7/24/2019 Cases-By Atty. Gacayan

1/371

R. No. L-24693: Ermita-Malate Hotel & Motelerators Assoc., !c "s Ma#or o$ Ma!ila13 June 1963, the Manila Municipal Board enacted Ord

60 and thesame was approved b then actin! maor

or!a# Ord 4760 sou!ht tore!ulate hotels and motels# $t

ssi%ied them into 1st class &ta'ed at 6()r* and +ndclass

'ed at 4#()r*# $t also compelled hotels)motels to !et

demo!raphics o% anone who chec(s in to their rooms# $t

mpelled hotels)motels to have wide open spaces so as not

conceal their identit o% their patrons# -rmita.Malate

pu!ned the validit o% thelaw averrin! that such is

pressive, arbitrar and a!ainst dueprocess# /he lower

urt as well as the appellate court ruled in %avoro% -rmita.

late#

%E:hether or not Ord 4760 is a!ainst the due processuse#

L':/he2 ruled in %avor o% "stor!a# /here is asumption that the lawsenacted b 2on!ress &in this case

n Board* is valid# )o a showin! ora stron! %oundation

nvalidit, the presumption stas# "s in thiscase, there was

a stipulation o% %acts and such cannot prevailover the

sumption# urther, the ordinance is a valid e'ercise

olice ower# /here is no 5uestion but that the challen!ed

inancewas precisel enacted to minimie certain practices

t%ul to public morals# /his is to minimie prostitution#

e increase in ta'es notonl discoura!es hotels)motels in

n! an business other than le!albut also increases theenue o% the l!u concerned# "nd ta'ation is avalid e'ercise

police power as well# /he due process contention

(ewise untenable, due process has no e'act de%inition but

reasonas a standard# $n this case, the precise reason wh

ordinance wasenacted was to curb down prostitution in

cit which is reasonenou!h and cannot be de%eated b

re sin!lin! out o% the provisions o%the said ordinance

!ed to be va!ue#

hite Light Corp. vs. City of ManilaG.R. No. 122846,

nary 2!, 2!!"#

Maor im si!ned into law 2it Ordinance 8o# 7774prohibitin! short.time admission, short.time admission rates,and wash.up rate schemes in hotels, motels, inns, lod!in!houses, pension houses, and similar establishments in thecit o% manila# hite i!ht 2orporation and other operatorso% drive.in.hotels and motels in Manila complained that theOrdinance is unconstitutional and void since it violates theri!ht to privac and the %reedom o% movement an invalide'ercise o% police power and an unreasonable andoppressive inter%erence in their business# On the other hand,the 2it o% Manila ar!ued that the Ordinance is a valid police

power measure# $t asserts that the sub:ect establishments;have !ained notoriet as venue o%

7/24/2019 Cases-By Atty. Gacayan

2/371

s, pension houses, lod!in! houses and other similar

ablishments, includin! tourist !uides and transports# /he

ruled in %avor o% the 2it#

%E: hether or not Ord 7774 is valid#

L': /he 2 ruled that the said ordinance is null and voidt indeed in%rin!es upon individual libert# $t also violates

due process clause which serves as a !uarant %or

tection a!ainst arbitrar re!ulation or seiure# /he said

inance invades private ri!hts# 8ote that not all who !oes

o motels and hotels %or wash up rate are reall there %or

cene purposes onl# ome are tourists who needed rest or

;wash up> or to %reshen up# Eence, the in%idelit sou!ht to

avoided b the said ordinance is more or less sub:ected

to a limited !roup o% people# /he 2 reiterates that

ividual ri!hts ma be adversel a%%ected onl to the e'tent

t ma %airl be re5uired b the le!itimate demands o%

blic interest or public wel%are#

y of Manila vs Judge Perfecto Laguio

Police Power

30 Mar 1993, Maor im si!ned into law Ord 77F3

itled "8 OC$8"82- COE$B$/$8A /E-

/"B$EM-8/ OC O-C"/$O8 O B@$8--

OG$$8A 2-C/"$8 OCM O "M@-M-8/,

/-C/"$8M-8/, -CG$2- "8 "2$$/$- $8- -CM$/".M""/- "C-", C-2C$B$8A

8"/$- OC G$O"/$O8 /E-C-O, "8 OC

E-C @CO-# $t basicall prohibited establishments

h as bars, (arao(e bars, motels and hotels %rom operatin!

he Malate istrict which was notoriousl viewed as a red

ht district harborin! thrill see(ers# Malate /ourist

velopment 2orporation avers that the ordinance is invalid

t includes hotels and motels in the enumeration o% places

erin! amusement or entertainment# M/2 reiterates that

do not mar(et such nor do the use women as tools %or

ertainment# M/2 also avers that under the A2, A@s

can onl re!ulate motels but cannot prohibit their operation#

/he 2it reiterates that the Ordinance is a valid e'ercise o%

olice ower as provided as well in the A2# /he 2it

li(ewise emphasied that the purpose o% the law is to

promote moralit in the 2it#

%%E: hether or not Ordinance 77F3 is valid#

HEL': /he 2 ruled that the said Ordinance is null andvoid# /he 2 noted that %or an ordinance to be valid, it must

not onl be within the corporate powers o% the local

!overnment unit to enact and must be passed accordin! to

the procedure prescribed b law, it must also con%orm to the

%ollowin! substantive re5uirementsD

&1* must not contravene the 2onstitution or an statute

&+* must not be un%air or oppressive

&3* must not be partial or discriminator

&4* must not prohibit but ma re!ulate trade

&* must be !eneral and consistent with public polic and

&6* must not be unreasonable#

/he police power o% the 2it 2ouncil, however broad and

%ar.reachin!, is subordinate to the constitutional limitationsthereon and is sub:ect to the limitation that its e'ercise must

be reasonable and %or the public !ood# $n the case at bar, the

enactment o% the Ordinance was an invalid e'ercise o%

dele!ated power as it is unconstitutional and repu!nant to

!eneral laws#

MM romotio! a!/ Ma!a+eme!t "s o0rt o$ AppealsPolice Power

ue to the death o% one Maricris ioson in 1991, 2or

banned the deploment o% per%ormin! artists to Japan and

other destinations# /his was rela'ed however with the

introduction o% the -ntertainment$ndustr "dvisor 2ouncil

which later proposed a plan to O-" to screen and train

per%ormin! artists see(in! to !o abroad# $n pursuant to the

proposal O-" and the secretaro% O- sou!ht a 4 step

plan to realie the plan which included an "rtist=s Cecord

Boo(which a per%ormin! artist must ac5uire prior to bein!

deploed abroad# /he ederation o% /alent Mana!ers o% the

hilippines assailed the validit o% the said re!ulation as it

violated the ri!ht to travel, abrid!e e'istin! contracts and

ri!hts and deprives artists o% their individual ri!hts# JMM

intervened to bolster the cause o% -/MO# /he lower courtruled in %avor o% -$"2#

%%E: hether or not the re!ulation b -$"2 is valid#

HEL': /he 2 ruled in %avor o% the lower court# /here!ulation is a valid e'ercise o% police power# olice power

concerns !overnment enactments which precisel inter%ere

with personal libert or propert in order to promote the

!eneral wel%are or the common !ood# "s the assailed

epartment Order en:os a presumed validit, it %ollows that

the burden rests upon petitioners to demonstrate that the said

order, particularl, its "CB re5uirement, does not enhance

the public wel%are or was e'ercised arbitraril or

unreasonabl# /he wel%are o% ilipino per%ormin! artists,

particularl the womenwas paramount in the issuance o%epartment Order 8o# 3# hort o% a total and absolute ban

a!ainst the deploment o% per%ormin! artists to ;hi!h ris(>

destinations, a measurewhich would onl drive recruitment

%urther under!round, the new scheme at the ver least

rationalies the methodo% screenin! per%ormin! artists b

re5uirin! reasonable educationaland artistic s(ills %rom them

and limits deploment to onl those individuals ade5uatel

prepared%or the unpredictable demands o% emploment as

artists abroad# $t cannot be !ainsaid that this scheme at least

lessens the room %or e'ploitation b unscrupulous

individuals and a!encies#

7/24/2019 Cases-By Atty. Gacayan

3/371

o c*o!+ "s aime Her!a!/e1Treaties May Be Superseded by Municipal Laws in the

Exercise of Police Power

o $chon! is a 2hinese businessman who entered the

untr to ta(e advanta!e o% business opportunities herein

und &then* H particularl in the retail business# or some

e he and his %ellow 2hinese businessmen en:oed a

onopol> in the local mar(et in asa# @ntil in June 194

en 2on!ress passed the C" 11F0 or the Cetail /rade

tionaliation "ct the purpose o% which is to reserve to

pinos the ri!ht to en!a!e in the retail business# $chon!

n petitioned %or the nulli%ication o% the said "ct on the

und that it contravened several treaties concluded b the

which, accordin! to him, violates the e5ual protection

use &pacta sund servanda*# Ee said that as a 2hinese

inessman en!a!ed in the business here in the countr

o helps in the income !eneration o% the countr he should

!iven e5ual opportunit#

%E: hether or not a law ma invalidate or supersedeaties or !enerall accepted principles#

L': Ies, a law ma supersede a treat or a !enerallepted principle# $n this case, there is no con%lict at all

ween the raised !enerall accepted principle and with C"

F0# /he e5ual protection o% the law clause ;does not

mand absolute e5ualit amon!st residents it merel

uires that all persons shall be treated ali(e, under li(ecumstances and conditions both as to privile!es con%erred

d liabilities en%orced> and, that the e5ual protection clause

not in%rin!ed b le!islation which applies onl to those

sons %allin! within a speci%ied class, i% it applies ali(e to

persons within such class, and reasonable !rounds e'ist

ma(in! a distinction between those who %all within such

ss and those who do not#>

the sa(e o% ar!ument, even i% it would be assumed that a

at would be in con%lict with a statute then the statute

st be upheld because it represented an e'ercise o% the

police power which, bein! inherent could not be bar!ained

awa or surrendered throu!h the medium o% a treat# Eence,

$chon! can no lon!er assert his ri!ht to operate his mar(et

stalls in the asa cit mar(et#

Represe!tati"es Gerar/o %. Espi!a, et al. "s. Ho!.Ro!al/o amora, r., et al. G.R. No. 14$8%%, &epte'(er21, 2!1!.

