Section 7.

Right to Information

Chavez v. PCGG
Petitioner Francisco Chavez, as taxpayer, citizen and former government official ask this court to define
the nature and extent of the peoples constitutional right to information on matters of public concern.
Petitioner demand that PCGG disclose or make public any and all negotiations and agreements pertaining
to PCGGs task to recover Marcoses ill gotten wealth. He says its paramount public interest since it
has debilitating effect on the countrys economy. Hence, people has right to know. They invoke section
of the 1987 consti as basis of their argument.

Respondent contends on the other hand that they may not be compelled to disclose since the proposed
terms and conditions of the Agreement have not become effective and binding because of the absence of
approval of the pres. They also argued that the term transaction (in the consti provision) means
completed official acts. They also says, petitioner has no legal standing as tax payer since there is no
expenditure of the public funds involved and no legal interest si petitioner.

Issue: ofc w/n the court could require pcgg to disclose the agreement

Held: petition is meritorious. The court ruled that Chavez has legal standing. In the case of tanada v.
tuvera, when the issue raised concerns public right and the object of the mandamus is for the enforcement
of public duty, the people are regarded as real parties in interest. Also, no need to show that he has any
interest in the result of the action.

Further, in the case of legaspi v. civil service, when mandamus involves assertion of public right, the
requirement of public interest is satisfied by the mere fact the person raising the issue is a citizen,
therefore, part of the general public, which possesses the right. Hehe.

As to the issue regarding the term transaction the court ruled that it is used in its generic sense, meaning
it includes transaction prior to the consummation of the contract and transactions subsequent to the
consummation of the contract. The court further stated the limitation of section 7.

Limitation of section 7:

- National security matters. These are state secrets comprising of: Military, diplomatic and national
security matters. If there is no need naman to protect these stuff governmental privilege against
public disclosure cannot be invoked.
- Trade Secrets and Banking Transactions
- Criminal Matters such as the police information regarding rescue operation, whereabouts of the
fugitives or leads on cover criminal activities
- Other confidential information (in relation to ethical standards act) wherein employees are
prohibited from divulging info known to them by reason of their office.

Echagaray v. Secretary of Justice

Petitioner Leo Echagaray was convicted of the crime of Rape of the ten year old daughter of his
common law spouse. The penalty imposed upon him was death penalty. He filed MR questioning the
constitutionality of RA 7659 (Death Penalty Electrocution). During the pendency of the case,
congress had seen it fit to change the execution of death penalty from electrocution to lethal injection.
Among any other contention, petitioner echagaray invokes right to information as to the execution
procedure (section 19) of the newly passed RA 8177 (Death Penalty na lethal injection) since
according sa par 2 ng sec 19, Said manual shall be confidential and its distribution shall be limited to
authorized prison personnel

Held: the court finds the requirement of confidentiality of the execution procedure unduly
suppressive. The contents of the manual are public concern which the public may want to know either
because he is affected or the matters naturally arouse his interest. Further, guarantee of right to
information is a recognition of the essentiality of the free flow of ideas and information in a
democracy. It enables the memebrs of the society to cope with the exigencies of their time, and it aids
the people in decision making by giving them better perspective of the vital issues confroting the
nation.

Valmonte v. Belmonte
Petitioner Valmonte in a special civil action for mandamus prays that the respondent GSIS General
Manager furnish him list of the names of the batasang pambansa members belonging to UNIDO and
PDP laban who were able to secure clear loans of 2M each on guarantee of the then first lady Imelda
marcos, furnish him of the certified copes of the documents evidencing their loans and allow the
petitioner access to public records.

Respondents contention is that these documents are not within the ambit of the constitutional right to
information for it is private in nature. Also they said, there is a confidential relationship between the
GSIS and its members. Raised also in this case is the conflict between right to information and right
to privacy of the GSIS members. Court ruled that in the case of MORFE right to privacy belongs to
the invidiaul in his personal capacity and such right cannot be invoked by GSIS as a juridical
personality (basis of such righ to privacy is the injury to the feelings and sensibilities of the indivual
which a juridical entity does not have)

Court ruled that the public nature of the loanable funds plus the public office held by the alleged
members make it a matter of public interest. Petition was granted however the court ruled that it be
subject to certain limitations. 1. Manner and hours of examination mas not cause damage or loss to
the records and that 2. They cannot compel custodian of records to prepare list, abstract summaries
and the like. For a mandamus to prosper the petitioner must have legal right that is certain well
defined and specific and the act required is imperative duty of defendant. They were only allowed to
have access.

