government vehicle, when in fact, he did, in order to receive the transportation Parte Manifestation and Motion to Withdraw Complaint.

aw Complaint. He confessed that

118 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs.CARMENCITA D. CORONEL – BAIRD allowance.After a formal investigation of the case, the CSC issued Resolution No. Bungubung never demanded or received any balato from him or his wife in exchange
020124, dated January 24. 2002, finding petitioner guilty of dishonesty and conduct for the award of the PPA security service contract; nor did Bungubung ask for a
prejudicial to the best interest of the service and penalizing him with dismissal from Mitsubishi Pajero van from him .Bungubung counters that the Court of Appeals
FACTS ; "[Respondent] Carmencita D. Coronel is a Senior Accounting Processor of the
the service.Petitioner filed a petition for review of the CSC Resolution with the CA.In correctly held that there was no substantial evidence to hold him liable for grave
Linamon Water District, Lanao del Norte. On September 26, 1997, the Board of
the Decision promulgated on January 7, 2005, the CA upheld the CSC Resolution. misconduct; and that the reliance by the Ombudsman on the affidavits of Doromal and
Directors of Linamon Water District,designated respondent as Officer-in-Charge. In the
Hence, this petition. Petitioner contends that he was denied due process as he was not Cruz in determining his administrative liability, despite the fact that the contents
morning of October 14, 1998, called for a meeting the officers of the different Water
afforded the right to cross-examine his accusers and their witnesses. He stated that at thereof were not personally attested to by the affiants before the Ombudsman, was a
Districts in Lanao del Norte and Lanao del Sur, as well as their advisors from the Local
his instance, in order to prevent delay in the disposition of the case, he was allowed to clear violation of his right to due process.
Water Utilities Administration. The group opted to continue their meeting at Marvilla’s
present evidence first to support the allegations in his Counter-Affidavit. After he
Store. As the host of the said meeting, paid for the lunch in the amount of 1,213.00 as
rested his case, respondents did not present their evidence, but moved to submit their ISSUE ; Whether bungbung was denied of due process
shown in cash Invoice No. 0736. On November 13, 1998, respondent claimed for
position paper and formal offer of evidence, which motion was granted by the CSC
reimbursement of her expenses against the representation and entertainment account
over his objection.Petitioner submits that although he was allowed to present
of her office. That very same day, the voucher was approved. "On November 17, 1998, RULING ; No, The fact that no formal hearing took place is not sufficient ground to say
evidence first, it should not be construed as a waiver of his right to cross-examine the
Pedro C. Sausal, Jr. was appointed General Manager of Linamon Water District. On that due process was not afforded Bungubung. It is well-settled that in administrative
complainants.
February 1999, he filed with the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao a sworn letter- proceedings, including those before the Ombudsman, cases may be submitted for
complaint against [respondent] for dishonesty. The complaint alleges that respondent resolution on the basis of affidavits and pleadings. The standard of due process that
falsified the cash invoice she submitted for reimbursement by making it appear that ISSUE ; Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner was not denied must be met in administrative tribunals allows a certain degree of latitude as long as
the luncheon bill was for 1,213.00php when in fact, it was only 213.00php as reflected due process . fairness is not ignored. It is, therefore, not legally objectionable for being violative of
in the photocopy of the original duplicate of cash invoice No. 0736. Grace H. Morales, due process for an administrative agency to resolve a case based solely on position
Graft Investigation Officer I of the OMB-Mindanao, rendered a decision and holds that RULING ; No, since he was given the opportunity to be heard and present his evidence. papers, affidavits or documentary evidence submitted by the parties as affidavits of
respondent CARMENCITA D. CORONEL is guilty of DISHONESTY and is DISMISSED from In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to witnesses may take the place of their direct testimonies.
the service, with forfeiture of all leave credits and retirement benefits. On March 7, explain one’s Due process of law in administrative cases is not identical with "judicial
2001, Graft Investigation Officer I Grace H. Morales issued an Order, the decretal process" for a trial in court is not always essential to due process. While a day in court MAINPOINT ; Undoubtedly, due process in administrative proceedings is an
portion of which states- the Motion for reconsideration is granted and the Decision of is a matter of right in judicial proceedings, it is otherwise in administrative proceedings opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the
this Office dated November 27, 2000 dismissing from the service respondent since they rest upon different principles. Thus, in certain proceedings of administrative action or ruling complained of, which requirement was afforded Bungubung.
Carmencita D. Coronel is hereby SET ASIDE." character, the right to a notice or hearing are not essential to due process of law. The
constitutional requirement of due process is met by a fair hearing before a regularly
121
ISSUE ; Whether petitioner’s Disapproval Order, expressed as a marginal notation established administrative agency or tribunal
ASPECTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS
violated her right to due process SEC V. INTERPORT
MAINPOINT ; In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply the FACTS:
RULING ; No, The original decision stands," was a valid resolution. Hence, respondent opportunity to explain one’s side An investigation proceeding was conducted by the SEC against respondent
should find her bearings from that holding.The notation does not deny respondent of IRC for failure to make timely disclosure of their negotiations with Ganda Energy
her right to due process. In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process lies OMBUDSMAN vs.BUNGUBUNG and COURT OF APPEALS-BAIRD holdings, a violation against revised security act. However, the proceeding was
simply in the opportunity to explain one’s side or to seek reconsideration of the action interrupted by a writ of preliminary injunction issued by the CA, which became
or ruling complained of. What is proscribed is the absolute lack of notice or hearing.In FACTS ; Bungubung is the Chairman of the Ports District Security Bids and Awards permanent.
this case, respondent was given every opportunity to be heard. Significantly, her Committee of the PPA. On 24 September 2001, Roberto C. Doromal, the President of During the pendency of the case, the Security Regulation Code repealed the
intelligible pleadings before the CA and this Court indicate that she knew the bases for Combat Security & Executive Protection Agency, a security agency that participated in Revised security act, which give SEC of its jurisdiction to continue investigating the
the ombudsman’s Decision. In fact, she very ably pinpointed its alleged errors that she the bidding for security services for the PPA, filed a Complaint-Affidavit against case, or the RTC to hear any case which may be later filed against the respondent.
thought would merit our review. Bungubung before PPA Resident Ombudsman Manolo M. Mabini, alleging that As a defense, respondent averred that the case is already deemed moot
sometime in June 1995, his wife was in negotiating a contract for Security Services with and academic, since any criminal complaint that may be filed against them resulting
MAINPOINT ; The essence of due process lies simply in the opportunity to explain the Philippine Ports Authority. That after a service contract, Mr. Leopoldo Bungubung from the SEC investigation has already prescribed. They point out the prescriptive
one’s side or to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. What is and other PPA officials asked for certain amounts from my said wife as "balato" for period of 12years from the time of the commission of the crime, under sec. 1 if act no
proscribed is the absolute lack of notice or hearing. winning the award where the latter obliged herself to give. when my wife died,the 3326 ( An act to establish period of prescription for violations penalized by special
same arrangement was pursued and carried over through the period that I was already acts.) Since the offense was committed in 1994 prescription has already set as early as
the one dealing with PPA. That after giving the P50,000, he asked from me a Mitsubishi 2006.
ATTY. ROMEO L. ERECE vs.LYN B. MACALINGAY et al
Pajero van, to be due and delivered supposedly to him while there is no award of the ISSUE;
winning bidder yet. However, due to the expensive value of the said Pajero van, I was Whether the filing of complaint by SEC against respondent has already
FACTS ; Petitioner is the Regional Director of the Commission on Human Rights Region prescribed, in pursuant to sec. act 3326.
not able to deliver. Hence, on March 30, 2001, I was served a Notice of Award of the
I, Respondent employees of the CHR Region I filed an Affidavit-Complaint against
winning bidder which is STAR SPECIAL WATCHMAN & DETECTIVE AGENCY, INC. I
petitioner alleging that he denied them the use of the office vehicle assigned to RULING: No, It is an establish doctrine that a preliminary investigation interrupts the
instructed my men to conduct an investigation and there, they found a late model
petitioner, that petitioner still claimed transportation allowance even if he was using period of prescription.
Pajero van parked in from of the residence of Mr. Leopoldo Bungubung. In support of
the said vehicle, and that he certified that he did not use any government vehicle, MAIN POINT: A preliminary investigation is essentially a determination whether an
the allegations in his Complaint-Affidavit, Doromal submitted an affidavit of his
when in fact he did, in order to collect transportation allowance. After the offense has been committed and whether there is a probable cause for the accused to
secretary Evalyn Cruz and an alleged "blue book" of CSEPA. Cruz recounted in her
investigation, the CSC Proper in CSC Resolution, charged petitioner with Dishonesty have committed the offense.
affidavit another incident wherein she personally handed over the amount of
and Grave Misconduct for using a government vehicle in spite of his receipt of the
P50,000.00 cash to Bungubung at his office.In the meantime, Doromal executed an Ex-
monthly transportation allowance and for certifying that he did not use any
 122 MAIN POINT:
ASPECTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS The sole justification for a limitation on the exercise of this right, so Issue: Whether petitioners were denied due process when NEA failed to notify them of
CALINISAN V. ROAQUIN fundamental to the maintenance of democratic institutions, is the danger, of a the charges based on the audit report
character both grave and imminent, of a serious evil to public safety, public morals,
FACTS: Reynaldo Roaquin served 16 years with the PNP. The government charged public health, or any other legitimate public interest. Ruling: Yes. The court agreed with the petitioners’ observation that they had been
Roaquin with murder before the RTC. 7 years later the RTC acquitted him of the crime denied due process before the NEA, as they had not been informed of the charges
of which he was charged upon a finding that he acted in complete self-defense. Case No. 124 – Cruz based on the audit report. But the court refused to nullify the entire proceedings after
Following this development, Roaquin asked the PNP to reinstate him into the police Administrative; QJ Proceedings; Arbitration; aspects of the proceeding finding substantial evidence to support the other allegations in the letter-complaint, to
service. Roaqin was reinstated by P/Chief Superintendent. Domingo v. OMB 577 SCRA 476 justify the petitioners’ removal from office.
However, PNP Directorate directing P/Chief Superintendent to nullify
Roaquin’s reinstatement he contend that Roaquin could not be entitled to Main Point: Due process requirement mandates that every accused or respondent be Case No. 126 – Cruz
reinstatement since he failed to file a motion for reconsideration within 10 days of apprised of the nature and cause of the charge against him, and the evidence in Administrative; QJ Proceedings; Arbitration; aspects of the proceeding
being notified of his discharge. support thereof be shown or made available to him so that he can meet the charge OMB v. Evangelista 581 SCRA 350
Roaquin filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus against his superior with traversing or exculpatory evidence.
officers before the RTC. The RTC rendered a decision, ordering Roaquin’s Main Point: Neither prior notice nor a hearing is required for the issuance of a
reinstatement. On appeal by Roaquin’s superior officers, CA rendered judgment Facts: SK officials filed a complaint-affidavit before the Office of the Ombudsman preventive suspension order by the Ombudsman.
dismissing their appeal for lack of jurisdiction as the issues involved were purely legal, against Petitioner Barangay Charmain for malversation, falsification of public
hence, this petition. document, dishonesty and grave misconduct. OMB rendered judgment and held Facts: An administrative case with the Ombudsman was filed against Mayor
ISSUE: Whether the CA correctly dismissed the appeal on the ground of lack of petitioner administratively liable for the irregular submission of a falsified instrument Evangelista, along with 2 others, for allegedly using the Special Education Fund (SEF) to
jurisdiction. to the Manila Barangay Bureau (MBB) in connection with his barangay’s budget finding purchase speech kits and textbooks without the authorization of the Local School
RULING: Yes, As Roaquin’s superior officers’ appeal involves only questions of law, petitioner guilty of violation of R.A. No. 6713. All other charges were dismissed. Board (LSB) and that the said speech kits and textbooks were not even received by the
they erred in taking recourse to the CA by notice of appeal. Hence, the CA correctly Petitioner filed the instant petition seeking reversal of such decision on the ground recipient schools. Plaintiff prayed for the preventive suspension of the three. Without
dismissed their appeal. that one cannot be indicted for the submission of a document which he himself has furnishing the respondents with a copy of the complaint, the Ombudsman issued an
MAIN POINT: An issue of fact exists when what is in question is the truth or falsity of repudiated. Order preventively suspending them for 4 months without pay. The CA reversed the
the alleged facts, whereas an issue of law exists when what is in question is what the preventive suspension order by the Ombudsman on the ground that the order was
law is on a certain state of facts. The test, therefore, for determining whether an issue Issue: Whether petitioner was denied due process for being charged with a violation issued without informing the respondents of the charges against them.
is one of law or of fact, is whether the CA could adjudicate it without reviewing or that was not initially alleged.
evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is an issue of law; otherwise, it is an issue of Issue: Whether a preventive suspension order may be issued even without notifying
fact. Ruling: There is obviously a denial of due process in this case. A cursory reading of the the respondents in an administrative case of the charges.
123 complaint-affidavit does not reveal that petitioner was charged with violation of R.A.
ASPECTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS No. 6713. Likewise, in the OMB’s Evaluation Report, the charges indicated were for Ruling: Yes. While a preventive suspension order may stem from a complaint, the
IBP V. ATIENZA malversation, falsification, dishonesty and grace misconduct. Ombudsman is not required to furnish the respondent with a copy of the complaint
Facts: prior to ordering preventive suspension. The requisites for the Ombudsman to issue a
The IBP, through its National President Cadiz, filed with the Office of the Case No. 125 – Cruz preventive suspension order are clearly contained in Section 24 of R.A. no. 6770. The
City Mayor of an application for a permit to rally at the foot of Mendiola Bridge. Mayor Administrative; QJ Proceedings; Arbitration; aspects of the proceeding CA cannot alter these requirements by insisting that the preventive suspension order
Atienza granted the permit but indicated therein Plaza Miranda as the venue, instead Zambales v. Castellejos 581 SCRA 320 aslo meet the requisites found in Section 26 of the same law.
of Mendiola Bridge. Aggrieved, Cadiz filed a petition for certiorari before the CA
assailing the permit for being violative of their right to freedom of expression. Main Point: Due process requirement mandates that every accused or respondent be
Meanwhile, the IBP pushed through with the rally at the Mendiola Bridge. apprised of the nature and cause of the charge against him, and the evidence in CASE NO. 127
Thus, the Manila Police District (MPD) filed a criminal case against Cadiz for violating support thereof be shown or made available to him so that he can meet the charge Art. III, Sec. 1. Aspects of the proceedings
the Public Assembly Act in staging a rally at a venue not indicated in the permit. The with traversing or exculpatory evidence. Phil Export v. Pearl City 608 SCRA 280
Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Atienza.
In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Cadiz prayed for the suspension of the Facts: Respondent CASCONA filed a letter-complaint with the NEA seeking the
criminal case against him on the ground that the certiorari case he filed against Atienza removal of petitioners from the Board based on the NEA’s Financial Audit Report of MAINPOINT:
is a prejudicial question to the criminal case. ZAMECO. The NEA endorsed the letter-complaint to the NEA-Office of the It is settled that in administrative proceedings, a fair and reasonable opportunity to
Issue: Administrative Committee, which in turn immediately set the case for mandatory explain one’s side suffices to meet the requirements of due process.
Whether the appellate court erred in holding that the modification of the conference after completion of the exchange of pleadings between the parties. The
venue in IBP’s rally permit does not constitute grave abuse of discretion. NEA-ADCOM thereafter recommended the removal of the petitioners from office. NEA FACTS: Pearl City, the respondent, is a PEZA (Philippine Economic Zone Authortiy)-
RULING: issued its resolution removing the petitioners from office with the accessory penalty of registered Ecozone Export Enterprise located in Mactan, Lapu-Lapu City engaged in
Yes, Respondent failed to indicate how he had arrived at modifying the perpetual disqualification to run for the same position. business of recycling and processing, for export, of used clothing into wool, fiber,
terms of the permit against the standard of a clear and present danger test which, it In arriving at its conclusions, the NEA relied on the NEA-ADCOM’s Report and cotton ffiber, polyster fiber and useable clothings and industrial rags. The individual
bears repeating, is an indispensable condition to such modification. Nothing in the Recommendations and the audit report that was not part of the letter-complaint or of respondents are the employees of the PEZA. The PEZA board now, informed the Pearl
issued permit adverts to an imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil, which the proceedings before the NEA-ADCOM. The petitioners thus moved for City that a physical inventory in their respective zones on their businesses will be
"blank" denial or modification would, when granted imprimatur as the appellate court reconsideration of the NEA resolution contending that they had been denied due conducted and upon the completion, PEZA officers discovered that the Pearl City had
would have it, render illusory any judicial scrutiny thereof. process as they had never been notified of the charges based on the audit report. Their an unaccounted importation of 8,259, 645 kilo of used clothing for the period of 15
motion was denied, thus this petition for review. months covering from Jan. 2003 up to March 2004. Moreover, the respondent
corporation was instructed to submit an explanation for the said unaccounted complied with because what the law abhors is an absolute lack of opportunity to be 3. Fraud by wire, radio, or television
shortaged in import-export liquidation. A special audit was conducted and PEZA board heard. Also, Pichay is a presidential appointee occupying the high-level position of 4. False statement or entries
passed a resolution canceling the PEZA registration of the respondent corpation as an Chairman of the LWUA. Necessarily, he comes under the disciplinary jurisdiction of 5. Election contribution in name of another
Ecozone Export Enterprise. The respondent corporation averred that they were denied the President, who is well within his right to order an investigation into matters that
of their right to due process of law because the power and authority to conduct require his informed decision. The Department of Justice (DOJ), through a designated panel proceeded
inquiries is lodged with the PEZA Director General and not with the PEZA Board. CASE NO. 129 with the technical evaluation and assessment of the extradition treaty
ISSUE: Art. III, Sec. 1. Aspects of the proceedings which they found having matters needed to be addressed. Respondent,
Whether the Pearl City was deprived of right to due process. Arroyo v. DOJ 681 SCRA 181 then requested for copies of all the documents included in the extradition
FACTS: request and for him to be given ample time to assess it.
RULING: The Comelec issued Resolution No. 9266 approving the creation of a joint committee
No. Even the primary power and authority to conduct inquiries is lodged with the PEZA with the Department of Justice (DOJ), which shall conduct preliminary investigation on The Secretary of Justice denied request on the ff. grounds:
Director General and not with the PEZA Board, it does not mean that such inquiry the alleged election offenses and anomalies committed during the 2004 and 2007 1. He found it premature to secure him copies prior to the completion of
made by the PEZA board a denial of due process since nothing prohibits the BOARD to elections. the evaluation. At that point in time, the DOJ is in the process of evaluating
conduct the same. In fact, in administrative proceedings, the requirement of notice whether the procedures and requirements under the relevant law (PD
and hearing does not connote full adversarial or trial type proceedings. Hence, the The Comelec and the DOJ issued Joint Order No. 001-2011 creating and constituting a 1069—Philippine Extradition Law) and treaty (RP-US Extradition Treaty)
absence of formal proceeding does not mean procedural due process were not Joint Committee and Fact-Finding Team on the 2004 and 2007 National Elections have been complied with by the Requesting Government. Evaluation by the
complied with because PCMS was given sufficient opportunity to explain whether is electoral fraud and manipulation cases composed of officials from the DOJ and the DOJ of the documents is not a preliminary investigation like in criminal
really incurred shortage or whethere the materials it imported were properly disposed. Comelec. In its initial report, the Fact-Finding Team concluded that manipulation of the cases making the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the accused in
Board did not arbirtrarily arrived at its decision to cancel the registration of PCMC results in the May 14, 2007 senatorial elections in the provinces of North and South criminal prosecution inapplicable.
since the inventory and audit are precisely the bases upon which the cancellatiion was Cotabato and Maguindanao were indeed perpetrated. The Fact-Finding Team 2. The U.S. requested for the prevention of unauthorized disclosure of the
made. recommended that herein petitioners Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA), et al. to be information in the documents.
subjected to preliminary investigation for electoral sabotage. After the preliminary 3. Finally, country is bound to Vienna convention on law of treaties such
CASE NO. 128 investigation, the COMELEC en banc adopted a resolution ordering that information/s that every treaty in force is binding upon the parties.
Art. III, Sec. 1. Aspects of the proceedings for the crime of electoral sabotage be filed against GMA, et al. while that the charges
Pichay v. Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary 677 SCRA 408 against Jose Miguel Arroyo, among others, should be dismissed for insufficiency of The respondent filed for petition of mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition.
evidence. Consequently, GMA, et al. assail the validity of the creation of COMELEC-DOJ The RTC of NCR ruled in favor of the respondent. Secretary of Justice was
MAINPOINT: Joint Panel and of Joint Order No. 001-2011 before the Supreme Court. made to issue a copy of the requested papers, as well as conducting further
It is settled that in administrative proceedings, a fair and reasonable opportunity to proceedings.
explain one’s side suffices to meet the requirements of due process. ISSUE:
Whether or not Joint Order No. 001-2011 violates the equal protection clause. Issues:
FACTS: 1. WON private is respondent entitled to the two basic due process
President Benigno S. Aquino III issued (E.O. 13), abolishing the Presidential Anti-Graft RULING: rights of notice and hearing.
Commission (PAGC) and transferring its functions to the Investigative and Adjudicatory No. Petitioners claim that the creation of the Joint Committee and Fact-Finding Team is
Division of the Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs (IAD-ODESLA). in violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution because its sole purpose Ruling:
Finance Secretary Cesar V. Purisima later on filed before the IAD-ODESLA a complaint is the investigation and prosecution of certain persons and incidents. They insist that Yes. §2(a) of PD 1086 defines extradition as “the removal of an accused
affidavit for grave misconduct against Prospero A. Pichay, Jr. (Pichay), Chairman of the the Joint Panel was created to target only the Arroyo Administration as well as public from the Philippines with the object of placing him at the disposal of foreign
Board of Trustees of the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) for the purchase officials linked to the Arroyo Administration. While GMA and Mike Arroyo were among authorities to enable the requesting state or government to hold him in
by the LWUA of shares of stock of Express Savings Bank, Inc. In defense, Pichay filed a those subjected to preliminary investigation, not all respondents therein were linked connection with any criminal investigation directed against him in
Motion to Dismiss Ex Abundante Ad Cautelam manifesting that a case involving the to GMA as there were public officers who were investigated upon in connection with connection with any criminal investigation directed against him or the
same transaction is already pending before the Office of the Ombudsman. Alleging their acts in the performance of their official duties. Private individuals were also execution of a penalty imposed on him under the penal or criminal law of
that no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy is available, Pichay has resorted to subjected to the investigation by the Joint Committee. The equal protection guarantee the requesting state or government.” Although the inquisitorial power
the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the constitutionality of E.O. exists to prevent undue favor or privilege. It is intended to eliminate discrimination exercised by the DOJ as an administrative agency due to the failure of the
13. and oppression based on inequality. Recognizing the existence of real differences DFA to comply lacks any judicial discretion, it primarily sets the wheels for
ISSUE: among men, it does not demand absolute equality. It merely requires that all persons the extradition process which may ultimately result in the deprivation of
Whether or not Executive Order No. 13 violates Pichay’s right to due process and the under like circumstances and conditions shall be treated alike both as to privileges the liberty of the prospective extradite. This deprivation can be effected at
equal protection of the laws. conferred and liabilities enforced. two stages: The provisional arrest of the prospective extradite pending the
submission of the request & the temporary arrest of the prospective
RULING: 130. Secretary of Justice v. Lantion 343 SCRA 377 extradite during the pendency of the extradition petition in court. Clearly,
No. Executive Order No. 13 does not violate Pichay’s right to due process and the equal there’s an impending threat to a prospective extraditee’s liberty as early as
protection of the laws. Pichay’s right to due process was not violated when the IAD- Facts: On June 18, 1999 the Department of Justice received from the during the evaluation stage. Because of such consequences, the evaluation
ODESLA took cognizance of the administrative complaint against him. In Department of Foreign Affairs a request for the extradition of private process is akin to an administrative agency conducting an investigative
administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for respondent Mark Jimenez to the U.S. The Grand Jury Indictment, the proceeding, the consequences of which are essentially criminal since such
the person so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum warrant for his arrest, and other supporting documents for said extradition technical assessment sets off or commences the procedure for & ultimately
requirements of due process, which simply means having the opportunity to were attached along with the request. Charges include: the deprivation of liberty of a prospective extradite. In essence, therefore,
explain one’s side. Hence, as long as Pichay was given the opportunity to explain his 1. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the US the evaluation process partakes of the nature of a criminal investigation.
side and present evidence, the requirements of due process are satisfactorily 2. Attempt to evade or defeat tax There are certain constitutional rights that are ordinarily available only in
criminal prosecution. But the Court has ruled in other cases that where the Kapunan, separate concurring opinion: While the evaluation process The RP-Hong Kong Extradition Agreement, as they are worded, serves the
investigation of an administrative proceeding may result in forfeiture of life, conducted by the DOJ is not exactly a preliminary investigation of criminal purpose sought to be achieved by treaty stipulations for provisional arrest.
liberty, or property, the administrative proceedings are deemed criminal or cases, it is akin to a preliminary investigation because it involves the basic The process of preparing a formal request for extradition and its
penal, & such forfeiture partakes the nature of a penalty. In the case at bar, constitutional rights of the person sought to be extradited. A person accompanying documents, and transmitting them through diplomatic
similar to a preliminary investigation, the evaluation stage of the extradition ordered extradited is arrested, forcibly taken from his house, separated channels, is not only time-consuming but also leakage-prone. There is
proceedings which may result in the filing of an information against the from his family and delivered to a foreign state. His rights of abode, to naturally a great likelihood of flight by criminals who get an intimation of
respondent, can possibly lead to his arrest, & to the deprivation of his privacy, liberty and pursuit of happiness are taken away from him—a fate the pending request for their extradition. To solve this problem, speedier
liberty. Thus, the extraditee must be accorded due process rights of notice as harsh and cruel as a conviction of a criminal offense. For this reason, he initial steps in the form of treaty stipulations for provisional arrest were
& hearing according to A3 §14(1) & (2), as well as A3 §7—the right of the is entitled to have access to the evidence against him and the right to formulated. Thus, it is an accepted practice for the requesting state to rush
people to information on matters of public concern & the corollary right to controvert them. its request in the form of a telex or diplomatic cable.
access to official records & documents Respondent’s reliance on Garvida v. Sales, Jr. is misplaced. The proscription
Puno, dissenting: Case at bar does not involve guilt or innocence of an against the admission of a pleading that has been transmitted by facsimile
The court held that the evaluation process partakes of the nature of a accused but the interpretation of an extradition treaty where at stake is our machine has no application in the case at bar for obvious reasons. First, the
criminal investigation, having consequences which will result in deprivation government’s international obligation to surrender to a foreign state a instant case does not involve a pleading; and second, unlike the COMELEC
of liberty of the prospective extradite. A favorable action in an extradition citizen of its own so he can be tried for an alleged offense committed within Rules of Procedure which do not sanction the filing of a pleading by means
request exposes a person to eventual extradition to a foreign country, thus that jurisdiction. of a facsimile machine, P.D. No. 1069 and the RP Hong Kong Extradition
exhibiting the penal aspect of the process. The evaluation process itself is Agreement do not prohibit the transmission of a request for provisional
like a preliminary investigation since both procedures may have the same 131. Cuevas v. Munoz GR 140520 Dec. 18, 2000 arrest by means of a fax machine.
result – the arrest and imprisonment of the respondent.
Facts: The Hong Kong Magistrate’s Court at Eastern Magistracy issued a 132. Gov’t. of U.S.A v. Purganan GR 148571 Sept. 24, 2002
The basic rights of notice & hearing are applicable in criminal, civil & warrant for the arrest of respondent Juan Antonio Muñoz for seven (7)
administrative proceedings. Non-observance of these rights will invalidate counts of accepting an advantage as an agent and seven (7) counts of Facts: The petition at bar seeking to void and set aside the Orders issued by
the proceedings. Individuals are entitled to be notified of any pending case conspiracy to defraud, contrary to the common law of Hong Kong the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 42. The first assailed Order
affecting their interests, & upon notice, may claim the right to appear The Department of Justice received a request for the provisional arrest of set for hearing petitioner’s application for the issuance of a warrant for the
therein & present their side. the respondent from the Mutual Legal Assistance Unit, International Law arrest of Respondent Mark B. Jimenez.
Division of the Hong Kong Department of Justice pursuant to Article 11(1) of
Rights to notice and hearing: Dispensable in 3 cases: the RP-Hong Kong Extradition Agreement. Upon application of the NBI, RTC Pursuant to the existing RP-US Extradition Treaty, the US Government
a. When there is an urgent need for immediate action (preventive of Manila issued an Order granting the application for provisional arrest and requested the extradition of Mark Jimenez. A hearing was held to
suspension in administrative charges, padlocking filthy restaurants, issuing the corresponding Order of Arrest. Consequently, respondent was determine whether a warrant of arrest should be issued. Afterwards, such
cancellation of passport). arrested pursuant to the said order, and is currently detained at the NBI warrant was issued but the trial court allowed Jimenez to post bail for his
b. Where there is tentativeness of administrative action, & the respondent detention cell. provisional liberty.
isn’t prevented from enjoying the right to notice & hearing at a later time Respondent filed with the Court of Appeals, a petition for certiorari, Issue: Whether or not the right to bail is available in extradition
(summary distraint & levy of the property of a delinquent taxpayer, prohibition and mandamus with application for preliminary mandatory proceedings
replacement of an appointee) injunction and/or writ of habeas corpus assailing the validity of the Order of Ruling: The constitutional right to bail “flows from the presumption of
c. Twin rights have been offered, but the right to exercise them had not Arrest. The Court of Appeals rendered a decision declaring the Order of innocence in favor of every accused who should not be subjected to the loss
been claimed. Arrest null and void on the grounds, among others that the request for of freedom as thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal, unless his guilt
provisional arrest and the accompanying warrant of arrest and summary of be proved beyond reasonable doubt.” It follows that the constitutional
2. WON this entitlement constitutes a breach of the legal commitments and facts were unauthenticated and mere facsimile copies which are insufficient provision on bail will not apply to a case like extradition, where the
obligation of the Philippine Government under the RP-US Treaty? to form a basis for the issuance of the Order of Arrest. presumption of innocence is not at issue. No. The court agree with
No. The U.S. and the Philippines share mutual concern about the Thus, petitioner Justice Serafin R. Cuevas, in his capacity as the Secretary of petitioner. As suggested by the use of the word “conviction,” the
suppression and punishment of crime in their respective jurisdictions. Both the Department of Justice, lost no time in filing the instant petition. constitutional provision on bail quoted above, as well as Section 4 of Rule
states accord common due process protection to their respective citizens. Issue: Whether or not the request for provisional arrest of respondent and 114 of the Rules of Court, applies only when a person has been arrested
The administrative investigation doesn’t fall under the three exceptions to its accompanying documents must be authenticated. and detained for violation of Philippine criminal laws. It does not apply to
the due process of notice and hearing in the Sec. 3 Rules 112 of the Rules of Ruling: The request for provisional arrest of respondent and its extradition proceedings, because extradition courts do not render
Court. accompanying documents is valid despite lack of authentication. There is no judgments of conviction or acquittal.
requirement for the authentication of a request for provisional arrest and It is also worth noting that before the US government requested the
3. WON there’s any conflict between private respondent’s basic due its accompanying documents. The enumeration in the provision of RP-Hong extradition of respondent, proceedings had already been conducted in that
process rights & provisions of RP-US Extradition treaty Kong Extradition Agreement does not specify that these documents must country. But because he left the jurisdiction of the requesting state before
No. Doctrine of incorporation under international law, as applied in most be authenticated copies. This may be gleaned from the fact that while those proceedings could be completed, it was hindered from continuing
countries, decrees that rules of international law are given equal standing Article 11(1) does not require the accompanying documents of a request for with the due processes prescribed under its laws. His invocation of due
with, but are not superior to national legislative acts. Treaty can repeal provisional arrest to be authenticated, Article 9 of the same Extradition process now has thus become hollow. He already had that opportunity in
statute and statute can repeal treaty. No conflict. Veil of secrecy is lifted Agreement makes authentication a requisite for admission in evidence of the requesting state; yet, instead of taking it, he ran away.
during trial. Request should impose veil at any stage. any document accompanying a request for surrender or extradition. In
other words, authentication is required for the request for surrender or
Judgment: Petition dismissed for lack of merit. extradition but not for the request for provisional arrest.
136 – MUSA 137 – MUSA 1984-1985 is due to their own fault and not because of their alleged exercise of their
ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE constitutional and human rights. That as regards to Guzman, his academic showing
Angeles v. Sison 112 SCRA 26 Malabanan v. Ramento 129 SCRA 359 was poor due to his activities in leading boycotts of classes. That Guzman “is facing
criminal charges for malicious mischief before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila in
FACTS: FACTS: connection with the destruction of properties of respondent University. The
In November 1975, the petitioner Jose Angeles, a professor of the Institute Petitioners were officers of the Supreme Student Council of respondent University. petitioners have “failures in their records, and are not of good scholastic standing.”
of Technology of the Far Easter University file an administrative case against his two They sought and were granted by the school authorities a permit to hold a meeting
students: Edgardo Picar and Wilfredo Patawaran before the office of Gilberto G. from 8:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M, on August 27, 1982. Pursuant to such permit, along with ISSUE:
Mercado – Dean of the Institute for allegedly assaulting him at the Oak Barrel other students, they held a general assembly at the Veterinary Medicine and Animal Whether or not the petitioners were denied due process.
Restaurant located outside the campus. Dean Mercado, taking action on the complaint Science basketball court (VMAS), the place indicated in such permit, not in the
filed by Angeles, immediately created a committee headed by him to investigate the basketball court as therein stated but at the second floor lobby. At such gathering they RULING:
complaint. The two respondents, Picar and Patawaran questioned the authority of manifested in vehement and vigorous language their opposition to the proposed YES. Immediately apparent from a reading of respondents' comment and
Mercado and his committee to conduct an investigation on the basis of jurisdiction merger of the Institute of Animal Science with the Institute of Agriculture. The same memorandum is the fact that they had never conducted proceedings of any sort to
since the incident happened outside the premises of the university campus. day, they marched toward the Life Science Building and continued their rally. It was determine whether or not petitioners-students had indeed led or participated "in
The respondents filed before the Court of First Instance of Manila a outside the area covered by their permit. Even they rallied beyond the period allowed. activities within the university premises, conducted without prior permit from school
complaint with petition for issuance of writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the They were asked to explain on the same day why they should not be held liable for authorities, that disturbed or disrupted classes therein" or perpetrated acts of
petitioners from proceeding with the administrative investigation for which the judge holding an illegal assembly. Then on September 9, 1982, they were informed that they "vandalism, coercion and intimidation, slander, noise barrage and other acts showing
granted by issuing a decision perpetually enjoining the petitioners from further were under preventive suspension for their failure to explain the holding of an illegal disdain for and defiance of University authority." Also apparent is the omission of
proceeding with the administrative investigation. assembly. The validity thereof was challenged by petitioners both before the Court of respondents to cite this Court to any duly published rule of theirs by which students
First Instance of Rizal against private respondents and before the Ministry of may be expelled or refused re-enrollment for poor scholastic standing.
ISSUE: Education, Culture, and Sports. Respondent Ramento found petitioners guilty of the A school cannot refuse to re-enroll a student it believes guilty of acts inimical to the
Whether or not the school through its duly authorized representative has the charge of illegal assembly which was characterized by the violation of the permit school, without first conducting an investigation.
jurisdiction to investigate its student or students for an alleged misconduct committed granted resulting in the disturbance of classes and oral defamation.
outside the school premises and beyond school hours? The penalty was suspension for one academic year. Hence this petition. The school had violated the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools that “no penalty
shall be imposed upon any student except for cause as defined in the manual and/or in
RULING: ISSUE: the school rules and regulations as duly promulgated and only after due investigation
Yes. A college or any school for that matter, has a dual responsibility to its students. Whether or not the one-year suspension violates their due process. shall have been conducted.
One is to provide opportunities for learning and the other is to help them grow and
develop into mature, responsible, effective and worthy citizens of the community. RULING: There are standards which must be met to satisfy the demands of procedural due
Discipline is one of the means to carry out the second responsibility. The respondent YES. Admittedly, there was a violation of the terms of the permit. The rally was held at process; and these are, that
judge correctly stated that the general rule is that the authority of the school is co- a place other than that specified, in the second floor lobby, rather than the basketball (1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation
extensive with its territorial jurisdiction, or its school grounds, so that any action taken court, of the VMAS building of the University. Moreover, it was continued longer than against them;
for acts committed outside the school premises should, in general, be left to the police the period allowed. According to the decision of respondent Ramento, the "concerted (2) they shag have the right to answer the charges against them, with the assistance of
authorities, the courts of justice, and the family concerned. activity [referring to such assembly] went on until 5:30 p. m. Private respondents could counsel, if desired;
However, this rule is not rigid or one without exceptions. It is the better view that thus, take disciplinary action. Even if, however, there be violations of its terms, the (3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them;
there are instances when the school might be called upon to exercise its power over its penalty incurred should not be disproportionate to the offense. (4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; and
student or students for acts committed outside the school and beyond school hours in A one-year period of suspension is much too severe. While the discretion of both (5) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official
the following: respondent University and respondent Ramento is recognized, the rule of reason, the designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case.
a) In cases of violations of school policies or regulations occurring in connection with dictate of fairness calls for a much lesser penalty. If the concept of proportionality
a school sponsored activity off-campus; or between the offense connoted and the sanction imposed is not followed, an element 139 REYES
b) In cases where the misconduct of the student involves his status as a student or of arbitrariness intrudes. That would give rise to a due process question. To avoid this Academic Discipline; In General
affects the good name or reputation of the school. constitutional objection, it is the holding of this Court that a one-week suspension Alcuaz vs. PSBA 161 SCRA 7
There can be no doubt that the establishment of an educational institution would be punishment enough.
requires rules and regulations necessary for the maintenance of an orderly educational FACTS:
program and the creation of an educational environment conducive to learning. Such 138 – MUSA Respondent Philippine School of Business Administration (PSBA) and petitioner-
rules and regulations are equally necessary for the protection of the students, faculty, ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE students had already agreed on certain matters which would govern their activities
and property. The power of school officials to investigate, an adjunct of its power to Guzman v. NU 142 SCRA 699 within the school. The PSBA provided that it will not allow the students to directly
suspend or expel, is a necessary corollary to the enforcement of such rules and FACTS: participate in the policy-making body of the school, as this is provided by law, but its
regulations and the maintenance of a safe and orderly educational environment Petitioners Diosdado Guzman, Ulysses Urbiztondo and Ariel Ramacula, students of administration will be open to suggestions and questions. Petitioner-students
conducive to learning. Hence, when as the case at bar, the conduct complained of respondent National University, have come to this Court to seek relief from what they demanded the negotiation of a new agreement, which demand was turned down by
directly affects the suitability of the alleged violators as students, there is no reason describe as their school's "continued and persistent refusal to allow them to enrol." In the school, resulting in mass assemblies and barricades of school entrances. During the
why the school cannot impose the same disciplinary action as when the act took their petition "for extraordinary legal and equitable remedies with prayer for regular enrollment period, petitioners and other students similarly situated were
place inside the campus. preliminary mandatory injunction" dated August 7, 1984, they alleged that they were allegedly blacklisted and denied admission for the second semester. The President of
denied due process due to the fact that they were active participants in peaceful mass the Student Council filed a complaint with the Director of the MECS against the PSBA
actions within the premises of the University. The respondents on the other hand for barring the enrollment of the Student Council Officers and student leaders. Despite
claimed that the petitioners’ failure to enrol for the first semester of the school year demands regarding their enrollment, no relief appeared to be forthcoming.
 CASE NO. 142
ISSUE: MAIN POINT: UP VS LIGOT-TELAN
Whether there was deprivation of due process of the law. The imposition of disciplinary sanctions requires observance of procedural due
process: that (1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of FACTS: THE UP Board of Regents supend Nadal for one year, non-issuance of any
RULING: any accusation against them; (2) they shall have the right to answer the charges certificate of good moral character during the suspension and/or as long as Nadal has
No. Due process in disciplinary cases involving students does not entail proceedings against them, with the assistance of counsel, if desired; (3) they shall be informed of not reimbursed the STFAP benefits he had received. The disciplinary action is meted
and hearings similar to those prescribed for actions and proceedings in courts of the evidence against them; (4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their after a guilty verdict on Nadal’s alleged willful withholding of the information in his
justice. Such proceedings may be summary and cross-examination is not even an own behalf; and (5) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating application for scholarship tantamount to acts of dishonesty, Nadal complained that he
essential part thereof. A student once admitted by school is considered enrolled for committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case. was not afforded due process when, after the Board Meeting on his case on March 28,
one semester. Thus, after the close of the first semester, the PSBA no longer has any Moreover, the penalty imposed must be proportionate to the offense committed. 1993 that resulted in a decision of “NOT GUILTY” in his favor, the Chairman of the UP
existing contract either with the students or with the intervening-teachers. The charge Board of Regents, without notice to the petitioner, called another meeting the
of denial of due process is untenable. The contract being terminated, there is no more 141 REYES following day to deliberate on the Chairman’s Motion for Reconsideration, which this
a contract to speak of. The school cannot be compelled to enter into another contract Academic Discipline; In General time resulted in a decision of “GUILTY.” Upon petition, Nadal was granted his action for
with said students and teachers. ADMU vs. Capulong 222 SCRA 644 mandamus with preliminary injunction.
ISSUE: WON Nadal was denied due process.
MAIN POINT: FACTS: HELD: No. It is gross error to equate due process in the instant case with the sending of
No denial of due process where all requirements of administrative due process were Lennie Villa, a first year student of the Ateneo Law School, died of physical injuries as a notice of the March 29, 1993 BOR meeting. University rules do not require the
met by the school and the student given the opportunity to be heard. result of the initiation rites of the Aquila Legis. Dean Cynthia del Castillo created a Joint attendance in BOR meetings of individuals whose cases are included as items on the
Administration-Faculty-Student Investigating Committee to investigate the agenda of the Board.
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE SARMIENTO: circumstances surrounding the death of Villa which required the respondent-students MAINPOINT:
Education is a concern impressed with a public interest. While there is an existing to submit written statements within two days from receipt. Although the said students Unlike in criminal cases which require proof beyond reasonable doubt as basis for a
contractual relation between school and students, the agreement should not be the received a copy of the notice, they failed to file a reply which prompted ADMU to hold judgment, in administrative or quasi-judiciall proceedings, only substantial evidence is
final basis settling school-student disputes. It is important to determine, at the same them in preventive suspension. The Joint Committee found the students to have required, that which means a reasonable mind might accept a relevant evidence as
time, whether the school itself, in meting out expulsion against its students, had acted violated the prohibition against any hazing activities. The students were dismissed. adequate to support a conclusion.
within the permissible limits implied in the Constitution. In any event, the contract
should yield to the Constitution. ISSUE:
Whether there was denial of due process. CASE NO. 143
GO VS LETRAN
140 REYES RULING:
Academic Discipline; In General No. The minimum standards to be observed by schools before imposing disciplinary FACTS:
Non vs. Judge Dames 185 SCRA 523 sanctions are: (1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of FRATERNITY CASE
FACTS: any accusation against them; (2) that they shall have the right to answer the charges
Petitioners, students in private respondent Mabini College were not allowed to re- against them with the assistance of counsel, if desired; (3) they shall be informed of
Jurisprudence has clarified that administrative due process cannot be fully equated
enroll by the school for the academic year 1988-1989 for leading or participating in the evidence against them; (4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their
with due process in the strict judicial sense. The very nature of due process negates
student mass actions against the school in the preceding semester. The trial court own behalf; and (5) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating
any concept of inflexible procedures universally applicable to every imaginable
dismissed the petition referring to the ruling in Alcuaz vs. PSBA stating, that being a committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case.
situation.61 Thus, we are hard pressed to believe that Kim’s denial of his fraternity
mere privilege and not a legal right for a student to be enrolled or re-enrolled,
membership before formal notice was given worked against his interest in the
respondent Mabini College is free to admit or not admit the petitioners for re- In the case at bar, ADMU complied with the minimum standards required in expelling
disciplinary case. What matters for due process purpose is notice of what is to be
enrollment in view of the academic freedom enjoyed by the school. respondent-students from that school. The Dean of the Ateneo Law School notified
explained, not the form in which the notice is given.
and required respondent-students to submit their written statement on the incident.
ISSUE: Instead of filing a reply, respondent students requested through their counsel, copies
Whether there was deprivation of due process of the law. of the charges. The nature and cause of the accusation were adequately spelled out in The raison d’etre of the written notice rule is to inform the student of the disciplinary
petitioners' notices. Present is the twin elements of notice and hearing. charge against him and to enable him to suitably prepare a defense. The records show
RULING: that as early as November 23, 2001, it was already made plain to the petitioners that
Yes. In Alcuaz, the Court anchored its decision on the “termination of contract” theory. MAIN POINT: the subject matter of the case against Kim was his alleged fraternity membership.
But it must be repeatedly emphasized that the contract between the school and the The argument that since they were not accorded the opportunity to see and examine Thus, by the time Mr. Rosarda spoke to Kim and asked for his written explanation in
student is not an ordinary contract. It is imbued with public interest, considering the the written statements which became the basis of petitioners’ order and that they December 2001, Kim has had enough time to prepare his response to this plain charge.
high priority given by the Constitution to education and the grant to the State of were denied procedural due process may not be considered because disciplinary cases We also note that the information in the notice the respondents subsequently sent is
supervisory and regulatory powers over all educational institutions. A school cannot involving students need not necessarily include the right to cross examination. no different from the information that they had earlier conveyed, albeit orally, to the
refuse to enroll a student on the simple ground that his contract expires every end of a Administrative proceedings made by a school against students charged with fatal petitioners: the simple unadorned statement that Kim stood accused of fraternity
semester. hazing need not be similar to a judicial proceeding. membership. Given these circumstances, we are not convinced that Kim’s right to
explain his side as exercised in his written denial had been violated or diminished.
In the case at bar, excluding students because of failing grades when the cause for the
action taken against them undeniably related to possible breaches of discipline not MAINPONT: The essence of due process, it bears repeating, is simply the opportunity
only is a denial of due process but also constitutes a violation of the basic tenets of fair to be heard.
play.
 CASE NO. 144 respondent to leave the country then just re-apply again ridiculous when there is no Later, on February 2, 1984, the respondent Commission issued a notice of hearing,
LAO GI VS CA legal impediment for the respondent to continue his stay in the country. setting private respondent PLDT’s application for hearing on February 22, 1984 at 9:30
o’clock in the morning (Rollo, p. 37). In the aforementioned notice of hearing, herein
petitioners except Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation were not included
146. SALINAS- Philcomsat v. Alcuaz 180 SCRA 218 in the list of affected parties (Rollo, p. 38). At the hearing, petitioner PT & T Co., along
145. SALINAS- Domingo v Scheer, 421 SCRA 468 with other petitioners which came to know of the pending petition through the
Fact: The petition seeks to annul and set aside an Order 1 issued by respondent former, appeared and moved for some time within which to file an opposition or reply
Facts: Respondent Scheer is a native of Germany, who was eventually granted a Commissioner Jose Luis Alcuaz of the NTC which directs the provisional reduction of to said application. Petitioners alleged that neither respondent Commission nor private
permanent resident status in the Philippines. He eventually married here and started a the rates which may be charged by petitioner for certain specified lines of its services respondent PLDT informed them of the existence of this provisional authority (Rollo, p.
family as well as a business in Palawan. Vice Consul Hippelein informed the Philippine by fifteen percent (15%) with the reservation to make further reductions later, for 10). Hence, this petition.
Ambassador to Germany that the respondent had police records and financial liabilities being violative of the constitutional prohibition against undue delegation of legislative
in Germany. The DFA receive from the German Embassy in Manila that the respondent power and a denial of procedural, as well as substantive, due process of law. Petitioner Issue: Whether the PSC has the power to approved provisionally rates of utilities
is wanted in Germany, and requested to turn over his German passport to the was exempt from the jurisdiction of the then Public Service Commission, now without prior hearing.
