Several Case Digests

8/9/2019 Several Case Digests

1/88

78. People v MusaFacts: A civilian informer gave the information that Mari Musa wasengaged in selling marijuana in Suterville, Zamboanga City. Sgt. Aniwas ordered by NARCM leader !"Sgt. #elarga, to conduct asurveillance and test buy on Musa. !he civilian informer guided Ani to

Musa$s house and gave the descri%tion of Musa. Ani was able to buyone news%a%er&wra%%ed dried marijuana for '().)).

!he ne*t day, a buy&bust was %lanned. Ani was to raise his right hand ifhe successfully buys marijuana from Musa. As Ani %roceeded to thehouse, the NARCM team %ositioned themselves about +) to ())meters away. rom his %osition, #elarga could see what was going on.Musa came out of the house and as-ed Ani what he wanted. Ani saidhe wanted more marijuana and gave Musa the ').)) mar-ed money.Musa went into the house and came bac-, giving Ani two news%a%erwra%%ers containing dried marijuana. Ani o%ened and ins%ected it. /e

raised his right hand as a signal to the other NARCM agents, and thelatter moved in and arrested Musa inside the house. #elarga fris-edMusa in the living room but did not 0nd the mar-ed money 1gave it tohis wife who sli%%ed away2. !"Sgt. #elarga and Sgt. 3ego went to the-itchen and found a 4cello%hane colored white and stri%e hanging atthe corner of the -itchen.$ !hey as-ed Musa about its contents butfailed to get a res%onse. So they o%ened it and found dried marijuanaleaves inside. Musa was then %laced under arrest.

Issue: 5hether or Not the sei6ure of the %lastic bag and the marijuana

inside it is unreasonable, hence, inadmissible as evidence.

Held:7es. 8t constituted unreasonable search and sei6ure thus it maynot be admitted as evidence. !he warrantless search and sei6ure, asan incident to a sus%ect$s lawful arrest, may e*tend beyond the %ersonof the one arrested to include the %remises or surroundings under hisimmediate control. bjects in the 4%lain view$ of an o9cer who has theright to be in the %osition to have that view are subject to sei6ure andmay be %resented as evidence. !he 4%lain view$ doctrine is usuallya%%lied where a %olice o9cer is not searching for evidence against the

accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminatingobject. 8t will not justify the sei6ure of the object where theincriminating nature of the object is not a%%arent from the 4%lain view$of the object.

8n the case at bar, the %lastic bag was not in the 4%lain view$ of the%olice. !hey arrested the accused in the living room and moved intothe -itchen in search for other evidences where they found the %lastic


2/88

bag. urthermore, the marijuana inside the %lastic bag was notimmediately a%%arent from the 4%lain view$ of said object.

!herefore, the 4%lain view$ does not a%%ly. !he %lastic bag was sei6edillegally and cannot be %resented in evidence %ursuant to Article 888

Section : 12 of the Constitution.80. PACIS V PAMARANFACTS:

Res%ondent Ricardo Santos is the owner of a Mercury automobile,model (+;ames /atch, wasta*&e*em%t. Santos later on %aid ':((.)) for customs duty and ta*es.

n >uly , (+?@, Acting Collector of Customs 'edro 'acis was informed

by the eneral ABairs Administration of the =e%artment of National=efense that the automobile was a hot car.D #y virtue thereof, 'acis,through his subordinates, loo-ed into the records of his o9ce andfound that although the amount of ':((.)) was already %aid forcustoms duty, the amount collectible on the said car should be',;)).)), more or less.

#ased on such discre%ancy, he instituted sei6ure %roceedings andissued a warrant of sei6ure and detention. !he automobile was alsota-en by the =e%artment of National =efense agents and brought tothe eneral ABairs Administration for com%ound.

8n answer, Santos 0led a criminal com%laint against 'acis forusur%ation of judicial functions with the City iscal of Manila, Manuel'amaran, alleging that 'acis did not have authority to issue suchwarrant of sei6ure and detention.

ISSUE:

E 5"N %etitioner, in the discharge of his o9cial function, lay himself o%ento a criminal %rosecution for usur%ation of judicial functions

HE!:

8t is undeniable that %etitioner, as Acting Collector of Customs for the'ort of Manila, had the reFuisite authority for the issuance of thecontested warrant of sei6ure and detention for the automobile ownedby res%ondent Ricardo Santos. 5hat was done by him certainly couldnot be the basis of a %rosecution for the usur%ation of judicialfunctions. !he remedy of %rohibition lies.


3/88

8". IN RE: MI#UE M$RAES

AC!SGE!he 9ce of the Court Administrator 1CA2 received an unsigned, undated letter

of com%laint regarding Atty. Miguel Morales of the 9ce of the Cler- of Court 1CC2.!he letter alleged that Atty. Morales was consuming his wor- hours 0ling andattending to %ersonal cases, and was using o9ce su%%lies, eFui%ment and utilities.E=e%uty Court Administrator 1=CA2 Reuben =ela Cru6 conducted a s%otinvestigation and gained access to Morales$ %ersonal com%uter. 'leadings to two ofAtty. Morales$ %ersonal cases were found among the com%uter 0les. !he com%uterwas sei6ed and ta-en to the custody of the CA.EMorales 0led a motion for the release of his com%uter. !he Court granted his motionbut ordered that the 0les be retrieved 0rst.EMorales 0led a letter&com%laint addressed to then C> =avide against =CA =ela Cru6for alleged cons%iracy and cul%able violation of the Consti. Morales asserted that

the raidD conducted by =CA =ela Cru6 without search and sei6ure orders violatedhis right to %rivacy and the articles sei6ed should therefore be consideredinadmissible.

8SSHIG(.Are the %leadings found in Atty. Morales$ %ersonal com%uteradmissible in theadministrative case against himJ

RH38NG =8SM8SSI= for insu9ciency of evidence( . N o

EArticle 888 Section of the Constitution enshrines the inviolable right ofthe %eo%le to be secure in their %ersons and %ro%erties against unreasonablesearches and sei6ures. Additionally, Article 888 Section :12 bars the admission ofevidence obtained in violation of such right. Any violation of this right renders theevidence obtained inadmissible for any %ur%ose in any %roceeding.Ene of the e*ce%tions to the rule is consented warrantless search. =CA =ela Cru6claims that they were able to obtain the %leadings with Atty. Morales$ consent.E/owever, the Court 0nds his assertion insu9cient to ma-e the %resent case fallunder the e*ce%tion. Consent to a search must be uneFuivocal, s%eci0c, intelligentlygiven and uncontaminated by any duress or coercion. 8t must be shown by clear andconvincing evidence.

E!o constitute a valid consent, it must be shown thatG 1(2 the right e*ists, 12 that the%ersons involved had the -nowledge, either actual or constructive, of the e*istenceof the right, and 1:2 that the %erson had actual intention to relinFuish the right.E8n this case, it was not shown that Atty. Morales had an actual intention to relinFuishhis right. /e may have agreed to o%ening his com%uter and %rinting the 0les duringthe s%ot investigation, but he immediately 0led an administrative case against the=CA and his team, s%eci0cally invo-ing his right against unreasonable searches andsei6ures.


4/88

8%. PE$PE V. MEN#$TE & '(0 SCRA (7)

FACTS:

8nformation was given about three sus%icious loo-ing %ersons. Asurveillance team was then de%loyed. H%on seeing that themen were loo-ing side&by&side and one holding his abdomen,the %olicemen a%%roached the grou% and the latter tried to run away.!he sus%ects were then searched wherein a handgun and fan -nife wassei6ed. 8t was found later on that the handgun was %art of those stolenfrom a house wherein a robbery was staged.

HE!:

A %erson may not be sto%%ed and fris-ed in broad daylight on a busystreet on mere une*%lained sus%icion.

*0. +a,al-o, v Fe/ade1

Facts:n March (< (+K+, Re%. Mosises Is%inosa was shot to death shortly afterdisembar-ing at the Masbate Air%ort. !hat according to witnesses account one of thegunmen Led on a motorcycle. n the same day, the %etitioner$s house, which wasnear in the air%ort was searched with his consent to see if the -illers had soughtrefuge there but the said search was fruitless.

!wo days later, Ca%t. >ulito Ro*as and his men from the 'hili%%ine Constabulary sei6ed the%etitioner$s motorcycle andtoo- it to the 'C headFuarters in Masbate. !hey had no search warrant. !hemotorcycle was im%ounded on the sus%icion that it was one of the vehiclesused by the -illers.

After the investigation, the %etitioner and several others were chargedwith multi%le murder and frustrated murder for the -illing of Re%. Is%inosa and threeof his bodyguard and the wounding ofanother %erson. n >une ( (+K+ the %etitioner 0led a com%laint against Ca%t. Ro*asfor the recovery of the motorcycle with the a%%lication of writ of re%levin %lus

damages with the amount of ';;,))).)) doc-etedas a Civil Case at the #ranch @K of Masbate R!C. !he %etitioner also 0led onNovember () (+K+ an urgentmanifestation for the de%osit of the motorcycle with Cler- of Court of the R!C ofMasbate, on the ground that the 'C soldiers were using the vehicle without authority.!he motion was granted by >udge Ricardo #utalid on November () (+K+.

#ut >udge #utalid later inhibited and the case was transferred to #ranch @; of >udge


5/88

il ernande6. n ctober ( (++) >udge ernande6 dismissed the Civil Case in %artas followsG!hat the Fuestion to be resolved is whether Re%levin is %ro%er to recover the%ossession of the subject motorcycle which is in the %ossession of the Cler- of Courtof Masbate to be used as evidence.

!he court o%ined the same court has no jurisdiction to release evidence im%oundedor surrendered to the 'C tas- force handling the case of Re%. Is%inosa. urther, thecourt said that G'ro%erty sei6ed in enforcing criminal laws is in the custody of the law and can not bere%levied until such custody is ended.ranting as claimed by the %laintiB that said motorcycle was illegally sei6ed he canraised the issue when %resented during the trial. And the %ro%er court torelease , the motorcycle in Fuestionis the %residing >udge of Ma-ati R!C #ranch ;?, wherefore dismissing the %etition forlac- of jurisdiction.

/eldG!he reconsideration having been denied , the %etitioner now as-s to reverse the saidorderG!he %laintiB contention that the motorcycle was invalidly sei6ed and therefore hehas a right to its returnthe %ro%er remedy for this %ur%ose is his com%laint for recovery and the issuance ofwrit of re%levin as authori6ed by the Rules of Court. 8n refusing to grant him relief anddismissing the case instead on the ground of lac- of jurisdiction the res%ondent courtcommitted reversible error that the %laintiB %rays that the Su%reme Court will correct.

