Diosdado Guzman vs.

National University
Petitioners Diosdado Guzman, Ulysses Urbiztondo and Ariel Ramacula, students of respondent National University, have come to this Court to seek relief from what they describe as their school's "continued and persistent refusal to allow them to enrol." In their petition "for extraordinary legal and equitable remedies with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction" dated August 7, 1984, they alleged that they were denied due to the fact that they were active participation in peaceful mass actions within the premises of the University. The respondents on the other hand claimed that the petitioners failure to enroll for the first semester of the school year 1984-1985 is due to their own fault and not because of their alleged exercise of their constitutional and human rights. That as regards to Guzman, his academic showing was poor due to his activities in leading boycotts of classes. That Guzman is facing criminal charges for malicious mischief before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila in connection with the destruction of properties of respondent University. The petitioners have failures in their records, and are not of good scholastic standing. Held: Immediately apparent from a reading of respondents' comment and memorandum is the fact that they had never conducted proceedings of any sort to determine whether or not petitioners-students had indeed led or participated "in activities within the university premises, conducted without prior permit from school authorities, that disturbed or disrupted classes therein" 3 or perpetrated acts of "vandalism, coercion and intimidation, slander, noise barrage and other acts showing disdain for and defiance of University authority." 4 Parenthetically, the pendency of a civil case for damages and a criminal case for malicious mischief against petitioner Guzman, cannot, without more, furnish sufficient warrant for his expulsion or debarment from re-enrollment. Also apparent is the omission of respondents to cite this Court to any duly published rule of theirs by which students may be expelled or refused re-enrollment for poor scholastic standing. There are withal minimum standards which must be met to satisfy the demands of procedural due process; and these are, that (1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them; (2) they shall have the right to answer the charges against them, with the assistance of counsel, if desired; (3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them; (4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; and (5) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case. THE PETITION WAS GRANTED AND THE RESPONDENTS ARE DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE PETITIONERS TO RE-ENROLL WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.

Ang Tibay vs CIR

TeodoroToribio owns and operates Ang Tibay a leather company which supplies the Philippine Army. Due to alleged shortage of leather, Toribio caused the lay off of members of National Labor Union Inc. NLU averred that Toribios act is not valid as it is not within the CBA. That there are two labor unions in Ang Tibay; NLU and National Workers Brotherhood. That NWB is dominated by Toribio hence he favors it over NLU. That NLU wishes for a new trial as they were able to come up with new evidence/documents that they were not able to obtain before as they were inaccessible and they were not able to present it before in the CIR. ISSUE: Whether or not there has been a due process of law. HELD: The SC ruled that there should be a new trial in favor of NLU. The SC ruled that all administrative bodies cannot ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due process. They are; (1) The right to a hearing which includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof. (2) Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented. (3) While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to decide right, it does imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely, that of having something to support its decision. A decision with absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity, a place when directly attached. (4) Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion but the evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. (5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected. (6) The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges, therefore, must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision. (7) The Court of Industrial Relations should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the vario issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions rendered. The performance of this duty is inseparable from the authority conferred upon it.

Philcomsat vs. Alcuaz

The petition before us seeks to annul and set aside an Order 1 issued by respondent Commissioner Jose Luis Alcuaz of the National Telecommunications Commission. Herein petitioner is engaged in providing for services involving telecommunications. Charging rates for certain specified lines that were reduced by order of herein respondent Jose Alcuaz, Commissioner of the National Telecommunications Commission. The rates were ordered to be reduced by fifteen percent (15%) due to Executive Order No. 546 which granted the NTC the power to fix rates. Said order was issued without prior notice and hearing. Under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 5514, petitioner was exempt from the jurisdiction of the then Public Service Commission, now respondent NTC. However, pursuant to Executive Order No. 196 issued on June 17, 1987, petitioner was placed under the jurisdiction, control and regulation of respondent NTC. Issue: Whether or Not E.O. 546 is unconstitutional. Held: In Vigan Electric Light Co., Inc. vs. Public Service Commission the Supreme Court said that although the rule-making power and even the power to fix rates- when such rules and/or rates are meant to apply to all enterprises of a given kind throughout the Philippines-may partake of a legislative character. Respondent Alcuaz no doubt contains all the attributes of a quasi-judicial adjudication. Foremost is the fact that said order pertains exclusively to petitioner and to no other. The respondent admits that the questioned order was issued pursuant to its quasi-judicial functions. It, however, insists that notice and hearing are not necessary since the assailed order is merely incidental to the entire proceedings and, therefore, temporary in nature but the supreme court said that While respondents may fix a temporary rate pending final determination of the application of petitioner, such rate-fixing order, temporary though it may be, is not exempt from the statutory procedural requirements of notice and hearing. The Supreme Court Said that it is clear that with regard to rate-fixing, respondent has no authority to make such order without first giving petitioner a hearing, whether the order be temporary or permanent. In the Case at bar the NTC didnt scheduled hearing nor it did give any notice to the petitioner.

People vs Nazario
Eusebio Nazario was charged in violation of refusal and failure to pay his municipal taxes amounting to Php 362.62 because of his fishpond operation provided under Ordinance 4, Series of 1955, as amended. He is a resident of Sta. Mesa Manila and just leases a fishpond located at Pagbilao, Quezon with the Philippine Fisheries Commission. The years in question of failure to pay was for 1964, 1965, and 1966. Nazario did not pay because he was not sure if he was covered under the ordinance. He was found guilty thus this petition. Issues: 1. Whether or not Ordinance 4, Series of 1955, as amended null and void for being ambiguous and uncertain 2. Whether or not the ordinance was unconstitutional for being ex post facto Held: 1. No, the coverage of the ordinance covers him as the actual operator of the fishpond thus he comes with the term Manager. He was the one who spent money in developing and maintaining it, so despite only leasing it from the national government, the latter does not get any profit as it goes only to Nazario. The dates of payment are also clearly stated Beginnin and taking effect from 1964 if the fishpond started operating in 1964. 2. No, it is not ex post facto. Ordinance 4 was enacted in 1955 so it cant be that the amendment under Ordinance 12 is being made to apply retroactively. Also, the act of non-payment has been made punishable since 1955 so it means Ordinance 12 is not imposing a retroactive penalty.

The appeal is DISMISSED with cost against the appellant.

People vs Cayat
Facts/Issue: Accused Cayat, a native of Baguio, Benguet, Mountain Province, and a member of the non-Christian tribes, was found guilty of violating sections 2 and 3 of Act No. 1639 for having acquired and possessed one bottle of A-1-1 gin, an intoxicating liquor, which is not a native wine. The law made it unlawful for any native of the Philippines who is a member of a non-Christian tribe within the meaning of Act 1397 to buy, receive, have in his possession, or drink any ardent spirits, ale, beer, wine or intoxicating liquors of any kind, other than the so-called native wines and liquors which the members of such tribes have been accustomed to prior to the passage of the law. Cayat challenges the constitutionality of Act 1639 on the grounds that it is discriminatory and denies the equal protection of the laws, violates due process clause, and is an improper exercise of police power. Held: It is an established principle of constitutional law that the guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based on reasonable classification. (1) must rest on substantial distinctions; (2) must be germane to the purposes of the law; (3) must not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) must apply equally to all members of the same class. Act No. 1639 satisfies these requirements. The classification rests on real or substantial, not merely imaginary or whimsical distinctions. It is not based upon accident of birth or parentage, as counsel for the appellant asserts, but upon the degree of civilization and culture. The term non Christian tribes refers, not to religious belief but in a way, to the geographical area and more directly, to natives of the Philippine Islands of a low grade of civilization, usually living in tribal relationship apart from settled communities. (Rubi vs. Provincial Board of Mindora, supra.) This distinction is unquestionably reasonable, for the Act was intended to meet the peculiar conditions existing in the non-Christian tribes. The prohibition enshrined in Act 1397 is designed to insure peace and order in and among non-Christian tribes. It applies equally to all members of the class evident from perusal thereof. That it may be unfair in its operation against a certain number of non-Christians by reason of their degree of culture, is not an argument against the equality of its application.

