Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1 views

    G.R. No. L-35131 - People vs. Aquino

    Uploaded by

    Mira Le
    Case Digest on G.R. No. L-35131_People vs. Aquino

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    G.R. No. L-35131 - People vs. Aquino

    Uploaded by

    Mira Le
    1 views2 pages
    Case Digest on G.R. No. L-35131_People vs. Aquino

    Original Title

    G.R. No. L-35131_People vs. Aquino

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Case Digest on G.R. No. L-35131_People vs. Aquino

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1 views2 pages

    G.R. No. L-35131 - People vs. Aquino

    Uploaded by

    Mira Le
    Case Digest on G.R. No. L-35131_People vs. Aquino

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    L-35131 November 29, 1972


    THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION and DR. LEONCE VERSTUYFT, petitioners,
    vs.
    HON. BENJAMIN H. AQUINO, as Presiding Judge of Branch VIII, Court of First Instance of
    Rizal, MAJOR WILFREDO CRUZ, MAJOR ANTONIO G. RELLEVE, and CAPTAIN PEDRO S.
    NAVARRO of the Constabulary Offshore Action Center (COSAC), respondents.

    Facts:
     Petitioners: World Health Organization (WHO) and Dr. Leonce Verstuyft.
     Respondents: Hon. Benjamin H. Aquino, Presiding Judge of Branch VIII, Court of First Instance
    of Rizal, and COSAC officers Major Wilfredo Cruz, Major Antonio G. Relleve, and Captain
    Pedro S. Navarro.
     Origin: COSAC officers applied for and obtained a search warrant from Judge Aquino to search
    and seize Dr. Verstuyft's personal effects, despite his diplomatic immunity.
     Search Warrant: Issued on March 3, 1972, for alleged violations of Republic Act 4712,
    amending section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code.
     Items Seized: Twelve crates of Dr. Verstuyft's personal effects, which arrived in the Philippines
    on January 10, 1972, as unaccompanied baggage and were stored in Mandaluyong, Rizal.
     Diplomatic Immunity: Recognized by the executive branch of the Philippine Government,
    leading to protests from WHO and the Department of Foreign Affairs.
     Supreme Court Involvement: The case was brought to the Supreme Court to set aside the
    search warrant and prohibit further proceedings.

    Issue:
     Issue 1: Did the respondent judge err in refusing to quash the search warrant issued against Dr.
    Verstuyft, who was entitled to diplomatic immunity?
     Issue 2: Was the issuance of the search warrant a violation of the diplomatic immunity accorded
    to Dr. Verstuyft under international law and the Host Agreement?

    Ruling:
     Certiorari and Prohibition: The Supreme Court granted the writs of certiorari and prohibition.
     Invalidation: Declared the search warrant null and void.
     Restraint: Made the temporary restraining order against the execution or enforcement of the
    search warrant permanent.
     Cease Proceedings: Commanded the respondent court to desist from further proceedings in the
    matter.

    Ratio:
     Recognition of Diplomatic Immunity: The executive branch, through the Department of
    Foreign Affairs and the Solicitor General, affirmed Dr. Verstuyft's diplomatic immunity under the
    Host Agreement between the Philippine Government and WHO.
     Exemption from Local Jurisdiction: Dr. Verstuyft's personal effects were exempt from local
    jurisdiction, including customs duties and taxes.
     Political Question: Diplomatic immunity is a political question, and courts should defer to the
    executive branch's determination.
     Proper Procedure: Any alleged abuse of diplomatic immunity should be addressed through
    consultations between the Host State and the United Nations agency concerned, as outlined in the
    Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations.
     Unjustified Actions: The respondent judge's reliance on the suspicion of COSAC officers, rather
    than the categorical assurance of the Solicitor General, was deemed unjustified.
     Lack of Coordination: The Court expressed concern about the lack of coordination between
    various government departments, which led to the issuance of the search warrant despite the
    authoritative determination of diplomatic immunity by the Secretaries of Foreign Affairs and
    Finance.
     Adherence to International Law: Emphasized the importance of adhering to international law
    and treaty commitments and the need for proper implementation of executive determinations to
    avoid embarrassing the government in conducting foreign relations.

    You might also like