Case#6 GR No.

182573 2014-04-23
RAY SHU, Petitioner, vs.
JAIME DEE, ENRIQUETO MAGPANTAY, RAMON MIRANDA,
LARRY MACILLAN, AND EDWIN SO, Respondents

Facts:
 Petitioner, president of the 3A Apparel Corporation, filed a complaint
before the NBI charging the respondents of falsification of two deeds of
real estate mortgage submitted to Metrobank.

 Both deeds of real estate mortgage were allegedly signed by the petitioner,
one in his own name while the other was on behalf of the corporation.

 According to the petitioner, the respondents were employees of

Metrobank.

 After investigation, the NBI filed a complaint with the City Prosecutor of
Makati charging the respondents of the crime of forgery and falsification
of public documents.

 The respondents argued in their counter-affidavits that they were denied

their right to due process during the NBI investigation because the
agency never required them and Metrobank to submit the standard sample
signatures of the petitioner for comparison.

 The findings contained in the questioned documents report only covered

the sample signatures unilaterally submitted by the petitioner as compared
with the signatures appearing on the two deeds of real estate mortgage.

 An examination of the signatures of the petitioner which appear in several

documents in Metrobank’s possession revealed that his signatures in the
questioned deeds are genuine.

Procedural History:
Ruling of the City Prosecutor:
  found no probable cause against the respondents and, consequently,
dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.
 pieces of evidence presented before the city prosecutor, which were not
made available to the NBI and which the petitioner does not dispute, prove
that the same person executed the questioned deeds.
 Petitioner appealed the city prosecutor’ resolution to the Secretary of
Justice.

Ruling of the Secretary of Justice:

 reversed the city prosecutor’s findings.
 city prosecutor failed to consider the evidentiary value of the findings of
the NBI questioned documents experts.
 file a petition for certiorari with the CA (Rule 65)

CA:
 granted the petition and annulled the assailed resolution of the
Secretary of Justice
 respondents were denied their right to due process in the proceedings
before the NBI and the Secretary of Justice
 before the NBI, the respondents were not furnished a copy of the complaint
and were not likewise required to file their answer or to present
countervailing evidence
 before the Secretary of Justice, the respondents were not furnished with the
petition for review that the petitioner filed. They were not even required to
file their answer nor to comment

Issue:
Whether or not Respondents were denied of their right to due process.

Petitioner’s Contention:
 Respondents already had active participation in the proceedings before the
Secretary of Justice through the filing of a motion for reconsideration

Respondent’s Contention:
  They were prevented from participating in the proceedings before the NBI
and the Secretary of Justice, resulting in the denial of their right to due
process.

Ruling:
No, Respondents were not denied of their right to due process.

Main Ruling:

In P/Insp. Ariel S. Artillero v. Orlando Casimiro, et al., the Court ruled that
the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to be heard. What the law
prohibits is not the absence of previous notice but its absolute absence and lack
of opportunity to be heard. Sufficient compliance with the requirements of due
process exists when a party is given a chance to be heard through his motion for
reconsideration.

In the present case, the Court did not find it disputed that the respondents
filed with the Secretary of Justice a motion for reconsideration of her resolution.
Therefore, any initial defect in due process, if any, was cured by the remedy the
respondents availed of.

With regards to NBI:

In Cabarrus Jr. v. Bernas, it was held that the functions of the NBI are
merely investigatory and informational in nature. It has no judicial or quasi-
judicial powers and is incapable of granting any relief to any party. It cannot
even determine probable cause. The NBI is an investigative agency whose
findings are merely recommendatory. It undertakes investigation of crimes upon
its own initiative or as public welfare may require in accordance with its
mandate. It also renders assistance when requested in the investigation or
detection of crimes in order to prosecute the persons responsible.

In this case, since the NBI’s findings were merely recommendatory, the
Court found that no denial of the respondents’ due process right could have taken
place; the NBI’s findings were still subject to the prosecutor’s and the Secretary
of Justice’s actions for purposes of finding the existence of probable cause.
Further Info:
The respondents were not likewise denied their right to due process when
the NBI issued the questioned documents report. The Court noted that this report
merely stated that the signatures appearing on the two deeds and in the
petitioner’s submitted sample signatures were not written by one and the same
person. Notably, there was no categorical finding in the questioned documents
report that the respondents falsified the documents. This report, too, was
procured during the conduct of the NBI’s investigation at the petitioner’s request
for assistance in the investigation of the alleged crime of falsification. The report
is inconclusive and does not prevent the respondents from securing a separate
documents examination by handwriting experts based on their own evidence.

