LIBERTY

Rubi vs Provincial Board of Mindoro

Facts: The provincial board of Mindoro adopted resolution No. 25 wherein
non-Christian inhabitants (uncivilied tribes! will be directed to ta"e up their
habitation on sites on unoccupied public lands. #t is resolved that under section
2$%% of the &d'inistrative Code( )$$ hectares of public land in the sitio of
Ti*bao on Nau+an ,a"e be selected as a site for the per'anent settle'ent of
Man*-anes in Mindoro. .urther( Man*-ans 'a- onl- solicit ho'esteads on
this reservation providin* that said ho'estead applications are previousl-
reco''ended b- the provincial *overnor.
#n that case( pursuant to /ection 2015 of the Revised &d'inistrative Code( all
the Man*-ans in the townships of Nau+an and Pola and the Man*-ans east of
the Baco River includin* those in the districts of 2ulan*an and Rubi3s place in
Calapan( were ordered to ta"e up their habitation on the site of Ti*bao( Nau+an
,a"e. &lso( that an- Man*-an who shall refuse to co'pl- with this order shall
upon conviction be i'prisoned not e4ceed in si4t- da-s( in accordance with
section 2%55 of the revised &d'inistrative Code.
/aid resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro were clai'ed as necessar-
'easures for the protection of the Man*-anes of Mindoro as well as the
protection of public forests in which the- roa'( and to introduce civilied
custo's a'on* the'.
#t appeared that Rubi and those livin* in his rancheria have not fi4ed their
dwellin* within thereservation of Ti*bao and are liable to be punished.
#t is alle*ed that the Man*uianes are bein* ille*all- deprived of their libert- b-
the provincial officials of that province. Rubi and his co'panions are said to be
held on the reservationestablished at Ti*bao( Mindoro( a*ainst their will( and
one 2abalos is said to be held under the custod- of the provincial sheriff in the
prison at Calapan for havin* run awa- for' thereservation.
Issue: 6hether or Not /ection 2015 of the &d'inistrative Code deprive a
person of his libert- pf abode. Thus( 67N /ection 2015 of the &d'inistrative
Code of 050% is constitutional.
Held: The Court held that section 2015 of the &d'inistrative Code does not
deprive a person of his libert- of abode and does not den- to hi' the e8ual
protection of the laws( and that confine'ent in reservations in accordance with
said section does not constitute slaver- and involuntar- servitude. The Court is
further of the opinion that section 2015 of the &d'inistrative Code is a
le*iti'ate e4ertion of the police power. /ection 2015 of the &d'inistrative
Code of 050% is constitutional.
&ssi*ned as reasons for the action9 (0! atte'pts for the advance'ent of the
non-Christian people of the province: and (2! the onl- successfull- 'ethod for
educatin* the Man*uianes was to obli*e the' to live in a per'anent
settle'ent. The /olicitor-;eneral adds the followin*: (<! The protection of the
Man*uianes: (1! the protection of the public forests in which the- roa': (5! the
necessit- of introducin* civilied custo's a'on* the Man*uianes.
7ne cannot hold that the libert- of the citien is undul- interfered without when
the de*ree of civiliation of the Man*uianes is considered. The- are restrained
for their own *ood and the *eneral *ood of the Philippines.
=,ibert- re*ulated b- law>9 #'plied in the ter' is restraint b- law for the *ood of
the individual and for the *reater *ood of the peace and order of societ- and
the *eneral well-bein*. No 'an can do e4actl- as he pleases.
None of the ri*hts of the citien can be ta"en awa- e4cept b- due process of
law.
Therefore( petitioners are not unlawfull- i'prisoned or restrained of their
libert-. ?abeas corpus can( therefore( not issue.
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
@/TR&2& A/ /&N2#;&NB&B&N (R@&2 .C,, T@DTE!
@strada vs. /andi*anba-an
.acts9 Petitioner Foseph @+ercito @strada( the hi*hest-ran"in* official to be
prosecuted under R& %$)$ (&n &ct 2efinin* and Penaliin* the Cri'e of
Plunder!( as a'ended b- R& %G55( wishes to i'press upon us that the
assailed law is so defectivel- fashioned that it crosses that thin but distinct line
which divides the valid fro' the constitutionall- infir'. ?e therefore 'a"es a
strin*ent call for this Court to sub+ect the Plunder ,aw to the crucible of
constitutionalit- 'ainl- because( accordin* to hi'( (a! it suffers fro' the vice of
va*ueness: (b! it dispenses with the >reasonable doubt> standard in cri'inal
prosecutions: and( (c! it abolishes the ele'ent of 'ens rea in cri'es alread-
punishable under The Revised Penal Code( all of which are purportedl- clear
violations of the funda'ental ri*hts of the accused to due process and to be
infor'ed of the nature and cause of the accusation a*ainst hi'
#ssue9 #s the Plunder ,aw =void for bein* va*ueH
Rulin*9 this Court holds that R& %$)$ otherwise "nown as the Plunder ,aw( as
a'ended b- R& %G55( is C7N/T#TCT#7N&,
This due to the fact that Con*ress is not restricted in the for' of e4pression of
its will( and its inabilit- to so define the words e'plo-ed in a statute will not
necessaril- result in the va*ueness or a'bi*uit- of the law so lon* as the
le*islative will is clear( or at least( can be *athered fro' the whole act( which is
distinctl- e4pressed in the Plunder ,aw
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
Publication Re8uire'ent
Petitioners ,oreno M. Tanada( et. al. invo"ed due process in de'andin* the
disclosure of a nu'ber of Presidential 2ecrees which the- clai'ed had not
been published as re8uired b- ,aw. The *overn'ent ar*ued that while
publication was necessar- as a rule( it was not so when it was otherwise
provided( as when the decrees the'selves declared that the- were to beco'e
effective i''ediatel- upon approval. The court decided on &pril 21( 05)5 in
affir'in* the necessit- for publication of so'e of the decrees. The court
ordered the respondents to publish in the official *aette all unpublished
Presidential #ssuances which are of *eneral force and effect. The petitioners
su**est that there should be no distinction between laws of *eneral
applicabilit- and those which are not. The publication 'eans co'plete
publication( and that publication 'ust be 'ade in the official *aette. #n a
co''ent re8uired b- the solicitor *eneral( he clai'ed first that the 'otion was
a re8uest for an advisor- opinion and therefore be dis'issed. &nd on the
clause =unless otherwise providedH in &rticle 2 of the new civil code 'eant that
the publication re8uired therein was not alwa-s i'perative( that the publication
when necessar-( did not have to be 'ade in the official *aette.

#ssues9
(0! 6hether or not all laws shall be published in the official *aette.
(2! 6hether or not publication in the official *aette 'ust be in full.