Embassy. Thereafter BOC issued a Summary Deportation Order dated September 27, respondent NTC. However, pursuant to Executive Order No. 196 placed under the
1997. It was stated that the deportation shall be held in abeyance pending jurisdiction, control and regulation of respondent NTC, including all its facilities and Ruling: Well-settled is the rule that the Public Service Commission now is
respondent’s case and he shall remain in the custody of the bureau. In issuing this the services and the fixing of rates. Implementing said Executive Order No. 196, empowered to approve provisionally rates of utilities without the necessity of a prior
BOC relied on the statements of the German Vice Consul on the speculation that it is respondents required petitioner to apply for the requisite certificate of public hearing (Republic v. Medina, 41 SCRA 643 [1971]). Under the Public Service Act, as
improbable that the respondent will be issued a new passport, the warrant of arrest convenience and necessity covering its facilities and the services it renders, as well as amended (CA No. 146), the Board of Communications then, now the NTC, can fix a
for insurance fraud and alleged illegal activities in Palawan. Respondent nevertheless the corresponding authority to charge rates therefor. petitioner filed with respondent provisional amount for the subscriber’s investment to be effective immediately,
stayed in the Philippines after airing his side to then BID Commissioner Verceles, the NTC an application for authority to continue operating and maintaining the same without hearing (par. 3 of Sec. 16, CA 146, as amended; Philippine Consumers
latter giving him time to apply for a clearance and a new passport. Scheer eventually facilities it has been continuously operating and maintaining since 1967, to continue Foundation, Inc. v. NTC, 131 SCRA 260 [1984]). Further, the Public Service Act makes
filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration stating that his right to due process was providing the international satellite communications services it has likewise been no distinction between initial or revised rates. These rates are necessarily proposed
violated, for there was no notice or chance to be heard before the issuance of the providing since 1967, and to charge the current rates applied for in rendering such merely, until the Commission approves them (Republic v. Medina, supra). Moreover,
deportation order. Eventually the criminal case for physical injuries against the services. Pending hearing, it also applied for a provisional authority so that it can the Commission can hear and approve revised rates without published notices or
respondent was dismissed, and he was issued a passport. He informed Commissioner continue to operate and maintain the above mentioned facilities, provide the services hearing. The reason is easily discerned from the fact that provisional rates are by their
Verceles about this matter and reiterated the cancellation of the order, but the and charge therefor the aforesaid rates therein applied for. petitioner was granted a nature temporary and subject to adjustment in conformity with the definitive rates
Commissioner did not respond. Thereafter Commissioner Domingo assumed office and provisional authority which was valid for six (6) months which was extended 3 times, approved after final hearing (Republic v. Medina, supra; Cordero v. Energy Regulatory
on June 6, 2002, she ordered the apprehension of the respondent who was held in but the last extension directed the petitioner to charge modified reduced rates Board, G.R. No. 83931, November 3, 1988, En Banc, Minute Resolution) and it was so
custody awaiting deportation. Shocked, respondent sought remedy with the CA, during through a reduction of fifteen percent (15%) on the present authorized rates. Hence stated in the case at bar, in the National Telecommunications Commission’s order of
the hearing of which the Solicitor General suggested that the respondent leave the this petition. January 25, 1984. Radio Communications of the Philippines vs. National
country first then just re-apply. A decision was reached in favor of Scheer, permanently Telecommunications Commission, 184 SCRA 517, G.R. No. 66683 April 23, 1990
enjoining Domingo from continuing the deportation, thus this petition. Issue: whether the Respondent violates procedural due process for having been issued
without prior notice and hearing in exercising its power to fix the rate of the 148. SALVADOR
Issue: Whether or not respondent’s arrest and detention was premature, unwarranted Petitioner? Regulations: Fixing of Rates and Regulation of Profession
and arbitrary. Maceda v. ERB
Ruling: Yes, the respondent violated the procedural due process. if the authorities that
Ruling: Yes. The Court ruled that BOC committed grave abuse of discretion in causing where the function of the administrative body is legislative, notice of hearing is not Facts: ERB issued an order granting provisional increase per liter as to the request of oil
the arrest and detention of the respondent. Aliens may be deported from the required by due process of law, Aside from statute, the necessity of notice and hearing companies. Maceda filed a petition for Prohibition seeking to nullify the provisional
Philippines only on grounds and in the proper manner provided by the Constitution. in an administrative proceeding depends on the character of the proceeding and the increase. Maceda also claim that the provisional increase involved amounts over and
The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights grants every person rights, and that circumstances involved. In so far as generalization is possible in view of the great above that sought by petitioning oil companies.
no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. BOC ordered variety of administrative proceedings, it may be stated as a general rule that notice
respondent’s deportation without even conducting summary deportation proceedings, and hearing are not essential to the validity of administrative action where the Issue: Whether ERB can increase the price of oil prices
but merely relied on the speculation of the German Embassy and the Vice Consul that administrative body acts in the exercise of executive, administrative, or legislative
it is improbable that the respondent will be issued a new passport, warranting the functions; but where a public administrative body acts in a judicial or quasi-judicial Ruling: YES. The court ruled in matters of rate or price fixing, it is considered as
deportation. The respondent was not afforded any hearing at all, and not given the matter, and its acts are particular and immediate rather than general and prospective, exercising a quasi-legislative, not quasi-judicial, function. As such administrative
opportunity to put up a defense for himself, thus violating his right to due process. A the person whose rights or property may be affected by the action is entitled to notice agency, it is not bound by the strict or technical rules of evidence governing court
deportation proceeding may not be a criminal action, but since it affects the liberty of and hearing. proceedings.
a person, the right to due process of a respondent must be respected. Even six years
after the motion for reconsideration of the respondent which was still not attended to, 147. SALINAS-Radiocom v. NTC Main point: Its decisions should be appealed to the President under he established
out of nowhere and arbitrarily the agents were ordered to arrest him. Even after being principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies, especially on a matter
issued a new passport and even securing clearances from the PNP and NPA, the BOC FACTS: On January 4, 1984, private respondent PLDT filed an application with transcendental as oil price increases which affect the lives of almost all Filipinos.
still proceeded with the deportation. BOC is required to resolve the motion of the respondent Commission for the Approval of Rates for Digital Transmission Service
respondent first, giving him the chance to be heard and present his evidence. The Facilities under NTC Case No. 84-003. On January 25, 1984, the respondent
petitioner put up the defense that they cannot review cases decided before the change Commission provisionally approved and set the case for hearing within the prescribed
of members, but since it is the same government entity, they have the authority to 30-day period allowed by law.
review past cases. In addition, the court finds the contention of the OSG for the
 149. SALVADOR CASE NO. 151 - Tan Main Point:
Regulations: Fixing of Rates and Regulation of Profession; Rates Article III, Sec. 1: Dismissals; Suspensions; Reinstatements: Dismissals in Government The right to be heard is available to citizen and alien alike, from the humblest to the
Globe Telecom v. NTC Boards and Commissions most exalted, and covers with its protection the offer of arguments and evidence, from
Abalos vs. CSC the profound to the absurd, in defense of one’s life, liberty and property.
Facts: NTC issued Order which held that since SMS falls squarely within the definition Facts:
of VAS the implementation of SMS interconnection is mandatory. NTC also declared Francisco Abalos, Provincial Governor of Lanao del Norte, filed a malversation case CASE NO. 153 - Tan
that both Smart and Globe have been providing SMS without authority from it, in against his predecessor for using government-owned bulldozers for his personal use. 2 Article III, Sec. 1: Dismissals; Suspensions; Reinstatements: Dismissals in Government
violation of its rules. Globe invokes deregulation in support of its claim that it need not of the witness were Villabona and Yap. They signed a Sworn Affidavit but were later Boards and Commissions
secure prior authority from NTC in order to operate SMS. disowned because accordingly it was spurious. Abalos then gave them a memo Macayayong vs. Ople
ordering to explain why no disciplinary actions should be imposed within 72 hours, in Facts:
Issue: Whether the Order made by the NTC is binding the meantime, they are suspended until investigation is over. Simultaneously, Atty. David Macayayong was a legal officer of Bureau of Labor Standards under DOLE.
dishonesty and intentionally making false statements in material facts had been filed He was ordered on multiple occasions to report to back to his home office and if he
Ruling: NO. The court ruled that before the NTC could penalize Globe and Smart for against they were terminated as equipment operators. The 2 petitioners argued that would not return, there would be disciplinary actions. The DOLE secretary notified him
unauthorized provision of SMS, it must first establish that SMS is VAS (Value Added initial affidavit was forced upon them in the moment when they had no legal counsel multiple times, but he failed to respond, and he was then terminated for abandonment
Service). Since there was no express rule or regulation on that question, Globe and present. of office. Macayayong cited that the termination was invalid because he was not given
Smart would be well within reason if they submitted evidence to establish that SMS the chance to be heard and his right to due process was violated.
was not VAS. More pertinently to the case at bar, the qualification highlights the fact Issue:
that the legal rationale for regulation of VAS is not strictly a public a service offering in Whether due process was violated? Issue:
the way that voice-to-voice lines are, but merely supplementary to basic services. Whether the DOLE secretary violated due process?
Ruling:
Main point: Every party subject to administrative regulation deserves an opportunity Yes. The 2 employees were simultaneously given notice and disciplinary actions. Ruling:
to know, through reasonable regulations promulgated by the agency, of the objective Before any disciplinary actions should be enacted, they should be given a chance to be No. The records show that before petitioner was dropped from the roster of the
standards that have to be met. Such rule provides indubitable opportunities to weed heard. The right to be heard is one of the brightest hallmarks of the free society. We Department of Labor, he was notified twice by his home office to report back to work.
out the most frivolous conflicts with minimum hassle, and certain footing in deciding should be proud that in this jurisdiction every person who may be involved in No violation of due process is committed even where no hearing was conducted but
more substantive claims. controversy is entitled to present his side, no less than his adversary, at a hearing duly the parties were given the chance to explain their side.
called for that purpose.
150. SALVADOR Main Point:
Regulations: Fixing of Rates and Regulation of Profession; Profession Main Point: There is no denial of due process where petitioner was afforded an opportunity to
Corona v. UHPAP The right to be heard is available to citizen and alien alike, from the humblest to the present his case but he failed to act upon it.
most exalted, and covers with its protection the offer of arguments and evidence, from
Facts: PPA promulgated an order which embodied the rules and regulation governing the profound to the absurd, in defense of one’s life, liberty and property. FELIX UY,vs.COMMISSION ON AUDIT – BAIRD
pilotage services. These rules mandates that aspiring pilots must be holders of pilot FACTS ; Petitioners were among the more than sixty permanent employees of the
licenses. Respondents reiterated their request for the suspension of the CASE NO. 152 - Tan Provincial Engineering Office, Province of Agusan del Sur, who were dismissed from the
implementation of the administrative order. Corona dismissed the petition and Article III, Sec. 1: Dismissals; Suspensions; Reinstatements: Dismissals in Government service by then Governor Ceferino S. Paredes, Jr. when the latter assumed office,
concluded that such administrative order was not the act of Dayan, but of PPA; thus he Boards and Commissions allegedly to scale down the operations of the said office.t appears that during the
also concluded that the law has been sufficiently complied with by the PPA in issuing GSIS vs. CSC pendency of the petition for reinstatement, Governor Paredes issued a Memorandum
the assailed administrative order. Facts: providing for the hiring of casual employees to replace the dismissed employees,
Evelyn Kintanar was a Control Clerk working under the GSIS Cebu Branch. Her main allegedly due to exigency of service.The law applicable in the case at bar, which is
Issue: Whether pilotage as a profession has taken on the nature of a property right. function is to receive cheques requested by GSIS members and mail a request letter if hereby quoted as follows are Section 29 of E.O. 292 and Section 14 of the Rules on
the loan is ready for receiving. 2 teachers filed a complaint citing they never received Personnel Actions and Policies, thus:Whenever it becomes necessary for lack of work
Ruling: YES. The court ruled that the administrative order does not constitute a any cheques even though the logbook cited they actually received the loans. Branch or funds wherein the reduction is to be effected, shall be reasonably compared in
wrongful interference with, let alone a wrongful deprivation of, the property rights of Manager then filed an investigation without citing Kintanar as a possible person of terms of relative fitness, efficiency and length of service, and those found to be least
those affected thereby. There is no dispute that pilotage as a profession has taken on fault. After investigation, the manager found Kintanar to be guilty of misconduct and qualified for the remaining position shall be laid off. Sec. 14. The names of permanent
the nature of a property right. Thus, the exercise of one's profession falls within the terminated her without giver her a chance to be heard. employees laid off shall be entered in a reemployment list for the appropriate
constitutional guarantee against wrongful deprivation of, or interference with, occupation. Pursuant to a Motion for Clarification filed by petitioners, the MSPB issued
property rights without due process. Issue: an Order dated April 19, 1993 which directed the Provincial Government of Agusan del
Whether the branch manager violated due process? Sur pay petitionerstheir back salaries and other money benefits for the period that
Main point: In the performance of its executive or legislative functions, such as issuing they had been out of the service until their reinstatement. In the meantime, the
rules and regulations, an administrative body need not comply with the requirements Ruling: Provincial Treasurer of Agusan del Sur made a partial payment to the reinstated
or notice and hearing. Yes. Although an employee can be terminated in cases of malfeasance without a employees.on July 9, 1994, the Provincial Administrator, for and in behalf of Governor
formal investigation, he must first be given the chance to know the charges against Plaza, wrote a letter to respondent COA through the Provincial auditor. As a result, the
PILOTAGE - act of conducting a vessel from the high seas into a port. It is conducted him and he must be given the chance to present his side. Sec. 40 of the Civil Service Provincial Government of Agusan del Sur, through its Acting Provincial Treasurer,
within a two-mile area offshore to an assigned berthing area and vice versa. Decree only states the necessity of formal investigations. It does not mention any refused to release petitioners' remaining back salaries and other monetary benefits.
deprivation of right to due process. ISSUE ; Governor Paredes's right to due process was violated
RULING ; Yes, In the case at bar, former Governor Paredes was never made a party to
nor served a notice of the proceedings before the COA. While administrative agencies
exercising quasi-judicial powers are not hide bound by technical procedures, requirements of due process, petitioner should be given a last full opportunity to prove
nonetheless, they are not free to disregard the basic demands of due process. Notice his contention that the termination of his service was illegal. 160
to enable the other party to be heard and to present evidence is not a mere MAINPOINT ; Under these circumstances, it is believed that, in equity, and proper Dismissals in government boards and commissions
technicality or a trivial matter in any administrative proceedings but an indispensable compliance with the requirements of due process, petitioner should be given a last full PAGCOR v. CA, GR 185668
ingredient of due process. It would be unfair for COA to hold former Governor Paredes opportunity to prove his contention that the termination of his service was illegal.
personally liable for the claims of petitioners amounting to millions of pesos without FACTS: Respondent Mia Manahan was a Treasury Officer of petitioner PAGCOR. She
giving him an opportunity to be heard and present evidence in his defense. Our rulings was charge of serious procedural deviation/gross negligence, arising from the
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION vs.AGUSTIN A. ZOZOBRADO - BAIRD
holding that public officials are personally liable for damages arising from illegal acts anomalous fund transfer transaction in the amount of [₱]4.2 million, consummated at
done in bad faith are premised on said officials having been sued both in their official the VIP Booth last April 14, 2004 wherein you were on the 6-2PM duty and was put in a
and personal capacities FACTS ; On 28 August 1998, respondent Agustin A. Zozobrado, a permanent employee preventive suspension. Later on, she received a letter:
MAINPOINT ; Notice to enable the other party to be heard and to present evidence is of petitioner National Power Corporation assigned as Pilot in the aviation group, Please be informed that the Board of Directors in its meeting on June 1,
not a mere technicality or a trivial matter in any administrative proceedings but an received a letter dated 18 August 1998 from NPC President Frederico C. Puno, 2004, resolved to dismiss you from the service effective April 16, 2004 due to the
indispensable ingredient of due process. informing him that that he was being dropped from the rolls. Respondent Zozobrado following offense:
filed an appeal before the CSC questioning NPC’s implementation of dropping him "Gross neglect of duty; Violations of company rules and regulations; Conduct
PEDRO C. LAMEYRA vs.MAYOR GEORGE S. PANGILINAN- BAIRD from the rolls. The CSC issued a Resolution dismissing petitioner’s appeal dismissed for prejudicial to the best interests of the corporation; and Loss of trust and confidence;
lack of merit. Respondent Zozobrado filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the said Failure to comply with Treasury rules and regulations which resulted in payment of a
FACTS ; Pedro C. Lameyra was a janitor/messenger in the Municipal Hall of Famy, Resolution, which the CSC denied in another Resolution.On 22 March 2000, spurious Fund Transfer amounting to [₱]4.2 million last April 14, 2004."
Laguna. He was given a permanent appointment on January 1, 1989 to the same respondent filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Review on Certiorari, The Manahan filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the PAGCOR BOD's decision
position by then Municipal Mayor Melquiadez Acomular who was defeated in the last Court of Appeals granted the appeal in the assailed The Court of Appeals, in finding to dismiss her from the service, giving the following grounds in support thereof that
election for the mayoralty post by respondent Mayor George S. Pangilinan. On August that the respondent’s separation "was made with utter lack of due process," she was deprived of her constitutional right to due process of law when the PAGCOR
21, 1995, petitioner Lameyra received a letter from respondent Mayor Pangilinan held:Dropping from the rolls means separation from the service. Such separation is BOD outrightly dismissed her from service without informing her of the formal charges
informing him that he is dropped from the roll of employees of the local government made summarily, without any case, investigation or due process. Thus, before the and apprising her of the documentary evidence against her;
unit of Famy, Laguna pursuant to the Memorandum Circular No. 12, Series of 1994 of dropping from the rolls, it is imperative that the following requisites should be ISSUE:
the Civil Service Commission due to Insubordination and AWOL. Undisputedly, complied with, the employee concerned should be informed of his unsatisfactory Whether her constitutional right to due process of law was violated.
Lameyra was absent for the period from July 6, 1995 to August 6, 1995 and that he has performance for a semester;such notice shall be in writing; the same must be made RULING:
not submitted any proof that he actually filed an application for leave. Petitioner filed a within thirty (30) days from the end of the semester when the first unsatisfactory Yes, the petitioner failed to substantially comply with the requisite formal
notice of appeal with the Civil Service Commission alleging that he was a permanent rating was given; the notice should contain a warning that a succeeding unsatisfactory charge, as well as with the other requirements under CSC Resolution No. 99-1936
employee and that he was terminated without prior written notice of the charges and performance shall warrant his separation from the service; and the notice shall contain concerning the procedure for the conduct of an administrative investigation. What
without investigation and hearing, in violation of his security of tenure and due sufficient information to enable the employee to prepare an explanation.Petitioner PAGCOR claims to be the formal charge it issued in compliance with the CSC rules was
process. He claims that he was not given due process before Mayor Pangilinan filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied in the 12 April 2002 the memorandum addressed to Manahan under the subject "Preventive Suspension,"
terminated his employment, and that the Civil Service Commission erred in refusing to assailed resolution. MAIN POINT:
consider the new evidence submitted with petitioner's motion for reconsideration. While a liberal construction of administrative rules of procedure is allowed
Respondent Mayor pointed out that clearly the basis for the petitioner's separation is ISSUE ; Whether The dropping of respondent from the rolls is a violation of procedural and applied in some cases, this is resorted to when it can promote their objective and
not abandonment but absence without official leave, and that the affidavits which he due process aid the parties in reaching a just, speedy and inexpensive determination of their
submitted before the Civil Service Commission cannot be considered "newly respective claims and defenses. Without proper investigation and, thereafter, a
discovered evidence" as they were all along readily available to him. petitioner decision that clearly indicated the facts constituting the offense imputed upon the
contests the finding that he was absent at all. He claims that he reported for work but RULING; Yes, As the Supreme Court constantly rules, it is bad enough to lose a job; it is respondent and the company rules she supposedly violated, the respondent did not
was prevented from signing the log book by the very officer, Benito Vicencio, who worse if it is taken away by government itself without due process of law. Our get the chance to sufficiently defend herself; and more importantly, the petitioner, the
certified that he did not report for work on the dates in question. He alleges in his Constitution abhors such arbitrariness. Petitioner claims that, contrary to the findings CSC and the courts could not have had the chance to reasonably ascertain the truth
reply, that he was not furnished a copy of Mayor Pangilinan's comment, and was able of the Court of Appeals, its compliance with Memorandum Circular No. 12 is full and which the CSC rules aim to accomplish.
to secure a copy only after receiving a copy of the Resolution of the Civil Service not merely substantial. However, the evidence submitted by petitioner to prove this
Commission upholding the termination of his service. allegation, namely the affidavit of Gen. Lagera, only confirms the findings of the Court 161
ISSUE ; Whether Lameyra was denied of due process of Appeals that if there really was a notice to respondent, it had been oral. This is in DISMISSALS IN PRIVATE SECTOR
RULING ; Yes, While it is settled doctrine findings of fact of an administrative agency clear contravention of the requirement in Memorandum Circular No. 12. As held by HELLINIC V. SIETE
must be respected and this Court should not be tasked to weight once more the the Court of Appeals, dropping from the rolls is made summarily, making it imperative FACTS: Siete was employed as Master of M/V Houda G by Sultan Shipping. Co.Capt.
evidence submitted before the administrative body, it is axiomatic that such findings of to strictly observe the circular to prevent its being used for harassment or Lim boarded the vessel and advised Siete that he had instructions from the owners to
facts should be supported by substantial evidence. Although no prior notice is required vindictiveness.1avvpNot even one of the requisites mentioned by the Court of Appeals take over its command. These instructions were confirmed by a telex sent by Sultan
to drop from the rolls an employee who has been continuously absent without had been complied with. It is an uncontested fact that respondent was never notified Shipping to Siete. Neither Lim nor the telex indicated the reason for his relief.
approved leave for at least thirty calendar days.We are not convinced that the in writing of his Unsatisfactory rating within 30 days from the end of the semester Siete filed a complaint against the petitioner for illegal dismissal and non-
certification of the personnel officer that petitioner did not convinced that the when the Unsatisfactory rating was given. payment of his salary and other benefits under their employment contract. After
certification of the personnel officer that petitioner did not report for work from July 6, considering the position papers and documentary evidence of the parties,
1995 to August 6, 1995 constitutes such substantial evidence in light of the petitioner's MAINPOINT ; One’s employment, profession, trade or calling is a property right, the Administrator Achacoso of the POEA dismissed the complaint, holding that there was
submission that said personnel officer precisely prevented him from signing the log wrongful interference therewith is an actionable wrong.Taking this away without due valid cause for Siete's removal.
book , that he has been asked to submit his resignation which he refused to do. Under process is a violation of a constitutional human right, and the consolation of not being ISSUE: Whether the POEA was right in dismissing the case
these circumstances, it is believed that, in equity, and proper compliance with the disqualified for later employment does not erase nor mitigate such infraction. RULING: No, section 1 of the labor code provides: No worker shall be dismissed except
for a just or authorized cause provided by law and after due process. The law requires
that the investigation be conducted before the dismissal, not after. That omission Issue: Whether petitioners were denied due process as based by their contentions Facts: Petitioner Lopez was hired by respondent Alturas Group of Companies as truck
cannot be corrected by the investigation later conducted by the POEA. driver. He was dismissed after he was allegedly caught by respondent’s security guard
MAIN POINT: No worker shall be dismissed except for a just or authorized cause Ruling: As to the requirement of notice, it has been held that the employer must in the act of attempting to smuggle out of the company premises 60 kilos of scrap iron
provided by law and after due process. furnish the worker with two written notices before termination of employment can be aboard respondents’ Cargo Van that was then assigned to him. When questioned,
legally effected: a) notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or petitioner allegedly admitted to the security guard that he was taking out the scrap
162 omissions for which his dismissal is sought and b) subsequent notice which informs the iron. Petitioner, in compliance with the Show Cause Notice issued by respondent
DISMISSALS IN PRIVATE SECTOR employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss him. With regard to the requirement company, denied the allegations by a handwritten explanation written in the Visayan
SALAW VS NLRC of a hearing, the Court has held that the essence of due process is simply an dialect. Finding petitioner’s explanation unsatisfactory, respondent company
FACTS: Salaw, was employed by the private respondents in September 1967 as a credit opportunity to be heard, and not that an actual hearing should always and terminated his employment by Notice of Termination on the grounds of loss of trust
investigator-appraiser. The Criminal Investigation Service (CIS) of the Philippine indispensably be held. and confidence, and of violation of company rules and regulations. In issuing the
Constabulary, National Capital Region, extracted from the petitioner without the Notice, respondent company also took into account the result of an investigation
assistance of counsel a Sworn Statement which made it appear that the petitioner, in Case No. 165 – Cruz showing that petitioner had been smuggling out its cartons which he had sold for his
cahoots with a co-employee, Reynaldo Madrigal, a supervisor in charge of the acquired Dismissals, Suspension, Reinstatement; dismissal in private sector own benefit
assets of respondent Associated Bank, sold and divided the proceeds thereof in equal Aparente v. NLRC, GR 117652
shares of P30,000.00 between the two of them. Issue: Whether petitioner’s right to due process was violated in the case at bar
He was requested to be investigated without counsel or representative and Main Point: In labor cases, the filing of position papers and supporting documents fulfil
it was emphasized. Then the petitioner was terminated from his employment the requirements of due process. Ruling: As to substantive due process, the Court finds that respondent company’s loss
ISSUE: Whether the dismissal of the petitioner by the private respondents was legally Facts: Petitioner was an advertising foreman for Coca-Cola. One day, petitioner of trust and confidence arising from petitioner’s smuggling out of the scrap iron,
justified. sideswiped a victim while driving respondent’s advertising truck. The victim suffered a compounded by his past acts of unauthorized selling cartons belonging to respondent
RULING: No, Under the Labor Codethe requirements for the lawful dismissal of an skull fracture and underwent surgical operation. She stayed in the hospital for about a company, constituted just cause for terminating his services.
employee by his employer are two-fold: the substantive and the procedural. Not only month. Five days after, petitioner reported the incident to private respondent. Thus,
must the dismissal be for a valid or authorized cause as provided by law but the private respondent conducted an investigation of the incident where the petitioner As to procedural due process, Court has held that there is no violation of due process
rudimentary requirements of due process notice and hearing must also be observed was given the opportunity to explain his side and to defend himself. Thereafter, even if no hearing was conducted, where the party was given a chance to explain his
before an employee may be dismissed. One does not suffice; without their petitioner was dismissed from employment for having violated the company rules and side of the controversy. What is frowned upon is the denial of the opportunity to be
concurrence, the terminate would, in the eyes of the law, be illegal. regulations for blatant disregard if established control procedures resulting in company heard. Petitioner was given the opportunity to explain his side when he was informed
MAIN POINT: The requirement of notice is intended inform the employee concerned damages. Petitioner contends that the NLRC erred in holding that private respondent of the charge against him and required to submit his written explanation with which he
of the employer's intent dismiss him and the reason for the proposed dismissal; on afforded him due process. He argues that when he was investigated for his complied.
other hand, the requirement of hearing affords the employ the opportunity to answer involvement in the vehicular accident, it was simply for the offense of driving without a CASE NO. 166
his employer's charges against him and accordingly to defend himself therefrom valid driver's license. He further asserts that had he been informed of the alleged Art. III, Sec. 1. Preventive suspension
before dismissal effected. Neither one of these two requirements can be dispensed damages incurred by private respondent, he could have presented evidence to prove Alonzo v. Capulong 244 SCRA
with without running afoul of the due process requirement of the Constitution. otherwise. Thus, he would not have been terminated from service pursuant to Sec. 12
of Rule 005-85 of CCBPI's Code of Disciplinary Rules and Regulations MAINPOINT:
Case No. 163 – Cruz It is now settled that the preventive suspension of a civil service employee or officer
Dismissals, Suspension, Reinstatement; dismissal in private sector Issue: Whether petitioner was denied due process by private respondent can be ordered even without a hearing because such suspension is not a penalty but
Conti v. NLRC, GR 119253 April 10, 1997 only a preliminary step in an administrative investigation.
Ruling: No. Entrenched is the rule that the essence of due process does not necessarily
Main Point: The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute essential elements mean or require a hearing but simply a reasonable opportunity or a right to be heard. FACTS:
of due process in the dismissal of employees. He was fully aware that he was being investigated for his involvement in the vehicular Alonzo, the petitioner, the Chief Executive Officer of Home Development Mutual Fund
accident that took place. The investigation was conducted because he figured in an filed for a petion for certiorari to set aside the decision of Judge Capulong, the
Facts: Respondent Cofarm employed the petitioners and the term of their employment accident in which he sideswiped the victim, and not for mere violation of traffic rules. respondent which granted the writ of preliminary injunction enjoining petitioner from
is coterminous with the effectivity of the contract between Cofarm and MERALCO. It was also known to petitioner that as a result of the accident, the victim suffered a preventively suspending private respondent Juliet Fajardo as manager of the
Upon the expiration of said management contract and on an additional ground of fracture on her skull which led to the latter's surgical operation and confinement in the Administrative Services Department of the Home Development Mutual Fund. Juliet
anomalous transactions imputing them, petitioners were dismissed from their jobs. hospital for which private respondent incurred expenses amounting to P19k which Fajardo who was preventively suspended due to dishonesty, misconduct, disgraceful
Petitioners filed with the arbitration branch of NLRC a complaint for illegal dismissal Insurance Company refused to reimburse upon finding that petitioner was driving and immoral conduct, contracting of loans of money or other property from persons
and was awarded accordingly. Respondents appealed and had the NLRC set aside the without a valid driver's license. Thus, being aware of all these circumstances and the with whom the office of the employee concerned had business relations, and conduct
labor arbiter’s order and dismissing herein petitioner’s complaint for lack of merit. imposable sanctions under private respondent's Code of Disciplinary Rules and prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The employee contended that she was
Petitioners contended that they were denied due process when they were dismissed Regulations, petitioner should have taken it upon himself to present evidence to lessen denied of due process of law because no prior hearing was conducted before she was
without a written notice, specifying the particular charges constituting the grounds for his culpability. suspended.
their dismissal, and a hearing, as required by law. They further contend that the Case No. 165 – Cruz
memorandum issued by Corfarm to petitioners directing them "to explain why they Dismissals, Suspension, Reinstatement; dismissal in private sector ISSUE:
should not be dismissed for alleged acts of negligence and carelessness" was never Lopez v. Alturas 647 SCRA 568 Whether or not Fajardo was denied of due process of law.
received by them. Besides, said memorandum did not specify the particular acts or
omissions of petitioners. It merely stated that based on the results of the investigation Main Point: Dismissals have two facets: the legality of the act of dismissal, which RULING:
conducted by Cofarm's internal audit staff, petitioners were found to have been constitutes substantive due process, and the legality of the manner of dismissal which No. In administrative proceedings, prior notice and hearing was not required. It is now
negligent in the performance of their duties. constitutes procedural due process. settled that the preventive suspension of a civil service employee or officer can be
ordered even without a hearing because such suspension is not a penalty but only a
preliminary step in an administrative investigation. The purpose is to prevent the reconsideration which was also denied. Hence, this petition. She contended that she such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.5
accused from using his position or office to influence prospective witnesses or tamper was denied of due process because the case was decided without formal investigation. The Office of the Ombudsman could file the informations subject of these
with the records which may be vital in the prosecution of the case against him. In this She was not able to present evidence, confront the witnesses against her and object cases without any help from the DOF-RIPS.
case, private respondent is manager of the Administrative Services Department. She is the evidence adduced against her.
in a position to influence employees under her or otherwise impede the investigation. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner was denied of due process. True, Section 10 of R.A. 6713 provides that when the head of office finds
RULING: the SALN of a subordinate incomplete or not in the proper form such head
CASE NO. 167 NO. Firstly, she waived her right to a formal investigation, thus, she cannot decry that of office must call the subordinate’s attention to such omission and give
Art. III, Sec. 1. Preventive suspension she was denied of her right to the same. Second, records show that petitioner never him the chance to rectify the same. But this procedure is an internal office
Castillio¬ – Co v. Barbers 290 SCRA 717 raised this issue in the proceedings below. It is too late for petitioner to raise the issue matter. Whether or not the head of office has taken such step with respect
in this petition. Third, she was given ample opportunity to defend her case, contrary to to a particular subordinate cannot bar the Office of the Ombudsman from
MAINPOINT: what she portray. investigating the latter.6 Its power to investigate and prosecute erring
The law does not require that only the Ombudsman himself may sign the order of government officials cannot be made dependent on the prior action of
suspension. 169. Carabeo v. CA 607 SCRA 390 another office. To hold otherwise would be to diminish its constitutionally
guarded independence.
FACTS: Facts: Pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 259, investigators of the
Petitioner claims that under RA No. 7975, only the Ombudsman has the authority to Department of Finance (DOF) Revenue Integrity Protection Service (RIPS) Further, Carabeo’s reliance on his supposed right to notice regarding errors
sign the order placing official with salary grade of 27 or above like the petitioner- made lifestyles check of DOF officials and employees. As a result of these in his SALNs and to be told to correct the same is misplaced. The notice and
governor under preventive suspension for violating the Sec. 3 of the Anti-Graft and investigations, the DOF charged petitioner Liberato Carabeo, Parañaque correction referred to in Section 10 are intended merely to ensure that
Corrupt Practices Act for the uncovered irregularities in the purchase of equipment City Treasurer, before the Office of the Ombudsman for violations of SALNs are "submitted on time, are complete, and are in proper form."
that instead of brand new what was acquired were reconditioned equipment which is Section 7 in relation to Section 8 of Republic Act (R.A.) 3019 and Article 171 Obviously, these refer to formal defects in the SALNs. The charges against
contrary as required by the resolutions of the Pronvince’s Sanggunian. of the Revised Penal Code. The informations filed with the Sandiganbayan Carabeo, however, are for falsification of the assets side of his SALNs and
totaled eight in all. These, in essence, accused Carabeo of failing to disclose for declaring a false net worth. These are substantive, not formal defects.
ISSUE: several items in his sworn SALN filed over the years. Indeed, while the Court said in Pleyto that heads of offices have the duty to
Whether the Deputy Ombudsmn is not authorized to sign the order of preventive Issue: Whether or not the accused was allowed to previously exercise his review their subordinates’ SALNs, it would be absurd to require such heads
suspension. right to be informed beforehand and to take the necessary corrective action to run a check on the truth of what the SALNs state and require their
on questions concerning his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth subordinates to correct whatever lies these contain. The responsibility for
RULING: (SALN, for brevity), as provided under Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6713 truth in those SALNs belongs to the subordinates who prepared them, not
No. There is nothing in RA No. 7975 that would remotely suggest that only the before the instant charges were filed against him to the heads of their offices.
Ombudsman, and not his Deputy may sign an order preventively suspending officials Ruling: No. Carabeo claims that his head office, the DOF, should have
occupying positions as grade 27 or above. Hence, In this case, even it was not the alerted him on the deficiency in his SALN and given him the chance to Thus, the Sandiganbayan did not gravely abuse its discretion in excluding
Ombudsman Aniano Desierto but its Director Emilio Gonzales III who signed the order correct the same before any charge is filed against him in connection with from its pre-trial order the first and fourth issues that Carabeo proposed.
of suspension and wasapproved by Deputy Ombudsman Jesus Guerero, it is still valid. the same. But, the Sandiganbayan, citing Pleyto v. Philippine National Police
Moreover, the Deputy is also given such power with the Ombudsman to preventively Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG),4 held that the 170. Villasenor v. OMB, GR. No. 20230, 725 SCRA 230
suspend a person under Sec. 24 of RA 6770 and Sec. 9, Rule III of the Rules of review of the SALN by the head of office is irrelevant and cannot bar the
Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman. Office of the Ombudsman from conducting an independent investigation Facts: The petitioners, along with several others, were administratively
for criminal violations committed by the public official or employee. charged in connection with the Manor Hotel fire tragedy that took place on
August 18, 2001, killing 74 people and causing injury to others. Petitioner
CASE NO. 168 Carabeo contends, however, that the head of office has a mandatory Villaseñor was an electrical inspector from the Electrical Division, and
Art. III, Sec. 1. Preventive suspension obligation to inform him of defects in his SALN and give him the chance to petitioner Mesa was an inspector from the Electrical Engineering Office,
Bacsasar v. CSC 576 SCRA 787 correct the same. Further, he cannot be subjected to any sanction until both of Quezon City.
such obligation has been complied with. Carabeo points out that Pleyto
MAINPOINT: could not apply to him because the authority that reviewed the SALN in In OMB-ADM-0-01-0376, petitioner Villaseñor was charged with grave
A formal type of hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential to due process, Pleyto was not the head of office. Although the respondents involved in misconduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and gross
what is simply required is that the party concerned is given due notice and is afforded that case were employees of the Department of Public Works and negligence. In OMB-ADM-00390, both petitioners were charged with
an opportunity or right to be heard. Highways, it was the Philippine National Police that investigated and filed violation of Section 4 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and
the complaints against them. Carabeo points out that, in his case, it was the Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees). In its Memorandum,3
FACTS: DOF-RIPS, headed by the Secretary of Finance, which filed the complaints dated July 26, 2004, the Ombudsman approved the findings in the Joint
This case is a special civil action in the SC. The petitioner, Bacasasar was charged with against him with the Office of the Ombudsman. As city treasurer, Carabeo Decision as regards the petitioners.
dishonesty by the CSC-ARMM for misrepresenting in her Personal Data Sheet that she reports to the Bureau of Local Government Finance under the Secretary of
passed the CSC Professional Examination with rating of 87.54% which she used to Finance. On December 13, 2004, Villaseñor and Mesa filed their separate motions
support the issuance of appointment of Mayor of Lanao De Sur as Municipal Assessor for reconsideration4 of the Joint Decision.
under permanent status. She denied the charge and avered that a certain Tingcap But what Carabeo fails to grasp is that it was eventually the Office of the Issue: Whether Villaseñor was denied of his constitutional right of not to
Pandi, deceased, approached and convinced her to obtain CS Eligibility without need of Ombudsman, not the DOF-RIPS, that filed the criminal cases against him be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law, was
taking an examination. She informed CSC that she is waiving her right to a formal before the Sandiganbayan. That office is vested with the sole power to grossly violated by the Ombudsman when:
investigation. Consequently, she was imposed of a penalty of dismissal from service investigate and prosecute, motu proprio or on complaint of any person, any
with all its accessory penalties. Petitioner appealed which was denied and moved for act or omission of any public officer or employee, office, or agency when 1. He was prevented from cross-examining complainant’s witnesses;
 leasing it from the national government, the latter does not get any profit dismissal, petitioner appealed his case to the chairman of the Appeals Board. His
2. He failed to receive any copy of any order relative to the preliminary as it goes only to Nazario. The dates of payment are also clearly stated appeal was denied. Subsequently, he appealed to the Commission and averred that he
conference of the case; and “Beginnin and taking effect from 1964 if the fishpond started operating in was denied due process when he was dismissed from the service.
1964”. ISSUE:
3. His dismissal from the service was ordered implemented while his motion 2. No, it is not ex post facto. Ordinance 4 was enacted in 1955 so it can’t be Whether or not CSC denied petitioner’s due process.
for reconsideration remains unresolved. that the amendment under Ordinance 12 is being made to apply RULING:
Ruling: The first two issues raised by petitioner Villaseñor do not relate to retroactively. Also, the act of non-payment has been made punishable since NO. With respect to petitioner’s contention that he was denied due process when the
the assailed CA Resolutions, which ruled upon the Order of the 1955 so it means Ordinance 12 is not imposing a retroactive penalty Commission heard the Bureau’s motion for reconsideration without notice to him, We
Ombudsman implementing the Joint Decision. They are, therefore, agree with respondent Bureau’s argument that the defect was cured by the filing by
irrelevant to the present petition. The sole issue before the Court now is, 175 – MUSA petitioner of his Omnibus Motion on July 30, 1990. Thus, in Medenilla v. Civil Service
thus: Whether the Ombudsman’s order of dismissal from the service and MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Commission, We said that the lack of notice to petitioner regarding the pending appeal
suspension of one year can be implemented pending resolution of Mendenilla v. CSC 194 SCRA 278 and the hearing of said appeal was cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration.
petitioner Villaseñor’s motion for reconsideration before the Ombudsman, Denial of due process cannot be successfully invoked where a party was given the
and petitioner Mesa’s appeal before the CA? An appeal shall not stop the FACTS: chance to be heard on his motion for reconsideration.
decision from being executory. In case the penalty is suspension or removal Petitioner Ardeliza Medenilla was a contractual employee of the Department of Public
and the respondent wins such appeal, he shall be considered as having Works and Highways (DPWH) occupying the position of Public Relations Officer II. a 177 – MUSA
been under preventive suspension and shall be paid the salary and such reorganization ensued within the DPWH and all the positions therein were abolished. A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of the suspension or revised staffing pattern together with the guidelines on the selection and placement of Rodreguez v. Proj. 6 247 SCRA 528
removal. personnel was issued.
Included in the revised staffing pattern is the contested position of Supervising Human FACTS:
A decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be Resource Development Officer. On January 2, 1989, the petitioner was appointed to Petitioner Peter Rodriguez is a vendor occupying and leasing one of the stalls at the
executed as a matter of course. The Office of the Ombudsman shall ensure the disputed position. Amparo Dellosa, Rosalinda Juria and Marita Burdeos together Project 6 Market, Project 6, Quezon City from respondent Project 6 Market Service
that the decision shall be strictly enforced and properly implemented. The with Matilde Angeles, Catalina Espinas, Alicia Nercelles and Ramon Racela, all of whom Cooperative, Inc. (Cooperative), the operator of said market. The instant petition
refusal or failure by any officer without just cause to comply with an order are employees in the Human Resource Training and Material Development Division, stems from filed in 1984 by the Cooperative against petitioner with the Metropolitan
of the Office of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend, demote, fine, or Administrative and Manpower Management Service of the DPWH, jointly lodged a Trial Court (MTC), Branch 39, Quezon City. The Cooperative sought to eject petitioner
censure shall be a ground for disciplinary action against such officer. The protest before the DPWH task force on reorganization contesting the appointment of from his market stall and recover from him arrears in his monthly rent over the
Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman are procedural in the petitioner to the position. The protestants alleged that since they are next-in-rank property Judgment was rendered by the MTC ordering petitioner to vacate the leased
nature and therefore, may be applied retroactively to petitioners’ cases employees, one of them should have been appointed to the said position. The CSC premises and pay rent in arrears and until such time as he vacates the leased property.
which were pending and unresolved at the time of the passing of A.O. No. dissolved Medenilla’s appointment as Supervising Human Resource Development The judgment of the MTC having become final and executory, the Cooperative moved
17. No vested right is violated by the application of Section 7 because the Officer. Subsequently, he filed motion for reconsideration. for its execution with the RTC and a writ of execution was issued accordingly.
respondent in the administrative case is considered preventively suspended Petitioner however moved to quash the writ on the ground that the situation of the
while his case is on appeal and, in the event he wins on appeal, he shall be The petitioner interposes that the resolutions were issued by the Respondent parties had changed after trial that would now render execution inequitable. The
paid the salary and such other emoluments that he did not receive by Commission, without giving notice to the petitioner of the existence of an appeal filed Cooperative opposed this motion. The trial court denied the motion to quash on and
reason of the suspension or removal. It is important to note that there is no before the CSC, thereby denying the petitioner due process of law. reconsideration thereof. Petitioner contends that he was deprived of procedural due
such thing as a vested interest in an office, or even an absolute right to hold ISSUE: process when the trial court issued the order of August 31, 1987 without any hearing
office. Excepting constitutional offices which provide for special immunity Whether or not CSC denied petitioner’s due process. and without him having been furnished a copy of the Cooperative's opposition to his
as regards salary and tenure, no one can be said to have any vested right in RULING: motion to quash.
an office. NO. Since the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, she cannot now complain
that she was deprived of due process. The essence of due process is the opportunity to ISSUE:
171. People v. Nazario 165 SCRA 136 be heard. The presence of a party is not always the cornerstone of due process. What Whether or not the petitioner was deprived of procedural due process
the law prohibits is not the absence of previous notice but the absolute absence RULING:
Facts: Eusebio Nazario was charged in violation of refusal and failure to pay thereof and lack of opportunity to be heard. In the case at bar, any defect was cured NO. Petitioner admits that when he moved for reconsideration of said order, he
his municipal taxes amounting to Php 362.62 because of his fishpond by the filing of a motion for reconsideration. received his copy of the opposition and respondent judge conducted a hearing on his
operation provided under Ordinance 4, Series of 1955, as amended. He is a motion. Indeed, deprivation of due process cannot be successfully invoked where a
resident of Sta. Mesa Manila and just leases a fishpond located at Pagbilao, 176 – MUSA party was given the chance to be heard on his motion for reconsideration.
Quezon with the Philippine Fisheries Commission. The years in question of MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 178 REYES
failure to pay was for 1964, 1965, and 1966. Nazario did not pay because he Mendiola v. CSC 221 SCRA 295 Dismissals, Suspension, Reinstatement; Motion for Reconsideration
was not sure if he was covered under the ordinance. He was found guilty (Mendenilla sa syllabus) Lazo vs. CSC, 236 SCRA 469
thus this petition.
Issue: 1. Whether or not Ordinance 4, Series of 1955, as amended null and FACTS: FACTS:
void for being ambiguous and uncertain A Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus filed by Petitioner Teodorico Mendiola against The CSC received a letter reporting that petitioner Lazo had boasted to him that he had
2. Whether or not the ordinance was unconstitutional for being ex post respondents Civil Service Commission (Commission) and Economic Intelligence and bought his career service eligibility from the CSC. It ordered the examination answer
facto Investigation Bureau (Bureau). Petitioner seeks from this Court the annulment of the sheets of petitioner retrieved and hand-checked by the Office of Recruitment,
Ruling: 1. No, the coverage of the ordinance covers him as the actual resolutions passed by the Commission which terminated him from service upon the Examination and Placement. The rechecking disclosed that petitioner's actual score
operator of the fishpond thus he comes with the term “Manager”. He was reorganization of the Department of Finance and an order for his immediate was 34.48%, not 76.46% as indicated in his certificate of eligibility. Accordingly, the CSC
the one who spent money in developing and maintaining it, so despite only reinstatement to the service. Alleging that he was not informed of the cause of his charged petitioner with dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the
best interests of the service, and ordered the Regional Office to conduct anew a formal ISSUE: notice of appearance33 merely mentioned that Atty. Jose B. Puerto recently died. A
investigation of the case. The Regional Office recommended the dismissal of the Whether petitioner was denied due process of law. verified certificate of death was not attached thereto.
administrative case. The CSC dismissed the case but revoked petitioner’s eligibility for
being null and void. RULING: It should be stressed that petitioner was able to file his motion for reconsideration in
No. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is which he presented his legal defenses with respect to the main subject of the original
Petitioner asked for a reconsideration alleging that the CSC violated his right to due accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process. As long the parties were given complaint. His arguments were substantially discussed and debunked by the trial court
process and it had found him to have failed the Civil Service Examinations without the chance to present their case or defense before judgment was rendered, the in its order disposing of said motion. Such motion for reconsideration cured whatever
evidence being presented to support the finding. demands of due process are sufficiently met. defect there may have been, if any, as regards the alleged denial of due process.

ISSUE: In the case at bar, the trial court had given them reasonable opportunity to be heard MAIN POINT:
Whether petitioner was denied due process of the law. and present their side in all the proceedings before it. They admit that their counsel It is a time-honored ruling that lack of opportunity to be heard, and not necessarily
was able to file a timely Motion for Reconsideration on their behalf which was set for absence of prior notice, constitutes violation of due process.
RULING: hearing by the trial court. The fact that petitioners and their counsel failed to attend
No. While it is true that the CSC cannot motu propio revoke a certificate of eligibility said hearing and adduce evidence on their behalf is of no moment. What is important
without notice and hearing to the examinees concerned, the case at bar simply is that they were given the chance to do so. Indeed, deprivation of due process cannot CASE NO. 181 – SABTALUH
involves the rechecking of examination papers and nothing more than a reevaluation be successfully invoked where a party was given the chance to be heard in his motion CASUELA vs. OMBUDSMAN
of documents already in the records of the CSC according to a standard answer key for reconsideration. FACTS:
previously set by it. Hence, notice and hearing was not required. Petitioner could have A complaint was charged against the Respondent, a POEA Employee, for allegedly
examined the rechecking of his examination papers and, if he found anything wrong, MAIN POINT: receiving an amount of money to process the papers of Valeriano. Despite the
he could have asked for reconsideration. But, while he filed one in this case, he did not The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard withdrawal of the complaint, a hearing was forthwith proceeded. POEA Administrative
show that his score was really 76.46%. He simply argued that he should not be made to and submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense. Deprivation of due Complaints committee declared respondent liable for dishonesty and conduct
answer for an irregularity in which he had no participation and, on this basis, asked the process cannot be successfully invoked where a party was given the chance to be prejudicial to the best interest of his service. The respondent is adjudged and meted
CSC for a formal investigation. heard in his motion for reconsideration. out the penalty of dismissal pursuant to the CSC rules which was further affirmed by
DOLE. Private respondent filed a complaint on Ombudsman contending that they acted
Petitioner was given the right to be heard, but, as already said, he did not make good 180 REYES within the scope of their function and in good faith. Considering all the evidences,
use of it by showing that his actual score was 76.46%, and not 34.48%. For that matter, Dismissals, Suspension, Reinstatement; Motion for Reconsideration Ombudsman found the petitioner was consequently found liable for inefficiency and
even here petitioner does not allege that his grade in the civil service examination is Bernardo vs. CA, 275 SCRA 413 incompetence in the performance of official duties and meted out the penalty of three
76.46% and not 34.48%. All he is alleging is that he should have been given a chance to (3) months suspension pursuant to CSC Regulations. Petitioner sought for
see the examination sheet himself. FACTS: reconsideration. The ombudsman, however, was unconvinced and forthwith denied
A complaint for recovery of possession, quieting of title and damages with preliminary the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Unsatisfied petitioner filed the instant
MAIN POINT: mandatory injunction was filed against Bernardo because it appears that the lot petition for certiorari.
The case simply involves the rechecking of examination papers and nothing more than subject was the object of a double sale by the National Housing Authority to Bernardo.
a reevaluation of documents already in the records of the CSC according to a standard The parties failed to reach an amicable settlement during the pre-trial. Bernardo filed ISSUE:
answer key previously set by it. Hence, notice and hearing was not required. for an ex parte motion for extension of time to file an answer signed by Atty. Puerto as Whether or not the respondent’s right of due process was infringed.
counsel, but when the answer was submitted later, his counsel became Puerto Nuñez RULING:
179 REYES & Associates, with the same Atty. Puerto signing. Upon hearing, neither Bernardo nor No. Petitioner may not also successfully plead violation of his right to due process
Dismissals, Suspension, Reinstatement; Motion for Reconsideration his counsel came despite due notice. The court interpreter informed the judge that an because he readily admits having filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution
Salonga vs. CA, 269 SCRA 534 associate of Atty. Puerto allegedly called to say that Atty. Puerto had died. Pending dated July 22, 1993. The court quoted the postulations of the Solicitor General:
official and verified notification of such death, the court decided to proceed with “Petitioner’s claim that ‘the Ombudsman virtually deprived [him] of his right to due
FACTS: reception of evidence from the plaintiff. process by failing to inform [him] of the charges against him is without of merit. In the
Private respondent Izon (President of Paul Geneve Corporation) agreed into a joint first place, as petitioner admits he had raised the alleged ‘lack of sufficient opportunity
venture enterprise with petitioner Salonga (owner of Solid Intertain) and that both Atty. Abibas filed a notice of appearance as new counsel for Bernardo, mentioning the to be informed of the charges against him in a motion for reconsideration.’ This
companies will form a new corporation. This joint venture will provide leasehold death of Atty. Puerto. Without acting on the notice filed by Bernardo’s new counsel Honorable Court has repeatedly stressed that the requirements of due process are
holding rights of the property in Makati. Izon signed the documents prepared and the and without receiving evidence from Bernardo, the trial court promulgated its decision complied with when a party is heard on a motion for reconsideration and Secondly, the
same were delivered to Salonga for his signature. However, the said documents were in favor of complainant. Bernardo moved for reconsideration and filed for a motion to Constitution has vested the Ombudsman with plenary authority in the scope of his
not signed. With the memorandum of agreement still unsigned, not notarized, and in reopen the case and grant a new trial on the grounds that he had been denied his investigation.
the possession of Salonga, he transferred all his equipment to the said property in substantive right to due process, particularly the right to be heard. MAIN POINT:
Makati. Club Ibiza was then opened and made operational on the leased premises in The requirements of due process are complied with when a party is heard on a motion
question. ISSUE: for reconsideration.