!he %rivate res%ondent in, his comment admitted the absence of a search warrantwhen the motorcycle wassei6ed but stresses that the crime %er%etrated is a heinous oBense and Is%inosa wasa man of conseFuences. !he motorcycle in Fuestion is an e*tremely mobile vehicleand can be easily dismantled or hidden, and the uniFue situation e*isting at thattime reFuired him to %lace it in the custody of the 'C&C8S !as- orce Is%inosa without0rst securing a search warrant. 8n doing so, he merely com%lied with the orders ofhis su%erior to %reserve the vehicle for use as evidence in the criminal cases.!he court agreed with Ca%t. Ro*as concern for the a%%rehension of the -illers butcan not agree with his methods. 5hile recogni6ing the need for the %unishment ofthe crime the court reminded that in our system of criminal justice the end does not

justify the means. or his strong conviction about the guilt of the%etitioner, the %rivate res%ondent must still abide by the Constitution andobserve the reFuirements of the #ill of RightsArt. 888 Sec .!he mere fact that the %rivate res%ondent$s view the crime involved is heinous andthe victim was a man of conseFuences did not authori6e disregard of theconstitutional guaranty the %rovision %rotects not only the innocent but also those


6/88

who a%%ear to be guilty but nevertheless %resumed innocent until contrary is%roved.Neither did su%erior ordersD condone the omission for they could not in any case besu%erior to the constitution. !hat the necessity for the immediate sei6ure of themotorcycle without %rior obtention of a warrant has not been established

the mere mobility of the motorcycle did not ma-e the search warrant redundantfor it is not denied that the vehicle remained with the %etitioner until itwas forcibly ta-en from him. !he fear that it would be dismantled or hiddenwas mere s%eculation that was not borne out by the facts.!he warrantless sei6ure of the motorcycle was unFuestionably violative of theright to be left alone by the authorities as guaranteed by the Constitution.!he vehicle cannot even be detained on the ground that it is a %rohibited article themere %ossession of which is unlawful.8n dismissing the case, the res%ondent judge said he had no jurisdiction over themotorcycle because it was a custodia legis 1in the custody of the law2andonly the judge trying the criminal case against the %etitioner and his co& accused

could order its release . /e cited the general doctrine thatG'ro%erty sei6ed in enforcing criminal laws is in the custody of the law and cannot bere%levied, until such custody is ended.!he court o%ined, the rule that %ro%erty held as evidence in criminal case cannot bere%levied a%%lies only where the %ro%erty is lawfully held that is sei6ed in accordancewith the rule against warrantless searches and sei6ures or its acce%ted e*ce%tions5hen is a thing in custodia legis & A thing is in custodia legis when it is shown that it has been and subjected to theo9cial custody of the judiciale*ecutive o9cer in %ursuance of his e*ecution of a legal writ.Dnly when %ro%erty is lawful ta-en by virtue of legal %rocess is it considered in the

custody of the law and not otherwise.Any evidence obtained in violation of the rule againstunreasonablesearches and sei6ures shall be inadmissible for any %ur%ose in any %roceeding. !hevehicle in the case at bar 8s not admissible as an e*hibit even if oBered as suchbecause it is the fruit of the %oisonous tree.D!he court also said that the action to recover the motorcycle in the R!C of Masbatewill not constitute interference with the %rocess of the R!C of Ma-ati and that thecom%laint should not have been dismissed by the res%ondent judge.!he order of the res%ondent judge was set aside and the case was reinstated forfurther %roceedings.

*(. Al- v Cast/o

actsGRes%ondents who were members of the 'hili%%ine marine and defenseforces raided the com%ound occu%ied by %etitioner in search of loose0rearms, ammunitions and e*%losives. A shoot&out ensued after%etitioners resisted the intrusion by the res%ondents, -illing a numberof men. !he following morning, the %etitioners were arrested and


7/88

subjected to 0nger %rinting, %ara9n testing and %hotogra%hingdes%ite their objection. Several -inds of riLe, grenades andammunitions were also con0scated.

!he %etitioners 0led an injunction suit with a %rayer to have the items

illegally sei6ed returned to them and invo-ed the %rovisions on the #illof Rights.

!he res%ondents admitted that the o%eration was done without awarrant but reasoned that they were acting under su%erior orders andthat o%eration was necessary because of the aggravation of the %eaceand order %roblem due to the assassination of the city mayor.

8ssueG5hether or not the sei6ing of the items and the ta-ing of the0nger%rints and %hotogra%hs of the %etitioners and subjecting them to

%ara9n testing are violative of the bill of Rights and are inadmissibleas evidence against them.

/eldG!he court held that su%erior orders nor the sus%icion that theres%ondents had against %etitioners did not e*cuse the former fromobserving the guaranty %rovided for by the constitution againstunreasonable searches and sei6ure. !he %etitioners were entitled todue %rocess and should be %rotected from the arbitrary actions ofthose tas-ed to e*ecute the law. urthermore, there was no showingthat the o%eration was urgent nor was there any showing of the

%etitioners as criminals or fugitives of justice to merit a%%roval byvirtue of Rule ((:, Section ; of the Rules of Court.

!he items sei6ed, having been the fruits of the %oisonous treeD wereheld inadmissible as evidence in any %roceedings against the%etitioners. !he o%eration by the res%ondents was done without awarrant and so the items sei6ed during said o%eration should not beac-nowledged in court as evidence. #ut said evidence should remain inthe custody of the law 1custodia egis2.

/owever, as to the issue on 0nger&%rinting, %hotogra%hing and

%ara9n&testing as violative of the %rovision against self&incrimination,the court held that the %rohibition against self&incrimination a%%lies totestimonial com%ulsion only. As >ustice /olmes %ut it in /olt v. HnitedStates, (K !he %rohibition of com%elling a man in a criminal court tobe a witness against himself is a %rohibition of the use of %hysical ormoral com%ulsion to e*tort communications from him, not an e*clusionof his body as evidence when it may be material.D


8/88

*'. #a23oa vs CaactsGormer 'resident loria Maca%agal Arroyo issued Admin No.


9/88

Commission and the'N', the latter collected information on individuals sus%ected of maintaining 'As,monitored them andcounteracted their activities. ne of those individuals is herein%etitioner amboa.

!his court holds that amboa was able to su9ciently establish that thedata contained in there%ort listing her as a 'A coddler came from the 'N' contrary to the ruling of thetrial court, however,the forwarding of information by the 'N' to the Commission was not unlawful actthat violated orthreatened her right to %rivacy in life, liberty or security. !he 'N' wasrationally e*%ected to forwardand share intelligence regarding 'As with the body s%eci0callycreated for the %ur%ose of investigatingthe e*istence of these notorious grou%. Moreover, the Commission was e*%licitly

authori6ed to de%uti6ethe %olice force in the ful0llment of the former$s mandate, and thus had the %ower toreFuest assistancefrom the latter.Pet-t-o 5o/ 4/-t o5 a3eas data -s N$T PR$PER

*". PE$PES $URNA et. al. vs. FRANCIS TH$ENEN.R. No. (@::


10/88

by Atty. Angara is %rivileged communication, it lost its character whenthe matter was %ublished in the news%a%er and circulated among thegeneral %o%ulation, es%ecially since the individual alleged to bedefamed is neither a %ublic o9cial nor a %ublic 0gure.Moreover, the news item contained falsehoods on two levels. irst, the

# /omes residents did not asfor the de%ortation of !hoenen, moreso because the letter of the Atty. Anagara was a mere reFuest forveri0cation of !hoenen$s status as a foreign resident. !he article is alsountrue because the events she re%orted never ha%%ened. 5orse, themain source of information, Atty. Ifren Angara, a%%arently either doesnot e*ist, or is not a lawyer.!here is no constitutional value in false statements of fact. Neither theintentional lie nor the careless error materially advances society$sinterest in 4uninhibited, robust, and wide&o%en$ debate. Calculatedfalsehood falls into that class of utterances which are no essential %artof any e*%osition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a ste%

to truth that any bene0t that may be derived from them is clearlyoutweighed by the social interest in order and moralityP !he-nowingly false statement and the false statement made with rec-lessdisregard of the truth, do not enjoy constitutional %rotectionD

*). +uat-s vs. PeopleFacts:!he wife of %rivate&com%lainant Atty. >ose >. 'iera6 1Atty. 'iera62,retrieved al e t t e r f r om t he i r m a i l bo* a ddr e sse d t o he r husba nd .

! h e l e t t e r w a s o %e n , n o tcontained in an envelo%e. Not %ersonally -nowing who the sender was,Atty. 'iera6,nevertheless, res%onded and sent a communication by registered mailto said #uatis,> r . , a c c u s e d & a % % e l l a n t . R e a c t i n g t o t h e i n s u l t i n gw o r d s u s e d b y # u a t i s , > r . ,%articularlyG QSatan, senile, stu%id, english carabao,Q Atty.'iera6 0led a com%laintf o r l i be l a ga i ns t a ccuse d &a %%e l l a n t . Sub j e c t l e t t e r a ndi t s con t e n t s ca m e t o t he

-nowledge not only of his wife but of his children as well.!he defense forwarded by accused&a%%ellant #uatis, >r. was denial.Accordingt o h i m , i t w a s a t t he be he s t o f t he % r e s i de n t o f t heo r ga n i 6 a t i on QNagkakaisangSamahan Ng Mga Taga ManggahanQ or


11/88

NASATAMA, and o f a member , !e res i tauingco, that he had dictated to one of his secretaries, acomment to the letter of% r i v a t e & com % l a i na n t . 8 n i t i a l l y du r i ng h i s t e s t i m ony ,

#ua t i s , > r . c ou l d no t r e ca l lw he t he r he ha d s i g ne d t ha t l e t t e r & com m e nt o r i f i tw a s e v e n a ddr e sse d t o A t t y.'iera6. Neither could he remember if he had made and sent anotherletter,to Atty. 'iera6.C o n f r o n t ed i n c o u r t w i t h t h e co u n t e r& a 9 d a v i t w h i chh e 0 l e d b e f o re t h e'rosecutor$s 9 ce, however, #uatis, >r. could not deny itscontents, among whichwas his admission that indeed, he had sent subject letter to Atty.