Caunca vs Salazar
Facts: This is an action for habeas corpus brought by Bartolome Caunca in behalf of his cousin Estelita Flores who was employed by the Far Eastern Employment Bureau, owned by Julia Salazar, respondent herein. An advanced payment has already been given to Estelita by the employment agency, for her to work as a maid. However, Estelita wanted to transfer to another residence, which was disallowed by the employment agency. Further she was detained and her liberty was restrained. The employment agency wanted that theadvance payment, which was applied to her transportation expense from the province should be paid by Estelita before she could be allowed to leave. Issue: Whether or Not an employment agency has the right to restrain and detain a maid without returning the advance payment it gave? Held: An employment agency, regardless of the amount it may advance to a prospective employee or maid, has absolutely no power to curtail her freedom of movement. The fact that no physical force has been exerted to keep her in the house of the respondent does not make less real the deprivation of her personal freedom of movement, freedom to transfer from one place to another, freedom to choose ones residence. Freedom may be lost due to external moral compulsion, to founded or groundless fear, to erroneous belief in the existence of an imaginary power of an impostor to cause harm if not blindly obeyed, to any other psychological element that may curtail the mental faculty of choice or the unhampered exercise of the will. If the actual effect of such psychological spell is to place a person at the mercy of another, the victim is entitled to the protection of courts of justice as much as the individual who is illegally deprived of liberty by duress or physical coercion.

Zulueta vs. Court of Appeals

FACTS:
Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of private respondent Alfredo Martin. On March 26, 1962, petitioner entered the clinic of her husband, a doctor of medicine, and in the presence of her mother, a driver and private respondent's secretary, forcibly opened the drawers and cabinet of her husband's clinic and took 157 documents consisting of private respondents between Dr. Martin and his alleged paramours, greeting cards, cancelled check, diaries, Dr. Martin's passport, and photographs. The documents and papers were seized for use in evidence in a case for legal separation and for disqualification from the practice of medicine which petitioner had filed against her husband.

Acosta vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioners are teachers from different public schools in Metro Manila. On various dates in September and October 1990, petitioners did not report for work and instead, participated in mass actions by public school teachers at the Liwasang Bonifacio for the purpose of petitioning the government for redress of their grievances. Petitioners were administratively charged with such offenses as grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, gross violation of civil service law, rules and regulations and reasonable office regulations, refusal to perform official duty, gross insubordination, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and absence without official leave. Petitioners failed to answer these charges. Following the investigations conducted by the DECS Investigating committees, Secretary Cario found petitioners guilty as charged and ordered their immediate dismissal from the service. Petitioners appealed and the CSC modified the said orders of Secretary Cario to six (6) months suspension without pay. Appeal to CA: Denied ISSUE: Whether Petitioners participation in the mass actions was an exercise of their constitutional rights to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances HELD: These mass actions were to all intents and purposes a strike; they constituted a concerted and unauthorized stoppage of, or absence from, work which it was the teachers sworn duty to perform, undertaken for essentially economic reasons. The ability to strike is not essential to the right of association. In the absence of statute, public employees do not have the right to engage in concerted work stoppages for any purpose. Further, herein petitioners, are being penalized not because they exercised their right of peaceable assembly and petition for redress of grievances but because of their successive unauthorized and unilateral absences which produced adverse effects upon their students for whose education they are responsible. As aptly stated by the Solicitor General, It is not the exercise by the petitioners of their constitutional right to peaceably assemble that was punished, but the manner in which they exercised such right which resulted in the temporary stoppage or disruption of public service and classes in various public schools in Metro Manila. For, indeed, there are efficient and non-disruptive avenues, other than the mass actions in question, whereby petitioners could petition the government for redress of grievances. It bears stressing that suspension of public services, however temporary, will inevitably derail services to the public, which is one of the reasons why the right to strike is denied government employees. It may be conceded that the petitioners had valid grievances and noble intentions in staging the mass actions, but that will not justify their absences to the prejudice of innocent school children. Their righteous indignation does not legalize an illegal work stoppage.

ISSUE: Whether or not the papers and other materials obtained from forcible intrusion and from unlawful means are admissible as evidence in court regarding marital separation and disqualification from medical practice.

HELD: Indeed the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in evidence. The constitutional injunction declaring "the privacy of communication and correspondence to be inviolable" is no less applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself aggrieved by her husband's infidelity) who is the party against whom the constitutional provision is to be enforced. The only exception to the prohibition in the constitution is if there is a "lawful order from the court or which public safety or order require otherwise, as prescribed by law." Any violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained inadmissible "for any purpose in any proceeding." The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify anyone of them in breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed her/his integrity or her/his right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional protection is ever available to him or to her. The law insures absolute freedom of communication between the spouses by making it privileged. Neither husband nor wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse while the marriage subsists. Neither may be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage, save for specified exceptions. But one thing is freedom of communication; quite another is a compulsion for each one to share what one knows with the other. And this has nothing to do with the duty of fidelity that each owes to the other .

VALMONTE VS BELMONTE
Facts: Ricardo Valmonte wrote Feliciano Belmonte Jr. on 4 June 1986, requesting to be "furnished with the list of names of the opposition members of (the) Batasang Pambansa who were able to secure a clean loan of P2 million each on guaranty (sic) of Mrs. Imelda Marcos" and also to "be furnished with the certified true copies of the documents evidencing their loan. Expenses in connection herewith shall be borne by" Valmonte, et. al. Due to serious legal implications, President & General Manager Feliciano Belmonte, Jr. referred the letter to the Deputy General Counsel of the GSIS, Meynardo A. Tiro. Tiro replied that it is his opinion "that a confidential relationship exists between the GSIS and all those who borrow from it, whoever they may be; that the GSIS has a duty to its customers to preserve this confidentiality; and that it would not be proper for the GSIS to breach this confidentiality unless so ordered by the courts." On 20 June 1986, apparently not having yet received the reply of the Government Service and Insurance System (GSIS) Deputy General Counsel, Valmonte wrote Belmonte another letter, saying that for failure to receive a reply "(W)e are now considering ourselves free to do whatever action necessary within the premises to pursue our desired objective in pursuance of public interest." On 26 June 1986, Ricardo Valmonte, Oswaldo Carbonell, Doy Del Castillo, Rolando Bartolome, Leo Obligar, Jun Gutierrez, Reynaldo Bagatsing, Jun "Ninoy" Alba, Percy Lapid, Rommel Corro, and Rolando Fadul filed a special civil action for mandamus with preliminary injunction invoke their right to information and pray that Belmonte be directed: (a) to furnish Valmonte, et. al. the list of the names of the Batasang Pambansa members belonging to the UNIDO and PDP-Laban who were able to secure clean loans immediately before the February 7 election thru the intercession/marginal note of the then First Lady Imelda Marcos; and/or (b) to furnish petitioners with certified true copies of the documents evidencing their respective loans; and/or (c) to allow petitioners access to the public records for the subject information. Issue: Whether Valmonte, et. al. are entitled as citizens and taxpayers to inquire upon GSIS records on behest loans given by the former First Lady Imelda