Whether there was denial of due process. CASE NO. 182 – SABTALUH
Izon filed a complaint against Salonga for motion for writ of preliminary injunction with CORDINELLERO VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
prayer for damages. During the first hearing, only the private respondents appeared. RULING:
During the second hearing, the petitioners still failed appear. Despite two motions of No. Bernardo failed to comply with the necessary requirements for substitution of FACTS:
extension, petitioners failed to file an answer. Hence, petitioners were declared in counsel where death of the previous attorney is the cause of substitution of the The private respondent Bolivar was granted by Bureau of Forest Development a permit
default and the motion was granted in favor of private respondents. Petitioner claims counsel, a verified proof of the death of such attorney (usually a death certificate) covering 16 hectares in Capiz while de Jesus was issued by the defunct Fishpond
to have been denied due process of the law. must accompany the notice of appearance of the new counsel. His new counsel’s permit by BFAR covering 35 hectares which was likewise located in the same city. On
1963, petitioner Cordenillo filed MSA to Bureau of Lands and constructed fishpond on 184. SALINAS- De la Cruz v. Abelle 352 SCRA 691 186. SALINAS- Gonzales v. CSC 490 SCRA 741
a 10-hectare portion which was later found to be with the area under the private Facts: Petitioner was a casino operations manager. He was administratively charged
respondent’s NB Permit. Respondent’s protested against the MSA of the petitioner. Facts: Herminio Abille, now deceased, had a total landholding of 13.0561 hectares, for violation of company rules and was dismissed by PAGCOR’s decision. He appealed
The case was set to be heard in DARN. After investigation and ocular investigation, located in Infanta, Pangasinan, comprising of Riceland, cogonland, coconut land and of to the CSC but the same was dismissed. He raised his appeal to the CA but likewise
Undersecretary of DARN ruled that Bureau of Forest Development was admonished for residential land. dismissed. Hence the petition.
for having renewed the Nipa-Bacauan Permit of Jose Bolivar even after it had Since 1968, Balbino dela Cruz was an agricultural tenant in the riceland tilling an area Issue: Whether the Commission violated his right to due process
previously declared itself as having no jurisdiction over the area in question, which of 2.84 hectares. 4 He died on June 14, 1981. After his death, Balbino dela Cruz was, Ruling: No, Where the opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or
area is a part of the Tinagong Dagat Bay. Unsatisfied, Respondent Bolivar sought for nevertheless, issued a Certificate of Land Transfer pursuant to Presidential Decree No. through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process.5 Here,
Motion for Reconsideration. 27. petitioner was heard through the written statement he submitted in response to the
ISSUE: The certificate was entered in the Registration Book of the Registry of Deeds of memorandum of charges against him. He was given the opportunity to testify during
Whether or not the the Petitioner was deprived of his right to due process. Pangasinan. the marathon hearings conducted by a panel of investigators. He was also able to
RULING: Tax Declaration No. 3 in the name of Herminio Abille was cancelled and Tax participate in all stages of the administrative proceeding as shown by the appeal he
NO. Petitioner pretends to be a victim of due process violation because he was not Declaration No. 1134 was issued in the name of Balbino dela Cruz. filed with the Commission.
afforded the opportunity to be heard vis-a-vis private respondent Bolivar’s motion for On April 3, 1987, Herminio Abille filed a petition for exemption under Operation Land The essence of due process is simply the opportunity to be heard or, as applied to
Issuance of the Writ of Implementation. Suffice it to say that the mere fact that Transfer (OLT) of his landholdings alleging, among others, that he was not notified of administrative proceedings, the opportunity to explain one’s side or the opportunity to
petitioner herein assails two Resolutions of the Office of the President, the one with the coverage of his land under OLT; that he learned of its coverage only on March 25, seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.6 Any seeming defect in its
the later date of which was issued precisely upon petitioner’s filing of a Motion for 1987; that prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Land Transfer, DAR did not notify observance is cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration.7 Thus, denial of due
Reconsideration of the Resolution first issued on dated May 7, 1993, shows that him or his representative; that he has been deprived of his constitutional right to due process cannot be successfully invoked by a party who has had the opportunity to be
petitioner was in fact heard, for purposes of administrative due process, when he filed process. heard on his motion for reconsideration.
said Motion for Reconsideration. As such, any contention of denial of due process must Issue: Whether the petitioner was denied of due process
fail as the same was cured by the filing of the Motion for Reconsideration. Ruling: No, The court agreed with the Court of Appeals that although the petitioners 187. SALVADOR
MAIN POINT: were not given the opportunity to be heard when Regional Director Antonio Nuesa in Dismissals, Suspension, Reinstatement
Petitioner was in fact heard, for purposes of administrative due process, when he filed his Order dated April 19, 1989 ordered the cancellation of Certificate of Land Transfer Berboso v. CA
Motion for Reconsideration. As such, any contention of denial of due process must fail No. 0-064711 on the retained area, nevertheless, in their petition for issuance of an
as the same was cured by the filing of the Motion for Reconsideration. emancipation patent, petitioners were given the opportunity to be heard as they Facts: P.D No. 27 was signed into law that laid down a scheme for the purchase by
raised in issue the validity of the cancellation of the said CLT, which was resolved by small farmers of the land they were tilling. DARAB rendered a Decision fixing the
CASE NO. 183 – SABTALUH DAR Regional Director Eligio P. Pacis in his Order dated October 21, 1992, and also in amount of disturbance compensation due to Berboso –Berboso contested the
CHUA VS CA their (petitioners’) motion for reconsideration, which was treated as an appeal by the lawfulness of the said amount. Then the period for the Conversion Order expired
Secretary of Agrarian Reform and resolved in his Order dated June 20, 1994. The hence the petitioners Berboso are now barred from assailing the said Order.
MAINPOINT: essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to
Due process was designed to afford opportunity to be heard, not that an actual administrative proceedings, an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or Issue: Whether the petitioners Berboso were deprived of due process
hearing should always and indispensably be held; Denial of due process cannot be ruling complained of
successfully invoked by a party who has had the opportunity to be heard on his motion Ruling: NO. The court ruled that lack of notice had been cured when the petitioners
for reconsideration. 185. SALINAS- Rodreguez v. CA GR 134275 August 7, 2002 actively intervened and participated in proceedings before the courts. Petitioners also
FACTS: Facts: The PNP launched operation AJAX to minimize the cases of extortion of traffic made appeals and had also repeatedly moved for the reconsideration of each decision
Roberto L. Chua, a bachelor, died intestate and was survived by his minor children. policemen in Makati. One of the arrested police is PFC Rodriguez. In a summary adverse to them.
Petitioner appeared and averred that she was alleged wife of the Chua, thus, filed a hearing, Rodriguez was dismissed. His appeal was dismissed by the NAPOLCOM. He
petition for the guardianship of the minor children as well as the administration of the then filed a petitioner by way of certiorari and mandamus which was dismissed by the Main point: The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as
intestate estate. The petitioner presented evidences indicating that Chua’s status is CA. Hence the Petition. He contends that he was not offered due process by the applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to seek for reconsideration of
married. The court dismissed her case for the lack of merit. The petitioner filed a NAPOLCOM the action or ruling complained of.
motion for reconsideration furthermore contending that the trial court acted beyond Issue: whether or not the Court of Appeals erred when it dismissed the petition for
its jurisdiction when it issued letters of administration over the estate of Roberto L. certiorari and mandamus filed by petitioner PFC Rodolfo Rodriguez. 188. SALVADOR
Chua, thereby converting the petition into an intestate proceeding, without the Ruling: No, Petitioner cannot now claim that he was not afforded due process by the Dismissals, Suspension, Reinstatement
amended petition being published in the newspaper of general circulation. NAPOLCOM. In administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable Pontejos v. Desierto
ISSUE: opportunity for the person so charged to answer the accusations against him
Whether or not the petitioner was afforded with the right to due process. constitute the minimum requirements of due process. The essence of administrative Facts: Pontejos is held liable for grave misconduct and the propriety of the penalty of
RULING: due process is the opportunity to be heard.15 As long as a party was given the dismissal from his employment; for allegedly being involved in bribery and estafa.
Yes. Due process was designed to afford opportunity to be heard, not that an actual opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he was not denied due process. Pontejos contends that he was denied of his right to due process when he was not able
hearing should always and indispensably be held. The essence of due process is simply In the instant case, a scrutiny of the NAPOLCOM decision denying petitioner’s appeal to confront Aquino who failed to appear in two hearings.
an opportunity to be heard. Here, even granting that the petitioner was not notified of from the PNP Chief’s order of dismissal clearly shows that petitioner was afforded an
the orders of the trial court, nonetheless, she was duly heard in her motions to recall opportunity to present his side and defend his interests. Issue: Whether the dismissal of Pontejos is valid
letters of administration and to declare the proceedings of the court as a “mistrial,” Main Point: Lack of due process cannot be invoked where a party was given the
which motions were denied. A motion for the reconsideration of this order of denial chance to be heard on his motion for reconsideration.— Lack of due process cannot be Ruling: YES. The court ruled that the essence of due process is simply the opportunity
was also duly heard by the trial court but was denied in its Order of 13 December invoked where a party was given the chance to be heard on his motion for to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, the opportunity to explain
1993. Denial of due process cannot be successfully invoked by a party who has had the reconsideration. The resolution denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration clearly one's side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
opportunity to be heard on his motion for reconsideration. shows that petitioner was given every opportunity to air his side.
complained of. Any seeming defect in its observance is cured by the filing of a motion the forfeiture of goods illegally imported are not criminal in nature since they do not right to due process is also available in civil cases, especially if his right to property is
for reconsideration. result in the conviction of the wrongdoer nor in the imposition upon him of a penalty. endangered.
Furthermore, the petitioner is a corporate entity and cannot invoke the right to be
Main point: Due process in an administrative context does not require trial-type innocent in a criminal suit. Main Point:
proceedings similar to those in courts of justice. The requirements are satisfied where The right to due process of law in appeal is violated if the right to counsel is deprived.
the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the Main Point: This applies not only to criminal cases but also to civil cases where the right to life,
controversy at hand. Seizure and forfeiture proceedings under the tariff and customs laws are not criminal liberty, and property are endangered.
in nature, hence, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required to justify the
189. SALVADOR forfeiture of the goods.
Central Bank vs.Court of Appeals-BAIRD
Suretyship
FACTS; Based on examination reports submitted by the Supervision and Examination
Stronghold Insurance v. CA CASE NO. 190 – Tan
Sector, Department II, of the Central Bank "that the financial condition of TSB is one of
Article III, Sec. 1: Appeal
insolvency and its continuance in business would involve probable loss to its depositors
Facts: The petitioner invokes due process to escape liability on a surety bond executed Alba vs. Deputy Ombudsman
and creditors,’’ the Monetary Board issued on 31 May 1985 Resolution No. 596
for the protection of a Filipino seaman. The required surety bond was submitted by Facts:
ordering the closure of TSB, forbidding it from doing business in the Philippines,
petitioner to answer for the liabilities of the employer. Urtesuela then filed a complaint Dr. Ramon Alba was working in the Department of Education Culture and Sports. He
placing it under receivership, and appointing Ramon V. Tiaoqui as receiver. On 11 June
against petitioner based on surety bond that resulted to the judgement rendered was suspended by the Ombudsman for 30 days due to gross misconduct in his
1985, TSB filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, against
against the petitioner. However, the petitioner asks for reversal; it submits that the functions as a medical school educator. He now assails the constitutionality Section 27
Central Bank and Ramon V. Tiaoqui to annul MB Resolution No. 596, with prayer for
decision of the POEA is not binding because it was impleaded in the complaint and it of RA 6770 and Section 7 of Rule III of Administrative Order No. 7 because they violate
injunction, challenging in the process the constitutionality of Sec. 29 of R.A. 269,
was not notified thereof, nor did it participate in the hearing. the right to due process in cases of appeal. Both state that the certain penalties
otherwise known as "The Central Bank Act, insofar as it authorizes the Central Bank to
imposed by the Ombudsman are unappealable and can be only be reversed on a
take over a banking institution even if it is not charged with violation of any law or
Issue: Whether the petitioner can invoke due process to escape liability on a surety motion for reconsideration.
regulation, much less found guilty thereof. The question really is, May a Monetary
bond.
Board resolution placing a private bank under receivership be annulled on the ground
Issue:
of lack of prior notice and hearing?
Ruling: NO. The court ruled that it is too late for the petitioner to challenge the Whether the mentioned provisions violate due process?
ISSUE ; Whether the lack of prior notice and hearing constitute as a denial of due
stipulation. If it believed then that it was onerous and illegal, what it should have done
process in closure proceedings
was object when its inclusion as a condition in the surety bond was required by the Ruling:
RULING ; No, appeal to procedural due process cannot just outweigh the evil sought to
POEA. No. The right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a
be prevented; hence, We rule that Sec. 29 of R.A. 265 is a sound legislation
statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with
promulgated in accordance with the Constitution in the exercise of police power of the
Main point: The consequence of its submission is that it cannot now argue that it is not the provisions of the law. Thus, deprivation of appeal is not a deprivation of the right
state. Consequently, the absence of notice and hearing is not a valid ground to annul a
bound by that condition because it was coerced into accepting it. The right to be heard to due process.
Monetary Board resolution placing a bank under receivership. The absence of prior
is as often waived as it is invoked, and validly as long as the party is given an
notice and hearing cannot be deemed acts of arbitrariness and bad faith. Thus, an MB
opportunity to heard on his behalf. Main Point:
resolution placing a bank under receivership, or conservatorship for that matter, may
The constitutional requirement of due process may be satisfied notwithstanding the
only be annulled after a determination has been made by the trial court that its
SUREETY BOND - intended for the protection of our citizens who are engaged for denial of the right to appeal for the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to
issuance was tainted with arbitrariness and bad faith. Until such determination is
overseas employment by foreign companies; to insure that if the rights are violated by be heard and to present evidence in support of one’s case.
made, the status quo shall be maintained, i.e., the bank shall continue to be under
their employers, recourse would still be available to them against the local companies
receivership.
that recruited them for foreign principal. CASE NO. 192 – Tan
MAINPOINT ; Due process does not necessarily require a prior hearing; a hearing or an
Article III, Sec. 1: Appeal
opportunity to be heard may be subsequent to the closure. One can just imagine the
CASE NO. 190 – Tan Telan vs. CA
dire consequences of a prior hearing: bank runs would be the order of the day,
Article III, Sec. 1: Tariffs and Customs Code Facts:
resulting in panic and hysteria.
Feeder International Lines vs. CA Pedro and Angelina Telan were in a suit for ownership of a lot against Virginia Telan.
Facts: The lower court awarded the lot to Virginia. When the couple wanted to appeal, their
RURAL BANK OF BUHI, vs.HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS-BAIRD
M/T ULU WAI a foreign vessel owned and operated by Feeder International Lines of lawyer in the lower court was disposed not to do so. They then requested the services
Singapore, left Singapore carrying 1,100 metric tons of gas oil and 1,000 fuel oil. They of a certain Palma who claims to have been a lawyer. The CA then dismissed the case
were assigned to deliver to Far East Synergy Corp. of Zamboanga. The vessel anchored without the knowledge of the couple due to prescription. They then could not locate FACTS ; The petitioner is the Rural Bank of Buhi, Inc. In 1980, an examination of the
at Iloilo without the knowledge of the local custom authorities. The customs team “Atty. Palma” and when they acquired the services of a true attorney, it was found out books and affairs of Buhi was ordered conducted by the Rural Banks and Savings and
seized the vessel and found out there was a lack of necessary shipping requirements that no Atty. Palma existed in the rolls of attorney. They now claim their due process in Loan Association Central Bank of the Philippines, which has charge of the supervision
except for a clearance to Zamboanga. The local customs ordered the seizure of the the appeal was violated. and examination of rural banks and savings and loan associations in the Philippines.
vessel and all resources therein because they violated Article 2530 (a and f) of the However, said petitioner refused to be examined and as a result thereof, financial
Tariffs and Customs Code. Petitioner argued that the forfeiture proceedings were Issue: assistance was suspended.On January 10, 1980, a general examination of the bank's
premature because they enjoyed presumption of innocence. Whether the right to due process was violated in the appeal? affairs and operations was conducted and there were found by DRBSLA represented by
Issue: herein respondent, Consolacion V. Odra, massive irregularities in its operations
Whether the forfeiture proceedings were valid? Ruling: consisting of loans to unknown and fictitious borrowers. The promissory notes
Ruling: Yes. Petitioners had not been accorded due process of law because they lost their right evidencing these loans were rediscounted with the Central Bank for cash. As a result
Yes. The penalty in seizure cases are distinct and separate from the criminal liability to appeal when they were deprived of the right to counsel. Also, the SC ruled that the thereof, the bank became insolvent and prejudiced its depositors and creditors.
that might be imposed against the indicted importer or possessor. The proceedings for Respondent, Consolacion V. Odra, submitted a report recommending to the Monetary
Board of the Central Bank the placing of Buhi under receivership. Imelda del Rosario,
Manager of herein petitioner Buhi, filed a petition for injunction with Restraining RULING ; No, As long as the parties were given opportunity to be heard before As response, respondent Madrona sent a letter stating that the letter (1)
against respondent and DRBSLA deputies which assailed the action of herein judgment was rendered, the demands of due process were sufficiently met . It should contained an accusation libelous in nature as it is condemning him and his property
respondent Odra in recommending the receivership over Buhi. Petitioner Rural Bank's also be noted that petitioner herein repeatedly sought reconsideration of the various without due process; (2) has no basis and authority since there is no court order
position is to the effect that due process was not observed by the Monetary Board orders of respondent DECS and its motions were duly considered by respondent DECS authorizing him to demolish their structure; (3) cited legal bases which do not
before said bank was placed under receivership. Said Rural Bank claimed that it was to the extent of allowing and granting its request for re-inspection of its premises. In expressly give petitioner authority to demolish; and (4) contained a false accusation
not given the chance to deny and disprove such claim of insolvency and/or any other connection therewith, it has been ruled that the opportunity to be heard is the essence since their fence did not in fact extend to the sidewalk.
ground which the Monetary Board used in justification of its action. of procedural due process and that any defect is cured by the filing of a motion for More than a year later, petitioner sent another letter with the same
reconsideration contents as the previous letter but this time giving respondents ten days from receipt
MAINPOINT; As long as the parties were given opportunity to be heard before thereof to remove the structure allegedly protruding to the sidewalk. This prompted
ISSUE ; Whether the monetary board of the CB can place a rural bank without prior
judgment was rendered, the demands of due process were sufficiently met respondents to file a complaint for injunction before the Marikina City RTC. The RTC
notice or hearing
held that respondents, being lawful owners of the subject property, are entitled to the
RULING; Yes, there is no requirement whether express or implied, that a hearing be
199 peaceful and open possession of every inch of their property.
first conducted before a banking institution may be placed under receivership. On the
Biddings ISSUE: Whether the requisites for the issuance of a writ of injunction present
contrary, the law is explicit as to the conditions prerequisite to the action of the
Concerned Officials v. Vasquez RULING: Yes, the two requisites are clearly present: there is a right to be protected,
Monetary Board to forbid the institution to do business in the Philippines and to
FACTS: that is, respondents’ right over their concrete fence which cannot be removed without
appoint a receiver to immediately take charge of the bank's assets and liabilities. They
In order to provide million liters of water daily to people in the due process; and the act, the summary demolition of the concrete fence, against which
are: (a) an examination made by the examining department of the Central Bank; (b)
metropolitan area, Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) launched the injunction is directed, would violate said right.
report by said department to the Monetary Board; and (c) prima facie showing that
the Angat Water Supply optimization ("AWSOP") consisting of several phases. An MAIN POINT: Respondent having been warned by respondents that his acts were in
the bank is in a condition of insolvency or so situated that its continuance in business
"Invitation for Pre-qualification and Bids" for Projects were opened. After an fact violations of law, petitioner should have been more circumspect in his actions and
would involve probable loss to its depositors or creditors.
evaluation 11 out of 14 were qualified, Meanwhile, private respondent Philippine should have pursued the proper remedies that were more in consonance with the
MAINPOINT ; due process does not necessarily require a prior hearing; a hearing or an
Large Diameter pressure Pipes Manufacturers' Association ("PLDPPMA"), sent seven dictates of due process.
opportunity to be heard may be subsequent to the closure.
letters to the MWSS requesting clarification. Petitioners were asked to comment on
the letter-complaint of PLDPPMA. Petitioners moved for an extension of time within 201
PHILIPPINE MERCHANT MARINE SCHOOL vs.COURT OF APPEALS-BAIRD
which to comment. Petitioners filed their letter-comment. Responding to the reply of Cancellation of Property Rights and Privileges
PLDPPMA, petitioners later filed a rejoinder. When an adverse order was rendered American Inter-Fashion v. OP
FACTS ; PHILIPPINE MERCHANT MARINE SCHOOL, INC, was established to train and against them, petitioners moved for its reconsideration, albeit to no avail. FACTS: Respondent Glorious Sun Fashion (GLORIOUS) was found guilty of dollar-salting
produce competent marine officers. For several times prior to 1985 respondent The Ombudsman directed the Board of Trustees of MWSS (a) to set aside occurs when dollars are removed from the Philippines without approval from the
Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) disapproved petitioner's requests the recommendation of its Pre-qualification, Bids and Awards Committee for Central Bank and transferred to an account outside the county and misdeclaration of
for renewal permit. However, on 11 March 1986 the DECS issued petitioner a renewal Construction Services and Technical Equipment ("PBAC-CSTE") that Contract No. APM- importations by the Garments and Textile Export Board (GTEB) in OSC Case No. 84-B-1
permit for SY 1985-1986. Later, petitioner applied for a summer permit for 1986 which 01 be given to a contractor offering fiberglass pipes and (b) to instead award the and, as a result of which, the export quotas allocated to it were cancelled.
the DECS favorably indorsed to the Minister of Education in consideration of the contract to a complying and responsive bidder pursuant to the provisions of GLORIOUS filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court,
graduating students. On 9 April 1987 the DECS Inter-Agency Technical Committee Presidential Decree No. 1594. docketed as G.R. No. 67180, contending that its right to due process of law was
(IATCOM) recommended renewal of permits for the maritime courses offered by ISSUE: violated, and that the GTEB decision was not supported by substantial evidence.
petitioner provided that a development plan for the improvement of its buildings Whether the rudiments of due process have been properly observed in the Respondent GLORIOUS alleged that the charges against it in OSC Case No.
classrooms, laboratory rooms, library offices and other rooms be formulated and issuance of the assailed orders of the Ombudsman. 84-B-1 were not supported by evidence. Moreover, it alleged that the GTEB decision
implemented before the start of school year 1987-1988.Despite lack of permit, RULING: cancelling its export quotas was rendered as a result of duress, threats, intimidation
petitioner continued to enroll students and offer courses in Marine Engineering and Yes, Petitioners were asked to comment on the letter-complaint of and undue influence exercised by former Minister Roberto V. Ongpin in order to
Marine Transportation for SY 1987-1988. PLDPPMA. On 25 June 1992, petitioners moved for an extension of time within which transfer GLORIOUS' export quotas to "Marcos crony-owned" corporations De Soleil
to comment. On July 16, 1992, petitioners filed their letter-comment. Responding to Apparel Manufacturing Corporation [DSA] and petitioner American Inter-fashion
In a DECS-PAMI survey conducted by the DECS technical staff in 1988, petitioner the reply of PLDPPMA, petitioners later filed a rejoinder. When an adverse order was (AIFC).
scored way below the DECS requirements.Subsequent inspection of petitioner's rendered against them, petitioners moved for its reconsideration, albeit to no avail. ISSUE: Whether private respondent Glorious Sun was denied due process during the
premises by the Bureau of Higher Education-DECS Technical Panel for Maritime MAIN POINT: hearings held in GTEB.
Education (TPME) affirmed the findings of the DECS-PAMI survey. It found petitioner The absence of due process is an opportunity to be heard. 32 One may be RULING: Yes, AIFC admits that the 1984 GTEB decision failed to disclose to Glorious
deficient in terms of the minimum requirements. In a letter dated 11 July 1989 the heard, not solely by verbal presentation but also, and perhaps even many times more vital evidence used by GTEB in arriving at its conclusion that Glorious was guilty of
DECS through Secretary Quisumbing informed petitioner that it had received reports creditably and practicable than oral argument, through pleadings. 33 In administrative dollar-salting, it contends that the subsequent disclosure in 1987, where relevant
that petitioner enrolled freshmen for its maritime programs which were ordered proceedings, moreover, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly documents were given to Glorious and that the latter was given an opportunity to
phased out effective SY 1989-1990. Pursuant to petitioner's request, another applied; administrative due process cannot be fully equated to due process in its strict comment thereon, cured the defect. This contention by AIFC, the court holds, is
inspection of the Manila premises was conducted by the TPME-Secretariat on 8 August judicial sense. misleading. The SC recognized that the instant petition involves the 1984 resolution of
1989. However, petitioner only obtained a general rating of 31.17% for Nautical the GTEB.
Studies and 28.53% for Marine Engineering. Consequently, the inspection team 200 AIFC cannot use as an excuse the subsequent disclosure of the evidence
reiterated its previous recommendation to gradually phase out the maritime programs THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING ACT – REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7279 used by the GTEB to Glorious in 1987 to justify the 1984 GTEB resolution. The glaring
of petitioner's Manila campus. It alleged that the resolutions failed to meet the PEREZ V. MADRONA fact is that Glorious was denied due process when GTEB failed to disclose evidence
constitutional requirement of due process because the basis for affirming the DECS FACTS: Spouses Madrona are registered owners of a residential property, they built used by it in rendering a resolution against Glorious.
phase-out and closure orders was not sufficiently disclosed. their house thereon and enclosed it with a concrete fence and steel gate. They MAIN POINT:
ISSUE ; Whether petitioner was deprived of his right to due process received a letter from petitioner Perez, Chief of the Marikina Demolition Office The Supreme Court also held that although factual findings of
ordering them to removed their fences as it is constructed in the sidewalk. administrative agencies are generally accorded respect, such factual findings may be
disregarded if they are not supported by evidence; where the findings are initiated by and collection, the State’s power is entitled to presumption of validity. As a rule, the reconsideration were denied hence, this petition. They contended that the
fraud, imposition or collusion; where the procedures which lead to the factual findings judiciary will not interfere with such power absent a clear showing of respondents Ombudsman Vasquez acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
are irregular; when palpable errors are committed; or when grave abuse of discretion unreasonableness, discrimination, or arbitrariness. discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in holding on reinvestigation.
arbitrariness or capriciousness is manifest. Since their criminal case was dismissed, it could no longer conduct reinvestigation.
Case No. 204 – Cruz
Case No. 202 – Cruz Cancellation of Property Rights and Privileges ISSUE:
Cancellation of Property Rights and Privileges British American Tobacco v. Camacho 562 SCRA 511, 585 SCRA 36 Whether or not the Ombudsman Judge is without jurisdiction to conduct
Alliance of DFLO v. Laguesma, 254 SCRA 565 reinvestigation.
Main Point: Classification if rational in character is allowable. The taxing power has
Main Point: Administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial powers, like the DOLE, the authority to make reasonable and natural classifications for purposes of taxation RULING:
are free from the rigidity of certain procedural requirements, nonetheless, they are No. In criminal prosecutions, a re-investigation, like an appeal, renders the entire case
bound by law and practice to observe the essential requisites of due process. Facts: British American Tobacco challenged the validity of Sec. 145 of the NIRC as open for review. It matters not that the complainants did not seek reinvestigation or
amended by R.A. 8420, arguing that the provision violated the equal protection clause reconsideration of the dismissal of charges against petitioners. Consistent with its
Facts: The Alliance of Democratic Free Labor Organization (ADFLO) filed an application and the rule on the uniformity of taxation. The provision created a four-tiered tax rate independence as protector of the people and as prosecutor to ensure accountability of
for registration as a national federation alleging, among others that it has 12 affiliates. based on the net retail price of cigarette brands. BAT introduced a “newbrand”, Lucky public officers, The Ombudsman is not and should not be limited in its review by the
After proper evaluation of its application, it was issued a Certificate of Registration to Strike, which was taxed under the “current retail price” it was introduced. Old brands action or in action of the complainants. Sec. 15 of RA No. 6770 provides that the
the federation. The Confederation of Labor and Allied Social Services (CLASS) filed a would be taxed based on the retail price before 1996. BAT argued that the tax was Ombudsman may motu proprio conduct a reinvestigation to assure that the guilty do
petition for the cancellation of the Registration Certificate issued to ADFLO. unfair since older brands would benefit from a “freeze” on the tax rates while newer not go unpunished.
The first hearing conducted by the BLR after the case was remanded to it for further brands would be taxed based on current retail prices even if older brands now had the
proceedings. However, since CLASS was not yet ready with its evidence, the hearing same current retail price. CASE NO. 206
was postponed. The Bureau of Labor Relations Director without first ruling on the Art. III, Sec. 1. Administrative and Preliminary Investigation; Ombudsman
admissibility of the exhibits of CLASS and without any further hearing then cancelled Issue: Whether RA 9334 is unconstitutional for violating the equal protection and Ocampo v. Ombudsman 322 SCRA
the registration of ADFLO. uniformity provisions of the constitution
MAINPOINT:
Issue: Whether a certificate of registration can be cancelled without a hearing Ruling: No. Under the rational basis test, a legislative classification, to survive an equal Failure to file a counter-affidavit even an order was issued is deemed a waiver of his
protection challenge, it must be shown to rationally further a legitimate state right to present evidence.
Ruling: Yes. The cancellation of a certificate of registration is the equivalent of snuffing interest. The classifications must be reasonable and rest upon some ground of
out the life of a labor organization. For without such registration, it loses its rights difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation. A FACTS:
under the Labor Code. Under the circumstances, petitioner was indisputably entitled legislative classification that is reasonable does not offend the constitutional guaranty The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari seeks to nullify the Resolutions of the
to be heard before a judgment could be rendered cancelling its certificate of of the equal protection of the laws. Ombudsman which dismissed petitioner from service, with forfeiture of benefits and
registration. In David vs. Aguilizan, it was held that a decision rendered without any The classification is considered valid and reasonable provided that: (1) it rests on special perpetual disqualification to hold office in the government of any GOCC’s. The
hearing is null and void. substantial distinctions; (2) it is germane to the purpose of the law; (3) it applies, all petitioner was Training Coordinator of NIACONSULT, INC., as subsidiary of National
things being equal, to both present and future conditions; and (4) it applies equally to Irrigation Administration who conducted a training program to 6 Nepalese Junior
Case No. 203 – Cruz all those belonging to the same class. Moreover, petitioner failed to clearly Engineer. However, the training fee was received by the petitioner after the said event
Cancellation of Property Rights and Privileges demonstrate the exact extent of such impact as the price is not the only factor that but never remitted such. The president of NIACONSULT file an administrative case
ABAKADA v. Ermita, 469 SCRA 1 affects competition. For as long as the legislative classification is rationally related to before the Ombudsman for serious misconduct, fraud, or willful breach of trust. The
furthering some legitimate state interest, as here, the rational-basis test is satisfied ombudsman issued an order twice requiring the petitioner to file counter-affidavit
Main Point: Courts cannot substitute our discretion for Congress, and even though and the constitutional challenge is perfunctorily defeated. with 20 days but failed and such failure would deem a waiver of his right to present
there are provisions in Rep. Act No. 9337 which we may believe as unwise or evidence. Petitioner contended that he was denied of due process because he was not
iniquitous, but not unconstitutional, we cannot strike them off by invoking our power CASE NO. 205 given an opportunity to file counter-affidavit and was not given access to the records
of judicial review. In such a situation, the recourse of the people is not judicial, but Art. III, Sec. 1. Administrative and Preliminary Investigation; Ombudsman Roxas v. of the subject transaction vital to his defense despite his verbal requests to the graft
rather political. If they severely doubt the wisdom of the present Congress for passing Vasquez GR 114944 June 19, 2001 investigator.
a statute such as Rep. Act No. 9337, then they have the power to hold the members of
said Congress accountable by using their voting power in the next elections. MAINPOINT: ISSUE:
In criminal prosecutions, a re-investigation, like an appeal, renders the entire case Whether or not petitioner was denied of due process.
Facts: A law was passed authorizing the president upon recommendation of the open for review; The Ombudsman is not and should not be limited in its review by the
Secretary of finance to raise the VAT rate to 12%. The petitioner questions said law action or in action of the complainants. RULING:
alleging that, among others, such law is in violation of due process and equal FACTS: No. The essence of due process is an opportunity to be heard. One may be heard, not
protection clause. The petitioners filed for petitioner of certiorari and prohibition seek to set aside the solely by verbal presentation but also, and perhaps even many times more creditably
Orders of the Ombudsman insofar as they found probable cause to charge petitioners and practicable than oral argument, through pleadings. In administrative proceedings,
Issue: Whether such law is in violation of the due process and equal protection. Policemen for violating Sec. 3 of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and prohibit moreover, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied;
respondents from trying the petitioner in Criminal case filed against them before administrative due process cannot be fully equated to due process in its strict judicial
Ruling: The Supreme Court held no decision on this matter. The power of the State to Sandiganbayan. They were Chairman and member of the Bids and Awards Committee sense. Petitioner has been amply accorded the opportunity to be heard. He was
make reasonable and natural classifications for the purposes of taxation has long been which offered bidding to different agencies as PC-INP wanted for supply purchase of 65 required to answer the complaint against him. In fact, petitioner was given
established. Whether it relates to the subject of taxation, the kind of property, the units of fire trucks. When the bid was given to Tahei Co. Ltd, a discrepancy of considerable length of time to submit his counter-affidavit twice. Thus, petitioner’s
rates to be levied, or the amounts to be raised, the methods of assessment, valuation P19,030,570 for all fire trucks purchased was discovered. Their appeal and motion for
failure to present evidence is solely of his own making and cannot escape his own prohibits the slaughter of large cattle fit for agricultural work or other draft Appellees, in their supplementary complaint challenge the power of the of
remissness by passing the blame on the graft investigator. purposes for human consumption. the Collector of Internal Revenue to remove any sign, signboard, or
billboard upon the ground that the same is offensive to the sight or is
The respondent counters by stating that what the Act is (1) prohibiting is otherwise a nuisance and maintain that the billboards in question “in no
CASE NO. 207 the slaughter of large cattle in the municipal slaughter house without a sense constitute a nuisance and are not deleterious to the health, morals,
Art. III, Sec. 1. T. Administrative and Preliminary Investigation; Ombudsman permit given by the municipal treasurer. Furthermore, he contends that the or general welfare of the community, or of any persons.” Defendant
Serapio v. Sandiganbayan GR 148468 Jan. 28, 2003 municipality of Carmen has no slaughter house and that he slaughtered his Collector of Internal Revenue avers that after due investigation made upon
carabao in his dwelling, (2) the act constitutes a taking of property for the complaints of the British and German Consuls, the defendant “decided
MAINPOINT: public use in the exercise of the right of eminent domain without providing that the billboard complained of was and still offensive to the sight and is
The right to a preliminary investigation is not a constitutional right, but it is a right for the compensation of owners, and it is an undue and unauthorized otherwise a nuisance.”
conferred by a statute exercise of police power of the state for it deprives them of the enjoyment Issue: Was the enactment assailed by the plaintiffs was a legitimate
of their private property. exercise of the police power of the Government?
FACTS: Issue: Whether or not Act. No. 1147, regulating the registration, branding Ruling: The High Court is of the opinion that unsightly advertisements or
Petitioner was a member of the Board of Trustees and legal counsel of the Erap and slaughter of large cattle, is an undue and unauthorized exercise of signs, signboards, or billboards which are offensive to the sight, are not
Muslim Youth Foundation. He received a Php200 million donation from Chavit Singson police power. disassociated from the general welfare of the public. This is not establishing
and turned it over to the treasurer of the Foundation and it was deposited to the Ruling: It is a valid exercise of police power of the state. The Supreme court a new principle, but carrying a well- recognized principle to further
account with the Equitable PCI Bank. In 2000, Singson publicly accused Estrada and his Said sections 30 and 33 of the Act prohibit and penalize the slaughtering or application. Moreover, if the police power may be exercised to encourage a
cohorts of engaging in several illegal activities triggering the filing with the causing to be slaughtered for human consumption of large cattle at any healthy social and economic condition in the country, and if the comfort
Ombudsman several criminal complaints against Estrada, including petitioner. place without the permit provided for in section 30 and convenience of the people are included within those subjects,
Ombudsman filed with the Sandiganbayan several informations against Estrada and Where the language of a statute is fairly susceptible of two or more everything which encroaches upon such territory is amenable to the police
other persons and no bail was recommended for the provisional released of the constructions, that construction should be adopted which will most tend to power. Judgment reversed.
accused. Petitioner filed an MR and was denied because the information was already give effect to the manifest intent of the lawmaker and promote the object
filed with the Sandiganbayan, which issued a Resolution finding probable cause to for which the statute was enacted, and a construction should be rejected 210. People v. Fajardo – 104 Phil. 443
justify the issuance of warrants of arrests for the accused, including petitioner. which would tend to render abortive other provisions of the statute and to
Petitioner was detained at Camp Crame for the said charge. Arraignment was set and defeat the object which the legislator sought to attain by its enactment Facts: Fajardo was mayor in Baao, Camrines Sur when the municipal council
petitioner filed a petition for Bail which did not push through. Even before the passed the ordinance that prohibits the construction of a building that
Sandiganbayan can resolve the issues, petitioner filed with the Supreme Court a The Supreme Court also said that if they will follow the contention of blocks the view of the town plaza. Moreover, it redirects the grant of
petition for habeas corpus and certiorari praying that the issued Resolutions of the Toribio it will defeat the purpose of the law. permission to the mayor.
Sandiganbayan be declared void because he was denied due process. After his incumbency, Fajardo applied for a permit to build a building beside
ISSUE: The police power rests upon necessity and the right of self-protection and if the gasoline station near the town plaza. His request was repeatedly
Whether the Sandiganbayan denied the petitioner of his right to due process of the ever the invasion of private property by police regulation can be justified, denied. He continued with the construction under the rationale that he
law. The Supreme Court think that the reasonable restriction placed upon the needed a house to stay in because the old one was destroyed by a typhoon.
use of carabaos by the provision of the law under discussion must be held He was convicted and ordered to pay a fine and demolish the building due
RULING: to be authorized as a reasonable and proper exercise of that power. to its obstructing view.
No. Petitioner was afforded the opportunity to answer the charges against him during He appealed to the CA, which in turn forwarded the petition due to the
the preliminary investigation. Jurisprudence dictates that the Court do not interfere The Supreme Court cited events that happen in the Philippines like an question of the ordinance’s constitutionality.
with the discretion of the Ombudsman in its conduct of preliminary investigations. It epidemic that wiped 70-100% of the population of carabaos.. The Supreme Issue: Whether the ordinance constitutional.
was enunciated in Raro v. Sandiganbayan that in the performance of the task to Court also said that these animals are vested with public interest for they Ruling: No. The ordinance doesn’t state any standard that limits the grant
determine probable cause, the Ombudsman’s discretion is paramount. The lack of a are fundamental use for the production of crops. These reasons satisfy the of power to the mayor. It is an arbitrary and unlimited conferment.
preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of the information filed before requesites of a valid exercise of police power Ordinances which thus invest a city council with a discretion which is purely
the court. arbitrary, and which may be exercised in the interest of a favored few, are
The denial of his prayer for a writ of habeas corpus does not deny him of his right to The Supreme court finally said that article 1147 is not an exercise of the unreasonable and invalid. The ordinance should have established a rule by
due process because there is no basis for the issuance of the writ in favor of the inherent power of eminent domain. The said law does not constitute the which its impartial enforcement could be secured. All of the authorities
petitioner. Petitioner has voluntarily surrendered himself to the authorities. Habeas taking of caraboes for public purpose; it just serve as a mere regulation for cited above sustain this conclusion.
corpus does not lie because there was no deprivation of liberty. Also, the delay in the the consumption of these private properties for the protection of general The ordinance is unreasonable and oppressive, in that it operates to
hearing of the bail cannot be solely pinned upon the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner is also welfare and public interest. permanently deprive appellants of the right to use their own property;
to be blamed. Habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy for asserting one’s right to hence, it oversteps the bounds of police power, and amounts to a taking of
bail. 209. Churchill v. Rafferty – 32 Phil. 580 appellants property without just compensation.
208. US v. Toribio – 15 Phil. 85 While property may be regulated to the interest of the general welfare, and
Facts: Appellees, Francis A. Churchill and Stewart Tait are involved in the the state may eliminate structures offensive to the sight, the state may not
Facts: Respondent Toribio is an owner of carabao, residing in the town of advertising business, particularly in billboard advertising. Their billboards permanently divest owners of the beneficial use of their property and
Carmen in the province of Bohol. The trial court of Bohol found that the located upon private lands in the Province of Rizal were removed upon practically confiscate them solely to preserve or assure the aesthetic
respondent slaughtered or caused to be slaughtered a carabao without a complaints and by the orders of the defendant Collector of Internal appearance of the community.
permit from the municipal treasurer of the municipality wherein it was Revenue by virtue of the provisions of subsection (b) of section 100 of Act Fajardo would be constrained to let the land be fallow and not be used for
slaughtered, in violation of Sections 30 and 33 of Act No. 1147, an Act No. 2339. urban purposes. To do this legally, there must be just compensation and
regulating the registration, branding, and slaughter of Large Cattle. The act they must be given an opportunity to be heard.
 An ordinance which permanently so restricts the use of property that it can 215 – MUSA the Labor Arbiter and declaring that there was no illegal dismissal. The factual and
not be used for any reasonable purpose goes, it is plain, beyond regulation SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS procedural antecedents in this case are in the main not disputed.
and must be recognized as a taking of the property. National Development Co. and New Agrix v. Phil. Vet. Bank
The validity was also refuted by the Admin Code which states: 192 SCRA 257
SEC. 2243. Certain legislative powers of discretionary character. — The ISSUE:
municipal council shall have authority to exercise the following Whether or not NLRC) acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the payroll
discretionary powers: FACTS: reinstatement of an employee despite its resolution reversing the decision of the Labor
xxx xxx xxx Agrix Marketing executed in favor of respondent a real estate mortgage over three Arbiter and declaring that there was no illegal dismissal.
(c) To establish fire limits in populous centers, prescribe the kinds of parcels of land. Agrix later on went bankrupt. In order to rehabilitate the company,
buildings that may be constructed or repaired within them, and issue then President Marcos issued Presidential Decree 1717 which mandated, among RULING:
permits for the creation or repair thereof, charging a fee which shall be others, the extinguishing of all the mortgages and liens attaching to the property of YES. NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion. The petition should thus be granted.
determined by the municipal council and which shall not be less than two Agrix, and creating a Claims Committee to process claims against the company to be The resolution of the issue is found in the third paragraph of Article 223 of the Labor
pesos for each building permit and one peso for each repair permit issued. administered mainly by NDC. Respondent thereon filed a claim against the company Code which reads: “In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a
The fees collected under the provisions of this subsection shall accrue to before the Committee. Petitioners however filed a petition with the RTC of Calamba, dismissed or separated employee, insofar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned,
the municipal school fund. Laguna invoking the provision of the law which cancels all mortgage liens against it. shall immediately be executory, even pending appeal. The employee shall either be
Since, there was absolutely no showing in this case that the municipal Respondent took measures to extrajudicially foreclose which the petitioners opposed admitted back to work under the terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal
council had either established fire limits within the municipality or set by filing another case in the same court. These cases were consolidated. The RTC held or separation or, at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll. The
standards for the kind or kinds of buildings to be constructed or repaired in favor of the respondent on the ground of unconstitutionality of the decree; mainly posting of a bond by the employer shall not stay the execution for reinstatement
within them before it passed the ordinance in question, it is clear that said violation of the separation of powers, impairment of obligation of contracts, and provided herein.” In the absence of an order for the issuance of the writ of execution
ordinance was not conceived and promulgated under the express authority violation of the equal protection clause. Hence this petition. on the reinstatement aspect, petitioner was under no legal obligation to admit back to
of sec. 2243 (c) work the private respondent.—In the absence then of an order for the issuance of a
ISSUE: writ of execution on the reinstatement aspect of the decision of the Labor Arbiter,
Whether or not PD 1717 violates the due process clause. the petitioner was under no legal obligation to admit back to work the private
214 – MUSA respondent under the terms and conditions prevailing prior to her dismissal or, at
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS RULING: the petitioner’s option, to merely reinstate her in the payroll.
Balacuit v. CFI – 163 SCRA 182 YES. A mortgage lien is a property right derived from contract and so comes under the 217 REYES
protection of the Bill of Rights. So do interests on loans, as well as penalties and Substantive Due Process
FACTS: charges, which are also vested rights once they accrue. Private property cannot simply Magtajas vs. Pryce Properties 234 SCRA 190
The Municipal Board of City of Butuan passed Oridinance No 640 on 21 April 1969, be taken by law from one person and given to another without compensation and any
“penalizing any person , group of persons , entity or engeged in the business of selling known public purpose. This is plain arbitrariness and is not permitted under the FACTS:
admission tickets to any movie… to require children between 7-12 years of age to pay Constitution. The extinction of the mortgage and other liens and of the interest and PAGCOR announced the opening of a casino in Cagayan de Oro City but the reaction of
full payment for ticket should only be charged one half.” Petitioners Carlos Balacuit , et other charges pertaining to the legitimate creditors of AGRIX constitutes taking the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City was swift and hostile which
al as managers of theaters assailed the validity and constitutionality of the said without due process of law, and this is compounded by the reduction of the secured resulted in the enactment of ordinances to prohibit the issuance of business permit
ordinance. The court adjudged in favour of the respondents hence the petition for creditors to the category of unsecured creditors in violation of the equal protection and cancelling existing business permit to any establishment for the using and allowing
review. Petitioners contend that it violates due process clause of the Constitution for clause. to be used its premises or portion thereof for the operation of casino and for providing
being oppressive, unfair , unjust, confiscatory and an undue restraint of trade. a penalty therefor.
216 – MUSA
ISSUE: Maranaw Hotel v. NLRC – 238 SCRA 190 ISSUE:
Whether or not the ordinance violates the due process clause. Whether such ordinances were valid.
FACTS:
RULING: On 16 June 1990, private respondent Gina G. Castro was hired on a probationary basis RULING:
YES. While it is true that a business may be regulated, it is equally true that such for six months as a guest relations officer of the Century Park Sheraton Hotel, a five- No. Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that, “no person shall be
regulation must be within the bounds of reason, that is, the regulatory ordinance must star hotel located at Malate, Manila, owned by the petitioner. On 10 November 1990, deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be
be reasonable, and its provisions cannot be oppressive amounting to an arbitrary she was dismissed on the ground of failure to meet the standards set forth in her denied the equal protection of the laws.”
interference with the business or calling subject of regulation. A lawful business or probationary employment contract. She then filed on 13 November 1990 with the
calling may not, under the guise of regulation, be unreasonable interfered with even Arbitration Branch of the National Capital Region of the NLRC a complaint for illegal In the case at bar, the ordinances enacted by the Sangguniang Panlungsod are invalid
by the exercise of police power. A police measure for the regulation of the conduct, dismissal with reinstatement, back wages, and damages against the hotel and its for contravening PD 1869, which authorized casino gambling. The legislature may
control and operation of a business should not encroach upon the legitimate and former general manager, Peter Grieder. prohibit gambling altogether or allow it without limitation or it may prohibit some
lawful exercise by the citizens of their property rights. The right of the owner to fix a In its resolution of 25 March 1993,11 the NLRC (Second Division) reversed the decision forms of gambling and allow others for whatever reasons it may consider sufficient.
price at which his property shall be sold or used is an inherent attribute of the of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. It held that there The rationale of the requirement that the ordinances should not contravene a statute
property itself and, as such, within the protection of the due process clause. Hence, was no illegal dismissal but rather a failure of the private respondent to comply with is obvious. Municipal governments are only agents of the national government. Local
the proprietors of a theater have a right to manage their property in their own way, to the petitioner’s standards for permanent employment. councils exercise only delegated legislative powers conferred on them by Congress as
fix what prices of admission they think most for their own advantage, and that any This special civil action of certiorari raises the issue of whether the National Labor the national lawmaking body. The delegate cannot be superior to the principal or
person who did not approve could stay away. Relations Commission (NLRC) acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the exercise powers higher than those of the latter. It is a heresy to suggest that the local
payroll reinstatement of an employee despite its resolution reversing the decision of government units can undo the acts of Congress, from which they have derived their
power in the first place, and negate by mere ordinance the mandate of the statute.
 trial court’s decision ruling that no one may refuse treatment for another person, MAIN POINT: The Artist Record Book (ARB) is a valid regulation under the Police
MAIN POINT: absent an adequate living will "or the clear and convincing, inherently reliable evidence Power. Due process is not infriged so long as professionals and other workers meet
The national government, through the legislative department, exercises police power absent here. The parents appeal the case to the Supreme Court. reasonable regulatory standards.
but the same is also delegated, within limits, to local government.
ISSUE: CASE 221 - SABTALUH
(Hindi ako sure kung paano naging substantive due process ang Magtajas, but I think it Whether Missouri violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by CORONA V. UNITED HARBOUR
has something to do with governmental powers being restricted/limited since ganun refusing to remove Nancy’s feeding tube.
naman ang guarantee ng Bill of Rights; in this case, since delegated legislative powers FACTS:
lang meron ang local governments, the ordinances they enact should not contravene RULING: Philippine Ports Authority (PPA), was organized to control, regulate and supervise
statutes) No. The Court found in favor of the Missouri Department of Health and ruled that pilots and the pilotage, allegedly violated respondents’ right to exercise their
nothing in the Constitution prevents the state of Missouri from requiring “clear and profession and their right to due process by issuing AO 04-92 which limited the term of
218 REYES convincing evidence” before terminating life-supporting treatment. The Court ruled Harbour Pilots to one year subject to yearly renewal or cancellation. The AO 04-92
Substantive Due Process that competent individuals have the right to refuse medical treatment under the Due mandated that aspiring that must be holders of pilot licenses and must train as
Bennis vs. Michigan, No. 94-8729 Process Clause. However, with incompetent individuals, the Court upheld the state of probationary pilots in outports for three months and in the Port of Manila for four
Missouri's higher standard for evidence of what the person would want if they were months. It is only after they have achieved satisfactory performance that they are
FACTS: able to make their own decisions. This higher evidentiary standard was constitutional, given permanent and regular appointments by the PPA itself to exercise harbor
Tina Bennis and her husband John Bennis were joint owners of an automobile. John the Court ruled, because family members might not always make decisions that the pilotage until they reach the age of 70, unless sooner removed by reason of mental or
Bennis was arrested by the police after observing him engaged in sexual activity with a incompetent person would have agreed with, and those decisions might lead to physical unfitness by the PPA General Manager. The respondents questioned the
prostitute in the automobile while it was parked. He was convicted of gross indecency. actions (like withdrawing life support) that would be irreversible. validity of this issuance arguing that due process was not observed because no hearing
A Michigan court ordered the automobile forfeited as a public nuisance, with no offset was conducted and the pilots themselves could ventilate their views.
for Tina Bennis’ interest, notwithstanding her lack of knowledge of her husband's MAIN POINT:
activity. It established that absent a living will or clear and convincing evidence of what the ISSUE:
incompetent person would have wanted, the state's interests in preserving life Whether PPA-AO 04-92 disregarded the respondent’s right against deprivation of
The gravamen of petitioner's due process claim is not that she was denied notice or an outweigh the individual's rights to refuse treatment. property without due process of law.
opportunity to contest the abatement of her car; she was accorded both. Rather, she
claims she was entitled to contest the abatement by showing she did not know her CASE 219 – SABTALUH RULING:
husband would use it to violate Michigan's indecency law. CRUZAN VS. DIR. MISSOURI No. The respondent contention cannot prosper since the alleged curtailment of due
NOT FOUND 😔 process arise from the procedural process of the enactment of the AO 04-92. In the
ISSUE: case at bar, respondents question the validity of the aforementioned AO for no less
Whether due process of law was denied. CASE 220-SABTALUH that four times before finally reaching to the tribunal. Their argument however failed
JMM PROMOTION AND MANAGEMENT, INC. C. CA to persuade the court.
