Case Digests

G.R. No. 181704 December 6, 2011

BUREAU OF CUSTOMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (BOCEA) vs. HON. MARGARITO B. TEVES 

FACTS:

RA [No.] 9335 was enacted to optimize the revenue-generation capability and collection of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau of Customs (BOC). The law intends to encourage BIR and BOC officials and employees to exceed their revenue targets by providing a system of rewards and sanctions through the creation of a Rewards and Incentives Fund (Fund) and a Revenue Performance Evaluation Board (Board). It covers all officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC with at least six months of service, regardless of employment status.

The Fund is sourced from the collection of the BIR and the BOC in excess of their revenue targets for the year, as determined by the Development Budget and Coordinating Committee (DBCC). Any incentive or reward is taken from the fund and allocated to the BIR and the BOC in proportion to their contribution in the excess collection of the targeted amount of tax revenue.

The petitioners averred that the republic act is tainted with constitutional infirmities in violation of the fundamental rights of its members. On contrary, respondents contended that it provided a reasonable and valid ground for the dismissal of an employee which is germane to the purpose of the law.

ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT REPUBLIC ACT IS A BILL OF ATTAINDER AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL

RULING:

No, the republic act is not a bill of attainder and unconstitutional.

A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment on individuals or members of a particular group without a judicial trial. Essential to a bill of attainder are a specification of certain individuals or a group of individuals, the imposition of a punishment, penal or otherwise, and the lack of judicial trial.

R.A. No. 9335 does not possess the elements of a bill of attainder. It does not seek to inflict punishment without a judicial trial. R.A. No. 9335 merely lays down the grounds for the termination of a BIR or BOC official or employee and provides for the consequences thereof. The democratic processes are still followed and the constitutional rights of the concerned employee are amply protected.

G.R. Nos. 92191-92 July 30, 1991

ANTONIO Y. CO vs. ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND JOSE ONG, JR.,

FACTS:

On May 11, 1987, the congressional election for the second district of Northern Samar was held. Respondent Ong was proclaimed the duly elected representative of the second district of Northern Samar. The petitioners filed election protests on the grounds: (1) is not a natural born citizen of the Philippines; and (2) is not a resident of the second district of Northern Samar.

The records show that in the year 1895, the private respondent's grandfather, Ong Te, arrived in the Philippines from China. The HRET declared that respondent Jose Ong, Jr. is a natural born Filipino citizen and a resident of Laoang, Northern Samar for voting purposes.

ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT ELECTED OR CHOSE TO BE A FILIPINO CITIZEN,

RULING:

No, the private respondent did not elect or chose to be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.

Under the 1973 Constitution, those born of Filipino fathers and those born of Filipino mothers with an alien father were placed on equal footing. They were both considered as natural-born citizens.

To expect the respondent to have formally or in writing elected citizenship when he came of age is to ask for the unnatural and unnecessary. He was already a citizen. Not only was his mother a natural born citizen but his father had been naturalized when the respondent was only nine (9) years old. The filing of sworn statement or formal declaration is a requirement for those who still have to elect citizenship. For those already Filipinos when the time to elect came up, there are acts of deliberate choice which cannot be less binding. Entering a profession open only to Filipinos, serving in public office where citizenship is a qualification, voting during election time, running for public office, and other categorical acts of similar nature are themselves formal manifestations of choice for these persons. The respondent HRET has an interesting view as to how Mr. Ong elected citizenship. It observed that "when protestee was only nine years of age, his father, Jose Ong Chuan became a naturalized Filipino. Section 15 of the Revised Naturalization Act squarely applies its benefit to him for he was then a minor residing in this country.

G.R. No. 161434 March 3, 2004

MARIA JEANETTE C. TECSON and FELIX B. DESIDERIO, JR vs. The COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RONALD ALLAN KELLY POE (a.k.a. FERNANDO POE, JR.) and VICTORINO X. FORNIER

FACTS:

On 31 December 2003, respondent Ronald Allan Kelly Poe, also known as Fernando Poe, Jr. (hereinafter "FPJ"), filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of President of the Republic of the Philippines under the Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP) Party, in the forthcoming national elections. In his certificate of candidacy, FPJ, representing himself to be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, stated his name to be "Fernando Jr.," or "Ronald Allan" Poe, his date of birth to be 20 August 1939 and his place of birth to be Manila.

ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT PRIVATE RESPONDENT IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES,

RULING:

Yes, the private respondent is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.

The Constitution provides that natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire of perfect their Philippine citizenship.