?eld9
(0! The court held that all statute includin* those of local application shall be
published as condition for their effectivit-( which shall be*in 05 da-s after
publication unless a different effectivit- date is fi4ed b- the le*islature.
(2! The publication 'ust be full or no publication at all since its purpose is to
infor' the public of the content of the laws.
#n 2$$5( tapes which alle*edl- contained a conversation between ;M& and
C7M@,@C Co''issioner ;arcillano surfaced. The said conversation
contained a plan to ri* the elections to favor ;M&. The recordin*s then
beca'e sub+ect to le*islative hearin*s conducted separatel- b- each ?ouse.
#n his privile*e speech( /en. @scudero 'otioned a con*ressional investi*ation
+ointl- conducted b- the Co''ittees on Public #nfor'ation( Public 7rder and
/afet-( National 2efense and /ecurit-( #nfor'ation and Co''unications
Technolo*-( and /uffra*e and @lectoral Refor's (respondent ?ouse
Co''ittees!. 2urin* the in8uir-( several versions of the wiretapped
conversation e'er*ed. ,acsonIs 'otion for a senate in8uir- was referred to
the Co''ittee on National 2efense and /ecurit- headed b- Biaon. ;arci
subse8uentl- filed to petitions. 7ne to prevent the pla-in* of the tapes in the
each ?ouse for the- are alle*ed to be inad'i)ssible and the other to prohibit
and stop the conduct of the /enate in8uir- on the wiretapped conversation.
ISSUE: 6hether or not to *rant the petitions of ;arci.
HELD: ;arciIs petition to stri"e the tapes off the record cannot be *ranted. The
tapes were alread- pla-ed in Con*ress and those tapes were alread- hi*hl-
publicied. The issue is alread- overta"en b- these incidents hence it has
beco'e 'oot and acade'ic. The second petition 'ust be *ranted however.
The /enate cannot be allowed tocontinue with the conduct of the 8uestioned
le*islative in8uir- without dul- published rules of procedure( in cleardero*ation
of the constitutional re8uire'ent.
/ection 20( &rticle A# of the 05)% Constitution e4plicitl- provides that =JtKhe
/enate or the ?ouse of Representatives( or an- of its respective co''ittees
'a- conduct in8uiries in aid of le*islation in accordance with its duly published
rules of procedure.H The re8uisite of publication of the rules is intended to
satisf- the basic re8uire'ents of due process. Publication is indeed
i'perative( for it will be the hei*ht of in+ustice to punish or otherwise burden a
citien for the trans*ression of a law or rule of which he had no notice
whatsoever( not even a constructive one. 6hat constitutes publication is set
forth in &rticle 2 of the Civil Code( which provides that =JlKaws shall ta"e effect
after 05 da-s followin* the co'pletion of their publication either in the 7fficial
;aette( or in a newspaper of *eneral circulation in the Philippines.H
The /enate ad'its in their pleadin*s and even on oral ar*u'ent that the
/enate Rules of Procedure ;overnin* #n8uiries in &id of ,e*islation had been
published in newspapers of *eneral circulation onl- in 0555 and in 2$$G.
6ithrespect to the present /enate of the 01th Con*ress( however( of which the
ter' of half of its 'e'bersco''enced on Fune <$( 2$$%( no effort was
underta"en for the publication of these rules when the- first opened their
session.
JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS
@, B&NC7 @/P&N7,- .#,#P#N7 A/ P&,&NC&
@n*racio Palanca was indebted to @l Banco and he had his parcel of land as
securit- to his debt. ?is debt a'ounted to P20)(251.0$. ?is propert- is worth
%5" 'ore than what he owe. 2ue to the failure of @n*racio to 'a"e his
pa-'ents( @l Banco e4ecuted an instru'ent to 'ort*a*e @n*racioIs propert-.
@n*racio however left for China and he never returned til he died. /ince
@n*racio is a non resident @l Banco has to notif- @n*racio about their intent to
sue hi' b- 'eans of publication usin* a newspaper. The lower court further
orderdd the cler" of court to furnish @n*racio a cop- and that itId be sent to
&'o-( China. The court eventuall- *ranted @l Banco petition to e4ecute
@n*racioIs propert-. % -ears thereafter( Aicente surfaced on behalf of @n*racio
as his ad'inistrator to petition for the annul'ent of the rulin*. Aicente averred
that there had been no due process as @n*racio never received the su''ons.
ISSUE: 6hether or not due process was not observed.
HELD: The /C ruled a*ainst Palanca. The /C ruled that the re8uisites for
+udicial due process had been 'et. The re8uisites are:
0. There 'ust be an i'partial court or tribunal clothed with
+udicial power to hear and decide the 'atter before it.
2. Furisdiction 'ust be lawfull- ac8uired over the person of the
defendant or over the propert- sub+ect of the proceedin*s.
<. The defendant 'ust be *iven the opportunit- to be heard.
1. Fud*'ent 'ust be rendered onl- after lawful hearin*.
REQUIREMENTS IN !ENERAL
I"#a$t%al T$%&u'al Jud%c%al
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS
HON( PEDRO S( ESPINA CRISTETA REYES JOHNY SANTOS ANTONIO
ALE!RO RO!ELIO MEN!UIN PETE ALVERIO RO!EN DOCTORA a'd
JANE !O respondents. (digest!!!)
R E S O L U T I O N
MELO J(:
Before us is a petition for review with an ur*ent pra-er for a writ of preli'inar-
in+unction andLor restrainin* order which see"s to9 (a! annul and set aside the
decision of the Court of &ppeals in C&-;.R. /P No. <0%<< entitled >People of
the Philippines vs. ?on. Pedro /. @spina et al.>( insofar as it denied the
People3s pra-er to inhibit respondent Fud*e Pedro /. @spina of the Re*ional
Trial Court of Tacloban Cit- fro' hearin* Cri'inal Cases No. 5<-$0-<) M
5<$0-<5( respectivel-( entitled >People of the Philippines vs. Cristeta Re-es( et
al.> and >People of the Philippines vs. Fane C. ;o>: and b! en+oin respondent
+ud*e fro' conductin* further proceedin*s in the aforesaid cri'inal cases.
&ctin* on the said petition( the Court on &pril <( 0555 resolved to re8uire
respondents all of who' are the accused in the aforesaid cri'inal cases( to
co''ent thereon within 0$ da-s fro' notice( to issue the te'porar-
restrainin* order pra-ed for( and to en+oin respondent +ud*e fro' ta"in* further
action in Cri'inal Cases No. 5<-$0-<) M 5<-$0-<5 until further orders fro' the
Court.
#t appearin* that private respondents Cristeta Re-es M Ro*en 2octora( Fohn-
/antos M &ntonio &le*ro M Fane C. ;o failed to file their respective co''ents
within the period which e4pired on &pril 0%( 0555 and &pril 0)( 0555(
respectivel-( the Court on Fune 2G( 0555 resolved to re8uire said private
respondents to show cause wh- the- should not be disciplinar- dealt with for
such failure( and to file the re8uired co''ents( both within ten (0$! da-s fro'
notice.
&s to respondents Fohn- /antos M &ntonio &le*ro (prisoners at the Tacloban
Cit- Fail!( copies of the resolution re8uirin* the' to file co''ent were returned
unserved with the post'aster3s notation >un"nown in said address>. The
Court( on 7ctober 00( 0555 directed the /olicitor ;eneral to serve the sa'e on
said respondents and to infor' the Court of such service( both within ten (0$!
da-s fro' notice.
The 7ffice of the /olicitor ;eneral filed a Co'pliance statin* that the re8uired
copies were sent to private respondents /antos M &le*ro throu*h ordinar- 'ail
on 2ece'ber 2G( 0555.
To date( all the respondents have not -et filed their co''ents( for veril-( dela-
in the sub'ission of the sa'e would appear to benefit respondents( and
sanction a*ainst the' 'a- not reall- a'ount to 'uch( considerin* that 'ost of
the' are under detention. Thus( so as not to undul- dela- the disposition of
Cri'inal Cases No. 5<-$0-<) and 5<-$0-<5( we now resolve to dispense with
respondent3s co''ents and to proceed with the disposition of the petition.
7ne of the essential re8uire'ents of procedural due process in a +udicial
proceedin* is that there 'ust be an i'partial court or tribunal clothed with
+udicial power to hear and deter'ine the 'atter before it. Thus( ever- liti*ant(
includin* the /tate( is entitled to the cold neutralit- of an i'partial +ud*e which
was e4plained in Favier vs. Co''ission of @lections (011 /CR& 051 J05)GK!(
in the followin* words9
This Court has repeatedl- and consistentl- de'anded >the cold neutralit- of an
i'partial +ud*e> as the indispensable i'perative of due process. To bolster
that re8uire'ent( we have held that the +ud*e 'ust not onl- be i'partial but
'ust also appear to be i'partial as an added assurance to the parties that his
decision will be +ust. The liti*ants are entitled to no less than that. The-
should be sure that when their ri*hts are violated the- can *o to a +ud*e who
shall *ive the' +ustice. The- 'ust trust the +ud*e( otherwise the- will not *o
to hi' at all. The- 'ust believe in his sense of fairness( otherwise the- will not
see" his +ud*'ent. 6ithout such confidence( there would be no point in
invo"in* his action for the +ustice the- e4pect.
2ue process is intended to insure that confidence b- re8uirin* co'pliance with
what Fustice .ran"furter calls the rudi'ents of fair pla-. .air pla- calls for
e8ual +ustice. There cannot be e8ual +ustice where a suitor approaches a court
alread- co''itted to the other part- and with a +ud*'ent alread- 'ade and
waitin* onl- to be for'alied after the liti*ants shall have under*one the
charade of a for'al hearin*. Fudicial (and also e4tra+udicial! proceedin*s are
not orchestrated pla-s in which the parties are supposed to 'a"e the 'otions
and reach the denouce'ent accordin* to a prepared script. There is no writer
to foreordain the endin*. The Fud*e will reach his conclusions onl- after all
the evidence is in and all the ar*u'ents are filed( on the basis of the
established facts and the pertinent law.
#n the case at bar( Fud*e Pedro @spina( as correctl- pointed out b- the
/olicitor ;eneral( can not be considered to ade8uatel- possess such cold
neutralit- of an i'partial +ud*e as to fairl- assess both the evidence to be
adduced b- the prosecution and the defense in view of his previous decision in
/pecial Civil &ction No. 52-00-205 wherein he en+oined the preli'inar-
investi*ation at the Re*ional /tate Prosecutor3s 7ffice level a*ainst herein
respondent Fane ;o( the principal accused in the "illin* of her husband
2o'inador ;o.
Fud*e @spina3s decision in favor of respondent Fane ;o serves as sufficient
and reasonable basis for the prosecution to seriousl- doubt his i'partialit- in
handlin* the cri'inal cases. Aeril-( it would have been 'ore prudent for
Fud*e @spina to have voluntaril- inhibited hi'self fro' hearin* the cri'inal
cases.
)HEREFORE the petition is hereb- ;R&NT@2. The decision of the Court of
&ppeals in C&-;.R. No. <0%<< is hereb- /@T &/#2@ and The ?onorable
Pedro @spina( Presidin* Fud*e of Branch % of the Re*ional Trial Court of the
)th Fudicial Re*ion stationed in Tacloban is hereb- declared dis8ualified fro'
ta"in* co*niance of Cri'inal Cases No. 5<-$0-<) and 5<-$0-<5. #t is further
ordered that these cri'inal cases be re-raffled to another branch of the
Re*ional Trial Court of Tacloban Cit-.
SO ORDERED(
TABUENA VS SANDI!ANBAYAN
Then President Marcos instructed ,uis Tabuena over the phone to pa- directl-
to the presidentIs office and in cash what the Manila #nternational &irport
&uthorit- (M#&&! owes the Philippine National Construction Corporation
(PNCC!( pursuant to the % Fanuar- 05)5'e'orandu' of then Minister Trade
and #ndustr- Roberto 7n*pin. Tabuena a*reed. &bout a wee" later( Tabuena
received fro' Mrs. .e Roa-;i'ene( and then private secretar- of Marcos( a
Presidential Me'orandu' dated ) Fanuar- 05)G reiteratin* in blac" and white
such verbal instruction. #n obedience to President Marcos verbal instruction
and 'e'orandu'( Tabuena( with the help of ;erardo ;. 2abao and &dolfo
Peralta( caused the release of P55 Million of M#&& funds b- 'eans of three (<!
withdrawals. 7n 0$ Fanuar- 05)G( the first withdrawal was 'ade for P25
Million( followin* a letter of even date si*ned b- Tabuena and 2abao