RULING:
No. The Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does FACTS: MAIN POINT:
not protect her interest against forfeiture by the government. It has long been settled President Corazon Aquino pursuant to the State power controled the deployment of In this case, the contention of the respondent that due process is not observed is not
that statutory forfeitures of property entrusted by the innocent owner to another who female entertainers to Japan by requiring an Artist Record Book (ARB) as a tenable. The fact that he was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due
uses it in violation of the revenue laws of the United States is not a violation of the due precondition to the processing by the POEA of any contract for overseas employment. course, means that he cannot be said to have been denied of the due process of law,
process clause. By contending that the right to overseas employment is a property right within the for this opportunity to be heard is the very essence of due process.
meaning of the Constitution, petitioners contends that deprivation thereof allegedly
219 REYES through the onerous requirement of an ARB violates the due process clause and
Substantive Due Process constitutes an invalid exercise of the police power. 223. Salinas- Chavez v. Romulo: Substantive Due Process
Cruzan vs. Director Missouri No. 88-1503 Facts: PGMA directed PNP Chief to suspend the issuance of Permits to Carry Firearms
ISSUE: Outside of Residence (PTCFOR). Petitioner Francisco I. Chavez, a licensed gun owner to
FACTS: Whether or not licensing or accreditation requirements violates the due process clause whom a PTCFOR has been issued, requested the Department of Interior and Local
Nancy Cruzan lost control of her car while driving at nighttime. She was thrown from Government (DILG) to reconsider the implementation of the assailed Guidelines.
the vehicle and landed face-down in a water-filled ditch. Paramedics found her with no RULING: However, his request was denied. Thus, he filed the present petition. He raised the
vital signs, but they resuscitated. After three weeks in a coma, she was diagnosed as No. Professionals leaving for abroad are required pass rigid written and practical exams argument that the PNP guidelines violate the due process clause of the constitution as
being in a persistent vegetative state. Surgeons inserted a feeding tube for her long- before they are deemed fit to practice their trade. Seamen are required to take tests the said guidelines deprive petitioner of his most potent, if not his only, means to
term care. A few years later, Cruzan’s parents asked her doctors to remove her feeding determining their seamanship. Locally, the Professional Regulation Commission has defend himself.
tube but the hospital refused to do so without a court order, since removal of the tube begun to require previously licensed doctors and other professionals to furnish Issue: Whether or not the PNP guidelines deprive petitioner of this right without due
would cause Cruzan’s death. documentary proof that they had either re-trained or had undertaken continuing process of law
education courses as a requirement for renewal of their licenses. It is not claimed that Ruling: No, it did not. In due process claims, the first and foremost consideration must
The Cruzans filed for and received a court order for the feeding tube to be removed in these requirements pose an unwarranted deprivation of a property right under the be whether life, liberty, or property interest exists. Jurisprudence points out that
which the trial court ruled that constitutionally, there is a “fundamental natural right due process clause. So long as professionals and other workers meet reasonable authorizing a person to enjoy a certain privilege is neither a property nor property right
to refuse or direct the withholding or withdrawal of artificial death prolonging regulatory standards no such deprivation exists. and does not create vested right, and that the PTCFOR like ordinary licenses can be
procedures when the person has no more cognitive brain function and there is no revoked anytime. Therefore, the guidelines of the PNP is not violative of his right.
hope of further recovery.” The State of Missouri appealed and the court reversed the
 224. Salinas Cruz v. Flavier- Substantive Due Process Main point: The constitutional right to equal protection of the laws is not absolute but the lack of opportunity to be heard. Equal protection erects no shield against private
Facts: Isagani Cruz brought a suit assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of is subject to reasonable classification. To be reasonable, the classification (a) must be conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful.
IPRA and its IRR. Petitioners maintain that the broad definition of ancestral lands and based on substantial distinctions which make real differences; (b) must be germane tot
ancestral domains under Section 3(a) and 3(b) of IPRA includes private lands. They he purpose of the law; (c) must not be limited to existing conditions only; and (d0 must CASE NO. 229– Tan
argue that the inclusion of private lands in the ancestral lands and ancestral domains apply equally to each member of the class. Article III, Sec. 1: Substantive Due Process
violates the due process clause. They contend that Section 56 aims to protect only the St. Luke’s Medical Center Employee’s Association vs. NLRC
vested rights of indigenous peoples, but not those who are not members of such 227. SALVADOR Facts:
communities. Substantive Due Process Congress enacted RA 7431 known as the “Radiologic Technology Act of 1992.” Said law
Issue: Whether IPRA violates Section 1, Article III of the Constitution, which provides Espinocilla v. Bagong Tanyag requires that no person shall practice as a radiology or x-ray technologist in the
that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of Philippines without having obtained the proper license. Maribel Santos is an X-Ray
law, nor shall any person be deprived the equal protection of the laws. Facts: The BATAHAI was incorporated to enable the occupants of the land. Petitioners Technician in St. Luke’s Medical Center without a license. Pursuant to the law, HR and
Ruling: No, no violation has been made. The “property rights” referred to in Section 56 alleged that respondents subdivided the lots which they have been occupying since the department head ordered all currently employed persons who are covered by said
belong to those acquired by individuals, whether indigenous or non-indigenous 1987 without their knowledge and consent, reassigned the lots without observing due law to pass the necessary documents and if they do not comply, they will be
peoples. Said provision makes no distinction as to the ethnic origins of the ownership process of law, omitted or deleted their names from the certified list of prospective terminated. Santos filed a complaint against private respondent for illegal dismissal.
of these “property rights.” The IPRA thus recognizes and respects “vested rights” beneficiaries, and unlawfully replaced three BATAHAI directors. She contends that her failure to pass the board licensure exam did not constitute just
regardless of whether they pertain to indigenous or non-indigenous peoples. Where cause for termination as it violated her constitutional right to substantive due process
the law does not distinguish, the courts should not distinguish. What IPRA only Issue: Whether petitioners were deprived of due process through security of tenure.
requires is that these “property rights” already exist and/or vested upon its effectivity.
Ruling: NO. The court ruled that the due process guarantee cannot be invoked when Issue:
225. Salinas- Smith Kline v. CA: Substantive Due Process no vested right has been acquired. The period during which petitioners occupied the Whether substantive due process was violated?
Facts: private respondent filed with the BPTTT a petition for compulsory license to lots, no matter how long, did not vest them with any right to claim ownership since it is
manufacture and produce its own brand of medicines using Cimetidine. The BPTTT fundamental principle of law that acts of possessory character executed by virtue of Ruling:
granted the petition. Thereafter herein petitioner assailed the decision of the BPTTT on license or tolerance of the owner, no matter how long, do not start the running of the No. The dismissal is valid due to her inability to secure a certificate of registration from
the ground that the rate of royalties payable to petitioner as fixed by the BPTTT was period of acquisitive prescription. The records of the case show that petitioners had Board of Radiologic Technology. While the right of workers to security of tenure is
rendered without factual basis and amounts to an expropriation of private property had more than sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard before they were delisted guaranteed by the Constitution, its exercise may be reasonably regulated pursuant to
without just compensation. as prospective beneficiaries. the police power of the State to safeguard health, morals, peace, education, order,
Issue: Whether the grant of a compulsory license to private respondent results in the safety, and the general welfare of the people. Consequently, persons who desire to
deprivation of petitioner’s property without just compensation. Main point: The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard. What the law engage in the learned professions requiring scientific or technical knowledge may be
Ruling: No, it must be pointed out that as owner of Letters Patent No. 12207, prohibits is not the absence of previous notice but the absolute absence thereof and required to take an examination as a prerequisite to engaging in their chosen careers.
petitioner had already enjoyed exclusive rights to manufacture, use and sell Cimetidine the lack of opportunity to be heard.
for at least two years from its grant in November, 1978. Even if other entities like Main Point:
private respondent are subsequently allowed to manufacture, use and sell the 228. SALVADOR The state is justified in prescribing the specific requirements for x-ray technicians
patented invention by virtue of a compulsory license, petitioner as owner of the patent Substantive Due Process and/or any other professions connected with the health and safety of its citizens.
would still receive remuneration for the use of such product in the form of royalties. BF v. City Mayor
CASE NO. 230– Tan
226. SALVADOR Facts: Petitioners invoke Presidential Decree No. 957 and maintain that it intended Article III, Sec. 1: Substantive Due Process
Substantive Due Process primarily to protect the buyers and to ensure that subdivision developers keep their Carlos Superdrug Corp vs. DSWD
Parreño v. COA promises and representations. Petitioners allege that one of the promises of the Facts:
developer of BF Homes Parañaque is that the property shall be used for residential Petitioners are domestic corporations and proprietors operating drugstores in the
Facts: P.D. 1638 was enacted which states that a military personnel must not lose his purposes only. Petitioners assert that the reclassification of certain portions of BF Philippines. RA 9257 otherwise known as the “Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003”
Filipino citizenship for him to remain in the AFP retired list and receive his retirement Homes Parañaque from residential to commercial zone is unconstitutional because it was enacted which states that senior citizens shall be given 20% discount in hotels,
benefit. The petitioner claims that such P.D is violative of his vested and that it impairs the contracts between the developer of BF Homes Parañaque and the lot restaurants, recreation centers, purchases in medicine, and funeral and burial services
contrary to public policy and welfare, oppressive, discriminatory, and violative to the buyers. of said senior citizens. Petitioners assert that the law is unconstitutional because it
right of due process. constitutes deprivation of private property. Compelling owners of establishments to
Issue: Whether the claims of petitioners are valid. the discounts that will result in a loss of profit. They further alleged that government
Issue: Whether P.D. 1638 impairs vested rights to the benefits that is protected by the failed to provide for a scheme that will just compensate them for the discount.
due process clause. Ruling: NO. The court ruled that he constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of Issue:
contracts is limited by the exercise of the police power of the State, in the interest of Whether substantive due process through right to private property was violated?
Ruling: NO. The court ruled that P.D 1638 does not impair any vested right or interest public health, safety, morals and general welfare. such ordinance is reasonable and not
of petitioner. Since, at the time of approval of it the petitioner was still in active discriminating or oppressive. The increasing number of homeowners in BF Homes Ruling:
service. Hence, petitioner's retirement benefits were only future benefits and did not necessitated the addition of commercial areas in the subdivision to service the need of No. The law is a legitimate exercise of police power which, similar to the power of
constitute a vested right. Before a right to retirement benefits or pension vests in an the homeowners. eminent domain, has general welfare for its object; When the conditions so demand as
employee, he must have met the stated conditions of eligibility with respect to the determined by the legislature, property rights must bow to the primacy of police
nature of employment, age, and length of service. There was no denial of due process Main point: The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard. What the law power because property rights, though sheltered by due process, must yield to general
since the petitioner had the opportunity to contest the termination. prohibits is not the absence of previous notice but the absolute absence thereof and welfare.
Main Point: MAINPOINT ; It must not be forgotten that police power is an inherent attribute of only in the responsibility of the legislature (which imposes the tax) to its constituency
The state may practice police power which deprives property rights if general welfare sovereignty. who are to pay it.
so demands. It has been defined as the power vested by the Constitution in the legislature to make, 240
CASE NO. 231– Tan ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
Article III, Sec. 1: Substantive Due Process ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the Constitution, as Southern Hemisphere v. ATC 632 SCRA 146
Perez vs. LPG Refillers Association of the Philippines they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and for the FACTS: Before the Court are six petitions challenging the constitutionality of Republic
Facts: subjects of the same. Act No. 9372 (RA 9372), "An Act to Secure the State and Protect our People from
The LPGR Association assailed the circular of the Department of Energy (DOE). They Terrorism," otherwise known as the Human Security Act of 2007,1 signed into law on
argued that the circular included new crimes and added penalties in BP 33. The circular 238 March 6, 2007.
states that penalties for those who commit crimes in relation to BP 33 will be penalized SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS Parenthetically, petitioners do not even allege with any modicum of
per cylinder. The lower court agreed that the circular added new crimes not initially WHITE LIGHT V. CITY OF MANILA particularity how respondents acted without or in excess of their respective
listed in BP 33 but nonetheless held the arguments of respondents untenable because FACTS: Mayor Lim signed into law the Ordinance barring the operation of motels and jurisdictions, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
the penalties are not confiscatory. inns, among other establishments, within the Ermita-Malate area contending that The jurisdiction.
lawful objective of the Ordinance is satisfied since it aims to curb immoral activities. ISSUE: Whether RA 9372 “ Human security act of 2007 is unconstitutional
Issue: Malate Tourist and Development Corporation prayed that the Ordinance, insofar as it RULING: No, As earlier reflected, petitioners have established neither an actual charge
Whether substantive due process was violated? includes motels and inns as among its prohibited establishments, be declared invalid nor a credible threat of prosecution under RA 9372. Even a limited vagueness analysis
and unconstitutional. Petitioners allege that as owners of establishments offering of the assailed definition of "terrorism" is thus legally impermissible. The Court
Ruling: "wash-up" rates, their business is being unlawfully interfered with by the Ordinance. reminds litigants that judicial power neither contemplates speculative counseling on a
No. The SC held that the added penalties by the circular were indeed not confiscatory. ISSUE: Whether the government has sufficient justification for depriving a person of statute’s future effect on hypothetical scenarios nor allows the courts to be used as an
They further stated that to provide the same penalty for one who violates a prohibited life, liberty, or property. extension of a failed legislative lobbying in Congress.
act therein, regardless of the number of cylinders involved, would result in an RULING: No, Even as the implementation of moral norms remains an indispensable MAIN POINT: A statute or act suffers from the defect of vagueness when it lacks
indiscriminate, oppressive, and impractical operation of BP 33. Thus, it is a valid complement to governance, that prerogative is hardly absolute, especially in the face comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at
exercise of the state’s police power if general welfare so demands. of the norms of due process of liberty. its meaning and differ as to its application. It is repugnant to the Constitution in two
MAIN POINT: The purpose of the guaranty is to prevent arbitrary governmental respects: (1) it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties
Main Point: encroachment against the life, liberty and property of individuals. The due process targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid; and (2) it leaves law enforcers
For substantive due process to be violated, it requires that the state must have outrun guaranty serves as a protection against arbitrary regulation or seizure. Even unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of
the bounds of reason and result in oppression. corporations and partnerships are protected by the guaranty insofar as their property the Government muscle.
is concerned.
Case No. 241 – Cruz
237-baird 239 Substantive Due Process
substantive due process in topic SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS Roxas v. Macapagal-Arroyo 630 SCRA 211
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESvs.EVANGELINE SITON CREBA v. Romulo 614 SCRA 605
FACTS: Petitioner assails the validity of the imposition of minimum corporate income Main Point: The doctrine of command responsibility is a rule of substantive law that
FACTS ; Respondents Evangeline Siton and Krystel Kate Sagarano were charged with tax (MCIT) on corporations and creditable withholding tax (CWT) on sales of real establishes liability and by this account, cannot be a proper legal basis to implead a
vagrancy pursuant to Article 202 (2) of the Revised Penal CodeIn the instant case, the properties classified as ordinary assets. party-respondent in an amparo petition. The doctrine is used to pinpoint liability.
assailed provision is paragraph (2), which defines a vagrant as any person found Petitioner also asserts that the enumerated provisions of the subject
loitering about public or semi-public buildings or places, or tramping or wandering revenue regulations violate the due process clause because, like the MCIT, the Facts: Petitoiner Roxas was detained for allegedly being a member of the NPA. She was
about the country or the streets without visible means of support. Instead of government collects income tax even when the net income has not yet been tortured for 5 days to convince her to abandon her communist beliefs. She was
submitting their counter-affidavits as directed, respondents filed separate Motions to determined. They contravene the equal protection clause as well because the CWT is released and was given a cellular phone. She was sternly warned not to report the
Quash3 on the ground that Article 202 (2) is unconstitutional for being vague and being levied upon real estate enterprises but not on other business enterprises, more incident. After her release, Roxas continued to receive calls from RC thru the cell
overbroad. claiming that the definition of the crime of vagrancy under Article 202 (2), particularly those in the manufacturing sector. phone given to her. Out of apprehension, she threw the phone and filed a petition for
apart from being vague, results as well in an arbitrary identification of violators, since ISSUE: Whether MCIT Is Violative of Due Process the issuance of a writ of amparo and habeas data against several government officials
the definition of the crime includes in its coverage persons who are otherwise RULING: No, The constitutional safeguard of due process is embodied in the fiat "[no] including former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and former Defense Secretary
performing ordinary peaceful acts. They likewise claimed that Article 202 (2) violated person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." In Gilbert Teodoro, on the belief that it was the government agents who were behind her
the equal protection clause under the Constitution because it discriminates against the Sison, Jr. v. Ancheta, et al.,38 we held that the due process clause may properly be abduction and torture.
poor and unemployed, thus permitting an arbitrary and unreasonable classification. On invoked to invalidate, in appropriate cases, a revenue measure39 when it amounts to a
July 29, 2005, the Regional Trial Court issued the assailed Order granting the petition confiscation of property.40 But in the same case, we also explained that we will not Issue: Whether the doctrine of command responsibility is applicable in an amparo
strike down a revenue measure as unconstitutional (for being violative of the due petition
ISSUE ; Whether the court a quo erred in declaring article 202 unconstituitional process clause) on the mere allegation of arbitrariness by the taxpayer.41 There must
be a factual foundation to such an unconstitutional taint.42 This merely adheres to the Ruling: No. The court held that since the application of command responsibility
RULING ; Yes, Article 202 (2) does not violate the equal protection clause; neither does authoritative doctrine that, where the due process clause is invoked, considering that presupposes an imputation of individual liability, it is more aptly invoked in a full-
it discriminate against the poor and the unemployed. Offenders of public order laws it is not a fixed rule but rather a broad standard, there is a need for proof of such blown criminal or administrative case rather than in a summary amparo proceeding.
are punished not for their status, as for being poor or unemployed, but for conducting persuasive character. The obvious reason lies in the nature of the writ itself.
alarm and apprehension in the community. Being poor or unemployed is not a license MAIN POINT: The power to tax is plenary and unlimited in its range, acknowledging in It must be clarified, however, that the inapplicability of the doctrine of command
or a justification to act indecently or to engage in immoral conduct. its very nature no limits, so that the principal check against its abuse is to be found responsibility in an amparo proceeding does not, by any measure, preclude impleading
military or police commanders on the ground that the complained acts in the petition
were committed with their direct or indirect acquiescence. In which case, commanders assailed the formal charge and filed a motion assailing the formal charge as without FACTS: Accused Cayat, a native of Baguio, Benguet, Mountain Province, and a member
may be impleaded—not actually on the basis of command responsibility—but rather basis having proceeded from an illegal search which is beyond the authority of the CSC of the non-Christian tribes, was found guilty of violating sections 2 and 3 of Act No.
on the ground of their responsibility, or at least accountability. Chairman, such power pertaining solely to the court. 1639 for having acquired and possessed one bottle of A-1-1 gin, an intoxicating liquor,
which is not a native wine. The law made it unlawful for any native of the Philippines
Case No. 241 – Cruz Issue: Whether the search conducted by the CSC on the computer of the petitioner who is a member of a non-Christian tribe within the meaning of Act 1397 to buy,
Substantive Due Process constituted an illegal search and was a violation of his constitutional right to privacy receive, have in his possession, or drink any ardent spirits, ale, beer, wine or
Meralco v. Lim 632 SCRA 195 intoxicating liquors of any kind, other than the so-called native wines and liquors which
Ruling: The Court ruled that the petitioner did not have a reasonable expectation of the members of such tribes have been accustomed to prior to the passage of the law.
Main Point: An employee’s plea that she be spared from complying with her privacy in his office and computer files. Cayat challenges the constitutionality of Act 1639 on the grounds that it is
employer’s Memorandum directing her reassignment under the guise of a quest for As to the second point of inquiry, the Court answered in the affirmative. The search discriminatory and denies the equal protection of the laws, violates due process
information or data allegedly in possession of petitioners, does not fall within the authorized by the CSC Chair, the copying of the contents of the hard drive on clause, and is an improper exercise of police power.
province of a writ of habeas data. The habeas data rule, in general, is designed to petitioner’s computer reasonable in its inception and scope.
protect by means of judicial complaint the image, privacy, honor, information, and The Court noted that unlike in the case of Anonymous Letter-Complaint against Atty. ISSUE:
freedom of information of an individual – it is meant to provide a forum to enforce Miguel Morales, the case at bar involves the computer from which the personal files of Whether or not Act. 1639 violates due process clause.
one’s right to the truth and to informational privacy, thus safeguarding the the petitioner were retrieved is a government-issued computer, hence government
constitutional guarantees of a person’s right to life, liberty and security against abuse property the use of which the CSC has absolute right to regulate and monitor. RULING:
in this age of information technology. No. It is an established principle of constitutional law that the guaranty of the equal
Facts: A letter was sent to the Meralco admin department in bulacan denouncing Lim, CASE NO. 244 protection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based on reasonable
an administrative clerk. She was ordered to be transferred to Alabang due to concerns Art. III, Sec. 1. U. Substantive Due Process classification. (1) must rest on substantial distinctions; (2) must be germane to the
over her safety. She complained under the premise that the transfer was a denial of Sto. Tomas v. Paneda 685 SCRA 245 purposes of the law; (3) must not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) must
her due process. She filed for a writ of habeas data in the Bulacan RTC due to apply equally to all members of the same class.
meralco’s omission of providing her with details about the report of the letter. To her, MAINPOINT:
this constituted a violation of her liberty and security. She asked for disclosure of the The State under its police power “may prescribe such regulations as in its judgment Act No. 1639 satisfies these requirements. The classification rests on real or
data and measures for keeping the confidentiality of the data. will secure or tend secure the general welfare of the people, to protect them against substantial, not merely imaginary or whimsical distinctions. It is not based upon
Meralco filed a reply saying that the jurisdiction was with the NLRC and that the the consequence of ignorance and incapacity as well as of deception and fraud, hence “accident of birth or parentage,” as counsel for the appellant asserts, but upon the
petition wasn’t in order. Trial court ruled in her favor. In the SC, Meralco petitioned it is not a violation of substantive due process. degree of civilization and culture. “The term ‘non-Christian tribes’ refers, not to
that Habeas Data applies to entities engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of religious belief but in a way, to the geographical area and more directly, to natives of
data or information regarding an aggrieved party’s person, family or home FACTS: the Philippine Islands of a low grade of civilization, usually living in tribal relationship
Issue: Whether Habeas Data is the proper remedy for Lim This is a petition to review the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Migrant apart from settled communities.”This distinction is unquestionably reasonable, for the
Ruling: Yes. Respondents plea that she be spared from complying with MERALCOs Workers and Overseas Act of 1995 (R.A. No. 8042) which sets the Government’s Act was intended to meet the peculiar conditions existing in the non-Christian tribes.
Memorandum directing her reassignment to the Alabang Sector, under the guise of a policies on overseas employment and establishes a higher standard of protection and The prohibition enshrined in Act 1397 is designed to insure peace and order in and
quest for information or data allegedly in possession of petitioners, does not fall within promotion of the welfare of migrant workers, their families, and overseas Filipinos in among non-Christian tribes. It applies equally to all members of the class evident from
the province of a writ of habeas data. distress. Petitioner contended the constitutionality of Sections 29 and 30 of the Act perusal thereof. That it may be unfair in its operation against a certain number of non-
It’s a forum for enforcing one’s right to the truth. Like amparo, habeas data was a which commanded the DOLE to begin deregulating within one year of its passage the Christians by reason of their degree of culture, is not an argument against the equality
response to killings and enforced disappearances. In Castillo v Cruz, and habeas data business of handling the recruitment and migration of overseas Filipino workers and of its application.
will NOT issue to protect purely property or commercial concerns nor when the phase out within five years the regulatory functions of the Philippine Overseas
grounds invoked in support of the petitions therefor are vague or doubtful. Employment Administration (POEA). CASE NO. 246
Employment is a property right in the due process clause. Lim was concerned with her Art. III, Sec. 1. The Equal Protection of the Laws
employment, one that can be solved in the NLRC. ISSUE: Ichong v. Hernandez – 101 PHIL. 1155
There was no violation of respondent’s right to privacy. Respondent even said that the Whether RA No. 8042 violates substantive due process. MAINPOINT:
letters were mere jokes and even conceded the fact that the issue was labor related The equal protection of the law clause “does not demand absolute equality amongst
due to references to “real intent of management”. RULING: residents; it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like
No. As the Court held in People v. Ventura, 4 SCRA 208 (1962), the State under its circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.
Case No. 241 – Cruz police power “may prescribe such regulations as in its judgment will secure or tend to
Substantive Due Process secure the general welfare of the people, to protect them against the consequence of FACTS:
Pollo v. Karina Constantino. GR 181881, October 8, 2011 ignorance and incapacity as well as of deception and fraud.” Police power is “that Republic Act No. 1180 known as, “An Act to Regulate Retail Business” was passed by
inherent and plenary power of the State which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful the Congress which nationalizes the retail trade business by prohibiting against
Main Point: A search by a government employer of an employee’s office is justified at to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society.” persons not citizens of the Philippines, as well as associations, partnerships or
inception when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that it will. corporations the capital of which are not wholly owned by citizens of the Philippines,
CASE NO. 245 from engaging directly or indirectly in the retail trade with the exception of U.S.
Facts: Respondent CSC Chair Constantino-David received an anonymous letter Art. III, Sec. 1. The Equal Protection of the Laws citizens and juridical entities. Aliens are required to present registration to the proper
complaint alleging of an anomaly taking place in the Regional Office of the CSC. The People v. Cayat – 68 PHIL. 12, 18 authorities a verified statement concerning their businesses.
respondent then formed a team and issued a memo directing the team “to back up all MAINPOINT: It is an established principle of constitutional law that the guaranty of Now, petitioner Lao Ichong, was a Chinese businessman in the markets of Pasay City
the files in the computers found in the Mamamayan Muna (PALD) and Legal divisions.” the equal protection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based on reasonable who seeks to declare the nullification of RA 1180 for it violates the international and
The petitioner was dismissed from service. Peittioner was charged of violating R.A. No. classification. treaty obligations of the Republic of the Philippines. The said Act is unconstitutional,
6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees). He and to enjoin the Secretary of Finance and all other persons acting under him,
particularly city and municipal treasurers, from enforcing its provisions. He contends Pambansa Blg 52, which states that any person who has committed any act Wherefore, the first paragraph of section 4 of Batas pambansa Bilang 52 is
that RA 1180 denies to alien residents the equal protection of the laws and deprives of of disloyalty to the State, including those amounting to subversion, hereby declared valid and that portion of the second paragraph of section 4
their liberty and property without due process of law insurrection, rebellion, or other similar crimes, shall not be qualified for any of Batas Pambansa Bilang 52 is hereby declared null and void, for being
ISSUE: of the offices covered by the act, or to participate in any partisan activity violative of the constitutional presumption of innocence guaranteed to an
Whether or not RA No. 1180 violates due process of law. therein: provided that a judgment of conviction of those crimes shall be accused.
conclusive evidence of such fact and the filing of charges for the
RULING: commission of such crimes before a civil court or military tribunal after 249. Goesart v. Cleary - 335 US 464
No. A law may supersede a treaty or a generally accepted principle. In this case, the preliminary investigation shall be prima facie evidence of such fact.
Supreme Court saw no conflict between the raised generally accepted principle and Issue: Whether or not the aforementioned statutory provisions violate the Facts: A Michigan statute required that all bartenders hold licenses in cities
with RA 1180. The equal protection of the law clause “does not demand absolute Constitution and thus, should be declared null and void with populations greater than 50,000, but the statute also stated that a
equality amongst residents; it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, Ruling: In regards to the unconstitutionality of the provisions, Sec. 4 of BP woman could not be issued a license unless she was "the wife or daughter
under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities Blg 52 remains constitutional and valid. The constitutional guarantee of of the male owner" of a liquor establishment. Two female bartenders
enforced”; and, that the equal protection clause “is not infringed by legislation which equal protection of the laws is subject to rational classification. One class challenged the law, requesting an injunction against its enforcement, on the
applies only to those persons falling within a specified class, if it applies alike to all can be treated differently from another class. In this case, employees 65 ground that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
persons within such class, and reasonable grounds exist for making a distinction years of age are classified differently from younger employees. The purpose Amendment. A three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the
between those who fall within such class and those who do not.” of the provision is to satisfy the “need for new blood” in the workplace. In Eastern District of Michigan rejected the bartenders' claim.
For the sake of argument, even if it would be assumed that a treaty would be in regards to the second paragraph of Sec. 4, it should be declared null and Issue: Whether the Michigan statute, in denying female bartenders access
conflict with a statute then the statute must be upheld because it represented an void for being violative of the constitutional presumption of innocence to licenses, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
exercise of the police power which, being inherent could not be bargained away or guaranteed to an accused. “Explicit is the constitutional provision that, in all Amendment?
surrendered through the medium of a treaty. Hence, Ichong can no longer assert his criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the Ruling: No. In a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Felix Frankfurter, the Court
right to operate his market stalls in the Pasay City market. contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and concluded that the Constitution "does not preclude the States from drawing
counsel (Article IV, section 19, 1973 Constitution). An accusation, according a sharp line between the sexes" or "to reflect sociological insight, or shifting
247. Villegas v. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho – 86 SCRA 270 to the fundamental law, is not synonymous with guilt. The challenged social standards, any more than it requires them to keep abreast of the
proviso contravenes the constitutional presumption of innocence, as a latest scientific standards." The Court found that the Michigan legislature,
Facts: This case involves an ordinance prohibiting aliens from being candidate is disqualified from running for public office on the ground alone in enacting the statute, could have determined that allowing women to
employed or engage or participate in any position or occupation or business that charges have been filed against him before a civil or military tribunal. It bartend could "give rise to moral and social problems against which it may
enumerated therein, whether permanent, temporary or casual, without condemns before one is fully heard. In ultimate effect, except as to the devise preventive measures." The Court, Justice Frankfurter concludes, is in
first securing an employment permit from the Mayor of Manila and paying degree of proof, no distinction is made between a person convicted of acts no position to "cross-examine either actually or argumentatively the mind
the permit fee of P50.00. Private respondent Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho who of dislotalty and one against whom charges have been filed for such acts, as of Michigan legislators."
was employed in Manila, filed a petition to stop the enforcement of such both of them would be ineligible to run for public office. A person
ordinance as well as to declare the same null and void. Trial court rendered disqualified to run for public office on the ground that charges have been CASE NO. 253
judgment in favor of the petitioner, hence this case. filed against him is virtually placed in the same category as a person already Art. III, Sec. 1. The Equal Protection of the Laws
Issue: Whether the said Ordinance violates due process of law and equal convicted of a crime with the penalty of arresto, which carries with it the Himagan v. People – 237 SCRA 538
protection rule of the Constitution. accessory penalty of suspension of the right to hold office during the term
Ruling: Yes. The Ordinance The ordinance in question violates the due of the sentence (Art. 44, Revised Penal Code).” MAINPOINT:
process of law and equal protection rule of the Constitution. Requiring a The imposition of preventive suspension for over 90 days does not violate the
person before he can be employed to get a permit from the City Mayor who And although the filing of charges is considered as but prima facie evidence, suspended policeman’s constitutional right to equal protection clause.
may withhold or refuse it at his will is tantamount to denying him the basic and therefore, may be rebutted, yet. there is "clear and present danger"
right of the people in the Philippines to engage in a means of livelihood. that because of the proximity of the elections, time constraints will prevent FACTS:
While it is true that the Philippines as a State is not obliged to admit aliens one charged with acts of disloyalty from offering contrary proof to The petitioner filed a motion to lift the order for his suspension to be limited to (90)
within its territory, once an alien is admitted, he cannot be deprived of life overcome the prima facie evidence against him. ninety days relying on the ruling in Deloso vs. Sandiganbayan and Layno vs.
without due process of law. This guarantee includes the means of Sandiganbayan. He was suspended because of he is charged with murder and
livelihood. The shelter of protection under the due process and equal Additionally, it is best that evidence pro and con of acts of disloyalty be attempted murder under RPC falls squarely under Sec. 47 of RA 6975 which applies to
protection clause is given to all persons, both aliens and citizens. aired before the Courts rather than before an administrative body such as members of the PNP. He contended that suspension more than 90 days is contrary to
the COMELEC. A highly possible conflict of findings between two CS Law and a violation of his constitutional right to equal protection of the laws.
248. Dumlao v. COMELEC – 96 SCRA 392 government bodies, to the extreme detriment of a person charged, will
thereby be avoided. Furthermore, a legislative/administrative ISSUE:
Facts: Petitioner Dumlao questions the constitutionality of Sec. 4 of Batas determination of guilt should not be allowed to be substituted for a judicial Whether the petitioner’s right to equal protection of the laws is violated.
Pambansa Blg 52 as discriminatory and contrary to equal protection and determination.
due process guarantees of the Constitution. Sec. 4 provides that any retired RULING:
elective provicial or municipal official who has received payments of Being infected with constitutional infirmity, a partial declaration of nullity of No. The language of the first sentence of Sec. 47 of R.A. 6975 is clear, plain and free
retirement benefits and shall have been 65 years of age at the only that objectionable portion is mandated. It is separable from the first from ambiguity. It gives no other meaning than that the suspension from office of the
commencement of the term of office to which he seeks to be elected, shall portion of the second paragraph of section 4 of Batas Pambansa Big. 52 member of the PNP charged with grave offense where the penalty is six years and one
not be qualified to run for the same elective local office from which he has which can stand by itself. day or more shall last until the termination of the case. The suspension cannot be lifted
retired. According to Dumlao, the provision amounts to class legislation. before the termination of the case. The second sentence of the same Section providing
Petitioners Igot and Salapantan Jr. also assail the validity of Sec. 4 of Batas that the trial must be terminated within ninety (90) days from arraignment does not
qualify or limit the first sentence. The two can stand independently of each other. The CASE NO. 255 the suspension averring that Sec 42 of PD 807 of the Civil Service Decree, that his
first refers to the period of suspension. The second deals with the time frame within Telebap v. COMELEC – 289 SCRA 337 suspension should be limited to ninety (90) days. He claims that an imposition of
which the trial should be finished. Art. III, Sec. 1. The Equal Protection of the Laws preventive suspension of over 90 days is contrary to the Civil Service Law and would be
Suppose the trial is not terminated within ninety days from arraignment, should the a violation of his constitutional right to equal protection of laws.
suspension of accused be lifted? The answer is certainly no. While the law uses the FACTS:
mandatory word "shall" before the phrase "be terminated within ninety (90) days", Petitioner operates radio and television broadcast stations in the Philippines affected ISSUE:
there is nothing in R.A. 6975 that suggests that the preventive suspension of the by the enforcement of Section 92, B.P. No. 881.Petitioners challenge the validity of Whether or not Sec 47, RA 6975 violates equal protection guaranteed by the
accused will be lifted if the trial is not terminated within that period. Nonetheless, the Section 92, B.P. No. 881 which provides: “Comelec Time- The Commission shall procure Constitution.
Judge who fails to decide the case within the period without justifiable reason may be radio and television time to be known as the “Comelec Time” which shall be allocated
subject to administrative sanctions and, in appropriate cases where the facts so equally and impartially among the candidates within the area of coverage of all radio RULING:
warrant, to criminal8 or civil liability. and television stations. For this purpose, the franchise of all radio broadcasting and No. The reason why members of the PNP are treated differently from the other
television stations are hereby amended so as to provide radio or television time, free classes of persons charged criminally or administratively insofar as the application of
of charge, during the period of campaign.” Petitioner contends that while Section 90 of the rule on preventive suspension is concerned is that policemen carry weapons and
CASE NO. 254 the same law requires COMELEC to procure print space in newspapers and magazines the badge of the law which can be used to harass or intimidate witnesses against
Almonte v. Vasquez – 244 SCRA 286 with payment, Section 92 provides that air time shall be procured by COMELEC free of them, as succinctly brought out in the legislative discussions. If a suspended
Art. III, Sec. 1. The Equal Protection of the Laws charge. Thus it contends that Section 92 singles out radio and television stations to policeman criminally charged with a serious offense is reinstated to his post while his
provide free air time. case is pending, his victim and the witnesses against him are obviously exposed to
Mainpoint: constant threat and thus easily cowed to silence by the mere fact that the accused is in
FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to annul the ISSUE: uniform and armed. The imposition of preventive suspension for over 90 days under
subpoena duces tecum and orders issued by respondent Ombudsman, requiring Whether or not Section 92 of B.P. No. 881 denies radio and television broadcast Sec 47 of RA 6975 does not violate the suspended policeman’s constitutional right to
petitioners Nerio Rogado and Elisa Rivera, as chief accountant and record custodian, companies the equal protection of the laws. equal protection of the laws.
respectively, of the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) to produce
“all documents relating to Personal Services Funds for the year 1988 and all evidence, RULING:
such as vouchers (salary) for the whole plantilla of EIIB for 1988” and to enjoin him No. All broadcasting, whether radio or by television stations, is licensed by the 254 – MUSA
from enforcing his orders. Petitioner Jose T. Almonte was formerly Commissioner of government. Airwave frequencies have to be allocated as there are more individuals THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
the EIIB, while Villamor C. Perez is Chief of the EIIB’s Budget and Fiscal Management who want to broadcast that there are frequencies to assign. Radio and television Almonte v. Vasquez – 244 SCRA 286
Division. The subpoena duces tecum was issued by the Ombudsman in connection with broadcasting companies, which are given franchises, do not own the airwaves and
his investigation of an anonymous letter alleging that funds representing savings from frequencies through which they transmit broadcast signals and images. They are
unfilled positions in the EIIB had been illegally disbursed. The letter, purporting to have merely given the temporary privilege to use them. Thus, such exercise of the privilege FACTS:
been written by an employee of the EIIB and a concerned citizen, was addressed to the may reasonably be burdened with the performance by the grantee of some form of This is a case wherein respondent Ombudsman, requires petitioners Nerio Rogado and
Secretary of Finance, with copies furnished several government offices, including the public service. In granting the privilege to operate broadcast stations and supervising Elisa Rivera, as chief accountant and record custodian, respectively, of the Economic
Office of the Ombudsman. radio and television stations, the state spends considerable public funds in licensing Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) to produce "all documents relating to
Petitioner contended that Ombudsman cannot order them to produce documents and supervising them. Personal Services Funds for the year 1988" and all evidence such as vouchers from
relating to personal services and salary vouchers of EIIB employees on the plea that enforcing his orders.
such documents are classified. Disclosure of the documents in question is resisted on The argument that the subject law singles out radio and television stations to provide
the ground that “knowledge of EIIB’s documents relative to its Personal Services Funds free air time as against newspapers and magazines which require payment of just Petitioner Almonte was formerly Commissioner of the EIIB, while Perez is Chief of the
and its plantilla will necessarily lead knowledge of its operations, movements, targets, compensation for the print space they may provide is likewise without merit. EIIB's Budget and Fiscal Management Division. The subpoena duces tecum was issued
strategies, and tactics and the whole of its being” and this could “destroy the EIIB. Regulation of the broadcast industry requires spending of public funds which it does by the Ombudsman in connection with his investigation of an anonymous letter
not do in the case of print media. To require the broadcast industry to provide free air alleging that funds representing savings from unfilled positions in the EIIB had been
RULING: time for COMELEC is a fair exchange for what the industry gets. As radio and television illegally disbursed. The letter, purporting to have been written by an employee of the
Nor is there violation of petitioners’ right to the equal protection of the laws. broadcast stations do not own the airwaves, no private property is taken by the EIIB and a concerned citizen, was addressed to the Secretary of Finance, with copies
Petitioners complain that “in all forum and tribunals . . . the aggrieved parties . . . can requirement that they provide air time to the COMELEC. furnished several government offices, including the Office of the Ombudsman.
only hale respondents via their verified complaints or sworn statements with their
identities fully disclosed,” while in proceedings before the Office of the Ombudsman 253 – MUSA ISSUE:
anonymous letters suffice to start an investigation. In the first place, there can be no THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS Whether or not the Ombudsman’s investigation on the basis of an anonymous letter
objection to this procedure because it is provided in the Constitution itself. In the Himagan v. People – 237 SCRA 538 violate the equal protection clause.
second place, it is apparent that in permitting the filing of complaints “in any form and
in a manner,” the framers of the Constitution took into account the well-known FACTS: RULING:
reticence of the people which keep them from complaining against official Himagan is a policeman assigned in Camp Catititgan, Davao City. He was charged for NO. There is violation of petitioners’ right to the equal protection of the laws.
wrongdoings. As this Court had occasion to point out, the Office of the Ombudsman is the murder of and attempted murder. Pursuant to Sec 47 of RA 6975, Himagan was Petitioners complain that “in all forum and tribunals . . . the aggrieved parties . . . can
different from the other investigatory and prosecutory agencies of the government placed into suspension pending the murder case. The law provides that “Upon the only hale respondents via their verified complaints or sworn statements with their
because those subject to its jurisdiction are public officials who, through official filing of a complaint or information sufficient in form and substance against a member identities fully disclosed,” while in proceedings before the Office of the Ombudsman
pressure and influence, can quash, delay or dismiss investigations held against them.31 of the PNP for grave felonies where the penalty imposed by law is six (6) years and one anonymous letters suffice to start an investigation. In the first place, there can be no
On the other hand complainants are more often than not poor and simple folk who (1) day or more, the court shall immediately suspend the accused from office until the objection to this procedure because it is provided in the Constitution itself. In the
cannot afford to hire lawyers.32 Almonte vs. Vasquez, 244 SCRA 286, G.R. No. 95367 case is terminated. Such case shall be subject to continuous trial and shall be second place, it is apparent that in permitting the filing of complaints “in any form
May 23, 1995. terminated within ninety (90) days from arraignment of the accused. Himagan assailed and in a manner,” the framers of the Constitution took into account the well-known
reticence of the people which keep them from complaining against official 256 REYES RULING: No. Section 67 is not violative of the Constitution as it does not unduly cut
wrongdoings. As this Court had occasion to point out, the Office of the Ombudsman is The Equal Protection Clause short the term of office of local officials. The situation that results with the application
different from the other investigatory and prosecutory agencies of the government Tiu vs. CA, G.R. No. 127410 of Section 67 is covered by the term “voluntary renunciation.” This statutory provision
because those subject to its jurisdiction are public officials who, through official seeks to ensure that such officials serve out their entire term of office by discouraging
pressure and influence, can quash, delay or dismiss investigations held against them. FACTS: them from running for another public office and thereby cutting short their tenure by
On the other hand complainants are more often than not poor and simple folk who RA 7227 seeks to accelerate the conversion of military reservations into other making it clear that should they fail in their candidacy, they cannot go back to their
cannot afford to hire lawyers. productive uses. Section 12 thereof grants special privileges to certain former position.
cities/municipalities. EO 97 was issued which provides for the tax and duty-free
Almonte vs. Vasquez, 244 SCRA 286, G.R. No. 95367 May 23, 1995 importations to be applied only to businesses and residents within the “secured area” 258 REYES
255 – MUSA of the Subic Special Economic Zone and denying them to those who live within the The Equal Protection Clause
THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS Zone but outside such “fenced-in” territory. De Guzman vs. COMELEC 336 SCRA 188
Telebap v. COMELEC – 289 SCRA 337
ISSUE: FACTS:
FACTS: Whether EO 97 violates the equal protection of the laws. Petitioners theorize that Section 44 of RA 8189 violates the equal protection clause
Petitioner operates radio and television broadcast stations in the Philippines affected because it singles out the City and Municipal Election Officers of the COMELEC as
by the enforcement of Sec. 92 of B.P Blg. 881 requiring radio and television broadcast RULING: prohibited from holding office in the same city or municipality for more than 4 years.
companies to provide free air time to the COMELEC for the use of candidates for No. The fundamental right of equal protection of the laws is not absolute, but is ISSUE:
campaign and other political purposes. Petitioners challenge the validity of Sec. 92 on subject to reasonable classification. Classification, to be valid, must (1) rest on Whether Section 44 of RA 8189 violates the equal protection clause.
the ground (1) that it takes property without due process of law and without just substantial distinctions, (2) be germane to the purpose of the law, (3) not be limited to
compensation; (2) that it denies radio and television broadcast companies the equal existing conditions only, and (4) apply equally to all members of the same class. RULING:
protection of the laws; and (3) that it is in excess of the power given to the COMELEC No. The fundamental right of equal protection of the laws is not absolute, but is
to supervise or regulate the operation of media of communication or information In the case at bar, the Constitution does not require absolute equality among subject to reasonable classification. Classification, to be valid, must (1) rest on
during the period of election. residents. The real concern of RA 7227 is to convert the lands formerly occupied by the substantial distinctions, (2) be germane to the purpose of the law, (3) not be limited to
US military bases into economic or industrial areas. In furtherance of such objective, existing conditions only, and (4) apply equally to all members of the same class.
According to petitioners, in 1992 it lost P22,498,560.00 in providing free air time for Congress deemed it necessary to extend economic incentives to attract and encourage
one hour each day and, in this year’s elections, it stands to lost P58,980,850.00 in view investors, both local and foreign. The singling out of election officers in order to ensure the impartiality of election
of COMELEC’s requirement that it provide at least 30 minutes of prime time daily for officials by preventing them from developing familiarity with the people of their place
COMELEC Time. MAIN POINT: of assignment does not violate the equal protection clause. The guarantee of security
The fundamental right of equal protection of the laws is not absolute, but is subject to of tenure under the Constitution is not a guarantee of perpetual employment. It only
ISSUE: reasonable classification. Classification, to be valid, must (1) rest on substantial means that an employee cannot be dismissed (or transferred) from the service for
Whether or not Section 92 of B.P. No. 881 denies radio and television broadcast distinctions, (2) be germane to the purpose of the law, (3) not be limited to existing causes other than those provided by law and after due process is accorded the
companies the equal protection of the laws. conditions only, and (4) apply equally to all members of the same class. employee. What it seeks to prevent is capricious exercise of the power to dismiss.

RULING: 257 REYES MAIN POINT:

NO. Petitioner’s argument is without merit. All broadcasting, whether radio or by The Equal Protection Clause The legislature is not required by the Constitution to adhere to a policy of “all or
television stations, is licensed by the government. Airwave frequencies have to be Aguinaldo vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 132274 none”—under-inclusiveness is not an argument against a valid classification.
allocated as there are more individuals who want to broadcast that there are
frequencies to assign. Radio and television broadcasting companies, which are given FACTS: 262. Salinas - International School v. Quisumbing: Equal Protection Clause
franchises, do not own the airwaves and frequencies through which they transmit Petitioners contend that Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code is violative of the FACTS: International School Alliance of Educators (the School) hires both foreign and
broadcast signals and images. They are merely given the temporary privilege to use equal protection clause of the Constitution, as its classification of persons running for local teachers as members of its faculty, classifying the same into two: (1) foreign-hires
them. Thus, such exercise of the privilege may reasonably be burdened with the office is not a valid classification. They contend that the classification in Section 67 is and (2) local-hires.
performance by the grantee of some form of public service. In granting the privilege to not based on substantial distinctions and, thus, violative of the equal protection clause In which, the School grants foreign-hires certain benefits not accorded local-hires
operate broadcast stations and supervising radio and television stations, the state of the Constitution. including housing, transportation, shipping costs, taxes, home leave travel allowance
spends considerable public funds in licensing and supervising them. and a salary rate 25% more than local hires based on “significant economic
The argument that the subject law singles out radio and television stations to The COMELEC, on the other hand, asserts that the classification embodied in Section disadvantages”
provide free air time as against newspapers and magazines which require payment 67 is reasonable and based on substantial distinction. It points out that incumbents The labor union and the collective bargaining representative of all faculty members of
of just compensation for the print space they may provide is likewise without merit. running for the same position are not considered resigned because the intention of the the School, contested the difference in salary rates between foreign and local-hires.
Regulation of the broadcast industry requires spending of public funds which it does law is to allow them to continue serving their constituents and avoid a disruption in The Union claims that the point-of-hire classification employed by the School is
not do in the case of print media. To require the broadcast industry to provide free the delivery of essential services. Those running for different positions are considered discriminatory to Filipinos and that the grant of higher salaries to foreign-hires
air time for COMELEC is a fair exchange for what the industry gets. resigned because they are considered to have abandoned their present position by constitutes racial discrimination.
The constitutional qualification that “private property shall not be taken for public use their act of running for other posts. ISSUE: Whether or not the Union can invoke the equal protection clause to justify its
without just compensation” is intended to provide a safeguard against possible abuse claim of parity.
and so to protect as well the individual against whose property the power is sought to ISSUE: RULING: Yes. The Labor Code’s and the Constitution’s provisions impregnably
be enforced. Whether Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code violates the equal protection clause. institutionalize in this jurisdiction the long honored legal truism of "equal pay for equal
work." Persons who work with substantially equal qualifications, skill, effort and
responsibility, under similar conditions, should be paid similar salaries.
If an employer accords employees the same position and rank, the presumption is that 265. SALVADOR Ruling: NO. The court ruled that the fundamental guarantee of equal protection is not
these employees perform equal work. If the employer pays one employee less than The Equal Protection of the Laws breached by a law which applies only to those persons falling within a specified class, if
the rest, it is not for that employee to explain why he receives less or why the others Ycasuegi v. PAL it applies alike to all persons within such class and provided further that there is a
receive more. That would be adding insult to injury. substantial distinction between those who fall within such class and those who do not.