Based on the evidence presented which the Supreme consider as viable is the fact that the death certificate of Lorenzo Poe, father of Allan Poe, who in turn was the father of private respondent Fernando Poe, Jr. indicates that he died on September 11, 1954 at the age of 84 years, in San Carlos, Pangasinan. Evidently, in such death certificate, the residence of Lorenzo Poe was stated to be San Carlos, Pangansinan. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it should be sound to conclude, or at least to presume, that the place of residence of a person at the time of his death was also his residence before death. Considering that the allegations of petitioners are not substantiated with proof and since Lorenzo Poe may have been benefited from the “en masse Filipinization” that the Philippine Bill had effected in 1902, there is no doubt that Allan Poe father of private respondent Fernando Poe, Jr. was a Filipino citizen. And, since the latter was born on August 20, 1939, governed under 1935 Constitution, which constitution considers as citizens of the Philippines those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines, Fernando Poe, Jr. was in fact a natural-born citizen of the Philippines regardless of whether or not he is legitimate or illegitimate.

SABIO vs. GORDON G.R. No. 174340 

FACTS:

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago introduced Philippine Senate Resolution No. 455 (Senate Res. No. 455), “directing an inquiry in aid of legislation on the anomalous losses incurred by the Philippines Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC), Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT), and PHILCOMSAT Holdings Corporation (PHC) due to the alleged improprieties in their operations by their respective Board of Directors.”

Chief of Staff Rio C. Inocencio, under the authority of Senator Richard J. Gordon, wrote Chairman Camilo L. Sabio of the PCGG, one of the herein petitioners, inviting him to be one of the resource persons in the public meeting jointly conducted by the Committee on Government Corporations and Public Enterprises and Committee on Public Services. The purpose of the public meeting was to deliberate on Senate Res. No. 455.

ISSUE:

WoN the investigation conducted on the petitioners violative of their right to privacy,

HELD:

NO, the investigation conducted on the petitioners are not violative of their right to privacy.

Under Bill of Rights, Section 3 renders inviolable the privacy of communication and correspondence except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law. In this case, so long as the constitutional rights of witnesses, like Chairman Sabio and his Commissioners, will be respected by respondent Senate Committees, it their duty to cooperate with them in their efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent legislative action. The petition for habeas corpus is dismissed.

BAGALIHOG vs. FERNANDEZ    G.R. No. 96356 

FACTS:

Rep. Espinosa was shot to death shortly after disembarking at the Masbate Airport. Witnesses said one of the gunmen fled on a motorcycle. On the same day, the petitioner's house, which was near the airport, was searched with his consent to see if the killers had sought refuge there. The search proved fruitless.

Two days later, [ Capt. Julito Roxas and his men from the Philippine Constabulary seized the petitioner's motorcycle and took it to the PC headquarters in Masbate. They had no search warrant. The motorcycle was impounded on the suspicion that it was one of the vehicles used by the killers.]

After investigation, the petitioner and several others were charged with multiple murder and frustrated murder for the killing of Espinosa and three of his bodyguards and the wounding of another person.

[Petitioner filed an urgent manifestation for the deposit of the motorcycle with the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court of Masbate, on the ground that PC soldiers were using the vehicle without authority. ]

ISSUE:

WoN the warrantless seizure of the motorcycle was unquestionably violative of the right to be left alone by the authorities as guaranteed by the Constitution,

HELD:

YES, the warrantless seizure of the motorcycle was unquestionably violative of the right to be left alone.

Under Article III, Sec. 3(2) "any evidence obtained in violation" of the rule against unreasonable searches and seizure "shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. It is true that property held as evidence in a criminal case cannot be replevied. But the rule applies only where the property is lawfully held, that is, seized in accordance with the rule against warrantless searches and seizures or its accepted exceptions

SONY MUSIC vs. JUDGE ESPAÑOL    G.R. No. 156804 

FACTS:

In 2000, Sony Music Entertainment (Phils.), Inc. sought the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agent Lavin as they complained that Solid Laguna Corporation, together with its officers were engaged in the replication, reproduction and distribution of Sony videograms without license and authority from the Video Regulatory Board.

Agent Lavin, in applying for a search warrant, stated before Judge Dolores Español that an unnamed person provided them information as to the presence of pirated CDs in the premises of Solid Laguna; that Lavin and other witnesses were accompanied by unnamed persons to enter the premise and conduct further investigation. The judge then issued two corresponding search warrants; one for probable violation of PD 1987 and the other for probable violation of RA 8293.

