ARRESTS, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

Art. III, Sec. 2 and 3

Purpose and Importance of the guaranty
1001 Alvero v. Dizon, 76 Phil 637 (1946)

On 12 February 1945 battle for Manila was raging placed Aurelio S. Alvero under arrest, suspected of
collaboration with the enemy seized and took certain papers Pasay
Laws and Customs of War on Land of the Hague Conventions of 1907, authorizing the seizure of military
papers in the possession of prisoners of war without any warrant.

To Whom Directed
1002 People vs. Andre Marti, 193 SCRA 57 (1991)
Who May Invoke the Right?
1003 Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383 (1967) - it may be invoked only by the person entitled to it.
- 42 search warrants were issued for alleged violations of CB laws, Tariffs, NIRC and RPC. The SC
voided the warrants on the ground that it was impossible for the judge to have found probable cause in
the view of the number of laws alleged to have been violated by the petitioner. How could he even know
that particular provision of each law had been violated? If he did not know this, how could it be
determined if the person against whom the warrant was issued was probably guilty thereof? In truth,
this was a fishing expedition, which violated the sanctity of domicile and privacy of communication. TO
establish the requirement of probable cause, the rule is: One Crime, One warrant.
1004 Bache and Co., vs. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 323 (1971) In this case, when the BIR agent and his witnesses
arrived in court in the middle of a hearing, the judge suspended the hearing and directed the branch
clerk to examine and take testimony of the witnesses in his chambers. After he was through with the
hearing, he went back to his chambers and finding that the examination was finished, asked the BIR
agent and his witnesses if they affirmed what they testified to, after which he issued the search warrant
in question.
The determination of the reasonableness of the judicial warrant must be based on the affidavit of one
who has personal knowledge of the facts to which he testifies. The testimony cannot be based on mere
belief. Neither can it be based on a report. Otherwise, the warrant is void.
Conditions for a valid warrant
Existence of Probable Cause (1)
1005 Burgos vs. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800 (1984) - such facts and circumstances which would lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the
objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.
The description which read subversive documents, leaflets, papers to promote the objective of the
Movement for a Free Philippines, the Light a Fire Movement, and the April 6 Movement were held not
to be particular descriptions, thus making the warrant a general warrant.
Reiterating the 1937 case of Rodriguez v. Villamiel, the testimony based on a military report that the
newspaper We Forum was used for subversive were held to be not of personal knowledge and so
was inadmissible.

1006 People v. Chua Ho San, 308 SCRA 432) (1999) 1007 People v. Molina, G.R. No. 133917, February 19, 2001
Partially Valid Warrant
1008 People v. Salanguit, G.R. 133254, April 18, 2001
1009 Microsoft Corp. v. Maxicorp., G.R. 140946, September 13, 2004
Personal determination by judge (2)
1010 Sta. Rosa Mining Co., vs. Fiscal Zabala, 153 SCRA 367 (1987)
1011 Pita vs. CA, 178 SCRA 362 (1987)
1012 Paderanga vs. Drilon, G.R. 96080, April 19, 1991
1013 Abdula v. Guiani. 326 SCRA 1 (2000)
1014 People v. Mamaril, G.R. 147607, January 22, 2004
Examination of witnesses (3)
1015 Alvarez vs. CFI, 64 Phil. 33 (1937)
1016 Pasion Vda. De Garcia vs. Locsin, 65 Phil 68 (1938)
1017 Yee Sue Kuy vs. Almeda, 70 Phil. 141, (1940)
1018 Mata vs. Bayona , 128 SCRA 388 (1984)
Particularity of description (4)
1019 Nolasco vs. Cruz Pano, 132 SCRA 152 (1985) The SC first held that the search was valid even the
warrant issued was void for failing to describe with particularity the things to be seized, because it was
an incident of a valid arrest.
After EDSA revolution, the reconstituted SC granted the motion for reconsideration and held that just
because there was a valid arrest does not mean that the search was likewise valid. To be valid, the
search must be incidental to the arrest, i.e. not separated by time OR place from the arrest.
The law allows (frisking for instance) because (1) a weapon held by the arrested person may be turned
against his captor and (2) he may destroy the proof of the crime, if the arresting officer has to first
apply for a search warrant from a judge.
In the case, the search was conducted 30minutes after the arrest, there is no longer any danger that the
captured may turn against the captor; and is the documents in the apartment were 2 blocks away, the
serach would no longer be justified since there in no way for Roque to go back to the apartment and
destroy the documents, having been arrested already.
1020 Olaes vs. People, 155 SCRA 486 (1987)
1021 20th Century Fox Film Corp. vs. CA, 164 SCRA 655 (1988)
1022 Prudente vs. Judge Dayrit, 180 SCRA 69 (1989)
1023 Chia vs. Coll. of Customs, 177 SCRA 755 (1989)

