a petitioner. On that score, the corporation herein stands on a
or transcript of testimony was attached to the warrant. The agents different footing from the corporations in Stonehill. Moreover, herein,
nevertheless proceeded with their search which yielded 6 boxes of the search warrant was void inasmuch as First, there was no personal
documents. On 3 March 1970, the corporation and Seggerman filed a examination conducted by the Judge of the complainant (De Leon) and
petition with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal praying that the his witness (Logronio). The Judge did not ask either of the two any
search warrant be quashed, dissolved or recalled, that preliminary question the answer to which could possibly be the basis for
prohibitory and mandatory writs of injunction be issued, that the determining whether or not there was probable cause against Bache &
search warrant be declared null and void, and that Vera, Logronio, de Co. and Seggerman. The participation of the Judge in the proceedings
Leon, et. al., be ordered to pay the corporation and Seggerman, jointly which led to the issuance of Search Warrant 2-M-70 was thus limited
and severally, damages and attorney's fees. After hearing and on 29 to listening to the stenographer's readings of her notes, to a few
July 1970, the court issued an order dismissing the petition for words of warning against the commission of perjury, and to
dissolution of the search warrant. In the meantime, or on 16 April administering the oath to the complainant and his witness. This cannot
1970, the Bureau of Internal Revenue made tax assessments on the be consider a personal examination. Second, the search warrant was
corporation in the total sum of P2,594,729.97, partly, if not entirely, issued for more than one specific offense. The search warrant was
issued for at least 4 distinct offenses under the Tax Code. The first is
the violation of Section 46(a), Section 72 and208 (unlawful pursuit of things seized from the offices of the corporations are concerned; but,
business or occupation); and the fourth is the violation of Section 209 the injunction was maintained as regards the papers, documents and
(failure to make a return of receipts, sales, business or gross value of things found and seized in the residences of Stonehill, et. al.
output actually removed or to pay the tax due thereon). Even in their
classification the 6 provisions are embraced in 2 different titles: Issue:
Sections 46(a), 53, 72 and 73 are under Title (Income Tax); while Whether Stonehill, et. al. can assail the legality of the contested
Sections 208 and 209 are under Title V (Privilege Tax on Business and warrants that allowed seizure of documents, papers and other effects
Occupation). Lastly, the search warrant does not particularly describe in the corporate offices, and other places besides their residences.
the things to be seized. Search Warrant No. 2-M-70 tends to defeat
the major objective of the Bill of Rights, i.e., the elimination of general Held:
warrants, for the language used therein is so all-embracing as to Stonehill, et. al. maintained that the search warrants are in the nature
include all conceivable records of the corporation, which, if seized, of general warrants and that, accordingly, the seizures effected upon
could possibly render its business inoperative. Thus, Search Warrant 2- the authority thereof are null and void. No warrant shall issue but upon
M-70 is null and void. probable cause, to be determined by the judge in the manner set forth
in said provision; and the warrant shall particularly describe the things
Stonehill vs. Diokno [GR L-19550, 19 June 1967] to be seized. None of these requirements has been complied with in
Facts: the contested warrants. The grave violation of the Constitution made
Upon application of the officers of the government, Special Prosecutors in the application for the contested search warrants was compounded
Pedro D. Cenzon, Efren I. Plana and Manuel Villareal Jr. and Assistant by the description therein made of the effects to be searched for and
Fiscal Manases G. Reyes; Judge Amado Roan (Municipal Court of seized. The warrants authorized the search for and seizure of records
Manila), Judge Roman Cansino (Municipal Court of Manila), Judge pertaining to all business transactions of Stonehill, et. al., regardless of
Hermogenes Caluag (Court of First Instance of Rizal-Quezon City whether the transactions were legal or illegal. The warrants sanctioned
Branch), and Judge Damian Jimenez (Municipal Court of Quezon City) the seizure of all records of the corporate officers and the
issued, on different dates, a total of 42 search warrants against Harry corporations, whatever their nature, thus openly contravening the
S. Stonehill, Robert P. Brooks, HJohn J. Brooks, and Karl Beck, and/or explicit command of our Bill of Rights — that the things to be seized
the corporations of which they were officers, directed to any peace be particularly described — as well as tending to defeat its major
officer, to search the said persons and/or the premises of their offices, objective: the elimination of general warrants. However, the
warehouses and/or residences, and to seize and take possession of the documents, papers, and things seized under the alleged authority of
following personal property to wit: "Books of accounts, financial the warrants in question may be split into (2) major groups, namely:
records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, journals, (a) those found and seized in the offices of the corporations and (b)
portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and other documents and/or those found seized in the residences of Stonehill, et. al. As regards the
papers showing all business transactions including disbursements first group, Stonehill, et. al. have no cause of action to assail the
receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss statements and Bobbins legality of the contested warrants and of the seizures made in
(cigarette wrappers)" as "the subject of the offense; stolen or pursuance thereof, for the simple reason that said corporations have
embezzled and proceeds or fruits of the offense," or "used or intended their respective personalities, separate and distinct from the
to be used as the means of committing the offense," which is personality of Stonehill, et. al., regardless of the amount of shares of
described in the applications adverted to above as "violation of Central stock or of the interest of each of them in said corporations, and
Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and the whatever the offices they hold therein may be. Indeed, it is well settled
Revised Penal Code." Alleging that the search warrants are null and that the legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose
void, as contravening the Constitution and the Rules of Court, Stonehill, rights have been impaired thereby, and that the objection to an
et. al. filed with the Supreme Court the original action for certiorari, unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of
prohibition, mandamus and injunction. On 22 March 1962, the Supreme by third parties. Consequently, Stonehill, et. al. may not validly object
Court issued the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for in the to the use in evidence against them of the documents, papers and
petition. However, by resolution dated 29 June 1962, the writ was things seized from the offices and premises of the corporations
partially lifted or dissolved, insofar as the papers, documents and adverted to above, since the right to object to the admission of said
papers in evidence belongs exclusively to the corporations, to whom April 9. The warrant issued on a finding of "just, probable and
the seized effects belong, and may not be invoked by the corporate reasonable cause for believing that: Negatives and photographs and
officers in proceedings against them in their individual capacity. With films, evidence material and relevant to the identity of the perpetrators
respect to the documents, papers and things seized in the residences of felonies, to wit, Battery on a Peace Officer, and Assault with Deadly
of Stonehill, et. al., the 29 June 1962 Resolution of the Supreme Weapon, will be located [on the premises of the Daily]." The warrant
Court, denying the lifting of the writ of preliminary injunction previously affidavit contained no allegation or indication that members of the
issued by the Court on the documents, papers and things seized in the Daily staff were in any way involved in unlawful acts at the hospital.
residences, in effect, restrained the prosecutors from using them in The search pursuant to the warrant was conducted later that day by 4
evidence against Stonehill, et. al. Thus, the Court held that the police officers and took place in the presence of some members of the
warrants for the search of 3 residences are null and void; that the Daily staff. The Daily's photographic laboratories, filing cabinets, desks,
searches and seizures therein made are illegal; that the writ of and wastepaper baskets were searched. Locked drawers and rooms
preliminary injunction heretofore issued, in connection with the were not opened. The search revealed only the photographs that had
documents, papers and other effects thus seized in said residences is already been published on April 11, and no materials were removed
made permanent, that the writs prayed for are granted, insofar as the from the Daily's office. A month later the Daily and various members of
documents, papers and other effects so seized in the residences are its staff brought a civil action in the United States District Court for
concerned; and that the petition herein is dismissed and the writs the Northern District of California seeking declaratory and injunctive
prayed for denied, as regards the documents, papers and other effects relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the police officers who conducted
seized in the 29 places, offices and other premises. the search, the chief of police, the district attorney and one of his
deputies, and the judge who had issued the warrant. The complaint
Zurcher vs. Stanford Daily [436 US 547, 31 May 1978] alleged that the search of the Daily's office had deprived respondents
Facts: under color of state law of rights secured to them by the First, Fourth,
and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The
On 9 April 1971, officers of the Palo Alto Police Department and of the District Court denied the request for an injunction but, on the
Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department responded to a call from the newspaper staff's motion for summary judgment, granted declaratory
director of the Stanford University Hospital requesting the removal of a relief. The court did not question the existence of probable cause to
large group of demonstrators who had seized the hospital's believe that a crime had been committed and to believe that relevant
administrative offices and occupied them since the previous afternoon. evidence would be found on the Daily's premises. It held, however, that
After several futile efforts to persuade the demonstrators to leave the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments forbade the issuance of a
peacefully, more drastic measures were employed. The police chose to warrant to search for materials in possession of one not suspected of
force their way in at the west end of the corridor. As they did so, a crime unless there is probable cause to believe, based on facts
group of demonstrators emerged through the doors at the east end presented in a sworn affidavit, that a subpoena duces tecum would be
and, armed with sticks and clubs, attacked the group of nine police impracticable. The District Court further held that where the innocent
officers stationed there. All nine were injured. The officers themselves object of the search is a newspaper, First Amendment interests are
were able to identify only two of their assailants, but one of them did also involved and that such a search is constitutionally permissible
see at least one person photographing the assault at the east doors. "only in the rare circumstance where there is a clear showing that (1)
On April 11 (Sunday), a special edition of the Stanford Daily (Daily), a important materials will be destroyed or removed from the jurisdiction;
student newspaper published at Stanford University, carried articles and (2) a restraining order would be futile." Since these preconditions
and photographs devoted to the hospital protest and the violent clash to a valid warrant had not been satisfied, the search of the Daily's
between demonstrators and police. The photographs carried the byline offices was declared to have been illegal. The Court of Appeals
of a Daily staff member and indicated that he had been at the east end affirmed per curiam, adopting the opinion of the District Court. Zurcher,
of the hospital hallway where he could have photographed the assault et. al. filed a petition for certiorari.
on the 9 officers. The next day, the Santa Clara County District
Attorney's Office secured a warrant from the Municipal Court for an Issue:
immediate search of the Daily's offices for negatives, film, and pictures Whether the Fourth Amendment is to be construed and applied to the
showing the events and occurrences at the hospital on the evening of "third party" search, the recurring situation where state authorities
have probable cause to believe that fruits, instrumentalities, or other address as 909 North StoneStreet Avenue in Rockville, Maryland.
evidence of crime is located on identified property but do not then Unknown to the police, this was actually the home of Dominic Wilson's
have probable cause to believe that the owner or possessor of the parents. Thus, in April 1992, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County
property is himself implicated in the crime that has occurred or is issued three arrest warrants for Dominic Wilson, one for each of his
occurring. probation violations. The warrants were each addressed to "any duly
authorized peace officer," and commanded such officers to arrest him
Held: and bring him "immediately" before the Circuit Court to answer an
First, a State is not prevented by the Fourth and Fourteenth indictment as to his probation violation. The warrants made no mention
Amendments from issuing a warrant to search for evidence simply of media presence or assistance. In the early morning hours of 16 April
because the owner or possessor of the place to be searched is not 1992, a Gunsmoke team of Deputy United States Marshals and
reasonably suspected of criminal involvement. The critical element in a Montgomery County Police officers assembled to execute the Dominic
reasonable search is not that the property owner is suspected of crime Wilson warrants. The team was accompanied by a reporter and a
but that there is reasonable cause to believe that the "things" to be photographer from the Washington Post, who had been invited by the
searched for and seized are located on the property to which entry is Marshals to accompany them on their mission as part of a Marshal's
sought. Second, the District Court's new rule denying search warrants Service ride-along policy. At 6:45 a.m., the officers, with media
against third parties and insisting on subpoenas would undermine law representatives in tow, entered the dwelling at 909 North StoneStreet
enforcement efforts since search warrants are often used early in an Avenue in the Lincoln Park neighborhood of Rockville. Charles and
investigation before all the perpetrators of a crime have been Geraldine Wilson were still in bed when they heard the officers enter
identified; and the seemingly blameless third party may be implicated. the home. Charles Wilson, dressed only in a pair of briefs, ran into the
The delay in employing a subpoena duces tecum could easily result in living room to investigate. Discovering at least 5 men in street clothes
disappearance of the evidence. Nor would the cause of privacy be with guns in his living room, he angrily demanded that they state their
served since search warrants are more difficult to obtain than business, and repeatedly cursed the officers. Believing him to be an
subpoenas. Lastly, properly administered, the preconditions for a angry Dominic Wilson, the officers quickly subdued him on the floor.
search warrant (probable cause, specificity with respect to the place to Geraldine Wilson next entered the living room to investigate, wearing
be searched and the things to be seized, and overall reasonableness), only a nightgown. She observed her husband being restrained by the
which must be applied with particular exactitude when First armed officers. When their protective sweep was completed, the
Amendment interests would be endangered by the search, are officers learned that Dominic Wilson was not in the house, and they
adequate safeguards against the interference with the press' ability to departed. During the time that the officers were in the home, the
gather, analyze, and disseminate news that respondents claim would Washington Post photographer took numerous pictures. The print
ensue from use of warrants for third-party searches of newspaper reporter was also apparently in the living room observing the
offices. confrontation between the police and Charles Wilson. At no time,
however, were the reporters involved in the execution of the arrest
Wilson vs. Layne [526 US 603, 24 May 1999] warrant. Charles and Geraldine Wilson sued the law enforcement
Facts: officials in their personal capacities for money damages, and contended
In early 1992, the Attorney General of the United States approved that the officers' actions in bringing members of the media to observe
"Operation Gunsmoke," a special national fugitive apprehension and record the attempted execution of the arrest warrant violated
program in which United States Marshals worked with state and local their Fourth Amendment rights. The District Court denied the police
police to apprehend dangerous criminals. This effective program officers' motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified
ultimately resulted in over 3,000 arrests in 40 metropolitan areas. One immunity. On interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeals, a divided
of the dangerous fugitives identified as a target of "Operation panel reversed and held that the officers were entitled to qualified
Gunsmoke" was Dominic Wilson, the son of Charles and Geraldine immunity. The case was twice reheard en banc, where a divided Court
Wilson. Dominic Wilson had violated his probation on previous felony of Appeals again upheld the defense of qualified immunity. The Court
charges of robbery, theft, and assault with intent to rob, and the police of Appeals declined to decide whether the actions of the police
computer listed "caution indicators" that he was likely to be armed, to violated the Fourth Amendment. It concluded instead that because no
resist arrest, and to "assault police." The computer also listed his court had held (at the time of the search) that media presence during
a police entry into a residence violated the Fourth Amendment, the suspects, and also to protect the safety of the officers, such a
right allegedly violated by petitioners was not "clearly established" and situation is significantly different from the media presence in this case,
thus qualified immunity was proper. 141 F. 3d 111 (CA4 1998). Five where the Washington Post reporters in the Wilsons' home were
judges dissented, arguing that the officers' actions did violate the working on a story for their own purposes. Taken in their entirety, the
Fourth Amendment, and that the clearly established protections of the reasons advanced by the officers fall short of justifying the presence of
Fourth Amendment were violated. media inside a home. Thus, it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment
for police to bring members of the media or other third parties into a
Issue: home during the execution of a warrant when the presence of the third
Whether the police officers were justified to bring along the parties in the home was not in aid of the execution of the warrant.
Washington Post reporters in the execution of the warrant inside the
house of Charles and Geraldine Wilson. Burgos v. Chief of Staff, AFP [GR 64261, 26 December 1984]
Facts:
Held: On 7 December 1982, Judge Ernani Cruz -Paño, Executive Judge of the
No. Although the officers undoubtedly were entitled to enter the then CFI Rizal [Quezon City], issued 2 search warrants where the
Wilson home in order to execute the arrest warrant for Dominic Wilson, premises at 19, Road 3, Project 6, Quezon City, and 784 Units C & D,
they were not entitled to bring a newspaper reporter and a RMS Building, Quezon Avenue, Quezon City, business addresses of the
photographer with them. While it does not mean that every police "Metropolitan Mail" and "We Forum" newspapers, respectively, were
action while inside a home must be explicitly authorized by the text of searched, and office and printing machines, equipment, paraphernalia,
the warrant (Fourth Amendment allows temporary detainer of motor vehicles and other articles used in the printing, publication and
homeowner while police search the home pursuant to warrant), the distribution of the said newspapers, as well as numerous papers,
Fourth Amendment does require that police actions in execution of a documents, books and other written literature alleged to be in the
warrant be related to the objectives of the authorized intrusion (The possession and control of Jose Burgos, Jr. publisher-editor of the "We
purposes justifying a police search strictly limit the permissible extent Forum" newspaper, were seized. A petition for certiorari, prohibition
of the search). Certainly the presence of reporters inside the home was and mandamus with preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction
not related to the objectives of the authorized intrusion. Inasmuch as was filed after 6 months following the raid to question the validity of
that the reporters did not engage in the execution of the warrant and said search warrants, and to enjoin the Judge Advocate General of the
did not assist the police in their task, the reporters were not present AFP, the city fiscal of Quezon City, [Link]. from using the articles seized
for any reason related to the justification for police entry into the as evidence in Criminal Case Q-022782 of the RTC Quezon City (People
home--the apprehension of Dominic Wilson. This is not a case in which v. Burgos).
the presence of the third parties directly aided in the execution of the
warrant. Where the police enter a home under the authority of a Issue:
warrant to search for stolen property, the presence of third parties for Whether allegations of possession and printing of subversive materials
the purpose of identifying the stolen property has long been approved may be the basis of the issuance of search warrants.
by this Court and our common-law tradition. The claim of the officers,
that the presence of the Washington Post reporters in the Wilsons' Held:
home nonetheless served a number of legitimate law enforcement Section 3 provides that no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall
purposes ignores, the importance of the right of residential privacy at issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge, or
the core of the Fourth Amendment. It may well be that media ride- such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law, after
alongs further the law enforcement objectives of the police in a general examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
sense, but that is not the same as furthering the purposes of the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
search. Were such generalized "law enforcement objectives" searched and the persons or things to be seized. Probable cause for a
themselves sufficient to trump the Fourth Amendment, the protections search is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a
guaranteed by that Amendment's text would be significantly watered reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has
down. Although it may be claimed the presence of third parties could been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the
serve in some situations to minimize police abuses and protect offense are in the place sought to be searched. In mandating that "no
warrant shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by programs for student athletes, customs employees, and railway
the judge, after examination under oath or affirmation of the employees, the United States affirmed and judged the Georgia's law to
complainant and the witnesses he may produce”; the Constitution be constitutional.
requires no less than personal knowledge by the complainant or his
witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of a search warrant Issue:
may be justified. Herein, a statement in the effect that Burgos "is in Whether the suspicionless searches, required in Georgia’s drug testing
possession or has in his control printing equipment and other for candidates for public offices, is reasonable.
paraphernalia, news publications and other documents which were used
and are all continuously being used as a means of committing the Held:
offense of subversion punishable under PD 885, as amended" is a mere Georgia's drug testing requirement, imposed by law and enforced by
conclusion of law and does not satisfy the requirements of probable state officials, effects a search within the meaning of the Fourth and
cause. Bereft of such particulars as would justify a finding of the Fourteenth Amendments. (Collection and testing of urine to meet
existence of probable cause, said allegation cannot serve as basis for Georgia's certification statute "constitutes a search subject to the
the issuance of a search warrant. Further, when the search warrant demands of the Fourth Amendment"). As explained in Skinner,
applied for is directed against a newspaper publisher or editor in government ordered "collection and testing of urine intrudes upon
connection with the publication of subversive materials, the application expectations of privacy that society has long recognized as
and/or its supporting affidavits must contain a specification, stating reasonable." (Skinner and Von Raab, 489 U.S., at 617). To be
with particularity the alleged subversive material he has published or is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, a search ordinarily must be
intending to publish. Mere generalization will not suffice. based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. But particularized
exceptions to the main rule are sometimes warranted based on "special
needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement." When such
Chandler vs. Miler [520 US 305, 15 April 1997] Ginsburg "special needs"--concerns other than crime detection--are alleged in
Facts: justification of a Fourth Amendment intrusion, courts must undertake a
The Libertarian Party nominated Walker L. Chandler for the office of context specific inquiry, examining closely the competing private and
Lieutenant Governor, Sharon T. Harris for the office of Commissioner of public interests advanced by the parties. In limited circumstances,
Agriculture, and James D. Walker for the office of member of the where the privacy interests implicated by the search are minimal, and
General Assembly. In May 1994, about one month before the deadline where an important governmental interest furthered by the intrusion
for submission of the certificates required by §21-2-140, Chandler, would be placed in jeopardy by a requirement of individualized
Harris, and Walker filed an action in the United States District Court for suspicion, a search may be reasonable despite the absence of such
the Northern District of Georgia. They asserted, inter alia, that the drug suspicion. Our precedents establish that the proffered special need for
tests required by §21-2-140 violated their rights under the First, drug testing must be substantial--important enough to override the
Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, individual's acknowledged privacy interest, sufficiently vital to suppress
naming Governor Zell D. Miller and two other state officials involved in the Fourth Amendment's normal requirement of individualized
the administration of §21-2-140, as defendants. Chandler, et .al. suspicion. Miller, et. al.'s defense of the statute rests primarily on the
requested declaratory and injunctive relief barring enforcement of the incompatibility of unlawful drug use with holding high state office; but
statute. In June 1994, the District Court denied Chandlers' motion for notably lacking therein is any indication of a concrete danger
a preliminary injunction. The provision in the statute of the State of demanding departure from the Fourth Amendment's main rule, and
Georgia required candidates for designated state offices to certify that nothing in the record hints that the hazards Miller, et. al., broadly
they have taken a drug test and that the test result was negative. describe (i.e. the use of illegal drugs draws into question an official's
Chandler, et. al. apparently submitted to the drug tests, obtained the judgment and integrity; jeopardizes the discharge of public functions,
certificates required by §21-2-140, and appeared on the ballot. After including antidrug law enforcement efforts; and undermines public
the 1994 election, the parties jointly moved for the entry of final confidence and trust in elected officials) are real and not simply
judgment on stipulated facts. In January 1995, the District Court hypothetical for Georgia's polity. Further, Georgia's certification
entered final judgment for Miller, et. al. A divided Eleventh Circuit requirement is not well designed to identify candidates who violate
panel, relying on the US Court's precedents sustaining drug testing antidrug laws; nor is the scheme a credible means to deter illicit drug
users from seeking election to state office. What is left, after close headquarters. At the police station, Cid then "recited and informed the
review of Georgia's scheme, is the image the State seeks to project. By man of his constitutional rights" to remain silent, to have the
requiring candidates for public office to submit to drug testing, Georgia assistance of a counsel, etc. Eliciting no response from the man, Cid
displays its commitment to the struggle against drug abuse. The need ordered his men to find a resident of the area who spoke Chinese to
revealed, in short, is symbolic, not "special," as that term draws act as an interpreter. In the meantime, Badua opened the bag and
meaning from our case law. Thus, however well meant, the candidate counted 29 plastic packets containing yellowish crystalline substances.
drug test Georgia has devised diminishes personal privacy for a The interpreter, Mr. Go Ping Guan, finally arrived, through whom the
symbol's sake. The Fourth Amendment shields society against that man was "apprised of his constitutional rights." When the policemen
state action. In fine, where the risk to public safety is substantial and asked the man several questions, he retreated to his obstinate
real, blanket suspicionless searches calibrated to the risk may rank as reticence and merely showed his ID with the name Chua Ho San printed
"reasonable." But where, as herein, public safety is not genuinely in thereon. Chua's bag and its contents were sent to the PNP Crime
jeopardy, the Fourth Amendment precludes the suspicionless search, Laboratory at Camp Diego Silang, Carlatan, San Fernando, La Union for
no matter how conveniently arranged. laboratory examination. In the meantime, Chua was detained at the
Bacnotan Police Station. Later, Police Chief Inspector and Forensic
People vs. Chua Ho San [GR 128222, 17 June 1999] Chemist Theresa Ann Bugayong Cid (wife of Cid), conducted a
Facts: laboratory examination of 29 plastic packets, adn in her Chemistry
In response to reports of rampant smuggling of firearms and other Report D- 025- 95, she stated that her qualitative examination
contraband, Jim Lagasca Cid, as Chief of Police of the Bacnotan Police established the contents of the plastic packets, weighing 28.7 kilos, to
Station, of La Union began patrolling the Bacnotan coastline with his be positive of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a regulated
officers. While monitoring the coastal area of Barangay Bulala on 29 drug. Chua was initially charged with illegal possession of
March 1995, he intercepted a radio call at around 12:45 p.m. from methamphetamine hydrochloride before the RTC (Criminal Case 4037).
Barangay Captain Juan Almoite of Barangay Tammocalao requesting However, pursuant to the recommendation of the Office of the
police assistance regarding an unfamiliar speedboat the latter had Provincial Prosecutor of San Fernando, La Union, the information was
spotted, which looked different from the boats ordinarily used by subsequently amended to allege that Chua was in violation of Section
fisherfolk of the area and was poised to dock at Tammocalao shores. 15, Article III of RA 6425 as amended by RA 7659 (illegal transport of
Cid and 6 of his men led by his Chief Investigator, SPO1 Reynoso a regulated drug). At his arraignment on 31 July 1995, where the
Badua, proceeded forthwith to Tammocalao beach, conferred with amended complaint was read to him by a Fukien-speaking interpreter,
Almoite, and observed that the speedboat ferried a lone male Chua entered a plea of not guilty. Trial finally ensued, with interpreters
passenger. When the speedboat landed, the male passenger alighted, assigned to Chua (upon the RTC's direct request to the Taipei
and using both hands, carried what appeared a multicolored strawbag, Economic and Cultural Office in the Philippines, after its failure to
and walked towards the road. By this time, Almoite, Cid and Badua, the acquire one from the Department of Foreign Affairs). Chua provided a
latter two conspicuous in their uniform and issued side-arms, became completely different story, claiming that the bags belong to his
suspicious of the man as he suddenly changed direction and broke into employer Cho Chu Rong, who he accompanied in the speedboat; that
a run upon seeing the approaching officers. Badua, prevented the man they decided to dock when they were low on fuel and telephone
from fleeing by holding on to his right arm. Although Cid introduced battery; that the police, with nary any spoken word but only gestures
themselves as police officers, the man appeared impassive. Speaking in and hand movements, escorted him to the precinct where he was
English, then in Tagalog, and later in Ilocano, Cid then requested the handcuffed and tied to a chair; that the police, led by an officer,
man to open his bag, but he seemed not to understand. Cid then arrived with the motor engine of the speedboat and a bag, which they
resorted to "sign language," motioning with his hands for the man to presented to him; that the police inspected opened the bag, weighed
open the bag. The man apparently understood and acceded to the the contents, then proclaimed them as methamphetamine
request. A search of the bag yielded several transparent plastic hydrochloride. In a decision promulgated on 10 February 1997, the RTC
packets containing yellowish crystalline substances. As Cid wished to convicted Chua for transporting 28.7 kilos of methamphetamine
proceed to the police station, he signaled the man to follow, but the hydrochloride without legal authority to do so. Chua prays for the
latter did not comprehend. Hence, Cid placed his arm around the reversal of the RTC decision and his acquittal before the Supreme
shoulders of the man and escorted the latter to the police Court.
 drug, 20 confidential report and/or positive identification by informers
Issue: of courier(s) of prohibited drug and/or the time and place where they
Whether persistent reports of rampant smuggling of firearm and other will transport/deliver the same, suspicious demeanor or behavior and
contraband articles, Chua's watercraft differing in appearance from the suspicious bulge in the waist — accepted by the Court as sufficient to
usual fishing boats that commonly cruise over the Bacnotan seas, justify a warrantless arrest exists in the case. There was no classified
Chua’s illegal entry into the Philippines, Chua’s suspicious behavior, i.e. information that a foreigner would disembark at Tammocalao beach
he attempted to flee when he saw the police authorities, and the bearing prohibited drug on the date in question. Chua was not
apparent ease by which Chua can return to and navigate his speedboat identified as a drug courier by a police informer or agent. The fact that
with immediate dispatch towards the high seas, constitute "probable the vessel that ferried him to shore bore no resemblance to the fishing
cause." boats of the area did not automatically mark him as in the process of
perpetrating an offense. The search cannot therefore be denominated
Held: as incidental to an arrest. To reiterate, the search was not incidental to
No. Enshrined in the Constitution is the inviolable right to privacy of an arrest. There was no warrant of arrest and the warrantless arrest
home and person. It explicitly ordains that people have the right to be did not fall under the exemptions allowed by the Rules of Court as
secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against already shown. From all indications, the search was nothing but a
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any fishing expedition. Casting aside the regulated substance as evidence,
purpose. Inseparable, and not merely corollary or incidental to said the same being the fruit of a poisonous tree, the remaining evidence
right and equally hallowed in and by the Constitution, is the on record are insufficient, feeble and ineffectual to sustain Chua’s
exclusionary principle which decrees that any evidence obtained in conviction.
violation of said right is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
The Constitutional proscription against unreasonable searches and People vs. Molina [GR 133917, 19 February 2001]
seizures does not, of course, forestall reasonable searches and seizure. Facts:
This interdiction against warrantless searches and seizures, however, is Sometime in June 1996, SPO1 Marino Paguidopon, then a member of
not absolute and such warrantless searches and seizures have long the Philippine National Police (PNP) detailed at Precinct No. 3, Matina,
been deemed permissible by jurisprudence. The Rules of Court Davao City, received an information regarding the presence of an
recognize permissible warrantless arrests, to wit: (1) arrests in alleged marijuana pusher in Davao City. The first time he came to see
flagrante delicto, (2) arrests effected in hot pursuit, and (3) arrests of the said marijuana pusher in person was during the first week of July
escaped prisoners. The prosecution and the defense painted extremely 1996. SPO1 Paguidopon was then with his informer when a motorcycle
divergent versions of the incident, but the Court is certain that Chua passed by. His informer pointed to the motorcycle driver, Gregorio Mula
was arrested and his bag searched without the benefit of a warrant. y Malagura (@"Boboy"), as the pusher. As to Nasario Molina y Manamat
There are no facts on record reasonably suggestive or demonstrative (@ "Bobong"), SPO1 Paguidopon had no occasion to see him prior to 8
of Chua’s participation in an ongoing criminal enterprise that could August 1996. At about 7:30 a.m. of 8 August 1996, SPO1 Paguidopon
have spurred police officers from conducting the obtrusive search. The received an information that the alleged pusher will be passing at NHA,
RTC never took the pains of pointing to such facts, but predicated Maa, Davao City any time that morning. Consequently, at around 8:00
mainly its decision on the finding that "accused was caught red-handed a.m. he called for assistance at the PNP, Precinct 3, Matina, Davao City,
carrying the bagful of shabu when apprehended." In short, there is no which immediately dispatched the team of SPO4 Dionisio Cloribel (team
probable cause. Persistent reports of rampant smuggling of firearm and leader), SPO2 Paguidopon (brother of SPO1 Marino Paguidopon), and
other contraband articles, Chua's watercraft differing in appearance SPO1 Pamplona, to proceed to the house of SPO1 Marino Paguidopon
from the usual fishing boats that commonly cruise over the Bacnotan where they would wait for the alleged pusher to pass by. At around
seas, Chua’s illegal entry into the Philippines, Chua’s suspicious 9:30 a.m., while the team were positioned in the house of SPO1
behavior, i.e. he attempted to flee when he saw the police authorities, Paguidopon, a "trisikad" carrying Mula and Molina passed by. At that
and the apparent ease by which Chua can return to and navigate his instance, SPO1 Paguidopon pointed to Mula and Molina as the pushers.
speedboat with immediate dispatch towards the high seas, do not Thereupon, the team boarded their vehicle and overtook the "trisikad."
constitute "probable cause." None of the telltale clues, e.g., bag or SPO1 Paguidopon was left in his house, 30 meters from where Mula
package emanating the pungent odor of marijuana or other prohibited and Molina were accosted. The police officers then ordered the
"trisikad" to stop. At that point, Mula, who was holding a black bag, indication that would justify their arrest. In holding a bag on board a
handed the same to Molina. Subsequently, SPO1 Pamplona introduced trisikad, they could not be said to be committing, attempting to
himself as a police officer and asked Molina to open the bag. Molina commit or have committed a crime. It matters not that Molina
replied, "Boss, if possible we will settle this." SPO1 Pamplona insisted responded "Boss, if possible we will settle this" to the request of SPO1
on opening the bag, which revealed dried marijuana leaves inside. Pamplona to open the bag. Such response which allegedly reinforced
Thereafter, Mula and Molina were handcuffed by the police officers. On the "suspicion" of the arresting officers that Mula and Molina were
6 December 1996, the accused Mula and Molina, through counsel, committing a crime, is an equivocal statement which standing alone will
jointly filed a Demurrer to Evidence, contending that the marijuana not constitute probable cause to effect an in flagrante delicto arrest.
allegedly seized from them is inadmissible as evidence for having been Note that were it not for SPO1 Marino Paguidopon, Mula and Molina
obtained in violation of their constitutional right against unreasonable could not be the subject of any suspicion, reasonable or otherwise.
searches and seizures. The demurrer was denied by the trial court. A Further, it would appear that the names and addresses of Mula and
motion for reconsideration was filed by the accused, but this was Molina came to the knowledge of SPO1 Paguidopon only after they
likewise denied. The accused waived presentation of evidence and were arrested, and such cannot lend a semblance of validity on the
opted to file a joint memorandum. On 25 April 1997, the trial court arrest effected by the peace officers. Withal, the Court holds that the
rendered the decision, finding the accused guilty of the offense arrest of Mula and Molina does not fall under the exceptions allowed by
charged, and sentenced both to suffer the penalty of death by lethal the rules. Hence, the search conducted on their person was likewise
injection. Pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code and Rule illegal. Consequently, the marijuana seized by the peace officers could
122, Section 10 of the Rules of Court, the case was elevated to the not be admitted as evidence against them.
Supreme Court on automatic review.
People vs. Salanguit [GR 133254-55, 19 April 2001]
Issue: Facts:
Whether Mula and Molina manifested outward indication that would On 26 December 1995, Sr. Insp. Aguilar applied for a warrant in the
justify their arrest, and the seizure of prohibited drugs that were in Regional Trial Court, Branch 90, Dasmariñias, Cavite, to search the
their possession. residence of Robert Salanguit y Ko on Binhagan St., Novaliches, Quezon
City. He presented as his witness SPO1 Edmund Badua, who testified
Held: that as a poseur-buyer, he was able to purchase 2.12 grams of shabu
The fundamental law of the land mandates that searches and seizures from Salanguit. The sale took place in Salunguit's room, and Badua saw
be carried out in a reasonable fashion, that is, by virtue or on the that the shabu was taken by Salunguit from a cabinet inside his room.
strength of a search warrant predicated upon the existence of a The application was granted, and a search warrant was later issued by
probable cause. Complementary to the foregoing provision is the Presiding Judge Dolores L. Español. At about 10:30 p.m. of said day, a
exclusionary rule enshrined under Article III, Section 3, paragraph 2, group of about 10 policemen, along with one civilian informer, went to
which bolsters and solidifies the protection against unreasonable the residence of Salunguit to serve the warrant. The police operatives
searches and seizures. The foregoing constitutional proscription, knocked on Salanguit’s door, but nobody opened it. They heard people
however, is not without exceptions. Search and seizure may be made inside the house, apparently panicking. The police operatives then
without a warrant and the evidence obtained therefrom may be forced the door open and entered the house. After showing the search
admissible in the following instances: (1) search incident to a lawful warrant to the occupants of the house, Lt. Cortes and his group
arrest; (2) search of a moving motor vehicle; (3) search in violation of started searching the house. They found 12 small heat-sealed
customs laws; (4) seizure of evidence in plain view; (5) when the transparent plastic bags containing a white crystalline substance, a
accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and paper clip box also containing a white crystalline substance, and two
seizures; and (6) stop and frisk situations (Terry search). The first bricks of dried leaves which appeared to be marijuana wrapped in
exception (search incidental to a lawful arrest) includes a valid newsprint having a total weight of approximately 1,255 grams. A
warrantless search and seizure pursuant to an equally valid warrantless receipt of the items seized was prepared, but Salanguit refused to sign
arrest which must precede the search. Still, the law requires that there it. After the search, the police operatives took Salanguit with them to
be first a lawful arrest before a search can be made — the process Station 10, EDSA, Kamuning, Quezon City, along with the items they
cannot be reversed. Herein, Mula and Molina manifested no outward had seized. PO3 Duazo requested a laboratory examination of the
confiscated evidence. The white crystalline substance with a total and the things to be seized. With respect to, and in light of the "plain
weight of 2.77 grams and those contained in a small box with a total view doctrine," the police failed to allege the time when the marijuana
weight of 8.37 grams were found to be positive for methamphetamine was found, i.e., whether prior to, or contemporaneous with, the shabu
hydrochloride. On the other hand, the two bricks of dried leaves, one subject of the warrant, or whether it was recovered on Salanguit's
weighing 425 grams and the other 850 grams, were found to be person or in an area within his immediate control. Its recovery,
marijuana. Charges against Roberto Salanguit y Ko for violations of therefore, presumably during the search conducted after the shabu had
Republic Act (RA) 6425, i.e. for possession of shabu and marijuana, been recovered from the cabinet, as attested to by SPO1 Badua in his
(Criminal Cases Q-95-64357 and Q-95-64358, respectively) were filed deposition, was invalid. Thus, the Court affirmed the decision as to
on 28 December 1995. After hearing, the trial court rendered its Criminal Case Q-95-64357 only.
decision, convicting Salanguit in Criminal Cases Q-95-64357 and Q-95-
64358 for violation of Section 16 and 8, respectively, RA 6425, and Sta. Rosa Mining Company vs. Assistant Provincial Fiscal Zabala [GR L-
sentencing him to suffer an indeterminate sentence with a minimum of 44723, 31 August 1987]
6 months of arresto mayor and a maximum of 4 years and 2 months of Facts:
prision correccional, and reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of On 21 March 1974, Sta. Rosa Mining Company filed a complaint for
P700,000.00, respectively. Salanguit appealed; contesting his attempted theft of materials (scrap iron) forming part of the
conviction on the grounds that (1) the admissibility of the shabu installations on its mining property at Jose Panganiban, Camarines
allegedly recovered from his residence as evidence against him on the Norte against Romeo Garrido and Gil Alapan with the Office of the
ground that the warrant used in obtaining it was invalid; (2) the Provincial Fiscal of Camarines Norte, then headed by Provincial Fiscal
admissibility in evidence of the marijuana allegedly seized from Joaquin Ilustre. The case was assigned to third Assistant Fiscal Esteban
Salanguit to the "plain view" doctrine; and (3) the employment of P. Panotes for preliminary investigation who, after conducting said
unnecessary force by the police in the execution of the warrant. investigation, issued a resolution dated 26 August 1974
recommending that an information for Attempted Theft be filed
Issue: against Garrido and Alapan on a finding of prima facie case which
Whether the warrant was invalid for failure of providing evidence to resolution was approved by Fiscal Ilustre. Garrido and Alapan sought
support the seizure of “drug reconsideration of the resolution but the same was denied by Fiscal
paraphernalia”, and whether the marijuana may be included as evidence Ilustre in a resolution dated 14 October 1974. On 29 October 1974,
in light of the “plain view doctrine.” Fiscal Ilustre filed with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Camarines
Norte an Information dated 17 October 1987 (Criminal Case 821),
Held: charging Garrido aand Alapan with the crime of Attempted Theft. In a
The warrant authorized the seizure of "undetermined quantity of shabu letter dated 22 October 1974, Garrido and Alapan requested the
and drug paraphernalia." Evidence was presented showing probable Secretary of Justice for a review of the Resolutions of the Office of the
cause of the existence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Provincial Fiscal dated 26 August 1974 and 14 October 1974. On 6
The fact that there was no probable cause to support the application November 1974, the Chief State Prosecutor ordered the Provincial
for the seizure of drug paraphernalia does not warrant the conclusion Fiscal by telegram to "elevate entire records PFO Case 577 against
that the search warrant is void. This fact would be material only if drug Garrido et al., review in five days and defer all proceedings pending
paraphernalia was in fact seized by the police. The fact is that none review." On 6 March 1975, the Secretary of Justice, after reviewing
was taken by virtue of the search warrant issued. If at all, therefore, the records, reversed the findings of prima facie case of the Provincial
the search warrant is void only insofar as it authorized the seizure of Fiscal and directed said prosecuting officer to immediately move for
drug paraphernalia, but it is valid as to the seizure of the dismissal of the criminal case. The Company sought reconsideration
methamphetamine hydrochloride as to which evidence was presented of the directive of the Secretary of Justice but the latter denied the
showing probable cause as to its existence. In sum, with respect to the same in a letter dated 11 June 1975. A motion to dismiss dated 16
seizure of shabu from Salanguit's residence, Search Warrant 160 was September 1975 was then filed by the Provincial Fiscal but the court
properly issued, such warrant being founded on probable cause denied the motion on the ground that there was a prima facie evidence
personally determined by the judge under oath or affirmation of the against Garrido and Alapan and set the case for trial on 25 February
deposing witness and particularly describing the place to be searched 1976. Garrido and Alapan sought reconsideration of the court's ruling
but in an Order dated 13 February 1976, the motion filed for said Paderanga vs. Drilon [GR 96080, 19 April 1991]
purpose was likewise denied. Trial of the case was reset to 23 April Facts:
1976. Thereafter, Fiscal Ilustre was appointed a judge in the CFI of On 16 October 1986, an information for multiple murder was filed in
Albay and Fiscal Zabala became officer-in-charge of the Provincial the Regional Trial Court, Gingoog City, against Felipe Galarion, Manuel
Fiscal's Office of Camarines Norte. On 19 April 1976, Fiscal Zabala filed Sabit, Cesar Sabit, Julito Ampo, Eddie Torion, John Doe, Peter Doe and
a Second Motion to Dismiss the case. This second motion to dismiss Richard Doe, for the deaths on 1 May 1984 of Renato Bucag, his wife
was denied by the trial court in an order dated 23 April 1976. Melchora Bucag, and their son Renato Bucag II. Venue was, however,
Whereupon, Fiscal Zabala manifested that he would not prosecute the transferred to Cagayan de Oro City per Administrative Matter 87-2-
case and disauthorized any private prosecutor to appear therein. 244. Only Felipe Galarion was tried and found guilty as charged. The
Hence, the Company filed a petition for mandamus before the Supreme rest of the accused remained at large. Felipe Galarion, however,
Court. escaped from detention and has not been apprehended since then. In
an amended information filed on 6 October 1988, Felizardo Roxas, alias
Issue: "Ely Roxas," "Fely Roxas" and "Lolong Roxas," was included as a co-
Whether the fiscal can refuse to prosecute the case if the Secretary of accused. Roxas retained Atty. Miguel P. Paderanga as his counsel. As
Justice reversed the findings of prima facie case by the fiscal. counsel for Roxas, Paderanga filed, among others, an Omnibus Motion
to dismiss, to Quash the Warrant of Arrest and to Nullify the
Held: Arraignment on 14 October 1988. The trial court in an order dated 9
If the fiscal is not at all convinced that a prima facie case exists, he January 1989, denied the omnibus motion but directed the City
simply cannot move for the dismissal of the case and, when denied, Prosecutor "to conduct another preliminary investigation or
refuse to prosecute the same. He is obliged by law to proceed and reinvestigation in order to grant the accused all the opportunity to
prosecute the criminal action. He cannot impose his opinion on the trial adduce whatever evidence he has in support of his defense." In the
court. At least what he can do is to continue appearing for the course of the preliminary investigation, through a signed affidavit,
prosecution and then turn over the presentation of evidence to Felizardo Roxas implicated Atty. Paderanga in the commission of the
another fiscal or a private prosecutor subject to his direction and crime charged. The City Prosecutor of Cagayan de Oro City inhibited
control. Where there is no other prosecutor available, he should himself from further conducting the preliminary investigation against
proceed to discharge his duty and present the evidence to the best of Paderanga at the instance of the latter's counsel, per his resolution
his ability and let the court decide the merits of the case on the basis dated 7 July 1989. In his first indorsement to the Department of
of the evidence adduced by both parties. The mere fact that the Justice, dated 24 July 1989, said city prosecutor requested the
Secretary of Justice had, after reviewing the records of the case, Department of Justice to designate a state prosecutor to continue the
directed the prosecuting fiscal to move for the dismissal of the case preliminary investigation against Paderanga. In a resolution dated 6
and the motion to dismiss filed pursuant to said directive is denied by September 1989, the State Prosecutor Henrick F. Gingoyon, who was
the trial court, is no justification for the refusal of the fiscal to designated to continue with the conduct of the preliminary
prosecute the case. Once a complaint or information is filed in Court investigation against Paderanga, directed the amendment of the
any disposition of the case as its dismissal or the conviction or previously amended information to include and implead Paderanga as
acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the Court. The one of the accused therein. Paderanga moved for reconsideration,
Court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it. contending that the preliminary investigation was not yet completed
The determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and when said resolution was promulgated, and that he was deprived of his
competence. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should he right to present a corresponding counter-affidavit and additional
addressed to the Court who has the option to grant or deny the same. evidence crucial to the determination of his alleged "linkage" to the
It does not matter if this is done before or after the arraignment of the crime charged. The motion was, however, denied by Gingoyon in his
accused or that the motion was filed after a reinvestigation or upon order dated 29 January 1990. From the aforesaid resolution and order,
instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the records of Paderanga filed a Petition for Review with the Department of Justice.
the investigation. Thereafter, he submitted a Supplemental Petition with Memorandum,
and then a Supplemental Memorandum with Additional
Exculpatory/Exonerating Evidence Annexed, attaching thereto an
affidavit of Roxas dated 20 June 1990 and purporting to be a no jurisdiction over the offense; (h) Where it is a case of persecution
retraction of his affidavit of 30 March 1990 wherein he implicated rather than prosecution; (i) Where the charges are manifestly false and
Paderanga. On 10 August 1990, the Department of Justice, through motivated by the lust for vengeance; and (j) When there is clearly no
Undersecretary Silvestre H. Bello III, issued Resolution 648 dismissing prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that
the said petition for review. His motion for reconsideration having been ground has been denied. A careful analysis of the circumstances
likewise denied, Paderanga then filed the petition for mandamus and obtaining in the present case, however, will readily show that the same
prohibition before the Supreme Court. does not fall under any of the aforesaid exceptions.

Issue: Pita vs. Court of Appeals [GR 80806, 5 October 1989]

Whether there is no prima facie evidence, or probable cause, or Facts:
sufficient justification to hold Paderangato a tedious and prolonged On December 1 and 3, 1983, pursuing an Anti-Smut Campaign initiated
public trial. by the Mayor of the City of Manila, Ramon D. Bagatsing, elements of
the Special Anti-Narcotics Group, Auxiliary Services Bureau, Western
Held: Police District, INP of the Metropolitan Police Force of Manila, seized
A preliminary investigation is defined as an inquiry or proceeding for and confiscated from dealers, distributors, newsstand owners and
the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground to peddlers along Manila sidewalks, magazines, publications and other
engender a well founded belief that a crime cognizable by the Regional reading materials believed to be obscene, pornographic and indecent
Trial Court has been committed and that the respondent is probably and later burned the seized materials in public at the University belt
guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. The quantum of evidence along C.M. Recto Avenue, Manila, in the presence of Mayor Bagatsing
now required in preliminary investigation is such evidence sufficient to and several officers and members of various student organizations.
"engender a well founded belief" as to the fact of the commission of a Among the publications seized, and later burned, was "Pinoy Playboy"
crime and the respondent's probable guilt thereof. A preliminary magazines published and co-edited by Leo Pita. On 7 December 1983,
investigation is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of Pita filed a case for injunction with prayer for issuance of the writ of
the parties' evidence; it is for the presentation of such evidence only preliminary injunction against Mayor Bagatsing and Narcisco Cabrera, as
as may engender a well grounded belief that an offense has been superintendent of Western Police District of the City of Manila, seeking
committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. Preliminary to enjoin and or restrain Bagatsing, Cabrera and their agents from
investigation is generally inquisitorial, and it is often the only means of confiscating his magazines or from otherwise preventing the sale or
discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime, circulation thereof claiming that the magazine is a decent, artistic and
to enable the fiscal to prepare his complaint or information. It is not a educational magazine which is not per se obscene, and that the
trial of the case on the merits and has no purpose except that of publication is protected by the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of
determining whether a crime has been committed and whether there is speech and of the press. On 12 December 1983, Pita filed an Urgent
probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof, and it Motion for issuance of a temporary restraining order against
does not place the person against whom it is taken in jeopardy. The indiscriminate seizure, confiscation and burning of plaintiffs "Pinoy
institution of a criminal action depends upon the sound discretion of Playboy" Magazines, pending hearing on the petition for preliminary
the fiscal. He has the quasi- judicial discretion to determine whether or injunction in view of Mayor Bagatsing's pronouncement to continue the
not a criminal case should be filed in court. Hence, the general rule is Anti-Smut Campaign. The Court granted the temporary restraining
that an injunction will not be granted to restrain a criminal prosecution. order on 14 December 1983. On 5 January 1984, Pita filed his
The case of Brocka, et al. vs. Enrile, et al. cites several exceptions to Memorandum in support of the issuance of the writ of preliminary
the rule, to wit: (a) To afford adequate protection to the constitutional injunction, raising the issue as to "whether or not the defendants, and
rights of the accused; (b) When necessary for the orderly or their agents can without a court order confiscate or seize plaintiff's
administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of magazine before any judicial finding is made on whether said magazine
actions; (c) When there is a prejudicial question which is sub-judice; (d) is obscene or not." The restraining order lapsed on 3 January 1984,
When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority; (e) Pita filed an urgent motion for issuance of another restraining order,
Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation; which was opposed by Bagatsing on the ground that issuance of a
(f) When double jeopardy is clearly apparent; (g) Where the court has second restraining order would violate the Resolution of the Supreme
Court dated 11 January 1983, providing for the Interim Rules Relative obscenity rap makes it no different from Burgos vs. Chief of Staff AFP,
to the Implementation of Batas Pambansa 129, which provides that a a political case, because speech is speech, whether political or
temporary restraining order shall be effective only for 20 days from "obscene." Although the Court is not ruling out warrantless searches,
date of its issuance. On 11 January 1984, the trial court issued an the search must have been an incident to a lawful arrest, and the
Order setting the case for hearing on 16 January 1984 "for the parties arrest must be on account of a crime committed. Here, no party has
to adduce evidence on the question of whether the publication 'Pinoy been charged, nor are such charges being readied against any party,
Playboy Magazine' alleged (sic) seized, confiscated and or burned by under Article 201, as amended, of the Revised Penal Code. There is no
the defendants, are obscence per se or not." On 3 February 1984, the "accused" here to speak of, who ought to be "punished". Further, to
trial court promulgated the Order appealed from denying the motion say that the Mayor could have validly ordered the raid (as a result of an
for a writ of preliminary injunction, and dismissing the case for lack of anti -smut campaign) without a lawful search warrant because, in his
merit. Likewise, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, holding that opinion, "violation of penal laws" has been committed, is to make the
the freedom of the press is not without restraint, as the state has the Mayor judge, jury, and executioner rolled into one. Thus, the court mae
right to protect society from pornographic literature that is offensive a resume, to wit: (1) The authorities must apply for the issuance of a
to public morals, as indeed we have laws punishing the author, search warrant from a judge, if in their opinion, an obscenity rap is in
publishers and sellers of obscene publications; and that the right order; (2) The authorities must convince the court that the materials
against unreasonable searches and seizures recognizes certain sought to be seized are "obscene", and pose a clear and present
exceptions, as when there is consent to the search or seizure, or danger of an evil substantive enough to warrant State interference and
search is an incident to an arrest, or is conducted in a vehicle or action; (3) The judge must determine whether or not the same are
movable structure. Pita filed the petition for review with the Supreme indeed "obscene:" the question is to be resolved on a case-to-case
Court. basis and on His Honor's sound discretion. (4) If, in the opinion of the
court, probable cause exists, it may issue the search warrant prayed
Issue: for; (5) The proper suit is then brought in the court under Article 201
Whether the Mayor can order the seizure of “obscene” materials as a of the Revised Penal Code; and (6) Any conviction is subject to appeal.
result of an anti-smut campaign. The appellate court may assess whether or not the properties seized
are indeed "obscene." The Court states, however, that "these do not
Held: foreclose, however, defenses under the Constitution or applicable
The Court is not convinced that Bagatsing and Cabrera have shown the statutes, or remedies against abuse of official power under the Civil
required proof to justify a ban and to warrant confiscation of the Code or the Revised Penal code."
literature for which mandatory injunction had been sought below. First
of all, they were not possessed of a lawful court order: (1) finding the Abdula vs. Guiani [GR 118821, 18 February 2000]
said materials to be pornography, and (2) authorizing them to carry Facts:
out a search and seizure, by way of a search warrant. The fact that the On 24 June 1994, a complaint for murder (IS 94-1361) was filed
former Mayor's act was sanctioned by "police power" is no license to before the Criminal Investigation Service Command, ARMM Regional
seize property in disregard of due process. Presidential Decrees 960 Office XII against Mayor Bai Unggie D. Abdula and Odin Abdula and 6
and 969 are, arguably, police power measures, but they are not, by other persons in connection with the death of a certain Abdul Dimalen,
themselves, authorities for high-handed acts. They do not exempt our the former COMELEC Registrar of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. The
law enforcers, in carrying out the decree of the twin presidential complaint alleged that the Abdulas paid the 6 other persons the total
issuances, from the commandments of the Constitution, the right to amount of P200,000.00 for the death of Dimalen. Acting on this
due process of law and the right against unreasonable searches and complaint, the Provincial Prosecutor of Maguindanao, Salick U. Panda, in
seizures, specifically. Significantly, the Decrees themselves lay down a Resolution dated 22 August 1994, dismissed the charges of murder
procedures for implementation. It is basic that searches and seizures against the Abdulas and 5 other respondents on a finding that there
may be done only through a judicial warrant, otherwise, they become was no prima facie case for murder against them. Prosecutor Panda,
unreasonable and subject to challenge. The Court finds greater reason however, recommended the filing of an information for murder against
to reprobate the questioned raid, in the complete absence of a one of the respondents, a certain Kasan Mama. Pursuant to this
warrant, valid or invalid. The fact that the present case involves an Resolution, an information for murder was thereafter filed against
Kasan Mama before the sala of Judge Japal M. Guiani. In an Order dated review was filed by the Abdulas with the Department of Justice on 11
13 September 1994, the Judge ordered that the case (Criminal Case January 1995. Despite said filing, the judge did not act upon the
2332), be returned to the Provincial Prosecutor for further Abdulas' pending Motion to Set Aside the Warrant of Arrest. The
investigation. In this Order, the judge noted that although there were 8 Abdulas filed the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the
respondents in the murder case, the information filed with the court Supreme Court.
"charged only 1 of the 8 respondents in the name of Kasan Mama
without the necessary resolution required under Section 4, Rule 112 of Issue:
the Revised Rules of Court to show how the investigating prosecutor Whether the judge may rely upon the findings of the prosecutor in
arrived at such a conclusion." As such, the judge reasons, the trial determining probable cause in the issuance of search or arrest warrant.
court cannot issue the warrant of arrest against Kasan Mama. Upon the
return of the records of the case to the Office of the Provincial Held:
Prosecutor for Maguindanao, it was assigned to 2nd Assistant The 1987 Constitution requires the judge to determine probable cause
Prosecutor Enok T. Dimaraw for further investigation. In addition to the "personally," a requirement which does not appear in the
evidence presented during the initial investigation of the murder corresponding provisions of our previous constitutions. This emphasis
charge, two new affidavits of witnesses were submitted to support the evinces the intent of the framers to place a greater degree of
charge of murder against the Abdulas and the other respondents in the responsibility upon trial judges than that imposed under previous
murder complaint. Thus, Prosecutor Dimaraw treated the same as a re- Constitutions. Herein, the Judge admits that he issued the questioned
filing of the murder charge and pursuant to law, issued subpoena to warrant as there was "no reason for (him) to doubt the validity of the
the respondents named therein. On 6 December 1994, the Abdulas certification made by the Assistant Prosecutor that a preliminary
submitted and filed their joint counter-affidavits. After evaluation of investigation was conducted and that probable cause was found to
the evidence, Prosecutor Dimaraw, in a Resolution dated 28 December exist as against those charged in the information filed." The statement
1994, found a prima facie case for murder against the Abdulas and 3 is an admission that the Judge relied solely and completely on the
other respondents. He thus recommended the filing of charges against certification made by the fiscal that probable cause exists as against
the Abdulas, as principals by inducement, and against the 3 others, as those charged in the information and issued the challenged warrant of
principals by direct participation. Likewise in this 28 December 1994 arrest on the sole basis of the prosecutor's findings and
Resolution, Provincial Prosecutor Salick U. Panda, who conducted the recommendations. He adopted the judgment of the prosecutor
earlier preliminary investigation of the murder charge, added a notation regarding the existence of probable cause as his own. Clearly, the
stating that he was inhibiting himself from the case and authorizing the judge, by merely stating that he had no reason to doubt the validity of
investigating prosecutor to dispose of the case without his approval. the certification made by the investigating prosecutor has abdicated
The reasons he cited were that the case was previously handled by him his duty under the Constitution to determine on his own the issue of
and that the victim was the father-in-law of his son. On 2 January probable cause before issuing a warrant of arrest. Consequently, the
1995, an information for murder dated 28 December 1994 was filed warrant of arrest should be declared null and void.
against the Abdulas and Kasan Mama, Cuenco Usman and Jun Mama
before Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City, then the Pasion Vda. de Garcia vs. Locsin [GR 45950, 20 June 1938]
sala of Judge Guiani. This information was signed by investigating Facts:
prosecutor Enok T. Dimaraw. A notation was likewise made on the On 10 November 1934, Mariano G. Almeda, an agent of the Anti-Usury
information by Provincial Prosecutor Panda, which explained the reason Board, obtained from the justice of the peace of Tarlac, Tarlac, a
for his inhibition. The following day, the judge issued a warrant for the search warrant commanding any officer of the law to search the
arrest of the Abdulas. Upon learning of the issuance of the said person, house or store of Leona Pasion Vda. de Garcia at Victoria,
warrant, the Abdulas filed on 4 January 1995 an Urgent Ex-parte Tarlac, for "certain books, lists, chits, receipts, documents and other
Motion for the setting aside of the warrant of arrest on 4 January papers relating to her activities as usurer." The search warrant was
1995. In this motion, the Abdulas argued that the enforcement of the issued upon an affidavit given by the said Almeda "that he has and
warrant of arrest should be held in abeyance considering that the there is just and probable cause to believe and he does believe that
information was prematurely filed and that the Abdulas intended to file Leona Pasion de Garcia keeps and conceals in her house and store at
a petition for review with the Department of Justice. A petition for Victoria, Tarlac, certain books, lists, chits, receipts, documents, and
other papers relating to her activities as usurer, all of which is contrary examined the applicant and his witnesses, if any. Even accepting the
to the statute in such cases made and provided." On the same date, description of the properties to be seized to be sufficient and on the
Almeda, accompanied by a captain of the Philippine Constabulary, went assumption that the receipt issued is sufficiently detailed within the
to the office of Pasion de Garcia in Victoria, Tarlac and, after showing meaning of the law, the properties seized were not delivered to the
the search warrant to the latter's bookkeeper, Alfredo Salas, and, court which issued the warrant, as required by law. Instead, they were
without Pasion de Garcia's presence who was ill and confined at the turned over to the provincial fiscal and used by him in building up cases
time, proceeded with the execution thereof. Two packages of records against Pasion de Garcia. Considering that at the time the warrant was
and a locked filing cabinet containing several papers and documents issued there was no case pending against Pasion de Garcia, the
were seized by Almeda and a receipt therefor issued by him to Salas. averment that the warrant was issued primarily for exploration
The papers and documents seized were kept for a considerable length purposes is not without basis. The search warrant was illegally issued
of time by the Anti-Usury Board and thereafter were turned over by it by the justice of the peace of Tarlac, Tarlac. In any event, the failure
to the provincial fiscal Felix Imperial, who subsequently filed, in the on the part of Pasion de Garcia and her bookkeeper to resist or object
Court of First Instance (CFI) of Tarlac, 6 separate criminal cases to the execution of the warrant does not constitute an implied waiver
against Pasion de Garcia for violation of the Anti-Usury Law. On several of constitutional right. It is, as Judge Cooley observes, but a
occasions, after seizure, Pasion de Garcia, through counsel, demanded submission to the authority of the law. As the constitutional guaranty
from the Anti-Usury Board the return of the documents seized. On is not dependent upon any affirmative act of the citizen, the courts do
January 7, and, by motion, on 4 June 1937, the legality of the search not place the citizen in the position of either contesting an officer's
warrant was challenged by Pasion de Garcia's counsel in the 6 criminal authority by force, or waiving his constitutional rights; but instead they
cases and the devolution of the documents demanded. By resolution of hold that a peaceful submission to a search or seizure is not a consent
5 October 1937, Judge Diego Locsin (CFI) denied Pasion de garcia's or an invitation thereto, but is merely a demonstration of regard for
motion of June 4 for the reason that though the search warrant was the supremacy of the law.
illegal, there was a waiver on the latter's part. A motion for
reconsideration was presented but was denied by order of 3 January Yee Sue Koy vs. Almeda [GR 47021, 15 June 1940]
1938. Pasion de Garcia registered her exception. Facts:
In response to a sworn application of Mariano G. Almeda, chief agent of
Issue: the Anti-Usury Board, dated 5 May 1938, the justice of the peace of
Whether the lack of personal examination of witnesses renders the Sagay, Occidental Negros, after taking the testimony of applicant's
warrant void. witness, Jose Estrada, special agent of the Anti-Usury Board, issued on
the same date a search warrant commanding any peace officer to
Held: search during day time the store and premises occupied by Sam Sing &
Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures is declared a popular Co., situated at Sagay, Occidental Negros, as well as the person of said
right and for a search warrant to be valid, (1) it must be issued upon Sam Sing & Co., and to seize the documents, notebooks, lists, receipts
probable cause; (2) the probable cause must be determined by the and promissory notes being used by said Sam Sing & Co. in connection
judge himself and not by the applicant or any other person; (3) in the with their activities of lending money at usurious rates of interest in
determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath violation of law, or such as may be found, and to bring them forthwith
or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may before the aforesaid justice of the peace of Sagay. On the same date,
produce; and (4) the warrant issued must particularly describe the at 10:30 a. m., search was accordingly made by Mariano G. Almeda,
place to be searched and persons or things to be seized. These Jose Estrada, 2 internal revenue agents and 2 members of the
requirements are complemented by the Code of Criminal Procedure, Philippine Army, who seized certain receipt books, vales or promissory
particularly with reference to the duration of the validity of the search notes, chits, notebooks, journal book, and collection list belonging to
warrant and the obligation of the officer seizing the property to deliver Sam Sing & Co. and enumerated in the inventory receipt issued by
the same to the corresponding court. Herein, the existence of probable Mariano G. Almeda to the owner of the documents, papers and articles
cause was determined not by the judge himself but by the applicant. seized. Immediately after the search and seizure thus effected, Mariano
All that the judge did was to accept as true the affidavit made by G. Almeda filed a return with the justice of the peace of Sagay
agent Almeda. He did not decide for himself. It does not appear that he together. With a request that the office of the Anti-Usury Board be
allowed to retain possession of the articles seized for examination, interest in violation of the Usury Law." In turn, the witness Jose
pursuant to section 4 of Act 4109, which request was granted. Under Estrada, in his testimony before the justice of the peace of Sagay,
the date of 11 March 1939, Godofredo P. Escalona, counsel for Sam swore that he knew that Sam Sing & Co. was lending money without
Sing & Co. filed a motion with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of license and charging usurious rate of interest, because he personally
Occidental Negros praying that the search warrant and the seizure investigated the victims who had secured loans from said Sam Sing &
effected thereunder be declared illegal and set aside and that the Co. and were charged usurious rate of interest; that he knew that the
articles in question be ordered returned to Sam Sing & Co., which said Sam Sing & Co. was keeping and using books of accounts and
motion was denied in the order dated 24 July 1939. A similar motion records containing its transactions relative its activities as money
was presented to the justice of the peace of Sagay on 27 October lender and the entries of the interest paid by its debtors, because he
1939 but was denied the next day. Meanwhile, an information dated 30 saw the said Sam Sing & d make entries and records of their debts and
September 1939 had been filed in the CFI Occidental Negros, charging the interest paid thereon. As both Mariano G. Almeda and Jose Estrada
Yee Fock alias Yee Sue Koy, Y. Tip and A. Sing, managers of Sam Sing swore that they had personal knowledge, their affidavits were
& Co., with a violation of Act 2655. Before the criminal case could be sufficient for, thereunder, they could be held liable for perjury if the
tried, Yee Sue Koy and Yee Tip filed the petition with the Supreme facts would turn out to be not as their were stated under oath. That
Court on 6 November 1939. The petition is grounded on the the existence of probable cause had been determined by the justice of
propositions (1) that the search warrant issued on 2 May 1938, by the the peace of Sagay before issuing the search warrant complained of, is
justice of the peace of Sagay and the seizure accomplished thereunder shown by the following statement in the warrant itself, to wit: "After
are illegal, because the warrant was issued three days ahead of the examination under oath of the complainant, Mariano G. Almeda, Chief
application therefor and of the affidavit of the Jose Estrada which is Agent of the Anti-Usury Board, Department of Justice and Special
insufficient in itself to justify the issuance of a search warrant, and Agent of the Philippine Army, Manila, and the witness he presented, . . .
because the issuance of said warrant manifestly contravenes the and this Court, finding that there is just and probable cause to believe
mandatory provisions both of section 1, paragraph 3, of Article III of as it does believe, that the above described articles, relating to the
the Constitution and of section 97 of General Orders 58, and (2) that activities of said Sam Sing & Co. of lending money at usurious rate of
the seizure of the aforesaid articles by means of a search warrant for interest, are being utilized and kept and concealed at its store and
the purpose of using them as evidence in the criminal case against the premises occupied by said Sam Sing & Co., all in violation of law."
accused, is unconstitutional because the warrant thereby becomes
unreasonable and amounts to a violation of the constitutional Alvarez vs. Court of First Instance of Tayabas [GR 45358, 29 January
prohibition against compelling the accused to testify against 1937]
themselves. Facts:
On 3 June 1936, the chief of the secret service of the Anti- Usury
Issue: Board, of the Department of Justice, presented to Judge Eduardo
Whether the application of the search warrant is supported by the Gutierrez David then presiding over the Court of First Instance of
personal knowledge of the witness, besides the applicant, for the judge Tayabas, an affidavit alleging that according to reliable information,
to determine probable cause in issuing the warrant. Narciso Alvarez kept in his house in Infanta, Tayabas, books,
documents, receipts, lists, chits and other papers used by him in
Held: Strict observance of the formalities under section 1, paragraph 3, connection with his activities as a moneylender, charging usurious rates
of Article III of the Constitution and of section 97 of General Orders 58 of interest in violation of the law. In his oath at the end of the affidavit,
was followed. The applicant Mariano G. Almeda, in his application, the chief of the secret service stated that his answers to the questions
swore that "he made his own personal investigation and ascertained were correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. He did not swear
that Sam Sing & Co. is lending money without license, charging to the truth of his statements upon his own knowledge of the facts
usurious rate of interest and is keeping, utilizing and concealing in the but upon the information received by him from a reliable person. Upon
store and premises occupied by it situated at Sagay, Occidental the affidavit the judge, on said date, issued the warrant which is the
Negros, documents, notebooks, lists, receipts, promissory notes, and subject matter of the petition, ordering the search of the Alvarez's
book of accounts and records, all of which are being used by it in house at any time of the day or night, the seizure of the books and
connection with its activities of lending money at usurious rate of documents and the immediate delivery thereof to him to be disposed
of in accordance with the law. With said warrant, several agents of the if any, within the unextendible period of 2 days from the date of notice
Anti-Usury Board entered Alvarez's store and residence at 7:00 p.m. of of said order, why all the articles seized appearing in the inventory
4 June 1936, and seized and took possession of the following articles: should not be returned to Alvarez. The assistant chief of the Anti-
internal revenue licenses for the years 1933 to 1936, 1 ledger, 2 Usury Board of the Department of Justice filed a motion praying, for
journals, 2 cashbooks, 9 order books, 4 notebooks, 4 check stubs, 2 the reasons stated therein, that the articles seized be ordered retained
memorandums, 3 bankbooks, 2 contracts, 4 stubs, 48 stubs of for the purpose of conducting an investigation of the violation of the
purchases of copra, 2 inventories, 2 bundles of bills of lading, 1 bundle Anti-Usury Law committed by Alvarez. On October 10, said official
of credit receipts, 1 bundle of stubs of purchases of copra, 2 packages again filed another motion alleging that he needed 60 days to examine
of correspondence, 1 receipt book belonging to Luis Fernandez, 14 the documents and papers seized, which are designated on pages 1 to
bundles of invoices and other papers, many documents and loan 4 of the inventory by Nos. 5, 10, 16, 23, 25-27, 30-31 , 34, 36-43
contracts with security and promissory notes, 504 chits, promissory and 45, and praying that he be granted said period of 60 days. In an
notes and stubs of used checks of the Hongkong & Shanghai Banking order of October 16, the court granted him the period of 60 days to
Corporation (HSBC). The search for and seizure of said articles were investigate said 19 documents. Alvarez, herein, asks that the search
made with the opposition of Alvarez who stated his protest below the warrant as well as the order authorizing the agents of the Anti-Usury
inventories on the ground that the agents seized even the originals of Board to retain the articles seized, be declared illegal and set aside,
the documents. As the articles had not been brought immediately to and prays that all the articles in question be returned to him.
the judge who issued the search warrant, Alvarez, through his
attorney, filed a motion on 8 June 1936, praying that the agent Emilio Issue:
L. Siongco, or any other agent, be ordered immediately to deposit all Whether the search warrant issued by the court is illegal because it has
the seized articles in the office of the clerk of court and that said been based upon the affidavit of agent Almeda in whose oath he
agent be declared guilty of contempt for having disobeyed the order of declared that he had no personal knowledge of the facts which were to
the court. On said date the court issued an order directing Siongco to serve as a basis for the issuance of the warrant but that he had
deposit all the articles seized within 24 hours from the receipt of knowledge thereof through mere information secured from a person
notice thereof and giving him a period of 5 days within which to show whom he considered reliable, and that it is illegal as it was not
cause why he should not be punished for contempt of court. On 10 supported by other affidavits aside from that made by the applicant.
June, Attorney Arsenio Rodriguez, representing the Anti-Usury Board,
filed a motion praying that the order of the 8th of said month be set Held:
aside and that the Anti-Usury Board be authorized to retain the articles Section 1, paragraph 3, of Article III of the Constitution and Section 97
seized for a period of 30 days for the necessary investigation. On June of General Orders 58 require that there be not only probable cause
25, the court issued an order requiring agent Siongco forthwith to file before the issuance of a search warrant but that the search warrant
the search warrant and the affidavit in the court, together with the must be based upon an application supported by oath of the applicant
proceedings taken by him, and to present an inventory duly verified by and the witnesses he may produce. In its broadest sense, an oath
oath of all the articles seized. On July 2, the attorney for the petitioner includes any form of attestation by which a party signifies that he is
filed a petition alleging that the search warrant issued was illegal and bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully; and it is
that it had not yet been returned to date together with the sometimes defined as an outward pledge given by the person taking it
proceedings taken in connection therewith, and praying that said that his attestation or promise is made under an immediate sense of
warrant be cancelled, that an order be issued directing the return of all his responsibility to God. The oath required must refer to the truth of
the articles seized to Alvarez, that the agent who seized them be the facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his
declared guilty of contempt of court, and that charges be filed against witnesses, because the purpose thereof is to convince the committing
him for abuse of authority. On September 10, the court issued an magistrate, not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the
order holding: that the search warrant was obtained and issued in issuance of the warrant, of the existence of probable cause. The true
accordance with the law, that it had been duly complied with and, test of sufficiency of an affidavit to warrant issuance of a search
consequently, should not be cancelled, and that agent Siongco did not warrant is whether it has been drawn in such a manner that perjury
commit any contempt of court and must, therefore, be exonerated, could be charged thereon and affiant be held liable for damages
and ordering the chief of the Anti-Usury Board in Manila to show cause, caused. The affidavit, which served as the exclusive basis of the search
warrant, is insufficient and fatally defective by reason of the manner in Revised Rules of Court. The motion was denied by the Judge on 1
which the oath was made, and therefore, the search warrant and the March 1979, stating that the court has made a thorough investigation
subsequent seizure of the books, documents and other papers are and examination under oath of Bernardo U. Goles and Reynaldo T.
illegal. Further, it is the practice in this jurisdiction to attach the Mayote, members of the Intelligence Section of 352nd PC Co./Police
affidavit of at least the applicant or complainant to the application. It is District II INP; that in fact the court made a certification to that effect;
admitted that the judge who issued the search warrant in this case, and that the fact that documents relating to the search warrant were
relied exclusively upon the affidavit made by agent Almeda and that he not attached immediately to the record of the criminal case is of no
did not require nor take the deposition of any other witness. Neither moment, considering that the rule does not specify when these
the Constitution nor General Orders 58 provides that it is of imperative documents are to be attached to the records. Mata's motion for
necessity to take the depositions of the witnesses to be presented by reconsideration of the aforesaid order having been denied, he came to
the applicant or complainant in addition to the affidavit of the latter. the Supreme Court, with the petition for certiorari, praying, among
The purpose of both in requiring the presentation of depositions is others, that the Court declare the search warrant to be invalid for its
nothing more than to satisfy the committing magistrate of the alleged failure to comply with the requisites of the Constitution and the
existence of probable cause. Therefore, if the affidavit of the applicant Rules of Court, and that all the articles confiscated under such warrant
or complainant is sufficient, the judge may dispense with that of other as inadmissible as evidence in the case, or in any proceedings on the
witnesses. Inasmuch as the affidavit of the agent was insufficient matter.
because his knowledge of the facts was not personal but merely
hearsay, it is the duty of the judge to require the affidavit of one or Issue:
more witnesses for the purpose of determining the existence of Whether the judge must before issuing the warrant personally examine
probable cause to warrant the issuance of the search warrant. When on oath or affirmation the complainant and any witnesses he may
the affidavit of the applicant or complainant contains sufficient facts produce and take their depositions in writing, and attach them to the
within his personal and direct knowledge, it is sufficient if the judge is record, in addition to any affidavits presented to him.
satisfied that there exists probable cause; when the applicant's
knowledge of the facts is mere hearsay, the affidavit of one or more Held:
witnesses having a personal knowledge of the facts is necessary. Thus Under the Constitution "no search warrant shall issue but upon
the warrant issued is likewise illegal because it was based only on the probable cause to be determined by the Judge or such other
affidavit of the agent who had no personal knowledge of the facts. responsible officer as may be authorized by law after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
Mata vs. Bayona [GR 50720, 26 March 1984] produce". More emphatic and detailed is the implementing rule of the
Facts: constitutional injunction, The Rules provide that the judge must before
Soriano Mata was accused under Presidential Decree (PD) 810, as issuing the warrant personally examine on oath or affirmation the
amended by PD 1306, the information against him alleging that Soriano complainant and any witnesses he may produce and take their
Mata offered, took and arranged bets on the Jai Alai game by "selling depositions in writing, and attach them to the record, in addition to
illegal tickets known as 'Masiao tickets' without any authority from the any affidavits presented to him. Mere affidavits of the complainant and
Philippine Jai Alai & Amusement Corporation or from the government his witnesses are thus not sufficient. The examining Judge has to take
authorities concerned." Mata claimed that during the hearing of the depositions in writing of the complainant and the witnesses he may
case, he discovered that nowhere from the records of the said case produce and to attach them to the record. Such written deposition is
could be found the search warrant and other pertinent papers necessary in order that the Judge may be able to properly determine
connected to the issuance of the same, so that he had to inquire from the existence or nonexistence of the probable cause, to hold liable for
the City Fiscal its whereabouts, and to which inquiry Judge Josephine perjury the person giving it if it will be found later that his declarations
K. Bayona, presiding Jufe of the City Court of Ormoc replied, "it is with are false. We, therefore, hold that the search warrant is tainted with
the court". The Judge then handed the records to the Fiscal who illegality by the failure of the Judge to conform with the essential
attached them to the records. This led Mata to file a motion to quash requisites of taking the depositions in writing and attaching them to
and annul the search warrant and for the return of the articles seized, the record, rendering the search warrant invalid.
citing and invoking, among others, Section 4 of Rule 126 of the
Olaez vs. People of the Philippines [GR 78347-49, 9 November 1987] Rights of the particularity of the description to be made of the "place
Facts: to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."