2onstitutionalit Cetail /rade iberaliation "ct o% +000#

/he 2ourt dismissed petitioners= ar!ument that Cepublic "ct

8o# F76+, (nown as the Cetail /rade iberaliation "ct o%

+00, violates the mandate o% the 19F7 2onstitution %or the

tate to develop a sel%.reliant and independent national

econom e%%ectivel controlled b ilipinos# /he provisions

o% "rticle $$ o% the 19F7 2onstitution, the declarations o%

principles and state policies, are not sel%.e'ecutin!#

e!islative %ailure to pursue such policies cannot !ive rise

to a cause o% action in the courts# urther, while ection 19,

"rticle $$ o% the 19F7 2onstitution re5uires the development

o% a sel%.reliant and independent national econom

e%%ectivel controlled b ilipino entrepreneurs, it does not

impose a polic o% ilipino monopol o% the economic

environment# /he ob:ective is simpl to prohibit %orei!n

powers or interests %rom maneuverin! our economic policies

and ensure that ilipinos are !iven pre%erence in all areas o%

development# /he 19F7 2onstitution ta(es into account the

realities o% the outside world as it re5uires the pursuit o% a

trade polic that serves the !eneral wel%are and utilies all%orms and arran!ements o% e'chan!e on the basis o% e5ualit

and reciprocit and spea(s o% industries which are

competitive in both domestic and %orei!n mar(ets as well as

o% the protection o% ilipino enterprises a!ainst un%air

%orei!n competition and trade practices# /hus, while the

2onstitution mandates a bias in %avor o% ilipino !oods,

services, labor and enterprises, it also reco!nies the need %or

business e'chan!e with the rest o% the world on the bases o%

e5ualit and reciprocit and limits protection o% ilipino

enterprises onl a!ainst %orei!n competition and trade

practices that are un%air# $n other words, the 19F7

2onstitution does not rule out the entr o% %orei!n

investments, !oods, and services# hile it does not

encoura!e their unlimited entr into the countr, it does not

prohibit them either# $n %act, it allows an e'chan!e on the

basis o% e5ualit and reciprocit, %rownin! onl on %orei!n

competition that is un%air# /he (e, as in all economies in the

world, is to stri(e a balance between protectin! local

businesses and allowin! the entr o% %orei!n investments and

services# More important, ection 10, "rticle $$ o% the

19F7 2onstitution !ives 2on!ress the discretion to reserve to

ilipinos certain areas o% investments upon the

recommendation o% the 8ational -conomic and

evelopment "uthorit and when the national interest

re5uires# /hus, 2on!ress can determine what polic to passand when to pass it dependin! on the economic e'i!encies#

$t can enact laws allowin! the entr o% %orei!ners into

certain industries not reserved b the 2onstitution to ilipino

citiens# $n this case, 2on!ress has decided to open certain

areas o% the retail trade business to %orei!n investments

instead o% reservin! them e'clusivel to ilipino citiens#

/he control and re!ulation o% trade in the interest o% the

public wel%are is o% course an e'ercise o% the police power o%

the tate# " person=s ri!ht to propert, whether he is a

ilipino citien or %orei!n national, cannot be ta(en %rom him

without due process o% law# $n 194, 2on!ress enacted the

Cetail /rade 8ationaliation "ct &C" 11F0* that restricts the

retail business to ilipino citiens# $n denin! the petition

assailin! the validit o% such "ct %or violation o% the%orei!ner=s ri!ht to substantive due process o% law, the

upreme 2ourt held that the law constituted a valid e'ercise

o% police power# /he tate had an interest in preventin! alien

control o% the retail trade and C#"# 11F0 was reasonabl

related to that purpose# /hat law is not arbitrar# Eere, to

the e'tent that C" F76+ lessens the restraint on the

%orei!ners= ri!ht to propert or to en!a!e in an ordinaril

law%ul business, it cannot be said that the law amounts to a

denial o% the ilipinos= ri!ht to propert and to due process

o% law# ilipinos continue to have the ri!ht to en!a!e in the

(inds o% retail business to which the law in 5uestion has

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/143855.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/143855.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/143855.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/143855.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/143855.htm

7/24/2019 Cases-By Atty. Gacayan

4/371

mitted the entr o% %orei!n investors# 2ertainl, it is not

hin the province o% the 2ourt to in5uire into the wisdom

C" F76+ save when it blatantl violates the 2onstitution#

ut as the 2ourt has said, there is no showin! that the law

contravened an constitutional mandate# /he 2ourt is not

nvinced that the implementation o% C" F76+ would

ntuall lead to alien control o% the retail trade business#

titioners have not mustered an concrete and stron!

ument to support its thesis# /he law itsel% has provided

ct sa%e!uards on %orei!n participation in that business#

ite/ %tates "s L0is oriioPolice Power

metime in the 1900s, /oribio applied %or a license to have

carabao be slau!htered# Eis re5uest was denied because

carabao is %ound not to be un%it %or wor(# Ee nevertheless

u!htered his carabao without the necessar license# Ee

s eventuall sued and was sentenced b the trial court# Eis

unsel in one wa or the other ar!ued that the law

ndatin! that one should ac5uire a permit to slau!hter his

abao is not a valid e'ercise o% police power#

%E: hether or not the said law is valid#

L': /he 2 ruled a!ainst /oribio# /he 2 e'plainedt it ;is not a ta(in! o% the propert %or public use, within

meanin! o% the constitution, but is a :ust and le!itimate

rcise o% the power o% the le!islature to re!ulate andtrain such particular use o% the propert as would be

onsistent with or in:urious to the ri!hts o% the publics# "ll

pert is ac5uired and held under the tacit condition that it

ll not be so used as to in:ure the e5ual ri!hts o% others or

atl impair the public ri!hts and interests o% the

mmunit#>

MA% 5ELA%O "s ANONO 5LLEGA%s is an appeal %rom an order o% the lower court dismissin!

uit %or declarator relie% challen!in! the constitutionalit

ed on Ordinance 8o# 4964 o% the 2it o% Manila, the

contention bein! that it amounts to a deprivation o% propert

o% petitioners.appellants o% their means o% livelihood without

due process o% law# /he assailed ordinance is worded thusD

;$t shall be prohibited %or an operatoro% an barber shopto

conduct the business o% massa!in! customers or other

persons in an ad:acent room or rooms o% said barber shop,

or in an room or rooms within the samebuildin!where the

barber shop is locatedas lon! as the operator o% the barber

shop and the room where massa!in! is conducted is the

same person#> "s noted in the appealed order, petitioners.

appellants admitted that criminal cases %or the violation o%

this ordinance had been previousl %iled and decided# /he

lower court, there%ore, held that a petition %or declarator

relie% did not lie, its availabilit bein! dependent on therebein! as et no case involvin! such issue havin! been %iled#

-ven i% such were not the case, the attac( a!ainst the validit

cannot succeed# "s pointed out in the brie% o% respondents.

appellees, it is a police power measure# /he ob:ectives

behind its enactment areD ;&1* /o be able to impose pament

o% the license %ee %or en!a!in! in the business o% massa!e

clinic under Ordinance 8o# 369 as amended b Ordinance

4767, an entirel di%%erent measure than the ordinance

re!ulatin! the business o% barbershops and, &+* in order to

%orestall possible immoralit which mi!ht !rowout o% the

constructiono% separate rooms %or massa!e o% customers#>

/his 2ourt has been most liberal in sustainin! ordinances

based on the !eneral wel%are clause# "s %ar bac( as U.S. v.

Salaveria,a 191F decision, this 2ourt throu!h JusticeMalcolm made clear the si!ni%icance and scope o% such a

clause, which ;dele!ates in statutor %orm the police power

to a municipalit# "s above stated, this clause has been !iven

wide applicationb municipal authorities and has in its

relation to the particular circumstances o% the case been

liberall construed b the courts# uch, it is well to reall is

the pro!ressive view o% hilippine :urisprudence#> "s it was

then, so it has continued to be# /here is no showin!,

there%ore, o% the unconstitutionalit o% such ordinance#

A+0sti! "s E/0

enerally !ccepted Principles of "nternational Law

"!ustin is the owner o% a Gol(swa!en Beetle 2ar# Ee is

assailin! the validit o% etter o% $nstruction 8o ++9 which

re5uires all motor vehicles to have earl warnin! devices

particularl to e5uip them with a pair o% ;re%lectoried

trian!ular earl warnin! devices># "!ustin is ar!uin! that

this order is unconstitutional, harsh, cruel and

unconscionable to the motorin! public# 2ars are alread

e5uipped with blin(in! li!hts which is alread enou!h to

provide warnin! to other motorists# "nd that the mandate to

compel motorists to bu a set o% re%lectoried earl warnin!

devices is redundant and would onl ma(e manu%acturers

and dealers instant millionaires#

%%E: hether or not the said is -O is valid#

HEL': uch earl warnin! device re5uirement is not ane'pensive redundanc, nor oppressive, %or car owners whose

cars are alread e5uipped with 1*

7/24/2019 Cases-By Atty. Gacayan

5/371

nd o% the motorist will thus increase, rather than decrease,

dan!er o% collision#

e etter o% $nstruction in 5uestion was issued in the

rcise o% the police power# /hat is conceded b petitioner

d is the main reliance o% respondents# $t is the submission

he %ormer, however, that while embraced in such a

e!or, it has o%%ended a!ainst the due process and e5ual

tection sa%e!uards o% the 2onstitution, althou!h the latter

nt was mentioned onl in passin!# /he broad and

ansive scope o% the police power which was ori!inall

nti%ied b 2hie% Justice /ane o% the "merican upreme

urt in an 1F47 decision, as ;nothin! more or less than the

wers o% !overnment inherent in ever soverei!nt> was

ssed in the a%orementioned case o% -du v# -ricta thusD

stice aurel, in the %irst leadin! decision a%ter the

nstitution came into %orce, 2alalan! v# illiams,

nti%ied police power with state authorit to enact

islation that ma inter%ere with personal libert or

pert in order to promote the !eneral wel%are# ersons

d propert could thus

7/24/2019 Cases-By Atty. Gacayan

6/371

itioner /a'icab Operators o% Metro Manila, $nc#

OMM$* is a domestic corporation composed o% ta'icab

rators, who are !rantees o% 2erti%icates o% ublic

nvenience to operate ta'icabs within the 2it o% Manila

d to an other place in uon accessible to vehicular

%%ic#

n October 10, 1977, respondent Board o% /ransportation

O/* issued Memorandum 2ircular 8o# 77.4+ which readsD

BJ-2/D hasin! out and Ceplacement o% Old and

apidated /a'is

n Januar +7, 19F1, petitioners %iled a etition with the

/, doc(eted as 2ase 8o# F0.73, see(in! to nulli% M2

77.4+ or to stop its implementation to allow the

istration and operation in 19F1 and subse5uent ears o%

icabs o% model 1974, as well as those o% earlier models

ich were phased.out, provided that, at the time o%

istration, the are roadworth and %it %or operation#

%E

id BO/ and B/ promul!ate the 5uestioned

morandum circulars in accord with the manner re5uired

residential ecree 8o# 101, thereb sa%e!uardin! the

itioners= constitutional ri!ht to procedural due process?