ISSUE:

WoN issuance of search warrant was of no force and effect as there was absence of probable cause to justify it, considering that it was based on a ground that is not a basis for quashal of a search warrant, on contrary, that Solid Laguna was not authorized to manufacture and sell CDs but in fact they were authorized by the VRB

HELD:

YES, issuance of search warrant was of no force and effect as there was absence of probable cause.

A search warrant shall not issue but upon probable cause . . . to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized. The issuance of Search Warrant was predicated on the sworn testimonies of persons without personal knowledge of facts they were testifying on and who relied on a false certification issued by VRB. Based as it were on hearsay and false information, its issuance was without probable cause and, therefore, invalid.

GAMBOA vs. P/SSUPT. CHAN    G.R. No. 193636 

FACTS:

Gamboa alleged that the Philippine National Police in Ilocos Norte (PNP–Ilocos Norte) conducted a series of surveillance operations against her and her aides, and classified her as someone who keeps a Private Army Group (PAG). Purportedly without the benefit of data verification, PNP–Ilocos Norte forwarded the information gathered on her to the Zeñarosa Commission, thereby causing her inclusion in the Report’s enumeration of individuals maintaining PAGs.

Contending that her right to privacy was violated and her reputation maligned and destroyed, Gamboa filed a Petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data against respondents in their capacities as officials of the PNP-Ilocos Norte.

ISSUE:

WoN the forwarding of information or intelligence report to the Commission violated petitioner’s right to privacy,

HELD:
NO, the petitioner’s right to privacy was not violated.

The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.

The fact that the PNP released information to the Zeñarosa Commission without prior communication to Gamboa and without affording her the opportunity to refute the same cannot be interpreted as a violation or threat to her right to privacy since that act is an inherent and crucial component of intelligence-gathering and investigation.

ESPUELAS vs PEOPLE               G.R. No. L-2990

FACTS:

Oscar Espuelas y Mendoza had his picture taken, making it to appear as if he were hanging lifeless at the end of a piece of rope suspended form the limb of the tree, when in truth and in fact, he was merely standing on a barrel. After securing copies of his photograph, Espuelas sent copies of same to several newspapers and weeklies of general circulation, not only in the Province of Bohol but also throughout the Philippines and abroad, for their publication with a suicide note or letter, wherein he made to appear that it was written by a fictitious suicide stating his dismay with the administration of President Roxas, pointing out the situation in Central Luzon and Leyte, and directing his wife to write to President Truman and Churchill of US and tell them that in the Philippines, the government is infested with many Hitlers and Mussolinis.

ISSUE:

WoN the accused is liable of seditious libel under Art. 142 of the RPC against the Government of the Philippines,

HELD:

YES, the accused is liable of seditious libel against the Government of the Philippines.

The freedom of speech secured by the Constitution "does not confer an absolute right to speak or publish without responsibility whatever one may choose." It is not "unbridled license that gives immunity for every possible use of language and prevents the punishment of those who abuse this freedom. The infuriating language is not a sincere effort to persuade, what with the writer's simulated suicide and false claim to martyrdom and what with is failure to particularize. The appellant proclaimed to his readers that he committed suicide because he had "no power to put under juez de cuchillo all the Roxas people now in power. It is clear that the letter suggested the decapitation or assassination of all Roxas officials.

VASQUEZ vs CA      GR No. 118971 

FACTS:

Vasquez is a resident of the Tondo Foreshore Area. He and some families from the area went to see then National Housing Authority (NHA) General Manager regarding their complaint against their Barangay Chairman. After their meeting with Atienza and other NHA officials, petitioner and his companions were met and interviewed by newspaper reporters at the NHA compound concerning their complaint. The next day, April 22, 1986, the following news article appeared in the newspaper Ang Tinig ng Masa. The article mentions that these people are asking for help since their land was stolen from them by the Olmedo, who had connections with the NHA.

Based on the newpaper article, Olmedo filed a complaint for libel against Vasquez alleging that Vasquez’s statements cast aspersions on him and damaged his reputation.

ISSUE:

WoN petitioner was the source of the alleged libelous article

HELD: Yes, the petitioner was the source of the alleged libelous article.

It is not required that the person defamed has read or heard about the libelous remark. What is material is that a third person has read or heard the libelous statement, for a man’s reputation is the estimate in which others hold him, not the good opinion which he has of himself.

Here, petitioner did not directly admit that he was the source of the statements in the questioned article. However, by claiming that what he had told the reporter was made by him in the performance of a civic duty, petitioner in effect admitted authorship of the article and not only of the statements attributed to him therein. Petitioner cannot claim to have been the source of only a few statements in the article in question and point to the other parties as the source of the rest, when he admits that he was correctly identified as the spokesperson of the families during the interview.

