Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Glaxo has a right to guard its trade secrets, TWO KINDS OF DUE PROCESS
manufacturing formulas, marketing
strategies, and other confidential programs cases:
and information from competitors. The
prohibition against pesonal or marital BANCO ESPANOL FILIPINO v. PALANCA
relationships with employees of competitor G.R. No. L-11390, March 26, 1918
companies upon Glaxo's employees is
reasonable under the circumstances because JURISDICTION, HOW ACQUIRED:
relationships of that nature might compromise Jurisdiction over the property which is the
the interests of the company. That Glaxo subject of the litigation may result either from
possesses the right to protect its economic a seizure of the property under legal process,
interest cannot be denied.
whereby it is brought into the actual custody Whether or not the lower court acquired
of the law, or it may result from the institution jurisdiction over the defendant and the
of legal proceedings wherein, under special subject matter of the action
provisions of law, the power of the court over Whether or not due process of law was
the property is recognized and made effective. observed
The action to foreclose a mortgage is said to
be a proceeding quasi in rem, by which is RULING:
expressed the idea that while it is not strictly On Jurisdiction
speaking an action in rem yet it partakes of
that nature and is substantially such. The word “jurisdiction” is used in several
DUE PROCESS IN FORECLOSURE different, though related, senses since it may
PROCEEDINGS: Property is always assumed have reference (1) to the authority of the
to be in the possession of its owner, in person court to entertain a particular kind of action
or by agent; and he may be safely held, under or to administer a particular kind of relief, or
certain conditions, to be affected with it may refer to the power of the court over the
knowledge that proceedings have been parties, or (2) over the property which is the
instituted for its condemnation and sale. subject to the litigation.
FACTS:
Engracio Palanca Tanquinyeng y Limquingco The sovereign authority which organizes a
mortgaged various parcels of real property in court determines the nature and extent of its
Manila to El Banco Espanol-Filipino. powers in general and thus fixes its
Afterwards, Engracio returned to China and competency or jurisdiction with reference to
there he died on January 29, 1810 without the actions which it may entertain and the
returning again to the Philippines. The relief it may grant.
mortgagor then instituted foreclosure
proceeding but since defendant is a non- How Jurisdiction is Acquired
resident, it was necessary to give notice by
publication. The Clerk of Court was also Jurisdiction over the person is acquired by the
directed to send copy of the summons to the voluntary appearance of a party in court and
defendant’s last known address, which is in his submission to its authority, or it is
Amoy, China. It is not shown whether the acquired by the coercive power of legal
Clerk complied with this requirement. process exerted over the person.
Nevertheless, after publication in a
newspaper of the City of Manila, the cause Jurisdiction over the property which is the
proceeded and judgment by default was subject of the litigation may result either from
rendered. The decision was likewise published a seizure of the property under legal process,
and afterwards sale by public auction was whereby it is brought into the actual custody
held with the bank as the highest bidder. On of the law, or it may result from the institution
August 7, 1908, this sale was confirmed by of legal proceedings wherein, under special
the court. However, about seven years after provisions of law, the power of the court over
the confirmation of this sale, a motion was the property is recognized and made effective.
made by Vicente Palanca, as administrator of In the latter case the property, though at all
the estate of the original defendant, wherein times within the potential power of the court,
the applicant requested the court to set aside may never be taken into actual custody at all.
the order of default and the judgment, and to An illustration of the jurisdiction acquired by
vacate all the proceedings subsequent actual seizure is found in attachment
thereto. The basis of this application was that proceedings, where the property is seized at
the order of default and the judgment the beginning of the action, or some
rendered thereon were void because the court subsequent stage of its progress, and held to
had never acquired jurisdiction over the abide the final event of the litigation. An
defendant or over the subject of the action. illustration of what we term potential
jurisdiction over the res, is found in the
ISSUE: proceeding to register the title of land under
our system for the registration of land. Here and determine the matter before it; (2)
the court, without taking actual physical jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over
control over the property assumes, at the the person of the defendant or over the
instance of some person claiming to be owner, property which is the subject of the
to exercise a jurisdiction in rem over the proceeding; (3) the defendant must be given
property and to adjudicate the title in favor of an opportunity to be heard; and (4) judgment
the petitioner against all the world. must be rendered upon lawful hearing.
In the terminology of American law the action Passing at once to the requisite that the
to foreclose a mortgage is said to be a defendant shall have an opportunity to be
proceeding quasi in rem, by which is heard, we observe that in a foreclosure case
expressed the idea that while it is not strictly some notification of the proceedings to the
speaking an action in rem yet it partakes of nonresident owner, prescribing the time
that nature and is substantially such. The within which appearance must be made, is
expression "action in rem" is, in its narrow everywhere recognized as essential. To
application, used only with reference to answer this necessity the statutes generally
certain proceedings in courts of admiralty provide for publication, and usually in
wherein the property alone is treated as addition thereto, for the mailing of notice to
responsible for the claim or obligation upon the defendant, if his residence is known.
which the proceedings are based. The action Though commonly called constructive, or
quasi rem differs from the true action in rem substituted service of process in any true
in the circumstance that in the former an sense. It is merely a means provided by law
individual is named as defendant, and the whereby the owner may be admonished that
purpose of the proceeding is to subject his his property is the subject of judicial
interest therein to the obligation or lien proceedings and that it is incumbent upon
burdening the property. All proceedings him to take such steps as he sees fit to protect
having for their sole object the sale or other it.
disposition of the property of the defendant,
whether by attachment, foreclosure, or other It will be observed that this mode of
form of remedy, are in a general way thus notification does not involve any absolute
designated. The judgment entered in these assurance that the absent owner shall thereby
proceedings is conclusive only between the receive actual notice. The periodical
parties. containing the publication may never in fact
xxx come to his hands, and the chances that he
should discover the notice may often be very
It is true that in proceedings of this character, slight. Even where notice is sent by mail the
if the defendant for whom publication is made probability of his receiving it, though much
appears, the action becomes as to him a increased, is dependent upon the correctness
personal action and is conducted as such. of the address to which it is forwarded as well
This, however, does not affect the proposition as upon the regularity and security of the mail
that where the defendant fails to appear the service. It will be noted, furthermore, that the
action is quasi in rem; and it should therefore provision of our law relative to the mailing of
be considered with reference to the principles notice does not absolutely require the mailing
governing actions in rem. of notice unconditionally and in every event,
but only in the case where the defendant's
On Due Process residence is known. In the light of all these
facts, it is evident that actual notice to the
xxx As applied to a judicial proceeding, defendant in cases of this kind is not, under
however, it may be laid down with certainty the law, to be considered absolutely
that the requirement of due process is necessary.
satisfied if the following conditions are
present, namely; (1) There must be a court or The idea upon which the law proceeds in
tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear recognizing the efficacy of a means of
notification which may fall short of actual proceedings. Judge in the light of these
notice is apparently this: Property is always conceptions, we think that the provision of Act
assumed to be in the possession of its owner, of Congress declaring that no person shall be
in person or by agent; and he may be safely deprived of his property without due process
held, under certain conditions, to be affected of law has not been infringed.
with knowledge that proceedings have been
instituted for its condemnation and sale. SEC OF JUSTICE VS JUDGE RALPH
LANTION
Did the failure of the clerk to send notice to Due Process
defendant’s last known address constitute
denial of due process? Mark Jimenez was charged of multiple crimes
ranging from tax evasion to wire tapping to
The observations which have just been made conspiracy to defraud the USA. Jimenez was
lead to the conclusion that the failure of the then wanted in the US. The US government,
clerk to mail the notice, if in fact he did so fail pursuant to the RP-US extradition treaty
in his duty, is not such an irregularity, as requested to have Jimenez be extradited
amounts to a denial of due process of law; and there. Jimenez requested for a copy of the
hence in our opinion that irregularity, if complaint against him as well as the
proved, would not avoid the judgment in this extradition request by the USA. The DOJ sec
case. Notice was given by publication in a refused to provide him copy thereof advising
newspaper and this is the only form of notice that it is still premature to give him so and
which the law unconditionally requires. This that it is not a preliminary investigation hence
in our opinion is all that was absolutely he is not entitled to receive such copies.
necessary to sustain the proceedings. Jimenez sued the DOJ Sec and the lower court
ruled in favor of Jimenez.