On its own, the NBI’s questioned documents report does not directly point
to the respondents’ involvement in the crime charged. Its significance is that,
taken together with the other pieces of evidence submitted by the parties during
the preliminary investigation, these evidence could be sufficient for purposes of
finding probable cause – the action that the Secretary of Justice undertook in the
present case.

In the issue that Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion:

It is well-settled that in order to arrive at a finding of probable cause, the
elements of the crime charged should be present. In determining these elements
for purposes of preliminary investigation, only facts sufficient to support a prima
facie case against the respondent are required, not absolute certainty. Thus,
probable cause implies mere probability of guilt, i.e., a finding based on more
than bare suspicion but less than evidence that would justify a conviction
(Villanueva et al. v. Caparas).
Case#15 A.M. No. MTJ-93-783 1996-07-29
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, petitioner, vs.
JUDGE FILOMENO PASCUAL, respondent.

Facts:
 A certain Ceferino Tigas wrote a letter, addressed to Hon. Reynaldo Suarez
of the Office of the Court Administrator of the Supreme Court, charging
that irregularities and corruption were being committed by the respondent,
Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Angat, Bulacan.

 The letter was referred to the NBI in order that an investigation on the
alleged illegal and corrupt practices of the respondent may be conducted.
NBI agents proceeded to Angat, Bulacan, in order to look for Ceferino
Tigas, the letter writer.

 Tigas, the NBI team realized was a fictitious character. In view of their
failure to find Tigas, they proceeded to the residence of Candido Cruz, an
accused in respondent’s sala.

 In his affidavit, Cruz declared that he was the accused in Criminal Case
No. 2154, charged with the crime of Frustrated Murder. Respondent judge,
after conducting the preliminary investigation of the case, decided that the
crime he committed was only physical injuries and so, respondent judge
assumed jurisdiction over the case. Cruz believed that he was made to
understand by the respondent that, in view of his favorable action, Cruz
was to give to respondent the sum of P2,000.00. Respondent judge is
believed to be a drunkard and, in all probability, would need money to
serve his vice.

 In view of this statement, the NBI agents assigned to the case caused
respondent judge to be entrapped, for which reason, the judge was thought
to have been caught in flagrante delicto.

 NBI Report: Cruz met with Judge Pascual during latter’s daughter’s
graduation. Cruz told Judge Pascual that he had the money but the latter
did not receive the money because according to him there were plenty of
 people around. He then instructed Cruz to see him at his office the
following day. The following day, Cruz proceeded to the office of Judge
Pascual at the Municipal Trial Court of Angat, Bulacan, and thereat
handed to him four (4) pieces of P500.00 bills contained in a white mailing
envelope previously marked and glazed with fluorescent powder.

 In the meantime, the NBI agents stayed outside the court room and after
about 15 minutes, Cruz came out of the room and signaled that Judge
Pascual had already received the marked money. They immediately
entered the room and informed Subject about the entrapment. Subject
denied having received anything from Cruz, but after a thorough search,
the marked money was found inserted between the pages of a blue book on
top of his table.

 Judge Pascual was invited to the Office of the NBI-NCR, Manila wherein
he was subjected to ultra violet light examination. After finding Subject’s
right hand for the presence of fluorescent powder, he was booked,
photographed and fingerprinted in accordance with NBI’s Standard
Operating Procedure (S.O.P.).

 The results of the investigation was referred to the Inquest Prosecutor of

the Office of the Special Prosecutor, Ombudsman, with the
recommendation that he be charged and prosecuted for Bribery as defined
and penalized under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code of the
Philippines.