Tanada case : right to information necessary to give notice to people as regards regulation of their
conduct and acts.

Legaspi case: right to information invoke and deemed appropriate to ensure that govt position
requiring civil service eligibility are occupied only by those who are qualified.
 Section 13
Basco case

Complainant Basco charged respondent judge Leo M. Rapatalo of RTC La Union with Gross
ignorance or wilful disregard of established rule of law for granting bail. Basco alleged that
an information for murder was filed against the killer of his child, Roger Morente. Morente
filed a petition for bail which was subsequently granted even if it had not been heard at all.

Respondent judge alleged that he granted bail based on the prosecutors option not to oppose
the petition as well as the latters recommendation.

Issue: W/n a petition for bail can be granted without conducting a hearing.

No. when the grant of bail is discretionary, the prosecution has the burden of showing that the
evidence of guilt against the accused is strong. However the determination of or not the
evidence of guilt is strong, being a matter of judicial discretion, remains with the judge. The
discretion by the very nature of things may only be exercised only after the evidence is
submitted in a hearing.

Hearing is required if the prosecution refuses to adduce evidence in opposition to the

application to grant and fix bail. Another reason why hearing is necessary is for the court to
take into considerations the guidelines set forth in sec 6 rule 114 or RoC in fixing the amount
of bail. The absence of objection from the proection is never a basis for granting bail to the
accused. It is the courts determination after a hearing that the guilt of the accused is not
strong that forms the basis for granting bail.

Donato Case
Facts: Salas and his co-accused were charged for the crime of rebellion under Art 134 in relation to
art 135. Day after filing of the information a petition for habeas corpus was dismissed on the basis of
the agreement of the parties under which Salas will remain in legal custody and will face trial before
the court having custody over his person. Salas filed petition for bail iwhich was opposed on the
ground since rebellion became a capital offense under the provisions of PD amending Art 135 and
imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, the accused is no longer entitled since evidence
of guilt is strong . EO was subsequently issued repealing among others, the PDs and restoring to full
force and effect article 135.

Issue: W/n the right to bail may, under certain circumstances be denied to a person who is charged
with a bailable offense.

Held. No. before conviction bail is either a matter of right or discretion. In the case at bar, Salas can
file a petition for bail as a matter of right since the penalty imposed upon him being charged of
rebellion was reverted back from reclusion perpetua to prision mayor. The only problem here though,
is that Salas waive his right upon agreeing to remain in legal custody during the pendency of the case.
The law allows waiver of right to bail without prejudice to the provision of Article 6 of the NCC
which provides that such waiver must not be contrary to law, moral, custom, public order or public
policy.

Fortes the rapist who filed petition for bail after conviction. His lawyer is
ridiculous.
Facts: Agustin Fortes was charged and convicted for the rape of a young girl described by
trial court as a guiless lass of only 13 x x x. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and pay the victim sum of 20k. Fortes seeks to annul and set aside two
orders of the said trial court denying his application for bail which he filed after his
conviction. His argument rests primarily in the alleged denial of his constitutional right to
bail.

Issue: w/n petition for bail is still available after conviction of a crime

Held: No. An accused who is charged with a crime punishable by RP is convicted by the trial
court and sentenced to suffer such a penalty, bail is neither a matter of right on the part of the
accused nor of discretion on the part of the court. The court reiterated the ruling in the case of
People v. Ricardo Cortez saying that the accused is no longer entitled to such right even if he
appeals since his conviction clearly imports that the evidence of guilt of the offense charged
is strong. Fortes guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt upon conviction and bail must
not be granted because of that fact.

De Villa Case
Facts: 4 cases have been consolidated because they involve practically the same parties and
related issues arising from the same incident. Private respondents of this case are members of
AFP facing prosecution for their alleged participation in the failed coup detat. Charges
against them are violations of articles of war AW 67, AW 96 and AW 94.