re8uestin* the PNB e4tension office at the M#&& the depositor- branch of
M#&& funds( to issue a 'ana*erIs chec" for said a'ount pa-able to Tabuena.
The chec" was encashed( however( at the PNB Ailla'or Branch. 2abao and
the cashier of the PNB Ailla'or branch counted the 'one- after which(
Tabuena too" deliver- thereof. The P25 Million in cash was delivered on the
sa'e da- to the office of Mrs. ;i'ene. Mrs. ;i'ene did not issue an-
receipt for the 'one- received. /i'ilar circu'stances surrounded the second
withdrawalLencash'ent and deliver- of another P25 Million( 'ade on 0G
Fanuar- 05)G. The third and last withdrawal was 'ade on <0Fanuar- 05)G for
P5 Million. Peralta was TabuenaIs co-si*nator- to the letter- re8uest for a
'ana*erIs chec" for this a'ount. Peralta acco'panied Tabuena to the PNB
Ailla'or branch as Tabuena re8uested hi' to do the countin* of the P5
Million. &fter the countin*( the 'one- was loaded in the trun" of TabuenaIs
car. Peralta did not *o with Tabuena to deliver the 'one- to Mrs.;i'ene
office. #t was onl- upon deliver- of the P5 Million that Mrs. ;i'ene issued a
receipt for all the a'ounts she received fro' Tabuena. The receipt was dated
Fanuar- <$( 05)G.Tabuena and Peralta were char*ed for 'alversation of
funds( while 2abao re'ained at lar*e. 7ne of the +ustices of the
/andi*anba-an activel- too" part in the 8uestionin* of a defense witness and
of the accused the'selves: the volu'e of the 8uestions as"ed were 'ore the
co'bined 8uestions of the counsels. 7n 02 7ctober 055$( the- were found
*uilt- be-ond reasonable doubt. Tabuena and Peralta filed separate petitions
for review( appealin* the /andi*anba-an decision dated 02 7ctober 0555$
and the Resolution of 2$ 2ece'ber 0550.
Issue: 6hether Tabuena and Peralta were denied due process b- the active
participation of the /andi*anba-an +ustice in the 8uestionin* witnesses in the
trial.
Held: 2ue process re8uires no less than the cold neutralit- of an i'partial
+ud*e. Bolsterin* this re8uire'ent( we have added that the +ud*e 'ust not onl-
be i'partial but 'ust also appear to be i'partial( to *ive added assurance to
the parties that his decision will be +ust. The parties are entitled to no less than
this( as a 'ini'u' *uarant- of due process. 7ur courts should refrain fro'
showin* an- se'blance of one-sided or 'ore or less partial attitude in order
not to create an- false i'pression in the 'inds of the liti*ants. .or obvious
reasons( it is the bounden dut- of all to strive for the preservation of the
peopleIs faith in our courts. Respect for the Constitution is 'ore i'portant than
securin* a conviction based on a violation of the ri*hts of the accused. The
Court was struc" b- the wa- the /andi*anba-an activel- too" part in the
8uestionin* of a defense witness and of the accused the'selves( as shown in
the records. The volu'e of 8uestions hurled b- the /andi*anba-an was 'ore
the co'bined 8uestions of the counsels. More i'portantl-( the 8uestions of the
court were in the nature of cross e4a'inations characteristic of confrontation(
probin* and insinuation. 6e have not adopted in this countr- the practice of
'a"in* the presidin* +ud*e the chief in8uisitor. #t is better to observe our ti'e-
honored custo' of orderl- +udicial procedure( even at the e4pense of
occasional dela-s. The i'partialit- of the +ud*e: his avoidance of the
appearance of beco'in* the advocate of either one side or the other of the
pendin* controvers- is a funda'ental and essential rule of special i'portance
in cri'inal cases. )HEREFORE( in view of the fore*oin*( herein petitioners
,uis &. Tabuena and &dolfo M. Peralta are hereb- &CNC#TT@2 of the cri'e of
'alversation as defined and penalied under &rticle 20% of the Revised Penal
Code. The /andi*anba-an 2ecision of 7ctober 02( 055$ and the Resolution
dated 2ece'ber 2$( 0550 are R@A@R/@2 and /@T &/#2@.
I"#a$t%al T$%&u'al Ad"%'%st$at%*e a'd Quas%+Jud%c%al
+avier vs. co''ission on elections
Favier and Pacificador( a 'e'ber of the OB, under Marcos( were rivals to be
'e'bers of the Batasan in Ma- 05)1 in &nti8ue. 2urin* election( Favier
co'plained of H'assive terroris'( inti'idation( duress( vote-bu-in*( fraud(
ta'perin* and falsification of election returns under duress( threat and
inti'idation( snatchin* of ballot bo4es perpetrated b- the ar'ed 'en of
Pacificador.H C7M@,@C +ust referred the co'plaints to the &.P. 7n the sa'e
co'plaint( the 2nd 2ivision of the Co''ission on @lections directed the
provincial board of canvassers of &nti8ue to proceed with the canvass but to
suspend the procla'ation of the winnin* candidate until further orders. 7n
Fune %( 05)1( the sa'e 2nd 2ivision ordered the board to i''ediatel-
convene and to proclai' the winner without pre+udice to the outco'e of the
case before the Co''ission. 7n certiorari before the /C( the procla'ation
'ade b- the board of canvassers was set aside as pre'ature( havin* been
'ade before the lapse of the 5-da- period of appeal( which the Favier had
seasonabl- 'ade. Favier pointed out that the irre*ularities of the election 'ust
first be resolved before proclai'in* a winner. .urther( 7pinion( one of the
Co''issioners should inhibit hi'self as he was a for'er law partner of
Pacificador. &lso( the procla'ation was 'ade b- onl- the 2nd 2ivision but the
Constitute re8uires that it be proclai'ed b- the C7M@,@C en banc. #n .eb
05)G( durin* pendenc-( Favier was *unned down. The /olicitor ;eneral then
'oved to have the petition close it bein* 'oot and acade'ic b- virtue of
FavierIs death.
ISSUE: 6hether or not there had been due process in the procla'ation of
Pacificador.
HELD: The /C ruled in favor of Favier and has overruled the /ol-;enIs tenor.
The /C has repeatedl- and consistentl- de'anded =the cold neutralit- of an
i'partial +ud*eH as the indispensable i'perative of due process. To bolster that
re8uire'ent( we have held that the +ud*e 'ust not onl- be i'partial but 'ust
also appear to be i'partial as an added assurance to the parties that his
decision will be +ust. The liti*ants are entitled to no less than that. The- should
be sure that when their ri*hts are violated the- can *o to a +ud*e who shall
*ive the' +ustice. The- 'ust trust the +ud*e( otherwise the- will not *o to hi'
at all. The- 'ust believe in his sense of fairness( otherwise the- will not see"
his +ud*'ent. 6ithout such confidence( there would be no point in invo"in* his
action for the +ustice the- e4pect.
2ue process is intended to insure that confidence b- re8uirin* co'pliance with
what Fustice .ran"furter calls the rudi'ents of fair pla-. .air pla- calls for
e8ual +ustice. There cannot be e8ual +ustice where a suitor approaches a court
alread- co''itted to the other part- and with a +ud*'ent alread- 'ade and
waitin* onl- to be for'alied after the liti*ants shall have under*one the
charade of a for'al hearin*. Fudicial (and also e4tra+udicial! proceedin*s are
not orchestrated pla-s in which the parties are supposed to 'a"e the 'otions
and reach the denoue'ent accordin* to a prepared script. There is no writer to
foreordain the endin*. The +ud*e will reach his conclusions onl- after all the
evidence is in and all the ar*u'ents are filed( on the basis of the established
facts and the pertinent law.
TEJANO VS OMBUDSMAN
DI!EST,,,
T-e Facts
The instant petition ste''ed fro' the report of Philippine National Ban" (PNB!
Resident &uditor &le4ander &. Tan( dated 05 7ctober 0552( on his
investi*ation re*ardin* an alle*ed unfunded withdrawal in the a'ount of P2.2
'illion b- AM; Better ?o'es /ubdivision (AM;! under /avin*s &ccount No.
<G5-5<55-G-1.
The report( as su''aried b- /pecial Prosecution 7fficer ### Fesus &. Micael(
is as follows9J<K
. . . J#Kn the 'ornin* of 0% Ful- 0552( @'ilio P. Montesa (Ban" @4ecutive
7fficer of PNB Cebu! handed a note to Fane Rita Fecon* (Cashier! instructin*
her to include her cash re8uisition for the da- fro' Central Ban" P Cebu( the
a'ount of P2.2 M at P0($$$.$$ deno'ination: that on 2$ Ful- 0552 at about
past 0$9$$ &.M.( Fuanito Mata (Cashier ###!( upon the instruction of Ca-etano
&. Te+ano Fr. (Aice President and Branch Mana*er of PNB Cebu!( too" the
P2.2 M fro' Ms. Fecon* and delivered the sa'e to Mr. Te+ano: that at about
noonti'e of sa'e da-( Mr. Mara handed to Ms. Fecon* a pre-si*ned
withdrawal slip a*ainst /& No. <G5-5<55$G-1 under the na'e of A M ; Better
?o'es for the sa'e a'ount to replace the cash withdrawn and to serve as
cash-on-hand at the end of the da-Is transaction: that the withdrawal slip was
approved b- Mr. Te+ano and was postdated 20 Ful- 0552: that as of 2$ Ful-
0552 A M ; Better ?o'es /& No. <G5-5<55$G-1 has onl- P<<(1<G.%): that in
the afternoon of 2$ Ful- 0552 the a'ount of P2(<<G(5G<.<2 (consistin* of
P2(2$$($$$.$$ in cash: P0$$($$$.$$ in chec": and P<G(5G<.22 in withdrawal
slip! was received b- Teller Mar- &nn &nar as pa-'ent for the loan of A M ;
Better ?o'es for which PNB 7fficial Receipt No. 5525)0@ was issued: that
the transaction was reco*nied as an increase in PNB Cebu BranchIs cash-
on-hand and a decrease in the loan account of A M ; Better ?o'es: that the
PNB Cebu Credit Co''ittee approved the loan at the rate of 2<Q lower than
the 2GQ interest rate on its first renewal and 2%Q on its second renewal: that
the loan proceeds was credited to the account of A M ; Better ?o'es on 20
Ful- 0552( the sa'e da- that the withdrawal slip of P2.2 M was ta"en b- Mr.
Montesa fro' Ms. Fecon* and *iven to #rene &bellanosa to be ta"en as her
transaction for the da-: and that upon the instruction of Montesa( /avin*s
&ccount No. <G5-5<55$G-1 of A M ; Better ?o'es was debited and the
withdrawal slip was validated b- Teller &bellanosa althou*h no actual cash
withdrawal was 'ade.
The report of Resident &uditor &le4ander &. Tan i'plicated Aice President
Ca-etano &. Te+ano( Fr.( the petitioner herein( @4ecutive 7fficer @'ilio
Montesa( and /upervisin* Branch Teller Fane Rita Fecon*( all of the PNB(
Cebu Cit- Branch( includin* Fuana dela Cru and Aicente dela Cru of AM;(
as persons involved in the irre*ular withdrawal of P2.2 'illion of PNB funds.
#n an order dated 22 2ece'ber 0552( the 7ffice of the 2eput- 7'buds'an for
the Aisa-as ordered Te+ano( Montesa( Fecon*( Fuana dela Cru and Aicente
dela Cru to file their respective counter-affidavits.J1K
#n a resolution dated 25 March 055<( ;raft #nvesti*ation 7fficer @d*ardo ;.
Canton reco''ended the filin* of the proper infor'ation for violation of
/ection <(e! of Republic &ct No. <$05(J5K as a'ended( a*ainst petitioner
Ca-etano &. Te+ano( Fr.( Fuana dela Cru and Aicente dela Cru of AM;.JGK
The case a*ainst Montesa and Fecon* was dis'issed for lac" of evidence.
The resolution was approved b- 2eput- 7'buds'an for Aisa-as &rturo C.
Mo+ica and then 7'buds'an Conrado M. Aas8ue.
The resolution was thereafter referred for review to /pecial Prosecutor ###
7rlando #. #nes of the 7ffice of the /pecial Prosecutor.
#n a Me'orandu'J%K dated 25 7ctober 0551( #nes affir'ed the resolution of
;raft #nvesti*ation 7fficer @d*ardo ;. Canton.
7n 2) 7ctober 0551( 2eput- /pecial Prosecutor Fose 2e ;. .errer
reco''ended the approval of the 'e'orandu' of /pecial Prosecution 7fficer
#nes.
7n $) Nove'ber 0551( &niano &. 2esierto( then the /pecial Prosecutor(
concurred in the approval of .errer.J)K 7'buds'an Conrado M. Aas8ue
concurred thereto on 00 Nove'ber 0551.
/ubse8uentl-( on 21 Nove'ber 0551( an #nfor'ation for violation of /ection
<(e! of Rep. &ct No. <$05( as a'ended( was filed before the /andi*anba-an(
and doc"eted as Cri'inal Case No. 20G51.
7n $) 2ece'ber 0551( petitioner filed with the /andi*anba-an an Cr*ent
Motion for a Period of Ti'e to .ile Motion for Reinvesti*ation.
#n an order datedJ5K 02 2ece'ber 0551( the /andi*anba-an *ranted the
'otion for reinvesti*ation.
7n 22 2ece'ber 0551( petitioner filed his 'otion for reinvesti*ation in the