1024 PICOP v. Asuncion, 307 SCRA 253) (1999)

1025 Del Rosario v. People G.R. No. 142295, May 31,2001)
1026 Yousef Al Ghoul vs. C.A, GR No.126859, September 4, 2001
1027 People v. Choi, G.R. No. 152950, August 3, 2006
Objects of Seizure (property subject to the offense, property stolen/embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of
the offense, property used or intended to be used as the means of committing the offense)
Rule 126, Sec. 3, Rules of Court (ROC)
1028 Unilab v. Isip, G.R. No. 163858, June 28, 2005
Warrantless searches (Sec. 5, Rule 113 (Arrest), Rules of Criminal Procedure
(1) When a person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(2) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe (based on personal
knowledge of facts and circumstances) that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(3) When the person to be arrested is an escapee or a detention prisoner
Valid Waiver
1 People vs. Omaweng, 213 SCRA 462 (1992)
2 People v. Correa, 285 SCRA 679 (1998)
3 People vs. Ramos, G.R. 85401-02, June 4, 1990
4 People v. Barros, 231 SCRA 557 (1994)
5 Veroy vs. Layague, 210 SCRA 97 (1992)
6 People vs. Damaso, 212 SCRA 457 (1992) the right may be waived (express or implied) but the must
be made by the person whose right is invaded, not by the one who is not duly authorized to effect such
waiver.
7 Lopez vs. Comm. Of Customs, 68 SCRA 320 (1975)
8 Caballes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136292, January 5, 2002
9 People vs. Asis, et. al., G.R. No. 142531, October 15, 2002
10 People vs. Tudtud, et. al., G.R. No. 144037, September 26, 2003 The Rule required that the accused
perform some overt act that would indicate that he has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense. The arresting officer must have personal knowledge of the fact. The
offense must also be committed in his presence or within his view.
Incident to lawful arrest

Rule 126, Section 13, Rules of Court

11 People vs. de la Cruz, G.R. 83988, April 18, 1990
12 People v. Kalubiran, 196 SCRA 645 (1991)
13 People v. Malmstedt, 198 SCRA 401 (1991)
14 Espano v. Court of Appeals, 288 SCRA 558 (1998)
15 People vs. Tangliben, 184 SCRA 220 (1990)
16 People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592 (2000)
17 People vs. Estrella, G.R. Nos. 138539-40, January 21, 2003
18 People vs. Libnao, et al., G.R. No. 136860, January 20, 2003
Plain view doctrine
19 People v. Musa, 217 SCRA 597 (1993)
20 Padilla v. CA, 269 SCRA 402 (1997)
21 People v. Valdez, G.R. No. 129296, September 25, 2000
22 People v. Compacion, G.R. No. 124442, July 20, 2001
23 People v. Huang Zhen Hua, G.R. 139301, September 29, 2004
Enforcement of fishing, customs and immigration laws
24 Roldan vs. Area, 65 SCRA 320 (1975)
25 People v. Gatward, 267 SCRA 785 (1997)
26 People v. Johnson, G.R. No. 138881, December 18, 2000
27 People vs. Suzuki, G.R. No. 120670, October 23, 2003
Stop and frisk
28 People v. Solayao, 262 SCRA 255 (1996)
29 Manalili v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113447, October 7, 1997
30 Malacat v. Court of Appeals, 283 SCRA 159 (1997)
Search of moving vehicles - reason is the person may escape easily if a warrant has to be applied for
the mean time. In the Tariff and Customs Code, custom agents are specifically authorized to search and
seize vehicles even without a warrant.