Adolfo Olaes and Linda M. Cruz were charged for violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act. Olaes and Cruz filed a petition for certiorari and Prudente vs. Dayrit [GR 82870, 14 December 1989]
prohibition with preliminary injunction, challenging the admission by Facts:
Judge Alicia L. Santos (in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the On 31 October 1987, P/Major Alladin Dimagmaliw, Chief of the
Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, Branch 73) of evidence seized by Intelligence Special Action Division (ISAD) of the Western Police District
virtue of an allegedly invalid search warrant and of an extrajudicial (WPD), filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 33,
confession taken from them without according them the right to presided over by Judge Abelardo Dayrit, now Associate Justice of the
assistance of counsel; and thus seek to restrain further proceedings in Court of Appeals, an application for the issuance of a search warrant
the criminal case against them and ask that they be acquitted with the (Search Warrant 87-14) for violation of Presidential Decree 1866
setting aside of the questioned orders (the facts do not provide the (Illegal Possession of Firearms, etc.) entitled "People of the Philippines
disposition of the said orders). Olaes and Cruz claim that the search vs. Nemesio E. Prudente." On the same day, the Judge issued the
warrant issued by the judge is unconstitutional because it does not Search Warrant, commanding Dimagmaliw "to make an immediate
indicate the specific offense they are supposed to have committed. search at any time in the day or night of the premises of Polytechnic
There is, therefore, according to them, no valid finding of probable University of the Philippines, more particularly (a) offices of the
cause as a justification for the issuance of the said warrant in Department of Military Science and Tactics at the ground floor and
conformity with the Bill of Rights. other rooms at the ground floor; (b) office of the President, Dr.
Nemesio Prudente at PUP, Second Floor and other rooms at the second
Issue: floor, and forthwith seize and take possession of the following personal
Whether the lack of specific section of the Dangerous Drugs Act properties, to wit: (a) M 16 Armalites with ammunition; (b) .38 and .45
renders the caption vague, and negate the claim that the specific Caliber handguns and pistols; (c) explosives and hand grenades; and
offense was committed to serve as basis for the finding of probable (d) assorted weapons with ammunitions." On 1 November 1987, a
cause. Sunday and All Saints Day, the search warrant was enforced by some
200 WPD operatives led by P/Col. Edgar Dula Torre, Deputy
Held: Superintendent, WPD, and P/Major Romeo Maganto, Precinct 8
No. The search warrant issued does not come under the strictures of Commander. In his affidavit, dated 2 November 1987, Ricardo Abando
the Stonehill doctrine. While in the case cited, there was a bare y Yusay, a member of the searching team, alleged that he found in the
reference to the laws in general, without any specification of the drawer of a cabinet inside the wash room of Dr. Prudente's office a
particular sections thereof that were alleged to have been violated out bulging brown envelope with 3 live fragmentation hand grenades
of the hundreds of prohibitions contained in such codifications, there is separately wrapped with old newspapers. On 6 November 1987,
no similar ambiguity herein. While it is true that the caption of the Prudente moved to quash the search warrant. He claimed that (1) the
search warrant states that it is in connection with "Violation of RA complainant's lone witness, Lt. Florenio C. Angeles, had no personal
6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Acts of 1972," it is knowledge of the facts which formed the basis for the issuance of the
clearly recited in the text thereof that "There is probable cause to search warrant; (2) the examination of the said witness was not in the
believe that Adolfo Olaes alias 'Debie' and alias 'Baby' of No. 628 form of searching questions and answers; (3) the search warrant was a
Comia St., Filtration, Sta. Rita, Olongapo City, has in their possession general warrant, for the reason that it did not particularly describe the
and control and custody of marijuana dried place to be searched and that it failed to charge one specific offense;
stalks/leaves/seeds/cigarettes and other regulated/prohibited and and (4) the search warrant was issued in violation of Circular 19 of the
exempt narcotics preparations which is the subject of the offense Supreme Court in that the complainant failed to allege under oath that
stated above." Although the specific section of the Dangerous Drugs the issuance of the search warrant on a Saturday was urgent. On 9
Act is not pinpointed, there is no question at all of the specific offense March 1988, the Judge issued an order, denying Prudente's motion and
alleged to have been committed as a basis for the finding of probable supplemental motion to quash. Prudente's motion for reconsideration
cause. The search warrant also satisfies the requirement in the Bill of was likewise denied in the order dated 20 April 1988. Prudente filed a
petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Issue: questions and answers, whether searching or not, vis-a-vis the said
Whether the allegations contained in the application of P/ Major Alladin applicant. Evidently, the allegations contained in the application of P/
Dimagmaliw and the declaration of P/Lt. Florenio C. Angeles in his Major Alladin Dimagmaliw and the declaration of P/Lt. Florenio C.
deposition were sufficient basis for the issuance of a valid search Angeles in his deposition were insufficient basis for the issuance of a
warrant. valid search warrant.

Held: Chia vs. Acting Collector of Customs [GR L-43810, 26 September

The "probable cause" for a valid search warrant, has been defined "as 1989]
such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet Facts:
and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and Acting on a verified report of a confidential informant that assorted
that objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place electronic and electrical equipment and other articles illegally imported
sought to be searched." This probable cause must be shown to be into the Philippines by a syndicate engaged in unlawful "shipside"
within the personal knowledge of the complainant or the witnesses he activities (foreign goods are unloaded from foreign ships in transit
may produce and not based on mere hearsay. Thus, for a valid search through Philippine waters into motorized bancas and landed on
warrant to issue, there must be probable cause, which is to be Philippine soil without passing through the Bureau of Customs, thereby
determined personally by the judge, after examination under oath or evading payment of the corresponding customs duties and taxes
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and thereon) were found inside "Tom's Electronics" and "Sony
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or Merchandising (Philippines)" stores located at 690 and 691 Gonzalo
things to be seized. The probable cause must be in connection with Puyat corner Evangelista Street, Quiapo, Manila, a letter-request dated
one specific offense,and the judge must, before issuing the warrant, 23 April 1976 was addressed to the Collector of Customs by the
personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers, in Deputy Director of the Regional Anti-Smuggling Action Center, Manila
writing and under oath, the complainant and any witness he may Bay Area (RASAC-MBA) for the issuance of warrants of seizure and
produce, on facts personally known to them and attach to the record detention. After evaluation, the Collector of Customs issued Warrants
their sworn statements together with any affidavits submitted. Herein, of Seizure and Detention 14925 and 14925-A, directing the Anti-
in his application for search warrant, P/Major Alladin Dimagmaliw stated Smuggling Action Center to seize the goods mentioned therein, i.e.
that "he has been informed" that Nemesio Prudente "has in his control various electronic equipments like cassette tape recorders, car stereos,
and possession" the firearms and explosives described therein, and phonograph needles (diamond), portable TV sets, imported long
that he "has verified the report and found it to be a fact." On the other playing records, spare parts of TVs and radios and other electrical
hand, in his supporting deposition, P/Lt. Florenio C. Angeles declared appliances. A RASAC team was formed and given a mission order to
that, as a result of their continuous surveillance for several days, they enforce the warrants, which it implemented with the assistance of: (1)
"gathered informations from verified sources" that the holders of the the National Customs Police (augmenting the team with 2 members),
said firearms and explosives are not licensed to possess them. In other (2) the Detective Bureau of the Manila Western Police District
words, the applicant and his witness had no personal knowledge of the Headquarters (with 3 detectives), as well as, (3) Precinct 3 of the
facts and circumstances which became the basis for issuing the Manila Western Police District which exercised jurisdictional control
questioned search warrant, but acquired knowledge thereof only over the place to be raided. The intended raid was entered in the
through information from other sources or persons. While it is true that respective police blotters of the police detective bureaus. On the
in his application for search warrant, applicant P/Major Dimagmaliw strength of the warrants of seizure and detention, the raid was
stated that he verified the information he had earlier received that conducted in the afternoon of 25 April 1976 at the 2 stores of Tomas
petitioner had in his possession and custody the firearms and Chia. ASAC team leader Gener Sula, together with his agents Badron
explosives described in the application, and that he found it to be a Dobli, Arturo Manuel, Rodolfo Molina and Servillano Florentin of Camp
fact, yet there is nothing in the record to show or indicate how and Aguinaldo, Quezon City, assisted by two customs policemen, Val
when said applicant verified the earlier information acquired by him as Martinez and Renato Sorima, and Manila policemen Rogelio Vinas and
to justify his conclusion that he found such information to be a fact. He John Peralta, recovered from the stores, assorted electronic equipment
might have clarified this point if there had been searching questions and other articles, the customs duties on which allegedly had not been
and answers, but there were none. In fact, the records yield no paid. They were turned over to the Customs Auction and Cargo
Disposal Unit of the Bureau of Customs. On 17 May 1976, in the the decision of the Collector may appeal to the Commissioner of
afternoon, the hearing officer of Acting Collector of Customs Alfredo Customs, whose decision is appealable to the Court of Tax Appeals in
Francisco conducted a hearing on the confiscation of the goods taken the manner and within the period prescribed by law and regulations.
by Gener Sula and his agents. 2 days later, Chia filed the petition for The decision of the Court of Tax Appeals may be elevated to the
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus before the Supreme Court to Supreme Court for review. Since Chia did not exhaust his administrative
enjoin the Collector of Customs and/or his agents from further remedies, his recourse to this Court is premature.
proceeding with the forfeiture hearing and prayed that the search
warrants be declared null and void, that the latter be ordered to return 20th Century Fox Film Corporation vs. Court of Appeals [GR L-76649-
the confiscated articles to Chia, and to pay damages. 51, 19 August 1988]
Facts:
Issue: In a letter-complaint dated 26 August 1985, 20th Century Fox Film
Whether the warrants issued by the Collector of Customs partakes the Corporation through counsel sought the National Bureau of
nature of a general warrants, and thus are invalid. Investigation's (NBI) assistance in the conduct of searches and seizures
in connection with the NBI's anti- film piracy campaign. Specifically, the
Held: letter-complaint alleged that certain videotape outlets all over Metro
Not only may goods be seized without a search and seizure warrant Manila are engaged in the unauthorized sale and renting out of
under Section 2536 of the Customs and Tariff Code, when they (the copyrighted films in videotape form which constitute a flagrant
goods) are openly offered for sale or kept in storage in a store as violation of Presidential Decree 49 (Decree on the Protection of
herein, but the fact is that Chia's stores — "Tom's Electronics" and Intellectual Property). Acting on the letter-complaint, the NBI
"Sony Merchandising (Phil.)" — were searched upon warrants of search conducted surveillance and investigation of the outlets pinpointed by
and detention issued by the Collector of Customs, who, under the the film corporation and subsequently filed 3 applications for search
1973 Constitution, was "a responsible officer authorized by law" to warrants against the video outlets owned by Eduardo M. Barreto, Raul
issue them. Sections 2208 and 2209 of the Tariff and Customs Code Sagullo, and Fortune Ledesma. The applications were consolidated and
provide when a search may be made without a warrant and when a heard by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 132. On 4
warrant is necessary. Section 2208 provides that "For the more September 1985, the lower court issued the desired search warrants,
effective discharge of his official duties, any person exercising the describing the articles sought to be seized as"(c) Television sets,
powers herein conferred, may at any time enter, pass through or Video Cassettes Recorders, rewinders, tape head cleaners, accessories,
search any land or inclosure or any warehouse, store or other building, equipments and other machines used or intended to be used in the
not being a dwelling house. A warehouse, store or other building or unlawful reproduction, sale, rental/lease, distribution of the above-
inclosure used for the keeping or storage of articles does not become a mentioned video tapes which she is keeping and concealing in the
dwelling house within the meaning hereof merely by reason of the fact premises above-described.". Armed with the search warrants, the NBI
that a person employed as watchman lives in the place, nor will the accompanied by the film corporation's agents, raided the video outlets
fact that his family stays there with him alter the case." On the other and seized the items described therein. An inventory of the items
hand, Section 2209 provides that "A dwelling house may be entered seized was made and left with Barreto, et. al. Acting on a motion to lift
and searched only upon warrant issued by a Judge of the court or such search warrants and release seized properties filed by Barreto, et. al.,
other responsible officers as may be authorized by law, upon sworn the lower court issued an order dated 8 October 1985, lifting the 3
application showing probable cause and particularly describing the search warrants issued earlier against them by the court, due to the
place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized." The failure of the NBI to deliver the articles to the Court, and thus ordered
warrants issued by the Collector of Customs in this case were not the return of the articles to their respective owners. The lower court
general warrants for they identified the stores to be searched, denied a motion for reconsideration filed by the film corporation in its
described the articles to be seized and specified the provision of the order dated 2 January 1986. The film corporation filed a petition for
Tariff and Customs Code violated. Upon effecting the seizure of the certiorari with the Court of Appeals to annul the orders of the lower
goods, the Bureau of Customs acquired exclusive jurisdiction not only court. The petition was dismissed. The 20th Century Fox Film
over the case but also over the goods seized for the purpose of Corporation filed the petition for review with the Supreme Court.
enforcing the tariff and customs laws. Further, a party dissatisfied with
Issue: surveillance" of the premises as a "suspected underground house of
Whether the inclusion of certain articles of property which are usually the CPP/NPA." Aguilar-Roque has been long wanted by the military for
connected to legitimate business, and not involving piracy of being a high ranking officer of the Communist Party of the Philippines,
intellectual property or infringement of copyright laws, renders the particularly connected with the MV Karagatan/Doña Andrea cases. At
warrant to be unreasonable. 11:30 a.m., Aguilar-Roque and Cynthia D. Nolasco were arrested by a
Constabulary Security Group (CSG) at the intersection of Mayon Street
Held: and P. Margall Street, Quezon City. The record does not disclose that a
Television sets, video cassette recorders, rewinders and tape cleaners warrant of arrest had previously been issued against Nolasco. At 12:00
are articles which can be found in a video tape store engaged in the noon on the same day, elements of the CSG searched the premises at
legitimate business of lending or renting out betamax tapes. In short, 239- B Mayon Street, Quezon City. Willie C. Tolentino, a person then in
these articles and appliances are generally connected with, or related charge of the premises, was arrested by the searching party
to a legitimate business not necessarily involving piracy of intellectual presumably without a warrant of arrest. The searching party seized
property or infringement of copyright laws. Hence, including these 428 documents and written materials, and additionally a portable
articles without specification and/or particularity that they were really typewriter, and 2 wooden boxes, making 431 items in all. On August
instruments in violating an Anti-Piracy law makes the search warrant 10, Aguilar-Roque, Nolasco and Tolentino, were charged before the
too general which could result in the confiscation of all items found in Quezon City Fiscal's Office upon complaint filed by the CSG against the
any video store. In fact, this actually happened in the present case. former for "Subversion/Rebellion and/or Conspiracy to Commit
Although the applications and warrants themselves covered certain Rebellion/Subversion. On August 13, the City Fiscal filed an Information
articles of property usually found in a video store, the Court believes for Violation of Presidential Decree (PD) 33 (Illegal Possession of
that the search party should have confined themselves to articles that Subversive Documents) against Aguilar-Roque, et. al. before Branch 42
are according to them, evidence constitutive of infringement of of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Judge Antonio P.
copyright laws or the piracy of intellectual property, but not to other Santos, presiding. On August 16, CSG filed a Motion for
articles that are usually connected with, or related to, a legitimate Reconsideration with the City Fiscal, praying that Aguilar-Roque and
business, not involving piracy of intellectual property, or infringement Nolasco be charged with Subversion. The Motion was denied on
of copyright laws. So that a television set, a rewinder, and a November 16. On September 10, the CSG submitted an Amended
whiteboard listing Betamax tapes, video cassette cleaners video Return in the Search Warrant case praying, inter alia, that the CSG be
cassette recorders as reflected in the Returns of Search Warrants, are allowed to retain the seized 431 documents and articles, "in
items of legitimate business engaged in the video tape industry, and connection with cases that are presently pending against Mila Aguilar
which could not be the subject of seizure. The applicant and his agents Roque before the Quezon City Fiscal's Office and the court." On
therefore exceeded their authority in seizing perfectly legitimate December 13, Judge Paño admitted the Amended Return and ruled
personal property usually found in a video cassette store or business that the seized documents "shall be subject to disposition of the
establishment. The search and seizure is unreasonable. tribunal trying the case against respondent." A day before that,
Aguilar-Roque, et. al. filed a Motion to Suppress, praying that such of
Nolasco vs. Cruz Pano [GR L-69803, 8 October 1985] the 431 items belonging to them be returned to them. It was claimed
Facts: that the proceedings under the Search Warrant were unlawful. Judge
Prior to 6 August 1984, Mila Aguilar-Roque was one of the accused of Santos denied the Motion on 7 January 1985 on the ground that the
Rebellion in Criminal Case SMC-1-1 before Special Military Commission validity of the Search Warrant has to be litigated in the other case,
1, and also one of the accused of Subversion in Criminal Case MC-25- apparently unaware of the Order issued by Judge Paño on December
113 of Military Commission 25, both cases being entitled "People of 13. Nolasco, Aguilar-Roque, and Tolentino filed the Petition for
the Philippines vs. Jose Ma. Sison, et al." She was then still at large. At Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus to annul and set aside the (1)
around 9:00 a.m. on August 6, Lt. Col. Virgilio G. Saldajeno of the CSG, Search Warrant issued by RTC Judge Paño; (2) his Order admitting the
applied for a Search Warrant from the Hon. Ernani Cruz Paño, Executive Amended Return and granting the Motion to Retain Seized Items; and
Judge of the Regional Trial Court in Quezon City, to be served at No. (3) Order of MTC Judge Santos denying Aguilar-Roque, et. al.'s Motion
239-B Mayon Street, Quezon City, determined to be the leased to Suppress.
residence of Aguilar-Roque, after almost a month of "round the clock
Issue: Mayon Street, Quezon City, did not need a search warrant; this, for
Whether the description of the personalities to be seized in the search possible effective results in the interest of public order. Such being the
warrant is too general to render the warrant void. case, the personalities seized may be retained by CSG, for possible
introduction as evidence in the Rebellion Case, leaving it to Aguilar-
Held: Roque to object to their relevance and to ask Special Military
The disputed Search Warrant (80-84) describes the personalities to be Commission 1 to return to her any all irrelevant documents and
seized as "Documents, papers and other records of the Communist articles.
Party of the Philippines/New Peoples Army and/or the National
Democratic Front, such as Minutes of the Party Meetings, Plans of Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines vs. Asuncion [GR
these groups, Programs, List of possible supporters, subversive books 122092, 19 May 1999]
and instructions, manuals not otherwise available to the public, and Facts:
support money from foreign or local sources." It is at once evident that On 25 January 1995, Police Chief Inspector Napoleon B. Pascua applied
the Search Warrant authorizes the seizure of personal properties for a search warrant before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 104,
vaguely described and not particularized. It is an all-embracing of Quezon City, stating "(1) that the management of Paper Industries
description which includes everything conceivable regarding the Corporation of the Philippines, located at PICOP compound, Barangay
Communist Party of the Philippines and the National Democratic Front. Tabon, Bislig, Surigao del Sur, represented by its Sr. Vice President
It does not specify what the subversive books and instructions are; Ricardo G. Santiago, is in possession or has in its control high powered
what the manuals not otherwise available to the public contain to make firearms, ammunitions, explosives, which are the subject of the
them subversive or to enable them to be used for the crime of offense, or used or intended to be used in committing the offense, and
rebellion. There is absent a definite guideline to the searching team as which are being kept and concealed in the premises herein described;
to what items might be lawfully seized thus giving the officers of the (2) that a Search Warrant should be issued to enable any agent of the
law discretion regarding what articles they should seize as, in fact, law to take possession and bring to this Honorable Court the following
taken also were a portable typewriter and 2 wooden boxes. It is thus in described properties: 'Seventy (70) M16 Armalite rifles cal. 5.56, ten
the nature of a general warrant and infringes on the constitutional (10) M16 US rifles, two (2) AK-47 rifle[s], two (2) UZI
mandate requiring particular description of the things to be seized. submachinegun[s], two (2) M203 Grenade Launcher[s] cal 40mm., ten
Search warrants of similar description were considered null and void for (10) cal. 45 pistol[s], ten (10) cal. 38 revolver[s], two (2) ammunition
being too general. Notwithstanding the irregular issuance of the Search reloading machine[s], assorted ammunitions for said calibers of
Warrant and although, ordinarily, the articles seized under an invalid firearms and ten (10) handgrenades.'" The joint Deposition of SPO3
search warrant should be returned, they cannot be ordered returned to Cicero S. Bacolod and SPO2 Cecilio T. Morito, as well as a summary of
Aguilar-Roque. Some searches may be made without a warrant. Section the information and the supplementary statements of Mario Enad and
12, Rule 126, Rules of Court, is declaratory in the sense that it is Felipe Moreno were attached to the application. After propounding
confined to the search, without a search warrant, of a person who had several questions to Bacolod, Judge Maximiano C. Asuncion issued the
been arrested. It is also a general rule that, as an incident of an arrest, contested search warrant. On 4 February 1995, the police enforced
the place or premises where the arrest was made can also be search the search warrant at the PICOP compound and seized various firearms
without a search warrant. In this latter case, "the extent and and ammunition. Believing that the warrant was invalid and the search
reasonableness of the search must be decided on its own facts and unreasonable, Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines, Evaristo
circumstances, and it has been stated that, in the application of M. Narvaez Jr., Ricardo G. Santiago, Roberto A. Dormendo, Reydande D.
general rules, there is some confusion in the decisions as to what Azucena, Niceforo V. Avila, Florentino M. Mula, Felix O. Baito, Harold B.
constitutes the extent of the place or premises which may be Celestial, Elmedencio C. Calixtro, Carlito S. Legacion, Albino T. Lubang,
searched". Considering that Aguilar-Roque has been charged with Jeremias I. Abad and Herminio V. Villamil filed a "Motion to Quash" 16
Rebellion, which is a crime against public order; that the warrant for her before the trial court. Subsequently, they also filed a "Supplemental
arrest has not been served for a considerable period of time; that she Pleading to the Motion to Quash" and a "Motion to Suppress Evidence."
was arrested within the general vicinity of her dwelling; and that the On 23 March 1995, the RTC issued the Order which denied PICOP, et.
search of her dwelling was made within a half hour of her arrest, the al.'s motions. On 3 August 1995, the trial court rendered its Order
Court was of the opinion that, in her respect, the search at No. 239- B
denying their Motion for Reconsideration. PICOP, et. al. filed a Petition specify such premises. The warrant identifies only one place, and that
for Certiorari and Prohibition. is the "Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines, located at PICOP
Compound, Barangay Tabon, Bislig, Surigao del Sur." The PICOP
Issue: compound, however, is made up of "200 offices/buildings, 15 plants,
Whether the fact that the warrant identifies only one place, i.e. the 84 staff houses, 1 airstrip, 3 piers/wharves, 23 warehouses, 6 POL
"Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines, located at PICOP depots/quick service outlets and some 800 miscellaneous structures,
Compound, Barangay Tabon, Bislig, Surigao del Sur," satisfies the all of which spread out over some one hundred fifty-five hectares."
requirements of the particularity of the place to be search, and thus Obviously, the warrant gives the police officers unbridled and thus
render the warrant valid. illegal authority to search all the structures found inside the PICOP
compound. Because the search warrant was procured in violation of the
Held: Constitution and the Rules of Court, all the firearms, explosives and
No. The fundamental right against unreasonable searches and seizures other materials seized were "inadmissible for any purpose in any
and the basic conditions for the issuance of a search warrant are laid proceeding."
down in Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. Consistent with
the foregoing constitutional provision, Sections 3 and 4, Rule 126 of Yousef Al-Ghoul vs. Court of Appeals [GR 126859, 4 September 2001]
the Rules of Court, detail the requisites for the issuance of a valid Facts:
search warrant. The requisites of a valid search warrant are: (1) On 31 March 1995, Judge Geronimo S. Mangay, presiding judge of the
probable cause is present; (2) such presence is determined personally Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 125,
by the judge; (3) the complainant and the witnesses he or she may Kalookan City, issued search warrants 54- 95 and 55-95 for the search
produce are personally examined by the judge, in writing and under and seizure of certain items in Apartment 2 at 154 Obiniana
oath or affirmation; (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on Compound, Deparo Road, Kalookan City. On 1 April 1995, the police
facts personally known to them; and (5) the warrant specifically searched Apartment 8, in the same compound and found one (1) .45
describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized. In view caliber pistol. Found in Apartment 2 were 2 M-16 rifles with 2
of the manifest objective of the constitutional safeguard against magazines and 20 live M -16 ammunitions, 1 Bar of demolition charge,
unreasonable search, the Constitution and the Rules limit the place to 1 Caliber Pistol with no. 634 and other nos. were placed with magazine
be searched only to those described in the warrant. Thus, this Court of Caliber .45 and 3 live 45 ammunitions, 1 22 Caliber handgun with 5
has held that "this constitutional right is the embodiment of a spiritual live ammunitions in its cylinder, 1 Box containing 40 pieces of .25
concept: the belief that to value the privacy of home and person and caliber ammunitions, 2 pieces of fragmentation grenade, 1 roll of
to afford it constitutional protection against the long reach of detonating cord color yellow, 2 big bags of ammonium nitrate
government no less than to value human dignity, and that his privacy suspected to be explosives substance, 22 detonating cords with
must not be disturbed except in case of overriding social need, and blasting caps, ½ and ¼ pound of high explosives TNT, 1 timer alarm
then only under stringent procedural safeguards." Additionally, the clock, 2 bags of suspected gun powder, 2 small plastic bag of
requisite of particularity is related to the probable cause requirement in suspected explosive substance, 1 small box of plastic bag of suspected
that, at least under some circumstances, the lack of a more specific dynamites, One weighing scale, and 2 batteries 9 volts with blasting
description will make it apparent that there has not been a sufficient caps and detonating cord. The firearms, ammunitions, explosives and
showing to the magistrate that the described items are to be found in other incendiary devices seized at the apartments were acknowledged
a particular place. Herein, the search warrant is invalid because (1) the in the receipt signed by SPO2 Melanio de la Cruz. Yousef Al Ghoul, Isam
trial court failed to examine personally the complainant and the other Mohammad Abdulhadi, Wail Rashid Al-Khatib, Nabeel Nasser Al-Riyami,
deponents: (2) SPO3 Cicero Bacolod, who appeared during the hearing Ashraf Hassam Al-Yazori, and Mohammad Abushendi were charged
for the issuance of the search warrant, had no personal knowledge that before the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City, Branch 123, in
PICOP, et. al. were not licensed to possess the subject firearms; and informations (Criminal Cases C-48666-67) accusing them with illegal
(3) the place to be searched was not described with particularity. As possession of firearms, ammunitions and explosives, pursuant to
to the particularity of the place to be searched, the assailed search Presidential Decree 1866. Thereafter, they were arrested and detained.
warrant failed to described the place with particularity. It simply They filed a motion for bail on 24 May 1995, the resolution of which
authorizes a search of "the aforementioned premises," but it did not
was held in abeyance by the RTC pending the presentation of evidence People v. Omaweng [GR 99050, 2 September 1992]
from the prosecution to determine whether or not the evidence Facts:
presented is strong. On 7 February 1996, at the hearing for bail, the In the morning of 12 September 1988, PC constables with the Mt.
RTC "admitted all exhibits being offered for whatever purpose that Province PC Command put up a checkpoint at the junction of the
they maybe worth" after the prosecution had finished adducing its roads, one going to Sagada and the other to Bontoc. They stopped and
evidence despite the objection by the petitioners on the admissibility checked all vehicles that went through the checkpoint. At 9:15 a.m.,
of said evidence. On 19 February 1996, the RTC denied their motion they flagged down a cream-colored Ford Fiera (ABT-634) coming from
for bail earlier filed. As their action before appellate court also proved the Bontoc Poblacion and headed towards Baguio. The vehicle was
futile, with the appellate court dismissing their special civil action for driven by Conway Omaweng and had no passengers. The Constables
certiorari, they filed the petition for review before the Supreme Court. (Layong, [Link].) asked permission to inspect the vehicle to which
Omaweng acceded to. When they peered into the rear of the vehicle,
Issue: they saw a travelling bag which was partially covered by the rim of a
Whether the search and seizure orders are valid, and the objects seized spare tire under the passenger seat on the right side of the vehicle.
admissible in evidence. They asked permission to see the contents of the bag to which
Omaweng consented to. When they opened the bag, they found that it
Held: contained 41 plastic packets of different sizes containing pulverized
As held in PICOP v. Asuncion, the place to be searched cannot be substances. The constable gave a packet to his team leader, who, after
changed, enlarged nor amplified by the police. Policemen may not be sniffing the stuff concluded that it was marijuana. The Constables
restrained from pursuing their task with vigor, but in doing so, care thereafter boarded the vehicles and proceeded to the Bontoc
must be taken that constitutional and legal safeguards are not poblacion to report the incident to the PC Headquarters. The prohibited
disregarded. Exclusion of unlawfully seized evidence is the only drugs were surrendered to the evidence custodian. The PC Forensic
practical means of enforcing the constitutional injunction against Chemist at Camp Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet conducted 2 chemistry
unreasonable searches and seizures. Hence, the search made at examinations of the substance contained in the plastic packets taken
Apartment No. 8 is illegal and the .45 caliber pistol taken thereat is from appellant and found them to be positive for hashish or marijuana.
inadmissible in evidence against Al-Ghoul, et. al. In contrast, the search Omaweng was indicted for the violation of Section 4, Article II of RA
conducted at Apartment 2 could not be similarly faulted. The search 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended, in a criminal
warrants specifically mentioned Apartment 2. The search was done in complaint filed with the MTC Bontoc, Mountain Province on 12
the presence of its occupants, in accordance with Section 7 of Rule September 1988. Upon his failure to submit counter-affidavits despite
126, Revised Rules of Court. The articles seized during the search of the granting of an extension of time to do so, the court declared that
Apartment 2 are of the same kind and nature as those items he had waived his right to a preliminary investigation and, finding
enumerated in the search warrant. The items seized from Apartment 2 probable cause against Omaweng, ordered the elevation of the case to
were described with specificity in the warrants in question. The nature the proper court. On 14 November 1988, the Office of the Provincial
of the items ordered to be seized did not require a technical Fiscal of Mountain Province filed an Information charging Omaweng with
description. Moreover, the law does not require that the things to be the violation of Section 47 Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act of
seized must be described in precise and minute details as to leave no 1972, as amended (Crim Case 713). After his motion for
room for doubt on the part of the searching authorities, otherwise, it reinvestigation was denied by the Provincial Fiscal, Omaweng entered a
would be virtually impossible for the applicants to obtain a search plea of not guilty during his arraignment on 20 June 1989. During the
warrant as they would not know exactly what kind of things they are trial on the merits, the prosecution presented 4 witnesses. Omaweng
looking for. Once described, however, the articles subject of the search did not present any evidence other than portions of the Joint
and seizure need not be so invariant as to require absolute Clarificatory Sworn Statement, dated 23 December 1988, of
concordance between those seized and those described in the warrant. prosecution witnesses Joseph Layong and David Fomocod. On 21
Substantial similarity of those articles described as a class or species March 1991, the trial court promulgated its Judgment convicting
would suffice. Omaweng of the crime of transporting prohibited drugs (Section 4,
Article II of RA 6425, as amended). Omaweng appealed to the Supreme
Court.
 the NBI for laboratory analysis to determine their chemical
Issue: composition. The tests confirmed that the confiscated stuff were
Whether Omaweng was subjected to search which violates his positive for marijuana and weighed 16.1789 kilograms. The defense,
Constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. however, contends that the 3 accused were arrested without warrant
in Camarin D, Caloocan City, enroute to Dulay’s house to get the things
Held: of his child allegedly rushed previously to the Metropolitan Hospital, for
Omaweng was not subjected to any search which may be stigmatized an alleged charge of trafficking on 'shabu,' and were brought to the
as a violation of his Constitutional right against unreasonable searches WPDC headquarters at U.N. Avenue, where they were detained. On 12
and seizures. He willingly gave prior consent to the search and July 1994, an Information was filed with the RTC Manila (Branch 35)
voluntarily agreed to have it conducted on his vehicle and travelling indicting Antonio Correa y Cayton @ "Boyet," Rito Gunida y Sesante @
bag. The testimony of the PC Constable (Layung) was not dented on "Dodong," and Leonardo Dulay y Santos @ "Boy Kuba" for having
cross-examination or rebutted by Omaweng for he chose not to testify violated Section 4, Article II of RA 6425, as amended. When arraigned,
on his own behalf. Omaweng waived his right against unreasonable the 3 accused pleaded not guilty. After trial and on 3 March 1995, the
searches and seizures when he voluntarily submitted to a search or lower court found the appellants guilty as charged and were sentenced
consents to have it made in his person or premises. He is precluded to death and a fine of P10 million.
from later complaining thereof right to be secure from unreasonable
search may, like every right, be waived and such waiver may be made Issue:
either expressly or impliedly. Since in the course of the valid search 41 Whether the accused are precluded from assailing the warrantless
packages of drugs were found, it behooved the officers to seize the search and seizure, due to waiver on their part.
same; no warrant was necessary for such seizure.
Held:
People vs. Correa [GR 119246, 30 January 1998] Antonio Correa y Cayton @ "Boyet," Rito Gunida y Sesante @
Facts: "Dodong," and Leonardo Dulay y Santos @ "Boy Kuba" are precluded
A week before 18 June 1994, Leonardo Dulay was placed under from assailing the warrantless search and seizure when they voluntarily
surveillance by the Police Operatives from the Drug Enforcement Unit submitted to it as shown by their actuation during the search and
of the Western Police District Command (DEU-WPDC) on account of seizure. They never protested when the police officer opened the tin
confidential and intelligence reports received in said Unit about his drug can loaded in their vehicle, nor when he opened one of the bundles, nor
trafficking around Bambang Street, Tondo, Manila. The police when they, together with their cargo of drugs and their vehicle, were
surveillance brought forth positive results and confirmed Dulay's illegal brought to the police station for investigation and subsequent
drug trade. On 17 June 1994, operatives were alerted that Dulay prosecution. When one voluntarily submits to a search or consents to
would transport and deliver a certain quantity of drugs that night on have it made on his person or premises, he is precluded from later
board a owner-type jeep (FMR948). Thereafter, the operatives, complaining thereof The right to be secure from unreasonable search
together with the informer proceeded to A. Bonifacio Street on board may, like every right, be waived and such waiver may be made either
3 vehicles, and inconspicuously parked along the side of North expressly or impliedly." Further, they effectively waived their
Cemetery and waited for the suspect. The police informant spotted constitutional right against the search and seizure by their voluntary
Dulay’s vehicle at 3:00 am. The operatives tailed the subject jeepney submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court, when they entered a
until they reached Bambang extension and Jose Abad Santos Avenue, plea of not guilty upon arraignment and by participating in the trial.
where they accosted the passengers of said jeepney. The team
inspected a cylindrical tin can of El Cielo Vegetable Cooking Lard, about People v. Ramos [GR 85401-02, 4 June 1990]
two feet high, loaded in the vehicle of the appellants. The can Facts:
contained 8 bundles of suspected dried marijuana flowering tops On 29 November 1982, a civilian informer came to the Narcotics
wrapped in pieces of paper and plastic tapes. The team seized the Command Office in Olongapo City and reported that a cigarette vendor
suspected contrabands and marked each bundle consecutively. The 3 by the name of "Mama Rose" (Rosalinda Ramos) was selling marijuana
suspects were brought to the police headquarters at DEU-WPDC for at the corner of 3rd Street and Rizal Avenue in Olongapo City. Tests
investigation. The packages of suspected marijuana were submitted to buys were made using marked money. The Narcotics Command
(NARCOM) team proceeded to the place where appellant was selling conviction of the offense of possession of controlled substances with
cigarettes, and arrested the latter for illegal peddling of marijuana. intent to distribute may be constructive as well as actual. It is only
Ramos was requested to take out the contents of her wallet. The four necessary that the defendant must have dominion and control over the
marked five-peso bills used in the test buys were found among her contraband. These requirements are present in the situation described,
possessions and were confiscated after the serial numbers were where the prohibited drugs were found inside the trash can placed
confirmed. Search of Ramos’ stall yielded 20 sticks of marijuana under the stall owned by Ramos. In fact, the NARCOM agents who
cigarettes in a trash can placed under the small table where Ramos conducted the search testified that they had to ask Ramps to stand so
displayed the wares she was selling. Ramos was thereafter brought to that they could look inside the trash can under Ramos' papag. The
the station. At the station, Ramos executed a statement confessing to trash can was positioned in such a way that it was difficult for another
her crimes which she swore to before Assistant City Fiscal. The person to use the trash can. The trash can was obviously not for use
marijuana sticks confiscated were sent to the Philippine Constabulary by her customers. Therefore, the twenty sticks of marijuana are
Crime Laboratory (PCCL) for analysis, and thereafter were confirmed to admissible in evidence and the trial court's finding that Ramos is guilty
be marijuana. The defense contends however that she assented to the of possession is correct.
invitation of the NARCOM operatives for investigation, after search of
her buri bags (which she stores the fruits that she sells) were fruitless. People v. Barros [GR 90640, 29 March 1994]
She claimed that she was forced to affix her signature on the four 5- Facts:
peso bills by one Sgt. Sudiacal, purportedly to be the same money On 6 September 1987, M/Sgt. Francis Yag-as and S/Sgt. James Ayan,
which was used to buy marijuana from her, but which she insists was both members of the P.C. Mountain Province Command, rode the
her money being saved for the rentals. She was later brought to the Dangwa Bus bearing Plate ABZ-242 bound for Sabangan, Mountain
Fiscal’s Office after investigation, where she signed a document. She Province. Upon reaching Chackchakan, Bontoc, Mountain Province, the
claimed she was not assisted by any counsel during the investigation, bus stopped and both M/Sgt. Yag-as and S/Sgt. Ayan, who were
neither during the time she signed the document at the Fiscal’s Office. seated at the back, saw Bonifacio Barros carrying a carton, board the
Two informations were filed against Ramos, one for sale (Criminal Case bus and seated himself on seat 18 after putting the carton under his
5991) and the other for possession of marijuana (Criminal Case 5990). seat. Thereafter, the bus continued and upon reaching Sabangan,
After trial, the RTC Olongapo City (Branch 73) found her guilty beyond M/Sgt. Yag-as and S/Sgt. Ayan before they alighted, it being their
reasonable doubt in Criminal Case 5990 for violating Section 8 of RA station, called C2C [Fernando] Bongyao to inspect the carton under
6425 and sentenced her to imprisonment of 6 years and 1 day and a seat 18. After C2C Bongyao inspected the carton, he found out that it
fine of P6,000. She was likewise found guilty beyond reasonable doubt contained marijuana and he asked the passengers who the owner of
in Criminal Case 5991 for violating Section 4 of RA 6425 and was the carton was but nobody answered. Thereafter, C2C Bongyao
sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000. Ramos sought alighted with the carton and S/Sgt. Ayan and C2C Bongyao invited
reversal of the decisions with the Supreme Court. Barros to the detachment for questioning as the latter was the
suspected owner of the carton containing marijuana. Upon entering the
Issue: detachment the carton was opened in the presence of Barros. When
Whether Ramos waived her right against the warrantless search of the Barros denied ownership of the carton of marijuana, the P.C. officers
trash can, where illegal drugs were found, under her control. called for the bus conductor who pinpointed to Barros as the owner of
the carton of marijuana. Barros was charged with violating Section 4 of
Held: RA 6425, as amended (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972). After trial, the
The trash can (where the contraband were found) was found under the trial court convicted Bonifacio Barros of violation of Section 4 of RA
table where her legitimate wares were being sold. Ramos he was the 6425 as amended and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
only person who had access to the trash can. The same was under her perpetua and to pay a fine of P20,000.00. Barros appealed.
immediate physical control. She had complete charge of the contents
of the trash can under the table to the exclusion of all other persons. Issue:
In law, actual possession exists when the thing is in the immediate Whether the failure of the carton bearer to object to the search made
occupancy and control of the party. But this is not to say that the law in the moving vehicle, resulting to his warrantless arrest, constitutes a
requires actual possession. In criminal law, possession necessary for waiver.
Held: allegedly owned by Barros. The testimony of the law enforcement
The general rule is that a search and seizure must be carried out officers who had apprehended the accused (M/Sgt. Francis Yag-as and
through or with a judicial warrant; otherwise such search and seizure S/Sgt. James Ayan), and who had searched the box in his possession,
becomes "unreasonable" within the meaning of Section 2, Article III of (C2C Fernando Bongyao), simply did not suggest or indicate the
the 1987 Constitution. The evidence secured thereby — i.e., the presence of any such probable cause. Further, The accused is not to be
"fruits" of the search and seizure — will be inadmissible in evidence presumed to have waived the unlawful search conducted on the
"for any purpose in any proceeding." The requirement that a judicial occasion of his warrantless arrest "simply because he failed to object."
warrant must be obtained prior to the carrying out of a search and To constitute a waiver, it must appear first that the right exists;
seizure is, however, not absolute. There are certain exceptions secondly, that the person involved had knowledge, actual or
recognized in our law, one of which relates to the search of moving constructive, of the existence of such a right; and lastly, that said
vehicles. Peace officers may lawfully conduct searches of moving person had an actual intention to relinquish the right. The fact that the
vehicles — automobiles, trucks, etc. — without need of a warrant, it accused failed to object to the entry into his house does not amount
not being practicable to secure a judicial warrant before searching a to a permission to make a search therein. As the constitutional
vehicle, since such vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or quaranty is not dependent upon any affirmative act of the citizen, the
jurisdiction in which the warrant may be sought. In carrying out courts do not place the citizen in the position of either contesting an
warrantless searches of moving vehicles, however, peace officers are officer's authority by force, or waiving his constitutional rights; but
limited to routine checks, that is, the vehicles are neither really instead they hold that a peaceful submission to a search or seizure is
searched nor their occupants subjected to physical or body searches, not a consent or an invitation thereto, but is merely a demonstration
the examination of the vehicles being limited to visual inspection. of regard for the supremacy of the law. Courts indulge every
When, however, a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional
search, such a warrantless search would be constitutionally permissible rights and that we do not presume acquiescence in the loss of
only if the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable fundamental rights. Accordingly, the search and seizure of the carton
cause to believe, before the search, that either the motorist is a law- box was equally non-permissible and invalid. The "fruits" of the invalid
offender or the contents or cargo of the vehicle are or have been search and seizure — i.e., the 4) kilos of marijuana — should therefore
instruments or the subject matter or the proceeds of some criminal not have been admitted in evidence against Barros.
offense. The Court has in the past found probable cause to conduct
without a judicial warrant an extensive search of moving vehicles in Veroy v. Layague [GR 95630, 18 June 1992]
situations where (1) there had emanated from a package the Facts:
distinctive smell of marijuana; (2) agents of the Narcotics Command Leopoldo and Ma. Luisa Veroy are husband and wife residing in Davao
("Narcom") of the Philippine National Police ("PNP") had received a City. When Veroy was promoted to the position of Assistant
confidential report from informers that a sizeable volume of marijuana Administrator of the Social Security System sometime in June 1988,
would be transported along the route where the search was conducted; he and his family transferred to Quezon City. The care and upkeep of
(3) Narcom agents were informed or "tipped off" by an undercover their residence in Davao City was left to 2 houseboys, Jimmy Favia and
"deep penetration" agent that prohibited drugs would be brought into Eric Burgos, who had their assigned quarters at a portion of the
the country on a particular airline flight on a given date; (4) Narcom premises. The Veroys would occasionally send money to Edna Soquilon
agents had received information that a Caucasian coming from Sagada, for the salary of the said houseboys and other expenses for the upkeep
Mountain Province, had in his possession prohibited drugs and when the of their house. While the Veroys had the keys to the interior of the
Narcom agents confronted the accused Caucasian, because of a house, only the key to the kitchen, where the circuit breakers were
conspicuous bulge in his waistline, he failed to present his passport and located, was entrusted to Edna Soquilon to give her access in case of
other identification papers when requested to do so; and (5) Narcom an emergency. On 12 April 1990, Capt. Reynaldo Obrero of the Talomo
agents had received confidential information that a woman having the Patrol Station, PC/INP raided Veroy’s house in Davao City on
same physical appearance as that of the accused would be information that the said residence was being used as a safehouse of
transporting marijuana. Herein, there is nothing in the record that any rebel soldiers. They were able to enter the yard with the help of the
circumstance which constituted or could have reasonably constituted caretakers but did not enter the house since the owner was not
probable cause for the peace officers to search the carton box present and they did not have a search warrant. Permission was
requested by phone to Ma. Luisa Veroy who consented on the the court. The Veroys filed the petition for certiorari, mandamus and
condition that the search be conducted in the presence of Major prohibition.
Macasaet. The following day, Capt. Obrero and Maj. Macasaet met at
the Veroy’s house to conduct the search pursuant to the authority Issue:
granted by Ma. Luisa. Capt. Obrero recovered a .45 cal. handgun with a Whether the permission granted by ma. Luisa Veroy for ascertaining
magazine containing 7 live bullets in a black clutch bag inside an thereat the presence of alleged “rebel soldiers” include the authority to
unlocked drawer in the children’s room. 3 half- full jute sacks conduct a room to room search once inside the house.
containing printed materials of RAM-SFP were also found in the
children's room. A search of the children's recreation and study area Held:
revealed a big travelling bag containing assorted clothing, a small black The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in
bag containing a book entitled "Islamic Revolution Future Path of the their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable
Nation", a road map of the Philippines, a telescope, a plastic bag searches and seizures (Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution).
containing assorted medicines and religious pamphlets was found in the However, the rule that searches and seizures must be supported by a
master's bedroom. Inventory and receipt of seized articles were made. valid warrant is not an absolute one. Among the recognized exceptions
The case was referred for preliminary investigation to the Quezon City thereto are: (1) a search incidental to an arrest; (2) a search of a
Assistant Prosecutor , who was designated Acting Provincial Prosecutor moving vehicle; and (3) seizure of evidence in plain view (People
for Davao City by the DOJ through Department Order 88 (16 May v. Lo Ho Wing). The necessity of the permission obtained from Ma.
1990). In a resolution dated 6 August 1990, the Fiscal recommended Luisa underlines the recognition of Capt. Obrero of the need of a
the filing of an Information against the Veroys for violation of PD 1866 search warrant to enter the house. The permission granted by was for
(Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions in Furtherance of the purpose of ascertaining thereat the presence of the alleged "rebel"
Rebellion). Hence, on 8 August 1990, an Information for the said soldiers. The permission did not include any authority to conduct a
offense was filed by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Davao City room to room search once inside the house. The police officers had
before the RTC Davao City). No bail was recommended by the ample time to procure a search warrant but did not. Warrantless
prosecution. The fiscal’s resolution was received by the Veroys on 13 searches were declared illegal because the officials conducting the
August 1990. The latter filed a motion for bail on the same day which search had every opportunity to secure a search warrant. The items
was denied for being premature, as they have not been arrested yet. taken were, therefore, products of an illegal search, violative of their
The Veroys voluntarily surrendered to Gen. Pantaleon Dumlao, but who constitutional rights. As such, they are inadmissible in evidence in the
refused to receive them o the ground that his office has not received criminal actions instituted against them. The offense of illegal
copies of their warrants of arrest. In the meantime, on 15 August possession of firearms is malum prohibitum but it does not follow that
1990, the Veroys were admitted to the St. Luke's Hospital for various the subject thereof is necessarily illegal per se. Motive is immaterial in
ailments brought about or aggravated by the stress and anxiety mala prohibita but the subjects of this kind of offense may not be
caused by the filing of the criminal complaint. On 17 August 1990, summarily seized simply because they are prohibited. A search warrant
Gen. Dumlao granted their request that they be allowed to be confined is still necessary. Hence, the rule having been violated and no
at the hospital and placed under guard thereat. Upon arraignment on 1 exception being applicable, the articles seized were confiscated illegally
October 1990, the Veroys pleaded not guilty and filed a motion for and are therefore protected by the exclusionary principle. They cannot
hospital confinement, which was denied. The court ordered their be used as evidence against the Veroys in the criminal action against
commitment at the Davao City Rehabilitation Center pending trial on them for illegal possession of firearms. Besides, assuming that there
the merits. At the conclusion thereof, the court issued a second order was indeed a search warrant, still in mala prohibita, while there is no
denying their motion for reconsideration. The Veroys were returned to need of criminal intent, there must be knowledge that the same
the St. Luke's Hospital where their physical condition remained erratic. existed. Without the knowledge or voluntariness there is no crime.
Gen. Dumlao informed the Veroys that he had issued a directive for
their transfer from the St. Luke's Hospital to Camp Crame on the basis People vs. Damaso [GR 93516, 12 August 1992]
of the 2 October 1990 Order. They would proceed with their transfer Facts:
pursuant to the order of the trial court, unless otherwise restrained by On 18 June 1988, Lt. Candido Quijardo, a Philippine Constabulary
officer connected with the 152nd PC Company at Lingayen,
Pangasinan, and some companions were sent to verify the presence of exclude all other persons except Damaso from the criminal charge.
CPP/NPA members in Barangay Catacdang, Arellano-Bani, Dagupan Upon arraignment, Damaso pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.
City. In said place, the group apprehended Gregorio Flameniano, Berlina Trial on the merits ensued. The prosecution rested its case and offered
Aritumba, Revelina Gamboa and Deogracias Mayaoa. When its exhibits for admission. The defense counsel interposed his
interrogated, the persons apprehended revealed that there was an objections to the admissibility of the prosecution's evidence on
underground safehouse at Gracia Village in Urdaneta, Pangasinan. After grounds of its being hearsay, immaterial or irrelevant and illegal for lack
coordinating with the Station Commander of Urdaneta, the group of a search warrant; and thereafter, manifested that he was not
proceeded to the house in Gracia Village. They found subversive presenting any evidence for the accused. On 17 January 1990, the
documents, a radio, a 1 x 7 caliber .45 firearm and other items. After trial court rendered its decision, finding Damaso guilty beyond
the raid, the group proceeded to Bonuan, Dagupan City, and put under reasonable doubt, sentencing the latter to suffer the penalty of
surveillance the rented apartment of Rosemarie Aritumba, sister of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay the costs of the proceedings. Damaso
Berlina Aritumba whom they earlier arrested. They interviewed appealed.
Luzviminda Morados, a visitor of Rosemarie Aritumba. She stated that
she worked with Bernie Mendoza/Basilio Damaso. She guided the group Issue:
to the house rented by Damaso(@Mendoza). When they reached the Whether there was waiver on the part of Damaso to allow the
house, the group found that it had already vacated by the occupants. warrantless search of his house.
Since Morados was hesitant to give the new address of Damaso
(@Mendoza), the group looked for the Barangay Captain of the place Held:
and requested him to point out the new house rented by Damaso Damaso was singled out as the sole violator of PD 1866, in furtherance
(@Mendoza). The group again required Morados to go with them. When of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime of subversion. There
they reached the house, the group saw Luz Tanciangco outside. They is no substantial and credible evidence to establish the fact that the
told her that they already knew that she was a member of the NPA in appellant is allegedly the same person as the lessee of the house where
the area. At first, she denied it, but when she saw Morados she the M-14 rifle and other subversive items were found or the owner of
requested the group to go inside the house. Upon entering the house, the said items. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Damaso is
the group, as well as the Barangay Captain, saw radio sets, pamphlets the lessee of the house, the case against him still will not prosper, the
entitled "Ang Bayan," xerox copiers and a computer machine. They also reason being that the law enforcers failed to comply with the
found persons who were companions of Luz Tanciangco (namely, requirements of a valid search and seizure proceedings. The
Teresita Calosa, Ricardo Calosa, Marites Calosa, Eric Tanciangco and constitutional immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures,
Luzviminda Morados) . The group requested the persons in the house being a personal one cannot he waived by anyone except the person
to allow them to look around. When Luz Tanciangco opened one of the whose rights are invaded or one who is expressly authorized to do so in
rooms, they saw books used for subversive orientation, one M-14 rifle, his or her . The records show that Damaso was not in his house at that
bullets and ammunitions, Kenwood radio, artificial beard, maps of the time Luz Tanciangco and Luz Morados, his alleged helper, allowed the
Philippines, Zambales, Mindoro and Laguna and other items. They authorities to enter it. There is no evidence that would establish the
confiscated the articles and brought them to their headquarters for fact that Luz Morados was indeed Damaso's helper or if it was true
final inventory. They likewise brought the persons found in the house that she was his helper, that Damaso had given her authority to open
to the headquarters for investigation. Said persons revealed that his house in his absence. The prosecution likewise failed to show if Luz
Damaso (@Mendoza) was the lessee of the house and owned the items Tanciangco has such an authority. Without this evidence, the
confiscated therefrom. Thus, Basilio Damaso, was originally charged in authorities' intrusion into Damaso's dwelling cannot be given any color
an information filed before the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City of legality. While the power to search and seize is necessary to the
with violation of Presidential Decree 1866 in furtherance of, or incident public welfare, still it must be exercised and the law enforced without
to, or in connection with the crime of subversion, together with transgressing the constitutional rights of the citizens, for the
Luzviminda Morados y Galang @ Ka Mel, Teresita Calosa y Macabangon enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance to justify
@ Ka Tessie, Ricardo Calosa y Perez @ Ka Ric, Marites Calosa y indifference to the basic principles of government. As a consequence,
Evangelista @ Ka Tess, Eric Tanciangco y Capira @ Ka Ric and Luz the search conducted by the authorities was illegal. It would have been
Tanciangco y Pencial @ Ka Luz. Such information was later amended to different if the situation here demanded urgency which could have
prompted the authorities to dispense with a search warrant. But the Reparations Commission vessel, for its operation and use ostensibly for
record is silent on this point. The fact that they came to Damaso's fishing, is violative of such constitutional provision.
house at nighttime, does not grant them the license to go inside his
house. Issue:
Whether there was consent on the part of the person who was the
Lopez vs. Commissioner of Customs [GR L-27968, 3 December 1975] occupant of the hotel room then rented by Velasco.
Facts:
M/V Jolo Lema had been under strict surveillance by the combined Held:
team of agents of the NBI, PC, RASAC, and City Police of Davao prior to There was an attempt on the part of Lopez and Velasco to counteract
its apprehension at a private wharf in Batjak, Sasa, Davao City. M/V the force of the recital of the written statement of Teofila Ibañez
[Jolo Lema] was skippered (sic) by Capt. Aquilino Pantinople and (allegedly wife of Tomas Velasco) by an affidavit of one Corazon Y.
chartered by Mr. Tomas Velasco. During the period from the latter part Velasco, who stated that she is the legal wife of Velasco, and another
of August to September 18, 1966, the said vessel was in Indonesian by Velasco himself; reiterating that the person who was present at his
waters where it loaded copra and coffee beans from Taruna, Pitta, and hotel room was one Teofila Ibañez, "a manicurist by occupation." If
Mangenito, all of Indonesia. In its trip to Indonesia it brought various such indeed were the case, then it is much more easily understandable
merchandise from the Philippines which were exchanged and/or why that person, Teofila Ibañez, who could be aptly described as the
bartered for copra and coffee beans and subsequently taken to Davao wrong person at the wrong place and at the wrong time, would have
City. Said vessel passed Marore, Indonesia on 18 September 1966 on signified her consent readily and immediately. Under the circumstances,
its a way to Tahuna, Indonesia before proceeding to Davao City where that was the most prudent course of action. It would save her and
it was apprehended on 19 September 1966. At about 3:00 p.m. of the even Velasco himself from any gossip or innuendo. Nor could the
said day, when the vessel was searched and after Captain Pantinople officers of the law be blamed if they would act on the appearances.
informed the team that Velasco, the charterer of the vessel, had other There was a person inside who from all indications was ready to accede
documents showing that vessel came from Indonesia carrying to their request. Even common courtesy alone would have precluded
smuggled copra and coffee, a combined team of Constabulary and them from inquiring too closely as to why she was there. Under all the
Regional Anti-Smuggling Center operatives headed by Earl Reynolds, circumstances, therefore, it can readily be concluded that there was
Senior NBI Agent of Davao, proceeded to the Velasco's room at the consent sufficient in law to dispense with the need for a search
Skyroom Hotel in Davao City, to ask for said document. Velasco was warrant.
not inside the hotel room when they entered the room. There are
conficting claims whether the manicurist Teofila Ibañez or whether Caballes vs. Court of Appeals [GR 136292, 15 January 2002]
Velasco's wife, who was allegedly inside the room at that time, Facts:
voluntarily allowed the police officers to enter; and whether the police About 9:15 p.m. of 28 June 1989, Sgt. Victorino Noceja and Pat. Alex
officers "forcibly opened luggages and boxes from which only several de Castro, while on a routine patrol in Barangay Sampalucan,
documents and papers were found, then seized, confiscated and took Pagsanjan, Laguna, spotted a passenger jeep unusually covered with
away the same," or whether Mrs. Velasco volunteered to open the "kakawati" leaves. Suspecting that the jeep was loaded with smuggled
suitcases and baggages of Velasco and delivered the documents and goods, the two police officers flagged down the vehicle. The jeep was
things contained therein to Reynolds. The Collector of Customs of driven by Rudy Caballes y Taiño. When asked what was loaded on the
Davao seized 1,480 sacks of copra and 86 sacks of coffee from the jeep, he did not answer, but he appeared pale and nervous. With
M/V motor vessel Jolo Lema. The seizure was declared lawful by the Caballes' consent, the police officers checked the cargo and they
Court of Tax Appeals, and its decision was affirmed by the Supreme discovered bundles of 3.08 mm aluminum/galvanized conductor wires
Court on 29 November 1974 in Nasiad vs. Court of Tax Appeals (GR L- exclusively owned by National Power Corporation (NAOCOR). The
29318, November 29, 1974, 61 SCRA 238). In the present special civil conductor wires weighed 700 kilos and valued at P55,244.45. Noceja
action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus; the only question left asked Caballes where the wires came from and Caballes answered that
then is whether the search conducted by a party headed by Reynolds they came from Cavinti, a town approximately 8 kilometers away from
without the search warrant for the hotel room of Velasco, who entered Sampalucan. Thereafter, Caballes and the vehicle with the high-voltage
into a contract with Jose G. Lopez, the awardee of such Philippine wires were brought to the Pagsanjan Police Station. Danilo Cabale took
pictures of Caballes and the jeep loaded with the wires which were within the interior of the territory and in the absence of probable
turned over to the Police Station Commander of Pagsanjan, Laguna. cause. Herein, the police officers did not merely conduct a visual
Caballes was incarcerated for 7 days in the Municipal jail. Caballes was search or visual inspection of Caballes' vehicle. They had to reach
charged with the crime of theft in an information dated 16 October inside the vehicle, lift the kakawati leaves and look inside the sacks
1989. During the arraignment, Caballes pleaded not guilty and hence, before they were able to see the cable wires. It thus cannot be
trial on the merits ensued. On 27 April 1993, Regional Trial Court of considered a simple routine check. Also, Caballes' vehicle was flagged
Santa Cruz, Laguna rendered judgment, finding Caballes, guilty beyond down because the police officers who were on routine patrol became
reasonable doubt of the crime of theft. In a resolution dated 9 suspicious when they saw that the back of the vehicle was covered
November 1998, the trial court denied Caballes' motion for with kakawati leaves which, according to them, was unusual and
reconsideration. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision uncommon. The fact that the vehicle looked suspicious simply because
on 15 September 1998. Caballes appealed the decision by certiorari. it is not common for such to be covered with kakawati leaves does not
constitute "probable cause" as would justify the conduct of a search
Issue: without a warrant. In addition, the police authorities do not claim to
Whether Caballes’ passive submission to the statement of Sgt. Noceja have received any confidential report or tipped information that
that the latter "will look at the contents of his vehicle and he answered petitioner was carrying stolen cable wires in his vehicle which could
in the positive" be considered as waiver on Caballes’ part on otherwise have sustained their suspicion. Philippine jurisprudence is
warrantless search and seizure. replete with cases where tipped information has become a sufficient
probable cause to effect a warrantless search and seizure.
Held: Unfortunately, none exists in the present case. Further, the evidence is
Enshrined in our Constitution is the inviolable right of the people to be lacking that Caballes intentionally surrendered his right against
secure in their persons and properties against unreasonable searches unreasonable searches. The manner by which the two police officers
and seizures, as defined under Section 2, Article III thereof. The allegedly obtained the consent of Caballes for them to conduct the
exclusionary rule under Section 3(2), Article III of the Constitution bars search leaves much to be desired. When Caballes' vehicle was flagged
the admission of evidence obtained in violation of such right. The down, Sgt. Noceja approached Caballes and "told him I will look at the
constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures is contents of his vehicle and he answered in the positive." By uttering
not absolute but admits of certain exceptions, namely: (1) warrantless those words, it cannot be said the police officers were asking or
search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule requesting for permission that they be allowed to search the vehicle of
126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence; (2) seizure Caballes. For all intents and purposes, they were informing, nay,
of evidence in plain view; (3) search of moving vehicles; (4) consented imposing upon Caballes that they will search his vehicle. The "consent"
warrantless search; (5) customs search; (6) stop and frisk situations given under intimidating or coercive circumstances is no consent within
(Terry search); and (7) exigent and emergency circumstances. In cases the purview of the constitutional guaranty. In addition, in cases where
where warrant is necessary, the steps prescribed by the Constitution the Court upheld the validity of consented search, it will be noted that
and reiterated in the Rules of Court must be complied with. In the the police authorities expressly asked, in no uncertain terms, for the
exceptional events where warrant is not necessary to effect a valid consent of the accused to be searched. And the consent of the
search or seizure, or when the latter cannot be performed except accused was established by clear and positive proof. Neither can
without a warrant, what constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable Caballes' passive submission be construed as an implied acquiescence
search or seizure is purely a judicial question, determinable from the to the warrantless search. Casting aside the cable wires as evidence,
uniqueness of the circumstances involved, including the purpose of the the remaining evidence on record are insufficient to sustain Caballes'
search or seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the conviction. His guilt can only be established without violating the
manner in which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing constitutional right of the accused against unreasonable search and
searched and the character of the articles procured. It is not seizure.
controverted that the search and seizure conducted by the police
officers was not authorized by a search warrant. The mere mobility of
these vehicles, however, does not give the police officers unlimited
discretion to conduct indiscriminate searches without warrants if made
People vs. Asis [GR 142531, 15 October 2002] Issue:
Facts: Whether Formento, a deaf-mute, has given consent to the recovery of
Danilo Asis y Fonperada and Gilbert Formento y Saricon were charged the bloodstained pair of short, in his possession during the warrantless
in an Information dated 18 February 1998; the information stating search.
"That on or about February 10, 1998, in the City of Manila, Philippines,
the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually Held:
helping each other, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and Primarily, the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and
feloniously, with intent to gain and by means of force and violence seizures, being a personal one, cannot be waived by anyone except the
upon person, to wit: by then and there stabbing one YU HING GUAN @ person whose rights are invaded or who is expressly authorized to do
ROY CHING with a bladed instrument on the different parts of the body so on his or her behalf. In the present case, the testimonies of the
thereafter take, rob and carry away the following, to wit: Cash money prosecution witnesses show that at the time the bloodstained pair of
in the amount of P20,000.00; one (1) wristwatch' one (1) gold shorts was recovered, Formento, together with his wife and mother,
necklace; and undetermined items; or all in the total amount of was present. Being the very subject of the search, necessarily, he
P20,000.00 more or less, belonging to said YU HING GUAN @ ROY himself should have given consent. Since he was physically present, the
CHING against his will, to the damage and prejudice of the said owner in waiver could not have come from any other person. Lopez vs.
the aforesaid amount more or less of P20,000.00, Philippine Currency, Commissioner of Customs does not apply as the accused therein was
and as a result thereof, he sustained mortal stab wounds which were not present when the search was made. Further, to constitute a valid
the direct and immediate cause of his death." When arraigned on 9 July waiver, it must be shown that first, the right exists; second, the person
1998, both accused pleaded not guilty. Found to be deaf-mutes, they involved had knowledge, actual or constructive, of the existence of
were assisted, not only by a counsel de oficio, but also by an such a right; and third, the person had an actual intention to relinquish
interpreter from the Calvary Baptist Church. The prosecution presented the right. Herein, Formento could not have consented to a warrantless
9 witnesses. Although none of them had actually seen the crime search when, in the first place, he did not understand what was
committed, strong and substantial circumstantial evidence presented happening at that moment. There was no interpreter to assist him -- a
by them attempted to link both accused to the crime. After due trial, deaf-mute -- during the arrest, search and seizure. The point in the
both accused were found guilty and sentenced to death. The Regional case Pasion vda. de Garcia v. Locsin, i.e. "as the constitutional
Trial Court (RTC) of Manila (Branch 54; Criminal Case 98-163090), on guaranty is not dependent upon any affirmative act of the citizen, the
8 March 2000, held that the "crime charged and proved is robbery with courts do not place the citizen in the position of either contesting an
homicide under Article 294, No. 1 of the Revised Penal Code," ruled officer’s authority by force, or waiving his constitutional rights; but
that "although no witnesses to the actual killing and robbery were instead they hold that a peaceful submission to a search or seizure is
presented, the circumstantial evidence including the recovery of not a consent or an invitation thereto, but is merely a demonstration
bloodstained clothing from both accused definitely proved that the two of regard for the supremacy of the law," becomes even more
(2) x x x committed the crime," and appreciated the aggravating pronounced in the present case, in which Formento is a deaf -mute,
circumstances of abuse of confidence, superior strength and treachery and there was no interpreter to explain to him what was happening. His
and thus sentenced both accused to the supreme penalty of death. seeming acquiescence to the search without a warrant may be
Hence, the automatic review before the Supreme Court. Both the attributed to plain and simple confusion and ignorance. The
accused do not question the legality of their arrest, as they made no bloodstained pair of shorts was a piece of evidence seized on the
objection thereto before the arraignment, but object to the occasion of an unlawful search and seizure. Thus, it is tainted and
introduction of the bloodstained pair of shorts allegedly recovered from should thus be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of the poisonous
the bag of Formento; arguing that the search was illegally done, tree. In the language of the fundamental law, it shall be inadmissible in
making the obtainment of the pair of shorts illegal and taints them as evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. Lastly, as to evidence vis-
inadmissible. The prosecution, on the other hand, contends that it was a-is the case in its totality, circumstantial evidence that merely arouses
Formento's wife who voluntarily surrendered the bag that contained suspicions or gives room for conjecture is not sufficient to convict. It
the bloodstained trousers of the victim, and thus claims that her act must do more than just raise the possibility, or even the probability, of
constituted a valid consent to the search without a warrant. guilt. It must engender moral certainty. Otherwise, the constitutional
presumption of innocence prevails, and the accused deserves acquittal.
 pleaded not guilty. The defense, however, reserved their right to
People vs. Tudtud [GR 144037, 26 September 2003] question the validity of their arrest and the seizure of the evidence
Facts: against them. Trial ensued thereafter. Tudtud, denying the charges
Sometime during the months of July and August 1999, the Toril Police against them, cried frame-up. Swayed by the prosecution’s evidence
Station, Davao City received a report from a “civilian asset” named beyond reasonable doubt, the RTC rendered judgment convicting both
Bobong Solier about a certain Noel Tudtud. Solier related that his accused as charged and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of
neighbors have been complaining about Tudtud, who was allegedly reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. On appeal, Noel
responsible for the proliferation of marijuana in their area. Reacting to Tudtud and Dindo Bolong assign, among other errors, the admission in
the report, PO1 Ronald Desierto, PO1 Ramil Floreta and their superior, evidence of the marijuana leaves, which they claim were seized in
SPO1 Villalonghan, all members of the Intelligence Section of the Toril violation of their right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Police Station, conducted surveillance in Solier’s neighborhood in Sapa,
Toril, Davao City. For 5 days, they gathered information and learned Issue:
that Tudtud was involved in illegal drugs. According to his neighbors, Whether the Tudtud’s implied acquiescence (Tudtud’s statement of
Tudtud was engaged in selling marijuana. On 1 August 1999, Solier “it’s all right” when the police officers requested that the box be
informed the police that Tudtud had headed to Cotabato and would be opened) be considered a waiver.
back later that day with new stocks of marijuana. Solier described
Tudtud as big-bodied and short, and usually wore a hat. At around Held:
4:00 p.m. that same day, a team composed of PO1 Desierto, PO1 The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is secured by
Floreta and SPO1 Villalonghan posted themselves at the corner of Section 2, Article III of the Constitution. The RTC justified the
Saipon and McArthur Highway to await Tudtud’s arrival. All wore civilian warrantless search of appellants’ belongings under the first exception,
clothes. About 8:00 p.m., 2 men disembarked from a bus and helped as a search incident to a lawful arrest. A search incidental to a lawful
each other carry a carton marked “King Flakes.” Standing some 5 feet arrest is sanctioned by the Rules of Court. It is significant to note that
away from the men, PO1 Desierto and PO1 Floreta observed that one the search in question preceded the arrest. Recent jurisprudence holds
of the men fit Tudtud’s description. The same man also toted a plastic that the arrest must precede the search; the process cannot be
bag. PO1 Floreta and PO1 Desierto then approached the suspects and reversed. Nevertheless, a search substantially contemporaneous with
identified themselves as police officers. PO1 Desierto informed them an arrest can precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to
that the police had received information that stocks of illegal drugs make the arrest at the outset of the search. The question, therefore, is
would be arriving that night. The man who resembled Tudtud’s whether the police herein had probable cause to arrest Tudtud, et. al.
description denied that he was carrying any drugs. PO1 Desierto asked The long-standing rule in this jurisdiction, applied with a great degree
him if he could see the contents of the box. Tudtud obliged, saying, “it of consistency, is that “reliable information” alone is not sufficient to
was alright.” Tudtud opened the box himself as his companion looked justify a warrantless arrest under Section 5 (a), Rule 113. The rule
on. The box yielded pieces of dried fish, beneath which were two requires, in addition, that the accused perform some overt act that
bundles, one wrapped in a striped plastic bag and another in would indicate that he “has committed, is actually committing, or is
newspapers. PO1 Desierto asked Tudtud to unwrap the packages. They attempting to commit an offense.” For the exception in Section 5 (a),
contained what seemed to the police officers as marijuana leaves. The Rule 113 to apply, this Court ruled, two elements must concur: (1) the
police thus arrested Tudtud and his companion, informed them of their person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating he has just
rights and brought them to the police station. The two did not resist. committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime;
The confiscated items were turned over to the Philippine National and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of
Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for examination. Forensic tests on the arresting officer. Reliable information alone is insufficient. Thus,
specimens taken from the confiscated items confirmed the police herein, in no sense can the knowledge of the arresting officers that
officers’ suspicion. The plastic bag contained 3,200 grams of marijuana Tudtud was in possession of marijuana be described as “personal,”
leaves while the newspapers contained another 890 grams. Noel having learned the same only from their informant Solier. Solier, for his
Tudtud and his companion, Dindo Bulong, were subsequently charged part, testified that he obtained his information only from his neighbors
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City with illegal and the friends of Tudtud. Solier’s information is hearsay. Confronted
possession of prohibited drugs. Upon arraignment, both accused with such a dubious informant, the police perhaps felt it necessary to
conduct their own “surveillance.” This “surveillance,” it turns out, did officers directed Chimel's wife to open drawers and "to physically move
not actually consist of staking out Tudtud to catch him in the act of contents of the drawers from side to side so that they might view any
plying his illegal trade, but of a mere “gathering of information from items that would have come from the burglary." After completing the
the assets there.” The police officers who conducted such search, they seized numerous items - primarily coins, but also several
“surveillance” did not identify who these “assets” were or the basis of medals, tokens, and a few other objects. The entire search took
the latter’s information. Clearly, such information is also hearsay, not between 45 minutes and an hour. At Chimel's subsequent state trial on
of personal knowledge. Finally, there is an effective waiver of rights two charges of burglary, the items taken from his house were admitted
against unreasonable searches and seizures only if the following into evidence against him, over his objection that they had been
requisites are present: (1) It must appear that the rights exist; (2) The unconstitutionally seized. He was convicted, and the judgments of
person involved had knowledge, actual or constructive, of the conviction were affirmed by both the California Court of Appeal, and
existence of such right; (3) Said person had an actual intention to the California Supreme Court. Both courts accepted Chimel's
relinquish the right. Here, the prosecution failed to establish the contention that the arrest warrant was invalid because the supporting
second and third requisites. Records disclose that when the police affidavit was set out in conclusory terms, but held that since the
officers introduced themselves as such and requested Tudtud that arresting officers had procured the warrant "in good faith," and since in
they see the contents of the carton box supposedly containing the any event they had sufficient information to constitute probable cause
marijuana, Tudtud said “it was alright.” He did not resist and opened for Chimel's arrest, that arrest had been lawful. From this conclusion
the box himself. Tudtud's implied acquiescence, if at all, could not have the appellate courts went on to hold that the search of Chimel's home
been more than mere passive conformity given under coercive or had been justified, despite the absence of a search warrant, on the
intimidating circumstances and is, thus, considered no consent at all ground that it had been incident to a valid arrest.
within the purview of the constitutional guarantee. Consequently,
Tudtud's lack of objection to the search and seizure is not tantamount Issue:
to a waiver of his constitutional right or a voluntary submission to the Whether the “search incident to arrest” extends to the whole of the
warrantless search and seizure. As the search of Tudtud's box does not house where the accused was arrested.
come under the recognized exceptions to a valid warrantless search,
the marijuana leaves obtained thereby are inadmissible in evidence. Held:
And as there is no evidence other than the hearsay testimony of the Approval of a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest seems first
arresting officers and their informant, the conviction of Tudtud, et. al. to have been articulated by the Court in 1914 as dictum in Weeks v.
cannot be sustained. United States, 232 US 383. The statement therein however made no
reference to any right to search the place where an arrest occurs, but
Chimel vs. California [395 US 752, 23 June 1969] was limited to a right to search the "person." 11 years later, the case
Facts: of Carroll v. United States (267 U.S. 132) brought the following
Late in the afternoon of 13 September 1965, three police officers embellishment of the Weeks statement: "When a man is legally
arrived at the Santa Ana, California, home of the Chimel with a warrant arrested for an offense, whatever is found upon his person or in his
authorizing his arrest for the burglary of a coin shop. The officers control which it is unlawful for him to have and which may be used to
knocked on the door, identified themselves to Chimel's wife, and asked prove the offense may be seized and held as evidence in the
if they might come inside. She ushered them into the house, where prosecution." A similar analysis underlies the "search incident to
they waited 10 or 15 minutes until Chimel returned home from work. arrest" principle, and marks its proper extent. When an arrest is made,
When Chimel entered the house, one of the officers handed him the it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested
arrest warrant and asked for permission to "look around." Chimel in order to remove any weapons that the latter might seek to use in
objected, but was advised that "on the basis of the lawful arrest," the order to resist arrest or effect his escape. Otherwise, the officer's
officers would nonetheless conduct a search. No search warrant had safety might well be endangered, and the arrest itself frustrated. In
been issued. Accompanied by Chimel's wife, the officers then looked addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for
through the entire three-bedroom house, including the attic, the and seize any evidence on the arrestee's person in order to prevent its
garage, and a small workshop. In some rooms the search was relatively concealment or destruction. And the area into which an arrestee might
cursory. In the master bedroom and sewing room, however, the reach in order to grab a weapon or evidentiary items must, of course,
be governed by a like rule. There is ample justification, therefore, for a March 1988, found Dela Cruz and Beltran guilty beyond reasonable
search of the arrestee's person and the area "within his immediate doubt and sentenced each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion
control" - construing that phrase to mean the area from within which perpetua, with the accessory penalties provided by law; to pay a fine of
he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. There P20,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency,
is no comparable justification, however, for routinely searching any and each to pay one-half of the costs. From this decision, de la Cruz
room other than that in which an arrest occurs - or, for that matter, for and Beltran appealed. In a letter of the Warden, Manila City Jail, dated
searching through all the desk drawers or other closed or concealed 3 March 1989, the Court was informed of the death of de la Cruz on
areas in that room itself. Such searches, in the absence of well- 21 February 1989. Thus, the criminal case against de la Cruz was
recognized exceptions, may be made only under the authority of a dismissed in the Supreme Court resolution of 25 September 1989. The
search warrant. The "adherence to judicial processes" mandated by the present appellate proceeding is limited only to Beltran.