'iera6.Issue:5hether or not %etitioner is guilty of the crime of libel.Held:Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code denes libel as a pblic andmaliciosimptation of a crime! or of a vice or defect! real or imaginar"! or an"act! omission!c ond i t i on ! s t a t s ! o r c i r c m st anc e t e nd i ng t o c aset he d i shono r ! d i s c r e d i t ! o rcontempt of a natral or #ridical person! or to blacken the

memor" of one $ho isdead%or an im%utation to be libelous, the following reFuisites must concurG1a2 it must bedefamatory 1b2 it must be malicious 1c2 it must be given%ublicity and 1d2 thevictim must be identi0able.! h e l a s t t w o e l e m e nt s ha ve b e e n du l y e s t a b l i s h e d byt he % r ose cu t i on . !he r e i s%ublication in this case. 'etitioner$s subject letter&re%ly itselfstates that the same

w a s co%y fu r n i she d t o a l l c once r ne d . A w r i t t e n l e t t e rcon t a i n i ng l i be l ous m a t t e rc a n n o t b e c l a s s i 0 e d a s % r i v i l e g e d w h e n i t i s%ub l i she d a nd c i r cu l a t e d a m ong t he%ub l i c . 8 n t h i s ca se , %e t i t i one r a dm i t t e d t ha t hed i c t a t e d t he l e t t e r t o one o f he rse c r e t a r i e s w ho t y %e d t he sa m e a nd m a de a % r i n t ou to f t he com % ut e r. 5h i l e


12/88

%etitioner addressed the re%ly&letter to res%ondent, the sameletter showed that itwas co%y furnished to all concerned. /is lac- of selectivity is indicativeof malice andis anathema to his claim of %rivileged communication. Such %ublication

had alreadycreated u%on the minds of the readers a circumstance whichbrought discredit andshame to res%ondent$s re%utation.S C a 9 r m e d th e d e c i s i on o f t h e C A , re n d e r i n g t hea ccuse d > o se A l e m a n i a#uatis, >r. H83!7 of the crime of 38#I3.

*%. #MA NET9$R; INC. R+P+R$A!CASTIN# S?STEM; INC.@ ad RE? VI!A v. ESUS #.

+UST$S; et al..R. No. (@?K@K, (< ctober ))?, arcia, >. 1Second =ivision2

!he enumeration under Article :;@ of the Revised 'enal Code is not ane*clusive list of conditionally %rivileged communications as theconstitutional guarantee of freedom of s%eech and of the %ress hase*%anded the %rivilege to include fair commentaries on matters of%ublic interest. Although every defamatory im%utation is %resumed tobe malicious, the %resum%tion does not e*ist in matters considered%rivileged. !he %rivilege destroys the %resum%tion.

8n ebruary (+KK, a certain Abello and over )) other unsuccessfule*aminees in the August (+K< %hysicians$ licensure e*aminations, 0leda 'etition for Mandamus before the Regional !rial Court of Manila tocom%el the 'rofessional Regulatory Commission 1'RC2 and the board ofmedical e*aminers to re&chec- and reevaluate the test %a%ers. !heyalleged that mista-es in the counting of the total scores and erroneouschec-ing of answers to test Fuestions vitiated the results of thee*aminations. Rey idal, a news writer and re%orter of MA Networ-,8nc., covered the 0ling of the said %etition. After securing a co%y of the%etition, he drafted and narrated the news re%ort for the ten o$cloc-evening news edition of MA$s Channel < /eadline News.

>esus . #ustos, et al., former chairman and members of the #oard ofMedicine of the 'RC which conducted the e*aminations, 0led a damagesuit against idal and MA Networ-, claiming, inter alia, that the latter,in rec-less disregard for the truth, defamed them by word of mouthand simultaneous visual %resentation on MA$s Channel < of anunrelated and old footage showing %hysicians wearing blac- armbands.According to them, idal and MA Networ- made use of the said


13/88

footage to ma-e it a%%ear that other doctors were su%%orting andsym%athi6ing with the com%laining unsuccessful e*aminees, when thesame actually related to a (+K demonstration staged by doctors and%ersonnel of the 'hili%%ine eneral /os%ital 1'/2 regarding wage andeconomic dis%ute with hos%ital management.

!he trial court dismissed the com%laint for damages, holding that thenews re%ort was %rivileged, being but a narration of the allegationscontained in and the circumstances attending the 0ling of the 'etitionfor Mandamus. !his was reversed by the Court of A%%eals which, whileregarding the te*t of the news re%ort as a Fuali0edly %rivilegedcommunication, nevertheless held that the insertion of the unrelated(+K '/ %ic-et 0lm footage, without the words 0le video,D wasevidence of malice.

8SSHISG

(.2 5hether or not the televised news re%ort on the 0ling of the 'etitionfor Mandamus is libelous

.2 5hether or not the insertion of the old 0lm footage de%icting thedoctors and %ersonnel of the '/ in their (+K demonstrationsconstitutes malice to warrant the award of damages

/I3=G

!he news re%ort is Fuali0edly %rivileged communication, being a fair

and true re%ort without any comment or remar-s.D

!he %etition is RAN!I=.

RICIN! >HR8S'RH=INCI '38!8CA3 3A5

'rivileged matters may be absolute or Fuali0ed. Absolutely %rivilegedmatters are not actionable regardless of the e*istence of malice in fact.!he mala or bona 0des of the author is of no moment as the occasion%rovides an absolute bar to the action. 8n Fuali0edly or conditionally%rivileged communications, the freedom from liability for an otherwise

defamatory utterance is conditioned on the absence of e*%ress maliceor malice in fact. !o this -ind belongs %rivate communicationsD andfair and true re%ort without any comment or remar-sD falling underand described as e*ce%tions in Article :;@ of the Revised 'enal Code1R'C2. !he enumeration under this %rovision is not an e*clusive list ofconditionally %rivileged communications as the constitutionalguarantee of freedom of s%eech and of the %ress has e*%anded the%rivilege to include fair commentaries on matters of %ublic interest.


14/88

!he news telecast in Fuestion is a Fuali0edly %rivileged matter, thesame being only a narration of the contents of the 'etition forMandamus, devoid of any comment or remar-. 5hat idal and MANetwor- did was sim%ly to inform the %ublic of the said %etition 0ledagainst the then #oard of Medicine. 8t was clearly within idal$s job to

-ee% the %ublic abreast of recent develo%ments in governmentinstitutions, which he was assigned to cover.

!he insertion of the (+K video footage is not malicious.

Contrary to the 0ndings of the Court of A%%eals, the identifyingcharacter&generated words 0le videoD a%%eared to have beensu%erim%osed on screen, %ur%osely to %revent misre%resentation so asnot to confuse the viewing %ublic. At any rate, the absence of the saidaccom%anying words would not change the legal situation insofar asthe %rivileged nature of the news re%ort is concerned. !he video

footage, standing without accom%anying sounds or voices, wasmeaningless, or, at least, conveyed nothing derogatory in nature. Ivenassuming arguendo that the 0lm footage contained demeaningfeatures, the showing thereof was actually accom%anied orsimultaneously voiced over by the narration of the news re%ort liftedfrom the 0ling of the mandamus %etition. !here was nothing in thenews re%ort to indicate an intent to utili6e such old footages to createanother news story beyond what was re%orted.

!he subject news re%ort was clearly a fair and true re%ort. !hus, idaland MA Networ- are entitled to the %rotection and immunity of the

rule on %rivileged matters under Art. :;@, %ar. of the R'C, and cannot be held liable for damages. !heir failure, %erha%s even theirindis%osition, to obtain and telecast the side of the former #oard ofMedicine, is not an indicia of malice. or, although every defamatoryim%utation is %resumed to be malicious, the %resum%tion does note*ist in matters considered %rivileged. !he %rivilege destroys the%resum%tion.

*B. Ne4souds +/oadcast-, Net4o/=; Ic. v !6

Facts:

'etitioners o%erate and run #ombo Radyo =ZNC Cauayan 1=ZNC2, anAM radio broadcast station, and Star M =58! Cauayan, an M radiobroadcast station, in Cauayan Citry, 8sabela. #ac- in (++?, Newsoundscommenced relocation of its broadcasting station, management o9ce,and transmitters on %ro%ery located in Minante , Cauayan City,8sabela.n >uly (++?, the /ousing T 3and Hse Regulatory #oard


15/88

1/3HR#2 and 9ce of the Munici%al 'lanning and =evelo%mentCoordinator 1M'=C2 a9rmed and certi0ed that the commercialstructure to be constructed conformed to local 6oning regulations,noting as well that the location is classi0ed as a commercial areaD.!he radio station was able to fully o%erate smoothly thereafter.8n ))

however, when %etitioners a%%lied for a renewal of mayor$s %ermit,City Zoning Administratior&=esignate #agnos Ma*imo refused to issue6oning clearance on the grounds that %etitioners were not able tosubmit conversion %a%ers showing that the agricultural land wasconverted to commercial land. 'etitioners as-ed the court to com%elthe issuance of mayor$s %ermit but the court denied the action. 8n themeantime, the =e%artment of Agrarian Reform 1=AR2 Region 88 o9ceissued to %etitioners a formal recognition of conversion of the %ro%ertyfrom agricultural to commercial.8n )):, %etitioners again 0led theira%%lication for renewal of mayor$s %ermit, attaching the =AR rder.Res%ondent elicisimo Meer, acting City Administrator of Cauayan City

denied the same, claiming that it was void on the grounds that they didnot have record of the =AR rder.!he deadline la%sed on ebuary (;,))@, and res%ondents Meer and Racma ernande6&arcia, City 3egal9cer of Cauayan City, closed the radio station. =ue to the %rvosion ofmnibus Ilection Code which %rohibits the closure of radio stationduring the %endency of election %eriod, CMI3IC issued an orderallowing the %etitioners to o%erate before ebuary (une (), ))@ after elections.'etitioners 0led the caseto the R!C and CA for the issuance of mayor$s %ermit but both courts

denied the %etition.A munici%al or city mayor is li-ewise authori6edunder the 3C to issue licenses and %ermits, and sus%end or revo-ethe same for any violation of the conditions u%on which said licenses or%ermits had been issued, %ursuant to law or ordinance. 8n case ofCauayan City, the authority to reFuire a mayor$s %ermit was enactedthrough rdinance No. +&))@, enacted in (++:. /owever, nothing inthe ordinance reFuires an a%%lication for a mayor$s %ermit to submiteither an a%%roved land conversion %a%ers from =AR, showing that its%ro%erty was converted from %rime agricultural land or an a%%rovedresolution from the Sangguniang #ayan or Sangguniang 'anglungsodauthori6ing the reclassi0cation of %ro%erty from agricultural to

commercial land.8n (++?, the /3HR# issued a 6oning decision thatclassi0ed the %ro%erty as commercial. 'etitioners are also armed withseveral certi0cations stating that the %ro%erty is indeed a commercialarea. Also, %etitioners %aid real %ro%erty ta*es based on theclassi0cation of %ro%erty as commercial without objections raised bythe res%ondents.'etitioners argued that this consistent recognition bythe local government of Cauayan of the commercial character of the%ro%erty constitutes esto%%els against res%ondents from denying the