Checkpoints are valid in some instances depending on the purpose (e.g. apprehend a suspected
criminal) and the circumstances (e.g. probable cause that the criminal is inside the car). There is no
question that when a child has been reported kidnapped in a community, the police can stop all cars
and check if the detained child is in any one them.
31 Papa vs. Mago, 22 SCRA 857 (1968)
32 People vs. CFI of Rizal, 101 SCRA 86 (1980)
33 Salvador v. People, G.R. No. 146706, July 15, 2005
Emergency circumstances
34 People vs. De Gracia 233 SCRA 716 (1994)
Checkpoints
35 Gen. De Villa vs. Valmonte G.R. No. 83988, May 24, 1990
36 Aniag vs. Comelec, 237 SCRA 424 (1994)
37 People v. Usana, 323 SCRA 754 (2000)
38 People v. Vinecario, G.R. No. 141137, January 20, 2004
Inspection of buildings
Warrantless arrests
(1) Rule 113, Sec. 5
(2) Art. 125, Revised Penal Code
Rebellion as Continuing Offense
39 Umil vs. Ramos, G. R. 81567, July 9, 1990
Committed in the Presence of Police Officers
40 People v. Sucro, 195 SCRA 388 (1991)
41 People v. Luisito Go, G.R. No. 116001, March 14, 2001
Personal Knowledge of the Offense
42 People vs. Gerente, 219 SCRA 756 (1993)
43 People v. Sinoc, 275 SCRA 357 (1997)
44 People v. Baula, G.R. No. 132671, November 15, 2000
45 People v. Cubcubin, G.R. No. 136267, July 10, 2001
Time of Arrest
46 People vs. Rodrigueza, 205 SCRA 791 (1992)
47 Go vs. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 586 (1992)

48 People v. Calimlim, G.R. No. 123980, August 30. 2001

Marked Money
49 People vs. Enrile, 222 SCRA 586 (1993)
Lack of Urgency
50 People v. Pasudag, G.R. No. 128822, May 4, 2001
51 People vs. Aminnudin, 163 SCRA 402 (1988)
Effect of Bail
Rule 114, Section 26
Effect of Entry of Plea
52 People v. Plana G.R. No. 128285, November 27, 2001
Validity of Conviction
53 People v. Conde, G.R. No. 113269, April 10, 2001

PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION & CORRESPONDENCE

R.A. No. 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Law) (1965)
Arts, 290, 291, 292 and 299. Revised Penal Code.
0001 Gaanan vs. IAC, 145 SCRA 113 (1986)
0002 Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA, 235 SCRA 111 (1994)
0003 Ramirez vs. CA, G.R. No. 93833, September 28, 1995
0004 Alejano v. Cabuay, G.R. No. 160792, August 25, 2005
0004a Disini v. Secretary of Justice, gr 203335
0004b Vivares v. STC, gr 202666 (2014)
Privileged Communications
0005 Deano v. Godinez, 12 SCRA 483 (1964)
0006 In Re Laureta, 148 SCRA 382 (1987)
0007 People vs. Albofera, 152 SCRA 123 (1987)
0008 Zulueta v. Court of Apeals, 253 SCRA 699 (1996)
0009 Waterhouse Drug Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 113271. October 16, 1997
Exclusionary Rule
Art. III, Sec. 3(2)