Fourth Amendment requires no less. Herein, the search went far
beyond Chimel's person and the area from within which he might have Issue:
obtained either a weapon or something that could have been used as Whether the warrantless seizure incidental to the buy-bust operation
evidence against him. There was no constitutional justification, in the violates Beltran’s constitutional rights against unreasonable search and
absence of a search warrant, for extending the search beyond that seizure.
area. The scope of the search was, therefore, "unreasonable" under
the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and Chimel's conviction Held:
cannot stand. A buy-bust operation is the method employed by peace officers to trap
and catch a malefactor in flagrante delicto. It is essentially a form of
People vs. dela Cruz [GR 83260, 18 April 1990] entrapment since the peace officer neither instigates nor induces the
Facts: accused to commit a crime. Entrapment is the employment of such
After receiving a confidential report from Arnel, their informant, a ways and means for the purpose of trapping or capturing a lawbreaker
"buy-bust" operation was conducted by the 13th Narcotics Regional from whose mind the criminal intent originated. Oftentimes, it is the
Unit through a team composed of T/Sgt. Jaime Raposas as Team only effective way of apprehending a criminal in the act of the
Leader, S/Sgt. Rodelito Oblice, Sgt. Dante Yang, Sgt. Vicente Jimenez, commission of the offense. While it is conceded that in a buy-bust
P/Pfc. Adolfo Arcoy as poseur-buyer and Pat. Deogracias Gorgonia at operation, there is seizure of evidence from one's person without a
Maliclic St., Tondo, Manila at around 2:30 p.m. of 4 May 1987 to catch search warrant, needless to state a search warrant is not necessary,
the pusher/s. P/Pfc. Adolfo Arcoy acted as the poseur-buyer with the search being incident to a lawful arrest. A peace officer may,
Arnel as his companion to buy marijuana worth P10.00 from the two without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the person to
accused, Juan de la Cruz and Reynaldo Beltran. At the scene, it was be arrested has committed, is actually committing or is attempting to
Juan de la Cruz whom Arcoy first negotiated with on the purchase and commit an offense. It is a matter of judicial experience that in the
when Arcoy told De la Cruz that he was buying P10.00 worth of arrest of violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act in a buy-bust operation,
marijuana, De la Cruz instructed Reynaldo Beltran to give one aluminum the malefactors were invariably caught red-handed. There being no
foil of marijuana which Beltran got from his pants' pocket and delivered violation of the constitutional right against unreasonable search and
it to Arcoy. After ascertaining that the foil of suspected marijuana was seizure, the confiscated articles are admissible in evidence.
really marijuana, Arcoy gave the prearranged signal to his teammates
by scratching his head and his teammates who were strategically People v. Kalubiran [GR 84079, 6 May 1991]
positioned in the vicinity, converged at the place, identified themselves Facts:
as NARCOM agents and effected the arrest of De la Cruz and Beltran. Nestor Kalubiran was arrested on 12 July 1985, in Dumaguete City, by
The P10.00 marked bill used by Arcoy was found in the possession of Narcotics Command (NARCOM) elements. His arrest was the result of a
Juan de la Cruz together with two aluminum foils and containing "buy-bust" operation in which Pat. Leon Quindo acted as the buyer
marijuana. Juan de la Cruz y Gonzales and Reynaldo Beltran y Aniban while the other team members lay in wait to arrest Kalubiran at the
were charged in Criminal Case 87-54417 of the Regional Trial Court pre- arranged signal. Quindo approached the accused-appellant, who
(RTC) of Manila with violation of Section 4, Art. II, in relation to Section was with a group of friends in front of the Gamo Memorial Clinic, and
21, Article IV of Republic Act 6425, as amended. The court, on 15 asked if he could "score," the jargon for buying marijuana. Kalubiran
immediately produced two sticks of marijuana, for which Quindo paid days. On 11 May 1989, Capt. Alen Vasco of NARCOM, stationed at
him a previously marked P5.00 bill. Quindo then gave the signal and Camp Dangwa, ordered his men to set up a temporary checkpoint at
Cpl. Levi Dorado approached and arrested Kalubiran. Dorado frisked the Kilometer 14, Acop, Tublay, Mountain Province, for the purpose of
accused-appellant. He recovered the marked money and found 17 checking all vehicles coming from the Cordillera Region. The order to
more sticks of marijuana on Kalubiran's person. The other team establish a checkpoint in the said area was prompted by persistent
members, namely M/Sgt. Ranulfo Villamor and Sgt. Ruben Laddaran, reports that vehicles coming from Sagada were transporting marijuana
came later in a jeep, where they boarded Kalubiran to take him to the and other prohibited drugs. Moreover, information was received by the
police station. The 19 sticks of marijuana were marked and then taken Commanding Officer of NARCOM, that same morning, that a Caucasian
to the PC Crime Laboratory, where they were analyzed, with positive coming from Sagada had in his possession prohibited drugs. At about
results. Kalubiran contended however that one Quindo approached and 1:30 pm, the bus where Malmstedt was riding was stopped. Sgt. Fider
frisk him on the same night, and found nothing on him. However, he and CIC Galutan boarded the bus and announced that they were
was called back by one Villamor, who told him at gun point to board members of the NARCOM and that they would conduct an inspection.
the jeep and taken to PC headquarters, then to the police station. He During the inspection, CIC Galutan noticed a bulge on Malmstedt's
was released the following day with the help of a lawyer. After trial, the waist. Suspecting the bulge on Malmstedt's waist to be a gun, the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) Dumaguete City found Kalubiran guilty as officer asked for Malmstedt's passport and other identification papers.
charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment plus a P20,000 fine. When Malmstedt failed to comply, the officer required him to bring out
Kalubiran appealed. whatever it was that was bulging on his waist, which was a pouch bag.
When Malmstedt opened the same bag, as ordered, the officer noticed
Issue: 4 suspicious-looking objects wrapped in brown packing tape, which
Whether Kalubiran should be made to answer for the 19 sticks of turned out to contain hashish, a derivative of marijuana, when opened.
marijuana found in his possession during his arrest. Malmstedt stopped to get 2 travelling bags from the luggage carrier,
each containing a teddy bear, when he was invited outside the bus for
Held: questioning. It was observed that there were also bulges inside the
Kalubiran was arrested in flagrante delicto as a result of the teddy bears which did not feel like foam stuffing. Malmstedt was then
entrapment and so came under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of brought to the headquarters of the NARCOM at Camp Dangwa for
Court, authorizing a warrantless arrest of any person actually further investigation. At the investigation room, the officers opened
committing a crime. The search was made as an incident of a lawful the teddy bears and they were found to also contain hashish.
arrest and so was also lawful under Section 12 of Rule 116. In addition Representative samples were taken from the hashish found among the
to the Rules, there is abundant jurisprudence justifying warrantless personal effects of Malmstedt and the same were brought to the PC
searches and seizures under the conditions established in the case. Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis, which established the objects
However, Kalubiran was accused only of selling the two sticks of examined as hashish. Malmstedt claimed that the hashish was planted
marijuana under Section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act when he should by the NARCOM officers in his pouch bag and that the 2 travelling bags
also have been charged with possession of the 17 other sticks found were not owned by him, but were merely entrusted to him by an
on his person at the time of his arrest. It is unfortunate that he cannot Australian couple whom he met in Sagada. He further claimed that the
be held to answer for the second offense because he has not been Australian couple intended to take the same bus with him but because
impleaded in a separate information for violation of Section 8 of the there were no more seats available in said bus, they decided to take
said law. the next ride and asked Malmstedt to take charge of the bags, and
that they would meet each other at the Dangwa Station. An
People v. Malmstedt [GR 91107, 19 June 1991] information was filed against Malmstedt for violation of the Dangerous
Facts: Drugs Act. During the arraignment, Malmstedt entered a plea of "not
Mikael Malmstedt, a Swedish national, entered the Philippines for the guilty." After trial and on 12 October 1989, the trial court found
3rd time in December 1988 as a tourist. He had visited the country Malmstedt guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 4,
sometime in 1982 and 1985. In the evening of 7 May 1989, Malmstedt Article II of RA 6425 and sentenced him to life imprisonment and to
left for Baguio City. Upon his arrival thereat in the morning of the pay a fine of P20,000. Malmstedt sought reversal of the decision of
following day, he took a bus to Sagada and stayed in that place for 2 the trial court.
 court issued his order of release on 29 July 1991. On 14 August 1992,
Issue: the trial court rendered a decision, convicting Espano of the crime
Whether the personal effects of Malmstedt may be searched without charged. Espano appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. The
an issued warrant. appellate court, however, on 15 January 1995 affirmed the decision of
the trial court in toto. Espano filed a petition for review with the
Held: Supreme Court.
The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable Issue:
searches and seizures. However, where the search is made pursuant to Whether the search of Espano’s home after his arrest does not violate
a lawful arrest, there is no need to obtain a search warrant. A lawful against his right against unreasonable search and seizure.
arrest without a warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private
person under the following circumstances. Section 5 provides that “a Held:
peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a Espano's arrest falls squarely under Rule 113 Section 5(a) of the Rules
person (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has of Court. He was caught in flagranti as a result of a buy-bust operation
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an conducted by police officers on the basis of information received
offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he regarding the illegal trade of drugs within the area of Zamora and
has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be Pandacan Streets, Manila. The police officer saw Espano handing over
arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a something to an alleged buyer. After the buyer left, they searched him
prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where and discovered two cellophanes of marijuana. His arrest was, therefore,
he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is lawful and the two cellophane bags of marijuana seized were admissible
pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement in evidence, being the fruits of the crime. As for the 10 cellophane
to another. In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the bags of marijuana found at Espano's residence, however, the same
person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the inadmissible in evidence. The articles seized from Espano during his
nearest police station or jail, and he shall be proceeded against in arrest were valid under the doctrine of search made incidental to a
accordance with Rule 112, Section 7." Herein, Malmstedt was caught in lawful arrest. The warrantless search made in his house, however,
flagrante delicto, when he was transporting prohibited drugs. Thus, the which yielded ten cellophane bags of marijuana became unlawful since
search made upon his personal effects falls squarely under paragraph the police officers were not armed with a search warrant at the time.
(1) of the foregoing provisions of law, which allow a warrantless search Moreover, it was beyond the reach and control of Espano. The right of
incident to a lawful arrest. the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for
Espano vs. Court of Appeals [GR 120431, 1 April 1998] any purposes shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of
Facts: arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
On 14 July 1991, at about 12:30 a.m., Pat. Romeo Pagilagan and other personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of
police officers, namely, Pat. Wilfredo Aquilino, Simplicio Rivera, and the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
Erlindo Lumboy of the Western Police District (WPD), Narcotics Division describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be
went to Zamora and Pandacan Streets, Manila to confirm reports of seized." An exception to the said rule is a warrantless search incidental
drug pushing in the area. They saw Rodolfo Espano selling "something" to a lawful arrest for dangerous weapons or anything which may be
to another person. After the alleged buyer left, they approached used as proof of the commission of an offense. It may extend beyond
Espano, identified themselves as policemen, and frisked him. The the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings
search yielded two plastic cellophane tea bags of marijuana . When under his immediate control. Herein, the ten cellophane bags of
asked if he had more marijuana, he replied that there was more in his marijuana seized at petitioner's house after his arrest at Pandacan and
house. The policemen went to his residence where they found ten Zamora Streets do not fall under the said exceptions.
more cellophane tea bags of marijuana. Espano was brought to the
police headquarters where he was charged with possession of
prohibited drugs. On 24 July 1991, Espano posted bail and the trial
People vs. Tangliben [GR L-63630, 6 April 1990] therefore falls squarely within the exception. The warrantless search
Facts: was incident to a lawful arrest and is consequently valid. The Court is
In the late evening of 2 March 1982, Patrolmen Silverio Quevedo and not unmindful of its decision in People v. Aminnudin (163 SCRA 402
Romeo L. Punzalan of the San Fernando Police Station, together with [1988]). In that case the PC officers had earlier received a tip from an
Barangay Tanod Macario Sacdalan, were conducting surveillance informer that accused-appellant was on board a vessel bound for Iloilo
mission at the Victory Liner Terminal compound located at Barangay City and was carrying marijuana. Acting on this tip, they waited for him
San Nicolas, San Fernando, Pampanga. The surveillance mission was one evening, approached him as he descended from the gangplank,
aimed not only against persons who may commit misdemeanors at the detained him and inspected the bag he was carrying. Said bag
said place but also on persons who may be engaging in the traffic of contained marijuana leaves. The Court held that the marijuana could
dangerous drugs based on informations supplied by informers. Around not be admitted in evidence since it was seized illegally, as there was
9:30 p.m., said Patrolmen noticed a person carrying a red traveling bag lack of urgency, and thus a search warrant can still be procured.
who was acting suspiciously and they confronted him. The person was However, herein, the case presented urgency. Although the trial court's
requested by Patrolmen Quevedo and Punzalan to open the red decision did not mention it, the transcript of stenographic notes
traveling bag but the person refused, only to accede later on when the reveals that there was an informer who pointed to Tangliben as
patrolmen identified themselves. Found inside the bag were marijuana carrying marijuana. Faced with such on-the- spot information, the
leaves wrapped in a plastic wrapper and weighing one kilo, more or less. police officers had to act quickly. There was not enough time to secure
The person was asked of his name and the reason why he was at the a search warrant. The Court cannot therefore apply the ruling in
said place and he gave his name as Medel Tangliben and explained that Aminnudin herein. To require search warrants during on-the-spot
he was waiting for a ride to Olongapo City to deliver the marijuana apprehensions of drug pushers, illegal possessors of firearms, jueteng
leaves. The accused was taken to the police headquarters at San collectors, smugglers of contraband goods, robbers, etc. would make it
Fernando, Pampanga, for further investigation; and that Pat. Silverio extremely difficult, if not impossible to contain the crimes with which
Quevedo submitted to his Station Commander his Investigator's these persons are associated.
Report. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Third Judicial Region at
San Fernando, Pampanga, found Medel Tangliben y Bernardino guilty People v. Che Chun Ting [GR 130568-69, 21 March 2000]
beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Facts:
Act 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 as amended) and sentenced Following a series of buy-bust operations, the elements of the Special
him to life imprisonment, to pay a fine of P20,000 and to pay the Operation Unit, Narcotics Command, apprehended a suspected drug
costs. Tangliben appealed. courier, Mabel Cheung Mei Po, after she delivered a transparent plastic
bag containing a white crystalline substance to an informant, in full
Issue: view of NARCOM agents. When questioned, Mabel Cheung Mei Po
Whether the warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest, even in light cooperated with the government agents and revealed the name of Che
of the Court’s ruling in People vs. Aminnudin. Chun Ting as the source of the drugs. On 27 June 1996 NARCOM
deployed a team of agents for the entrapment and arrest of Che Chun
Held: Ting. At 7:00 am they proceeded to the Roxas Seafront Garden in
One of the exceptions to the general rule requiring a search warrant is Pasay City where Che Chun Ting was and had the place under
a search incident to a lawful arrest. Thus, Section 12 (Search incident surveillance. When they moved to the McDonald's parking lot, Mabel
to a lawful arrest) of Rule 126 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure called Che Chun Ting through her cellular phone and spoke to him in
provides that "A person lawfully arrested may be searched for Chinese, ordering one (1) kilo of shabu. At 10:30 am Mabel receive a
dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the call from the accused. Mabel, along with NARCOM agents, proceeded to
commission of an offense, without a search warrant." Meanwhile, Rule the Roxas Seafront Garden. Mabel honked twice upon arriving at the
113, Sec. 5(a) provides that "A peace officer or a private person may, said place and went to Unit 122. NARCOM agents parked 2 meters
without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the away saw the door of the unit open as a man went out to hand Mabel a
person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is transparent plastic bag containing a white crystalline substance. The
attempting to commit an offense." Tangliben was caught in flagrante, NARCOM agents immediately alighted and arrested the surprised man
since he was carrying marijuana at the time of his arrest. This case who was positively identified by Mabel as Che Chun Ting. Unit 122 was
searched by the agents, where a black bag with several plastic bags lawful arrest being the sole justification for the validity of the
containing a white crystalline substance in an open cabinet in the warrantless search under the exception, the same must be limited to
second floor was seized. The bag was examined in the presence of Maj. and circumscribed by the subject, time and place of the arrest. As to
Garbo, the accused and his girlfriend. The accused and the evidence subject, the warrantless search is sanctioned only with respect to the
were brought to Camp Crame. The contents of the bank were tested person of the suspect, and things that may be seized from him are
and found positive for shabu. The Defense alleged otherwise. It alleged limited to "dangerous weapons" or "anything which may be used as
that it was Noli Ortiz, the brother of Che Chun Ting’s girlfriend who proof of the commission of the offense." With respect to the time and
rang the doorbell of Unit 122. When Nimfa opened the door, 2 place of the warrantless search, it must be contemporaneous with the
NARCOM officers suddenly forced their way inside and searched the lawful arrest. Stated otherwise, to be valid, the search must have been
premises. Noli alleged that he did not see any black bag seized but saw conducted at about the time of the arrest or immediately thereafter
his sister’s video camera being carted away by the NARCOM agents. He and only at the place where the suspect was arrested, or the premises
claimed that his sister was frightened and crying during the conduct of or surroundings under his immediate control. Herein, although the case
the search while Che Chun Ting was asleep at the second floor. falls within the exception, Che Chun Ting was admittedly outside unit
Defense further contends that Unit 122 is owned by Nimfa Ortiz and 122, which was not his residence but a sojourner thereof, and in the
that Che Chun Ting lived at 1001 Domingo Poblete St., BF Homes, act of delivering to Mabel Cheung Mei Po a bag of shabu when he was
Parañaque. Che Chun Ting was found guilty by the trial court on 22 arrested by the NARCOM operatives. The inner portion of the house
August 1997 of delivering, distributing and dispatching in transit can hadly be said to constitute a permissible area within his reach or
999.48 grams of shabu; and, having in his custody, possession and immediate control, to justify a warrantless search therein. The search
control 5,578.68 grams of the same regulated drug. He was meted in Unit 122 and the seizure therein of some 5,578.68 grams of shabu
two (2) death sentences, one for violation of Sec. 15 and the other for were illegal for being violative of one's basic constitutional right and
violation of Sec. 16, both of Art. III, of RA 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, and thus are
Act of 1972, as amended). He was likewise ordered to pay a fine of inadmissible in evidence under the exclusionary rule. The inadmissibility
P1,000,000.00 in the first case, and P12,000,000.00 in the second. of such however does not totally exonerate the accused. The illegal
He is now before the Supreme Court on automatic review. search in Unit 122 was preceded by a valid arrest. The accused was
caught in flagrante delicto as a result of an entrapment conducted by
Issue: NARCOM operatives on the basis of the information provided by Mabel
Whether the search of Unit 122 is within the purview of the Cheung Mei Po regarding the accused's illegal trade. NARCOM agents
warrantless search incidental to an arrest. P/Insp. Santiago and SPO3 Campanilla saw him handing over a bag of
white crystalline substance to Mabel Cheung Mei Po. His arrest was
Held: lawful and the seized bag of shabu weighing 999.43 grams was
The 1987 Constitution ordains that no arrest, search or seizure can be admissible in evidence, being the fruit of the crime.
made without a valid warrant issued by a competent judicial authority.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers People vs. Estrella [GR 138539-40, 21 January 2003]
and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever Facts:
nature and for any purpose, shall be inviolable, and no search warrant Prior to 20 November 1996, Executive Judge Romulo Estrada of the
or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be Regional Trial Court of Zambales issued a warrant for the conduct of a
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or search and seizure in the residence of Antonio C. Estella at Purok Yakal,
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and Barangay Baloganon, Masinloc, Zambales. In the morning of 20
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or November 1996, Senior Police Officer 1 (SPO1) Antonio Buloron, then
things to be seized. The right is not absolute and admits of certain Intelligence and Investigation Officer, together with SPO1 Jose Arca
well-recognized exceptions. A person lawfully arrested may be and several other members of the Provincial Special Operation Group
searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as based in Burgos, San Marcelino, Zambales proceeded to Masinloc. They
proof of the commission of the offense, without a search warrant. The coordinated with the members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) in
search may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include Masinloc and sought the assistance of Barangay Captain Rey Barnachea
the permissible area or surroundings within his immediate control. The of Baloganon, Masinloc for the enforcement of the search warrant.
Barangay Captain Barnachea accompanied the police officers to Purok sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The 8.320 kilograms of dried
Yakal, Barangay Baloganon, Masinloc, the place mentioned in the search marijuana was ordered confiscated in favor of the government, and the
warrant. On their way to Purok Yakal, SPO1 Buloron saw Estrella sitting Sheriff was directed to deliver the subject marijuana to the Dangerous
on a rocking chair located about 2 meters away from a hut owned by Drugs Board for its proper disposition. On the other hand, Estrella was
Narding Estella, the latter's brother, and being rented by Estrella's live- acquitted from the charge of violation of PD 1866 The .38 caliber
in partner, named Eva. They approached Estrella and introduced revolver without serial number and 4 live ammunitions, subject of the
themselves as police officers. They showed Estrella the search warrant offense, were however ordered delivered to any authorized
and explained the contents to him. SPO1 Buloron asked Estrella if representative of the Philippine National Police, Firearms and Explosives
indeed he had in his possession prohibited drug and if so, to surrender Division, Camp Crame, Quezon City. Estrella appealed said decision.
the same so he would deserve a lesser penalty. While inside the hut,
Estrella surrendered to the team 2 cans containing dried marijuana Issue:
fruiting tops. One can contained 20 bricks of fruiting tops. The team Whether the search undertaken inside the hut — during which the
searched the hut in the presence of Estrella and his live-in partner. incriminating evidence was allegedly recovered — was legal.
They found a plastic container under the kitchen table, which contained
4 big bricks of dried marijuana leaves and a .38 caliber revolver with Held:
four live ammunitions. The team seized the prohibited drug, the There is no convincing proof that Estrella indeed surrendered the
revolver and ammunitions. The team seized and signed a receipt for prohibited drug, whether voluntarily or otherwise. In fact, the
the seized items. Barangay Captain Barnachea and SPO1 Edgar testimony of Prosecution Witness Barnachea clouds rather than
Bermudez of the Masinloc Police Station also signed the receipt as clarifies the prosecution's story. Given this backdrop, the police
witnesses. SPO1 Buloron and his companions arrested Estrella and authorities cannot claim that the search was incident to a lawful arrest.
brought him to San Marcelino, Zambales. The defense, however, alleged Such a search presupposes a lawful or valid arrest and can only be
otherwise and claimed that on 20 November 1996 between 10:30 and invoked through Section 5 (Arrest without warrant; when lawful), Rule
11:00 a.m., while Estrella was talking with his friends Rael Tapado and 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which provides that "A
Victor de Leon at a vacant lot just outside the house of Camillo Torres peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
and about 70 meters away from his house, a group of men approached person: (a) when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
them. The group introduced themselves as policemen and told them committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
that they were looking for Antonio Estella because they have a search offense; (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has
warrant issued against him. Estrella identified himself to them. The probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or
policemen inquired from Estrella as to where his house is located and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
Estrella told them that his house is located across the road. The police (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from
did not believe him and insisted that Estrella's house is that house a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is
located about 5–8 meters away from them. Estrella told the policemen temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while
to inquire from the Barangay Captain Barnachea as to where his house being transferred from one confinement to another. In cases falling
is and heard the latter telling the policemen that his house is located under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a
near the Abokabar junk shop. After about half an hour, the policemen warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail
went inside the house nearby and when they came out, they had with and shall be proceeded against in accordance with Section 7 Rule 112."
them a bulk of plastic and had it shown to Estrella. They photographed Never was it proven that Estrella, who was the person to be arrested,
Estrella and brought him to their office at San Marcelino, Zambales. was in possession of the subject prohibited drug during the search. It
Estella was investigated at San Marcelino, Zambales where he informed follows, therefore, that there was no way of knowing if he had
the police officers of the fact that the house they searched was committed or was actually committing an offense in the presence of
occupied by Spouses Vicente and Fely Bakdangan. Still, Estrella was the arresting officers. Without that knowledge, there could have been
charged for possession of prohibited drugs and unlicensed firearms. no search incident to a lawful arrest. Assuming arguendo that appellant
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iba, Zambales (Branch 69), in Criminal was indeed committing an offense in the presence of the arresting
Case RTC 2143-I and on 25 August 1998, found Estrella guilty of officers, and that the arrest without a warrant was lawful, it still cannot
violating Section 8, Article II of RA 6425, as amended by RA 7659, and be said that the search conducted was within the confines of the law.
Searches and seizures incident to lawful arrests are governed by the opening of the black bag. In the meantime, the two women and the
Section 12 (Search incident to lawful arrest), Rule 126 of the Revised bag were turned over to the investigator on duty, SPO3 Arthur
Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides that "A person lawfully Antonio. As soon as the barangay captain arrived, the black bag was
arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which opened in the presence of Libnao, Nunga, and personnel of the center.
may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an Found inside it were 8 bricks of leaves sealed in plastic bags and
offense without a search warrant." However, the scope of the search covered with newspaper. The leaves were suspected to be marijuana.
should be limited to the area within which the person to be arrested To determine who owns the bag and its contents, SPO3 Antonio
can reach for a weapon or for evidence that he or she can destroy. The interrogated the two. Nunga stated that it was owned by Libnao. The
prevailing rule is that the arresting officer may take from the arrested latter, in turn, disputed this allegation. Thereafter, they were made to
individual any money or property found upon the latter's person — that sign a confiscation receipt without the assistance of any counsel, as
which was used in the commission of the crime or was the fruit of the they were not informed of their right to have one. During the course of
crime, or which may provide the prisoner with the means of committing the investigation, not even close relatives of theirs were present. The
violence or escaping, or which may be used in evidence in the trial of seized articles were later brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory in San
the case. The purpose of the exception in Chimel v. California is to Fernando, Pampanga on 23 October 1996. Forensic Chemist Daisy P.
protect the arresting officer from being harmed by the person being Babu conducted a laboratory examination on them. She concluded that
arrested, who might be armed with a concealed weapon, and to the articles were marijuana leaves weighing eight kilos. Libnao and
prevent the latter from destroying evidence within reach. The Nunga were charged for violation of Section 4, Article II of RA 6425,
exception, therefore, should not be strained beyond what is needed to otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended.
serve its purpose. Herein, searched was the entire hut, which cannot be On 19 November 1998, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 65, Tarlac
said to have been within Estrela's immediate control. Thus, the search City, found Libnao and Nunga guilty. For their conviction, each was
exceeded the bounds of that which may be considered to be incident sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and to pay
to a lawful arrest. a fine of two million pesos. Libnao appealed.

People vs. Libnao [GR 136860, 20 January 2003] Issue:

Facts: Whether the warrantless search and seizure made upon Libnao and
On August 1996, intelligence operatives of the Philippine National Nunga was reasonable.
Police (PNP) stationed in Tarlac, Tarlac began conducting surveillance
operation on suspected drug dealers in the area. They learned from Held:
their asset that a certain woman from Tajiri, Tarlac and a companion The constitutional guarantee (in Article III, Section 2 of the 1987
from Baguio City were transporting illegal drugs once a month in big Constitution) is not a blanket prohibition against all searches and
bulks. On 19 October 1996, at about 10 p.m., Chief Inspector seizures as it operates only against "unreasonable" searches and
Benjamin Arceo, Tarlac Police Chief, held a briefing in connection with a seizures. Searches and seizures are as a rule unreasonable unless
tip which his office received that the two drug pushers, riding in a authorized by a validly issued search warrant or warrant of arrest.
tricycle, would be making a delivery that night. An hour later, the Police Thus, the fundamental protection accorded by the search and seizure
Alert Team installed a checkpoint in Barangay Salapungan to apprehend clause is that between persons and police must stand the protective
the suspects. Witness SPO1 Marlon Gamotea, PO3 Florante Ferrer and authority of a magistrate clothed with power to issue or refuse to issue
SPO3 Roberto Aquino were assigned to man the checkpoint. At about search warrants and warrants of arrest. Be that as it may, the
1:00 a.m. of the following day, SPO1 Gamotea and PO3 Ferrer flagged requirement that a judicial warrant must be obtained prior to the
down a passing tricycle. It had two female passengers seated inside, carrying out of a search and seizure is not absolute. There are certain
who were later identified as Agpanga Libnao and Rosita Nunga. In front familiar exceptions to the rule, one of which relates to search of
of them was a black bag. Suspicious of the black bag and the two’s moving vehicles. Warrantless search and seizure of moving vehicles are
uneasy behavior when asked about its ownership and content, the allowed in recognition of the impracticability of securing a warrant
officers invited them to Kabayan Center 2 located at the same under said circumstances as the vehicle can be quickly moved out of
barangay. They brought with them the black bag. Upon reaching the the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant may be sought. Peace
center, PO3 Ferrer fetched Barangay Captain Roy Pascual to witness officers in such cases, however, are limited to routine checks where the
examination of the vehicle is limited to visual inspection. When a marijuana. On the other hand, Mari Musa alleged that the NARCOM
vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search, such would be agents, dressed in civilian clothes, got inside his house without any
constitutionally permissible only if the officers made it upon probable search warrant, neither his permission to enter the house. The NARCOM
cause, i.e., upon a belief, reasonably arising out of circumstances agents searched the house and allegedly found a red plastic bag whose
known to the seizing officer, that an automobile or other vehicle contents, Mari Musa said, he did not know. He also did not know if the
contains as item, article or object which by law is subject to seizure plastic bag belonged to his brother, Faisal, who was living with him, or
and destruction. The warrantless search herein is not bereft of a his father, who was living in another house about ten arms-length
probable cause. The Tarlac Police Intelligence Division had been away. Mari Musa was handcuffed and was taken to the NARCOM office
conducting surveillance operation for three months in the area. The where he was joined by his wife. Musa claimed that he was subjected
surveillance yielded the information that once a month, Libnao and to torture when he refused to sign the document containing details of
Nunga transport drugs in big bulks. At 10:00 pm of 19 October 1996, the investigation. The next day, he was taken to the fiscal‘s office to
the police received a tip that the two will be transporting drugs that which he was allegedly made to answer to a single question: that if he
night riding a tricycle. Surely, the two were intercepted three hours owned the marijuana. He allegedly was not able to tell the fiscal that he
later, riding a tricycle and carrying a suspicious-looking black bag, had been maltreated by the NARCOM agents because he was afraid he
which possibly contained the drugs in bulk. When they were asked who might be maltreated in the fiscal's office. Mari Musa was brought to the
owned it and what its content was, both became uneasy. Under these City Jail. Still, an information against Musa was filed on 15 December
circumstances, the warrantless search and seizure of Libnao’s bag was 1989. Upon his arraignment on 11 January 1990, Musa pleaded not
not illegal. It is also clear that at the time she was apprehended, she guilty. After trial and on 31 August 1990, the RTC Zamboanga City
was committing a criminal offense. She was making a delivery or (Branch XII) found him guilty of selling marijuana in violation of Article
transporting prohibited drugs in violation of Article II, Section 4 of R.A. II, Section 4 of RA 6425. Musa appealed to the Supreme Court.
No. 6425. Under the Rules of Court, one of the instances a police
officer is permitted to carry out a warrantless arrest is when the Issue:
person to be arrested is caught committing a crime in flagrante delicto. Whether the contents of the red plastic bag found in the kitchen may
be admitted as evidence as evidence acquired incidental to a lawful
People v. Musa [GR 96177, 27 January 1993] arrest.
Facts:
On 13 December 1989, the Narcotics Command (NARCOM) in Held:
Zamboanga City conducted surveillance and test buy on a certain Mari Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest authorizes the arresting
Musa of Suterville, Zamboanga City. Information received from civilian officer to make a search upon the person of the person arrested. An
informer was that this Mari Musa was engaged in selling marijuana in officer making an arrest may take from the person arrested and money
said place. The Narcom agent (Sgt. Ani) was able to buy one or property found upon his person which was used in the commission
newspaper-wrapped dried marijuana for P10.00, which was turned over of the crime or was the fruit of the crime or which might furnish the
to the Narcom office. The next day, a buy-bust was planned with Sgt. prisoner with the means of committing violence or of escaping, or
Ani being the poseur-buyer. NARCOM teams proceeded to the target which may be used as evidence in the trial of the cause. Hence, in a
site in 2 civilian vehicles. Ani gave Musa the P20.00 marked money. buy-bust operation conducted to entrap a drug-pusher, the law
Musa returned to his house and gave Ani 2 newspaper wrappers enforcement agents may seize the marked money found on the person
containing dried marijuana. The signal to apprehend Musa was given. of the pusher immediately after the arrest even without arrest and
The NARCOM team rushed to the location of Ani, and a NARCOM officer search warrants. The warrantless search and seizure, as an incident to
(Sgt. Belarga) frisked Musa but did not find the marked money. The a suspect's lawful arrest, may extend beyond the person of the one
money was given to Musa’s wife who was able to slip away. Later, arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his immediate
Belarga found a plastic bag containing dried marijuana inside it control. Objects in the "plain view" of an officer who has the right to
somewhere in the kitchen. Musa was placed under arrest and was be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be
brought to the NARCOM office. One newspaper- wrapper marijuana and presented as evidence. When the discovery of the evidence did not
the plastic bag containing more marijuana was sent to the PC Crime constitute a search, but where the officer merely saw what was placed
Laboratory, the test of which gave positive results for the presence of before him in full view, the warrantless seizure of the object was legal
on the basis of the "plain view" doctrine and upheld the admissibility of Manarang, being a member of both the Spectrum, a civic group and the
said evidence. The "plain view" doctrine, however, may not be used to Barangay Disaster Coordinating Council, decided to report the incident
launch unbridled searches and indiscriminate seizures nor to extend a to the Philippine National Police (PNP) of Angeles City. He took out his
general exploratory search made solely to find evidence of defendant's radio and called the Viper, the radio controller of the PNP of Angeles
guilt. The "plain view" doctrine is usually applied where a police officer City. By the time Manarang completed the call, the vehicle had started
is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless to leave the place of the accident taking the general direction to the
inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. What the 'plain north. Manarang went to the location of the accident and found out
view' cases have in common is that the police officer in each of them that the vehicle had hit somebody. Manarang asked Cruz to look after
had a prior justification for an intrusion in the course of which he came the victim while he went back to the restaurant, rode on his
inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The motorcycle and chased the vehicle. During the chase he was able to
doctrine serves to supplement the prior justification — whether it be a make out the plate number of the vehicle as PMA 777. He called the
warrant for another object, hot pursuit, search incident to lawful arrest, Viper through the radio once again reporting that a vehicle heading
or some other legitimate reason for being present unconnected with a north with plate number PMA 777 was involved in a hit and run
search directed against the accused — and permits the warrantless accident. SPO2 Borja and SPO2 Miranda of Mobile 3 were able to
seizure. Of course, the extension of the original justification is intercept the vehicle by cutting into the latter's path forcing it to stop.
legitimate only where it is immediately apparent to the police that they SPO2 Miranda went to the vehicle with plate number PMA 777 and
have evidence before them; the 'plain view' doctrine may not be used instructed its driver to alight. The driver rolled down the window and
to extend a general exploratory search from one object to another until put his head out while raising both his hands. They recognized the
something incriminating at last emerges. The "plain view" doctrine driver as Robin C. Padilla. SPO2 Miranda told Padilla to alight to which
neither justify the seizure of the object where the incriminating nature Padilla complied. Padilla was wearing a short leather jacket such that
of the object is not apparent from the "plain view" of the object. Thus, when he alighted with both his hands raised, a gun tucked on the left
the exclusion of the plastic bag containing marijuana does not, side of his waist was revealed, its butt protruding. SPO2 Borja made
however, diminish, in any way, the damaging effect of the other pieces the move to confiscate the gun but Padilla held the former's hand
of evidence presented by the prosecution to prove that the appellant alleging that the gun was covered by legal papers. SPO2 Borja
sold marijuana, in violation of Article II, Section 4 of the Dangerous disarmed Padilla and told the latter about the hit and run incident.
Drugs Act of 1972. By virtue of the testimonies of Sgt. Ani and T/Sgt. Padilla, however, arrogantly denied his misdeed and, instead, played
Belarga and the two wrappings of marijuana sold by Musa to Sgt. Ani, with the crowd by holding their hands with one hand and pointing to
among other pieces of evidence, the guilt of Musa of the crime charged SPO2 Borja with his right hand saying "iyan, kinuha ang baril ko."
has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Because Padilla's jacket was short, his gesture exposed a long
magazine of an armalite rifle tucked in his back right pocket. SPO
Padilla vs. Court of Appeals [GR 121917, 12 March 1997] Mercado saw this and so when Padilla turned around as he was talking
Facts: and proceeding to his vehicle, Mercado confiscated the magazine from
At about 8:00 p.m. of 26 October 1992, Enrique Manarang and his Padilla. Suspecting that Padilla could also be carrying a rifle inside the
compadre Danny Perez were inside the Manukan sa Highway Restaurant vehicle since he had a magazine, SPO2 Mercado prevented Padilla from
in Sto. Kristo, Angeles City where they took shelter from the heavy going back to his vehicle by opening himself the door of Padilla's
downpour that had interrupted their ride on motorcycles along Mac vehicle. He saw a baby armalite rifle lying horizontally at the front by
Arthur Highway. While inside the restaurant, Manarang noticed a the driver's seat. It had a long magazine filled with live bullets in a
vehicle, a Mitsubishi Pajero, running fast down the highway prompting semi-automatic mode. He asked Padilla for the papers covering the rifle
him to remark that the vehicle might get into an accident considering and Padilla answered angrily that they were at his home. SPO Mercado
the inclement weather. Immediately after the vehicle had passed the modified the arrest of Padilla by including as its ground illegal
restaurant, Manarang and Perez heard a screeching sound produced by possession of firearms. SPO Mercado then read to appellant his
the sudden and hard braking of a vehicle running very fast, followed by constitutional rights. The police officers brought Padilla to the Traffic
a sickening sound of the vehicle hitting something. Manarang and Cruz Division at Jake Gonzales Boulevard where Padilla voluntarily
went out to investigate and immediately saw the vehicle occupying the surrendered a third firearm, a pietro berreta pistol with a single round
edge or shoulder of the highway giving it a slight tilt to its side. in its chamber and a magazine loaded with 7 other live bullets. Padilla
also voluntarily surrendered a black bag containing two additional long where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent, and
magazines and one short magazine. Padilla was correspondingly (d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further
charged on 3 December 1992, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of search; (3) Search of a moving vehicle. 49 Highly regulated by the
Angeles City with illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions ([1] government, the vehicle's inherent mobility reduces expectation of
One .357 Caliber revolver, Smith and Wesson, SN-32919 with 6 live privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a
ammunitions; [2] one M-16 Baby Armalite rifle, SN-RP 131120 with 4 highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the
long and 1 short magazine with ammunitions; [3] one .380 Pietro occupant committed a criminal activity; (4) consented warrantless
Beretta, SN-A 35723 Y with clip and 8 ammunitions; and [4] Six search; and (5) customs search. In conformity with the trial court's
additional live double action ammunitions of .38 caliber revolver." ) observation, it indeed appears that the authorities stumbled upon
under PD 1866. The lower court then ordered the arrest of Padilla, but Padilla's firearms and ammunitions without even undertaking any active
granted his application for bail. During the arraignment on 20 January search which, as it is commonly understood, is a prying into hidden
1993, a plea of not guilty was entered for Padilla after he refused, places for that which is concealed. The seizure of the Smith & Wesson
upon advice of counsel, to make any plea. Padilla waived in writing his revolver and an M-16 rifle magazine was justified for they came within
right to be present in any and all stages of the case. After trial, "plain view" of the policemen who inadvertently discovered the
Angeles City RTC Judge David Rosete rendered judgment dated 25 revolver and magazine tucked in Padilla's waist and back pocket
April 1994 convicting Padilla of the crime charged and sentenced him respectively, when he raised his hands after alighting from his Pajero.
to an "indeterminate penalty from 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of The same justification applies to the confiscation of the M-16 armalite
reclusion temporal as minimum, to 21 years of reclusion perpetua, as rifle which was immediately apparent to the policemen as they took a
maximum". Padilla filed his notice of appeal on 28 April 1994. Pending casual glance at the Pajero and saw said rifle lying horizontally near the
the appeal in the Court of Appeals, the Solicitor-General, convinced driver's seat. Thus it has been held that "When in pursuing an illegal
that the conviction shows strong evidence of guilt, filed on 2 action or in the commission of a criminal offense, the police officers
December 1994 a motion to cancel Padilla's bail bond. The resolution should happen to discover a criminal offense being committed by any
of this motion was incorporated in the appellate court's decision person, they are not precluded from performing their duties as police
sustaining Padilla's conviction. Padilla received a copy of this decision officers for the apprehension of the guilty person and the taking of the
on 26 July 1995. On 9 August 1995 he filed a "motion for corpus delicti. Objects whose possession are prohibited by law
reconsideration (and to recall the warrant of arrest)" but the same was inadvertently found in plain view are subject to seizure even without a
denied by the appellate court in its 20 September 1995 Resolution. On warrant." With respect to the Berreta pistol and a black bag containing
28 September 1995, Padilla filed the petition for review on certiorari assorted magazines, Padilla voluntarily surrendered them to the police.
with application for bail followed by two "supplemental petitions" filed This latter gesture of Padilla indicated a waiver of his right against the
by different counsels, a "second supplemental petition" and an urgent alleged search and seizure, and that his failure to quash the information
motion for the separate resolution of his application for bail. estopped him from assailing any purported defect. Even assuming that
the firearms and ammunitions were products of an active search done
Issue: by the authorities on the person and vehicle of Padilla, their seizure
Whether the firearms and ammunition confiscated during a warrantless without a search warrant nonetheless can still be justified under a
search and seizure, especially the baby armalite, are admissible as search incidental to a lawful arrest (first instance). Once the lawful
evidence against Robin Padilla. arrest was effected, the police may undertake a protective search of
the passenger compartment and containers in the vehicle which are
Held: The 5 well-settled instances when a warrantless search and within Padilla's grabbing distance regardless of the nature of the
seizure of property is valid, are as follows: (1) warrantless search offense. This satisfied the two-tiered test of an incidental search: (i)
incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of the item to be searched (vehicle) was within the arrestee's custody or
the Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence; (2) Seizure of area of immediate control and (ii) the search was contemporaneous
evidence in "plain view", the elements of which are: (a) a prior valid with the arrest. The products of that search are admissible evidence
intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are not excluded by the exclusionary rule. Another justification is a search
legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence of a moving vehicle (third instance). In connection therewith, a
was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be warrantless search is constitutionally permissible when, as in this case,
the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause front of the hemp plants. He was then asked if he knew anything about
to believe, before the search, that either the motorist is a law-offender the marijuana growing there. When he denied any knowledge thereof,
(like Padilla with respect to the hit and run) or the contents or cargo of SPO2 Libunao poked a fist at him and told him to admit ownership of
the vehicle are or have been instruments or the subject matter or the the plants. Valdez was so nervous and afraid that he admitted owning
proceeds of some criminal offense. the marijuana. The police then took a photo of him standing in front of
one of the marijuana plants. He was then made to uproot 5 of the
People vs. Valdez [GR 129296, 25 September 2000] cannabis plants, and bring them to his hut, where another photo was
Facts: taken of him standing next to a bundle of uprooted marijuana plants.
At around 10:15 a.m. of 24 September 1996, SPO3 Marcelo Tipay, a The police team then brought him to the police station at Villaverde.
member of the police force of Villaverde, Nueva Vizcaya, received a tip On the way, a certain Kiko Pascua, a barangay peace officer of
from an unnamed informer about the presence of a marijuana Barangay Sawmill, accompanied the police officers. Pascua, who bore a
plantation, allegedly owned by Abe Valdez y Dela Cruz at Sitio Bulan, grudge against him, because of his refusal to participate in the
Ibung, Villaverde, Nueva Vizcaya. The prohibited plants were allegedly former's illegal logging activities, threatened him to admit owning the
planted close to Valdez's hut. Police Inspector Alejandro R. Parungao, marijuana, otherwise be would "be put in a bad situation." At the police
Chief of Police of Villaverde, Nueva Vizcaya then formed a reaction headquarters, Valdez reiterated that he knew nothing about the
team from his operatives to verify the report. The team was composed marijuana plants seized by the police. Still, on 26 September 1996,
of SPO3 Marcelo M. Tipay, SPO2 Noel V. Libunao, SPO2 Pedro S. Valdez was charged for the cultivation and culture of the 7 fully grown
Morales, SPO1 Romulo G. Tobias and PO2 Alfelmer I. Balut. Inspector marijuana plants. On 15 November 1996, Valdez was arraigned and,
Parungao gave them specific instructions to "uproot said marijuana with assistance of counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charge. Trial on
plants and arrest the cultivator of same." At approximately 5:00 a.m. the merits then ensued. On 18 February 1997, the Regional Trial Court
the following day, said police team, accompanied by their informer, left of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 27, in Criminal Case 3105,
for the site where the marijuana plants were allegedly being grown. found Valdez guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 9 of
After a three-hour, uphill trek from the nearest barangay road, the the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (RA 6425, as amended by RA
police operatives arrived at the place pinpointed by their informant. 7659), and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death by lethal
The police found Valdez alone in his nipa hut. They, then, proceeded to injection. Hence, the automatic review by the Supreme Court.
look around the area where Valdez had his kaingin and saw 7 five-foot
high, flowering marijuana plants in two rows, approximately 25 meters Issue:
from Valdez's hut. PO2 Balut asked Valdez who owned the prohibited Whether the seizure of the marijuana plants was made pursuant to
plants and, according to Balut, the latter admitted that they were his. warrantless search and seizure, based on the “plain view” doctrine.
The police uprooted the 7 marijuana plants, which weighed 2.194
kilograms. The police took photos of Valdez standing beside the Held:
cannabis plants. Valdez was then arrested. One of the plants, weighing The Constitution lays down the general rule that a search and seizure
1.090 kilograms, was sent to the Philippine National Police Crime must be carried on the strength of a judicial warrant. Otherwise, the
Laboratory in Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya for analysis. Inspector Prevy search and seizure is deemed "unreasonable." Evidence procured on
Fabros Luwis, the Crime Laboratory forensic analyst, testified that the occasion of an unreasonable search and seizure is deemed tainted
upon microscopic examination of said plant, she found cystolitic hairs for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree and should be
containing calcium carbonate, a positive indication for marijuana. She excluded. Such evidence shall be inadmissible in evidence for any
next conducted a chemical examination, the results of which confirmed purpose in any proceeding. Herein, there was no search warrant issued
her initial impressions. Valdez alleged otherwise. He claims that at by a judge after personal determination of the existence of probable
around 10:00 a.m., 25 September 1996, he was weeding his vegetable cause. From the declarations of the police officers themselves, it is
farm in Sitio Bulan when he was called by a person whose identity he clear that they had at least 1 day to obtain a warrant to search
does not know. He was asked to go with the latter to "see something." Valdez's farm. Their informant had revealed his name to them. The
This unknown person then brought Valdez to the place where the place where the cannabis plants were planted was pinpointed. From the
marijuana plants were found, approximately 100 meters away from his information in their possession, they could have convinced a judge that
nipa hut. 5 armed policemen were present and they made him stand in there was probable cause to justify the issuance of a warrant. But they
did not. Instead, they uprooted the plants and apprehended the turntable had been taken in an armed robbery, he seized it
accused on the excuse that the trip was a good six hours and immediately. It was later determined that some of the other serial
inconvenient to them. We need not underscore that the protection numbers matched those on other stereo equipment taken in the same
against illegal search and seizure is constitutionally mandated and only armed robbery, and a warrant was obtained and executed to seize that
under specific instances are searches allowed without warrants. The equipment as well. Hicks was subsequently indicted for the robbery.
mantle of protection extended by the Bill of Rights covers both The state trial court granted Hicks' motion to suppress the evidence
innocent and guilty alike against any form of high-handedness of law that had been seized. The Court of Appeals of Arizona affirmed. It was
enforcers, regardless of the praiseworthiness of their intentions. The conceded that the initial entry and search, although warrantless, were
Court finds no reason to subscribe to Solicitor General's contention justified by the exigent circumstance of the shooting. The Court of
that it should apply the "plain view" doctrine. For the doctrine to apply, Appeals viewed the obtaining of the serial numbers, however, as an
the following elements must be present: (a) a prior valid intrusion additional search, unrelated to that exigency. Both courts - the trial
based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally court explicitly and the Court of Appeals by necessary implication -
present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence was rejected the State's contention that Officer Nelson's actions were
inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be where justified under the "plain view" doctrine of Coolidge v. New Hampshire.
they are; and (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and (d) The Arizona Supreme Court denied review, and the State filed this
plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. petition.
Herein, the police officers first located the marijuana plants before
Valdez was arrested without a warrant. Hence, there was no valid Issue:
warrantless arrest which preceded the search of Valdez's premises. Whether the policeman’s actions come within the purview of the Fourth
The police team was dispatched to Valdez's kaingin precisely to search Amendment.
for and uproot the prohibited flora. The seizure of evidence in "plain
view" applies only where the police officer is not searching for evidence Held:
against the accused, but inadvertently comes across an incriminating The policeman's actions come within the purview of the Fourth
object. Clearly, their discovery of the cannabis plants was not Amendment. The mere recording of the serial numbers did not
inadvertent. Also, upon arriving at the area, they first had to "look constitute a "seizure" since it did not meaningfully interfere with Hicks’
around the area" before they could spot the illegal plants. Patently, the possessory interest in either the numbers or the stereo equipment.
seized marijuana plants were not "immediately apparent" and a However, the moving of the equipment was a "search" separate and
"further search" was needed. In sum, the marijuana plants in question apart from the search that was the lawful objective of entering the
were not in "plain view" or "open to eye and hand." The "plain view" apartment. The fact that the search uncovered nothing of great
doctrine, thus, cannot be made to apply. personal value to Hicks is irrelevant. The "plain view" doctrine does not
render the search "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment. The
Arizona v. Hicks [480 US 321, 3 March 1987] policeman's action directed to the stereo equipment was not ipso facto
Facts: unreasonable simply because it was unrelated to the justification for
On 18 April 1984, a bullet was fired through the floor of Hicks' enteringthe apartment. That lack of relationship always exists when the
apartment, striking and injuring a man in the apartment below. Police "plain view" doctrine applies. In saying that a warrantless search must
officers arrived and entered Hicks' apartment to search for the be "strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation,"
shooter, for other victims, and for weapons. They found and seized Mincey was simply addressing the scope of the primary search itself,
three weapons, including a sawed-off rifle, and in the course of their and was not overruling the "plain view" doctrine by implication.
search also discovered a stocking-cap mask. One of the policemen, However, the search was invalid because, as the State concedes, the
Officer Nelson, noticed two sets of expensive stereo components, policeman had only a "reasonable suspicion" - i. e., less than probable
which seemed out of place in the squalid and otherwise ill-appointed cause to believe - that the stereo equipment was stolen. Probable
four-room apartment. Suspecting that they were stolen, he read and cause is required to invoke the "plain view" doctrine as it applies to
recorded their serial numbers - moving some of the components, seizures. It would be illogical to hold that an object is seizable on lesser
including a Bang and Olufsen turntable, in order to do so - which he grounds, during an unrelated search and seizure, than would have been
then reported by phone to his headquarters. On being advised that the needed to obtain a warrant for it if it had been known to be on the
premises. Probable cause to believe the equipment was stolen was also asked by SPO4 Villamor about the suspected marijuana plants and he
necessary to support the search here, whether legal authority to move admitted that he planted and cultivated the same for the use of his
the equipment could be found only as the inevitable concomitant of wife who was suffering from migraine. SPO4 Villamor then told him that
the authority to seize it, or also as a consequence of some he would be charged for violation of Section 9 of RA 6425 and
independent power to search objects in plain view. The policeman's informed him of his constitutional rights. The operatives then uprooted
action cannot be upheld on the ground that it was not a "full-blown the suspected marijuana plants. SPO1 Linda conducted an initial field
search" but was only a "cursory inspection" that could be justified by test of the plants by using the Narcotics Drug Identification Kit. The
reasonable suspicion instead of probable cause. A truly cursory test yielded a positive result. On 15 July 1995, the plants were turned
inspection - one that involves merely looking at what is already over to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory, Bacolod
exposed to view, without disturbing it - is not a "search" for Fourth City Police Command, particularly to Senior Inspector Reah Abastillas
Amendment purposes, and therefore does not even require reasonable Villavicencio. Senior Inspector Villavicencio weighed and measured the
suspicion. This Court is unwilling to create a subcategory of "cursory" plants, one was 125 inches and weighed 700 grams while the other
searches under the Fourth Amendment. was 130 inches and weighed 900 grams. Three (3) qualitative
examinations were conducted, namely: the microscopic test, the
People vs. Compacion [GR 124442, 20 July 2001] chemical test, and the thin layer chromatographic test. All yielded
Facts: positive results. On his part, Compacion maintains that around 1:30
Acting on a confidential tip supplied by a police informant that a.m. on 13 July 1995 while he and his family were sleeping, he heard
Armando Compacio y Surposa was growing and cultivating marijuana somebody knocking outside his house. He went down bringing with him
plants, SPO1 Gilbert L. Linda and SPO2 Basilio Sarong of the 6th a flashlight. After he opened the gate, 4 persons who he thought were
Narcotic Regional Field Unit of the Narcotics Command (NARCOM) of members of the military, entered the premises then went inside the
the Bacolod City Detachment conducted a surveillance of the residence house. It was dark so he could not count the others who entered the
of Compacion who was then the barangay captain of barangay house as the same was lit only by a kerosene lamp. One of the four
Bagonbon, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental on 9 July 1995. During men told him to sit in the living room. Some of the men went upstairs
the said surveillance, they saw 2 tall plants in the backyard of while the others went around the house. None of them asked for his
Compacion which they suspected to be marijuana plants. SPO1 Linda permission to search his house and the premises. After about 20
and SPO2 Sarong reported the result of their surveillance to SPO4 minutes of searching, the men called him outside and brought him to
Ranulfo T. Villamor, Jr., Chief of NARCOM, Bacolod City, who the backyard. One of the military men said: "Captain, you have a (sic)
immediately formed a team composed of the members of the marijuana here at your backyard" to which Compacion replied: "I do not
Intelligence Division Provincial Command, the Criminal Investigation know that they were (sic) marijuana plants but what I know is that
Command and the Special Action Force. Two members of the media, they are medicinal plants for my wife" who was suffering from
one from DYWF Radio and another from DYRL Radio, were also included migraine. After he was informed that the plants in his backyard were
in the composite team. On 12 July 1995, the team applied for a search marijuana, the men took pictures of him and themselves. Thereafter,
warrant with the office of Executive Judge Bernardo Ponferrada in he was brought inside the house where he and the military men spent
Bacolod City. However, Judge Ponferrada informed them that he did the night. At around 10:00 a.m., they brought him with them to the
not have territorial jurisdiction over the matter. The team then left city hall. Compacion saw that one of the 2 service vehicles they
Bacolod City for San Carlos City. They arrived there around 6:30 p.m., brought was fully loaded with plants. He was later told by the military
then went to the house of Executive Judge Roberto S. Javellana to men that said plants were marijuana. Upon arrival at the city hall, the
secure a search warrant. They were not able to do so because it was men met with the mayor and then unloaded the alleged marijuana
nighttime and office hours were obviously over. They were told by the plants. A picture of him together with the arresting team was taken
judge to go back in the morning. Nonetheless, the team proceeded to with the alleged marijuana as back drop. Soon thereafter, he was taken
barangay Bagonbon and arrived at the residence of Compacion in the to Hda. Socorro at the SAF Headquarters. A criminal complaint for
early morning of 13 July 1995. SPO4 Villamor knocked at the gate and violation of Section 9 of RA 6425, as amended by RA 7659 was filed
called out for Compacion. What happened thereafter is subject to against Compacion. On 2 January 1996, the trial court convicted
conflicting accounts. The prosecution contends that Compacion Compacion of the crime charged, and sentenced him to reclusion
opened the gate and permitted them to come in. He was immediately perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
 that the NARCOM agents conducted a surveillance of the residence of
Issue: Compacion on 9 July 1995 on the suspicion that he was growing and
Whether Compacion's right against unreasonable search and seizure cultivating marijuana when they allegedly came in "plain view" of the
was violated. marijuana plants. When the agents entered his premises on 13 July
1995, their intention was to seize the evidence against him. In fact,
Held: they initially wanted to secure a search warrant but could not simply
Sections 2 and 3 [2], Article III of the 1987 Constitution are wait for one to be issued. The NARCOM agents, therefore, did not
safeguards against reckless, malicious and unreasonable invasion of come across the marijuana plants inadvertently when they conducted a
privacy and liberty. A search and seizure, therefore, must be carried surveillance and barged into Compacion's residence. As held in People
out through or with a judicial warrant; otherwise, such search and v. Musa, the "plain view" doctrine may not be used to launch unbridled
seizure becomes "unreasonable" within the meaning of the searches and indiscriminate seizures nor to extend a general
constitutional provision. Evidence secured thereby, i.e., the "fruits" of exploratory search made solely to find evidence of defendant's guilt.
the search and seizure, will be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose The "plain view" doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not
in any proceeding." The requirement that a warrant must be obtained searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless
from the proper judicial authority prior to the conduct of a search and inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. Hence, Compacion
seizure is, however, not absolute. There are several instances when the is acquitted of the crime to which he was charged.
law recognizes exceptions, such as when the owner of the premises
consents or voluntarily submits to a search; when the owner of the Roldan vs. Arca [GR L-25434, 25 July 1975]
premises waives his right against such incursion; when the search is Facts:
incidental to a lawful arrest; when it is made on vessels and aircraft for On 3 April 1964, Morabe, De Guzman & Company filed with the Court
violation of customs laws; when it is made on automobiles for the of First Instance (CFI) of Manila a civil case (56701) against Fisheries
purpose of preventing violations of smuggling or immigration laws; Commissioner Arsenio N. Roldan, Jr., for the recovery of fishing vessel
when it involves prohibited articles in plain view; when it involves a Tony Lex VI which had been seized and impounded by the Fisheries
"stop and frisk" situation; when the search is under exigent and Commissioner through the Philippine Navy. On 10 April 1964, the
emergency circumstances; or in cases of inspection of buildings and company prayed for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction with the
other premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary and building CFI, but said prayer was denied. On 28 April 1964, the CFI set aside its
regulations. In these instances, a search may be validly made even order of 10 April 1964 and granted the company's motion for
without a warrant. Herein, the search and seizure conducted by the reconsideration praying for preliminary mandatory injunction. Thus, the
composite team in the house of accused-appellant was not authorized company took possession of the vessel Tony Lex VI from the Philippine
by a search warrant, It does not appear either that the situation falls Fisheries Commission adn the Philippine Navy by virtue of the said writ.
under any of the above mentioned cases. Consequently, Compacion's On 10 December 1964, the CFI dismissed Civil Case 56701 for failure
right against unreasonable search and seizure was clearly violated. As a of the company to prosecute as well as for failure of the Commission
general rule, objects in the "plain view" of an officer who has the right and the Navy to appear on the scheduled date of hearing. The vessel,
to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure without a Tony Lex VI or Srta. Winnie however, remained in the possession of the
warrant. It is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for company. On 20 July 1965, the Fisheries Commissioner requested the
evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes Philippine Navy to apprehend vessels Tony Lex VI and Tony Lex III, also
across an incriminating object. Thus, the following elements must be respectively called Srta. Winnie and Srta. Agnes, for alleged violations
present before the doctrine may be applied: (a) a prior valid intention of some provisions of the Fisheries Act and the rules and regulations
based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally promulgated thereunder. On August 5 or 6, 1965, the two fishing
present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence was boats were actually seized for illegal fishing with dynamite. Fish caught
inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be where with dynamite and sticks of dynamite were then found aboard the two
they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and (d) vessels. On 18 August 1965, the Fisheries Commissioner requested
"plain view" justified were seizure of evidence without further search. the Palawan Provincial Fiscal to file criminal charges against the crew
Here, there was no valid warrantless arrest. They forced their way into members of the fishing vessels. On 30 September 1965, there were
Compacion's premises without the latter's consent. It is undisputed filed in the CFI of Palawan a couple of informations, one against the
crew members of Tony Lex III, and another against the crew members the Fisheries Act, as amended, and all rules and regulations
of Tony Lex VI — both for violations of Act 4003, as amended by promulgated thereunder, to make searches and seizures personally or
Commonwealth Acts 462, 659 and 1088, i.e., for illegal fishing with through his duly authorized representatives in accordance with the
the use of dynamite. On the same day, the Fiscal filed an ex parte Rules of Court, of "explosives such as dynamites and the like; including
motion to hold the boats in custody as instruments and therefore fishery products, fishing equipment, tackle and other things that are
evidence of the crime, and cabled the Fisheries Commissioner to detain subject to seizure under existing fishery laws"; and "to effectively
the vessels. On October 2 and 4, likewise, the CFI of Palawan ordered implement the enforcement of existing fishery laws on illegal fishing."
the Philippine Navy to take the boats in custody. On 2 October 1965, Paragraph 5 of Section 4 of the same Republic Act 3512 likewise
the company filed a complaint with application for preliminary transferred to and vested in the Philippine Fisheries Commission "all the
mandatory injunction (Civil Case 62799) with the CFI of Manila against powers, functions and duties heretofore exercised by the Bureau of
the Commission and the Navy. Among others, it was alleged that at the Customs, Philippine Navy and Philippine Constabulary over fishing
time of the seizure of the fishing boats in issue, the same were vessels and fishery matters." Section 12 of the Fisheries Act,
engaged in legitimate fishing operations off the coast of Palawan; that otherwise known as Republic Act 4003, as amended, prohibits fishing
by virtue of the offer of compromise dated 13 September 1965 by the with dynamites or other explosives which is penalized by Section 76
company to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, the thereof "by a fine of not less than P1,500.00 nor more than
numerous violations of the Fishery Laws, if any, by the crew members P5,000.00, and by imprisonment for not less than one (1) year and six
of the vessels were settled. On 18 October 1965, Judge Francisco (6) months nor more than five (5) years, aside from the confiscation
Arca issued an order granting the issuance of the writ of preliminary and forfeiture of all explosives, boats, tackles, apparel, furniture, and
mandatory injunction and issued the preliminary writ upon the filing by other apparatus used in fishing in violation of said Section 12 of this
the company of a bond of P5,000.00 for the release of the two Act." Section 78 of the same Fisheries Law provides that "in case of a
vessels. On 19 October 1965, the Commission and the Navy filed a second offense, the vessel, together with its tackle, apparel, furniture
motion for reconsideration of the order issuing the preliminary writ on and stores shall be forfeited to the Government." The second
18 October 1965 on the ground, among others, that on 18 October paragraph of Section 12 also provides that "the possession and/or
1965 the Philippine Navy received from the Palawan CFI two orders finding, of dynamite, blasting caps and other explosives in any fishing
dated October 2 and 4, 1965 requiring the Philippine Navy to hold the boat shall constitute a presumption that the said dynamite and/or
fishing boats in custody and directing that the said vessels should not blasting caps and explosives are being used for fishing purposes in
be released until further orders from the Court, and that the bond of violation of this Section, and that the possession or discover in any
P5,000.00 is grossly insufficient to cover the Government's losses in fishing boat or fish caught or killed by the use of dynamite or other
case the two vessels, which are worth P495,000.00, are placed explosives, under expert testimony, shall constitute a presumption that
beyond the reach of the Government, thus frustrating their forfeiture the owner, if present in the fishing boat, or the fishing crew have been
as instruments of the crime. On 23 November 1965, Judge Arca fishing with dynamite or other explosives." Under Section 78 of the
denied the said motion for reconsideration. The Commission and the Fisheries Act, as amended, any person, association or corporation
Navy filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary fishing in deep sea fishery without the corresponding license prescribed
injunction to restrain Judge Arca from enforcing his order dated 18 in Sections 17 to 22 Article V of the Fisheries Act or any other order
October 1965, and the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction or regulation deriving force from its provisions, "shall be punished for
thereunder issued. each offense by a fine of not more than P5,000.00, or imprisonment,
for not more than one year, or both, in the discretion of the Court;
Issue: Provided, That in case of an association or corporation, the President
Whether the Fisheries Commissioner and the Navy can validly direct or manager shall be directly responsible for the acts of his employees
and/or effect the seizure of the vessels of the company for illegal or laborers if it is proven that the latter acted with his knowledge;
fishing by the use of dynamite and without the requisite licenses. otherwise the responsibility shall extend only as far as fine is
concerned: Provided, further, That in the absence of a known owner of
Held: the vessel, the master, patron or person in charge of such vessel shall
Section 4 of Republic Act 3512 approved on 20 March 1963 be responsible for any violation of this Act: and Provided, further, That
empowers the Fisheries Commissioner to carry out the provisions of in case of a second offense, the vessel together with its tackle,
apparel, furniture and stores shall be forfeited to the Government." Customs Examiner reported the matter to his superiors. Upon their
Under Section 13 of Executive Order 389 of 23 December 1950, instructions, the bag was turned over to the office of the Customs
reorganizing the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Philippine Navy Police in the NAIA for x-ray examination where it was detected that it
has the function, among others, "to assist the proper governmental contained some powdery substance. When opened, the bag revealed
agencies in the enforcement of laws and regulations pertaining to two packages containing the substance neatly hidden in between its
Fishing. Section 2210 of the Tariff and Customs Code, as amended by partitions. Representative samples of the substance were examined by
PD 34 of 27 October 1972, authorized any official or person exercising Elizabeth Ayonon, a chemist of the Crime Laboratory Service of the
police authority under the provisions of the Code, to search and seize Philippine National Police (PNP) assigned at the Arrival Area of the
any vessel or air craft as well as any trunk, package, bag or envelope NAIA, and by Tita Advincula, another chemist of the PNP Crime
on board and to search any person on board for any breach or violation Laboratory Service at Camp Crame, and found to be positive for heroin.
of the customs and tariff laws. Herein, when the Philippine Navy, upon The two chemists concluded that the entire substance, with a total
request of the Fisheries Commissioner, apprehended on August 5 or 6, weight of 5,579.80 grams, contained in the two packages found in the
1965 the fishing boats Tony Lex III and Tony Lex VI, otherwise known bag of U Aung Win, is heroin. A manhunt was conducted to locate U
respectively as Srta. Agnes and Srta. Winnie, these vessels were found Aung Win. At about 7:45 p.m. of the same date, Rey Espinosa, an
to be without the necessary license in violation of Section 903 of the employee of the Lufthansa Airlines, notified the commander of the
Tariff and Customs Code and therefore subject to seizure under NAIA Customs Police District Command that a certain Burmese national
Section 2210 of the same Code, and illegally fishing with explosives by the name of U Aung Win appeared at the check-in counter of the
and without fishing license required by Sections 17 and 18 of the airline as a departing passenger. Immediately, a team of law enforcers
Fisheries Law. Search and seizure without search warrant of vessels proceeded to the Departure Area and apprehended the accused after
and air crafts for violations of the customs laws have been the he had been identified through his signatures in his Customs
traditional exception to the constitutional requirement of a search Declaration and in his Bureau of Immigration and Deportation Arrival
warrant, because the vessel can be quickly moved out of the locality or Card. Customs Examiner Tawano also positively identified U Aung Win
jurisdiction in which the search warrant must be sought before such as the person who left his bag with him at the Arrival Area of the NAIA.
warrant could be secured; hence it is not practicable to require a During the investigation of U Aung Win, the agents of the Customs
search warrant before such search or seizure can be constitutionally Police and the Narcotics Command (NARCOM) gathered the information
effected. The same exception should apply to seizures of fishing that U Aung Win had a contact in Bangkok and that there were other
vessels breaching our fishery laws: They are usually equipped with drug couriers in the Philippines. Following the lead, a team of lawmen,
powerful motors that enable them to elude pursuing ships of the together with U Aung Win, was dispatched to the City Garden Hotel in
Philippine Navy or Coast Guard. Mabini St., Ermita, Manila, to enable U Aung Win to communicate with
his contact in Bangkok for further instructions. While the police officers
People vs. Gatward [GRs 119772-73, 7 February 1997] were standing by, they noticed two persons, a Caucasian and an
Facts: oriental, alight from a car and enter the hotel. U Aung Win whispered to
At about 3:30 p.m. of 30 August 1994, U Aung Win, a Passenger of Customs Police Special Agent Edgar Quiñones that he recognized the
TG Flight 620 of the Thai Airways which had just arrived from Bangkok, two as drug couriers whom he saw talking with his contact in Bangkok
Thailand, presented his luggage, a travelling bag for examination to named Mau Mau. The members of the team were able to establish the
Customs Examiner Busran Tawano, who was assigned at the Arrival identity of the two persons as Nigel Richard Gatward and one Zaw Win
Area of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) in Pasay City. U Naing, a Thailander, from the driver of the hotel service car used by
Aung Win also handed to Tawano his Customs Declaration 128417 the two when they arrived in the hotel. It was gathered by the law
stating that he had no articles to declare. When Tawano was about to enforcers that Gatward and Zaw Win Naing were scheduled to leave for
inspect his luggage, U Aung Win suddenly left, proceeding towards the Bangkok on board a KLM flight. On 31 August 1994, operatives of the
direction of Carousel 1, the conveyor for the pieces of luggage of the NAIA Customs Police mounted a surveillance operation at the
passengers of Flight 620, as if to retrieve another baggage from it. Departure Area for Gatward and Zaw Win Naing who might be leaving
After having inspected the luggages of the other incoming passengers, the country. At about 7:45 p.m., Special Agent Gino Minguillan of the
Tawano became alarmed by the failure of U Aung Win to return and Customs Police made a verification on the passenger manifest of KLM
suspected that the bag of U Aung Win contained illegal articles. The Royal Dutch Airlines Flight 806, bound for Amsterdam via Bangkok,
which was scheduled to depart at about 7:55 p.m. He found the name recovery of the heroin in his bag, or in flagrante delicto. The conviction
"GATWARD/NRMR" listed therein as a passenger for Amsterdam and of U Aung Win is likewise unassailable. His culpability was not based
accordingly informed his teammates who responded immediately only upon his plea of guilty but also upon the evidence of the
Customs Police Captain Juanito Algenio requested Victorio Erece, prosecution, the presentation of which was required by the lower court
manager of the KLM airline at the NAIA, to let passenger Gatward despite said plea. The evidence thus presented convincingly proved his
disembark from the aircraft and to have his checked- in luggage, if any, having imported into this country the heroin found in his luggage which
unloaded. The manager acceded to the request to off-load Gatward but he presented for customs examination upon his arrival at the
not to the unloading of his check-in bag as the plane was about to international airport. There was, of course, no showing that he was
depart and to do so would unduly delay the flight. However, Erece authorized by law to import such dangerous drug, nor did he claim or
made an assurance that the bag would be returned immediately to the present any authority to do so.
Philippines on the first available flight from Bangkok. Upon his
disembarkment. Gatward was invited by the police officers for People vs. Johnson [GR 138881, 18 December 2000]
investigation. At about 3:00 p.m. of 1 September 1994, Gatward's Facts:
luggage, was brought back to the NAIA from Bangkok through the Thai Leila Reyes Johnson was, at the time of the incident, 58 years old, a
airways, pursuant to the request of Erece. Upon its retrieval, the law widow, and a resident of Ocean Side, California, U.S.A. She is a former
enforcers subjected the bag to x-ray examinations in the presence of Filipino citizen who was naturalized as an American on 16 June 1968
Gatward and some Customs officials. It was observed to contain some and had since been working as a registered nurse, taking care of
powdery substance. Inside the bag were two improvised envelopes geriatric patients and those with Alzheimer's disease, in convalescent
made of cardboard each containing the powdery substance, together homes in the United States. On 16 June 1998, she arrived in the
with many clothes. The envelopes were hidden inside the bag, one at Philippines to visit her son's family in Calamba, Laguna. She was due to
the side in between a double-wall, the other inside a partition in the fly back to the United States on July 26. On July 25, she checked in at
middle. Upon its examination by Chemists Ayonon and Advincula the Philippine Village Hotel to avoid the traffic on the way to the Ninoy
pursuant to the request of Police Senior Inspector John Campos of the Aquino International Airport (NAIA) and checked out at 5:30 p.m. the
NARCOM, the powdery substance contained in the two cardboard next day, 26 June 1998. At around 7:30 p.m. of that day, Olivia
envelopes, with a net weight of 5,237.70 grams, was found to be Ramirez was on duty as a lady frisker at Gate 16 of the NAIA departure
heroin. Nigel Richard Gatward was charged with violating Section 4 of area. Her duty was to frisk departing passengers, employees, and crew
Republic Act 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (transporting); and check for weapons, bombs, prohibited drugs, contraband goods,
while U Aung Win was charged for transgressing Section 3 of the and explosives. When she frisked Johnson, a departing passenger
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (importing). Gatward pleaded not guilty bound for the United States via Continental Airlines CS-912, she felt
of the charge when arraigned, while U Aung Win pleaded guilty of the something hard on the latter's abdominal area. Upon inquiry, Mrs.
crime charged upon his arraignment. On 3 March 1995, the trial court Johnson explained she needed to wear two panty girdles as she had
found both guilty of the crime charged. just undergone an operation as a result of an ectopic pregnancy. Not
satisfied with the explanation, Ramirez reported the matter to her
Issue: superior, SPO4 Reynaldo Embile, saying "Sir, hindi po ako naniniwalang
Whether Gatward’s and U Aung Win’s suitcases may be searched panty lang po iyon." She was directed to take Johnson to the nearest
without warrant. women's room for inspection. Ramirez took Johnson to the rest room,
accompanied by SPO1 Rizalina Bernal. Embile stayed outside. Inside the
Held: women's room, Johnson was asked again by Ramirez what the hard
While no search warrant had been obtained for that purpose, when object on her stomach was and Johnson gave the same answer she had
Gatward checked in his bag as his personal luggage as a passenger of previously given. Ramirez then asked her "to bring out the thing under
KLM Flight 806 he thereby agreed to the inspection thereof in her girdle." Johnson brought out three plastic packs, which Ramirez
accordance with customs rules and regulations, an international then turned over to Embile, outside the women's room. The
practice of strict observance, and waived any objection to a confiscated packs contained a total of 580.2 grams of a substance
warrantless search. His subsequent arrest, although likewise without a which was fount by NBI Chemist George de Lara to be
warrant, was justified since it was effected upon the discovery and methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu." Embile took Johnson and
the plastic packs to the 1st Regional Aviation and Security Office (1st travelers are often notified through airport public address systems,
RASO) at the arrival area of the NAIA, where Johnson's passport and signs, and notices in their airline tickets that they are subject to search
ticket were taken and her luggage opened. Pictures were taken and her and, if any prohibited materials or substances are found, such would be
personal belongings were itemized. Johnson was charged for the subject to seizure. These announcements place passengers on notice
possession of 3 plastic bages of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a that ordinary constitutional protections against warrantless searches
regulated drug, weighing a total of 580.2 grams; a violation of §16 of and seizures do not apply to routine airport procedures. The packs of
RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act), as amended by RA 7659. On 14 May methamphetamine hydrochloride having thus been obtained through a
1999, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 110, Pasay City, found Johnson valid warrantless search, they are admissible in evidence against
guilty and sentenced her to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua Johnson. Corollarily, her subsequent arrest, although likewise without
and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 and the costs of the suit. Johnson warrant, was justified since it was effected upon the discovery and
appealed. recovery of "shabu" in her person in flagrante delicto.