16/88

fact before the courts. !he lower courts had ruled that thegovernment of Cauayan City is not bound by esto%%els, but %etitionersclassi0ed that this conce%t is understood to only refer to acts andmista-es of its o9cial es%ecially to those which are irregular.Issue:5hether the lower court is correct in contending that the government

of Cauayan City is not bound by esto%%els on the grounds that thestate is immune against suits.Held:No.5hile it is true that the statecannot be %ut in esto%%els by mista-e or error of its o9cials or agents,there is an e*ce%tion.Isto%%els against the %ublic are little favored.!hey should not be invo-ed e*ce%t in rare and unusual circumstances,and may not be invo-ed where they would o%erate to defeat theeBective o%eration of a %olicy ado%ted to %rotect the %ublic. !hey mustbe a%%lied with circums%ection and should be a%%lied only in thoses%ecial cases where the interests of justice clearly reFuire it.Nevertheless, the government must not be allowed to dealdishonorably or ca%riciously with its citi6ens, and must not %lay an

ignoble %art or do a shabby thing and subject to limitations . . ., thedoctrine of eFuitable esto%%el may be invo-ed against %ublicauthorities as well as against %rivate individuals!hus, when there is noconvincing evidence to %rove irregularity or negligence on the %art ofthe government o9cial whose acts are being disowned other than thebare assertion on the %art of the State, the Su%reme Court havedeclined to a%%ly State immunity from esto%%el. /erein, there isabsolutely no evidence other than the bare assertions of theres%ondents that the Cauayan City government had %reviously erredwhen it certi0ed that the %ro%erty had been 6oned for commercial use.!he absence of any evidence other than bare assertions that the (++?

to ))( certi0cations were incorrect lead to the ineluctable conclusionthat res%ondents are esto%%ed from asserting that the %reviousrecognition of the %ro%erty as commercial was wrong.Res%ondentswere further esto%%ed from disclaiming the %revious consistentrecognition by the Cauayan City government that the %ro%erty wascommercially 6oned unless they had evidence, which they had none,that the local o9cials who issued such certi0cations acted irregularly indoing so. 8t is thus evident that res%ondents had no valid cause at all toeven reFuire %etitioners to secure a%%roved land conversion %a%ersfrom the =AR showing that the %ro%erty was converted from %rimeagricultural land to commercial land.DRes%ondents closure of

%etitioner$s radio stations is clearly tainted with ill motvies. 'etitionershave been aggressive in e*%osing the wides%read electionirregularities in 8sabela that a%%ear to have favored res%ondent =y andhis %olitical dynasty. Such statement manifests and con0rms thatres%ondent$s denial of the renewal a%%lications on the ground that%ro%erty is commercial and merely a %rete*t, and their real agenda isto remove %etitioners from Cauayan City and su%%ress the latter$svoice. !his is a blatant violation of constitutional right to %ress


17/88

freedom.&'(R()*R(! the petitions are +RANT(,% The assaileddecisions of the Cort of Appeals and the Regional Trial Cort ofCaa"an Cit"! -ranch ./! are hereb" R(0(RS(, and S(T AS1,(% Theinstant petition for mandams is hereb" +RANT(, and respondentsare directed to immediatel" isse petitioners2 oning clearances and

ma"or2s permits for .44/ to petitioners%

(00. IN RE: ATT?. E$NAR! !E VERA; A.M. No. 0(&('&0"&SC. ul6 '*; '00'Facts:uoted hereunder is a news%a%er article with contem%tuous statements attributedto Atty.3eonard =e era concerning the 'lunder 3aw case while the same was still %endingbefore the Court.=e era as-ed the Su%reme Court to dis%el rumors that it would vote in favor of a%etition 0led by Istrada$s

lawyers to declare the %lunder law unconstitutional for its su%%osed vagueness.D

PHIIPPINE !AI? INUIRERMonday, November (+, ))(Atty. 3eonard =e era also argued that he was merely e*ercising hisconstitutionally guaranteed right tofreedom of s%eech when he said that a decision by the Court declaring the 'lunder3aw unconstitutionalwould trigger mass actions, %robably more massive than those that led to 'eo%le

'ower 88.D 5hile Atty.3eonard =e era admitted to having uttered the aforecited statements, res%ondentdenied having made thesame to degrade the Court, to destroy %ublic con0dence in it and to bring it intodisre%ute.Issue:5N Atty. 3eonard =e era is liable for indirect contem%t of court for utteringstatements aimed atinLuencing and threatening the Court in deciding in favor of the constitutionality ofthe 'lunder 3aw.Held:

7es, after a careful consideration ofres%ondent$s arguments, the Court 0nds his e*%lanationunsatisfactory and hereby 0nds him guilty of indirect contem%t of court for utteringstatements aimed atinLuencing and threatening the Court in deciding in favor of the constitutionality ofthe 'lunder 3aw.Rule


18/88

contem%t a %erson guilty of conduct that is directed against the dignity or authorityof the court, or of an actobstructing the administration of justice which tends to bring the court into disre%uteor disres%ect.

8ndeed, freedom of s%eech includes the right to -now and discuss judicial%roceedings, but such rightdoes not cover statements aimed at undermining the Court$s integrity and authority, and interfering with theadministration of justice. reedom of s%eech is not absolute, and must occasionallybe balanced with thereFuirements of eFually im%ortant %ublic interests, such as the maintenance of theintegrity of the courts andorderly functioning of the administration of justice.

!hus, the ma-ing of contem%tuous statements directed against the Court is not ane*ercise of frees%eech rather, it is an abuse of such right. Hnwarranted attac-s on the dignity of thecourts cannot bedisguised as free s%eech, for the e*ercise of said right cannot be used to im%air theinde%endence ande9ciency of courts or %ublic res%ect therefore and con0dence therein.8n'eo%le vs. odoy, this Court e*%lained that while a citi6en may comment u%on the %roceedings anddecisions of the court and discuss their correctness, and even e*%ress

his o%inions on the 0tness or un0tnessof the judges for their stations, and the 0delity with which they %erform the im%ortant%ublic trusts re%osed inthem, he has no right to attem%t to degrade the court, destroy %ublic con0dence init, and encourage the%eo%le to disregard and set naught its orders, judgments and decrees. Such%ublications are said to be anabuse of the liberty of s%eech and of the %ress, for they tend to destroy the veryfoundation of good order andwell&being in society by obstructing the course of justice.

Clearly, res%ondent$s utterances %ressuring the Court to rule in favor ofthe constitutionality of the 'lunder 3aw orris- another series of mass actions by the %ublic cannot be construedas falling within the ambit of constitutionally&%rotected s%eech, because such statements are not fair criticisms ofany decision of the Court, but obviously are threatsmade against it to force the Court to decide the issue in a %articularmanner, or ris- earning the ire of the %ublic.


19/88

Suchstatements show disres%ect not only for the Court but also for thejudicial system as a whole, tend to %romote distrust andundermine %ublic con0dence in the judiciary, by creating the

im%ression that the Court cannot be trusted to resolve casesim%artially and violate the right of the %arties to have their case triedfairly by an inde%endent tribunal, uninLuenced by%ublic clamor and other e*traneous inLuences.

(0(. alado- v !/-lo

FACTS: 'rivate res%ondents %ublished a full&%age advertisement in0ve major daily news%a%ers. !hese ads contained allegations naming%etitioner who was then a 'C Commissioner of having committedillegal and unauthori6ed acts. 'etitioner 0led a com%laint for the crime

of libel.

HE!: 8n libel cases against %ublic o9cials, for liability to arise, thealleged defamatory statement must relate to o9cial conduct, even ifthe defamatory statement is false, unless the %ublic o9cial concerned%roves that the statement was made with actual malice, that is, with-nowledge that it was false or not. /ere, %etitioner failed to %roveactual malice on the %art of the %rivate res%ondents. !he statementsembodied in the advertisement are covered by the constitutionalguarantee of freedom of s%eech. !his carries the right to critici6e theaction and conduct of a %ublic o9cial.

(0'. Rodol5o VasDue1 v Cou/t o5 Appeals

!he (+?@ ruling in New 7or- !imes v. Sullivan handed down by theHnited States Su%reme Court has been the barometer used indefamation cases involving %ublic o9cials in both jurisdictions.!he 'hili%%ine case that comes com%arably close in circumnstanceswith that of the New 7or- !imes ruling is that of Rodolfo asFue6 versusCourt of A%%eals.8t is similar to the New 7or- !imes v. Sullivan ruling in the sense thatthe %laintiB is also a %ublic o9cial 1a barangay o9cial2.

5hen the barangay o9cial sued for criminal libel 1noteG New 7or-!imes case was a civil case2, the Su%reme Court ruled that it wasincumbent u%on the %rosecution to %rove actual malice, and failingsuch, no liability attached against the accused.8n any event, the Su%reme Court too- ocassion to a%%ly the New 7or-!imes Co. v. Sullivan standard in this case.

/ere is the digest of that caseG


20/88

Rodolfo R. asFue6 v. Court of A%%eals.R. No. ((K+


21/88

A rule %lacing on the accused the burden of showing the truth ofallegations of o9cial misconduct and"or good motives and justi0ableends for ma-ing such allegations would not only be contrary to Art.:?( of the Revised 'enal Code. 8t would, above all, infringe on theconstitutionally guaranteed freedom of e*%ression.

3ibel was used as a form of harassmentG

8nstead of the claim that %etitioner was %olitically motivated in ma-ingthe charges against com%lainant, it would a%%ear that com%lainant0led this case to harass %etitioner.8t is curious that the ones most obviously res%onsible for the%ublication of the allegedly oBensive news re%ort, namely, the editorialstaB and the %eriodical itself, were not at all im%leaded. !he chargewas leveled against the %etitioner and, QcuriouserQ still, his clients whohave nothing to do with the editorial %olicies of the news%a%er.