0010 People v. Aruta, G. R. 120915, April 3. 1998

0011 People v. Rondero, G.R. 125687, December 9, 1999
Liability for damages
0012 Aberca vs. Ver, 160 SCRA 590 (1989)

RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION

Art. III, Sec , 12
0001 Miranda vs. Arizona , 384 US , 436 (1966)
Custodial Investigation
0002 People v. Lugod, G.R. 136253, February 21, 2001
0003 People v. Del Rosario G.R. 127755, April 14, 1999
0004 People v. Bolanos, 211 SCRA 262 (1992)
0005 People v. Mahinay, 302 SCRA 455 (1999)
Administrative Investigations
0006 People vs. Judge Ayson, 175 SCRA 216 (1989)
0007 Office of the Court Administrator v. Sumilang, 271 SCRA 316 (1997)
0008 People v. Uy, G.R. No. 157399, November 17, 2005
Police Lineup
0009 Gamboa vs.Cruz, 162 SCRA 642 (1988)
0010 People v. Escordial, G.R. 138934, January 16, 2002
0011 People vs. Piedad, et al., G.R. No. 131923, December 5, 2002
Cases before January 17, 1973 not applicable
0012 Magtoto vs.Manguera, 63 SCRA 4 (1975)
Rule under the 1973 Constitution (Voluntary, knowing & intelligent waiver)
0013 People vs. Caguioa, 95 SCRA 2 (1980)
0014 People vs. Tampus, 90 SCRA 624 (1980)
0015 People v. Sayaboc, G.R. 147201, January 15, 2004
The Galit Rule
0016 People vs. Galit, 135 SCRA 465 (1985)
Rule under the 1987 Constitution

Requirement of Competent & Independent Counsel

0017 People vs. Bandula, 232 SCRA 566 (1994)
0018 People v. Quidato, G.R. 117401, October 1, 1998
0019 People v. Januario. 267 SCRA 608 (1997)
0020 People v. Labtan, GR. No. 12793, December 8, 1999
0021 People vs. Samus, G.R. 135957-58, September 17, 2002
0022 People v. Tomaquin, G.R. No. 133138, July 23, 2004
0023 People v. Bagnate, G.R. No. 133685-86 May 20, 2004
Counsel of Choice
0024 People vs. Gallardo, G.R. No. 113684, Jan. 25, 2000
0025 People vs. Barasina, 229 SCRA 450 (1994)
Counsels presence required in entire proceedings
0026 People v. Morial, G.R. 129295, August 15, 2001
Seized Articles
0027 People v. Castro. 274 SCRA 115 (1997)
0028 People v. Wong Chuen Ming. 256 SCRA 182 (1996)
0029 Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan, 302 SCRA 102 (1999)
0030 People v. Macabalang, G.R. 168694, November 27, 2006
Confession to Newsmen
0031 People v. Andan. 269 SCRA 95 (1997)
0032 People v. Endino, G.R. 133026, February 20, 2001
0033 People vs. Ordono, G.R. No. 132154, June 29, 2000
0034 People vs. Guillermo, GR. No. 147786, January 20, 2004
Other Confessions
0035 People v. Malngan, G.R. No. 170470, September 26, 2006
0036 People v. Gomez, 270 SCRA 432 (1997)
0037 People v. Lugod, G.R. 136253, February 21, 2001
Re-enactment
0038 People v. Luvendino, 211 SCRA 36 (1992)
Exclusionary rule
Art. III, Sec. 12 (3)