Issue: w/n private respondents being members of military courts are entitled of right to bail
as provided in section 13 of the consti

Held: Yes. Accordingly, the assailed orders of court martial denying bail to petitioner and
interventors on the mistaken assumption that bail does not apply to military men facing
court-martial proceedings on the ground that there is no precedent, are hereby sete aside and
declared null and void. Respondent general is hereby directed to conduct proceedings on the
applications of bail of the petitioner.
 Sison
Facts: Judge Deodoro Sison stands charged with the now familiar malfeasance of granting
bail in a non-bailable offense without benefit of notice and heard. It is also averred that the
prosecution was not given notice of at least three days before the scheduled hearing on the
petition for bail. Complainant alleges that the prosecution was not given notice prior to
scheduled hearing. Petition for bail was filed December 21, 1991 a Saturday tapos hearing on
December 23, 1991 giving prosecution only one day, a Sunday, to prepare.

Two main arguments of judge to justify his grant of bail to the accused. He said that time is
of the essence, considering that the accused had been detained since October 21, 1991, and
that the prosecution failed to interpose an objection to the granting of bail and to ask
opportunity to prove strength of the evidence o guilt against eh accused.

Issue: w/n hearing when bail is matter of discretion is mandatory even if the prosecution
refuse or fails to adduce evidence proving the guilt of accused.

Held:

Right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation

QUITLONG CASE
Jonathan Calpito, a med student, before walking home decided to eat fishballs. An argument ensued
between Capito and the fishball vendor. Capito assails that the vendor did not give him exact change.
Four men started cornering capito. Ronnie Quitlong stabbed capito while Salvador quitlong and Emilio
senoto was holding capitos arms. They were charged and convicted of the crime murder. Although it was
not alleged in the information that they conspired or confederated, trial court held them all liable as
principals in killing Capito on the ground of the alleged presence of conspiracy that can be inferred from
the information.

Issue: w/n they are deprived of their right to know the nature and accusation against them.

Held: Yes. In the end the court says that only Ronnie Quitlong was liable as principal. Others are
accomplices. The information must state the accused have confederated to commit the crime and there has
been a community of design. Conspiracy must be alleged, not just inferred. In the absence of conspiracy,
an accused can only be made liable for the eacts committed by him alone.

PECHO CASE
 SORIANO V SANDIGANBAYAN

BORJA CASE

Right to speedy trial

Tee case
In this case, Tee is a chinese business man forty years of age engaged in selling of Marijuana.
In his first case he was acquitted and in his second case he was convicted of the crime for
violating RA 9165. Boxes and sacks of marijuana was found in his house and his leased place
by the PNP and NBI. It was known to them after an information was gathered from the a taxi
driver named Danilo Abratique who actually for a certain period helped Tee transport his
marijuana. On appeal, Tee says that his right to speedy trial has been violated.

Abratique who was supposed to be a witness against Tee was not attending schedule hearings
from march to june amounting to a total of 20 hearings. At least 4 warrants was also issued
against him to compel his attendance.

Held: Tees right to speedy trial was not violated. Court says that the right to speedy trial is
deemed violated only when 1. The proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious and
oppressive delays 2. When unjustified postponements are asked for and secured 3. When
without cause or justsifiable motive a long period of time was allowed to elapse without the
case being tried. Appellant tee also fails to establish that the prosecution capriciously caused
delays to oppress and vex him since the prosecution even prayed for the issuance of a warrant
of arrest to compel attendance of Abratique and even asked the NBI to produce his body
since Abratique was at that time under the custody of NBI. Further the court says that, a
period of not more than 2 months is not considered a lengthy period of time as reiterated in
the case of Conde wherein more than 1 year was considered capricious and oppressive delay.
Finally the court says that trial proceedings are normally attended by delays, however, only
delays that are unjustified are to be considered violative and without showing of such
unjustifiable delays, the court must still hhave the opportunity to hear and decide the case.
 Flores Case
Francisco Flores and Francisco Angel was accused to have committed robbery. An
information was filed against them around year 1951 and decision rendered around year 1955
found them guilty as charged. It was submitted for appeal with the CA and no action was
taken until 1958. In 1959 he case was returned to lower court for re-trial. It stayed there for a
year because the offended party failed to appear. Instead of rendering new decision lower
court sent back the case to CA which stayed there again for a period of 5 more years. The
petitioners asked for the dismissal of the case on the ground of the the violation of right to
speedy trial.