MTRCB vs ABSCBN     GR No. 155282 

FACTS:

ABS-CBN aired Prosti-tuition, an episode of the television (TV) program The Inside Story produced and hosted by respondent Legarda. It depicted female students moonlighting as prostitutes to enable them to pay for their tuition fees. In the course of the program, student prostitutes, pimps, customers, and some faculty members were interviewed. The Philippine Womens University (PWU) was named as the school of some of the students involved and the facade of PWU Building at Taft Avenue, Manila conspicuously served as the background of the episode.

The showing of The Inside Story caused uproar in the PWU community. Dr. Leticia P. de Guzman, Chancellor and Trustee of the PWU, and the PWU Parents and Teachers Association filed letter-complaints with petitioner MTRCB. Both complainants alleged that the episode besmirched the name of the PWU and resulted in the harassment of some of its female students.

ISSUE:

WoN petitioner has the power or authority to review the television program prior its broadcast

HELD:

Yes, petitioner has the power to review the television program prior its broadcast.

Sec 3 of PD 1986 states that MTRCB has the power to screen, review and examine all motion pictures as defined, television programs, . . . for television broadcast or for general viewing.

Here, it then follows that since The Inside Story is a television program, it is within the jurisdiction of the MTRCB over which it has power of review. Petitioner did not disapprove or ban the showing of the program but were merely penalized for their failure to submit to petitioner The Inside Story for its review and approval.

MIRRIAM COLLEGE FOUNDATION vs CA      GR No. 127930 

FACTS:

Obscene, vulgar, indecent, gross, sexually explicit, injurious to young readers, and devoid of all moral values. This was how some members of the Miriam College community allegedly described the contents of the September-October 1994 issue (Vol. 41, No. 14) of Miriam Colleges school paper (Chi-Rho), and magazine (Ang Magasing Pampanitikan ng Chi-Rho).

Following the publication of the paper and the magazine, the members of the editorial board, and Relly Carpio, author of Libog, all students of Miriam College, received a letter signed by Dr. Aleli Sevilla, Chair of the Miriam College Discipline Committee.

ISSUE:

WoN the petitioner has the jurisdiction over the complaints against the respondent students considering that respondents violated regulations in the student handbook, on contrary, that the respondents have the right to free speech in school premises.

HELD:

Yes, the petitioner has the jurisdiction to hear and decide the cases filed against respondent students.

Institutional academic freedom includes the right of the school or college to decide for itself, its aims and objectives, and how best to attain them free from outside coercion or interference save possibly when the overriding public welfare calls for some restraint.

Here, the right of the students to free speech in school premises is not absolute. The right to free speech must always be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. The school cannot suspend or expel a student solely on the basis of the articles he or she has written, except when such articles materially disrupt class work or involve substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.

PEOPLE vs GO PIN                    GR No. L-7491 

FACTS:

Go Pin, an alien and a Chinese citizen, was charged with a violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code for having exhibited in the City of Manila at the Globe Arcade, a recreation center, a large number of one-real 16-millimeter films about 100 feet in length each, which are allegedly indecent and/or immoral.

Go Pin does not deny his guilt but he claims that under the circumstances surrounding the case, particularly the slight degree of obscenity, indecency and immorality noted by the court in the films, the prison sentence should be eliminated from the penalty imposed.

ISSUE:

WoN the effect that paintings and pictures of women in nude, including sculptures of that kind are offensive.

HELD:

Yes, the paintings, pictures, and sculptures are on a slight degree of obscenity, indecency, and immorality.

If such pictures, sculptures and paintings are shown in art exhibits and art galleries for the cause of art, to be viewed and appreciated by people interested in art, there would be no offense committed. Here, the pictures in question were used not exactly for art's sake but rather for commercial purposes. In other words, the supposed artistic qualities of said pictures were being commercialized so that the cause of art was of secondary or minor importance.

DAVID vs MACAPAGAL-ARROYO      GR No. 171396 

FACTS:

President Arroyo issued Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 and General Order No. 5 declaring a state of national emergency basing such issuances on the conspiracy among some military officers, leftist insurgents of the New People’s Army (NPA), and some members of the political opposition in a plot to unseat or assassinate President Arroyo.

ISSUE:

WoN the presidential proclamation and general order is constitutional considering that it violates the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press, of speech and of assembly, on contrary, that it is to prevent and suppress acts of terrorism and lawless violence in the country.