 Judge’s side: The NBI, along with Candido Cruz, proceeded to the
municipal building of Angat, Bulacan, where the accused judge was
holding office. However, they learned that the accused judge was not in his
office but was then attending the graduation rites of his son at the nearby
Colegio de Sta. Monica, and so they decided to move their operation to the
school grounds. The ceremonies had not yet begun. Candido Cruz saw the
accused in one corner of the compound and approached him. He tried to
give the accused an envelope allegedly containing money, but the judge
refused to accept it and angrily drove Candido Cruz away. Rebuffed, the
NBI agents decided to reset their operation the following day.
  The following day, Cruz, as planned, entered the accused judges chambers
and placed an envelope, allegedly containing marked money, right on his
(judges) desk. He thought it was a pleading for filing and he told Candido
Cruz to file it with the office of the clerk of court at the adjacent room. Cruz
replied that it was the money the judge was asking for. Upon hearing the
reply, the accused suddenly erupted in anger, he grabbed the envelope on
the desk and hurled it to Cruz. The envelope fell on the floor, the accused
picked it up and inserted it inside the pocket of Cruzs polo shirt and drove
him out of the chamber.

 NBI agents entered and introduced themselves and told the accused that
the money that Cruz gave him was marked. Accused told them that he did
not receive or accept money from Cruz. But they proceeded to search the
room, the table, its drawers, and every nook and cranny of his room,
including the pockets of the accuseds pants. After scouring the place, the
agents failed to find the envelope with the marked money. And so, one of
the agents called for Candido Cruz who was waiting outside at a waiting
shed fronting the municipal building, and asked him where the envelope
was. Cruz came back to the room and, together with agent Olazo,
approached the cabinet and said heto pala.

 Then, the accused’s humiliating experience began. Thereafter, despite the

strident protestations of the accused, the envelope, which came from the
pocket of Cruz’s polo shirt, was placed on top of the table of the judge,
pictures were taken, and the accused was arrested by the NBI agents.

Procedural History:
 By resolution of the Third Division of Supreme Court, the case was
referred to Executive Judge Natividad G. Dizon for investigation, report
and recommendation.
 the Investigating Judge recommends that appropriate penalty be imposed
upon the respondent.

Issue:
 Whether or not the evidence on record warrants Respondent judge’s
conviction.

Ruling:
No, the evidence on record does not warrant Respondent judge’s
conviction.

In Raquiza vs. Castañeda, Jr., the Court held that the Rules, even in
administrative cases, demand that, if the respondent judge should be disciplined
for grave misconduct or any graver offense, the evidence against him should be
competent and should be derived from direct knowledge. The Judiciary to which
respondent belongs demands no less. Before any of its members could be
faulted, it should be only after due investigation and after presentation of
competent evidence, especially since the charge is penal in character.

In this case, the only bases for the Report and Recommendation consist
of: The Complaint, the Answer, the Memorandum of the respondent, and the
transcript of stenographic notes of the hearing of the bribery case of respondent
judge at the Sandiganbayan. The respondent was, therefore, not afforded the
right to open trial wherein respondent can confront the witnesses against him
and present evidence in his defense. Therefore, the above-quoted Report and
Recommendation of the investigating judge had fallen short of the requirements
of due process.

Further information:
The evidence aforesaid admits of irreconcilable inconsistencies in the
testimonies of principal witness, Candido Cruz, and NBI Agent SI Reynaldo
Olazo on several material points.

Even after rigid search of the chambers of respondent, the NBI Agents
failed to find the envelope containing marked money allegedly given by
Candido Cruz to respondent judge.
Case#18 G.R. No. 148571 2002-09-24
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, represented
by the Philippine Department of Justice, petitioner, vs.
Hon. GUILLERMO G. PURGANAN, Morales, and Presiding Judge,
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 42; and MARK B. JIMENEZ
a.k.a. MARIO BATACAN CRESPO, respondents.

Facts:
 This Petition is really a sequel to GR No. 139465 entitled Secretary of
Justice v. Ralph C. Lantion

 The US Government, through diplomatic channels, sent to the Philippine

Government Note Verbale No. 0522 requesting the extradition of Mark
B. Jimenez, also known as Mario Batacan Crespo. The secretary of foreign
affairs transmitted them to the secretary of justice for appropriate action,
pursuant to Section 5 of the Extradition Law.

 Jimenez sought and was granted a TRO by the RTC of Manila. The TRO
prohibited the DOJ from filing with the RTC a petition for his extradition.

 The Supreme Court upon Motion for Reconsideration filed by the SOJ,
held that Marc Jimenez was bereft of the right to notice and hearing during
the evaluation stage of the extradition process. This Resolution has become
final and executory.