Issue: People vs. Suzuki [GR 120670, 23 October 2003]

Whether the extensive search made on Johnson at the airport violates Facts:
her right against unreasonable search and seizure. Sometime in November 1993, the PNP Narcotics Command issued a
directive to all Chiefs of Narcotics Regional Field Units to cover all
Held: domestic airport terminals within their respective areas of
The constitutional right of the accused was not violated as she was responsibility, following reports that drug trafficking is prevalent in
never placed under custodial investigation but was validly arrested domestic airports; and to coordinate with local airport authorities and
without warrant pursuant to the provisions of Section 5, Rule 113 of the PASCOM. In the morning of 12 April 1994, Hedishi Suzuki and
tie 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides that "A peace Takeshi Koketsu, both Japanese nationals, entered the pre-departure
officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) area of the Bacolod Airport Terminal. Suzuki was bound for Manila via
when in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is flight 132 of the Philippine Airlines and was carrying a small traveling
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) when bag and a box marked “Bongbong’s piaya.” At the pre-departure area,
an offense has in fact just been committed and person to be arrested upon the advice of Corazon Sinosa, a civilian personnel of the PASCOM,
has committed it; and xxx." The circumstances surrounding the arrest Suzuki proceeded to the “walk- through metal detector,” a machine
of the accused falls in either paragraph (a) or (b) of the Rule above which produces a red light and an alarm once it detects the presence
cited, hence the allegation that she has been subjected to custodial of metallic substance or object. Thereupon, the red light switched on
investigation is far from being accurate. The methamphetamine and the alarm sounded, signifying the presence of metallic substance
hydrochloride seized from her during the routine frisk at the airport either in his person or in the box he was carrying. This prompted PO3
was acquired legitimately pursuant to airport security procedures. Rhodelin Poyugao of the Police Aviation Security Command (PASCOM)
Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by to frisk him bodily. Finding no metallic object in his body, PO3 Poyugao
exposure of their persons or property to the public in a manner picked up the box of piaya and passed it through the machine. Again,
reflecting a lack of subjective expectation of privacy, which the machine was activated. PO3 Poyugao then ordered Suzuki to go to
expectation society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Such the hand-carried luggage inspection counter where several PASCOM
recognition is implicit in airport security procedures. With increased and NARCOM personnel were present. SPO1 Arturo Casugod, Sr.
concern over airplane hijacking and terrorism has come increased requested Suzuki to open the box. He appeared tense and reluctant
security at the nation's airports. Passengers attempting to board an and started to leave, but SPO1 Casugod called him. Eventually he
aircraft routinely pass through metal detectors; their carry-on baggage consented, saying in faltering English, “open, open.” SPO1 Casugod
as well as checked luggage are routinely subjected to x-ray scans. opened the box and found therein 18 small packs, 17 of which were
Should these procedures suggest the presence of suspicious objects, wrapped in aluminum foil. SPO1 Casugod opened one pack. Inside were
physical searches are conducted to determine what the objects are. dried fruiting tops which looked like marijuana. Upon seeing this, Suzuki
There is little question that such searches are reasonable, given their ran outside the pre-departure area but he was chased by PO3 Poyugao,
minimal intrusiveness, the gravity of the safety interests involved, and SPO1 Gilbert Linda of the Narcotics Command (NARCOM) and Donato
the reduced privacy expectations associated with airline travel. Indeed, Barnezo of the PASCOM. They apprehended Suzuki near the entrance
of the terminal and brought him to the PASCOM office. They also maintain peace and order, and provide other pertinent public safety
brought Takeshi and his wife, Lourdes Linsangan, to the office, being services within the airports; xxx. Based upon the Memorandum of
suspects as conspirators with Suzuki in drug trafficking. Lourdes asked Understanding, pursuant to President LOI 399, in relation to RA 6235,
permission to call Atty. Silvestre Tayson. When he arrived, the police the PASCOM had the legal authority to be at the Bacolod Airport,
apprised Suzuki of his constitutional rights. Meanwhile, SPO1 Casugod Bacolod City and to inspect luggages or hand-carried bags. This is not
weighed the contents of the box and inventoried the same. The total the first time that the Court recognize a search conducted pursuant to
weight of the suspected marijuana fruiting tops was 1.9 kilograms or routine airport security procedure as an exception to the proscription
1,900 grams. He then drafted a “confiscation receipt” which Suzuki, against warrantless searches. In People vs. Canton, and People vs.
upon the advice of Atty. Tayson, refused to acknowledge. SPO1 Johnson, the Court validated the search conducted on the departing
Casugod turned over Suzuki to SPO1 Linda for investigation. passengers and the consequent seizure of the shabu found in their
Subsequently, Suzuki and his companions were brought to the persons. Clearly, the PASCOM agents have the right under the law to
prosecutor’s office for inquest and placed under the custody of conduct search of prohibited materials or substances. To simply refuse
C/Inspector Ernesto Alcantara at the NARCOM office. The box with its passengers carrying suspected illegal items to enter the pre-departure
contents was brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory. P/Inspector Rea area is to deprive the authorities of their duty to conduct search, thus
Abastillas Villavicencio, the forensic chemist of the Philippine National sanctioning impotence and ineffectivity of the law enforcers, to the
Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory, conducted three tests on the specimen detriment of society. It should be stressed, however, that whenever
samples which proved positive for marijuana. Suzuki was charged with the right against unreasonable search and seizure is challenged, an
unlawful possession of marijuana, a prohibited drug, in violation of the individual may choose between invoking the constitutional protection
Dangerous Drug Act. Suzuki entered a plea of not guilty, and trial or waiving his right by giving consent to the search or seizure. Here,
followed thereafter. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 45, Bacolod City Suzuki voluntarily gave his consent to the search conducted by the
in Criminal Case 94-16100 convicted Hedishi Suzuki of illegal PASCOM agents.
possession of marijuana, defined and penalized under Section 8, Article
II of RA 6525, as amended, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of Terry vs. Ohio [392 US 1, 10 June 1968]
death and to pay a fine of P10,000,000.00. Hence, the automatic Facts:
review. Martin McFadden, a Cleveland police detective, on a downtown beat
which he had been patrolling for many years, observed two strangers
Issue: (Terry and Richard Chilton) on a street corner. He saw them proceed
Whether the PASCOM has the authority to inspect luggages or hand- alternately back and forth along an identical route, strolling down
carried bags. Huron Road, pausing to stare in the same store window, which they did
for a total of about 24 times. Each completion of the route was
Held: followed by a conference between the two on a corner, at one of which
The Police Aviation Security Command (PASCOM) is the implementing they were joined by a third man (Katz) who left swiftly. Suspecting the
arm of the National Action Committee on Anti-Hijacking (NACAH), two men of "casing a job, a stick- up," the officer followed them and
which is a creation of Presidential Letter of Instruction (LOI) 399, saw them rejoin the third man a couple of blocks away in front of a
dated 28 April 1976. On 18 February 1978, a Memorandum of store. The officer approached the three, identified himself as a
Understanding among the Secretary of National Defense, the Secretary policeman, and asked their names. The men "mumbled something,"
of Public Works, Transportation and Communication, the Secretary of whereupon McFadden spun Terry around, patted down his outside
Justice, the Director General, National Intelligence and Security clothing, and found in his overcoat pocket, but was unable to remove,
Authority and the Secretary of Finance was signed. Under the said a pistol. The officer ordered the three into the store. He removed
Memorandum of Understanding the then AVSECOM (now PASCOM) Terry's overcoat, took out a revolver, and ordered the three to face
shall have the following functions and responsibilities: (1) Secure all the wall with their hands raised. He patted down the outer clothing of
airports against offensive and terroristic acts that threaten civil Chilton and Katz and seized a revolver from Chilton's outside overcoat
aviation; (2) Undertake aircraft anti-hijacking operations; (3) Exercise pocket. He did not put his hands under the outer garments of Katz
operational control and supervision over all agencies involved in airport (since he discovered nothing in his pat-down which might have been a
security operations; (4) Take all necessary preventive measures to weapon), or under Terry's or Chilton's outer garments until he felt the
guns. The three were taken to the police station. Terry and Chilton armed. Though the police must whenever practicable secure a warrant
were charged with carrying concealed weapons. The defense moved to to make a search and seizure, that procedure cannot be followed
suppress the weapons. Though the trial court rejected the prosecution where swift action based upon on-the-spot observations of the officer
theory that the guns had been seized during a search incident to a on the beat is required. The reasonableness of any particular search
lawful arrest, the court denied the motion to suppress and admitted and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances
the weapons into evidence on the ground that the officer had cause to against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is
believe that Terry and Chilton were acting suspiciously, that their warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate. The
interrogation was warranted, and that the officer for his own officer here was performing a legitimate function of investigating
protection had the right to pat down their outer clothing having suspicious conduct when he decided to approach Terry and his
reasonable cause to believe that they might be armed. The court companions. An officer justified in believing that an individual whose
distinguished between an investigatory "stop" and an arrest, and suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed may, to
between a "frisk" of the outer clothing for weapons and a full-blown neutralize the threat of physical harm, take necessary measures to
search for evidence of crime. Terry and Chilton were found guilty, an determine whether that person is carrying a weapon. A search for
intermediate appellate court affirmed, and the State Supreme Court weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest must be strictly
dismissed the appeal on the ground that "no substantial constitutional circumscribed by the exigencies of the situation. An officer may make
question" was involved. an intrusion short of arrest where he has reasonable apprehension of
danger before being possessed of information justifying arrest. The
Issue: officer's protective seizure of Terry and his companions and the limited
Whether it is always unreasonable for a policeman to seize a person search which he made were reasonable, both at their inception and as
and subject him to a limited search for weapons unless there is conducted. The actions of Terry and his companions were consistent
probable cause for an arrest. with the officer's hypothesis that they were contemplating a daylight
robbery and were armed. The officer's search was confined to what
Held: was minimally necessary to determine whether the men were armed,
The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and and the intrusion, which was made for the sole purpose of protecting
seizures, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, himself and others nearby, was confined to ascertaining the presence
"protects people, not places," and therefore applies as much to the of weapons. Herein, Officer McFadden patted down the outer clothing
citizen on the streets as well as at home or elsewhere. The issue in this of Terry and his two companions. He did not place his hands in their
case is not the abstract propriety of the police conduct but the pockets or under the outer surface of their garments until he had felt
admissibility against petitioner of the evidence uncovered by the weapons, and then he merely reached for and removed the guns. He
search and seizure. The exclusionary rule cannot properly be invoked to did not conduct a general exploratory search for whatever evidence of
exclude the products of legitimate and restrained police investigative criminal activity he might find. Thus, the revolver seized from Terry
techniques; and this Court's approval of such techniques should not was properly admitted in evidence against him. At the time McFadden
discourage remedies other than the exclusionary rule to curtail police seized Terry and searched him for weapons, Officer McFadden had
abuses for which that is not an effective sanction. The Fourth reasonable grounds to believe that Terry was armed and dangerous,
Amendment applies to "stop and frisk" procedures such as those and it was necessary for the protection of himself and others to take
followed here. Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and swift measures to discover the true facts and neutralize the threat of
restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person within harm if it materialized. The policeman carefully restricted his search to
the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. A careful exploration of the what was appropriate to the discovery of the particular items which he
outer surfaces of a person's clothing in an attempt to find weapons is a sought. Each case of this sort will, of course, have to be decided on its
"search" under that Amendment. Where a reasonably prudent officer is own facts. Where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads
warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal
safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing
search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of
dangerous regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and
individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of
the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or attired in a camouflage uniform or a jungle suit and that upon espying
others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the peace officers, his companions fled. It should be noted that the
the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of peace officers were precisely on an intelligence mission to verify
such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used reports that armed persons were roaming around the barangays of
to assault him. Such a search is a reasonable search under the Fourth Caibiran. The circumstances are similar to those obtaining in Posadas v.
Amendment, and any weapons seized may properly be introduced in Court of Appeals where this Court held that "at the time the peace
evidence against the person from whom they were taken. officers identified themselves and apprehended the petitioner as he
attempted to flee, they did not know that he had committed, or was
People v. Solayao [GR 119220, 20 September 1996] actually committing the offense of illegal possession of firearm and
Facts: ammunitions. They just suspected that he was hiding something in the
On 9 June 1992, CAFGU members, headed by SPO3 Nino, were buri bag. They did not know what its contents were. The said
conducting an intelligence patrol to verify reports on the presence of circumstances did not justify an arrest without a warrant." As with
armed persons roaming around the barangays of Caibiran. In Baragay Posadas, the case herein constitutes an instance where a search and
Onion, they met the 5-man group of accused Nilo Solayao, who was seizure may be effected without first making an arrest. There was
also wearing a camouflage uniform. His companions, upon seeing the justifiable cause to "stop and frisk" Solayao when his companions fled
government agents, fled. SPO3 Niño told Salayao not to run away and upon seeing the government agents. Under the circumstances, the
introduced himself as "PC," after which he seized the dried coconut government agents could not possibly have procured a search warrant
leaves which the latter was carrying and found wrapped in it a 49-inch first. Thus, there was no violation of the constitutional guarantee
long homemade firearm locally known as "latong." When he asked against unreasonable searches and seizures. Nor was there error on the
Salayao who issued him a license to carry said firearm or whether he part of the trial court when it admitted the homemade firearm as
was connected with the military or any intelligence group, the latter evidence.
answered that he had no permission to possess the same. Thereupon,
SPO3 Niño confiscated the firearm and turned him over to the custody Manalili v. CA [GR 113447, 9 October 1997]
of the policemen of Caibiran who subsequently investigated him and Facts:
charged him with illegal possession of firearm. Salayao did not contest At about 2:10 p.m. of 11 April 1988, policemen from the Anti-
the confiscation of the shotgun but averred that this was only given to Narcotics Unit of the Kalookan City Police Station were conducting a
him by one of his companions, Hermogenes Cenining, when it was still surveillance along A. Mabini street, Kalookan City, in front of the
wrapped in coconut leaves, which they were using the coconut leaves Kalookan City Cemetery. The policemen were Pat. Romeo Espiritu and
as a torch. Salayao’s claim was corroborated by one Pedro Balano. On Pat. Anger Lumabas and a driver named Arnold Enriquez was driving a
15 August 1994, the RTC of Naval Biliran (Branch 16) found Salayao Tamaraw vehicle which was the official car of the Police Station of
guilty of illegal possession of firearm under Section 1 of PD 1866 and Kalookan City. The surveillance was being made because of information
imposed upon him the penalty of imprisonment ranging from reclusion that drug addicts were roaming the area in front of the Kalookan City
temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua. The trial court, having found Cemetery. Upon reaching the Kalookan City Cemetery, the policemen
no mitigating but one aggravating circumstance of nighttime, alighted from their vehicle. They then chanced upon a male person in
sentenced accused- appellant to suffer the prison term of reclusion front of the cemetery who appeared high on drugs. The male person
perpetua with the accessory penalties provided by law. Salayao was observed to have reddish eyes and to be walking in a swaying
appealed to the Supreme Court. manner. When this male person tried to avoid the policemen, the latter
approached him and introduced themselves as police officers. The
Issue: policemen then asked the male person what he was holding in his
Whether the search upon Solayao, yielding the firearm wrapped in hands. The male person tried to resist. Pat. Romeo Espiritu asked the
coconut leaves, is valid. male person if he could see what said male person had in his hands.
The latter showed the wallet and allowed Pat. Romeo Espiritu to
Held: examine the same. Pat. Espiritu took the wallet and examined it. He
Nilo Solayao and his companions' drunken actuations aroused the found suspected crushed marijuana residue inside. He kept the wallet
suspicion of SPO3 Niño's group, as well as the fact that he himself was and its marijuana contents. The male person was then brought to the
Anti-Narcotics Unit of the Kalookan City Police Headquarters and was incidental to a lawful arrest, (2) search of moving vehicles, (3) seizure
turned over to Cpl. Wilfredo Tamondong for investigation. Pat. Espiritu in plain view, (4) customs search, and (5) waiver by the accused
also turned over to Cpl. Tamondong the confiscated wallet and its themselves of their right against unreasonable search and seizure." In
suspected marijuana contents. The man turned out to be Alain Manalili People vs. Encinada, the Court further explained that in these cases,
y Dizon. On 11 April 1988, Manalili was charged by Assistant Caloocan the search and seizure may be made only with probable cause as the
City Fiscal E. Juan R. Bautista with violation of Section 8, Article II of essential requirement. Stop-and-frisk has already been adopted as
Republic Act 6425. Upon his arraignment on 21 April 1988, Manalili another exception to the general rule against a search without a
pleaded "not guilty" to the charge. With the agreement of the public warrant. In Posadas vs. Court of Appeals, the Court held that there
prosecutor, Manalili was released after filing a P10,000.00 bail bond. were many instances where a search and seizure could be effected
After trial in due course, the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, without necessarily being preceded by an arrest, one of which was
Branch 124, acting as a Special Criminal Court, rendered on 19 May stop-and-frisk. To require the police officers to search the bag only
1989 a decision convicting appellant of illegal possession of marijuana after they had obtained a search warrant might prove to be useless,
residue. Manalili remained on provisional liberty. Atty. Benjamin Razon, futile and much too late under the circumstances. In such a situation, it
counsel for the defense, filed a Notice of Appeal dated 31 May 1989. was reasonable for a police officer to stop a suspicious individual briefly
On 19 April 1993, the Court of Appeals denied the appeal and affirmed in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo while
the trial court. The appellate court denied reconsideration via its obtaining more information, rather than to simply shrug his shoulders
Resolution dated 20 January 1994. Manalili filed a petition for review and allow a crime to occur. Herein, Patrolman Espiritu and his
on certiorari before the Supreme Court. companions observed during their surveillance that Manalili had red
eyes and was wobbling like a drunk along the Caloocan City Cemetery,
Issue: which according to police information was a popular hangout of drug
Whether a search and seizure could be effected without necessarily addicts. From his experience as a member of the Anti-Narcotics Unit of
being preceded by an arrest. the Caloocan City Police, such suspicious behavior was characteristic of
drug addicts who were "high." The policemen therefore had sufficient
Held: reason to stop Manalili to investigate if he was actually high on drugs.
In the landmark case of Terry vs. Ohio, a stop-and-frisk was defined as During such investigation, they found marijuana in his possession. The
the vernacular designation of the right of a police officer to stop a search was valid, being akin to a stop-and-frisk.
citizen on the street, interrogate him, and pat him for weapon(s). In
allowing such a search, the interest of effective crime prevention and Malacat vs. Court of Appeals [GR 123595, 12 December 1997]
detection allows a police officer to approach a person, in appropriate Facts:
circumstances and manner, for purposes of investigating possible On 27 August 1990, at about 6:30 p.m., allegedly in response to bomb
criminal behavior even though there is insufficient probable cause to threats reported seven days earlier, Rodolfo Yu of the Western Police
make an actual arrest. What justified the limited search was the more District, Metropolitan Police Force of the Integrated National Police,
immediate interest of the police officer in taking steps to assure Police Station No. 3, Quiapo, Manila, was on foot patrol with three
himself that the person with whom he was dealing was not armed with other police officers (all of them in uniform) along Quezon Boulevard,
a weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against him. It Quiapo, Manila, near the Mercury Drug store at Plaza Miranda. They
did not, however, abandon the rule that the police must, whenever chanced upon two groups of Muslim-looking men, with each group,
practicable, obtain advance judicial approval of searches and seizures comprised of three to four men, posted at opposite sides of the corner
through the warrant procedure, excused only by exigent of Quezon Boulevard near the Mercury Drug Store. These men were
circumstances. In Philippine jurisprudence, the general rule is that a acting suspiciously with "their eyes moving very fast." Yu and his
search and seizure must be validated by a previously secured judicial companions positioned themselves at strategic points and observed
warrant; otherwise, such search and seizure is unconstitutional and both groups for about 30 minutes. The police officers then approached
subject to challenge. Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, one group of men, who then fled in different directions. As the
gives this guarantee. This right, however, is not absolute. The recent policemen gave chase, Yu caught up with and apprehended Sammy
case of People vs. Lacerna enumerated five recognized exceptions to Malacat y Mandar (who Yu recognized, inasmuch as allegedly the
the rule against warrantless search and seizure, viz.: "(1) search previous Saturday, 25 August 1990, likewise at Plaza Miranda, Yu saw
Malacat and 2 others attempt to detonate a grenade). Upon searching Section 5(a) has been denominated as one "in flagrante delicto," while
Malacat, Yu found a fragmentation grenade tucked inside the latter's that under Section 5(b) has been described as a "hot pursuit" arrest.
"front waist line." Yu's companion, police officer Rogelio Malibiran, Turning to valid warrantless searches, they are limited to the following:
apprehended Abdul Casan from whom a .38 caliber revolver was (1) customs searches; (2) search of moving vehicles; (3) seizure of
recovered. Malacat and Casan were then brought to Police Station 3 evidence in plain view; (4) consent searches; (5) a search incidental to
where Yu placed an "X" mark at the bottom of the grenade and a lawful arrest; and (6) a "stop and frisk." The concepts of a "stop-
thereafter gave it to his commander. Yu did not issue any receipt for and-frisk" and of a search incidental to a lawful arrest must not be
the grenade he allegedly recovered from Malacat. On 30 August 1990, confused. These two types of warrantless searches differ in terms of
Malacat was charged with violating Section 3 of Presidential Decree the requisite quantum of proof before they may be validly effected and
1866. At arraignment on 9 October 1990, petitioner, assisted by in their allowable scope. In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, as the
counsel de officio, entered a plea of not guilty. Malacat denied the precedent arrest determines the validity of the incidental search. Here,
charges and explained that he only recently arrived in Manila. However, there could have been no valid in flagrante delicto or hot pursuit arrest
several other police officers mauled him, hitting him with benches and preceding the search in light of the lack of personal knowledge on the
guns. Petitioner was once again searched, but nothing was found on part of Yu, the arresting officer, or an overt physical act, on the part of
him. He saw the grenade only in court when it was presented. In its Malacat, indicating that a crime had just been committed, was being
decision dated 10 February 1994 but promulgated on 15 February committed or was going to be committed. Plainly, the search
1994, the trial court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure of conducted on Malacat could not have been one incidental to a lawful
Malacat was akin to a "stop and frisk," where a "warrant and seizure arrest. On the other hand, while probable cause is not required to
can be effected without necessarily being preceded by an arrest" and conduct a "stop and frisk," it nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or
"whose object is either to maintain the status quo momentarily while a hunch will not validate a "stop and frisk." A genuine reason must
the police officer seeks to obtain more information"; and that the exist, in light of the police officer's experience and surrounding
seizure of the grenade from Malacat was incidental to a lawful arrest. conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons
The trial court thus found Malacat guilty of the crime of illegal concealed about him. Finally, a "stop-and-frisk" serves a two-fold
possession of explosives under Section 3 of PD 1866, and sentenced interest: (1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and
him to suffer the penalty of not less than 17 years, 4 months and 1 detection, which underlies the recognition that a police officer may,
day of Reclusion Temporal, as minimum, and not more than 30 years of under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner,
Reclusion Perpetua, as maximum. On 18 February 1994, Malacat filed a approach a person for purposes of investigating possible criminal
notice of appeal indicating that he was appealing to the Supreme behavior even without probable cause; and (2) the more pressing
Court. However, the record of the case was forwarded to the Court of interest of safety and self-preservation which permit the police officer
Appeals (CA-GR CR 15988). In its decision of 24 January 1996, the to take steps to assure himself that the person with whom he deals is
Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. Manalili filed a petition for not armed with a deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be
review with the Supreme Court. used against the police officer. Here, there are at least three (3)
reasons why the "stop-and-frisk" was invalid: First, there is grave
Issue: doubts as to Yu's claim that Malacat was a member of the group which
Whether the search made on Malacat is valid, pursuant to the attempted to bomb Plaza Miranda 2 days earlier. This claim is neither
exception of “stop and frisk.” supported by any police report or record nor corroborated by any other
police officer who allegedly chased that group. Second, there was
Held: nothing in Malacat's behavior or conduct which could have reasonably
The general rule as regards arrests, searches and seizures is that a elicited even mere suspicion other than that his eyes were "moving
warrant is needed in order to validly effect the same. The very fast" — an observation which leaves us incredulous since Yu and
Constitutional prohibition against unreasonable arrests, searches and his teammates were nowhere near Malacat and it was already 6:30
seizures refers to those effected without a validly issued warrant, p.m., thus presumably dusk. Malacat and his companions were merely
subject to certain exceptions. As regards valid warrantless arrests, standing at the corner and were not creating any commotion or
these are found in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. A trouble. Third, there was at all no ground, probable or otherwise, to
warrantless arrest under the circumstances contemplated under believe that Malacat was armed with a deadly weapon. None was visible
to Yu, for as he admitted, the alleged grenade was "discovered" "inside protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully
the front waistline" of Malacat, and from all indications as to the limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to
distance between Yu and Malacat, any telltale bulge, assuming that discover weapons which might be used to assault him." Herein, the
Malacat was indeed hiding a grenade, could not have been visible to Yu. officers' suspicion that J. L. was carrying a weapon arose not from any
What is unequivocal then are blatant violations of Malacat's rights observations of their own but solely from a call made from an unknown
solemnly guaranteed in Sections 2 and 12(1) of Article III of the location by an unknown caller. Unlike a tip from a known informant
Constitution. whose reputation can be assessed and who can be held responsible if
her allegations turn out to be fabricated, "an anonymous tip alone
Florida vs. J.L. [000 US 98-1993, 28 March 2000] seldom demonstrates the informant's basis of knowledge or veracity."
Facts: The tip herein lacked the moderate indicia of reliability. The anonymous
On 13 October 1995, an anonymous caller reported to the Miami-Dade call concerning J. L. provided no predictive information and therefore
Police that a young black male standing at a particular bus stop and left the police without means to test the informant's knowledge or
wearing a plaid shirt was carrying a gun. There is no audio recording of credibility. That the allegation about the gun turned out to be correct
the tip, and nothing is known about the informant. Sometime after the does not suggest that the officers, prior to the frisks, had a reasonable
police received the tip, two officers were instructed to respond. They basis for suspecting J. L. of engaging in unlawful conduct: The
arrived at the bus stop about 6 minutes later and saw 3 black males reasonableness of official suspicion must be measured by what the
"just hanging out [there]." One of the three, J. L., was wearing a plaid officers knew before they conducted their search. All the police had to
shirt. Apart from the tip, the officers had no reason to suspect any of go on in this case was the bare report of an unknown, unaccountable
the three of illegal conduct. The officers did not see a firearm, and J. L. informant who neither explained how he knew about the gun nor
made no threatening or otherwise unusual movements. One of the supplied any basis for believing he had inside information about J. L
officers approached J. L., told him to put his hands up on the bus stop, The requirement that an anonymous tip bear standard indicia of
frisked him, and seized a gun from J. L.'s pocket. The second officer reliability in order to justify a stop in no way diminishes a police
frisked the other two individuals, against whom no allegations had been officer's prerogative, in accord with Terry, to conduct a protective
made, and found nothing. J. L., who was at the time of the frisk "10 search of a person who has already been legitimately stopped. On the
days shy of his 16th birth[day]," was charged under state law with other hand, an anonymous tip lacking indicia of reliability of the kind
carrying a concealed firearm without a license and possessing a firearm contemplated in Adams (Adams v. Williams, 407 US 143 [1972]) and
while under the age of 18. He moved to suppress the gun as the fruit White (Alabama v. White, 496 US 325) does not justify a stop and
of an unlawful search, and the trial court granted his motion. The frisk whenever and however it alleges the illegal possession of a
intermediate appellate court reversed, but the Supreme Court of firearm.
Florida quashed that decision and held the search invalid under the
Fourth Amendment. Papa vs. Mago [GR L-27360, 28 February 1968]
Facts:
Issue: Martin Alagao, head of the counter-intelligence unit of the Manila Police
Whether the anonymous tip is sufficient basis to conduct “stop and Department, acting upon a reliable information received on 3 November
frisk” upon the person of J.L. 1966 to the effect that a certain shipment of personal effects,
allegedly misdeclared and undervalued, would be released the following
Held: day from the customs zone of the port of Manila and loaded on two
In Terry v. Ohio (392 US 1 [1968]), it was held that "where a police trucks, and upon orders of Ricardo Papa, Chief of Police of Manila and a
officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to duly deputized agent of the Bureau of Customs, conducted surveillance
conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot at gate 1 of the customs zone. When the trucks left gate 1 at about
and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and 4:30 p.m. of 4 November 1966, elements of the counter-intelligence
presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior unit went after the trucks and intercepted them at the Agrifina Circle,
he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and Ermita, Manila. The load of the two trucks, consisting of nine bales of
where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his goods, and the two trucks, were seized on instructions of the Chief of
reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the Police. Upon investigation, a person claimed ownership of the goods
and showed to the policemen a "Statement and Receipts of Duties Held: The Chief of the Manila Police Department, Ricardo G. Papa,
Collected on Informal Entry No. 147- 5501", issued by the Bureau of having been deputized in writing by the Commissioner of Customs,
Customs in the name of a certain Bienvenido Naguit. Claiming to have could, for the purposes of the enforcement of the customs and tariff
been prejudiced by the seizure and detention of the two trucks and laws, effect searches, seizures, and arrests, and it was his duty to
their cargo, Remedios Mago and Valentin B. Lanopa filed with the Court make seizure, among others, of any cargo, articles or other movable
of First Instance (CFI) of Manila a petition "for mandamus with property when the same may be subject to forfeiture or liable for any
restraining order or preliminary injunction (Civil Case 67496), praying fine imposed under customs and tariff laws. He could lawfully open and
for the issuance of a restraining order, ex parte, enjoining the police examine any box, trunk, envelope or other container wherever found
and customs authorities, or their agents, from opening the bales and when he had reasonable cause to suspect the presence therein of
examining the goods, and a writ of mandamus for the return of the dutiable articles introduced into the Philippines contrary to law; and
goods and the trucks, as well as a judgment for actual, moral and likewise to stop, search and examine any vehicle, beast or person
exemplary damages in their favor. On 10 November 1966, Judge reasonably suspected of holding or conveying such article as aforesaid.
Hilarion Jarencio issued an order ex parte restraining Ricardo Papa (as It cannot be doubted, therefore, that Papa, Chief of Police of Manila,
Chief of Police of Manila) and Juan Ponce Enrile (as Commissioner of could lawfully effect the search and seizure of the goods in question.
Customs) in Civil Case 67496. However, when the restraining order The Tariff and Customs Code authorizes him to demand assistance of
was received by Papa. et. al., some bales had already been opened by any police officer to effect said search and seizure, and the latter has
the examiners of the Bureau of Customs in the presence of officials of the legal duty to render said assistance. This was what happened
the Manila Police Department, an assistant city fiscal and a precisely in the case of Lt. Martin Alagao who, with his unit, made the
representative of Remedios Mago. Under date of 15 November 1966, search and seizure of the two trucks loaded with the nine bales of
Mago filed an amended petition, including as party defendants Collector goods in question at the Agrifina Circle. He was given authority by the
of Customs Pedro Pacis of the Port of Manila and Lt. Martin Alagao of Chief of Police to make the interception of the cargo. Martin Alagao
the Manila Police Department. At the hearing on 9 December 1966, the and his companion policemen had authority to effect the seizure
lower court, with the conformity of the parties, ordered that an without any search warrant issued by a competent court. The Tariff
inventory of the goods be made by its clerk of court in the presence of and Customs Code does not require said warrant herein. The Code
the representatives of the claimant of the goods, the Bureau of authorizes persons having police authority under Section 2203 of the
Customs, and the Anti- Smuggling Center of the Manila Police Tariff and Customs Code to enter, pass through or search any land,
Department. On 23 December 1966, Mago filed an ex parte motion to inclosure, warehouse, store or building, not being a dwelling house; and
release the goods, alleging that since the inventory of the goods also to inspect, search and examine any vessel or aircraft and any
seized did not show any article of prohibited importation, the same trunk, package, box or envelope or any person on board, or stop and
should be released as per agreement of the parties upon her posting of search and examine any vehicle, beast or person suspected of holding
the appropriate bond that may be determined by the court. On 7 or conveying any dutiable or prohibited article introduced into the
March 1967, the Judge issued an order releasing the goods to Mago Philippines contrary to law, without mentioning the need of a search
upon her filing of a bond in the amount of P40,000.00. On 13 March warrant in said cases. But in the search of a dwelling house, the Code
1967, Papa, on his own behalf, filed a motion for reconsideration of the provides that said "dwelling house may be entered and searched only
order of the court releasing the goods under bond, upon the ground upon warrant issued by a judge or justice of the peace." Except in the
that the Manila Police Department had been directed by the Collector case of the search of a dwelling house, persons exercising police
of Customs of the Port of Manila to hold the goods pending termination authority under the customs law may effect search and seizure without
of the seizure proceedings. Without waiting for the court's action on a search warrant in the enforcement of customs laws. Herein, Martin
the motion for reconsideration, and alleging that they had no plain, Alagao and his companion policemen did not have to make any search
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, Papa, et. al. before they seized the two trucks and their cargo. But even if there
filed the action for prohibition and certiorari with preliminary injunction was a search, there is still authority to the effect that no search
before the Supreme Court. warrant would be needed under the circumstances obtaining herein.
The guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures is
construed as recognizing a necessary difference between a search of a
dwelling house or other structure in respect of which a search warrant
may readily be obtained and a search of a ship, motorboat, wagon, or yielded 11 sealed boxes, 4 on the rear seat and 7 more in the baggage
automobile for contraband goods, where it is not practicable to secure compartment which was opened on orders of Col. Abad. On the same
a warrant, because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality order of the intelligence officer, the boxes were opened before the
or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. Having declared presence of Hope and Medina, representatives of the Bureau of Internal
that the seizure by the members of the Manila Police Department of Revenue, Bureau of Customs, P.C., COSAC and photographers of the
the goods in question was in accordance with law and by that seizure Department of National Defense. The contents of the bozes revealed
the Bureau of Customs had acquired jurisdiction over the goods for the some "4,441 more or less wrist watches of assorted brands; 1,075
purposes of the enforcement of the customs and tariff laws, to the more or less watch bracelets of assorted brands," supposedly untaxed.
exclusion of the Court of First Instance of Manila. As consequence, thereof, ASAC Chairman General Pelagio Cruz
requested the Bureau of Customs to issue a Warrant of Seizure and
People vs. CFI Rizal, Branch IX, Quezon City [GR L-41686, 17 Detention against the articles including the Dodge car. The Collector of
November 1980] Customs did issue the same on 12 February 1974. It was admitted,
Facts: however, that when the apprehending agents arrested respondents and
One week before 9 February 1974, the Regional Anti-Smuggling Action brought them together with the seized articles to the ASAC Office in
Center (RASAC) was informed by an undisclosed Informer that a Camp Aguinaldo, the former were not armed with a warrant of arrest
shipment of highly dutiable goods would be transported to Manila from and seizure. In conjunction with the Warrant of Seizure and Detention
Angeles City on a blue Dodge car. Spurred by such lead, RASAC Agents issued by the Collector of Customs, seizure proceedings were
Arthur Manuel and Macario Sabado, on said date and upon order of the instituted and docketed as Seizure Identification 14281 against the
Chief of Intelligence and Operations Branch, RASAC-MBA, Col. Antonio wrist watches and watch bracelets pursuant to Section 2530 (m) — 1
Abad, Jr., stationed themselves in the vicinity of the toll gate of the of the Tariff and Customs Code, and Seizure Identification No. 14281-
North Diversion Road at Balintawak, Quezon City. At about 6:45 a.m. of A against the Dodge car pursuant to Section 2530(k) of the same
the same day, a light blue Dodge car with Plate 21-87-73, driven by Code. On the other hand, Hope and Medina disclaimed ownership of the
Sgt. Jessie Hope who was accompanied by Monina Medina approached seized articles. Ownership was instead claimed by one Antonio del
the exit gate and after giving the toll receipt sped away towards Rosario who intervened in the proceedings. Hope claimed that at the
Manila. The RASAC agents gave a chase and overtook Sgt. Hope's car. time of apprehension, he had no knowledge of the contents of the
Agent Sabado blew his whistle and signaled Sgt. Hope to stop but the boxes, and granting that he had such knowledge, he never knew that
latter instead of heeding, made a U-turn back to the North Diversion these are untaxed commodities; that he consented to transport said
Road, but he could not go through because of the buses in front of his boxes from Angeles City to Manila in his car upon request of his girl
car. At this point, the agents succeeded in blocking Sgt. Hope's car friend Monina as a personal favor; that he was not present when the
and the latter stopped. Manuel and Sabado who were in civilian clothes boxes were loaded in his car nor was he ever told of their contents on
showed their identification cards to Hope and Medina and introduced the way. On the part of Monina Medina, she testified that what she did
themselves as RASAC agents. The Agents saw 4 boxes on the back was only in compliance with the agreement with Mr. Del Rosario to
seat of the Dodge and upon inquiry as to what those boxes were, Sgt. transport the boxes and deliver them to a certain Mr. Peter at the
Hope answered "I do not know." Further, Hope and Medina were asked Tropical Hut who will in turn give her the contracted price; that Mr. Del
where they were bringing the boxes, to which Medina replied that they Rosario did not reveal the contents of the boxes which she came to
were bringing them (boxes) to the Tropical Hut at Epifanio de los know of only when the boxes were opened at Camp Aguinaldo. As
Santos. Agent Sabado boarded the Dodge car with Hope and Medina there was not enough evidence to controvert the testimonies of
while Agent Manuel took their own car and both cars drove towards respondents and the narration of claimant Antonio del Rosario, the
Tropical Hut making a brief stop at the Bonanza where Agent Manuel Collector of Customs issued his decision in the seizure cases on 1 April
called up Col. Abad by telephone. Arriving at the Tropical Hut, the 1975 declaring that the seized articles including the car are not
party, together with Col. Abad who had joined them waited for the man subject of forfeiture. Meanwhile, on 14 March 1974, after the requisite
who according to Monina Medina was supposed to receive the boxes. preliminary investigation, the City Fiscal of Quezon City, finding the
As the man did not appear, Col. Abad "called off the mission" and existence of a prima facie case against Hope and Medina, filed Criminal
brought respondents and their car to Camp Aguinaldo arriving there at Case Q-3781 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City). Upon
about 9:00 a.m. An inspection of Sgt. Hope's car at Camp Aguinaldo arraignment on 23 April 1974, respondents pleaded not guilty. Trial
commenced on 28 January 1975 and while the prosecution through its 2209 which explicitly provides that a "dwelling house may be entered
first witness, Agent Macario Sabado, was adducing as evidence the and searched only upon warrant issued by a judge (or justice of the
pictures of the 11 boxes containing the assorted watches and watch peace), upon sworn application showing probable cause and particularly
bracelets, the defense counsel objected to the presentation of the describing the place to be searched and person or thing to be seized."
pictures and the subject articles on the ground that they were seized Aware of this delineation, the Court in that case expressed the
without the benefit of warrant, and therefore inadmissible in evidence considered view that "except in the case of the search of a dwelling
under Section 4(2), Article IV of the New Constitution. After the house, persons exercising police authority under the customs law may
parties have argued their grounds in their respective memoranda, the effect search and seizure without a search warrant in the enforcement
trial court issued the order of 20 August 1975 declaring that the of customs laws." The rationale of the Mago ruling was nurtured by the
alleged smuggled articles and the pictures taken of said items as traditional doctrine in Carroll v. United States 6 wherein an imprimatur
inadmissible in evidence. The prosecution's motion for reconsideration against, constitutional infirmity was stamped in favor of a warrantless
was denied on 30 September 1975. The prosecution filed a petition for search and seizure of such nature as herein. On this stable foundation,
certiorari which was treated as a special civil action in the Supreme the warrantless seizure did not violate Article IV, Section 3 of the
Court's Resolution of 5 May 1976. 1973 Constitution, which finds origin in the Fourth Amendment of the
American Constitution.
Issue:
Whether the search and seizure made on the boxes in the blue Dodge Whren v. United States [ 517 US 806 (No. 95-5841), 10 June 1996]
car was valid, even after the Collector of Customs declared the seized Facts:
articles not subject to forfeiture. On the evening of 10 June 1993, plainclothes vice- squad officers of
the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department were patrolling
Held: a "high drug area" of the city in an unmarked car. Their suspicions were
It is not accurate to say that the Collector of Customs made no aroused when they passed a dark Pathfinder truck with temporary
findings that the articles were smuggled. In fact, what the Collector license plates and youthful occupants waiting at a stop sign, the driver
stated was that the prosecution failed to present the quantum of looking down into the lap of the passenger at his right. The truck
evidence sufficient to warrant the forfeiture of the subject articles. In a remained stopped at the intersection for what seemed an unusually
general sense, this does not necessarily exclude the possibility of long time--more than 20 seconds. When the police car executed a U-
smuggling. The decision of the Collector of Customs, as in other turn in order to head back toward the truck, the Pathfinder turned
seizure proceedings, concerns the res rather than the persona. The suddenly to its right, without signalling, and sped off at an
proceeding is a probe on contraband or illegally imported goods. The "unreasonable" speed. The policemen followed, and in a short while
importer or possessor is treated differently. The fact that the overtook the Pathfinder when it stopped behind other traffic at a red
administrative penalty befalls on him is an inconsequential incidence to light. They pulled up alongside, and Officer Ephraim Soto stepped out
criminal liability. By the same token, the probable guilt cannot be and approached the driver's door, identifying himself as a police officer
negated simply because he was not held administratively liable. The and directing the driver, James L. Brown, to put the vehicle in park.
Collector's final declaration that the articles are not subject to When Soto drew up to the driver's window, he immediately observed
forfeiture does not detract his findings that untaxed goods were two large plastic bags of what appeared to be crack cocaine in Michael
transported in Hope and Medina's car and seized from their possession A. Whren's hands. Whren and Brown were arrested, and quantities of
by agents of the law. Whether criminal liability lurks on the strength of several types of illegal drugs were retrieved from the vehicle. They
the provision of the Tariff and Customs Code adduced in the were charged in a four-count indictment with violating various federal
information can only be determined in a separate criminal action. Hope drug laws, including 21 U. S. C. Section(s) 844(a) and 860(a). At a
and Medina's exoneration in the administrative cases cannot deprive pretrial suppression hearing, they challenged the legality of the stop
the State of its right to prosecute. But under our penal laws, criminal and the resulting seizure of the drugs. They argued that the stop had
responsibility, if any, must be proven not by preponderance of not been justified by probable cause to believe, or even reasonable
evidence but by proof beyond reasonable doubt. As enunciated in the suspicion, that they were engaged in illegal drug-dealing activity; and
leading case of Papa vs. Mago, in the exercise of the specific functions, that Officer Soto's asserted ground for approaching the vehicle--to
the Code does not mention the need of a search warrant unlike Section give the driver a warning concerning traffic violations--was pretextual.
The District Court denied the suppression motion, concluding that "the People vs. de Gracia [GR 102009-10, 6 July 1994]
facts of the stop were not controverted," and "[t]here was nothing to Facts:
really demonstrate that the actions of the officers were contrary to a The incidents took place at the height of the coup d'etat staged in
normal traffic stop." Whren and Brown were convicted of the counts at December, 1989 by ultra-rightist elements headed by the Reform the
issue here. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding with Armed Forces Movement-Soldiers of the Filipino People (RAM-SFP)
respect to the suppression issue that, "regardless of whether a police against the Government. At that time, various government
officer subjectively believes that the occupants of an automobile may establishments and military camps in Metro Manila were being
be engaging in some other illegal behavior, a traffic stop is permissible bombarded by the rightist group with their "tora-tora" planes. At
as long as a reasonable officer in the same circumstances could have around midnight of 30 November 1989, the 4th Marine Battalion of the
stopped the car for the suspected traffic violation." Philippine Marines occupied Villamor Air Base, while the Scout Rangers
took over the Headquarters of the Philippine Army, the Army
Issue: Operations Center, and Channel 4, the government television station.
Whether the seizure involving possession of drugs valid, when the Also, some elements of the Philippine Army coming from Fort
vehicle was stopped due to a violation of the traffic code. Magsaysay occupied the Greenhills Shopping Center in San Juan, Metro
Manila. On 1 December 1989, Maj. Efren Soria of the Intelligence
Held: Division, National Capital Region Defense Command, was on board a
The Fourth Amendment guarantees "[t]he right of the people to be brown Toyota car conducting a surveillance of the Eurocar Sales Office
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against located at Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA) in Quezon City,
unreasonable searches and seizures." Temporary detention of together with his team composed of Sgt. Crispin Sagario, M/Sgt.
individuals during the stop of an automobile by the police, even if only Ramon Briones, S/Sgt. Henry Aquino, one S/Sgt. Simon and a Sgt.
for a brief period and for a limited purpose, constitutes a "seizure" of Ramos. The surveillance, which actually started on the night of 30
"persons" within the meaning of this provision. An automobile stop is November 1989 at around 10:00 p.m., was conducted pursuant to an
thus subject to the constitutional imperative that it not be intelligence report received by the division that said establishment was
"unreasonable" under the circumstances. As a general matter, the being occupied by elements of the RAM-SFP as a communication
decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have command post. Sgt. Crispin Sagario, the driver of the car, parked the
probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. It is of vehicle around 10 to 15 meters away from the Eurocar building near P.
course true that in principle every Fourth Amendment case, since it Tuazon Street, S/Sgt. Henry Aquino had earlier alighted from the car to
turns upon a "reasonableness" determination, involves a balancing of conduct his surveillance on foot. A crowd was then gathered near the
all relevant factors. With rare exceptions not applicable here, however, Eurocar office watching the on-going bombardment near Camp
the result of that balancing is not in doubt where the search or seizure Aguinaldo. After a while a group of 5 men disengaged themselves from
is based upon probable cause. analysis involved searches or seizures the crowd and walked towards the car of the surveillance team. At that
conducted in an extraordinary manner, unusually harmful to an moment, Maj. Soria, who was then seated in front, saw the approaching
individual's privacy or even physical interests --such as, for example, group and immediately ordered Sgt. Sagario to start the car and leave
seizure by means of deadly force, unannounced entry into a home, the area. As they passed by the group, then only 6 meters away, the
entry into a home without a warrant, or physical penetration of the latter pointed to them, drew their guns and fired at the team, which
body. The making of a traffic stop out-of-uniform does not remotely attack resulted in the wounding of Sgt. Sagario on the right thigh.
qualify as such an extreme practice, and so is governed by the usual Nobody in the surveillance team was able to retaliate because they
rule that probable cause to believe the law has been broken sought cover inside the car and they were afraid that civilians or
"outbalances" private interest in avoiding police contact. Herein, the bystanders might be caught in the cross-fire. As a consequence, at
officers had probable cause to believe that Whren and Brown had around 6:30 a.m. of 5 December 1989, searching them composed of
violated the traffic code. That rendered the stop reasonable under the F/Lt. Virgilio Babao as team leader, M/Sgt. Lacdao, Sgt. Magallion, Sgt.
Fourth Amendment, the evidence thereby discovered admissible. Patricio Pacatang, and elements of the 16th Infantry Battalion under
one Col. delos Santos raided the Eurocar Sales Office. They were able
to find and confiscate 6 cartons of M-16 ammunition, five bundles of
C-4 dynamites, M-shells of different calibers, and "molotov" bombs
inside one of the rooms belonging to a certain Col. Matillano which is compelling the former to break into the office. The Eurocar Sales Office
located at the right portion of the building. St. Oscar Obenia, the first is obviously not a gun store and it is definitely not an armory or arsenal
one to enter the Eurocar building, saw Rolando De Gracia inside the which are the usual depositories for explosives and ammunition. It is
office of Col. Matillano, holding a C-4 and suspiciously peeping through primarily and solely engaged in the sale of automobiles. The presence
a door. De Gracia was the only person then present inside the room. A of an unusual quantity of high-powered firearms and explosives could
uniform with the nametag of Col. Matillano was also found. As a result not be justifiably or even colorably explained. In addition, there was
of the raid, the team arrested de Gracia, as well as Soprieso Verbo and general chaos and disorder at that time because of simultaneous and
Roberto Jimena who were janitors at the Eurocar building. They were intense firing within the vicinity of the office and in the nearby Camp
then made to sign an inventory, written in Tagalog, of the explosives Aguinaldo which was under attack by rebel forces. The courts in the
and ammunition confiscated by the raiding team. No search warrant surrounding areas were obviously closed and, for that matter, the
was secured by the raiding team because, according to them, at that building and houses therein were deserted. Under the foregoing
time there was so much disorder considering that the nearby Camp circumstances, the case falls under one of the exceptions to the
Aguinaldo was being mopped up by the rebel forces and there was prohibition against a warrantless search. In the first place, the military
simultaneous firing within the vicinity of the Eurocar office, aside from operatives, taking into account the facts obtaining in this case, had
the fact that the courts were consequently closed. The group was able reasonable ground to believe that a crime was being committed. There
to confirm later that the owner of Eurocar office is a certain Mr. was consequently more than sufficient probable cause to warrant their
Gutierrez and that de Gracia is supposedly a "boy" therein. de Gracia action. Furthermore, under the situation then prevailing, the raiding
was charged in two separate informations for illegal possession of team had no opportunity to apply for and secure a search warrant from
ammunition and explosives in furtherance of rebellion, and for the courts. The trial judge himself manifested that on 5 December
attempted homicide (Criminal Cases Q-90-11755 and Q-90-11756, 1989 when the raid was conducted, his court was closed. Under such
respectively), which were tried jointly by the Regional Trial Court of urgency and exigency of the moment, a search warrant could lawfully
Quezon City, Branch 103. During the arraignment, de Gracia pleaded be dispensed with.
not guilty to both charges. However, he admitted that he is not
authorized to posses any firearms, ammunition and/or explosive. The Valmonte vs. de Villa [GR 83988, 24 May 1990]
parties likewise stipulated that there was a rebellion during the period Facts:
from November 30 up to 9 December 1989. On 22 February 1991, the On 20 January 1987, the National Capital Region District Command
trial court rendered judgment acquitting de Gracia of attempted (NCRDC) was activated pursuant to Letter of Instruction 02/87 of the
homicide, but found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense Philippine General Headquarters, AFP, with the mission of conducting
of illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of rebellion and security operations within its area of responsibility and peripheral
sentenced him to serve the penalty of reclusion perpetua. De Gracia areas, for the purpose of establishing an effective territorial defense,
appealed. maintaining peace and order, and providing an atmosphere conducive
to the social, economic and political development of the National
Issue: Capital Region. 1 As part of its duty to maintain peace and order, the
Whether the military operatives made a valid search and seizure during NCRDC installed checkpoints in various parts of Valenzuela, Metro
the height of the December 1989 coup d’etat. Manila. Ricardo C. Valmonte and the Union of Lawyers and Advocates
for People's Right (ULAP) filed a petition for prohibition with
Held: preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order witht the
It is admitted that the military operatives who raided the Eurocar Sales Supreme Court, seeking the declaration of checkpoints in Valenzuela,
Office were not armed with a search warrant at that time. The raid was Metro Manila or elsewhere, as unconstitutional and the dismantling and
actually precipitated by intelligence reports that said office was being banning of the same or, in the alternative, to direct the respondents to
used as headquarters by the RAM. Prior to the raid, there was a formulate guidelines in the implementation of checkpoints, for the
surveillance conducted on the premises wherein the surveillance team protection of the people. They aver that, because of the installation of
was fired at by a group of men coming from the Eurocar building. When said checkpoints, the residents of Valenzuela are worried of being
the military operatives raided the place, the occupants thereof refused harassed and of their safety being placed at the arbitrary, capricious
to open the door despite the requests for them to do so, thereby and whimsical disposition of the military manning the checkpoints,
considering that their cars and vehicles are being subjected to regular has the equal right, under its police power, to select the reasonable
searches and check-ups, especially at night or at dawn, without the means and methods for best achieving them. The checkpoint is
benefit of a search warrant and/or court order. Their alleged fear for evidently one of such means it has selected. Admittedly, the routine
their safety increased when, at dawn of 9 July 1988, Benjamin Parpon, checkpoint stop does intrude, to a certain extent, on motorist's right
a supply officer of the Municipality of Valenzuela, Bulacan, was gunned to "free passage without interruption", but it cannot be denied that, as
down allegedly in cold blood by the members of the NCRDC manning a rule, it involves only a brief detention of travellers during which the
the checkpoint along McArthur Highway at Malinta, Valenzuela, for vehicle's occupants are required to answer a brief question or two. For
ignoring and/or refusing to submit himself to the checkpoint and for as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected
continuing to speed off inspire of warning shots fired in the air. to a body search, and the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual
Valmonte also claims that, on several occasions, he had gone thru search, said routine checks cannot be regarded as violative of an
these checkpoints where he was stopped and his car subjected to individual's right against unreasonable search. These routine checks,
search/check- up without a court order or search warrant. They further when conducted in a fixed area, are even less intrusive. Further,
contend that the said checkpoints give Gen. Renato de Villa and the vehicles are generally allowed to pass these checkpoints after a routine
National Capital Region District Command a blanket authority to make inspection and a few questions. If vehicles are stopped and extensively
searches and/or seizures without search warrant or court order in searched, it is because of some probable cause which justifies a
violation of the Constitution. In the Supreme Court's decision dated 29 reasonable belief of the men at the checkpoints that either the
September 1989, Valmonte’s and ULAP’s petition for prohibition, motorist is a law-offender or the contents of the vehicle are or have
seeking the declaration of the checkpoints as unconstitutional and their been instruments of some offense. By the same token, a warrantless
dismantling and/or banning, was dismissed. Valmonte and ULAP filed search of incoming and outgoing passengers, at the arrival and
the motion and supplemental motion for reconsideration of said departure areas of an international airport, is a practice not
decision. constitutionally objectionable because it is founded on public interest,
safety, and necessity. Lastly, the Court's decision on checkpoints does
Issue: not, in any way, validate nor condone abuses committed by the military
Whether checkpoints serve as a blanket authority for government manning the checkpoints. The Court's decision was concerned with
officials for warrantless search and seizure and, thus, are violative of power, i.e. whether the government employing the military has the
the Constitution. power to install said checkpoints. Once that power is acknowledged,
the Court's inquiry ceases. True, power implies the possibility of its
Held: abuse. But whether there is abuse in a particular situation is a different
Nowhere in the Supreme Court's decision of 24 May 1990 did the "ball game" to be resolved in the constitutional arena. In any situation,
Court legalize all checkpoints, i.e. at all times and under all where abuse marks the operation of a checkpoint, the citizen is not
circumstances. What the Court declared is, that checkpoints are not helpless. For the military is not above but subject to the law. And the
illegal per se. Thus, under exceptional circumstances, as where the courts exist to see that the law is supreme. Soldiers, including those
survival of organized government is on the balance, or where the lives who man checkpoints, who abuse their authority act beyond the scope
and safety of the people are in grave peril, checkpoints may be allowed of their authority and are, therefore, liable criminally and civilly for their
and installed by the government. Implicit in this proposition is, that abusive acts.
when the situation clears and such grave perils are removed,
checkpoints will have absolutely no reason to remain. Recent and on- Aniag vs. Commission on Elections [GR 104961, 7 October 1994]
going events have pointed to the continuing validity and need for Facts:
checkpoints manned by either military or police forces. Although no In preparation for the synchronized national and local elections
one can be compelled, under our libertarian system, to share with the scheduled on 11 May 1992, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
present government its ideological beliefs and practices, or commend issued on 11 December 1991 Resolution 2323 ("Gun Ban"),
its political, social and economic policies or performance; one must promulgating rules and regulations on bearing, carrying and
concede to it the basic right to defend itself from its enemies and, transporting of firearms or other deadly weapons, on security
while in power, to pursue its program of government intended for personnel or bodyguards, on bearing arms by members of security
public welfare; and in the pursuit of those objectives, the government agencies or police organizations, and organization or maintenance of
reaction forces during the election period. Subsequently, on 26 13 April 1992, Aniag moved for reconsideration and to hold in
December 1991 COMELEC issued Resolution 2327 providing for the abeyance the administrative proceedings as well as the filing of the
summary disqualification of candidates engaged in gunrunning, using information in court. On 23 April 1992, the COMELEC denied Aniag's
and transporting of firearms, organizing special strike forces, and motion for reconsideration. Aniag filed a petition for declaratory relief,
establishing spot checkpoints. On 10 January 1992, pursuant to the certiorari and prohibition against the COMELEC.
"Gun Ban," Mr. Serapio P. Taccad, Sergeant-at-Arms, House of
Representatives, wrote Congressman Francisc B. Aniag Jr., who was Issue:
then Congressman of the 1st District of Bulacan requesting the return Whether the search of Aniag’s car that yielded the firarms which were
of the 2 firearms issued to him by the House of Representatives. Upon to be returned to the House of Representatives within the purview of
being advised of the request on 13 January 1992 by his staff, Aniag the exception as to the search of moving vehicles.
immediately instructed his driver, Ernesto Arellano, to pick up the
firearms from his house at Valle Verde and return them to Congress. Held:
Meanwhile, at about 5:00 p,.m. of the same day, the Philippine National As a rule, a valid search must be authorized by a search warrant duly
Police (PNP) headed by Senior Superintendent Danilo Cordero set up a issued by an appropriate authority. However, this is not absolute. Aside
checkpoint outside the Batasan Complex some 20 meters away from from a search incident to a lawful arrest, a warrantless search had been
its entrance. About 30 minutes later, the policemen manning the upheld in cases of moving vehicles and the seizure of evidence in plain
outpost flagged down the car driven by Arellano as it approached the view, as well as the search conducted at police or military checkpoints
checkpoint. They searched the car and found the firearms neatly which we declared are not illegal per se, and stressed that the
packed in their gun cases and placed in a bag in the trunk of the car. warrantless search is not violative of the Constitution for as long as the
Arellano was then apprehended and detained. He explained that he was vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body
ordered by Aniag to get the firearms from the house and return them search, and the inspection of the vehicle is merely limited to a visual
to Sergeant-at Arms Taccad of the House of Representatives. search. As there was no evidence to show that the policemen were
Thereafter, the police referred Arellano's case to the Office of the City impelled to do so because of a confidential report leading them to
Prosecutor for inquest. The referral did not include Aniag as among reasonably believe that certain motorists matching the description
those charged with an election offense. On 15 January 1992, the City furnished by their informant were engaged in gunrunning, transporting
Prosecutor ordered the release of Arellano after finding the latter's firearms or in organizing special strike forces. Nor was there any
sworn explanation meritorious. On 28 January 1992, the City indication from the package or behavior of Arellano that could have
Prosecutor invited Aniag to shed light on the circumstances mentioned triggered the suspicion of the policemen. Absent such justifying
in Arellano's sworn explanation. Aniag not only appeared at the circumstances specifically pointing to the culpability of Aniag and
preliminary investigation to confirm Arellano's statement but also Arellano, the search could not be valid. The action then of the
wrote the City Prosecutor urging him to exonerate Arellano. He policemen unreasonably intruded into Aniag's privacy and the security
explained that Arellano did not violate the firearms ban as he in fact of his property, in violation of Sec. 2, Art. III, of the Constitution.
was complying with it when apprehended by returning the firearms to Consequently, the firearms obtained in violation of Aniag's right against
Congress; and, that he was Aniag's driver, not a security officer nor a warrantless search cannot be admitted for any purpose in any
bodyguard. On 6 March 1992, the Office of the City Prosecutor issued proceeding.
a resolution which, among other matters, recommended that the case
against Arellano be dismissed and that the "unofficial" charge against People vs. Escano, Usana and Lopez [GR 129756-58, 28 January
Aniag be also dismissed. Nevertheless, on 6 April 1992, upon 2000]
recommendation of its Law Department, COMELEC issued Resolution Facts:
92-0829 directing the filing of information against Aniag and Arellano On 5 April 1995 and during a COMELEC gun ban, some law enforcers of
for violation of Sec. 261, par. (q), of BP 881 otherwise known as the the Makati Police, namely, PO3 Eduardo P. Suba, PO3 Bernabe Nonato,
Omnibus Election Code, in relation to Sec. 32 of RA 7166; and Aniag to SPO4 Juan de los Santos, and Inspector Ernesto Guico, were manning a
show cause why he should not be disqualified from running for an checkpoint at the corner of Senator Gil Puyat Ave. and the South
elective position, pursuant to COMELEC Resolution 2327, in relation to Luzon Expressway (SLEX). They were checking the cars going to Pasay
Secs. 32, 33 and 35 of RA 7166, and Sec. 52, par. (c), of BP 881. On City, stopping those they found suspicious, and imposing merely a
running stop on the others. At about past midnight, they stopped a Kia Held:
Pride car with Plate TBH 493. P03 Suba saw a long firearm on the lap The Court has ruled that not all checkpoints are illegal. Those which are
of the person seated at the passenger seat, who was later identified as warranted by the exigencies of public order and are conducted in a way
Virgilio Usana. They asked the driver, identified as Julian D. Escaño, to least intrusive to motorists are allowed. For, admittedly, routine
open the door. P03 Suba seized the long firearm, an M-1 US Carbine, checkpoints do intrude, to a certain extent, on motorists' right to "free
from Usana. When Escaño, upon order of the police, parked along Sen. passage without interruption," but it cannot be denied that, as a rule,
Gil Puyat Ave., the other passengers were searched for more weapons. it involves only a brief detention of travelers during which the vehicle's
Their search yielded a .45 caliber firearm which they seized from occupants are required to answer a brief question or two. For as long
Escaño. The three passengers were thereafter brought to the police as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a
station Block 5 in the Kia Pride driven by PO3 Nonato. Upon reaching body search, and the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual
the precinct, Nonato turned over the key to the desk officer. Since search, said routine checks cannot be regarded as violative of an
SPO4 de los Santos was suspicious of the vehicle, he requested Escaño individual's right against unreasonable search. In fact, these routine
to open the trunk. Escaño readily agreed and opened the trunk himself checks, when conducted in a fixed area, are even less intrusive. The
using his key. They noticed a blue bag inside it, which they asked checkpoint herein conducted was in pursuance of the gun ban enforced
Escaño to open. The bag contained a parcel wrapped in tape, which, by the COMELEC. The COMELEC would be hard put to implement the
upon examination by National Bureau of Investigation Forensic Chemist ban if its deputized agents were limited to a visual search of
Emilia A. Rosaldos, was found positive for hashish weighing 3.3143 pedestrians. It would also defeat the purpose for which such ban was
kilograms. Virgilio T. Usana and Jerry C. Lopez, together with Julian D. instituted. Those who intend to bring a gun during said period would
Escaño, were charged before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, know that they only need a car to be able to easily perpetrate their
Branch 64, in Criminal Case 95-936 with violation of Section 4, Article malicious designs. The facts adduced do not constitute a ground for a
II of Republic Act 6425, as amended. Escaño and Usana were also violation of the constitutional rights of the accused against illegal
charged in Criminal Cases 95-937 and 95-938 with illegal possession of search and seizure. PO3 Suba admitted that they were merely stopping
firearms and ammunition in violation of Presidential Decree 1866. The cars they deemed suspicious, such as those whose windows are heavily
cases were consolidated and jointly tried. In its Decision of 30 May tinted just to see if the passengers thereof were carrying guns. At best
1997, which was promulgated on 17 June 1997, the trial court they would merely direct their flashlights inside the cars they would
convicted Escaño, Lopez and Usana in Criminal Case 95-936, Escaño in stop, without opening the car's doors or subjecting its passengers to a
Criminal Case 95-937, and Usana in Criminal Case 95-938. Escaño filed body search. There is nothing discriminatory in this as this is what the
on 19 June 1997 a Notice of Appeal, but on 16 July 1997, he filed a situation demands. Despite the validity of the search, the Court cannot
Manifestation and Withdrawal of Appeal, which was granted by the trial affirm the conviction of Usana and Lopez for violation of RA 6425, as
court in its Order of 17 July 1997. Usana and Lopez filed a Notice of amended. The following facts militate against a finding of conviction:
Appeal on 30 June 1997, manifesting therein that they were appealing (1) the car belonged to Escaño; (2) the trunk of the car was not
to the Supreme Court and to the Court of Appeals. Considering the opened soon after it was stopped and after the accused were searched
penalties imposed, the decision in Criminal Case 95-936 was appealed for firearms; (3) the car was driven by a policeman from the place
to the Supreme Court, while the Court of Appeals took cognizance of where it was stopped until the police station; (4) the car's trunk was
the appeal from Criminal Case 95-938. In its Order of 30 June 1997, opened, with the permission of Escaño, without the presence of Usana
the trial court gave due course to the appeal and ordered the and Lopez; and (5) after arrival at the police station and until the
transmittal of the record in Criminal Case 95-936 to the Supreme opening of the car's trunk, the car was in the possession and control of
Court and the record of Criminal Case 95-938 to the Court of Appeals. the police authorities. No fact was adduced to link Usana and Lopez to
Accordingly, it is only the appeal from the judgment in Criminal Case the hashish found in the trunk of the car. Their having been with
95-936 that is before the Supreme Court. Escaño in the latter's car before the "finding" of the hashish sometime
after the lapse of an appreciable time and without their presence left
Issue: much to be desired to implicate them to the offense of selling,
Whether the search conducted on Escano’s car is illegal, and whether distributing, or transporting the prohibited drug. In fact, there was no
the evidence acquired therein would be sufficient to convict Lopez and showing that Usana and Lopez knew of the presence of hashish in the
Usana for possession of illegal drugs. trunk of the car or that they saw the same before it was seized.
 unconsented warrantless search of private property is "unreasonable."
Camara vs. Municipal Court of the City and Country of San Francisco Administrative searches of the kind at issue here are significant
[387 US 523, 5 June 1967] intrusions upon the interests protected by the Fourth Amendment,
Facts: that such searches when authorized and conducted without a warrant
On 6 November 1963, an inspector of the Division of Housing procedure lack the traditional safeguards which the Fourth Amendment
Inspection of the San Francisco Department of Public Health entered an guarantees to the individual, and that the reasons put forth in Frank v.
apartment building to make a routine annual inspection for possible Maryland and in other cases for upholding these warrantless searches
violations of the city's Housing Code. The building's manager informed are insufficient to justify so substantial a weakening of the Fourth
the inspector that Camara, lessee of the ground floor, was using the Amendment's protections. Contrary to the assumption of Frank v.
rear of his leasehold as a personal residence. Claiming that the Maryland, Fourth Amendment interests are not merely "peripheral"
building's occupancy permit did not allow residential use of the ground where municipal fire, health, and housing inspection programs are
floor, the inspector confronted Camara and demanded that he permit involved whose purpose is to determine the existence of physical
an inspection of the premises. Camara refused to allow the inspection conditions not complying with local ordinances. Those programs,
because the inspector lacked a search warrant. The inspector returned moreover, are enforceable by criminal process, as is refusal to allow an
on November 8, again without a warrant, and Camara again refused to inspection. Warrantless administrative searches cannot be justified on
allow an inspection. A citation was then mailed ordering Camara to the grounds that they make minimal demands on occupants; that
appear at the district attorney's office. When Camara failed to appear, warrants in such cases are unfeasible; or that area inspection programs
two inspectors returned to his apartment on November 22. They could not function under reasonable search-warrant requirements.
informed Camara that he was required by law to permit an inspection Probable cause upon the basis of which warrants are to be issued for
under 503 of the Housing Code. Camara nevertheless refused the area code- enforcement inspections is not dependent on the
inspectors access to his apartment without a search warrant. inspector's belief that a particular dwelling violates the code but on the
Thereafter, a complaint was filed charging him with refusing to permit a reasonableness of the enforcement agency's appraisal of conditions in
lawful inspection in violation of 507 of the Code. Camara was arrested the area as a whole. The standards to guide the magistrate in the
on December 2nd released on bail. When his demurrer to the criminal issuance of such search warrants will necessarily vary with the
complaint was denied, Camara filed the petition for a writ of prohibition municipal program being enforced. Nothing here is intended to
in a California Superior Court alleging that he was awaiting trial on a foreclose prompt inspections, even without a warrant, that the law has
criminal charge of violating the San Francisco Housing Code by refusing traditionally upheld in emergency situations. On the other hand, in the
to permit a warrantless inspection of his residence, and that a writ of case of most routine area inspections, there is no compelling urgency
prohibition should issue to the criminal court because the ordinance to inspect at a particular time or on a particular day. Moreover, most
authorizing such inspections is unconstitutional on its face. The citizens allow inspections of their property without a warrant. Thus, as
Superior Court denied the writ, the District Court of Appeal affirmed, a practical matter and in light of the Fourth Amendment's requirement
and the Supreme Court of California denied a petition for hearing. that a warrant specify the property to be searched, it seems likely that
warrants should normally be sought only after entry is refused unless
Issue: there has been a citizen complaint or there is other satisfactory reason
Whether Camara can validly refuse the inspection of his dwelling by the for securing immediate entry. Similarly, the requirement of a warrant
Division of Housing Inspection. procedure does not suggest any change in what seems to be the
prevailing local policy, in most situations, of authorizing entry, but not
Held: entry by force, to inspect. Herein, Camara has been charged with a
The Fourth Amendment bars prosecution of a person who has refused crime for his refusal to permit housing inspectors to enter his leasehold
to permit a warrantless code-enforcement inspection of his personal without a warrant. There was no emergency demanding immediate
residence. The basic purpose of the Fourth Amendment, which is access; in fact, the inspectors made three trips to the building in an
enforceable against the States through the Fourteenth, through its attempt to obtain Camara's consent to search. Yet no warrant was
prohibition of "unreasonable" searches and seizures is to safeguard the obtained and thus appellant was unable to verify either the need for or
privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by the appropriate limits of the inspection. No doubt, the inspectors
governmental officials. With certain carefully defined exceptions, an entered the public portion of the building with the consent of the
landlord, through the building's manager, but the City/County does not Ramon Montano, and Brig. Gen. Alexander Aguirre filed a Return of the
contend that such consent was sufficient to authorize inspection of Writ on 12 February 1988. Thereafter, the parties were heard on 15
Camara's premises. Assuming the facts to be as the parties have February 1988. On 26 February 1988, however, Umil and Villanueva
alleged, camara had a constitutional right to insist that the inspectors posted bail before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City where charges
obtain a warrant to search and that appellant may not constitutionally for violation of the Anti-Subversion Act had been filed against them,
be convicted for refusing to consent to the inspection. It appears from and they were accordingly released.
the opinion of the District Court of Appeal that under these
circumstances a writ of prohibition will issue to the criminal court under Issue:
California law. Whether Dural can be validly arrested without any warrant of arrest for
the crime of rebellion.
In RE: Umil, Umil vs. Ramos [GR 81567, 9 July 1990]
Roque vs. de Villa [GR 84581-82] Held:
In RE: Anonuevo. Anonuevo vs. Ramos [GR 84583-84] Dural, it clearly appears that he was not arrested while in the act of
In RE: Ocaya. Ocaya vs. Aguirre [GR83162] shooting the 2 CAPCOM soldiers nor was he arrested just after the
In RE: Espiritu. Espiritu vs. Lim [GR 85727] commission of the said offense for his arrest came a day after the said
In RE: Nazareno. Nazareno vs. Station Commander of Muntinlupa Police shooting incident. Seemingly, his arrest without warrant is unjustified.
Station [GR 86332] However, Dural was arrested for being a member of the New Peoples
Facts: Army (NPA), an outlawed subversive organization. Subversion being a
[GR 81567] On 1 February 1988, the Regional Intelligence Operations continuing offense, the arrest of Rolando Dural without warrant is
Unit of the Capital Command (RIOU-CAPCOM) received confidential justified as it can be said that he was committing an offense when
information about a member of the NPA Sparrow Unit (liquidation arrested. The crimes of rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to
squad) being treated for a gunshot wound at the St. Agnes Hospital in commit such crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance
Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City. Upon verification, it was found that thereof or in connection therewith constitute direct assaults against
the wounded person, who was listed in the hospital records as Ronnie the State and are in the nature of continuing crimes. The arrest of
Javelon, is actually Rolando Dural, a member of the NPA liquidation persons involved in the rebellion whether as its fighting armed
squad, responsible for the killing of 2 CAPCOM soldiers the day before, elements, or for committing non-violent acts but in furtherance of the
or on 31 January 1988, in Macanining Street, Bagong Barrio, Caloocan rebellion, is more an act of capturing them in the course of an armed
City. In view of this verification, Dural was transferred to the Regional conflict, to quell the rebellion, than for the purpose of immediately
Medical Services of the CAPCOM, for security reasons. While confined prosecuting them in court for a statutory offense. The arrest,
thereat, or on 4 February 1988, Dural was positively identified by therefore, need not follow the usual procedure in the prosecution of
eyewitnesses as the gunman who went on top of the hood of the offenses which requires the determination by a judge of the existence
CAPCOM mobile patrol car, and fired at the 2 CAPCOM soldiers seated of probable cause before the issuance of a judicial warrant of arrest
inside the car identified as T/Sgt. Carlos Pabon and CIC Renato and the granting of bail if the offense is bailable. Obviously, the
Manligot. As a consequence of this positive identification, Dural was absence of a judicial warrant is no legal impediment to arresting or
referred to the Caloocan City Fiscal who conducted an inquest and capturing persons committing overt acts of violence against
thereafter filed with the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City an government forces, or any other milder acts but equally in pursuance
information charging Rolando Dural alias Ronnie Javelon with the crime of the rebellious movement. The arrest or capture is thus impelled by
of "Double Murder with Assault Upon Agents of Persons in Authority." the exigencies of the situation that involves the very survival of
(Criminal Case C-30112; no bail recommended). On 15 February 1988, society and its government and duly constituted authorities.
the information was amended to include, as defendant, Bernardo Itucal,
Jr. who, at the filing of the original information, was still unidentified.
Meanwhile, on 6 February 1988, a petition for habeas corpus was filed
with the Supreme Court on behalf of Roberto Umil, Rolando Dural, and
Renato Villanueva. The Court issued the writ of habeas corpus on 9
February 1988 and Fidel V. Ramos, Maj. Gen. Renato de Villa, Brig. Gen.
People vs. Sucro [GR 93239, 18 March 1991]
Facts: Held:
On 21 March 1989, Pat. Roy Fulgencio, a member of the INP, Kalibo, Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides for the
Aklan, was instructed by P/Lt. Vicente Seraspi, Jr. (Station Commander instances where arrest without warrant is considered lawful. The rule
of the INP Kalibo, Aklan) to monitor the activities of Edison Sucro, states that "A peace officer or private person may, without warrant,
because of information gathered by Seraspi that Sucro was selling arrest a person: (a) When in his presence, the person to be arrested
marijuana. As planned, at about 5:00 P.M. on said date, Pat. Fulgencio has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
positioned himself under the house of a certain Arlie Regalado at C. offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he
Quimpo Street. Adjacent to the house of Regalado, about 2 meters has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
away, was a chapel. Thereafter, Pat. Fulgencio saw Sucro enter the arrested has committed it;" An offense is committed in the presence
chapel, taking something which turned out later to be marijuana from or within the view of an officer, within the meaning of the rule
the compartment of a cart found inside the chapel, and then return to authorizing an arrest without a warrant, when the officer sees the
the street where he handed the same to a buyer, Aldie Borromeo. offense, although at a distance, or hears the disturbances created
After a while Sucro went back to the chapel and again came out with thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereof. The failure of the
marijuana which he gave to a group of persons. It was at this instance police officers to secure a warrant stems from the fact that their
that Pat. Fulgencio radioed P/Lt. Seraspi and reported the activity knowledge acquired from the surveillance was insufficient to fulfill the
going on P/Lt. Seraspi instructed Pat. Fulgencio to continue monitoring requirements for the issuance of a search warrant. What is paramount
developments. At about 6:30 P.M., Pat. Fulgencio again called up is that probable cause existed. Still, that searches and seizures must
Seraspi to report that a third buyer later identified as Ronnie be supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute rule. Among the
Macabante, was transacting with Sucro. At that point, the team of P/Lt exceptions granted by law is a search incidental to a lawful arrest under
Seraspi proceeded to the area and while the police officers were at the Sec. 12, Rule 126 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, which provides
Youth Hostel at Maagma St., Pat. Fulgencio told P/Lt. Seraspi to that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous
intercept Macabante and Sucro. P/ Lt. Seraspi and his team caught up weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of
with Macabante at the crossing of Mabini and Maagma Sts. in front of an offense, without a search warrant. Herein, police officers have
the Aklan Medical Center. Upon seeing the police, Macabante threw personal knowledge of the actual commission of the crime when it had
something to the ground which turned out to be a tea bag of earlier conducted surveillance activities of the accused. Under the
marijuana. When confronted, Macabante readily admitted that he circumstances (monitoring of transactions) there existed probable
bought the same from Sucro in front of the chapel. The police team cause for the arresting officers, to arrest Sucro who was in fact selling
was able to overtake and arrest Sucro at the corner of C. Quimpo and marijuana and to seize the contraband. Thus, as there is nothing
Veterans Sts. The police recovered 19 sticks and 4 teabags of unlawful about the arrest considering its compliance with the
marijuana from the cart inside the chapel and another teabag from requirements of a warrantless arrest; ergo, the fruits obtained from
Macabante. The teabags of marijuana were sent to the PC-INP Crime such lawful arrest are admissible in evidence.
Laboratory Service, at Camp Delgado, Iloilo City for analysis. The
specimens were all found positive of marijuana. Sucro was charged with People vs. Go [GR 116001, 14 March 2001]
violation of Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Upon Facts:
arraignment, Sucro, assisted by counsel, entered a plea of "not guilty" On 22 October 1992, at around 10:00 p.m., SPO1 Mauro Piamonte and
to the offense charged. Trial ensued and a judgment of conviction was SPO3 Candido Liquido, members of the Intelligence and Follow-up Unit
rendered, finding Sucro guilty of the sale of prohibited drug and of the Calamba Police, went to the police outpost at Crossing,
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, and pay a Calamba, Laguna, to follow up an intelligence report that
fine of P20,000, and costs. Sucro appealed. methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, a regulated drug, was being
supplied there. Police civilian agent Ronnie Panuringan arrived and
Issue: reported to them that he saw Luisito Go, also known as "King Louie",
Whether the arrest without warrant of the accused is lawful and enter the Flamingo Disco House with two women. Panuringan said that
consequently, whether the evidence resulting from such arrest is he spotted a gun tucked in Go's waist. Together, the three policemen
admissible. proceeded to the Flamingo, which was located about a hundred meters
away from the outpost. When they arrived at the Flamingo, the police suffer an imprisonment of reclusion perpetua. Go appealed his
officers informed the owner that they were conducting an "Operation conviction in Criminal Case 3309-92- C directly to the Supreme Court
Bakal," whereby they search for illegally possessed firearms. The owner (GR 116001). On the other hand, Go brought his appeal of the
allowed them in and told a waiter to accompany them. They went up to judgment in Criminal Case 3308-92-C before the Court of Appeals. In
the second floor of the disco. The waiter turned on the lights, and the an Amended Decision dated 21 February 1996, the Court of Appeals
police officers saw Go and his lady companions seated at a table. They affirmed Go's conviction but modified the penalty imposed by the trial
identified themselves and asked Go to stand up. When the later did so, court by sentencing him, in addition to imprisonment of 6 years and 1
the policemen saw the gun tucked in his waist. SPO1 Piamonte asked day to 12 years, to pay a fine of P6,000.00, citing Section 8 of RA
for the license of the gun, but Go was unable to produce any. Instead, 6425, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Go filed the
Go brought out the driver's license of a certain Tan Antonio Lerios. petition for review (GR 123943). The two cases were subsequently
SPO1 Piamonte confiscated the gun, which was later identified as a consolidated.