Marcos to Batasang Pambansa members belonging to the UNIDO and PDPLaban political parties. Held: The GSIS is a trustee of contributions from the government and its employees and the administrator of various insurance programs for the benefit of the latter. Undeniably, its funds assume a public character. More particularly, Secs. 5(b) and 46 of PD 1146, as amended (the Revised Government Service Insurance Act of 1977), provide for annual appropriations to pay the contributions, premiums, interest and other amounts payable to GSIS by the government, as employer, as well as the obligations which the Republic of the Philippines assumes or guarantees to pay. Considering the nature of its funds, the GSIS is expected to manage its resources with utmost prudence and in strict compliance with the pertinent laws or rules and regulations. Thus, one of the reasons that prompted the revision of the old GSIS law (CA 186, as amended) was the necessity "to preserve at all times the actuarial solvency of the funds administered by the Systems [Second Whereas Clause, PD 1146.] Consequently, as Feliciano Belmonte himself admits, the GSIS "is not supposed to grant 'clean loans.'" It is therefore the legitimate concern of the public to ensure that these funds are managed properly with the end in view of maximizing the benefits that accrue to the insured government employees. Moreover, the supposed borrowers were Members of the defunct Batasang Pambansa who themselves appropriated funds for the GSIS and were therefore expected to be the first to see to it that the GSIS performed its tasks with the greatest degree of fidelity and that all its transactions were above board. In sum, the public nature of the loanable funds of the GSIS and the public office held by the alleged borrowers make the information sought clearly a matter of public interest and concern. Still, Belmonte maintains that a confidential relationship exists between the GSIS and its borrowers. It is argued that a policy of confidentiality restricts the indiscriminate dissemination of information. Yet, Belmonte has failed to cite any law granting the GSIS the privilege of confidentiality as regards the documents subject of the present petition. His position is apparently based merely on considerations of policy. The judiciary does not settle policy issues. The Court can only declare what the law is, and not what the law should be. Under our system of government, policy issues are within the domain of the political branches of the government, and of the people themselves as the repository of all State power.

Heirs of Juancho Ardona v. Reyes

TIRO V. JUDGE HONTANOSAS

FACTS: Zafra Financing Enterprise sued Superintendent Tiro because the latter forbade the formers collection of salary checks of school teacher from division office, following the issuance of Circular No. 21 s. 1969 by the Director of Public Schools. Zafra sought to compel Tiro to honor the special powers of attorney and to declare Circular No. 21 as illegal. The trial court ruled in favor of Zafra. Tiro sought a petition for review and reversal of trial courts decision. ISSUE: Whether or not Circular No. 21 s.1969 is invalid for being violative of the non-impairment clause under the Constitution. HELD: No. The circular is valid and enforceable, and is never invasive of any contract. Petition is granted. RATIO: The salary check of a government officer or employee such as a teacher does not belong to him before it is physically delivered to him. Until that time the check belongs to the Government. Accordingly, before there is actual delivery of the check, the payee has no power over it; he cannot assign it without the consent of the Government. On this basis Circular No. 21 stands on firm legal footing.

Facts: The Philippine Tourism Authority sought the expropriation of 282 Ha of land in Barangay Malubog and Babag in Cebu City. upon deposit of an amount equivalent to 10% of the value of the property, the CFI authorized the PTA to take immediate possession of the property. The charter of the PTA authorizes it to acquire through condemnation proceedings lands for tourist zone development of a sports complex. The petitioners who are occupants of the lands, filed a petition for certiorari in the SC. They contended that (1) the taking was not for public use; (2) the land was covered by the land reform program; and (3) expropriation would impair the obligation of contracts.

HELD: The concept of public use is not limited to traditional purposes for the construction of roads, bridges, and the like. The idea that "public use" means "use by the public" has been discarded. As long as the purpose of the taking is public, then the power of eminent domain comes into play. It is accurate to state then that at present whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use. The petititioners have not shown that the area being developed is land reform area and that the affected persons have been given emancipation patents and certificates of land transfer. The contract clause has never been regarded as a barrier to the exercise of the police power and likewise eminent domain.

GANZON vs.COURT OF APPEALS and GELACIO E. TUMAMBING FACTS: HELD: Yes. On November 28, 1956, Gelacio Tumambing contracted the services of Mauro B. Ganzon to haul 305 tons of scrap iron from Mariveles, Bataan, to the port of Manila on board the lighter LCT "Batman. Pursuant to that agreement, Mauro B. Ganzon sent his lighter "Batman" to Mariveles where it docked in three feet of water. Gelacio Tumambing delivered the scrap iron to defendant Filomeno Niza, captain of the lighter, for loading which was actually begun on the same date by the crew of the lighter under the captain's supervision. When about half of the scrap iron was already loaded, Mayor Jose Advincula of Mariveles, Bataan, arrived and demanded P5,000.00 from Gelacio Tumambing. The latter resisted the shakedown and after a heated argument between them, Mayor Jose Advincula drew his gun and fired at Gelacio Tumambing who sustained injuries. After sometime, the loading of the scrap iron was resumed. But on December 4, 1956, Acting Mayor Basilio Rub, accompanied by three policemen, ordered captain Filomeno Niza and his crew to dump the scrap iron where the lighter was docked. The rest was brought to the compound of NASSCO. Later on Acting Mayor Rub issued a receipt stating that the Municipality of Mariveles had taken custody of the scrap iron. Tumabing sued Ganzon; the latter alleged that the goods have not been unconditionally placed under his custody and control to make him liable. The trial court dismissed the case but on appeal, respondent Court rendered a decision reversing the decision of the trial court and ordering Ganzon to pay damages. ISSUE: Whether or not a contract of carriage has been perfected. By the said act of delivery, the scraps were unconditionally placed in the possession and control of the common carrier, and upon their receipt by the carrier for transportation, the contract of carriage was deemed perfected. Consequently, the petitioner-carrier's extraordinary responsibility for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods commenced. Pursuant to Art. 1736, such extraordinary responsibility would cease only upon the delivery, actual or constructive, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them. The fact that part of the shipment had not been loaded on board the lighter did not impair the said contract of transportation as the goods remained in the custody and control of the carrier, albeit still unloaded. Before Ganzon could be absolved from responsibility on the ground that he was ordered by competent public authority to unload the scrap iron, it must be shown that Acting Mayor Basilio Rub had the power to issue the disputed order, or that it was lawful, or that it was issued under legal process of authority. The appellee failed to establish this. Indeed, no authority or power of the acting mayor to issue such an order was given in evidence. Neither has it been shown that the cargo of scrap iron belonged to the Municipality of Mariveles. What we have in the record is the stipulation of the parties that the cargo of scrap iron was accumulated by the appellant through separate purchases here and there from private individuals. The fact remains that the order given by the acting mayor to dump the scrap iron into the sea was part of the pressure applied by Mayor Jose Advincula to shakedown Tumambing for P5,000.00. The order of the acting mayor did not constitute valid authority for Ganzon and his representatives to carry out.