Held: there was a violation of their right to speedy trial. The court says that in the absence of
any valid decision, there is yet no complete trial. And the petitioners could validly contend
that they had not been accorded their right to be tried as promptly as circumstances permit.

What is decisive is that with the setting aside of the previous deicison in the resolution of
August 5, 1959, petitioners could validly premise their plea for dismissal on this
constitutional safeguard.

Conde
In this case Aurelia Conde is municipal midwife in Tayabas facing no less than 5
informations filed against her for various crimes and misdemeanour and has appeared in
court with her witness and counsel no less 8 different occasions only to find out that it has
always been postponed without cause. She even went to SC twice to assert her right to
speedy trial.

The court in this case ruled that she has a right to speedy trial and laid down the proposition
that the remedy where a prosecuting officer, without good cause, secures postponements
against the defendant for long period of time, the defendant is entitled to relief by a
proceeding in mandamus to compel the dismissal of the information or if he is restrained
habeas corpus to obtain freedom.

Mateo (Impartial)
Petitioners in this case were charged of robbery by a band with homicide. An extra judicial
confession was extorted from Mateo Reyes implicating petitioners sworn and signed before
Respondent Judge Villaluz. Subsequently Mateo Reyes was indicted. So in this case,
prosecution after it rests its evidence filed a motion to present additional evidence while there
is a pending motion to dismiss the case. Blah blah
 Garcia v. Domingo (Public Trial)
Trial must be public. it possesses that character when anyone interested to observe the matter
the judge conducts the proceedings in his court room may do so, regardless of the observers
relationship with the defendant. This is not absolute. When evidence presented during trial is
of character as to be offensive to the decency or public morals the court or the accused may
exclude public from the courtroom.

Confrontation
Talino

In this case petitioners were charged of estafa through falsification of public documents.
Separate trials were held and Petitioner Talino after conviction alleged that his right to
confrontation or cross examine the other accused testimony (Pio Ulat) were not exercised.
He was not able to cross examine him and was not even required to be present while Ulat
was testifying. Ulat made tons of damaging testimonies against the petitioners.

The court said in this case that, right to confrontation is essential since right to cross examine
is essential. Right to cross examine prevents the acussed from being convicted upon
deposition or ex parte affidavits and allows the accused to test the recollection of the witness.

However, his petition was denied since the court sees no reason why the respondents court
decision should be disturb since clearly, the conviction of petitioner talino was not based
upon Ulats testimony. The court cleared, however, the Ulats testimony against Talino if
ever, shall be considered inadmissible as evidence.

Compulsory Process
Roco

In this case, Domingo Roco was engaged in buying and selling of dress chicken. In 1993, he
issued 5 checks in favour of Cals corporation as payment for the purchased dressed chicken.
Checks were subsequently dishonoured by the bank contending that it was drawn against a
closed account. 5 informations of charging Roco for violating BP 22 was filed. Since he was
not able to present evidence the case was decided of which he was subsequently held guilty.

He went to RTC on appeal saying that his right to ddue process and right to present evidence
was violated. He requested for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum and subpoena
testificandum.
RTC and CA denied the request for subpoena.

SC says praying for the issuance of subpoena is only the accuseds way of delaying the
proceedings and is immaterial or irrelevant to the case. The gravamen of BP 22 is the act of
issuing worthless checks. Court also says that there are 2 tests to overcome to justify the
issuance of subpoena. Test of relevancy when the books records documents and things
requested must appear to be prima facie sufficiently relevant to justify enforcing the
producftiong; and test of definiteness such books and records must be reasonably describe
by the parties to to be readily identifiable. In the end the court denied his petition coz
although he satisfied test of definiteness, he failed to prove that such documents or records
requested is necessary given the fact that those records are already from year 1994-1999.