It will be observed that in considering the ISSUE: Whether or not Jimenez is deprived of
effect of this irregularity, it makes a difference due process.
whether it be viewed as a question involving
jurisdiction or as a question involving due HELD: The SC affirmed the ruling of the
process of law. In the matter of jurisdiction lower court. The case against Jimenez refer to
there can be no distinction between the much an impending threat of deprivation of one’s
and the little. The court either has jurisdiction property or property right. No less is this
or it has not; and if the requirement as to the true, but even more so in the case before us,
mailing of notice should be considered as a involving as it does the possible deprivation of
step antecedent to the acquiring of liberty, which, based on the hierarchy of
jurisdiction, there could be no escape from constitutionally protected rights, is placed
the conclusion that the failure to take that second only to life itself and enjoys
step was fatal to the validity of the judgment. precedence over property, for while forfeited
In the application of the idea of due process of property can be returned or replaced, the
law, on the other hand, it is clearly time spent in incarceration is irretrievable
unnecessary to be so rigorous. The and beyond recompense.
jurisdiction being once established, all that
due process of law thereafter requires is an SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. LANTION
opportunity for the defendant to be heard; 322 SCRA 160 (2000)
and as publication was duly made in the
newspaper, it would seem highly Nature: Petition for review of a decision of the
unreasonable to hold that failure to mail the Manila RTC
notice was fatal. We think that in applying the
requirement of due process of law, it is FACTS:
permissible to reflect upon the purposes of On June 18, 1999 the Department of Justice
the provision which is supposed to have been received from the Department of Foreign
violated and the principle underlying the Affairs a request for the extradition of private
exercise of judicial power in these
respondent Mark Jimenez to the U.S. The 1. WON private is respondent entitled to the
Grand Jury Indictment, the warrant for his two basic due process rights of notice and
arrest, and other supporting documents for hearing
said extradition were attached along with the Yes. §2(a) of PD 1086 defines extradition as
request. Charges include: “the removal of an accused from the
1. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud Philippines with the object of placing him at
the US the disposal of foreign authorities to enable
2. Attempt to evade or defeat tax the requesting state or government to hold
3. Fraud by wire, radio, or television him in connection with any criminal
4. False statement or entries investigation directed against him in
5. Election contribution in name of another connection with any criminal investigation
directed against him or the execution of a
The Department of Justice (DOJ), through a penalty imposed on him under the penal or
designated panel proceeded with the criminal law of the requesting state or
technical evaluation and assessment of the government.” Although the inquisitorial
extradition treaty which they found having power exercised by the DOJ as an
matters needed to be addressed. Respondent, administrative agency due to the failure of the
then requested for copies of all the documents DFA to comply lacks any judicial discretion, it
included in the extradition request and for primarily sets the wheels for the extradition
him to be given ample time to assess it. process which may ultimately result in the
deprivation of the liberty of the prospective
The Secretary of Justice denied request on the extradite. This deprivation can be effected at
ff. grounds: two stages: The provisional arrest of the
1. He found it premature to secure him copies prospective extradite pending the submission
prior to the completion of the evaluation. At of the request & the temporary arrest of the
that point in time, the DOJ is in the process of prospective extradite during the pendency of
evaluating whether the procedures and the extradition petition in court. Clearly,
requirements under the relevant law (PD there’s an impending threat to a prospective
1069—Philippine Extradition Law) and treaty extraditee’s liberty as early as during the
(RP-US Extradition Treaty) have been evaluation stage. Because of such
complied with by the Requesting Government. consequences, the evaluation process is akin
Evaluation by the DOJ of the documents is not to an administrative agency conducting an
a preliminary investigation like in criminal investigative proceeding, the consequences of
cases making the constitutionally guaranteed which are essentially criminal since such
rights of the accused in criminal prosecution technical assessment sets off or commences
inapplicable. the procedure for & ultimately the deprivation
2. The U.S. requested for the prevention of of liberty of a prospective extradite. In
unauthorized disclosure of the information in essence, therefore, the evaluation process
the documents. partakes of the nature of a criminal
3. Finally, country is bound to Vienna investigation. There are certain constitutional
convention on law of treaties such that every rights that are ordinarily available only in
treaty in force is binding upon the parties. criminal prosecution. But the Court has ruled
in other cases that where the investigation of
The respondent filed for petition of an administrative proceeding may result in
mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition. The forfeiture of life, liberty, or property, the
RTC of NCR ruled in favor of the respondent. administrative proceedings are deemed
Secretary of Justice was made to issue a copy criminal or penal, & such forfeiture partakes
of the requested papers, as well as conducting the nature of a penalty. In the case at bar,
further proceedings. similar to a preliminary investigation, the
evaluation stage of the extradition
ISSUES: proceedings which may result in the filing of
an information against the respondent, can
possibly lead to his arrest, & to the
deprivation of his liberty. Thus, the extraditee process protection to their respective citizens.
must be accorded due process rights of notice The administrative investigation doesn’t fall
& hearing according to A3 §14(1) & (2), as under the three exceptions to the due process
well as A3 §7—the right of the people to of notice and hearing in the Sec. 3 Rules 112
information on matters of public concern & of the Rules of Court.
the corollary right to access to official records
& documents 3. WON there’s any conflict between private
respondent’s basic due process rights &
The court held that the evaluation process provisions of RP-US Extradition treaty
partakes of the nature of a criminal
investigation, having consequences which will RULING:
result in deprivation of liberty of the No. Doctrine of incorporation under
prospective extradite. A favorable action in an international law, as applied in most
extradition request exposes a person to countries, decrees that rules of international
eventual extradition to a foreign country, thus law are given equal standing with, but are not
exhibiting the penal aspect of the process. superior to national legislative acts. Treaty
The evaluation process itself is like a can repeal statute and statute can repeal
preliminary investigation since both treaty. No conflict. Veil of secrecy is lifted
procedures may have the same result – the during trial. Request should impose veil at
arrest and imprisonment of the respondent. any stage.
The basic rights of notice & hearing are Judgment: Petition dismissed for lack of merit.
applicable in criminal, civil & administrative
proceedings. Non-observance of these rights Kapunan, separate concurring opinion: While
will invalidate the proceedings. Individuals the evaluation process conducted by the DOJ
are entitled to be notified of any pending case is not exactly a preliminary investigation of
affecting their interests, & upon notice, may criminal cases, it is akin to a preliminary
claim the right to appear therein & present investigation because it involves the basic
their side. constitutional rights of the person sought to
be extradited. A person ordered extradited is
Rights to notice and hearing: Dispensable in 3 arrested, forcibly taken from his house,
cases: separated from his family and delivered to a
a. When there is an urgent need for foreign state. His rights of abode, to privacy,
immediate action (preventive suspension in liberty and pursuit of happiness are taken
administrative charges, padlocking filthy away from him—a fate as harsh and cruel as a
restaurants, cancellation of passport). conviction of a criminal offense. For this
b. Where there is tentativeness of reason, he is entitled to have access to the
administrative action, & the respondent isn’t evidence against him and the right to
prevented from enjoying the right to notice & controvert them.
hearing at a later time (summary distraint &
levy of the property of a delinquent taxpayer, Puno, dissenting: Case at bar does not involve
replacement of an appointee) guilt or innocence of an accused but the
c. Twin rights have been offered, but the right interpretation of an extradition treaty where
to exercise them had not been claimed. at stake is our government’s international
obligation to surrender to a foreign state a
2. WON this entitlement constitutes a breach citizen of its own so he can be tried for an
of the legal commitments and obligation of alleged offense committed within that
the Philippine Government under the RP-US jurisdiction.
Treaty?
No. The U.S. and the Philippines share mutual administrative due process:
concern about the suppression and
punishment of crime in their respective cases:
jurisdictions. Both states accord common due
SERRANO VS NLRC / ISETANN failure to hear him before he is dismissed
FACTS: renders the termination without legal effect.