7ffice of the /pecial Prosecutor.
7n 2$ &pril 0555( the /andi*anba-an ordered the 7ffice of the /pecial
Prosecutor to conduct the reinvesti*ation.J0$K The reinvesti*ation was
assi*ned to /pecial Prosecution 7fficer ### Fesus Micael.
Convinced that no probable cause e4isted to indict petitioner Te+ano( and
spouses Fuana and Aicente dela Cru( /pecial Prosecutor Micael( in a
'e'orandu'J00K dated $< Nove'ber 0555( reco''ended the dis'issal of
the case. The reco''endation was approved b- 2eput- /pecial Prosecutor
Robert @. Oallos and concurred in b- /pecial Prosecutor ,eonardo P. Ta'a-o.
7n 0$ 2ece'ber 0555( 7'buds'an &niano &. 2esierto( who earlier
participated in the initial preli'inar- investi*ation as /pecial Prosecutor(
disapproved the reco''endation for the dis'issal of the case with the
'ar*inal note =assign the case to another prosecutor to prosecute the case
aggressively.H
7n $2 .ebruar- 2$$$( /pecial Prosecutor Micael filed a Manifestation( to
which was attached a cop- of his 'e'orandu'( infor'in* the /andi*anba-an
of the disapproval b- 7'buds'an 2esierto of his reco''endation to dis'iss
the case.
7n 0$ .ebruar- 2$$$( petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
disapproval b- 7'buds'an 2esierto of the reco''endation of Micael.
&pparentl-( petitionerIs 'otion for reconsideration was not resolved on the
'erits because on 2% Fune 2$$$( /pecial Prosecution 7fficer ### Foselito R.
.errer filed a Motion to /et the Case for &rrai*n'ent alle*in* therein that the
prosecution did not *ive due course to the 'otion for reconsideration on the
*round that it was the second 'otion which is prohibited under the
7'buds'an &ct of 05)5. ?e added that the results of the reinvesti*ation
were alread- sub'itted to the respondent court before receivin* the 'otion for
reconsideration.J02K
Petitioner 'anifested before the /andi*anba-an the 7ffice of the /pecial
ProsecutorIs failure to resolve his 'otion for reconsideration. Thus( in a
resolutionJ0<K dated 21 March 2$$<( the respondent court directed the 7ffice
of the 7'buds'an to resolve the said 'otion.
#n a 'e'orandu'J01K dated $5 Fune 2$$<( /pecial Prosecutor Foselito R.
.errer reco''ended the denial of the 'otion for reconsideration filed b-
petitioner. 2eput- /pecial Prosecutor Robert @. Oallos chan*ed his previous
position and reco''ended that the 'e'orandu' for the dis'issal of the
'otion for reconsideration be approved( with /pecial Prosecutor 2ennis M.
Ailla-#*nacio concurrin* in the denial.
7n 01 Ful- 2$$<( 7'buds'an /i'eon A. Marcelo( who succeeded
7'buds'an 2esierto when he retired( approved Foselito .errerIs
'e'orandu' reco''endin* the denial of the 'otion for reconsideration.
Petitioner thus filed the instant petition with pra-er for the issuance of a
te'porar- restrainin* order to en+oin the /andi*anba-an fro' ta"in* further
action in Cri'inal Case No. 20G51.
7n 25 &u*ust 2$$<( the .irst 2ivision of this Court issued the te'porar-
restrainin* order pra-ed for.
7n 2) Ful- 2$$1( the instant petition was transferred to the /econd 2ivision of
this Court.
Issues
Petitioner raises the followin* issues9
#
6?@T?@R 7R N7T R@/P7N2@NT 7..#C@ 7. T?@ 7MBC2/M&N
C7MM#TT@2 ;R&A@ &BC/@ 7. 2#/CR@T#7N 6?@N #T 2#/&PPR7A@2
T?@ @&R,#@R R@C7MM@N2&T#7N .7R T?@ 2#/M#//&, 7. T?@ C&/@
&;&#N/T &,, T?@ &CCC/@2 6#T?7CT &NB C7;@NT 7R A@R#.#&B,@
R@&/7N &M7CNT#N; T7 ,&CO 7. FCR#/2#CT#7N 6?@N T?@B9
0. T?@ 7..#C@ 7. T?@ 7MBC2/M&N &BC/@2 #T/ 2#/CR@T#7N #N
T?@ 2#/&PPR7A&, 7. T?@ R@/7,CT#7N 2&T@2 N7A@MB@R <( 0555 P
&;&#N/T &,, &CCC/@2 .7R ,&CO 7. PR7B&B,@ C&C/@ &/
M&N2&T@2 CN2@R /@CT#7N 0< R.&. G%%$ #N R@,&T#7N T7 /@CT#7N <(
RC,@ 002 7. T?@ RC,@/ 7N CR#M#N&, PR7C@2CR@.
2. T?@ 7..#C@ 7. /P@C#&, PR7C@CCT7R 2#2 N7T 2@T@RM#N@
T?@ @D#/T@NC@ 7. PR7B&B,@ C&C/@ #N & R@/7,CT#7N 2@NB#N;
P@T#T#7N@RI/ M7T#7N .7R R@C7N/#2@R&T#7N .7R &PPR7A&, BB
T?@ N@6 7MBC2/M&N.
##
6?@T?@R 7R N7T T?@ C&/@ .#,@2 &;&#N/T T?@ &CCC/@2 #/ &
C,@&R C&/@ 7. P@R/@CCT#7N &N2 N7T PR7/@CCT#7N
C7NT@MP,&T@2 CN2@R R.&. <$05( &/ &M@N2@2( 7T?@R6#/@ ON76N
&/ T?@ &NT#-;R&.T &N2 C7RRCPT PR&CT#C@/ &CT( R@PCB,#C &CT
N7. 0<%1 &N2 C?&PT@R ##( /@CT#7N 2( T#T,@ A##( B77O ## 7. T?@
R@A#/@2 P@N&, C72@.
###
6?@T?@R 7R N7T T?@ ?7N7R&B,@ 7MBC2/M&N ?&/ FCR#/2#CT#7N
7A@R T?@ C&/@.
Rul%'. /0 t-e C/u$t
Nuite apart fro' the above( we find a focal issue apparentl- *lossed over b-
the parties - whether or not 7'buds'an 2esierto co''itted *rave abuse of
discretion in disapprovin* the $< Nove'ber 0555 'e'orandu' of /pecial
Prosecutor Fesus Micael reco''endin* the dis'issal of Cri'inal Case No.
20G51 a*ainst petitioner Te+ano( and spouses Fuana and Aicente dela Cru of
AM; for violation of /ection <(e! of Rep. &ct No. <$05( where he had earlier
participated in the preli'inar- investi*ation of the said cri'inal case
reco''endin* the filin* of the infor'ation.
This Court has been consistent in holdin* that it will not interfere with the
7'buds'anIs e4ercise of his constitutionall- 'andated investi*ator- and
prosecutor- powers( and respect the initiative and independence inherent in
the 7'buds'an who =beholden to no one( acts as the cha'pion of the people
and the preserver of the inte*rit- of public service.HJ05K /uch discretionar-
power of the 7'buds'an is be-ond the do'ain of this Court to review( save
in cases where there is clear showin* of *rave abuse of discretion a'ountin*
to lac" or e4cess of +urisdiction of the latter.
;rave abuse of discretion is such capricious and whi'sical e4ercise of
+ud*'ent on the part of the public officer concerned which is e8uivalent to an
e4cess or lac" of +urisdiction. The abuse of discretion 'ust be so patent and
*ross as to a'ount to an evasion of positive dut- or a virtual refusal to perfor'
a dut- en+oined b- law( or to act at all in conte'plation of law as where the
power is e4ercised in an arbitrar- and despotic 'anner b- reason of passion
or hostilit-.J0GK
7'buds'an 2esierto( in this case( co''itted *rave abuse of discretion.
Petitioner attributes partialit- on the part of 7'buds'an 2esierto for havin*
participated in the reinvesti*ation of the instant case despite the fact that he
earlier participated in the initial preli'inar- investi*ation of the sa'e when he
was a /pecial Prosecutor b- concurrin* in the reco''endation for the filin* of
the infor'ation before the /andi*anba-an.
6e a*ree with the petitioner. /teadfastl-( we have ruled that the officer who
reviews a case on appeal should not be the sa'e person whose decision is
under review. J0%K #nZambales Chromite Mining Company v. Court of Appeals,
J0)K the decision of the /ecretar- of &*riculture and Natural Resources was
set aside b- this Court after it had been established that the case concerned
an appeal of the /ecretar-Is own previous decision( which he handed down
while he was -et the incu'bent 2irector of Mines. 6e have e8uall- declared
void a decision rendered b- the /econd 2ivision of the National ,abor
Relations Co''ission( because one of its 'e'bers( Co''issioner Raul
&8uino( participated in the review of the case which he had earlier decided on
as a for'er labor arbiter.J05K ,i"ewise( this Court struc" down a decision of
Presidential @4ecutive &ssistance Facobo Clave over a resolution of the Civil
/ervice Co''ission( in which he( then concurrentl- its Chair'an( had earlier
concurred.J2$K
?avin* participated in the initial preli'inar- investi*ation of the instant case
and havin* reco''ended the filin* of an appropriate infor'ation( it behooved
7'buds'an 2esierto to recuse hi'self fro' participatin* in the review of the
sa'e durin* the reinvesti*ation. ?e should have dele*ated the review to his
2eputies pursuant to /ection 05 of Rep. &ct No. G%%$( which provides9
/ec. 05. Powers( .unctions and 2uties. P The 7ffice of the 7'buds'an shall
have the followin* powers( functions and duties9
. . .
(0$! 2ele*ate to the 2eputies( or its investi*ators or representatives such
authorit- or dut- as shall ensure the effective e4ercise or perfor'ance of the
powers( functions and duties herein or hereinafter provided: . . .
#n earlier reco''endin* the filin* of infor'ation( then /pecial Prosecutor
2esierto was alread- convinced( fro' that 'o'ent( that probable cause e4ists
to indict the accused. #t beco'es a farfetched possibilit- that in a subse8uent
review of the sa'e( 7'buds'an 2esierto would 'a"e a turnabout and ta"e a
position contradictor- to his earlier findin*.
2ue process dictates that one called upon to resolve a dispute 'a- not review
his decision on appeal.J20K 6e ta"e our bearin*s fro' Zambales Chromite
Mining Co. v. Court of AppealsJ22K which succinctl- e4plained that9
#n order that the review of the decision of a subordinate officer 'i*ht not turn
out to be farce( the reviewin* officer 'ust perforce be other than the officer
whose decision is under review: otherwise( there could be no different view or
there would be no real review of the case. The decision of the reviewin*
officer would be a biased view: inevitabl-( it would be the sa'e view since
bein* hu'an( he would not ad'it that he was 'ista"en in his first view of the
case.
Cojuangco, Jr. v. Presidential Commission on ood overnmentJ2<K concedes
the applicabilit- of the prohibition on the reviewin* officer to handle a case he
earlier decided( thus9
6here the circu'stances do not inspire confidence in the ob+ectivit- and
i'partialit- of the +ud*e( such +ud*e should inhibit voluntaril- or if he refuses(
he should be prohibited fro' handlin* the case. & +ud*e 'ust not onl- be
i'partial but 'ust also appear i'partial as an assurance to the parties that his
decision will be +ust. ?is actuation 'ust inspire that belief. This is an instance
when appearance is as i'portant as realit-.
The sa'e rule of thu'b should appl- to an investi*atin* officer conductin* a
preli'inar- investi*ation. This is the reason wh- under /ection 0G%5 of the
for'er Revised &d'inistrative Code( the /ecretar- of Fustice( who has
supervision over the prosecution ar' of the *overn'ent( is *iven a'ple power
to desi*nate another prosecutor to handle the investi*ation and prosecution of
a case when the prosecutor handlin* the sa'e is otherwise dis8ualified b-
personal interest( or is unable or fails to perfor' his dut-. (Cnderlinin*
supplied!
The fact that the 'otion for reconsideration of 7'buds'an 2esiertoIs
disapproval of the $< Nove'ber 0555 'e'orandu' of /pecial Prosecutor
Fesus Micael reco''endin* the dis'issal of Cri'inal Case No. 20G51 was
denied b- another reviewin* officer( 7'buds'an Marcelo( does not cure the
infir'it- of 7'buds'an 2esiertoIs actuation. &s stressed in !ingson v.
"#$C%J21K
. . . The infir'it- of the resolution was not cured b- the fact that the 'otion for
reconsideration of the petitioner was denied b- two co''issioners and without
the participation of Co''issioner &8uino. The ri*ht of petitioner to an
i'partial review of his appeal starts fro' the ti'e he filed his appeal. ?e is not
onl- entitled to an i'partial tribunal in the resolution of his 'otion for
reconsideration. Moreover( his ri*ht is to an i'partial review of three
co''issioners. The denial of petitionerIs ri*ht to an i'partial review of his
appeal is not an innocuous error. #t ne*ated his ri*ht to due process.
(Cnderlinin* supplied!
6ith the fore*oin* conclusion( we dee' it unnecessar- to discuss the other
issues raised b- petitioner.
)HEREFORE( the 7'buds'anIs disapproval of the 'e'orandu' dated $<
Nove'ber 0555( where Prosecutor Fesus &. Micael of the 7ffice of the /pecial
Prosecutor reco''ended the dis'issal of Cri'inal Case No. 20G51( as well
as the 'e'orandu' dated $5 Fune 2$$<( which denied petitionerIs 'otion for
reconsideration( are /@T &/#2@. The case is re'anded to the 7ffice of the
7'buds'an for further proceedin*s. No costs.
SO ORDERED(
Puno, &Chairman', Austria(Martine), Callejo, !r., and *inga, JJ., concur.
I"#a$t%al T$%&u'al P$e1ud%c%al Pu&l%c%t2
Est$ada *s Des%e$t/