(0). People v #o P-

o 'in held an e*hibition of what was alleged to be indecent and"orimmoral %ictures in arecreational center.actsG(.o 'in, a Chinese citi6en, e*hibited at the lobe Arcade in Manila, arecreational

center, a large number of one&real (? mm 0lms about ()) feet inlength each,which are allegedly indecent and"or immoral. /e %leaded not guilty at0rst butwhen allowed to change his %lea, he did so.RulingG(.'aintings and %ictures of women in the nude, including scul%tures ofthe at -ind areoBensive to morals where they are made and shown not for the sa-e of

art but%ro0t would commercial %ur%oses, that is, when gain and %ro0t woulda%%ear tobe the main, if not the e*clusive consideration in their e*hibition, andthe case ofart only of secondary or minor im%ortance..


22/88

8f such %ictures, scul%tures and %aintings are shown in art e*hibits andart galleriesfor the cause of art, to be viewed and a%%reciated by %eo%le interestedin art,there would be no oBense committed. /owever, the %ictures here in

Fuestionwere used not e*actly for art$s sa-e but rather for commercial %ur%oses. 8n otherwords, the su%%osed artistic Fualities of said %ictures were beingcommerciali6edso that the cause of art was of secondary or minor im%ortance. ainand %ro0twould a%%ear to have been the main, if not the e*clusive considerationin theire*hibition and it would not be sur%rising if the %ersons who went tosee those

%ictures and %aid entrance fees for the %rivilege of doing so, were note*actlyartists and %ersons interested in art and who generally go to arte*hibitions andgalleries to satisfy and im%rove their artistic tastes, but rather %eo%ledesirous ofsatisfying their morbid curiosity and taste, and lust, and for love fore*citement,including the youth who because of their immaturity are not in a%osition to resistand shield themselves from the ill and %erverting eBects of these

%ictures.:.!he decision is a9rmed.

(0%. People v Pada #.R. No. &7'*% ue '8; (*%7

>. Montemayor

actsG!he accused e*hibited immoral scenes and acts in one of the Manila

nightclubs. Moreover, the manager and tic-et collector were also %artof the accused for hiring the women to %erform se*ual intercourse inthe %resence of many s%ectators.!hey were charged with a violation of the R'C Article )( in the trialcourt. All %leaded not guilty. ne of the accused however, changed hermind and %leaded guilty. All were convicted. !he evidence of the lewdshow was con0scated.!he accused 0led an a%%eal in the Su%reme Court. of the a%%ellants,


23/88

manager ajardo and tic-et collector 7abut, failed to 0le their briefswithin the %eriod %rescribed by law and their a%%eal was dismissed byresolution of this Court of November ;, (+;;, and the decision as tothem became 0nal and e*ecutory on >anuary


24/88

!he Manila 'olice=e%artment must have gotten wind of the aBair itbought tic-ets and %rovided several of its members who later attendedthe show, but in %lain clothes, and after the show conducted a raid andmade arrests. At the trial, said %olicemen testi0ed as to what actuallytoo- %lace inside the building. About two civilians who attended the

aBair gave testimony as to what they saw.!he customers not %rovided with tic-ets actually %aid ': at theentrance to defendant Irnesto Reyes. /e also collected tic-ets. 8n all,there were about ninety %aying customers, while about si*teen wereallowed to enter free, %resumably friends of the management. >oseajardo y arcia was clearly the manager of the show. /e was at thedoor to see to it that the customers either were %rovided with tic-ets or%aid ':.)) entrance fee. /e even as-ed them from whom they hadbought the tic-ets. /e ordered that an army steel bed be %laced at thecenter of the Loor, covered with an army blan-et and %rovided with a%illow. nce the s%ectators, about ()? in number, were crowded inside

that small building, the show started.#esides, as found by the trial court and as shown by some of thetic-ets collected from the s%ectators, submitted as e*hibits, saidtic-ets while bearing on one side su%erim%osed with rubber stam%edname Q'e%e ajardo,Q which defendant ajardo admits to be his name.Considering all the above circumstances, we agree with the trial courtthat >ose ajardo is the most guilty of the four, for he was the one whoconducted the show and %resumably derived the most %ro0t or gainfrom the same.

(0B. +a6a v E/2-ta

actsG !he %etitioners, #ayan, et al., alleged that they are citi6ens andta*%ayers of the 'hili%%ines and that their right as organi6ations andindividuals were violated when the rally they %artici%ated in on ctober?, )); was violently dis%ersed by %olicemen im%lementing #atas'ambansa No. KK).

'etitioners contended that #atas 'ambansa No. KK) is clearly aviolation of the Constitution and the 8nternational Covenant on Civiland 'olitical Rights and other human rights treaties of which the'hili%%ines is a signatory. !hey argue that #.'. No. KK) reFuires a

%ermit before one can stage a %ublic assembly regardless of the%resence or absence of a clear and %resent danger. 8t also curtails thechoice of venue and is thus re%ugnant to the freedom of e*%ressionclause as the time and %lace of a %ublic assembly form %art of themessage which the e*%ression is sought. urthermore, it is not content&neutral as it does not a%%ly to mass actions in su%%ort of thegovernment. !he words lawful cause,D o%inion,D %rotesting orinLuencingD suggest the e*%osition of some cause not es%oused by the


25/88

government. Also, the %hrase ma*imum toleranceD shows that thelaw a%%lies to assemblies against the government because they arebeing tolerated. As a content&based legislation, it cannot %ass the strictscrutiny test. !his %etition and two other %etitions were ordered to beconsolidated on ebruary (@, ))?. =uring the course of oral

arguments, the %etitioners, in the interest of a s%eedy resolution of the%etitions, withdrew the %ortions of their %etitions raising factual issues,%articularly those raising the issue of whether #.'. No. KK) and"or C'Ris void as a%%lied to the rallies of Se%tember ), ctober @, ; and ?,));.

8ssueG 5hether the Calibrated 're&em%tive res%onse and the #atas'ambansa No. KK), s%eci0cally Sections @, ;, ?, (, (:1a2 and (@1a2violates Art. 888 Sec. @ of the 'hili%%ine Constitution as it causes adisturbing eBect on the e*ercise by the %eo%le of the right to%eaceably assemble.

/eldG Section @ of Article 888 of the 'hili%%ine Constitution %rovides thatno law shall be %assed abridging the freedom of s%eech, of e*%ression,or of the %ress, or the right of the %eo%le %eaceably to assemble and%etition the government for redress of grievances. !he right to%eaceably assemble and %etition for redress of grievances, togetherwith freedom of s%eech, of e*%ression, and of the %ress, is a right thatenjoys dominance in the s%here of constitutional %rotection. or thisrights re%resent the very basis of a functional democratic %olity,without which all the other rights would be meaningless andun%rotected.

/owever, it must be remembered that the right, while sacrosanct, isnot absolute. 8t may be regulated that it shall not be injurious to theeFual enjoyment of others having eFual rights, nor injurious to therights of the community or society. !he %ower to regulate the e*erciseof such and other constitutional rights is termed the sovereign %olice%ower,D which is the %ower to %rescribe regulations, to %romote thehealth, morals, %eace, education, good order or safety, and generalwelfare of the %eo%le.

#.'. No KK) is not an absolute ban of %ublic assemblies but a restriction

that sim%ly regulates the time, %lace and manner of the assemblies.#.'. No. KK) thus readily shows that it refers to all -inds of %ublicassemblies that would use %ublic %laces. !he reference to lawfulcauseD does not ma-e it content&based because assemblies really haveto be for lawful causes, otherwise they would not be %eaceableD andentitled to %rotection. Neither the words o%inion,D %rotesting,D andinLuencingD in of grievances come from the wording of theConstitution, so its use cannot be avoided. inally, ma*imum tolerance


26/88

is for the %rotection and bene0t of all rallyist and is inde%endent of thecontent of the e*%ression in the rally.

urthermore, the %ermit can only be denied on the ground of clear and%resent danger to %ublic order, %ublic safety, %ublic convenience,

%ublic morals or %ublic health. !his is a recogni6ed e*ce%tion to thee*ercise of the rights even under the Hniversal =eclaration of /umanRights and !he 8nternational Covenant on Civil and 'olitical Rights.

5herefore, the %etitions are RAN!I= in %art, and res%ondents, more%articularly the Secretary of the 8nterior and 3ocal overnments, are=8RIC!I= to ta-e all necessary ste%s for the immediate com%liancewith Section (; of #atas 'ambansa No. KK) through the establishmentor designation of at least one suitable freedom %ar- or %la6a in everycity and munici%ality of the country. After thirty 1:)2 days from the0nality of this =ecision, subject to the giving of advance notices, no

%rior %ermit shall be reFuired to e*ercise the right to %eaceablyassemble and %etition in the %ublic %ar-s or %la6a in every city ormunici%ality that has not yet com%lied with section (; of the law.urthermore, Calibrated %re&em%tive res%onse 1C'R2, insofar as itwould %ur%ort to diBer from or be in lieu of ma*imum tolerance, isNH33 and 8= and res%ondents are IN>8NI= to RIRA8N from usingit and to S!R8C!37 #SIRI the reFuirements of ma*imum tolerance,!he %etitions are =8SM8SSI= in all other res%ects, and theconstitutionality of #atas 'ambansa No. KK) is SHS!A8NI=

(08. A2e/-ca +-3le Soc-et6 vs. C-t6 o5 Ma-la

#R No. &*B"7 Ap/-l "0; (*%7

Facts:W American #ible Society is a foreign, non&stoc-, non&%ro0t,religious, missionary cor%oration duly registered and doing business inthe 'hili%%ines through its 'hili%%ine agency established in Manila inNovember, (K+KW City of Manila is a munici%al cor%oration with %owers that are tobe e*ercised in conformity with the %rovisions of Re%ublic Act No. @)+,-nown as the Revised Charter of the City of ManilaW American #ible Society has been distributing and selling bibles

and"or gos%el %ortions throughout the 'hili%%ines and translating thesame into several 'hili%%ine dialectW City !reasurer of Manila informed American #ible Society that itwas violating several rdinances for o%erating without the necessary%ermit and license, thereby reFuiring the cor%oration to secure the%ermit and license fees covering the %eriod from @ (+@;& (+;:W !o avoid closing of its business, American #ible Society %aid theCity of Manila its %ermit and license fees under %rotest


27/88

W American #ible 0led a com%laint, Fuestioning theconstitutionality and legality of the rdinances ;+ and :))), and%rayed for a refund of the %ayment made to the City of Manila. !heycontendedGa. !hey had been in the 'hili%%ines since (K++ and were not

reFuired to %ay any license fee or sales ta*b. it never made any %ro0t from the sale of its biblesW City of Manila %rayed that the com%laint be dismissed,reiterating the constitutionality of the rdinances in FuestionW !rial Court dismissed the com%laintW American #ible Society a%%ealed to the Court of A%%eals