BANAT VS COMELEC
Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) filed before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) a petition to proclaim the full number of party list representatives provided by the Constitution. However, the recommendation of the head of the legal group of COMELECs national board of canvassers to declare the petition moot and academic was approved by the COMELEC en banc, and declared further in a resolution that the winning party list will be resolved using the Veterans ruling. BANAT then filed a petition before the SC assailing said resolution of the COMELEC. Issues: (1) Is the 20% allocation for party-list representatives provided in Sec 5 Art VI of the Constitution mandatory or is it merely a ceiling? (2) Is the 2% threshold and qualifier votes prescribed by the same Sec 11 (b) of RA 7941 constitutional? (3) Does the Constitution prohibit major political parties from participating in the party-list elections? If not, can major political parties participate in the party-list elections? Held: (1) Neither the Constitution nor RA 7941 mandates the filling up of the entire 20% allocation of party-list representatives found in the Constitution. The Constitution, in paragraph 1, Sec 5 of Art VI, left the determination of the number of the members of the House of Representatives to Congress. The 20% allocation of party-list representatives is merely a ceiling; party-list representatives cannot be more then 20% of the members of the House of Representatives. (2) No. We rule that, in computing the allocation of additional seats, the continued operation of the two percent threshold for thedistribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause of Sec 11(b) of RA 7941 is unconstitutional. This Court finds that the two percent threshold makes it mathematically impossible to achieve the maximum number of available party-list seats when the available party-list seat exceeds 50. The continued operation of the two percent threshold in the distribution of the additional seats frustrates the attainment of the permissive ceiling that 20% of the members of the House of Representatives shall consist of partylist representatives. We therefore strike down the two percent threshold only in relation to the distribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause of Sec 11 (b) of RA 7941. The two percent threshold presents an unwarranted obstacle to the full implementation of Sec 5 (2), Art VI of the Constitution and prevents the attainment of the-broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives. (3) No. Neither the Constitution nor RA 7941 prohibits major political parties from participating in the party-list system. On the contrary, the framers of the Constitution clearly intended the major political parties to participate in party-list elections through their sectoral wings. However, by vote of 8-7, the Court decided to continue the ruling in Veterans disallowing major political parties from participating in the party-list elections, directly or indirectly.

CHAVEZ VS. COMELEC

Facts: Petitioner seeks to enjoin the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) from enforcing Section 32 of its Resolution No. 6520. He claims that said section in the nature of an ex post facto law. He urges this Court to believe that the assailed provision makes an individual criminally liable for an election offense for not removing such advertisement, even if at the time the said advertisement was exhibited, the same was clearly legal. ISSUE: Is Sec. 32 of COMELEC Res. No. 6520 in the nature of an ex post facto law? HELD: NO! Section 32, although not penal in nature, defines an offense and prescribes a penalty for said offense. Laws of this nature must operate prospectively, except when they are favorable to the accused. It should be noted, however, that the offense defined in the assailed provision is not the putting up of "propaganda materials such as posters, streamers, stickers or paintings on walls and other materials showing the picture, image or name of a person, and all advertisements on print, in radio or on television showing the image or mentioning the name of a person, who subsequent to the placement or display thereof becomes a candidate for public office." Nor does it prohibit or consider an offense the entering of contracts for such propaganda materials by an individual who subsequently becomes a candidate for public office. One definitely does not commit an offense by entering into a contract with private parties to use his name and image to endorse certain products prior to his becoming a candidate for public office. The offense, as expressly prescribed in the assailed provision, is the non-removal of the described propaganda materials three (3) days after the effectivity of COMELEC Resolution No. 6520. If the candidate for public office fails to remove such propaganda materials after the given period, he shall be liable under Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code for premature campaigning. Indeed, nowhere is it indicated in the assailed provision that it shall operate retroactively. There is, therefore, no ex post facto law in this case.

BORJA VS MENDOZA
Borja was accused of slight physical injuries in the City of Cebu. However, he was not arraigned. That notwithstanding, respondent Judge Senining proceeded with the trial in absentia and rendered a decision finding petitioner guilty of the crime charged. The case was appealed to the Court o First Instance in Cebu presided by respondent Judge Mendoza. It was alleged that the failure to arraign him is a violation of his constitutional rights. It was also alleged that without any notice to petitioner and without requiring him to submit his memorandum, a decision on the appealed case was rendered The Solicitor General commented that the decision should be annulled because there was no arraignment. Issue: Whether or Not petitioners constitutional right was violated when he was not arraigned. Held: Yes! Procedural due process requires that the accused be arraigned so that he may be informed as to why he was indicted and what penal offense he has to face, to be convicted only on a showing that his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt with full opportunity to disprove the evidence against him. It is also not just due process that requires an arraignment. It is required in the Rules that an accused, for the first time, is granted the opportunity to know the precise charge that confronts him. It is imperative that he is thus made fully aware of possible loss of freedom, even of his life, depending on the nature of the crime imputed to him. At the very least then, he must be fully informed of why the prosecuting arm of the state is mobilized against him. Being arraigned is thus a vital aspect of the constitutional rights guaranteed him. Also, respondent Judge Senining convicted petitioner notwithstanding the absence of an arraignment. With the violation of the constitutional right to be heard by himself and counsel being thus manifest, it is correct that the Solicitor General agreed with petitioner that the sentence imposed on him should be set aside for being null. The absence of an arraignment can be invoked at anytime in view of the requirements of due process to ensure a fair and impartial trial. Wherefore, the petition for certiorari is granted. The decision of respondent Judge Romulo R. Senining dated December 28, 1973, finding the accused guilty of the crime of slight physical injuries, is nullified and set aside. Likewise, the decision of respondent Judge Rafael T. Mendoza dated November 16, 1976, affirming the aforesaid decision of Judge Senining, is nullified and set aside. The case is remanded to the City Court of Cebu for the prosecution of the offense of slight physical injuries, with due respect and observance of the provisions of the Rules of Court, starting with the arraignment of petitioner.

PEOPLE VS SALAS
Facts: Salas aka NPAs Ka Bilog was arrested and was charged for rebellion. He was charged together with the spouses Concepcion. Salas, together with his co-accused later filed a petition for the WoHC. A conference was held thereafter to hear each partys side. It was later agreed upon by both parties that Salas will withdraw his petition for the WoHC and that he will remain in custody for the continued investigation of the case and that he will face trial. The SC then, basing on the stipulations of the parties, held to dismiss the habeas corpus case filed by Salas. But later on, Salas filed to be admitted for bail and Judge Donato approved his application for bail. Judge Donato did not bother hearing the side of the prosecution. The prosecution argued that Salas is estopped from filing bail because he has waived his right to bail when he withdrew his petition or habeas corpus as a sign of agreement that he will be held in custody. ISSUE: Whether or not Salas can still validly file for bail. HELD: The SC ruled that Salas did waive his right to bail when he withdrew his petition for the issuance of the WoHC. The contention of the defense that Salas merely agreed to be in custody and that the same does not constitute a waiver of his right to bail is not tenable. His waiver to such right is justified by his act of withdrawing his petition for WoHC.