HELD:

Yes, PP 1017 and GO No.5 are constitutional.

Under the calling-out power, the President may summon the armed forces to aid him in suppressing lawless violence, invasion and rebellion. This involves ordinary police action.

PP 1017 is limited to the calling out by the President of the military to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. pursuant to G.O. No. 5, the military and the police committed acts which violate the citizens’ rights under the Constitution, this Court has to declare such acts unconstitutional and illegal.

GERONA vs SECRETARY OF EDUCATION    GR No. L-13954

FACTS:
Petitioners belong to the Jehova’s Witness whose children were expelled from their schools when they refused to salute, sing the anthem, recite the pledge during the conduct of flag ceremony. DO No. 8 issued by DECS pursuant to RA 1265 called for the manner of conduct during a flag ceremony.

ISSUE:

WoN the flag salute is a religious ceremony considering that participation to the same is forbidden by the petitioners’ religious belief, on contrary, that the flag is not an image but a symbol of the Republic of the Philippines.

HELD:

No, the flag salute is not a religious ceremony.

The Constitution guaranteed the right of a citizen about freedom of religious belief and the right to practice it as against the power and authority of the State to limit or restrain the same.

the flag salute is not a religious ceremony but an act and profession of love and allegiance and pledge of loyalty to the fatherland which the flag stands for. The requirement of observance of the flag ceremony or salute provided for in said Department Order No. 8, does not violate the Constitutional provision about freedom of religion and exercise of religion.

MARCUS vs MANGLAPUS      GR No. 88211 

FACTS:

Former President Marcos, after his and his family spent three-year exile in Hawaii, USA, sought to return to the Philippines. The call is about to request of Marcos family to order the respondents to issue travel order to them and to enjoin the petition of the President's decision to bar their return to the Philippines.

ISSUE:

WoN in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution, the President may prohibit the petitioners from returning to the Philippines

HELD:

Yes, the President may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines.

The right to return to one's country is not among the rights specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, which treats only of the liberty of abode and the right to travel, but it is a well-considered view that the right to return may be considered, as a generally accepted principle of international law and, under our Constitution, is part of the law of the land.

Among the duties of the President under the Constitution is to protect and promote the interest and welfare of the people. Her decision to bar the return of the Marcoses and subsequently, the remains of Mr. Marcos at the present time and under present circumstances is in compliance with this bounden duty.

RE: REQUEST FOR COPY OF 2008 SALN & PDS OR CV     AM No. 09-8-6-SC 

FACTS: 
Rowena Paraan, Research Director of the PCIJ, sought copies of the SALN of the Justices of the Supreme Court for the year 2008. She also requested for copies of the Personal Data Sheet of the Justices of this Court for the purpose of updating their database of information on government officials.

ISSUE:

WoN the SALN of Justices can be accessed via the right to information

HELD:

Yes, the SALN of Justices can be accessed.

The Constitution states that access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

while no prohibition could stand against access to official records, such as the SALN, the same is undoubtedly subject to regulation. However, custodians of public documents must not concern themselves with the motives, reasons and objects of the persons seeking access to the records.

PEOPLE vs GO      GR No. 144639 

FACTS:

A raiding team armed with a warrant entered the home of appellant Benny Go in search of evidence for the violation of Republic Act 6425. They then seized properties and objects even those which were not included in the warrant.

ISSUE:

WoN the items seized not included in the warrant are admissible

HELD:
No, the items seized not included in the warrant are not admissible.

In a Veloso case, it was held that the warrant will always be construed strictly without, however, going the full length of requiring technical accuracy. No presumptions of regularity are to be invoked in aid of the process when an officer undertakes to justify under it

The Inventory Receipt signed by appellant is thus not only inadmissible for being violative of appellant’s custodial right to remain silent; it is also an indicium of the irregularity in the manner by which the raiding team conducted the search of appellant’s residence.

PEOPLE vs TOMAQUIN      GR No. 133188 

FACTS:

Appellant was convicted with murder. There were no eyewitnesses to the incident, and the prosecution’s evidence, aside from appellant’s extrajudicial confession, was mainly circumstantial. Said extrajudicial confession was given in the presence of a barangay captain who is also a lawyer.

ISSUE:

WoN the extrajudicial confession by appellant is admissible in evidence against him

HELD:

No, the extrajudicial confession by appellant is inadmissible.

The Constitution provides that Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice.

 Atty. Parawan’s role as the barangay captain, was a peacekeeping officer of his barangay and therefore in direct conflict with the role of providing competent legal assistance to appellant who was accused of committing a crime in his jurisdiction.