Serrano was a regular employee of Isetann
Department Store as the head of Security ANG TIBAY VS COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
Checker. In 1991, as a cost-cutting measure, RELATIONS
Isetann phased out its entire security section
and engaged the services of an independent Due Process – Admin Bodies – CIR
security agency. Petitioner filed a complaint
for illegal dismissal among others. Labor TeodoroToribio owns and operates Ang Tibay
arbiter ruled in his favor as Isetann failed to a leather company which supplies the
establish that it had retrenched its security Philippine Army. Due to alleged shortage of
section to prevent or minimize losses to its leather, Toribio caused the lay off of members
business; that private respondent failed to of National Labor Union Inc. NLU averred
accord due process to petitioner; that private that Toribio’s act is not valid as it is not within
respondent failed to use reasonable standards the CBA. That there are two labor unions in
in selecting employees whose employment Ang Tibay; NLU and National Worker’s
would be terminated. NLRC reversed the Brotherhood. That NWB is dominated by
decision and ordered petitioner to be given Toribio hence he favors it over NLU. That NLU
separation pay. wishes for a new trial as they were able to
come up with new evidence/documents that
ISSUE: they were not able to obtain before as they
Whether or not the hiring of an independent were inaccessible and they were not able to
security agency by the private respondent to present it before in the CIR.
replace its current security section a valid
ground for the dismissal of the employees ISSUE: Whether or not there has been a due
classed under the latter. process of law.
In the case before us, there was no such To sum up then, we find that the challenged
pressure of time or action calling for the measure is an invalid exercise of the police
petitioner's peremptory treatment. The power because the method employed to
properties involved were not even inimical per conserve the carabaos is not reasonably
se as to require their instant destruction. necessary to the purpose of the law and,
There certainly was no reason why the offense worse, is unduly oppressive. Due process is
prohibited by the executive order should not violated because the owner of the property
have been proved first in a court of justice, confiscated is denied the right to be heard in
with the accused being accorded all the rights his defense and is immediately condemned
safeguarded to him under the Constitution. and punished. The conferment on the
Considering that, as we held in Pesigan v. administrative authorities of the power to
Angeles, Executive Order No. 626-A is penal adjudge the guilt of the supposed offender is a
in nature, the violation thereof should have clear encroachment on judicial functions and
been pronounced not by the police only but by militates against the doctrine of separation of
a court of justice, which alone would have had powers. There is, finally, also an invalid
the authority to impose the prescribed delegation of legislative powers to the officers
penalty, and only after trial and conviction of mentioned therein who are granted unlimited
the accused. discretion in the distribution of the properties
arbitrarily taken. For these reasons, we
We also mark, on top of all this, the hereby declare Executive Order No. 626-A
questionable manner of the disposition of the unconstitutional.
confiscated property as prescribed in the
questioned executive order. It is there YNOT v. IAC
authorized that the seized property shall "be Police Power – Not Validly Exercised
distributed to charitable institutions and other There had been an existing law which
similar institutions as the Chairman of the prohibited the slaughtering of carabaos (EO
National Meat Inspection Commission may 626). To strengthen the law, Marcos issued
see fit, in the case of carabeef, and to EO 626-A which not only banned the
deserving farmers through dispersal as the movement of carabaos from interprovinces
Director of Animal Industry may see fit, in the but as well as the movement of carabeef. On
case of carabaos." (Emphasis supplied.) The 13 Jan 1984, Ynot was caught transporting 6
phrase "may see fit" is an extremely generous carabaos from Masbate to Iloilo. He was then
and dangerous condition, if condition it is. It charged in violation of EO 626-A. Ynot
is laden with perilous opportunities for averred EO 626-A as unconstitutional for it
partiality and abuse, and even corruption. violated his right to be heard or his right to
One searches in vain for the usual standard due process. He said that the authority
provided by EO 626-A to outrightly confiscate HELD: Such resolution is unreasonable. The
carabaos even without being heard is unreasonableness is more obvious in that one
unconstitutional. The lower court ruled who is caught committing the prohibited acts
against Ynot ruling that the EO is a valid even without any ill motives will be barred
exercise of police power in order to promote from taking future examinations conducted by
general welfare so as to curb down the the respondent PRC. Furthermore, it is
indiscriminate slaughter of carabaos. inconceivable how the Commission can
ISSUE: Whether or not the law is valid. manage to have a watchful eye on each and
every examinee during the three days before
HELD: The SC ruled that the EO is not valid the examination period.
as it indeed violates due process. EO 626-A
ctreated a presumption based on the Administrative authorities should not act
judgment of the executive. The movement of arbitrarily and capriciously in the issuance of
carabaos from one area to the other does not rules and regulations. To be valid, such
mean a subsequent slaughter of the same rules and regulations must be reasonable
would ensue. Ynot should be given to defend and fairly adapted to the end in view. If
himself and explain why the carabaos are shown to bear no reasonable relation to the
being transferred before they can be purposes for which they are authorized to be
confiscated. The SC found that the issued, then they must be held to be invalid.
challenged measure is an invalid exercise of
the police power because the method PRC has no authority to dictate on the
employed to conserve the carabaos is not reviewees as to how they should prepare
reasonably necessary to the purpose of the themselves for the licensure examinations, as
law and, worse, is unduly oppressive. Due this will infringe n the examinees’ right to
process is violated because the owner of the libery.
property confiscated is denied the right to be Such resolution also violates the academic
heard in his defense and is immediately freedom of the schools concerned. The
condemned and punished. The conferment on enforcement of Resolution No. 105 is not a
the administrative authorities of the power to guarantee that the alleged leakages in the
adjudge the guilt of the supposed offender is a licensure examinations will be eradicated or
clear encroachment on judicial functions and at least minimized. What is needed to be done
militates against the doctrine of separation of by the respondent is to find out the source of
powers. There is, finally, also an invalid such leakages and stop it right there.
delegation of legislative powers to the officers
mentioned therein who are granted unlimited BALACUIT v. CFI
discretion in the distribution of the properties
arbitrarily taken. FACTS:
At issue in the petition for review before Us is
LUPANGO v. CA the validity and constitutionality of Ordinance
No. 640 passed by the Municipal Board of the
FACTS: PRC issued a resolution directing City of Butuan on April 21, 1969, the title and
that no examinee for the CPA Board Exam text of which are reproduced below
shall attend any review class, briefing, ORDINANCE PENALIZING ANY PERSON,
conference or the like conducted by, or shall GROUP OF PERSONS, ENTITY OR
receive any hand-out, review material, or any CORPORATION ENGAGED IN THE
tip from any school, college or university, or BUSINESS OF SELLING ADMISSION
any review center or the like or any reviewer, TICKETS TO ANY MOVIE OR OTHER PUBLIC
lecturer, instructor official or employee of any EXHIBITIONS, GAMES, CONTESTS OR
of the aforementioned or similars institutions OTHER PERFORMANCES TO REQUIRE
during the 3 days immediately proceeding CHILDREN BETWEEN SEVEN (7) AND
every examination day including examination TWELVE (12) YEARS OF AGE TO PAY FULL
day. PAYMENT FOR TICKETS INTENDED FOR
ADULTS BUT SHOULD CHARGE ONLY ONE- Furthermore, there is nothing pernicious in
HALF OF THE SAID TICKET demanding equal price for both children and
Petitioners are Carlos Balacuit Lamberto Tan, adults. The petitioners are merely conducting
and Sergio Yu Carcel managers of the their legitimate businesses. The object of
theaters and they attack the validity and every business entrepreneur is to make a
constitutionality of Ordinance No. 640 on the profit out of his venture. In fact, no person is
grounds that it is ultra vires and an invalid under compulsion to purchase a ticket. It is a
exercise of police power. totally voluntary act on the part of the
purchaser if he buys a ticket to such
ISSUE: performances
Does this power to regulate include the Ordinance No. 640 clearly invades the
authority to interfere in the fixing of prices of personal and property rights of petitioners
admission to these places of exhibition and WHEREFORE, a new judgment is hereby
amusement whether under its general grant rendered declaring Ordinance No. 640
of power or under the general welfare clause unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.
as invoked by the City?
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
RULING:
No, the power to regulate and fix the amount cases:
of license fees for theaters and other places of
amusement has been expressly granted to the INT'L. SCHOOL ALLIANCE VS.
City of Butuan under its charter. QUISUMBING [333 SCRA 13; G.R. NO.