FACTS
#n the Ma- 00( 055) elections( petitioner Foseph @strada was elected
President while respondent ;loria Macapa*al-&rro-o was elected Aice-
President. .ro' the be*innin* of his ter'( however( petitioner was pla*ued b-
proble's that slowl- eroded his popularit-. 7n 7ctober 1( 2$$$( #locos /ur
;overnor Chavit /in*son( a lon*ti'e friend of the petitioner( accused the
petitioner( his fa'il- and friends of receivin* 'illions of pesos fro' +ueten*
lords. The e4poseI i''ediatel- i*nited reactions of ra*e. 7n Nove'ber 0<(
2$$$( ?ouse /pea"er Aillar trans'itted the &rticles of #'peach'ent si*ned b-
005 representatives or 'ore than 0L< of all the 'e'bers of the ?ouse of
Representatives to the /enate. 7n Nove'ber 2$( 2$$$( the /enate for'all-
opened the i'peach'ent trial of the petitioner. 7n Fanuar- 0G( 2$$0( b- a vote
of 00-0$( the senator-+ud*es ruled a*ainst the openin* of the second envelope
which alle*edl- contained evidence showin* that petitioner held P<.< billion in
a secret ban" account under the na'e =Fose Aelarde.H The rulin* was 'et b-
a spontaneous outburst of an*er that hit the streets of the 'etropolis.
Thereafter( the &r'ed .orces and the PNP withdrew their support to the
@strada *overn'ent. /o'e Cabinet secretaries( undersecretaries( assistant
secretaries and bureau chiefs resi*ned fro' their posts.
7n Fanuar- 2$( 2$$0( at about 02 noon( Chief Fustice 2avide ad'inistered the
oath to respondent &rro-o as President of the Philippines. 7n the sa'e da-(
petitioner issued a press state'ent that he was leavin* Malacanan* Palace for
the sa"e of peace and in order to be*in the healin* process of the nation. #t
also appeared that on the sa'e da-( he si*ned a letter statin* that he was
trans'ittin* a declaration that he was unable to e4ercise the powers and
duties of his office and that b- operation of law and the Constitution( the Aice-
President shall be the &ctin* President. & cop- of the letter was sent to
/pea"er .uentebella and /enate President Pi'entel on the sa'e da-.
&fter his fall fro' the power( the petitionerIs le*al proble's appeared in
clusters. /everal cases previousl- filed a*ainst hi' in the 7ffice of the
7'buds'an were set in 'otion. Petitioner sou*ht to en+oin the respondent
7'buds'an fro' conductin* an- further proceedin*s in an- cri'inal
co'plaint that 'a- be filed in his office( until after the ter' of petitioner as
President is over and onl- if le*all- warranted. @rap also filed a Nuo 6arranto
case( pra-in* for +ud*'ent =confir'in* petitioner to be the lawful and
incu'bent President of the Republic of the Philippines te'poraril- unable to
dischar*e the duties of his office( and declarin* respondent to have ta"en her
oath as and to be holdin* the 7ffice of the President( onl- in an actin* capacit-
pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution.H
ISSUES
6hether or not the petitioner resi*ned as President
6hether or not the petitioner is onl- te'poraril- unable to act as
President
6hether or not the petitioner was not denied the ri*ht to i'partial trial.
HELD
0. Csin* the totalit- test( t-e SC -eld t-at #et%t%/'e$ $es%.'ed as P$es%de't(
The proposal for a snap election for president in Ma- where he would not
be a candidate is an indiciu' that petitioner had intended to *ive up
the presidenc- even at that ti'e.
The &n*ara diar- shows that the President wanted onl-
five-da- period pro'ised b- Re-es( as well as to open the
second envelop to clear his na'e.
=+f the envelope is opened, on Monday, he says, he will leave by Monday.
=*he President says. ,Pagod na pagod na a-o. Ayo-o na masyado nang
masa-it. Pagod na a-o sa red tape, bureaucracy, intriga. &+ am very tired. +
don.t want any more of this / it.s too painful. +.m tired of the red tape, the
bureaucracy, the intrigue.'
=+ just want to clear my name, then + will go.0
*he !C held that this is high grade evidence that the petitioner has resigned.
*he intent to resign is clear when he said ,1 1 1 Ayo-o na masyado nang
masa-it.0 , Ayo-o na0 are words of resignation.
2urin* the ne*otiations( the resi*nation of the petitioner was treated as a
*iven fact. The onl- unsettled points at that ti'e were the 'easures
to be underta"en b- the parties durin* and after transition period.
?is resi*nation was also confir'ed b- his leavin* MalacaRan*. #n the
press release containin* his final state'ent( (0! he ac"nowled*ed the
oath-ta"in* of the respondent as President of the Republic albeit with
the reservation about its le*alit-: (2! he e'phasied he was leavin* the
Palace( the seat of the presidenc-( for the sa"e of peace and in order
to be*in the healin* process of our nation. ?e did not sa- he was leavin*
the Palace due to an- "ind of inabilit- and he was *oin* to re-assu'e the
presidenc- as soon as the disabilit- disappears: (<! he e4pressed his
*ratitude to the people for the opportunit- to serve the'. 6ithout doubt( he
was referrin* to the past opportunit- *iven hi' to serve the people as
President: (1! he assured that he will not shir" fro' an- future challen*e
that 'a- co'e ahead in the sa'e service of our countr-. PetitionerIs
reference is to a future challen*e after occup-in* the office ofI the
president which he has *iven up: and (5! he called on his supporters to +oin
hi' in the pro'otion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and
solidarit-. Certainl-( the national spirit of reconciliation and solidarit- could not
be attained if he did not *ive up the presidenc-. The press release was
petitionerIs valedictor-( his final act of farewell. ?is presidenc- is now in
the past tense.
2.The petitioner is #e$"a'e'tl2 u'a&le t/ act as P$es%de't. /ection 00 of
&rticle A## provides that =Con*ress has the ulti'ate authorit- under the
Constitution to deter'ine whether the President is incapable of perfor'in* his
functions.H Both houses of Con*ress have reco*nied respondent &rro-o as
the President. #'plicitl- clear in that reco*nition is the pre'ise that the inabilit-
of petitioner @strada is no lon*er te'porar-. Con*ress has clearl- re+ected
petitionerIs clai' of inabilit-. @ven if petitioner can prove that he did not resi*n(
still( he cannot successfull- clai' that he is a President on leave on the *round
that he is 'erel- unable to *overn te'poraril-. That clai' has been laid to rest
b- Con*ress and the decision that respondent &rro-o is the de +ure President
'ade b- a co-e8ual branch of *overn'ent cannot be reviewed b- the
/upre'e Court
<. Petitioner was '/t de'%ed t-e $%.-t t/ %"#a$t%al t$%al.Pervasive publicit- is
not per se pre+udicial to the ri*ht of an accused to fair trial. The 'ere fact that
the trial of appellant was *iven a da--to-da-( *avel-to-*avel covera*e does not
b- itself prove that the publicit- so per'eated the 'ind of the trial +ud*e and
i'paired his i'partialit-. #n the case at bar( the records do not show that the
trial +ud*e developed actual bias a*ainst appellant as a conse8uence of the
e4tensive 'edia covera*e of the pre-trial and trial of his case. The totalit- of
circu'stances of the case does not prove that the trial +ud*e ac8uired a fi4ed
opinion as a result of pre+udicial publicit- which is incapable if chan*e even b-
evidence presented durin* the trial. &ppellant has the burden to prove this
actual bias and he has not dischar*ed the burden.
$e #et%t%/' 0/$ $ad%/ a'd tele*%s%/' c/*e$a.e /0 t-e "ult%#le "u$de$ cases
a.a%'st Ma.u%'da'a/ !/*e$'/$ 3ald2 A"#atua'
7n the possible influence of 'edia covera*e on the i'partialit- oftrial court
+ud*es( the Court found that pre+udicial publicit- insofar as it under'ines the
ri*ht to a fair trial 'ust pass the =totalit- of circu'stancesH test( applied in
People v. Teehan"ee( Fr. and @strada v. 2esierto( that the ri*ht of an accused
to a fair trial is not inco'patible to a free press( that pervasive publicit- is not
per se pre+udicial to the ri*ht of an accused to a fair trial( and that there 'ust
be alle*ation and proof of the i'paired capacit- of a +ud*e to render a bias-
free decision. Mere fear of possible undue influence is not tanta'ount to actual
pre+udice resultin* in the deprivation of the ri*ht to a fair trial.
Re9 Petition for Radio and Television Covera*e of the Multiple Murder Cases
&*ainstMa*uindanao ;overnor Sald- &'patuan.acts9&l'ost a -ear after the
Ma*uindanao Massacre( the National Cnion of Fournalists of the Philippines(
broadcastin* networ"s( and the relatives of the victi's( filed apetition before
the Court( pra-in* that live television and radio covera*e of the trial inthe
cri'inal cases be allowed( and that recordin* devices (e.*.( still ca'eras(
taperecorders! be per'itted inside the courtroo'.Petitioners see" the liftin* of
the absolute ban on live television and radio covera*e of court proceedin*s(
contendin* that previous rulin*s re*ardin* such 'atter( violatethe doctrine that
proposed restrictions on constitutional ri*hts are to be narrowl-construed and
outri*ht prohibition cannot stand when re*ulation is a
viablealternative.#ssue967N liftin* the absolute ban on live broadcastin* of
court proceedin*s in the casewould infrin*e constitutional
ri*hts?eld9Respectin* the possible influence of 'edia covera*e on the
i'partialit- of trial court +ud*es( the ri*ht of an accused to a fair trial is not
inco'patible to a free press.Pervasive publicit- is not per se pre+udicial to the
ri*ht of an accused to a fair trial(and that there 'ust be alle*ation and proof of
the i'paired capacit- of a +ud*e torender a bias-free decision. Mere fear of
possible undue influence is not tanta'ountto actual pre+udice resultin* in the
deprivation of the ri*ht to a fair trial. ?ence( thecourt allowed pro hac vice the
live broadcastin*
O##/$tu'%t2 t/ &e Hea$d
Bud%/'.a' *s Dela C$u4 5DI!EST,,,6
YNARES+SANTIA!O J.9