The employer in this case has failed to discharge this burden. There is no evidence here Facts: Petitioner was a cabin crew of PAL. He was given the time to lose weight in
that foreign-hires perform 25% more efficiently or effectively than the local-hires. Both order to be able to achieve the weight requirement of being a crew member in PAL. Main point: The equal protection clause is against undue favor and individual or class
groups have similar functions and responsibilities, which they perform under similar However, after a given time, instead of his weight going down he gained weight. privilege, as well as hostile discrimination; it does not demand absolute equality.
working conditions. Therefore, he was dismissed from his employment due to being obesity, since it was
Hence, the Court finds the point-of-hire classification employed by respondent School indicated in the employee requirement of PAL to maintain a certain weight. The CASE NO. 268– Tan
to justify the distinction in the salary rates of foreign-hires and local hires to be an petitioner invokes the equal protection clause guaranty. Article III, Sec. 1: Equal Protection of Laws
invalid classification. There is no reasonable distinction between the services rendered Nicolas vs. Romulo
by foreign-hires and local-hires. Issue: Whether petitioner was deprived of due process. Facts:
Daniel Smith, a USAF, was charged with the rape of Suzette Nicolas, a 22-year-old
263. Salinas- Central Bank Employees v. BSP: Equal Protection Clause Ruling: NO. The court ruled that the Bill of Rights is not meant to be invoked against Filipino in Subic Bay, Olangapo City. He was imprisoned in Makati Jail but was
Facts: The new Central Bank Act took effect and gave way for the creation of Bangko acts of private individuals. Also, in the absence of governmental interference, the transferred to the US Embassy building as per the VFA agreement. Nicolas now files for
Sentral ng Pilipinas. Thereafter, other Governmental Financial Institutions (GFIs) also liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked. a petition for certiorari claiming that VFA is unconstitutional for decreasing the
amended their charters. After almost 8 years following the amendment of the GFIs’ jurisdiction of the Philippines and that it violates the equal protection clause because it
charters, BSP’s employees, through petitioner, filed a petition for prohibition against Main point: Equal protection erects no shield against private conduct, however unreasonably exempts the USAF from detainment in local jails.
the BSP and the Executive Secretary to restrain the respondents from further discriminatory or wrongful.
implementing the last proviso in Sec. 15, Art. II of the New Central Bank Act which Issue:
provides for the exemption from the Salary Standardization Law (SSL) of all employees 266. SALVADOR Whether the equal protection of laws is violated?
with salary grade of 19 and the non-exemption of those having a salary grade under Scope of the Protection
19. They alleged its constitutionality for being an invalid “class legislation”. They SJS v. Atienza Ruling:
contend that the said proviso violates equal protection clause because only the officers No. There is a substantial basis for a different treatment of a member of a foreign
of the BSP (those holding the salary grade of 19 and up) are exempted from the SSL , Facts: The oil companies aver that the ordinance is unfair and oppressive because they military armed forces allowed to enter our territory. The rule in international law is
those belonging from 19 and up and those 19 below do not really differ from one other have invested billions of pesos in the depot. Its forced closure would result in huge that foreign armed forces allowed to enter one’s territory is immune from local
in terms of the nature of work and expertise and lasty, other GFIs, which are the same losses in income and tremendous costs in constructing new facilities. Essentially, the jurisdiction, except to the extent agreed upon.
as the BSP, exempt all their rank-and-file personnel from SSL without any distinction. oil companies are fighting for their right to property
Issue: Whether or not the proviso is unconstitutional for being violative of equal Main Point:
protection clause. Issue: Whether the ordinance resulted to discrimination. The Constitution does not require absolute equality among residents. Classification can
Ruling: Yes, the proviso is unconstitutional for being violative of the equal protection be made for as long as it reasonable.
clause. The subsequent amendments of the other GFIs’ charter resulted to the Ruling: NO. The court ruled that an ordinance based on reasonable classification does
oppressive results of Congress’ inconsistent and unequal policy towards the BSP rank- not violate the constitutional guaranty of the equal protection of the law. Thus, in the CASE NO. 269– Tan
and-file and those of the seven other GFI. In the case at bar, it is precisely the fact that exercise of police power, there is a limitation on or restriction of property interests to Article III, Sec. 1: Equal Protection of Laws
as regards the exemption from the SSL, there are no characteristics peculiar only to the promote public welfare which involves no compensable taking. The restriction League of Cities vs. COMELEC
seven GFIs or their rank-and-file so as to justify the exemption which BSP rank-and-file imposed to protect lives, public health and safety from danger is not taking. It is merely Facts:
employees were denied (not to mention the anomaly of the SEC getting one). The the prohibition or abatement of a noxious use which interferes with paramount rights 57 bills seeking the conversion of municipalities into component cities were filed
distinction made by the law is not only superficial, but also arbitrary. It is not based on of the public. before the HoR. However, Congress did not act on the 24 out of the 57 municipalities.
substantial distinctions that make real differences between the BSP rank-and-file and RA 9009 was enacted revising the Local Government Code by increasing the income
the seven other GFIs. The subsequent grant to the rank-and-file of the seven other Main point: The requirements for a valid and reasonable classification are: (1) it must requirement to qualify for conversion into a city from P20 million annual income to
GFIs and continued denial to the BSP rank-and-file employees of the exemption from rest on substantial distinctions; (2) it must be germane to the purpose of the law; (3) it P100 million locally generated income. 16 of the 24 municipalities filed their individual
SSL breached the latter’s right to equal protection. must not be limited to existing conditions only and (4) it must apply equally to all cityhood bills. Each of the cityhood bills contained a common provision exempting the
264. Salinas Yrasuegui v. PAL: Equal Protection Clause members of the same class. 16 from the new income requirement. Petitioners filed to declare the Cityhood Laws
Facts: Petitioner was a former international flight steward of PAL, herein respondent. unconstitutional for violation of Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution, as well
Petitioner was dismissed because of his failure to adhere to the weight standards of 267. SALVADOR as for violation of the equal protection clause.
the airline company. Petitioner claims that he was illegally dismissed. Petitioner Scope of the Protection
invokes the equal protection clause guarantee of the Constitution Gobenciong v. CA Issue:
Issue: Whether or not invocation of the equal protection clause is proper Whether the equal protection of laws was violated?
Ruling: No, the claim is not proper. The court ruled that in the absence of Facts: Gobenciong parlays the theory that the application of RA 6770, which authorizes
governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be the OMB to impose a 6-month preventive suspension, instead of the civil service Ruling:
invoked. Put differently, the Bill of Rights is not meant to be invoked against acts of provisions of the Administrative Code, which limits the disciplining authority's No. The equal protection clause does not preclude the state from recognizing and
private individuals. Indeed, the US Supreme Court, in interpreting the 14th prerogative to only imposing a prevention for suspension for a period not exceeding 90 acting upon factual differences between individuals and classes. Also, the petitioners
Amendment, which is the source of our equal protection guarantee, is consistent in days, violates the equal protection guarantee. being juridical persons, can only invoke the equal protection clause insofar as their
saying that the equal protection erects no shield against private conduct, however property is concerned and cannot invoke further as to arbitrariness, undue favor, or
discriminatory or wrongful. Private actions, no matter how egregious, cannot violate Issue: Whether there is a violation of the equal protection of law. hostile discrimination.
the equal protection guarantee.
Main Point: RULING; No, Upon more profound reflection and deliberation, we declare that there made pursuant to a valid classification based on substantial distinctions and the other
A law can be violative of the constitutional limitation of equal protection of laws only was valid classification, and the Cityhood Laws do not violate the equal protection requirements of a reasonable classification by legislative bodies, so that the law may
when the classification is without reasonable basis. A law need not operate with equal clause.As this Court has ruled, the equal protection clause of the 1987 Constitution operate only on some, and not all, without violating the equal protection clause. The
force on all persons or things to be conformable with Sec. 1, Art. III of the Constitution. permits a valid classification, provided that it: (1) rests on substantial distinctions; (2) is legislative records show that the basis of the grant of exemption to PAGCOR from
germane to the purpose of the law; (3) is not limited to existing conditions only; and corporate income tax was PAGCOR’s own request to be exempted.
(4) applies equally to all members of the same class. Verily, the determination of the
CASE NO. 270– Tan existence of substantial distinction with respect to respondent municipalities does not MAINPOINT;
Article III, Sec. 1: Equal Protection of Laws simply lie on the mere pendency of their cityhood bills during the 11th Congress. This Legislative bodies are allowed to classify the subjects of legislation. If the
Quinto vs. COMELEC Court sees the bigger picture. The existence of substantial distinction with respect to classification is reasonable, the law may operate only on some and not all of the
Facts: respondent municipalities covered by the Cityhood Laws is measured by the purpose people without violating the equal protection clause. It must be based on substantial
Petitioners assail Section 4 of Resolution 8678 of the COMELEC. They contend that the of the law, not by R.A. No. 9009, but by the very purpose of the LGC. distinctions,It must be germane to the purposes of the law.It must not be limited to
COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it issued the assailed Resolution. The existing conditions only.It must apply equally to all members of the
provision states that “Any person holding a public appointive office or position,
MAINPOINT; The existence of substantial distinction with respect to respondent
including active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and officers and 276. Gangayco V Quezon City –BAIRD
municipalities covered by the Cityhood Laws is measured by the purpose of the law,
employees in GOCCs shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon filling FACTS;
not by R.A. No. 9009, but by the very purpose of the LGC. Congress, by enacting the
of his certificate of candidacy “. It being discriminatory and violates the equal In the early 1950s, retired Justice Emilio A. Gancayco bought a parcel of
Cityhood Laws, recognized this capacity and viability of respondent municipalities to
protection of laws. land located at EDSA, Quezon City with an area of 375 square meters. On 1956, the
become the State’s partners in accelerating economic growth and development in the
Quezon City Council issued Ordinance No. 2904, entitled "An Ordinance Requiring the
provincial regions, which is the very thrust of the LGC, manifested by the pendency of
Issue: Construction of Arcades, for Commercial Buildings to be Constructed in Zones. An
their cityhood bills during the 11th Congress and their relentless pursuit for cityhood
Whether the equal protection of laws was violated? arcade is defined as any portion of a building above the first-floor projecting over the
up to the present.
sidewalk beyond the first storey wall used as protection for pedestrians against rain or
Ruling: sun. The ordinance covered the property of Gancayco. Subsequently, sometime in
No. The equal protection of the law clause is against undue favor and individual or 1965, Gancayco sought the exemption of a 2 storey building being constructed on his
275. PAGCOR V BIR-BAIRD
class privilege, as well as hostile discrimination or the oppression of inequality. It is not property from the application of Ordinance No. 2904 that he be exempted from
intended to prohibit legislation which is limited either in the object to which it is constructing an arcade on his property. On 1966, the City Council acted favorably
FACTS; PAGCOR was created pursuant to P.D. No. 1067-A on January 1, 1977.
directed or by territory within which it is to operate. It does not demand absolute on Gancayco’s request. Decades after, in 2003, the MMDA conducted operations to
Simultaneous to its creation, P.D. No. 1067-B was issued exempting PAGCOR from the
equality among residents; it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike clear obstructions along the sidewalk of EDSA in Quezon City. Gancayco did not comply
payment of any type of tax, except a franchise tax of five percent (5%) of the gross
under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities with the notice. Soon after the lapse of the 15 days, the MMDA proceeded to demolish
revenue. hereafter, on June 2, 1978, P.D. No. 1399 was issued expanding the scope of
enforced. Substantial distinctions clearly exist between elective officials and appointive the party wall, or what was referred to as the "wing walls," of the ground floor
PAGCOR's exemption. PAGCOR's tax exemption was removed in June 1984 through
officials. Elective officials occupy their office by virtue of the mandate of the structure. On 29 May 2003, Gancayco filed a Petition with prayer for a temporary
P.D. No. 1931, but it was later restored by Letter of Instruction No. 1430, which was
electorate. Appointive officials hold their office by virtue of their designation by an restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction before the RTC of Quezon City,
issued in September 1984.On January 1, 1998, R.A. No. 8424, otherwise known as
appointing authority. he alleged that the ordinance authorized the taking of private property without due
the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, took effect. Section 27 (c) of R.A. No. 8424
process of law. He thus sought the declaration of nullity of Ordinance No. 2904 and the
provides that GOCCs shall pay corporate income tax, except petitioner PAGCOR, the
Main Point: payment of damages. The RTC rendered its Decision on September 2003 in favor
Government Service and Insurance Corporation, the SSS, the Philippine Health
The equal protection of the law clause in the constitution is not absolute but is subject of Gancayco.It held that the questioned ordinance was unconstitutional, The MMDA
Insurance Corporation, and the PCSO. With the enactment of R.A. No. 9337 on May 24,
to reasonable classification if the groupings are characterized by substantial thereafter appealed from the Decision of the trial court. On 18 July 2006, the CA partly
2005, certain sections of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 were amended.
distinctions that make real differences, one class may be treated and regulated granted the appeal. The CA upheld the validity of Ordinance No. 2904 and lifted the
The particular amendment that is at issue in this case is Section 1 of R.A. No. 9337,
different from the other. injunction against the enforcement and implementation of the ordinance.
which amended Section 27 (c) of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 by
ISSUE;
excluding PAGCOR from the enumeration of GOCCs that are exempt from payment of
274. League V COMELEC-BAIRD Whether Ordinance no. 2904 is unconstitutional as it takes personal
corporate income tax. Different groups came to this Court via petitions
property without the due process of law
for certiorari and prohibition assailing the validity and constitutionality of R.A. No.
FACTS ; These cases were initiated by the consolidated petitions for prohibition filed by HELD;
9337 contending that it is violative of Section 1, Article III of the Constitution, or the
the League of Cities of the Philippines, City of Iloilo, City of Calbayog, and Jerry P. No, when the conditions so demand as determined by the legislature,
guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
Treñas, assailing the constitutionality of the 16 laws, each converting the municipality property rights must bow to the primacy of police power because property rights,
ISSUE; Whether ra 9337, section 1 is null and void ab initio for being repugnant to the
covered thereby into a component city (Cityhood Laws), and seeking to enjoin the though sheltered by due process, must yield to general welfare. In the case at bar, it is
equal protection clause
Commission on Elections from conducting plebiscites pursuant to the subject laws.In clear that the primary objectives of the city council of Quezon City when it issued the
the Decision dated November 18, 2008, the Court, by a 6-5 vote, granted the petitions questioned ordinance ordering the construction of arcades were the health and safety
RULING; No, Legislative bodies are allowed to classify the subjects of legislation. If the
and struck down the Cityhood Laws as unconstitutional for violating Sections 10 and 6, of the city and its inhabitants; the promotion of their prosperity; and the improvement
classification is reasonable, the law may operate only on some and not all of the
Article X, and the equal protection clause. The petitioners argue that there is no of their morals, peace, good order, comfort, and the convenience. These arcades
people without violating the equal protection clause. The classification must, as an
substantial distinction between municipalities with pending cityhood bills in the 11th provide safe and convenient passage along the sidewalk for commuters and
indispensable requisite, not be arbitrary. Taxation is the rule and exemption is the
Congress and municipalities that did not have pending bills, such that the mere pedestrians, not just the residents of Quezon City. More especially so because the
exception. The burden of proof rests upon the party claiming exemption to prove that
pendency of a cityhood bill in the 11th Congress is not a material difference to contested portion of the building is located on a busy segment of the city, in a business
it is, in fact, covered by the exemption so claimed. PAGCOR cannot find support in the
distinguish one municipality from another for the purpose of the income requirement. zone along EDSA.
equal protection clause of the Constitution, as the legislative records of the Bicameral
Conference Meeting dated October 27, 1997, of the Committee on Ways and Means,
ISSUE; Whether cityhood laws violate the equal protection clause show that PAGCOR’s exemption from payment of corporate income tax, as provided in
Section 27 (c) of R.A. No. 8424, or the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, was not
MAINPOINT; When the conditions so demand as determined by the legislature, agencies. Moreover, the law concerns only the BIR and the BOC because they have the Facts: The Mayor of the Municipality of Munoz, Nueva Ecija was found guilty by the
property rights must bow to the primacy of police power because property rights, common distinct primary function of generating revenues for the national government Sandiganbayan for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for awarding to
though sheltered by due process, must yield to general welfare. through the collection of taxes, customs duties, fees and charges. Australian-Professional, Inc. (API) the contract for the construction of the Wag-Wag
CONCLUSION: Shopping Mall under the BOT scheme despite the fact that it was not a licensed
277 Equal protection simply provides that all persons or things similarly situated contractor and does not have the experience and financial qualifications to undertake
Equal Protection of the Laws should be treated in a similar manner, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities such costly project, among others, to the damage and prejudice of the public service.
Mendoza v. People, GR 183891, October 19, 2011 imposed. The purpose of the equal protection clause is to secure every person within a
FACTS: state’s jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether Issue: Whether the Sandiganbayan disregarded the right of Mayor Alvarez to the equal
RA No. 9903 creates two classifications of employers delinquent in occasioned by the express terms of a statute or by its improper execution through the protection of the laws when he alone among the numerous persons who approved and
remitting the SSS contributions of their employees: (1) those delinquent employers state’s duly constituted authorities. implemented the unsolicited proposal was charged, tried, and convicted.
who pay within the six (6)-month period (the former group), and (2) those delinquent
employers who pay outside of this availment period (the latter group). The creation of 279 Ruling: No. It bears stressing that the manner in which the prosecution of the case is
these two classes is obvious and unavoidable when Section 2 and the last proviso of Equal Protection of the Laws handled is within the sound discretion of the prosecutor, and the non-inclusion of
Section 48 of the law are read together. The same provisions show the law’s intent to Pichay v. Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary (supra) other guilty persons is irrelevant to the case against the accused. But more
limit the benefit of condonation to the former group only; had RA No. 9903 likewise FACTS: importantly, petitioner failed to demonstrate a discriminatory purpose in prosecuting
intended to benefit the latter group, which includes the petitioner, it would have E.O. No. 13, entitled, "Abolishing the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission him alone despite the finding of the Sandiganbayan that the Sangguniang Bayan "has
expressly declared so. Laws granting condonation constitute an act of benevolence on and Transferring Its Investigative, Adjudicatory and Recommendatory Functions to the conspired if not abetted all the actions of the Accused in all his dealings with API to the
the government’s part, similar to tax amnesty laws; their terms are strictly construed Office Of The Deputy Executive Secretary For Legal Affairs, Office of the President", damage and prejudice of the municipality" and said court’s declaration that "this is one
against the applicants. President Arroyo issued E.O. 12 creating the Presidential Anti-Graft case where the Ombudsman should have included the entire Municipal Council in the
ISSUE: Commission (PAGC) and vesting it with the power to investigate or hear administrative information.
Whether the petitioner is entitled under the equal protection clause to the cases or complaints for possible graft and corruption, among others, against
dismissal of the case against him presidential appointees and to submit its report and recommendations to the Case No. 281 – Cruz
RULING: President. Pertinent portions of E.O. 12 provide: Equal Protection of Laws
It is an established principle of constitutional law that the guaranty of the Section 4. Jurisdiction, Powers and Functions. – Garcia v. People
equal protection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based on reasonable (b) The Commission, acting as a collegial body, shall have the authority to investigate 677 SCRA 750
classification. And the classification, to be reasonable, (1) must rest on substantial or hear administrative cases or complaints against all presidential appointees in the
distinctions; (2) must be germane to the purposes of the law; (3) must not be limited government and any of its agencies or instrumentalities Main Point: The application of Article 29 of the RPC in the Articles of War is in
to existing conditions only; and (4) must apply equally to all members of the same Petitioner goes on to assail E.O. 13 as violative of the equal protection accordance with the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The purpose of the
class. clause pointing to the arbitrariness of limiting the IAD-ODESLA's investigation only to equal protection clause is to secure every person within a state’s jurisdiction against
CONCLUSION: The equal protection clause guarantee, simply means "that no person or presidential appointees occupying upper-level positions in the government. intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by the express terms of a
class of persons shall be denied the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by statute or by its improper execution through the state’s duly-constituted authorities.
other persons or other classes in the same place and in like circumstances.
278 ISSUE: Whether E.O. 13 is unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause. Facts: Garcia, tried by the Special General Court Martial NR 2, was convicted of
Equal Protection of the Laws violation of the 96th and 97th Articles of War for failing to disclose all his assets in his
Bureau of Customs v. Teves, GR 181704, December 6, 2011 RULING: No, The equal protection clause is not absolute but subject to reasonable Sworn SALN. Garcia argued that the confirmation issued by the Office of the President
classification so that aggrupations bearing substantial distinctions may be treated directing his two-year detention in a penitentiary had already been fully served
FACTS: RA [No.] 9335 was enacted to optimize the revenue-generation capability and differently from each other. following his preventive confinement subject to Article 29 of the RPC. Hence, a week
collection of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau of Customs (BOC). CONCLUSION: after the OP confirmed the sentence of the court martial against him, Garcia was
The law intends to encourage BIR and BOC officials and employees to exceed their The equal protection of the law clause is against undue favor and individual arrested and detained and continues to be detained, for 2 years, at the maximum
revenue targets by providing a system of rewards and sanctions through the creation or class privilege, as well as hostile discrimination or the oppression of inequality. It is security. The Office of the Solicitor General stated that Art 29 of the RPC is not
of a Rewards and Incentives Fund (Fund) and a Revenue Performance Evaluation Board not intended to prohibit legislation which is limited either in the object to which it is applicable in Military Courts for it is separate and distinct from ordinary courts. The
(Board). directed or by territory within which it is to operate. It does not demand absolute Court found such argument by OSG unmeritorious as Article 29 of the RPC is deemed
Pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 25 (b) of the Implementing Rules and equality among residents; it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, to be applicable in the present case.
Regulations (IRR) of the Attrition Act of 2005, that provides for the setting of criteria under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities
and procedures for removing from the service Officials and Employees whose revenue enforced. Issue: Whether the application of Article 29 of the RPC in the Articles of War is in
collection fall short of the target in accordance with Section 7 of Republic Act 9335. Case No. 280– Cruz accordance with the Equal Protection Clause of the 1987 Constitution
Equal Protection of Laws
ISSUE: Whether RA 9335, and its IRR are unconstitutional as these violate the right of Alvarez v. People Ruling: The Court further held that the application of Article 29 of the RPC in the
bir and boc officials and employees to the equal protection of the laws 677 SCRA 673 Articles of War is in accordance with the Equal Protection Clause of the 1987
Constitution. “The concept of equal justice under the law requires the state to govern
RULING: No, the equal protection clause recognizes a valid classification, that is, a Main Point: The prosecution of one guilty person while others equally guilty are not impartially, and it may not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences
classification that has a reasonable foundation or rational basis and not arbitrary. With prosecuted, however, is not, by itself, a denial of the equal protection of the laws. that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective. It, however, does not
respect to RA [No.] 9335, its expressed public policy is the optimization of the revenue- Where the official action purports to be in conformity to the statutory classification, an require the universal application of the laws to all persons or things without
generation capability and collection of the BIR and the BOC. Since the subject of the erroneous or mistaken performance of the statutory duty, although a violation of the distinction. What it simply requires is equality among equals as determined according
law is the revenue-generation capability and collection of the BIR and the BOC, the statute, is not without more a denial of the equal protection of the laws. to a valid classification. Indeed, the equal protection clause permits classification.”
incentives and/or sanctions provided in the law should logically pertain to the said
 A Temporary Protection Order was issued by RTC which include that the husband must equality amongst residents; it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike,
Case No. 282 – Cruz provide for financial spousal support. An order was issued which directs the Armed under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities
Equal Protection of Laws Forces of the Philippines Finance Center (AFPFC) to automatically deduct from S/Sgt. enforced”; and, that the equal protection clause “is not infringed by legislation which
Arroyo v. DOJ Yahon’s retirement and pension benefits and directly give the same to respondent as applies only to those persons falling within a specified class, if it applies alike to all
spousal support, however the AFPFC contented that RTC committed grave abuse of persons within such class, and reasonable grounds exist for making a distinction
Main Point: Since the Comelec is granted plenary investigatory powers by the discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction over the military institution due to lack of between those who fall within such class and those who do not.”
Constitution, its varying treatment of similarly situated investigations cannot by itself summons, and hence the AFPFC cannot be bound by the said court order as it For the sake of argument, even if it would be assumed that a treaty would be in
be considered a violation of any of the parties’ rights to the equal protection of the contravenes an explicit mandate under the law (P.D.) No. 1638 governing the conflict with a statute then the statute must be upheld because it represented an
laws. retirement and separation of military personnel. exercise of the police power which, being inherent could not be bargained away or
surrendered through the medium of a treaty. Hence, Ichong can no longer assert his
Facts: The Comelec and the DOJ issued a Joint Order creating and constituting a Joint right to operate his market stalls in the Pasay City market.
Committee and Fact-Finding Team on the 2004 & 2007 National Elections electoral ISSUE:
fraud and manipulation cases composed of officials from the DOJ and the Comelec. In Whether or not RA No. 9262 is unconstitutional. CASE NO. 285
its initial report, the Fact-Finding Team concluded that manipulation of the results in Art. III, Sec. 2. Scope of Protection
the 2007 senatorial elections in the provinces of Cotabato and Maguindanao were RULING: Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383
indeed perpetrated. The Fact-Finding Team recommended that herein petitioners No. This Court has already ruled that R.A. No. 9262 is constitutional and does not
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA), among others to be subjected to preliminary violate the equal protection clause. In Garcia v. Drilon, the issue of constitutionality MAINPOINT:
investigation for electoral sabotage. After the preliminary investigation, the COMELEC was raised by a husband after the latter failed to obtain an injunction from the CA to Philippines as a state is not obliged to admit aliens within its territory, once an alien is
en banc adopted a resolution ordering that information for the crime of electoral enjoin the implementation of a protection order issued against him by the RTC. We admitted he cannot be deprived of life without due process of law. This guarantee
sabotage be filed against GMA and company while that the charges against Jose ruled that R.A. No. 9262 rests on real substantial distinctions which justify the includes the means of livelihood. Protection of due process and equal protection
Miguel Arroyo, among others, should be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. classification under the law: the unequal power relationship between women and clause is given to all persons, both aliens and citizens.
Consequently, GMA assail the validity of the creation of COMELEC-DOJ Joint Panel men; the fact that women are more likely than men to be victims of violence; and the
before the Supreme Court. widespread bias and prejudice against women. FACTS:
We further held in Garcia that the classification is germane to the purpose of the law. The controverted Ordinance no. 6537 was passed by the Municipal Board of Manila
Issue: Whether the Joint Order creating the COMELEC-DOJ Join Panel is violative of the and signed by Mayor Villegas. It is an ordinance making it unlawful for any person not a
equal protection clause CASE NO. 284 citizen of the Philippines to be employed in any place of employment or to be engaged
Art. III, Sec. 2. Scope of Protection in any kind of trade business or occupation within the city of Manila without securing
Ruling: No. Petitioners’ main argument is that the Joint Panel’s sole purpose is the Moncada v. People’s Court, 80 PHIL 1 an employment permit from the Mayor of Manila and for other purposes.
investigation and prosecution of certain persons and incidents. They insist that the
Joint Panel was created to target only the Arroyo Administration as well as public MAINPOINT: Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho, who was employed in Manila filed a petition praying for the
officials linked thereto. While GMA and Mike Arroyo were among those subjected to The equal protection of the law clause “does not demand absolute equality amongst writ of preliminary injunction and restraining order to stop the enforcement of said
preliminary investigation, not all respondents therein were linked to GMA as there residents; it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like ordinance.
were public officers who were investigated upon in connection with their acts in the circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.
performance of their official duties. Private individuals were also subjected to the ISSUE:
investigation by the Joint Committee. The equal protection guarantee exists to prevent FACTS: Whether or not Ordinance no.6537 violates the due process and equal protection
undue favor or privilege. It is intended to eliminate discrimination and oppression Republic Act No. 1180 known as, “An Act to Regulate Retail Business” was passed by clauses of the Constitution.
based on inequality. Recognizing the existence of real differences among men, it does the Congress which nationalizes the retail trade business by prohibiting against
not demand absolute equality. It merely requires that all persons under like persons not citizens of the Philippines, as well as associations, partnerships or RULING:
circumstances and conditions shall be treated alike both as to privileges conferred and corporations the capital of which are not wholly owned by citizens of the Philippines, Yes. Ordinance no. 6537 is void and unconstitutional It is a revenue measure. The city
liabilities enforced. from engaging directly or indirectly in the retail trade with the exception of U.S. ordinance which imposes a fee of 50.00 pesos to enable aliens generally to be
citizens and juridical entities. Aliens are required to present registration to the proper employed in the city of Manila is not only for the purpose of regulation. While it is true
CASE NO. 244 authorities a verified statement concerning their businesses. that the first part which requires the alien to secure an employment permit from the
Art. III, Sec. 1. The Equal Protection of the Laws Now, petitioner Lao Ichong, was a Chinese businessman in the markets of Pasay City Mayor involves the exercise of discretion and judgment in processing and approval or
Republic v. Daisy Yahon, GR No. 201043, 726 SCRA 437 who seeks to declare the nullification of RA 1180 for it violates the international and disapproval of application is regulatory in character, the second part which requires
treaty obligations of the Republic of the Philippines. The said Act is unconstitutional, the payment of a sum of 50.00 pesos is not a regulatory but a revenue measure.
MAINPOINT: and to enjoin the Secretary of Finance and all other persons acting under him,
The distinction between men and women is germane to the purpose of R.A. 9262, particularly city and municipal treasurers, from enforcing its provisions. He contends
which is to address violence committed against women and children, hence does not that RA 1180 denies to alien residents the equal protection of the laws and deprives of This is tantamount to denial of the basic human right of the people in the Philippines
violate the equal protection of the laws. their liberty and property without due process of law to engaged in a means of livelihood. While it is true that the Philippines as a state is
ISSUE: not obliged to admit aliens within it's territory, once an alien is admitted he cannot be
FACTS: Whether or not RA No. 1180 violates due process of law. deprived of life without due process of law. This guarantee includes the means of
Yahon (respondent) filed a petition for the issuance of protection order under the livelihood. Also it does not lay down any standard to guide the City Mayor in the
provisions of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262,3 otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence RULING: issuance or denial of an alien employment permit fee.
Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004," against her husband, S/Sgt. Charles A. No. A law may supersede a treaty or a generally accepted principle. In this case, the
Yahon, an enlisted personnel of the Philippine Army who retired in January 2006. Supreme Court saw no conflict between the raised generally accepted principle and
with RA 1180. The equal protection of the law clause “does not demand absolute
286. Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383 thereof. Job Reyes forthwith prepared a letter reporting the shipment to the NBI and SC ruled that there was insufficient evidence of cause for the dismissal of Catolico from
requesting a laboratory examination of the samples he extracted from the cellophane employment Suspicion is not among the valid causes provided by the Labor Code for
Facts: Respondents herein secured a total of 42 search warrants against petitioners wrapper. He brought the letter and a sample of appellant’s shipment to the Narcotics the termination of Employment.
herein and/or the corporations of which they were officers, to search “books of Section of the NBI and informed the them that the rest of the shipment was still in his
accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, journals, office. Therefore, Job Reyes and three NBI agents, and a photographer, went to the 289.LIM
portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and other documents and/or papers showing all Reyes’ office at Ermita. The package which allegedly contained books was likewise PEOPLE v. OCTAVIO MENDOZA Y LANDICHO, GR No. 109279-80, 1999-01-18
business transactions including disbursements receipts, balance sheets and profit and opened by Job Reyes. He discovered that the package contained bricks or cake-like
loss statements and Bobbins (cigarette wrappers),” as “the subject of the offense; dried marijuana leaves. The package which allegedly contained tabacalera cigars was
Main Point: The Solicitor General is correct in explaining that such rights applies as a
stolen or embezzled and proceeds or fruits of the offense,” or “used or intended to be also opened. It turned out that dried marijuana leaves were neatly stocked underneath
restraint directed only against the government and its agencies. Citing People vs.
used as the means of committing the offense,” which is described in the applications the cigars. The NBI agents made an inventory and took charge of the box and of the
Marti.
adverted to above as “violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal contents thereof, after signing a “Receipt” acknowledging custody of the said effects .
Revenue (Code) and the Revised Penal Code.” Thereafter, an Information was filed against appellant for violation of RA 6425,
otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act. Facts: On the night of November 11, 1988, one Cecilia Eusebio Mendoza was shot to
death. The trial court found her husband, Octavio Mendoza, responsible for her death.
The petitioner contended that the search warrants are null and void as their issuance For the death of his wife Cecilia Mendoza, accused-appellant Octavio Mendoza was
violated the Constitution and the Rules of Court for being general warrants. Issue: Whether the search and seizure committed by the private individual inviolate
separately charge with parricide and illegal possession of firearm and ammunition
the constitutional right of the accused against unlawful searches and seizures?
under two Informations. Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges,
The documents, papers, and things seized under the alleged authority of the warrants whereupon a joint trial on the merits commenced, following which, a judgment of
in question may be split into two (2) major groups, namely: (a) those found and seized Held: No, The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures conviction was rendered.
in the offices of the aforementioned corporations, and (b) those found and seized in therefore applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies
the residences of petitioners herein. tasked with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be invoked against the
But accused-appellant claims that these documents (which was found by his father-in-
State to whom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power is
law) were illegally procured in grave violation of his constitutional right to privacy of
imposed. Corolarilly, alleged violations against unreasonable search and seizure may
Issue: Whether petitioners can validly assail the search warrant against the communication and papers, and/or his right against unreasonable search and seizure.
only be invoked against the State by an individual unjustly traduced by the exercise of
corporation.
sovereign authority. To agree with appellant that an act of a private individual in
violation of the Bill of Rights should also be construed as an act of the State would Issues: Whether there was a breach of Mendoza’s right against unreasonable search
Held: No. As regards the first group, we hold that petitioners herein have no cause of result in serious legal complications and an absurd interpretation of the constitution. and seizure pertaining to the crime of illegal possession of firearms
action to assail the legality of the contested warrants and of the seizures made in That the Bill of Rights embodied in the Constitution is not meant to be invoked against
pursuance thereof, for the simple reason that said corporations have their respective acts of private individuals finds support in the deliberations of the Constitutional Ruling: NO, In the instant case, the memorandum receipt and mission order were
personalities, separate and distinct from the personality of herein petitioners, Commission. True, the liberties guaranteed by the fundamental law of the land must discovered by accused-appellant's father-in-law Alipio Eusebio, a private citizen.
regardless of the amount of shares of stock or of the interest of each of them in said always be subject to protection. Certainly, a search warrant is dispensable.
corporations, and whatever the offices they hold therein may be. Indeed, it is well
settled that the legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights
288. Waterous Drug Corp. v. NLRC, GR 113271, Oct 16, 1997 The Solicitor General is correct in explaining that such right applies as a restraint
have been impaired thereby, and that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure
directed only against the government and its agencies. The constitutional protection
is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties. Consequently, petitioners
Facts:Antonia Melodia Catolico was hired as a pharmacist by Waterous Drug Corp.YSP against unreasonable searches and seizures refers to the immunity of one's person
herein may not validly object to the use in evidence against them of the documents,
Inc., a supplier of medicine, sold to Waterous, thru Catolico, 10 bottles of Voren from interference by government and it cannot be extended to acts committed by
papers and things seized from the offices and premises of the corporations adverted to
Tablets at P384 per unit. However, previews P.O.s issued to YSP, Inc. showed that the private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion.
above, since the right to object to the admission of said papers in evidence belongs
exclusively to the corporations, to whom the seized effects belong, and may not be price per bottle is P320.00. Verification was made to YSP, Inc. to determine the
invoked by the corporate officers in proceedings against them in their individual discrepancy and it was found that the cost per bottle was indeed overpriced.YSP, Inc. Finally, contrary to accused-appellant's claim that he was licensed and authorized to
capacity. Accounting Department (Ms. Estelita Reyes) confirmed that the difference represents carry a .45 caliber pistol, the certification of Captain Abraham Garcillano, Chief,
refund of jack-up price of ten bottles of Voren tablets per sales invoice, which was paid Records, Legal and Research Branch of the Firearm and Explosive Unit, dated
to Ms. Catolico. Said check was sent in an envelope addressed to Catolico.Catolico December 29, 1989, shows that accused-appellant is not a licensed fiream holder of
287. People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57
denied receiving the same. However, Saldana, the clerk of Waterous Drug Corp. any kind.
confirmed that she saw an open envelope with a check amounting P640 payable to
Fact: In 1987, the appellant informed Anita Reyes that he was sending the packages to Catolico.Waterous Drug Corp. ordered the termination of Catolico for acts of 290. LIM
a friend in Zurich, Switzerland. Appellant filled up the contract necessary for the dishonesty.NLRC: Dismissed the Petition. Evidence of respondents (check from YSP)
transaction, writing therein his name, passport number, the date of shipment and the being rendered inadmissible, by virtue of the constitutional right invoked by
name and address of the consignee, namely, “WALTER FIERZ, Mattacketr II, 8052 People vs Bongcarawan G.R. No. 143944. July 11, 2002
complainants. In the light of the decision in the People v. Marti, the constitutional
Zurich, Switzerland” Anita Reyes then asked the appellant if she could examine and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures refers to the immunity of one’s
inspect the packages. Appellant, however, refused, assuring her that the packages person from interference by government and cannot be extended to acts committed Main Point: The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures
simply contained books, cigars, and gloves and were gifts to his friend in Zurich. In view by private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked
of appellant’s representation, Anita Reyes no longer insisted on inspecting the the government.Issue: Whether or not the check is admissible as evidenceHeld: Yes. with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State to
packages. Before delivery of appellant’s box to the Bureau of Customs and/or Bureau The Bill of Rights does not protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures whom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power is imposed.
of Posts, Mr. Job Reyes (proprietor) and husband of Anita (Reyes), following standard perpetrated by private individuals. It is not true, as counsel for Catolico claims, that the
operating procedure, opened the boxes for final inspection. When he opened citizens have no recourse against such assaults. On the contrary, and as said counsel FACTS: Evidence for the prosecution shows that on March 11, 1999, an interisland
appellant’s box, a peculiar odor emitted therefrom. His curiousity aroused, He made an admits, such an invasion gives rise to both criminal and civil liabilities. Despite this, the passenger ship, M/V Super Ferry 5, sailed from Manila to Iligan City. At about 3:00 a.m.
opening on one of the cellophane wrappers and took several grams of the contents on March 13, 1999, the vessel was about to dock at the port of Iligan City when its
security officer, Diesmo, received a complaint from passenger Canoy about her missing weight of it and the manner in which it is carried might at times be enough. But there lists used by him as money lender/usurer charging usurious rates in violation of law.
jewelry. Canoy suspected one of her co-passengers at cabin no. 106 as the culprit. was nothing to indicate that the cartons here in issue probably contained liquor. Affiant Almeda, chief of the task force, didn’t say that the information was based on
Diesmo and four (4) other members of the vessel security force accompanied Canoy to The fact that the suspects were in an automobile is not enough. Carroll v. United his personal knowledge but was only received by him from a reliable source.
search for the suspect whom they later found at the economy section. The suspect was States, supra, liberalized the rule governing searches when a moving vehicle is Subsequently, the judge issued the warrant ordering the search of Alvarez’ house. On
identified as the accused, Basher Bongcarawan. The accused was informed of the involved. But that decision merely relaxed the requirements for a warrant on grounds June 4, 1936, the agents raided the subject place and seized different documents
complaint and was invited to go back to cabin no. 106. With his consent, he was bodily of practicality. It did not dispense with the need for probable cause. namely, banknotes, bankbooks, stubs, cashbooks, bills of lading, credit receipts,
searched, but no jewelry was found. He was then escorted by 2 security agents back to etc. Thereafter, the articles seized was not brought immediately to the custody of the
the economy section to get his baggage. The accused took a Samsonite suitcase and 292 MUSA judge who issued the SW. Alvarez moved that the agents of the Board be declared
brought this back to the cabin. When requested by the security, the accused opened People v. Syjuco, 64 Phil 667 guilty of contempt and prays that all articles in question be returned to him because
the suitcase, revealing a brown bag and small plastic packs containing white crystalline the SW issued was illegal. On the other hand, the Anti-Usury Board pleaded that they
substance. Suspecting the substance to be “shabu,” the security personnel FACTS: be allowed to retain custody of the articles seized for further investigation. When the
immediately reported the matter to the ship captain and took pictures of the accused Narciso Mendiola, agent of BIR, filed for a search warrant based on the information judge sustained the latter’s motion. Alvarez elevated the matter to the SC and prayed
beside the suitcase and its contents. They also called the Philippine Coast Guard for from a reliable source alleging that certain fraudulent bookletters and papers or that the search warrant as well as the order of the judge authorizing the Anti-Usury
assistance. records were being kept in the Building No. 482 in Binondo, Manila occupied by Board to retain custody be declared null and void.
Santiago Sy Juco. CFI Manila through Judge Albert issued a search warrant directing
But the accused countered this by saying that the Samsonite suitcase containing the peace officers to seize the above-stated articles. After making the required search the ISSUE:
methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu” was forcibly opened and searched officers concerned seized, among things, an art metal filing cabinet claimed by Whether or not there was sufficient probable cause to issue a valid search warrant.
without his consent, and hence, in violation of his constitutional right against Attorney Teopisto B. Remo to be his and to contain some letters, documents and
unreasonable search and seizure. Any evidence acquired pursuant to such unlawful papers belonging to his clients. RULING:
search and seizure, he claims, is inadmissible in evidence against him. No. The affidavit, which served as the exclusive basis of the search warrant, is
Remo filed a petition in CFI Manila, praying that the Collector of Internal Revenue and insufficient and fatally defective by reason of the manner in which the oath was made,
his agents be prohibited from opening said art metal filing cabinet and that the sheriff and therefore, the search warrant and the subsequent seizure of the books,
ISSUE: Whether the conviction was valid
of the City of Manila likewise be ordered to take charge of said property in the documents and other papers are illegal. Further, it is the practice in this jurisdiction to
meantime, on the ground that the warrant by virtue of which the search was made is attach the affidavit of at least the applicant or complainant to the application. It is
RULING: YES. In the case before us, the baggage of the accused-appellant was
null and void, being illegal and against the Constitution. admitted that the judge who issued the search warrant in this case, relied exclusively
searched by the vessel security personnel. It was only after they found “shabu” inside
upon the affidavit made by agent Almeda and that he did not require nor take the
the suitcase that they called the Philippine Coast Guard for assistance. The search and
ISSUE: W/N the search warrant was valid. deposition of any other witness. The Constitution does not provide that it is of an
seizure of the suitcase and the contraband items was therefore carried out without
RULING: imperative necessity to take the depositions of the witnesses to be presented by the
government intervention, and hence, the constitutional protection against
No. The search warrant in question could not and should not in any way affect the applicant or complainant in addition to the affidavit of the latter.
unreasonable search and seizure does not apply.
appellant attorney on the ground that he is not the person against whom it had been
sought. It is Santiago Sy Juco alone against whom the search warrant could be used, MAIN POINT:
There is no merit in the contention of the accused-appellant that the search and
because it had been obtained precisely against him; so much so that Narciso Mendiola, The oath required must refer to the truth. of the facts within the personal knowledge
seizure performed by the vessel security personnel should be considered as one
who applied for it, mentioned him expressly in his affidavit and again did so in his of the petitioner or his witnesses, because the purpose thereof is to convince the
conducted by the police authorities for like the latter, the former are armed and
report to his superior, that is, the Collector of Internal Revenue and at the trial of this committing magistrate, not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the
tasked to maintain peace and order. The vessel security officer in the case at bar is a
case, it was insisted that there was necessity of making the search in the premises issuance of the warrant, of the existence of probable cause. The true test of sufficiency
private employee and does not discharge any governmental function.
occupied by Santiago Sy Juco because an investigation was then pending against him, of an affidavit to warrant issuance of a search warrant is whether it has been drawn in
for having defrauded the Government in its public revenue. such a manner that perjury could be charged thereon.
291.LIM
Henry v. US 361 US 98
MAIN POINT: 294 MUSA
Webb v. De Leon, GR 121234, August 23, 1995
Main Point: An arrest is not justified by what the subsequent search discloses. Under
The oath required must be such that it constitutes a guaranty that the person taking it
our system suspicion is not enough for an officer to lay hands on a citizen. It is better,
has personal knowledge of the facts of the case and that it convinces the committing FACTS:
so the Fourth Amendment teaches, that the guilty sometimes go free than that citizens
magistrate, not the individual seeking the issuance of the warrant or the person On June 19, 1994, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) filed with the Department
be subject to easy arrest. There is still the need for probable cause.
making the averment by hearsay, of the existence of the requisite of probable cause, of Justice a letter-complaint charging petitioners Hubert Webb, Michael Gatchalian,
Facts: Without a warrant for search or arrest, federal officers who were investigating a
and by probable cause are meant such facts and circumstances antecedent to the Antonio J. Lejano and six (6) other persons with the crime of Rape and Homicide of
theft from an interstate shipment of whiskey twice observed cartons being placed in a
issuance of the warrant, that are in themselves sufficient to induce a cautious man to Carmela N. Vizconde, her mother Estrellita Nicolas-Vizconde, and her sister Anne
motor car in a residential district, followed and stopped the car, arrested petitioner
rely upon them and act in pursuance thereof. The true test of the sufficiency of an Marie Jennifer in their home in 1991. Petitioners charge that respondent Judge Raul de
and another man who were in it, searched the car, and found and seized cartons
affidavit to warrant the issuance of a search warrant is whether it has been drawn in Leon and, later, respondent Judge Amelita Tolentino issued warrants of arrest against
containing radios stolen from an interstate shipment. At petitioner's trial for unlawfully
such a manner that perjury could be charged thereon in case the allegations contained them without conducting the required preliminary examination.
possessing radios stolen from an interstate shipment, his timely motion to suppress
therein prove false. ISSUE:
the evidence so seized was overruled, and he was convicted.
Whether or not respondent Judges de Leon and Tolentino gravely abused their
Issues: Whether there was probable cause
293 MUSA discretion when they failed to conduct a preliminary examination before issuing
Ruling: No. On the record in this case, the officers did not have probable cause for the
Alvarez v. CFI , 64 Phil 33 warrants of arrest against them, hence the warrant of arrest is invalid
arrest when they stopped the car; the search was illegal; the articles seized were not
admissible in evidence; and the conviction is
FACTS: The Anti-Usury Board of the Department of Justice presented to Judge David a RULING: No. The Court ruled that the DOJ Panel did not gravely abuse its discretion
The police must have reasonable grounds to believe that the particular package carried
sworn affidavit that a certain Narciso Alvarez is in possession of books, receipts, chits, when it found probable cause against the petitioners. A probable cause needs only to
by the citizen is contraband. Its shape and design might at times be adequate. The
rest on evidence showing that more likely than not, a crime has been committed and ground that it was issued on the basis of facts and circumstances which were not Jones’ “personal effects” – this trespass, in an attempt to obtain information,
was committed by the suspects. Probable cause need not be based on clear and within the personal knowledge of the applicant and his witness but based on hearsay constituted a search per se and violated his right under the Fourth Amendment against
convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable evidence. unreasonable search and seizure.
doubt and definitely, not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.
ISSUE: CASE NO. 298 – SABTALUH
MAIN POINT: Whether the search warrant was valid. WHO DETERMINES PROBABLE CAUSE
In determining probable cause, facts and circumstances are weighed without resorting PEOPLE V. CA, (GR 126005, JAN 21, 1999)
to technical rules of evidence, but rather based on common sense which all reasonable RULING:
men have. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that No. The applicant and his witness had no personal knowledge of the facts and
more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspects. circumstances which became the basis for issuing the questioned search warrant. One FACTS: Jonathan Cerbo was charged in an information for murder in connection with
of the requisites for a valid search warrant is probable cause. This has been defined as the fatal shooting of rosalinda Dy. The information was ammended to include Billy
295 REYES such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man cerbo as one of the accused and a warrand for his arrest was issued. Respondent
Section 2, Article III: Probable Cause for Search to believe that an offense has been committed, and that objects sought in connection judge dismissed the case for insufficiency of evidence and recalled the warrant issues
Burgos vs. Chief of Staff with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. This probable cause must be and ordered the prosecution to withdraw its ammended information and to file a new
shown to be within the personal knowledge of the complainant or the witnesses he one charging jonathan cerbo only. The CA affirmed that the RTC has authority to
FACTS: may produce and not based on mere hearsay. reverse prosecutors finding of probable cause.
A search warrant for the newspaper WE Forum is issued on the basis of a broad
statement of the military that Burgos, Jr. “is in possession or has in his control printing In this case, P/Major Alladin Dimagmaliw stated that “he has been informed” that ISSUE: Whether the CA erred in affirming that RTC has authority to reverse
equipment and other paraphernalia, news publications and other documents which Nemesio Prudente “has in his control and possession” the firearms and explosives prosecutors finding of probable cause.
were used and are all continuously being used as a means of committing the offense of described therein, and that he “has verified the report and found it to be a fact.” On
subversion.” the other hand, in his supporting deposition, P/Lt. Florenio C. Angeles declared that, as RULING: Yes. The determination of probable cause to hold a person liable for trial is a
a result of their continuous surveillance for several days, they “gathered informations function that belongs to the public prosecutor. It is an executive function. Its
ISSUE: Whether such allegation is sufficient to establish probable cause. from verified sources” that the holders of the said firearms and explosives are not correctness is a matter that the trial court itself does not and may not compelled to
licensed to possess them. In other words, the applicant and his witness had no pass upon.
RULING: No. The Constitution provides that no warrant shall issue but upon probable personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances which became the basis for issuing
cause, to be determined by the judge, and that the warrant shall particularly describe the questioned search warrant, but acquired knowledge thereof only through MAINPOINT:
the things to be seized. A search warrant against a publisher must particularize the information from other sources or persons. If the information filed is valid in its face the court should not dismiss it for want of
alleged criminal or subversive material to be seized. And when the search warrant evidence because evidentiary matters should be heard and presented during trial.
applied for is directed against a newspaper publisher or editor in connection with the MAIN POINT:
publication of subversive materials, the application and/or its supporting affidavits Probable cause must be shown to be within the personal knowledge of the CASE NO. 299 SABTALUH
must contain a specification, stating with particularity the alleged subversive material complainant or the witnesses he may produce and not based on mere hearsay. KIND OF EVIDENCE NEEDED TO ESTABLISH PROBABLE CAUSE
he has published or is intending to publish. MICROSOFT V. MAXICORP
297 REYES
In the case at bar, the broad statement in Col. Abadilla’s application is a mere Section 2, Article III: Probable Cause for Search FACTS:
conclusion of law and does not satisfy the requirements of probable cause. Probable United States vs. Jones Maxicorp was charged with copyright infringement. To support these charges,
cause for a search is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a petitioners presented the testimonies of NBI Agent Samiano, computer technician
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed FACTS: Pante, and Sacriz, a civilian and a sales receipt was also presented by Agent Samiano as
and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to A joint Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Metropolitan Police Department task proof that he bought counterfeit goods from Maxicorp in the name of a certain “Joel
be searched. Bereft of such particulars as would justify a finding of the existence of force began investigating defendant Jones for alleged drug trafficking. During the Diaz”. Armed with search warrants, NBI agents conducted a search of maxicorps
probable cause, said allegation cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search course of investigation, a Global Positioning System (GPS) device was installed on premises and seized property described in the serach warrants. Maxicorp alleged that
warrant and it was a grave error for respondent judge to have done so. Hence, the Jones’ Jeep Grand Cherokee without a valid warrant. This device tracked the vehicle's there was no probable cause in the issuance of warrants. CA grant the petition of
search warrant is null and void. movements 24 hours a day for four weeks. The FBI subsequently arrested Jones. Jones Maxicorp.
was tried and found guilty. Upon appeal, he argued that his conviction should . be
MAIN POINT: Probable cause for a search is defined as such facts and circumstances overturned because the use of the GPS tracker violated the Fourth Amendment's ISSUE: Whether there was probable cause to issue the search warrants.
which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense protection against unreasonable search and seizure. RULING: Yes. During the search warrant application proceedings, NBI Agent Samiano
has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in presented to the judge the computer unit that he purchased from Maxicorp, Sacriz,
the place sought to be searched. ISSUE: who was present when Agent Samiano purchased the computer unit, affirmed that NBI
Whether the warrantless attachment of a GPS device on a person’s car and use of that Agent Samiano purchased the computer unit. even if we disregard the sales receipt
device to monitor that car’s movements on public streets violate the Fourth issued in the name of “Joel Diaz,” which petitioners explained was the alias NBI Agent
296 REYES Amendment. Samiano used in the operation, there still remains more than sufficient evidence to
Section 2, Article III: Probable Cause for Search establish probable cause for the issuance of the search warrants.