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine

0039 People v. Alicando 251 SCRA 293 (1995)
RIGHT TO BAIL
0001 Herras Teehankee vs. Rovira, 75 Phil. 634 (1945)
0002 People vs. San Diego, 26 SCRA 522 (1968)
0003 Cortes v. Judge Catral, A.M. No. RTJ-97-1387, September 10, 1997
0004 Lavides v. CA, G.R. No. 129670. February 1, 2000
0005 Government v. Judge Puruganan, G.R. 148571, December 17, 2002
0006 Paderanga v. Drilon, 247 SCRA 741, (1995).
0007 Go v. Bongolan. A.M. 99-1464, July 26, 1999
0008 People v. Gako, G.R. 135045, December 15, 2000
0009 Enrile vs. Salazar, 186 SCRA 217 (1990)
0010 People vs. Judge Donato, 198 SCRA 130 (1991)
0011 People vs. Fortes, 223 SCRA 619 (1993)
0012 Maguddatu v. CA, G.R. No. 139599. February 23, 2000
0013 Obosa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. 114350, January 16, 1997
0014 Villasenor vs. Abano, 21 SCRA 312 (1967)
0015 De la Camara vs. Enage, 41 SCRA 1 (1971)
0016 Almeda vs. Villaluz, 66 SCRA 38 (1975)
0017 Yap v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141529, June 6, 2001
0018 Cabaero v. Caon, A.M. No. MTJ-01-369, September 20, 2001
0019 Victory Liner v. Belosillo, G.r. 425 SCRA 79 (2004)
0020 Manotoc vs. Court of Appeals, 142 SCRA 149 (1980)
RIGHTS OF AN ACCUSED
0021 People vs. Dramayo, 42 SCRA 59 (1971)
0022 Alejandro vs. Pepito, 96 SCRA 322 (1988)(modified by Rule 119 Sec. 3 (e)
0023 Dumlao vs. Comelec, 95 SCRA 392 (1980)
0024 People vs. Mingoa, 92 Phil. 857 (1953)
0025 Feeder Intl Line vs. CA CR 94262 May 31, 1991
0026 People vs. Martos, 211 SCRA 805 (1992)
0027 Corpuz vs. People, 194 SCRA 73 (1991)
0028 Dizon Paminatuan v. People, July 11, 1994
0029 People vs. Holgado, 85 Phil. 752 (1950)
0030 Delgado vs. CA, 145 SCRA 357 (1986)
0031 People vs. Baluyot, 75 SCRA 148 (1977)
0032 People vs. Magsi, 124 SCRA 69 (1983)
0033 People v. Besonia, G.R. No. 151284-85, February 5, 2004
0034 People v. Murillo, G.R. No. 134583, July 14, 2004
0035 People vs. Malunsing, 63 SCRA 493(1975)
0036 Libuit v. People, G.R. No. 154363, September 13, 2005
0037 Moslares v. CA, 291 SCRA 440 (1998)
0038 Borja vs. Mendoza, 77 SCRA 422 (1977)
0039 People v. Alcalde, G.R. 139225, May 29, 2002
0040 People v. Dy, G.R. 115236, January 29, 2002
0041 People v. Sadiosa, 290 SCRA 82 (1998)
0042 People v. Perez, G.R. No. 122764, September 24, 1998
0043 People v. Lozano, G.R 125080, September 25, 1998
0044 People v. Ladrillo, GR. No. 124342, December 8, 1999
0045 People v. Valdesancho, G.R. 137051, May 30, 2001
0046 People v. Alcaide, G.R. Nos. 139225-28, May 29, 2002
0047 People vs. Ostia, G.R. No. 131804, February 26, 2003
0048 People vs. Flores Jr., G.R. No. 128823-24, December 27, 2002
0049 People v. Cachapero, G.R. No. 153008, May 20, 2004
0050 Acevedo vs. Sarmiento, 36 SCRA 247 (1970)
0051 People vs. Judge Laya, 161 SCRA 327 (1988)