This Petition for Certiorari under Rule G5 of the Rules of Court assails
the Me'orandu'J0K dated &pril 2)( 2$$1 of the 7ffice of the /pecial
Prosecutor( 7ffice of the 7'buds'an( reco''endin* that petitioners be
char*ed with violation of /ection <(e! of Republic &ct (R.&.! No. <$05 and
petitioner Pedro @. Budion*an with violation of /ection <(h! of R.&. No. <$05.
&lso assailed is the ResolutionJ2K dated 7ctober 05( 2$$5 den-in* petitionersI
'otion for reconsideration.

The antecedent facts are as follows9

B- virtue of Municipal 7rdinance No. 2( series of 2$$0( the Municipalit-
of Car'en( Bohol appropriated the a'ount of P15$($$$.$$ for the purchase of
a road roller for the 'unicipalit-. ?owever( on Nove'ber 0G( 2$$0( the
Municipal 2evelop'ent Council throu*h Resolution No. < reco''ended that
the a'ount of P15$($$$.$$ be reali*ned and used for the asphalt la-in* of a
portion of the Tan Modesto Bernalde /treet.J<K The proposed reali*n'ent
was included in the 2ece'ber 20( 2$$0 a*enda of the /an**unian* Ba-an of
Car'en but discussion thereon was deferred.

7n .ebruar- G( 2$$2( petitioner Municipal Treasurer( .ul*encio A. PaRa(
issued a Certificate of &vailabilit- of .unds for the pro+ect. Thereafter( the
7ffice of the Municipal @n*ineer prepared a Pro*ra' of 6or"s and Cost
@sti'ates dul- notedLapproved b- Municipal Bud*et 7fficer Taciana B. @spe+o
and Ma-or Budion*an.

Biddin* was conducted on March 5( 2$$2. The ne4t da-( March G(
2$$2( Ma-or Budion*an issued the Notice of &ward and Notice to Co''ence
6or" in favor of ?erbert Mal'is ;eneral Merchandise and Contractor( #nc.
who e'er*ed as the lowest co'pl-in* bidder. 7n March 22( 2$$2( the
/an**unian* Ba-an passed Resolution No. G$(J1K series of 2$$2( authoriin*
Ma-or Budion*an to si*n and enter into contract with Mal'is relative to the
above pro+ect in the a'ount of P<<5()$).$$. 6ith such authorit-( Mal'is
co''enced with the pro+ect.

Thereafter( it was discovered that there was -et no ordinance approvin* the
reali*n'ent of the funds. Thus( on Ma- 0%( 2$$2( the /an**unian* Ba-an
passed 7rdinance No. )(J5K series of 2$$2( approvin* the reali*n'ent of the
fund. 7n Fune 01( 2$$2( Mal'is was paid the contract price.

7n Ful- <( 2$$2( private respondents &rlene P. Pal*an and Aaleriano C.
Nadala filed a co'plaintJGK a*ainst the petitioners before the 7ffice of the
2eput- 7'buds'an for Aisa-as alle*in* ille*alit- in the conduct of the
biddin*( award and notice to co''ence wor" since there was no fund
appropriated for the purpose.

7n Ful- <0( 2$$<( the 7ffice of the 2eput- 7'buds'an for Aisa-as
found probable cause and reco''ended the filin* of an infor'ation for
violation of &rticle 22$J%K of the Revised Penal Code a*ainst the petitioners.
?owever( the co'plaint a*ainst ?er'osila ,o*rono( 2esiderio ;udia( Fr. and
?erbert Mal'is was dis'issed for lac" of 'erit.J)K

Cpon review( the Case &ssess'ent( Review and Reinvesti*ation
Bureau of the 7ffice of the /pecial Prosecutor( issued the assailed
Me'orandu' dated &pril 2)( 2$$1( 'odif-in* the char*e fro' violation of
&rticle 22$ of the Revised Penal Code to (0! violation of /ection <(e! of R.&.
No. <$05 a*ainst petitioners for alle*edl- *ivin* unwarranted benefit to Mal'is
and (2! violation of /ection <(h! of R.&. No. <$05 a*ainst petitioner Budion*an
for alle*edl- =directl- or indirectl- havin* financial or pecuniar- interest in a
contract or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or ta"es part in
his official capacit-.H

Thus( two separate #nfor'ations were filed before the /andi*anba-an
(0! for violation of /ection <(e! of R.&. No. <$05 a*ainst the petitioners
doc"eted as Cri'inal Case No. 2)$%5 and (2! for violation of /ection <(h! of
R.&. No. <$05 a*ainst petitioner Budion*an doc"eted as Cri'inal Case No.
2)$%G.

Thereafter( petitioners filed a Motion to NuashJ5K the infor'ation char*in*
the' with violation of /ec. <(e! of R.&. No. <$05. #n a ResolutionJ0$K dated
Fune 0$( 2$$5( the /andi*anba-an *ranted the 'otion to 8uash and
re'anded Cri'inal Case No. 2)$%5 to the 7ffice of the 7'buds'an for
a'end'ent of the #nfor'ation. #t held that althou*h Mal'is benefited fro' the
contract( the sa'e is not unwarranted considerin* that the pro+ect was
i'ple'ented( e4ecuted and co'pleted.

7n Fune 2%( 2$$5( an &'ended #nfor'ationJ00K was filed char*in* petitioners
with violation of /ec. <(e! of R.&. No. <$05( alle*in* that petitioners( b-
pre'aturel- awardin* to Mal'is the pro+ect despite the absence of funds
specificall- appropriated for such purpose( and thereafter pa-in* the contract
price fro' the Municipal Treasur- which was ori*inall- appropriated for the
purchase of a road roller( caused da'a*e and undue in+ur- to the *overn'ent.

.indin* that the &'ended #nfor'ation contains all the 'aterial aver'ents
necessar- to 'a"e out a case for the first 'ode of violatin* /ection <(e! of
R.&. No. <$05( i.e.( causin* an- undue in+ur- to an- part-( includin* the
*overn'ent( the /andi*anba-an ad'itted the &'ended #nfor'ation in its
Resolution dated &u*ust 0)( 2$$5.J02K

7n even date( petitioners filed with the /andi*anba-an a Motion for
,eave of Court to .ile Motion for Reinvesti*ationJ0<K ar*uin* that the above
#nfor'ations were filed without affordin* the' the opportunit- to file counter-
affidavits to answerLrebut the 'odified char*es. 7n /epte'ber 2$( 2$$5( the
/andi*anba-an issued a ResolutionJ01K den-in* the 'otion insofar as Cri'inal
Case No. 2)$%G is concerned. #t held that it is too late in the da- to re'and
the case for reinvesti*ation considerin* that Budion*an had alread- been
arrai*ned and the case had lon* been set for pre-trial proceedin*s( with both
parties havin* filed their respective briefs. &s re*ards Cri'inal Case No.
2)$%5( the /andi*anba-an noted that althou*h the conduct of the preli'inar-
investi*ation was re*ular( petitioners however were not *iven the opportunit-
to see" reconsideration of the 'odified char*es. Thus( it *ranted leave to the
petitioners to file with the 7ffice of the /pecial Prosecutor a 'otion for
reconsideration (not a 'otion for reinvesti*ation! of the said officeIs
Me'orandu' dated &pril 2)( 2$$1.

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the 7ffice of the
/pecial Prosecutor which was denied for lac" of 'erit in the Resolution dated
7ctober 05( 2$$5.

?ence( this petition raisin* the followin* issues9

#. 6?@T?@R PCB,#C R@/P7N2@NT/ &CT@2 6#T? ;R&A@ &BC/@
7. 2#/CR@T#7N &M7CNT#N; T7 ,&CO 7R #N @DC@// 7.
FCR#/2#CT#7N #N R@F@CT#N; T?@ .#N2#N;/ &N2
&M@N2#N;LM72#.B#N; T?@ R@/7,CT#7N 7. T?@ ;R&.T
#NA@/T#;&T#N; 7..#C@R( 7MBC2/M&N A#/&B&/( &N2 #N .#,#N; T?@
#N.7RM&T#7N .7R A#7,&T#7N 7. /@C. <(e! 7. R& <$05 6#T?7CT
&..7R2#N; P@T#T#7N@R/ T?@ 7PP7RTCN#TB T7 PR@/@NT T?@#R
C7CNT@R @A#2@NC@ #N & R@-#NA@/T#;&T#7N:

##. 6?@T?@R T?@ R@.C/&, 7R .&#,CR@ T7 C7N2CCT & R@-
#NA@/T#;&T#7N ?&/ A#7,&T@2 P@T#T#7N@R/3 R#;?T T7 2C@
PR7C@//:

###. 6?@T?@R PCB,#C R@/P7N2@NT/ &CT@2 6#T? ;R&A@ &BC/@
7. 2#/CR@T#7N &M7CNT#N; T7 ,&CO 7R #N @DC@// 7.
FCR#/2#CT#7N #N #//C#N; R@/7,CT#7N/ 2&T@2 &PR#, 2)( 2$$1 &N2
7CT7B@R 05( 2$$5 .#N2#N; PR7B&B,@ C&C/@ .7R A#7,&T#7N 7.
/@C. <(e! 7. R& <$05 &;&#N/T ?@R@#N P@T#T#7N@R/: and

#A. 6?@T?@R PCB,#C R@/P7N2@NT/ &CT@2 6#T? ;R&A@ &BC/@
7. 2#/CR@T#7N &M7CNT#N; T7 ,&CO 7R #N @DC@// 7.
FCR#/2#CT#7N #N .#,#N; T?@ #N.7RM&T#7N .7R A#7,&T#7N 7.
/@C.<(e! 7. R& <$05 &;&#N/T P@T#T#7N@R/ #N T?@ /&N2#;&NB&B&N
27CO@T@2 &/ CR#M#N&, C&/@ N7. 2)$%5.

Petitioners 'aintain that the 'odification of the char*e fro' violation
of &rticle 22$ of the Revised Penal Code to violation of /ections <(e! and <(h!
of R.&. No. <$05 denied their ri*hts to due process since the- were not *iven
the opportunit- to answer and present evidence on the new char*e in a
preli'inar- investi*ation. .urther'ore( the petitioners ar*ue that public
respondents co''itted *rave abuse of discretion a'ountin* to lac" or e4cess
of +urisdiction in issuin* the challen*ed resolutions findin* probable cause for
violation of R.&. No. <$05.

The petition lac"s 'erit.

The ri*ht to a preli'inar- investi*ation is not a constitutional ri*ht( but is
'erel- a ri*ht conferred b- statute. The absence of a preli'inar-
investi*ation does not i'pair the validit- of the #nfor'ation or otherwise render
the sa'e defective. #t does not affect the +urisdiction of the court over the
case or constitute a *round for 8uashin* the #nfor'ation.J05K #f absence of a
preli'inar- investi*ation does not render the #nfor'ation invalid nor affect the
+urisdiction of the court over the case( then the denial of a 'otion for
reinvesti*ation cannot li"ewise invalidate the #nfor'ation or oust the court of
its +urisdiction over the case.

Petitioners were not deprived of due process because the- were
afforded the opportunit- to refute the char*es b- filin* their counter-affidavits.
The 'odification of the offense char*ed did not co'e as a surprise to the
petitioners because it was based on the sa'e set of facts and the sa'e
alle*ed ille*al acts. Moreover( petitioners failed to aver newl- discovered
evidence nor i'pute co''ission of *rave errors or serious irre*ularities
pre+udicial to their interest to warrant a reconsideration or reinvesti*ation of
the case as re8uired under /ection )( Rule ### of the Rules of Procedure of the
7ffice of the 7'buds'an.J0GK Thus( the 'odification of the offense char*ed(
even without affordin* the petitioners a new preli'inar- investi*ation( did not
a'ount to a violation of their ri*hts.

.urther'ore( the ri*ht to preli'inar- investi*ation is dee'ed waived
when the accused fails to invo"e it before or at the ti'e of enterin* a plea at
arrai*n'ent.J0%K Petitioner Budion*an was arrai*ned in Cri'inal Case No.
2)$%G on March 2)( 2$$5. ?e was also arrai*ned to*ether with the rest of the
petitioners under the &'ended #nfor'ation in Cri'inal Case No. 2)$%5 on
2ece'ber 2( 2$$5.