Issue: 5N American #ible Society liable to %ay sales ta* for thedistribution and sale of bibles

Rul-,: N$

W Hnder Sec. ( o5 $/d-ace "000, one of the ordinance inFuestion, %erson or entity engaged in any of the business, trades oroccu%ation enumerated under Sec. : must obtain a Mayor$s %ermit andlicense from the City !reasurer. American #ible Society$s business isnot among those enumeratedW /owever, item


28/88

to the amount of ta* or license fee that a retail dealer has to %ay %erannumW As held in Mrdock vs% Penns"lvania, !he %ower to im%ose alicense ta* on the e*ercise of these freedoms %rovided for in the #ill ofRights, is indeed as %otent as the %ower of censorshi% which this Court

has re%eatedly struc- down. 8t is not a nominal fee im%osed as aregulatory measure to defray the e*%enses of %olicing the activities inFuestion. 8t is in no way a%%ortioned. 8t is Lat license ta* levied andcollected as a condition to the %ursuit of activities whose enjoyment isguaranteed by the constitutional liberties of %ress and religion andinevitably tends to su%%ress their e*ercise. !hat is almost uniformlyrecogni6ed as the inherent vice and evil of this Lat license ta*.W urther, the case also mentioned that the %ower to ta* thee*ercise of a %rivilege is the %ower to control or su%%ress itsenjoyment. !hose who can ta* the e*ercise of this religious %racticecan ma-e its e*ercise so costly as to de%rive it of the resources

necessary for its maintenance. !hose who can ta* the %rivilege ofengaging in this form of missionary evangelism can close all its doorsto all those who do not have a full %urseW Hnder Sec. '7


29/88

as the 8glesia ni CristoD, had been in the em%loy of the Ili6alde Ro%eactory, 8nc. 1Com%any2 since (+;K. /e was a member of the Ili6aldeRo%e 5or-ers$ Hnion 1Hnion2 which had with the Com%any a C#Acontaining a closed sho% %rovision which reads as followsGMembershi% in the Hnion shall be reFuired as a condition of

em%loyment for all %ermanent em%loyees wor-ers covered by thisAgreement.D

Hnder Sec @1a2, %ar @, of RA +une (K, (+?(, however, RA ::;) was enacted,introducing an amendment to %ar @ subsection 1a2 of sec @ of RA K


30/88

concerted activities for the %ur%ose of collective bargaining and othermutual aid or %rotection. 5hat the Constitution and the 8ndustrial'eace Act recogni6e and guarantee is the rightD to form or joinassociations. A right com%rehends at least two broad notions, namelyG0rst, liberty or freedom, i.e., the absence of legal restraint, whereby an

em%loyee may act for himself without being %revented by law andsecond, %ower, whereby an em%loyee may, as he %leases, join orrefrain from joining an association. 8t is, therefore, the em%loyee whoshould decide for himself whether he should join or not an associationand should he choose to join, he himself ma-es u% his mind as towhich association he would join and even after he has joined, he stillretains the liberty and the %ower to leave and cancel his membershi%with said organi6ation at any time. !he right to join a union includesthe right to abstain from joining any union. !he law does not enjoin anem%loyee to sign u% with any association.

!he right to refrain from joining labor organi6ations recogni6ed bySection : of the 8ndustrial 'eace Act is, however, limited. !he legal%rotection granted to such right to refrain from joining is withdrawn byo%eration of law, where a labor union and an em%loyer have agreed ona closed sho%, by virtue of which the em%loyer may em%loy onlymembers of the collective bargaining union, and the em%loyees mustcontinue to be members of the union for the duration of the contract inorder to -ee% their jobs. #y virtue of a closed sho% agreement, beforethe enactment of RA ::;), if any %erson, regardless of his religiousbeliefs, wishes to be em%loyed or to -ee% his em%loyment he mustbecome a member of the collective bargaining union. /ence, the right

of said em%loyee not to join the labor union is curtailed and withdrawn.

!o that all&embracing coverage of the closed sho% arrangement, RANo.::;) introduced an e*ce%tion, when it added to Section @ 1a2 1@2 ofthe 8ndustrial 'eace Act the following %rovisoG but such agreementshall not cover members of any religious sects which %rohibit a9liationof their members in any such labor organi6ationD. Re%ublic Act No.::;) merely e*cludes i%so jure from the a%%lication and coverage ofthe closed sho% agreement the em%loyees belonging to any religioussects which %rohibit a9liation of their members with any labororgani6ation. 5hat the e*ce%tion %rovides is that members of said

religious sects cannot be com%elled or coerced to join labor unionseven when said unions have closed sho% agreements with theem%loyers that in s%ite of any closed sho% agreement, members ofsaid religious sects cannot be refused em%loyment or dismissed fromtheir jobs on the sole ground that they are not members of thecollective bargaining union. 8t does not %rohibit the members of saidreligious sects from a9liating with labor unions. 8t still leaves to saidmembers the liberty and the %ower to a9liate, or not to a9liate, with


31/88

labor unions. 8f, notwithstanding their religious beliefs, the members ofsaid religious wets %refer to sign u% with the labor union, they can doso. 8f in deference and fealty to their religious faith, they refuse to signu%, they can do so the law does not coerce them to join neither doesthe law %rohibit them from joining, and neither may the em%loyer or

labor union com%el them to join.

!he Com%any was %artly absolved by law from the contractualobligation it had with the Hnion of em%loying only Hnion members in%ermanent %ositions. 8t cannot be denied, therefore, that there wasindeed an im%airment of said union security clause.

!he %rohibition to im%air the obligation of contracts is not absolute andunFuali0ed. !he %rohibition is general. !he %rohibition is not to be readwith literal e*actness, for it %rohibits unreasonable im%airment only. 8ns%ite of the constitutional %rohibition, the State continues to %ossess

authority to safeguard the vital interests of its %eo%le. 3egislationa%%ro%riate to safeguarding said interests may modify or abrogatecontracts already in eBect. or not only are e*isting laws read intocontracts in order to 0* the obligations as between the %arties, but thereservation of essential attributes of sovereign %ower is also read intocontracts as a %ostulate of the legal order. !he contract clause of theConstitution. must be not only in harmony with, but also insubordination to, in a%%ro%riate instances, the reserved %ower of thestate to safeguard the vital interests of the %eo%le. !his has s%eciala%%lication to contracts regulating relations between ca%ital and laborwhich are not merely contractual, and said labor contracts, for being

im%ressed with %ublic interest, must yield to the common good.

!he %ur%ose to be achieved by RA ::;) is to insure freedom of beliefand religion, and to %romote the general welfare by %reventingdiscrimination against those members of religious sects which %rohibittheir members from joining labor unions, con0rming thereby theirnatural, statutory and constitutional right to wor-, the fruits of whichwor- are usually the only means whereby they can maintain their ownlife and the life of their de%endents.

!he individual em%loyee, at various times in his wor-ing life, isconfronted by two aggregates of %ower collective labor, directed by aunion, and collective ca%ital, directed by management. !he union, aninstitution develo%ed to organi6e labor into a collective force and thus%rotect the individual em%loyee from the %ower of collective ca%ital, is,%arado*ically, both the cham%ion of em%loyee rights, and a new sourceof their frustration. Moreover, when the Hnion interacts withmanagement, it %roduces yet a third aggregate of grou% strength fromwhich the individual also needs %rotection the collective bargaining


32/88

relationshi%.

!he free e*ercise of religious %rofession or belief is su%erior to contractrights. 8n case of conLict, the latter must yield to the former.

!he %ur%ose of RA ::;) is to serve the secular %ur%ose of advancingthe constitutional right to the free e*ercise of religion, by averting thatcertain %ersons be refused wor-, or be dismissed from wor-, or bedis%ossessed of their right to wor- and of being im%eded to %ursue amodest means of livelihood, by reason of union security agreements.!o hel% its citi6ens to 0nd gainful em%loyment whereby they can ma-ea living to su%%ort themselves and their families is a valid objective ofthe state. !he Constitution even mandated that the State shall aBord%rotection to labor, %romote full em%loyment and eFuality inem%loyment, ensure eFual wor- o%%ortunities regardless of se*, raceor creed and regulate the relation between wor-ers and em%loyers.D

!he %rimary eBects of the e*em%tion from closed sho% agreements infavor of members of religious sects that %rohibit their members froma9liating with a labor organi6ation, is the %rotection of said em%loyeesagainst the aggregate force of the collective bargaining agreement,and relieving certain citi6ens of a burden on their religious beliefs andby eliminating to a certain e*tent economic insecurity due tounem%loyment, which is a serious menace to the health, morals, andwelfare of the %eo%le of the State, the Act also %romotes the well&beingof society. 8t is our view that the e*em%tion from the eBects of closedsho% agreement does not directly advance, or diminish, the interests of

any %articular religion. Although the e*em%tion may bene0t those whoare members of religious sects that %rohibit their members from joininglabor unions, the bene0t u%on the religious sects is merely incidentaland indirect.

!he %ur%ose of RA ::;) was not to grant rights to labor unions. !herights of labor unions are am%ly %rovided for in Re%ublic Act No. Koining orwithdrawing from a labor union reFuires a %ositive act Re%ublic Act No.::;) only e*em%ts members with such religious a9liation from thecoverage of closed sho% agreements. So, under this Act, a religiousobjector is not reFuired to do a %ositive act&to e*ercise the right to join


33/88

or to resign from the union. /e is e*em%ted i%so jure without need ofany %ositive act on his %art.

5/IRIRI, the instant a%%eal is dismissed.