 The Government of the United States of America, represented by the

Philippine DOJ, filed with the RTC, the appropriate Petition for
Extradition. They alleged that Jimenez was the subject of an arrest warrant
issued by the District Court for the Southern District of Florida in
connection with the following charges:
(1) conspiracy to defraud the United States; (2) tax evasion; (3) wire fraud;
(4) false statements; and (5) illegal campaign contributions.
The Petition prayed for the issuance of an order for his "immediate arrest."
 Jimenez filed before it an "Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion," which
prayed that Govt. of USA’s application for an arrest warrant be set for
hearing.
  The RTC granted the Motion of Jimenez and set the case for hearing. In
that hearing, the Govt. of USA manifested its reservations on the procedure
adopted by the trial court allowing the accused in an extradition case to be
heard prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest. After the hearing, Jimenez
sought an alternative prayer: that in case a warrant should issue, he be
allowed to post bail in the amount of P100,000.

 The RTC directed the issuance of a warrant for his arrest and fixing bail
for his temporary liberty at one million pesos in cash. After he had
surrendered his passport and posted the required cash bond, Jimenez was
granted provisional liberty via the challenged Order.

 The Government of the USA filed for a Petition for Certiorari under Rule
65 seeking to set aside the assailed Orders of the RTC.

Issue:
Whether or not there is a violation of due process.

Private Respondent’s contention:

 his detention prior to the conclusion of the extradition proceedings amounts
to a violation of his right to due process.

Ruling:
No, there is no violation of due process.

Potential extraditees are entitled to the rights to due process and to

fundamental fairness. The doctrine of right to due process and fundamental
fairness does not always call for a prior opportunity to be heard. A subsequent
opportunity to be heard is enough (Central Bank of the Philippines v. Court of
Appeals).

In this case, private respondent will be given full opportunity to be heard

subsequently, when the extradition court hears the Petition for
Extradition. Hence, there is no violation of his right to due process and
fundamental fairness.
Further Info:
Contrary to the contention of Jimenez, the Court found no arbitrariness, in
the immediate deprivation of his liberty prior to his being heard. That his arrest
and detention will not be arbitrary is sufficiently ensured by (1) the DOJs filing
in court the Petition with its supporting documents after a determination that the
extradition request meets the requirements of the law and the relevant treaty; (2)
the extradition judges independent prima facie determination that his arrest will
best serve the ends of justice before the issuance of a warrant for his arrest; and
(3) his opportunity, once he is under the courts custody, to apply for bail as an
exception to the no-initial-bail rule.

It is also worth noting that before the US government requested the

extradition of respondent, proceedings had already been conducted in that
country. He already had that opportunity in the requesting state; yet, instead of
taking it, he ran away.

[c]onstitutional liberties do not exist in a vacuum; the due process rights

accorded to individuals must be carefully balanced against exigent and palpable
government interests (Kelso v. US Department of State).

Other Doctrines:
Five Postulates of Extradition
1) Extradition Is a Major Instrument for the Suppression of Crime
In this era of globalization, easier and faster international travel, and an
expanding ring of international crimes and criminals, we cannot afford to be an
isolationist state. We need to cooperate with other states in order to improve our
chances of suppressing crime in our own country.

2) The Requesting State Will Accord Due Process to the Accused

By entering into an extradition treaty, the Philippines is deemed to have
reposed its trust in the reliability or soundness of the legal and judicial system
of its treaty partner, as well as in the ability and the willingness of the latter to
grant basic rights to the accused in the pending criminal case therein.

3) The Proceedings Are Sui Generis

 An extradition proceeding is sui generis:
a) It is not a criminal proceeding which will call into operation all the
rights of an accused as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. It does not involve the
determination of the guilt or innocence of an accused. His guilt or innocence
will be adjudged in the court of the state where he will be extradited.
b) An extradition proceeding is summary in nature while criminal
proceedings involve a full-blown trial.
c) In terms of the quantum of evidence to be satisfied, a criminal case
requires proof “beyond reasonable doubt” for conviction while a fugitive may
be ordered extradited “upon showing of the existence of a prima facie case”
d) Unlike in a criminal case where judgment becomes executory upon
being rendered final, in an extradition proceeding, our courts may adjudge an
individual extraditable but the President has the final discretion to extradite him.

Extradition is merely a measure of international judicial assistance through

which a person charged with or convicted of a crime is restored to a jurisdiction
with the best claim to try that person. The ultimate purpose of extradition
proceedings in court is only to determine whether the extradition request
complies with the Extradition Treaty, and whether the person sought is
extraditable.

