substantive due process; police power ESTRADA v.

DESIERTO 3 April 2001 Puno, ponente motion for reconsideration of the 2 March 2001 decision FACTS: the same as Estrada v. Desierto Round One ISSUES: did prejudicial publicity affect Estradas right to a fair trial? were there evidentiary issues with regard to the 2 March decision? did the Court correctly interpret 22 Art. VII of the Constitution? did the Court disregard par. 7 3 Art. XI of the Constitution? REASONING: ON PREJUDICIAL PUBLICITY (AGAIN) in the 2 March decision, the SC used the totality test by referring to and analyzing prior, contemporaneous and posterior events to arrive at the conclusion that Estrada had resigned; these events were facts that were well-established and irrefutable, within the judicial notice of the Court and the news accounts only adding and buttressing them while there was pressure exerted on Estrada to resign, this didnt completely vitiate the voluntariness of his resignation o the three-part test for duress brought on by government action: 1. whether one side involuntarily accepted the others terms 2. whether circumstances permitted no other alternative 3. whether such circumstances were the result of coercive acts of the opposite side o factors to be considered when determining under the totality of the circumstances it appeared that the employers conduct effectively deprived the employee of choice in the matter: 1. whether the employee was given some alternative to resignation 2. whether the employee understood the nature of the choice he or she was given 3. whether the employee was given a reasonable time in which to choose 4. whether he or she was permitted to select the effective date of resignation ON EVIDENTIARY ISSUES the Angara Diary was not an out of court statement, but part of the pleadings in the cases at bar it wasnt covered by the hearsay rule o evidence is hearsay when its probative value depends in whole or in part on the competency and credibility of some persons other than the witness by whom it is sought to produce it o hearsay evidence is usually excluded because: 1. absence of cross-examination 2. absence of demeanor evidence 3. absence of the oath

o o

but hearsay evidence has been admitted by courts due to their relevance, trustworthiness and necessity the rules of exclusion didnt cover admissions of a party such as the Angara Diary; these admissions were admissible even if they were hearsay the Diary contained direct statements of Estrada which could be categorized as admissions of a party also falls under the doctrine of adoptive admission, where a partys reaction to a statement or action by another person when it is reasonable to treat the partys reaction as an admission of something stated or implied by the other person didnt violate the res inter alios acta rule since it admitted the exception of admissions by a co-partner or agent (Angara was the Executive Secretary) ban on hearsay evidence didnt cover independently relevant statements, which are relevant independent of whether they were true or not; has two classes: statements which are the very facts in issue statements which are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue

ON TEMPORARY INABILITY Estrada himself made the submission that Congress had ultimate authority under the Constitution to determine if the President was capable of performing his functions; Arroyos recognition as de jure President was made by Congress exercising its political judgment and could not be corrected by the Court ON THE IMPEACHMENT AND DOUBLE JEOPARDY Estrada could not invoke double jeopardy, which only attaches: o upon a valid complaint o before a competent court o after arraignment o when a valid plea has been entered o when the defendant was convicted or acquitted, or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused Estradas case did not satisfy the fifth requirement since he wasnt convicted/acquitted/had his case dismissed by the impeachment court a failure to prosecute, which happens when the accused isnt given a speedy trial, means failure of the prosecution to prove its case; dismissal on such grounds is a dismissal on the merits of the case o citing Esmea v. Pogoy: if the defendant wants to exercise his constitutional right to a speedy trial, he should ask for the trial of the case, not its dismissal; only when the fiscal cannot produce evidence can the court dismiss the case, which amounts to acquittal Estrada didnt move to have the impeachment case against him dismissed; only unjustified postponements which prolong the trial for an unreasonable length of time are what offend the right of the accused to speedy trial; the case wasnt terminated without his express consent, since the impeachment court was functus officio after he resigned the rule on res ipsa loquitur cant be applied to alleged prejudicial publicity; the right to a fair trial not incompatible with the free press

RULING: petitions denied for lack of merit