Romualdez- Marcos v.

Commission on Elections

Facts:
Imelda Marcos’ domicile was established in Tacloban, which was her father’s
hometown. In 1954, she married former President Ferdinand Marcos, when the
latter was still a congressman in Ilocos Norte, and registered there as a voter.
When Ferdinand Marcos became President, she registered as a voter in San
Juan. After the tragic incident that happened to Ninoy Aquino, that lead to their
exile in Hawaii, Imelda Marcos ran for President in 1992 and indicated in her
Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) that she was a resident and a registered voter of
San Juan, Metro Manila.

Years after, she again filed for a CoC, now running for the position of
Representative of the First District of Leyte. The incumbent representative, then,
filed for the disqualification of Imelda Marcos contending that she did not meet
the resident qualifications for the position. It was indicated in Imelda Marcos’
CoC, that she was a resident of the said district for 7 months. Imelda Marcos
then filed for an amended CoC, changing 7 months to since birth, and claimed
that there was misinterpretation on her part, believing that she was being asked
of her actual, physical presence in the said district.

The Commission on Elections (COMELEC), after finding that the petition for
Imelda Marcos’ disqualification meritorious, canceled the latter’s CoC, averring
that she did not meet the necessary requirement for the position. The COMELEC
also denied her motion for reconsideration but issued a resolution, allowing for
her proclamation, should she obtain the highest number of votes. However, on
the same day, the COMELEC decided to reverse its decision and directed for the
suspension of Imelda Marcos’ proclamation.

After the election, Imelda Marcos won by a landslide of votes, hence, filed for the
petition at bar.

Issue:
Whether Imelda Marcos met the resident qualification of one year for the position
of congresswoman for the First District of Leyte?

Ruling:
The Court ruled in favor of Imelda Marcos, holding that first, a minor follows the
domicile of her parents, and in this case, Imelda first established her domicile in
Leyte. Second, the domicile of origin is only lost when there is actual removal or
change of domicile. This entails that there is clear intention of abandoning the
former domicile. Third, residence in Civil Law is different from residence in
Political Law. A wife does not automatically gain the husband’s domicile. Thus,
Imelda kept her domicile in Leyte and merely gained a new home when she
married Ferdinand Marcos.
Intengan v. Court of Appeals

Facts:
The case involves violation of the Corporation Code by Citibank’s 2 officers,
herein respondents. The Vice President of Citibank, prior to the complaint filed by
Citibank, investigated the irregular activities of the said officers. It was discovered
that there was deception practiced and demonstrated by the said two officers
involving bank records. The complaint was recommended for alleged violation of
Republic Act No. 1405. The Department of Justice ordered the withdrawal of
informations for violation of Republic Act No. 1405 against private respondents.
This order was sustained by the Court of Appeals. Petitioners then filed the
petition at bar, praying for a reversal of the decision and resolution of the
Department of Justice and praying for the Court to direct the provincial
prosecutor of Rizal to file for the information for the herein private respondents’
violation of Republic Act No. 1405.

Issue:
Whether the petition is meritorious to allow for a criminal proceeding against the
herein private respondents

Ruling:
The Court found the petition bereft of merit. According to the Court, the accounts
in question pertain to U.S. dollar deposits, hence the applicable law is not
Republic Act No. 1405, but republic act No. 6462. The latter law should have
been the proper case against the private respondents. The act of the herein
respondents of disclosing details of petitioner bank’s records regarding foreign
currency deposits are punishable by special laws, called malum prohibitum.
Salvacion v. Central Bank of the Philippines

Facts:
Private respondent, Bartelli, who was at that time, an American tourist, cajoled
herein petitioner, who was then a minor, to go with him in his apartment. Bartelli
detained Karen and raped her several times. After a rescue operation
successfully done by the policemen and neighbors of Karen, Bartelli was
arrested and was accused of Serious Illegal Detention and four counts of Rape,
including a civil case for damages. However, Bartelli was able to escape prison,
hence the hearing for the criminal complaint was put on hold. On the other hand,
the trial court, in the civil case for damages, awarded the herein petitioner, moral
and exemplary and attorney’s fees amounting to almost ₱1,000,000.00.
Petitioner tried to execute the judgment however China Banking Corp. refused
arguing that Circular No. 960 exempts foreign currency deposits from
attachment, garnishment or other process of any court. With the foregoing,
petitioner filed for an action for declaratory relief in the Supreme Court.