()%. PE$PE $F THE PHIIPPINES vs. ARTUR$ ARA 6 $R+ISTAFACTS:X 8nformation charging 3ara with robbery with homicide was 0led withthe R!C.X ollowing 3araVs %lea of not guilty, trial ensued.'RSICH!8NG : witnessesG InriFue Sumulong, S'( #ernard Cru6 and': Ifren Cali*SHMH3NGEMay :(, ))(, +G)) AM, he withdrew the amount of':),))).)) from the Metroban-&Mabini #ranch, 'asig City todefray the salaries of the em%loyees of San Sebastian and while at

around ()G:) AM, while the %ic-u% he was riding was at theintersection of Mercedes and Mar-et Avenues, 'asig City, 3arasuddenly a%%eared at the front %assenger side of the %ic-&u% and%ointed a gun at him stating, QA-in na ang %era, iyong bag, nasaanJQE#autista, one of those who accom%anied him told him not to give thebag. /e threw the bag in #autistaVs direction and #autista alightedfrom the %ic-&u% and ran. Seeing #autista, 3ara ran after him while0ring his gunE/e then ran towards Mercedes 'la6a and called u% the o9ce of SanSebastian to relay the incident and when he went bac- to where the%ic-&u% was %ar-ed, he went to the rear %ortion of the vehicle and saw

blood on the groundE/e was informed by one bystander that #autista was shot and thebag was ta-en away from himE>une


34/88

together with : other %olice o9cers, %roceeded to the crime scenewherein u%on arriving one of the %olice o9cers who were able tores%ond ahead of them, handed to him (( %ieces of em%ty shells and ?deformed slugs of a +mm %istolEAs %art of his investigation, he interviewed Sumulong, Atie, Manacob

at the %olice station and before #autista died, he was able to interview#autista at the hos%ital where the latter was brought after the incident.!EFENSE:3ARAXMay :(, ))(G he was at his house, digging a sewer trench while hisbrother, 5ilfredo, was constructing a comfort room which wascorroborated by his sister, Idjosa Manalo and neighbor, Sim%licia =elosReyes.X>une


35/88

violation of Section (, Article 888 of the Constitution. !he %olice line&u%is %art of custodial investigation and his right to counsel had alreadyattached.E!hird, the %rosecution failed to %rove his guilt beyond reasonabledoubt. S%eci0cally, the %rosecution failed to %resent a witness who

actually saw him commit the alleged acts. Sumulong merely %resumedthat he was the one who shot #autista and who too- the bag of moneyfrom him. !he %hysical descri%tion of 3ara that Sumulong gave to the%olice was diBerent from the one he gave during the trial, indicatingthat he did not have a fair glim%se of the %er%etrator.Moreover, this gives rise to the %ossibility that it was his unidenti0edcom%anion who shot #autista and too- %ossession of the money./ence, it cannot be reasonably claimed that his conviction wasattended with moral certainty.Eourth, the trial court erred in discounting the testimony of hiswitnesses. 5ithout any showing that they were im%elled by im%ro%er

motives in testifying in his favor, their testimonies shouldhave been given the credence they deserve.5hile his two 12 witnesses were his sister and neighbor, this does notby itself suggest the e*istence of bias or im%air their credibility.CA:A8RMI= conviction.EAH!MA!8C A''IA3 ! SC as the %enalty im%osed was reclusion %er%etuaISSUES:(. 5hether 3araVs su%%osedly illegal arrest may be raised forthe 0rst time on a%%eal for the %ur%ose of nullifying hisconvictionJ 17IS2

. 5hether the identi0cation made by Sumulong, Atie and Manacob inthe %olice line&u% is inadmissible because 3ara stood therein withoutthe assistance of counselJ 1N, identi0cation not custodialinvestigation2:. 5hether there is su9cient evidence to convict 3araJ 17IS2@. 5hether 3araVs alibi can be given credence so as to e*onerate himfrom the crime chargedJ 1N2HE!:=IN7 a%%eal.(. 7IS. !hat 3ara was su%%osedly arrested without a warrantmay not serve as a ground to invalidate the %roceedings

leading to his conviction considering its belated invocation. Anyobjections to the legality of the warrantless arrest should have beenraised in a motion to Fuash duly 0led before the accusedenters his %lea otherwise, it is deemed waived.urther, that the accused was illegally arrested is not a ground to setaside conviction duly arrived at and based on evidence that su9cientlyestablishes cul%abilityGE>urisdiction over the %erson of the accused may be acFuired through


36/88

com%ulsory %rocess such as a warrant of arrest or through hisvoluntary a%%earance, such as when he surrenders to the %olice or tothe court.EAny objection to the arrest or acFuisition of jurisdiction over the%erson of the accused must be made before he enters his %lea,

otherwise the objection is deemed waived. An accusedsubmits to the jurisdiction of the trial court u%onentering a %lea and %artici%ating actively in the trial and this %recludeshim invo-ing any irregularities that may have attended his arrest. 8nvoluntarily submitting himself to the court by entering a %lea, insteadof 0ling a motion to Fuash the information for lac- of jurisdiction overhis %erson, accused&a%%ellant is deemed to have waived his right toassail the legality of his arrest.Eurthermore, the illegal arrest of an accused is not a su9cient groundto reverse and set aside a conviction that was arrived u%on acom%laint duly 0led and a trial conducted without error. !he

warrantless arrest, even if illegal, cannot render void all other%roceedings including those leading to the conviction of the a%%ellantsand his co&accused, nor can the state be de%rived of its right to convictthe guilty when all the facts on record %oint to their cul%ability.EAs Section +, Rule ((< of the Revised Rules of Criminal 'rocedure%rovidesG Sec. +. ailure to move to Fuash or to allege any groundtherefor. U !he failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motionto Fuash before he %leads to the com%laint or information, eitherbecause he did not 0le a motion to Fuash or failed to allege the samein said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections e*ce%tthose based on the grounds %rovided for in %aragra%hs 1a2, 1b2, 1g2and

1i2 of Section : of this Rule.. N. !here was no legal com%ulsion to aBord him a counsel during a%olice line&u% since the latter is not %art of custodial investigation andthis does not constitute a violation of his right to counselE!hat he stood at the %olice line&u% without the assistance of counseldid not render SumulongVs identi0cation of 3ara inadmissible.Te /-,t to cousel -s dee2ed to ave a/-se at tep/ec-se 2o2et custod-al -vest-,at-o 3 e , - s a d3 e - , 2 a d e t o s t a d - a p o l - c e l - e & u p - s o t t e s t a / t - , p o - t o / a p a / t o 5c u s t o d - a l -vest-,at-o.

E'eo%le v. Amestu6oG !he guarantees of Sec. ( 1(2, Art. 888 of the (+K


37/88

incriminating statements.EPol - ce l -e&up - s ot pa/ t o 5 te custod -a l-vest -,at -oG ece; te / -,t to couse l,ua/ateed 36 teCost-tut-o caot 6et 3e -vo=ed at t-s sta,e.

E!he right to be assisted by counsel attaches only duringcustodial investigation and cannot be claimed by theaccused during identi0cation in a %olice line&u% because it is not %art ofthe custodial investigation %rocess.T-s -s 3ecause du/-, a pol-ce l-e&up; te p/ocess asot 6et s-5ted 5/o2 te -vest-,ato/6 to teaccusato/6ad - t -s usual l6 te 4-tess o/ teco2pla -at 4o - s -te/ /o,ated ad 4o , -ves as tate2et - te cou/se o5 te l-e&up.EA ecept-o to t-s /ule -s 4e te accused ad3ee te 5ocus o5 pol-ce attet-o at te sta/t o5 te

-vest-,at-o.8n the case at bench, a%%ellant was identi0ed in a %olice line&u% by%rosecution witnesses from a grou% of %ersons gathered for the%ur%ose. /owever, there was no %roof that a%%ellant was interrogatedat all or that a statement or confession was e*tracted from him. =uringthe %olice line&u%, the accusatory %rocess had not yet commenced.EAssuming there was interrogation, any allegation of violation of rightsduring custodial investigation is /elevat ad2ate/ -a l o l6 tocases - 4-c a et /a ud -c -a l ad2-ss -o o/co5ess -o et /acted 5 /o2 te accused 3eco2este 3as-s o5 te-/ cov-ct-o.

/ere, a%%ellant was convicted based on the testimony of a%rosecution witness and not on his alleged uncounseled confession oradmission.:. 7IS. Contrary to a%%ellantVs assertion, %rosecution witnessSumulong actually saw him shoot #autista, the victim. Also, itis a%%arent from the assailed decision of the CA that the 0nding of guiltagainst 3ara is3ased o c-/cu2stat-al ev-dece.ENot only direct evidence but also circumstantial evidencecan overcome the %resum%tion of innocence. =irect evidenceof the commission of the crime is not the only matri* wherefrom a trial

court may draw its conclusion and 0nding of guilt. Iven in the absenceof direct evidence, cov-ct-o ca 3e ad -5 te esta3l-sedc-/cu2stacescost-tute a u3/o=e ca-; cos-stet4-t eac ote/ ad to te 6potes-s tat te accused-s ,u-lt6;to te eclus-o o5 all ote/ 6potes-s tat e -sot.ERIH8S8!IS C8RCHMS!AN!8A3 I8=INCIG Hnder Section @, Rule(:: of the Revised Rules on Criminal 'rocedure, circumstantial


38/88

evidence su9ced to convict u%on the concurrence of the following/eDu-s-tesG1a2 there is mo re th an on e ci rc um st an ce 1 b 2 t he f a c t s f r om w h i ch t h e i n fe r e nce s a r e de r i v e da r e % r ov e n a nd

1 c 2 t hecombination of all the circumstances is such as to %roduce a convictionbeyond reasonable doubt.E8t is not only by direct evidence that an accused may be convicted ofthe crime for which he is charged. Resort to circumstantial evidence isessential since to insist on direct testimony would, in many cases,result in setting felons free and denying %ro%er %rotection to the community.E/ere, the following circumstantial evidence are tellingly su9cient to%rove the guilt of a%%ellantGX5hile the vehicle was at the intersection of Mercedes and Mar-etAvenues, 'asig City, a%%ellant suddenly emerged and %ointed a gun at

%rosecution witness Sumulong, demanding from him to %roduce thebag containing the money.X'rosecution witness Sumulong threw the bag to the victimwho was then seated at the bac-seat of the vehicle.X!he victim alighted from vehicle carrying the bagXA%%ellant chased and 0red several shots at the victim.X!he victim sustained several gunshot wounds.X!he %olice o9cers recovered from the scene of the crime si*deformed em%ty shells.E8ndeed, in cases of robbery with homicide, the ta-ing of%ersonal %ro%erty with intent to gain must itself be

established beyond reasonable doubt. !he mere %resence ofthe accused at the crime scene is not enough to im%licate him.8t is essential to %rove the intent to rob and the use of violence wasnecessary to reali6e such intent.X8n this case, 3araVs intent to gain is %roven by SumulongVs %ositivenarration that it was 3ara who %ointed the gun at him and demandedthat the bag containing the money be turned over to him. !hat 3araresorted to violence in order to actuali6e his intent to gain is %roven bySumulongVs testimony that he saw 3ara 0re the gun at the direction of#autista, who was running away from the %ic-&u% in order to %revent3ara from ta-ing %ossession of the money.