However, the ordinance is not justified by any 128845; 1 JUN 2000]
necessity for the public interest. The police
power legislation must be firmly grounded on
FACTS:
public interest and welfare, and a reasonable Receiving salaries less than their counterparts
relation must exist between purposes and hired abroad, the local-hires of private
means. respondent School, mostly Filipinos, cry
The evident purpose of the ordinance is to discrimination. We agree. That the local-hires
help ease the burden of cost on the part of are paid more than their colleagues in other
parents who have to shell out the same schools is, of course, beside the point. The
amount of money for the admission of their point is that employees should be given equal
children. A reduction in the price of admission pay for work of equal value.
would mean corresponding savings for the
parents; however, the petitioners are the ones Private respondent International School, Inc.
made to bear the cost of these savings. (the School, for short), pursuant to
The ordinance does not only make the
Presidential Decree 732, is a domestic
petitioners suffer the loss of earnings but it educational institution established primarily
likewise penalizes them for failure to comply for dependents of foreign diplomatic
with it. personnel and other temporary residents. To
The ordinance does not provide a safeguard enable the School to continue carrying out its
against this undesirable practice and as such, educational program and improve its standard
the respondent City of Butuan now suggests of instruction, Section 2(c) of the same decree
that birth certificates be exhibited by movie authorizes the School to employ its own
house patrons to prove the age of children. teaching and management personnel selected
This is, however, not at all practicable. We can by it either locally or abroad, from Philippine
see that the ordinance is clearly unreasonable or other nationalities, such personnel being
if not unduly oppressive upon the business of exempt from otherwise applicable laws and
petitioners. regulations attending their employment,
Further, there is no discernible relation except laws that have been or will be enacted
between the ordinance and the promotion of for the protection of employees.
public health, safety, morals and the general
welfare.
Accordingly, the School hires both foreign and local-hires. The local-hires perform the same
local teachers as members of its faculty, services as foreign-hires and they ought to be
classifying the same into two: (1) foreign-hires paid the same salaries as the latter. For the
and (2) local-hires. same reason, the "dislocation factor" and the
foreign-hires' limited tenure also cannot serve
The School grants foreign-hires certain as valid bases for the distinction in salary
benefits not accorded local-hires. These rates.
include housing, transportation, shipping
costs, taxes, and home leave travel allowance. The Constitution enjoins the State to "protect
Foreign-hires are also paid a salary rate the rights of workers and promote their
twenty-five percent (25%) more than local- welfare," "to afford labor full protection." The
hires. The School justifies the difference on State, therefore, has the right and duty to
two "significant economic disadvantages" regulate the relations between labor and
foreign-hires have to endure, namely: (a) the capital. These relations are not merely
"dislocation factor" and (b) limited tenure. contractual but are so impressed with public
interest that labor contracts, collective
ISSUE: bargaining agreements included, must yield
Whether or Not the grants provided by the to the common good. Should such contracts
school to foreign hires and not to local hires contain stipulations that are contrary to
discriminative of their constitutional right to public policy, courts will not hesitate to strike
the equal protection clause. down these stipulations.
-An investigation of the incident then - In another manifestation, the Lims reiterated
followed. that the court conduct a hearing to determine
if there really exists a prima facie case against
-Thereafter, and for the purpose of them in the light of documents which are
preliminary investigation, the designated recantations of some witnesses in the
investigator, Harry O. Tantiado, TSg, of the PC preliminary investigation.
Criminal Investigation Service at Camp
Bagong Ibalon Legazpi City filed an amended - It should also be noted that the Lims also
complaint with the Municipal Trial Court of presented to the respondent Judge documents
Masbate accusing, among others, Vicente of recantation of witnesses whose testimonies
Lim, Sr., Mayor Susana Lim of Masbate, Jolly were used to establish a prima facie case
T. Fernandez, Florencio T. Fernandez, Jr., against them.
Nonilon A. Bagalihog, Mayor Nestor C. Lim
and Mayor Antonio Kho of the crime of -On July 5, 1990, the respondent court issued
multiple murder and frustrated murder in an order denying for lack of merit the motions
connection with the airport incident. The case and manifestations and issued warrants of
was docketed as Criminal Case No. 9211. arrest against the accused including the
petitioners herein. The judge wrote, “In the
-After conducting the preliminary instant cases, the preliminary investigation
investigation, the court issued an order dated was conducted by the Municipal Trial Court of
July 31, 1989 stating therein that: Masbate, Masbate which found the existence
of probable cause that the offense of multiple
“. . . after weighing the affidavits and answers murder was committed and that all the
given by the witnesses for the prosecution accused are probably guilty thereof, which
during the preliminary examination in was affirmed upon review by the Provincial
searching questions and answers, concludes Prosecutor who properly filed with the
that a probable cause has been established for Regional Trial Court four separate
the issuance of a warrant of arrest of named informations for murder. Considering that
accused in the amended complaint, namely, both the two competent officers to whom such
Jimmy Cabarles, Ronnie Fernandez, Nonilon duty was entrusted by law have declared the
Bagalihog, Jolly Fernandez, Florencio existence of probable cause, each information
Fernandez, Jr., Vicente Lim, Sr., Susana Lim, is complete in form and substance, and there
is no visible defect on its face, this Court finds
it just and proper to rely on the prosecutor's In making the required personal
certification in each information…” determination, a Judge is not precluded from
relying on the evidence earlier gathered by
-Petitioners question the judgment of Judge responsible officers. The extent of the reliance
Felix (statement immediately preceding this depends on the circumstances of each case
paragraph, italicized). and is subject to the Judge's sound discretion.
ISSUE: However, the Judge abuses that discretion
WON a judge may issue a warrant of arrest when having no evidence before him, he
without bail by simply relying on the issues a warrant of arrest.
prosecution's certification and
recommendation that a probable cause exists. Indubitably, the respondent Judge (Felix)
committed a grave error when he relied solely
RULING: on the Prosecutor's certification and issued
The questioned Order of respondent Judge the questioned Order dated July 5, 1990
Nemesio S. Felix of Branch 56, Regional Trial without having before him any other basis for
Court of Makati dated July 5, 1990 is declared his personal determination of the existence of
NULL and VOID and SET ASIDE. a probable cause.
CONDUCT OF CHECK POINTS:
As held in Soliven v. Makasiar, the Judge does
not have to personally examine the cases:
complainant and his witnesses. The
Prosecutor can perform the same functions as VALMONTE VS. DE VILLA
a commissioner for the taking of the evidence.
However, there should be necessary FACTS:
documents and a report supporting the On 20 January 1987, the National Capital
Fiscal's bare certification. All of these should Region District Command (NCRDC) was
be before the Judge. activated pursuant to Letter of Instruction
02/87 of the Philippine General Headquarters,
We cannot determine beforehand how cursory AFP, with the mission of conducting security
or exhaustive the Judge's examination should operations within its area of responsibility and
be. Usually, this depends on the peripheral areas, for the purpose of
circumstances of each case. The Judge has to establishing an effective territorial defense,
exercise sound discretion; after all, the maintaining peace and order, and providing
personal determination is vested in the Judge an atmosphere conducive to the social,
by the Constitution. However, to be sure, the economic and political development of the
Judge must go beyond the Prosecutor's National Capital Region. As part of its duty to
certification and investigation report maintain peace and order, the NCRDC
whenever necessary. installed checkpoints in various parts of
Valenzuela, Metro Manila. Petitioners aver
As mentioned in the facts (stated above), the that, because of the installation of said
Lims presented documents of recantations of checkpoints, the residents of Valenzuela are
the witnesses. Although, the general rule is worried of being harassed and of their safety
that recantations are not given much weight being placed at the arbitrary, capricious and
in the determination of a case and in the whimsical disposition of the military manning
granting of a new trial the respondent Judge the checkpoints, considering that their cars
before issuing his own warrants of arrest and vehicles are being subjected to regular
should, at the very least, have gone over the searches and check-ups, especially at night or
records of the preliminary examination at dawn, without the benefit of a search
conducted earlier in the light of the evidence warrant and/or court order. Their alleged fear
now presented by the concerned witnesses in for their safety increased when, at dawn of 9
view of the "political undertones" prevailing in July 1988, Benjamin Parpon, a supply officer
the cases. of the Municipality of Valenzuela, Bulacan,
was gunned down allegedly in cold blood by
the members of the NCRDC manning the PEOPLE VS. DEL ROSARIO
checkpoint along McArthur Highway at 234 SCRA 246; G.R. NO. 109633; 20 JUL 1994
Malinta, Valenzuela, for ignoring and/or
refusing to submit himself to the checkpoint Facts: Accused was charged and convicted by
and for continuing to speed off inspire of the trial court of illegal possession of firearms
warning shots fired in the air. and illegal possession and sale of drugs,
particularly methamphetamine or shabu. After
ISSUE: the issuance of the search warrant, which
WON the installation of checkpoints violates authorized the search and seizure of an
the right of the people against unreasonable undetermined quantity of methamphetamine
searches and seizures and its paraphernalia’s, an entrapment was
planned that led to the arrest of del Rosario
RULING: and to the seizure of the shabu, its
Petitioner's concern for their safety and paraphernalia’s and of a .22 caliber pistol
apprehension at being harassed by the with 3 live ammunition.