9mm Walther P88, Serial Number 006784, with a magazine containing
10 rounds of live ammunition. Go was invited to the police precinct for Issue:
questioning. On the way out of the disco, Go asked permission to bring Whether Go was legally arrested without warrant for illegal possession
his car, which was parked outside. The police officers accompanied Go of firearms and illegal drugs.
to his car, a Honda Civic with license plate number TCM-789. Through
the windshield, SPO3 Liquido noticed a Philippine National Police Held:
identification card hanging from the rearview mirror. He asked Go if he The constitutional proscription, that no person shall be arrested
was a member of the PNP, and he said no. The police officers asked Go without any warrant of arrest having been issued prior thereto, is not a
for his driver's license and the registration papers of the vehicle, but he hard-and-fast rule. The Rules of Court and jurisprudence recognize
was unable to produce them. When Go opened the door, SPO3 Liquido exceptional cases where an arrest may be effected without a warrant.
took the ID card and found that the same belonged to SPO4 Zenaida Among these are when, in the presence of a peace officer, the person
Bagadiong. The police officers saw pieces of glass tooters and tin foils to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting
on the backseat and floor of the car. They asked Go why he had these to commit an offense; or when an offense has in fact just been
items, but he did not say anything. Instead, Go suggested that they committed, and the arresting officer has personal knowledge of facts
talk the matter over, and intimated that he had money. SPO3 Liquido indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. Herein, the
replied that they should talk at the police headquarters. Go took out an police saw the gun tucked in Go's waist when he stood up. The gun
attaché case from the car and opened it. There were two black clutch was plainly visible. No search was conducted as none was necessary.
bags inside. Go opened the first bag, which contained shiny white Go could not show any license for the firearm, whether at the time of
substance wrapped in cellophane. The second bag contained his arrest or thereafter. Thus, he was in effect committing a crime in
P120,000.00 in cash. The police officers brought Go to the police the presence of the police officers. No warrant of arrest was necessary
station. When they arrived at the precinct, they turned over the in such a situation, it being one of the recognized exceptions under the
attaché case together with the two black clutch bags to the Rules. As a consequence of Go's valid warrantless arrest, he may be
investigator. The investigator found eight cellophane bags containing lawfully searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be
granules suspected to be shabu in one of the clutch bags. When the used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search
attaché case was opened, the police officers found that it also warrant, as provided in Rule 126, Section 12. This is a valid search
contained three glass tooters, tin foils, an improvised burner, incidental to the lawful arrest. The subsequent discovery in his car of
magazines and newspapers. Consequently, two Informations were filed drug paraphernalia and the crystalline substance, which was later
against Go before the Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna, Branch identified as shabu, though in a distant place from where the illegal
34 (Criminal Case 3308-92-C, for violation of Article III of RA 6452 or possession of firearm was committed, cannot be said to have been
the Dangerous Drugs Act; and Criminal Case 3309-92-C, for violation made during an illegal search. As such, the seized items do not fall
of PD 1866) After a joint trial, the lower court rendered judgment within the exclusionary clause, which states that any evidence obtained
convicting Go in the two criminal cases, and sentencing him in Criminal in violation of the right against warrantless arrest cannot be used for
Case 3308-92-C to a penalty of imprisonment of 6 years and 1 day to any purposes in any proceeding. Hence, not being fruits of the
12 years and a fine of P12,000.00; and in Criminal Case 3309-92-C to poisonous tree, so to speak, the objects found at the scene of the
crime, such as the firearm, the shabu and the drug paraphernalia, can paper, a black clutch bag containing a disposable lighter, 2 forceps, a
be used as evidence against appellant. Besides, it has been held that pair of scissors, a knife and a key holder with a knife, filter, sandpaper,
drugs discovered as a result of a consented search is admissible in electric plug, pocket electronic weighing scale. De Guzman was brought
evidence. to the police station for questioning and detention. The police officers
were without warrants of arrest or search warrants at the time of the
People vs. de Guzman [GR 117952-53, 14 February 2001] arrests and seizure of evidence. As the operation was conducted
Facts: largely during nighttime, the police officers were unable to secure the
Prior to the arrest of Danilo de Guzman, the Police Chief Inspector of necessary warrants for fear of leaving the place of surveillance.
the Cavite Philippine National Police Command issued an Order of Battle Subsequent forensic examination by Felicisima Francisco of the
listing the names of the suspected drug pushers in Cavite City. Included National Bureau of Investigation showed that the substance seized was
therein was the name of de Guzman. In response to the said directive, indeed methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu weighing 299.5
the Noveleta Police Station assigned SPO1 Arnel Cuevas to conduct grams. In Criminal Case 39-94, De Guzman and Martin, the latter is still
surveillance at the Villamar Beach Resort. On 18 October 1992, SPO1 at large, were charged with violation of Section 16, Article III of
Arnel Cuevas spotted Danilo de Guzman at the Villamar Beach Resort, Republic Act 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972). In Criminal Case
but the latter stayed for only 30 minutes. Subsequently, he learned 40-94, de Guzman was charged with violation of Section 1, PD 1866
that De Guzman was engaged in a drug sale that day and reported the (Unlawful Possession of Firearms and Ammunition). De Guzman was
same to headquarters. Pursuant to his report, the Chief of Intelligence arraigned on 22 February 1993 with the assistance of his counsel de
of their station, SPO2 Rowell Tendero, instructed him to continue his officio. He pleaded "not guilty" to both charges. On 22 August 1994,
surveillance of said beach resort with the hope of catching de Guzman. the Regional Trial Court of Cavite City, Branch 17, found de Guzman
On 26 October 1992, at around 9:00 p.m., de Guzman returned to guilty of violation of Section 16, Article III, Republic Act 6425 and
Villamar Beach Resort with companion Edsel Martin. They rented one of sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a
the resort cottages. 15 minutes later, SPO1 Cuevas climbed the ladder fine of P50,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
which he perched on the concrete wall of the cottage. He, then, insolvency. Furthermore, the trial court found him guilty of violation of
peeped through the window of the cottage and saw Danilo and Edsel Section 1, Presidential Decree 1866 and sentenced him to suffer
seated face to face while using shabu. He also saw on top of the table imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as
3 plastic bags of shabu, a weighing scale and other drug related minimum, to 20 years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to pay
paraphernalia. SPO1 Cuevas hurriedly descended the ladder and hailed a the costs in both instances. De Guzman appealed.
tricycle and instructed the driver to inform SPO2 Tendero to proceed
to Villamar Beach Resort immediately. Shortly, SPO2 Tendero, along Issue:
with other police officers, arrived at the beach resort. However, instead Whether de Guzman’s arrest and the subsequent seizure of drug
of rushing to the cottage of De Guzman and Martin, the police officers paraphernalia inside de Guzman’s cottage were legal even without
decided to wait for them to come out of the cottage. SPO1 Cuevas issued warrants for those purposes.
explained that they did this so as not to forewarn the two of their
presence. Otherwise, the two might simply flush the shabu down the Held:
toilet bowl and destroy the evidence. The police officers waited the The police officers' manner of conducting de Guzman's arrest was not
whole night for De Guzman and Martin to come out of the cottage. tainted with any constitutional infirmity. Despite word from their fellow
Finally, De Guzman came out at around 7:40 a.m. the next day. SPO2 officer, SPO1 Cuevas, that he saw De Guzman sniff "shabu", they
Tendero nabbed him upon seeing that his waist was bulging with a gun. resisted the first impulse to storm the rented cottage which could have
While Police Officer Vedar held De Guzman, SPO2 Tendero went up the caused them to seriously disregard constitutional safeguards. Instead,
cottage to check on Martin. SPO2 Alfaro and SPO3 Benavise, the police officers waited for the needed opening to validly arrest de
accompanied by a chambermaid and a boy from the resort, also went Guzman. To their minds, it would be the arrival of drug buyers. As the
up with him. Inside the cottage, the same paraphernalia which the situation would have it, the arrest was necessitated by the presence of
witness saw the night before were found, namely, 3 plastic bags of de Guzman with a gun obviously tucked in his pants. Rule 113, Section
shabu, a plastic scoop, a burner, a lighter, several empty rolled 5 (a) of the Rules of Court provides that "A peace officer or a private
aluminum foils, 3 pieces of tooter, rubber band, several pieces of person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his
presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually p.m. of the same day. Reyes allegedly witnessed the killing. Fredo
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense." In this jurisdiction, Echigoren struck the first blow against Clarito Blace, followed by Totoy
the mere possession of a firearm, ammunition or machinery, tool or Echigoren and Gabriel Gerente who hit him twice with a piece of wood
instrument used or intended to be used in the manufacture of any in the head and when he fell, Totoy Echigoren dropped a hollow block
firearm or ammunition is a criminal offense under PD 1866. De Guzman on the victim's head. Thereafter, the three men dragged Blace to a
was caught by the police officers in flagrante delicto while carrying a place behind the house of Gerente. At about 4:00 p.m. of the same
firearm without the necessary permit or license. Clearly, it was in day, Patrolman Jaime Urrutia of the Valenzuela Police Station received
violation of PD 1866, Section 1, at the time of the arrest. Necessarily, a report from the Palo Police Detachment about a mauling incident. He
the search conducted immediately after De Guzman's arrest was valid. went to the Valenzuela District Hospital where the victim was brought.
Rule 126, Section 12 of the Rules of Court provides that "a person He was informed by the hospital officials that the victim died on arrival.
lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything The cause of death was massive fracture of the skull caused by a hard
which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a and heavy object. Right away, Patrolman Urrutia, together with Police
search warrant. The legal parameters of this rule limit its application to Corporal Romeo Lima and Patrolman Alex Umali, proceeded to Paseo de
instances when the search is made contemporaneous to the arrest and Blas where the mauling incident took place. There they found a piece of
within a permissible area of search." In this case, it was impossible for wood with blood stains, a hollow block and two roaches of marijuana.
the police officers to obtain a search warrant as they were merely on They were informed by Reyes that she saw the killing and she pointed
surveillance, and to do so might abort any possible illegal activity that to Gabriel Gerente as one of the three men who killed Clarito. The
was taking place. Any attempt at leaving the place may cause them to policemen proceeded to the house of Gerente, who was then sleeping.
lose sight of the accused-appellant altogether. Second, their presence They told him to come out of the house and they introduced
in the area was not planned as they acted purely on a tip given by a themselves as policemen. Patrolman Urrutia frisked Gerente and found
fellow officer. Further, there was not enough opportunity to obtain a a coin purse in his pocket which contained dried leaves wrapped in
warrant of arrest or a search warrant as the surveillance was cigarette foil. The dried leaves were sent to the National Bureau of
conducted from 10:00 p.m. up to 7:00 a.m. The search conducted Investigation for examination. The Forensic Chemist found them to be
immediately after de Guzman was apprehended was made more marijuana. Only Gerente was apprehended by the police. The other
necessary by the presence of his companion inside the cottage which suspects, Fredo and Totoy Echigoren, are still at large. On 2 May 1990,
was just a few steps away from where he stood. The presence of de two separate informations were filed by Assistant Provincial Prosecutor
Guzman's companion posed a danger to the police officers' life and Benjamin Caraig against him for Violation of Section 8, Art. II, of RA
limb, hence, it became necessary for them to locate him. Upon entry at 6425, and for Murder. When arraigned on 16 May 1990, Gerente
the rented cottage, the police officers saw the shabu and drug- related pleaded not guilty to both charges. A joint trial of the two cases was
paraphernalia scattered on top of the table. Jurisprudence allows the held. On 24 September 1990, the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela,
seizure of personality despite absence of warrant under the "plain view Metro Manila, Branch 172, found Gerente guilty of Violation of Section
doctrine," so long as the area of search is within the immediate control 8 of Republic Act 6425 and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of
of the arrested person and that the object of the search was open to imprisonment for a term of 12 years and 1 day, as minimum, to 20
the eye, as in the present case. years, as maximum; and also found him guilty of Murder for which crime
he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. . Gerente
People vs. Gerente [GR 95847-48, 10 March 1993] appealed.
Facts:
At about 7:00 a.m. of 30 April 1990, Gabriel Gerente, together with Issue:
Fredo Echigoren and Totoy Echigoren, allegedly started drinking liquor Whether the police officers have the personal knowledge of the killing
and smoking marijuana in Gerente's house which is about 6 meters of Blace to allow them to arrest, and the subsequent searchly
away from the house of Edna Edwina Reyes who was in her house on Gerente’s person, without the necessary warrant.
that day. She overheard the three men talking about their intention to
kill Clarito Blace. She testified that she heard Fredo Echigoren saying, Held:
"Gabriel, papatayin natin si Clarito Blace." Fredo and Totoy Echigoren The search of Gerente's person and the seizure of the marijuana leaves
and Gerente carried out their plan to kill Clarito Blace at about 2:00 in his possession were valid because they were incident to a lawful
warrantless arrest. Paragraphs (a) and (b), Section 5, Rule 113 of the he died on the spot. At about 7 a.m. the following day, a secret
Revised Rules of Court provide that "A peace officer or a private informant (known as a "civilian asset") named Boyet reported to the
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his police Station at Monkayo, Davao del Norte that the stolen
presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually ("carnapped") "Pajero" was parked behind the apartment of a certain
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an Paulino Overa at the Bliss Housing Project at Poblacion, Monkayo. On
offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal instructions of the Station Commander, a police team went to the
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has place. They saw the "Pajero" and, their initial inquiries having yielded
committed it;" The policemen arrested Gerente only some 3 hours the information that the man who had brought it there would return
after Gerente and his companions had killed Blace. They saw Blace dead that morning, posted themselves in such a manner as to keep it in
in the hospital and when they inspected the scene of the crime, they view. Some 3 hours later, at about 10:30 a.m., they saw a man
found the instruments of death: a piece of wood and a concrete hollow approach the "Pajero" who, on seeing them, tried to run away. They
block which the killers had used to bludgeon him to death. The eye- stopped him. They found out that the man, identified as Danilo Sinoc of
witness, Edna Edwina Reyes, reported the happening to the policemen Surigao del Norte, had the key of the "Pajero," and was acting under
and pinpointed her neighbor, Gerente, as one of the killers. Under those instructions of certain companions who were waiting for him at the
circumstances, since the policemen had personal knowledge of the Star Lodge at Tagum, Davao del Norte. Riding on the recovered
violent death of Blace and of facts indicating that Gerente and two "Pajero," the police officers brought Sinoc to the Star Lodge only to
others had killed him, they could lawfully arrest Gerente without a discover that his companions were no longer there. They later turned
warrant. If they had postponed his arrest until they could obtain a over Sinoc to the 459th Mobile Force, together with the "Pajero."
warrant, he would have fled the law as his two companions did. The Sinoc, Vicente Salon @ "Dodong," Benjamin Espinosa @ "Benji," Jaime
search conducted on Gerente's person was likewise lawful because it Jornales @ "James," Victorino Delegencia @ Jun-Gren," and one Roger
was made as an incident to a valid arrest. This is in accordance with Doe @ "Ram" (at large) were charged on 23 January 1992. Only Sinoc
Section 12, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides that and Vicente Salon were arraigned, on 14 July 1992, the other accused
"A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or being then at large. Assisted by their respective counsel, both Sinoc
anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, and Salon entered pleas of not guilty and were thereafter jointly tried.
without a search warrant." The frisk and search of Gerente's person On 7 October 1993, the Regional Trial Court of Surigao City, Branch
upon his arrest was a permissible precautionary measure of arresting 30, found Sinoc guilty beyond reasonable doubt in two cases jointly
officers to protect themselves, for the person who is about to be tried: one, of the special complex crime of kidnapping with murder
arrested may be armed and might attack them unless he is first (under Article 267 in relation to Articles 248 2 and 48 3 of the
disarmed. Revised Penal Code) — in Criminal Case 3564; and the other, of the
complex crime of kidnapping with frustrated murder (under Articles
People vs. Sinoc [GR 113511-12, 1 July 1997] 267, 248, 6 4 and 48 of the same Code) — in Criminal Case 3565. In
Facts: each case, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed on him.
On 20 September 1991, at about 6:00 a.m., Isidoro Viacrusis, manager Salon, on the other hand was acquitted inasmuch as conspiracy was
of Taganito Mining Corporation, was motoring from the company not proven. Sinoc appealed.
compound (at Taganito, Claver, Surigao del Norte) to Surigao City. He
was riding on a company vehicle, a Mitsubishi Pajero (DFX-397), driven Issue:
by Tarcisio Guijapon. As Viacrusis and Guijapon were approaching the Whether the police officer had personal knowledge of the crime Sinoc
public cemetery of Claver, they were stopped by several armed men. committed to allow them to arrest the latter without a warrant of
The latter, identifying themselves as members of the New People's arrest.
Army (NPA), boarded the Pajero and ordered Guijapon to proceed.
When they reached Barobo, Surigao del Norte, the armed men ordered Held:
Viacrusis and Guijapon to alight, led them, their hands bound behind The law provides that an arrest without warrant may be licitly effected
their back to a coconut grove some 6 meters from the road, and after by a peace officer, inter alia. "When an offense has in fact just been
making them lie face down on the ground, shot them several times. committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
Viacrusis miraculously survived. The driver, Guijapon, was not as lucky; person to be arrested has committed it." There is no question that the
police officers in this case were aware that an offense had just been mother. Her head and face sustained four hacking wounds, two of
committed; i.e., that some 12 hours earlier, a "Pajero" belonging to a which damaged her brain tissues. Jupiter rushed home and brought his
private company had been stolen ("carnapped") and its driver and niece and nephew to the house of a neighbor for their safety. For fear
passenger shot, the former having died and the latter being on the of reprisal from the Baulas, et. al. and believing that the police would
verge of death. Nor is there any doubt that an informer ("asset") had be able to solve the gory killing on their own, Jupiter did not reveal the
reported that the stolen "Pajero" was at the Bliss Housing Project at damage to either his relatives or the police. About 2:00 a.m. of 14
Monkayo. It was precisely to recover the "Pajero" that a team December 1995, the police authorities, led by SPO4 Fermin Mirande,
composed of SPO1 Michael Aringo and "joint elements of 459 PNP MFC went to the locus criminis, and took pictures of the body of the victim.
and Moncayo Police Station led by Insptr Eden T. Ugale," went to that The investigation revealed that before the victim was killed, she had
place and, on taking custody of the "Pajero," forthwith dispatched a been to Brigida Tumamang's store; that the Baulas, et. al. were also at
radio message to "Higher Headquarters" advising of that fact. There is the store having a drinking spree; that the victim left the store
no question either that when SPO1 Aringo and his companions reached between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., and that, 15 minutes later, the
the place where the "Pajero" was parked, they were told by Paulino Baulas, et. al. also left. SPO4 Mirande, with several policemen, repaired
Overa, owner of the apartment behind which the vehicle was parked, to the respective houses of accused-appellants. The policemen asked
that the man who had brought the "Pajero" would be back by 12:00 Ruben Baula and Crisanto Baula for the clothing they wore on the night
noon; that the person thus described did in fact show up at about of the murder. Ruben Baula gave his bloodstained pair of short pants,
10:00 A.M., and was immediately identified by Overa as "the one who and Crisanto Baula turned over his bloodstained polo shirt. The
rode on that car 'Pajero;'" just as there is no question that when the policemen next went to the hut of Danilo Dacucos. Inside the hut, the
police officers accosted him, Sinoc had the key to the stolen "Pajero" group found hanging on the wall a bloodstained bolo. The bloodstained
and was in the act of moving toward it admittedly to take possession pair of short pants, polo shirt and bolo, together with the victim's dried
of it (after having arrived by bus from Tagum together with another blood samples, were sent on the same day to the National Bureau of
suspect, "Ram"). Sinoc's link to the stolen vehicle (and hence to the Investigation, Dagupan City Branch Office, for forensic examination.
kidnapping and killing accompanying its asportation) was thus palpable. The results of the examination disclosed that the bloodstains found in
The foregoing circumstances left the police officers no alternative save the bolo, the bloodstains on the polo shirt and the bloodstains on the
to arrest Sinoc and take possession of the "Pajero." His arrest without pair of short pants had the same type "O" blood as that of the victim.
warrant was justified; indeed, it was in the premises the officers' clear On 7 August 1996, Crisanto Baula, Ruben Baula, Robert Baula and
duty to apprehend him; their omission to do so would have been Danilo Dacucos were charged with murder before the Regional Trial
inexcusable. Court, Branch 38, of Lingayen, Pangasinan. When arraigned, the
accused all entered a plea of not guilty to the offense charged. Trial
People vs. Baula [GR 132671, 15 November 2000] shortly thereafter ensued. The Baulas, et. al. denied their involvement
Facts: in Patrocinia’s killing. The trial court rendered its judgment on 17
On 13 December 1995, at around 8:00 p.m., Jupiter Caburao, allegedly November 1997, convicting Baula, et. al. of the crime charged, and
decided to follow his mother, Patrocinia Caburao, who had earlier left sentenced them to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to
their house at Barangay Siwasiw West, Sual, Pangasinan, to settle her pay, jointly and severally, the heirs of Patrocinia Caburao (a)
due obligations at a store, about 1 1/2 kilometers away, owned by a 50,000.00 for the death of Patrocinia Caburao; (b) P15,000.00 for
certain Brigida Tumamang. While traversing the road towards the store, funeral expenses; (c) moral damages of P75,000.00; and (d) to pay
Jupiter allegedly noticed a commotion near the creek about 10 meters proportionally the costs. Baula, et. al. appealed.
away from him. He allegedly focused his flashlight towards the
direction where he heard the commotion and Issue:
saw Crisanto Baula and Danilo Dacucos in the act of hacking a person Whether the Baulas can be arrested without warrant for the killing of
who was lying on the ground, while Robert Baula and Ruben Baula Petrocinia Caburao, and whether seizures can be effected pursuant to
stood as lookouts. The assault allegedly lasted for about 4minutes. The such arrests.
Baulas and Dacucos allegedly fled but not before they had threatened
Jupiter with death if he were to divulge the incident to anyone. Jupiter
went near the lifeless body of the victim who turned out to be his own
Held: Antonio, Cavite City. For this reason, a police team, composed of SPO1
The proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures is not Malinao, Jr., PO3 Rosal, PO3 Estoy, Jr., PO3 Manicio, and SPO3 Manalo,
absolute, and the Court has had occasions to rule that a warrantless responded to the call and found Henry P. Piamonte slumped dead on
search and seizure of property is valid under certain circumstances. his tricycle which was then parked on the road. Police photographer
There can, for instance, be a lawful warrantless search incidental to a Fred Agana took pictures of the crime scene showing the victim
lawful arrest recognized under Section 12, Rules 126 of the Rules of slumped on the handle of the tricycle. PO3 Rosal testified that a
Court and by prevailing jurisprudence; or seizure of evidence in "plain tricycle driver, who refused to divulge his name, told him that Fidel
view," its elements being extant; or search of a moving vehicle; or Abrenica Cubcubin Jr. and the victim were last seen together coming
consented search; or customs search. The situation here in question, out of the Sting Cafe, located in San Antonio near the gate of Sangley
however, can hardly come within the purview of any of the established Point, Cavite City, about a kilometer and a half away from the crime
exceptions. In a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest, the scene. Forthwith, PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr. went to the cafe and
arrest itself must have to be effected under the circumstances talked to Danet Garcellano, a food server/waitress in Sting Cafe.
enumerated by law. One such case is when an offense has in fact just Garcellano described Cubcubin as a lean, dark-complexioned, and
been committed, and the peace officer has personal knowledge of mustachioed man who had on a white t-shirt and brown short pants.
facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. Danilo Armando Plata, another tricycle driver, told PO3 Rosal and SPO1
Dacucos, Crisanto Baula and Ruben Baula were not being arrested at Malinao, Jr. that Garcellano's description fitted a person known as alias
the time that the bloodstained bolo, polo shirt and short pants were "Jun Dulce." Armando Plata, who knew where Cubcubin lived, led PO3
allegedly taken from them but were just being questioned by the police Rosal, SPO1 Malinao, Jr., and Prosecutor Lu to Cubucubin's house in
officers conducting the investigation about the death of Patrocinia Garcia Extension, Cavite City. The policemen knocked on the door for
Caburao. The investigating officers had no personal knowledge of facts about 3 minutes before it was opened by a man who answered the
indicating that the accused had committed the crime. Being in no description given by Danet Garcellano and who turned out to be
position to effect a warrantless arrest, the police officers were thus Cubcubin. The police operatives identified themselves and informed him
likewise barred from effecting a warrantless search and seizure. The that he was being sought in connection with the shooting near the
police officers acted on a mere suspicion that Baula, et. al. could be cemetery. Cubcubin denied involvement in the incident. PO3 Rosal and
responsible for the commission of the crime and only because of their SPO1 Malinao, Jr. then asked permission to enter and look around the
being at the store where the victim was last seen. Mere suspicion house. SPO1 Malinao, Jr. said that upon entering the house, he noticed
cannot satisfy the requirement of probable cause which signifies a a white t-shirt, bearing the brand name "Hanes" and the name
reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently "Dhenvher" written in the inner portion of the shirt's hemline, placed
strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the over a divider near the kitchen. Upon close examination, he said that he
person accused is guilty of the offense with which he can be charged. found it to be "bloodied." When he picked up the t-shirt, two spent .38
An illegal search cannot be undertaken and then an arrest effected on caliber shells fell from it. PO3 Rosal stayed with Cubcubin while he
the strength of the evidence yielded by that search. The Court finds it conducted a search. They then took the t-shirt and the two bullet
less than credible the stance of the prosecution that the polo shirt and shells. SPO1 Malinao, Jr. then asked Cubcubin to go with them to Sting
short pants have been voluntarily given. An alleged consent to a Cafe for purposes of identification. There, Cubcubin was positively
warrantless search and seizure cannot be based merely on the identified by Danet Garcellano as the victim's companion. The police
presumption of regularity in the performance of duty. This presumption investigators asked Cubcubin where the fatal gun was. SPO1 Malinao,
by itself, cannot prevail against the constitutionally protected rights of Jr. said Cubcubin refused to tell him where he hid the gun so he sought
an individual, and zeal in the pursuit of criminals cannot ennoble the the latter's permission to go back to his house to conduct a further
use of arbitrary methods that the Constitution itself abhors. search. Thereupon, SPO1 Malinao, Jr., accompanied by Prosecutor Lu,
PO3 Estoy, Jr., PO3 Manicio, SPO3 Manalo, and PO3 Rosal, proceeded
People vs. Cubcubin [GR 136267, 10 July 2001] thereto. Inside the house, they saw Cubcubin's 11- year old son
Facts: Jhumar. PO3 Estoy, Jr. found on top of a plastic water container
At about 3:30 a.m. of 26 August 1997, Sgt. Rogel, desk officer of the (drum) outside the bathroom a homemade Smith and Wesson caliber
Cavite City police station, received a telephone call that a person had .38 revolver (six shooter), without a serial number. He found the gun
been shot near the cemetery along Julian Felipe Boulevard in San loaded with five live bullets. PO3 Estoy, Jr. said that he inscribed his
initials "RDE" (for Raymundo D. Estoy) on the cylinder of the gun with the victim coming out of the Sting Cafe; by Danet Garcellano, waitress
the use of a sharp object. While PO3 Estoy, Jr. was conducting the at the Sting Cafe, who said that the man last seen with the victim was
search, SPO1 Malinao, Jr. and PO3 Rosal stayed with Cubcubin in the lean, mustachioed, dark-complexioned and was wearing a white t-shirt
sala. The .38 caliber gun, the white "Hanes" t-shirt, and the two spent and a pair of brown short pants; by a tricycle driver named Armando
.38 caliber shells were all photographed. Cubcubin was then taken to Plata who told them that the physical description given by Garcellano
the police station, where he was photographed along with the things fitted Cubcubin, alias "Jun Dulce" and who said he knew where
seized from him. Cubcubin was charged for the crime of murder. On 5 Cubcubin lived and accompanied them to Cubcubin's house. Thus, PO3
October 1998, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 88, Cavite City, found Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr. merely relied on information given to them
Cubcubin guilty of murder and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of by others. Be that as it may, Cubcubin cannot now question the
death. Hence, the automatic review. validity of his arrest without a warrant. The records show that he
pleaded not guilty to the charge when arraigned on 11 November
Issue: 1997. Cubcubin did not object to the arraignment, and thus has
Whether there was "probable cause" for PO3 Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, waived the right to object to the legality of his arrest. On the other
Jr., the arresting officers, to believe that Cubcubin committed the hand, the search of Cubcubin's house was illegal and, consequently, the
crime, to allow them to conduct the latter's warrantless arrest. things obtained as a result of the illegal search, i.e., the white "Hanes"
t-shirt, two spent shells, and the .38 caliber gun, are inadmissible in
Held: evidence against him. It cannot be said that the .38 caliber gun was
Rule 113, §5 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, discovered through inadvertence. After bringing Cubcubin to the Sting
provides that "A peace officer or a private person may, without a Cafe where he was positively identified by a waitress named Danet
warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be Garcellano as the victim's companion, the arresting officers allegedly
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to asked Cubcubin where he hid the gun used in killing the victim.
commit an offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just been According to SPO1 Malinao, Jr., when Cubcubin refused to answer, he
committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the sought Cubcubin's permission to go back to his house and there found
person to be arrested has committed it; (c) When the person to be the .38 caliber revolver on top of a plastic water container outside the
arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or bathroom. Thus, the gun was purposely sought by the police officers
place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while and they did not merely stumble upon it. Nor were the police officers
his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one justified in seizing the white "Hanes" t-shirt placed on top of the
confinement to another." Under §5(b), two conditions must concur for divider "in plain view" as such is not contraband nor is it incriminating
a warrantless arrest to be valid: first, the offender has just committed in nature which would lead SPO1 Malinao, Jr. to conclude that it would
an offense and, second, the arresting peace officer or private person constitute evidence of a crime. Contrary to what SPO1 Malinao, Jr.
has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be said, the t-shirt was not "bloodied" which could have directed his
arrested has committed it. It has been held that "personal knowledge attention to take a closer look at it. From the photograph of the t-
of facts' in arrests without a warrant must be based upon probable shirt, it is not visible that there were bloodstains. The actual t-shirt
cause, which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of merely had some small specks of blood at its lower portion.
suspicion." Herein, the arrest of Cubcubin was effected shortly after Furthermore, there is no evidence to link Cubcubin directly to the
the victim was killed. There was no "probable cause, however, for PO3 crime.
Rosal and SPO1 Malinao, Jr., the arresting officers, to believe that
Cubcubin committed the crime. The two did not have "personal People vs. Rodrigueza [GR 95902, 4 February 1992]
knowledge of facts" indicating that Cubcubin had committed the crime. Facts:
Their knowledge of the circumstances from which they allegedly [Prosecution] At around 5:00 p.m. of 1 July 1987, CIC Ciriaco Taduran
inferred that Cubcubin was probably guilty was based entirely on what was in their headquarters at the Office of the Narcotics Regional Unit
they had been told by others, to wit: by someone who called the PNP at Camp Bagong Ibalon, Legaspi City, together with S/Sgt. Elpidio
station in San Antonio, Cavite City at about 3:30 a.m. of 26 August Molinawe, CIC Leonardo B. Galutan and their commanding officer, Major
1997 and reported that a man had been killed along Julian Felipe Crisostomo M. Zeidem, when a confidential informer arrived and told
Boulevard of the said city; by an alleged witness who saw Cubcubin and them that there was an ongoing illegal traffic of prohibited drugs in
Tagas, Daraga, Albay. Major Zeidem formed a team to conduct a leaves for a consideration of P200.00. During the arraignment, all the
buybust operation, which team was given P200.00 in different accused pleaded not guilty to the charge against them. The Regional
denominations to buy marijuana. These bills were treated with Trial Court of Legaspi City, Branch 10, found Don Rodrigueza guilty
ultraviolet powder at the Philippine Constabulary Crime Laboratory beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4, Article II of the
(PCCL). Sgt. Molinawe gave the money to Taduran who acted as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (Republic Act 6425, as amended) and
poseur buyer. He was told to look for a certain Don, the alleged seller sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a
of prohibited drugs. Taduran went to Tagas alone and, while along the fine of P20,000.00 and costs. The court, however, acquitted Segovia
road, he met Samuel Segovia. He asked Segovia where he could find and Lonceres. Rodrigueza appealed.
Don and where he could buy marijuana. Segovia left for a while and
when he returned, he was accompanied by a man who was later on Issue:
introduced to him as Don Rodrigueza. After agreeing on the price of Whether the time of Don Rodrigueza’s arrest is material in determining
P200.00 for 100 grams of marijuana, Don halted a passing tricycle his culpability in the crime charged.
driven by Antonio Lonceras. He boarded it and left Taduran and
Segovia. When he came back, Don gave Taduran "a certain object Held:
wrapped in a plastic" which was later identified as marijuana, and As provided in the present Constitution, a search, to be valid, must
received payment therefor. Thereafter, Taduran returned to the generally be authorized by a search warrant duly issued by the proper
headquarters and made a report regarding his said purchase of government authority. True, in some instances, the Court has allowed
marijuana. Based on that information, Major Zeidem ordered a team to government authorities to conduct searches and seizures even without
conduct an operation to apprehend the suspects. In the evening of the a search warrant. Thus, when the owner of the premises waives his
same date, CIC Galutan and S/Sgt. Molinawe proceeded to Regidor right against such incursion; when the search is incidental to a lawful
Street, Daraga, Albay and arrested Rodrigueza, Antonio Lonceras and arrest; when it is made on vessels and aircraft for violation of customs
Samuel Segovia. The constables were not, however, armed with a laws; when it is made on automobiles for the purpose of preventing
warrant of arrest when they apprehended the three accused. The violations of smuggling or immigration laws; when it involves prohibited
arrests were brought to the headquarters for investigation. Thereafter, articles in plain view; or in cases of inspection of buildings and other
agents of the Narcotics Command (NARCOM) conducted a raid in the premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary and building regulations,
house of Jovencio Rodrigueza, Don's father. Taduran did not go with a search may be validly made even without a search warrant. Herein,
them. During the raid, they were able to confiscate dried marijuana however, the raid conducted by the NARCOM agents in the house of
leaves and a plastic syringe, among others. The search, however, was Jovencio Rodrigueza was not authorized by any search warrant. It does
not authorized by any search warrant. The next day, Jovencio not appear, either, that the situation falls under any of the
Rodrigueza was released from detention but Don Rodrigueza was aforementioned cases. Hence, Rodrigueza's right against unreasonable
detained. [Defense] Don Rodrigueza, on the other hand, claimed that search and seizure was clearly violated. The NARCOM agents could not
on said date he was in the house of his aunt in San Roque, Legaspi have justified their act by invoking the urgency and necessity of the
City. He stayed there overnight and did not leave the place until the situation because the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses reveal
next day when his brother arrived and told him that their father was that the place had already been put under surveillance for quite some
taken by some military men the preceding night. Rodrigueza went to time. Had it been their intention to conduct the raid, then they should,
Camp Bagong Ibalon and arrived there at around 8:00 a.m. of 2 July because they easily could, have first secured a search warrant during
1987. When he arrived, he was asked if he knew anything about the that time. Further, the inconsistencies made by prosecution witnesses
marijuana incident, to which question he answered in the negative. Like give more credibility to the testimony of Don Rodrigueza. While it is
Segovia, he was made to hold a P10.00 bill and was brought to the true that Rodrigueza's defense amounts to an alibi, and as such is the
crime laboratory for examination. From that time on, he was not weakest defense in a criminal prosecution, there are, nonetheless,
allowed to go home and was detained inside the camp. He was also some evidentiary aspects pointing to the truth in his testimony. Firstly,
tortured in order to make him admit his complicity in the alleged sale of the Joint Affidavit of Arrest corroborates his testimony that he was
marijuana. On 10 July 1987, Don Rodrigueza, Samuel Segovia and not among those who were arrested on the night of 1 July 1987. His
Antonio Lonceras, for possession of 100 grams of marijuana leaves and co-accused Segovia also testified that Rodrigueza was not with them
for selling, in a buy-bust operation, said 100 grams of dried marijuana when they were apprehended by the NARCOM agents. Hence,
Rodrigueza is acquitted of the crime charged, due to the failure of the the afternoon of 11 July 1991, Go's counsel filed with the prosecutor
prosecution to establish its cause. an omnibus motion for immediate release and proper preliminary
investigation, alleging that the warrantless arrest of Go was unlawful
Go vs. Court of Appeals [GR 101837, 11 February 1992] and that no preliminary investigation had been conducted before the
Facts: information was filed. On 12 July 1991, Go filed an urgent ex-parte
On 2 July 1991, Eldon Maguan was driving his car along Wilson St., San motion for special raffle in order to expedite action on the Prosecutor's
Juan, Metro Manila, heading towards P. Guevarra St. Rolito Go y bail recommendation. The case was raffled to the sala of Judge
Tambunting entered Wilson St., where it is a one- way street and Benjamin V. Pelayo (Branch 168, RTC of Pasig City), who, on the same
started traveling in the opposite or "wrong" direction. At the corner of date, approved the cash bond posted by Go and ordered his release.
Wilson and J. Abad Santos Sts., Go's and Maguan's cars nearly bumped Go was in fact released that same day. On 16 July 1991, the
each other. Go alighted from his car, walked over and shot Maguan Prosecutor filed with the Regional Trial Court a motion for leave to
inside his car. Go then boarded his car and left the scene. A security conduct preliminary investigation and prayed that in the meantime all
guard at a nearby restaurant was able to take down Go's car plate proceedings in the court be suspended. On the said date, the trial
number. The police arrived shortly thereafter at the scene of the court issued an Order 9 granting leave to conduct preliminary
shooting and there retrieved an empty shell and one round of live investigation and cancelling the arraignment set for 15 August 1991
ammunition for a 9mm caliber pistol. Verification at the Land until after the prosecution shall have concluded its preliminary
Transportation Office showed that the car was registered to one Elsa investigation. On 17 July 1991, however, the Judge motu proprio
Ang Go. The following day, the police returned to the scene of the issued an Order, (1) recalling the 12 July 1991 Order which granted
shooting to find out where the suspect had come from; they were bail: petitioner was given 48 hours from receipt of the Order to
informed that Go had dined at Cravings Bake Shop shortly before the surrender himself: (2) recalling and cancelling the 16 July 1991 Order
shooting. The police obtained a facsimile or impression of the credit which granted leave to the Prosecutor to conduct preliminary
card used by Go from the cashier of the bake shop. The security guard investigation: (3) treating Go's omnibus motion for immediate release
of the bake shop was shown a picture of Go and he positively identified and preliminary investigation dated 11 July 1991 as a petition for bail
him as the same person who had shot Maguan. Having established that and set for hearing on 23 July 1991. On 19 July 1991, Go filed a
the assailant was probably Go, the police launched a manhunt for Go. petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus before the Supreme
On 8 July 1991, Go presented himself before the San Juan Police Court assailing the 17 July 1991 Order. Go also moved for suspension
Station to verify news reports that he was being hunted by the police; of all proceedings in the case pending resolution by the Supreme Court
he was accompanied by two (2) lawyers. The police forthwith detained of his petition: this motion was, however, denied by Judge Pelayo. On
him. An eyewitness to the shooting, who was at the police station at 23 July 1991, Go surrendered to the police. By a Resolution dated 24
that time, positively identified Go as the gunman. That same day, the July 1991, the Supreme Court remanded the petition for certiorari,
police promptly filed a complaint for frustrated homicide against Go prohibition and mandamus to the Court of Appeals. On 16 August
with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal. First Assistant 1991, Judge Pelayo issued an order in open court setting Go's
Provincial Prosecutor Dennis Villa Ignacio ("Prosecutor") informed Go, arraignment on 23 August 1991. On 19 August 1991, Go filed with
in the Presence of his lawyers. that he could avail himself of his right to the Court of Appeals a motion to restrain his arraignment. On 23
preliminary investigation but that he must first sign a waiver of the August 1991, Judge Pelayo issued a Commitment Order directing the
provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Go refused to Provincial Warden of Rizal to admit Go into his custody at the Rizal
execute any such waiver. On 9 July 1991, while the complaint was still Provincial Jail. On the same date, Go was arraigned. In view, however,
with the Prosecutor, and before an information could be filed in court, of his refusal to enter a plea, the trial court entered for him a plea of
the victim, Eldon Maguan, died of his gunshot wound(s). Accordingly, not guilty. The trial court then set the criminal case for continuous
on 11 July 1991, the Prosecutor, instead of filing an information for hearings on 19, 24 and 26 September; on 2, 3, 11 and 17 October;
frustrated homicide, filed an information for murder before the Regional and on 7, 8, 14, 15, 21 and 22 November 1991. On 27 August 1991.
Trial Court. No bail was recommended. At the bottom of the Go filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals. On 30
information, the Prosecutor certified that no preliminary investigation August 1991, the Court of Appeals issued the writ of habeas corpus.
had been conducted because the accused did not execute and sign a The petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, on the one hand,
waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. In and the petition for habeas corpus, upon the other, were subsequently
consolidated in the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, on 2 been derived from statements made by alleged eyewitnesses to the
September 1991, issued a resolution denying Go's motion to restrain shooting -- one stated that Go was the gunman another was able to
his arraignment on the ground that motion had become moot and take down the alleged gunman's car's plate number which turned out
academic. On 19 September 1991, trial of the criminal case to be registered in Go's wife's name. That information did not,
commenced. On 23 September 1991, the Court of Appeals rendered a however, constitute "personal knowledge." It is thus clear to the Court
consolidated decision dismissing the 2 petitions on the grounds that that there was no lawful warrantless arrest of Go within the meaning of
Go's warrantless arrest was valid and Go's act of posting bail Section 5 of Rule 113. It is clear too that Section 7 of Rule 112 is also
constituted waiver of any irregularity attending his arrest, among not applicable. Indeed, Go was not arrested at all. When he walked into
others. On 3 October 1991, the prosecution presented three (3) more the San Juan Police Station, accompanied by two (2) lawyers, he in
witnesses at the trial. Go's Counsel also filed a "Withdrawal of fact placed himself at the disposal of the police authorities. He did not
Appearance" with the trial court, with Go's conformity. On 4 October state that he was "surrendering" himself, in all probability to avoid the
1991, Go filed the present petition for Review on Certiorari. On 14 implication he was admitting that he had slain Eldon Maguan or that he
October 1991, the Court issued a Resolution directing Judge Pelayo to was otherwise guilty of a crime. When the police filed a complaint for
held in abeyance the hearing of the criminal case below until further frustrated homicide with the Prosecutor, the latter should have
orders from the Supreme Court. immediately scheduled a preliminary investigation to determine
whether there was probable cause for charging Go in court for the
Issue: killing of Eldon Maguan. Instead, as noted earlier, the Prosecutor
Whether Go was arrested legally without warrant for the killing of proceeded under the erroneous supposition that Section 7 of Rule 112
Maguan, and is thus not entitled to be released pending the conduct of was applicable and required Go to waive the provisions of Article 125
a preliminary investigation. of the Revised Penal Code as a condition for carrying out a preliminary
investigation. This was substantive error, for Go was entitled to a
Held: preliminary investigation and that right should have been accorded him
Go's warrantless "arrest" or detention does not fall within the terms of without any conditions. Moreover, since Go had not been arrested; with
Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure which or without a warrant, he was also entitled to be released forthwith
provides that "A peace officer or a private person may, without a subject only to his appearing at the preliminary investigation.
warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be
created has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to People vs. Calimlim [GR 123980, 30 August 2001]
commit an offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just been Facts:
committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the Lanie S. Limin was 14 years old and had been living with the family of
person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be Kagawad Manny Ferrer and Cresencia Ferrer for the past 3 years. On
arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or the night of 2 April 1995, she was left alone in one of the two houses
place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while of the Ferrers since her usual companions, the sons of Manny and
his case is pending or has escaped while being transferred from one Cresencia, were out for the night (disco). The Ferrers were in the other
confinement to another. In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) house about 15 meters away. At around 11:30 P.M., she was
hereof, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith awakened when she heard somebody, later identified as Manuel
delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and he shall be proceeded Calimlim y Muyano, enter her room. Calimlim immediately poked a knife
against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7." Go's "arrest" took at the left side of her neck and said "Accompany me because I killed
place 6 days after the shooting of Maguan. The "arresting" officers my wife." She was then dragged to the pig pen, about 8-9 meters
obviously were not present, within the meaning of Section 5(a), at the away from the place where she slept. Afterwards, she was again
time Go had allegedly shot Maguan. Neither could the "arrest" effected forcibly taken back to her room, then to her cousin's room and to the
6 days after the shooting be reasonably regarded as effected "when kitchen. In each of these places, Calimlim forcibly had sexual
[the shooting had] in fact just been committed" within the meaning of intercourse with her while he poked a knife against her neck. According
Section 5 (b). Moreover, none of the "arresting" officers had any to Limin, she first recognized Calimlim while they were in the kitchen
"personal knowledge" of facts indicating that Go was the gunman who when she was able to remove the cloth covering his face. She stated
had shot Maguan. The information upon which the police acted had that she knew Calimlim because she had seen him always following her
whenever she went to school. Limin claimed that she did not struggle rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error. The
nor shout nor resist because she was afraid that appellant might kill defense's claim of warrantless arrest which is illegal cannot render void
her. After the fourth intercourse, Calimlim threatened that he would kill all other proceedings including those leading to the conviction of
her if she reported the incidents. Despite the threat, she told her Calimlim, nor can the state be deprived of its right to convict the guilty
cousin, Manicris Ferrer, who then reported the matter to Dr. Nancy when all the facts on record point to his culpability.
Quinto who lived nearby. The rapes were reported to the station of
SPO1 Mario Suratos by Kagawad Ferrer. Dr. Ricardo Ferrer conducted People vs. Enrile [GR 74189, 26 May 1993]
the physical examination on Lanie, and found that there was minimal Facts:
vaginal bleeding and there were lacerations in the hymen, the positions At about 6:30 p.m. of 25 October 1985, a buy-bust team composed
of which were at 9:00 o'clock, 6:00 o'clock and 3:00 o'clock, all fresh, of Pat. Jaime Flores and Pat. Wilson Rances of the Quezon City Police
indicating that there were insertions within the past 24 hours. There Anti-Narcotics Unit was dispatched to entrap Rogelio Abugatal at
was also a whitish vaginal discharge which was found positive for Roosevelt Avenue in San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City. The plan
spermatozoa. Manuel Calimlim denied the accusations. Calimlim was was made on the strength of a tip given by Renato Polines, a police
charged in 4 informations for rape in Criminal Cases U-8525, 8638 to informer, who was himself to pose as the buyer. On that occasion the
8640. On 17 November 1995, the Regional Trial Court, First Judicial policemen saw Polines hand over to Abugatal the marked money
Region, Branch 46, Urdaneta, Pangasinan found Calimlim guilty of 4 representing payment for the mock transaction. Abugatal left with the
counts of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death, to money and returned 10 minutes later with a wrapped object which he
pay the offended party the amount of P50,000.00 as damages, and to gave Polines. The two policemen then approached Abugatal and placed
pay the costs, in each of the cases. Hence, the automatic review. him under arrest, at the same time confiscating the wrapped object.
Subsequent laboratory examination revealed this to be marijuana with
Issue: flowering tops weighing 22 grams. Upon prodding, Abugatal led the
Whether Calimlim may raise the illegality of the warrantless arrest policemen to a house at 20 De Vera Street, also in San Francisco del
conducted against him, especially as the arrest was made a day after Monte, Quezon City, where he called out for Antonio Enrile. Enrile came
the crime was committed. out and met them at the gate. Abugatal pointed to Enrile as the source
of the marijuana, whereupon the policemen immediately arrested and
Held: frisked him. They found in the right front pocket of his trousers the
Calimlim avers that his arrest violated Section 5 of Rule 113, 40 since marked money earlier delivered to Abugatal. At the police
his arrest was made one day after the crime was committed, but headquarters, Abugatal signed a sworn confession. Enrile refused to
without any judicial warrant, although the police had ample time to get make any statement pending consultation with a lawyer. Antonio Enrile
one. This he claims is also in violation of Article III, Sec. 2 of the y Villaroman and Rogelio Abugatal y Marquez were charged for violation
Constitution. But here it will be noted that Calimlim entered a plea of of the Dangerous Drug Act by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
not guilty to each of the informations charging him of rape. Thus, he The RTC, after trial and on 14 February 1986, found Enrile and
had effectively waived his right to question any irregularity which might Abugatal guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced them to life
have accompanied his arrest and the unlawful restraint of his liberty. imprisonment and a fine of P30,000.00. Both appealed. Abugatal,
This is clear from a reading of Section 9 of Rule 117 of the Revised however, was killed in an attempted jailbreak and thus the appeal is
Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides that "the failure of the dismissed as to him.
accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to
the complaint or information, either because he did not file a motion to Issue:
quash or failed to allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed a Whether the mark money found in Enrile’s possession, pursuant to a
waiver of any objections except those based on the grounds provided warrantless arrest, search and seizure, provide for his criminal
for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g) and (i) of section 3 of this Rule." Given culpability.
the circumstances of his case, the exceptions do not apply here and
the Court is constrained to rule that Calimlim is estopped from raising Held:
the issue of the legality of his arrest. Moreover, the illegal arrest of an It was Abugatal who was allegedly caught red-handed by the policemen
accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment as he sold the marijuana to Polines. Enrile was not even at the scene of
the entrapment at that time. Abugatal said he did lead the policemen arrived at Brgy. Artacho and went straight to the house of Pasudag.
to Enrile's house where he pointed to Enrile as the source of the SPO3 Fajarito looked for Pasudag and asked him to bring the team to
marijuana. Even assuming this to be true, that circumstance alone did his backyard garden which was about 5 meters away. Upon seeing the
not justify Enrile's warrantless arrest and search. Under Rule 113, marijuana plants, the policemen called for a photographer, who took
Section 5, of the Rules of Court, a peace officer or a private person pictures of Pasudag standing beside one of the marijuana plants. They
may make a warrantless arrest only under any of the following uprooted 7 marijuana plants. The team brought Pasudag and the
circumstances: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested marijuana plants to the police station. On 17 December 1996, 4th
has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Pangasinan Emiliano M. Matro filed
offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he with the Regional Trial Court, Pangasinan, Urdaneta an Information
has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be charging Pasudag with violation of RA 6425, Sec. 9. On 10 February
arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a 1997, the trial court arraigned the accused. He pleaded not guilty. Trial
prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where ensued. The Regional Trial Court, Pangasinan, Branch 46, Urdaneta
he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is found Pasudag guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal cultivation of
pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement marijuana and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of
to another. Paragraphs (a) and (b) are clearly inapplicable. Paragraph P500,000.00, without subsidiary penalty and other accessories of the
(b) is also not in point because the policemen who later arrested Enrile law. Pasudag appealed.
at his house had no personal knowledge that he was the source of the
marijuana. According to the policemen themselves, what happened was Issue:
that they asked Abugatal who gave him the marijuana and were told it Whether time was of the essence to uproot and confiscate the
was Enrile. It was for this reason that they proceeded to Enrile's house marijuana plants.
and immediately arrested him. What the policemen should have done
was secure a search warrant on the basis of the information supplied Held:
by Abugatal and then, with such authority, proceeded to search and, if As a general rule, the procurement of a search warrant is required
the search was fruitful, arrest Enrile. They had no right to simply force before a law enforcer may validly search or seize the person, house,
themselves into his house on the bare (and subsequently disallowed) papers or effects of any individual. The Constitution provides that "the
allegations of Abugatal and bundle Enrile off to the police station as if right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and
he had been caught in flagrante delicto. The discovery of the marked effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature
money on him did not mean he was caught in the act of selling and for any purpose shall be inviolable." Any evidence obtained in
marijuana. The marked money was not prohibited per se. Even if it violation of this provision is inadmissible. Herein, the police authorities
were, that fact alone would not retroactively validate the warrantless had ample opportunity to secure from the court a search warrant.
search and seizure. SPO2 Pepito Calip inquired as to who owned the house. He was
acquainted with marijuana plants and immediately recognized that
210 People vs. Pasudag [GR 128822, 4 May 2001] some plants in the backyard of the house were marijuana plants. Time
Facts: was not of the essence to uproot and confiscate the plants. They were
On 26 September 1995, at around 1:30 p.m., SPO2 Pepito Calip of the three months old and there was no sufficient reason to believe that
PNP Sison, Pangasinan, went to Brgy. Artacho to conduct anti -jueteng they would be uprooted on that same day. With the illegal seizure of
operations. He urinated at a bushy bamboo fence behind the public the marijuana plants, the seized plants are inadmissible in evidence
school. About 5 meters away, he saw a garden of about 70 square against Pasudag.
meters. There were marijuana plants in between corn plants and
camote tops. He inquired from a storekeeper nearby as to who owned People vs. Aminnudin [GR L-74860, 6 July 1988]
the house with the garden. The storeowner told him that Alberto Facts: Idel Aminnudin y Ahni was arrested on 25 June 1984, shortly
Pasudag y Bokang owned it. SPO2 Calip went to the Police Station and after disembarking from the M/V Wilcon 9 at about 8:30 p.m., in Iloilo
reported to Chief of Police Romeo C. Astrero. The latter dispatched a City. The PC officers who were in fact waiting for him simply accosted
team (composed of SPO2 Calip, SPO3 Fajarito, SPO3 Alcantara and him, inspected his bag and finding what looked liked marijuana leaves
PO3 Rasca) to conduct an investigation. At around 2:30 p.m., the team took him to their headquarters for investigation. The two bundles of
suspect articles were confiscated from him and later taken to the NBI
laboratory for examination. When they were verified as marijuana People vs. Plana [GR 128285, 27 November 2001]
leaves, an information for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act was Facts:
filed against him. Later, the information was amended to include Farida On 23 September 1994, at around 10:30 a.m., Felix Lagud was walking
Ali y Hassen, who had also been arrested with him that same evening at the feeder road in Barangay Cobe, Dumarao, Capiz. He just came
and likewise investigated. Both were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. from his farm in Alipasyawan, Dumarao and was on his way home to
Subsequently, the fiscal filed a motion to dismiss the charge against Ali Poblacion Ilawod. A movement at about 50 meters to his left side
on the basis of a sworn statement of the arresting officers absolving caught his attention. He saw 3 persons who seemed to be wrestling.
her after a "thorough investigation." The motion was granted, and trial He came nearer so he would be able to see them more clearly. From
proceeded only against Aminnudin, who was eventually convicted, and about a distance of 20 meters, he saw the 3 men holding a girl while
sentenced to life imprisonment plus a fine of P20,000.00. another man was on top of her. The girl was being raped and she was
later stabbed. Frightened that the assailants would see him, Lagud ran
Issue: away. He intended to go straight home but when he passed by the
Whether there was ample opportunity to obtain a warrant of arrest house of Porferio Haguisan, the latter invited him for a "milagrosa."
against Aminnudin, for alleged possession and transport of illegal Lagud obliged and stayed at the house of his "kumpare" until 2:00
drugs. a.m. On 26 September 1994, the victim, Helen Perote, was found dead
by her brother and the police in Brgy. Cobe, Dumarao, Capiz. The body
Held: was in prone position and was already in an advance state of
It is not disputed, and in fact it is admitted by the PC officers who decomposition. Lagud identified Antonio Plana (@ "Catong"), Edgardo
testified for the prosecution, that they had no warrant when they Perayra and Rene Saldevea as the three men who were holding the girl
arrested Aminnudin and seized the bag he was carrying. Their only while their fourth companion was raping her. At the time of the
justification was the tip they had earlier received from a reliable and incident, he did not yet recognize the fourth man who was on top of
regular informer who reported to them that Aminnudin was arriving in the girl. However, when he saw Plana, et. al. at the municipal hall where
Iloilo by boat with marijuana. Their testimony varies as to the time they they were brought when they were arrested on 26 September 1994,
received the tip, one saying it was two days before the arrest (this was he identified the fourth man to be Richard Banday. On the other hand,
the declaration of the chief of the arresting team, Lt. Cipriano Querol, per the post mortem examination conducted by Dr. Ricardo Betita,
Jr.), another two weeks and a third "weeks before June 25." There was Rural Health Officer of Cuartero, Capiz, the victim sustained the
no warrant of arrest or search warrant issued by a judge after personal following injuries: (1) Clean edges stab wound 2x5 cm left anterior
determination by him of the existence of probable cause. Contrary to chest; (2) Avulsion with irregular edges wound 8x12 cm middle chest
the averments of the government, Aminnudin was not caught in area; (3) Avulsion of the nose and upper lip portion/area; (4) Clean
flagrante nor was a crime about to be committed or had just been edges wound or stab wound 2x5 cm epigastric area; (5) Clean edges
committed to justify the warrantless arrest allowed under Rule 113 of stab wound 2x5 cm left hypogastric area; (6) Clean edges stab wound
the Rules of Court. Even expediency could not be invoked to dispense 2x5 cm hypogastric area; (7) Clean edges stab wound 2x5 cm left
with the obtention of the warrant. The present case presented no posterior upper back; (8) Clean edges stab wound 2x5 cm mid upper
urgency. From the conflicting declarations of the PC witnesses, it is portion of the back; (9) Clean edges stab wound 2x5 cm left posterior
clear that they had at least two days within which they could have back level of 8th ribs; (10) Clean edges stab wound 2x5 cm left back
obtained a warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin who was coming level of left lumbar area; (11) Clean edges wound 2x5 cm middle low
Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9. His name was known. The vehicle was back area; (12) Clean edges wound 2x5 cm right low back area at level
identified. The date of its arrival was certain. And from the information of lumbar area; (13) Clean edges wound 2x5 cm left gluteal area near
they had received, they could have persuaded a judge that there was the anus; (14) Vagina: Introitus can easily insert 2 fingers/Hymen with
probable cause, indeed, to justify the issuance of a warrant. Yet they laceration 3 and 9 o'clock (old laceration) and on the state of
did nothing. No effort was made to comply with the law. The Bill of decomposition; and that the most probable cause of death was
Rights was ignored altogether because the PC lieutenant who was the massive hemorrhage or blood loss secondary to multiple stab wounds.
head of the arresting team, had determined on his own authority that According to Dr. Betita, the victim died more than 72 hours already
"search warrant was not necessary." before the police authorities found her body. An information was filed
against Plana, et. al. for the crime of rape with homicide before the stolen items. Conde, Perez and Atis were charged with the crime of
Regional Trial Court, Branch 15 of Roxas City (Criminal Case 4659). At robbery with homicide. The accused entered pleas of not guilty. On 15
their arraignment, Plana, et. al. pleaded not guilty. On 23 November December 1993 the Regional Trial Court, Branch 129, Kalookan City
1996, after due trial, a judgment was rendered by the trial court found Conde, Atis and Perez guilty of the special complex crime of
finding Plana, et. al. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide and sentenced each of them to suffer the
rape with homicide. The trial court imposed upon them the supreme penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties under the
penalty of death, and ordered them to pay jointly and severally the law, and to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of each of the
heirs of the victim, Helen Perote, P25,000.00 as actual damages and victims, Sukhdev Singh and Biant Singh, in the amount of P50,000.00.
P50,000.00 as civil liability. Hence, the automatic review. Conde, et. al. appealed. However, the counsel de parte for Perez, Atty.
Jose M. Marquez, failed to file brief for Perez, prompting this Court to
Issue: dismiss his appeal. The decision of the trial court became final and
Whether the trial court erred in not censuring the actuation of the executory with respect to Perez. Hence the present appeal concerns
police authorities in detaining Plana, et. al. without benefit of Court only Atis and Conde, who filed their separate briefs.
filed information nor judicial order of detention as well as violation of
their constitutional rights during their so-called custodial invitation and Issue:
interrogation. Whether the illegal warrantless arrest, which was waived, is sufficient
cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient
Held: complaint after trial free of error.
Plana, et. al. already waived their right to question the irregularity, if
any, in their arrest. They respectively entered a plea of "not guilty" at Held:
their arraignment. By so pleading, they submitted to the jurisdiction of The arrests of Conde, et. al. came after the lapse of 5 days from the
the trial court, thereby curing any defect in their arrest, for the legality time they were seen committing the crime. At the time they were
of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over their arrested, the police were not armed with any warrants for their arrests.
persons. Section 5 of Rule 113, of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure 27
enumerates the instances when an arrest can be made without
People vs. Conde [GR 113269, 10 April 2001] warrant, namely: (a) When, in his presence the person to be arrested
Facts: has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
On 25 May 1992 at about 8:00 A.M., Apollo Romero was home sitting offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and
by the window and drinking coffee when he saw 4 men in Santolan he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts
Street block the path of 2 Indian nationals (bombay) on a motorcycle. or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
Oscar Conde y Lutoc poked a gun at the two Indians while his three (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from
companions (Alejandro Perez Jr. y Carsillar, Allan Atis y Abet, and a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or
another unidentified man) approached and stabbed the Indians. Atis temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while
took the goods which were being sold by the two Indians on being transferred from one confinement to another. None of the above
installment. After the stabbing, the four men fled from the crime scene circumstances is present herein. Conde, et. al. were merely walking
towards Mabolo Street. PO3 Rodencio Sevillano of the Intelligence and along Tandang Sora Avenue and were not committing any crime.
Investigation Division (IID) of the PNP, Kalookan City investigated the Neither can it be said that the crime had just been committed as 5
incident. On 30 May 1992, the police arrested Conde, Perez and Atis. days had already passed from the time of the robbery with homicide. It
Police recovered the weapons used in the robbery, when Felicidad cannot also be said that the arresting officers had probable cause
Macabare, Conde's wife, went to the police station to talk to Conde. based on personal knowledge, as PO3 Sevillano admitted that they
These weapons were discovered inside her bag after a routine learned about the suspects from Apollo Romero and certain unnamed
inspection. Sevillano admitted, however, that they did not have a informants. Further, the lapse of 5 days gave the police more than
warrant of arrest when they apprehended the accused. Nor did they enough time to conduct surveillance of the appellants and apply for a
have a search warrant when they inspected Felicidad's bag and when warrant of arrest. Clearly, the rights of Conde, et. al., provided in Sec.
they searched the house of a certain Jimmy where they found the 2, Art. III of the Constitution 28 were violated. Unfortunately, they did
not assert their constitutional rights prior to their arraignment. This is himself should receive the money. When he received the money at the
fatal to their case. An accused is estopped from assailing the legality Igloo Restaurant, Pintor was arrested by agents of the Philippine
of his arrest if he failed to move for the quashing of the Information Constabulary. Gaanan executed on the following day an affidavit
against him before his arraignment. When they entered their pleas on stating that he heard Pintor demand P8,000.00 for the withdrawal of
arraignment without invoking their rights to question any irregularity, the case for direct assault. Laconico attached the affidavit of Gaanan
which might have accompanied their arrests, they voluntarily submitted to the complaint for robbery/extortion which he filed against Pintor.
themselves to the jurisdiction of the court and the judicial process. Any Since Gaanan listened to the telephone conversation without Pintor's
objection, defect, or irregularity attending their arrests should had consent, Pintor charged Gaanan and Laconico with violation of the
been made before they entered their pleas. It is much too late for Anti-Wiretapping Act. After trial on the merits, the lower court, in a
them to raise the question of their warrantless arrests. Their pleas to decision dated 22 November 1982, found both Gaanan and Laconico
the information upon arraignment constitute clear waivers of their guilty of violating Section 1 of Republic Act 4200. The two were each
rights against unlawful restraint of liberty. Furthermore, the illegal sentenced to 1 year imprisonment with costs. Not satisfied with the
arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid decision, Gaanan appealed to the appellate court. On 16 August 1984,
judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after trial free from the Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the trial
error. The warrantless arrest, even if illegal, cannot render void all court. Gaanan filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.
other proceedings including those leading to the conviction of the
appellants and his co-accused, nor can the state be deprived of its Issue:
right to convict the guilty when all the facts on record point to their Whether listening in an extension telephone renders one liable under
culpability. the wire-tapping law.

Gaanan vs. Intermediate Appellate court [GR L-69809, 16 October Held:

1986] There is no question that the telephone conversation between Atty.
Facts: Pintor and Atty. Laconico was "private" in the sense that the words
In the morning of 22 October 1975, Atty. Tito Pintor and his client uttered were made between one person and another as distinguished
Manuel Montebon were in the living room of Pintor's residence from words between a speaker and a public. It is also undisputed that
discussing the terms for the withdrawal of the complaint for direct only one of the parties gave Gaanan the authority to listen to and
assault which they filed with the Office of the City Fiscal of Cebu overhear the caller's message with the use of an extension telephone
against Leonardo Laconico. After they had decided on the proposed line. Obviously, Pintor, a member of the Philippine bar, would not have
conditions, Pintor made a telephone call to Laconico. That same discussed the alleged demand for an P8,000.00 consideration in order
morning, Laconico telephoned Eduardo A. Gaanan, who is a lawyer to to have his client withdraw a direct assault charge against Atty.
come to his office and advise him on the settlement of the direct Laconico filed with the Cebu City Fiscal's Office if he knew that another
assault case because his regular lawyer, Atty. Leon Gonzaga, went on a lawyer was also listening. However, an extension telephone cannot be
business trip. According to the request, Gaanan went to the office of placed in the same category as a dictaphone, dictagraph or the other
Laconico where he was briefed about the problem. When Pintor called devices enumerated in Section 1 of RA 4200 as the use thereof cannot
up, Laconico requested Gaanan to secretly listen to the telephone be considered as "tapping" the wire or cable of a telephone line. The
conversation through a telephone extension so as to hear personally telephone extension herein was not installed for that purpose. It just
the proposed conditions for the settlement. Gaanan heard Pintor happened to be there for ordinary office use. It is a rule in statutory
enumerate the conditions for withdrawal of the complaint for direct construction that in order to determine the true intent of the
assault. 20 minutes later, Pintor called up again to ask Laconico if he legislature, the particular clauses and phrases of the statute should not
was agreeable to the conditions. Laconico answered "Yes." Pintor then be taken as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and
told Laconico to wait for instructions on where to deliver the money. every part thereof must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of
Pintor called up again and instructed Laconico to give the money to his its parts. Further, our lawmakers intended to discourage, through
wife at the office of the then Department of Public Highways. Laconico punishment, persons such as government authorities or
who earlier alerted his friend Colonel Zulueta of the Criminal representatives of organized groups from installing devices in order to
Investigation Service of the Philippine Constabulary, insisted that Pintor gather evidence for use in court or to intimidate, blackmail or gain
some unwarranted advantage over the telephone users. Consequently, the world. To read the Constitution more narrowly is to ignore the vital
the mere act of listening, in order to be punishable must strictly be role that the public telephone has come to play in private
with the use of the enumerated devices in RA 4200 or others of similar communication. Further, although the surveillance in this case may
nature. An extension telephone is not among such devices or have been so narrowly circumscribed that it could constitutionally have
arrangements. Gaanan thus is acquitted of the crime of violation of RA been authorized in advance, it was not in fact conducted pursuant to
4200, otherwise known as the Anti-Wiretapping Act. the warrant procedure which is a constitutional precondition of such
electronic surveillance.
Katz s. United States [389 US 347, 18 December 1967]
Facts: Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals [GR 93833, 28 September 1995]
Katz was convicted in the District Court for the Southern District of Facts:
California under an eight-count indictment charging him with A civil case for damages was filed by Socorro D. Ramirez in the
transmitting wagering information by telephone from Los Angeles to Regional Trial Court of Quezon City alleging that Ester S. Garcia, in a
Miami and Boston, in violation of a federal statute (18 U.S.C. 1084). At confrontation in the latter's office, allegedly vexed, insulted and
trial the Government was permitted, over Katz's objection, to humiliated her in a "hostile and furious mood" and in a manner
introduce evidence of Katz's end of telephone conversations, offensive to petitioner's dignity and personality," contrary to morals,
overheard by FBI agents who had attached an electronic listening and good customs and public policy." In support of her claim, Ramirez
recording device to the outside of the public telephone booth from produced a verbatim transcript of the event and sought moral
which he had placed his calls. In affirming his conviction, the Court of damages, attorney's fees and other expenses of litigation in the
Appeals rejected the contention that the recordings had been obtained amount of P610,000. 00, in addition to costs, interests and other
in violation of the Fourth Amendment, because "[t]here was no reliefs awardable at the trial court's discretion. The transcript on which
physical entrance into the area occupied by [the petitioner]." the civil case was based was culled from a tape recording of the
confrontation made by Ramirez. As a result of Ramirez's recording, of
Issue: the event and alleging that the said act of secretly taping the
Whether the Government’s eavesdropping activities violated Katz’ confrontation was illegal, Garcia filed a criminal case before Regional
privacy (while using a telephone booth). Trial Court of Pasay City for violation of Republic Act 4200, entitled
"An Act to prohibit and penalize wire tapping and other related
Held: violations of private communication, and other purposes." Ramirez was
The Government's eavesdropping activities violated the privacy upon charged of violation of the said Act, in an information dated 6 October
which Katz justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus 1988. Upon arraignment, in lieu of a plea, Ramirez filed a Motion to
constituted a "search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Quash the Information on the ground that the facts charged do not
Amendment. The Fourth Amendment governs not only the seizure of constitute an offense, particularly a violation of RA 4200. In an order
tangible items but extends as well to the recording of oral statements. dated 3 May 1989, the trial court granted the Motion to Quash,
Because the Fourth Amendment protects people rather than places, its agreeing with Ramirez that the facts charged do not constitute an
reach cannot turn on the presence or absence of a physical intrusion offense under RA 4200; and that the violation punished by RA 4200
into any given enclosure. The "trespass" doctrine of Olmstead v. refers to a the taping of a communication by a person other than a
United States, 277 U.S. 438 , and Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. participant to the communication. From the trial court's Order, Garcia
129 , is no longer controlling. What Katz sought to exclude when he filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, which
entered the booth was not the intruding eye - it was the uninvited ear. forthwith referred the case to the Court of Appeals in a Resolution (by
He did not shed his right to do so simply because he made his calls the First Division) of 19 June 1989. On 9 February 1990, the Court of
from a place where he might be seen. No less than an individual in a Appeals promulgated its assailed Decision declaring the trial court's
business office, in a friend's apartment, or in a taxicab, a person in a order of 3 May 1989 null and void. Consequently, on 21 February
telephone booth may rely upon the protection of the Fourth 1990, Ramirez filed a Motion for Reconsideration which Court of
Amendment. One who occupies it, shuts the door behind him, and pays Appeals denied in its Resolution dated 19 June 1990. Hence, the
the toll that permits him to place a call is surely entitled to assume petition.
that the words he utters into the mouthpiece will not be broadcast to
Issue: the law. We intend to hold responsible members of the First Division
Whether the party sought to be penalized by the Anti-wire tapping law who participated in the promulgation of these three minute-resolutions
ought to be a party other than or different from those involved in the in question. For the members thereof cannot claim immunity when their
private communication action runs afoul with penal sanctions, even in the performance of
official functions; like others, none of the division members are above
Held: the law." True to her threats, after having lost her case before the
Section 1 of RA 4200 provides that "It shall be unlawful for any Supreme Court, Maravilla-Ilustre filed on 16 December 1986 an
person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private Affidavit-Complaint before the Tanodbayan, charging some Members of
communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using, the Supreme Court with having knowingly and deliberately rendered,
any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or with bad faith, an unjust, extended Minute Resolution "making" her
record such communication or spoken word by using a device opponents the "illegal owners" of vast estates; charging some Justices
commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or of the Court of Appeals with knowingly rendering their "unjust
walkie -talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described." The resolution" of 20 January 1984 "through manifest and evident bad
provision clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal for any person, not faith"; and charging Solicitor General Sedfrey A. Ordoñez and Justice
authorized by all the parties to any private communication to secretly Pedro Yap of the Supreme Court with having used their power and
record such communication by means of a tape recorder. The law influence in persuading and inducing the members of the First Division
makes no distinction as to whether the party sought to be penalized of the Court into promulgating their "unjust extended Minute
by the statute ought to be a party other than or different from those Resolution of 14 May 1986." Atty. Laureta reportedly circulated copies
involved in the private communication. The statute's intent to penalize of the Complaint to the press, which was widely publicized in almost all
all persons unauthorized to make such recording is underscored by the dailies on 23 December 1986, without any copy furnished the Supreme
use of the qualifier "any". Consequently, "even a (person) privy to a Court nor the members who were charged. The issue of the Daily
communication who records his private conversation with another Express of 23 December 1986 published a banner headline reading:
without the knowledge of the latter (will) qualify as a violator" under "ORDONEZ, 8 JUSTICES FACE GRAFT CHARGES" thereby making it
said provision of RA 4200. Further, the nature of the conversation is unjustly appear that the Justices of the Supreme Court and the other
immaterial to a violation of the statute. The substance of the same respondents were charged with "graft and corruption" when the
need not be specifically alleged in the information. What RA 4200 Complaint was actually filed by a disgruntled litigant and her counsel
penalizes are the acts of secretly overhearing, intercepting or after having lost her case thrice in the Supreme Court. On 26
recording private communications by means of the devices enumerated December 1986, the Tanodbayan (Ombudsman) dismissed Maravilla-
therein. The mere allegation that an individual made a secret recording Ilustre's Complaint. In the Resolution of the Supreme Court en banc,
of a private communication by means of a tape recorder would suffice dated 20 January 1986, it required (1) Eva Maravilla Ilustre to show
to constitute an offense under Section 1 of RA 4200. Furthermore, the cause, within 10 days from notice, why she should not be held in
contention that the phrase "private communication" in Section 1 of RA contempt for her statements, conduct, acts and charges against the
4200 does not include "private conversations" narrows the ordinary Supreme Court and/or official actions of the Justices concerned, which
meaning of the word "communication" to a point of absurdity. statements, unless satisfactorily explained, transcend the permissible
bounds of propriety and undermine and degrade the administration of
In RE Laureta [GR 68635, 12 March 1987] justice; and (2) Atty. Wenceslao Laureta, as an officer of the Court, to
Facts: show cause, within 10 days from notice, why no disciplinary action
In almost identical letters dated 20 October 1986, personally sent to should be taken against him for the statements, conduct, acts and
Justices Andres R. Narvasa, Ameurfina M. Herrera, and Isagani A. Cruz, charges against the Supreme Court and the official actions of the
and a fourth letter, dated 22 October 1986 addressed to Justice Justices concerned, and for hiding therefrom in anonymity behind his
Florentino P. Feliciano, all members of the First Division of the Supreme client's name, in an alleged quest for justice but with the manifest
Court, in a stance of dangling threats to effect a change of the Court's intent to bring the Justices into disrepute and to subvert public
adverse resolution (in GR 68635: Eva Maravilla Ilustre vs. IAC being confidence in the Courts and the orderly administration of justice.
dismissed), Eva Maravilla Ilustre/Atty. Wenceslao Laureta wrote in part
that "we are pursuing further remedies in our quest for justice under
Issue: and corruption" when the complaint before the Tanodbayan, in
Whether the letters addressed to the Supreme Court justices sre essence, is a tirade from a disgruntled litigant and a defeated counsel
matters shielded bythe constitutional right of freedom of speech or in a case that has been brought thrice before the Supreme Court, and
right to privacy. who would readily accept anything but the soundness of the judgments
of the Courts concerned, all with the manifest intent to bring the
Held: Justices of this Court and of the Court of Appeals into disrepute and to
Letters addressed to individual Justices, in connection with the subvert public confidence in the Courts.
performance of their judicial functions become part of the judicial
record and are a matter of concern for the entire Court. The People vs. Albofera [GR L-69377, 20 July 1987]
contumacious character of those letters constrained the First Division Facts:
to refer the same to the Court en banc, en consulta and so that the Sometime in June or July 1980, at about 4:30 p.m., Rodrigo Esma was
Court en banc could pass upon the judicial acts of the Division. It was tending his onion farm located in Upper Bagong Silang, Managa,
only in the exercise of forbearance by the Court that it refrained from Bansalan, Davao del Sur, near the place of Romeo Lawi-an, when
issuing immediately a show cause order in the expectancy that after Alexander Albofera called him and informed him they would run after
having read the Resolution of the Court en banc of 28 October 1986, somebody. Esma acceded. Together, Albofera and Esma proceeded at
Maravilla-Ilustre and Laureta would realize the unjustness and once to the house of Lawi -an. There Lawi-an told Albofera that the
unfairness of their accusations. Ilustre has transcended the permissible forester was around making a list of people engaged in "caingin."
bounds of fair comment and criticism to the detriment of the orderly Whereupon, Albofera asked Esma to join him in going after the
administration of justice in her letters addressed to the individual forester. The two were able to overtake the forester, a certain
Justices; in the language of the charges she filed before the Teodoro Carancio, at the lower portion of the road. Carancio was taken
Tanodbayan; in her statements, conduct, acts and charges against the to the house of Lawi-an where several persons were already gathered,
Supreme Court and/or the official actions of the Justices concerned among whom were Lawi-an, a certain alias Jun, Boy Lawi-an, and Joel
and her ascription of improper motives to them; and in her unjustified Maldan. Once inside and seated, Albofera began questioning Carancio
outburst that she can no longer expect justice from the Supreme about his purpose in the place. Carancio replied that he was there to
Court. The fact that said letters are not technically considered inspect the "caingin" as a forester. Albofera, Romeo Lawi-an, alias Jun,
pleadings, nor the fact that they were submitted after the main Boy Lawi -an, and Joel Maldan decided to bring Carancio to the forest
petition had been finally resolved does not detract from the gravity of some 200 meters away from Lawi-an's house. Esma did not join the
the contempt committed. The constitutional right of freedom of group but remained in the house of Lawi-an. Not long after the group
speech or right to privacy cannot be used as a shield for contemptuous returned to Lawi-an's house, but without Carancio. Albofera's hands, as
acts against the Court. Also, Atty. Laureta has committed acts well as alias Jun's hands were bloodied. After washing their hands,
unbecoming an officer of the Court for his stance of dangling threats Albofera warned everyone, particularly Esma, against revealing or
of bringing the matter to the "proper forum" to effect a change of the saying anything to any person or the military. The following day, at
Court's adverse Resolution; for his lack of respect for and exposing to about 9:00 a.m., Efren Sisneros was at his farm when Lawi-an and Jun
public ridicule, the two highest Courts of the land by challenging in bad Menez passed by and called him. When Sisneros got near the two,
faith their integrity and claiming that they knowingly rendered unjust Lawi-an told him that the forester was already killed and warned him
judgments; for authoring, or at the very least, assisting and/or not to reveal this matter to anybody otherwise he would be killed. The
abetting and/or not preventing the contemptuous statements, threat to his life caused Sisneros to be cautious in not reporting at
conduct, acts and malicious charges of his client, Ilustre, once the matter to the authorities. However, in June 1981, Sisneros
notwithstanding his disclaimer that he had absolutely nothing to do finally reported the killing of that forester to his brother Margarito, a
with them, which we find disputed by the facts and circumstances of CHDF member in Bansalan. Sisneros asked that his identity be kept
record as above stated; for totally disregarding the facts and secret in the meantime pending the arrest of Albofera and Lawi-an. The
circumstances and legal considerations set forth in the Supreme police authorities arrested Albofera on 2 July 1981. Romeo Lawi-an
Court's Resolutions of the First Division and en banc, as the Tribunal of was subsequently arrested on 4 July 1981. Also in July, 1981, the
last resort; for making it appear that the Justices of the Supreme Court two, shortly after their arrest, led the police authorities to the place in
and other respondents before the Tanodbayan are charged with "graft Bagong Silang where they buried the slain forester, specifically in a hilly
portion near the forest where the trees were not quite big besides a Martin and his alleged paramours, greetings cards, cancelled checks,
coffee plantation, where the authorities dug and recovered the diaries, Dr. Martin's passport, and photographs. The documents and
cadaver. On 2 July 1981, Albofera executed an extra-judicial papers were seized for use in evidence in a case for legal separation
confession before the Municipal Circuit Judge, stating therein that he and for disqualification from the practice of medicine which Zulueta had
was forced to join the NPA movement for fear of his life; that said filed against her husband. Dr. Martin brought the action for recovery of
group had ordered the "arrest" of Carancio which sentenced the latter the documents and papers and for damages against Zulueta, with the
to die by stabbing. In the course of the trial, the prosecution presented Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch X. After trial, the trial court
a letter written in the Visayan dialect by Alexander Albofera, while rendered judgment for Martin, declaring him the capital/exclusive
under detention, to witness Rodrigo Esma several days before the owner of the properties described in paragraph 3 of Martin's Complaint
latter testified on 20 October 1982. After trial, the the Regional Trial or those further described in the Motion to Return and Suppress and
Court, Branch XVIII, Digos, Davao del Sur, in Criminal Case 184, found ordering Zulueta and any person acting in her behalf to a immediately
the circumstantial evidence sufficient to warrant conviction beyond return the properties to Dr. Martin and to pay him P5,000.00, as
reasonable doubt of both Albofera and Lawi-an for murder, sentenced nominal damages; P5,000.00, as moral damages and attorney's fees;
them to death, and ordered them to indemnify the heirs of the victim and to pay the costs of the suit. On appeal, the Court of Appeals
in the amount of P35,000.00 "by way of moral as well as actual affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court. Zulueta filed the
damages" in its Decision of 5 October 1984. Hence, the mandatory petition for review with the Supreme Court.
review.