0052 Conde vs. Rivera, 45 Phil. 650 (1924)

0053 Dacanay vs. People, 240 SCRA 490 (1995)
0054 People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 139180, July 31, 2001
0055 Solar Team Entertainment v. How, G.R. No. 140863, August 22, 2000
0056 Valencia v. Sandiganbayan. G.R. No. 165996, October 17, 2005
0057 Domondon v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 166606. November 29, 2005
0058 Garcia vs. Domingo, 52 SCRA 143 (1970)
0059 Perez v. Estrada, A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC, June 29, 2001
0060 Soriano vs Angeles, G.R. No. 109920. August 31, 2000
0061 U.S. v. Javier, 37 Phil. 449 (1918)
0062 U.S. vs. Garcia, 10 Phil. 384 (1908)
0063 People vs. Sandal, 54 Phil. 883 (1938)
0064 People vs. De Luna, 174 SCRA 204 (1989)
0065 People vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140285, September 27, 2006
0066 Aquino vs. Military Commission No. 63 SCRA 546 (1975)
0067 People vs. Salas, 143 SCRA 163 (1986)
0068 Promulgation of sentence
0069 United States vs. Tan Teh, 23 Phil. 145 (1912)
0070 United States vs. Ong Siu Hong, 36 Phil. 735 (1917)
0071 People vs. Otadura, 86 Phil. 244 (1950)
0072 Villaflor vs. Summers, 41 Phil. 62 (1920)
0073 Bermudez vs. Castillo, 64 Phil. 485 (1937)
0074 Beltran v. Samson, 53 Phil. 570 (1929)
0075 People vs. Tranca, 235 SCRA 455 (1994)
0076 People v. Rondero, GR. No. 125687, December 9, 1999
0077 People vs. Gallarde, G.R. No. 133025. February 17, 2000.
0078 Pascual vs. Board of Medical Examiners, 28 SCRA 344 (1969)
0079 Galman vs. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 274 (1985)
0080 Galman vs. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 274 (1985)
0081 Chavez vs. Court of Appeals, 24 SCRA 663 (1968)
0082 Duterte v. Sandiganbayan, 289 SCRA 721 (1998)
0083 Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan ; 159 SCRA 70 (1988)
0084 Licaros v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 145851, November 22, 2001
0085 Dimayacyac v. Judge Roxas, G.R. No. 136264, May 28, 2004
0086 Bernat v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 158018. May 20, 2004
PUNISHMENTS
0087 People vs. Dela Cruz, 92 Phil. 906 (1953)
0088 People vs. Borja, 91 SCRA 340 (1978)
0089 Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 132601 January 19, 1999
0090 Aclaracion vs. Gatmaitan, 64 SCRA 131 (1979)
0091 Sura vs. Martin, 26 SCRA 286 (1969)
0092 People vs. Nitafan, 207 SCRA 726 (1992)
0093 In Re: Habeas Corpus of Benjamin Vergara, G.R. No. 154037. April 30, 2003
0094 Kay Villegas Kami, 35 SCRA 429 (1970)
0095 People vs. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382 (1972)
0096 People vs. Sandiganbayan, 211 SCRA 241 (1992)
0097 Wright vs. CA, 235 SCRA 341 (1994)
0098 People vs. Obsania, 23 SCRA 1249 (1968)
0099 Subsequent prosecution barred; Exceptions
0100 Melo vs. People, 85 Phil. 766 (1959)
0101 People vs.Yorac, 42 SCRA 230 (1971) (overruled)
0102 PSB v. Bermoy, G.R. No. 151912, September 26, 2005
0103 Heirs of Rillorta vs. Firme, 157 SCRA 518 (1988)
0104 People vs. Miraflores, 115 SCRA 586 (1982)
0105 People vs. Judge Vergara, 221 SCRA 560 (1993)
0106 Tupaz v. Ulep, GR. No. 127777, October 1, 1999
0107 Argel v. Judge Pascua, A.M. No. RTJ-94-1131, August 20, 2001
0108 People v. Bocar, 138 SCRA 166 (1985)

0109 Galman vs Sandiganbayan, 144 SCRA 43 (1986)

0110 People vs. Grospe, 157 SCRA 154 (1988)
0111 People vs. Judge Santiago, 174 SCRA 143 (1989)
0112 People vs. Relova, 148 SCRA 292 (1987)
0113 People vs. City Court, 154 SCRA 175 (1987)
0114 Nierras vs. Dacuycuy, 181 SCRA 1 (1990)
0115 Cruz vs.Enrile, 160 SCRA 702 (1988)
0116 Tan v. Barrios. October 18, 1990
0117 Que vs. Cosico, 177 SCRA 410 (1989)
0118 Caes vs. IAC, 179 SCRA 54 (1989)
0119 Icasiano vs. Sandignabayan, 209 SCRA 377(1992)
0120 Vincoy v. CA, G.R. No. 156558, June 14, 2004
0121 People v. Larannaga, G.R. No. 138874, July 21, 2005
0122 People vs. Judge Villarama, 210 SCRA 246 (1992)
PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
0123 Villavicencio vs. Lukban, 39 Phil 778 (1919)
0124 Moncupa vs. Ponce Enrile, 141 SCRA 223 (1986)
0125 Lansang vs. Garcia, 42 SCRA 448 (1971)
0126 Chavez vs. Court of Appeals, 24 SCRA 663 (1968)
0127 Gumabon vs. Director of Prisons, 37 SCRA 420 (1971)
0128 In re Abadilla, 156 SCRA 92 (1987)
0129 Norberto Feria vs. CA, et al. G.R. 122954 Feb 15, 2000
0130 Illusorio v. Bildner, G.R. 139789, May 12, 2000
Additional cases to be given for Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data