Arantin! ar!uendo, that respondents did compl with the

cedural re5uirements imposed b residential ecree 8o#

, would the implementation and en%orcement o% the

ailed memorandum circulars violate the petitioners=

nstitutional ri!hts to#

-5ual protection o% the law

ubstantive due process and

&3* rotection a!ainst arbitrar and unreasonable

classi%ication and standard?

HEL'

"s enunciated in the preambular clauses o% the challen!ed

BO/ 2ircular, the overridin! consideration is the sa%et and

com%ort o% the ridin! public %rom the dan!ers posed b old

and dilapidated ta'is# /he tate, in the e'ercise o% its police

power, can prescribe re!ulations to promote the health,

morals, peace, !ood order, sa%et and !eneral wel%are o% the

people# $t can prohibit all thin!s hurt%ul to com%ort, sa%et

and wel%are o% societ# N $t ma also re!ulate propert

ri!hts# 6N $n the lan!ua!e o% 2hie% Justice -nri5ue M#

ernando ;the necessities imposed b public wel%are ma

:usti% the e'ercise o% !overnmental authorit to re!ulate

even i% thereb certain !roups ma plausibl assert that their

interests are disre!arded>#

a7ica Operators o$ Metro Ma!ila !c "s *e 8oar/ o$ra!sportatio! et al#E$ual Protection% & Phasin' (ut of (ld Taxis in MM but

not Elsewhere

On 10 Oct 1977, BO/ issued 2irc 77.4+ which has %or its

purpose the phasin! out o% old and dilapidated ta'is which

are 6 ears older# /he law is set to be immediatel

implemented in Metro Manila %irst be%ore it would be

implemented elsewhere# ursuant to this, the irector o% the

Bureau o% and /ransportationissued 2irc + which is the

$CC o% the law in the 82C# /OMM$ assailed the

constitutionalit o% the law# $t avers, amon! other thin!s, that

the 2ircular in 5uestion violates their ri!ht to e5ual

protection o% the law because the same is bein! en%orced in

Metro Manila onl and is directed solel towards the ta'i

industr# "t the outset it should be pointed out that

implementation outside Metro Manila is also envisioned in

Memorandum 2ircular 8o# 77.4+#

%%E: hether or not there is a violation o% the e5ualprotection clause b the implementation o% the said circular#

HEL': /he 2 held that 2irc 77.4+ is valid# BO/=s reason%or en%orcin! the 2ircular initiall in Metro Manila is that

ta'icabs in this cit, compared to those o% other places, are

sub:ected to heavier tra%%ic pressure and more constant use#

/hus is o% common(nowled!e# 2onsiderin! that tra%%ic

conditions are not the same in ever cit, a substantial

distinction e'ists so that in%rin!ement o% the e5ual protection

clause can hardl be success%ull claimed#

$n so %ar as the non.application o% the assailed 2irculars to

other transportationservices is concerned, it need onl be

recalled that the e5ual protection clause does not impl that

the same treatment be accorded all and sundr# $t appliesto

thin!s or persons identicall or similarl situated# $t permits

o% classi%ication o% the ob:ect or sub:ect o% the law provided

classi%ication is reasonable or based on substantial

distinction, which ma(e %or real di%%erences, and that it must

apple5uall to each member o% the class# hat is re5uired

under the e5ual protection clause is the uni%orm operationb

le!al means so that all persons under identical or similar

circumstance would be accorded the same treatment both in

privile!e con%erred and the liabilities imposed# /he

challen!ed 2irculars satis% the %ore!oin! criteria#

8a0tista "s 0i!io

Police Power

/he validit o% an ener! conservation measure, etter o%

$nstruction 8o# F69, issued on Ma 31, 1979 the response

to the protracted oil crisis that dates bac( to 1974 is put in

issue in this prohibition proceedin! %iled b petitioners,

spouses Mar 2oncepcion Bautista and -nri5ue # Bautista,

%or bein! alle!edl violative o% the due process and e5ual

protection !uarantees o% the 2onstitution# /he use o%

private motor vehicles with E and -E plates on wee(.ends

and holidas was banned %rom >1+D00N a#m# aturda

mornin! to D00 a#m# Monda mornin!, or 1D00 a#m# o% the

http://www.uberdigests.info/2010/11/bautista-vs-juinio/http://www.uberdigests.info/2010/11/bautista-vs-juinio/

7/24/2019 Cases-By Atty. Gacayan

7/371

ida to D00 a#m# o% the da a%ter the holida#> + Motor

hicles o% the %ollowin! classi%ications are e'emptedD &a*

rvice* &b* / &/ruc(* &c* &iplomatic* &d* 22

onsular 2orps* &e* /2 &/ourist 2ars

s 2ourt !ave due course to the petition re5uirin!

pondent to answer# /here was admission o% the %acts as

stantiall alle!ed e'cept, as previousl noted, that the ban

rts at 1+D00 a#m# rather than 1D00 a#m# o% a aturda or o%

olida and as to the mention o% a ill=s Kaiser :eep

n! re!istered in the name o% a certain /eresita @rbina,

ut which respondents had no (nowled!e# /here was a

nial o% the alle!ations that the classi%ication o% vehicles

o heav &E* and e'tra heav &-E* on the other hand and

ht and bantam on the other hand was violative o% e5ual

tection and the re!ulation as to the use o% the %ormer cars

the dates speci%ied a trans!ression o% due process# /he

wer li(ewise denied that there was an undue dele!ation o%

islative power, re%erence bein! made to the and

nsportation and /ra%%ic 2ode# /here was also a

cedural ob:ection raised, namel, that what is sou!ht

ounts at most to an advisor opinion rather than an

udication o% a case or controvers#

s true, o% course, that there ma be instances where a

ice power measure ma, because o% its arbitrar,

pressive or un:ust character, be held o%%ensive to the duecess clause and, there%ore, ma, when challen!ed in an

ropriate le!al proceedin!, be declared void on its %ace#

s is not one o% them# " recital o% the whereas clauses o%

etter o% $nstruction ma(es it clear# /husD ;hereasN,

velopments in the international petroleum suppl situation

ntinue to %ollow a trend o% limited production and

rallin! prices thereb precludin! the possibilit o%

mediate relie% in supplies within the %oreseeable %uture

hereasN, the uncertaint o% %uel suppl availabilit

derscores a compellin! need %or the adoption o% positive

asures desi!ned to insure the viabilit o% the countr=s

econom and sustain its developmental !rowth hereasN,

to cushion the e%%ect o% increasin! oil prices and avoid %uel

suppl disruptions, it is imperative to adopt a pro!ram

directed towards the :udicious use o% our ener! resources

complemented with intensi%ied conservation e%%orts and

e%%icient utiliation thereo% # # ##> hat is undeniable is that

the action ta(en is an appropriate response to a problem that

presses ur!entl %or solution# $t ma not be the onl

alternative, but its reasonableness is immediatel apparent#

/hus, to repeat, substantive due process, which is the

epitome o% reasonableness and %air pla, is not i!nored, much

less in%rin!ed#

$n the interpla between such a %undamental ri!ht and police

power, especiall so where the assailed !overnmental action

deals with the use o% one=s propert, the latter is accorded

much leewa# /hat is settled law# hat is more, it is !ood

law# ue process, there%ore, cannot be validl invo(ed# "s

stressed in the cited -rmita.Malate Eotel decisionD ;/o hold

otherwise would be to undul restrict and narrow the scope

o% police power which has been properl characteried as the

most essential, insistent and the least limitable o% powers,

e'tendin! as it does

7/24/2019 Cases-By Atty. Gacayan

8/371

erms o% burden or char!es, those that %all within a class

uld be treated in the same %ashion, whatever restrictions

t on some in the !roup e5uall bindin! on the rest#

R. No. 42: Associatio! o$ %mall La!/o;!ers "scretar# o$ A+raria! Re$orm

#E$ual Protection%

ese are 3 cases consolidated 5uestionin! the

nstitutionalito% the "!rarian Ce%orm "ct# "rticle $$$ on

cial Justice and Euman Ci!htsincludes a call %or the

ption b the tate o% an a!rarian re%orm pro!ram#/he

te shall, b law, underta(e an a!rarian re%orm pro!ram

nded on theri!ht o% %armers and re!ular %armwor(ers,

o are landless, to own directl orcollectivel the lands

till or, in the case o% other %armwor(ers, toreceive a :ust

re o% the %ruits thereo%# C" 3F44, "!ricultural and

%orm2ode, had alread been enacted b 2on!ress on

!ust F, 1963# /his wassubstantiall superseded almost a

ade later b +7, which was promul!atedon Oct +1,

7+, alon! with martial law, to provide %or the

mpulsorac5uisition o% private lands %or distribution

on! tenant.%armers and tospeci% ma'imum retention

its %or landowners# On Jul 17, 19F7, 2or issued-O ++F,

larin! %ull land ownership in %avor o% the bene%iciaries o%

+7and providin! %or the valuation o% still unvalued lands

vered b the decreeas well as the manner o% their pament#s was %ollowed on Jul ++, 19F7 b 131, institutin! a

mprehensive a!rarian re%orm pro!ram &2"C*, and -O

9,providin! the mechanics %or its implementation#

erwhich is the enactment o%C" 667, 2omprehensive

rarian Ce%orm aw o% 19FF, which 2or si!ned on

e10# /his law, while considerabl chan!in! the earlier

ntioned enactments,nevertheless !ives them suppletor

ect inso%ar as the are not inconsistentwith its provisions#

$nconsiderin! the rentals as advance pament on

land, the e'ecutive orderalso deprives the petitioners o%

their propert ri!hts as protected b dueprocess# /he e5ual

protection clause is also violated because the order placesthe

burden o% solvin! the a!rarian problems on the owners onl

o% a!riculturallands# 8o similar obli!ation is imposed on the

owners o% other properties#

/hepetitioners maintain that in declarin! the

bene%iciaries under +7 to be theowners o% the lands

occupied b them, -O ++F i!nored :udicial prero!atives

andso violated due process# orse, the measure would not

solve the a!rarianproblem because even the small %armers

are deprived o% their lands and theretention ri!hts !uaranteed

b the 2onstitution#

$n hiscomment the ol.Aen asserted that the

alle!ed violation o% the e5ual protectionclause, the su!ar

planters have %ailed to show that the belon! to a

di%%erentclass and should be di%%erentl treated#

/he 2omment also su!!ests the possibilito% 2on!ress %irst

distributin! public a!ricultural lands and schedulin!