military manning the checkpoints are not
sufficient grounds to declare the checkpoints Issue: Whether or Not the seizure of the
per se, illegal. No proof has been presented firearms was proper.
before the Court to show that, in the course of
their routine checks, the military, indeed, Held: No. Sec 2 art. III of the constitution
committed specific violations of petitioners'' specifically provides that a search warrant
rights against unlawful search and seizure of must particularly describe the things to be
other rights. The constitutional right against seized. In herein case, the only objects to be
unreasonable searches and seizures is a seized that the warrant determined was the
personal right invocable only by those whose methamphetamine and the paraphernalia’s
rights have been infringed, or threatened to therein. The seizure of the firearms was
be infringed. Not all searches and seizures unconstitutional.
are prohibited. Those which are reasonable
are not forbidden. The setting up of the Wherefore the decision is reversed and the
questioned checkpoints may be considered as accused is acquitted.
a security measure to enable the NCRDC to
pursue its mission of establishing effective MANALILI V. COURT OF APPEALS
territorial defense and maintaining peace and 280 SCRA 400
order for the benefit of the public. FACTS:
Checkpoints may not also be regarded as Narcotics officers were doing surveillance and
measures to thwart plots to destabilize the chanced upon the accused in a cemetery who
govt, in the interest of public security. seemed to be high on drugs. He tried to
Between the inherent right of the state to resist the police officers and upon inquiry,
protect its existence and promote public found that the accused was possessing
welfare and an individual’s right against a what seemed to be crushed marijuana leaves.
warrantless search w/c is, however, HELD:
reasonably conducted, the former should A stop-and-frisk was defined as the vernacular
prevail. True, the manning of checkpoints by designation of the right of a police officer to
the military is susceptible of abuse by the stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him,
military in the same manner that all and pat him for weapons. It has been held as
governmental power is susceptible of abuse. one of the exceptions to the general rule
But, at the cost of occasional inconvenience, against searches without warrant.
discomfort and even irritation to the citizen,
the checkpoints during these abnormal times, PEOPLE VS. ARUTA
when conducted w/in reasonable limits, are 288 SCRA 626
part of the price we pay for an orderly society
and a peaceful community.
G.R. NO. 120515; 13 APR 1998 (c) the evidence must be immediately
apparent, and (d) "plain view" justified mere
FACTS: seizure of evidence without further search;
On Dec. 13, 1988, P/Lt. Abello was tipped off 3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly
by his informant that a certain “Aling Rosa” regulated by the government, the vehicle's
will be arriving from Baguio City with a large inherent mobility reduces expectation of
volume of marijuana and assembled a team. privacy especially when its transit in public
The next day, at the Victory Liner Bus thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable
terminal they waited for the bus coming from suspicion amounting to probable cause that
Baguio, when the informer pointed out who the occupant committed a criminal activity;
“Aling Rosa” was, the team approached her 4. Consented warrantless search;
and introduced themselves as NARCOM 5. Customs search;
agents. When Abello asked “aling Rosa” about 6. Stop and Frisk;
the contents of her bag, the latter handed it 7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances.
out to the police. They found dried marijuana
leaves packed in a plastic bag marked “cash The essential requisite of probable cause must
katutak”. still be satisfied before a warrantless search
and seizure can be lawfully conducted.
Instead of presenting its evidence, the
defense filed a demurrer to evidence alleging The accused cannot be said to be committing
the illegality of the search and seizure of the a crime, she was merely crossing the street
items. In her testimony, the accused claimed and was not acting suspiciously for the
that she had just come from Choice theatre Narcom agents to conclude that she was
where she watched a movie “Balweg”. While committing a crime. There was no legal basis
about to cross the road an old woman asked to effect a warrantless arrest of the accused’s
her for help in carrying a shoulder bag, when bag, there was no probable cause and the
she was later on arrested by the police. She accused was not lawfully arrested.
has no knowledge of the identity of the old
woman and the woman was nowhere to be The police had more than 24 hours to procure
found. Also, no search warrant was presented. a search warrant and they did not do so. The
seized marijuana was illegal and inadmissible
The trial court convicted the accused in evidence.
violation of the dangerous drugs of 1972
RULE 113, RULES OF COURT
ISSUE:
Whether or Not the police correctly searched Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when
and seized the drugs from the accused. lawful. — A peace officer or a private person
may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
RULING:
The following cases are specifically provided (a) When, in his presence, the person to be
or allowed by law: arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful offense;
arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 (b) When an offense has just been committed,
of the Rules of Court 8 and by prevailing and he has probable cause to believe based on
jurisprudence personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view," the that the person to be arrested has committed
elements of which are: (a) a prior valid it; and
intrusion based on the valid warrantless (c) When the person to be arrested is a
arrest in which the police are legally present prisoner who has escaped from a penal
in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the establishment or place where he is serving
evidence was inadvertently discovered by the final judgment or is temporarily confined
police who had the right to be where they are; while his case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from one confinement summon the person to whom the warrant was
to another. issued and require him to explain why no
return was made. If the return has been
In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) made, the judge shall ascertain whether
above, the person arrested without a warrant section 11 of this Rule has been complained
shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest with and shall require that the property seized
police station or jail and shall be proceeded be delivered to him. The judge shall see to it
against in accordance with section 7 of Rule that subsection (a) hereof has been complied
112. with.
(c) The return on the search warrant shall be
RULE 126, RULES OF COURT filed and kept by the custodian of the log book
on search warrants who shall enter therein
Section 2. Court where application for search the date of the return, the result, and other
warrant shall be filed. — An application for actions of the judge.
search warrant shall be filed with the
following: A violation of this section shall constitute
contempt of court
a) Any court within whose territorial
jurisdiction a crime was committed. SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, INC.
b) For compelling reasons stated in the vs. SOLUTA
application, any court within the judicial
region where the crime was committed if the FACTS:
place of the commission of the crime is Loida Somacera (Loida), a laundrywoman of
known, or any court within the judicial region the hotel, stayed overnight at the female
where the warrant shall be enforced. locker room at the basement of the hotel. At
dawn, she heard pounding sounds outside,
However, if the criminal action has already she saw five men in barong tagalog whom she
been filed, the application shall only be made failed to recognize but she was sure were not
in the court where the criminal action is employees of the hotel, forcibly opening the
pending. door of the union office. In the morning, as
union officer Soluta was trying in vain to open
Section 7. Right to break door or window to the door of the union office, Loida narrated to
effect search. — The officer, if refused him what she had witnessed at dawn.
admittance to the place of directed search Soluta immediately lodged a complaint before
after giving notice of his purpose and the Security Officer. And he fetched a
authority, may break open any outer or inner locksmith. At that instant, men in barong
door or window of a house or any part of a tagalog armed with clubs arrived and started
house or anything therein to execute the hitting Soluta and his companions. Panlilio
warrant or liberate himself or any person thereupon instructed Villanueva to force open
lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained the door, and the latter did. Once inside,
therein. Panlilio and his companions began searching
the office, over the objection of Babay who
Section 12. Delivery of property and inventory even asked them if they had a search warrant.
thereof to court; return and proceedings A plastic bag was found containing marijuana
thereon. flowering tops.
As a result of the discovery of the presence of
(a) The officer must forthwith deliver the marijuana in the union office and after the
property seized to the judge who issued the police conducted an investigation of the
warrant, together with a true inventory incident, a complaint against the 13 union
thereof duly verified under oath. officers was filed before the Fiscal’s Office of
(b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search Manila. RTC acquitted the accused. On
warrant, the issuing judge shall ascertain if appeal, the CA affirmed with modification the
the return has been made, and if none, shall decision of the trial court.
Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered
ISSUE: in the following and analogous cases, among
Whether respondent individual can recover others, (6) Illegal search and (10) Acts and
damages for violation of constitutional rights. action referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28,
29, 30, 32, 34 and 35.
RULING: Article 32, in relation to Article DECISION: Denied.
2219(6) and (10) of the Civil Code, allows so.
PACIS VS. PAMARAN
ART. 32. Any public officer or employee, or G.R. No. L-23996 March 15, 1974
any private individual, who directly or
indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any Doctrine:
manner impedes or impairs any of the It is a well-settled principle that for violations
following rights and liberties of another of customs laws, a warrant issued by the
person shall be liable to the latter for Collector of Customs is conceded. It is not
damages: necessary, in these cases, that the warrants
be issued by a judge, as what is required in
In the present case, petitioners had, by their the Constitution.
own claim, already received reports in late
1987 of illegal activities and Maniego FACTS:
conducted surveillance. Yet, in the morning of
January 11, 1988, petitioners and their Respondent Ricardo Santos is the owner of a
companions barged into and searched the Mercury automobile, model 1957. It was
union office without a search warrant, despite brought into this country without the payment
ample time for them to obtain one. of customs duty and taxes, its original owner
Donald James Hatch being tax-exempt. On
The course taken by petitioners and company June 25, 1964, respondent paid P311.00 for
stinks in illegality. Petitioners’ violation of customs duty and taxes.
individual respondents’ constitutional right
against unreasonable search thus furnishes Petitioner Pacis, on July 22, 1964 received
the basis for the award of damages under from the Administrator, General Affairs
Article 32 of the Civil Code. For respondents, Administration of the Department of National
being the lawful occupants of the office had Defense, a letter to the effect that the Land
the right to raise the question of validity of Transportation Commission reported that
the search and seizure. such automobile was a "hot car." By virtue
thereof, petitioner, through his subordinates,
Article 32 speaks of an officer or employee or looked into the records of his office and
person "directly or indirectly" responsible for ascertained that the amount collectible on
the violation of the constitutional rights and said car should be P2,500.00, more or less.
liberties of another. Hence, it is not the actor Based on such discrepancy, petitioner
alone who must answer for damages under instituted seizure proceedings and issued a
Article 32; the person indirectly responsible warrant of seizure and detention and thus the
has also to answer for the damages or injury subject automobile was taken. Respondent
caused to the aggrieved party. Such being the requested for the withdrawal or dissolution of
case, petitioners, together with Maniego and the warrant of seizure but petitioner denied it.
Villanueva, the ones who orchestrated the
illegal search, are jointly and severally liable Thereafter, respondent Santos filed a criminal
for actual, moral and exemplary damages to complaint for usurpation of judicial functions
herein individual respondents in accordance with the City Fiscal of Manila. As the
with the earlier-quoted pertinent provision of respondent Fiscal Pamaran was bent on
Article 32, in relation to Article 2219(6) and proceeding with the charge against petitioner,
(10) of the Civil Code which provides: an action for prohibition was filed with the
Supreme Court.
ISSUE: with the preliminary investigation after his
Whether or not the Constitutional provision attention was duly called to the plain and
which states that only a judge could issue a explicit legal provision that did not suffer at
search warrant applies to warrants issued in all from any constitutional infirmity.
lieu of violations of customs laws.
WHEREFORE, the writ of prohibition prayed
HELD: for is granted and the successor of respondent
In a recent decision of this Court, Papa v. Manuel R. Pamaran, now a criminal circuit
Mago, where the seizure of alleged smuggled court judge, or any one in the City Fiscal's
goods was effected by a police officer without Office of the City of Manila to whom the
a search warrant, this Court, through Justice complaint against petitioner for usurpation of
Zaldivar, stated: "Petitioner Martin Alagao judicial functions arising out of the issuance
and his companion policemen had authority to of the warrant of seizure and detention,
effect the seizure without any search warrant subject-matter of this litigation, has been
issued by a component court. The Tariff and assigned, is perpetually restrained from
Customs Code does not require said warrant acting thereon except to dismiss the same. No
in the instant case. The Code authorizes costs.
persons having police authority under Section
2203 of the Tariff and Customs Code to enter, STOP AND FRISK RULE:
pass through or search any land, inclosure,
warehouse, store or building, not being a cases:
dwelling house and also to inspect, search and Malacat vs. Court of Appeals
examine any vessel or aircraft and any trunk, GR 123595, 12 December 1997
package, box or envelope or any person on
board, or stop and search and examine any FACTS:
vehicle, beast or person suspected of holding On 27 August 1990, at about 6:30 p.m.,
or conveying any dutiable or prohibited article allegedly in response to bomb threats
introduced into the Philippines contrary to reported seven days earlier, Rodolfo Yu of the
law, without mentioning the need of a search Western Police District, Metropolitan Police
warrant in said cases. But in the search of a Force of the Integrated National Police, Police
dwelling house, the Code provides that said Station No. 3, Quiapo, Manila, was on foot
"dwelling house may be entered and searched patrol with three other police officers (all of
only upon warrant issued by a judge or justice them in uniform) along Quezon Boulevard,
of the peace ... ." It is our considered view, Quiapo, Manila, near the Mercury Drug store
therefore, that except in the case of the at Plaza Miranda. They chanced upon two
search of a dwelling house, persons exercising groups of Muslim-looking men, with each
police authority under the customs law may group, comprised of three to four men, posted
effect search and seizure without a search at opposite sides of the corner of Quezon
warrant in the enforcement of customs laws." Boulevard near the Mercury Drug Store.
These men were acting suspiciously with
The plenitude of the competence vested in “their eyes moving very fast.” Yu and his
customs officials is thus undeniable. No such companions positioned themselves at
constitutional question then can possibly strategic points and observed both groups for
arise. So much is implicit from the very about 30 minutes. The police officers then
language of Section 2205 of the Tariff and approached one group of men, who then fled
Customs Code. It speaks for itself. It is not in different directions. As the policemen gave
susceptible of any misinterpretation. The chase, Yu caught up with and apprehended
power of petitioner is thus manifest. It being Sammy Malacat y Mandar (who Yu
undeniable then that the sole basis for an recognized, inasmuch as allegedly the
alleged criminal act performed by him was previous Saturday, 25 August 1990, likewise
the performance of a duty according to law, at Plaza Miranda, Yu saw Malacat and 2
there is not the slightest justification for others attempt to detonate a grenade). Upon
respondent Assistant City Fiscal to continue
searching Malacat, Yu found a fragmentation Whether the search made on Malacat is valid,
grenade tucked inside the latter’s “front waist pursuant to the exception of “stop and frisk.”
line.” Yu’s companion, police officer Rogelio
Malibiran, apprehended Abdul Casan from HELD:
whom a .38 caliber revolver was recovered. The general rule as regards arrests, searches
Malacat and Casan were then brought to and seizures is that a warrant is needed in
Police Station 3 where Yu placed an “X” mark order to validly effect the same. The
at the bottom of the grenade and thereafter Constitutional prohibition against
gave it to his commander. Yu did not issue any unreasonable arrests, searches and seizures
receipt for the grenade he allegedly recovered refers to those effected without a validly
from Malacat. On 30 August 1990, Malacat issued warrant, subject to certain exceptions.