4) Compliance Shall Be in Good Faith.

We are bound by pacta sunt servanda to comply in good faith with our
obligations under the Treaty. Accordingly, the Philippines must be ready and in
a position to deliver the accused, should it be found proper

5) There Is an Underlying Risk of Flight

Indeed, extradition hearings would not even begin, if only the accused were
willing to submit to trial in the requesting country. Prior acts of herein
respondent:
a) leaving the requesting state right before the conclusion of his
indictment proceedings there; and
b) remaining in the requested state despite learning that the requesting
state is seeking his return and that the crimes he is charged with are bailable
Case#22 G.R. No. L-68288 1986-07-11
DIOSDADO GUZMAN, ULYSSES URBIZTONDO, and ARIEL
RAMACULA, petitioners,
vs. NATIONAL UNIVERSITY and DOMINGO L. JHOCSON in his
capacity as President of National University, respondents.

Facts:
 Petitioners, students of respondent National University, have come to this
Court to seek relief from what they describe as their school's "continued
and persistent refusal to allow them to enroll."

 In their petition "for extraordinary legal and equitable remedies with prayer
for preliminary mandatory injunction", they allege:
1) that NU's avowed reason for its refusal to re-enroll them in their
respective courses is "the latter's participation in peaceful mass actions
within the premises of NU. XXX
3) that "in effect petitioners are subjected to the extreme penalty of
expulsion without cause or if there be any, without being informed of such
cause and without being afforded the opportunity to defend themselves.

 NU claimed that the failure to enroll of petitioners was due to their own
fault, that Urbiztondo sought to enroll when the enrollment period has
already closed, that Guzman had poor “academic showing”, that Ramacula
continued to lead or actively participate in activities within university
premises without prior permit, that petitioners are not of good scholastic
standing.

Issue:
Whether or not the university’s refusal to enroll the petitioners was a valid
disciplinary action.

Ruling:
No, the university’s refusal to enroll the petitioners was not a valid
disciplinary action.
Under the Education Act of 1982, students have the right among others
"to freely choose their field of study subject to existing curricula and to
continue their course therein up to graduation, except in case of academic
deficiency, or violation of disciplinary regulations."

In this case, Respondent failed to show that it conducted any sort of

proceedings (not necessarily a trial type one) to determine Guzman et al’s
liability or alleged participation in the said mass actions. Therefore, Petitioners
were being denied this right, or being disciplined, without due process, in
violation of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools which provides that
“no penalty shall be imposed upon any student except for cause as defined in
the Manual and/or in the school rules and regulations as duly promulgated and
only after due investigation shall have been conducted.”

Therefore, in effect, NU, by barring the enrollment of Guzman et al

imposed sanction upon the students without due investigation – such act is
illegal.

RIGHT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

Educational institutions of course have the power to "adopt and

enforce such rules as may be deemed expedient for ... (its) government, ...
(this being)" incident to the very object of incorporation, and indispensable to
the successful management of the college." The rules may include those
governing student discipline. Indeed, the maintenance of "good school
discipline" is a duty specifically enjoined on "every private school" by the
Manual of Regulations for Private Schools; and in this connection, the Manual
further provides that- ... The school rules governing discipline and the
corresponding sanctions therefore must be clearly specified and defined in
writing and made known to the students and/or their parents or guardians.
Schools shall have the authority and prerogative to promulgate such rules and
regulations as they may deem necessary from time to time effective as of the date
of their promulgation unless otherwise specified.
DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENT IN DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS
AGAINST STUDENTS
But, to repeat, the imposition of disciplinary sanctions requires
observance of procedural due process. And it bears stressing that due process
in disciplinary cases involving students does not entail proceedings and hearings
similar to those prescribed for actions and proceedings in courts of justice. The
proceedings in student discipline cases may be summary; and cross-examination
is not, 'contrary to petitioners' view, an essential part thereof. There are
minimum standards which must be met to satisfy the demands of procedural
due process; and these are, that

(1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any
accusation against them;
(2) they shall have the right to answer the charges against them, with the
assistance of counsel, if desired;
(3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them;
(4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; and
(5) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee
or official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case.