thee'propriation o% private a!ricultural lands later# rom this

viewpoint, thepetition %or prohibition would be premature#

%%E:hether or notthere was a violation o% the e5ualprotection clause#

HEL':/he 2 ruleda%%irmin! the ol.Aen# /he ar!ument

o% the small %armers that the have beendenied e5ualprotection because o% the absence o% retention limits has

alsobecome academic under ec 6 o% C" 667# i!ni%icantl,

the too have not5uestioned the area o% such limits# /here is

also the complaint that theshould not be made to share the

burden o% a!rarian re%orm, an ob:ection alsomade b the

su!ar planters on the !round that the belon! to a particular

classwith particular interests o% their own# Eowever, no

evidence has been submittedto the 2ourt that the re5uisites

o% a valid classi%ication have been violated#

2lassi%ication has been de%ined as the !roupin! o% persons

orthin!s similar to each other in certain particulars and

di%%erent %rom eachother in these same particulars# /o be

valid, it must con%orm to the %ollowin!re5uirementsD

&1* it must be based on substantial distinctions

&+* it must be !ermane to the purposes o% the law

&3* it must not be limited to e'istin! conditions onl and

&4* it must appl e5uall to all the members o% the class#

/he 2ourt %inds that all these re5uisites have been met b

themeasures here challen!ed as arbitrar and discriminator#

-5ual protection simpl means that all persons or

thin!ssimilarl situated must be treated ali(e both as to the

ri!hts con%erred andthe liabilities imposed# /he petitioners

have not shown that the belon! to adi%%erent class and

entitled to a di%%erent treatment# /he ar!ument that notonl

landowners but also owners o% other properties must be

made to share theburden o% implementin! land re%orm must

be re:ected# /here is a substantialdistinction between these

two classes o% owners that is clearl visible e'ceptto those

who will not see# /here is no need to elaborate on this

matter# $n anevent, the 2on!ress is allowed a wide leewain providin! %or a validclassi%ication# $ts decision is accorded

reco!nition and respect b the courtso% :ustice e'cept onl

where its discretion is abused to the detriment o% theBill o%

Ci!hts#

'E% "s %a! 'ie+o

7/24/2019 Cases-By Atty. Gacayan

9/371

student shall be allowed onl three &3* chances to ta(e8M"/# "%ter three &3* successive %ailures, a student shallbe allowed to ta(e the 8M"/ %or the %ourth time>#

mon Auevarra then went to the Ce!ional /rial 2ourt o%lenuela, Metro Manila, to compel his admission to thet# Ee invo(ed his constitutional ri!hts to academicedom and 5ualit education#

a!reement o% the parties, herein de%endant was allowed toe the 8M"/ scheduled on "pril 16, 19F9, sub:ect to thecome o% his petition#

an amended petition %iled with leave o% court, an ie!oarel challen!ed the constitutionalit o% M-2 Order 1+, eries o% 197+, containin! the above.cited rule# /he

ditional !rounds raised were due process and e5ualtection# Cespondent Jud!e /eresita ion.2apulon! ruled

t the M-2 Order 8o# 1+, eries o% 197+ was invalid andd that the petitioner had been deprived o% his ri!ht tosue a medical education throu!h an arbitrar e'ercise o%police power#

% 5%. %AN 'EGO, = %RA >33

%:rivate respondent Coberto Ce an ie!o !raduatedm the @niversit o% the -ast with a B de!ree in Poolo!#Ee too( the 8M"/ three times and %lun(ed it as manes#

hen he applied a!ain petitioner re:ected him because itntended that under the 8M"/ ruleD ; a student shall beowed to ta(e 3 chances to ta(e the 8M"/# "%ter threecessive %ailures, a student shall not be allowed to ta(e the

M"/ %or the %ourth time#>rivate respondent went to the C/2 %or a petition

ndamus invo(in! his ri!ht to academic %reedom andalit education#Cespondent Jud!e /eresita ion.2apulon! declared thellen!ed order unconstitutional#

Cespondent Jud!e held that an ie!o has been deprivedhis ri!ht to pursue a medical education throu!h anitrar e'ercise o% police power#

%E:person who has %ailed the 8M"/ three times entitled toe it a!ain#

L':

/he proper e'ercise o% the police power o% the tate re5uiresthe concurrence o% a law%ul sub:ect and a law%ul method#

/he sub:ect o% the challen!ed re!ulation is certainl withinthe ambit o% the police power# $t is the ri!ht and indeed theresponsibilit o% the tate to insure that the medical

pro%ession is not in%iltrated b incompetents to whompatients ma unwaril entrust their lives and health#

/he method emploed b the challen!ed re!ulation is notirrelevant to the purpose o% the law nor is it arbitrar oroppressive# /he thee.%lun( rule is intended to insulate themedical schools and ultimatel the medical pro%ession %romthe intrusion o% those not 5uali%ied to be doctors#

hile ever person is entitled to aspire to be a doctor, hedoes not have a constitutional ri!ht to be a doctor# /his istrue o% an other callin! in which the public interest isinvolved, and the closer the line, the lon!er the brid!e tooneLs ambition# /he tate has the responsibilit to harness itshuman resources and to see to it that the are, not dissipatedor, no less worse, not used at all# /hese resources must beapplied in a manner that will best promote the common !oodwhile also !ivin! the individual a sense o% satis%action#

/he ri!ht to 5ualit education is not absolute# /he2onstitution also provides that Qever citien has a ri!ht tochoose a pro%ession or course o% stud, sub:ect to %air,reasonable and e5uitable admission and academicre5uirements# R"rt# $G, ec# &3*S

/he contention that the challen!ed rule violates the e5ualprotection clause is not well ta(en# " law does not have tooperate with e5ual %orce on all persons or thin!s to becon%ormable to "rt# $$$, ec 1 o% the 2onstitution#

/here would be une5ual protection i% some applicants whohave passed the tests are admitted and others who have also5uali%ied are denied entrance# $n other words, what the e5ual

protection re5uires is e5ualit amon! e5uals#

moral o$ t*e stor#D /r and tr until ou suceed, but i% ou%ail den ou even tried#

5LLANE5A, E. AL. 5% A%A?E'A, R., E. AL.G.R. No. L-63 %eptemer 2l, 9&damnun abs5uein:uria*

!ppeal fro a decision of +-" Papan'a holdin' that the

land in $uestion, bein' public in nature, was beyond thecoerce of an and therefore could not be the subect of

private occupancy.

+/U0, 1.2

-acts2 $n the vicinit o% the public mar(et o% an ernando,ampan!a, there stands on a strip o% land, a con!lomerationo% vendors stalls to!ether# /he petitioners claim the have ari!ht to remain in and conduct business in this area b virtueo% a previous authoriation &Cesolution no# +F* !ranted to

them b the municipal !overnment# /he respondents denthis and :usti% the demolition o% their stalls as ille!alconstructions on public propert per municipal councilCesolution A#C# 8o# +9, which declared the sub:ect area asQthe par(in! place and as the public plaa o% themunicipalit, thereb impliedl revo(in! Cesolution 8o#+1F#

"ssue2O8 petitioners have the ri!ht to occup the sub:ectland#

/ulin'2etition ismissed#$t is a well.settled doctrine that the town plaa cannot beused %or the construction o% mar(et stalls, and that suchstructures constitute a nuisance sub:ect to abatementaccordin! to law# /he petitioners had no ri!ht in the %irst

place to occup the disputed premises and cannot insist in

remainin! there now on the stren!th o% their alle!ed leasecontracts# -ven assumin! a valid lease o% the propert indispute, the resolution could have e%%ectivel terminated thea!reement %or it is settled that the police power cannot besurrendered or bar!ained awa throu!h the medium o% acontract# Eence, the loss or dama!e caused to petitioners, inthe case at bar, does not constitute a violation o% a le!al ri!htor amount to a le!al wron! . damnum abs5ue in:uria#

C2 vs# e Auman

actsD /he respondents are all !raduates o% the atima2olle!e o% Medicine, Galenuela 2it, Metro Manila# /he

passed the hsician icensure -'amination conducted in

7/24/2019 Cases-By Atty. Gacayan

10/371

bruar 1993 b the Board o% Medicine &Board*# etitioner%essional Ce!ulation 2ommission &C2* then releasedir names as success%ul e'aminees in the medical licensuremination# hortl therea%ter, the Board observed that thedes o% the sevent.nine success%ul e'aminees %romima 2olle!e in the two most di%%icult sub:ects in thedical licensure e'am, Biochemistr &Bio.2hem* andstetrics and Anecolo! &OB.Ane*, were unusuall andeptionall hi!h# -leven atima e'aminees scored 100T

Bio.2hem and ten !ot 100T in OB.Ane, another eleven99T in Bio.2hem, and twent.one scored 99T in OB.

ne#its part, the 8B$ %ound that ;the 5uestionable passin!

e o% atima e'aminees in the 1993N hsicianamination leads to the conclusion that the atima

minees !ained earl access to the test 5uestions#>ueD as the act pursuant to C#"# +3F+ a valid e'ercise o%ice powerin!D Ies, it is true that this 2ourt has upheld the

nstitutional ri!ht o% ever citien to select a pro%ession orurse o% stud sub:ect to a %air, reasonable, and e5uitablemission and academic re5uirements# But li(e all ri!hts andedoms !uaranteed b the 2harter, their e'ercise ma be soulated pursuant to the police power o% the tate toe!uard health, morals, peace, education, order, sa%et, andneral wel%are o% the people# /hus, persons who desire to!a!e in the learned pro%essions re5uirin! scienti%ic orhnical (nowled!e ma be re5uired to ta(e an e'aminationa prere5uisite to en!a!in! in their chosen careersave vs# 2OM--2tD etitioner 2have, on various dates, entered into

mal a!reements with certain establishments to endorse

ir products# On "u!ust 1F, +003, he authoried a certaindrew o to use his name and ima!e %or 96U 8orth, athin! compan# etitioner also si!ned -ndorsementreements with Kon(a $nternational lasticsnu%acturin! 2orporation and another corporationolved in the amusement and video !ames business, A.'# /hese last two a!reements were entered into ontober 14, +003 and 8ovember 10, +003, respectivel#suant to these a!reements, three billboards were set upn! the Balintawa( $nterchan!e o% the 8orth -'presswa#e billboard showed petitioner promotin! the plasticducts o% Kon(a $nternational lastics Manu%acturin!rporation, and the other two showed petitioner endorsin!

the clothes o% 96U 8orth# One more billboard was set upalon! Co'as Boulevard showin! petitioner promotin! the!ame and amusement parlors o% A.Bo'#$ssueD $s ection 3+ o% 2OM--2 Cesolution 8o# 6+0 aninvalid e'ercise o% police power?Culin!D 8o, olice power, as an inherent attribute o%soverei!n#