XN o t a b l y , t h e i n c i d e n t t o o - % l a c e i n b r o a dd a y l i g h t a n d i n t h e m i d d l e o f a s t r e e t . Tus ;4e/e cos-de/at-os o5 v-s-3-l-t6 a/e 5avo/a3le adte 4-tess does ot appea/ to 3e 3-ased a,a-st te accused; -s o/ e/ asse/t-os as to te -det-t6 o5 te2ale5acto/ sould 3e o/2all6 accepted.X3ara did not allege, much less, convincingly demonstrate


39/88

that Sumulong was im%elled by im%ro%er or maliciousmotives to im%ute u%on him, however %erjurious, such aserious charge. !hus, his testimony,which the trial court found to be forthright and credible, is worthy offull faith and credit and should not be disturbed. 8f an accused had

nothing to do with the crime, it is against the natural order of eventsand of human nature and against the %resum%tion of good faith that a%rosecution witness would falsely testify against the former.@. N. 8n view of SumulongVs %ositive identi0cation of 3ara, the CA wascorrect in denying 3araVs alibi outright. 8t is well&settled tatpos-t-ve -det-Jcat-o p/eva-ls ove/ al-3-; 4-c -s-e/etl6 a 4ea= de5ese. Suc -s te /ule; 5o/ as ade5ese; al-3- -s eas6 to cococt; ad d-Kcult to d-sapp/ove.E8n order for the defense of alibi to %ros%er, it must be demonstratedthatGXthat he was %resent at another %lace at the time of the %er%etration of

the crimeXhe was so far away that it was not %ossible for him to have been%hysically %resent at the %lace of the crime or its immediate vicinity atthe time of its commission.'hysical im%ossibility Qrefers to the distance between the %lace wherethe accused was when the crime trans%ired and the %lace where it wascommitted, as well as the facility of access between the two %laces.E'ro*imity of 3araVs house at the scene of the crime wholly negates hisalibi. /e himself admitted that his house was just a stoneVs throw1about three minutes away2 from the crime scene. 3ara and hiswitnesses failed to %rove that it is well&nigh im%ossible for him to be at

the scene of the crime.

!ISP$SITIVE:CA A8RMI=

()7. A3alle vs. People; (8" SCRA (*B; #.R. No. B)08B; Ma/c (%; (**0Argument that Aballe$s e*trajudicial admission should havebeen disregarded by the lowe r co ur t fo r ha v i ng be enob t a i ne d i n v i o l a t i on o f h i s cons t i t u t i ona l r i gh t s w e l lta-en.&!he argument that Aballe$s e*trajudicial admission should

have been disregarded by the lower court for having beenobtained in violation of Aballe$s constitutional rights is well ta-en.!hroughout the custodial interrogation, the accused$s %arents andrelatives were almost always around but at no stage of theentire %roceedings was it shown that th e yo ut hf ul oB en de rw a s e v e r r e % r e se n t e d by counse l . S i nce t he e * e cu t i ono f t he e* t r a j ud i c i a l s t a t e m e nt w a s a dm i t t e d l y m a de i nt h e a b s e n c e o f c o u n s e l , w h e th e r d e o 0 c i o o r d e % a r t e ,


40/88

a nd t he w a i v e r o f counse l w a s no t m a de w i t h t hea ss i s t a n ce o f c o u n s e l a s m a n d a t e d b y t h e% r o v i s i o n s o f S e c t i o n ) , A r t i c l e 8 o f t h e( + < : Constitution, said confession should have been discarded bythe lower court. An o9cer ma-ing an arrest may ta-e from the %erson

arrested any money or %ro%erty found u%on his %erson which was usedin the commission of the crime or was the fruit of the crime or whichmight furnish the %risoner with the means of committing violence oresca%ing or which may be used in evidence in the trial of the case.&8 nde e d , e Fua l l y i na dm i ss i b l e i s t he - i t che n - n i f ere c o v e re d f ro m A b a l l e a ft e r h i s ca%ture and after the %olicehad started to Fuestion him. !ogether with the e*trajudicialconfession, the fatal wea%on is but a fruit of aconsti tut ionally in0 rmed inte rrogation and must conseFuentlybe disallowed. !he bloodstained !&shirt, however, is admissible, beingin the nature of an evidence in %lain view which an arresting o9cer

may ta-e and introduce in evidence. !he %revailing rule in thisjurisdiction is that an o9cer ma-ing a n a rre s t ma y t a -e f ro mt he %e r son a r r e s t e d a ny m one y o r % r o%e r t y f oundu % o n h i s %erson which was used in the commission of thecr ime or was the fru it of the cr ime or which might furnish the%risoner with the means of committing violence or esca%ing, or whichmay be used in evidence in the trial of the cause. . .D!estimony of Sgt. Marante on Aballe$s oral confession is com%etent to%ositively lin-the accused to the -illing.ut even with the e*clusion of the e*trajudicial confession

and the fatal wea%on we ag ree wi th th e t r ia l co ur t th att h e g u i l t o f t h e a c c u s e d h a s b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d b e y o n dr e a sona b l e doub t . 8 t i s w e l l t o no t e t ha t e v e n be fo r et he t a - i ng o f t he e * t r a j ud i c i a lconfession, the accused, u%on being %ic-ed u% in the morning ofNovember K, (+K) ashe w a s com i ng ou t o f t he com m una l ba t h r oom a ndw e a r i ng a !& sh i r t cov e r e d w i t h b l o ods t a i ns w h i ch h et r i e d t o cov e r w i t h h i s ha nds , sudd e n l y b r o- e dow na nd - ne l t before Sgt. Marante and confessed that he -illed >ennie#anguis. !he testimony of Sgt.

M a r a n t e on A ba l l e $ s o r a l con fe ss i on i s com %e t e n te v i de n ce t o % os i t i ve l y l i n - t he accused to the aforesaid-illing.=eclaration of an accused e*%ressly ac-nowledging his guiltof the oB ense charged may be given in evidence against him.

(%(. CRIS$ST$M$ VS S+AC!SG


41/88

Crisostomo, a member of the 'hili%%ine National 'olice, and others were chargedwith the murderof Renato, a detention %risoner at the Solano Munici%al >ail. Crisostomo%leaded not guilty. !rial ensued. !he %resentation of evidence forCrisostomo$s defense was deemed waived for his failure to a%%ear at the

scheduled hearings des%ite notice. Crisostomo and ( co&accused werefound guilty by the Sandiganbayan, while the others were still at large.

8SSHIG5N Crisostomo$s bail bond forfeiture was justi0ed./I3=GN.Crisostomo$s absence on the >une (++; hearing should not have been deemedas a waiver of hisright to %resent evidence. 5hile constitutional rights may be waived,

such waiver must be clear and must be cou%led with an actualintention to relinFuish the right. Crisostomo did not voluntarily waive in%erson or even through his counsel the right to %resent evidence. !heSandiganbayan im%osed the waiver due to the agreement of the %rosecution,Calingayan, and Calingayan$s counsel.8f no waiver of the right to %resent evidence could be %resumed from Crisostomo$sfailure to attend the >une (++; hearing, with more reason that Light could notbe logically inferred from Crisostomo$s absence at that hearing. Crisostomo$sabsence did not even justify the forfeiture of his bailbond. A bail bond may be forfeited only in instances where the%resence of the accused is s%eci0cally reFuired by the court or the

Rules of Court and, des%ite due notice to the bondsmen to %roduce himbefore the court on a given date, the accused fails to a%%ear in %ersonas so reFuired. Crisostomo was not s%eci0cally reFuired by theSandiganbayan or the Rules of Court to a%%ear on the >une (++;hearing. !hus, there was no basis for the S# to order the con0scation of Crisostomo$ssurety bond and assume Crisostomo had jum%ed bail.

(%). 9e33 v !e eoAC!SG

n >une (+, (++@, the National #ureau of 8nvestigation 0led with the=> a letter&com%laint charging %etitioners /ubert 5ebb, Michaelatchalian, Antonio >. 3ejano and ? other %ersons with the crime ofRa%e and /omicide of Carmela N. i6conde, her mother IstrellitaNicolas&i6conde, and her sister Anne Marie >ennifer in their home atNumber K) 5. in6ons, St., # /omes, 'aranaFue, Metro Manila on>une :), (++(.


42/88

orthwith, the => formed a %anel of %rosecutors headed by Asst ChiefState 'rosecutor >ovencio R. Zuno to conduct the %reliminaryinvestigation.

'etitionersG fault the => 'anel for its finding of %robable cause.

!hey assail the credibility of >essica Alfaro as inherently wea- anduncorroborated due to her inconsistencies between her A%ril K, (++;and May , (++; sown statements. !hey critici6e the %rocedurefollowed by the => 'anel when it did not e*amine witnesses to clarifythe alleged inconsistencies.

charge that res%ondent >udge Raul de 3eon and res%ondent >udgeAmelita !olentino issued warrants of arrest against them withoutconducting the reFuired %reliminary e*amination.

Com%lain about the denial of their constitutional right to due

%rocess and violation of their right to an im%artial investigation. !heyalso assail the %rejudicial %ublicity that attended their %reliminaryinvestigation.

8SSHISG

1(2 =id the => 'anel gravely abuse its discretion in holding that thereis %robable cause to charge accused with crime of ra%e and homicideJ

12 =id res%ondent judges de 3eon and !olentino gravely abuse their

discretion when they failed to conduct a %reliminary e*aminationbefore issuing warrants of arrest against the accusedJ

1:2 =id the => 'anel deny them their constitutional right to due%rocess during their %reliminary investigationJ

1@2 =id the => 'anel unlawfully intrude into judicial %rerogative whenit failed to charge >essica Alfaro in the information as an accusedJ

/I3=G

1(2 N. alid determination && A %robable cause needs only to rest onevidence showing that more li-ely than not, a crime has beencommitted and was committed by the sus%ects. 'robable cause neednot be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither onevidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and de0nitely, noton evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.

12 N. alid arrest && 8n arrest cases, there must be a %robable cause


43/88

that a crime has been committed and that the %erson arrestedcommitted it.

Section ? of Rule (( %rovides that u%on 0ling of an information, theR!C may issue a warrant for the accused.D

Clearly then, our laws re%udiate the submission that res%ondent judgesshould have conducted searching e*amination of witnessesD beforeissuing warrants of arrest against them.

1:2 N. !here is no merit in this contention because %etitioners weregiven all the o%%ortunities to be heard.

!he => 'anel %recisely reFuested the %arties to adduce moreevidence in their

Several Case Digests

Documents

Transcript of Several Case Digests