Prudente vs. Dayrit RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court of the United States held that installing a Global Positioning MAINPOINT: Testimonies of two witnesses, coupled with the object and documentary
FACTS: P/Major Dimagmaliw filed with the RTC of Manila presided by Judge Dayrit the System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicle's evidence are sufficient proof to establish the existence of probable cause.
issuance of a search warrant against Prudente for violation of PD 1866 or illegal movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. By physically installing
possession of firearms. Prudente assails the validity of the search warrant on the the GPS device on the defendant's car, the police had committed a trespass against
 CASE NO. 300 – SABTALUH searched. This probable cause must be shown to be within the personal knowledge of necessary before the search warrant was issued: he heard the testimonies and studied
PROBABLE CAUSE the complainant or the witnesses he may produce and not based on mere hearsay. the depositions of the witnesses for the petitioners. Therefore, issuance is valid.
NALA V. BARROSO, {GR 153087 AUG. 7, 2003}
302. SALINAS Main point: A search warrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection
FACTS: Requisites for a Valid Warrant; Probable cause in general with one specific offense to be determined by the judge or such other responsible
PO3 Alcoser applied for the issuance of a warrant to search the person and residence 20th Century Fox v. CA officer authorized by law after examination under oath or affirmation of the
of the petitioner Bernard R. Nala in connection with petitioner’s alleged illegal complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place
possession of Firearms. On the same day, after examining Alcoser and his witness Ruel Facts: Petitioner questions the application of the constitutional provision against illegal to be searched and the things to be seized
Nalagon, respondent judge of RTC of Malaybalay City issued Search and Seizure searches and seizures to raids conducted in connection with the government's anti-
warrant against Romulo Nala alias Lolong Nala who is said to be residing at Purok 4, film piracy campaign. Together with NBI they conducted surveillance and investigation 304. SALVADOR
Poblacion, Kitaaotao, Bukidnon. Several firearms not stated in the warrant was seized. and subsequently filed 3 search warrants. However, upon the act of motion to lift the Requisites for a Valid Warrant; Probable cause personally determined by the judge
petitioner filed a Motion seeking to Quash Search and Seizure Warrant. The search warrants by the respondents the court a quo lifted the 3 search warrants that it Lacer vs. Villanueva
respondent Judge denied the said Motion to Quash but ordered the return of the air issued.
rifle to the petitioner. Respondent stated that there was probable cause which was Facts: Petitioners filed for a warrant of arrest order; respondent Judge Villanueva
duly established from the deposition and examination of the witness and the Issue: Whether the search warrants were properly lifted. required the petitioners to submit affidavits of the prosecution witnesses and other
testimony of Alcose documentary evidence in support of the informations to aid him in the exercise of his
Ruling: YES. The court ruled that they find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of power of judicial review of the findings of probable cause by petitioners. Upon
ISSUE: Whether or not there was probable cause for the issuance of a search and the court a quo when it lifted the search warrants. As found out by the court, the NBI submission of the requirements, Judge denied said motions and reiterated his order to
seizure warrant against the petitioner. agents who acted as witnesses did not have personal knowledge of the subject matter petitioners to submit the supporting affidavits and other documents. Hence, this
RULING: No, the affidavit and testimony of the witness and PO3 Alcoser failed to of their testimony which was the alleged commission of the offense by respondents. petition for certiorari and mandamus to set aside the orders and to compel Judge to
establish the existence of probable cause. While Alcoser testified before the Thus, to say that the problem of pirated films can be solved by the use of issue the warrants.
respondent judge that the firearms in the possession of petitioner are not licensed, unconstitutional shortcuts is to denigrate the long history and experience behind the
this does not qualify as “personal knowledge” but only “personal belief” because searches and seizures clause of the Bill of Rights. Issue: Whether the dismissal of warrant of arrest is valid.
neither he nor Nalagon verified, much more secured, a certification from the
appropriate government agency that petitioner was not licensed to possess a firearm. Main point: Probable cause for a valid search warrant are such facts and circumstances Ruling: YES. The court ruled that the judge must satisfy himself of the existence of
which would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense has been probable cause before issuing a warrant of arrest. If on the face of the information the
MAINPOINT: committed and the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place judge finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal's certification an require the
Personal knowledge of petitioner’s lack of license to possess firearms, ammunitions sought to be searched. submission of the affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the
and explosive is required to prove the existence of probable cause that petitioner had existence of a probable cause.
no license to possess a firearm. 303. SALINAS
Requisites for a Valid Warrant; Probable cause in general Main point: The issuance of a warrant is not a ministerial function; it calls for the
301. SALINAS Columbia Pictures exercise of judicial discretion on the part of the issuing magistrate. The judge has the
Requisites for a Valid Warrant; Probable cause in general power to order outright dismissal of the charge if, from the information and the
Betoy v. Judge Mamerto Coliflores Facts: Videogram Regulatory Board (VRB), received information that private affidavits attached thereto, he finds the same to be patently without basis or merit.
respondent had in his possession pirated videotapes, posters, advertising materials
Facts: Betoy charged Judge Mamerto Coliflores with gross negligence for allegedly and other items used or intended to be used for the purpose of sale, lease, 305. SALVADOR
issuing a search warrant wherein the latter solely relies on the mere affidavits of distribution, circulation or public exhibition. VRB filed a verified Application for Search Requisites for a Valid Warrant; Probable cause personally determined by the judge
deponents police officers which should be considered hearsay and not information Warrant dated and was granted. Private respondent filed a Motion to Quash Search Lim vs. Judge Fenix
personally known to the responding judge as required by settled jurisprudence Warrant No. 23 on the grounds that the Search Warrant did not state a specific
through examination with probing and exhaustive questions of witnesses in offense. The trial court denied the Motion to Quash finding that the Search Warrant Facts: Petitioners filed with the respondent court that no warrant shall issue unless the
determining probable cause in order for the Honorable Judge to prevent arbitrary and was issued for one specific offense. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed but the issuing magistrate shall have himself been personally convinced of such probable
indiscriminate use of the Search Warrant. same was likewise denied. Private respondent then filed an Urgent Motion to Lift the cause. The motions and manifestations were opposed by the prosecution. The
Search Warrant and For the Return of the Seized Articles alleging that Search Warrant respondent court issued an order denying petitioners order for lack of merit and issued
Issue: Whether Judge Mamerto issued the search warrant with probable cause is a general warrant, and that it was issued without probable cause. The RTC granted warrants of arrest against the accused including the petitioners herein.
the Motion to Quash and ordering the return of all seized articles to private
Ruling: YES. The court ruled that the examination must be probing and exhaustive, not respondent. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the said Issue: Whether the warrant of arrest issued is valid.
merely routinary or proforma, if the claimed probable cause is to be established. The Order in toto. Hence, this petition.
examining magistrate must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavits but must Ruling: Yes. The court ruled that if the judge be satisfied from the preliminary
take his own inquiry on the intent and justification of the application. In this case, Issue: Whether the Search Warrant is validly issued examination conducted by him or by the investigating officer that the offense
respondent judge failed to ask follow-up questions on the circumstances surrounding complained has been committed and that there is reasonable ground to believe that
the possession of illegal firearms and ammunition by complainants and two others Ruling: Yes. The requirements of a search warrant to be valid is stated in Sec. 3 which the accused has committed it, he must issue a warrant or order for his arrest. For the
during the examination. states: “A search warrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection with ensuing events would show, after petitioners had submitted the required affidavits,
one specific offense to be determined by the judge or such other responsible officer respondent wasted no time in issuing the warrants of arrest in the case where he was
Main point: PROBABLE CAUSE - facts and circumstances which would lead a authorized by law after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and satisfied that probable cause existed.
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched
and that objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be and the things to be seized.” Herein case, Judge Flor observed all the requirements
Main point: The phrase "personal determination by the judge" means, the Main Point: 316. Bache v. Ruiz
determination of probable cause is a function of the judge; second, the preliminary The RTC has the authority to review actions of the COMELEC in the investigation and G.R. No. L-32409, February 27, 1971
inquiry made by a prosecutor dies not bind the judge; and third, judges and prosecution of election offenses filed in said court. Thus, the RTC judge can order for
prosecutors alike should distinguish the preliminary inquiry which determines probable reinvestigation based on his determination of probable cause. Facts: On 24 Feb 1970, Commissioner Vera of Internal Revenue, wrote a letter
cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest from the preliminary investigation proper addressed to J Ruiz requesting the issuance of a search warrant against petitioners for
which ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial or released. CASE NO. 308– Tan violation of Sec 46(a) of the NIRC, in relation to all other pertinent provisions thereof,
Article III, Sec. 2: Requisites for a Valid Warrant: Personally Determined by the Judge particularly Sects 53, 72, 73, 208 and 209, and authorizing Revenue Examiner de Leon
Allado vs. Diokno make and file the application for search warrant which was attached to the letter. The
306. SALVADOR Facts: next day, de Leon and his witnesses went to CFI Rizal to obtain the search warrant. At
Requisites for a Valid Warrant; Probable cause personally determined by the judge Petitioners, Allado and Mendoza, were both implicated as the masterminds of the that time J Ruiz was hearing a certain case; so, by means of a note, he instructed his
People vs. Inting kidnapping and murder of Eugen Alexander Van Twist. An information for the said Deputy Clerk of Court to take the depositions of De Leon and Logronio. After the
crime was filed against the petitioners primarily on the strength of a sworn statement session had adjourned, J Ruiz was informed that the depositions had already been
Facts: Petitioners filed with the respondent trial court a criminal case against the OIC by Umbal to the prosecutors, who admitted that he was among those who kidnapped taken. The stenographer read to him her stenographic notes; and thereafter, J Ruiz
Mayor. The respondent court issued an order of a warrant of arrest against the and killed the victim upon the orders of the petitioners. Thereafter, respondent judge, asked respondent Logronio to take the oath and warned him that if his deposition was
accused OIC Mayor after the preliminary investigation. The respondent court however Roberto Diokno, ordered the arrest of the petitioners and no bail was recommended. found to be false and without legal basis, he could be charged for perjury. J Ruiz
ordered to dismiss the warrant since the lawyer has no authority to determine the Petitioners, contending that their arrests were effected whimsically as there is no signed de Leon’s application for search warrant and Logronio’s deposition. The search
probable cause. Hence, this petition. probable cause, questioned their arrests. was subsequently conducted.
Issue:
Issue: Whether the dismissal by the Judge is valid. Whether probable cause was present in the arrest warrants? Issue: Whether there had been a valid search warrant.

Ruling: NO. The court ruled that the determination of probable cause for the warrant Ruling: No. Probable cause did not exist to merit the order of arrest against the Ruling: No. SC ruled in favor of Bache on three grounds.
of arrest is made by the Judge; the preliminary investigation proper is the function of petitioners. Respondent judge did not personally examine the evidence, nor did he call 1. J Ruiz failed to personally examine the complainant and his witness. Personal
the Prosecutor. However, RTC Judges still have the power to make a preliminary for the complainant and his witnesses. Instead, the judge relied only on the examination by the judge of the complainant and his witnesses is necessary to enable
examination for the purpose of determining whether probable cause exists to justify certification made by the prosecutors that probable cause existed. him to determine the existence or non-existence of a probable cause.
the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The preliminary inquiry made by a prosecutor does 2. The search warrant was issued for more than one specific offense. The search
not bind the Judge; it merely assists him to make the determination of probable cause. Main Point: warrant in question was issued for at least four distinct offenses under the Tax Code.
The SC ruled that strict compliance of the requirement in a warrant of arrest shall issue As ruled in Stonehill “Such is the seriousness of the irregularities committed in
Main point: The determination of probable cause is a function of the Judge. It is not only upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination connection with the disputed search warrants, that this Court deemed it fit to amend
for the Provincial Fiscal or Prosecutor nor for the Election Supervisor to ascertain. Only under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, not Section 3 of Rule 122 of the former Rules of Court that ‘a search warrant shall not issue
the judge and the judge alone make this determination. mere certifications by prosecutors. but upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense.’ Not satisfied with
this qualification, the Court added thereto a paragraph, directing that ‘no search
CASE NO. 307– Tan CASE NO. 309– Tan warrant shall issue for more than one specific offense.
Article III, Sec. 2: Requisites for a Valid Warrant: Personally Determined by the Judge Article III, Sec. 2: Requisites for a Valid Warrant: Personally Determined by the Judge 3. The search warrant does not particularly describe the things to be seized. The
People vs. Delgado Gozos vs. Tac-an documents, papers and effects sought to be seized are described in the Search
Facts: Facts: Warrant. “Unregistered and private books of accounts (ledgers, journals, columnars,
COMELEC received complaints from the election registrar from Toledo City against Certain PNP officers were accused for the murder of Gilbert Dyogi while in a school receipts and disbursements books, customers ledgers); receipts for payments received;
private respondents herein for alleged violation of the Omnibus Election Code. party. The OMB filed for a complaint that stipulated all officers involved were certificates of stocks and securities; contracts, promissory notes and deeds of sale;
Information were filed against the respondents in the RTC. Private respondents filed principals of the murder. However, the RTC judge ruled separately with regards to the telex and coded messages; business communications, accounting and business
motions for reconsiderations and the suspension of the warrant of arrest with the degree of probable cause. 1 was accused as principal, 1 was accused as accomplice, records; checks and check stubs; records of bank deposits and withdrawals; and
respondent court on the ground that no preliminary investigation was conducted. RTC and the other 3 were acquitted due to lack of probable cause. records of foreign remittances, covering the years 1966 to 1970.” The description does
ordered the reinvestigation of the case and the suspension of the service of the not meet the requirement in Art III, Sec. 1, of the Constitution, and of Sec. 3, Rule 126
warrants pending submission of the reinvestigation report of the COMELEC. Issue: of the Revised Rules of Court, that the warrant should particularly describe the things
Whether the judge can determine separately if there is probable cause even if all were to be seized. A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be
Issue: stipulated in the complaint together? seized when the description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily
Whether the RTC judge alone has the power to determine probable cause initially filed allow or when the description expresses a conclusion of fact not of law by which the
by the COMELEC? Ruling: warrant officer may be guided in making the search and seizure or when the things
Yes. The contrary opinion of the judge regarding the designation of the offense described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the
Ruling: committed, for as long as he finds probable cause for the offense charged, is valid. warrant is being issued.
Yes. When the COMELEC, through its duly authorized law officer, conducts the Under Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution, a judge can determine personally. This
preliminary investigation of an election offense and upon prima facie finding of a also means the separation of designation. 317. Borlongan v. Pena
probable cause, files the information in the proper court, said court thereby acquires G.R. No. 143591, November 23. 2007
jurisdiction over the case. Consequently, all the subsequent disposition of said case Main Point:
must be subject to the approval of the court. The COMELEC cannot conduct a The judge has the power to have a contrary opinion regarding the designation of Facts: Respondent Magdaleno Peña instituted a civil case for recovery of agent’s
reinvestigation of the case without the authority of the court or unless so ordered by offenses in cases where there are multiple defendants. compensation and expenses, damages, and attorney’s fees, against Urban Bank and
the court. the petitioners, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Occidental, Bago City.
Respondent anchored his claim for compensation on the contract of agency, allegedly
entered into with the petitioners wherein the former undertook to perform such acts only because he visited his mother. He also said that he saw the Receipt of Property asking searching questions and answers to satisfy himself of the existence of probable
necessary to prevent any intruder and squatter from unlawfully occupying Urban Seized for the first time during the trial, although he admitted that the signature on cause. He ignored the constitutional requirement of procedural due process. This
Bank’s property located along Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City. Petitioners filed a MD the certification that the house was properly search was his. Court cannot countenance such blatant practice of disregarding fairly elementary legal
arguing that they never appointed the respondent as agent or counsel, accompanied principles and substituting it with highly irregular practice which appears convenient
by with documents as proof showing that the respondent was appointed as agent by Issue: Whether the trial court erred in issuing a search warrant only to respondent judge. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to secure the
ISCI and not by Urban Bank or by the petitioners. Respondent Peña filed his Complaint- innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution, and to protect him from
Affidavit with the Office of the City Prosecutor, Bago City claiming that said documents Ruling: Yes. The issuance of a search warrant is justified only upon a finding of an open and public accusation of crime, from the trouble, expense and anxiety of a
were falsified because the alleged signatories did not actually affix their signatures, probable cause. Probable cause for a search has been defined as such facts and public trial, and also to protect the state from useless and expensive trials. However, in
and the signatories were neither stockholders nor officers and employees of ISCI. circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that order to satisfy the due process clause it is not enough that the preliminary
Worse, petitioners introduced said documents as evidence before the RTC knowing an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the investigation is conducted in the sense of making sure that a transgressor shall not
that they were falsified. The City Prosecutor concluded that the documents were offense are in the place sought to be searched. In determining the existence of escape with impunity. More important, it is a part of the guarantees of freedom and
falsified because the alleged signatories untruthfully stated that ISCI was the principal probable cause, it is required that: (1) The judge must examine the complaint and his fair play which are birthrights of all who live in our country. It is, therefore, imperative
of the respondent. Thereafter, Judge Primitivo Blanca issued the warrants for the witnesses personally; (2) The examination must be under oath; and (3) The upon the judge as the case may be, to relieve the accused from the pain of going
arrest of the petitioners. Petitioners filed an Omnibus MQ : They insist that they were examination must be reduced in writing in the form of searching questions and through a trial once it is ascertained that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a prima
denied due process because of the non-observance of a proper procedure on answers. The prosecution failed to prove that the judge who issued the warrant put facie case or that no probable cause exists to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of
preliminary investigation prescribed in the Rules of Court; since no such counter- into writing his examination of the applicant and his witnesses in the form of searching the accused.
affidavit and supporting documents were submitted by the petitioners, the trial judge questions and answers before issuance of the search warrant. When the Branch Clerk
merely relied on the complaint-affidavit and attachments of the respondent in issuing of Court was required to testify on the available records kept in their office, he was MAIN POINT: Probable cause must be decided in the light of the conditions obtaining
the warrants of arrest, also in contravention of the Rules. On the same day that the only able to present before the court the application for search warrant and in given situations and its existence depends to a large degree upon the finding or
Omnibus MQ was filed, the petitioners posted bail which expressly provided that they supporting affidavits. Neither transcript of the proceedings of a searching question and opinion of the judge conducting the examination.
do not intend to waive their right to question the validity of their arrest. MTCC held the answer nor the sworn statements of the complainant and his witnesses showing that CASE 320
validity of the warrant of arrest, saying that it was issued in accordance with the Rules. the judge examined them in the form of searching questions and answers in writing ARTICLE III, SECTION 2: Requisite of a valid warrant; Particularity of description
More so, petitioners could no longer question the validity of the warrant since they was presented. Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are not sufficient. People v. Veloso (48 Phil 169)
already posted bail. Such written examination is necessary in order that the judge may be able to properly
Issue: Whether the Informations charging the petitioners were validly filed and the determine the existence and non-existence of probable cause. Therefore, the search FACTS: In May, 1923, the building No. 124 Calle Arzobispo, Manila, was used by an
warrants for their arrest were properly issued. warrant is tainted with illegality by failure of the judge to conform with the essential organization known as the Parliamentary Club. Jose Veloso was at that time a member
Ruling: In the issuance of warrant of arrest, petitioners contend that the warrants requisites of taking the examination in writing and attaching to the record, rendering of the HOR of the Philippine Legislature and the manager of the club. The police of
were illegally issued as they were solely based on the affidavits of the complainant. the search warrant invalid. Manila had reliable information that the so-called Club was nothing more than a
Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution underscores the exclusive and personal gambling house. Indeed, Townsend, the chief of the gambling squad, had been to the
responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. CASE 319 club and verified this fact. As a result, Detective Geronimo of the secret service of City
But the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. ARTICLE III, SECTION 2: Requisite of a valid warrant; Personal Examination of Manila, applied for, and obtained a search warrant from Judge Garduño. Thus
Following established doctrine and procedure, he shall (1) personally evaluate the Ortiz v. Palaypayon (234 SCRA 391) provided, the police attempted to raid the Club. Once inside the Club, nearly fifty
report and the supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor regarding the persons were apprehended by the police. One of them was defendant Veloso. Veloso
existence of probable cause, and on the basis thereof, he may already make a personal FACTS: There was a complaint for damage to property thru reckless imprudence asked Townsend what he wanted, and the latter showed him the search warrant.
determination of the existence of probable cause; and (2) if he is not satisfied that involving a collision between Toyota Corolla owned by Rosalinda Tanay, driven by her Veloso told Townsend that he was Representative Veloso and not John Doe, and that
probable cause exists, he may disregard the prosecutor’s report and require the husband, Roberto Tanay, and a mini-truck owned by Juliana Lu which was entrusted to the police had no right to search the house. Townsend answered that Veloso was
submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as herein complainant, then driven by Rodrigo Vasquez. Respondent judge issued an considered as John Doe. As Veloso’s pocket was bulging, as if it contained gambling
to the existence of probable cause. There is no provision or procedural rule which order for the arrest of accused Juliana Lu, Rodrigo Vasquez and herein complainant, utensils, Townsend required Veloso to show him the evidence of the game. Veloso
makes the submission of counter-affidavits mandatory before the judge could David Ortiz, on the basis of mere affidavits by the offended party and without refused and the patience of the officers was exhausted. So the policeman Rosacker
determine probable cause. SC finds the complaint-affidavit and attachments conducting the preliminary investigation required by Rule 112 of the RPC. It is alleged took hold of Veloso only to meet with his resistance. Veloso bit Rosacker which injured
insufficient to support the existence of probable cause. The respondent’s claims of the in the administrative complaint that herein complainant was wrongfully included as the policeman quite severely. Through the combined efforts of Townsend and
falsity of the documents were mere assertions. one of the accused even if there existed no basis for his indictment of the criminal act Rosacker, Veloso was finally laid down on the floor, and long sheets of paper, or reglas
as he was not among the 9 passengers nor was he the driver of the mini-truck. de monte, cards, cardboards, and chips were taken from his pockets. All of the persons
318. People v. Mamaril43 Respondent judge filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging lack of factual or legal basis. He arrested were searched and then conducted to the patrol wagons. Veloso again
G.R. No. 147607, January 22, 2004 claims that pursuant to the said rule, he personally examined in writing and under oath refused to obey and shouted offensive epithets against the police department It was
the private complainant and his witnesses by asking the same questions propounded necessary for the policemen to conduct him downstairs. At the door, Veloso resisted
Facts: SPO2 Chito Esmenda applied before the RTC for a search warrant authorizing to them in their sworn statements and the same answers were given. At the same so tenaciously that three policemen were needed to place him in the patrol wagon. In
the search for marijuana at the family residence of appellant Mamaril. During the time, respondent judge maintains that it is customary for him to adopt the sworn the MTC of the City of Manila, the persons arrested in the raid were accused of
search operation, the searching team confiscated sachets of suspected marijuana statements of the complainant and the witnesses if he is satisfied of the existence of gambling. All of them were eventually acquitted in CFI for lack of proof, with the sole
leaves. Police officers took pictures of the confiscated items and prepared a receipt of probable cause. This practice, he claims, will expedite the proceedings and save the exception of Veloso, who was found guilty of maintaining a gambling house.
the property seized and certified that the house was properly searched, which was party litigants' time and money.
signed by the appellant and the barangay officials who witnessed the search. The PNP ISSUE: Whether a search warrant which did not specify the specific person is
Crime Laboratory issued a report finding the seized specimens positive for the ISSUE: Whether Palaypayon is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law. constitutional and valid.
presence of marijuana. Moreover, the examination on the urine sample of appellant
affirmed that it was positive for the same. Appellant denied that he was residing at his RULING: Yes. It is evident that there was no preliminary investigation conducted. RULING: Yes. The Court held that even though John Doe warrants are generally void,
parent’s house, and that he was at his parent’s house when the search was conducted Respondent judge did not personally examine the complainant and her witnesses by they can be considered valid if in addition it also contains a descriptio personae such
as will enable the officer to identify the accused. Based on the wording of the warrant, application for preliminary injunction and restraining order to enjoin respondent RTC, transgressed the Constitutional provision requiring that such warrants should
that the police could identify John Doe as Veloso without difficulty, the search warrant Branch 98 from proceeding with the trial, praying (a) that Search Warrant No. Q-00002 particularly describe the persons or things to be seized.
is valid. issued by respondent Judge Esteban M. Lising be declared null and void ab initio and
that a mandatory injunction be issued directing respondents City Fiscal's Office of ISSUE; Whether the warrant issued against fifty (50) "John Does were valid?
MAIN POINT: JOHN DOE WARRANTS: It is valid if the best description possible is given Quezon City and Lt. Col. Berlin Castillo and 1st Lt. Godofredo Ignacio jointly and
in the arrest warrant, it must be sufficient to indicate clearly on whom it is to be served severally to return immediately the documents/properties illegally seized from herein RULING;
by stating his occupation, personal appearance or peculiarities, place of residence or petitioner. Respondents would have this Court dismiss the petition on the ground that No, as said warrant is issued against fifty (50) "John Does" not one of whom
other circumstances which he may be identified. Moreover, the rule is that a the articles seized were adequately described in the search warrant. the witnesses to the complaint could or would Identify, it is of the nature of a general
description of a place to be searched is sufficient if the officers with the warrant can warrant, one of a class of writs long proscribed as unconstitutional and once
with reasonable effort ascertain and identify the place intended. ISSUE; Whether the articles were particularly described in the warrant anathematized as "totally subversive of the liberty of the subject." Clearly violative of
the constitutional injunction that warrants of arrest should particularly describe the
CASE 321 RULING; person or persons to be seized, the warrant must, as regards its unidentified subjects,
ARTICLE III, SECTION 2: Requisite of a valid warrant; Particularity of description No, mere generalization will not suffice." A search warrant should be voided.
Alvarez v. CFI (64 Phil 33) particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized. "The evident
purpose and intent of this requirement is to limit the things to be seized to those, and MAINPOINT;
FACTS: The chief of the secret service of the Anti-Usury Board, of the DOJ, presented only those, particularly described in the search warrant- to leave the officers of the law The warrant against 50 john does is clearly violative of the constitutional
to Judge Eduardo David an affidavit alleging that according to reliable information, the with no discretion regarding what articles they should seize, to the end that injunction that warrants of arrest should particularly describe the person or persons to
petitioner kept in his house in Infanta, Tayabas, books, documents, receipts, lists, chits unreasonable searches and seizures may not be committed. In the case at bar, the be seized.
and other papers used by him in connection with his activities as a money-lender search warrant issued by respondent judge allowed seizure of printed copies of the
charging usurious rates of interest in violation of the law. He did not swear to the truth Philippine Times, manuscripts/drafts of articles for publication, newspaper dummies,
of his statements upon his own knowledge of the facts but upon the information subversive documents, articles, etc., and even typewriters, and tape 324- Stonhill V Diokno (1967) - Baird
received by him from a reliable person. Upon the affidavit in question the Judge, on recording machines. Thus, the language used is so all embracing as to include all
said date, issued the warrant which is the subject matter of the petition, ordering the conceivable records and equipment of petitioner regardless of whether they are legal FACTS; Respondents-Judges issued, on different dates, a total of 42 search warrants
search of the petitioner’s house at any time of the day or night, the seizure of the or illegal. The search warrant under consideration was in the nature of a general against petitioners herein and/or the corporations of which they were officers,
books and documents above-mentioned and the immediate delivery thereof to him to warrant which is constitutionally objectionable. directed to the any peace officer, to search the persons above-named and/or the
be disposed of in accordance with the law. premises of their offices, warehouses and/or residences, and to seize and take
MAINPOINT ;The evident purpose and intent of this requirement is to limit the things possession of the following personal property to wit: Books of accounts, financial
ISSUE: Whether there was a sufficient probable cause for the issuance of search to be seized to those, and only those, particularly described in the search warrant- to records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, journals, portfolios, credit
warrant. leave the officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles they should journals, typewriters, and other documents and/or papers showing all business
seize, to the end that unreasonable searches and seizures may not be committed. transactions including disbursements receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss
RULING: No. The affidavit which served as the exclusive basis of the search warrant, is statements and Bobbins (cigarette wrappers) which is described in the applications
insufficient and fatally defective by reason of the manner in which the oath was made, 323. Pangandaman V. Casar – Baird adverted to above as "violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal
and therefore, it is hereby held that the search warrant in question and the FACTS; Revenue (Code) and the RPC." Alleging that the aforementioned search warrants are
subsequent seizure of the books, documents and other papers are illegal and do not in On July 27, 1985, a shooting incident occurred in Pantao, Lanao del Sur, null and void, as contravening the Constitution and the Rules of Court because they do
any way warrant the deprivation to which the petitioner was subjected. which left at least five persons dead and two others wounded. According to one not describe with particularity the documents, books and things to be seized; In their
version, armed men had attacked a residence in Pantao, Masiu, with both attackers answer, respondents-prosecutors alleged, (1) that the contested search warrants are
MAIN POINT: The true test of sufficiency of a deposition or affidavit to warrant and defenders suffering casualties. On the following day, valid and have been issued in accordance with law; (2) that the defects of said
issuance of a search warrant is whether it was drawn in a manner that perjury could be Atty. Mangurun Batuampar,filed a letter-complaint with the Provincial Fiscal warrants, if any, were cured by petitioners' consent.
charged thereon and the affiant are held liable for damage caused. The oath required at Marawi City, asking for a "full blast preliminary investigation" of the incident. No
must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the applicant of a case relative to the incident was, however, presented to the respondent Judge until ISSUE; Whether the Warrants are valid
search warrant and/or his witnesses, not of the facts merely reported by a person Saturday, August 10, 1985, when a criminal complaint for multiple murder was filed
whom one considers to be reliable. before him by P.C. Sgt. Jose L. Laruan. On that same day, the respondent Judge RULING;
"examined personally all witnesses under oath thru (his) closed and direct No, he warrants sanctioned the seizure of all records of the petitioners and
322. Corro V Linsing – Baird supervision," reducing to writing the questions to the witnesses and the latter's the aforementioned corporations, whatever their nature, thus openly contravening the
FACTS; On September 29, 1983, respondent RTC judge Esteban Lising of Quezon City, answers. 9 Thereafter the Judge "approved the complaint and issued the explicit command of our Bill of Rights — that the things to be seized
upon application filed by Lt. Col. Berlin Castillo of the Philippine Constabulary Criminal corresponding warrant of arrest" against the 14 petitioners and fifty (50) be particularly described — as well as tending to defeat its major objective: the
Investigation Service, issued Search Warrant No. Q-00002 authorizing the search and "John Does.The petitioners ask this Court to annul the warrant for their arrest issued elimination of general warrants. To uphold the validity of the warrants in question
seizure of Printed copies of Philippine Times; Manuscripts/drafts of articles for by respondent Judge Dimaporo T. Casar of the Municipal Circuit Court of Masiu, Lanao would be to wipe out completely one of the most fundamental rights guaranteed in
publication in the Philippine Times; Newspaper dummies of the Philippine Times; del Sur. Their plea is essentially grounded on the claim that the warrant for their arrest our Constitution, for it would place the sanctity of the domicile and the privacy of
Subversive documents, articles, printed matters, handbills, was issued by the respondent Judge without a proper preliminary investigation. An communication and correspondence at the mercy of the whim's caprice or passion of
leaflets, banners;Typewriters, duplicating machines, mimeographing and tape "ex-parte" motion for reconsideration was filed on August 14, 1985 by peace officers. This is precisely the evil sought to be remedied by the constitutional
recording machines, video machines and tapes which have been used and are being Atty. Batuampar seeking recall of the warrant of arrest and subsequent holding of a provision above quoted to outlaw the so-called general warrants.
used as instrument and means of committing the crime of inciting to sedition. On "thorough investigation" on the ground that the Judge's initial investigation had been
November 6, 1984, petitioner filed an urgent motion to recall warrant and to return "hasty and manifestly haphazard" with "no searching questions" having been MAINPOINT; The warrants sanctioned the seizure of all records of the petitioners and
documents/personal properties. On January 28, 1985, respondent Judge Lising denied propounded; That issuance of a warrant of arrest against fifty (50) "John Does" the aforementioned corporations, whatever their nature, thus openly contravening the
the motion in a resolution. Hence, this petition for certiorari and mandamus, with explicit command of our Bill of Rights that the things to be seized
be particularly described as well as tending to defeat its major objective: the RULING: The court partially granted the petition. Still, no provision of law exists which
elimination of general warrants. requires that a warrant, partially defective in specifying some items sought to be Facts: BIR received a report that herein petitioners are committing acts in violation of
seized yet particular with respect to the other items, should be nullified as a whole. A the National Internal Revenue Code. BIR’s representative applied for search warrants,
partially defective warrant remains valid as to the items specifically described in the which an RTC judge issued for violation of Sec 153 of the NIR Code. A second warrant
325 warrant. A search warrant is severable, the items not sufficiently described may be cut was issued, almost identical to the first, except for the city address which changed
Particularity of description off without destroying the whole warrant.45 The exclusionary rule found in Section from Cebu City to Mandaue City and the addition of “alias Frank Uy.” A third warrant
People v. Martinez – 235 SCRA 171 3(2) of Article III of the Constitution renders inadmissible in any proceeding all was issued, which was identical to the first 2, except this time for violation of Sec. 238
FACTS: On September 2, 2006 at around 1245 PM, PO1 Bernard Azarden was on duty evidence obtained through unreasonable searches and seizure. Thus, all items seized of the NIR Code. Acting on these warrants, BIR agents seized, along with the records
at the Police Community Precinct along Arellano St., Dagupan City when a concerned under paragraph (c) of the search warrants, not falling under paragraphs a, b, d, e or f, and documents of the accused, other items which were not particularized in the search
citizen reported that a pot session was underway in the house of accused Rafael should be returned to Maxicorp. warrant.
Gonzales in Trinidad Subdivision, Dagupan City. PO1 Azardan, PO1 Alejandro dela Cruz MAIN POINT: A search warrant must state particularly the place to be searched and
and members of Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) proceeded to aforesaid house. the objects to be seized. The evident purpose for this requirement is to limit the Issue: Whether the search warrant particularly described the place to be searched and
Upon inquiry from people in the area, the house of Gonzales was located. As the team articles to be seized only to those particularly described in the search warrant. This is a the persons/items to be seized considering the inconsistencies with their descriptions
entered the house, accused Orlando Doria was arrested while coming out. Inside the protection against potential abuse. It is necessary to leave the officers of the law with
house were Gonzales, Arnold Martinez, Edgar Dizon, and Rezin Martinez. Seized from no discretion regarding what articles they shall seize, to the end that no unreasonable Ruling: Place to be searched – Valid. The rule is that a description of a place to be
the accused were open plastic sachets (containing shabu residue), pieces of rolled searches and seizures be committed. searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort,
used aluminum foil and pieces of used aluminum foil. The accused were arrested and 327 ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the
brought to police station, seized items were sent to the Pangasinan Provincial Police Particularity of description community.
Crime Laboratory. All accused, except for Doria, were found positive for Burgos v. Chief of Staff, AFP 133 SCRA 890 Persons named in warrant – Valid. The warrant was issued not for search of the
methylamphetamine HCL. persons owning or occupying the premises, but only a search of the premises occupied
On February 13, 2008, RTC found Arnold Martinez, Edgar Dizon, Rezin FACTS: The petitioner filed a petition for prohibitory injunction is the validity of two [2] by them.
Martinez and Rafael Gonzales guilty beyond reasonable doubt under Sec. 13 in relation search warrants. Things seized – Valid, but only insofar as the items particularly described. The warrant
to Sec. 11, Art. II of RA 9165 and sentenced each to life imprisonment and fined PHP The petitioner pointed out defects in the search warrant; The two search in the case at bar is severable and those items not particularly described in the warrant
500,000 plus cost of suit. warrants were applied for and issued because the purpose and intent were to search (through failure of particularity test or actual exclusion from warrant) may be cut off
The CA supported the findings of the lower court. two distinct premises. It would be quite absurd and illogical for respondent judge to without destroying the whole warrant.
ISSUE: Whether the evidence is admissible have issued two warrants intended for one and the same place. Besides, the addresses
RULING: No, the markings appear to pertain to a group of items, that is, empty plastic of the places sought to be searched were specifically set forth in the application, and Case No. 329 – Cruz
sachets, rolled and cut aluminium foil, and cut aluminium foil, but do not specifically since it was Col. Abadilla himself who headed the team which executed the search Probable Cause - Particularity of Description
pertain to any individual item in each group. Furthermore, it was only in the Chemistry warrants, the ambiguity that might have arisen by reason of the typographical error is Yousex Al-Ghoul v. CA
Report that the precise number of each type of item was indicated and enumerated. more apparent than real. The fact is that the place for which Search Warrant No. 20- GR 126859 Sept. 4, 2001
The Court notes that in all documents prior to said report, the subject items were 82[b] was applied for was 728 Units C & D, RMS Building, Quezon Avenue, Quezon City,
never accurately quantified but only described as "pieces," "several pcs," and "shabu which address appeared in the opening paragraph of the said warrant. Obviously this is Main Point: The place to be searched cannot be changed, enlarged nor amplified by
paraphernallas." the same place that respondent judge had in mind when he issued Warrant No. 20-82 the police. Court concludes that the gun seized in the illegal search (Apartment 8)
MAIN POINT: Since it is unavoidable that possession of the substance changes hand a [b]. cannot be used in evidence. But the articles seized in Apartment 2 are admissible.
number of times, it is imperative for the officer who seized the substance from the ISSUE: Whether a search warrant describes the premises to be searched with sufficient
suspect to place his marking on its plastic container and seal the same, preferably with particularity Facts: Judge Mangay issued 2 search warrants for the search and seizure of certain
adhesive tape that cannot be removed without leaving a tear on the plastic container. RULING: No, in the determination of whether a search warrant describes the premises items in Apartment No. 2. The police searched Apartment No. 8, in the same
At the trial, the officer can then identify the seized substance and the procedure he to be searched with sufficient particularity, it has been held "that the executing compound and found one.45 caliber pistol. Found in the apartment particularized by
observed to preserve its integrity until it reaches the crime laboratory. officer's prior knowledge as to the place intended in the warrant is relevant. the warrant were 2 firearms, ammunitions and explosives. Petitioners were charged
MAIN POINT: This would seem to be especially true where the executing officer is the before the RTC accusing them with illegal possession of firearms, ammunitions and
326 affiant on whose affidavit the warrant had issued, and when he knows that the judge explosives. Thereafter, petitioners were arrested and detained. Petitioners contend
Particularity of description who issued the warrant intended the building described in the affidavit, And it has also that the search and seizure orders violated Sections 2 and 3 of the Bill of Rights as well
Microsoft Corp. v. Maxicorp (2004) been said that the executing officer may look to the affidavit in the official court file to as Section 3 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court on Criminal Procedure because the place
FACTS: NBI Agent Samiano filed several applications for search warrants in the RTC resolve an ambiguity in the warrant as to the place to be searched." searched and articles seized were not described with particularity.
against Maxicorp for alleged violation of Section 29 of PD 49 and Article 189 of the
RPC. After conducting a preliminary examination of the applicant and his witnesses, Case No. 328– Cruz Issue: Whether the search made at Apartment No. 8 was valid
Judge William M. Bayhon issued Search Warrants. Probable Cause - Particularity of Description Whether items described in the warrant were sufficiently described with particularity.
Paragraph C of the search warrant states: Frank Uy v. BIR
c) Sundry items such as labels, boxes, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles, 344 SCRA 36 Ruling: No, such search was deemed illegal for violating Sections 2 and 3 of the Bill of
advertisements and other paraphernalia bearing the copyrights and/or trademarks rights and the item seized therein was considered inadmissible evidence against
owned by MICROSOFT CORPORATION; Main Point: In order to comply with the constitutional provisions regulating the petitioners.
Armed with the search warrants, NBI agents conducted on 25 July 1996 a issuance of search warrants, the property to be seized under a warrant must be
search of Maxicorp’s premises and seized property fitting the description stated in the particularly described therein and no other property can be taken thereunder; Seizure Yes, the Court held that the articles seized during the search of Apartment No. 2 are of
search warrants. of items not specified in the warrants cannot be justified by the directive to “seize and the same kind and nature as those items enumerated in the search warrants. The
ISSUE: Whether the motion to quash the search warrant be granted take possession of other properties relative to such violation,” which in no way can be items seized from Apartment No. 2 were described with specificity in the warrants in
characterized as a particular description of the things to be seized. question. The nature of the items ordered to be seized did not require a technical
description. Substantial similarity of those articles described as a class or species would ISSUE: with of the Court, and thereupon tried and decided by the judge to whom it has been
suffice. Whether or not the search warrant is valid. assigned, and not necessarily by the judge who issued the search warrant.
It is, therefore, incorrect to say that only the court which has jurisdiction over the
RULING: criminal case can issue the search warrant, as would be the consequence of
Case No. 330 – Cruz No. The Constitution and the Rules limit the place to be searched only to those petitioners' position that only the branch of the court with jurisdiction over the place
Probable Cause - Particularity of Description described in the warrant. Additionally, the requisite of particularity is related to the to be searched can issue a warrant to search the same. A court whose territorial
People v. CA probable cause requirement in that, at least under some circumstances, the lack of a jurisdiction does not embrace the place to be searched is not prohibited to issue a
291 SCRA 400 more specific description will make it apparent that there has not been a sufficient search warrant, where the obtention of that search warrant is necessitated and
showing to the magistrate that the described items are to be found in a particular justified by compelling considerations of urgency, subject, time and place.
Main Point: The place to be searched, as set out in the warrant, cannot be amplified or place.
modified by the officers’ own personal knowledge of the premises, or the evidence CASE NO. 333
they adduced in support of their application for the warrant – the particularization of In the present case, the assailed search warrant failed to describe the place with Art. III, Sec. 2. Particularity of description
the description of the place to be searched may properly be done only by the Judge, particularity. It simply authorizes a search of “the aforementioned premises,” but it did People v. Estrada – GR 124461, June 26, 2000
and only in the warrant itself. not specify such premises. The warrant identifies only one place, and that is the “Paper MAINPOINT:
Industries Corporation of the Philippines, located at PICOP Compound, Barangay If the producer, manufacturer or seller has no permit or authority from the
Facts: A police officer applied for a search warrant before QC RTC against Hussain who Tabon, Bislig[,] Surigao del Sur.” The PICOP compound, however, is made up of “200 appropriate government agency, the drugs or medicines cannot be returned although
allegedly had in possession of firearms and explosives at a variety store in Apt. 1207 offices/buildings, 15 plants, 84 staff houses, 1 airstrip, 3 piers/wharves, 23 the search warrants were declared void and illegal for its failure to allege and specify in
Bagong Buhay Avenue. A search warrant was served but not on the said address but on warehouses, 6 POL depots/quick service outlets and some 800 miscellaneous the application of search warrant that the products were either fake, misbranded,
Apt 1, adjacent to Apt 1207. Several Pakistani nationals were arrested and several structures, all of which are spread out over some one hundred fifty-five hectares.” adulterated, or unregistered.
items not listed on the warrant were also seized, including a piece of dynamite stick, Obviously, the warrant gives the police officers unbridled and thus illegal authority to
two pieces of plastic explosives, grenade, cash and receipts. On arraignment, private search all the structures found inside the PICOP compound. FACTS:
respondents pleaded not guilty and filed an urgent motion to quash search warrant The Court denied the petition filed by the petitioner questioning the trial court's order
and to declare evidence obtained inadmissible. RTC and CA granted the motion. OSG CASE NO. 332 which quashed the search warrant it issued and ordered the return of the seized goods
seeks reversal of the verdict, averring that such decision disregarded the issuing court’s Art. III, Sec. 2. Particularity of description on the ground that the warrant failed to satisfy the constitutional requirements for
determination of probable cause and particularity of the place to be searched. Malalaon v. CA, 232 SCRA 249 issuance of warrant for its failure to allege in the application for search warrant that
the subject drugs for which she was applying for search warrant were either fake,
Issue: Whether the apartment had been specifically described in the warrant. MAINPOINT: misbranded, adulterated, or unregistered". Petitioner now seeks a partial
A search warrant is merely a judicial process designed by the Rules to respond only to reconsideration of the said decision arguing that the seized drugs subject of the void
Ruling: No. In applying for a search warrant, the police officers had in their mind the an incident in the main case. There is no provision as to the extent of the territory warrant can no longer be returned because the same are contraband goods. In its
first four (4) separate apartment units at the rear of the variety store to be the subject wherein it may be enforced, provided it is implemented on and within the premises motion for reconsideration, petitioner attached annexes purporting to show that the
of their search. The same was not, however, what the Judge who issued the warrant specifically described therein which may or may not be within the territorial 52 boxes of medicines seized under the void warrant, upon laboratory examinations,
had in mind, and was not what was ultimately described in the search warrant. The jurisdiction of the issuing court. were found genuine but were illegally imported.
ambiguity lies outside the instrument, arising from the absence of a meeting of minds ISSUE:
as to the place to be searched between the applicants for the warrant and the Judge FACTS: Lt. Absalon V. Salboro of the CAPCOM Northern Sector filed with the RTC of Whether or not the goods seized under a void warrant should be returned.
issuing the same; and what was done was to substitute for the place that the Judge Caloocan City an application for search warrant. The search warrant was sought for in
had written down in the warrant, the premises that the executing officers had in their connection with an alleged violation of P.D. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms and RULING:
mind. This should not have been done. Ammunitions) perpetrated at Marlboro St., Fairview, Quezon City. Respondent RTC No. If the seized 52 boxes of drugs are pharmaceutically correct but not properly
Judge of Calookan City issued search warrant and the same day, members of the documented, they should be promptly disposed of in the manner provided by law in
CAPCOM, armed with subject search warrant, proceeded to the place wherein order to ensure that the same do not fall into the wrong hands who might use the
CASE NO. 331 firearms, explosive materials and subversive documents, among others, were seized drugs underground. Private respondent cannot rely on the statement of the trial court
Art. III, Sec. 2. Particularity of description and taken during the search. And all the sixty-one (61) persons found within the that the applicant "failed to allege in the application for search warrant that the
Paper Industries v. Asuncion GR 122092 May 19, 1998 premises searched were brought to Camp Karingal, Quezon City but most of them subject drugs for which she was applying for search warrant were either fake,
MAINPOINT: were later released, with the exception of the herein petitioners. misbranded, adulterated, or unregistered" in order to obtain the return of the drugs.
The Constitution and the Rules limit the place to be searched only to those described The policy of the law enunciated in R.A. No. 8203 is to protect the consumers as well as
in the warrant. Petitioners presented a "Motion for Consolidation, Quashal of Search Warrant and For the licensed businessmen. Foremost among these consumers is the government itself
the Suppression of All Illegally Acquired Evidence" before the Quezon City court which procures medicines and distributes them to the local communities through
FACTS: contending that the RTC of Caloocan is without jurisdiction to issue said warrant direct assistance to the local health centers or through outreach and charity programs.
Police Chief Inspector Napoleon B. Pascua applied for a search warrant before the said because the placed to be searched is in Quezon City. Only with the proper government sanctions can medicines and drugs circulate the
RTC of Quezon City, stating that the management of Paper Industries Corporation of market. We cannot afford to take any risk, for the life and health of the citizenry are as
the Philippines, located at PICOP compound, Barangay Tabon, Bislig, Surigao del Sur, ISSUE: precious as the existence of the State.
represented by its Sr. Vice President Ricardo G. Santiago, is in possession or control of Whether the said search warrant is valid.
high powered firearms, ammunitions, explosives, which are the subject of the offense, 334. Salazar v. Achcoso, 183 SCRA 145
or used or intended to be used in committing the offense, and which are being kept RULING:
and concealead in the premises. The warrant was issued and the search was pursued. Yes. In the implementation of the search warrant, properties are seized thereunder FACTS: This concerns the validity of the power of the Secretary of Labor to issue
Petitioner contends the validity of the search warrant as it failed to describe the place and the corresponding case is filed in court, said case shall be distributed conformably warrants of arrest and seizure under Article 38 of the Labor Code, prohibiting illegal
in particularity. recruitment.
On October 21, 1987, Rosalie Tesoro filed with the POEA a complaint against months and after they posted a cash bond of 4,000 pesos. On January 1962, Chan Sau Commissioer on Immigration based on a sworn complaint of a single individual. The
petitioner. Having ascertained that the petitioner had no license to operate a Wah married Esteban Morano, a native-born Filipino citizen. Born to this union on essential requisite of probable cause was conspicuously absent.
recruitment agency, public respondent Administrator Tomas D. Achacoso issued his September 1962 was Esteban Morano, Jr. To prolong their stay in the Philippines, Chan
challenged CLOSURE AND SEIZURE ORDER. Sau Wah and Fu Yan Fun obtained several extensions. The last extension expired on 339. LIM
The POEA brought a team to the premises of Salazar to implement the order. There it September 10, 1962. In a letter dated August 31, 1962, the Commissioner of Board of Commissioners vs Judge De La Rosa
was found that petitioner was operating Hannalie Dance Studio. Before entering the Immigration ordered Chan Sau Wah and her son, Fu Yan Fun, to leave the country on
place, the team served said Closure and Seizure order on a certain Mrs. Flora Salazar or before September 10, 1962 with a warning that upon failure so to do, he will issue a Main Point: a warrant of arrest issued by the Commission of Immigration, to be valid,
who voluntarily allowed them entry into the premises. Mrs. Flora Salazar informed the warrant for their arrest and will cause the confiscation of their bond. must be for the sole purpose of executing a final order of deportation.
team that Hannalie Dance Studio was accredited with Moreman Development (Phil.). Issue: Whether or Not the issuance of the warrant of arrest is unconstitutional.