'i/ipio Eart* %a"ers M0ltip0rpose Associatio! et al "s'ENR %ec Elisea Go10! et al

Police Power & Einent )oain

$n 19F7, 2or rolled out -O +79 w)c empowered -8C to

stipulate with %orei!n companies when it comes to either

technical or %inancial lar!e scale e'ploration or minin!# $n

199, Camos si!ned into law C" 794+ or the hilippine

Minin! "ct# $n 1994, Camos alread si!ned an /"" with

"rimco Minin! 2o, an "ustralian compan# /he /""

authoried "M2 &later 2"M2* to e'plore 37,000 ha o% land

in Vuirino and 8# Gicaa includin! Br! idipio# "%ter the

passa!e o% the law, -8C rolled out its implementin! CCs#

idipio petitioned to have the law and the CC to be annulled

as it is unconstitutional and it constitutes unlaw%ul ta(in! o%

propert# $n see(in! to nulli% Cep# "ct 8o# 794+ and its

implementin! rules "O 96.40 as unconstitutional,

petitioners set their si!ht on ection 76 o% Cep# "ct 8o# 794+

and ection 107 o% "O 96.40 which the claim allow the

unlaw%ul and un:ust ;ta(in!> o% private propert %or private

purpose in contradiction with ection 9, "rticle $$$ o% the

19F7 2onstitution mandatin! that private propert shall notbe ta(en e'cept %or public use and the correspondin!

pament o% :ust compensation# /he assert that public

respondent -8C, throu!h the Minin! "ct and its

$mplementin! Cules and Ce!ulations, cannot, on its own,

permit entr into a private propert and allow ta(in! o% land

without pament o% :ust compensation#

/raversin! petitioners= assertion, public respondents ar!ue

that ection 76 is not a ta(in! provision but a valid e'ercise

o% the police power and b virtue o% which, the state ma

prescribe re!ulations to promote the health, morals, peace,

education, !ood order, sa%et and !eneral wel%are o% the

people# /his !overnment re!ulation involves the ad:ustment

o% ri!hts %or the public !ood and that this ad:ustment curtails

some potential %or the use or economic e'ploitation o%

private propert# ublic respondents concluded that ;to

re5uire compensation in all such circumstances would

compel the !overnment to re!ulate b purchase#>

%%E: hether or not C" 794+ and the -8C CCs arevalid#

HEL': /he 2 ruled a!ainst idipio# /he 2 noted there5uisites o% eminent domain# /he are

&1* the e'propriator must enter a private propert

&+* the entr must be %or more than a momentar

period#

&3* the entr must be under warrant or color o% le!al

authorit

&4* the propert must be devoted to public use or

otherwise in%ormall appropriated or in:uriousl a%%ected

&* the utiliation o% the propert %or public use

must be in such a wa as to oust the owner and deprive him

o% bene%icial en:oment o% the propert#

$n the case at bar, idipio %ailed to show that the law is

invalid# $ndeed there is ta(in! involved but it is not w)o :ust

compensation# ec 76 o% C" 794+ provides %or :ust

compensation as well as section 107 o% the -8C CC# /o

wit,

ection 76# ''' rovided, that an dama!e to the propert o%

the sur%ace owner, occupant, or concessionaire as a

conse5uence o% such operations shall be properl

compensated as ma be provided %or in the implementin!

rules and re!ulations#

http://www.uberdigests.info/2010/11/didipio-earth-savers-multipurpose-association-et-al-vs-denr-sec-elisea-gozun-et-al/http://www.uberdigests.info/2010/11/didipio-earth-savers-multipurpose-association-et-al-vs-denr-sec-elisea-gozun-et-al/http://www.uberdigests.info/2010/11/didipio-earth-savers-multipurpose-association-et-al-vs-denr-sec-elisea-gozun-et-al/http://www.uberdigests.info/2010/11/didipio-earth-savers-multipurpose-association-et-al-vs-denr-sec-elisea-gozun-et-al/

7/24/2019 Cases-By Atty. Gacayan

11/371

tion 107# 2ompensation o% the ur%ace Owner and

cupant. "n dama!e done to the propert o% the sur%ace

ners, occupant, or concessionaire thereo% as a

nse5uence o% the minin! operations or as a result o% the

nstruction or installation o% the in%rastructure mentioned in

4 above shall be properl and :ustl compensated#

ther, minin! is a public polic and the !overnment can

o(e eminent domain to e'ercise entr, ac5uisition and use

private lands#

# Go"er!me!t o$ @ "s 0/+e Ericta & Himla#a!+pi!o

Police Power & 3ot 4alidly Exercised

eon 2it enacted an ordinance entitled ;OC$8"82-

A@"/$8A /E- -/"B$EM-8/,

"$8/-8"82- "8 O-C"/$O8O C$G"/-

-MOC$" /I- 2-M-/-CI OC B@C$" ACO@8

/E$8 /E- J@C$$2/$O8 O V@-PO8 2$/I "8

OG$$8A -8"/$- OC /E- G$O"/$O8

-C-O> /he lawbasicallprovides that at least si' &6*

cent o% the total area o% the memorial par( cemeter shall

set aside %or charit burial o% deceased persons who are

upers and have been residents o% Vueon 2it %or at least

rs prior to their death, to be determined b competent

"uthorities# V2 :usti%ied the law b invo(in! police

wer#

%E: hether or not the ordinance is valid#

L': /he 2 held the law as an invalid e'erciseo% policewer# /here is no reasonable relation between the settin!

de o% at least si' &6* percent o% the total area o% allprivate

meteries %or charit burial !rounds o% deceased paupers

d the promotion o% health, morals, !ood order, sa%et, or

!eneral wel%are o% the people# /he ordinance is actuall a

in! without compensation o% a certain area %rom a

$G"/- cemeter to bene%it paupers who are char!es o%

municipal corporation# $nstead o%buildin!or maintainin!

a public cemeter %or this purpose, the cit passes the burden

to private cemeteries#

GO5ERNMEN O< @EON 5%.ERA B22 %RA >9C G.R. No. L-349>C 24 0!93D

7/24/2019 Cases-By Atty. Gacayan

12/371

eems to the court that ection 9 o% Ordinance 8o# 611F,ies o% 1964 o% Vueon 2it is not a mere policeulation but an outri!ht con%iscation# $t deprives a personhis private propert without due process o% law, na, evenhout compensation#

stit0to !ot "s !terme/iate Appellate o0rtPolice Power & 3ot 4alidly Exercised

ere had been an e'istin! law which prohibited the

u!hterin! o% carabaos &-O 6+6*# /o stren!then the law,

rcos issued -O 6+6." which not onl banned the

vement o% carabaos %rom interprovinces but as well as the

vement o% carabee%# On 13 Jan 19F4, Inot was cau!ht

nsportin! 6 carabaos %rom Masbate to $loilo# Ee was then

r!ed in violation o% -O 6+6."# Inot averred -O 6+6."

unconstitutional %or it violated his ri!ht to be heard or his

ht to due process# Ee said that the authorit provided b

6+6." to outri!htl con%iscate carabaos even without

n! heard is unconstitutional# /he lower court ruled

inst Inot rulin! that the -O is a valid e'ercise o% police

wer in order to promote !eneral wel%are so as to curb

wn the indiscriminate slau!hter o% carabaos#

%E: hether or not the law is valid#

L': /he 2 ruled that the -O is not valid as it indeed

lates due process# -O 6+6." ctreated a presumption basedthe :ud!ment o% the e'ecutive# /he movement o% carabaos

m one area to the other does not mean a subse5uent

u!hter o% the same would ensue# Inot should be !iven to

end himsel% and e'plain wh the carabaos are bein!

ns%erred be%ore the can be con%iscated# /he 2 %ound

t the challen!ed measure is an invalid e'ercise o% the

ice power because the method emploed to conserve the

abaos is not reasonabl necessar to the purpose o% the

w and, worse, is undul oppressive# ue process is

lated because the owner o% the propert con%iscated is

nied the ri!ht to be heard in his de%ense and is

immediatel condemned and punished# /he con%erment on

the administrative authorities o% the power to ad:ud!e the

!uilt o% the supposed o%%ender is a clear encroachment on

:udicial %unctions and militates a!ainst the doctrine o%

separation o% powers# /here is, %inall, also an invalid

dele!ation o% le!islative powers to the o%%icers mentioned

therein who are !ranted unlimited discretion in the

distribution o% the properties arbitraril ta(en#

5ice!te 'e La r01 "s E/+ar/o arasSubect Shall Be Expressed in the Title & Police Power 3ot

4alidly Exercise

e a 2ru et al were club X cabaret operators# /he assail

the constitutionalit o% Ord# 8o# F4, er# o% 197 or the

rohibition and 2losure Ordinance o% Bocaue, Bulacan# e

la 2ru averred that the said Ordinance violates their ri!ht to

en!a!e in a law%ul business %or the said ordinance would

close out their business# /hat the hospitalit !irls the

emploed are health and are not allowed to !o out with

customers# Jud!e aras however li%ted the /CO he earlier

issued a!ainst Ord# F4 a%ter due hearin! declarin! that Ord

F4# is constitutional %or it is pursuant to C" 93F which reads

;"8 "2/ AC"8/$8A M@8$2$" OC 2$/I BO"C

"8 2O@82$ /E- O-C /O C-A@"/- /E-

-/"B$EM-8/, M"$8/-8"82- "8 O-C"/$O8

O 2-C/"$8 "2- O "M@-M-8/ $/E$8

/E-$C C--2/$G- /-CC$/OC$" J@C$$2/$O8>#

aras ruled that the prohibition is a valid e'ercise o% policepower to promote !eneral wel%are# e la 2ru then appealed

citin! that the were deprived o% due process#

%%E: hether or not a municipal corporation, Bocaue,Bulacan can, prohibit the e'ercise o% a law%ul trade, the

operation o% ni!ht clubs, and the pursuit o% a law%ul

occupation, such clubs emploin! hostesses pursuant to Ord

F4 which is %urther in pursuant to C" 93F#

HEL':/he 2 ruled a!ainst aras# $% ni!ht clubs weremerel then re!ulated and not prohibited, certainl the

assailed ordinance would pass the test o% validit# 2 had

stressed reasonableness, consonant with the !eneral powers

and purposes o% municipal corporations, as well as

consistenc with the laws or polic o% the tate# $t cannot be

said that such a sweepin! e'ercise o% a lawma(in! power b

Bocaue could 5uali% under the term reasonable# /he

ob:ective o% %osterin! public morals, a worth and desirable

end can be attained b a measure that does not encompass

too wide a %ield# 2ertainl the ordinance on its %ace is

characteried b overbreadth# /he purpose sou!ht to be

achieved could have been attained b reasonable restrictions

rather than b an absolute prohibition# ursuant to the title o%

the Ordinance, Bocaue should and can onl re!ulate not

prohibit the business o% cabarets#

El 8a!co E%A?OL-

7/24/2019 Cases-By Atty. Gacayan

13/371

1# /here must be an impartial court or tribunal clothedwith :udicial power to hear and decide the matter

be%ore it#

+# Jurisdiction must be law%ull ac5uired over theperson o% the de%endant or over the propert sub:ecto% the proceedin!s#