was charged with violating Section 3 of As regards valid warrantless arrests, these
Presidential Decree 1866. At arraignment on are found in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules
9 October 1990, petitioner, assisted by of Court. A warrantless arrest under the
counsel de officio, entered a plea of not guilty. circumstances contemplated under Section
Malacat denied the charges and explained 5(a) has been denominated as one “in
that he only recently arrived in Manila. flagrante delicto,” while that under Section
However, several other police officers mauled 5(b) has been described as a “hot pursuit”
him, hitting him with benches and guns. arrest. Turning to valid warrantless searches,
Petitioner was once again searched, but they are limited to the following: (1) customs
nothing was found on him. He saw the searches; (2) search of moving vehicles; (3)
grenade only in court when it was presented. seizure of evidence in plain view; (4) consent
In its decision dated 10 February 1994 but searches; (5) a search incidental to a lawful
promulgated on 15 February 1994, the trial arrest; and (6) a “stop and frisk.” The
court ruled that the warrantless search and concepts of a “stop-and-frisk” and of a search
seizure of Malacat was akin to a “stop and incidental to a lawful arrest must not be
frisk,” where a “warrant and seizure can be confused. These two types of warrantless
effected without necessarily being preceded searches differ in terms of the requisite
by an arrest” and “whose object is either to quantum of proof before they may be validly
maintain the status quo momentarily while effected and in their allowable scope. In a
the police officer seeks to obtain more search incidental to a lawful arrest, as the
information”; and that the seizure of the precedent arrest determines the validity of
grenade from Malacat was incidental to a the incidental search. Here, there could have
lawful arrest. The trial court thus found been no valid in flagrante delicto or hot
Malacat guilty of the crime of illegal pursuit arrest preceding the search in light of
possession of explosives under Section 3 of the lack of personal knowledge on the part of
PD 1866, and sentenced him to suffer the Yu, the arresting officer, or an overt physical
penalty of not less than 17 years, 4 months act, on the part of Malacat, indicating that a
and 1 day of Reclusion Temporal, as crime had just been committed, was being
minimum, and not more than 30 years of committed or was going to be committed.
Reclusion Perpetua, as maximum. On 18 Plainly, the search conducted on Malacat
February 1994, Malacat filed a notice of could not have been one incidental to a lawful
appeal indicating that he was appealing to the arrest. On the other hand, while probable
Supreme Court. However, the record of the cause is not required to conduct a “stop and
case was forwarded to the Court of Appeals frisk,” it nevertheless holds that mere
(CA-GR CR 15988). In its decision of 24 suspicion or a hunch will not validate a “stop
January 1996, the Court of Appeals affirmed and frisk.” A genuine reason must exist, in
the trial court. Manalili filed a petition for light of the police officer’s experience and
review with the Supreme Court. surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief
ISSUE: that the person detained has weapons
concealed about him. Finally, a “stop-and-
frisk” serves a two-fold interest: (1) the
general interest of effective crime prevention (SUBJECT: DELEGATION OF QUASI
and detection, which underlies the JUDICIAL POWER; ESTOPPEL.
recognition that a police officer may, under FACTS:
appropriate circumstances and in an ON 18 MARCH 1986, ATTY. RAMIREZ AND
appropriate manner, approach a person for ATTY. ABELLA, PCGG AGENTS, ISSUED A
purposes of investigating possible criminal SEQUESTRATION ORDER AGAINST THE
behavior even without probable cause; and (2) RESTHOUS THE SOLE ISSUE PRESENTED
the more pressing interest of safety and self- IS WHETHER OR NOT THE MARCH 18, 1986
preservation which permit the police officer to SEQUESTRATION ORDER AGAINST
take steps to assure himself that the person PROPERTIES OF IMELDA IN LEYTE
with whom he deals is not armed with a INCLUDING THE RESTHOUSE AT OLOT.
deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and THEIR ORDER WAS NOT SIGNED BY ANY
fatally be used against the police officer. Here, PCGG COMMISSIONERS.
there are at least three (3) reasons why the
“stop-and-frisk” was invalid: First, there is ISSUE:
grave doubts as to Yu’s claim that Malacat IS THEIR ORDER VALID?
was a member of the group which attempted
to bomb Plaza Miranda 2 days earlier. This RULING:
claim is neither supported by any police NO. JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS
report or record nor corroborated by any MAY NOT BE DELEGATED. IN PCGG V.
other police officer who allegedly chased that JUDGE PEÑA,[1][17] THE COURT HELD
group. Second, there was nothing in THAT THE POWERS, FUNCTIONS AND
Malacat’s behavior or conduct which could DUTIES OF THE PCGG AMOUNT TO THE
have reasonably elicited even mere suspicion EXERCISE OF QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS,
other than that his eyes were “moving very AND THE EXERCISE OF SUCH FUNCTIONS
fast” — an observation which leaves us CANNOT BE DELEGATED BY THE
incredulous since Yu and his teammates were COMMISSION TO ITS REPRESENTATIVES
nowhere near Malacat and it was already 6:30 OR SUBORDINATES OR TASK FORCES
p.m., thus presumably dusk. Malacat and his BECAUSE OF THE WELL ESTABLISHED
companions were merely standing at the PRINCIPLE THAT JUDICIAL OR QUASI-
corner and were not creating any commotion JUDICIAL POWERS MAY NOT BE
or trouble. Third, there was at all no ground, DELEGATED.
probable or otherwise, to believe that Malacat PETITIONER REPUBLIC ARGUES THAT
was armed with a deadly weapon. None was MRS. MARCOS SHOULD BE DEEMED
visible to Yu, for as he admitted, the alleged ESTOPPED FROM QUESTIONING THE
grenade was “discovered” “inside the front SEQUESTRATION OF HER OLOT
waistline” of Malacat, and from all indications RESTHOUSE BY HER ACTIONS IN REGARD
as to the distance between Yu and Malacat, TO THE SAME. BUT A VOID ORDER
any telltale bulge, assuming that Malacat was PRODUCES NO EFFECT AND CANNOT BE
indeed hiding a grenade, could not have been VALIDATED UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF
visible to Yu. What is unequivocal then are ESTOPPEL. FOR THE SAME REASON, THE
blatant violations of Malacat’s rights solemnly COURT CANNOT ACCEPT PETITIONER’S
guaranteed in Sections 2 and 12(1) of Article VIEW THAT MRS. MARCOS SHOULD HAVE
III of the Constitution. FIRST SOUGHT THE LIFTING OF THE
SEQUESTRATION ORDER THROUGH A
WARRANTLESS ARREST MOTION TO QUASH FILED WITH THE
PCGG. BEING VOID, THE SANDIGANBAYAN
cases: HAS THE POWER TO STRIKE IT DOWN ON
SIGHT.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.
SANDIGANBAYAN RULING OF THE COURT:
The Court’s Ruling 14, 1986 against Dio Island Resort, Inc. and
all its assets and properties which were
Under Section 26, Article XVIII of the thought to be part of the Marcoses’ ill-gotten
Constitution, an order of sequestration may wealth. Alerted by a challenge to his action,
only issue upon a showing “of a prima facie the PCGG passed a resolution “to confirm,
case” that the properties are ill-gotten wealth ratify and adopt as its own all the Writs of
under Executive Orders 1 and 2.[2][11] When Sequestration” that Attys. Ramirez and Abella
a court nullifies an order of sequestration for issued “to remove any doubt as to the validity
having been issued without a prima facie and enforceability” of their writs. Still, the
case, the Court does not substitute its Court struck them down as void:
judgment for that of the PCGG but simply
applies the law.[3][12] It is indubitable that under no circumstances
can a sequestration or freeze order be validly
In Bataan Shipyard & Engineering Co, Inc. v. issued by one not a Commissioner of the
PCGG,[4][13] the Court held that a prima PCGG.
facie factual foundation that the properties
sequestered are “ill-gotten wealth” is The invalidity of the sequestration order was
required. The power to determine the made more apparent by the fact that Atty.
existence of a prima facie case has been Ramirez did not even have any specific
vested in the PCGG as an incident to its authority to act on behalf of the Commission
investigatory powers. The two-commissioner at the time he issued the said sequestration
rule is obviously intended to assure a collegial order. x x x
determination of such fact.[5][14]
Even assuming arguendo that Atty. Ramirez
Here, it is clear that the PCGG did not make a had been given prior authority by the PCGG to
prior determination of the existence of a place Dio Island Resort under sequestration,
prima facie case that would warrant the nevertheless, the sequestration order he
sequestration of the Olot Resthouse. The issued is still void since PCGG may not
Republic presented no evidence before the delegate its authority to sequester to its
Sandiganbayan that shows differently. Nor representatives and subordinates, and any
did the Republic demonstrate that the two such delegation is invalid and ineffective.