CASTILLO VS SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS: RP filed with the Sandiganbayan a complaint for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages against several persons, one of which is Gregorio Castillo. The latter was accused of having acted as dummy, nominee and/or agent of the Marcoses, et al. in establishing Hotel Properties, Inc., in order to acquire beneficial interest and control, and conceal ownership, of Silahis International Hotel. Castillo later died, therefore, a motion to dismiss was subsequently filed on the ground that the action did not survive the death of petitioner. Sandiganbayan denied the motion, stating that the case is not only one for recovery of money, debt or interest thereon, but one for recovery of real and personal property and that the cause of action being inclusive of claim for damages for tortuous misconduct. In another motion to dismiss, petitioner contended that the complaint filed against Castillo is violative of the lawyer-client confidentiality privilege (since Castillo is attorney-in-fact). But Sandiganbayan ruled that Castillo is sued as principal defendant for being in conspiracy with other defendants in the commission of the acts complained of. Hence this petition. ISSUES: Whether or not Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion? Whether or not the suit is violative of the lawyer-client confidentiality privilege? PETITIONERS CONTENTION: The suit is violative of the lawyer-client confidentiality privilege and must be dismissed pursuant to the Courts decision in Regala vs. Sandiganbayan. THEORY OF DEFENSE: The ruling in Regala does not apply because in said case, there was a clear finding that the ACCRA lawyers were impleaded by the PCGG as codefendants to force them to disclose the identity of their clients as shown by the PCGGs willingness to cut a deal with the ACCRA lawye rs the names of their clients in exchange for exclusion from the complaint. In the

present case, petitioner is being sued as principal defendant for being in conspiracy with the other defendants in the commission of the act complained of, and he is not being required to name his clients. The claim that petitioner merely acted in his professional capacity as counsel with neither participation in nor knowledge is a mere allegation not yet proven. HELD: SC found for the petitioner. The Court adopted its own ruling in the Regala case, viz: an argument is advanced that the invocation by petitioner of the privilege of attorneyclient confidentiality at this state of the proceedings is premature and that they should wait until they are called to testify and examine as witnesses as to matters learned in confidence before they can raise their objection. But petitioners are not mere witnesses. They are co-principals in the case for recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth. They have made their position clear from the very beginning that they are not willing to testify and they cannot be compelled to testify in view of their constitutional right against self-incrimination and of their fundamental legal right to maintain inviolate the privilege of attorney-client confidentiality. The doctrine of adherence to judicial precedents or stare decisis, provided in Art. 8, C.C., enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. It required courts in a country to follow the rule established in a decision of the Supreme Court thereof. That decision becomes a judicial precedent to be followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the land. The doctrine of stare decisis is based on the principle that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument.

WHEREFORE, the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan dated November 24, 1998 and February 18, 1999 are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Respondent Sandiganbayan is further ordered to exclude petitioner Gregorio R. Castillo as party-defendant in SB Civil Case NO. 0014 entitled Republic of the Philippines vs. Modesto Enriquez, et al. SO ORDERED.

PEOPLE VS MALUNSING

CONDE VS. RIVERA

Facts: Aurelia Conde, formerly a municipal midwife in Lucena, Tayabas, has been forced to respond to no less the five information for various crimes and misdemeanors, has appeared with her witnesses and counsel at hearings no less than on eight different occasions only to see the cause postponed, has twice been required to come to the Supreme Court for protection, and now, after the passage of more than one year from the time when the first information was filed, seems as far away from a definite resolution of her troubles as she was when originally charged. Issue: Whether or Not petitioner has been denied her right to a speedy and impartial trial. Held: Philippine organic and statutory law expressly guarantee that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to have a speedy trial. Aurelia Conde, like all other accused persons, has a right to a speedy trial in order that if innocent she may go free, and she has been deprived of that right in defiance of law. We lay down the legal proposition that, where a prosecuting officer, without good cause, secures postponements of the trial of a defendant against his protest beyond a reasonable period of time, as in this instance for more than a year, the accused is entitled to relief by a proceeding in mandamus to compel a dismissal of the information, or if he be restrained of his liberty, by habeas corpus to obtain his freedom.

Facts: Manuel Villegas together with Malunsing et al were charged for murder. At the opening of the trial, Manuel Villegas was appointed a counsel de oficio, Atty. Geronimo Pajarito. Villegas however intimated to Geronimo and the trial court that he has his own lawyer. However, the court proceeded without giving Villegas the opportunity to present his own lawyer. The court then asked Atty. Pajarito if he wants to confer with his client but Pajarito replied I think I know the case. Thereafter, trial began where the prosecution presented evidence against Villegas. No evidence was presented in behalf of Villegas and he was not even called to the witness stand to prove his innocence. Consequently, Villegas was convicted of the crime charged. Now, Atty. Pablito Pielago [presumably Villegas true lawyer and supposed lawyer from the onset?] questioned the conviction as he presented the above irregularities. He said that Villegas is an unlettered man and he does not know the intricacies of court proceedings hence Pajarito should have been vigilant in representing him in court. Pielago now wants the reversal of the conviction. ISSUE: Whether or not the conviction should be reversed. HELD: Yes, for there is a gross violation of Villegas constitutional rights. The Supreme Court noted that it is not enough that a counsel de oficio was appointed, especially so as here, where the accused had indicated that he wanted a lawyer of his choice, a decision prompted moreover by the fact that he had lost confidence in the member of the bar thus designated. Nor is it to manifest respect for this right if the counsel de oficio thus named, instead of conferring with the accused, would just blithely inform the judge that he was already fully prepared for his exacting responsibility. It was unintended, of course, but the result could not rightly be distinguished from pure travesty. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction but considering the gravity of the offense charged, it ordered a new trial.

PEOPLE VS ORTEGA
Facts: Appellants Ortega, Jr. and Garcia were charged with murder. The Information alleged that the accused-appellants, conspiring together and mutually helping one another, without any justifiable cause, with treachery and evident premeditation and with abuse of superior strength and with deliberate intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab repeatedly with a pointed weapon on the different parts of the body of the victim thereby inflicting serious physical injuries which directly caused his death. Appellants Ortega and Garcia pleaded not guilty to the charge. RTC, however, found both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Issue: Whether or not Appellant Garcia was adequately informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Held: No. The Information accused Appellant Garcia (and Appellant Ortega) of attack[ing], assault[ing], and stab[bing] repeatedly with a pointed weapon on the different parts of the body one ANDRE MAR MASANGKAY y ABLOLA. The prosecutions evidence itself shows that Garcia had nothing to do with the stabbing which was solely perpetrated by Appellant Ortega. His responsibility relates only to the attempted concealment of the crime and the resulting drowning of Victim Masangkay. The hornbook doctrine in our jurisdiction is that an accused cannot be convicted of an offense, unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information. Constitutionally, he has a right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. To convict him of an offense other than that charged in the complaint or information would be a violation of this constitutional right. 36 Section 14, par. 2, of the 1987 Constitution explicitly guarantees the following: (2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. (Emphasis supplied) In People vs. Pailano, 37 this Court ruled that there can be no conviction for rape on a woman deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious where the information charged the accused of sexual assault by using force or intimidation, thus:

The criminal complaint in this case alleged the commission of the crime through the first method although the prosecution sought to establish at the trial that the complainant was a mental retardate. Its purpose in doing so is not clear. But whatever it was, it has not succeeded. If the prosecution was seeking to convict the accused-appellant on the ground that he violated Anita while she was deprived of reason or unconscious, such conviction could not have been possible under the criminal complaint as worded. This described the offense as having been committed by Antonio Pailano, being then provided with a scythe , by means of violence and intimidation, (who) did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the complainant, Anita Ibaez, 15 years of age, against her will. No mention was made of the second circumstance. Conviction of the accused-appellant on the finding that he had raped Anita while she was unconscious or otherwise deprived of reason and not through force and intimidation, which was the method alleged would have violated his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. [Article IV, Sec. 19, Constitution of 1973; now Article III, Sec. 14(2)] This right is safeguarded by the Constitution to every accused so he can prepare an adequate defense against the charge against him. Convicting him of a ground not alleged while he is concentrating his defense against the ground alleged would plainly be unfair and underhanded. This right was, of course, available to the herein accusedappellant. In People vs. Ramirez, [fn: 69 SCRA 144] we held that a person charged with rape could not be found guilty of qualified seduction, which had not been alleged in the criminal complaint against him. In the case of People vs. Montes, [fn: 122 SCRA 409] the Court did not permit the conviction for homicide of a person held responsible for the suicide of the woman he was supposed to have raped, as the crime he was accused of and acquitted was not homicide but rape. More to the point is Tubb v. People of the Philippines, [fn: 101 Phil. 114] where the accused was charged with the misappropriation of funds held by him in trust with the obligation to return the same under Article 315, paragraph l(b) of the Revised Penal Code, but was convicted of swindling by means of false pretenses, under paragraph 2(b) of the said Article, which was not alleged in the information. The Court said such conviction would violate the Bill of Rights. By parity of reasoning, Appellant Garcia cannot be convicted of homicide through drowning in an information that charges murder by means of stabbing.

PEOPLE vs. FABRO

Appellant Fabro together with her common-law husband Donald Pilay and
Irene Martin, was charged with the crime of "violation of Section 21 (b) Art. IV, in relation to Section 4, Art. II of Republic Act No. 6425. They conspired and sold/delivered to PO2 APDUHAN, who acted as poseur-buyer, one (1) kilo of dried marijuana leaves. Two concerned individuals, Gloria and Emma Borce, reported to Chief Inspector Evasco that a in Baguio City, was engaged in selling marijuana. They added that sales usually took place between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. Acting on that report, Chief Inspector Evasco organized two teams to conduct a buy-bust operation. Senior Inspector Mabanag was to be the overall team leader with Batag as his assistant. SPO2 Ellonito Apduhan was designated poseur-buyer in the operation. After briefing the group, Chief Inspector Evasco gave P600.00 as purchase money to Apduhan. The amount consisted of six P100-bills with their serial numbers duly listed down. As Apduhan, Gloria and Emma drew near Pilays residence, appellant met them. Donald Pilay who appeared drunk was inside the house by the main door. Gloria and Emma introduced Apduhan to appellant as a stranger in the place who wanted to buy marijuana. Appellant told them that a kilo would cost them P700.00 but she agreed to Apduhans price of P600.00. After Apduhan had ordered a kilo of the contraband, appellant told them to wait a while. Appellant then went to a house just behind her own. After a few minutes, she returned in the company of another woman who was later identified as Irene Martin. Appellant handed the stuff to Apduhan. Her companion, Irene Martin, demanded payment therefor. Apduhan gave her the P600.00. After ascertaining that it was a brick of marijuana, he made the pre-arranged signal of lighting his cigarette. Immediately, the back-up team rushed towards their direction. However, before the team could reach them, Irene Martin ran away. Apduhan held appellant so that she could not escape. Donald Pilay was also arrested. ISSUE: Whether there is conspiracy in the commission of the crime? RULING: Appellants contention that Irene Martin was the real culprit being the source of the contraband does not in any way absolve her of the crime of selling marijuana. While it is true that it was Irene Martin who took the money, appellant was the one who negotiated with the poseur-buyers; fetched her co-accused; carried and handed over the marijuana to Apduhan. The acts of Martin and appellant clearly show a unity of purpose in the consummation of the sale of marijuana. In other words, between Martin and appellant, conspiracy in the commission of the crime was indubitably proven by the prosecution. Section 21 (b) of R.A. 6425 punishes the mere conspiracy to commit the offense of selling, delivering, distributing and transporting of dangerous drugs. Conspiracy herein refers to the mere agreement to commit the said acts and not the actual execution thereof. While the rule is that a mere conspiracy to commit a crime without doing any overt act is not punishable, the exception is when such is specifically penalized by law, as in the case of Section 21 of Republic Act 6425. Conspiracy as crime should be distinguished from conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability the latter being applicable to the case at bar.

YAP VS. CA
Facts: The right against excessive bail, and the liberty of abode and travel, are being invoked to set aside two resolutions of the Court of Appeals which fixed bail at P5,500,000.00 and imposed conditions on change of residence and travel abroad. For misappropriating amounts equivalent to P5,500,000.00, petitioner was convicted of estafa and was sentenced to four years and two months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years of prision mayor as maximum, in addition to one (1) year for each additional P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00 but in no case shall it exceed twenty (20) years. He filed a notice of appeal, and moved to be allowed provisional liberty under the cash bond he had filed earlier in the proceedings.

Issue: Was the condition imposed by the CA on accused bail bond violative the liberty of abode and right to travel? Held: Imposing bail in an excessive amount could render meaningless the right to bail. Under the circumstances of this case, we find that appropriate conditions have been imposed in the bail bond to ensure against the risk of flight, particularly, the combination of the holddeparture order and the requirement that petitioner inform the court of any change of residence and of his whereabouts. Although an increase in the amount of bail while the case is on appeal may be meritorious, we find that the setting of the amount at P5,500,000.00 is unreasonable, excessive, and constitutes an effective denial of petitioners right to bail.

OBOSA VS. CA EBRALINAG VS. DEPED

Facts: All the petitioners in the original case were minor school children, and members of the sect, Jehovah's Witnesses (assisted by their parents) who were expelled from their classes by various public school authorities in Cebu for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge as required by Republic Act No. 1265 of July 11, 1955 and by Department Order No. 8, dated July 21, 1955 issued by the Department of Education. Aimed primarily at private educational institutions which did not observe the flag ceremony exercises, Republic Act No. 1265 penalizes all educational institutions for failure or refusal to observe the flag ceremony with public censure on first offense and cancellation of the recognition or permit on second offense. Obosa was charged with two counts of murder for the ambush and slaying of former Secretary of Interior and Local Governments Jaime Ferrer and his driver Jesus Calderon. However, he was only convicted of two counts of homicide by the trial court. Obosa applied for bail with the trial court. While this is pending, he appealed the case to the CA, which found strong evidence of guilt. Meanwhile, the trial court approved Obosas bail bond, prompting the prosecution to request the CA to cancel the bail bond approved by the trial court. Hence, this petition. ISSUE: Whether or not accused is entitled to right to bail pending appeal as a matter of right? RULING: In the case of De la Camara vs. Enage, we analyzed the purpose of bail and why it should be denied to one charged with a capital offense when evidence of guilt is strong: "x x x Before conviction, every person is bailable except if charged with capital offenses when the evidence of guilt is strong. Such a right flows from the presumption of innocence in favor of every accused who should not be subjected to the loss of freedom as thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal, unless his guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thereby a regime of liberty is honored in the observance and not in the breach. It is not beyond the realm of probability, however, that a person charged with a crime, especially so where his defense is weak, would just simply make himself scarce and thus frustrate the hearing of his case. A bail is intended as a guarantee that such an intent would be thwarted. It is, in the language of Cooley, a 'mode short of confinement which would, with reasonable certainty, insure the attendance of the accused' for the subsequent trial. Nor is there anything unreasonable in denying this right to one charged with a capital offense when evidence of guilt is strong. as the likelihood is, rather than await the outcome of the proceeding against him with a death sentence, an ever-present threat, temptation to flee the jurisdiction would be too great to be resisted." (Underscoring supplied). The aforequoted rationale applies with equal force to an appellant who, though convicted of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, was nevertheless originally charged with a capital offense. Such appellant can hardly be unmindful of the fact that, in the ordinary course of things, there is a substantial likelihood of his conviction (and the corresponding penalty) being affirmed on appeal, or worse, the not insignificant possibility and infinitely more unpleasant prospect of instead being found guilty of the capital offense originally charged. In such an instance, the appellant cannot but be sorely tempted to flee.