3# /he de%endant must be !iven the opportunit to beheard#

4# Jud!ment must be rendered onl a%ter law%ulhearin!#

mel/a Marcos "s %a!/i+a!a#a!)ue Process

elda was char!ed to!ether with Jose ans %or Ara%t X

rruption %or a dubious transaction done in 19F4 while the

re o%%icers transactin! business with the i!ht Cailwa

nsit# /he case was ra%%led to the 1 stivision o% the

ndi!anbaan# /he division was headed b Justice

rchitorena with J Bala:adia and J "tiena as associate

tices# 8o decision was reached b the division b reason

"tiena=s dissent in %avor o% $melda=s innocence#

rchitorena then summoned a special division o% the B to

lude JJ "mores and 2ipriano as additional members#

mores then as(ed Aarchitorena to be !iven 1 das to send

his mani%estation# On the date o% "mores= re5uest,

rchitorena received mani%estation %rom J Bala:adia statin!

t he a!rees with J Cosario who %urther a!rees with J

ena# Aarchitorena then issued a special order to

mediatel dissolve the special division and have the issue

raised to the B en banc %or it would alread be pointless

wait %or "mores= mani%estation !ranted that a ma:orit has

ead decided on $melda=s %avor# /he B en banc ruled

inst $melda#

%E: hether or not due process has been observed#

HEL': /he 2 ruled that the rulin! o% the B is bere%t o%merit as there was no stron! showin! o% $melda=s !uilt# /he

2 %urther emphasied that $melda was deprived o% due

process b reason o% Aarchitorena not waitin! %or "mores=

mani%estation# uch procedural %laws committed b

respondent andi!anbaan are %atal to the validit o% its

>decision> convictin! petitioner# Aarchitorena had alread

created the pecial ivision o% %ive &* :ustices in view o%

the lac( o% unanimit o% the three &3* :ustices in the irst

ivision# "t that sta!e, petitioner had a vested ri!ht to be

heard b the %ive &* :ustices, especiall the new :ustices in

the persons o% Justices "mores and del Cosario who ma

have a di%%erent view o% the cases a!ainst her# "t that point,

residin! Justice Aarchitorena and Justice Bala:adia machan!e their mind and a!ree with the ori!inal opinion o%

Justice "tiena but the turnaround cannot deprive petitioner

o% her vested ri!ht to the opinion o% Justices "mores and del

Cosario# $t ma be true that Justice del Cosario had alread

e'pressed his opinion durin! an in%ormal, unscheduled

meetin! in the unnamed restaurant but as a%orestated, that

opinion is not the opinion contemplated b law# But what is

more, petitioner was denied the opinion o% Justice "mores

%or be%ore it could be !iven, residin! Justice Aarchitorena

dissolved the pecial ivision#

G.R. No. L-426: Emma 'el+a/o "s o0rt o$ Appealsue rocess

el!ado to!ether with 3 others were char!ed %or esta%acausin! the %rustration o% one medical student# el!ado was

assisted b one "tt# Ico# /he said lawer has %iled %or

multiple postponement o% trial and one time he %ailed to

appear in court b reason o% him bein! alle!edl sic(# 8o

medical certi%icate was %urnished# /he court was not

impressed with such actuation and had considered the same

as el!ado=s waiver o% her ri!ht to trial# /he lower court

convicted her and the others# he appealed be%ore the 2"

and the 2" sustained the lower court=s rule# el!ado later

%ound out that Ico is not a member o% the $B#

%%E:hether or not due process was observed#

HEL':/he 2 ruled in %avor o% el!ado# "n accusedperson is entitled to be represented b a member o% the bar in

a criminal case %iled a!ainst her be%ore the Ce!ional /rial

2ourt# @nless she is represented b a lawer, there is !reat

dan!er that an de%ense presented in her behal% will be

inade5uate considerin! the le!al per5uisites and s(ills

needed in the court proceedin!s# /his would certainl be a

denial o% due process#

G.R. No. 99=: e/ro o!s0lta "s eople o$ t*e*ilippi!es

ue rocess

2onsulta is char!ed %or stealin! a !old nec(lace worth 3#(

owned b a certain ilvestre# Ee was convicted b the lower

court# /he court o% appeals raised be%ore the 2" the issue

that he was not properl arrai!ned and that he was

represented b a non lawer#

%%E:hether or not 2onsulta was denied o% due process#

HEL':/he 2 ruled that 2onsulta=s claim o% bein!misrepresented cannot be !iven due course# Ee was assisted

b two lawers durin! the proceedin!# $n the earlier part, he

was assisted b one "tt# Joceln Cees who seemed not to

be a lawer# Arantin! that she indeed is not a lawer, her

withdrawal %rom the case in the earlier part o% the case hascured the de%ect as he was subse5uentl assisted b a lawer

comin! %rom the "O#

G.R. No. L-4622 0!e 3, 96

EOLE O< HE HLNE%,plainti%%.appellee,vs#

AL8ERO O'A # @AM8AO a!/ 5RGLOMARELO, accused.appellants#

http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2010/11/23/imelda-marcos-vs-sandiganbayan/http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2010/11/23/imelda-marcos-vs-sandiganbayan/

7/24/2019 Cases-By Atty. Gacayan

14/371

R,J.)

s is an automatic review o% the ecision o% the 2ircuit

minal 2ourt, eventh Judicial istrict, imposin! the death

nalt upon "lberto Opida and Gir!ilio Marcelo %or the

me o% murder#

li(e the victim in this case, who died %rom onl one stab

und, the decision under review su%%ers %rom several %atal

ws, all e5uall deadl# $t su%%ices to discuss onl one o%

m#

me and a!ain this 2ourt has declared that due process

uires no less than the cold neutralit o% an impartial

!e# Bolsterin! this re5uirement, we have added that the

!e must not onl be impartial but must also appear to be

partial, to !ive added assurance to the parties that his

ision will be :ust# 2/he parties are entitled to no less than

, as a minimum !uarant o% due process# /his !uarant

s not observed in this case#

Jul 31, 1976, in Vueon 2it, several persons !an!ed up

abian Aalvan, stoned and hit him with beer bottles until

all one o% them stabbed him to death# /he actual (ni%e.

lder was identi%ied as Mario del Mundo# 38onetheless,berto Opida and Gir!ilio Marcelo were char!ed with

rder as conspirators and, a%ter trial, sentenced to death# 4

e basis o% their conviction b the trial court was theimon o% two prosecution witnesses, neither o% whom

itivel said that the accused were at the scene o% the

me, their e'tra:udicial con%essions, which were secured

hout the assistance o% counsel, and corroboration o% the

!ed conspirac under the theor o% interloc(in!

n%ession# >

hat is stri(in! about this case is the wa the trial :ud!e

nducted his interro!ation o% the two accused and their lone

ness, ilian au!# $t was hardl :udicious and certainl

%rom :udicial, at times irrelevant, at orst malicious#

Ceadin! the transcript, one !athers the impression that the

:ud!e had allied himsel% with the prosecution to discredit at

the outset the credibilit o% the witnesses %or the de%ense#

Opida is a police character, admittedl a member o% the

2ommando !an! and with a strin! o% convictions %or

robber, the%t and va!ranc# 6$t is worth notin! that the

:ud!e too( special interest in his tattoos, re5uired him to

remove his shirt so the could be e'amined, and even

described them in detail %or the record#

Besides belaborin! OpidaLs criminal activities and his

tattoos, the :ud!e as(ed him i% he had Qever been convicted

at the 8ational Mental Eospital with what else but malice

and su!!ested to him that his claim o% manhandlin! b the

police was a lie because investi!ators leave no mar( when

the torture a suspect# /his was a point that could have

been validl raised b the prosecution but certainl not b

the court# /he :ud!e also made it o% record that the witness

was !nashin! his teeth, was showin! si!ns o% hostilit, that

he was uneas and that he was restless# Q8ow, whom do ou

want to %ool the :ud!e as(ed, Qthe prosecutor, our lawer, or

the court? 9

$n the hearin! o% eptember ++, 1976, the interro!ation o%

Gir!ilio Marcelo, the other accused, was conducted almost

wholl b the :ud!e who started cross.e'aminin! the witness

even be%ore the de%ense counsel could as( his %irst 5uestion,

and too( over %rom the prosecution the tas( o% impeachin!MarceloLs credibilit#=/he :ud!e as(ed him about his dru!

addiction, his membership in the 2ommando !an!, his

tattoos, his parenta!e, his activities, his criminal record all

when he was supposed to be under direct e'amination b his

own lawer# e%ense counsel could hardl put in a word

ed!ewise because the :ud!e (ept interruptin! to as( his own

5uestions#

/he 5uestions were not clari%icator but adversar and when

the were not adversar, the were irrelevant, and sometimes

also cruel# "t one point, the :ud!e drew %rom the witness the

statement that his mother was livin! with another man

%orthwith he su!!ested that the mother was un%aith%ul to his

%ather# 2e deplore this sadistic treatment o% the witness,especiall as, %or all his supposed Qtou!hness,Q he could not

answer bac(# e %ail to see what possible connection the

motherLs in%idelit could have had, b an stretch o% the

ima!ination, with the instant prosecution#

But the :ud!e was to save the best or worst o% his spite %or

the third witness, ilian au!, a waitress in the restaurant

where the appellant Opida was wor(in! as a coo(# 8otin! at

the outset that she spo(e -n!lish, he wanted to (now where

she had learned it and as(ed in ill.concealed insinuation i%

she had wor(ed in "n!eles 2it or Olon!apo or an!le# 3Because she was !esturin! nervousl, he as(ed, Q"re ou a

conductor? 4O% the two accused, he as(ed her, Q/he arever proud o% belon!in! to the 2ommando !an! to which the

witness answered, puttin! him in his place, Q/hat $ do not

(now, Iour Eonor#Q >

One cannot but note the moc(er in the %ollowin! 5uestions

put b the :ud!e to the witness, who was probabl

wonderin! what the interro!ation was all about

2ourt

V Iou are a ver !ood

%riend o% "lberto Opida?