Issue:
Issue: Whether the injunction declaring the privacy of communication and
Whether the Albofera’s letter to Esma should be excluded as evidence correspondence to be inviolable apply even to the spouse of the
in light of alleged unwarranted intrusion or invasion of the accused’s aggrieved party.
privacy.
Held:
Held: The documents and papers are inadmissible in evidence. The
Section 4, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution (substantially constitutional injunction declaring "the privacy of communication and
reproduced in Section 3, Article III of the 1987 Constitution) correspondence [to be] inviolable" is no less applicable simply because
implements another Constitutional provision on the security of a citizen it is the wife (who thinks herself aggrieved by her husband's infidelity)
against unreasonable search and seizure. The production of that letter who is the party against whom the constitutional provision is to be
by the prosecution was not the result of an unlawful search and seizure enforced. The only exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if
nor was it through unwarranted intrusion or invasion into Albofera's there is a "lawful order [from a] court or when public safety or order
privacy. Albofera admitted having sent the letter and it was its requires otherwise, as prescribed by law." Any violation of this
recipient, Rodrigo Esma himself, who produced and identified the same provision renders the evidence obtained inadmissible "for any purpose
in the course of his testimony in Court. Besides, there is nothing really in any proceeding." The intimacies between husband and wife do not
self- incriminatory in the letter. Albofera mainly pleaded that Esma justify any one of them in breaking the drawers and cabinets of the
change his declaration in his Affidavit and testify in his (Albofera's) other and in ransacking them for any telltale evidence of marital
favor. Furthermore, nothing Albofera stated in his letter is being taken infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his/her
against him in arriving at a determination of his culpability. integrity or his right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional
protection is ever available to him or to her. The law insures absolute
Zulueta vs. Court of Appeals [GR 107383, 20 February 1996] freedom of communication between the spouses by making it
privileged. Neither husband nor wife may testify for or against the
Facts: Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of Dr. Alfredo Martin. On 26 March other without the consent of the affected spouse while the marriage
1982, Zulueta entered the clinic of her husband, a doctor of medicine, subsists. Neither may be examined without the consent of the other as
and in the presence of her mother, a driver and Martin's secretary, to any communication received in confidence by one from the other
forcibly opened the drawers and cabinet in her husband's clinic and during the marriage, save for specified exceptions. But one thing is
took 157 documents consisting of private correspondence between Dr. freedom of communication; quite another is a compulsion for each one
to share what one knows with the other. And this has nothing to do enjoy immunity from the publication or untruthful charges derogatory
with the duty of fidelity that each owes to the other. to his character is not absolute and must at times yield to the superior
necessity of subjecting to investigation the conduct of persons
Deano vs. Godinez [GR L-19518, 28 November 1964] charged with wrong-doing. In order to accomplish this purpose and to
Facts: permit private persons having, or in good faith believing themselves to
On or about 20 March 1956, Diogenez Godinez, as a responsible public have, knowledge to such wrong doing, to perform the legal, moral,
school official, wrote a letter to the Division Superintendent of Schools, social duty resulting from such knowledge or belief, without restraining
his immediate superior officer, in essence that "Dr. Trinidad A. Deaño, them by the fear that an error, no matter how innocently or honestly
as the school dentist of Lanao, required the teachers in the field to made, may subject them to punishment for defamation, the doctrine of
sign blank forms indicating therein a contribution of P20.00 which she qualified privilege has been evolved. Herein, the communication
intended to be only for the dental-medical drive, when she knew well denounced as defamatory is one sent by Godinez to his immediate
that the drive included the Boy Scout Rally of the district; that in view superior in the performance of a legal duty, or in the nature of a report
of the above, Dr. Deaño is a carping critic, a fault finder and suspects submitted in the exercise of an official function. He sent it as an
every teacher or school official to be potential grafters and swindlers explanation of a matter contained in an indorsement sent to him by his
of the medical -dental funds; and thus the lady dentist will not be superior officer. It is a report submitted in obedience to a lawful duty,
welcomed in Lumbatan district next school year as she did more harm though in doing so Godinez employed a language somewhat harsh and
than good to the teeth of the patients she treated. Deaño, assisted by uncalled for. But such is excusable in the interest of public policy. The
her husband Manuel Deaño, filed an action for damages against Godinez letter sent by Godinez being a privileged communication, it is presumed
before the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte based on a that it was sent without malice. It being a communication sent in the
communication sent by the latter as district supervisor to his discharge of a legal duty, the writer is not liable for damages.
immediate superior, the Division Superintendent of Schools. Trinidad
claims that, with malice aforethought and in disregard of proper Waterous Drug Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission
decorum and accepted administrative practices, Godinez wrote the (NLRC) [GR 113271, 16 October 1997]
aforesaid communication making therein statements which are contrary Facts:
to morals, good customs or public policy, and to existing rules and Antonia Melodia Catolico was hired as a pharmacist by Waterous Drug
regulations, thereby causing irreparable damage to her personal dignity Corporation on 15 August 1988. On 31 July 1989, Catolico received a
and professional standing, for which reason she asks that she be paid memorandum from Waterous Vice President- General Manager Emma R.
P30,000.00 as moral damages, P10,000.00 as exemplary damages, Co warning her not to dispense medicine to employees chargeable to
and P1,000.00 as attorney's fees for bringing the present action. the latter's accounts because the same was a prohibited practice. On
Godibnez moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the letter the same date, Co issued another memorandum to Catolico warning her
complained of is a privileged communication and the action has already not to negotiate with suppliers of medicine without consulting the
prescribed. The motion was upheld, and the trial court dismissed the Purchasing Department, as this would impair the company's control of
complaint. Deano appealed. purchases and, besides she was not authorized to deal directly with the
suppliers. As regards the first memorandum, Catolico did not deny her
Issue: responsibility but explained that her act was "due to negligence," since
Whether the letter in which the alleged defamatory statements appear fellow employee Irene Soliven "obtained the medicines in bad faith and
partake of the nature of a privileged communication. through misrepresentation when she claimed that she was given a
charge slip by the Admitting Department, Catolico then asked the
Held: company to look into the fraudulent activities of Soliven. In a
The doctrine of privileged communication rests upon public policy, memorandum 9 dated 21 November 1989, Waterous Supervisor
which looks to the free and unfettered administration of justice, Luzviminda E. Bautro warned Catolico against the "rush delivery of
though, as an incidental result, it may in some instances afford an medicines without the proper documents." On 29 January 1990,
immunity to the evil-disposed and malignant slanderer. Public policy is Waterous Control Clerk Eugenio Valdez informed Co that he noticed an
the foundation of the doctrine of privilege communications. It is based irregularity involving Catolico and Yung Shin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
upon the recognition of the fact that the right of the individual to Valdez talked to Ms. Catolico regarding the check but she denied
having received it and that she is unaware of the overprice. However, awards in the amount of P35,401.86. Their motion for reconsideration
upon conversation with Ms. Saldana, EDRC Espana Pharmacy Clerk, she having been denied, Waterous filed the special civil action for certiorari
confirmed that the check amounting to P640.00 was actually received with the Supreme Court.
by Ms. Catolico. As a matter of fact, Ms. Catolico even asked Ms.
Saldana if she opened the envelope containing the check but Ms. Issue:
Saldana answered her "talagang ganyan, bukas." It appears that the Whether Waterous’ act of opening an envelope from one of its regular
amount in question (P640.00) had been pocketed by Ms. Catolico. suppliers is contrary to the injunction against unreasonable search and
Forthwith, in her memorandum dated 31 January 1990, Co asked seizure and a person’s right to privacy of communication.
Catolico to explain, within 24 hours, her side of the reported
irregularity. Catolico asked for additional time to give her explanation, Held:
and she was granted a 48-hour extension from 1 to 3 February 1990. In light of the decision in the People v. Marti, the constitutional
However, on 2 February 1990, she was informed that effective 6 protection against unreasonable searches and seizures refers to the
February 1990 to 7 March 1990, she would be placed on preventive immunity of one's person from interference by government and cannot
suspension to protect the interests of the company. In a letter dated 2 be extended to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring it
February 1990, Catolico requested access to the file containing Sales within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government. The
Invoice 266 for her to be able to make a satisfactory explanation. In Court finds no reason to revise the doctrine laid down in People vs.
said letter she protested Saldaña's invasion of her privacy when Marti that the Bill of Rights does not protect citizens from
Saldaña opened an envelope addressed to Catolico. In a letter 15 to Co unreasonable searches and seizures perpetrated by private individuals.
dated 10 February 1990, Catolico, through her counsel, explained that It is not true that the citizens have no recourse against such assaults.
the check she received from YSP was a Christmas gift and not a On the contrary, such an invasion gives rise to both criminal and civil
"refund of overprice." She also averred that the preventive suspension liabilities. Herein, there was no violation of the right of privacy of
was ill-motivated, as it sprang from an earlier incident between her and communication, and Waterous was justified in opening an envelope
Co's secretary, Irene Soliven. On 5 March 1990, Waterous Supervisor from one of its regular suppliers as it could assume that the letter was
Luzviminda Bautro, issued a memorandum notifying Catolico of her a business communication in which it had an interest. However,
termination. On 5 May 1990, Catolico filed before the Office of the Catolico was denied due process. Procedural due process requires that
Labor Arbiter a complaint for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal, and an employee be apprised of the charge against him, given reasonable
illegal suspension. In his decision of 10 May 1993, Labor Arbiter Alex time to answer the charge, allowed amply opportunity to be heard and
Arcadio Lopez found no proof of unfair labor practice against defend himself, and assisted by a representative if the employee so
Waterous. Nevertheless, he decided in favor of Catolico because desires. Ample opportunity connotes every kind of assistance that
Waterous failed to "prove what [they] alleged as complainant's management must accord the employee to enable him to prepare
dishonesty," and to show that any investigation was conducted. Hence, adequately for his defense, including legal representation. Although
the dismissal was without just cause and due process. He thus declared Catolico was given an opportunity to explain her side, she was
the dismissal and suspension illegal but disallowed reinstatement, as it dismissed from the service in the memorandum of 5 March 1990
would not be to the best interest of the parties. Accordingly, he issued by her Supervisor after receipt of her letter and that of her
awarded separation pay to Catolico computed at one-half month's pay counsel. No hearing was ever conducted after the issues were joined
for every year of service; back wages for one year; and the additional through said letters. The Supervisor's memorandum spoke of "evidence
sum of P2,000.00 for illegal suspension "representing 30 days work"; in [Waterous] possession," which were not, however, submitted. What
for a total of P35,401.86. Waterous seasonably appealed from the the "evidence" other than the sales invoice and the check were, only
decision and urged the NLRC to set it aside. In its decision of 30 the Supervisor knew. Catolico's dismissal then was grounded on mere
September 1993, the NLRC affirmed the findings of the Labor Arbiter suspicion, which in no case can justify an employee's dismissal.
on the ground that petitioners were not able to prove a just cause for Suspicion is not among the valid causes provided by the Labor Code for
Catolico's dismissal from her employment. and thus dismissed the the termination of employment; and even the dismissal of an employee
appeal for lack of merit, but modified the dispositive portion of the for loss of trust and confidence must rest on substantial grounds and
appealed decision by deleting the award for illegal suspension as the not on the employer's arbitrariness, whims, caprices, or suspicion.
same was already included in the computation of the aggregate of the Besides, Catolico was not shown to be a managerial employee, to which
class of employees the term "trust and confidence" is restricted. Thus, Held:
the decision and resolution of the NLRC are affirmed except as to its It is that although of course its seizure was an outrage which the
reason for upholding the Labor Arbiter's decision, viz., that the Government now regrets, it may study the papers before it returns
evidence against Catolico was inadmissible for having been obtained in them, copy them, and then may use the knowledge that it has gained
violation of her constitutional rights of privacy of communication and to call upon the owners in a more regular form to produce them; that
against unreasonable searches and seizures, which was set aside. the protection of the Constitution covers the physical possession but
not any advantages that the Government can gain over the object of
Silverthorne Lumber Co. vs. United States [251 US 385, 25 January its pursuit by doing the forbidden act, to be sure, had established that
1920] laying the papers directly before the grand jury was unwarranted, but it
Facts: is taken to mean only that two steps are required instead of one. In our
An indictment upon a single specific charge having been brought opinion such is not the law. It reduces the Fourth Amendment to a
against Frederick Silverthorne and his father (of Silverthorne Lumber form of words. The essence of a provision forbidding the acquisition of
Co.), they both were arrested at their homes early in the morning of evidence in a certain way is that not merely evidence so acquired shall
February 25, and were detained in custody a number of hours. While not be used before the Court but that it shall not be used at all. Of
they were thus detained representatives of the Department of Justice course this does not mean that the facts thus obtained become sacred
and the United States marshal without a shadow of authority went to and inaccessible. If knowledge of them is gained from an independent
the office of their company and made a clean sweep of all the books, source they may be proved like any others, but the knowledge gained
papers and documents found there. All the employes were taken or by the Government's own wrong cannot be used by it in the way
directed to go to the office of the District Attorney of the United proposed. The numberous decisions, like Adams v. New York (192 U.S.
States to which also the books, &c., were taken at once. An application 585) holding that a collateral inquiry into the mode in which evidence
was made as soon as might be to the District Court for a return of has been got will not be allowed when the question is raised for the
what thus had been taken unlawfully. It was opposed by the District first time at the trial, are no authority in the present proceeding, as is
Attorney so far as he had found evidence against Silverthorne, and it explained in Weeks v. United States (232 U.S. 383). Whether some of
was stated that the evidence so obtained was before the grand jury. those decisions have gone too far or have given wrong reasons it is
Color had been given by the District Attorney to the approach of those unnecessary to inquire; the principle applicable to the present case
concerned in the act by an invalid subpoena for certain documents seems to us plain. It is stated satisfactorily in Flagg v. United States
relating to the charge in the indictment then on file. Thus the case is (233 Fed. 481, 483, 147 C. C. A. 367). In Linn v. United States (251
not that of knowledge acquired through the wrongful act of a stranger, Fed. 476, 480, 163 C. C. A. 470), it was thought that a different rule
but it must be assumed that the Government planned or at all events applied to a corporation, on the ground that it was not privileged from
ratified the whole performance. Photographs and copies of material producing its books and papers. But the rights of a corporation against
papers were made and a new indictment was framed based upon the unlawful search and seizure are to be protected even if the same result
knowledge thus obtained. The District Court ordered a return of the might have been achieved in a lawful way.
originals but impounded the photographs and copies. Subpoenas to
produce the originals then were served and on the refusal of the People vs. Aruta [GR 120915, 13 April 1998]
Silverthornes to produce them the Court made an order that the Facts:
subpoenas should be complied with, although it had found that all the On 13 December 1988, P/Lt. Abello was tipped off by his informant,
papers had been seized in violation of the parties' constitutional rights. known only as Benjie, that a certain "Aling Rosa" would be arriving from
The refusal to obey this order is the contempt alleged. The Baguio City the following day, with a large volume of marijuana. Acting
Government now, while in form repudiating and condemning the illegal on said tip, P/Lt. Abello assembled a team composed of P/Lt. Jose
seizure, seeks to maintain its right to avail itself of the knowledge Domingo, Sgt. Angel Sudiacal, Sgt. Oscar Imperial, Sgt. Danilo Santiago
obtained by that means which otherwise it would not have had. and Sgt. Efren Quirubin. Said team proceeded to West Bajac-Bajac,
Olongapo City at around 4:00 p.m. of 14 December 1988 and
Issue: deployed themselves near the Philippine National Bank (PNB) building
Whether the exclusion of papers acquired in illegal search and seizure along Rizal Avenue and the Caltex gasoline station. Dividing themselves
applies also their copies. into two groups, one group, made up of P/Lt. Abello, P/Lt. Domingo
and the informant posted themselves near the PNB building while the unreasonable searches and seizures. As such, it protects the privacy
other group waited near the Caltex gasoline station. While thus and sanctity of the person himself against unlawful arrests and other
positioned, a Victory Liner Bus with body number 474 and the letters forms of restraint. Therewithal, the right of a person to be secured
BGO printed on its front and back bumpers stopped in front of the PNB against any unreasonable seizure of his body and any deprivation of his
building at around 6:30 p.m. of the same day from where two females liberty is a most basic and fundamental one. A statute, rule or situation
and a male got off. It was at this stage that the informant pointed out which allows exceptions to the requirement of a warrant of arrest or
to the team "Aling Rosa" who was then carrying a travelling bag. search warrant must perforce be strictly construed and their
Having ascertained that Rosa Aruta y Menguin was "Aling Rosa," the application limited only to cases specifically provided or allowed by law.
team approached her and introduced themselves as NARCOM agents. To do otherwise is an infringement upon personal liberty and would set
When P/Lt. Abello asked "Aling Rosa" about the contents of her bag, back a right so basic and deserving of full protection and vindication
the latter handed it to the former. Upon inspection, the bag was found yet often violated. While it may be argued that by entering a plea
to contain dried marijuana leaves packed in a plastic bag marked "Cash during arraignment and by actively participating in the trial, Aruta may
Katutak." The team confiscated the bag together with the Victory be deemed to have waived objections to the illegality of the
Liner bus ticket to which Lt. Domingo affixed his signature. Aruta was warrantless search and to the inadmissibility of the evidence obtained
then brought to the NARCOM office for investigation where a Receipt thereby, the same may not apply herein for the following reasons: (1)
of Property Seized was prepared for the confiscated marijuana leaves. The waiver would only apply to objections pertaining to the illegality of
Upon examination of the seized marijuana specimen at the PC/INP the arrest as her plea of "not guilty" and participation in the trial are
Crime Laboratory, Camp Olivas, Pampanga, P/Maj. Marlene Salangad, a indications of her voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction. 32
Forensic Chemist, prepared a Technical Report stating that said The plea and active participation in the trial would not cure the
specimen yielded positive results for marijuana, a prohibited drug. illegality of the search and transform the inadmissible evidence into
Aruta was charged with violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act objects of proof. The waiver simply does not extend this far. (2)
6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act. Upon arraignment, she pleaded "not Granting that evidence obtained through a warrantless search becomes
guilty." Aruta claimed that immediately prior to her arrest, she had just admissible upon failure to object thereto during the trial of the case,
come from Choice Theater where she watched the movie "Balweg." records show that accused-appellant filed a Demurrer to Evidence and
While about to cross the road, an old woman asked her help in carrying objected and opposed the prosecution's Formal Offer of Evidence. As
a shoulder bag. In the middle of the road, Lt. Abello and Lt. Domingo held in People vs. Barros, waiver of the non-admissibility of the " fruits"
arrested her and asked her to go with them to the NARCOM Office. of an invalid warrantless arrest and of a warrantless search and seizure
After trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City is not casually to be presumed, if the constitutional right against
convicted and sentenced her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment unlawful searches and seizures is to retain its vitality for the protection
and to pay a fine of P20,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in of our people. In fine, there was really no excuse for the NARCOM
case of insolvency. Aruta appealed. agents not to procure a search warrant considering that they had more
than 24 hours to do so. Obviously, this is again an instance of seizure
Issue: of the "fruit of the poisonous tree," hence illegal and inadmissible
Whether the plea of “not guilty” during Aruta’s arraigment effectly subsequently in evidence. The exclusion of such evidence is the only
waived the non-admissibility of the evidence acquired in the invalid practical means of enforcing the constitutional injunction against
warrantless search and seizure. unreasonable searches and seizure. The non-exclusionary rule is
contrary to the letter and spirit of the prohibition against unreasonable
Held: searches and seizures.
Articles which are the product of unreasonable searches and seizures
are inadmissible as evidence pursuant to the doctrine pronounced in People vs. Rondero [GR 125687, 9 December 1999]
Stonehill v. Diokno. This exclusionary rule was later enshrined in Article Facts:
III, Section 3(2) of the Constitution. From the foregoing, it can be said On the evening of 25 March 1994, Mardy Doria came home late from a
that the State cannot simply intrude indiscriminately into the houses, barrio fiesta. When he noticed that his 9-year old sister, Mylene, was
papers, effects, and most importantly, on the person of an individual. not around, he woke up his parents to inquire about his sister's
The constitutional provision guaranteed an impenetrable shield against whereabouts. Realizing that Mylene was missing, their father, Maximo
Doria, sought the help of a neighbor, Barangay Kagawad Andong formally charged with the special complex crime of rape with homicide.
Rondero to search for Mylene. Maximo and Andong went to the house Rondero pleaded not guilty at his arraignment. As to the hair specimen
of a Barangay Captain to ask for assistance and also requested their sent to the NBI, comparative micro-physical examination on the
other neighbors in Pugaro, Dagupan to look for Mylene. The group specimens showed that the hair strands found on the right hand of the
began searching for Mylene at around 1:00 a.m. of 26 March 1994. victim had similar characteristics to those of accused-appellant's, while
They scoured the campus of Pugaro Elementary School and the the hair specimen taken from the crime scene showed similar
seashore in vain. They even returned to the school and inspected every characteristics to those of the victim's. On 13 October 1995, the trial
classroom but to no avail. Tired and distraught, Maximo started on his court rendered judgment convicting Rondero of the crime of murder
way home. When he was about 5 meters away from his house, Maximo, and sentencing him to death. Rondero moved for reconsideration. On
who was then carrying a flashlight, saw Delfin Rondero pumping the 10 November 1995, the trial court issued an order modifying its earlier
artesian well about 1 meter away. Rondero had an ice pick clenched in decision, convicting Rondero of the crime of homicide and sentencing
his mouth and was washing his bloodied hands. Maximo hastily returned him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua instead, on the ground
to the school and told Kagawad Andong what he saw without, that under Section 10 of Republic Act 7610, otherwise known as the
however, revealing that the person he saw was the latter's own son. "Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Maximo and Andong continued their search for Mylene but after failing Discrimination Act," the penalty for homicide is reclusion perpetua
to find her, the two men decided to go home. After some time, a when the victim is under 12 years of age. Rondero appealed.
restless Maximo began to search anew for her daughter. He again
sought the help of Andong and the barangay secretary. The group Issue:
returned to Pugaro Elementary School where they found Mylene's Whether the hair strands, undershirt and shorts taken from Rondero
lifeless body lying on a cemented pavement near the canteen. Her right are admissible as evidence.
hand was raised above her head, which was severely bashed, and her
fractured left hand was behind her back. She was naked from the waist Held:
down and had several contusions and abrasions on different parts of Under Section 12 and 17 of Article III of the Constitution, what is
her body. Tightly gripped in her right hand were some hair strands. A actually proscribed is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
blue rubber slipper with a tiny leaf painted in red was found beside her communication from the accused-appellant and not the inclusion of his
body while the other slipper was found behind her back. Half an hour body in evidence when it may be material. For instance, substance
later, 5 policemen arrived at the scene and conducted a spot emitted from the body of the accused may be received as evidence in
investigation. They found a pair of shorts under Mylene's buttocks, prosecution for acts of lasciviousness and morphine forced out of the
which Maximo identified as hers. Thereafter, Maximo led the policemen mouth of the accused may also be used as evidence against him.
to the artesian well where he had seen Rondero earlier washing his Consequently, although Rondero insists that hair samples were forcibly
hands. The policemen found that the artesian well was spattered with taken from him and submitted to the NBI for forensic examination, the
blood. After the investigation, the policemen, together with Maximo, hair samples may be admitted in evidence against him, for what is
went back to their headquarters in Dagupan City. There, Maximo proscribed is the use of testimonial compulsion or any evidence
disclosed that before they found Mylene's body, he saw Rondero communicative in nature acquired from the accused under duress. On
washing his bloodstained hands at the artesian well. Acting on this the other hand, the blood-stained undershirt and short pants taken
lead, the policemen returned to Pugaro and arrested Rondero. Some from Rondero are inadmissible in evidence. They were taken without
policemen took the newly washed undershirt and short pants of the proper search warrant from the police officers. Rondero's wife
Rondero from the clothesline. The policemen brought Rondero's wife, testified that the police officers, after arresting her husband in their
Christine, with them to the police headquarters for questioning. When house, took the garments from the clothesline without proper
asked about the blood on her husband's clothes, Christine told them authority. This was never rebutted by the prosecution. Under the
about their quarrel the night before. On 28 March 1994, the hair libertarian exclusionary rule known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree,"
strands which were found on the victim's right hand and at the scene evidence illegally obtained by the state should not be used to gain
of the crime, together with hair specimens taken from the victim and other evidence because the illegally obtained evidence taints all
Rondero, were sent to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for evidence subsequently obtained. Simply put, Rondero's garments,
laboratory examination. Meanwhile, on 30 March 1994, Rondero was having been seized in violation of his constitutional right against illegal
searches and seizure, are inadmissible in court as evidence. 1983, the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Region, Branch 95,
Nevertheless, even without the admission of the bloodied garments of through Judge Willelmo C. Fortun presiding, issued a resolution granting
Rondero as corroborative evidence, the circumstances obtaining the motion to dismiss. A motion to set aside the order dismissing the
against Rondero are sufficient to establish his guilt. complaint and a supplemental motion for reconsideration was filed by
Aberca, et. al. on 18 November 1983, and 24 November 1983,
Aberca vs. Ver [GR L-69866, 15 April 1988] respectively. On 15 December 1983, Judge Fortun issued an order
Facts: voluntarily inhibiting himself from further proceeding in the case and
The case stems from alleged illegal searches and seizures and other leaving the resolution of the motion to set aside the order of dismissal
violations of the rights and liberties of Rogelio Aberca, Rodolfo Benosa, to Judge Lising, "to preclude any suspicion that he (Judge Fortun)
Nestor Bodino, Noel Etabag, Danilo De La Fuente, Belen Diaz-Flores, cannot resolve [the] aforesaid pending motion with the cold neutrality
Manuel Mario Guzman, Alan Jazminez, Edwin Lopez, Alfredo Mansos, of an impartial judge and to put an end to plaintiffs assertion that the
Alex Marcelino, Elizabeth Protacio-Marcelino, Joseph Olayer, Carlos undersigned has no authority or jurisdiction to resolve said pending
Palma, Marco Palo, Rolando Salutin, Benjamin Sesgundo, Arturo Tabara, motion." This order prompted Aberca, et. al. to file an amplificatory
Edwin Tulalian and Rebecca Tulalian by various intelligence suits of the motion for reconsideration signed in the name of the Free Legal
Armed Forces of the Philippines, known as Task Force Makabansa Assistance Group [FLAG] of Mabini Legal Aid Committee, by Attys.
(TFM), ordered by General Fabian Ver "to conduct pre-emptive strikes Joker P. Arroyo, Felicitas Aquino and Arno Sanidad on 12 April 1984. In
against known communist-terrorist (CT) underground houses in view of an order dated 11 May 1984, the trial court, Judge Esteban Lising
increasing reports about CT plans to sow disturbances in Metro Manila." presiding, without acting on the motion to set aside order of 8
Aberca, et. al. alleged that complying with said order, elements of the November 1983, issued an order declaring the order of 8 November
TFM raided several places, employing in most cases defectively issued 1983 final against Aberca, et al. for failure to move for reconsideration
judicial search warrants; that during these raids, certain members of nor to interpose an appeal therefrom. Assailing the said order of 11
the raiding party confiscated a number of purely personal items May 1984, Anerca, et. al. filed a motion for reconsideration on 28 May
belonging to Aberca, et. al.; that Aberca, et. al. were arrested without 1984. In its resolution of 21 September 1984, the court dealt with
proper warrants issued by the courts; that for some period after their both motions (1) to reconsider its order of 11 May 1984 declaring
arrest, they were denied visits of relatives and lawyers; that Aberca, that with respect to certain plaintiffs, the resolution of 8 November
et. al. were interrogated in violation of their rights to silence and 1983 had already become final, and (2) to set aside its resolution of 8
counsel; that military men who interrogated them employed threats, November 1983 granting Ver, et. al.'s motion to dismiss. On 15 March
tortures and other forms of violence on them in order to obtain 1985, Aberca, et. al. filed the petition for certiorari before the
incriminatory information or confessions and in order to punish them; Supreme Court.
that all violations of Aberca, et. al.'s constitutional rights were part of
a concerted and deliberate plan to forcibly extract information and Issue:
incriminatory statements from Aberca, et. al. and to terrorize, harass Whether Ver, et. al., may be held civilly liable for undertaking invalid
and punish them, said plans being previously known to and sanctioned search and seizures, or violation of Constitutional rights or liberties of
by Maj. Gen. Fabian Ver, Col. Fidel Singson, Col. Rolando Abadilla, Col. another in general.
Gerardo B. Lantoria, Col. Galileo Kintanar, Lt. Col. Panfilo M. Lacson,
Maj. Rodolfo Aguinaldo, Capt. Danilo Pizarro, 1lt. Pedro Tango, 1lt. Held:
Romeo Ricardo, 1lt. Raul Bacalso, Msgt. Bienvenido Balaba. Aberca, et. It may be that Ver, et. al., as members of the Armed Forces of the
al. sought actual/compensatory damages amounting to P39,030.00; Philippines, were merely responding to their duty, as they claim, "to
moral damages in the amount of at least P150,000.00 each or a total prevent or suppress lawless violence, insurrection, rebellion and
of P3,000,000.00; exemplary damages in the amount of at least subversion" in accordance with Proclamation 2054 of President
P150,000.00 each or a total of P3,000,000.00; and attorney's fees Marcos, despite the lifting of martial law on 27 January 1981, and in
amounting to not less than P200,000.00. Ver, et. al. moved to pursuance of such objective, to launch pre-emptive strikes against
dismiss. On 8 November alleged communist terrorist underground houses. But this cannot be
construed as a blanket license or a roving commission untramelled by
any constitutional restraint, to disregard or transgress upon the rights
and liberties of the individual citizen enshrined in and protected by the involving the exercise of powers or authority arising from Martial Law
Constitution. The Constitution remains the supreme law of the land to including the arrest, detention and/or trial of the plaintiff, the same
which all officials, high or low, civilian or military, owe obedience and must be brought within one (1) year." Thus, even assuming that the
allegiance at all times. Article 32 of the Civil Code which renders any suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus suspends
public officer or employee or any private individual liable in damages for Aberca, et. al.'s right of action for damages for illegal arrest and
violating the Constitutional rights and liberties of another, as detention, it does not and cannot suspend their rights and causes of
enumerated therein, does not exempt Ver, et. al. from responsibility. action for injuries suffered because of Ver, et. al.'s confiscation of their
Only judges are excluded from liability under the said article, provided private belongings, the violation of their right to remain silent and to
their acts or omissions do not constitute a violation of the Penal Code counsel and their right to protection against unreasonable searches
or other penal statute. This is not to say that military authorities are and seizures and against torture and other cruel and inhuman
restrained from pursuing their assigned task or carrying out their treatment.
mission with vigor. However, in carrying out this task and mission,
constitutional and legal safeguards must be observed, otherwise, the Miranda vs. Arizona [384 US 436, 13 June 1966]
very fabric of our faith will start to unravel. Article 32 clearly speaks of Facts:
an officer or employee or person "directly" or "indirectly" responsible [No. 759; Miranda vs. Arizona] On 13 March 1963, Ernesto Miranda
for the violation of the constitutional rights and liberties of another. was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a Phoenix police
Thus, it is not the actor alone (i.e. the one directly responsible) who station. He was there identified by the complaining witness. The police
must answer for damages under Article 32; the person indirectly then took him to "Interrogation Room No. 2" of the detective bureau.
responsible has also to answer for the damages or injury caused to the There he was questioned by two police officers. The officers did not
aggrieved party. By this provision, the principle of accountability of advise Miranda that he had a right to have an attorney present. Two
public officials under the Constitution acquires added meaning and hours later, the officers emerged from the interrogation room with a
assumes a larger dimension. No longer may a superior official relax his written confession signed by Miranda. At the top of the statement was
vigilance or abdicate his duty to supervise his subordinates, secure in a typed paragraph stating that the confession was made voluntarily,
the thought that he does not have to answer for the transgressions without threats or promises of immunity and "with full knowledge of
committed by the latter against the constitutionally protected rights my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used
and liberties of the citizen. Part of the factors that propelled people against me." At his trial before a jury, the written confession was
power in February 1986 was the widely held perception that the admitted into evidence over the objection of defense counsel, and the
government was callous or indifferent to, if not actually responsible for, officers testified to the prior oral confession made by Miranda during
the rampant violations of human rights. While it would certainly be too the interrogation. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape. He
naive to expect that violators of human rights would easily be deterred was sentenced to 20 to 30 years' imprisonment on each count, the
by the prospect of facing damage suits, it should nonetheless be made sentences to run concurrently. On appeal, the Supreme Court of
clear in no uncertain terms that Article 32 of the Civil Code makes the Arizona held that Miranda's constitutional rights were not violated in
persons who are directly, as well as indirectly, responsible for the obtaining the confession and affirmed the conviction. In reaching its
transgression joint tortfeasors. Further, the suspension of the privilege decision, the court emphasized heavily the fact that Miranda did not
of the writ of habeas corpus does not destroy Aberca, et. al.'s right specifically request counsel.
and cause of action for damages for illegal arrest and detention and [No. 760, Vignera vs. New York] Michael Vignera, was picked up by
other violations of their constitutional rights. The suspension does not New York police on 14 October 1960, in connection with the robbery
render valid an otherwise illegal arrest or detention. What is suspended three days earlier of a Brooklyn dress shop. They took him to the 17th
is merely the right of the individual to seek release from detention Detective Squad headquarters in Manhattan. Sometime thereafter he
through the writ of habeas corpus as a speedy means of obtaining his was taken to the 66th Detective Squad. While at the 66th Detective
liberty. Furthermore, their right and cause of action for damages are Squad, Vignera was identified by the store owner and a saleslady as
explicitly recognized in P.D. No. 1755 which amended Article 1146 of the man who robbed the dress shop. At about 3 p. m. he was formally
the Civil Code by adding the following to its text: "However, when the arrested. The police then transported him to still another station, the
action (for injury to the rights of the plaintiff or for a quasi-delict) 70th Precinct in Brooklyn, "for detention." At 11 p. m. Vignera was
arises from or out of any act, activity or conduct of any public officer questioned by an assistant district attorney in the presence of a
hearing reporter who transcribed the questions and Vignera's answers. the robberies. At about 7:15 p. m., 31 January 1963, police officers
This verbatim account of these proceedings contains no statement of went to Stewart's house and arrested him. One of the officers asked
any warnings given by the assistant district attorney. At Vignera's trial Stewart if they could search the house, to which he replied, "Go
on a charge of first degree robbery, the detective testified as to the ahead." The search turned up various items taken from the five
oral confession. The transcription of the statement taken was also robbery victims. At the time of Stewart's arrest, police also arrested
introduced in evidence. Vignera was found guilty of first degree Stewart's wife and three other persons who were visiting him. These
robbery. He was subsequently adjudged a third-felony offender and four were jailed along with Stewart and were interrogated. Stewart was
sentenced to 30 to 60 years' imprisonment. The conviction was taken to the University Station of the Los Angeles Police Department
affirmed without opinion by the Appellate Division, Second Department, where he was placed in a cell. During the next five days, police
and by the Court of Appeals, also without opinion, remittitur amended. interrogated Stewart on nine different occasions. Except during the
In argument to the Court of Appeals, the State contended that Vignera first interrogation session, when he was confronted with an accusing
had no constitutional right to be advised of his right to counsel or his witness, Stewart was isolated with his interrogators. During the ninth
privilege against self-incrimination. interrogation session, Stewart admitted that he had robbed the
[No. 761, Westover vs. United States] At approximately 9:45 p. m. on deceased and stated that he had not meant to hurt her. Police then
20 March 1963, Carl Calvin Westover was arrested by local police in brought Stewart before a magistrate for the first time. Since there was
Kansas City as a suspect in two Kansas City robberies. A report was no evidence to connect them with any crime, the police then released
also received from the FBI that he was wanted on a felony charge in the other four persons arrested with him. Nothing in the record
California. The local authorities took him to a police station and placed specifically indicates whether Stewart was or was not advised of his
him in a line-up on the local charges, and at about 11:45 p. m. he was right to remain silent or his right to counsel. In a number of instances,
booked. Kansas City police interrogated Westover on the night of his however, the interrogating officers were asked to recount everything
arrest. He denied any knowledge of criminal activities. The next day that was said during the interrogations. None indicated that Stewart
local officers interrogated him again throughout the morning. Shortly was ever advised of his rights. Stewart was charged with kidnapping to
before noon they informed the FBI that they were through commit robbery, rape, and murder. At his trial, transcripts of the first
interrogating Westover and that the FBI could proceed to interrogate interrogation and the confession at the last interrogation were
him. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Westover was ever introduced in evidence. The jury found Stewart guilty of robbery and
given any warning as to his rights by local police. At noon, three special first degree murder and fixed the penalty as death. On appeal, the
agents of the FBI continued the interrogation in a private interview Supreme Court of California reversed.
room of the Kansas City Police Department, this time with respect to
the robbery of a savings and loan association and a bank in Issue:
Sacramento, California. After two or two and one-half hours, Westover Whether the written confessions made in uncounselled interrogation,
signed separate confessions to each of these two robberies which had with the accused not appraised of his right to consult with an attorney
been prepared by one of the agents during the interrogation. At trial and to have one during the inerrogation, nor his right not to be
one of the agents testified, and a paragraph on each of the statements compelled to incriminate himself, are not admissible as evidence.
states, that the agents advised Westover that he did not have to make
a statement, that any statement he made could be used against him, Held:
and that he had the right to see an attorney. Westover was tried by a In No. 759, from the testimony of the officers and by the admission of
jury in federal court and convicted of the California robberies. His the State of Arizona, it is clear that Miranda was not in any way
statements were introduced at trial. He was sentenced to 15 years' apprised of his right to consult with an attorney and to have one
imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run consecutively. On present during the interrogation, nor was his right not to be compelled
appeal, the conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the to incriminate himself effectively protected in any other manner.
Ninth Circuit. Without these warnings the statements were inadmissible. The mere
[No. 584, California vs. Stewart] In the course of investigating a series fact that he signed a statement which contained a typed-in clause
of purse-snatch robberies in which one of the victims had died of stating that he had "full knowledge" of his "legal rights" does not
injuries inflicted by her assailant, Roy Allen Stewart was pointed out to approach the knowing and intelligent waiver required to relinquish
Los Angeles police as the endorser of dividend checks taken in one of constitutional rights.
 the upper part" of her body. At around 12:30 a.m., her husband woke
Similarly in No. 760, Vignera was not warned of any of his rights before her up because he sensed someone going down the stairs of their
the questioning by the detective and by the assistant district attorney. house. She noticed that Nairube was no longer in the place where she
No other steps were taken to protect these rights. Thus he was not was sleeping but she assumed that Nairube merely answered the call of
effectively apprised of his Fifth Amendment privilege or of his right to nature. Nairube's blanket was also no longer at the place she slept but
have counsel present and his statements are inadmissible. In No. 761, that her slippers were still there. After three minutes of waiting for
there is nothing in the facts that Westover knowingly and intelligently Nairube's return, she stood up and began calling out for Nairube but
waived his right to remain silent and his right to consult with counsel there was no answer. Thereafter, she went downstairs and saw that
prior to the time he made the statement. At the time the FBI agents the backdoor of their house was open. She went outside through the
began questioning Westover, he had been in custody for over 14 hours backdoor to see if Nairube was there but she was not. She found a pair
and had been interrogated at length during that period. The FBI of rubber slippers on top of a wooden bench outside of her backdoor.
interrogation began immediately upon the conclusion of the The sole of the slippers was red while the strap was a combination of
interrogation by Kansas City police and was conducted in local police yellow and white; said slippers did not belong to any member of her
headquarters. There is no evidence of any warning given prior to the family. Thereafter, she proceeded to the house of Alma Diaz to ask her
FBI interrogation nor is there any evidence of an articulated waiver of for help. Then, in the morning of 16 September 1997, she went to the
rights after the FBI commenced its interrogation. The record simply police station to report the loss of her child. She also reported the
shows that the defendant did in fact confess a short time after being discovery of the pair of slippers to SP02 Quirino Gallardo. She then
turned over to the FBI following interrogation by local police. Despite went home while the police began their search for Nairube. At around
the fact that the FBI agents gave warnings at the outset of their 12:30 p.m., Alma Diaz requested her to go with the searching team.
interview, from Westover's point of view the warnings came at the end During the search, Alma Diaz found a panty which she recognized as
of the interrogation process. In these circumstances an intelligent that of her daughter. After seeing the panty, she cried. She was
waiver of constitutional rights cannot be assumed. Law enforcement thereafter ordered to go home while the others continued the search.
authorities are not precluded from questioning any individual who has Thereafter, they continued the search and found a black collared T-
been held for a period of time by other authorities and interrogated by shirt with buttons in front and piping at the end of the sleeve hanging
them without appropriate warnings. A different case would be on a guava twig. Alma Diaz gave the shirt to SP02 Gallardo. Loreto
presented if an accused were taken into custody by the second Veloria informed him that the two items were worn by Clemente John
authority, removed both in time and place from his original Lugod when he went to the house of Violeta Cabuhat. At around 7:00
surroundings, and then adequately advised of his rights and given an p.m., SP02 Gallardo apprehended Lugod on the basis of the pair of
opportunity to exercise them. Lastly in No. 584, In dealing with slippers and the black T-shirt. He then brought Lugod to the police
custodial interrogation, the Court will not presume that a defendant station where he was temporarily incarcerated. At first, the accused
has been effectively apprised of his rights and that his privilege against denied that he did anything to Nairube but after he told him what
self-incrimination has been adequately safeguarded on a record that happened to the girl. Later, although he admitted to having raped and
does not show that any warnings have been given or that any effective killed Nairube, Lugud refused to make a statement regarding the same.
alternative has been employed. Nor can a knowing and intelligent After having been informed that the body of Nairube was in the grassy
waiver of these rights be assumed on a silent record. Furthermore, area, Gallardo together with other members of the PNP, the Crime
Stewart's steadfast denial of the alleged offenses through eight of the Watch and the townspeople continued the search but they were still
nine interrogations over a period of five days is subject to no other not able to find the body of Nairube. It was only when they brought
construction than that he was compelled by persistent interrogation to Lugod to Villa Anastacia to point out the location of the cadaver, on
forgo his Fifth Amendment privilege. 18 September 1997, that they found the body of Nairube. On 10
October 1997, Lugod was charged for rape with homicide. Upon
People vs. Lugod [GR 136253, 21 February 2001] arraignment, Lugod with the assistance of counsel entered a plea of
Facts: not guilty. Thereafter, trial ensued. On 8 October 1998, the Regional
On 15 September 1997 at around 7:00 p.m., Helen Ramos was asleep Trial Court (RTC) of Santa Cruz, Laguna found Lugod guilty beyond
in her house together with her husband (Danilo Ramos) and children, reasonable doubt, sentenced him to death, and ordered him to
Nimrod, Neres and Nairube, the victim. Nairube slept close to her "on indemnify the heirs of the victim, Nairube Ramos the sum of
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for her death and P37,200.00 as actual Lugod the night before the murder of Nairube and on several other
damages. Hence, the automatic review. occasions wearing the rubber slippers and black T-shirt found at the
house of the victim and Villa Anastacia respectively as well as the
Issue: testimony of Romualdo Ramos, the tricycle driver who stated that he
Whether Lugod’s confession and subesequent act of pointing the saw Lugod in the early morning of 16 September 1997 leaving Villa
location of the Nairube’s body may be used against him as evidence. Anastacia without a T-shirt and without slippers. These pieces of
evidence are circumstantial in nature. The combination of the above-
Held: mentioned circumstances does not lead to the irrefutably logical
Records reveal that Lugod was not informed of his right to remain conclusion that Lugod raped and murdered Nairube. At most, these
silent and to counsel, and that if he cannot afford to have counsel of circumstances, taken with the testimonies of the other prosecution
his choice, he would be provided with one. Moreover, there is no witnesses, merely establish Lugod's whereabouts on that fateful
evidence to indicate that he intended to waive these rights. Besides, evening and places Lugod at the scene of the crime and nothing more.
even if he did waive these rights, in order to be valid, the waiver must Lugod was acquitted.
be made in writing and with the assistance of counsel. Consequently,
Lugod's act of confessing to SPO2 Gallardo that he raped and killed People vs. Del Rosario [GR 127755, 14 April 1999]
Nairube without the assistance of counsel cannot be used against him Facts:
for having transgressed Lugod's rights under the Bill of Rights. This is a On 13 May 1996 between 6:00 and 6:30 p.m., Paul Vincent Alonzo
basic tenet of our Constitution which cannot be disregarded or ignored stopped his tricycle by the side of Nita's Drugstore, General Luna St.,
no matter how brutal the crime committed may be. In the same vein, Cabanatuan City, when three women flagged him. Parked at a distance
Lugod's act in pointing out the location of the body of Nairube was of about 1½ meters in front of him was a tricycle driven by Joselito del
also elicited in violation of the Lugod's right to remain silent. The same Rosario y Pascual. At that point, Alonzo saw 2 men and a woman
was an integral part of the- uncounselled confession and is considered (Virginia Bernas) grappling for possession of a bag. After taking hold of
a fruit of the poisonous tree. Even if we were to assume that Lugod the bag one of the two men (Ernesto "Jun" Marquez) armed with a gun
was not yet under interrogation and thus not entitled to his started chasing a man who was trying to help the woman, while the
constitutional rights at the time he was brought to the police station, other snatcher ("Dodong" Bisaya) kicked the woman sending her to the
Lugod's acts subsequent to his apprehension cannot be characterized ground. Soon after, the armed man returned and while the woman was
as having been voluntarily made considering the peculiar circumstances still on the ground he shot her on the head. The bag taken by the man
surrounding his detention. His confession was elicited by SPO2 Gallardo was brought to the tricycle of del Rosario where someone inside
who promised him that he would help him if he told the truth. (Virgilio "Boy" Santos) received the bag. The armed man then sat
Furthermore, when ugod allegedly pointed out the body of the victim, behind the driver while his companion entered the sidecar. When the
SPO2 Gallardo, the whole police force as well as nearly 100 of the tricycle sped away Alonzo gave chase and was able to get the plate
townspeople of Cavinti escorted him there. Ricardo Vida stated that number of the tricycle. He also recognized the driver, after which he
the townspeople were antagonistic towards Lugod and wanted to hurt went to the nearest police headquarters and reported the incident.
him. The atmosphere from the time Lugod was apprehended and taken Upon finding the name of the owner of the tricycle, SP04 Geronimo de
to the police station up until the time he was alleged to have pointed Leon and his team proceeded to Bakod Bayan in the house of the
out the location of the body of the victim was highly intimidating and barangay captain where the owner of the tricycle was summoned and
was not conducive to a spontaneous response. Amidst such a highly who in turn revealed the driver's name and was invited for interview.
coercive atmosphere, Lugod's claim that he was beaten up and Del Rosario volunteered to name his passengers on 13 May 1996. On
maltreated by the police officers raises a very serious doubt as to the the way to the police station, del Rosario informed them of the bag
voluntariness of his alleged confession. The Vice-Mayor, who testified and lunch kit's location and the place where the hold-uppers may be
that when he visited Lugod in the jail cell, he noticed that Lugod had found and they reported these findings to their officers, Capt. Biag and
bruises on his face, corroborated Lugod's assertion that he was Capt. Cruz. After lunch, they proceeded to Brgy. Dicarma composed of
maltreated. Considering that the confession of Lugod cannot be used 15 armed men where a shoot-out transpired that lasted from 1:00 to
against him, the only remaining evidence which was established by the 4:00 p.m. After a brief encounter, they went inside the house where
prosecution is the fact that several persons testified having seen
they found Marquez dead holding a magazine and a gun. While all of verbal admissions on his participation in the crime even before his
these were happening, del Rosario was at the back of the school, actual arrest were inadmissible against him, as the same transgressed
handcuffed by the police because allegedly they had already gathered the safeguards provided by law and the Bill of Rights. Herein, like victim
enough evidence against him and they were afraid that he might Virginia Bernas, del Rosario too was a hapless victim who was forcibly
attempt to escape. After the encounter, they went back to the police used by other persons with nefarious designs to perpetrate a dastardly
station. The investigator took the statement of del Rosario on 14 May act. Del Rosario's defense of "irresistible force" has been substantiated
1996, and was only subscribed on 22 May 1996. All the while, he was by clear and convincing evidence. Del Rosario was threatened with a
detained in the police station as ordered by the Fiscal. His statements gun. He could not therefore be expected to flee nor risk his life to help
were only signed on 16 May 1996. He also executed a waiver of his a stranger. A person under the same circumstances would be more
detention. His Sinumpaang Salaysay was done with the assistance of concerned with his personal welfare and security rather than the safety
Ex-Judge Talavera. Del Rosario, on the other hand, claimed that he was of a person whom he only saw for the first time that day. On the other
hired for P120.00 by "Boy" Santos to drive him to a cockpit at the Blas hand, conspiracy between him and his co-accused was not proved
Edward Coliseum but was directed him to proceed to the market place beyond a whimper of a doubt by the prosecution, thus clearing del
to fetch "Jun" Marquez and "Dodong" Bisaya; where the robbery Rosario of any complicity in the crime charged.
homicide occurred. He claimed that the 3 men alighted and warned del
Rosario not to inform the police authorities about the incident People vs. Bolanos [GR 101808, 3 July 1992]
otherwise he and his family would be harmed. Del Rosario then went Facts:
home. Because of the threat, however, he did not report the matter to The death of the victim, Oscar Pagdalian, was communicated to the
the owner of the tricycle nor to the barangay captain and the police. Police Station where Patrolmen Rolando Alcantara and Francisco Dayao
Del Rosario, Marquez, Santos, and John Doe alias "Dodong" were of the Integrated National Police (INP), Balagtas, Bulacan, are assigned.
charged with the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide for Patrolmen Alcantara and Dayao proceeded to the scene of the crime of
having robbed Virginia Bernas, a 66-year old businesswoman, of Marble Supply, Balagtas, Bulacan and upon arrival they saw the
P200,000.00 in cash and jewelry and on the occasion thereof shot and deceased Pagdalian lying on an improvised bed full of blood with stab
killed her. While del Rosario pleaded not guilty, Santos and alias wounds. They then inquired about the circumstances of the incident
"Dodong" remained at large. Thus, only del Rosario was tried. The trial and were informed that the deceased was with 2 companions, on the
court found del Rosario guilty as co-principal in the crime of Robbery previous night, one of whom was Ramon Bolanos who had a drinking
with Homicide and sentencing him to death, and to pay the heirs of spree with the deceased and another companion (Claudio Magtibay) till
victim Virginia Bernas P550,000.00 as actual damages and the wee hours of the following morning, 23 June 1990. When
P100,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages. Hence, the automatic Alcantara and Dayao apprehended Bolanos, they found the firearm of
review. the deceased on the chair where Bolanos was allegedly seated. They
boarded Ramon Bolanos and Claudio Magtibay on the police vehicle and
Issue: brought them to the police station. In the vehicle where the suspect
Whether del Rosario was deprived of his rights during custodial was riding, "Ramon Bolanos accordingly admitted that he killed the
investigation at the time he was “invited” for questioning at the house deceased Oscar Pagdalian because he was abusive," after he was asked
of the barangay captain. by the police if he killed the victim. Bolanos was charged for murder
before the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 14, under
Held: Criminal Case 1831- M-90. The trial court, even if the alleged oral
Del Rosario was deprived of his rights during custodial investigation. admission of Bolanos was given without the assistance of counsel when
From the time he was invited" for questioning at the house of the it was made while on board the police vehicle on their way to the police
barangay captain, he was already under effective custodial station, found Bolanos guilty of the crime charged and imposed on him
investigation, but he was not apprised nor made aware thereof by the the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua (life imprisonment) and to pay the
investigating officers. The police already knew the name of the tricycle heirs of the victim P50,000.00. The Office of the Solicitor General
driver and the latter was already a suspect in the robbing and threafter filed a Manifestation (in lieu of Appellee's Brief), claiming that
senseless slaying of Virginia Bernas. Since the prosecution failed to the lower court erred in admitting in evidence the extra-judicial
establish that del Rosario had waived his right to remain silent, his confession of Bolanos while on board the police patrol jeep.
 officers present. The officer prepared a photo array, and again Aubin
Issue: identified a picture of the same person. That person was Innis. Shortly
Whether the extra-judicial confession of Bolanos while on board the thereafter, the Providence police began a search of the Mount Pleasant
police patrol jeep may be used to prove Bolanos’ guilt. area. At approximately 4:30 a.m. on the same date, Patrolman Lovell,
while cruising the streets of Mount Pleasant in a patrol car, spotted
Held: Innis standing in the street facing him. When Patrolman Lovell stopped
Being already under custodial investigation while on board the police his car, Innis walked towards it. Patrolman Lovell then arrested Innis,
patrol jeep on the way to the Police Station where formal investigation who was unarmed, and advised him of his so-called Miranda rights.
may have been conducted, Bolanos should have been informed of his While the two men waited in the patrol car for other police officers to
Constitutional rights under Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 arrive, Patrolman Lovell did not converse with Innis other than to
Constitution which explicitly provides: (1) Any person under respond to the latter's request for a cigarette. Within minutes,
investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to Sergeant Sears arrived at the scene of the arrest, and he also gave
remain silent and to have competent and independent preferably of his Innis the Miranda warnings. Immediately thereafter, Captain Leyden and
own choice. If the person cannot afford the service of counsel, he must other police officers arrived. Captain Leyden advised Innis of his
be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing Miranda rights. Innis stated that he understood those rights and
and in the presence of counsel. (2) No torture, force, violence, threat, wanted to speak with a lawyer. Captain Leyden then directed that Innis
intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used be placed in a "caged wagon," a 4-door police car with a wire screen
against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other mesh between the front and rear seats, and be driven to the central
similar forms of detention are prohibited. (3) Any confession or police station. 3 officers, Patrolmen Gleckman, Williams, and McKenna,
admission obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be were assigned to accompany Innis to the central station. They placed
inadmissible in evidence against him. (4) The law shall provide for penal Innis in the vehicle and shut the doors. Captain Leyden then instructed
and civil sanctions for violation of this section as well as compensation the officers not to question Innis or intimidate or coerce him in any
and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices and their way. The three officers then entered the vehicle, and it departed. While
families. Considering the clear requirements of the Constitution with en route to the central station, Patrolman Gleckman initiated a
respect to the manner by which confession can be admissible in conversation with Patrolman McKenna concerning the missing shotgun.
evidence, and the glaring fact that the alleged confession obtained Innis then interrupted the conversation, stating that the officers should
while on board the police vehicle was the only reason for the turn the car around so he could show them where the gun was located.
conviction, besides Bolanos's conviction was not proved beyond At this point, Patrolman McKenna radioed back to Captain Leyden that
reasonable doubt, the Court has no recourse but to reverse the subject they were returning to the scene of the arrest, and that Innis would
judgment under review. inform them of the location of the gun. At the time Innis indicated that
the officers should turn back, they had traveled no more than a mile, a
Rhode Island vs. Innis [446 US 291, 12 May 1980] trip encompassing only a few minutes. The police vehicle then returned
Facts: to the scene of the arrest where a search for the shotgun was in
On the night of 12 January 1975, John Mulvaney, a Providence, Rhode progress. There, Captain Leyden again advised Innis of his Miranda
Island taxicab driver, disappeared after being dispatched to pick up a rights. Innis replied that he understood those rights but that he
customer. His body was discovered 4 days later buried in a shallow "wanted to get the gun out of the way because of the kids in the area
grave in Coventry, Rhode Island. He had died from a shotgun blast in the school." Innis then led the police to a nearby field, where he
aimed at the back of his head. On 17 January 1975, shortly after pointed out the shotgun under some rocks by the side of the road. On
midnight, the Providence police received a telephone call from Gerald 20 March 1975, a grand jury returned an indictment charging Innis with
Aubin, also a taxicab driver, who reported that he had just been robbed the kidnaping, robbery, and murder of John Mulvaney. Before trial, Innis
by a man wielding a sawed-off shotgun. Aubin further reported that he moved to suppress the shotgun and the statements he had made to
had dropped off his assailant near Rhode Island College in a section of the police regarding it. After an evidentiary hearing at which Innis
Providence known as Mount Pleasant. While at the Providence police elected not to testify, the trial judge found that Innis had been
station waiting to give a statement, Aubin noticed a picture of his "repeatedly and completely advised of his Miranda rights." He further
assailant on a bulletin board. Aubin so informed one of the police found that it was "entirely understandable that [the officers in the
police vehicle] would voice their concern [for the safety of the interrogation can extend only to words or actions on the part of police
handicapped children] to each other." The judge then concluded that officers that they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an
Innis's decision to inform the police of the location of the shotgun was incriminating response. Herein, Innis was not "interrogated" within the
"a waiver, clearly, and on the basis of the evidence that I have heard, meaning of Miranda. It is undisputed that the first prong of the
and [sic] intelligent waiver, of his [Miranda] right to remain silent." definition of "interrogation" was not satisfied, for the conversation
Thus, without passing on whether the police officers had in fact between Patrolmen Gleckman and McKenna included no express
"interrogated" Innis, the trial court sustained the admissibility of the questioning of Innis. Rather, that conversation was, at least in form,
shotgun and testimony related to its discovery. That evidence was nothing more than a dialogue between the two officers to which no
later introduced at Innis's trial, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty response from Innis was invited. Moreover, it cannot be fairly concluded
on all counts. On appeal, the Rhode Island Supreme Court, in a 3-2 that Innis was subjected to the "functional equivalent" of questioning.
decision, set aside Innis's conviction. Contrary to the holding of the It cannot be said, in short, that Patrolmen Gleckman and McKenna
trial court, the appellate court concluded that the evidence was should have known that their conversation was reasonably likely to
insufficient to support a finding of waiver. Having concluded that both elicit an incriminating response from Innis. There is nothing in the
the shotgun and testimony relating to its discovery were obtained in record to suggest that the officers were aware that Innis was peculiarly
violation of the Miranda standards and therefore should not have been susceptible to an appeal to his conscience concerning the safety of
admitted into evidence, the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that Innis handicapped children. Nor is there anything in the record to suggest
was entitled to a new trial. that the police knew that Innis was unusually disoriented or upset at
the time of his arrest. The Rhode Island Supreme Court erred, thus, in
Issue: equating "subtle compulsion" with interrogation. That the officers'
Whether Innis was "interrogated" by the police officers in violation of comments struck a responsive chord is readily apparent. Thus, it may
the former's undisputed right under Miranda to remain silent until he be said, as the Rhode Island Supreme Court did say, that Innis was
had consulted with a lawyer. subjected to "subtle compulsion," but that is not the end of the
inquiry. It must also be established that a suspect's incriminating
Held: response was the product of words or actions on the part of the police
The special procedural safeguards outlined in Miranda are required not that they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an
where a suspect is simply taken into custody, but rather where a incriminating response. This was not established in the present case.
suspect in custody is subjected to interrogation. "Interrogation," as
conceptualized in the Miranda opinion, must reflect a measure of People vs. Mahinay [GR 122485, 1 February 1999]
compulsion above and beyond that inherent in custody itself. The Facts:
Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is Larry Mahinay y Amparado started working as houseboy with Maria Isip
subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent. on 20 November 1993. His task was to take care of Isip's house which
That is to say, the term "interrogation" under Miranda refers not only was under construction adjacent to her old residence situated inside a
to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of compound at No. 4165 Dian Street, Gen. T. de Leon, Valenzuela, Metro
the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) Manila. mahinay stayed and slept in an apartment also owned by Isip,
that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an located 10 meters away from the unfinished house. The victim, Ma.
incriminating response from the suspect. The latter portion of this Victoria Chan, 12 years old, was Isip's neighbor in Dian Street. She
definition focuses primarily upon the perceptions of the suspect, rather used to pass by Isip's house on her way to school and play inside the
than the intent of the police. This focus reflects the fact that the compound yard, catching maya birds together with other children. On
Miranda safeguards were designed to vest a suspect in custody with an 25 June 1995, at 8:00 a.m., Mahinay joined Gregorio Rivera in a
added measure of protection against coercive police practices, without drinking spree. Around 10 a.m., Mahinay, who was already drunk, left
regard to objective proof of the underlying intent of the police. A Gregorio Rivera and asked permission from Isip to go out with his
practice that the police should know is reasonably likely to evoke an friends. Sgt. Roberto Suni, also a resident of Dian Street, went to his
incriminating response from a suspect thus amounts to interrogation. in-law's house between 6 to 7 p.m. met Mahinay along Dian Street.
But, since the police surely cannot be held accountable for the That same evening, between 8 to 9 p.m., he saw Ma. Victoria standing
unforeseeable results of their words or actions, the definition of in front of the gate of the unfinished house. Later, at 9 p.m., Mahinay
showed up at Norgina Rivera's store to buy lugaw. Norgina Rivera Held: Larry Mahinay during the custodial investigation and after having
informed Mahinay that there was none left of it. She noticed that been informed of his constitutional rights with the assistance of Atty.
Mahinay appeared to be uneasy and in deep thought. She asked why he Restituto Viernes of the Public Attorney's Office voluntarily gave his
looked so worried but he did not answer. Then he left and walked back statement admitting the commission of the crime. Said confession of
to the compound. Meanwhile, Elvira Chan noticed that her daughter, Mahinay given with the assistance of Atty. Restituto Viernes is believed
Ma. Victoria, was missing. She last saw her daughter wearing a pair of to have been freely and voluntarily given. That accused did not
white shorts, brown belt, a yellow hair ribbon, printed blue blouse, dirty complain to the proper authorities of any maltreatment on his person.
white panty, white lady sando and blue rubber slippers. Mahinay failed He did not even inform the Inquest Prosecutor when he was sworn to
to show up for supper that night. On the following day, 26 June 1995, the truth of his statement on 8 July 1995 that he was forced, coerced
at 2 a.m., Mahinay boarded a passenger jeepney driven by Fernando or was promised of reward or leniency. That his confession abound with
Trinidad at the talipapa. Mahinay alighted at the top of the bridge of details known only to him. The Court noted that a lawyer from the
the North Expressway and had thereafter disappeared. That same Public Attorneys Office Atty. Restituto Viernes and as testified by said
morning, around 7:30, a certain Boy found the dead body of Ma. Atty. Viernes he informed and explained to Mahinay his constitutional
Victoria inside the septic tank. Boy immediately reported what he saw rights and was present all throughout the giving of the testimony. That
to the victim's parents, Eduardo and Elvira Chan. With the help of the he signed the statement given by Mahinay. A lawyer from the Public
Valenzuela Police, the lifeless body of Ma. Victoria was retrieved from Attorneys Office is expected to be watchful and vigilant to notice any
the septic tank. She was wearing a printed blouse without underwear. irregularity in the manner of the investigation and the physical
Her face bore bruises. Back in the compound, SPO1 Arsenio Nacis and conditions of the accused. The post mortem findings show that the
SPO1 Arnold Alabastro were informed by Isip that her houseboy, cause of death Asphyxia by manual strangulation; Traumatic Head
Mahinay, was missing. At the second floor of the house under injury Contributory substantiate. Consistent with the testimony of
construction, they retrieved from one of the rooms a pair of dirty white Mahinay that he pushed the victim and the latter's head hit the table
short pants, a brown belt and a yellow hair ribbon which was identified and the victim lost consciousness. There being no evidence presented
by Elvira Chan to belong to her daughter, Ma. Victoria. They also found to show that said confession were obtained as a result of violence,
inside another room a pair of blue slippers which Isip identified as that torture, maltreatment, intimidation, threat or promise of reward or
of Mahinay. Also found in the yard, three armslength away from the leniency nor that the investigating officer could have been motivated
septic tank were an underwear, a leather wallet, a pair of dirty long to concoct the facts narrated in said affidavit; the confession of the
pants and a pliers positively identified by Isip as Mahinay's belongings. accused is held to be true, correct and freely or voluntarily given. In his
These items were brought to the police station. A police report was extrajudicial confession, Mahinay himself admitted that he had sexual
subsequently prepared including a referral slip addressed to the office congress with the unconscious child. Such circumstantial evidence,
of the Valenzuela Prosecutor. The next day, SPO1 Virgilio Villano besides 8 others, established the felony of rape with homicide defined
retrieved the victim's underwear from the septic tank. After a series of and penalized under Section 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as
follow-up operations, Mahinay was finally arrested in Barangay Obario amended by Section 11, RA 7659.
Matala, Ibaan, Batangas. He was brought to the Valenzuela Police
Station. On 7 July 1995, with the assistance of Atty. Restituto People vs. Ayson [GR 85215, 7 July 1989]
Viernes, Mahinay executed an extra-judicial confession wherein he Facts:
narrated in detail how he raped and killed the victim. Also, when Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines (PAL),
Mahinay came face to face with the victim's mother and aunt, he assigned at its Baguio City station. It having allegedly come to light
confided to them that he was not alone in raping and killing the victim. that he was involved in irregularities in the sales of plane tickets, the
He pointed to Zaldy and Boyet as his co-conspirators. Thus, on 10 July PAL management notified him of an investigation to be conducted into
1995, Mahinay was charged with rape with homicide, to which he the matter of 9 February 1986. That investigation was scheduled in
pleaded not guilty. After trial, the lower court rendered a decision accordance with PAL's Code of Conduct and Discipline, and the
convicting Mahinay of the crime charged, sentenced him to suffer the Collective Bargaining Agreement signed by it with the Philippine Airlines
penalty of death and to pay a total of P73,000.00 to the victim's Employees' Association (PALEA) to which Ramos pertained. On the day
heirs. Hence, the automatic review. before the investigation, 8 February 1986, Ramos gave to his superiors
a handwritten note stating the at he was willing to settle irregularities
allegedly charged against him in the amount of P76,000 Held:
(approximately) subject to conditions as may be imposed by PAL on or Felipe Ramos was not in any sense under custodial interrogation, as the
before 1700/9 February 1986. At the investigation of 9 February term should be properly understood, prior to and during the
1986, conducted by the PAL Branch Manager in Baguio City, Edgardo administrative inquiry into the discovered irregularities in ticket sales in
R. Cruz, in the presence of Station Agent Antonio Ocampo, Ticket which he appeared to have had a hand. The constitutional rights of a
Freight Clerk Rodolfo Quitasol, and PALEA Shop Steward Cristeta person under custodial interrogation did not therefore come into play,
Domingo, Felipe Ramos was informed "of the finding of the Audit were of no relevance to the inquiry. It is also clear, too, that Ramos
Team." Thereafter, his answers in response to questions by Cruz, were had voluntarily answered questions posed to him on the first day of the
taken down in writing. Ramos' answers were to the effect inter alia administrative investigation, 9 February 1986 and agreed that the
that he had not indeed made disclosure of the tickets mentioned in the proceedings should be recorded, the record having thereafter been
Audit Team's findings, that the proceeds had been "misused" by him, marked during the trial of the criminal action subsequently filed against
that although he had planned on paying back the money, he had been him, just as it is obvious that the note that he sent to his superiors on
prevented from doing so, "perhaps (by) shame," that he was still 8 February 1986, the day before the investigation, offering to
willing to settle his obligation, and proferred a "compromise to pay on compromise his liability in the alleged irregularities, was a free and even
staggered basis, (and) the amount would be known in the next spontaneous act on his part. They may not be excluded on the ground
investigation;" that he desired the next investigation to be at the same that the so-called "Miranda rights" had not been accorded to Ramos.
place, "Baguio CTO," and that he should be represented therein by As to the danger of violation of the right of any person against self -
"Shop stewardees ITR Nieves Blanco;" and that he was willing to sign incrimination when the investigation is conducted by the complaining
his statement (as he in fact afterwards did). How the investigation companies or employers, it suffices to draw attention to the specific
turned out is not dealt with the parties at all; but it would seem that and peremptory requirement of the law that disciplinary sanctions may
no compromise agreement was reached much less consummated. not be imposed on any employee by his employer until and unless the
About 2 months later, an information was filed against Felipe Ramos employee has been accorded due process, by which is meant that the
charging him with the crime of estafa allegedly committed in Baguio latter must be informed of the offenses ascribed to him and afforded
City during the period from 12 March 1986 to 29 January 1987. On adequate time and opportunity to explain his side. The requirement
arraignment on this charge, Felipe Ramos entered a plea of "Not entails the making of statements, oral or written, by the employee
Guilty," and trial thereafter ensued. At the close of the people's case, under such administrative investigation in his defense, with opportunity
the private prosecutors made a written offer of evidence dated 21 to solicit the assistance of counsel, or his colleagues and friends. The
June 1988, which included the statement of Ramos taken on 9 employee may, of course, refuse to submit any statement at the
February 1986 at PAL Baguio City Ticket Office, as well as his investigation, that is his privilege. But if he should opt to do so, in his
handwritten admission given on 8 February 1986. Ramos' attorneys defense to the accusation against him, it would be absurd to reject his
filed "Objections/Comments to Plaintiffs Evidence." By Order dated 9 statements, whether at the administrative investigation, or at a
August 1988, Judge Ruben Ayson (Branch 6, RTC Baguio City) subsequent criminal action brought against him, because he had not
admitted all the exhibits "as part of the testimony of the witnesses been accorded, prior to his making and presenting them, his "Miranda
who testified in connection therewith and for whatever they are rights" (to silence and to counsel and to be informed thereof, etc.)
worth," except Ramos' statement of 9 February and his handwritten which, to repeat, are relevant only in custodial investigations. Indeed, it
admission dated 8 February. The private prosecutors filed a motion for is self-evident that the employee's statements, whether called
reconsideration. It was denied, by Order dated 14 September 1988. "position paper," "answer," etc., are submitted by him precisely so that
The private prosecutors, in the name of the People of the Philippines, they may be admitted and duly considered by the investigating officer
filed the petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the orders of 9 or committee, in negation or mitigation of his liability.
August 1988 and 14 September 1988.

Issue:
Whether the constitutional rights of a person under custodial
investigation comes into play during the administrative inquiry.
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Sumilang [Administrative Matter addition, a second complaint was lodged against Malla for removing
MTJ-94-989, 18 April 1997] judicial records outside the court premises. The Court decided to
Facts: include this matter in the original complaint earlier docketed as AM
Court interpreter Felicidad Malla, who was the officer-in-charge from 1 MTJ-94-989 in a resolution dated 6 March 1995.
July 1992 to 15 November 1992, took a maternity leave for 1 month
(16 November 1992 to 15 December 1992) and reassumed her Issue:
position on 16 December 1992, until her resignation on 31 August Whether Malla's constitutional rights were violated when she signed an
1993. On 1 September 1993, Rebecca Avanzado assumed the position affidavit dated 14 September 1994 before the Office of the Court
of officer in charge. It was during her tenure on 8 August 1994, that Administrator, where she admitted her misdeed.
an on-the-spot audit examination was conducted by the Fiscal Audit
Division of the Office of Court Administrator. In the course of the Held:
examination, several anomalous transactions were discovered. One The constitutional provision under Section 12, Article III of the
involved a manager's check deposited in the name of Teodorico Dizon Constitution may be invoked only during "custodial investigation" or as
in connection with Civil Case 858, wherein Entero Villarica, on 7 August in "custody investigation" which has been defined as "questioning
1992 during the tenure of Malla entrusted the amount of P240,000.00 initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken
to Malla instead of handling it over to the Clerk of Court pursuant to into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any
Supreme Court Circular 13-92. When asked to explain where the significant way." The investigation is defined as an "investigation
P240,000.00 was, Malla, explained that she deposited it at the Sta. conducted by police authorities which will include investigation
Cruz, Laguna branch of the Philippine National Bank (PNB) but she and conducted by the Municipal Police, P.C. (now PNP) and the NBI and
Judge Sumilang later withdrew it allegedly under the belief that Dizon such other police agencies in our government." Thus, the Office of the
would demand the delivery of the money upon the termination of the Court Administrator can hardly be deemed to be the law enforcement
case. Upon further questioning by the examining team, however, Malla authority contemplated in the constitutional provision. At any rate,
admitted that she lent the amount of P87,000.00 to steno-reporter Malla admitted during her testimony that she received the said check
Edelita Lagmay, P40,000.00 to steno-reporter Nieva Mercado, and from Villarica covering the amount of P240,000.00 payable to Dizon.