Issue: Does refusal to take part in the flag ceremony, on account of religious belief, so offensive as to prompt legitimate state intervention?

Held: No. While conceding to the idea adverted to by the Solicitor General that certain methods of religious expression may be prohibited to serve legitimate societal purposes, refusal to participate in the flag ceremony hardly constitutes a form of religious expression so offensive and noxious as to prompt legitimate State intervention. It bears repeating that their absence from the ceremony hardly constitutes a danger so grave and imminent as to warrant the state's intervention. In the case of a regulation which appears to abridge a right to which the fundamental law accords high significance it is the regulation, not the act (or refusal to act), which is the exception and which requires the court's strictest scrutiny. In the case at bench, the government has not shown that refusal to do the acts of conformity exacted by the assailed orders, which respondents point out attained legislative cachet in the Administrative Code of 1987, would pose a clear and present danger of a danger so serious and imminent, that it would prompt legitimate State intervention.

LUMIQUED VS EXEVEA
Lumiqued was the Regional Director of DAR-CAR. He was charged by Zamudio, the Regional Cashier, for dishonesty due to questionable gas expenses under his office. It was alleged that he was falsifying gas receipts for reimbursements and that he had an unliquidated cash advance worth P116,000.00. Zamudio also complained that she was unjustly removed by Lumiqued two weeks after she filed the two complaints. The issue was referred to the DOJ. Committee hearings on the complaints were conducted on July 3 and 10, 1992, but Lumiqued was not assisted by counsel. On the second hearing date, he moved for its resetting to July 17, 1992, to enable him to employ the services of counsel. The committee granted the motion, but neither Lumiqued nor his counsel appeared on the date he himself had chosen, so the committee deemed the case submitted for resolution. The Investigating Committee recommended the dismissal of Lumiqued. DOJ Sec Drilon adopted the recommendation. Fidel Ramos issued AO 52 dismissing Lumiqued. ISSUE: Does the due process clause encompass the right to be assisted by counsel during an administrative inquiry? HELD: The SC ruled against Lumiqued. The right to counsel, which cannot be waived unless the waiver is in writing and in the presence of counsel, is a right afforded a suspect or an accused during custodial investigation. It is not an absolute right and may, thus, be invoked or rejected in a criminal proceeding and, with more reason, in an administrative inquiry. In the case at bar, petitioners invoke the right of an accused in criminal proceedings to have competent and independent counsel of his own choice. Lumiqued, however, was not accused of any crime in the proceedings below. The investigation conducted by the committee created by Department Order No. 145 was for the purpose of determining if he could be held administratively liable under the law for the complaints filed against him. The right to counsel is not indispensable to due process unless required by the Constitution or the law.
. . . There is nothing in the Constitution that says that a party in a non-criminal proceeding is entitled to be represented by counsel and that, without such representation, he shall not be bound by such proceedings. The assistance of lawyers, while desirable, is not indispensable. The legal profession was not engrafted in the due process clause such that without the participation of its members, the safeguard is deemed ignored or violated. The ordinary citizen is not that helpless that he cannot validly act at all except only with a lawyer at his side.

GAMBOA VS CRUZ
Facts: Petitioner was arrested for vagrancy without a warrant. During a line-up of 5 detainees including petitioner, he was identified by a complainant to be a companion in a robbery, thereafter he was charged. Petitioner filed a Motion to Acquit on the ground that the conduct of the line-up, without notice and in the absence of his counsel violated his constitutional rights to counsel and to due process. The court denied said motion. Hearing was set, hence the petition. Issue: Whether or Not petitioners right to counsel and due process violated. Held: No. The police line-up was not part of the custodial inquest, hence, petitioner was not yet entitled, at such stage, to counsel. He had not been held yet to answer for a criminal offense. The moment there is a move or even an urge of said investigators to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain information which may appear innocent or innocuous at the time, from said suspect, he should then and there be assisted by counsel, unless he waives the right, but the waiver shall be made in writing and in the presence of counsel. On the right to due process, petitioner was not, in any way, deprived of this substantive andconstitutional right, as he was duly represented by a counsel. He was accorded all the opportunities to be heard and to present evidence to substantiate his defense; only that he chose not to, and instead opted to file a Motion to Acquit after the prosecution had rested its case. What due process abhors is the absolute lack of opportunity to be heard.

In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to explain ones side. Whatever irregularity attended the proceedings conducted by the committee was cured by Lumiqueds appeal and his subsequent filing of motions for reconsideration.

PEOPLE VS LUCERO
Facts: Accused-appellant was convicted for robbery with homicide. While he was in custodial investigation the accused cannot afford a lawyer thus one was provided for him in the person of Atty. Peralta as his counsel. Counsel explained to the accused his constitutional rights but Atty. Peralta observed no reaction from the accused. He left to attend the wake of a friend and the police authorities started to take statements from the accused. Apparently during the custodial investigation no counsel was around while accused gave his extrajudicial confession which was used against him as evidence in court and merit his conviction. Issue: Whether or not the extrajudicial confession of the accused may be admissible during the trial. Held: Appellant's conviction cannot be based on his extrajudicial confession. The constitution requires that a person under investigation for the commission of a crime should be provided with a counsel. This is a constitutional guarantee to protect the accused against the hostility and duress from the authorities during custodial investigation. Any confession or statement made without the presence of a counsel during the investigation is deemed to be inadmissible as evidence in court. It appears that when the accused was taken with his statements his counsel was not around. Therefore his extrajudicial confession cannot be used as evidence against the accused during his trial. The court erred in admitting it as evidence and as a basis of conviction therefore the accused is acquitted.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ELIZAR TOMAQUIN

FACTS: ElizarTomaquin was found by the lower Court to be guilty of the crime of murder of JaquelynTatoy beyond reasonable doubt. Petitioner avers that the trial Court erred when it convicted him on the basis of his uncounselled confession. The Court is confronted with the issue of the admissibility of an extrajudicial confession. This appeal particularly involves the question of whether a barangay captain who is a lawyer can be considered an independent counsel within the purview of Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. ISSUE: Is a lawyer at the same time barangay captain competent and independent? RULING: No, in this case, considering that Atty. Parawans role as a 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, Atty. Parawan could not be considered as an independent counsel of appellant, when the latter executed his extrajudicial confession. What the Constitution requires is the presence of an independent and competent counsel, one who will effectively undertake his clients defense without any intervening conflict of interest. Neither does Atty. Parawan qualify as a competent counsel, i.e., an effective and vigilant counsel. An "effective and vigilant counsel" necessarily and logically requires that the lawyer be present and able to advise and assist his client from the time the confessant answers the first question asked by the investigating officer until the signing of the extrajudicial confession. The Court cannot imagine how Atty. Parawan could have effectively safeguarded appellants rights as an accused during the investigation when he himself entertained the suspicion that appellant is guilty of the crime charged, and naturally, he would want appellant to admit having committed it.