" Ies, Iour Eonor#

V Iou have (nown him %or

ears?

" One ear onl, Iour

Eonor#

V Ee alwas %eed ou with

his %avorite menu?

7/24/2019 Cases-By Atty. Gacayan

15/371

" Ies, Iour Eonor#

V Ee is a ver !ood coo(?

" Ies, Iour Eonor#

V Because what he could

coo(, ou could not coo(?

" $ (now also how to coo(,

Iour Eonor#

V "nswer m 5uestion#

" Ies, Iour Eonor#

V henever ou tr to coo(

what he coo(ed, ou could

not imitate it, because he is

a !ood coo(?

" Ies, Iour Eonor#

V o, our admiration

developed because o% his

coo(in!?

" Ies, Iour Eonor#

V hat %avorite dish does

he coo( that ou li(e, as %ar

as ou are concerned?

" "dobo, Iour Eonor#

V Most o%ten ou re5uest

him to coo( adobo %or ou?

" Ies, Iour Eonor#

V /hat is precisel one o%

the reasons wh ou also

admire him?

" /hat is also a part, Iour

Eonor,

V henever ou re5uest

him to coo( adobo %or ou,

he alwas accommodate

ou?

" Ies, Iour Eonor#

V "s a matter o% %act, the

moment that he starts

coo(in! adobo, ou could

smell it alread?

" Ies, Iour Eonor,

V /hat starts our

admiration %or him#

" Ies, Iour Eonor#

V "nd in return ou

reciprocate?

" Ies, Iour Eonor#

V hat (ind o%

reciprocation do ou !ive to

"lberto Opida, whenever

ou admire his coo(in! o%

adobo %or ou, coo(in! :ust

%or ou?

" 8one, Iour Eonor#

V henever he coo(s

adobo, he was sin!in!?

" ometimes, Iour Eonor#

V hat (ind o% son!?

" Ee is sin!in! a son! with

intended %or 2ora, Iour

Eonor#

V "nd ou were also

a%%ected b it?

" 8o, Iour Eonor#

V Iou mean to sa, ou are

not ver %ond o% emotional

son!s?

" $ am not, because 2ora is

not mindin! him, Iour

Eonor#

V But sometimes he sin!s

in the absence o% 2ora

because, as ou said, he is

coo(in! adobo %or ou?

" Ies, Iour Eonor#

V hat does he sin!s &sic*

%or ou?

" Ee sin!s man son!s,

Iour Eonor#

V or e'ample, !ive the

title

7/24/2019 Cases-By Atty. Gacayan

16/371

" Mila!ro, Iour Eonor#

V Ee also sin!s ios

aman! "n! 8a(a(aalam?

" ometimes, Iour Eonor#

V Ee also sin!s Kapanta

a an!it?

" Ies, Iour Eonor#

V Ee also sin!s apa!(at

/aoL /ao aman!?

" $ did not hear, Iour

Eonor#

V But, ou said he also

sin!s even in the absence o%

2ora?

" Ies, Iour Eonor#

V Iou smell adobo while he

coo(s and sin!s# o, ou

developed admiration also?

" ittle onl, Iour Eonor#

V One wa or another ou

have appreciated him, but

the onl thin!, as ou (now,

he is related to 2ora in the

same wa?

" Ies, Iour Eonor#

V /hat is wh ou are

testi%in! in his %avor?

Because o% the smell o%

adobo and his son!s and it

is an admiration# /here%ore,

there is that tendenc to

testi% in his %avor?

" Ies, Iour Eonor# 6

On direct e'amination, Opida challen!ed his e'tra:udicial

con%ession, claimin! it had been obtained without

observance o% the ri!hts available under "rticle $G, ection

+0 o% the 2onstitution, particularl the ri!ht to counsel# arentheticall, the e'tra:udicial con%ession o% Marcelo was

also made without assistance o% counsel# Opida alsotesti%ied, under 5uestionin! %rom his counsel, that he had

been repeatedl hit with a Qdos por dosQ b a police o%%icer

while he was bein! investi!ated# 9

e have consistentl held that the ri!hts !uaranteed durin! a

custodial investi!ation are not supposed to be merel

communicated to the suspect, especiall i% he is unlettered,

but must be painsta(in!l e'plained to him so he can

understand their nature and si!ni%icance# Moreover,

manhandlin! o% an sort will vitiate an e'tra:udicial

con%ession that ma be e'tracted %rom him and renders it

inadmissible in evidence a!ainst him# 2=

/hose principles were !iven mere lip service b the :ud!e,

who did not bother to loo( deeper into the validit o% thechallen!ed con%essions#

Aiven the obvious hostilit o% the :ud!e toward the de%ense,

it was inevitable that all the protestations o% the accused in

this respect would be, as the in %act were, dismissed# "nd

once the con%essions were admitted, it was eas enou!h to

emplo them as corroboratin! evidence o% the claimed

conspirac amon! the accused#

/he accused are admittedl notorious criminals who were

probabl even proud o% their membership in the 2ommando

!an! even as the %launted their tattoos as a bad!e o%

notoriet# 28evertheless, the were entitled to be presumedinnocent until the contrar was proved and had a ri!ht not to

be held to answer %or a criminal o%%ense without due process

o% law# 22

/he :ud!e disre!arded these !uarantees and was in %act all

too ea!er to convict the accused, who had mani%estl earned

his enmit# hen he said at the conclusion o% the trial, QIou

want me to dictate the decision now?Q 23, he was betrain! a

pre.:ud!ment lon! be%ore made and obviousl waitin! onl

to be %ormalied#

/he scales o% :ustice must han! e5ual and, in %act, should

even be tipped in %avor o% the accused because o% the

constitutional presumption o% innocence# 8eedless to stress,

this ri!ht is available to ever accused, whatever his present

circumstance and no matter how dar( and repellent his past#

espite their sinister connotations in our societ, tattoos are

at best dubious adornments onl and surel not under our

laws indicia o% criminalit# O% bad taste perhaps, but not o%

crime#

$n an event, convictions are based not on the mere

appearance o% the accused but on his actual commission o%

crime, to be ascertained with the pure ob:ectivit o% the true

:ud!e who must uphold the law %or all without %avor or

malice and alwas with :ustice#

"ccused.appellants Opida and Marcelo, who have been

imprisoned since 1976, have sent us separate letters pleadin!

%or the resolution o% their death sentences one wa or the

other once and %or all# 2onsiderin! the wa the were tried,

we now declare that the should not be detained in :ail a

minute lon!er# hile this is not to sa that the accused are

not !uilt, it does mean that, because their constitutional

ri!hts have been violated, their !uilt, i% it e'ists, has not been

established beond reasonable doubt and so cannot be

pronounced# ue process has staed the uneven hand o% the

5uic( condemnor and must set the de%endants %ree#

7/24/2019 Cases-By Atty. Gacayan

17/371

E-C-OC-, the conviction o% "lberto Opida and Gir!ilio

rcelo is reversed and the are hereb ordered released

mediatel# 8o costs#

OC-C-#

ad Santos, 5ap, 3arvasa, Melencio6*errera, !lapay,

tierre7, 1r. and Paras, 11., concur.

ria and -ernan 11., are on leave.

parate Opi!io!s

EHANEE, C.J., concurrin!D

oncur# $ wish to state that some o% us are not persuaded at

that the two herein accused should be held !uilt o% the

!le stab wound in%licted on the victim in what appears to

ve been a tumultuous a%%ra# $ hail the 2ourtLs ratio

idendithat prescindin! there%rom, the accusedLs !uilt, i% it

sts in realit, cannot be pronounced because o% the

lation o% their basic constitutional ri!hts o% due process

d o% the constitutional provision outlawin! uncounselledn%essions#

m dissentin! opinion in the habeas corpus case o% r#

rora aron!, wrote that Qthe 2ourt stands as thearantor o% the constitutional and human ri!hts o% all

sons within its :urisdiction and must see to it that the

hts are respected and en%orced# $t is settled in this

sdiction that once a deprivation o% a constitutional ri!ht is

wn to e'ist, the court that rendered the :ud!ment or

ore whom the case is pendin! is ousted o% :urisdiction and

eas corpus is the appropriate remed to assail the le!alit

o% the detention# 2o accused persons deprived o% theconstitutional ri!ht o% speed trial have been set %ree# 3"ndli(ewise persons detained inde%initel without char!es so

much so that the detention becomes punitive and not merel

preventive in character are entitled to re!ain their %reedom#

/he spirit and letter o% our 2onstitution ne!ates as contrar

to the basic precepts o% human ri!hts and %reedom that a

person be detained inde%initel without an char!es#Q

$ had stressed in another case that the plain mandate o% the

constitutional provision e'pressl adopted the e'clusionar

rule as the onl practical means o% en%orcin! the

constitutional in:unction a!ainst uncounselled con%essions

obtained in violation o% oneLs constitutional ri!hts b

outlawin! their admission in court# /he outlawin! o% such

con%essions thereb removed the incentive on the part o%

militar or police o%%icers to disre!ard such basic

constitutional ri!hts, in the same manner that the

e'clusionar rule bars admission o% ille!all seied

evidence# 4

/his %undamental rule that the court that rendered the

:ud!ment or be%ore whom the case is pendin! is ousted o%

:urisdiction upon showin! o% deprivation o% a basic

constitutional ri!ht was eroded durin! the past authoritarian

re!ime# $ hail its vi!orous restatement in the ponencia o% Mr#

Justice $sa!ani "# 2ru#

eople "s Mortera (Ri+*t O$ *e Acc0se/ o A!mpartial rialF"2/D /his is an appeal %rom the Januar +3, +009ecision o% the 2ourt o% "ppeals which a%%irmed withmodi%ication the ecision o% the Ce!ional /rial 2ourt incriminal case which %ound accused Benancio Mortera !uilt

beond reasonable doubt o% the crime o% murder %or the(illin! o% one Cobeln Co:as#

rosecution witness Camil Are!orio testi%ied that onea%ternoon, he to!ether with other men were drin(in! tuba#/he have :ust started drin(in! when Benancio Mortera, Jr#

arrived# Ee wanted to hit "lberto Co:as with a 8esca%e !lass#"lberto Co:as ran awa# Mortera said, Qaan!#Q Ee listenedwhile the !roup o% Camil Are!orio were sin!in!accompanied b a !uitar# Jomer ia, brother.in.law o%"lberto ia, arrived# Mortera said, QEere comes anotherCo:as#Q Are!orio and his companions told Jomer ia to runawa# Mortera hurled a stone at ia but the latter was nothit# Mortera le%t but he said that he will return# "%ter a %ewminutes, Mortera came bac(# hen Jomer ia ran, CobelnCo:as, brother o% "lberto Co:as went to Jomer# Mortera metCobeln at a distance o% about seven meters %rom the placewhere the !roup were drin(in!# Mortera and Cobelndiscussed with each other and later shoo( hands# Cobelnturned his %ace and Mortera suddenl stabbed Cobeln Co:asat the bac(# "%ter stabbin! Cobeln, Mortera ran awa#