PCGG representatives were given the quasi-
judicial authority to receive and consider Under Executive Order Nos. 1 and 2, PCGG is
evidence that would warrant such a prima the sole entity primarily charged with the
facie finding. responsibility of recovering ill-gotten wealth.
x x x The power to sequester, therefore,
Parenthetically, the Republic’s supposed carries with it the corollary duty to make a
evidence does not show how the Marcoses preliminary determination of whether there is
acquired the sequestered property, what a reasonable basis for sequestering a property
makes it “ill-gotten wealth,” and how former alleged to be ill-gotten. After a careful
President Marcos intervened in its evaluation of the evidence adduced, the PCGG
acquisition. Taking the foregoing view, the clearly has to use its own judgment in
resolution of the issue surrounding the determining the existence of a prima facie
character of the property sequestered – case.
whether or not it could prima facie be
considered ill-gotten – should be necessary. The absence of a prior determination by the
PCGG of a prima facie basis for the
The issue in this case is not new. The facts sequestration order is, unavoidably, a fatal
are substantially identical to those in the case defect which rendered the sequestration of
of Republic v. Sandiganbayan (Dio Island respondent corporation and its properties
Resort, Inc.).[6][15] There, the same Atty. void ab initio. Being void ab initio, it is
Ramirez issued a sequestration order on April
deemed non-existent, as though it had never the text of the above letters clearly show,
been issued, Attys. Jose Tan Ramirez and Ben Abella, had
acted on broad and non-specific powers: ‘By
The Court is maintaining its above ruling in authority of the commission and the powers
this case. vested in it. x x x.’”[9][18]
Although the two PCGG lawyers issued the Petitioner Republic argues that Mrs. Marcos
sequestration order in this case on March 18, should be deemed estopped from questioning
1986, before the passage of Sec. 3 of the the sequestration of her Olot Resthouse by
PCGG Rules, such consideration is immaterial her actions in regard to the same. But a void
following our above ruling. order produces no effect and cannot be
validated under the doctrine of estoppel. For
In PCGG v. Judge Peña,[8][17] the Court held the same reason, the Court cannot accept
that the powers, functions and duties of the petitioner’s view that Mrs. Marcos should
PCGG amount to the exercise of quasi-judicial have first sought the lifting of the
functions, and the exercise of such functions sequestration order through a motion to
cannot be delegated by the Commission to its quash filed with the PCGG. Being void, the
representatives or subordinates or task forces Sandiganbayan has the power to strike it
because of the well established principle that down on sight.
judicial or quasi-judicial powers may not be
delegated. Besides, the lifting of the sequestration order
will not necessarily be fatal to the main case
It is the Republic’s theory of course that since it does not follow from such lifting that
Commissioner Daza’s letter, directing Attys. the sequestered properties are not ill-gotten
Ramirez and Abella to search and sequester wealth. Such lifting simply means that the
all properties, documents, money and other government may not act as conservator or
assets of respondents, should be considered may not exercise administrative or
as the writ of sequestration while the order housekeeping powers over the property.[10]
issued by Attys. Ramirez and Abella should [19] Indeed, the Republic can be protected by
be treated merely as an implementing order. a notice of lis pendens.
But the letter did not have the tenor of a WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the
sequestration order covering specific petition for lack of merit and AFFIRMS the
properties that the lawyers were ordered to challenged resolutions of the Fourth Division
seize and hold for the PCGG. Actually, that of the Sandiganbayan dated February 28,
letter is of the same kind issued to Attys. 2002 and August 28, 2002 in Civil Case 0002,
Ramirez and Abella in Dio Island Resort. which granted respondent Imelda R. Marcos’
Consequently, there is no reason to depart Motion to Quash the March 18, 1986
from the Court’s ruling in the latter case Sequestration Order covering the Olot
where it said: Resthouse.
The invalidity of the sequestration order was Further, the Court DIRECTS the Register of
made more apparent by the fact that Atty. Deeds of Leyte to immediately annotate a
Ramirez did not even have any specific notice of lis pendens on the certificate of title
authority to act on behalf of the Commission of the Olot Resthouse with respect to the
at the time he issued the said sequestration Republic of the Philippines’ claim over the
order. Thus, the respondent Court noted: same in Civil Case 0002 of the
Sandiganbayan.
Contrary to plaintiff’s representation, nothing
exists to support its contention that the Task No pronouncement as to costs.
Force had been given prior authority to place SO ORDERED.
DIO under PCGG control. On the contrary, as
PADILLA V. CA Issue: Whether or Not the seizure of the
129 S 558 (1990) firearms was proper.
Where in the complaint for Grave Coercion Held: No. Sec 2 art. III of the constitution
against the mayor and policemen, they were specifically provides that a search warrant
acquitted on the ground that their guilt has must particularly describe the things to be
not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, seized. In herein case, the only objects to be
such acquittal will not bar a civil case for seized that the warrant determined was the
damages arising from the demolition of methamphetamine and the paraphernalia’s
petition¬er's market stalls. The acquittal on therein. The seizure of the firearms was
the ground that their guilt has not been unconstitutional.
proven beyond reasona¬ble doubt refers to
the element of Grave Coercion and not to the Wherefore the decision is reversed and the
fact of that the stalls were not demolished. accused is acquitted.
Under the Rules of Court, the extinction of
penal action carries with it the extinction of VALIDITY OF A WARRANT ISSUED BY
civil only if there is a declaration that facts THE JUDGE
from which civil may arise did not exist. Also,
Art. 29 of the Civil Code does not state that cases:
civil liability can be recovered only in a
separate civil action. The civil liability can be PEOPLE v. TEE
recovered either in the same or a separate
action. The purpose of recovering in the same "rights of the accused to speedy trial"
action is to dispense with the filing of another FACTS:
civil action where the same evidence is to be The case involves an automatic review of
presented, and the unsettling implications of judgment made against Tee who was
permitting reinsti¬tuttion of a separate civil convicted for illegal possession of marijuana
action. However, a separate civil action is and sentenced to death. The defense assailed
warranted when (1) addition¬al facts are to the decision of the court for taking admissible
be established; (2) there is more evidence to as evidence the marijuana seized from the
be adduced; (3) there is full termina¬tion of accused by virtue of allegedly general search
the criminal case and a separate complaint warrant. They further contend that the
would be more efficacious than a remand. accused was deprived of his right to speedy
Hence, CA did not err in awarding damages trial by failure of the prosecution to produce
despite the acquittal. their witness who failed to appear during the
20 hearing dates thereby slowing down the
PEOPLE VS. DEL ROSARIO trial procedure.
234 SCRA 246; G.R. NO. 109633; 20 JUL 1994
ISSUE:
Facts: Accused was charged and convicted by Whether or not the substantive right of the
the trial court of illegal possession of firearms accused for a speedy trial prejudiced during
and illegal possession and sale of drugs, the hearing of the case.
particularly methamphetamine or shabu. After
the issuance of the search warrant, which RULING:
authorized the search and seizure of an The court ruled that the substantive right of
undetermined quantity of methamphetamine the accused for a fair and speedy trial was not
and its paraphernalia’s, an entrapment was violated. It held that the Speedy Trial Act of
planned that led to the arrest of del Rosario 1998 provides that the trial period for the
and to the seizure of the shabu, its criminal cases should be in general 180 days.
paraphernalia’s and of a .22 caliber pistol However, in determining the right of an
with 3 live ammunition. accused to speedy trial, courts should do
more than a mathematical computation of the
number of postponements of the scheduled anathematized as totally subversive of the
hearings of the case.The right to a speedy liberty of the subject. Clearly violative of the
trial is deemed violated only when: (1) the constitutional injunction that warrants of
proceedings are attended by vexatious, arrest should particularly describe the person
capricious, and oppressive delays; or (2) when or persons to be seized. The warrant as
unjustified postponements are asked for and against unidentified subjects will be
secured; or (3) when without cause or considered as null and void.
justifiable motive a long period of time is
allowed to elapse without the party having his EXAMINATION OF BANK ACCOUNTS/
case tried. DEPOSITS
ISSUE:
Whether the order of the Ombudsman to have
an in camera inspection of the questioned
account is allowed as an exception to the law
on secrecy of bank deposits (R.A. No.1405).
HELD: No.
We rule that before an in camera inspection
may be allowed, there must be a pending case
before a court of competent jurisdiction.
Further, the account must be clearly
identified, the inspection limited to the
subject matter of the pending case before the
court of competent jurisdiction. The bank
personnel and the account holder must be
notified to be present during the inspection,
and such inspection may cover only the
account identified in the pending case