NO PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED + NO PUBLISHED RULES =>

VIOLATION OF DP

Immediately apparent from a reading of respondents' comment and

memorandum is the fact that they had never conducted proceedings of any
sort to determine whether or not petitioners-students had indeed led or
participated "in activities within the university premises, conducted
without prior permit from school authorities, that disturbed or disrupted
classes therein" or perpetrated acts of "vandalism, coercion and
intimidation, slander, noise barrage and other acts showing disdain for and
defiance of University authority."

Parenthetically, the pendency of a civil case for damages and a criminal

case for malicious mischief against petitioner Guzman, cannot, without more,
furnish sufficient warrant for his expulsion or debarment from re-enrollment.
Also apparent is the omission of respondents to cite this Court to any duly
published rule of theirs by which students may be expelled or refused re-
enrollment for poor scholastic standing.
Case#23 G.R. No. 127980 December 19, 2007
DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY, INC., EMMANUEL SALES, RONALD
HOLMES, JUDE DELA TORRE, MPARO RIO, CARMELITA Present:
QUEBENGCO, AGNES YUHICO and JAMES YAP, YNARES-
SANTIAGO, J., Petitioners vs
THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. WILFREDO D. REYES, in his
capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 36, Regional Trial Court of Manila,
THE COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION, THE DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION CULTURE AND SPORTS, ALVIN AGUILAR, JAMES
PAUL BUNGUBUNG, RICHARD REVERENTE and
ROBERTO Promulgated: VALDES, JR.,
Respondents.

Facts:
 Private respondents are members of Tau Gamma Phi Fraternity who were
expelled by the De La Salle University (DLSU) and College of Saint
Benilde (CSB) Joint Discipline Board because of their involvement in an
offensive action causing injuries to petitioners, student members of
Domino Lux Fraternity.

 James Yap was eating his dinner alone in Manang’s Restaurant near La
Salle, when he overheard two men bad-mouthing and apparently angry at
Domino Lux. He ignored the comments of the two. When he arrived at
his boarding house, he mentioned the remarks to his two other brods while
watching television. These two brods had earlier finished eating their
dinner at Manang’s. Then, the three, together with four other persons went
back to Manang’s and confronted the two who were still in the
restaurant. By admission of respondent Bungubung in his testimony, one
of the two was a member of the Tau Gamma Phi Fraternity. There was no
rumble or physical violence then.

 After this incident, a meeting was conducted between the two heads of the
fraternity through the intercession of the Student Council. The Tau
Gamma Phi Fraternity was asking for an apology. “Kailangan
ng apology” in the words of respondent Aguilar. But no apology was
made.
 James Yap went out of the campus using the Engineering Gate to buy
candies across Taft Avenue. As he was about to re-cross Taft Avenue, he
heard heavy footsteps at his back. Eight to ten guys were running towards
him. He panicked. He did not know what to do. Then, respondent
Bungubung punched him in the head with something heavy in his hands –
“parang knuckles.” Respondents Reverente and Lee were behind Yap,
punching him. Respondents Bungubung and Valdes who were in front of
him, were also punching him. As he was lying on the street, respondent
Aguilar kicked him. People shouted; guards arrived; and the group of
attackers left. Yap could not recognize the other members of the group
who attacked him. With respect to respondent Papio, Mr. Yap said “hindi
ko nakita ang mukha niya, hindi ko nakita sumuntok siya.” What Mr. Yap
saw was a long haired guy also running with the group.

 The mauling incidents were a result of a fraternity war. The victims,

namely: petitioner James Yap and Dennis Pascual, Ericson Cano, and
Michael Perez, are members of the “Domino Lux Fraternity,” while the
alleged assailants, private respondents Alvin Aguilar, James Paul
Bungubung, Richard Reverente and Roberto Valdes, Jr. are members of
“Tau Gamma Phi Fraternity,” a rival fraternity.

 The next day, petitioner Yap lodged a complaint with the Discipline Board
of DLSU charging private respondents with “direct assault.” Similar
complaints were also filed by Dennis Pascual and Ericson Cano against
Alvin Lee and private respondents Valdes and Reverente.

 The Director of the DLSU Discipline Office sent separate notices to

private respondents Aguilar, Bungubung and Valdes, Jr. and Reverente
informing them of the complaints and requiring them to answer. Private
respondents filed their respective answers.