However, when required to show credentials, she was unable to produce any. Inside Ruling:Chan Sau Wah entered the Philippines on a tourist-temporary visitor's visa. She FACTS: The then Secretary of Justice issued a memorandum directing the Board of
the studio, the team chanced upon twelve talent performers — practicing a dance is a non-immigrant. Under Section 13 just quoted, she may therefore be admitted if Commissioners to review all cases where entry was allowed on the ground that the
number and saw about twenty more waiting outside, The team confiscated assorted she were a qualified and desirable alien and subject to the provisions of the last entrant was a Philippine citizen, including that of respondents Gatchalian. Petitioner
costumes which were duly receipted for by Mrs. Asuncion Maguelan and witnessed by paragraph of Section 9. Therefore, first, she must depart voluntarily to some foreign Board reversed the decision of the Board of Special Inquiry admitting respondents
Mrs. Flora Salazar. country; second, she must procure from the appropriate consul the proper visa; and Gatchalian as Filipino citizens. Petitioner Commissioner of Immigratrion issued a
A few days after, petitioner filed a letter with the POEA demanding the return of the third, she must thereafter undergo examination by the officials of the Bureau of mission order commanding the arrest of respondent William Gatchalian.
confiscated properties. They alleged lack of hearing and due process, and that since Immigration at the port of entry for determination of her admissibility in accordance
the house the POEA raided was a private residence, it was robbery. with the requirements of the immigration Act.. RULING: Whether the warrant of arrest issued by the Commissioner of Immigration
On February 2, 1988, the petitioner filed this suit for prohibition. Although the acts Warrants of arrest may be issued by administrative authorities only for the purpose of was valid
sought to be barred are already fait accompli, thereby making prohibition too late, we carrying out a final finding of a violation of law, like an order of deportation or an order
consider the petition as one for certiorari in view of the grave public interest involved. of contempt, and not for the sole purpose of investigation or prosecution. It is also ISSUE: No. a warrant of arrest issued by the Commission of Immigration, to be valid,
ISSUE: May the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (or the Secretary of held that the requirement of probable cause is not applicable in deportation must be for the sole purpose of executing a final order of deportation. A warrant of
Labor) validly issue warrants of search and seizure (or arrest) under Article 38 of the proceedings, which are not criminal in nature. The order of deportation is purely arrest issued by the Commissioner of Immigration for purposes of investigation only is
Labor Code? administrative, its purpose being not punishment but the return to his country of the null and void for being unconstitutional. A reading of the mission order/warrant of
HELD: PETITION GRANTED. it is only a judge who may issue warrants of search and alien who has violated the conditions for the admission to the local state. arrest issued by the Commissioner of Immigration clearly indicates that the same was
arrest. Neither may it be done by a mere prosecuting body. issued only for the purposes of investigation of the suspects, respondent Gatchalian
We reiterate that the Secretary of Labor, not being a judge, may no longer issue search 337.LIM included.
or arrest warrants. Hence, the authorities must go through the judicial process. To that Sy v. Domingo
extent, we declare Article 38, paragraph (c), of the Labor Code, unconstitutional and of NONE Sec. 37 (a) of Commonwealth Act No. 613, as amended, otherwise known as the
no force and effect. Immigration Act of 1940, reads:
Moreover, the search and seizure order in question, assuming, ex gratia argumenti, 338. LIM Sec. 37. (a) The following aliens shall be arrested upon the warrant of the
that it was validly issued, is clearly in the nature of a general warrant. We have held Tran Van Nyhai vs Liwag Commissioner of Immigration or of any other officer designated by him for the
that a warrant must identify clearly the things to be seized, otherwise, it is null and purpose and deported upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration after a
void Main Point: Only a Judge may issue a warrant only upon probable cause determination by the Board of Commissioner of the existence of the ground for
For the guidance of the bench and the bar, we reaffirm the following principles: deportation as charged against the alien.
FACTS: A complaint was filed with the Commission of Immigration and Deportation
Under Article III, Section 2, of the l987 Constitution, it is only judges, and no other, who against the petitioner alleging that the French national is an undesirable alien for 340 MUSA
may issue warrants of arrest and search: “committing acts inimical to public safety and progress.” Respondent CID Harvey v. Santiago 162 SCRA 840
The exception is in cases of deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens, whom the commissioner issued a warrant of arrest against the petitioner after the later twice
President or the Commissioner of Immigration may order arrested, following a final refused to go to the CID headquarters for verification of his status. FACTS:
order of deportation, for the purpose of deportation. The Immigration Law empowers the Commissioner of Immigration to issue warrants
335. Republic (PCGG) v. Sandiganbayan, 255 SCRA 438 Petitioner Lucien Tran Van Nghia is a French national with temporary address in Sta. for the arrest of overstaying aliens is constitutional. The arrest is a stop preliminary to
Facts: The PCGG issued a separate orders against private respondent Sipalay Trading Ana, Manila. Originally admitted to the Philippines on November 1, 1981 as a the deportation of the aliens who had violated the condition of their stay in this
Corporation and Allied Banking Corporation to effect their sequestration. PCGG also temporary visitor, his status was changed to that of an immigrant on November 16, country.
issued a “Search and Seizure Order” against Allied Banking Corporation. 1984 based on his representation that he is financially capable and will invest in the
Issue: Whether PCGG may validly issue a search and seizure order. Philippines. To date, however, petitioner has not made any investment and has Petitioners Andrew Harvey and John Sherman, are both American, while Adriaan Van
Ruling: No. The PCGG has no authority to issue a search and seizure order. Only a judge engaged only in French tutoring and practice of acupressure. Elshout is a Dutch citizen.
and such other officer responsible as may be authorized by law because EO No. 1 did
not expressly nor impliedly grant the PCGG the power to issue search warrants or A warrant of arrest was issued by respondent Commissioner on June 2, 1987 but there Petitioners were among the twenty-two (22) suspected alien pedophiles who were
order. is nothing in the records to convince this Court that said warrant was served on apprehended after three months of close surveillance by CID agents. Two (2) days after
346. Morano v. Vivo, 80 SCRA 562 petitioner prior to his apprehension. apprehension seventeen (17) of the twenty-two arrested aliens opted for self-
Facts: Chan Sau Wah, a Chinese citizen born in Fukien, China arrived in the Philippines deportation and have left the country. One was released for lack of evidence; another
on November 1961 to visit her cousin, Samuel Lee Malaps. She left China and her ISSUE: Whether the warrant of arrest issued and petitione’s subsequent arrest were was charged not for being a pedophile but for working without a valid working visa.
children by a first marriage: Fu Tse Haw and Fu Yan Kai both minors, in the care of valid and legal Thus, of the original twenty-two only the three petitioners have chosen to face
neighbors in Fukien, China. Chan Sau wah arrived in the Philippines with Fu Yan Fun, deportation. Warrants of Arrest were issued by respondent against petitioners for
her minor son also by the first marriage. Chan Sau Wah and her minor son Fu Yan Fun RULING: No, Petitioner was “invited” by a combined team of CID agents and police violation of Sections 37, 45 and 46 of the Immigration Act and Section 69 of the
were permitted only into the Philippines under a temporary visitor's visa for two officers at his apartment unit on the strength of a mission order issued by the Revised Administrative Code which the petitioners assail to be invalid as respondent
violated Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution prohibiting unreasonable No. What is required, rather, is that the judge must have sufficient supporting petitioners, that justice will be better served if all the facts pertinent to the
searches and seizures since the CID agents were not clothed with valid Warrants of documents upon which to make his independent judgment or, at the very least, upon controversy are placed before the trial court.
arrest, search and seizure as required by the said provision. . which to verify the findings of the prosecutor as to the existence of probable cause.
The point is: he cannot rely solely and entirely on the prosecutor's recommendation, as 343 REYES
ISSUE: Respondent Court did in this case. Section 2, Article III: “Of whatever nature and for any purpose”
Whether or not the warrant of arrest is valid. Oklahoma Press vs. Walling
MP:
RULING: YES. In this case, the arrest of petitioners was based on probable cause The 1987 Constitution requires the judge to determine probable cause “personally.” FACTS:
determined after close surveillance for three (3) months during which period their The determination of probable cause for the warrant of arrest is made by the Judge. The Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of the Fair Labor and Standards
activities were monitored. The existence of probable cause justified the arrest and the The preliminary investigation proper—whether or not there is reasonable ground to (FLSA) was granted authority by the US Supreme Court to enforce subpoenas against
seizure of the photo negatives, photographs and posters without. Those articles were believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and, therefore, whether or not petitioner pursuant to Sec. 11 (a) of the FLSA which enforces Section 9 and 10 of the
seized as an incident to a lawful arrest and, are therefore, admissible in evidence. The he should be subjected to the expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial—is the Federal Trade Commission Act. The subpoenas sought the production of pertinent
1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure also provide that an arrest without a warrant may function of the Prosecutor. records to determine whether petitioners were covered by the FLSA and if they were
be effected by a peace officer or even a private person (1) when such person has violating the Act. Petitioners claim that the Act is not applicable to them, and insist
committed, actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in his presence; that the question of applicability must be adjudicated before the subpoenas may be
and (2) when an offense has, in fact, been committed and he has personal knowledge 342 MUSA enforced.
of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it (Rule 113, Section Material Distributions v. Judge, 84 Phil 127 (1989)
5). FACTS: ISSUE:
Lope Sarreal filed a complaint (amended on April 10, 1947, to include Harry Lyons) Whether the enforcement of the subpoenas in ordering petitioners to produce the
MP: seeking a money judgment against petitioners on three causes of action. specified records is a violation of the petitioner’s constitutional right against unlawful
The Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation may issue warrants to carry out a On May 27, 1947, Sarreal filed a motion for the production and inspection of the search and seizure.
final finding of a violation. (Board of Commissioners v. Judge De La Rosa, 197 SCRA following documents:
853) It is issued after a proceeding has taken place. This is an exception to the rule that RULING:
only a judge may issue a warrant. I. Books or Papers of Material Distributors (Phil.) Inc.: No. The Court held that the Administrator as authorized by Congress and upon a
1. Cash Receipts Journal judicial order may enforce the production of documents. It has long been established
2. Cash Payments Journal that Congress may exercise wide investigative power over private corporations.
341 MUSA 3. All Individual Ledgers, specially of some persons or entities Moreover, there is a distinction between a “figurative” or “constructive” search and an
Ho vs. People – 280 SCRA 365 4. All letters exchanged between Material Distributors (Phil.) Inc., Material actual search and seizure. Constructive searches are limited by the Fourth
Distributors, Inc. of Wichita, Kansas and Harry Lyons Amendment, where actual search and seizure requires a warrant based on “probable
FACTS: 5. All cablegrams exchanged between Material Distributors (Phil.), Inc., and Material cause.”
A complaint was filed against the petitioner along with other persons for the violation Distributors, Inc., Wichita, Kansas,
of RA 3019 before the Office of the Ombudsman. After investigation, the GIO officer II. Books and Papers of the defendant Harry Lyons The requirement of “probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation,” literally
recommended that a complaint be filed against Rolando Narciso only and the case applicable in the case of a warrant, is satisfied, in the case of an order for production,
against the others including that of the petitioner be dismissed. However, upon Sarreal filed a supplemental motion for the production and inspection of the originals by the court's determination that the investigation is authorized by Congress and is for
review, SPO Tamayo recommended that both Narciso and petitioner be charged with of Annexes A and B of the complaint. Material Distributors filed a memorandum and a purpose Congress can order, and that the documents sought are relevant to the
the violation. Thus, Narciso, VP of NSC, a GOCC, and petitioner, president of NMC, a opposition to Sarreal's above mentioned original and supplemental motion on the inquiry. Beyond this, the requirement of reasonableness, including particularity in
private corporation, were charged with violation of RA 3019 before the ground that he failed to show good cause and that the motion were evidently filed for "describing the place to be searched, and the persons to be seized," also literally
Sandiganbayan. It was alleged that they had, through conspiracy, entered to a contract the purpose of fishing evidence. Respondent judge, granting both motions, required applicable to warrants, comes down to specification of the documents to be produced,
of affreightment to the prejudice of the State. petitioners to produce the documents and annexes in question on July 24, 1947. adequate but not excessive, for the purposes of the relevant inquiry.
Petitioners impugn the validity of the orders issued by the respondent judge alleging
Thereafter, the Sandiganbayan issued a warrant of arrest against Narciso and Ho. Ho that he acted in excess of his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of his discretion, and In relation to Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution:
filed an urgent motion to recall warrant of arrest/ motion for reconsideration which amounts to unreasonable search. Constructive searches are limited by Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution,
was adopted by Narciso alleging that, in the determination of probable cause, the where actual search and seizure requires a warrant based on “probable cause.”
Sandiganbayan had issued the warrant by merely relying on the information and ISSUE: However, where the subject of the constructive search are of corporate character, the
resolution filed by the Ombudsman and without other supporting document. The Whether or not such inspection amounts to unreasonable search. constitutional provision does not apply since corporations are not entitled to all the
Sandiganbayan denied said motion on the ground that besides from the information constitutional protections created in order to protect the rights of private individuals
and resolution by the Ombudsman, they had used the facts and evidence appearing in RULING: (to be secure in person/home, right against self-incrimination etc.).
the resolution/memorandum of responsible investigators/prosecutors in the NO. The orders in question, issued in virtue of the provisions of Rule 21, pertain to a
determination of probable cause. Hence, this petition. civil procedure that cannot be identified or confused with the unreasonable searches 344 REYES
prohibited by the Constitution. But in the erroneous hypothesis that the production Section 2, Article III: “Of whatever nature and for any purpose”
ISSUE: and inspection of books and documents in question is tantamount to a search warrant, Camara vs. Municipal Court
WON an issued warrant of arrest wherein probable cause was determined solely on the procedure outlined by Rule 21 and followed by respondent judge place them
the basis of the preliminary investigation conducted by the Ombudsman is valid. outside the realm of the prohibited unreasonable searches. There is no question that, FACTS:
upon the pleadings in the case, Sarreal has an interest in the books and documents in An inspector from the Department of Health entered a home to investigate possible
RULING: question, that they are material and important to the issues between him and violations of a City’s housing code without a warrant. The inspector was informed that
Camara was using part of his leasehold as a personal residence. The inspector
confronted Camara and demanded to inspect the premises because residential use
was not allowed on the first floor of the apartment building. Camara did not allow the Moreover, there was no urgency to effect a warrantless search, as it is clear that the RULING: No. For a warrantless arrest of an accused caught in flagrante delicto to be
inspector to enter because he did not have a warrant. A few weeks later the inspector Philippine Constabulary had at least two days from the time they received the tip until valid, two requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt
attempted again to gain access to the building but Camara again refused. A complaint the arrival of the vessel within which they could have obtained a warrant to search and act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
was then filed against him for violation of the Housing Code. arrest the accused. His name was known. The vehicle was identified. The date of its commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of
arrival was certain. And from the information they had received, they could have the arresting officer." In the present case, there was no overt act indicative of a
ISSUE: persuaded a judge that there was probable cause, indeed, to justify the issuance of a felonious enterprise that could be properly attributed to the appellant to rouse
Whether the inspector may enter the building without a search warrant. warrant. Yet they did nothing. The officers had all the time to obtain a warrant yet they suspicion in the mind of PO3 Corbe that he (appellant) had just committed, was
did nothing. The said marijuana therefore could not be appreciated as evidence against actually committing, or was attempting to commit a crime.
RULING: No. The Fourth Amendment bars prosecution of a person who has refused to the defendant, and furthermore he is acquitted of the crime as charged.
permit a warrantless code enforcement inspection of his personal residence. The basic MAINPOINT: Trying to run away when no crime has been overtly committed, and
purpose of the Fourth Amendment, which is enforceable against the States through MAIN POINT: without more, cannot be evidence of guilt.
the Fourteenth, through its prohibition of “unreasonable” searches and seizures is to A search cannot be considered an incident of a lawful arrest if there is no warrant of
safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by arrest and the warrantless arrest does not come under the exceptions allowed by the
governmental officials. With certain carefully defined exceptions, an unconsented Rules of Court.
warrantless search of private property is “unreasonable.” CASE NO. 348 - SABTALUH
CASE NO. 346 – PEOPLE VS. VALDEZ USE OF GPS TRACKER
The warrant procedure is designed to guarantee that a decision to search private GENERAL RULE: GET A SEARCH WARRANT DALE GRADY V. NORTH CAROLINA {MARCH 30, 2015 }
property is justified by a reasonable governmental interest. But reasonableness is still People v. Valdez, 341 SCRA 85
the ultimate standard. If a valid public interest justifies the intrusion contemplated,
then there is probable cause to issue a suitably restricted search warrant. It merely FACTS: Abe Valdez y Dela Cruz appellant was charged for violating Section 9 of the
FACTS: Petitioner Torrey Dale Grady was convicted in North Carolina trial courts of a
gives full recognition to the competing public and private interests here at stake and Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (R.A. No. 6425). The accused was allegedly caught in
second degree sexual offense in 1997 and of taking indecent liberties with a child in
best fulfills the historic purposes behind the constitutional right to be free from flagrante delicto and without authority of law, planted, cultivated and cultured seven
2006. After serving his sentence for the latter crime, Grady was ordered to appear in
unreasonable government invasions of privacy. (7) fully grown marijuana. Appellant contends that there was unlawful search. First,
New Hanover County Superior Court for a hearing to determine whether he should be
the records show that the law enforcers had more than ample time to secure a search
subjected to satellite-based monitoring (SBM) as a recidivist sex offender. He argued,
In relation to Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution: warrant. Second, that the marijuana plants were found in an unfenced lot does not
however, that the monitoring program--under which he would be forced to wear
The inspector cannot obtain access to Camara’s personal residence without first remove appellant from the mantle of protection against unreasonable searches and
tracking devices at all times--would violate his Fourth Amendment right to be free
securing a search warrant. What is required is probable cause arising from knowledge seizures
from unreasonable searches and seizures.
of condition of the district or area, and not necessarily individual buildings. Routine ISSUE: Whether or not there was unlawful search.
inspections are not so urgent as to have to take effect immediately without warrant. ANSWER: Yes. There was no search warrant issued by a judge. The police had ample
Thus, Camara had a constitutional right to insist that the inspectors obtain a warrant to time to obtain such search warrant after personal determination of the existence of ISSUE: whether or not subjecting grady to wear tracking devices at all times would
search and appellant may not be convicted for refusing consent to the inspection. probable cause which they did not do. The protection against illegal search and seizure violate his right of unreasonable searches and seizures.
is constitutionally mandated and only under specific instances are searches allowed
345 REYES without warrants. The mantle of protection extended by the Bill of Rights covers both Ruling: Yes. The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures may apply to
Section 2, Article III: Warrantless Searches and Seizures; General Rule innocent and guilty alike against any form of high-handedness of law enforcers, tracking devices on sex offenders, since they are intended to collect information
People vs. Aminnudin regardless of the praiseworthiness of their intention. without the individual's consent and thus constitute a search. However, they are
MAINPOINT: unconstitutional only if their use is unreasonable. The reasonableness of a search
FACTS: Regardless of the praiseworthiness of the intention a search warrant is still needed. depends on the totality of the circumstances, including the nature and purpose of the
The Philippine Constabulary officers received a tip from one of their informers that the search and the extent to which the search intrudes upon reasonable privacy
accused Aminnudin was on board M/V Wilcon for Iloilo City and was carrying expectations.
marijuana. He was arrested and searched upon disembarking from said vessel. The CASE NO. 347 - SABTALUH MAINPOINT:
officers were not armed with a warrant although the officers had at least two days to PEOPLE VS. EDAÑO Tracking device are intended to collect information without the individual’s consent
obtain a warrant. They detained him and inspected the bag he was carrying which was and thus constitute a search.
found to contain three kilos of what were later analyzed as marijuana leaves by the
NBI forensic examiner. FACTS: Members of the Metro Manila Drugs Enforcement Group together with a
female informant, went to the parking area of McDonalds to conduct an entrapment SALINAS- 349. Valmonte v. De Villa
ISSUE: operation against a certain alias "Nato."
Whether the search and seizure was valid. At around 7:00 p.m., appellant arrived on board a space wagon driven by Siochi. Facts: As part of its duty to maintain peace and order, the NCRDC installed checkpoints
Informant approached the appellant and talked to him inside the vehicle. Afterwards, in various parts of Valenzuela, Metro Manila. Petitioners aver that, because of the
RULING: the informant waved at PO3 Corbe. When PO3 Corbe was approaching the appellants installation of said checkpoints, the residents of Valenzuela are worried of being
No. There was no warrant of arrest or search warrant issued by a judge after personal went out of the vehicle and ran away. the police were able to grab the appellant and harassed and of their safety being placed at the arbitrary, capricious and whimsical
determination by him of the existence of probable cause. Contrary to the averments of recpvered "knot-tied" transparent plastic bag from the appellant's right hand, disposition of the military manning the checkpoints, considering that their cars and
the government, Aminnudin was not caught in flagrante nor was a crime about to be Thereafter, the police brought the appellant, Siochi and the seized items to the police vehicles are being subjected to regular searches and check-ups, especially at night or at
committed or had just been committed to justify the warrantless arrest allowed under station for investigation. dawn, without the benefit of a search warrant and/or court order.
Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. To all appearances, he was like any of the other
passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless arrest is valid.
Issue: Whether the checkpoint conducted by NCRDC is considered unlawful search and carton marked “King Flakes.” Standing some 5 feet away from the men, PO1 Desierto 353. SALVADOR
seizure. and PO1 Floreta observed that one of the men fit Tudtud’s description. The same man Warrantless Searches and Seizures; Instances of warrantless searches and seizures
also toted a plastic bag. PO1Floreta and PO1 Desierto then approached the suspects People vs. Sevilla
Ruling: No. Petitioner Valmonte’s general allegation to the effect that he had been and identified themselves as police officers. PO1 Desierto informed them that the
stopped and searched without a search warrant by the military manning the police had received information that stocks of illegal drugs would be arriving that Facts: Petitioners in this case are convicted for violating R.A No. 7659 for aiding and
checkpoints, without more, i.e., without stating the details of the incidents which night. The man who resembled Tudtud’s description denied that he was carrying any abetting each other, without authority of law, have in their possession of illegal drugs
amount to a violation of his right against unlawful search and seizure is not sufficient drugs. PO1 Desierto asked if he could see the contents of the box. Tudtud then said “it (marijuana). However, the police officers conducted a warrantless search and seizure
to enable the Court to determine whether there was a violation of Valmonte’s right was alright” and let them see the box which contained bundles of dried fish, one wherein the petitioners contended that is against their constitutional rights.
against unlawful search and seizure. Not all searches and seizures are prohibited. wrapped in a plastic bag and another in newspapers. When the bundles were
Those which are reasonable are not forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be unwrapped, there contained marijuana leaves. Issue: Whether the warrantless search and seizure is valid.
determined by any fixed formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of each
case. Issue: Whether or not Tudtud’s implied acquiescence (Tudtud’s statement of “it’s Ruling: NO. The court ruled that there was no probable cause for conducting an
alright”) is considered a waiver. extensive search in the house occupied by appellants. As a general rule, the
Main point: Not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Those which are reasonable procurement of a warrant is required before a law enforcer can validly search or seize
are not forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed formula Ruling: NO. The right against unreasonable searched and seizures is secured by Sec. 2, the person, house or effects of a ny individual. Evidence derived from an illegal search
but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case. Art. 3 of the Constitution. Appellants implied acquiescence, if at all, could not have is placed beyond the Court's consideration, as a practical means to enforce the
been more than mere passive conformity given under coercive or intimidating constitutional injunction and to discourage violations of basic civil rights under the
SALINAS- 350. Guazon v. De Villa circumstances and is, thus, considered no consent at all within the purview of the guise of legitimate law enforcement.
constitutional guarantee. Consequently, appellants lack of objection to the search and
Facts: The 41 petitioners alleged that the “saturation drive” or “aerial target zoning” seizure is not tantamount to a waiver of his constitutional right or a voluntary Main Point: There are certain cases where the law itself allows a search even in the
that were conducted in their place (Tondo Manila) were unconstitutional. They alleged submission to the warrantless search and seizure. Because a warrantless search is in absence of a warrant. Jurisprudence mentions the following instances under which a
that there is no specific target house to be search and that there is no search warrant derogation of a constitutional right, peace officers who conduct it cannot invoke warrantless search and seizure may be effected, to wit:
or warrant of arrest served. Most of the policemen are in their civilian clothes and regularity in the performance of official functions and shift to the accused the burden 1. Search which is incidental to a lawful arrest
without nameplates or identification cards. The residents were rudely rouse from their of proving that the search was unconsented. 2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view"
sleep by banging on the walls and windows of their houses. 3. Search a moving vehicle
Main point: Because a warrantless search is in derogation of a constitutional right, 4. Consented warrantless search
Issue: Whether the saturation drive is considered unlawful search and seizure peace officers who conduct it cannot invoke regularity in the performance of official 5. Customs search
functions and shift to the accused the burden of proving that the search was 6. Stop and frisk
Ruling: YES. The court ruled that all actions are governed by the limitations of the Bill unconsented. 7. Exigent and emergency circumstances
of Rights specifically Sec 3. Which state that: “The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures 352. SALVADOR 354. SALVADOR
of whatever nature and for any purpose shall not be violated, and no search warrant or Warrantless Searches and Seizures; No presumption of regularity in search cases Warrantless Searches and Seizures; Instances of warrantless searches and seizures;
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the Sony Music vs. Judge Espanol Incidental to a lawful arrest (Rule 16, Section 12)
judge, or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law, after examination Padilla vs. CA
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and Facts: DOJ criminally charged the respondents with violation of the Presidential Decree
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be No. 1987. Th four were engaged in the replication, reproduction and distribution of Facts: High-powered ammunitions were found in the possession of petitioner Robin
seized.” In their action of conducting saturation drive, the police is violating the video-grams without license and authority from VRB. Petitioner's applied for the Padilla and was charged with illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions under
requirement of a search warrant issued by a judge after determination of a probable issuance of search warrants against respondents in the factory and production facility P.D. 1866. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and to recall the warrant of
cause. Therefore, it is unlawful. of SLC. Private respondents armed with the resolution of DOJ moved to quash the arrest but was denied by the court. Petitioners questions the legality of his arrest;
search warrants issued. Eventually the judge granted the motion to quash, hence this there is no dispute that no warrant was issued for the arrest but that per se did not
Main point: The court ruled that all actions are governed by the limitations of the Bill petition. make his apprehension illegal.
of Rights
Issue: Whether the warrant of search and seizure is validly quashed. Issue: Whether the warrantless search and seizure is valid.
SALINAS- 351. People v. Tudtud
Ruling: YES. The court ruled that to prevent stealthy encroachment upon, or gradual Ruling: YES. The court ruled that a suspect cannot defeat the arrest which has been set
Facts: Toril Police Station, Davao City received a report from a “civilian asset” named depreciation of the right to privacy, a liberal construction in search and seizures cases in motion in a public place for want of a warrant as the police was confronted by an
Bobong Solier about a certain Noel Tudtud. Solier related that his neighbours have is given in favor of the individual. The presumption of regularity is unavailing in aid of urgent need to render aid or take action. Moreover, when caught in flagrante delicto
been complaining about Tudtud, who was allegedly responsible for the proliferation of the search process when an officer undertakes to justify it. and possession of an unlicensed firearm, petitioner's warrantless arrest was proper as
marijuana in their area. Relating to the report, the police conducted surveillance in he was again actually committing another offense and this time in the presence of a
Solier’s neighbourhood in Sapa, Toril, Davao City. For 5 days, they gathered Main Point: The presumption juris tantum of regularity cannot, by itself, prevail peace officer.
information and leared that Tudtud was involved in illegal drugs. Solier informed the against the constitutionally protected rights of an individual because zeal in the pursuit
police that Tudtud had headed to Cotabato and would be back later that day with new of criminals cannot ennoble the use of arbitrary methods that the Constitution itself Main Point: A peace officer or private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
stocks of marijuana. Solier described Tudtud as big bodied and short, and usually wore detests. As a general rule the procurement of a warrant is required before a law a. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
a hat. At around 4:00 pm that same day, a team of policemen posted themselves at enforcer can validly search or seize the person, house, papers or effects of any actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense
the corner of Saipon and McArthur Highway to await. Tudtud’s arrival. All wore civilian individual. b. When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal
clothes. About 8:00 pm, 2 men disembarked from a bus and helped each other carry a knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it
 c. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a presumed as plain view. The State must adduce evidence to prove that the elements
penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgement or temporarily CASE NO. 357– Tan for the doctrine to apply are present, namely: (a) the executing law enforcement
confined while his case is pending or has escaped while being transferred from one Article III, Sec. 2: Instances of Warrantless Searches and Seizures officer has a prior justification for an initial intrusion or otherwise properly in a position
confinement to another. People vs. Leansgiri from which he can view a particular order; (b) the officer must discover incriminating
Facts: evidence inadvertently; and (c) it must be immediately apparent to the police that the
CASE NO. 355– Tan Suchinda Leansgiri, a Thai national, was caught flagrante possessing heroin in NAIA. He items they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to
Article III, Sec. 2: Instances of Warrantless Searches and Seizures told the NARCOM that he was dealing with 2 others in Las Palmas hotel where they seizure. It was thus incumbent on the NBI and the petitioner to prove that the items
Espano vs. CA learned that the 2 others did not carry drugs on them. After a conversation between were seized on plain view. It is not enough that the sealed boxes were in the plain view
Facts: the police and the others, there were no drugs to be found and the latter went to a of the NBI agents. However, the NBI failed to present any of officers who were present
The policemen were told by an informant that selling of illegal drugs was frequent in different hotel where they were billeted. The police followed and seized their room. when the warrant was enforced to prove that the the sealed boxes was discovered
Zamora, Manila and when they went to said area, they saw Rodolfo Espano with 2 They found a telephone book with the name of the Thai and along with it were drugs. inadvertently, and that such boxes and their contents were incriminating and
cellophane bags of marijuana. They arrested him and when asked if he had more, he The defense stated that the drugs were inadmissible because no warrants were immediately apparent. It must be stressed that only the enforcing officers had
said there were more in his home. Espano’s defense was that it was a frame-up presented. However, the prosecution argued the Plain View Doctrine in warrantless personal knowledge whether the sealed boxes and their contents thereof were
wherein he was just sleeping when he woke up to the police arresting him in his home. searches. incriminating and that they were immediately apparent. There is even no showing that
the NBI agents knew the contents of the sealed boxes before they were opened. In
Issue: Issue: sum then, the petitioner and the NBI failed to prove that the plain view doctrine
Whether the arrest, search, and seizure, without a warrant was valid? Whether the warrantless searches and seizure were valid? applies to the seized items.

Ruling: Ruling:
Yes. His defense was disproven. Therefore, the version of the prosecution stands. He No. Objects in the ‘plain view’ of an officer who has the right to be in the position to 365. People v. Doria
was caught in flagrante as a result of a buy-bust operation conducted by police officers have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence. However, in G.R. No. 125299, January 22, 1999
based on information received regarding the illegal trade of drugs within the area. The this case the officer clearly was beyond the bounds of his ordinary vision when he
police officer saw petitioner handing over something to an alleged buyer. After the seized a telephone book not specified in the search warrant and that it was clearly Facts: A buy-bust operation was conducted by the police which caught accused Doria
buyer left, they searched him and discovered two cellophanes of marijuana. His arrest hidden from is considered as plain view. red-handed of selling prohibited drugs and during the operation the police officers
was, therefore, lawful and the two cellophane bags of marijuana seized were searched for the marked bills that they used in buying said drugs which happened to
admissible in evidence, being the fruits of the crime. Main Point: be in the house of Gaddao, according to Doria. When they reached her house, the
The inadmissibility of evidence obtained in a warrantless search incident to a lawful police officers came upon a box. He saw that one of the box's flaps was open and
Main Point: arrest outside the suspect’s person and the premises under his immediate control inside the box was something wrapped in plastic. The plastic wrapper and its contents
A peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person caught in flagrante as a result admits of an exception. appeared similar to the marijuana earlier "sold" to him by "Jun." His suspicion aroused,
of a buy-bust operation, and the marijuana thereby seized after searching the latter PO3 Manlangit entered "Neneth's" house and took hold of the box. He peeked inside
are admissible in evidence, being the fruits of the crime. the box and found that it contained ten (10) bricks of what appeared to be dried
364. United Laboratories v. Isip marijuana leaves.
G.R. No. 163858, June 28, 2005
CASE NO. 356– Tan Issue: Whether the warrantless arrest of Gaddao, the search of her person and house,
Article III, Sec. 2: Instances of Warrantless Searches and Seizures Facts: UNILAB hired a private investigator to investigate a place purported to be and the admissibility of the pieces of evidence obtained therefrom was valid.
People vs. De Lara manufacturing fake UNILAB products, especially Revicon multivitamins. The agent took
Facts: some photographs where the clandestine manufacturing operation was taking place. Ruling: The court ruled that the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Doria is not
Armando De Lara was arrested in flagrante in a buy-bust operation without a warrant. UNILAB then sought the help of the NBI, which thereafter filed an application for the unlawful. Warrantless arrests are allowed in three instances as provided by Section 5
During the investigation in his house, he was told his Miranda rights. He was asked to issuance of search warrant in the RTC of Manila. After finding probable cause, the of Rule 113. Under Section 5 (a), a person may be arrested without a warrant if he "has
give a written statement but refused to do so without the presence of his lawyer. court issued a search warrant directing the police to seize “finished or unfinished committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense." Appellant
However, he was still compelled to sign the marked bills, receipt of property seized, products of UNILAB, particularly REVICON multivitamins.” No fake Revicon was Doria was caught in the act of committing an offense. When an accused is
and booking and information sheet. These were given as evidence and he was however found; instead, sealed boxes where seized, which, when opened contained 60 apprehended in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation, the police are not
ultimately penalized with life-imprisonment. ml bottles of Disudrin and 200mg tablets of Inoflox, both were brands used by UNILAB. only authorized but duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant. The warrantless
NBI prayed that some of the sized items be turned over to the custody of the Bureau of arrest of appellant Gaddao, the search of her person and residence, and the seizure of
Issue: Food and Drugs (BFAD) for examination. The court granted the motion. The the box of marijuana and marked bills are different matters. Our Constitution
Whether the contemporaneous searches were valid? respondents then filed a motion to quash the search warrant or to suppress evidence, proscribes search and seizure without a judicial warrant and any evidence obtained
alleging that the seized items are considered to be fruit of a poisonous tree, and without such warrant is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The rule is,
Ruling: therefore inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding, which the petitioners however, not absolute. Search and seizure may be made without a warrant and the
Yes. The seizure of the plastic bag containing prohibited drugs was the result of opposed alleging that the boxes of Disudrin and Inoflox were seized under the plain evidence obtained there from may be admissible in the following instances: (1) search
appellant’s arrest inside his house. A contemporaneous search may be conducted view doctrine. The court, however, granted the motion of the respondents. incident to a lawful arrest; 2) search of a moving motor vehicle; (3) search in violation
upon the person of the arrestee and the immediate vicinity where the arrest was of customs laws; (4) seizure of evidence in plain view; (5) when the accused himself
made. Issue: Whether the seizure of the sealed boxes which, when opened, contained waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Accused-appellant
Disudrin syrup and Inoflox, were valid under the plain view doctrine. Gaddao was not caught red-handed during the buy-bust operation to give ground for
Main Point: The warrantless arrest was valid because he was caught flagrante selling her arrest under Section 5 (a) of Rule 113. She was not committing any crime. Contrary
drugs. The search was also valid because the police can contemporaneously search in Ruling: It is true that things not described in the warrant may be seized under the plain to the finding of the trial court, there was no occasion at all for appellant Gaddao to
the immediate vicinity where the accused was arrested. view doctrine. However, seized things not described in the warrant cannot be flee from the policemen to justify her arrest in "hot pursuit." In fact, she was going
about her daily chores when the policemen pounced on her. This brings the question view. It was found as a result of a meticulous search in the kitchen of petitioner's
of whether the trial court correctly found that the box of marijuana was in plain view, house. This firearm, to emphasize, was not mentioned in the search warrant. Thus, the RULING: No. The warrantless seizure of the motorcycle was unquestionably violative of
making its warrantless seizure valid. seizure is illegal. True that as an exception, the police may seize without warrant “the right to be let alone” by the authorities as guaranteed by the Constitution. The
The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law illegally possessed firearm or any contraband for that matter, inadvertently found in necessity for the immediate seizure of the motorcycle without the prior obtention of a
enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion plain view. However, "the seizure of evidence in 'plain view' applies only where the warrant has not been established. The vehicle cannot even be detained on the ground
or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of the police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but inadvertently that it is a prohibited article the mere possession of which is unlawful.
evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that comes across an incriminating object. Specifically, seizure of evidence in "plain view" is
the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to justified when there is: (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest MAIN POINT: The warrantless seizure of the motorcycle was unquestionably violative
seizure. The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the of “the right to be let alone” by the authorities as guaranteed by the Constitution.
be in a position from which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where
lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the they are.(c) the evidence must be immediately apparent, and(d) "plain view" justified CASE 369
accused. The object must be open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent. mere seizure of evidence without further search. ARTICLE III, SECTION 2: Warrantless Searches and Seizures; Moving vehicle
Aniag, Jr. v. COMELEC (237 SCRA 424, 1994)
366. Del Rosario v. People CASE 367
G.R. No. 142295, May 31, 2001 ARTICLE III, SECTION 2: Warrantless Searches and Seizures; Moving vehicle Facts: In preparation for the synchronized national and local elections, the COMELEC
Hizon v. CA (265 SCRA 517, 1996) issued Resolution Number 2323, “Gun Ban”, promulgating rules and regulations on
Facts: Accused-appellant Vicente del Rosario was found guilty of violation of P. D. No. bearing, carrying and transporting of firearm or other deadly weapons on security
1866 of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos. Allegedly, the police received a report that FACTS: On the strength of the report submitted by the Task Force Bantay Dagat, the personnel or bodyguards, on bearing fire arms by members of security agencies or
he was in possession of certain firearms without the necessary licenses. Acting upon PNP Maritime Group boarded and inspected a big fishing boat with the acquiescence police organizations, and organization or maintenance of reaction forces during the
the report, the PNP Criminal Investigation Group inquired from the PNP Firearms and of the boat captain. In the course of the inspection, the police discovered a large election period. COMELEC also issued RN. 2327 providing for the
Explosive Division whether or not the report was true. The PNP Firearms and aquarium full of live fishes. Some of the fishes were tested to contain cyanide. summary disqualification of candidates engaged in gun running, using and transporting
Explosives Division issued a certification stating that per records in his office that he is of firearms, organizing special strike forces, and establishing spot checkpoints.
not a licensed/registered firearm holder of any kind and caliber. Armed with the said ISSUE: Whether the search of the fishing boat was lawful. Pursuant to the “Gun Ban”, Mr. Taccad, Sergeant at Arms of the HOR, wrote petitioner
certificationthe police applied for a search warrant to enable them to search the for the return of the two firearms issued to him by the HOR. Petitioner then instructed
house of appellant. Upon the issuance of the warrant, a team of police officers went to RULING: Yes. Search and seizure without warrant of vessels and aircrafts for violations his driver, Arellano, to pick up the firearms from petitioner’s house and return them
Norzagaray to serve the warrant but before proceeding to the residence of the of customs laws have been the traditional exception to the constitutional requirement to Congress. The PNP had a check point. When the car driven by Arellano approached
accused-appellant, the former requested Barangay officials to accompany them in the of a search warrant. It is rooted in the recognition that a vessel and an aircraft, like the checkpoint, the PNP searched the car and found the firearms. Arellano was
implementation of the said warrant. In their arrival, the police officers introduced motor vehicles, can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the apprehended and detained. He then explained the order of petitioner. Petitioner also
themselves to the wife of accused-appellant. When he came out, P/Sr. Insp. Adique search warrant must be sought and secured. The same exception ought to apply to explained that Arellano was only complying with the firearms ban, and that he was not
informed him that they had a search warrant and that they were authorized to search seizures of fishing vessels and boats breaching our fishery laws. These vessels are a security officer or a bodyguard.
his house. After he gave his permission, the police officers conducted a search of the normally powered by high-speed motors that enable them to elude arresting ships of
house. The search yielded the following items: (a) a caliber .45 pistol with Serial No. the Philippine Navy, the Coast guard and other government authorities enforcing our ISSUE: Whether the warrantless search conducted by PNP at the checkpoint was valid.
703792 with five magazines of caliber .45 (Exhibits B and H) found at the master's fishery laws. Moreover, in this case, the only basis for the charge of fishing with
bedroom; (b) five magazines of 5.56 M-16 rifle and two radios (Exhibits C to C-4) found poisonous substance is the result of the first NBI laboratory test on the four fish RULING: No. There was no probable cause. A valid search must be authorized by a
in the room of appellant's daughter; and (c) a caliber .22 revolver with Serial No. 48673 specimens. The apprehending officers who boarded and searched the boat did not find search warrant issued by an appropriate authority. In the case at bar, the guns were
(Exhibit F) containing 8 pieces of live ammunition (Exhibit M) found in the kitchen of any sodium cyanide or any poisonous or obnoxious substance. Neither did they find not tucked in Arellano’s waist nor placed within his reach, as they were neatly packed
the house. When asked about his license to possess the firearms, the appellant failed any trace of the poison in the possession of the fishermen or in the fish cage itself. in gun cases and placed inside a bag at the back of the car. Given these circumstances,
to produce any. This prompted the police officers to seize the subject firearms. For his However, this findings does not warrant the infallible conclusion that the fishes in were the PNP could not have thoroughly searched the car lawfully as well as the package
defense, appellant contends that he had a license for the caliber .45 pistol recovered in caught with the use of cyanide. without violating the constitutional injunction. Absent any justifying circumstance
his bedroom and that the other items seized during the search including the caliber .22 specifically pointing to the culpability of petitioner and Arellano, the search could not
revolver, were merely planted by the police officers. Appellant likewise assails the MAIN POINT: Search and seizures without search warrant of vessels and aircrafts for have been valid. Consequently, the firearms obtained from the warrantless search
manner in which the search was carried out, claiming that the police officers just violations of customs laws have been the traditional exception to the constitutional cannot be admitted for any purpose in any proceeding. It was also shown in the facts
barged into his house without asking permission. Furthermore, he claimed that the requirement of a search warrant. that the PNP had not informed the public of the purpose of setting up the checkpoint.
barangay officials arrived only after the police already had finished the search. Petitioner was also not among those charged by the PNP with violation of the Omnibus
However, after trial the trial court rendered a judgment of conviction which decision CASE 368 Election Code. He was not informed by the City Prosecutor that he was a respondent in
was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. ARTICLE III, SECTION 2: Warrantless Searches and Seizures; Moving vehicle the preliminary investigation. Such constituted a violation of his right to due process.
Issue: Whether the seizure of items not mentioned in the search warrant was illegal. Bagalihog v. Fernandez (198 SCRA 614) Hence, it cannot be contended that petitioner was fully given the opportunity to meet
the accusation against him as he was not informed that he was himself a respondent in
FACTS: A politician was shot to death shortly after disembarking at the airport. the case. Thus, the warrantless search conducted by the PNP is declared illegal and the
Ruling: The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and
Witnesses said that one of the gunmen fled on a motorcycle. On the same day, firearms seized during the search cannot be used as evidence in any proceeding
acquits petitioner Vicente del Rosario y Nicolas of the charge of violation of P. D. No.
petitioner’s house was searched with his consent of the killers but the search was against the petitioner. Resolution No. 92-0829 is unconstitutional.
1866. Seizure is limited to those items particularly described in a valid search warrant.
proved fruitless. 2 days later, members of the Philippine constabulary seized sans a
Searching officers are without discretion regarding what articles they shall
search warrant petitioner’s motorcycle and impounded the same on the suspicion that MAIN POINT: A warrantless search is not violative of the Constitution for as long as the
seize. Evidence seized on the occasion of such an unreasonable search and seizure is
it was one of the vehicles used by the killers. vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search, and the
tainted and excluded for being the proverbial "fruit of a poisonous tree." In the
inspection of the vehicle is merely limited to a visual search.
language of the fundamental law, it shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose
ISSUE: Whether the warrantless search and seizure of the motorcycle was lawful.
in any proceeding. In this case, the firearm was not found inadvertently and in plain
 People V Aminuddin – Baird on accused's waist. Suspecting the bulge on accused's waist to be a gun, the officer metamphetamine. Appellant Peter Lo and Lim Cheng Huat were charged with a
asked for accused's passport and other identification papers. When accused failed to violation of Sec 15, of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
FACTS ; Idel Aminnudin was arrested on June 25, 1984, shortly after disembarking from comply, the officer required him to bring out whatever it was that was bulging on his
the M/V Wilcon 9 at about 8:30 in Iloilo City. The PC officers who were in fact waiting waist. When accused opened the same bag,the officer noticed 4 suspicious objects
ISSUE; Whether the trial court erred in not declaring the search and seizure on the
for him simply accosted him, inspected his bag and finding what looked liked wrapped in brown packing tape which turned out to contain hashish, a derivative of
accused as illegal.
marijuana leaves took him to their headquarters for investigation.When they were marijuana. Thereafter, accused was invited outside the bus for questioning. But before
verified as marijuana leaves, an information for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act he alighted from the bus, accused stopped to get two 2 travelling bags from the
was filed against him. Later, the information was amended to include Farida Ali y luggage carrier. A teddy bear was found in each bag where officer noticed that there RULING; As correctly averred by appellee, that search and seizure must be supported
Hassen, who had also been arrested with him that same evening and likewise were bulges inside the same. It was only after the officers had opened the bags that by a valid warrant is not an absolute rule. There are at least three (3) well-recognized
investigated. Both were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. According to the accused finally presented his passport. During the arraignment, accused entered a plea exceptions thereto. these are: a search incidental to an arrest, [a search of a moving
prosecution, the PC officers had earlier received a tip from one of their informers that of "not guilty." For his defense, he raised the issue of illegal search of his personal vehicle, and seizure of evidence in plain view. The circumstances of the case clearly
the accused-appellant was on board a vessel bound for Iloilo City and was carrying effects. show that the search in question was made as regards a moving vehicle. Therefore, a
marijuana. He was Identified by name. Acting on this tip, they waited for him in the ISSUE; Whether the Search was valid valid warrant was not necessary to affect the search on appellant and his co-accused.
evening of June 25, 1984, and approached him as he descended from the gangplank RULING; Yes, The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their the rules governing search and seizure have over the years been steadily liberalized
after the informer had pointed to him. In his defense, Aminnudin disclaimed the persons, houses, papers however, where the search is made pursuant to a lawful whenever a moving vehicle is the object of the search on the basis of practicality.
marijuana, averring that all he had in his bag was his clothing consisting of a jacket, arrest, there is no need to obtain a search warrant. While it is true that the NARCOM
two shirts and two pairs of pants. He alleged that he was arbitrarily arrested and officers were not armed with a search warrant however, under the circumstances of MAINPOINT; a warrantless search of a moving vehicle is justified on the ground that "it
immediately handcuffed. His bag was confiscated without a search warrant. the case, there was sufficient probable cause for said officers to believe that accused is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of
ISSUE; Whether the arrest was valid was then and there committing a crime. Warrantless search of the personal effects of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.
RULING ; No, In the case at bar, there was no warrant of arrest or search warrant an accused has been declared by this Court as valid, because of existence of probable
issued by a judge after personal determination by him of the existence of probable cause, where the smell of marijuana emanated from a plastic bag owned by the
cause. Contrary to the averments of the government, the accused-appellant was not accused, or where the accused was acting suspiciously, and attempted to flee.
caught in flagrante nor was a crime about to be committed or had just been MAINPOINT; When faced with on-the-spot information, the police officers had to act 373
committed to justify the warrantless arrest allowed under Rule 113 of the Rules of quickly and there was no time to secure a search warrant. To deprive the NARCOM Moving vehicle
Court. The present case presented no such urgency. From the conflicting declarations agents of the ability and facility to act accordingly, including, to search even without People v. Saycon – 236 SCRA 329
of the PC witnesses, it is clear that they had at least two days within which they could warrant, in the light of such circumstances, would be to sanction impotence and FACTS:
have obtained a warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin who was coming to Iloilo on ineffectiveness in law enforcement, to the detriment of society. ISSUE:
the M/V Wilcon 9. His name was known. The vehicle was Identified. The date of its RULING:
arrival was certain. And from the information they had received, they could have 372. People V Lo ho Wing- Baird MAIN POINT:
persuaded a judge that there was probable cause, indeed, to justify the issuance of a 374
warrant. Yet they did nothing. No effort was made to comply with the law. The Bill of FACTS; In July 1987, A unit of the Criminal Investigation Service of the Philippine Moving vehicle
Rights was ignored altogether because the PC lieutenant who was the head of the Constabulary received a tip from one of its informers about an organized group People v. CFI – 101 SCRA 86
arresting team, had determined on his own authority that a "search warrant was not engaged in the importation of illegal drugs. As part of the operations, the recruitment FACTS:
necessary." of confidential men was carried out to infiltrate the crime syndicate. One of those ISSUE:
MAINPOINT; Without the evidence of the marijuana allegedly seized from Aminnudin, recruited was the discharged accused, Reynaldo Tia. Lim expressed a desire to hire a RULING:
the case of the prosecution must fall. That evidence cannot be admitted, and should male travelling companion. Tia offered his services and was hired. Tia was introduced MAIN POINT:
never have been considered by the trial court for the simple fact is that the marijuana to Peter Lo whom Tia found out to be the person he was to accompany to China in lieu
was seized illegally. It is the fruit of the poisonous tree, search was not an incident of a of Lim. As a "deep penetration agent," Tia submitted reports of his undercover 375
lawful arrest because there was no warrant of arrest and the warrantless arrest did not activities. On October 4, appellant and Tia left for Hongkong. Before they departed, Moving vehicle
come under the exceptions allowed by the Rules of Court. Hence, the warrantless Tia was able to telephone Captain Palmera to inform him of their expected date of People v. Barros – 231 SCRA 557
search was also illegal and the evidence obtained thereby was inadmissible. return. The day after they arrived, They boarded a train bound for Guangzhou, FACTS:
China. That evening, Tia went to appellant's room. He saw two other men One was ISSUE:
371. People V Malmstedt – Baird fixing the tea bags, while the other was burning substance on a piece of aluminum foil. RULING:
Appellant joined the second man and sniffed the smoke emitted by the burning MAIN POINT:
FACTS; Accused Mikael Malmstedt is a Swedish national, At around 7:00 am of 11 May substance. The next day, the two returned to Manila.The plane landed at the NAIA,
1989, accused went to the Nangonogan bus stop in Sagada to catch the first trip to Appellant and Tia boarded the taxicab. Upon seeing appellant and Tia leave the
Baguio City. From There, accused planned to take a afternoon trip to Manila to catch airport, the operatives followed them. Along Imelda Avenue, the car of the operatives Case No. 376– Cruz
his flight out of the country. At about 8: 00 am in the morning Captain Alen Vasco, the overtook the taxicab and cut into its path forcing the taxi driver to stop his vehicle. The Instances of Warrantless Arrests & Seizures – Moving Vehicle
Commanding Officer of the First Regional Command ordered his men to set up a operatives approached the taxicab, and asked the driver to open the baggage Mustang Lumber v. CA
temporary checkpoint at Kilometer 14, Mountain Province, for the purpose of checking compartment. 3 pieces of luggage were retrieved from the back compartment of the 257 SCRA 430
all vehicles coming from the Cordillera Region, prompted by persistent reports that vehicle. The operatives requested from the suspects permission to search their
vehicles coming from Sagada were transporting prohibited drugs. Moreover, luggage. A tin can of tea was taken out of the bag owned by appellant. Sgt. Roberto Main Point: Instances of warrantless arrests & seizures: (1) search as an incident to a
information was received by the Commanding Officer of NARCOM, that a Caucasian Cayabyab, pried the lid open, pulled out a paper tea bag, pressed it and some lawful arrest, (2) seizure of evidence in plain view, (3) customs searches, (4) consented
coming from Sagada had in his possession prohibited drugs. At about 1:30 PM, the bus crystalline white powder resembling crushed alum came out of the bag. They warrantless search, and (5) search of a moving vehicle.
where accused was riding was stopped. Sgt. Fider and CIC Galutan boarded the bus contained a total of 56 paper tea bags with white crystalline powder inside Tests
when they started their inspection. During the inspection, CIC Galutan noticed a bulge conducted yielded a positive result that the specimen submitted was Facts: Acting on information that a huge stockpile of narra flitches, shorts, and slabs
were seen inside petitioner’s lumberyard, a team of foresters and policemen was
organized and sent to conduct surveillance. In the course thereof, the team members intention to relinquish the right. And being a personal right, such cannot be waived by RULING: In case of consented searches or waiver of the constitutional guarantee
saw coming out from the lumberyard the petitioner’s truck loaded with lumber. The anyone except the person whose rights are invaded or one who is expressly authorized against obtrusive searches, it is fundamental that to constitute a waiver, it must first
driver could not produce the required invoices and transport documents, the team to do so in his or her behalf. appear that (1) the right exists; (2) that person involved had knowledge, either actual
seized the truck together with its cargo and impounded the. or constructive, of the existence of such right, and (3) said person had an actual
Facts: An agent of the Anti-Usuary Board obtained a search warrant commanding any intention to relinquish the right.