The purpose of a preli'inar- investi*ation is 'erel- to deter'ine
whether a cri'e has been co''itted and whether there is probable cause to
believe that the person accused of the cri'e is probabl- *uilt- thereof and
should be held for trial.J0)K & findin* of probable cause needs onl- to rest on
evidence showin* that 'ore li"el- than not a cri'e has been co''itted and
was co''itted b- the suspect. Probable cause need not be based on clear
and convincin* evidence of *uilt( neither on evidence establishin* *uilt be-ond
reasonable doubt and definitel-( not on evidence establishin* absolute
certaint- of *uilt.H J05K

The 7ffice of the /pecial Prosecutor is an inte*ral co'ponent of the
7'buds'an and is under the latterIs supervision and control. Thus( whatever
course of action that the 7'buds'an 'a- ta"e( whether to approve or to
disapprove the reco''endation of the investi*atin* prosecutor( is but an
e4ercise of his discretionar- powers based upon constitutional 'andate.
;enerall-( courts should not interfere in such e4ercise. #t is be-ond the a'bit
of this Court to review the e4ercise of discretion of the 7'buds'an in
prosecutin* or dis'issin* a co'plaint filed before it( save in cases where
there is clear showin* of *rave abuse of discretion a'ountin* to lac" or
e4cess of +urisdiction on the part of the 7'buds'an.J2$K &bsent an- showin*
of arbitrariness on the part of the prosecutor or an- other officer authoried to
conduct preli'inar- investi*ation( as in the instant case( courts as a rule 'ust
defer to said officerIs findin* and deter'ination of probable cause( since the
deter'ination of the e4istence of probable cause is the function of the
prosecutor.J20K

#n fine( certiorari will not lie to invalidate the 7ffice of the /pecial
Prosecutor3s resolution den-in* petitionersI 'otion for reconsideration since
there is nothin* to substantiate petitionersI clai' that it *ravel- abused its
discretion in rulin* that there was no need to conduct a reinvesti*ation of the
case.J22K

)HEREFORE( in view of the fore*oin*( the instant petition is
DISMISSED. The assailed Me'orandu' of the 7ffice of the /pecial
Prosecutor( 7ffice of the 7'buds'an( dated &pril 2)( 2$$1 findin* probable
cause that petitioners violated /ections <(e! and <(h! of Republic &ct No.
<$05 and the Resolution dated 7ctober 05( 2$$5 den-in* petitionersI Motion
for Reconsideration( are hereb- AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED(
I'0/$"at%/' a'd A$$a%.'"e't
su""a$2 d%s"%ssal &/a$d *s( t/$c%ta
Read 0ull te7t,
.&CT/9 Respondent was char*ed with 02 ad'inistrative co'plaints which
were consolidated into one 'a+or co'plaint( which is( conduct unbeco'in* of
a police officer. The /u''ar- 2is'issal Board suspended respondent fro'
service for 2$ da-s( for =si'ple irre*ularit- in the perfor'ance of serviceH. The
Board later found respondent to have co''itted a breach of internal discipline
b- ta"in* alcoholic drin"s while on dut-.
?@,29 Respondent was entitled to "now that he was bein* char*ed with
bein* drun" while in the perfor'ance of dut-. &lthou*h he was *iven the
opportunit- to be heard on the 'ultiple and broad char*es filed a*ainst hi'(
the absence of specification of the offense for which he was eventuall- found
*uilt- is not a proper observance of due process.
Sa'%t2
Pe/#le *s est$ada
Nature9 &uto'atic review of the death penalt-
.acts9 2ece'ber 2%( 0551( at the /t. FohnIs Cathedral( 2a*upan Cit-( while
the sacra'ent of confir'ation was bein* perfor'ed b- the Bishop( a 'an fro'
the crowd wal"ed towards the center of the altar and sat on the BishopIs chair.
Crisanto /antillan( who was an assistant saw this. ?e re8uested the accused
to vacate( but the latter refused. The- called on the *uard. 2espite repeated
re8uest( he did not 'ove. &s the *uard was atte'ptin* to stri"e the victi' with
his ni*htstic" to 'a"e hi' leave accused-appellant drew a "nife and stabbed
Mararac. ?e repeated it a lot. &fter( he *ot up and shouted via the 'ic: No one
can beat 'e hereE /P70 .rancisco saw a 'an( with red stains on his shirt and
a "nife in one hand sittin* on a chair. ?e advised hi' to drop the "nife.
&ccused-appellant obe-ed( Mararac( the securit- *uard( was brou*ht to the
hospital where he e4pired a few 'inutes upon arrival.
&ccused-appellant( filed a =2e'urrer to @videnceH where he clai's that9
prosecution failed to prove 'urder: that there was unlawful a**ression b- the
victi': and that accused-appellant was of unsound 'ind. #nspector Aalde
(Fail warden! re8uested the court to allow accused-appellant( to be treated at
the Ba*uio ;eneral ?ospital to deter'ine whether he should re'ain in +ail or
be transferred to so'e other institution. 6hile 'otion for reconsideration was
pendin*( counsel for accused-appellant filed a =Motion to Confine &ccused for
Ph-sical( Mental and Ps-chiatric @4a'ination.H &ppellantIs counsel infor'ed
the court that accused-appellant had been e4hibitin* abnor'al behavior for the
past wee"s. There were 2 letters of the warden re8uestin* the sa'e. The trial
court denied reconsideration of the order den-in* the =2e'urrer to @vidence.H
2r. Maria /oledad ;awidan( a resident ph-sician in the 2epart'ent of
Ps-chiatr- at the Ba*uio ;eneral ?ospital( testified to the accused bein*
confined and dia*nosed with =/chiophrenic Ps-chosis( Paranoid T-peT
schiophrenia( paranoid( chronic( paranoid t-pe.H
The trial court rendered a decision on Fune 2<( 055%. #t upheld the prosecution
evidence and found accused-appellant *uilt- of the cri'e char*ed and thereb-
sentenced hi' to death(
#ssue9 67N he was indeed insane
?eld9 6hen a person co''its a felonious act the act is presu'ed to have
been done voluntaril-. #n the absence of evidence to the contrar-( the law
presu'es that ever- person is of sound 'ind and that all acts are voluntar-.
&n insane person is e4e'pt fro' cri'inal liabilit- unless he has acted durin* a
lucid interval. #n the e-es of the law( insanit- e4ists when there is a co'plete
deprivation of intelli*ence in co''ittin* the act. Mere abnor'alit- of the
'ental faculties will not e4clude i'putabilit-. /ince the presu'ption is alwa-s
in favor of sanit-( he who invo"es insanit- as an e4e'ptin* circu'stance 'ust
prove it b- clear and positive evidence. There are certain circu'stances that
should have placed the trial court on notice that appellant 'a- not have been
in full possession of his 'ental faculties e.*. when he attac"ed Mararac( then
went up the 'icrophone. &ccused-appellantIs histor- of 'ental illness was
brou*ht to the courts.
To test whether the accused would have a fair trial there are two distinct
'atters to be deter'ined (0! whether defendant is coherent to provide his
counsel with infor'ation necessar- (2! whether he is able to co'prehend the
si*nificance of the trial and his relation to it. To put a le*all- inco'petent
person on trial or to convict and sentence hi' is a violation of the constitutional
ri*hts to a fair trial. The deter'ination of whether a sanit- investi*ation or
hearin* should be ordered rests *enerall- in the discretion of the trial court. #n
the case at bar( when accused-appellant 'oved for suspension of the
arrai*n'ent on the *round of accusedIs 'ental condition( the trial court denied
the 'otion after findin* that the 8uestions propounded on appellant were
intelli*entl- answered b- hi'. The fact that accused-appellant was able to
answer the 8uestions as"ed b- the trial court is not conclusive evidence that
he was co'petent enou*h to stand trial and assist in his defense. The trial
court too" it solel- upon itself to deter'ine the sanit- of accused-appellant.
The trial +ud*e is not a ps-chiatrist or ps-cholo*ist or so'e other e4pert
e8uipped with the specialied "nowled*e. #f the 'edical histor- was not
enou*h to create a reasonable doubt in the +ud*eIs 'ind of accused-
appellantIs co'petenc- to stand trial( subse8uent events should have done so.
7ne 'onth after the prosecution rested its case( there were letters re8uestin*
that accused be confined in hospital( as well as the counselIs filin* of 'otion.
&nd despite all the overwhel'in* indications of accused-appellantIs state of
'ind( the +ud*e persisted in his personal assess'ent and never even
considered sub+ectin* accused-appellant to a 'edical e4a'ination. To top it
all( the +ud*e found appellant *uilt- and sentenced hi' to deathE
Fud*'ent9 &t this late hour( a 'edical findin* alone 'a- 'a"e it i'possible for
us to evaluate appellantIs 'ental condition at the ti'e of the cri'eIs
co''ission for hi' to avail of the e4e'ptin* circu'stance of insanit-.
Nonetheless( under the present circu'stances( accused-appellantIs
co'petence to stand trial 'ust be properl- ascertained to enable hi' to
participate in his trial 'eanin*full-. Re'anded to the court a 8uo for the
conduct of a proper 'ental e4a'ination on accused-appellant( a deter'ination
of his co'petenc- to stand trial( and for further proceedin*s.
e7t$ad%t%/'
sec$eta$2 /0 1ust%ce *s la't%/'
Nature9 Petition for review of a decision of the Manila RTC
.acts9 7n Fune 0)( 0555 the 2epart'ent of Fustice received fro' the
2epart'ent of .orei*n &ffairs a re8uest for the e4tradition of private
respondent Mar" Fi'ene to the C./. The ;rand Fur- #ndict'ent( the warrant
for his arrest( and other supportin* docu'ents for said e4tradition were
attached alon* with the re8uest. Char*es include9
0. Conspirac- to co''it offense or to defraud the C/
2. &tte'pt to evade or defeat ta4
<. .raud b- wire( radio( or television
1. .alse state'ent or entries
5. @lection contribution in na'e of another
The 2epart'ent of Fustice (27F!( throu*h a desi*nated panel proceeded with
the technical evaluation and assess'ent of the e4tradition treat- which the-
found havin* 'atters needed to be addressed. Respondent( then re8uested
for copies of all the docu'ents included in the e4tradition re8uest and for hi'
to be *iven a'ple ti'e to assess it.
The /ecretar- of Fustice denied re8uest on the ff. *rounds9
0. ?e found it pre'ature to secure hi' copies prior to the co'pletion of the
evaluation. &t that point in ti'e( the 27F is in the process of evaluatin*
whether the procedures and re8uire'ents under the relevant law (P2 0$G5T
Philippine @4tradition ,aw! and treat- (RP-C/ @4tradition Treat-! have been
co'plied with b- the Re8uestin* ;overn'ent. @valuation b- the 27F of the
docu'ents is not a preli'inar- investi*ation li"e in cri'inal cases 'a"in* the
constitutionall- *uaranteed ri*hts of the accused in cri'inal prosecution
inapplicable.
2. The C./. re8uested for the prevention of unauthoried disclosure of the
infor'ation in the docu'ents.
<. .inall-( countr- is bound to Aienna convention on law of treaties such that
ever- treat- in force is bindin* upon the parties.
The respondent filed for petition of 'anda'us( certiorari( and prohibition. The
RTC of NCR ruled in favor of the respondent. /ecretar- of Fustice was 'ade
to issue a cop- of the re8uested papers( as well as conductin* further
proceedin*s.
#ssues9
0. 67N private is respondent entitled to the two basic due process ri*hts of
notice and hearin*
Bes. U2(a! of P2 0$)G defines e4tradition as =the re'oval of an accused fro'
the Philippines with the ob+ect of placin* hi' at the disposal of forei*n
authorities to enable the re8uestin* state or *overn'ent to hold hi' in
connection with an- cri'inal investi*ation directed a*ainst hi' in connection
with an- cri'inal investi*ation directed a*ainst hi' or the e4ecution of a
penalt- i'posed on hi' under the penal or cri'inal law of the re8uestin* state
or *overn'ent.H &lthou*h the in8uisitorial power e4ercised b- the 27F as an
ad'inistrative a*enc- due to the failure of the 2.& to co'pl- lac"s an- +udicial
discretion( it pri'aril- sets the wheels for the e4tradition process which 'a-
ulti'atel- result in the deprivation of the libert- of the prospective e4tradite.
This deprivation can be effected at two sta*es9 The provisional arrest of the
prospective e4tradite pendin* the sub'ission of the re8uest M the te'porar-
arrest of the prospective e4tradite durin* the pendenc- of the e4tradition
petition in court. Clearl-( thereIs an i'pendin* threat to a prospective
e4traditeeIs libert- as earl- as durin* the evaluation sta*e. Because of such
conse8uences( the evaluation process is a"in to an ad'inistrative a*enc-
conductin* an investi*ative proceedin*( the conse8uences of which are
essentiall- cri'inal since such technical assess'ent sets off or co''ences
the procedure for M ulti'atel- the deprivation of libert- of a prospective
e4tradite. #n essence( therefore( the evaluation process parta"es of the nature
of a cri'inal investi*ation. There are certain constitutional ri*hts that are
ordinaril- available onl- in cri'inal prosecution. But the Court has ruled in
other cases that where the investi*ation of an ad'inistrative proceedin* 'a-
result in forfeiture of life( libert-( or propert-( the ad'inistrative proceedin*s are
dee'ed cri'inal or penal( M such forfeiture parta"es the nature of a penalt-. #n
the case at bar( si'ilar to a preli'inar- investi*ation( the evaluation sta*e of
the e4tradition proceedin*s which 'a- result in the filin* of an infor'ation
a*ainst the respondent( can possibl- lead to his arrest( M to the deprivation of
his libert-. Thus( the e4traditee 'ust be accorded due process ri*hts of notice
M hearin* accordin* to &< U01(0! M (2!( as well as &< U%Tthe ri*ht of the
people to infor'ation on 'atters of public concern M the corollar- ri*ht to
access to official records M docu'ents
The court held that the evaluation process parta"es of the nature of a cri'inal
investi*ation( havin* conse8uences which will result in deprivation of libert- of
the prospective e4tradite. & favorable action in an e4tradition re8uest e4poses
a person to eventual e4tradition to a forei*n countr-( thus e4hibitin* the penal
aspect of the process. The evaluation process itself is li"e a preli'inar-
investi*ation since both procedures 'a- have the sa'e result P the arrest and
i'prison'ent of the respondent.
The basic ri*hts of notice M hearin* are applicable in cri'inal( civil M
ad'inistrative proceedin*s. Non-observance of these ri*hts will invalidate the
proceedin*s. #ndividuals are entitled to be notified of an- pendin* case
affectin* their interests( M upon notice( 'a- clai' the ri*ht to appear therein M
present their side.
Ri*hts to notice and hearin*9 2ispensable in < cases9
a. 6hen there is an ur*ent need for i''ediate action (preventive suspension
in ad'inistrative char*es( padloc"in* filth- restaurants( cancellation of
passport!.
b. 6here there is tentativeness of ad'inistrative action( M the respondent isnIt
prevented fro' en+o-in* the ri*ht to notice M hearin* at a later ti'e (su''ar-
distraint M lev- of the propert- of a delin8uent ta4pa-er( replace'ent of an
appointee!
c. Twin ri*hts have been offered( but the ri*ht to e4ercise the' had not been
clai'ed.
2. 67N this entitle'ent constitutes a breach of the le*al co''it'ents and
obli*ation of the Philippine ;overn'ent under the RP-C/ Treat-V
No. The C./. and the Philippines share 'utual concern about the suppression
and punish'ent of cri'e in their respective +urisdictions. Both states accord
co''on due process protection to their respective citiens. The ad'inistrative
investi*ation doesnIt fall under the three e4ceptions to the due process of
notice and hearin* in the /ec. < Rules 002 of the Rules of Court.
<. 67N thereIs an- conflict between private respondentIs basic due process
ri*hts M provisions of RP-C/ @4tradition treat-
No. 2octrine of incorporation under international law( as applied in 'ost
countries( decrees that rules of international law are *iven e8ual standin* with(
but are not superior to national le*islative acts. Treat- can repeal statute and
statute can repeal treat-. No conflict. Aeil of secrec- is lifted durin* trial.
Re8uest should i'pose veil at an- sta*e.
Fud*'ent9 Petition dis'issed for lac" of 'erit.
Oapunan( separate concurrin* opinion9 6hile the evaluation process
conducted b- the 27F is not e4actl- a preli'inar- investi*ation of cri'inal
cases( it is a"in to a preli'inar- investi*ation because it involves the basic
constitutional ri*hts of the person sou*ht to be e4tradited. & person ordered
e4tradited is arrested( forcibl- ta"en fro' his house( separated fro' his fa'il-
and delivered to a forei*n state. ?is ri*hts of abode( to privac-( libert- and
pursuit of happiness are ta"en awa- fro' hi'Ta fate as harsh and cruel as a
conviction of a cri'inal offense. .or this reason( he is entitled to have access
to the evidence a*ainst hi' and the ri*ht to controvert the'.
Puno( dissentin*9 Case at bar does not involve *uilt or innocence of an
accused but the interpretation of an e4tradition treat- where at sta"e is our
*overn'entIs international obli*ation to surrender to a forei*n state a citien of
its own so he can be tried for an alle*ed offense co''itted within that
+urisdiction.
Pan*aniban( dissentin*9 #nstant petition refers onl- to the evaluation sta*e.
P$el%"%'a$2 I'1uct%/'
B&#,#N&N; M&R7?7MB/&R A/. FC2;@ /&NT7/ &2#7N;
;.R. No. RTF-$2-0G%1. Fanuar- 22( 2$$1
.acts9 Co'plainant Maroho'bsar was the defendant in the civil case for
in+unction. The case was filed b- Bas'ira Pan*adapun 8uestionin* the le*alit-
of Maroho'bsarIs appoint'ent as Provincial /ocial 6elfare 7fficer of the
2/62-&RMM. Prior to his appoint'ent( Pan*adapun used to occup- said
position.
Cpon the filin* of the said co'plaint( respondent +ud*e issued a TR7 and set
the hearin* on the application for the issuance of the preli'inar- in+unction.
/u''ons( to*ether with a cop- of the co'plaint and a notice( was also served
on both parties. Maroho'bsar filed an e4 parte ur*ent 'otion to dissolve the
TR7. Pan*adapun was *iven the ti'e to co''ent. Respondent +ud*e issued
an order statin* that a preli'inar- conference had been held and that both
parties had waived the raffle of the case and reset the hearin* on the
application for the issuance of a writ of in+unction. The +ud*e *ave another ti'e
to file her co''ent a*ain.
2urin* the hearin* on the application for the issuance of a writ of preli'inar-
in+unction( none of the law-ers appeared. ?ence( respondent +ud*e considered
it sub'itted for resolution and issued the preli'inar- in+unction. ?ence( this
co'plaint for *ross i*norance of law( abuse of discretion and conduct
unbeco'in* a +ud*e.
#ssues9 0! 6hether or not TR7 e4 parte is allowed in the instant case.
2! 6hether or not trial-t-pe hearin* is essential to due process.
<! 6hether or not respondent +ud*e erred in orderin* the issuance of the writ
of preli'inar- in+unction.
?eld9 0! & TR7 is *enerall- *ranted without notice to the opposite part- and is
intended onl- as a restraint on hi' until the propriet- of *rantin* a te'porar-
in+unction can be deter'ined. #t *oes no further than to preserve the status
8uo until that deter'ination. Respondent +ud*e was +ustified in issuin* the
TR7 e4 parte due to his assess'ent of the ur*enc- of the relief sou*ht.
2! #n applications for preli'inar- in+unction( the dual re8uire'ent of prior notice
and hearin* before in+unction 'a- issue has been rela4ed to the point that not
all petitions for preli'inar- in+unction need under*o a trial-t-pe hearin*( it bein*
doctrinal that a for'al or trial-t-pe hearin* is not( at all ti'es and in all
instances( essential to due process. The essence of due process is that a
part- is afforded a reasonable opportunit- to be heard and to present an-
evidence he 'a- have in support of his defense. #t is a rule that a part- cannot
clai' that he has been denied due process when he was *iven the opportunit-
to present his position.
<! &s a 'atter of public polic-( the acts of a +ud*e in his official capacit- are not
sub+ect to disciplinar- action even thou*h such acts are erroneous( provided
he acts in *ood faith and without 'alice. Respondent +ud*e( or an- other
'e'ber of the bench for that 'atter( is presu'ed to have acted re*ularl- and
in the 'anner that preserves the ideal of the cold neutralit- of an i'partial
+ud*e i'plicit in the *uarantee of due process.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDIN!S
DE BISSCHOP VS !ALAN!
W 2e Bisschop was allowed to sta- as a pre-arran*ed e'plo-ee: when he
applied for e4tension of sta- it was denied due to reports that the co'pan- he
is wor"in* for is used as a *a'blin* front and that he has evaded pa-'ent of
ta4es: he re8uested for a cop- of the adverse decision of the Bureau and was
advised that no for'al decision( order or resolution is pro'ul*ated b- the
Board.
W Phil #''i* &ct is silent as to procedure to be followed in 'atters of
petition for e4tension ?@NC@ courts have no +urisdiction to review purel-
ad'in practice of i''i* authorities because of PR&CT#C&B#,#TB M
@DP@2#@NCB( of not *rantin* for'al hearin*s.
W 2ue process clause is not violated since a da- in court is not a 'atter of
ri*ht in ad'in proceedin*s.
W Nothin* in the law that decisions of BoC for e4tension of sta- of aliens
be in writin*.
W =2ecisionH in /ec. ) refers to nu'ber of votes necessar- to constitute
decision of the Board.
W Cse of habeas corpus to test the le*alit- of an alienIs confine'ent M
proposed e4pulsion fro' the Phils will bar the issuance of a writ of prohibition.