P81,000.00 to Mrs. Sumilang, wife of Judge Sumilang. She spent However, when she tried to deposit it with the Municipal Treasurer, the
P32,000.00 for the hospitalization of her husband and the remaining latter refused because there was no order from Judge Sumilang.
balance for personal purposes. Later on, she executed an affidavit Consequently, Villarica entrusted said check to her. It was at this
stating that only Lagmay and Mercado borrowed P55,000.00 and juncture that she used the money for personal purposes. During the
P40,000.00, respectively. On the other hand, she used P100,000.00 investigation, Malla repeated what she basically stated in her affidavit
for her personal needs. Upon learning that they were being implicated i.e., that she used a substantial amount of the P240,000.00 for her
in the anomalous transaction, Lagmay executed an affidavit stating personal needs. This effectively refutes whatever pressure and
that the amount of P55,000.00 was from the personal account of coercion she claims was employed against her. By repeating her
Malla and not from the P240,000.00 amount deposited before the confession in open court, Malla thereby converted it into a judicial
court and such loan has already been paid. Mercado, on the other hand, confession.
claims that the amount of P40,000.00 was borrowed only two weeks
before the audit took place, when Malla was no longer employed with Gamboa vs. Cruz [GR L-56291, 27 June 1988]
the court. Mrs. Sumilang, for her part, denied any involvement in any of Facts:
the transactions. Judge Augusto Sumilang, Felicidad Malla, Edelita On 19 July 1979, at about 7:00 a.m., Christopher Gamboa y Gonzales
Lagmay and Nieva Mercado, court employees of the Metropolitan Trial was arrested for vagrancy, without a warrant of arrest, by Patrolman
Court of Pila, Laguna were charged in a memorandum report by the Arturo Palencia. Thereafter, Gamboa was brought to Precinct 2, Manila,
Office of Court Administrator dated 16 August 1994, for where he was booked for vagrancy and then detained therein together
misappropriating funds deposited by Spouses Entero Villarica and with several others. The following day, 20 July 1979, during the lineup
Felicidad Domingo in Civil Case 858. On 5 October 1994, the Supreme of 5 detainees, including Gamboa, Erlinda B. Bernal pointed to Gamboa
Court issued a resolution treating the memorandum report as an and said, "that one is a companion." After the identification, the other
administrative complaint (Administrative Matter MTJ-94- 989). In detainees were brought back to their cell but Gamboa was ordered to
stay on. While Bernal was being interrogated by the police investigator, United States vs. Wade [388 US 218, 12 June 1967]
Gamboa was told to sit down in front of her. On 23 July 1979, an Facts:
information for robbery was filed against Gamboa. On 22 August 1979, The federally insured bank in Eustace, Texas, was robbed on 21
Gamboa was arraigned. Thereafter, hearings were held. On 2 April September 1964. A man with a small strip of tape on each side of his
1980, the prosecution formally offered its evidence and then rested its face entered the bank, pointed a pistol at the female cashier and the
case. On 14 July 1980, petitioner, by counsel, instead of presenting his vice president, the only persons in the bank at the time, and forced
defense, manifested in open court that he was filing a Motion to Acquit them to fill a pillowcase with the bank's money. The man then drove
or Demurrer to Evidence. On 13 August 1980, Gamboa filed said away with an accomplice who had been waiting in a stolen car outside
Motion predicated on the ground that the conduct of the line-up, the bank. On 23 March 1965, an indictment was returned against
without notice to, and in the absence of, his counsel violated his Wade, and two others for conspiring to rob the bank, and against Wade
constitutional rights to counsel and to due process. On 23 October and the accomplice for the robbery itself. Wade was arrested on April
1980, the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXIX, in Criminal 2, and counsel was appointed to represent him on April 26. Fifteen
Case 47622 issued the order denying the Motion to Acquit. Gamboa days later an FBI agent, without notice to Wade's lawyer, arranged to
filed the petition for certiorari and prohibition, with prayer for a have the two bank employees observe a lineup made up of Wade and
temporary restraining order. five or six other prisoners and conducted in a courtroom of the local
county courthouse. Each person in the line wore strips of tape such as
Issue: allegedly worn by the robber and upon direction each said something
Whether Gamboa was entitled to a counsel, as part of his right in like "put the money in the bag," the words allegedly uttered by the
custodial investigation, at the time he was placed in a police lineup. robber. Both bank employees identified Wade in the lineup as the bank
robber. At trial, the two employees, when asked on direct examination
Held: if the robber was in the courtroom, pointed to Wade. The prior lineup
The right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation, i.e. identification was then elicited from both employees on cross-
when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit examination. At the close of testimony, Wade's counsel moved for a
information and/or confessions or admissions from the judgment of acquittal or, alternatively, to strike the bank officials'
respondent/accused. At such point or stage, the person being courtroom identifications on the ground that conduct of the lineup,
interrogated must be assisted by counsel to avoid the pernicious without notice to and in the absence of his appointed counsel, violated
practice of extorting false or coerced admissions or confessions from his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and his Sixth
the lips of the person undergoing interrogation, for the commission of Amendment right to the assistance of counsel. The motion was denied,
an offense. Any person under investigation must, among other things, and Wade was convicted. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
be assisted by counsel. Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial at which the in- court
(similar guarantees in Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution) identification evidence was to be excluded, holding that, though the
are clear. They leave no room for equivocation. Accordingly, in several lineup did not violate Wade's Fifth Amendment rights, the lineup, held
cases, the Supreme Court has consistently held that no custodial as it was, in the absence of counsel, already chosen to represent
investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of Wade, was a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights.
counsel, engaged by the person arrested, or by any person in his
behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee Issue:
himself or by anyone in his behalf, and that, while the right may be Whether Wade was compelled to testify himself during the pretrial
waived, the waiver shall not be valid unless made in writing and in the lineup, to which the counsel of the accused was not given notice to.
presence of counsel. However, the police line-up (at least, in this case)
was not part of the custodial inquest, hence, Gamboa was not yet Held:
entitled, at such stage, to counsel. Neither the lineup itself nor anything shown by this record that Wade
was required to do in the lineup violated his privilege against self-
incrimination. The privilege "protects an accused only from being
compelled to testify against himself, or otherwise provide the State
with evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature." Compelling
the accused merely to exhibit his person for observation by a independent origin or that error in its admission was harmless. Since it
prosecution witness prior to trial involves no compulsion of the is not clear that the Court of Appeals applied the prescribed rule of
accused to give evidence having testimonial significance. It is exclusion, and since the nature of the in-court identifications here was
compulsion of the accused to exhibit his physical characteristics, not not an issue in the trial and cannot be determined on the record, the
compulsion to disclose any knowledge he might have. It is no different case must be remanded to the District Court for resolution of these
from compelling Schmerber to provide a blood sample or Holt to wear issues.
the blouse, and, as in those instances, is not within the cover of the
privilege. Similarly, compelling Wade to speak within hearing distance of People vs. Escordial [GR 138934-35, 16 January 2002]
the witnesses, even to utter words purportedly uttered by the robber, Facts:
was not compulsion to utter statements of a "testimonial" nature; he At around 8 p.m. of 27 December 1996, Jason Joniega, Mark
was required to use his voice as an identifying physical characteristic, Esmeralda and Mark Lucena were playing inside a jeepney parked in
not to speak his guilt. The Court held in Schmerber that the distinction front of a boarding house owned by Pacita Aguillon at No. 17 Margarita
to be drawn under the Fifth Amendment privilege against self- Extension, Libertad St., Purok Amelia 2, Barangay 40, Bacolod City. As
incrimination is one between an accused's "communications" in one of them hit his head on the rails of the jeepney, the boys were told
whatever form, vocal or physical, and "compulsion which makes a by a man sitting inside the jeepney to go home lest they would meet
suspect or accused the source of `real or physical evidence.'" The an accident. The man was later identified by Joniega and Esmeralda as
Court recognized that "both federal and state courts have usually held Anthony Escordial. Living in a boarding house in front of which the
that [the privilege] offers no protection against compulsion to submit jeepney was parked were Michelle Darunday, Erma Blanca, and Ma.
to fingerprinting, photography, or measurements, to write or speak for Teresa Gellaver. While the three were asleep, Erma was awakened by
identification, to appear in court, to stand, to assume a stance, to the presence of a man. The man had his head covered with a t -shirt to
walk, or to make a particular gesture." None of these activities prevent identification and carried a knife about four inches long.
becomes testimonial within the scope of the privilege because required Michelle and Teresa were awakened thereafter. The man was able to
of the accused in a pretrial lineup. However, the Sixth Amendment get P500.00 from Erma and P3,100.00 from Michelle. After getting
guarantees an accused the right to counsel not only at his trial but at their money, the man gave a t-shirt to Erma to blindfold Teresa and
any critical confrontation by the prosecution at pretrial proceedings another to Michelle to blindfold Erma. He blindfolded Michelle himself
where the results might well determine his fate and where the absence and then began touching her in different parts of her body. The man
of counsel might derogate from his right to a fair trial. The post- succeeded in inserting his penis into Michelle's vagina. Although
indictment lineup (unlike such preparatory steps as analyzing Michelle was blindfolded and could not see, she could feel that the man
fingerprints and blood samples) was a critical prosecutive stage at had no cover on his face when he was raping her. She felt that his
which respondent was entitled to the aid of counsel. There is a great chest was rough and had some scars. When he placed her hands on his
possibility of unfairness to the accused at that point, (1) because of nape, she felt that it was also rough. On the other hand, Erma claimed
the manner in which confrontations for identification are frequently she was able to see through her blindfold and that she saw the man's
conducted, (2) because of dangers inherent in eyewitness face because of the light coming from the lamp post outside the
identification and suggestibility inherent in the context of the boarding house. After he had finished raping Michelle, the man sat on
confrontations, and (3) because of the likelihood that the accused will the bed and talked to the three women. After a while, the man told
often be precluded from reconstructing what occurred and thereby Michelle he wanted to have sex with her again. Michelle pleaded with
obtaining a full hearing on the identification issue at trial. This case him, but the man threatened to call his companions and said it would
illustrates the potential for improper influence on witnesses through be worse for her if his companions would be the ones to rape her. He
the lineup procedure, since the bank employees were allowed to see ordered Michelle to lie on her stomach and then inserted his penis into
respondent in the custody of FBI agents before the lineup began. The her anus. When he was through, he gave Michelle a blanket to cover
presence of counsel at the lineup will significantly promote fairness at herself and returned to her a pair of earrings which he had taken from
the confrontation and a full hearing at trial on the issue of her. He then left, but not before warning the women not to report the
identification. Further, in-court identification by a witness to whom the matter to anyone or he would kill them. Michelle, Erma, and Teresa
accused was exhibited before trial in the absence of counsel must be were so frightened that they were not able to ask for help until 30
excluded unless it can be established that such evidence had an minutes after the man had left. They told their neighbor, Tiyo Anong,
that a man had come to the house and robbed them. They also called attended by three aggravating circumstances of (1) nighttime; (2)
up Allan Aguillon, the son of the owner of the boarding house, who in that the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party,
turn reported the incident to the police. When the policemen arrived, and (3) that craft, fraud and disguise were employed by the accused in
they asked Michelle to describe the attacker, but she told them that the commission of the crime under paragraphs 3, 6, and 14 of Article
she could only identify his voice and his eyes. Accompanied by the 14 of the Revised Penal Code. The court sentenced Escordial to the
police, the three women looked for the man around the Libertad area, maximum penalty of death, and condemned him to pay Darunday the
but they did not find him. Michelle, Erma, and Teresa were taken to the sum of P3,650.00, representing the money taken by the accused;
police station at Bac-Up for investigation. But, at Michelle's request, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000.00 as exemplary damages,
Erma and Teresa did not tell the others that Michelle had been raped and the costs. Escordial appealed.
by their attacker. Upon returning home, Michelle found her aunt and
uncle. She embraced her aunt and told her about her ordeal. Michelle Issue:
was again taken to the police headquarters, where she was referred to Whether the out-of-court identification in the show up at the police
the Women's Desk to report the rape. They were able to go home to station, made after the start of the custodial investigation, may be
the house of Michelle's aunt at around 5 to 6 p.m. The following day, used in court.
P03 Nicolas Tancinco went around Margarita Extension and learned
about the children playing on the street around the time the intruder Held:
entered the boarding house. The description of the suspect fitted that While it cannot be denied that Escordial was deprived of his right to be
of a worker at a café called Coffee Break Corner, about two houses informed of his rights to remain silent and to have competent and
away from the boarding house. On 2 January 1997, Tancinco and some independent counsel, he has not shown that, as a result of his custodial
companions proceeded to the Coffee Break Corner and interviewed the interrogation, the police obtained any statement from him – whether
security guard, who told them that a certain Fidel Hinolan owned the inculpatory or exculpatory - which was used in evidence against him.
café. When interviewed by Tancinco and his companions, Fidel Hinolan No uncounseled statement was obtained from Escordial which should
told them that Escordial was his helper and that the latter had gone have been excluded as evidence against him. However, Escordial was
home on 27 December 1996 to Barangay Miranda, Pontevedra, Negros never assisted by counsel, whether of his own choice or provided by
Occidental. Based on the information furnished by Hinolan, Tancinco the police officers, from the time of his arrest in Pontevedra, Negros
and his fellow police officers, Michelle Darunday, Allan Aguillon, and Occidental to the time of his continued detention at the Bacolod police
Pacita Aguillon went to Barangay Miranda, Pontevedra, Negros station. Although Escordial made no statement during this time, this
Occidental at around 10 a.m. of 3 January 1997 and asked the fact remains important insofar as it affects the admissibility of the out-
assistance of the police there to locate Escordial. PO2 Rodolfo of-court identification of Escordial by the prosecution witnesses,
Gemarino asked one of his colleagues at the Pontevedra police to namely, Michelle Darunday, Erma Blanca, Ma. Teresa Gellaver, Mark
accompany Tancinco and his companions. They found Escordial at the Esmeralda, and Jason Joniega. As a rule, an accused is not entitled to
basketball court and "invited" him to go to the police station for the assistance of counsel in a police line-up considering that such is
questioning. He was transferred to the Bacolod police station for usually not a part of the custodial inquest. However, the previous cases
further investigation. At the Bacolod police station, Erma Blanca, Ma. are different inasmuch as Escordial, having been the focus of attention
Teresa Gellaver, Jason Joniega, and Mark Esmeralda were asked by the police after he had been pointed to by a certain Ramie as the
whether Escordial was the same person they saw on the night of the possible perpetrator of the crime, was already under custodial
incident. They were taken one by one to the jail cell and asked to point investigation when these out- of- court identifications were conducted
to the person that they had seen that night. They picked Escordial out by the police. An out-of-court identification of an accused can be made
of four people who were inside the jail cell. Escordial was charged with in various ways. In a show-up, the accused alone is brought face to
the crime of rape in Criminal Case 97-18117. He was also charged with face with the witness for identification, while in a police line- up, the
robbery with rape in Criminal Case 97-18118. When arraigned on 25 suspect is identified by a witness from a group of persons gathered for
February 1997, Escordial pleaded not guilty to the charges, whereupon that purpose. During custodial investigation, these types of
the two cases were jointly tried. On 26 February 1999, the trial court identification have been recognized as "critical confrontations of the
rendered a decision, finding Escordial guilty beyond reasonable doubt accused by the prosecution" which necessitate the presence of
of the crime of Robbery with Rape, the commission of which being counsel for the accused. This is because the results of these pre-trial
proceedings "might well settle the accused's fate and reduce the trial the alleged witnesses and immediately singled out by the police as
itself to a mere formality." The Court thus ruled that any identification suspects.
of an uncounseled accused made in a police line-up, or in a show-up for
that matter, after the start of the custodial investigation is Held:
inadmissible as evidence against him. Herein, Escordial was identified by The claim by the defense that Piedad’s pre -trial identification was
Michelle Darunda in a show-up on 3 January 1997 and by Erma Blanca, suggestive due to the absence of a police lineup is more theoretical
Ma. Teresa Gellaver, Jason Joniega, and Mark Esmeralda in a police line- than real. It must be pointed out that even before the incident, Luz
up on various dates after his arrest. Having been made when Escordial Lactawan knew the accused. Fidel, on the other hand, knew Piedad
did not have the assistance of counsel, these out-of -court because they played basketball together. Hence, the witnesses were
identifications are inadmissible in evidence against him. Consequently, not identifying persons whom they were unfamiliar with, where
the testimonies of these witnesses regarding these identifications arguably, improper suggestion may set in. On the contrary, when the
should have been held inadmissible for being "the direct result of the accused were presented before the witnesses, they were simply asked
illegal lineup 'come at by exploitation of [the primary] illegality.'" to confirm whether they were the ones responsible for the crime
perpetrated. The witnesses did not incriminate the accused simply
People vs. Piedad [GR 131923, 5 December 2002] because they were the only ones presented by the police, rather, the
Facts: witnesses were certain they recognized the perpetrators of the crime.
On 10 April 1996, at around 11 p.m., Luz Lactawan left her house at Besides, there is no law which requires a police lineup before a suspect
No. 2 Scout Bayoran, Barangay South Triangle, Quezon City, to follow can be identified as the culprit of a crime. What is important is that the
Mateo, her husband, who had earlier gone. As she was walking by the prosecution witnesses positively identify the persons charged as the
gate of the company compound where they reside, she heard Fidel malefactors. In this regard, the Court finds no reason to doubt the
Piquero shouting for help because Mateo was being mauled by a group veracity of Luz’s and Fidel’s testimony. The records show that Luz and
of men. She rushed out of the compound and saw her husband being Fidel positively, categorically and unhesitatingly identified Piedad as the
beaten up by Niel Piedad, Richard Palma, Lito Garcia and five others. one who struck Mateo on the head with a stone, and Garcia as the one
She tried to pacify the aggressors, but was beaten herself. Luz who stabbed Mateo on the back, thereby inflicting traumatic head
embraced Mateo in an effort to protect him. It was then that Niel injuries and a stab wound which eventually led to Mateo’s death.
picked up a large stone, measuring about a foot and a half, and struck Indeed, if family members who have witnessed the killing of a loved one
Mateo’s head with it. Then, Lito approached Mateo’s side and stabbed usually strive to remember the faces of the assailants, the Court sees
him at the back, while Richard hit Mateo in the face. Mateo was rushed no reason how a wife, who witnessed the violence inflicted upon her
to the East Avenue Medical Center where he later died because of the husband and who eventually died by reason thereof, could have done
injuries he sustained. Niel Piedad y Consolacion, Lito Garcia y Francisco any less. It must be stressed that Luz was right beside her husband
and Richard Palma y Ider were charged with Murder. Upon arraignment, when the concrete stone was struck on his head, hence, Luz could not
all the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. Trial ensued have mistaken the identity of the person responsible for the attack.
thereafter. The trial court rendered a decision, finding Piedad and She was only a foot away from Piedad before the latter hit Mateo on
Garcia guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder with no the head. Garcia on the other hand was identified by both Luz and Fidel
modifying circumstances present, and sentenced each of them to as the one who was shirtless at the time of the incident. There was
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua pursuant to Article 248 of the light from a bulb 5 meters away from the scene of the crime.
Revised Penal Code. Piedad and Garcia were likewise held solidarily liable Experience dictates that precisely because of the unusual acts of
to indemnify the heirs of the victim Mateo Lactawan in the sum of violence committed right before their eyes, eyewitnesses can
P50,000.00. Richard Palma was acquitted on the ground of reasonable remember with a high degree of reliability the identity of the criminals
doubt. Piedad and Garcia appealed. at any given time. Hence, the proximity and attention afforded the
witnesses, coupled with the relative illumination of the surrounding
Issue: area, bolsters the credibility of identification of Piedad, et. al. Neither is
Whether the way that Piedad was identified by prosecution witnesses the lack of counsel during the pre-trial identification process of Piedad,
was suggestive and fatally flawed; that Piedad should have been put in et. al. fatal. Piedad, et. al. did not make any extrajudicial confession or
a police lineup instead of being shoveled into a “confrontation” with admission with regard to the crime charged. While Piedad and Garcia
may have been suspects, they were certainly not interrogated by the paragraph of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, which was added
police authorities, much less forced to confess to the crime imputed by Republic Act 1083 enacted in 1954, which reads that "In every
against them. Piedad and Garcia were not under custodial investigation. case, the person detained shall be informed of the cause of his
In fact, Piedad averred during cross-examination that the police never detention and shall be allowed, upon his request, to communicate and
allowed them to say anything at the police station on the day they confer at anytime with his attorney or counsel," impliedly granted to a
voluntarily presented themselves to the authorities. detained person the right to counsel and to be informed of such right,
is untenable. The only right granted by said paragraph to a detained
Magtoto vs. Manguera [GR L-37201-02, 3 March 1975] person was to be informed of the cause of his detention. But he must
Facts: make a request for him to be able to claim the right to communicate
No preliminary facts are available in the body of the case. Judge Miguel and confer with counsel at any time. The historical background of
M. Manguera of the Court of First Instance (Branch II) of Occidental Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution shows that the new
Mindoro (in GR L-37201-02) and Judge Judge Onoftre A. Villaluz of the right granted therein to a detained person to counsel and to be
Criminal Circuit Court of Pasig, Rizal (in GR L-37424) declarede informed of such right under pain of his confession being declared
admissible the confessions of the accused in said cases (Clemente inadmissible in evidence, has and should be given a prospective and not
Magtoto in GR L-37201-02; and Maximo Simeon, Louis Mednatt, a retroactive effect. Furthermore, to give a retroactive effect to this
Inocentes De Luna, Ruben Miranda, Alfonso Ballesteros, Rudolfo Suarez, constitutional guarantee to counsel would have a great unsettling
Manuel Manalo, Alberto Gabion, and Rafael Brill in GR L-37424). District effect on the administration of justice in this country. It may lead to
Judge Asaali S. Isnani of Court of First Instance (Branch II) of the acquittal of guilty individuals and thus cause injustice to the People
Zamboanga de Sur (in GR L-38928), on the other hand, declared and the offended parties in many criminal cases where confessions
inadmissible the confessions of the accused in said case (Vicente were obtained before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution and in
Longakit and Jaime Dalion), although they have not been informed of accordance with the rules then in force although without assistance of
their right to remain silent and to counsel before they gave the counsel. The Constitutional Convention could not have intended such a
confessions, because they were given before the effectivity of the disastrous consequence in the administration of justice. For if the
1973 Constitution. Petitions for certiorari were filed with the Supreme cause of justice suffers when an innocent person is convicted, it
Court. equally suffers when a guilty one is acquitted.

Issue: People vs. Caguioa [GR L-38975, 17 January 1980]

Whether the right to counsel and to be informed in such right, Facts:
incorporated in Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, applies The Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan filed on 14 September 1973, in the
prospectively or retroactively. Court of First Instance of Bulacan, an information for murder against
Paquito Yupo y Gonzales (Criminal Case 146-V-73), with the case,
Held: after the raffle, being assigned to Branch VIII, presided by Judge
Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution granted, for the first Eduardo P. Caguioa. Upon arraignment on 5 October 1973, Yupo
time, to a person under investigation for the commission of an offense, pleaded not guilty. The trial of the case then proceeded, the
the right to counsel and to be informed of such right. And the last prosecution having presented 6 witnesses, including the father of the
sentence thereof which, in effect, means that any confession obtained deceased, Miguel Tribol, and his common-law wife, Lydia Begnotia, who
in violation of this right shall be inadmissible in evidence, can and allegedly received the ante mortem statement of the victim, Rodolfo
should be given effect only when the right already existed and had Tribol. Then, at the hearing on 3 June 1974, the prosecution presented
been violated. Consequently, because the confessions of the accused Corporal Conrado Roca of the Meycauayan Police Department, before
in GRs L-37201- 02, 37424 and 38929 were taken before the whom a written statement of Yupo and his alleged waiver of his right
effectivity of the 1973 Constitution in accordance with the rules then to remain silent and to be assisted by a counsel of his own choice was
in force, no right had been violated as to render them inadmissible in taken. After this witness had identified the statement of Yupo and the
evidence although they were not informed of "their right to remain waiver, he was questioned on the incriminating answers in such
silent and to counsel," "and to be informed of such right," because, no statement to the police, but there was an objection on the part of the
such right existed at the time. The argument that the second defense counsel based on the ground of such statement being
inadmissible in evidence, as the statement was taken by the police until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be
without any counsel assisting the accused in the investigation. Judge questioned. Tested by such a clear and unequivocal standard, the
Caguioa sustained the objection of the defense on the view that such alleged waiver herein falls far short. Yupo merely answered in a
judicial confession of the accused is inadmissible in evidence for being monosyllabic "Opo" to Corporal Conrado B. Roca of the Police Force of
unconstitutional, it appearing that the accused was not assisted by a Meycauayan, worded thus: "Ipinaaalam ko sa iyo na ikaw ay sinisiyasat
counsel when it was given. He likewise stated that such right could not tungkol sa isang paglabag sa batas na iyong ginawa, bago ko
be waived. Upon his refusal to reconsider such ruling, the petition for ipagpatuloy ang pagtatanong sa iyo, ikaw ay may karapatan na huwag
certiorari was filed. magsalita kung ayaw mo at may karapatan ka rin na magkaroon ng
abogado na iyong gusto, at dapat mo ring mabatid na anuman ang
Issue: sabihin mo dito ay maaaring gamitin ng ayon o laban sa iyo,
Whether the right to remain silent and right to counsel during custodial magsasalaysay ka pa rin ba?" and that was all.
investigation may be waived.
People vs. Tampus [GR L-44690, 28 March 1980]
Held: Facts:
While there could be a waiver of the rights of an accused, it must be At around 10:00 a.m. of 14 January 1976, Celso Saminado, a prisoner
intelligently waived, otherwise a court's jurisdiction starting at the in the national penitentiary at Muntinlupa, Rizal and a patient in the
beginning of the trial may be lost in the course of the proceeding. emergency ward of the prison hospital, went to the toilet to answer a
Statements made during the period of custodial interrogation to be call of nature and to fetch water. Jose Tampus y Ponce and Rodolfo
admissible require a clear intelligent waiver of constitutional rights, the Avila, prisoners in the same penal institution, who were tubercular
suspect being warned prior to questioning that he has a right to remain patients in the hospital, followed Saminado to the toilet and, by means
silent, that any utterance may be used against him, and that he has of their bladed weapons, assaulted him. Tampus inflicted 8 incised
the right to the presence of a counsel, either retained or appointed. wounds on Saminado while Avila stabbed him nine times. Saminado
The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or died upon arrival at 11:00 a.m. on that same morning in the prison
inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant hospital. After emerging from the toilet, Tampus and Avila surrendered
unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to to a prison guard with their knives. They told the guard: "Surrender po
secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial kami, sir. Gumanti lang po kami." The motive of the killing was revenge.
interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement Tampus and Avila, both members of the Oxo gang, avenged the
officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise stabbing of Eduardo Rosales (also a member of the Oxo gang) in
deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. As for the December 1975 by a member of the Batang Mindanao gang, a group
procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective hostile to the Oxo gang. Saminado was a member of the Batang
means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence Mindanao gang. The officer of the day investigated the incident right
and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following away. In his written report submitted on the same day when the tragic
measures are required. Prior to any questioning, the person must be occurrence transpired, he stated that, according to his on-the- spot
warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he investigation, Avila stabbed Saminado when the latter was seated in
does not make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a the comfort room and his back was turned to Avila, while Tampus
right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The stabbed the victim on the chest and neck. Two days after the killing, or
defendant may waive effectuation of those rights, provided the waiver on January 16, another prison guard investigated Tampus and Avila
is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, however, he and obtained their extrajudicial confessions wherein they admitted that
indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes they assaulted Saminado. Tampus and Avila were charged for murder
to consult with an attorney before speaking, there can be no before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Makati Branch 36 (Criminal
questioning. Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any Case 18510). After trial, the court convicted Tampus for murder,
manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not sentencing him to death and ordering him to pay the heirs of the
question him. The mere fact that he may have answered some victim, Celso Saminado, an indemnity of P12,000.00. In the same
questions or volunteered some statements on his own does not decision, Rodolfo Avila, the co-accused of Tampus, was convicted of
deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further inquiries the same offense and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of 14
years and 8 months of reclusion temporal as minimum to 20 years of confession, plea of guilty and testimony, the crime was proven beyond
reclusion temporal as maximum and to pay the same indemnity. Avila reasonable doubt by the evidence of the prosecution.
did not appeal. (Avila was sentenced to death, together with Frankisio
Aro and Pedro Lasala, in another case, Criminal Case 1187. The death People vs. Galit [GR 51770, 20 March 1985]
sentence is under review in GR L-38141). The present automatic Facts:
review involves Tampus' conviction. In the morning of 23 August 1917, Mrs. Natividad Fernando, a widow,
was found dead in the bedroom of her house located at Barrio
Issue: Geronimo, Montalban, Rizal, as a result of 7 wounded inflicted upon
Whether the “custodial” investigation pursued by Lahoz, where different parts of her body by a blunt instrument. More than 2 weeks
allegedly Tampus was not informed as to his rights to have counsel and thereafter, police authorities of Montalban picked up Francisco Galit, an
to remain silent, negates the extra-judicial confession made by Tampus ordinary construction worker (pion) living in Marikina, Rizal, or suspicion
in the killing of Saminado. of the murder. On the following day, however, 8 September 1977, the
case was referred to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for
Held: further investigation in view of the alleged limited facilities of the
As the confession in the present case was obtained after the 1973 Montalban police station. Accordingly, Galit was brought to the NBI
Constitution took effect, section 20 of Article IV applies thereto. There where he was investigated by a team headed by NBI Agent Carlos
is no doubt that the confession was voluntarily made. Investigator Flores. NBI Agent Flores conducted a preliminary interview of the
Buenaventura de la Cuesta in taking it endeavored, according to his suspect who allegedly gave evasive answers to his questions. But the
understanding, to comply with section 20. Even considering that following day, 9 September 1977, Francisco Galit allegedly voluntarily
Vivencio C. Lahoz investigated the killing two days before the executed a Salaysay admitting participation in the commission of the
confession was taken by investigator de la Cuesta on 16 January 1976 crime. He implicated Juling Dulay and Pabling Dulay as his companions
and that allegedly during said custodial interrogation Tampus was not in the crime. Actually, Galit had been obtained and interrogated almost
informed as to his rights to have counsel and to remain silent, Tampus continuously for 5 days, to no avail as he consistently maintained his
and Avila had already admitted it when, after coming out of the toilet, innocence. The investigating officers began to maul him and to torture
the scene of the crime, they surrendered to Reynaldo S. Eustaquio, the him physically. They covered his face with a rag and pushed his face
first guard whom they encountered, and they revealed to him that they into a toilet bowl full of human waste. With Galit's will having been
had committed an act of revenge. That spontaneous statement, broken, he admitted what the investigating officers wanted him to
elicited without any interrogation, was part of the res gestae and at admit and he signed the confession they prepared. Galit was charged
the same time was a voluntary confession of guilt. Not only that; the with the Crime of Robbery with Homicide, in an information filed before
two accused, by means of that statement given freely on the spur of the Circuit Criminal Court of Pasig, Rizal. Trial was held, and on 11
the moment without any urging or suggestion, waived their right to August 1978, immediately after the accused had terminated the
remain silent and to have the right to counsel. That admission was presentation of his evidence, the trial judge dictated his decision on
confirmed by their extrajudicial confession, plea of guilty and testimony the case in open court, finding Galit guilty as charged and sentencing
in court. They did not appeal from the judgment of conviction. It is him to suffer the death penalty; to indemnify the heirs of the victim in
further contended that after the fiscal had presented the prosecution's the sum of P110,000.00, and to pay the costs. Hence, the automatic
evidence and when counsel de oficio called upon Tampus to testify, the review.
trial court should have advised him of his constitutional right to remain
silent. That contention is not well-taken considering that Tampus Issue:
pleaded guilty and had executed an extrajudicial confession. The court Whether a monosyllabic answer to a long question suffices as a
during the trial is not duty-bound to apprise the accused that he has voluntary admission that may be used against the accused.
the right to remain silent. It is his counsel who should claim that right
for him. If he does not claim it and he calls the accused to the witness Held:
stand, then he waives that right. It should be stressed that, however, As held in Morales vs. Ponce Enrile, "At the time a person is arrested, it
even without taking into account Tampus' admission of guilt, shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform him of the reason
for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any. He
shall be informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to men held Salva who was manning his post, disarmed him of his shotgun
counsel, and that any statement he might make could be used against and tied his hands behind his back. They then went up the house of
him. The person arrested shall have the right to communicate with his Leoncio Pastrano, Chief of Security and General Foreman of the
lawyer, a relative, or anyone he chooses by the most expedient means plantation, hog-tied him, and divested him of his driver's license,
— by telephone if possible — or by letter or messenger. It shall be the goggles, wristwatch and .38 cal. snubnose revolver. From there, the 6
responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that this is armed men with Salva and Pastrano in tow proceeded to the house of
accomplished. No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it Atty. Juanito Garay, Manager of the Polo Coconut Plantation. Dionanao,
be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested, by any Ejan and Sedigo stayed downstairs while Bandula and the two masked
person on his behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition either of men with Salva and Pastrano went up the house of Atty. Garay. After
the detainee himself or by anyone on his behalf. The right to counsel forcing their way into the house, the masked men and Bandula
may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the ransacked the place and took with them money and other valuables.
assistance of counsel. Any statement obtained in violation of the Thereafter, the hooded men who were bringing with them Atty. Garay
procedure herein laid down, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in locked Pastrano inside his house together with Salva. A few minutes
whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence." Herein, there were later, Pastrano and Salva heard gunshots coming from the direction of
no eyewitnesses, no property recovered from the accused, no state the gate of the compound. After succeeding in untying themselves,
witnesses, and not even fingerprints of the accused at the scene of Pastrano and Salva went to report the matter to the police. On their
the crime. The only evidence against Galit is his alleged confession. A way, they found outside the gate the lifeless body of Atty. Garay
long question followed by a monosyllabic answer does not satisfy the (dead with 3 gunshot wounds). On 28 January 1986, Dionanao was
requirements of the law that the accused be informed of his rights "picked-up for investigation" and interrogated by Cpl. Ephraim Valles
under the Constitution and our laws. Instead there should be several inside the Police Station in Tanjay where he implicated accused Sedigo.
short and clear questions and every right explained in simple words in a The following day, on 29 January 1986, he was brought to the Office
dialect or language known to the person under investigation. Galit is of the Municipal Attorney of Tanjay, Atty. Ruben Zerna, where he
from Samar and there is no showing that he understands Tagalog. supposedly executed his extrajudicial confession in the presence of the
Moreover, at the time of his arrest, Galit was not permitted to latter. On 4 February 1986, upon the suggestion of another
communicate with his lawyer, a relative, or a friend. In fact, his sisters investigator, Cpl. Valles took the Supplementary Sworn Statement of
and other relatives did not know that he had been brought to the NBI Dionanao, again in the presence of Atty. Zerna. In his Sworn Statement,
for investigation and it was only about two weeks after he had Dionanao supposedly admitted that he was with Bandula when the
executed the salaysay that his relatives were allowed to visit him. His latter, together with "Boy Short" and "Boy Tall," shot Atty. Garay. He
statement does not even contain any waiver of right to counsel and added that he was going to be killed if he did not join the group. He
yet during the investigation he was not assisted by one. At the also said that Sedigo and Ejan were with them that evening. Then, in
supposed reenactment, again Galit was not assisted by counsel of his his Supplementary Sworn Statement, he implicated 3 more persons but
choice. These constitute gross violations of his rights. Trial courts are they were not thereafter included in the Information. Pn the other
cautioned to look carefully into the circumstances surrounding the hand, Bandula was arrested on 28 January 1986, at around 6:00 a.m.,
taking of any confession, especially where the prisoner claims having brought to the Tanjay Police Station and there interrogated. He was
been maltreated into giving one. Where there is any doubt as to the investigated by Cpl. Borromeo, Cpl. Esparicia, Cpl. Ebarso, Pat. Moso
voluntariness, the same must be rejected in toto. and Pat. Baldejera. In that investigation, Bandula allegedly admitted
that he together with 2 others shot Atty. Garay with a .38 cal.
People vs. Bandula [GR 89223, 27 May 1994] revolver. At that time, there was no counsel present "because that
Facts: (investigation) was not yet in writing." Two weeks after his arrest,
On 27 January 1986, at around 10:00 p.m., 6 armed men barged into Bandula allegedly gave a sworn statement in the presence of Atty.
the compound of Polo Coconut Plantation in Tanjay, Negros Oriental. Zerna admitting his participation in the killing of Atty. Garay. In that
The armed men were identified by Security Guard Antonio Salva of the statement, Bandula narrated that after "Boy Short" and "Boy Tall" shot
plantation as Aurelio Bandula, Teofilo Dionanao, Victoriano Ejan and Atty. Garay, he (Bandula) was ordered likewise to shoot the latter
Pantaleon Sedigo while the two others who wore masks were simply which he did. Bandula, Sedigo, Dionanao and Ejan were were charged
referred to as "Boy Tall" and "Boy Short." At gunpoint, the 2 masked for robbery with homicide. On 5 May 1989, after hearing 12
prosecution and 9 defense witnesses, the trial court rendered doubted whether he can effectively undertake the defense of the
judgment finding Bandula guilty of the crime charged. However, his 3 accused without running into conflict of interests. He is no better than
co-accused were acquitted "for insufficiency of evidence." a fiscal or prosecutor who cannot represent the accused during
custodial investigations.
Issue:
Whether admissions obtained during custodial interrogations requires People vs. Quidato [GR 117401, 1 October 1998]
mere counsel or independent counsel present. Facts:
Bernardo Quidato, Sr. was the father of Bernardo Quidato, Jr. and Leo
Held: Quidato. Being a widower, Bernardo lived alone in his house at Sitio
Bandula and Dionanao were investigated immediately after their arrest, Libod, Brgy. Tagbaobo, Kaputian, Davao. He owned 16 hectares of
they had no counsel present. If at all, counsel came in only a day after coconut land in the area. On 16 September 1988, Bernardo,
the custodial investigation with respect to Dionanao, and two weeks accompanied by his son, and two hired hands, Reynaldo Malita and
later with respect to Bandula. And, counsel who supposedly assisted Eddie Malita, went to Davao City to sell 41 sacks of copra. After selling
both accused was Atty. Ruben Zerna, the Municipal Attorney of Tanjay. the copra, Bernardo paid the Malita brothers for their labor, who
On top of this, there are telltale signs that violence was used against thereafter left. Bernardo Sr. and Bernardo Jr. went back to Sitio Libod
Bandua. Certainly, these are blatant violations of the Constitution that same day. At around 6:00 p.m. of 17 September 1988, Bernardo
which mandates in Section 12, Art. III, that (1) Any person under Jr. asked Reynaldo Malita to come to the former's house to discuss an
investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to important matter. Upon Reynaldo's arrival at Bernardo Jr.'s house, he
be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and saw that his brother Eddie was already there. They started drinking
independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot beer. Bernardo Jr. thereafter proposed that they rob and kill his father.
afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These They went to Bernardo's house only at 10:00 p.m., after the rain had
rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of stopped. Reynaldo brought along a bolo. Upon reaching the house,
counsel. (2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any Bernardo Jr. knocked on the door, asking his father to let them in.
other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret When Bernardo opened the door, Eddie rushed in and knocked the old
detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of man down. Reynaldo then hacked Bernardo on the nape and neck.
detention are prohibited. (3) Any confession or admission obtained in Bernardo Jr. and Eddie ransacked Bernardo's aparador looking for
violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence money but they found none; so, the 3 of them left. The body of
against him. (4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for Bernardo was discovered the next day by Bernardo Jr.'s son, who had
violations of this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation gone there to call his Lolo for breakfast. On 27 September 1988, Leo
of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families. The present Quidato confronted his brother regarding the incident and learned that
case is analogous to the more recent case of People v. De Jesus, where Reynaldo and Eddie Malita were the ones responsible for Bernardo's
it was held that admissions obtained during custodial interrogations death. The two were promptly arrested by the police. Aside from
without the benefit of counsel although later reduced to writing and arresting the latter two, however, the police also arrested Bernardo Jr.
signed in the presence of counsel are still flawed under the On 29 September 1988, the Malita brothers were interrogated by
Constitution. The Constitution also requires that counsel be Patrolman Lucrecio Mara at the Kaputian Police Station. When Mara
independent. Obviously, he cannot be a special counsel, public or apprised them of their constitutional rights, including their right to
private prosecutor, counsel of the police, or a municipal attorney counsel, they signified their intent to confess even in the absence of
whose interest is admittedly adverse to the accused. Granting that counsel. Aware that the same would be useless if given in the absence
Atty. Zerna assisted Dionanao and Bandula when they executed their of counsel, Mara took down the testimony of the two but refrained
respective extrajudicial confessions, still their confessions are from requiring the latter to sign their affidavits. Instead, he escorted
inadmissible in evidence considering that Atty. Zerna does not qualify the Malita brothers to Davao City and presented them, along with their
as an independent counsel. As a legal officer of the municipality, he unsigned affidavits, to a CLAO (now PAO) lawyer, Jonathan Jocom.
provides legal assistance and support to the mayor and the Informed of the situation, Atty. Jocom conferred with Reynaldo and
municipality in carrying out the delivery of basic services to the people, Eddie, again advising the two of their constitutional rights. The CLAO
including the maintenance of peace and order. It is thus seriously lawyer explained the contents of the affidavits, in Visayan, to the
Malita brothers, who affirmed the veracity and voluntary execution of record with which to justify a judgment unfavorable to Bernardo Jr. He
the same. Only then did Reynaldo and Eddie affix their signatures on was therefore acquitted.
the affidavits. On 17 January 1989, Bernardo Jr. was charged with the
crime of parricide before the Regional Trial Court of Davao. A murder People vs. Januario [GR 98252, 7 February 1997]
case was likewise filed against his co-accused, Reynaldo Malita and Facts:
Eddie Malita. Bernardo Jr. and the Malita brothers pleaded not guilty. Vicente Dilanco Pons, Santiago Cid's cousin, purportedly acting upon
The two cases were tried jointly. The Malita brothers withdrew their the instructions of Doris Wolf, borrowed from Myrna Temporas the
"not guilty" plea during trial and were accordingly sentences. Only amount of P48,500.00 and used the an Isuzu passenger type jeepney
Bernardo Jr.'s case was tried on merits. After due trial and on 2 March (Plate DFB 550) as a collateral. The amount was given to Pons in
1994, the Regional Trial Court of Davao, Branch 4, rendered judgment P10,000.00 cash and the balance in a check payable to Doris Wolf. The
finding Bernardo Quidato, Jr., guilty beyond reasonable doubt as a co- check was encashed as it was cleared from Myrna Temporas' account.
principal in the offense of Parricide which falls under Article 246 (of the It bore a signature supposedly of Doris Wolf at its back portion and a
Revised Penal Code), for the death of his father, Bernardo Quidato, Sr., second endorsement by Pons who subsequently deposited it in his
and accordingly, was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion account. On September 11, Temporas asked Pons to secure a special
perpetua, with all the accessory penalties provided by law and to power of attorney from Doris Wolf. Pons promised to comply in one or
indemnify the other heirs of Bernardo Quidato, Sr., the amount of two weeks. But Pons failed to pay the indebtedness. So, Myrna
P50,000.00, and to pay the costs. Bernardo Jr. appealed. Temporas repeatedly went to his house in Digmaan, Camarines Sur to
collect the amount borrowed but Pons always promised that he himself
Issue: would go to her house to pay. Inasmuch as Pons also failed to produce
Whether an initially uncounseled extrajudicial confession, signed in the a deed of sale covering the jeepney, Temporas lodged a complaint
presence of a counsel in a later day, is admissible as evidence against against him for estafa before the NBI. Meanwhile, Andrew Patriarca, Sr.
the accused. reported the disappearance of his son, Andrew, Jr., the jeepney and its
driver to the police detachment in Bulihan, Silang, Cavite and the police
Held: stations in Silang and Imus, Cavite. Two weeks after 4 September
The prosecution relied heavily on the affidavits executed by Reynaldo 1987, the body of 23-year-old Andrew Patriarca, Jr. was found in a
and Eddie. The two brothers were, however, not presented on the sugarcane plantation in Maguyam. His head was severed from his body.
witness stand to testify on their extrajudicial confessions. The failure The body of the driver, Geronimo Malibago, stepfather of Doris Wolf,
to present the two gives these affidavits the character of hearsay. It is the owner of the jeepney, was recovered after the harvest of
hornbook doctrine that unless the affiants themselves take the witness sugarcane in the plantation in Maguyam. Malibago's widow identified
stand to affirm the averments in their affidavits, the affidavits must be the body from its clothing. Acting on the complaint, the NBI contacted
excluded from the judicial proceeding, being inadmissible hearsay. The the relatives of the owner of the jeepney who went to Camarines Sur,
voluntary admissions of an accused made extrajudicially are not identified the jeepney and informed the NBI that its driver (deceased
admissible in evidence against his co-accused when the latter had not Geronimo Malibago) and conductor (deceased Andrew Patriarca, Jr.)
been given an opportunity to hear him testify and cross-examine him. had been killed by carnappers. Patriarca's widow also filed a complaint
Likewise, the manner by which the affidavits were obtained by the with the NBI. Upon investigation, an NBI team led by Supervising Agent
police render the same inadmissible in evidence even if they were Magno Toribio found out that the carnapping of the jeepney and the
voluntarily given. The settled rule is that an uncounseled extrajudicial killing of Patriarca and Malibago were the "handiwork" of a group of 4
confession without a valid waiver of the right to counsel — that is, in persons named Rene Januario, Efren Canape, Eliseo Sarita alias Toto,
writing and in the presence of counsel — is inadmissible in evidence. It and Eduardo Sarinos alias Digo. The team also discovered that the
is undisputed that the Malita brothers gave their statements to jeepney was disposed of through Cid. Januario and Canape, as well as
Patrolman Mara in the absence of counsel, although they signed the Cid, were arrested in Camarines Sur. The NBI then invited Pons and
same in the presence of counsel the next day. Given the inadmissibility Temporas to shed light on the carnapping incident. The jeepney was
in evidence of Gina Quidato's (accused’s wife) testimony, as well as of recovered in an auto shop with its engine partly dismantled. Upon being
Reynaldo and Eddie's extrajudicial confessions, nothing remains on informed by the NBI that the jeepney had been found, an insurance
company brought it back to Manila. From the "oral investigation" they
conducted at the Naga City NBI office on 27 March 1988, the team investigation counsel. Arguendo that Saunar's competence as a lawyer
learned that Sarita and Sarinos took Patriarca and Malibago inside a is beyond question, under the circumstances described by the
sugar plantation where presumably they were killed. Because Januario prosecution however, he could not have been the independent counsel
and Canape volunteered that their companions were their neighbors in solemnly spoken of by the Constitution. He was an applicant for a
Paliparan, Dasmariñas, Cavite who could be in Manila already, the NBI position in the NBI and therefore it can never be said that his loyalty
team decided to take down their statements at the NBI head office in was to the confessants. In fact, he was actually employed by the NBI a
Manila. The team traveled with Januario and Canape to Manila, arriving few months after. Further, although Saunar might have really been
there at around 1:00 p.m. of 28 March 1988. At the Taft Avenue head around to properly apprise Januario of his constitutional right as
office of the NBI, the team took the statements of Januario and Canae reflected in the written sworn statement itself, the same cannot be
one at a time. They asked Atty. Carlos Saunar, who was "just around said about Canape. Canape was not properly informed of his
somewhere," to assist Januario and Canape during the investigation. constitutional rights. Perfunctorily informing a confessant of his
Agent Arlis Vela took the statement of Januario while Supervising constitutional rights, asking him if he wants to avail of the services of
Agent Toribio took that of Canape. On 7 November 1988, an counsel and telling him that he could ask for counsel if he so desires or
Information signed by Assistant Provincial Fiscal Jose M. Velasco, Jr., that one could be provided him at his request, are simply not in
was filed against Rene Januario and Efren Canape, and their co-accused compliance with the constitutional mandate. In this case, appellant
Santiago Cid, Eliseo Sarita @ Toto and Eduardo Sarinos @ Digo charging Canape was merely told of his constitutional rights and posthaste,
them with violation of Republic Act 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Law). asked whether he was willing to confess. His affirmative answer may
Arraigned on 7 February 1989, Januario and Canape, assisted by not, by any means, be interpreted as a waiver of his right to counsel of
counsel de oficio, pleaded not guilty. On 30 May 1989, Cid, assisted by his own choice. Furthermore, the right of a person under custodial
counsel de parte, likewise entered a plea of not guilty. Sarita and investigation to be informed of his rights to remain silent and to
Sarinos remained at large. After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, counsel implies a correlative obligation on the part of the police
Branch XVIII in Tagaytay City, disposing of Criminal Case TG-1392-89, investigator to explain and to contemplate an effective communication
rendered judgment finding Januario and Canape guilty beyond that results in an understanding of what is conveyed. Canape's sworn
reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 14, last statement, which reads and sounds so lifeless on paper, fails to reflect
sentence, of Republic act 6539, otherwise known as the Anti- compliance with this requirement. Neither does the testimony of NBI
Carnapping Law, and imposed upon them the supreme penalty of Agent Toribio. Bearing in mind that Canape reached only the fifth
Reclusion Perpetua or life imprisonment, and ordered them to pay grade, the NBI agents should have exerted more effort in explaining to
jointly and severally, but separately, the heirs of their victims, namely, him his constitutional rights. The law enforcement agents' cavalier
Geronimo Malibago and Andrew Patriarca, Jr., the sums of: (a) disregard of Januario's and Canape's constitutional rights is shown not
P50,000.00 for moral damages; (b) P50,000.00 for exemplary only by their failure to observe Section 12 (1) of Article III of the
damages; (c) P25,000.00 for actual damages, and to pay the costs of Constitution. They have likewise forgotten the third paragraph of
the proceeding. Januario and Canape appealed. Section 12 of the same article which mandates that an admission of
facts related to a crime must be obtained with the assistance of
Issue: counsel; otherwise it would be inadmissible in evidence against the
Whether Saunar’s presence as counsel in the custodial investigations person so admitting.
satisfies the requirements of Article III, section 12 (1).
People vs. Labtan [GR 127493, 8 December 1999]
Held: Facts:
Proof of Saunar's presence during the custodial investigation of On 28 March 1993, at more or less 10:30 p.m. while inside a motor
Januario and Canape is, however, not a guarantee that their respective vehicle in the national highway at Barangay Agusan up to the road at
confessions had been taken in accordance with Article III, Section 12 Camaman-an, all of Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, Henry Feliciano y
(1) of the Constitution. This constitutional provision requires that a Lagura and Orlando Labtan y Daquihon took away, through intimdation
person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have or violence, cash amounting to P720. 00, pioneer stereo, booster and
no less than "competent and independent counsel preferably of his twitters owned by and belonging to Roman S. Mercado, and a Seiko
own choice." Saunar was not the choice of Januario as his custodial Diver wristwatch owned by Ismael P. Ebon, all in all amounting to
P10,800.00. Later on, on or about 16 April 1993, at about 2:30 p.m., driver Bolasito. Further, Atty. Chavez did not provide the kind of
more or less, at Buntong, Camaman- an, Cagayan de Oro City, counselling required by the Constitution. He did not explain to Feliciano
Philippines, Feliciano, Orlando Labtan, and Jonelto Labtan robbed the consequences of his action — that the sworn statement can be
Florentino Bolasito of P30 in cash money. In the course thereof, used against him and that it is possible that he could be found guilty
Orlando and Jonelto Labtan stabbed Bolasito to death. On 23 April and sent to jail. Furthermore, Atty. Chavez’s independence as counsel
1993, an information was filed against Feliciano, Orlando Labtan, and is suspect — he is regularly engaged by the Cagayan de Oro City Police
Jonelto Labtan charging them with robbery with homicide (as per 16 as counsel de officio for suspects who cannot avail the services of
April 1993 incident). Subsequently, another information dated 20 May counsel. He even received money from the police as payment for his
1993 was filed against Feliciano and Orlando Labtan charging them services.
with highway robbery (as per 28 March 1993 incident). Only Feliciano
pleaded not guilty to the two charges. Orlando Labtan had escaped the People vs. Samus [GR 135957-58, 17 September 2002]
Maharlika Rehabilitation and Detention Center in Carmen, Cagayan de Facts:
Oro City where he was detained while Jonelto Labtan has eluded arrest. Guillermo Samus was a farmer, tilling and living in the land of Miguel
The two cases were tried together. After trial, the Regional Trial Court Completo at Barangay Niugan, Cabuyao, Laguna. The victims, 62 year
of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 25 found Feliciano guilty beyond old Dedicacion Balisi and her grandson, 6 year old John Ardee Balisi,
reasonable doubt as principal by direct participation in the crime of were the neighbors of Samus’ father at San Ramon de Canlubang, Brgy.
robbery with homicide and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to Canlubang, Calamba, Laguna. At 4:20 P.M. on 2 September 1996,
indemnify the offended party (the heirs of Florentino Bolasito) the sum Senior Police (SP) Inspector Rizaldy H. Garcia was at his office at the
of P50,000.00 and to pay the offended party the sum of P35,000.00 4th PNP Criminal Investigation Group Regional Office at Camp Vicente
representing funeral expenses and to pay the cost. The trial court also Lim in Calamba, Laguna when he received an order from his superior to
found Feliciano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of highway investigate the murder of the two victims. Their office had received a
robbery, and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of 12 years of telephone call from a local barangay official informing them of the
prision mayor as the minimum term to 14 years, 8 months of reclusion victims’ deaths. Arriving at the victims’ residence at Block 8, Lot 6 at
temporal in its minimum period as the maximum term and to indemnify San Ramon, Brgy. Canlubang, Calamba, Garcia and his team conducted
Roman S. Mercado the sum of P8,000.00, representing the value of an investigation, making a sketch of the relative positions of the
the P700.00 cash, stereo, booster, and twitter and to indemnify Ismael victims, lifting fingerprints from the crime scene and taking pictures.
Ebon the sum of P2,500.00, the value of the Seiko Wrist watch Thereafter, an investigation report was prepared by Garcia and signed
divested from him and to pay the cost. The trial court convicted by his superior, Colonel Pedro Tango. The investigators likewise found a
Feliciano on the basis of his sworn statement which he repudiated pair of maong pants, a white T-shirt, a handkerchief and dirty slippers
during the trial. Feliciano appealed. in the bathroom and roof of the house. A pair of earrings worn by
Dedicacion Balisi was likewise reported missing from her body by her
Issue: daughter, Nora B. Llorera. The victims’ bodies were brought to the
Whether the counselling of Atty. Pepito Chavez to Feliciano cured the Funeraria Señerez de Mesa in Calamba. On that same day, Ponciano
initial lack of counsel. Pontanos, Jr., then a resident of Barangay Niugan, Cabuyao and an
acquaintance of Samus, happened to meet Samus at Sammy Pacheca’s
Held: house in the same barangay where Samus asked Ponciano to
Feliciano had been denied of his right to have a competent and accompany him to Ponciano’s wife to pawn a pair of earrings.
independent counsel when he was questioned in the Cagayan de Oro Ponciano’s wife was mad at first but upon Ponciano’s prodding, gave
City Police Station. SPO1 Alfonso Cuarez testified that he started Samus P300.00 with no interest. The earrings were placed in a jewelry
questioning Feliciano at 8:00 a.m. of 22 April 1993 regarding his box; thereafter, Samus received another P250.00. At 6:00 P.M. on 10
involvement in the killing of jeepney driver Florentino Bolasito, September 1996, Major Jose Pante of the Criminal Investigation Group
notwithstanding the fact that he had not been apprised of his right to received information that Samus was the principal suspect in the killing
counsel. Feliciano had been subjected to custodial investigation of the 2 victims and that he was sighted inside the residence of
without a counsel; inasmuch as when SPO1 Cuarez investigated spouses Rolly and Josie Vallejo at Barangay Macabling, Sta. Rosa,
Feliciano, the latter was already a suspect in the killing of jeepney Laguna. He then formed and led a team composed of SPO3 Galivo,
Intelligence Commission Officer Casis and SPO3 Mario Bitos. Arriving at Held:
the site at past 7:00 P.M., the team, accompanied by local barangay After being illegally arrested, Samus was not informed of his
authorities, asked permission from the Vallejo spouses to enter the constitutional rights to remain silent and to have competent and
house, which was granted. Shortly thereafter, they heard loud independent counsel. Hence, any admission elicited from him by the
footsteps on the roof. Rushing outside, they saw Samus crawling on law enforcers during custodial investigation are normally inadmissible in
the roof. They ordered him to stop, but he suddenly jumped from the evidence. In their affidavits, the police officers readily admitted that
roof and landed hard on the ground, sustaining an injury on his ankle Samus was subjected to a preliminary interview. Yet, during their
and bruises on his left and right forearm. At that point, the police team examination in open court, they tried to skirt this issue by stating that
closed in on Samus who, while trembling and shaking, admitted the it was only the media that had questioned Samus, and that they were
killings upon a query from Rolly Vallejo. Samus was brought to the merely present during the interview. However, an examination of the
Camp Vicente Lim PNP Investigation Office where he was informed of testimonies of the three law enforcers show the folly of their crude
his constitutional rights by SPO3 Alex Malabanan. In the morning of 11 attempts to camouflage inadmissible evidence. In the absence of
September 1996, Samus, assisted by Atty. Arturo Juliano, gave his testimony from any of the media persons who allegedly interviewed
statement admitting the killings. SPO3 Malabanan also took the Samus, the uncertainties and vagueness about how they questioned
statements of tricycle driver Rafael Baliso, the victims’ relatives and led him to his confession lead us to believe that they themselves
Salvacion and Mona Balisi and witness Mary Arguelles, who saw Samus investigated Samus and elicited from him uncounselled admissions. This
enter the house of Dedicacion Balisi. On the same day, PNP Fingerprint fact is clearly shown by the Affidavits they executed on 11 September
Examiner Reigel Allan Sorra took fingerprint samples from Samus. His 1997, as well as by their testimonies on cross-examination.
prints exactly matched with a set of prints found at the crime scene. Nonetheless, even if the uncounselled admission per se may be
Later that day, SPO3 Mario Bitos was able to recover the pawned inadmissible, under the present circumstances the Court cannot rule it
earrings from Ponciano who turned them over to SPO3 Malabanan. Two out because of Samus' failure to make timely objections. Indeed, the
separate Informations were filed on 27 November 1996, charging admission is inadmissible in evidence under Article III, Section 12(1)
Samus (in Criminal Case 5015-96-C) with homicide for the death of and (3) of the Constitution, because it was given under custodial
one Dedicacion Balisi y Soriano (61 years old), and (in Criminal Case investigation and was made without the assistance of counsel.
5016-96-C) with murder for the death of one John Ardee Balisi y However, the defense failed to object to its presentation during the
Soriano (6 years old). When arraigned on 28 May 1997, Samus, trial, with the result that the defense is deemed to have waived
assisted by his counsel de oficio, pleaded not guilty. In due course, the objection to its admissibility. If only Samus had made a timely objection
Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna, Branch 36, found Samus guilty to the admissibility of Pontaños testimony and the picture of a pair of
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide (Criminal Case earrings together with the turnover receipt, which Samus identified
5015-96- C), sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of during his testimony, the prosecution could have been warned of the
10 years and 1 day of Prision Mayor as minimum up to 20 years of need to present additional evidence to support its case. To disregard
Reclusion Temporal as maximum, and ordered him to indemnify the unceremoniously a major portion of its case at this late stage when it
heirs of Dedicacion Balisi the amount of P50,000.00 for her death and can no longer present additional evidence as substitute for that which
another P50,000.00 as and for moral and actual damages and cost of is now claimed to be inadmissible goes against fundamental fairness.
suit. The trial court also found Samus guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of Murder (Criminal Case 5016- 96-C), sentenced him to
suffer the penalty of death, and ordered him to indemnify the heirs of People vs. Gallardo [GR 113684, 25 January 2000]
John Ardee Balisi the amount of P50,000.00 for his death and another Facts:
P50,000.00 as and for moral and actual damages and cost of suit. On 28 July 1991, the lifeless body of Edmundo Orizal was found in the
Hence, the automatic review. rest house of Ronnie Balao in Balzain, Tuguegarao, Cagayan. In an
autopsy performed by Dr. Edmundo Borja, Tuguegarao Municipal Health
Issue: Officer, the victim was found to have sustained 7 gunshot wounds in
Whether uncounselled admission are absolutely inadmissible. the chest, abdomen, back, left and right thighs, and two (2) grazing
wounds on the left arm and back. Investigation by the Tuguegarao
police station identified the suspects in the murder of Edmundo Orizal
as Armando Gallardo y Gander, Alfredo Columna y Correa (alias Fermin), opportunity whether to accept or not to accept him as their lawyer.
and Jessie Micate y Orteza. The police received information that the They were asked and they immediately agreed to have Atty. Velasco
suspects were detained at the Camalaniugan Police Station because of as their counsel during the investigation. There is no requirement in the
other criminal charges. So elements of the Tuguegarao police went to Constitution that the lawyer of an accused during custodial
the Camalaniugan Police Station in August 1991 to fetch the suspects. investigation be previously known to them. The Constitution provides
Only Gallardo and Columna were in the custody of the Camalaniugan that the counsel be a competent and independent counsel, who will
Police Station. Gallardo and Columna were brought to the Tuguegarao represent the accused and protect their Constitutionally guaranteed
Police Department. On August 18, 1991, they were investigated by rights. Further, to be an effective counsel, a lawyer need not challenge
Police Investigator SPO4 Isidro Marcos, and they gave statements all the questions being propounded to his client. The presence of a
admitting that they, together with Jessie Micate, killed Edmundo Orizal. lawyer is not intended to stop an accused from saying anything which
During the investigation, the dialect used was Ilocano, the native might incriminate him but, rather, it was adopted in our Constitution to
tongue of the accused, and during the taking of the statements, Atty. preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the accused to admit
Rolando Velasco assisted them. Judge Vilma Pauig was present. She something false. The counsel, however, should never prevent an
administered the oath on the jurat of the statements. Galardo and accused from freely and voluntarily telling the truth. Herein, Atty.
Columna signed their statements admitting the killing of Edmundo Velasco acted properly in accordance with the dictates of the
Orizal. On 7 November 1991, on the basis of the sworn confessions of Constitution and informed the accused of their Constitutional rights.
the accused, the Provincial Prosecutor of Cagayan filed with the Atty. Velasco assisted the accused and made sure that the statements
Regional Trial Court, Tuguegarao, Cagayan an information charging the given by the accused were voluntary on their part, and that no force or
accused with murder. On 2 December 1991, all three accused entered intimidation was used by the investigating officers to extract a
a plea of not guilty. Trial ensued. In due course, the trial court found confession from them. Under rules laid by the Constitution, existing
them guilty of murder for the treacherous killing of Edmundo Orizal and laws and jurisprudence, a confession to be admissible must satisfy all
sentencing each of them to reclusion perpetua and to pay in solidum four fundamental requirements, namely: (1) the confession must be
the heirs of Edmundo Orizal in the sum of P50,000.00 as indemnity for voluntary; (2) the confession must be made with the assistance of
death and P150,000.00 as moral damages. Gallardo, Columna and competent and independent counsel; (3) the confession must be
Micate appealed. express; and (4) the confession must be in writing. All these
requirements were complied with.
Issue:
Whether the counsel provided by the State to the accused satisfies the People vs. Barasina [GR 109993, 21 January 1994]
Constitutionlal requirement that a competent and independent counsel Facts:
be present in a custodial investigation. It was around 6:40 p.m. of 17 July 1988 when Fiscal Lino Mayo of
Olongapo City succumbed to a single bullet on his side of his face fired
Held: by a gunman from an unlicensed .45 caliber firearm while the former
The extrajudicial confessions of the accused were given after they was walking at the VIP parking lot of the Victory Liner Compound at
were completely and clearly apprised of their Constitutional rights. A Caloocan City. The gun man continued walking at the same time
lawyer assisted them and a judge administered their oath. while the holding his gun with two hands trying to cock it. After walking a few
initial choice of the lawyer in cases where a person under custodial meters, the gun man tucked the gun in his right waist and began
investigation cannot afford the services of a lawyer is naturally lodged running away. Barangay Councilman Prudencio Motos and about four
in the police investigators, the accused really has the final choice as he other men (among them, Ruel Ganiola and Michael Estapia, both
may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask for another one. A porters) chased the gun man. When the gun man was about to reach
lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the the LRT Station, they shouted at the policeman conducting traffic in
accused where he never raised any objection against the former's the area and pointed at the running man. The policeman, Pfc. Napoleon
appointment during the course of the investigation and the accused Francia, shouted at the gun man, who stopped and raised his hands.
thereafter subscribes to the veracity of his statement before the Pfc. Francia then confiscated a .45 cal. pistol from the gun man.
swearing officer. Herein, although Atty. Velasco was provided by the Afterwards, Pfc. Francia, Councilman Motos and others brought the gun
State and not by the accused themselves, the accused were given an man to the Kalookan City Police Headquarters aboard a passenger jeep.
The gun man was identified later as Elias Barasina y Laynesa. Barasina the Supreme Court and Barasina was thereupon required to file his brief
was charged for violation of Preisdential Decree 1866 (illegal following which the Solicitor General filed a brief for the People.
possession of firearms). Barasina, "John Doe" and "Peter Doe" (true
names, real identities and present whereabouts of the last two Issue:
mentioned accused, still unknown) were also charge for the crime of Whether the admissions made in the custodial investigation attended
murder. When haled to respond to the inculpations, Barasina was to by Atty. Abelardo Torres, a lawyer which Barasina did not expressly
indifferent in entering any plea, thus the plea of not guilty to the two choose as counsel to assist him therein, are inadmissible.
criminal charges was entered by the trial court in his behalf. In the
course of the trial, Barasina, through counsel, filed a Motion to Quash Held:
on the ground of double jeopardy, i.e. in jeopardy of being convicted of Section 12 (1), Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution dealing with the
two offenses — Murder and Illegal Possession of Firearms. In an Order, rights of a person undergoing investigation reads "Any person under
dated 17 August 1989, the Court denied the Motion to Quash. On trial, investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to
one of the principal defenses set up by Barasina was that he was be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and
mauled, maltreated and forced to sign two documents by the Caloocan independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot
policemen while he was inside a small cell inside the Caloocan City afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These
Police Headquarters. He identified those 2 documents, the "Paalala", rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
dated 18 July 1988, and his statement dated 18 July 1988. He further counsel." The phrase "competent and independent" and "preferably of
claimed that he never read any of those documents and that he was his own choice" were explicit details which were added upon the
not assisted by any lawyer during their execution, and that he does not persistence of human rights lawyers in the 1986 Constitutional
know of any Atty. Abelardo Torres. He signed an Affidavit of retraction Commission who pointed out cases where, during the martial law
dated 22 July 1988. On 28 February 1990, the trial court found period, the lawyers made available to the detainee would be one
Barasina guilty beyond reasonable doubt of (1) violation of Par. 1 of appointed by the military and therefore beholden to the military. Yet,
P.D. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearm); and (2) Murder, and the apprehension of the human rights advocates then along this line
sentenced him (1) as a result of his conviction under PD 1866 to hardly inspires belief in the present inasmuch as there was no indication
suffer imprisonment of 17 Years, 4 Months and 1 Day of Reclusion below that Barasina did in fact choose Atty. Romeo Mendoza to assist
Temporal as minimum to 20 Years of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum, him while in the process of offering the inculpatory statements, to the
and to pay the costs, and (2) as a result of his conviction of Murder, to exclusion of other lawyers (The hiring of Atty. Romeo Mendoza as
suffer imprisonment of 10 Years and 1 Day of Prision Mayor, as counsel by Barasina after the custodial investigation appears to be an
minimum to 18 Years, 8 Months and 1 Day of Reclusion Temporal, as afterthought). Withal, the word "preferably" under Section 12 [1],
maximum, and to pay the costs. The trial court also directed Barasina Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution does not convey the message that
to indemnify the heirs of the victim, Fiscal Lino Mayo, the amount of the choice of a lawyer by a person under investigation is exclusive as
P61,000.00 representing the funeral and burial expenses of the victim to preclude other equally competent and independent attorneys from
and the amount of P500 ,000.00 representing the moral damages handling his defense. If the rule were otherwise, then, the tempo of a
suffered by his widow and the loss of income as a result of the victim's custodial investigation will be solely in the hands of the accused who
death at the age of 50 years. On 29 December 1992, the Court of can impede, nay, obstruct the progress of the interrogation by simply
Appeals (de Pano, Elbiñas, Gutierrez [P], JJ.), acting on the appeal selecting lawyer who for one reason or another, is not available to
interposed by Barasina, rendered a decision increasing the penalties protect his interest. This absurd scenario could not have been
imposed on Barasina to reclusion perpetua for each of the two crimes contemplated by the framers of the charter.
committed. The records do not show that the case was certified by the
Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 13, Rule People vs. Morial [GR 129295, 15 August 2001]
124 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure although the records of Facts:
the case were forwarded to to the Supreme Court by the Court of At 6:00 p.m. on 6 January 1996, at Benjamin Morial's house at
Appeals on 11 May 1993 after the assailed decision was promulgated Barangay Cagnituan, Maasin, Southern Leyte, Gabriel Guilao (62 years
on 29 December 1992. In any event, the appeal was later accepted by old) saw Nonelito Abiñon slapped Paula Bandibas' neck. Paula fell and
was stabbed by Edwin Morial with a small, sharp, pointed weapon.
Leonardo Morial stood outside the house. Gabriel also saw Paula Fernandez. Leonardo Morial told SPO4 Fernandez that he had no money
Bandibas' grandson, Albert Bandibas, run towards his grandmother's to pay for the services of counsel. SPO4 Fernandez informed him that
garden, and later heard the crushing sound of a stone against flesh. there are many lawyers in their municipality and named some of them.
Abinon and the two Morials stayed in the house for about 10 minutes Leonardo said he did not know any of the lawyers mentioned. SPO4
after the killing the victims. Thereafter, they departed and headed Fernandez thus volunteered to obtain a lawyer for the suspect, to
towards the nearby houses. Benjamin Morial, Paula's common-law which Leonardo Morial consented. SPO4 Fernandez then contacted
husband, who was in neighboring Barangay Maria Clara (7½ kilometers Atty. Aguilar. At about 8:00 a.m. of 9 January 1996, Atty. Tobias
away from Barangay Cagnituan) when the incident took place, arrived Aguilar arrived. After being introduced to Leonardo Morial, Atty. Aguilar
at Barangay Cagnituan at around 4:00 p.m. the next day. As was his had a short conference with him. He asked Leonardo if he was willing to
wont, Benjamin called out Paula's name when he was some 5 meters answer the questions that may be propounded by the police
from the house. There was no answer. Benjamin raced to the house, investigator. Atty. Aguilar warned him that the statements that he
heading straight to the bedroom. There, he found the clothes all topsy- may give might be used in evidence against him. Leonardo said he was
turvy. The box where he and Paula hid their money was turned upside willing to answer the questions voluntarily. According to Atty. Aguilar,
down. Someone had ransacked their house. Benjamin moved back and Leonardo was bent on revealing what really happened. Thereafter,
saw Paula lying on the floor with a cut in her neck. He shouted for help. SPO4 Fernandez conducted the investigation in Cebuano. Midway into
Responding to his cries, Benjamin's neighbors, including barangay the investigation, after the police investigator had asked "all the
kagawads Patricio Abiñon and Rufino Guilao, rushed to his house. material points," Atty. Aguilar asked the investigator that he be given
Benjamin asked his neighbors to help search for Albert, who was found leave as he had a very important engagement. The investigator agreed
shortly some 50 meters from the house. Albert Bandibas laid flat on to the lawyer's request. Before leaving, Atty. Aguilar asked Leonardo if
the ground with two stones near his head. Benjamin requested Patricio he was willing to answer the questions in his absence. He also
to send someone to report the incident to the police. Upon learning of instructed the police that, after the written confession had been
Benjamin's return to Barangay Cagnituan, Gabriel Guilao hurried to prepared, the accused and the document containing the confession
Benjamin's house. He revealed to the grieving Benjamin that he should be brought to his office for "further examination." Atty. Aguilar
witnessed Paula's killing and that Edwin Morial, Leonardo Morial and was in the police station for less than thirty minutes from the start of
Nonelito Abiñon were the perpetrators. Benjamin advised Gabriel not to the interrogation. At about 1:30 or 2:00 p.m., Leonardo and his
tell anyone about what he knew for fear that they would all be killed policeman-escort arrived at Atty. Aguilar's office. Atty. Aguilar asked
since the Abiñons were "saturated in their place." Gabriel heeded the accused whether he was maltreated while he was away and
Benjamin's advice. The police arrived at around 10:00 p.m. SPO4 examined the suspect's body for contusions or abrasions. Leonardo
Antonio Macion, along with four other police officers, investigated the told him that he was not harmed by the police officer. The lawyer then
tragedy. They found wounds in Paula Bandibas' stomach, breast and studied the document to determine whether its contents conformed to
neck. Albert Bandibas, on the other hand, had a contusion on the right the answers given by the accused in his (counsel's) presence. He
side of his head. Beside him were two stones. After examining the propounded questions to Leonardo with reference to the document.
victims' wounds, the police officers, along with Benjamin Morial, Atty. Aguilar asked him whether he understood its contents and
proceeded to the bedroom. Benjamin informed the officers that whether he was willing to sign it. Leonardo replied in the positive and
P11,000.00 was missing from the moneybox. Other than the cash, signed the document in the presence of Atty. Aguilar and the
nothing else was missing. Outside the house, Benjamin disclosed to the policeman-escort. Edwin Morial, Leonardo Morial (@ Carding) and
officers his three suspects, the accused in this case. He advised them, Nonelito Abiñon (@ Noly) were charged with robery with homicide.
however, to bring only Leonardo and Edwin Morial into custody and not Upon arraignment, the three accused pleaded not guilty. After trial, the
to include Nonelito Abiñon, who had many relatives in Cagnituan. As a Regional Trial court rendered a decision convicting all the three
former barangay captain of 22 years, he knew that the Abiñons were accused for the crime of robbery with homicide, as defined under
"most feared" in Cagnituan. Benjamin did not tell the police that Gabriel Article 293 and penalized under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal
Guilao had witnessed the incident. The police found Edwin and Code and sentenced (1) Leonardo Morial and Nonelito Abiñon to suffer
Leonardo Morial in the house of Nonelito Abiñon and invited the two to the supreme penalty of death by lethal injection; and (2) Edwin Morial,
the police station, where they were turned over to SPO4 Andres due to his minority, to suffer the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua.
On the civil aspect of the case, the court held the three accused libale
jointly and severally (1) to indemnify the heirs of Paula Bandibas the whether he was willing to answer questions during the lawyer's
amount of P50,000.00 as death indemnity; (2) to indemnify the heirs absence. The records also disclose that Atty. Tobias never informed
of Albert Bandibas the amount of P50,000.00 as death indemnity; (3) appellant of his right to remain silent, not even before the custodial
to indemnify complainant Benjamin Morial the amount of P20,546.00 investigation started. Atty. Tobias, by his failure to inform appellant of
as actual damages for the funeral, burial and wake expenses; (4) to the latter's right to remain silent, by his "coming and going" during the
pay to the heirs [the] aforementioned moral damages of P60,000.00 custodial investigation, and by his abrupt departure before the
for each death; and (5) to restitute or restore to Benjamin Morial the termination of the proceedings, can hardly be the counsel that the
P11,000.00 amount robbed. The court also ordered them to pay the framers of the 1987 Constitution contemplated when it added the
costs. Hence, the automatic review. modifier "competent" to the word "counsel." Neither can he be
described as the "vigilant and effective" counsel that jurisprudence
Issue: requires. Precisely, it is Atty. Tobias' nonchalant behavior during the
Whether Leonardo Morila’s extra-judicial confession was valid, inasmuch custodial investigation that the Constitution abhors and which this
as the “material points” were tackled when the counsel, Atty. Aguilar Court condemns. His casual attitude subverted the very purpose for
Tobias, was present. this vital [Link] the extra -judicial confession was subsequently
signed in the presence of counsel did not cure its constitutional
Held: defects. As Leonardo Morial was effectively deprived of his right to
Leonardo Morial's extra-judicial confession invalid since he was counsel during custodial investigation, his extra-judicial confession is
effectively deprived of his right to counsel during the custodial inadmissible in evidence against him.
investigation. An accused under custodial interrogation must
continuously have a counsel assisting him from the very start thereof. People vs. Castro [GR 106583, 19 June 1997]
SPO4 Fernandez cannot justify Atty. Aguilar's leaving by claiming that Facts:
when the lawyer left, he knew very well that the suspect had already At about 5:30 p.m. of 19 March 1991, Capt. Allyn Evasco together
admitted that Leonardo and his companions committed the crime. with Sgt. Rogelio Raguine, Sgt. Emilio de Guzman and CIC Julian
Neither can Atty. Aguilar rationalize his abandoning his client by saying Discargar formed a team for the purpose of conducting a buy-bust
that he left only after the latter had admitted the "material points," operation. The team went to their target area in San Roque, San
referring to the three accused's respective participation in the crime. Miguel, Pangasinan and proceeded to deploy themselves as planned.