Issue:
Whether the Circular of Central Bank can be made applicable to a foreign
transient.

Ruling:
The Court held that the petitioner is deserving of the damages awarded to her.
The Circular of Central bank cannot be made applicable to the case at bar.
Allowing for the application of the said Circular would result to an injustice
especially to a citizen aggrieved by a foreign guest. The Court avers that
application of the Circular of Central bank would run contrary to Article 10 of the
Civil Code. The Court said, the application of the law depends on the extent of its
justice.
Del Castillo v. People

Facts:
An information was filed against petitioner Del Castillo, showing that the latter as
engaged in selling of shabu. With this, police officers, after thorough
investigation, secured a search warrant from the Regional Trial Court. When they
were about to implement the search warrant, a police officer claimed that he saw
Del Castillo run towards a nipa hut. The said police officer chased him down, but
was unable to catch petitioner, as they were not familiar with the alleys
surrounding the residence of the latter. When the police went back to the
residence of Del Castillo, they sought the assistance of barangay tanods, and
continued with the implementation of the search warrant. The search was able to
confiscate four packs of shabu. Thereafter, an information was filed against
petitioner for violation of Republic Act No. 6425, and was later on found guilty of
the said crime. Petitioner, appealed to the Court of Appeals contending that he
cannot be merely presumed to own the confiscated packs of shabu just because
they were found in a nipa hut found in front of his house, but the latter sustained
the Decision of the Regional Trial Court.

Issue:
Whether petitioner can be held liable for violation of Republic Act No. 6425 with
only a presumption that the petitioner owns the confiscated packs of shabu

Ruling:
The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. The Court is in the view that there must
be sufficient showing that the property is under petitioner’s control or possession.
In the case at bar, it was not established that the accused used the nipa hut as a
shop for shabu. The lower courts only presumed that petitioner used such
structure only because of the presence of electrical materials. It must be
established and proven that the accused had knowledge of the presence and
existence of the drugs in the place under his control. The Court asserts that in all
criminal prosecutions, the accused is presumed innocent of the charge laid
unless the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Cayetano, Jan Stepgen Gerard

People v. Salarza, Jr.

Facts:
The case at bar includes a criminal case against Silvino Salarza who allegedly
raped Zareen Smith, a British national, in a cottage while the latter was on a
vacation in Palawan.

Zareen and a certain Enrico De Jesus were both on a vacation and met in
Palawan. They later on developed mutual feelings for each other which resulted
to a passionate relationship. On April 30, the group of Zareen and De Jesus,
which included Salarza, decided to drink at a restaurant. When the whole group
decided to rest for the night they went back to their respective cottages. At
around 2 a.m., Zareen found herself awake with someone trying to have sex with
her. She claimed that she was half asleep at that time, and believed that it was
her boyfriend, De Jesus, who was trying to have sex with her. She later on found
out that it was not her boyfriend who was trying to have sex with her, but Salarza.
This caused a commotion to the whole group.

At the defense of Salarza, it was Zareen who was trying to seduce him. He
claimed that at the night of the disputed event, Zareen opted and insisted Salarza
to have sex with her. Despite the invitation, Salarza refused since he did not want
to betray his friend, De Jesus. He further claimed that there was no sexual
intercourse that occurred.

Issue:
Whether Salarza is guilty of rape

Ruling:
The Court finds Salarza not guilty of the crime of rape. The Court cites the
grounds for committing rape as provided in Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended. Given the facts of the case, the Court finds insufficient proof
to find the accused guilty of the crim of rape. The witness was not able to
establish that (1) Zareen was 12 years old or demented; that (2) there was use of
force and intimidation on the part of Salarza, since Zareen was aware of what
was happening during the event; and that (3) Zareen was deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious, since she was able to describe every detail of the event.
Given the reasons, the Court finds no proof beyond reasonable doubt to find
Salarza guilty of the crime of rape.

Justices Regalado and Davide, Jr., however, were in the opinion that Salarza
was guilty of the crime of rape, stressing that the state of half-asleep cannot be
completely regarded the same as a state of full-consciousness, when Zareen
allowed the person trying to have sex with her, penetrate her, because she was
in the belief that it was her boyfriend that was doing such act.