Cobeln Co:as tried to chase Mortera but he was not able tocatch up but he %ell down mortall wounded# Ee was brou!htto the hospital b his brother but he was pronounced O" atthe hospital# Jovel GeYales who was drin(in! to!ether withCamil Are!orio and others, corroborated Camil Are!orioLstestimon#

Alt*o0+* t*e acc0se/ plea/e/ !ot +0ilt# ;*e! arrai+!e/,/0ri!+ t*e trial, *e a/mitte/ *a"i!+ stae/ t*e "ictim;*om *e re$erre/ to as o!#i!+, 0t claime/ sel$-/e$e!se.B his account he passed b a corner and saw a !roup o%

people drin(in!# /he were Camil Are!orio, Jonel GeYalesand /onin!# @pon seein! him, /onin! ran awa and calledhis brother, "lberto Co:as# hen the accused was about toreach the main road, "lberto Co:as, /onin! and a certainQu(Q &brother.in.law o% /onin!* accosted him and as(edhim %or li5uor mone# hen he re%used, the three men !otan!r# "%ter tellin! them that he had to !o, /onin! hit him

with a spra !un &%or paintin!*, causin! him to %all down#hile he was in a supine position, /onin! attempted to hithim a!ain# $t was at that point that he was able to !et hold o%his (ni%e and thrust it %orward and hit someone# Ee did not(now who !ot stabbed# Ee then immediatel %led#

On Januar +3, +007, the C/2 rendered :ud!ment %indin!the accused !uilt o% murder# $n re:ectin! the claim o% sel%.de%ense, the trial court stated that it was not worthy of beliefas it was belied by the credible testionies of the

prosecution witnesses.

/he accused appealed to the 2" raisin! the issues o% denialo% due process o% law and his ri!ht to an impartial trial# Eeclaimed that the trial court :ud!e, Jud!e Jesus 2arbon, was

7/24/2019 Cases-By Atty. Gacayan

18/371

tile towards him and pre:ud!ed his !uilt as could beerred %rom his Qprosecutor.li(eQ conduct# /he accusedewise reiterated his claim o% sel%.de%ense#

ts decision, the 2" a%%irmed the decision o% the C/2 withdi%ication as to the civil liabilities# /he 2" ruled that thel :ud!e did not trans!ress the standard o% Qcold neutralitQuired o% a ma!istrate and added that the 5uestions hepounded were Qsubstantiall clari%icator#Q

l not satis%ied, the accused now comes be%ore the 2#

@-D O8 the accused were denied o% his ri!ht to haveimpartial trial#

D "s correctl pointed out b the 2", althou!h the trial!e mi!ht have made improper remar(s and comments, it

not amount to a denial o% his ri!ht to due process or hisht to an impartial trial# @pon perusal o% the transcript as aole, it cannot be said that the remar(s were re%lective o%partialit# 8ot onl did the accused mislead the court biall invo(in! a ne!ative de%ense onl to claim otherwisein! trial, he was also not candid to his own lawer, whos (ept in the dar( as to his intended de%ense# /heocation o% Opida did not persuade the 2# $n Opida, 2

not %ail to notice the Qmalicious,Q QsadisticQ andversarialQ manner o% 5uestionin! b the trial :ud!e o% theused therein, includin! their de%ense witness# $n Opida,accused never admitted the commission o% the crime, and

the burden o% proo% remained with the prosecution#

R. No. 639 , 2==

%E HAN-AN,etitioner,

%%E . AN,Cespondent#

- 2 $ $ O 8

ARO,J.)

/he 2ase

s is a petition %or review1o% &i* the 17 Ma +004

solution+amendin! the 30 March +004 ecision3and &ii*

the 1 ebruar +00 Cesolution4o% the Ce!ional /rial 2ourt

o% Vueon 2it, Branch 107, in 2ivil 2ase 8o# V.01.4743#

$n its 30 March +004 ecision, the trial court declared the

marria!e between petitioner usie 2han./an and respondent

Jesse /an void under "rticle 36 o% the amil 2ode#

$ncorporated as part o% the decision was the 31 Jul +003

artial Jud!mentapprovin! the 2ompromise "!reement6o%

the parties# $n its 17 Ma +004 Cesolution, the trial court

!ranted to respondent custod o% the children, ordered

petitioner to turn over to respondent documents and titles in

the latterLs name, and allowed respondent to sta in the

%amil dwellin!# $n its 1 ebruar +00 Cesolution, the trial

court denied petitionerLs motion %or reconsideration o% the +F

ecember +004 Cesolution

7

denin! petitionerLs motion todismiss and motion %or reconsideration o% the 1+ October

+004 Cesolution,Fwhich in turn denied %or late %ilin!

petitionerLs motion %or reconsideration o% the 17 Ma +004

resolution#

*e

7/24/2019 Cases-By Atty. Gacayan

19/371

res, accounts and properties re!istered and)or in the

session and under the name o% usie /an shall be

lusivel owned b her onl#

wever, as to the %amil corporations o% usie /an, Jesse

n shall e'ecute an and all documents trans%errin! the

res o% stoc(s re!istered in his name in %avor o% usie /an,

Justin /an)Cussel /an# " cop o% the list o% the corporation

ned b the %amil o% usie /an is hereto attached as

ne' Q2Q and made an inte!ral part hereo%#

e parties shall voluntaril and without need o% demand

n over to the other spouse an and all ori!inal documents,

pers, titles, contracts re!istered in the name o% the other

use that are in their respective possessions and)or

e(eepin!#

/herea%ter and upon approval o% this 2ompromise

reement b the Eonorable 2ourt, the e'istin! propert

ime o% the spouses shall be dissolved and shall now be

verned b Q2omplete eparation o% ropertQ# arties

ressl represent that there are no (nown creditors that

l be pre:udiced b the present compromise a!reement#

e parties shall have :oint custod o% their minor children#

wever, the two &+* minor children shall sta with their

ther, usie /an at 1+.B Mariposa t#, Vueon 2it#

e husband, Jesse /an, shall have the ri!ht to brin! out theo &+* children ever unda o% each month %rom FD00 "M

9D00 M# /he minor children shall be returned to 1+.B

riposa treet, Vueon 2it on or be%ore 9D00 M o% ever

nda o% each month#

e husband shall also have the ri!ht to pic( up the two &+*

nor children in school)or in the house ever /hursda o%

h month# /he husband shall ensure that the children be

me b FD00 M o% said /hursdas#

urin! the summer vacation)semestral brea( or 2hristmas

vacation o% the children, the parties shall discuss the proper

arran!ement to be made re!ardin! the sta o% the children

with Jesse /an#

8either part shall put an obstacle in the wa o% the

maintenance o% the love and a%%ection between the children

and the other part, or in the wa o% a reasonable and proper

companionship between them, either b in%luencin! the

children a!ainst the other, or otherwise nor shall the do

anthin! to estran!e an o% them %rom the other#

/he parties a!reed to observe civilit, courteousness and

politeness in dealin! with each other and shall not insult,

mali!n or commit discourteous acts a!ainst each other and

shall endeavor to cause their other relatives to act similarl#

4# i(ewise, the husband shall have the ri!ht to brin! out and

see the children on the %ollowin! additional dates, provided

that the same will not impede or disrupt their academic

schedule in avier chool, the dates are as %ollowsD

a# Birthda o% Jesse /an

b# Birthda o% Arand%ather and Arandmother, %irst

cousins and uncles and aunties

c# atherLs a

d# eath "nniversaries o% immediate members o% the

%amil o% Jesse /an

e# urin! the 2hristmas seasons)vacation the herein

parties will a!ree on such dates as when the children

can sta with their %ather# rovided that i% the

children sta with their %ather on 2hristmas a

%rom ecember +4th to ecember +th until 1D00

M the children will sta with their mother on

ecember 31 until Januar 1, 1D00 M, or vice

versa#

/he husband shall alwas be noti%ied o% all school activities

o% the children and shall see to it that he will e'ert his best

e%%ort to attend the same#

# urin! the birthdas o% the two &+* minor children, the

parties shall as %ar as practicable have one celebration#

rovided that i% the same is not possible, the Eusband &Jesse

/an* shall have the ri!ht to see and brin! out the children %or

at least %our &4* hours durin! the da or the da immediatel

%ollowin!)or a%ter the birthda, i% said visit or birthda

coincides with the school da#

6# /he e'istin! -ducational lans o% the two children shall

be used and utilied %or their Ei!h chool and 2olle!e

education, in the event that the -ducational lans are

insu%%icient to cover their tuition, the Eusband shall shoulder

the tuition and other miscellaneous %ees, costs o% boo(s and

educational materials, uni%orm, school ba!s, shoes and

similar e'penses li(e summer wor(shops which are ta(en in

avier chool, which will be paid directl b Jesse /an to

the childrenLs school when the same %all due# Jesse /an, i%

necessar, shall pa tutorial e'penses, directl to the tutor

concerned#

/he husband %urther underta(e to pa 10,000#00)monthl

support pendente lite to be deposited in the "/M "ccount o%

@$- 2E"8 with account no# 3.1F9.3F67.F Boni errano

Branch e%%ective on the 1th o% each month# $n addition Jesse/an underta(es to !ive directl to his two &+* sons ever

unda, the amount needed and necessar %or the purpose o%

the dail meals o% the two &+* children in school#

7# /his 2ompromise "!reement is not a!ainst the law,

customs, public polic, public order and !ood morals# arties

hereb voluntaril a!ree and bind themselves to e'ecute and

si!n an and all documents to !ive e%%ect to this 2ompromise

"!reement#11

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_167139_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_167139_2010.html#fnt11

7/24/2019 Cases-By Atty. Gacayan

20/371

31 Jul +003, the trial court issued a partial :ud!ment 1+

rovin! the compromise a!reement# On 30 March +004,

trial court rendered a decision declarin! the marria!e

d under "rticle 36 o% the amil 2ode on the !round o%

tual pscholo!ical incapacit o% the parties# /he trial

urt incorporated in its decision the compromise a!reement

he parties on the issues o% support, custod, visitation o%

children, and propert relations#

anwhile, petitioner cancelled the o%%er to purchase the

rinthian Eills ubdivision ot 8o# 1+, Bloc( +# he

horied Me!aworld 2orp# to allocate the amount o%

,99+,96F#3+ so %ar paid on the said lot in the %ollowin!

nnerD