For even as the person under custodial investigation enjoys the right to Sgt. de Guzman who acted as poseur-buyer and civilian informer
counsel from its inception, so does he enjoy such right until its Discargar proceeded to Victoriano Castro y Calagno's house. Sgt.
termination — indeed, "in every phase of the investigation." An Raguine, meanwhile, hid in a grassy spot near the house. Discargar
effective and vigilant counsel "necessarily and logically requires that introduced Castro to Sgt. de Guzman who said that he wanted to
the lawyer be present and able to advise and assist his client from the purchase a kilo of dried marijuana leaves. After going inside the house,
time the confessant answers the first question asked by the Castro emerged with a plastic bag which he handed to Sgt. de Guzman
investigating officer until the signing of the extrajudicial confession." who, in turn, paid him P600.00. After the exchange, Sgt. de Guzman
Furthermore, Section 2(a) of RA 7438 requires that "[a]ny person made the pre-arranged signal, indicating that the transaction was
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be complete, by raising his right hand. Upon espying the signal, Sgt.
assisted by counsel." The last paragraph of Section 3 of the same law Raguine and the other team members approached Castro, introduced
mandates that "[i]n the absence of any lawyer, no custodial themselves as NARCOM (Narcotics Command) agents, and arrested
investigation shall be conducted." The right of Leonardo Morial to him. He was thereafter brought to the San Manuel Police Station. While
counsel was therefore completely negated by the precipitate departure the arresting team went to San Fernando, La Union for further
of Atty. Tobias before the termination of the custodial investigation. If investigation, the marijuana leaves were sent to Camp Crame for
it were true that Atty. Tobias had to attend to matters so pressing examination where it was discovered that the actual weight of the
that he had to abandon a client undergoing custodial investigation, he confiscated marijuana leaves was 930 grams. Castro was charged
could have terminated the same to be continued only until as soon as before the Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan, Branch 38 in an
his schedule permitted, advising the suspect in the meantime to remain information dated 21 March 1991, for violation of Section 4, Article II
silent. This he failed to do. Appallingly, he even asked his client of Republic Act 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972). After Castro
entered a plea of not guilty, trial on the merits commenced. On 29 declarations and their passports. Danilo Gomez instructed the tour
April 1992, the trial court rendered its decision finding Castro guilty group to place their baggages on the examiner's table for inspection.
beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged, and sentencing him They were directed to hold on to their respective baggages while they
to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of wait for their turn to be examined. Chin Kong Song's baggage was first
P25,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to be examined by Gomez. Gomez put his hand inside the baggage and
to pay the costs of the proceedings. Castro appealed. in the course of the inspection, he found 3 brown colored boxes similar
in size to powdered milk boxes underneath the clothes. The boxes were
Issue: marked Alpen Cereals and as he found nothing wrong with them,
Whether Castro’s signature on the “Receipt of Property Seized” is Gomez returned them inside the baggage and allowed Chin Kong Song
admissible in evidence. to go. Following the same procedure, Gomez next examined the
baggage of Wong Chuen Ming. Gomez again found and pulled out 2
Held: boxes of Alpen Cereals from said baggage and like in the previous
Castro's signature on the "Receipt of Property Seized" is inadmissible inspection, he found nothing wrong with them and allowed Wong Chuen
in evidence as there is no showing that he was assisted by counsel Ming to go. The third baggage to be examined belonged to Lim Nyuk
when he signed the same. Since this is a document tacitly admitting Sun. When Gomez pulled out another 3 boxes of Alpen Cereals from
the offense charged, the constitutional safeguard must be observed. said baggage, he became suspicious and decided to open one of the
Be that as it may, even disregarding this document, there is still ample boxes with his cutter. Inside the box was a plastic bag containing white
evidence to prove Castro's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the same crystalline substance. Alarmed, Gomez immediately called the attention
having been shown by the detailed testimonies of the law officers who of Appraiser Oreganan Palala and Duty Collector Zenaida Reyes
took part in the buy-bust operation. Bonifacio to his discovery. Upon learning about the boxes containing
the white crystalline substance, Zenaida Reyes Bonifacio (Chief of the
People vs. Wong Chuen Ming [GR 112801-11, 12 April 1996] Collection Division and Acting Duty Collector of the Customs Office at
Facts: the NAIA) immediately ordered the tour group to get their baggages
On 7 September 1991, at about 1:00 p.m., Philippine Air Lines (PAL) and proceed to the district collector's office. Chin Kong Song and
Flight PR 301 from Hongkong arrived at the Ninoy Aquino International Wong Chuen Ming, who were previously cleared by Gomez, were also
Airport (NAIA) in Pasay City, Metro Manila. Among the many brought inside together with the rest of the group. Inside the
passengers who arrived on board said flight were Wong Chuen Ming, Au collector's office, Gomez continued to examine the baggages of the
Wing Cheung ,Tan Soi Tee, Chin Kok Wee, Lim Chan Fatt, Chin Kin other members of the tour group. He allegedly found that each
Yong, Yap Boon Ah, Chin Kong Song, Chin Kin Fah, Chai Min Huwa and baggage contained 1, 2 or 3 boxes similar to those previously found in
Lim Nyuk Sun. Their respective passports showed that Wong Chuen the baggages of Chin Kong Song, Wong Chuen Ming and Lim Nyuk Sun.
Ming and Au Wing Cheung are the only British (Hongkong) nationals in A total of 30 boxes of Alpen Cereals containing white crystalline
the group while the rest are all Malaysian nationals. Their passports substance were allegedly recovered from the baggages of the 11
also revealed that all Malaysians (except Lim Chan Fatt) originally came accused. As Gomez pulled out these boxes from their respective
from Malaysia, traveled to Singapore and Hongkong before proceeding baggages, he bundled said boxes by putting masking tape around them
to Manila. Upon the other hand, Wong Chuen Ming and Au Wing and handed them over to Bonifacio. Upon receipt of these bundled
Cheung, as well as Lim Chan Fatt, directly came from Hongkong to boxes, Bonifacio called out the names of accused as listed in the
Manila. Wong Chuen Ming, et. al. arrived in Manila as a tour group passengers' manifest and ordered them to sign on the masking tape
arranged by Select Tours International Co., Ltd. Au Wing Cheung, an placed on the boxes allegedly recovered from their respective
employee of Select Tours International Co., Ltd. acted as their tour baggages. Also present at this time were Capt. Rustico Francisco and
guide. After passing through and obtaining clearance from immigration his men, agents of the Bureau of Customs and several news reporters.
officers at the NAIA, the tour group went to the baggage claim area to A few minutes later, District Collector Antonio Marquez arrived with
retrieve their respective checked-in baggages. They placed the same in General Job Mayo and then NBI Deputy Director Mariano Mison. Shortly
one pushcart and proceeded to Express Lane 5 which at the time was after all boxes of Alpen Cereals were recovered, Capt. Rustico
manned by customs examiner Danilo Gomez. Au Wing Cheung handed Francisco, Officer in Charge (OIC) of the Philippine National Police
to Gomez the tour group's passenger's manifest, their baggage Narcotics Command Detachment at the NAIA, conducted a field test on
a sample of the white crystalline substance. His test showed that the signatures of accused are tantamount to an uncounselled extra-judicial
substance was indeed "shabu." Capt. Francisco immediately informed confession which is not sanctioned by the Bill of Rights (Section
the 11 accused that they were under arrest. Thereafter, all accused, as 12[1][3], Article III, 1987 Constitution). They are, therefore,
well as the Alpen Cereals boxes which were placed inside a big box, inadmissible as evidence for any admission wrung from the accused in
were brought to Camp Crame. At Camp Crame, accused were asked to violation of their constitutional rights is inadmissible against them. The
identify their signatures on the boxes and after having identified them, fact that all accused are foreign nationals does not preclude application
they were again made to sign on the plastic bags containing white of the "exclusionary rule" because the constitutional guarantees
crystalline substance inside the boxes bearing their signatures. The embodied in the Bill of Rights are given and extend to all persons, both
examination by Elizabeth Ayonon, a forensic chemist at the Philippine aliens and citizens.
National Police Crime Laboratory at Camp Crame, confirmed that the
white crystalline substance recovered from accused was "shabu." The Marcelo vs. Sandiganbayan (First Division) [GR 109242, 26 January
total weight of "shabu" recovered was placed at 34.45 kilograms. 11 1999]
separate criminal informations were filed against all of the accused Facts:
individually. The counsel of Au Wing Cheung earlier filed a petition for On 10 February 1989, Jacinto Merete, a letter carrier in the Makati
reinvestigation and deferment of his arraignment but the same was Central Post Office, disclosed to his chief, Projecto Tumagan, the
denied by the trial court for lack of merit. At their respective existence of a group responsible for the pilferage of mail matter in the
arraignments, all accused with the assistance of their counsels, includin post office. Among those mentioned by Merete were Arnold Pasicolan,
Au Wing Cheung pleaded not guilty to the charge. The trial court an emergency laborer assigned as a bag opener in the Printed Matters
conducted a joint and/or consolidated trial of all the cases upon motion Section, and Redentor Aguinaldo, a mail sorter of the Makati Post
by the prosecution considering that the State had common testimonial Office. Merete likewise described the modus operandi of the group. For
and documentary evidence against all accused. On 29 November 1991, this reason, Tumagan sought the aid of the National Bureau of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 109 of Pasay City, found the accused Investigation (NBI) in apprehending the group responsible for mail
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 15, Article III of pilferage in the Makati Post Office. On 17 February 1989, NBI Director
Republic Act 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Salvador Ranin dispatched NBI agents to Legaspi Village following a
Drugs Act of 1972; and sentenced each to life imprisonment and a fine report that the group would stage a theft of mail matter on that day.
of P20,000.00. Wong Chuen Ming and Au Wing Cheung appealed. Tumagan accompanied a team of NBI agents composed of Senior
Agent Arles Vela and two other agents in a private car. They arrived at
Issue: Legaspi Village at about 1:00 p.m. They stayed at the corner of
Whether the signatures of accused on the boxes, as well as on the Adelantado and Gamboa Streets, while two other teams of NBI agents
plastic bags containing "shabu", are admissible in evidence. waited at Amorsolo Street, near the Esquerra Building. At 2:00 p.m., a
postal delivery jeep, driven by one Henry Orindai, was parked in front of
Held: the Esguerra Building on Adelantado Street. The passengers of the
The Court holds that the signatures of accused on the boxes, as well postal delivery jeep were Arnold Pasicolan, Jacinto Merete, and the
as on the plastic bags containing "shabu", are inadmissible in evidence. driver, Henry Orindai. Pasicolan alighted from the jeep bringing with him
A careful study of the records reveals that accused were never a mail bag. Merete stayed inside the jeep. Pasicolan then passed
informed of their fundamental rights during the entire time that they through an alley between Esguerra and Montepino Buildings going
were under investigation. Specifically, accused were not informed of towards Amorsolo St. Upon reaching Amorsolo St., Pasicolan gave the
their Miranda rights i.e. that they had the right to remain silent and to mail bag to two persons, who were later identified as Ronnie Romero
counsel and any statement they might make could be used against and Lito Marcelo. The latter transferred the contents of the mail bag
them, when they were made to affix their signatures on the boxes of (i.e., assorted mail matter) to a travelling bag. The two then secured
Alpen Cereals while they were at the NAIA and again, on the plastic the bag to the back of their motorcycle. Meanwhile, the NBI team led
bags when they were already taken in custody at Camp Crame. By by agent Vela, upon seeing Pasicolan going towards Amorsolo St.,
affixing their signatures on the boxes of Alpen Cereals and on the moved their car and started towards Amorsolo St. They were just in
plastic bags, accused in effect made a tacit admission of the crime time to see Pasicolan handing over the mail bag to Marcelo and
charged for mere possession of "shabu" is punished by law. These Romero. At that point, Atty. Sacaguing and Arles Vela arrested Marcelo
and Romero. Unaware of the arrest of Romero and Marcelo, Pasicolan signatures are actually evidence of admission obtained from Marcelo
went back to the postal delivery jeep and proceeded toward Pasay and his co-accused under circumstances contemplated in Art. III.
Road. The NBI agents followed the postal delivery jeep, overtook it, and §§12(1) and 17 of the Constitution, they should be excluded. For
arrested Pasicolan. The NBI agents brought Pasicolan, Marcelo, and indeed, Marcelo and his co-accused signed following their arrest. Hence,
Romero to their headquarters. They also brought along with them the they were at the time under custodial investigation, defined as
motorcycle of Romero and Marcelo and the bag of unsorted mail found questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has
in their possession. On their way to the NBI headquarters, they passed been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action
by the Makati Central Post Office, intending to arrest another suspect, in a significant way. Under the Constitution, among the rights of a
Redentor Aguinaldo. However, they were not able to find him there. person under custodial investigation is the right to have competent
The unsorted mail seized from Marcelo and Romero consisted of 622 and independent counsel preferably of his own choice and if the person
letters. The names of the addressees were listed. They were cannot afford the services of counsel, that he must be provided with
subsequently notified by the Bureau of Posts to claim their letters. one. However, the letters are themselves not inadmissible in evidence.
Many of them, after proper identification, were able to claim their The letters were validly seized from Marcelo and Romero as an incident
letters. Some letters contained money. Romero, Marcelo, and Pasicolan of a valid arrest. A ruling that Marcelo's admission that the letters in
were asked to affix their signatures on the envelopes of the letters. question were those seized from him and his companion on 17
They did so in the presence of the members of the NBI Administrative February 1989 is inadmissible in evidence does not extend to the
and Investigative Staff and the people transacting business with the exclusion from evidence of the letters themselves. The letters can
NBI at that time. According to Director Ranin, they required the stand on their own, being the fruits of a crime validly seized during a
accused to do this in order to identify the letters as the very same lawful arrest. That these letters were the ones found in the possession
letters confiscated from them. Arnold Pasicolan y Mabazza, Ronnie of Marcelo and his companion and seized from them was shown by the
Romero y Santos, and Lito Marcelo y Cruz were charged with infidelity testimonies of Vela and Tumagan. Indeed, Marcelo and his co-accused
in the custody of documents. The case was later withdrawn and were not convicted solely on the basis of the signatures found on the
another information for qualified theft was filed before the letters but on other evidence, notably the testimonies of NBI agents
Sandiganbayan. On 8 March 1993, the Sandiganbayan found all the and other prosecution witnesses.
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the crime of
qualified theft. The Sandiganbayan sentenced Pasiclon the penalty People vs. Andan [GR 116437, 3 March 1997]
ranging from 8 years, 8 months, and 1 day of Prision mayor, as Facts:
minimum, to 13 years, 1 month, and 11 days of reclusion temporal, as On 19 February 1994 at about 4:00 P.M., in Concepcion Subdivision,
maximum; Romero and Marcelo, the penalty ranging from 7 YEARS, 4 Baliuag, Bulacan, Marianne Guevarra, 20 years of age and a second-year
months, and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 11 years, 6 student at the Fatima School of Nursing, left her home for her school
months, and 21 days of prision mayor, as maximum, each. Marcelo filed dormitory in Valenzuela, Metro Manila. She was to prepare for her final
the petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. examinations on 21 February 1994. Marianne wore a striped blouse and
faded denim pants and brought with her two bags containing her
Issue: school uniforms, some personal effects and more than P2,000.00 in
Whether the exclusion of the admission, made through the signatures cash. Marianne was walking along the subdivision when Pablito Andan y
on the envelopes, extend to the exclusion from evidence of the letters Hernandez invited her inside his house. He used the pretext that the
themselves. blood pressure of his wife's grandmother should be taken. Marianne
agreed to take her blood pressure as the old woman was her distant
Held: relative. She did not know that nobody was inside the house. Andan
The purpose for securing the signature of Marcelo, et. al. on the then punched her in the abdomen, brought her to the kitchen and
envelopes was to authenticate the envelopes as the ones seized from raped her. His lust sated, Andan dragged the unconscious girl to an old
him and Ronnie Romero. This purpose and their signatures on the toilet at the back of the house and left her there until dark. Night came
envelope, when coupled with the testimony of prosecution witnesses and Andan pulled Marianne, who was still unconscious, to their
that the envelopes seized from Marcelo were those given to him and backyard. The yard had a pigpen bordered on one side by a 6-foot high
Romero, undoubtedly help establish the guilt of Marcelo. Since these concrete fence. On the other side was a vacant lot. Andan stood on a
bench beside the pigpen and then lifted and draped the girl's body over broke down and said "Mayor, patawarin mo ako! I will tell you the truth.
the fence to transfer it to the vacant lot. When the girl moved, he hit I am the one who killed Marianne." The mayor opened the door of the
her head with a piece of concrete block. He heard her moan and hit her room to let the public and media representatives witness the
again on the face. After silence reigned, he pulled her body to the confession. The mayor first asked for a lawyer to assist Andan but
other side of the fence, dragged it towards a shallow portion of the lot since no lawyer was available he ordered the proceedings
and abandoned it. At 11:00 a.m. of the following day, the body of photographed and videotaped. In the presence of the mayor, the
Marianne was discovered. She was naked from the chest down with her police, representatives of the media and Andan's own wife and son,
brassiere and T-shirt pulled toward her neck. Nearby was found a panty Andan confessed his guilt. He disclosed how he killed Marianne and
with a sanitary napkin. Marianne's gruesome death drew public volunteered to show them the place where he hid her bags. He asked
attention and prompted Mayor Cornelio Trinidad of Baliuag to form a for forgiveness from Larin and Dizon whom he falsely implicated saying
crack team of police officers to look for the criminal. Searching the he did it because of ill-feelings against them. He also said that the devil
place where Marianne's body was found, the policemen recovered a entered his mind because of the pornographic magazines and tabloid
broken piece of concrete block stained with what appeared to be he read almost everyday. After his confession, Andan hugged his wife
blood. They also found a pair of denim pants and a pair of shoes which and son and asked the mayor to help him. His confession was captured
were identified as Marianne's. Andan's nearby house was also searched on videotape and covered by the media nationwide. Andan was
by the police who found bloodstains on the wall of the pigpen in the detained at the police headquarters. The next two days, February 26
backyard. They interviewed the occupants of the house and learned and 27, more newspaper, radio and television reporters came. Andan
from Romano Calma, the stepbrother of Andan's wife, that Andan also was again interviewed and he affirmed his confession to the mayor and
lived there but that he, his wife and son left without a word. Calma reenacted the crime. Pablito Andan y Hernandez alias "Bobby" was
surrendered to the police several articles consisting of pornographic charged with rape with homicide. On arraignment, however, Andan
pictures, a pair of wet short pants with some reddish brown stain, a entered a plea of "not guilty." In a decision dated 4 August 1994, the
towel also with the stain, and a wet T-shirt. The clothes were found in trial court convicted Andan and sentenced him to death pursuant to
the laundry hamper inside the house and allegedly belonged to Andan. Republic Act 7659. The trial court also ordered Andan to pay the
The police tried to locate Andan and learned that his parents live in victim's heirs P50,000.00 as death indemnity, P71,000.00 as actual
Barangay Tangos, Baliuag, Bulacan. On February 24 at 11:00 P.M., a burial expenses and P100,000.00 as moral damages. Hence, the
police team led by Mayor Trinidad traced Andan in his parents' house. automatic review.
They took him aboard the patrol jeep and brought him to the police
headquarters where he was interrogated. Initially, Andan denied any Issue:
knowledge of Marianne's death. However, when the police confronted Whether Andan’s confession to the police, the mayor, and the
him with the concrete block, the victim's clothes and the bloodstains newsmen may be admitted as evidence against Andan.
found in the pigpen, Andan relented and said that his neighbors, Gilbert
Larin and Reynaldo Dizon, killed Marianne and that he was merely a Held:
lookout. He also said that he knew where Larin and Dizon hid the two Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall
bags of Marianne. Immediately, the police took Andan to his house. have the right (1) to remain silent; (2) to have competent and
Larin and Dizon, who were rounded up earlier, were likewise brought independent counsel preferably of his own choice; and (3) to be
there by the police. Andan went to an old toilet at the back of the informed of such rights. These rights cannot be waived except in
house, leaned over a flower pot and retrieved from a canal under the writing and in the presence of counsel. Any confession or admission
pot, two bags which were later identified as belonging to Marianne. obtained in violation of this provision is inadmissible in evidence against
Thereafter, photographs were taken of Andan and the two other him. The exclusionary rule is premised on the presumption that the
suspects holding the bags. By this time, people and media defendant is thrust into an unfamiliar atmosphere and runs through
representatives were already gathered at the police headquarters menacing police interrogation procedures where the potentiality for
awaiting the results of the investigation. Mayor Trinidad arrived and compulsion, physical and psychological, is forcefully apparent. The
proceeded to the investigation room. Upon seeing the mayor, Andan incommunicado character of custodial interrogation or investigation
approached him and whispered a request that they talk privately. The also obscures a later judicial determination of what really transpired.
mayor led Andan to the office of the Chief of Police and there, Andan When the police arrested Andan, they were no longer engaged in a
general inquiry about the death of Marianne. Indeed, Andan was already and the State. The prohibitions therein are primarily addressed to the
a prime suspect even before the police found him at his parents' State and its agents. They confirm that certain rights of the individual
house. Andan was already under custodial investigation when he exist without need of any governmental grant, rights that may not be
confessed to the police. It is admitted that the police failed to inform taken away by government, rights that government has the duty to
appellant of his constitutional rights when he was investigated and protect. Governmental power is not unlimited and the Bill of Rights lays
interrogated. His confession is therefore inadmissible in evidence. So down these limitations to protect the individual against aggression and
too were the two bags recovered from Andan's house. The victim's unwarranted interference by any department of government and its
bags were the fruits of Andan's uncounselled confession to the police. agencies.
They are tainted evidence, hence also inadmissible. On the other hand,
however, Andan's confession to the mayor was not made in response People vs. Endino [GR 133026, 20 February 2001]
to any interrogation by the latter. In fact, the mayor did not question Facts:
Andan at all. No police authority ordered Andan to talk to the mayor. It On a busy street in Puerto Princesa City in the evening of 16 October
was Andan himself who spontaneously, freely and voluntarily sought 1991, an emboldened Gerry Galgarin (@ Toto), uncle of Edward Endino,
the mayor for a private meeting. The mayor did not know that Andan suddenly and without warning lunged at Dennis Aquino and stabbed
was going to confess his guilt to him. When Andan talked with the him repeatedly on the chest. Dennis' girlfriend Clara Agagas who was
mayor as a confidant and not as a law enforcement officer, his with him, stunned by the unexpected attack, pleaded to Galgarin to
uncounselled confession to him did not violate his constitutional rights. stop. Dennis struggled and succeeded momentarily to free himself from
Andan's confessions to the media were properly admitted. The his attacker. Dennis dashed towards the nearby Midtown Sales but his
confessions were made in response to questions by news reporters, escape was foiled when from out of nowhere Edward Endino appeared
not by the police or any other investigating officer. Statements and fired at Dennis. As Dennis staggered for safety, the 2 assailants
spontaneously made by a suspect to news reporters on a televised fled in the direction of the airport. Meanwhile, Dennis, wounded and
interview are deemed voluntary and are admissible in evidence. The bleeding, sought refuge inside the Elohim Store where he collapsed on
records show that Alex Marcelino, a television reporter for "Eye to Eye" the floor. He was grasping for breath and near death. Clara with the
on Channel 7, interviewed Andan on 27 February 1994. The interview help of some onlookers took him to the hospital but Dennis expired
was recorded on video and showed that Andan made his confession even before he could receive medical attention. On 18 October 1991,
willingly, openly and publicly in the presence of his wife, child and other an Information for the murder of Dennis Aquino was filed against
relatives. Orlan Mauricio, a reporter for "Tell the People" on Channel 9 Edward Endino and Gerry Galgarin and warrants were issued for their
also interviewed appellant on 25 February 1994. Andan's confessions arrest. However, as both accused remained at large, the trial court
to the news reporters were given free from any undue influence from issued on 26 December 1991 an order putting the case in the archives
the police authorities. The news reporters acted as news reporters without prejudice to its reinstatement upon their apprehension. On 19
when they interviewed Andan. They were not acting under the November 1992, Gerry Galgarin was arrested through the combined
direction and control of the police. They were there to check Andan's efforts of the Antipolo and Palawan police forces at a house in Sitio
confession to the mayor. They did not force Andan to grant them an Sto. Niño, Antipolo, Rizal. He was immediately taken into temporary
interview and reenact the commission of the crime. In fact, they asked custody by the Antipolo Police. Early in the evening of the following
his permission before interviewing him. They interviewed him on day, he was fetched from the Antipolo Police Station by PO3 Gaudencio
separate days not once did Andan protest his innocence. Instead, he Manlavi and PO3 Edwin Magbanua of the Palawan police force to be
repeatedly confessed his guilt to them. He even supplied all the details taken to Palawan and be tried accordingly. On their way to the airport,
in the commission of the crime, and consented to its reenactment. All they stopped at the ABS-CBN television station where Galgarin was
his confessions to the news reporters were witnessed by his family and interviewed by reporters. Video footages of the interview were taken
other relatives. There was no coercive atmosphere in the interview of showing Galgarin admitting his guilt while pointing to his nephew
Andan by the news reporters. Thus, Andan's verbal confessions to the Edward Endino as the gunman. According to Galgarin, after attacking
newsmen are not covered by Section 12 (1) and Aquino, they left for Roxas, Palawan, where his sister Langging who is
(3) of Article III of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights does not Edward's mother, was waiting. Langging gave them money for their
concern itself with the relation between a private individual and fare for Manila. They took the boat for Batangas, where they stayed
another individual. It governs the relationship between the individual for a few days, and proceeded to Manila where they separated, with
him heading for Antipolo. Galgarin appealed for Edward to give himself Detection of coerced confessions is admittedly a difficult and arduous
up to the authorities. His interview was shown over the ABS-CBN task for the courts to make. It requires persistence and determination
evening news program TV Patrol. During trial, Galgarin disowned the in separating polluted confessions from untainted ones. We have a
confession which he made over TV Patrol and claimed that it was sworn duty to be vigilant and protective of the rights guaranteed by
induced by the threats of the arresting police officers. He asserted the Constitution."
that the videotaped confession was constitutionally infirmed and
inadmissible under the exclusionary rule provided in Sec. 12, Art. III, of People vs. Ordono [GR 132154, 29 June 2000]
the Constitution. The trial court found Galgarin guilty of murder Facts:
qualified by Treachery, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and On 5 August 1994, the decomposing body of a young girl was found
ordered him to indemnify the heirs of Dennis Aquino in the amount of among the bushes near a bridge in Barangay Poblacion, Santol, La
P50,000.00 as compensatory damages and P72,725.35 as actual Union. The girl was later identified as Shirley Victore, 15 years old, a
damages. resident of Barangay Guesset, Poblacion, Santol, La Union, who 3 days
before was reported missing. Post-mortem examination conducted by
Issue: Dr. Arturo Llavore, a medico-legal officer of the NBI, revealed that the
Whether the ABS-CBN interview recording Galgarin’s confession is victim was raped and strangled to death. Unidentified sources pointed
admissible as evidence. to Pacito Ordoño and Apolonio Medina as the authors of the crime.
Acting on this lead, the police thereupon invited the 2 suspects and
Held: brought them to the police station for questioning. However, for lack
The interview was recorded on video and it showed Galgarin of evidence then directly linking them to the crime, they were allowed
unburdening his guilt willingly, openly and publicly in the presence of to go home. On 10 August 1994, Ordoño and Medina returned to the
newsmen. Such confession does not form part of custodial police station one after another and acknowledged that they had
investigation as it was not given to police officers but to media men in indeed committed the crime. Acting on their admission, the police
an attempt to elicit sympathy and forgiveness from the public. Besides, immediately conducted an investigation and put their confessions in
if he had indeed been forced into confessing, he could have easily writing. The investigators however could not at once get the services
sought succor from the newsmen who, in all likelihood, would have of a lawyer to assist the 2 accused in the course of the investigation
been sympathetic with him. However, because of the inherent danger because there were no practicing lawyers in the Municipality of Santol,
in the use of television as a medium for admitting one's guilt, and the a remote town of the Province of La Union. Be that as it may, the
recurrence of this phenomenon in several cases, it is prudent that trial statements of the 2 accused where nevertheless taken. But before
courts are reminded that extreme caution must be taken in further doing so, both accused were apprised in their own dialect of their
admitting similar confessions. For in all probability, the police, with the constitutional right to remain silent and to be assisted by a competent
connivance of unscrupulous media practitioners, may attempt to counsel of their choice. Upon their acquiescence and assurance that
legitimize coerced extra -judicial confessions and place them beyond they understood their rights and did not require the services of
the exclusionary rule by having an accused admit an offense on counsel, the investigation was conducted with the Parish Priest, the
television. Such a situation would be detrimental to the guaranteed Municipal Mayor, the Chief of Police and other police officers of Santol,
rights of the accused and thus imperil our criminal justice system. It is La Union, in attendance to listen to and witness the giving of the
not suggested that videotaped confessions given before media men by voluntary statements of the 2 suspects who admitted their
an accused with the knowledge of and in the presence of police participation in the crime. After Medina said his piece, his wife and
officers are impermissible. Indeed, the line between proper and invalid mother suddenly burst into tears. He then affixed his signature on his
police techniques and conduct is a difficult one to draw, particularly in statement and so did his wife, followed by all the other witnesses who
cases such as this where it is essential to make sharp judgments in listened to his confession. Pacito Ordoño narrated his story in the
determining whether a confession was given under coercive physical or afternoon. At the end of his narration Ordoño affixed his thumbmark on
psychological atmosphere. A word of counsel then to lower courts: "we his statement in lieu of his signature as he did not know how to write.
should never presume that all media confessions described as voluntary Thereafter, Medina and Ordoño were detained at the Santol police
have been freely given. This type of confession always remains suspect station. News about the apprehension and detention of the culprits of
and therefore should be thoroughly examined and scrutinized. the rape-slay of Shirley Victore soon spread that Roland Almoite,
leading radio announcer of radio station DZNL, visited and interviewed Held:
them. In the interview, which was duly tape-recorded both accused Custodial investigation began when the accused Ordoño and Medina
admitted again their complicity in the crime and narrated individually voluntarily went to the Santol Police Station to confess and the
the events surrounding their commission thereof. According to Medina, investigating officer started asking questions to elicit information
his remorse in having committed the crime was so great but his and/or confession from them. At such point, the right of the accused
repentance came too late. He and Ordoño hoped that the parents of to counsel automatically attached to them. Concededly, after informing
Shirley Victore would forgive them. Upon conclusion of the interview, the accused of their rights the police sought to provide them with
Roland Almoite immediately went to radio station DZNL and played the counsel. However, none could be furnished them due to the non-
taped interview on the air. The same interview was played again on the availability of practicing lawyers in Santol, La Union, and the
air the following morning and was heard by thousands of listeners. A remoteness of the town to the next adjoining town of Balaoan, La
couple of days later, the police brought the 2 accused to the office of Union, where practicing lawyers could be found. At that stage, the
the PAO lawyer in Balaoan, La Union, for assistance and counseling. In a police should have already desisted from continuing with the
closed-door session, PAO lawyer Oscar B. Corpuz apprised each of the interrogation but they persisted and gained the consent of the accused
accused of his constitutional rights and, even though their confessions to proceed with the investigation. To the credit of the police, they
were already written in their dialect, explained to them each of the requested the presence of the Parish Priest and the Municipal Mayor of
questions and answers taken during the investigation. He likewise Santol as well as the relatives of the accused to obviate the possibility
advised them to ponder the consequences of their confessions, leading of coercion, and to witness the voluntary execution by the accused of
them to defer the affixing of their second signature/thumbmark their statements before the police. Nonetheless, this did not cure in
thereon. After a week or so, the 2 separately went back to Atty. any way the absence of a lawyer during the investigation. In the
Corpuz and informed him of their willingness to affix their signatures absence of such valid waiver, the Parish Priest of Santol, the Municipal
and thumbmarks for the second time in their respective confessions. Mayor, the relatives of the accused, the Chief of Police and other police
Once again Atty. Corpuz apprised the 2 accused of their constitutional officers of the municipality could not stand in lieu of counsel's
rights, explained the contents of their respective statements, and presence. The apparent consent of the 2 accused in continuing with
finally, accompanied them to Judge Fabian M. Bautista, MTC judge of the investigation was of no moment as a waiver to be effective must
Balaoan, La Union, who further apprised the 2 accused of their be made in writing and with the assistance of counsel. Consequently,
constitutional rights and asked them if they had been coerced into any admission obtained from the 2 accused emanating from such
signing their confessions. They assured Judge Bautista that their uncounselled interrogation would be inadmissible in evidence in any
statements had been given freely and voluntarily. Upon such assurance proceeding. Securing the assistance of the PAO lawyer 5 to 8 days
that they had not been coerced into giving and signing their later does not remedy this omission either. Although there was a
confessions, Judge Bautista finally asked Ordoño and Medina to affix showing that the PAO lawyer made a thorough explanation of the
their signatures/thumbmarks on their respective confessions, and to rights of the accused, enlightened them on the possible repercussions
subscribe the same before him. Atty. Corpuz then signed their of their admissions, and even gave them time to deliberate upon them,
statements as their assisting counsel, followed by a few members of this aid and valuable advice given by counsel still came several days
the MTC staff who witnessed the signing. Ordono and Medina were too late. It could have no palliative effect. It could not cure the
charged for rape with homicide. On arraignment, in a complete absence of counsel during the custodial investigation when the
turnabout, the 2 accused pleaded not guilty. On 11 December 1997, extrajudicial statements were being taken. The second affixation of the
the trial court adjudged Ordoño and Medina guilty of the crime of rape signatures/thumbmarks of the accused on their confessions a few days
with homicide attended with conspiracy, and imposed upon each of after their closed-door meeting with the PAO lawyer, in the presence
them 2 death penalties on the basis of their extrajudicial confessions. and with the signing of the MTC judge, the PAO lawyer and other
Hence, the automatic review. witnesses, likewise did not make their admissions an informed one.
Admissions obtained during custodial investigation without the benefit
Issue: of counsel although reduced into writing and later signed in the
Whether the custodial investigation made in the presence of the presence of counsel are still flawed under the Constitution. If the
municipal mayor, parish priest, etc. and/or the taped interview lawyer's role is diminished to being that of a mere witness to the
containing the accused’s confessions are admissible as evidence. signing of a prepared document albeit an indication therein that there
was compliance with the constitutional rights of the accused, the prevent him from freely and voluntarily telling the truth. In relation to
requisite standards guaranteed by Art. III, Sec. 12, par. (1), are not this, the admissions of the accused before the radio announcer and
met. The standards utilized by police authorities to assure the duly tape-recorded are bolstered and substantiated by the findings of
constitutional rights of the accused therefore fell short of the the NBI Medico-Legal Officer as reflected in the Autopsy Report/Post
standards demanded by the Constitution and the law. As with the Mortem Findings.
interview taken by DZNL radio announcer Roland Almoite, the taped
interview was offered to form part of the testimony of witness Roland People vs. Guillermo [GR 147786, 20 January 2004]
Almoite to whom the admissions were made and to prove through Facts:
electronic device the voluntary admissions by the 2 accused that they Victor Francisco Keyser, was the owner and manager of Keyser Plastic
raped and killed Shirley Victore. The defense objected to its Manufacturing Corp., with principal place of business at Sitio Halang,
acceptance on the ground that its integrity had not been preserved as Lornaville, San Roque, Antipolo City. Keyser Plastics shared its building
the tape could easily have been spliced and tampered with. However, with Greatmore Corporation, a manufacturer of faucets. Separating the
as Roland Almoite testified, it was the original copy of the taped respective spaces being utilized by the two firms in their operations
interview; it was not altered; the voices therein were the voices of the was a wall, the lower portion of which was made of concrete hollow
2 accused; and, the defense never submitted evidence to prove blocks, while the upper portion was of lawanit boards. The part of the
otherwise. Under the circumstances, the Court is inclined to admit the wall made of lawanit had two large holes, which could allow a person on
authenticity of the taped interview. A review of the contents of the one side of the wall to see what was on the other side. On 22 March
tape as included in Roland Almoite's testimony reveals that the 1998, Romualdo Campos, a security guard assigned to Greatmore was
interview was conducted free from any influence or intimidation from on duty. At around 8:00 a.m., he saw Eric G. Guillermo enter the
police officers and was done willingly by the accused. Despite premises of Keyser Plastics. Campos ignored Guillermo, as he knew him
allegations to the contrary, no police authority ordered or forced the to be one of the trusted employees of Keyser Plastics. An hour later,
accused to talk to the radio announcer. While it may be expected that he saw Victor F. Keyser arrive. Keyser checked the pump motor of the
police officers were around since the interview was held in the police deep well, which was located in the area of Greatmore, after which he
station, there was no showing that they were within hearing distance also went inside the part of the building occupied by Keyser Plastics.
nor within the vicinity where the interview was being conducted. At Campos paid scant attention to Keyser. Later, at around 10:00 a.m.,
most, the participation of the police authorities was only to allow Campos was making some entries in his logbook, when he heard some
Roland Almoite to conduct an interview. The taped interview likewise loud noises (“kalabugan”) coming from the Keyser Plastics area. He
revealed that the accused voluntarily admitted to the rape-slay and stopped to listen, but thinking that the noise was coming from the
even expressed remorse for having perpetrated the crime. We have machines used to make plastics, he did not pay much attention to the
held that statements spontaneously made by a suspect to news sound. At around noontime, Campos was suddenly interrupted in the
reporters on a televised interview are deemed voluntary and are performance of his duties when he saw Guillermo look through one of
admissible in evidence. By analogy, statements made by herein the holes in the dividing wall. According to Campos, appellant calmly
accused to a radio announcer should likewise be held admissible. The told him that he had killed Victor Keyser and needed Campos’
interview was not in the nature of an investigation as the response of assistance to help him carry the corpse to the garbage dump where he
the accused was made in answer to questions asked by the radio could burn it. Shocked by this revelation, Campos immediately dashed
reporter, not by the police or any other investigating officer. When the off to telephone the police. The police told him to immediately secure
accused talked to the radio announcer, they did not talk to him as a the premises and not let the suspect escape, while a reaction team
law enforcement officer, as in fact he was not, hence their was being dispatched to the scene. 10 minutes later, a team
uncounselled confession to him did not violate their constitutional composed of SPO4 Felix Bautista, SPO1 Carlito Reyes, and Police Aide
rights. Sections 12, pars. (1) and (3), Art. III, of the Constitution do Jovenal Dizon, Jr., all from the Antipolo Philippine National Police (PNP)
not cover the verbal confessions of the 2 accused to the radio Station, arrived at the crime scene. With them was Felix Marcelo, an
announcer. What the Constitution bars is the compulsory disclosure of official police photographer. They were immediately met by Campos,
incriminating facts or confessions. The rights enumerated under Sec. who informed them that Guillermo was still inside the building. The law
12, Art. III, are guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion by enforcers tried to enter the premises of Keyser Plastics, but found the
the state as would lead the accused to admit something false, not to gates securely locked. The officers then talked to Guillermo and after
some minutes, persuaded him to give them the keys. This enabled the then proceeded to trial. After trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
police to open the gate. Once inside, SPO4 Bautista and SPO1 Reyes Antipolo City, Branch 73, dated 7 March 2001 (Criminal Case 98-
immediately accosted Guillermo, who was clad only in a pair of shorts, 14724), found Eric Guillermo y Garcia guilty of murder and sentencing
naked from the waist up. SPO1 Reyes then asked him where the body him to suffer the penalty of death. The court also ordered Guillermo to
of the victim was and Guillermo pointed to some cardboard boxes. On pay the mother of the victim P50,000.00 for death indemnity,
opening the boxes, the police found the dismembered limbs and P50,000.00 for funeral expenses, P500,000.00 as compensatory
chopped torso of Keyser. The victim’s head was found stuffed inside a damages, P500,000.00 as moral damages, P300,000.00 as exemplary
cement bag. When the police asked how he did it, according to the damages, and P100,000 plus P3,000 per court appearance as
prosecution witness, Guillermo said that he bashed the victim on the attorney's fees. Hence, the automatic review.
head with a piece of wood, and after Keyser fell, he dismembered the
body with a carpenter’s saw. He then mopped up the blood on the floor Issue:
with a plastic foam. Guillermo then turned over to the police a Whether Guillermo’s confession to the police officers, to the security
bloodstained, two-foot long piece of coconut lumber and a carpenter’s guard of Greatmore Corp., and to the newsmen are admissible as
saw. Photographs were taken of the suspect, the dismembered corpse, evidence.
and the implements used in committing the crime. When asked as to
his motive for the killing, Guillermo replied that Keyser had been Held:
maltreating him and his co-employees. He expressed no regret The confession Guillermo made while he was under investigation by
whatsoever about his actions. The police then brought Guillermo to the SPO1 Carlito Reyes for the killing of Keyser at the Antipolo PNP
Antipolo PNP Station for further investigation. SPO1 Carlos conducted Station, falls short of the protective standards laid down by the
the investigation, without apprising Guillermo about his constitutional Constitution. The investigating officer made no serious effort to make
rights and without providing him with the services of counsel. SPO1 Guillermo aware of his basic rights under custodial investigation. While
Carlos requested the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to conduct the investigating officer was aware of Guillermo’s right to be
a post-mortem examination on Keyser’s remains. The Antipolo police represented by counsel, the officer exerted no effort to provide him
then turned over the bloodstained piece of wood and saw, recovered with one on the flimsy excuse that it was a Sunday. Despite the
from the locus delicti, to the PNP Crime Laboratory for testing. absence of counsel, the officer proceeded with said investigation.
Keyser’s death shocked the nation. Guillermo, who was then in police Moreover, the record is bare of any showing that Guillermo had waived
custody, was interviewed on separate occasions by two TV reporters, his constitutional rights in writing and in the presence of counsel. Be
namely: Augusto “Gus” Abelgas of ABS-CBN News and Kara David of that as it may, however, the inadmissibility of Guillermo’s confession to
GMA Channel 7. Both interviews were subsequently broadcast SPO1 Reyes at the Antipolo PNP Station as evidence does not
nationwide. Guillermo admitted to David that he committed the crime necessarily lead to his acquittal. For constitutional safeguards on
and never gave it second thought. He disclosed to David the details of custodial investigation (known, also as the Miranda principles) do not
the crime, including how he struck Keyser on the head and cut up his apply to spontaneous statements, or those not elicited through
body into pieces, which he placed in sacks and cartons. When asked questioning by law enforcement authorities but given in an ordinary
why he killed his employer, Guillermo stated that Keyser had not paid manner whereby the appellant verbally admits to having committed the
him for years, did not feed him properly, and treated him “like an offense. The rights enumerated in the Constitution, Article III, Section
animal.” Both Abelgas and David said that Guillermo expressed 12, are meant to preclude the slightest use of the State’s coercive
absolutely no remorse over his alleged misdeed during the course of power as would lead an accused to admit something false. But it is not
their respective interviews with him. On 23 March 1998, Guillermo was intended to prevent him from freely and voluntarily admitting the truth
charged by State Prosecutor Jaime Augusto B. Valencia, Jr., of outside the sphere of such power. Herein, Guillermo admitted the
murdering his employer, Victor Francisco Keyser. When arraigned on 3 commission of the crime not just to the police but also to private
April 1998, Guillermo, assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded guilty to individuals. According to the testimony of the security guard,
the charge. On 23 April 1998, however, Guillermo moved to withdraw Romualdo Campos, on the very day of the killing Guillermo called him to
his plea of guilty and prayed for a re-arraignment. The trial court say that he had killed his employer and needed assistance to dispose of
granted the motion and on 28 April 1998, he was re-arraigned. the cadaver. Campos’ testimony was not rebutted by the defense, and
Assisted by counsel de parte, he entered a plea of not guilty. The case thus Guillermo's statements to Campos are admissible for being part of
the res gestae. Further, when interviewed on separate occasions by passport and plane ticket. Convinced that Dumag had been duly
the media, Guillermo not only agreed to be interviewed by the news authorized to retrieve the baggage, Benipayo released, upon the
reporters, but he spontaneously admitted his guilt to them. He even approval of a customs examiner named Nick, the two golfbags wrapped
supplied the details regarding the commission of the crime to reporter in blue cloth. To acknowledge the release, Dumag affixed his signature
Kara David of GMA Channel 7. The TV news reporters were acting as to the "unclaimed baggage/transit list." PAL loader Edgardo Villafuerte
media professionals when they interviewed Guillermo. They were not helped carry the golfbags to the UAL check-in counter. Annabelle
under the direction and control of the police. There was no coercion for Lumba attached a San Francisco laser tag (UA Tag 594513 and Tag
Guillermo to face the TV cameras. The interviews also took place on 594514) and wrote the name "Gomez" on each side of the golfbags.
several occasions, not just once. Each time, Guillermo did not protest She then handed to Dumag the boarding pass and UAL plane ticket for
or insist on his innocence. Instead, he repeatedly admitted what he had Gomez. Dumag proceeded to Patio Manila, a restaurant at the NAIA,
done. He even supplied details of Keyser’s killing. As held in Andan, where he turned over to Collector De Leon the travel papers of Gomez.
statements spontaneously made by a suspect to news reporters during Gomez failed to board the UAL flight. The two golfbags were off-
a televised interview are voluntary and admissible in evidence. loaded from the aircraft. At around 4:00 p.m., PAL staff Dennis
Mendoza brought the golfbags back to the check-in counter for a
People vs. Gomez [GR 101817, 26 March 1997] security check-up. The x-ray machine showed unidentified dark masses.
Facts: Alarmed, Mendoza immediately relayed the information to Capt.
On 27 February 1990, Art David, an employer of Felipe Immaculata Ephraim Sindico of the 801st Aviation Security Squadron of the
sent the latter to Bangkok, Thailand, to canvass ready-to-wear clothes. Philippine Air Force Security Command ("PAFSECOM") then deployed at
David and Eduardo Gomez followed Immaculata about a week later (04 the NAIA. Capt. Sindico rushed to the check-in area. He instructed his
March 1990). Immaculata fetched the two at the Bangkok Airport. men to get the golfbags pass through the x-ray machine once again.
Immaculata, David and Gomez proceeded to and stayed at the Union Satisfied that something was indeed wrong, Capt. Sindico reported the
Towers Hotel. After 2 days, they transferred to the apartment of one matter to Col. Claudio Cruz who ordered his men to have the golfbags
Lito Tuazon where they spent the rest of their stay in Bangkok. On 14 go, for the third time, through the x-ray machine. The unidentified dark
March 1990, Immaculata, Gomez and Aya Yupangco left Bangkok and masses having been definitely confirmed, Col. Cruz ordered his men to
boarded Manila-bound flight PR-731. Immaculata and Yupangco open the glued bottom zipper of the golfbags. The golfbags yielded 31
occupied seats 2A and No. 54D. Gomez was on the same flight. He single packs, each with an approximate size of 1" x 6" x 4," containing
checked-in two golfbags, and he was issued interline claim tags PR 77- a white powder substance suspected to be "heroin" with a total weight
28-71 and 77-28-72. In Manila, Gomez deposited the two golfbags of 20.1159 kilograms. The examination by the PAFSECOM personnel
with the interline baggage room for his connecting flight from Manila to was witnessed by the NAIA manager, a representative of the UAL and
San Francisco via United Airlines ("UAL") flight 058 scheduled to other customs personnel. Eduardo Gomez, a bartender, and Felipe
depart the following morning (15 March 1990). The golfbags were kept Immaculata, a former bus driver, were implicated in the crime of
in the transit rack baggage along with other pieces of luggage destined transporting 20 kilograms of heroin, estimated to be worth
for San Francisco via the UAL flight. Well before flight time on 15 $40,000,000.00, contained in two golfbags. Also charged, with having
March 1990, Romeo Dumag, a customs policeman at the Ninoy Aquino violated Section 4, Article II, in relation to Section 21, Article IV, of
International Airport ("NAIA"), was requested by Customs Collector Republic Act 6425 (the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended,
Edgardo de Leon to help facilitate the checking-in of Eduardo Gomez. were Aya Yupangco, Art David, Lito Tuazon and Benito Cunanan, who
Dumag sought from his security officer, a certain Capt. Reyes, the all were able to evade arrest. Gomez surrendered to the officer-in-
latter's permission. Having received the go-signal, Dumag accepted charge of the then Clark Air Force Base in Angeles City. The OIC of
from De Leon the ticket and passport of Gomez. Dumag proceeded to Clark Air Force Base turned over custody of Gomez to the Drug
the UAL check-in counter. The airline's lady staff, Annabelle Lumba, Enforcement Agency ("DEA") of the United States in Manila. The DEA,
directed Dumag to first claim the passenger's items to be checked-in in turn, surrendered him to the NBI. On the other hand, on 22 March
at the interline baggage room. At the interline baggage room, Dumag 1990, David and Immaculata left for Hongkong reportedly to get some
spoke to Michael Angelo Benipayo, a PAL employee assigned at the spare parts for David's Mercedes Benz car. In Hongkong, after buying
NAIA central baggage division and baggage handling section, and the car spare parts, David and Immaculata went to the U.S.
presented the two claim tags of Gomez together with the latter's Department of Justice in Hongkong. While waiting for David,
Immaculata was confronted by a group of people, who turned out to be homicide from a fellow inmate at the Graham Correctional Facility,
from the Hongkong Immigration Office, requesting for his travel papers. where Charlton had been serving a sentence for burglary. The fellow
Immaculata was brought in for investigation because of an expired visa, inmate was Lloyd Perkins. Charlton told police that, while at Graham, he
then turned over to the police authorities and finally to the court which had befriended Perkins, who told him in detail about a murder that
decreed his imprisonment. In the Hongkong prison, Immaculata was Perkins had committed in East St. Louis. On hearing Charlton's account,
visited by NBI agents for his implication in the "heroin" case. He denied the police recognized details of the Stephenson murder that were not
the accusation. Later, he agreed, without the assistance of counsel, to well known, and so they treated Charlton's story as a credible one. By
execute a sworn statement at the Stanley Prison. After his prison term, the time the police heard Charlton's account, Perkins had been released
Immaculata was deported to Manila. Gomez and Immaculata entered a from Graham, but police traced him to a jail in Montgomery County,
plea of "not guilty" to the accusation. After trial, Gomez and Illinois, where he was being held pending trial on a charge of
Immaculata were each meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua and aggravated battery, unrelated to the Stephenson murder. The police
ordered to pay a P20,000.00 fine by the Regional Trial Court of Pasay wanted to investigate further Perkins' connection to the Stephenson
City, Branch 113 (Criminal Case 90-4717). While Gomez and murder, but feared that the use of an eavesdropping device would
Immaculata filed separate notices of appeal to the Supreme Court from prove impracticable and unsafe. They decided instead to place an
their conviction, only Immaculata, however, filed his brief. Gomez, undercover agent in the cellblock with Perkins and Charlton. The plan
assisted by counsel, filed a "manifestation of withdrawal of appeal" to was for Charlton and undercover agent John Parisi to pose as escapees
which the Solicitor General interposed no objection. The Court would from a work release program who had been arrested in the course of a
only thus consider the appeal of Immaculata. burglary. Parisi and Charlton were instructed to engage Perkins in
casual conversation and report anything he said about the Stephenson
Issue: murder. Parisi, using the alias "Vito Bianco," and Charlton, both clothed
Whether Immaculata’s un-counselled statement made in Stanley Prison in jail garb, were placed in the cellblock with Perkins at the Montgomery
in Hongkong is admissible as evidence in the Philippines. County jail. The cellblock consisted of 12 separate cells that opened
onto a common room. Perkins greeted Charlton who, after a brief
Held: conversation with Perkins, introduced Parisi by his alias. Parisi told
While the sworn statement taken from Immaculata by an NBI agent at Perkins that he "wasn't going to do any more time" and suggested
the Stanley Prison in Hongkong during his incarceration was not made that the three of them escape. Perkins replied that the Montgomery
the basis for Immaculata's conviction by the court, a word could be County jail was "rinky-dink" and that they could "break out." The trio
said about the manner in which it was procured. It would seem that met in Perkins' cell later that evening, after the other inmates were
Immaculata was merely apprised in general terms of his constitutional asleep, to refine their plan. Perkins said that his girlfriend could
rights to counsel and to remain silent. He then was asked if he would smuggle in a pistol. Charlton said: "Hey, I'm not a murderer, I'm a
be willing to give a statement. Having answered in the affirmative, the burglar. That's your guys' profession." After telling Charlton that he
NBI investigating agent asked him whether he needed a lawyer. After would be responsible for any murder that occurred, Parisi asked Perkins
that response, the investigation forthwith proceeded. This procedure if he had ever "done" anybody. Perkins said that he had and proceeded
hardly was in compliance with Section 12(1), Article III, of the to describe at length the events of the Stephenson murder. Parisi and
Constitution which requires the assistance of counsel to a person under Perkins then engaged in some casual conversation before Perkins went
custody even when he waives the right to counsel. It is immaterial that to sleep. Parisi did not give Perkins Miranda warnings before the
the sworn statement was executed in a foreign land. Immaculata, a conversations. Perkins was charged with the Stephenson murder.
Filipino citizen, should enjoy these constitutional rights, like anyone Before trial, he moved to suppress the statements made to Parisi in
else, even when abroad. the jail. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, and the State
appealed. The Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed, holding that Miranda
Illinois vs. Perkins [496 US 292, 4 June 1990] v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 [1966]), prohibits all undercover contacts
Facts: with incarcerated suspects that are reasonably likely to elicit an
In November 1984, Richard Stephenson was murdered in a suburb of incriminating response.
East St. Louis, Illinois. The murder remained unsolved until March 1986,
when one Donald Charlton told police that he had learned about a
Issue: required to safeguard the constitutional rights of inmates who make
Whether strategic deception may be employed by law enforcers to voluntary statements to undercover agents.
solicit confessions from suspects, such as the deployment of an
undercover agent posing as an inmate, and without the need to give People vs. Lugod [GR 136253, 21 February 2001]
Miranda warnings. Facts:
On 15 September 1997 at around 7:00 p.m., Helen Ramos was asleep
Held: in her house together with her husband (Danilo Ramos) and children,
Conversations between suspects and undercover agents do not Nimrod, Neres and Nairube, the victim. Nairube slept close to her "on
implicate the concerns underlying Miranda. The essential ingredients of the upper part" of her body. At around 12:30 a.m., her husband woke
a "police-dominated atmosphere" and compulsion are not present when her up because he sensed someone going down the stairs of their
an incarcerated person speaks freely to someone whom he believes to house. She noticed that Nairube was no longer in the place where she
be a fellow inmate. Miranda forbids coercion, not mere strategic was sleeping but she assumed that Nairube merely answered the call of
deception by taking advantage of a suspect's misplaced trust in one he nature. Nairube's blanket was also no longer at the place she slept but
supposes to be a fellow prisoner. As recognized in Miranda: that her slippers were still there. After three minutes of waiting for
"Confessions remain a proper element in law enforcement. Any Nairube's return, she stood up and began calling out for Nairube but
statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling there was no answer. Thereafter, she went downstairs and saw that
influences is, of course, admissible in evidence." Ploys to mislead a the backdoor of their house was open. She went outside through the
suspect or lull him into a false sense of security that do not rise to the backdoor to see if Nairube was there but she was not. She found a pair
level of compulsion or coercion to speak are not within Miranda's of rubber slippers on top of a wooden bench outside of her backdoor.
concerns. Miranda was not meant to protect suspects from boasting The sole of the slippers was red while the strap was a combination of
about their criminal activities in front of persons whom they believe to yellow and white; said slippers did not belong to any member of her
be their cellmates. Herein, Perkins had no reason to feel that family. Thereafter, she proceeded to the house of Alma Diaz to ask her
undercover agent Parisi had any legal authority to force him to answer for help. Then, in the morning of 16 September 1997, she went to the
questions or that Parisi could affect Perkins' future treatment. Perkins police station to report the loss of her child. She also reported the
viewed the cellmate-agent as an equal and showed no hint of being discovery of the pair of slippers to SP02 Quirino Gallardo. She then
intimidated by the atmosphere of the jail. In recounting the details of went home while the police began their search for Nairube. At around
the Stephenson murder, Perkins was motivated solely by the desire to 12:30 p.m., Alma Diaz requested her to go with the searching team.
impress his fellow inmates. He spoke at his own peril. The tactic During the search, Alma Diaz found a panty which she recognized as
employed here to elicit a voluntary confession from a suspect does not that of her daughter. After seeing the panty, she cried. She was
violate the Self-Incrimination Clause. As held in Hoffa v. United States thereafter ordered to go home while the others continued the search.
(385 US 293 [1966]), that placing an undercover agent near a Thereafter, they continued the search and found a black collared T-
suspect in order to gather incriminating information was permissible shirt with buttons in front and piping at the end of the sleeve hanging
under the Fifth Amendment. The only difference between the present on a guava twig. Alma Diaz gave the shirt to SP02 Gallardo. Loreto
case and Hoffa is that the suspect here was incarcerated, but Veloria informed him that the two items were worn by Clemente John
detention, whether or not for the crime in question, does not warrant a Lugod when he went to the house of Violeta Cabuhat. At around 7:00
presumption that the use of an undercover agent to speak with an p.m., SP02 Gallardo apprehended Lugod on the basis of the pair of
incarcerated suspect makes any confession thus obtained involuntary. slippers and the black T-shirt. He then brought Lugod to the police
Law enforcement officers will have little difficulty putting into practice station where he was temporarily incarcerated. At first, the accused
the Court's holding that undercover agents need not give Miranda denied that he did anything to Nairube but after he told him what
warnings to incarcerated suspects. The use of undercover agents is a happened to the girl. Later, although he admitted to having raped and
recognized law enforcement technique, often employed in the prison killed Nairube, Lugud refused to make a statement regarding the same.
context to detect violence against correctional officials or inmates, as After having been informed that the body of Nairube was in the grassy
well as for the purposes served here. The interests protected by area, Gallardo together with other members of the PNP, the Crime
Miranda are not implicated in these cases, and the warnings are not Watch and the townspeople continued the search but they were still
not able to find the body of Nairube. It was only when they brought
Lugod to Villa Anastacia to point out the location of the cadaver, on People vs. Luvendino [GR 69971, 3 July 1992]
18 September 1997, that they found the body of Nairube. On 19 Facts:
September 1997, at around 3:30 p.m., Floro Esguerra, the Vice-Mayor On the morning of 17 January 1983, 18- year old Rowena Capcap left
of Cavinti attended the funeral of Nairube. After the funeral, he visited her home at Deva Village, Tambak, Taguig, Metro Manila to attend
the accused in his cell. In the course of his conversation with Lugod, classes at the University of Manila where she was a sophomore
Lugod allegedly confessed to the commission of the offense. On 10 commerce student. She would usually be home by 7:30 to 8:00 on
October 1997, Lugod was charged for rape with homicide. Upon school evenings, but on that tragic day, she would not reach home
arraignment, Lugod with the assistance of counsel entered a plea of alive. On that particular evening, her father Panfilo Capcap arriving
not guilty. Thereafter, trial ensued. On 8 October 1998, the Regional home from work at around 7:30 p.m., noted her absence and was told
Trial Court (RTC) of Santa Cruz, Laguna found Lugod guilty beyond by his wife and other children that Rowena was not yet home from
reasonable doubt, sentenced him to death, and ordered him to school. Later, a younger brother of Rowena, sent on an errand, arrived
indemnify the heirs of the victim, Nairube Ramos the sum of home carrying Rowena's bag which he had found dropped in the middle
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for her death and P37,200.00 as actual of a street in the village. Panfilo Capcap lost no time in seeking the
damages. Hence, the automatic review. help of the barangay captain of Hagonoy, Taguig. Not being satisfied
with the latter's promise to send for a "tanod" to help locate his
Issue: missing daughter, Panfilo went to the Taguig Police Station to report
Whether Lugod’s alleged confession to the Mayor and Vice-Mayor of his daughter as missing. The desk officer there advised him that a
Cavanti can be used against him. search party would be mounted presently. Panfilo returned home and,
with the help of some neighbors, launched a search party for the
Held: missing Rowena. The search ended in a grassy vacant lot within the
The records do not support the confession allegedly made by Lugod to Deva Village Subdivision, only about 70 to 80 meters from the Capcap
the Mayor and Vice -Mayor of Cavinti. Records show that the Mayor of residence, where lay the apparently lifeless body of Rowena, her pants
Cavinti did not testify in the criminal trial. Moreover, the testimony of pulled down to her knees and her blouse rolled up to her breasts. Her
the Vice-Mayor with respect to the alleged confession made by Lugod underwear was blood-stained and there were bloody fingerprint marks
is not conclusive. From the testimony of the Vice- Mayor, Lugod merely on her neck. Rowena, her body still warm, was rushed to a hospital in
responded to the ambiguous questions that the Vice -Mayor Taguig, where on arrival she was pronounced dead. The autopsy report
propounded to him. He did not state in certain and categorical terms stated that the multiple injuries indicated the victim had struggled
that he raped and killed Nairube. In fact, the Vice- Mayor admitted that vigorously with her attacker(s); that the presence of spermatozoa
Lugod did not tell him that he raped and killed Nairube. In addition, the showed that the victim had sexual intercourse prior to death; and that
Court notes the contradiction between the testimony of the Vice- death was due to asphyxia by manual strangulation. By 5 March 1984,
Mayor who stated that he was alone when he spoke to Lugod and that an information had been filed in the trial court charging Ernesto C.
of SPO2 Gallardo who claimed that he was present when Lugod Luvendino, Cesar Borca alias "Cesar Putol" and Ricardo de Guzman alias
confessed to the Mayor and Vice-Mayor. Considering that the "Ric" with the crime of rape with murder. Warrants of arrest were
confession of Lugod cannot be used against him, the only remaining issued against all the accused but only Ernesto Luvendino was actually
evidence which was established by the prosecution are circumstantial apprehended; the other 2 have remained at large. It appears that
in nature. The circumstances, taken with the testimonies of the other Luvendino re-enacted the events that transpired in the evening of
prosecution witnesses, merely establish Lugod's whereabouts on that January 17 at the crime scene, where pictures were taken by a
fateful evening and places Lugod at the scene of the crime and nothing photographer brought by the police officers. In the course of the
more. The evidence of the prosecution does not provide a link which demonstration, Luvendino allegedly remarked: "Inaamin ko po na
would enable the Court to conclude that he in fact killed and raped kasama ko si Cesar Borca sa pag re-rape kay Rowena." At arraignment,
Nairube. Luvendino assisted by his counsel, Atty. Luisito Sardillo, pleaded not
guilty and then proceeded to trial. On 12 December 1984, the trial
court rendered a decision finding Luvendino guilty, sentencing him to
death, and requiring him to indemnify the heirs of the victim Rowena in
the amount of P50,000.00 for the damages suffered as a result of her she knew. Instead, Rebada called out Alicando from her window and
death. asked him the time Khazie Mae left his house. Alicando replied he was
drunk and did not know. As the sun started to rise, another neighbor,
Issue: Leopoldo Santiago went down from his house to answer the call of
Whether Luvendino’s re-enactment of the crime may be admitted as nature. He discovered the lifeless body of Khazie Mae under his house.
evidence against the accused. Her parents were informed and so was the police. At 9:00 a.m., Rebada
suffered a change of heart. She informed Romeo Penecilla and his wife
Held: Julie Ann, that Alicando committed the crime. Forthwith, Alicando was
The trial court took into account the testimony given by Panfilo Capcap arrested and interrogated by P03 Danilo Tan. He verbally confessed his
on what had occurred during the re-enactment of the crime by guilt without the assistance of counsel. On the basis of his uncounseled
Luvendino. The re-enactment was apparently staged promptly upon verbal confession and follow up interrogations, the police came to
apprehension of Luvendino and even prior to his formal investigation at know and recovered from Alicando's house, Khazie Mae's green
the police station. The decision of the trial court found that the slippers, a pair of gold earrings, a buri mat, a stained pillow and a
accused was informed of his constitutional rights "before he was stained T-shirt. Alicando was charged with the crime of rape with
investigated by Sgt. Galang in the police headquarters" and cited the homicide. On 29 June 1994, Alicando was arraigned with the
"Salaysay" of appellant Luvendino. The decision itself, however, states assistance of Atty. Rogelio Antiquiera of the PAO, Department of
that the re-enactment took place before Luvendino was brought to the Justice. Alicando pleaded guilty. After Alicando's plea of guilt, the trial
police station. Thus, it is not clear from the record that before the re- court ordered the prosecution to present its evidence. It also set the
enactment was staged by Luvendino, he had been informed of his case for reception of evidence for Alicando, if he so desired. On 20 July
constitutional rights including, specifically, his right to counsel and that 1994, the trial court found Alicando guilty and sentenced him to
he had waived such right before proceeding with the demonstration. death, and to indemnify the heirs of the offended party, Khazie Mae D.
Under these circumstances, the Court must decline to uphold the Penecilla, the sum of P50,000.00. Hence, the automatic review.
admissibility of evidence relating to that re-enactment.
Issue:
People vs. Alicando [GR 117487, 12 December 1995] Whether the pillow and the T-shirt with the alleged bloodstains,
Facts: evidence derived from the uncounselled confession illegally extracted
In the afternoon of 12 June 1994, Romeo Penecilla, father of the four by the police from Alicando, may be admitted as evidence.
year old victim Khazie Mae, was drinking liquor with Ramil Rodriguez
and Remus Gaddi in his (Penecilla's) house at Barangay Rizal, Zone 1, Held:
Pulo Bala, Iloilo. Arnel Alicando y Briones joined them but every now It is now familiar learning that the Constitution has stigmatized as
and then would take leave and return. Alicando was living in his uncle's inadmissible evidence uncounselled confession or admission. Section 12
house some 5 arm's length from Penecilla's house. At about 4:30 p.m., paragraphs (1) and (3) of Article III of the Constitution provide that
Penecilla's group stopped drinking and left. At about 5:30 p.m. of that "Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall
day, Luisa Rebada saw the victim at the window of Alicando's house. have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have
She offered to buy her "yemas" but Alicando closed the window. Soon competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If
she heard the victim crying. She approached Alicando's house and the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided
peeped through an opening between its floor and door. The sight with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the
shocked her — Alicando was naked, on top of the victim, his left hand presence of counsel"; and "Any confession or admission obtained in
choking her neck. She retreated to her house in fright. She gathered violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible against
her children together and informed her compadre, Ricardo Lagrana, him"; respectively. Herein, PO3 Tan did not even have the simple sense
then in her house, about what she saw. Lagrana was also overcome to reduce the all important confession of Alicando in writing. Neither
with fear and hastily left. Romeo Penecilla returned to his house at did he present any writing showing that Alicando waived his right to
8:00 p.m.. He did not find Khazie Mae. He and his wife searched for her silence and to have competent and independent counsel. It is not only
until 1:00 a.m. Their effort was fruitless. Rebada was aware that the the uncounselled confession that is condemned as inadmissible, but
Penecillas were looking for their daughter but did not tell them what also evidence derived therefrom. The pillow and the T-shirt with the
alleged bloodstains were evidence derived from the uncounselled only in passing on Harris' credibility and not as evidence of guilt. In
confession illegally extracted by the police from Alicando. The Court closing summations both counsel argued the substance of the
has not only constitutionalized the Miranda warnings in Philippine impeaching statements. The jury then found Harris guilty on the
jurisdiction. It has also adopted the libertarian exclusionary rule known second count of the indictment. The New York Court of Appeals
as the "fruit of the poisonous tree," a phrase minted by Mr. Justice affirmed in a per curiam opinion.
Felix Frankfurter in the celebrated case of Nardone v. United States.
According to this rule, once the primary source (the "tree") is shown Issue:
to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence Whether the statements made by the accused after his arrest should
(the "fruit") derived from it is also inadmissible. Stated otherwise, be absolutely excluded, or whether such statements can be used to
illegally seized evidence is obtained as a direct result of the illegal act, impeach the accused who acted as his own witness.
whereas the "fruit of the poisonous tree" is the indirect result of the
same illegal act. The "fruit of the poisonous tree" is at least once Held:
removed from the illegally seized evidence, but it is equally Some comments in the Miranda opinion can indeed be read as
inadmissible. The rule is based on the principle that evidence illegally indicating a bar to use of an uncounseled statement for any purpose,
obtained by the State should not be used to gain other evidence but discussion of that issue was not at all necessary to the Court's
because the originally illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence holding and cannot be regarded as controlling. Miranda barred the
subsequently obtained. The burden to prove that an accused prosecution from making its case with statements of an accused made
waived his right to remain silent and the right to counsel before making while in custody prior to having or effectively waiving counsel. It does
a confession under custodial interrogation rests with the prosecution. It not follow from Miranda that evidence inadmissible against an accused
is also the burden of the prosecution to show that the evidence in the prosecution's case in chief is barred for all purposes, provided of
derived from confession is not tainted as "fruit of the poisonous tree." course that the trustworthiness of the evidence satisfies legal
The burden has to be discharged by clear and convincing evidence. standards. In Walder v. United States (347 US 62 [1954]), the Court
permitted physical evidence, inadmissible in the case in chief, to be
Harris vs. New York [401 US 222, 24 February 1971] used for impeachment purposes. It is true that Walder was impeached
Facts: as to collateral matters included in his direct examination, whereas
The State of New York charged Harris in a two-count indictment with Harris here was impeached as to testimony bearing more directly on
twice selling heroin to an undercover police officer. At a subsequent the crimes charged. There is no difference in principle that warrants a
jury trial the officer was the State's chief witness, and he testified as result different from that reached by the Court in Walder. Harris'
to details of the two sales. A second officer verified collateral details of testimony in his own behalf concerning the events of January 7
the sales, and a third offered testimony about the chemical analysis of contrasted sharply with what he told the police shortly after his arrest.
the heroin. Harris took the stand in his own defense. He admitted The impeachment process here undoubtedly provided valuable aid to
knowing the undercover police officer but denied a sale on 4 January the jury in assessing Harris' credibility, and the benefits of this process
1966. He admitted making a sale of contents of a glassine bag to the should not be lost because of the speculative possibility that
officer on January 6 but claimed it was baking powder and part of a impermissible police conduct will be encouraged thereby. Assuming
scheme to defraud the purchaser. On cross-examination, Harris was that the exclusionary rule has a deterrent effect on proscribed police
asked seriatim whether he had made specified statements to the police conduct, sufficient deterrence flows when the evidence in question is
immediately following his arrest on January 7 - statements that made unavailable to the prosecution in its case in chief. The shield
partially contradicted his direct testimony at trial. In response to the provided by Miranda cannot be perverted into a license to use perjury
cross-examination, Harris testified that he could not remember virtually by way of a defense, free from the risk of confrontation with prior
any of the questions or answers recited by the prosecutor. At the inconsistent utterances. The Court holds, therefore, that Harris'
request of Harris' counsel the written statement from which the credibility was appropriately impeached by use of his earlier conflicting
prosecutor had read questions and answers in his impeaching process statements.
was placed in the record for possible use on appeal; the statement was
not shown to the jury. The trial judge instructed the jury that the
statements attributed to Harris by the prosecution could be considered
New York vs. Quarles [467 US 649, 12 June 1984] upon the motivation of the individual officers involved. In a
Facts: kaleidoscopic situation such as the one confronting these officers,
On 11 September 1980, at approximately 12:30 a. m., Officer Frank where spontaneity rather than adherence to a police manual is
Kraft and Officer Sal Scarring were on road patrol in Queens, New York, necessarily the order of the day, the application of the exception which
when a young woman approached their car. She told them that she had the Court recognizes should not be made to depend on post hoc
just been raped by a black male, approximately six feet tall, who was findings at a suppression hearing concerning the subjective motivation
wearing a black jacket with the name "Big Ben" printed in yellow letters of the arresting officer. Undoubtedly most police officers, if placed in
on the back. She told the officers that the man had just entered an A Officer Kraft's position, would act out of a host of different, instinctive,
& P supermarket located nearby and that the man was carrying a gun. and largely unverifiable motives -- their own safety, the safety of
The officers drove the woman to the supermarket, and Officer Kraft others, and perhaps as well the desire to obtain incriminating evidence
entered the store while Officer Scarring radioed for assistance. Officer from the suspect. Whatever the motivation of individual officers in
Kraft quickly spotted Quarles, who matched the description given by such a situation, the Court does not believe that the doctrinal
the woman, approaching a checkout counter. Apparently upon seeing underpinnings of Miranda require that it be applied in all its rigor to a
the officer, Quarles turned and ran toward the rear of the store, and situation in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by
Officer Kraft pursued him with a drawn gun. When Quarles turned the a concern for the public safety. The Miranda decision was based in
corner at the end of an aisle, Officer Kraft lost sight of him for several large part on the Court's view that the warnings which it required
seconds, and upon regaining sight of Quarles, ordered him to stop and police to give to suspects in custody would reduce the likelihood that
put his hands over his head. Although more than three other officers the suspects would fall victim to constitutionally impermissible
had arrived on the scene by that time, Officer Kraft was the first to practices of police interrogation in the presumptively coercive
reach Quarles. He frisked him and discovered that he was wearing a environment of the station house. The police herein, in the very act of
shoulder holster which was then empty. After handcuffing him, Officer apprehending a suspect, were confronted with the immediate necessity
Kraft asked him where the gun was. Quarles nodded in the direction of of ascertaining the whereabouts of a gun which they had every reason
some empty cartons and responded, "the gun is over there." Officer to believe the suspect had just removed from his empty holster and
Kraft thereafter retrieved a loaded .38-caliber revolver from one of the discarded in the supermarket. So long as the gun was concealed
cartons, formally placed Quarles under arrest, and read him his Miranda somewhere in the supermarket, with its actual whereabouts unknown,
rights from a printed card. Quarles indicated that he would be willing to it obviously posed more than one danger to the public safety: an
answer questions without an attorney present. Officer Kraft then asked accomplice might make use of it, a customer or employee might later
Quarles if he owned the gun and where he had purchased it. Quarles come upon it. In such a situation, if the police are required to recite the
answered that he did own it and that he had purchased it in Miami, familiar Miranda warnings before asking the whereabouts of the gun,
Florida. Benjamin Quarles was charged in the New York trial court with suspects in Quarles' position might well be deterred from responding.
criminal possession of a weapon. The trial court suppressed the gun in Procedural safeguards which deter a suspect from responding were
question, and a statement made by Quarles, because the statement deemed acceptable in Miranda in order to protect the Fifth Amendment
was obtained by police before they read Quarles his "Miranda rights." privilege; when the primary social cost of those added protections is
That ruling was affirmed on appeal through the New York Court of the possibility of fewer convictions, the Miranda majority was willing to
Appeals. bear that cost. Here, had Miranda warnings deterred Quarles from
responding to Officer Kraft's question about the whereabouts of the
Issue: gun, the cost would have been something more than merely the failure
Whether the statement, "the gun is over there," and the gun itself to obtain evidence useful in convicting Quarles. Officer Kraft needed an
should be excluded as evidence in light of the officer's failure to read answer to his question not simply to make his case against Quarles but
Quarles his Miranda rights before attempting to locate the weapon. to insure that further danger to the public did not result from the
concealment of the gun in a public area. Thus, the need for answers to
Held: questions in a situation posing a threat to the public safety outweighs
There is a "public safety" exception to the requirement that Miranda the need for the prophylactic rule protecting the Fifth Amendment's
warnings be given before a suspect's answers may be admitted into privilege against self-incrimination. The Court declines to place officers
evidence, and that the availability of that exception does not depend such as Officer Kraft in the untenable position of having to consider,
often in a matter of seconds, whether it best serves society for them
to ask the necessary questions without the Miranda warnings and
render whatever probative evidence they uncover inadmissible, or for
them to give the warnings in order to preserve the admissibility of
evidence they might uncover but possibly damage or destroy their
ability to obtain that evidence and neutralize the volatile situation
confronting them. Here, Officer Kraft asked only the question
necessary to locate the missing gun before advising Quarles of his
rights. It was only after securing the loaded revolver and giving the
warnings that he continued with investigatory questions about the
ownership and place of purchase of the gun. The exception which the
Court recognizes, far from complicating the thought processes and the
on-the-scene judgments of police officers, will simply free them to
follow their legitimate instincts when confronting situations presenting
a danger to the public safety. The Court hold that the Court of Appeals
erred in excluding the statement, "the gun is over there," and the gun
because of the officer's failure to read Quarles his Miranda rights
before attempting to locate the weapon.