Issue: Whether the warrantless seizure of the truck and its cargo was valid. officer of the law to search the person, house or store of the petitioner at Tarlac, for
“evidence relating to her activities as usurer.” The search warrant was issued upon an In the case at bar, the evidence is lacking that the petitioner intentionally surrendered
Ruling: Yes. The search of a moving vehicle is one of the five doctrinally accepted affidavit given by the said agent. This agent, accompanied by a captain of the his right against unreasonable searches.
exceptions to the constitutional mandate that no search and seizure shall be made Constabulary, went to the office of the petitioner in Tarlac and, after showing the
except by virtue of a warrant issued by a judge after personally determining the search warrant to the petitioner’s bookkeeper and without the presence of the CASE NO. 380
existence of probable cause. petitioner who was ill and confined at the time, proceeded with the execution thereof. Art. III, Sec. 2. Consent or Waiver
The papers and documents seized were kept for a considerable length of time by the People v. Agbot, 106 SCRA 325
Case No. 377 – Cruz Anti-Usury Board and thereafter were turned over by it to the respondent fiscal who
Instances of Warrantless Arrests & Seizures – Moving Vehicle subsequently filed criminal cases against the herein petitioner for violation of the Anti- MAINPOINT:
People v. Lacerna Usury Law. The legality of the search warrant was challenged by counsel for the The taking of appellant's gun from his house by two barrio councilmen with appellant's
278 SCRA 561 petitioner in the criminal cases and the devolution of the documents demanded. The acquiescence and consent would not constitute a violation of an accused's
respondent Judge denied the petitioner’s motion for the reason that though the constitutional right against admissibility of illegally seized objects.
Main Point: Search and seizure relevant to moving vehicles are allowed in recognition search warrant was illegal, there was a waiver on the part of the petitioner.
of the impracticability of securing a warrant under said circumstance. In such cases, FACTS:
however, the search and seizure may be made only upon probable cause that a vehicle Issue: Whether there has been a waiver by the petitioner of her constitutional Charged with murder of his sister in the CFI of Davao Oriental, Antonio Agbot was,
contains an item, article or object which by law is subject to seizure and destruction. immunity against unreasonable searches and seizures. after due trial, convicted of the crime charged, and sentenced to death and ordered to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased, Leona Agbot Subat, in the sum of P12,000.00. In
Facts: A taxicab occupied by appellant was validly stopped at a police checkpoint. The Ruling: No. The failure on the part of the petitioner and her bookkeeper to resist or the mandatory review, the petitioner contented that there is a violation of his rights
police officers asked permission to search the vehicle and the occupants readily object to the execution of the warrant does not constitute an implied waiver of against admissibility taking of his gun from his house by two barrio councilmen with
agreed. The police officers went about searching the luggages in the vehicle and found constitutional right. It is but a submission to the authority of the law. The waiver may appellant's acquiescence and consent.
marijuana. Appellant was found guilty for violation of Section 4 of RA 6425. be the result of a failure to object within a reasonable time to a search and seizure
illegally made. However in the case at bar, the delay in making demand for the return ISSUE:
Issue: Whether appellant’s right against warrantless arrest and seizure violated of the documents seized is not such as to result in waiver by implication. Whether or not there is violation of constitutional right of the accused.

Ruling: No. Defense argues that the appellant was not committing any crime as he CASE NO. 379 RULING:
were merely riding a taxicab while OSG disagrees, contending that the search and Art. III, Sec. 2. Consent or Waiver The verity of appellant's admission of guilt having been firmly established, the
seizure were consistent with recent jurisprudential trend liberalizing warrantless Caballes v. Court of Appeals, GR 136292, Jan 15, 2002 contention that the confiscation or seizure of the gun was illegal, there being no search
search and seizure where the culprits are riding moving vehicles. Court held that both MAINPOINT: warrant and its use as evidence is not permissible, clearly becomes devoid of factual or
are wrong. While the constitutional immunity against unreasonable searches and seizures is a legal basis. With his confession, his voluntarily surrendering the weapon with which he
In the case at bar, the search which is normally permissible in the instance of the police personal right which may be waived, the consent must be voluntary in order to committed the offense would be but a natural consequence of his having admitted
checkpoint is limited to routine checks -- visual inspection or flashing a light inside the validate an otherwise illegal detention and search, i.e., the consent is unequivocal, guilt. The taking of the gun from his house was, therefore, with consent and
car, without the occupants being subjected to physical or body searches. A search of specific, and intelligently given, uncontaminated by any duress or coercion. acquiescence that would not constitute a violation of the constitutional guaranty
the luggage inside the vehicle would require the existence of probable cause. In the against the admissibility of illegally seized objects as evidence against an accused.
case at hand, probable cause was not evident. FACTS:
Nonetheless, the court held that appellant and his baggage were validly searched, not Sgt. Noceja and Castro, while on a routine patrol, spotted a passenger jeep unusually CASE NO. 381
because he was caught in flagrante delicto, but because he freely consented to the covered with “kakawati” leaves. Suspecting that the jeep was loaded with smuggled Art. III, Sec. 2. Consent or Waiver
search. True, appellant was stopped by the police on mere suspicion -- not probable goods, the two police officers flagged down the vehicle. The jeep was driven by Lopez v. Commissioner of Customs, 68 SCRA 320 (1975)
cause. But the police expressly sought appellant’s permission for the search. Only after appellant. When asked what was loaded on the jeep, he did not answer, and appeared
appellant agreed to have his person and baggage checked did the actual search nervous. MAINPOINT:
commence. It was his consent which validated the search, waiver being a generally With appellant’s alleged consent, the police officers checked the cargo and they A search or seizure cannot be stigmatized as unreasonable and thus offensive to the
recognized exception to the rule against warrantless search. discovered bundles of 3.08 mm aluminum/galvanized conductor wires exclusively Constitution if consent be shown.
owned by National Power Corporation (NPC). When asked where the wires came from,
appellant answered that they came from Cavinti, a town approximately 8 kilometers FACTS:
Case No. 378 – Cruz away from Sampalucan. In this special civil action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus which arose from
Instances of Warrantless Arrests & Seizures – Moving Vehicle The court a quo rendered judgment finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable the seizures made by the Collector of Customs of Davao of 1,480 sacks of copra and 86
De Garcia v. Locsin doubt of the crime of Theft. Petitioner now comes to the Court contending that the sacks of coffee which came from Indonesia and subsequently brought to the
65 PHIL 689 flagging down of his vehicle by police officers who were on routine patrol, merely on Philippines in violation of our laws and, therefore, subject to forfeiture. Petitioner
“suspicion” that “it might contain smuggled goods,” does not constitute probable contended that the said seizure of the hotel room is illegal because of the absence of
Main Point: To constitute a waiver of a constitutional right, it must appear, first, that cause that will justify a warrantless search and seizure. search warrant.
the right exists; secondly, that the person involved had knowledge, either actual or
constructive, of the existence of such right; and, lastly, that said person had an actual ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless search without consent is valid? ISSUE: Whether or not the search and seizure is unreasonable and offensive.
RULING: Thus, the search being invalid for lack of warrant, the evidence obtained thereafter is bloodstained pair of shorts was recovered, Formento, together with his wife and
No. It does not admit of doubt therefore that a search or seizure cannot be stigmatized inadmissible. The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right. mother, was present.
as unreasonable and thus offensive to the Constitution if consent be shown. Such a
view is implicit in People vs. Malasugui. For this immunity from unwarranted intrusion The constitutional immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures, being personal Being the very subject of the search, necessarily, he himself should have given consent.
is a personal right which may be waived either expressly or impliedly. one, cannot be waived by anyone except 1) the person whose rights are invaded or 2) Since he was physically present, the waiver could not have come from any other
one who is expressly authorized to do so in his or her behalf. person. Lopez vs. Commissioner of Customs does not apply as the accused therein was
In the case at bar, although petitioner Velasco was not inside the hotel room, not present when the search was made.
respondent Reynolds, after identifying himself as a police officer and after explaining
383. People v. Asis, GR 142531, October 15, 2002
his purpose, was allowed to enter the room by Mrs. Tomas Velasco, the wife, who
Further, to constitute a valid waiver, it must be shown that first, the right exists;
subsequently volunteered to open the suitcases and baggages of petitioner Velasco
FACTS: Danilo Asis y Fonperada and Gilbert Formento y Saricon were charged in an second, the person involved had knowledge, actual or constructive, of the existence of
and delivered the documents and things contained therein to respondent Reynolds.
Information; the information stating "That on or about February 10, 1998, in the City such a right; and third, the person had an actual intention to relinquish the right.
The said police team did not search the room; neither did the members thereof
of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and Herein, Formento could not have consented to a warrantless search when, in the first
forcibly open the luggages and boxes nor seized and confiscated the documents and
mutually helping each other, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, place, he did not understand what was happening at that moment. There was no
things contained therein, since that was not necessary because Mrs. Tomas Velasco
with intent to gain and by means of force and violence upon person, to wit: by then interpreter to assist him -- a deaf-mute -- during the arrest, search and seizure. The
voluntarily opened the baggages and suitcases and gave their contents of documents
and there stabbing one YU HING GUAN @ ROY CHING with a bladed instrument on the point in the case Pasion vda. de Garcia v. Locsin, i.e. "as the constitutional guaranty is
and things to respondent Reynolds.
different parts of the body thereafter take, rob and carry away the following, to wit: not dependent upon any affirmative act of the citizen, the courts do not place the
Cash money in the amount of P20,000.00; 1 wristwatch' 1 gold necklace; and citizen in the position of either contesting an officer’s authority by force, or waiving his
382. People v. Damaso, 212 SCRA 457 constitutional rights; but instead they hold that a peaceful submission to a search or
undetermined items; or all in the total amount of P20,000.00 more or less, belonging
to said YU HING GUAN @ ROY CHING against his will, to the damage and prejudice of seizure is not a consent or an invitation thereto, but is merely a demonstration of
Facts : The group of Lt. Quijardo were sent to verify the presence of CPP/NPA members the said owner in the aforesaid amount more or less of P20,000.00, Philippine regard for the supremacy of the law," becomes even more pronounced in the present
in Dagupan City. They put under surveillance the rented apartment of Rosemarie, Currency, and as a result thereof, he sustained mortal stab wounds which were the case, in which Formento is a deaf-mute, and there was no interpreter to explain to him
sister of someone whom they earlier arrested. direct and immediate cause of his death." When arraigned, both accused pleaded not what was happening. His seeming acquiescence to the search without a warrant may
guilty. Found to be deaf-mutes, they were assisted, not only by a counsel de oficio, but be attributed to plain and simple confusion and ignorance. The bloodstained pair of
They interviewed Luzviminda Morados, a visitor of Rosemarie, who stated that she also by an interpreter from the Calvary Baptist Church. The prosecution presented 9 shorts was a piece of evidence seized on the occasion of an unlawful search and
worked with Bernie Mendoza alias Basilio Damaso, the appellant. witnesses. Although none of them had actually seen the crime committed, strong and seizure. Thus, it is tainted and should thus be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of
substantial circumstantial evidence presented by them attempted to link both accused the poisonous tree. In the language of the fundamental law, it shall be inadmissible in
to the crime. evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. Lastly, as to evidence vis-a-is the case in
Together with Morados, they reached the house of Damaso where they saw Luz
its totality, circumstantial evidence that merely arouses suspicions or gives room for
Tanciangco, a helper. Tanciangco then allowed the group to enter inside the house.
conjecture is not sufficient to convict. It must do more than just raise the possibility, or
After due trial, both accused were found guilty and sentenced to death. RTC of Manila
even the probability, of guilt. It must engender moral certainty. Otherwise, the
The group of Lt. Quijardo entered the dwelling of Damaso without a valid warrant held that the "crime charged and proved is robbery with homicide under Article 294,
constitutional presumption of innocence prevails, and the accused deserves acquittal.
when the latter was absent. They requested the persons in the house to allow them to No. 1 of the RPC," ruled that "although no witnesses to the actual killing and robbery
look around. In one of the rooms, they saw subversive materials which they were presented, the circumstantial evidence including the recovery of bloodstained
clothing from both accused definitely proved that the two (2) committed the crime," 384. Spouses Veroy v. Layague, GR 95632, June 18, 1992
confiscated. They likewise brought the persons found in the house to the headquarters
for investigation and the persons revealed that Damaso was the lessee of the house and appreciated the aggravating circumstances of abuse of confidence, superior
and owned the items confiscated. Based on this, Damaso was charged with illegal strength and treachery and thus sentenced both accused to the supreme penalty of Facts : The Veroys moved to QC and left their house in Davao City to a caretaker who
possession of firearms. death. had keys to the kitchen only. The Veroys had the keys to the interior of the house.

Issue : Whether the evidence is admissible? Hence, the automatic review before the Supreme Court. Both the accused do not Capt. Obrero raided the house based on an information that rebel soldiers are
question the legality of their arrest, as they made no objection thereto before the allegedly hiding there.
arraignment, but object to the introduction of the bloodstained pair of shorts allegedly
Ruling : NO. The Court ruled that the law enforcers failed to comply with the
recovered from the bag of Formento; arguing that the search was illegally done, With the help of caretakers, they were able to enter only up to the yard since the
requirements of a valid search and seizure. None of these exceptions for a warrantless
making the obtainment of the pair of shorts illegal and taints them owner was not around and they did not have a search warrant.
search is present in this case.

as inadmissible. The prosecution, on the other hand, contends that it was Formento's They contacted Mrs. Veroy, and explained that the house was reportedly being used as
Moreover, the constitutional immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures,
wife who voluntarily surrendered the bag that contained the bloodstained trousers of a hideout and recruitment center of rebel soldiers. Mrs. Veroy then gave permission to
being personal one, cannot be waived by anyone except 1) the person whose rights are
the victim, and thus claims that her act constituted a valid consent to the search search the house with the condition that Major Macasaet, a long-time family friend,
invaded or 2) one who is expressly authorized to do so in his or her behalf.
without a warrant. must be there during the search.
In this case, the records show that Damaso was not in his house at that time Luz, his
ISSUES: Whether or not Formento, a deaf-mute, has given consent to the recovery of Despite the qualified consent, the officers entered various rooms, including the
alleged helper, allowed the authorities to enter. There was no evidence that would
the bloodstained pair of short, in his possession during the warrantless search? children’s room, and confiscated a .45 caliber gun and other effects, which were the
establish the fact that Luz was indeed Damaso’s helper or if it was true that she was his
helper, that Damaso had given her authority to open his house in his absence. Being a basis of the charge of illegal possession of firearms against them.
helper, she does not qualify as a person authorized to waive such right in RULINGS NO. Primarily, the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and
representation of her employer. seizures, being a personal one, cannot be waived by anyone except the person whose Despite the fact that the warrants for their arrest have not yet been served on them,
rights are invaded or who is expressly authorized to do so on his or her behalf. In the petitioners voluntarily surrendered themselves to Brig. Gen. Pantaleon Dumlao, PC-CIS
present case, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses show that at the time the
Chief, since it was the CIS that initiated the complaint. However, the latter refused to FACTS: a checkpoint was put up and all vehicles that went through it were stopped and actuation during the search and seizure. They never protested when the police officer
receive them on the ground that his office has not yet received copies of their checked. The officers flagged down the car driven by the accused and asked opened the tin can loaded in their vehicle, nor when he opened one of the bundles,
warrants of arrest. permission to inspect the vehicle to which he acceded. When they peered into the rear nor when they, together with their cargo of drugs and their vehicle, were brought to
of the vehicle, they saw a travelling bag which was partially covered by the rim of a the police station for investigation and subsequent prosecution. Further, they
The Spouses Veroy assailed the admissibility of the evidence for being obtained in spare tire under the passenger seat on the right side of the vehicle. The officers again effectively waived their constitutional right against the search and seizure by their
violation of their constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure. asked permission to see the contents of the bag. Appellant consented to the request. voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court, when they entered a plea of
Inside, the officers found fourty-one plastic packets of different sizes containing not guilty upon arraignment and by participating in the trial.
pulverized substances which was later identified as marijuana.
Issue : Whether the evidence is admissible?

ISSUE: Whether the search and seizure was unreasonable and a violation of the 387. LIM
Ruling : NO. Petitioners alleged that while Capt. Obrero had permission to enter their
appellants Constitutional right People vs. Ramos 222 SCRA 557
house, it was merely for the purpose of ascertaining the presence of the alleged
"rebel" soldiers. The permission did not include the authority to conduct a room to
RULING: No. accused was not subjected to any search which may be stigmatized as a Main Point: recognized exception is when the accused himself waives his right against
room search inside the house. The items taken were, therefore, products of an illegal
violation of his Constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. He unreasonable search and seizure. As this Court stated in People vs. Malasugui:
search, violative of their constitutional rights. As such, they are inadmissible in
willingly gave prior consent to the search and voluntarily agreed to have it conducted When one voluntarily submits to a search or consents to have it made of his person or
evidence against them.
on his vehicle and travelling bag. Thus, the accused waived his right against premises, he is precluded from later complaining thereof. The right to be secure from
unreasonable searches and seizures. Since in the course of the valid search forty-one unreasonable search may, like every right, be waived and such waiver may be made
The Court ruled that the case at bar does not fall on the exceptions for a warrantless either expressly or impliedly.
packages of drugs were found, it behooved the officers to seize the same; no warrant
search. The reason for searching the house is that it was reportedly being used as a
was necessary for such seizure.
hideout and recruitment center for rebel soldiers. While Capt. Obrero was able to FACTS: Following a tip from an informer, police operatives patrolled Miranda
enter the yard, he did not enter the house because he did not have a search warrant Subdivision for a possible engagement with the suspects of a series of armed robbery
and the owners were not present. This shows that he himself recognized the need for 386. LIM
incidents. Accompanied by one of the victims, the lawmen chanced upon petitioner
a search warrant, hence, he did not persist in entering the house but rather contacted Felimon Ramos who the victim identified as one of the armed men he encountered
the Veroys to seek permission to enter the same. Permission was granted by Mrs. People vs Correa GR 119246, 30 January 1998 during the robbery. When accosted and frisked by the lawmen, Ramos yielded in his
Veroy to enter the house but only to ascertain the presence of rebel soldiers. waistline a .38 caliber snub nosed “paltik” revolver loaded with 2 live bullets. At the
Main Point: When one voluntarily submits to a search or consents to have it made on police headquarters, Ramos admitted involvement with the aforementioned robbery
Under the circumstances the police officers had time to procure a search warrant but his person or premises, he is precluded from later complaining thereof The right to be incidents and identified all his cohorts, one of who is Antonio Contreras.
they did not. secure from unreasonable search may, like every right, be waived and such waiver may
be made either expressly or impliedly. ISSUE: Whether the frisking and seizure of the gun tucked on the petitioners waitsline
The Court also ruled that although the offense of illegal possession of firearms is a were illegal for lack of a valid search warrant.
malum prohibitum, it does not follow that the subjects may be seized simply because FACTS: A week before 18 June 1994, Leonardo Dulay was placed under surveillance by
they are prohibited. A search warrant is still necessary. the Police Operatives from the Drug Enforcement Unit of the Western Police District RULING: No. the evidence for the prosecution discloses that accused Ramos voluntarily
Command (DEU-WPDC) on account of confidential and intelligence reports received in allowed himself to be frisked and that he gave the gun to the police officer. Thus, there
The rule having been violated and no exception being applicable, the articles seized said Unit about his drug trafficking around Bambang Street, Tondo, Manila. The police was deemed a valid waiver
were confiscated illegally and are therefore protected by the exclusionary principle. surveillance brought forth positive results and confirmed Dulay's illegal drug trade. On
They cannot be used as evidence against the petitioners in the criminal action against 17 June 1994, operatives were alerted that Dulay would transport and deliver a certain 388 MUSA
them for illegal possession of firearms. The permission to enter a house and search for quantity of drugs that night on board a owner-type jeep (FMR948). Thereafter, the People v. Tudtud, GR 144037, Sept 26, 2003
persons and effects may be qualified, and the searching officer may not act in excess of operatives, together with the informer proceeded to A. Bonifacio Street on board 3
the authority granted to him. vehicles, and inconspicuously parked along the side of North Cemetery and waited for FACTS:
the suspect. The police informant spotted Dulay’s vehicle at 3:00 am. The operatives Sometime during the months of July and August 1999, the Toril Police Station, Davao
tailed the subject jeepney until they reached Bambang extension and Jose Abad Santos City received a report from a “civilian asset” named Bobong Solier about a certain Noel
Although the offense of illegal possession of firearms is a malum prohibitum, it does Tudtud. Solier related that his neighbors have been complaining about Tudtud, who
Avenue, where they accosted the passengers of said jeepney. The team inspected a
not follow that the subjects may be seized simply because they are prohibited. A was allegedly responsible for the proliferation of marijuana in their area. For 5 days,
cylindrical tin can of El Cielo Vegetable Cooking Lard, about two feet high, loaded in
search warrant is still necessary in the context of this case. they gathered information and learned that Tudtud was involved in illegal drugs.
the vehicle of the appellants. The can contained 8 bundles of suspected dried
marijuana flowering tops wrapped in pieces of paper and plastic tapes. The team According to his neighbors, Tudtud was engaged in selling marijuana.
385. LIM seized the suspected contrabands and marked each bundle consecutively. The 3 The Police went to seize Tutud. PO1 Desierto asked him if he could see the contents of
suspects were brought to the police headquarters at DEU-WPDC for investigation. \ the box. Tudtud obliged, saying, “it was alright.” Tudtud opened the box himself as his
People vs Omaweng GR 99050 The defense, however, contends that the 3 accused were arrested without warrant in companion looked on. The box yielded pieces of dried fish, beneath which were two
Camarin D, Caloocan City bundles, one wrapped in a striped plastic bag and another in newspapers. PO1
Main Point: the accused waived his right against unreasonable searches and seizures Desierto asked Tudtud to unwrap the packages. They contained what seemed to the
As this Court stated in People v. Malasugui: 17 ". . . When one voluntarily submits to a ISSUE: Whether the accused are precluded from assailing the warrantless search and police officers as marijuana leaves. The police thus arrested Tudtud and his
search or consents to have it made of (sic) his person or premises, he is precluded from seizure, due to waiver on their part. companion, informed them of their rights and brought them to the police station. The
later complaining thereof (Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 8th ed., vol. I, page 631.) two did not resist. The confiscated items examined. It was confirmed that the plastic
The right to be secure from unreasonable search may, like every right, be waived and bag contained 3,200 grams of marijuana leaves while the newspapers contained
RULING: Yes. Antonio Correa y Cayton @ "Boyet," Rito Gunida y Sesante @ "Dodong," another 890 grams.
such waiver may be made either expressly or impliedly." and Leonardo Dulay y Santos @ "Boy Kuba" are precluded from assailing the
warrantless search and seizure when they voluntarily submitted to it as shown by their
Tudtud claims the marijuana leaves were seized in violation of their right against NO. The evidence for the prosecution discloses that the appellant placed the packs of
unreasonable searches and seizures. marijuana sticks under the rolled pair of pants which she was then carrying at the time MP:
she hurriedly left her shanty after noticing the arrest of Rommel. When she was asked Where the search was conducted irregularly, i.e., without a warrant, the Court cannot
ISSUE: to spread it out, which she voluntary did, the package containing the packs of appreciate consent based merely on the presumption of regularity of the performance
Whether or not the Tudtud’s implied acquiescence (Tudtud’s statement of “it’s all marijuana sticks were thus exposed in plain view to the member of the team. A crime of duty.
right” when the police officers requested that the box be opened) be considered a was thus committed in the presence of the policemen. Pursuant to Section 5, Rule 113
waiver? and Section 12 Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court, she could lawfully be arrested 391 REYES
and searched for anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an Section 2, Article III: Warrantless Searches and Seizures; Consent or Waiver
RULING: offense without the corresponding arrest and search warrants. People vs. Aruta
No. Records disclose that when the police officers introduced themselves as such and Even assuming ex gratia argumenti that the seach and seizure were without a warrant,
requested Tudtud that they see the contents of the carton box supposedly containing the appellant had effectively waived her constitutional right relative thereto by FACTS:
the marijuana, Tudtud said “it was alright.” He did not resist and opened the box voluntarily submitting to the seach and seizure. In People vs. Malasugui, 20 this Court P/Lt. Abello was tipped off by his informant that a certain “Aling Rosa” will be arriving
himself. ruled: from Baguio City with a large volume of marijuana and assembled a team. The next
Tudtud's implied acquiescence, if at all, could not have been more than mere passive day, at the Victory Liner Bus terminal they waited for the bus coming from Baguio,
conformity given under coercive or intimidating circumstances and is, thus, considered When one voluntarily submits to a search and consent to have it made of his person when the informer pointed out who “Aling Rosa” was, the team approached her and
no consent at all within the purview of the constitutional guarantee. Consequently, or premises, he is precluded from later complaining thereof. The right to be secure introduced themselves as NARCOM agents. When Abello asked “Aling Rosa” about the
Tudtud's lack of objection to the search and seizure is not tantamount to a waiver of from unreasonable seach may, like every right, be waived and such waiver may be contents of her bag, the latter handed it out to the police. They found dried marijuana
his constitutional right or a voluntary submission to the warrantless search and seizure. made either expressly or impliedly. (MP) leaves packed in a plastic bag marked “cash katutak”.
As the search of Tudtud's box does not come under the recognized exceptions to a
valid warrantless search, the marijuana leaves obtained thereby are inadmissible in ISSUE:
evidence. And as there is no evidence other than the hearsay testimony of the 390 MUSA Whether such constituted a consented warrantless search allowed by law.
arresting officers and their informant, the conviction of Tudtud, et. al. cannot be People v. Encinada – 280 SCRA 72
sustained. RULING:
FACTS: No. While in principle we agree that consent will validate an otherwise illegal search,
MP: SPO4 Nicolas Bolonia was in his house when he received a tip from an informant that we believe that Aruta did not voluntarily consent to the search of his belongings.
There is an effective waiver of rights against unreasonable searches and seizures only if Roel Encinada would be arriving in Surigao City from Cebu City in the morning of May Aruta’s silence should not be lightly taken as consent to such search. The implied
the following requisites are present: (1) It must appear that the rights exist; (2) The 21, 1992 on board the M/V Sweet Pearl bringing with him marijuana. Bolonia was then acquiescence to the search, if there was any, could not have been more than mere
person involved had knowledge, actual or constructive, of the existence of such right; Chief of the Vice Control Squad of the Surigao City Police. After receiving the tip, passive conformity given under intimidating or coercive circumstances and is thus
(3) Said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right. Here, the prosecution Bolonia notified the members of his team as well as his colleague. Because the considered no consent at all within the purview of the constitutional guarantee.
failed to establish the second and third requisites. information came late, there was no more time to secure a search warrant. Furthermore, considering that the search was conducted irregularly, i.e., without a
The police officers followed Encinada immediately boarded a tricycle at Borromeo warrant, we cannot appreciate consent based merely on the presumption of regularity
Street, holding plastic chairs. As the tricycle slowly moved forward, Bolonia chased it of the performance of duty. Thus, Aruta’s lack of objection to the search is not
389 MUSA and ordered the driver to stop after identifying himself as a police officer. When the tantamount to a waiver of her constitutional rights or a voluntary submission to the
People v. Tabar – 222 SCRA 144 vehicle stopped, Bolinia identified himself to Encinada and ordered him to alight from warrantless search.
the tricycle. Bolonia asked Encinada to hand over the plastic chairs, to which the latter
FACTS: complied. Bolonia examined it closely and smelled the peculiar scent of marijuana. MAIN POINT:
Respondent-accused was charged, together with her nephew, for violation of the Making a small tear in the cellophane cover, Bolonia could see and smell the what To constitue a waiver, there should be an actual intention to relinquish the right. The
Dangerous Drugs Act in an information which provided that: That on or about the 8th appeared to be marijuana. Encinada was brought to the central police station. The trial implied acquiescence to the search, if there was any, could not have been more than
day of February 1989, at about 3:00 PM. in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the court further emphasized that appellant was caught carrying marijuana in flagrante mere passive conformity given under intimidating or coercive circumstances and is
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, conniving and confederating delicto. Hence, the warrantless search following his lawful arrest was valid and the thus considered no consent at all within the purview of the constitutional guarantee.
together and mutually helping each other, with deliberate intent, did then and there marijuana obtained was admissible in evidence.
sell and deliver, without authority of law, Three (3) sticks of marijuana cigarettes, a
(sic) prohibited drugs, to a person who posted himself as a buyer, in Violation of Sec. 4, ISSUE: 392 REYES
Art. 11, of RA 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Act of 1972. Whether or not Encinada’s compliance to the police order to surrender the plastic Section 2, Article III: Warrantless Searches and Seizures; Customs Search
The accused were then convicted of the offense charged against them in the trial chair is considered a valid waiver hence warrantless search was valid Papa vs. Mago
court.
On appeal, respondent presented her argument that the lower court erred in RULING: FACTS:
admitting the evidence against her when there wasn’t any search warrant. Therefore, No. While in principle we agree that consent will validate an otherwise illegal search, Acting upon reliable information, it was believed that a certain shipment of person
violating the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. we believe that appellant—based on the transcript quoted above—did not voluntarily effects, allegedly misdeclared and undervalued, would be released the following day
consent to Bolonia’s search of his belongings. Appellant’s silence should not be lightly from the customs zone of the port of Manila and loaded on two trucks, and upon
ISSUE: taken as consent to such search. The implied acquiescence to the search, if there was orders of Ricardo Papa, Chief of Police of Manila and a duly deputized agent of the
WON there was a violation against the constitutional guarantee of individuals against any, could not have been more than mere passive conformity given under intimidating Bureau of Customs. When the trucks left, elements of the counter-intelligence unit
unreasonable searches and seizures. or coercive circumstances and is thus considered no consent at all within the purview went after the trucks and intercepted them at the Agrifina Circle. The load of the two
of the constitutional guarantee. Furthermore, considering that the search was trucks consisting of nine bales of goods and the two trucks were seized on instructions
RULING: conducted irregularly, i.e., without a warrant, we cannot appreciate consent based of Papa. On the other hand, Remedios Mago, the owner of the goods that were seized,
merely on the presumption of regularity of the performance of duty.
questioned the validity of the search conducted by them since it was made without constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizure and he may not be RULING: Yes. the search was made pursuant to routine airport security procedure,
any search warrant. prosecuted for the criminal offense of usurpation of judicial function. which is allowed under Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6235 reading as follows: Every
ticket issued to a passenger by the airline or air carrier concerned shall contain among
ISSUE: others the following condition printed thereon: "Holder hereof and his hand-carried
Whether a warrant is required to search and seize a moving cargo or vehicle. MAIN POINT: luggage(s) are subject to search for, and seizure of, prohibited materials or substances.
For the enforcement of customs duties and tariff laws, the Collector of Customs is Holder refusing to be searched shall not be allowed to board the aircraft," which shall
RULING: authorized to effect searches and seizures conformably with the provision of said laws. constitute a part of the contract between the passenger and the air carrier. This
No. It is the settled rule, therefore, that the Bureau of Customs acquires exclusive He may order the seizure of untaxed goods without being liable for usurpation of constitutes another exception to the proscription against warrantless searches and
jurisdiction over imported goods, for the purposes of enforcement of the customs judicial function. seizures.
laws, from the moment the goods are actually in its possession or control, even if no MAINPOINT: Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by
warrant of seizure or detention had previously been issued by the Collector of Customs CASE NO. 394 - SABTALUH exposure of their persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting a lack of
in connection with seizure and forfeiture proceedings. PEOPLE V. GATWARD, 267 SCRA 785 subjective expectation of privacy, which expectation society is prepared to recognize
as reasonable.
In the present case, the Bureau of Customs acquired jurisdiction over the goods for the
purposes of the enforcement of the tariff and customs laws, to the exclusion of the FACTS: CASE NO. 396 – SABTALUH
regular courts. The Tariff and Customs Code does not require any search warrant Appellant Gatward was found guilty of violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as PEOPLE V. JOHNSON – 348 SCRA 526
issued by a competent court before police authorities can effect the seizure. But the amended by Republic Act No. 7659 when heroin was found in his luggage, appellant
Code requires it in the search of a dwelling house. Therefore, except in the case of the contained that he checked in a different bag when he boarded KLM Flight No. 806,
search of a dwelling house, persons exercising police authority under the customs laws explaining that upon his apprehension by the agents of the NAIA Customs Police, he FACTS:
may effect search and seizure without a search warrant in the enforcement of customs threw away the claim tag for the said luggage. He alleged that the said bag contained, Leila Johnson was arrested at the airport after she was found to have in her possession
laws. The seizure made by Alagao and his companion policemen is in accordance with among other things, not only important documents and papers pertaining to his more than 500 grams of shabu when she was initially frisked by some security
law. cellular phone business in the pursuit of which he came to the Philippines but also personnel at a gate in the airport. The security personnel felt something hard in
money. respondent’s abdominal area and when asked she said that she had to wear 2 girdles
MAIN POINT: because of an operation. Unconvinced, the security personnel went to her supervisor.
Customs search is an allowable warrantless search under the Tariff and Customs Code. ISSUE: Subsequently, after a thorough search on respondent, packets of shabu were seized
Except in the case of the search of a dwelling house, persons exercising police Whether or not gatward suitcase maybe searched without warrant from her. respondent contended that the search made upon her was not valid and that
authority under the customs laws may effect search and seizure without a search her constitutional rights were infringed when such search was conducted.
warrant in the enforcement of customs laws. RULING:
Yes.While no search warrant had been obtained for that purpose, when appellant ISSUE: Whether or not the search was valid.
393 REYES checked in his bag as his personal luggage as a passenger of KLM Flight No. 806 he
Section 2, Article III: Warrantless Searches and Seizures; Customs Search thereby agreed to the inspection thereof in accordance with customs rules and HELD:
Pacis vs. Pamaran regulations, an international practice of strict observance, and waived any objection to Yes. The constitutional right of the accused was not violated as she was validly arrested
a warrantless search. His subsequent arrest, although likewise without a warrant, was without warrant pursuant to the provisions of Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules of
FACTS: justified since it was effected upon the discovery and recovery of the heroin in his bag, Criminal Procedure which provides: Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A
Respondent Ricardo Santos is the owner of an automobile which he brought into the or in flagrante delicto. peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) when in
country without payment of customs duty and taxes because its original owner, his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
Donald James Hatch, was tax-exempt. He paid P311.00 for customs duty and taxes. MAINPOINT: attempting to commit an offense; (b) when an offense has in fact just been committed,
Acting Collector of Customs Pedro Pacis was informed that the automobile was a “hot when appellant checked in his bag as his personal luggage he thereby agreed to the and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has
car.” The amount collectible was P2,500.00, and not just P311.00. Based on such inspection thereof in accordance with customs rules and regulations, an international committed it; The circumstances surrounding the arrest of the accused above falls in
discrepancy, Pacis instituted seizure proceedings and issued a warrant of seizure and practice of strict observance, and waived any objection to a warrantless search. either paragraph (a) or (b).
detention. The automobile was also taken by the Department of National Defense
agents and brought to the General Affairs Administration for compound. CASE NO. 395 - SABTALUH MAINPOINT:
PEOPLE V. SUSAN CANTON, GR 148825, DECEMBER 27, 2002 Ordinary constitutional protections against warrantless searches and seizures do not
Santos filed a criminal complaint against Pacis for usurpation of judicial functions apply to routine airport procedures.
alleging that Pacis did not have authority to issue such warrant of seizure and FACTS: Appellant Susan Canton was charged for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act
detention. Manuel Pamaran, the Assistant City Fiscal, proceeded with the charge of 1972 After (998.2809) GRAMS of drugs was found in her luggage in NAIA. SUSAN SALINAS- 397. Terry v. Ohio
against Pacis. asserts that the strip search conducted on her in the ladies’ room was violated her
right because it was not "incidental to an arrest." The arrest could not be said to have Facts: The officer noticed the Petitioner talking with another individual on a street
ISSUE: been made before the search because at the time of the strip search, the arresting corner while repeatedly walking up and down the same street. The men would
Whether the Collector of Customs can issue a warrant of seizure and detention. officers could not have known what was inside the plastic containers hidden on her periodically peer into a store window and then talk some more. The men also spoke to
body, which were wrapped and sealed with gray tape. At that point then, they could a third man whom they eventually followed up the street. The officer believed that the
RULING: not have determined whether SUSAN was actually committing a crime. The strip Petitioner and the other men were “casing” a store for a potential robbery. The officer
Yes. The Collector of Customs has the requisite authority to issue a warrant of seizure search was therefore nothing but a fishing expedition and that it is erroneous to say decided to approach the men for questioning, and given the nature of the behavior the
and detention for an automobile whose duties and taxes have not been paid for. In that the warrantless search was incidental to a lawful arrest. officer decided to perform a quick search of the men before questioning. A quick
exercising this authority, the Collector has not committed a violation of the ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless search and subsequent seizure of the regulated frisking of the Petitioner produced a concealed weapon and the Petitioner was
drugs was valid. charged with carrying a concealed weapon.
 Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in admitting in evidence the homemade drugs. The interest of effective crime prevention and detection allows a police officer
Issue: Whether a search for weapons without probable cause for arrest is an firearm which is a product of an unlawful warrantless search to approach a person, in appropriate circumstances and manner, for purposes of
unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution investigating possible criminal behavior even though there is insufficient probable
(“Constitution”)? Ruling: No, Solayao and his companion’s drunken actuations as well as the fact that he cause to make an actual arrest.
attired in camouflage uniform or a jungle suit and the flight of his companion aroused
the suspicion of the police officer’s group. Therefore, it can be admissible as evidence. Main Point: A Stop-and-frisk was defined as the vernacular designation of the right of
Ruling: The Supreme Court of the United States (“Supreme Court”) held that it is a
a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him, and pat him for
reasonable search when an officer performs a quick seizure and a limited search for
400. SALVADOR weapon(s).
weapons on a person that the officer reasonably believes could be armed. A typical
Warrantless Searches and Seizures; Instances of warrantless searches and seizures;
beat officer would be unduly burdened by being prohibited from searching individuals
Stop and frisk situation
that the officer suspects to be armed.
Malacat vs. CA 402. SALVADOR
Warrantless Searches and Seizures; Instances of warrantless searches and seizures;
SALINAS- 398. Posadas v. CA
Stop and frisk situation
Facts: Malacat was charged violating P.D No. 1866 (Illegal possession of firearms). As People vs. Aruta
Facts: Members of the Integrated National Police (INP) of the Davao Metrodiscom
the policemen gave chase, Yu caught up with and apprehended petitioner. Upon
assigned with the Intelligence Task Force, Pat. Ursicio Ungab and Pat. Umbra Umpar
searching petitioner, Yu found a fragmentation grenade tucked inside petitioner’s Facts: Aruta was arrested and cahrged with violating the Dangerous Drugs Act. Having
conducted surveillance along Magallanes Street, Davao City. While in the vicinity of
“front waistline.” Yu’s companion, police officer Rogelio Malibiran, apprehended Abdul ascertained that was “Aling Rosa,” the team approached her and introduced
Rizal Memorial Colleges they spotted petitioner carrying a "buri" bag and they noticed
Casan from whom a .38 caliber revolver was recovered. Petitioner and Casan were themselves as NARCOM agents. When P/Lt. Abello asked “Aling Rosa” about the
him to be acting suspiciously. They approached the petitioner and identified
then brought to Police Station No. 3 where Yu placed an “X” mark at the bottom of the contents of her bag, the latter handed it to the former. Upon inspection, the bag was
themselves as members of the INP. Petitioner attempted to flee but his attempt to get
grenade and thereafter gave it to his commander. found to contain dried marijuana leaves packed in a plastic bag marked “Cash
away was unsuccessful. They then checked the "buri" bag of the petitioner where they
Katutak.” The team confiscated the bag together with the Victory Liner bus ticket to
found one (1) caliber .38 Smith & Wesson revolver with Serial No. 770196, two (2)
Issue: Whether stop and frisk situation is valid in this instance. which Lt. Domingo affixed his signature. The defense filed a “Demurrer to Evidence”
rounds of live ammunition for a .38 caliber gun, a smoke (tear gas) grenade, and two
alleging the illegality of the search and seizure of the items thereby violating accused-
(2) live ammunitions for a .22 caliber gun. They brought the petitioner to the police
Ruling: NO. The court ruled that a mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a "stop appellant’s constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure as well as their
station for further investigation. In the course of the same, the petitioner was asked to
and frisk". A genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer's experience and inadmissibility in evidence.
show the necessary license or authority to possess firearms and ammunitions found in
surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons
his possession but he failed to do so. He was then taken to the Davao Metrodiscom
concealed about him. Issue: Whether search and seizure is valid in this instance.
office and the prohibited articles recovered from him were indorsed to M/Sgt. Didoy
the officer then on duty. He was prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms and
Main Point: “Stop-and-frisk” serves a two-fold interest: (1) the general interest of Ruling: NO. The court ruled that the right of a person to be secured against any
ammunitions in the Regional Trial Court of Davao City.
effective crime prevention and detection, which underlies the recognition that a police unreasonable seizure of his body and any deprivation of his liberty is a most basic and
officer may, under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner, approach fundamental one. A statute, rule or situation which allows exceptions to the
a person for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even without requirement of a warrant of arrest or search warrant must perforce be strictly
Issue: Whether or Not the warantless search is valid.
probable cause; and (2) the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation construed and their application limited only to cases specifically provided or allowed
which permit the police officer to take steps to assure himself that the person with by law. To do otherwise is an infringement upon personal liberty and would set back a
Ruling: In justifying the warrantless search of the buri bag then carried by the
whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally right so basic and deserving of full protection and vindication yet often violated.
petitioner, argues that under Section 12, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court a person
be used against the police officer.
lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything used as proof of
Main Point: The plain import of the language of the Constitution, which in one
a commission of an offense without a search warrant. It is further alleged that the
401. SALVADOR sentence prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and at the same time
arrest without a warrant of the petitioner was lawful under the circumstances.
Warrantless Searches and Seizures; Instances of warrantless searches and seizures; prescribes the requisites for a valid warrant, is that searches and seizures are normally
Stop and frisk situation unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued search warrant or warrant of arrest.
in the case at bar, there is no question that, indeed, it is reasonable considering that it
Manalili vs. CA The exceptions should not become unbridled licenses for law enforcement officers to
was affected on the basis of a probable cause. The probable cause is that when the
trample upon the constitutionally guaranteed and more fundamental right of persons
petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted to flee with the buri bag there was a
Facts: Anti-narcotics policemen conducted a surveillance in response to information against unreasonable search and seizures. The essential requisite of probable cause
probable cause that he was concealing something illegal in the bag and it was the right
that drug addicts were roaming the area fronting the city cemetery of Kalookan and must still be satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure can be lawfully
and duty of the police officers to inspect the same. warrant issued by a judge after
chanced upon Manalili who was observed to have reddish eyes and to be walking in a conducted.
determination of a probable cause. Therefore, it is unlawful.
wobbly manner. Because his appearance was characteristic of a person “high on
drugs,” the lawmen approached him, introduced themselves and inquired as to what CASE 415
SALINAS- 399. People v. Tudtud
was in his hands. He subsequently challenged before us the legality of his search and ARTICLE III, SECTION 2: Warrantless Arrests; In flagrante delicto
arrest, and the admission of the marijuana as evidence. He contended that the latter People v. Alolod (266 SCRA 154)
Facts: While conducting an intelligence patrol, the arresting officers met appellant who
two were products of the illegal search.
was drunk and wearing a camouflage uniform or a jungle suit. After introducing
FACTS: Alolod was found guilty by the RTC of Kalookan City of Robbery with Homicide
himself as PC, the police officer seized the dried coconut leaves which the appellant
Issue: Whether stop and frisk situation is valid in this instance. and Illegal Possession of Firearm. The Information for Robbery with Homicide alleges
was carrying and found wrapped in it a 49-inch long homemade firearm locally known
that on December 1991 in Kalookan City the accused Alolod forcibly took from Romeo
as latong. Thr latter has no permission to possess the same. The firearm was
Ruling: Yes. The Court held that the search was akin to a stop-and-frisk. The police had de Vera one blue plastic bag containing cash amounting to P17, 800.00 and inflicted
confiscated and he was turned over to the custody of the Caibiran police who
sufficient reason to stop Manalili, who “had red eyes and was wobbling like a drunk in serious physical injuries upon the victim which caused the latter’s death. The
subsequently investigated him and charged him with illegal possession of firearm,
a popular hangout of drug addicts,” in order to investigate if he was actually “high” on Information for Illegal Possession of Firearm charges that on the same occasion the
accused had in his possession a .38 cal. paltik revolver marked S & W without serial ISSUE: Whether the warrantless search and arrest was illegal. make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can particularly
number, with four live ammunitions, without first securing the necessary license view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a
and/or permit to possess the same. The evidence for the prosecution shows that in the RULING: Yes. Evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure is piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be open to eye and hand
morning, a jeepney driven by Alberto Juan was cruising along Quirino Highway. On inadmissible in any proceeding for any purpose. Rule 113 sec. 5 of the Rules of Court, and its discovery inadvertent. When the runner wrenched himself free from the grasp
board the jeepney were four passengers: Jose Caamic, Marcos Nobio, Romeo de Vera provides arrest without warrant lawful when: (a) the person to be arrested has of Gaviola, he instinctively ran towards the house of Elamparo. The members of the
and accused Alolod. While inside the vehicle Alolod pushed Caamic and took a seat committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense, (b) when the buy-bust team were justified in running after him and entering the house without a
facing Romeo de Vera. All of a sudden Alolod grabbed the plastic bag which de Vera offense in fact has just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of the facts search warrant for they were pursuing a fleeing criminal. Once inside the house, the
was holding. The latter resisted. Alolod then pulled out a gun and shot de Vera. Despite indicating the person arrested has committed it and (c) the person to be arrested has police officers cornered the runner and recovered the buy-bust money from him. They
his wound, he insisted on wrestling with Alolod for the possession of the bag until the escaped from a penal establishment or a place where he is serving final judgment or also caught Elamparo in flagrante delicto repacking the marijuana bricks which were in
latter fired a second shot. As they grappled they fell from the jeepney while passengers temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred full view on tap of a table.
Caamic and Nobio jumped off and ran for safety. As Alolod and de Vera continued to from one confinement to another.
struggle, SPO1 Eduardo Liberato arrived but Alolod succeeded in running away with MAIN POINT: When police officer see person repacking marijuana, the former are not
the bag. After trial, the court a quo found the accused guilty as charged. He now comes These requirements have not been established in the case at bar. At the time of the only authorized but also duty bound to arrest the latter even without a warrant.
to us on appeal contending that the trial court erred: (a) in convicting him on the basis arrest in question, the accused appellant was merely looking from side to side and
of testimonies which were ostensibly concocted; (b) in upholding the theory of the holding his abdomen, according to the arresting officers themselves. There was
prosecution which resulted from a bungled police investigation; and, (c) in appreciating apparently no offense that has just been committed or was being actually committed
evidence for the prosecution that were manifestly "fruits of the poisonous tree." or at least being attempt by Mengote in their presence.

ISSUE: Whether the police have in their favor the presumption that official duty has MAIN POINT: The person may be arrested (1) after he has committed or while he is
been regularly performed. actually committing or is at least attempting to commit an offense, (2) in the presence
of the arresting officer. No offense was involved in looking from side to side and
RULING: Yes. The gun SPOI Liberato arrived when accused Alolod and victim Romeo de holding the abdomen.
Vera were still wrestling with each other. As the officer approached them Alolod was
actually committing a crime in the presence of the police officer had personal
knowledge of the facts indicating that Alolod had committed the crime. in this case, CASE 417
the warrantless arrest being legal, any evidence gathered as a result thereof cannot be ARTICLE III, SECTION 2: Warrantless Arrests; In flagrante delicto
considered "fruit of a poisonous tree"; consequently, it is admissible. People v. Elamparo (329 SCRA 404)

MAIN POINT: A peace officer may effect a warrantless arrest when in his presence the FACTS: Joel Elamparo has been convicted with Illegal Possession of Drugs. The case
person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to was raised for automatic review. Police Officer Baldonado of Caloocan City Police
commit an offense or, an offense has just in fact been committed, and he has received a report from an informant that "some people are selling shabu and
reasonable knowledge of the facts indicating that the person to be arrested has marijuana somewhere in Bagong Bario, Caloocan City." Thus, Baldonado organized a
committed it. buy-bust team and deployed at a known "market" for buyers of marijuana. Thereafter,
a runner approached the poseur-buyer to confirm an order. The runner then left and
CASE 416 returned with the marijuana. Gaviola, the poseur-buyer and buy-bust team member
ARTICLE III, SECTION 2: Warrantless Arrests; In flagrante delicto then handed over the marked money and arrested the runner who freed himself and
People v. Mengote (210 SCRA 174) ran. The buy-bust team pursued the runner, who ran inside a bungalow-type house
with steel gate. Having trapped the runner inside the house, the police officers frisked
FACTS: The Western Police District received a call from an informer that there were him and recovered the marked money. The police officers likewise found Joel
three suspicious looking persons at the corner of Juan Luna and North Bay Boulevard in Elamparo repacking five bricks of "marijuana" wrapped in a newspaper on top of the
Tondo, Manila. A surveillance team of plainclothesmen was forthwith dispatched to round table inside the house. Elamparo was then arrested.
the place. The patrolmen saw two men looking from side to side, one of whom holding
his abdomen. They approached the persons and identified themselves as policemen, ISSUE: Is the warrantless arrest valid?
whereupon the two tried to run but unable to escape because the other lawmen
surrounded them. The suspects were then searched. One of them the accused- RULING: Yes. Five generally accepted exceptions to the right against warrantless
appellant was found with a .38 caliber with live ammunitions in it, while his companion searches and seizures have been judicially formulated: (1) search incidental to a lawful
had a fan knife. The weapons were taken from them and they were turned over to the arrest, (2) search of moving vehicles, (3) seizure in plain view, (4) customs searches,
police headquarters for investigation. Information was filed before the RTC convicting and (5) waiver by the accused themselves of their right against unreasonable search
the accused of illegal possession of firearm arm. A witness testified that the weapon and seizure. Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the
was among the articles stolen at his shop, which he reported to the police including position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and
the revolver. For his part, Mengote made no effort to prove that he owned the fire arm may be introduced in evidence. The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following
or that he was licensed to possess it but instead, he claimed that the weapon was requisites concur (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior
planted on him at the time of his arrest. He was convicted for violation of PD.1866. In justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area;
his appeal he pleads that the weapon was not admissible as evidence against him (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately
because it had been illegally seized and therefore the fruit of a poisonous tree. apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime,
contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement officer must lawfully