 During the proceedings before the Board, private respondents interposed

the common defense of alibi. No full-blown hearing was conducted nor
the students allowed to cross-examine the witnesses against them.
  DLSU-CSB Joint Discipline Board issued a Resolution finding private
respondents guilty. They were meted the supreme penalty of automatic
expulsion, pursuant to CHED Order No. 4. The dispositive part of the
resolution reads:

WHEREFORE, considering all the foregoing, the Board finds

respondents ALVIN AGUILAR (AB-BSM/9152105), JAMES PAUL
BUNGUBUNG (AB-PSM/9234403), ALVIN LEE (EDD/94623250) and
RICHARD V. REVERENTE (AB-MGT/9153837) guilty of having
violated CHED Order No. 4 and thereby orders their automatic expulsion.

In the case of respondent MALVIN A. PAPIO (AB-MGT/9251227),

the Board acquits him of the charge.

Procedural History:
RTC, Manila
 private respondents filed a petition for certiorari and injunction under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with prayer for temporary restraining order
(TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction.
 respondent Judge issued a TRO directing DLSU to refrain and desist from
implementing the Resolution and compel petitioner DLSU to admit said
private respondents
CA:
 petitioner DLSU filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for a TRO and/or
writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the enforcement of respondent
Judge’s Order and writ of preliminary injunction.
 private respondent Aguilar, using CHED Resolution No. 181-96, filed a
motion to dismiss in the CA
 CA issued its questioned resolution granting the motion to dismiss of
private respondent Aguilar
 respondent Judge issued its questioned order granting private respondent
Aguilar’s urgent motion to reiterate preliminary injunction

Issue:
Whether or not private respondents were accorded due process of law.
Respondent’s contention:
 there was no full-blown hearing nor were they allowed to cross-examine
the witnesses against them

Ruling:
Yes, private respondents were accorded due process of law.

In administrative cases, such as investigations of students found violating

school discipline, [t]here are withal minimum standards which must be met
before to satisfy the demands of procedural due process and these are: that (1)
the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any
accusation against them; (2) they shall have the right to answer the charges
against them and with the assistance if counsel, if desired; (3) they shall be
informed of the evidence against them; (4) they shall have the right to adduce
evidence in their own behalf; and (5) the evidence must be duly considered by
the investigating committee or official designated by the school authorities to
hear and decide the case (Guzman v. National University).

Where a party was afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings but

failed to do so, he cannot complain of deprivation of due process (Bautista v.
Court of Appeals). Notice and hearing is the bulwark of administrative due
process, the right to which is among the primary rights that must be respected
even in administrative proceedings (Globe Telecom, Inc. v. National
Telecommunications Commission). The essence of due process is simply an
opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an
opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of
the action or ruling complained of (Valiao v. Court of Appeals). So long as the
party is given the opportunity to advocate her cause or defend her interest in
due course, it cannot be said that there was denial of due process (Barza v.
Dinglasan, Jr.).

A formal trial-type hearing is not, at all times and in all instances, essential
to due process it is enough that the parties are given a fair and reasonable
opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy and to present
supporting evidence on which a fair decision can be based (Seastar Marine
Services, Inc. v. Bul-an, Jr.). To be heard does not only mean presentation of
testimonial evidence in court one may also be heard through pleadings and
where the opportunity to be heard through pleadings is accorded, there is no
denial of due process (Batul v. Bayron).

In this case, Private respondents were duly informed in writing of the

charges against them by the DLSU-CSB Joint Discipline Board through
petitioner Sales. They were given the opportunity to answer the charges against
them as they, in fact, submitted their respective answers. They were also
informed of the evidence presented against them as they attended all the hearings
before the Board. Moreover, private respondents were given the right to adduce
evidence on their behalf and they did. Lastly, the Discipline Board considered
all the pieces of evidence submitted to it by all the parties before rendering its
resolution in Discipline Case No. 9495-3-25121.

Furthermore, Private respondents cannot claim that they were denied due
process when they were not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses against
them. This argument was already rejected in Guzman v. National University
where this Court held that x x x the imposition of disciplinary sanctions requires
observance of procedural due process. And it bears stressing that due process in
disciplinary cases involving students does not entail proceedings and hearings
similar to those prescribed for actions and proceedings in courts of justice. The
proceedings in student discipline cases may be summary; and cross examination
is not, x x x an essential part thereof.