PEOPLE V. MOJELLO
RATIO DECIDENDI: The phrase preferably of his own choice does not convey the message that the choice of a lawyer by a person under investigation is exclusive as to preclude other equally competent and independent attorneys from handling the defense. Appellant who was accused of the crime of rape with homicide is assailing the admissibility of his confession because allegedly the confession was not freely, intelligently and voluntarily entered into and that he was not assisted by a counsel. The Court convicted appellant of rape but is acquitted as to the killing. FACTS: Rogelio Rayco was having some drinks with a group. On his way home, he saw his niece, Lenlen with appellant Dindo Mojello, a nephew of Roger Capacito, walking together. Since he was used to seeing them together, he did not find anything strange about this. The following day, the Rayco family was informed that the body of Lenlen was found. Mojello was arrested while attempting to board a motor launch. On an investigation conducted by SPO2 Giducos, he admitted to the rape and the killing. His confession was witnessed by Barangay Captains Bastobalanos and Landao. Batobalanos testified that after it was executed, the contents of the document were read to the appellant who later on voluntarily signed it. Appellant's extrajudicial confession was sworn before Judge Jaca. Appellant Mojello was charged with the crime of rape with homicide. The trial court rendered judgment finding appellant guilty of the crime of rape with homicide. Appellant alleges that the lower court gravely erred in admitting evidence the alleged extrajudicial confession. Appellant avers that the confession which he executed was not freely, intelligently and voluntarily entered into. He argues that he was not knowingly and intelligently apprised of his constitutional rights before the confession was taken from him. ISSUES: WON the extrajudicial confession executed by appellant is admissible in evidence WON appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with homicide

DECISION: Decision AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant Mojello found GUILTY of statutory rape. HELD: The extrajudicial confession executed by appellant applying Art. III, Sec. 12, par 1 of the Constitution in relation to RA No. 7438, Sec. 2 complies with the strict constitutional requirements on the right to counsel. In other words, the extrajudicial confession of the appellant is valid and therefore admissible in evidence. Appellant was undoubtedly apprised of his Miranda rights under the Constitution. The court observed that the confession itself expressly stated that the investigating officers informed him of such rights. Atty. Giduquio testified that while he was attending a Sangguniang Bayan session, he was requested by the Chief of Police to assist appellant. Appellant manifested on record his desire to have Atty. Giduquio as his counsel, with the latter categorically stating that before the investigation was conducted and appellant's statement taken, he advised appellant of his constitutional rights. Atty. Giduquio represented appellant during the initial stages of the trial of the present case. The phrase preferably of his own choice does not convey the message that the choice of a lawyer by a person under investigation is exclusive as to preclude other equally competent and independent attorneys from handling the defense. On cross-examination, appellant Mojello claimed his life was threatened, thereby inducing him to execute an extrajudicial confession, yet he neither filed any case against the person who threatened him, nor did he report this to his counsel. He further claimed that he did not understand the contents of the confession which was read in the Visayan dialects, yet he admits that he uses the Visayan dialect in his daily discourse. The presumption of voluntariness of appellant's confession remain unrebutted by his failure to present independent evidence that the same was coerced. The categorical admission of the appellant to the crime of rape, coupled with the corpus delicti as established by Medico-Legal Report and the testimony of Rogelio Rayco, leads the Court to no other conclusion than that of appellant's guilt for the rape of Lenlen. However, the records do not adequately show that appellant admitted to killing the victim. Neither is the circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish that by reason or on the occasion of the rape a homicide was committed by the appellant.

PEOPLE VS. LABTAN

Facts: On 28 March 1993, at more or less 10:30 p.m. while inside a motor vehicle in the national highway at Barangay Agusan up to the road at Camaman-an, all of Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, Henry Feliciano y Lagura and Orlando Labtan y Daquihon took away, through intimdation or violence, cash amounting to P720.00, pioneer stereo, booster and twitters owned by and belonging to Roman S. Mercado, and a Seiko Diver wristwatch owned by Ismael P. Ebon, all in all amounting to P10,800.00. Later on, on or about 16 April 1993, at about 2:30 p.m., more or less, at Buntong, Camaman-an, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines,Feliciano, Orlando Labtan, and Jonelto Labtan robbed Florentino Bolasito of P30 in cash money. In the course thereof, Orlando and Jonelto Labtan stabbed Bolasito to death. On 23 April 1993, an information was filed against Feliciano, Orlando Labtan, and Jonelto Labtan charging them with robbery with homicide (as per 16 April 1993 incident). Subsequently, another information dated 20 May 1993 was filed against Feliciano and Orlando Labtan charging them with highway robbery (as per 28 March 1993 incident). Only Feliciano pleaded not guilty to the two charges. Orlando Labtan had escaped the Maharlika Rehabilitation and Detention Center in Carmen, Cagayan de Oro City where he was detained while Jonelto Labtan has eluded arrest. The two cases were tried together. After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 25 found Feliciano guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal by direct participation in the crime of robbery with homicide and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the offended party (the heirs of Florentino Bolasito) the sum of P50,000.00 and to pay the offended party the sum of P35,000.00 representing funeral expenses and to pay the cost. The trial court also found Feliciano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of highway robbery, and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of 12 years of prision mayor as the minimum term to 14 years, 8 months of reclusion temporal in its minimum period as the maximum term and to indemnify Roman S. Mercado

the sum of P8,000.00, representing the value of the P700.00 cash, stereo, booster, and twitter and to indemnify Ismael Ebon the sum of P2,500.00, the value of the Seiko Wrist watch divested from him and to pay the cost. The trial court convicted Feliciano on the basis of his sworn statement which he repudiated during the trial. Feliciano appealed. Issue: Whether the counseling of Atty. Pepito Chavez to Feliciano cured the initial lack of counsel? Held: Feliciano had been denied of his right to have a competent and independent counsel when he was questioned in the Cagayan de Oro City Police Station. SPO1 Alfonso Cuarez testified that he started questioning Feliciano at 8:00 a.m. of 22 April 1993 regarding his involvement in the killing of jeepney driver Florentino Bolasito, notwithstanding the fact that he had not been apprised of his right to counsel. Feliciano had been subjected to custodial investigation without a counsel; inasmuch as when SPO1 Cuarez investigated Feliciano, the latter was already a suspect in the killing of jeepney driver Bolasito. Further, Atty. Chavez did not provide the kind of counseling required by the Constitution. He did not explain to Feliciano the consequences of his action that the sworn statement can be used against him and that it is possible that he could be found guilty and sent to jail. Furthermore, Atty. Chavezs independence as counsel is suspect he is regularly engaged by the Cagayan de Oro City Police as counsel de officio for suspects who cannot avail the services of counsel. He even received money from the police as payment for his services.