C89: De B%ssc-/# *s( !ala'. !R L+9;<=> <9 Ma2 9?=<@ E' Ba'c Re2es
JBL AJB
FACTS:
Petitioner-appellee ;eor*e de Bisschop( an &'erican citien( was allowed to
sta- in this countr- for three -ears( e4pirin* 0 &u*ust 0555( as the prearran*ed
e'plo-ee of the Biss'a* Production( #nc.( of which he is president and
*eneral 'ana*er. ?e applied for e4tension of sta- with the Bureau of
#''i*ration( in a letter dated 0$ Ful- 0555. #n view( however( of confidential
and da'a*in* reports of #''i*ration 7fficer Ben+a'in de Mesa to the effect
that the Biss'a* Production( #nc.( is 'ore of a *a'blin* front than the
enterprise for pro'otion of local and i'ported shows that it purports to be( and
that de Bisschop is suspect of havin* evaded pa-'ent of his inco'e ta4( the
Co''issioner of #''i*ration advised hi' that his application for e4tension of
sta- as a prearran*ed e'plo-ee has been denied b- the Board of
Co''issioners( and that he should depart within 5 da-s.
To forestall his arrest and the filin* of the correspondin* deportation
proceedin*s( de Bisschop filed the present case on 0) /epte'ber 0555.
Pendin* resolution of the 'ain case for prohibition( a writ of preli'inar-
in+unction was issued e1(parte b- the court a 2uo on the sa'e da- orderin*
herein respondent-appellant to desist fro' arrestin* and detainin* petitioner-
appellee unless and until proper and le*al proceedin*s are conducted b- the
Board of Co''issioners of the Bureau of #''i*ration in connection with the
&pplication for e4tension of sta- filed b- petitioner with said Board.
&ppellant Co''issioner raises two 'ain issues9 That the lower court erred (a!
in holdin* that the Co''issioners of #''i*ration are re8uired b- law to
conduct for'al hearin*s on all applications for e4tension of sta- of aliens( and
(b! in rulin* that said Co''issioners are en+oined to pro'ul*ate written
decisions in such cases.
ISSUE:
6hether the ri*ht to a notice and hearin* in certain ad'inistrative proceedin*s
is essential to due processV
HELD:
No. The ad'inistration of i''i*ration laws is the pri'ar- and e4clusive
responsibilit- of the @4ecutive branch of the *overn'ent. @4tension of sta- of
aliens is purel- discretionar- on the part of the i''i*ration authorities. /ince
Co''onwealth &ct No. G0<( otherwise "nown as the Philippine #''i*ration
&ct of 051$( is silent as to the procedure to be followed in these cases( we are
inclined to uphold the ar*u'ent that courts have no +urisdiction to review the
purel- ad'inistrative practice of i''i*ration authorities of not *rantin* for'al
hearin*s in certain cases as the circu'stances 'a- warrant( for reasons of
practicabilit- and e4pedienc-. This would not violate the due process clause if
we ta"e into account that( in this particular case( the letter of appellant-
co''issioner advisin* de Bisschop to depart in 5 da-s is a 'ere for'alit-( a
preli'inar- step( and( therefore( far fro' final( because( as alle*ed in
para*raph % of appellant3s answer to the co'plaint( the >re8uire'ent to leave
before the start of the deportation proceedin*s is onl- an advice to the part-
that unless he departs voluntaril-( the /tate will be co'pelled to ta"e steps for
his e4pulsion>. #n Corne+o vs. ;abriel and Provincial Board of Rial( it was held
that a da- in court is not a 'atter of ri*ht in ad'inistrative proceedin*s. The
fact should not be lost si*ht of that we are dealin* with an ad'inistrative
proceedin* and not with a +udicial proceedin*. &s Fud*e Coole-( the leadin*
&'erican writer on Constitutional ,aw( has well said( due process of law is not
necessaril- +udicial process: 'uch of the process b- 'eans of which the
;overn'ent is carried on( and the order of societ- 'aintained( is purel-
e4ecutive or ad'inistrative( which is as 'uch due process of law( as is +udicial
process. 6hile a da- in court is a 'atter of ri*ht in +udicial proceedin*s( in
ad'inistrative proceedin*s( it is otherwise since the- rest upon different
principles. . . . #n certain proceedin*s( therefore( of all ad'inistrative character(
it 'a- be stated( without fear of contradiction( that the ri*ht to a notice and
hearin* are not essential to due process of law.
SUNTAY VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
acts9
Case is a petition for certoriari to annul the order of the C.# of Nueon Cit-
directin* the NB# andthe 2.& to ta"e the proper steps in order that accused
/unta-( alle*edl- in the C/( be brou*ht bac" to the Philippines( so that he 'a-
be dealt with in accordance with law: and of prohibition toen+oin the 2.&
/ecretar- fro' cancelin* the petitionerIs passport without previous hearin*
7n 2G Fune 0551( 2r. &ntonio Nubla( father of &licia Nubla( a 'inor of 0G
-ears( filed a verifiedco'plaint a*ainst @'ilio /unta- in the 7ffice of the Cit-
&ttorne- of Nueon Cit-( alle*in* thaton Fune 20( 0551( the accused too"
&licia Nubla( with lewd desi*n( so'ewhere near the CPco'pound in 2ili'an
and had carnal "nowled*e of her( and &licia bein* a 'inor of 0G -ears old
7n 2ec. 05( 0551( after investi*ation( &sst Cit- &tt- reco''ended to the Cit-
&ttorne- of Nueon Cit- that the co'plaint be dis'issed for lac" of 'erit. 7n
2< 2ece'ber 0551 attorne- for the co'plainant addressed a letter to the Cit-
&ttorne- of Nueon Cit- wherein he too" e4ceptionto the reco''endation of
the &ssistant Cit- &ttorne- referred to and ur*ed that a co'plaint for seduction
be filed a*ainst the herein petitioner.
7n 0$ Fanuar- 0555 the petitioner applied for and was *ranted a passport b-
the 2epart'ent of .orei*n &ffairs
7n 2$ Fanuar- 0555 the petitioner left the Philippines for /an .rancisco(
California( C./.&.( wherehe is at present enrolled in school. 7n <0 Fanuar-
0555 the offended *irl subscribed and swore to aco'plaint char*in* the
petitioner with seduction which was filed in the Court of .irst #nstance of
Nueon Cit- after preli'inar- investi*ation had been conducted
7n 5 .ebruar- 0555 the private prosecutor filed a 'otion pra-in* the Court to
issue an order >directin* such *overn'ent a*encies as 'a- be concerned(
particularl- the National Bureau of #nvesti*ation and the 2epart'ent of .orei*n
&ffairs( for the purpose of havin* the accused brou*ht bac" to the Philippines
so that he 'a- be dealt with in accordance with law.>
7n 0$ .ebruar- 0555 the Court *ranted the 'otion (@4hibit 2!. 7n % March
0555 the respondent/ecretar- cabled the &'bassador to the Cnited /tates
instructin* hi' to order the Consul ;eneralin /an .rancisco to cancel the
passport issued to the petitioner and to co'pel hi' to return to thePhilippines
to answer the cri'inal char*es a*ainst hi'.
?owever( this order was not i'ple'ented or carried out in view of the
co''ence'ent of the proceedin* in order that the issues raised 'a- be
+udiciall- resolved. 7n 5 Ful- 0555 counsel for the petitioner wrote to the
respondent /ecretar- re8uestin* that the action ta"en b- hi' bereconsidered(
and filed in the cri'inal case a 'otion pra-in* that the respondent Court
reconsider its order of 0$ .ebruar- 0555. 7n % Ful- 0555 the respondent
/ecretar- denied counsel3s re8uestand on 05 Ful- 0555 the Court denied the
'otion for reconsideration. ?ence this petition.PetitionerIs Clai'9
while the /ecretar- for .orei*n &ffairs has discretion in the cancellation of
passports( >suchdiscretion cannot be e4ercised until after hearin*(> because
the ri*ht to travel or sta- abroad is a personal libert- within the 'eanin* and
protection of the Constitution and hence he cannot bedeprived of such libert-
without due process of law.#ssue9 67N the cancellation of passport re8uires
prior hearin*
Rulin*9The petitioner3s contention cannot be sustained. The petitioner is
char*ed with seduction. &nd the order of the respondent Court directin* the
2epart'ent of .orei*n &ffairs >to ta"e proper steps in order that theaccused . .
. 'a- be brou*ht bac" to the Philippines( so that he 'a- be dealt with in
accordance with law(>is not be-ond or in e4cess of its +urisdiction. the
respondent Court did not specif- what step the respondent/ecretar- 'ust ta"e
to co'pel the petitioner to return to the Philippines to answer the cri'inal
char*e preferred a*ainst hi'. True( the discretion *ranted( to the /ecretar- for
.orei*n &ffairs to withdraw or cancel a passport alread- issued 'a- not be
e4ercised at whi'. But here the petitioner was hailed to Courtto answer a
cri'inal char*e for seduction and althou*h at first all &ssistant Cit- &ttorne-
reco''ended thedis'issal of the co'plaint previousl- subscribed and sworn
to b- the father of the offended *irl( -et the petitioner "new that no final action
had been ta"en b- the Cit- &ttorne- of Nueon Cit- as the case wasstill under
stud-. &nd as the /olicitor ;eneral puts it( >?is suddenl- leavin* the countr- in
such aconvenient ti'e( can reasonabl- be interpreted to 'ean as a deliberate
atte'ption his part to flee fro' +ustice( and( therefore( he cannot now be heard
to co'plain if the stron* ar' of the law should +oin to*ether to brin* hi' bac"
to +ustice.> #n issuin* the order in 8uestion( the respondent /ecretar- was
convinced thata 'iscarria*e of +ustice would result b- his inaction and as he
issued it in the e4ercise of his sounddiscretion( he cannot be en+oined fro'
carr-in* it out.?earin* would have been proper and necessar- if the reason for
the withdrawal or cancellation of the passport were not clear but doubtful. But
where the holder of a passport is facin* a cri'inal a char*e in our courts and
left the countr- to evade cri'inal prosecution( the /ecretar- for .orei*n &ffairs(
in the e4erciseof his discretion to revo"e a passport alread- issued( cannot be
held to have acted whi'sicall- or capriciousl- in withdrawin* and cancellin*
such passport. 2ue process does not necessaril- 'ean or re8uire a hearin*.
6hen discretion is e4ercised b- an officer vested with it upon an undisputed
fact( such asthe filin* of a serious cri'inal char*e a*ainst the passport holder(
hearin* 'a-be dispensed with b- suchofficer as a prere8uisite to the
cancellation of his passport: lac" of such hearin* does not violate the due
process of law clause of the Constitution: and the e4ercise of the discretion
vested in hi' cannot be dee'edwhi'sical and capricious of because of the
absence of such hearin*. #f hearin* should alwa-s be held inorder to co'pl-
with the due process of clause of the Constitution( then a writ of preli'inar-
in+unctionissued e4 parte would be violative of the said clause.The petition is
denied( with costs a*ainst the petitioner
#-%l%##%'es c/""u'%cat%/'s satell%te c/$#/$at%/' *s alcua4
B- virtue of R& 5501( Philippine Co''unications /atellite Corporation was
*ranted =a franchise to establish( construct( 'aintain and operate in the
Philippines( at such places as the *rantee 'a- select( station or stations and
associated e8uip'ent and facilities for international satellite co''unications.H
Cnder this franchise( it was li"ewise *ranted the authorit- to =construct and
operate such *round facilities as needed to deliver teleco''unications
services fro' the co''unications satellite s-ste' and *round ter'inal or
ter'inals.H Cnder /ec 5 of the sa'e law( PhilCo'/at was e4e'pt fro' the
+urisdiction( control and re*ulation of the Public /ervice Co''ission later
"nown as the National Teleco''unications Co''ission. ?owever( @7 05G
was later proclai'ed and the sa'e has placed PhilCo'/at under the
+urisdiction of NTC. Conse8uentl-( PhilCo'/at has to ac8uire per'it to
operate fro' NTC in order to continue operatin* its e4istin* satellites. NTC
*ave the necessar- per'it but it however directed PhilCo'/at to reduce its
current rates b- 05Q. NTC based its power to fi4 the rates on @7 51G.
PhilCo'/at assailed the said directive and holds that the enablin* act (@7
51G! of respondent NTC e'powerin* it to fi4 rates for public service
co''unications does not provide the necessar- standards constitutionall-
re8uired hence there is an undue dele*ation of le*islative power( particularl-
the ad+udicator- powers of NTC. PhilCo'/at asserts that nowhere in the
provisions of @7 51G( providin* for the creation of respondent NTC and
*rantin* its rate-fi4in* powers( nor of @7 05G( placin* petitioner under the
+urisdiction of respondent NTC( can it be inferred that respondent NTC is
*uided b- an- standard in the e4ercise of its rate-fi4in* and ad+udicator-
powers. PhilCo'/at subse8uentl- clarified its said sub'ission to 'ean that
the order 'andatin* a reduction of certain rates is undue dele*ation not of
le*islative but of 8uasi-+udicial power to respondent NTC( the e4ercise of which
alle*edl- re8uires an e4press confer'ent b- the le*islative bod-.
ISSUE: 6hether or not there is an undue dele*ation of power.
HELD: .unda'ental is the rule that dele*ation of le*islative power 'a- be
sustained onl- upon the *round that so'e standard for its e4ercise is provided
and that the le*islature in 'a"in* the dele*ation has prescribed the 'anner of
the e4ercise of the dele*ated power. Therefore( when the ad'inistrative
a*enc- concerned( NTC in this case( establishes a rate( its act 'ust both be
non-confiscator- and 'ust have been established in the 'anner prescribed b-
the le*islature: otherwise( in the absence of a fi4ed standard( the dele*ation of
power beco'es unconstitutional. #n case of a dele*ation of rate-fi4in* power(
the onl- standard which the le*islature is re8uired to prescribe for the *uidance
of the ad'inistrative authorit- is that the rate be reasonable and +ust. ?owever(
it has been held that even in the absence of an e4press re8uire'ent as to
reasonableness( this standard 'a- be i'plied. #n the case at bar( the fi4ed
rate is found to be of 'erit and reasonable.
a'. t%&a2 *s c/u$t /0 %'dust$%al $elat%/'s
Facts: There was a*ree'ent between &n* Tiba- and the National ,abor
Cnion( #nc (N,C!. The N,C alle*ed that the supposed lac" of leather 'aterial
clai'ed b- Toribio Teodoro was but a sche'e adopted to s-ste'aticall-
dischar*e all the 'e'bers of the N,C( fro' wor". &nd this aver'ent is desired
to be proved b- the petitioner with the records of the Bureau of Custo's and
Boo"s of &ccounts of native dealers in leather. That National6or"er3s
Brotherhood Cnion of &n* Tiba- is a co'pan- or e'plo-er union do'inated
b- Toribio Teodoro( which was alle*ed b- the N,C as an ille*al one. The C#R(
decided the case and elevated it to the /upre'e Court( but a 'otion for new
trial was raised b- the N,C. But the &n* Tiba- filed a 'otion for opposin* the
said 'otion.
Issue: 6hether or Not( the 'otion for new trial is 'eritorious to be *ranted.
Held: To be*in with the issue before us is to realie the functions of the C#R.
The C#R is a special court whose functions are specificall- stated in the law of
its creation which is the Co''onwealth &ct No. 0$<!. #t is 'ore an
ad'inistrative board than a part of the inte*rated +udicial s-ste' of the nation.
#t is not intended to be a 'ere receptive or*an of the*overn'ent. Cnli"e a
court of +ustice which is essentiall- passive( actin* onl- when its +urisdiction is
invo"ed and decidin* onl- cases that are presented to it b- the parties liti*ant(
the function of the C#R( as will appear fro' perusal of its or*anic law is 'ore
active( affir'ative and d-na'ic. #t not onl- e4ercises +udicial or 8uasi-+udicial
functions in the deter'ination of disputes between e'plo-ers and e'plo-ees
but its functions are far 'ore co'prehensive and e4tensive. #t has +urisdiction
over the entire Philippines( to consider( investi*ate( decide( and settle an-
8uestion( 'atter controvers- or disputes arisin* between( andL or affectin*
e'plo-ers and e'plo-ees or laborers( and landlords and tenants or far'-
laborers( and re*ulates the relations between the'( sub+ect to( and in
accordance with( the provisions of C& 0$<.
&s laid down in the case of ;oseco v. C#R( the /C had the occasion to point
out that the C#R is not narrowl- constrained b- technical rules of procedure(
and e8uit- and substantial 'eritsof the case( without re*ard to technicalities or
le*al for's and shall not be bound b- an- technical rules of le*al evidence but
'a- infor' its 'ind in such 'anner as it 'a- dee' +ust and e8uitable.
The fact( however( that the C#R 'a- be said to be free fro' ri*idit- of certain
procedural re8uire'ents does not 'ean that it can in +usticiable cases co'in*
before it( entirel- i*nore or disre*ard the funda'ental and essential
re8uire'ents of due process in trials and investi*ations of an ad'inistrative
character. There cardinal pri'ar- ri*hts which 'ust be respected even in
proceedin*s of this character9
(0! the ri*ht to a hearin*( which includes the ri*ht to present one3s cause and
sub'it evidence in support thereof:
(2! The tribunal 'ust consider the evidence presented:
(<! The decision 'ust have so'ethin* to support itself:
(1! The evidence 'ust be substantial:
(5! The decision 'ust be based on the evidence presented at the hearin*: or
at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected:
(G! The tribunal or bod- or an- of its +ud*es 'ust act on its own independent
consideration of the law and facts of the controvers-( and not si'pl- accept
the views of a subordinate:
(%! The Board or bod- should( in all controversial 8uestions( render its decision
in such 'anner that the parties to the proceedin* can "now the various #ssue
involved( and the reason for the decision rendered.
The failure to *rasp the funda'ental issue involved is not entirel- attributable
to the parties adversel- affected b- the result. &ccordin*l-( the 'otion for a
new trial should be( and the sa'e is hereb- *ranted( and the entire record of
this case shall be re'anded to the C#R( withinstruction that it reopen the case
receive all such evidence as 'a- be relevant( and otherwise proceed in
accordance with the re8uire'ents set forth. /o ordered.
"/'te"a2/$ *s a$a'eta u'%*e$s%t2 0/u'dat%/'
3% Petitioner was a professor at the Araneta 4niversity 3oundation. 5n 678769,
he was found guilty of ma-ing homose1ual advances on one #eonardo :e
#ara by a faculty investating committee. 5n ;;78769, another committee was
appointed to investigate another charge of a similar nature against petitioner.
Petitioner, through cousel, as-ed for the postponement of the hearing set for
;;7;8 and ;<, ;<69, but the w7c motion was denied. *he committe then
proceeded to hear the testimony of the complainants and on ;=7>769,
submitted its report recommending the separation of petitioner from the
4niversity. 5n ;=7;=769, the 4niversity applied w7 the "#$C for clearance to
terminate petitioner????s employment. Meanwhile, petitioner filed a complaint w7
the "#$C for reinstatement and bac-wages. Judgement was rendered in
petitioner????s favor, but on appeal to the !ec. of #abor, the latter found
petitioner????s dismissal to be justified. @ence, this petition for certiorari. ?@,29
The Consti. assures to wor"ers securit- of tenure. #n the case of petitioner( this
*uarantee is reinforced b- the provision on acade'ic freedo'. #n den-in*
petitioner3333s 'otion for postpone'ent of the hearin*( the co''ittee did not
accord procedural due process to the petitioner. This was( however( re'edied
at the 'ediation conference called at the 2ept. of ,abor durin* wLc petitioner
was heard on his evidence. There he was *iven the fullest opportunit- to
present his case. Petition dis'issed. Petitioner filed a M.R contendin* that the
hearin* in the N,RC did not confor' to ther re8uire'ents of due process as
the witnesses a*ainst petitioner were not called so that petitioner could cross-
e4a'ine the'.
Xother facts9 Petitioner was a professor at the &raneta Cniversit- .oundation.
7n %L)L%1( he was found *uilt- of 'a"in* ho'ose4ual advances on one
,eonardo 2e ,ara b- a facult- investi*atin* co''ittee. 7n 00L)L%1( another
co''ittee was appointed to investi*ate another char*e of a si'ilar nature
a*ainst petitioner. Petitioner( throu*h counsel( as"ed for the postpone'ent of
the hearin* set for 00L0) and 05( 05%1( but the 'otion was denied. The
co''ittee then proceeded to hear the testi'on- of the co'plainants and on
02L5L%1( sub'itted its report reco''endin* the separation of petitioner fro'
the Cniversit-. 7n 02L02L%1( the Cniversit- applied wL the N,RC for clearance
to ter'inate petitioner3s e'plo-'ent. Meanwhile( petitioner filed a co'plaint wL
the N,RC for reinstate'ent and bac"wa*es. Fud*e'ent was rendered in
petitioner3s favor( but on appeal to the /ec. of ,abor( the latter found
petitioner3s dis'issal to be +ustified. ?ence( this petition for certiorari.
#//C@9 2oes acade'ic freedo' include the ri*ht of schools to dis'iss
teachersV
RC,#N;9
Bes. #nstitutional acade'ic freedo' was vindicated in this case( where(
a*ainst the plea of acade'ic freedo' and securit- of tenure of a professor( the
school was allowed to separate a professor who after due process had been
found *uilt- of violatin* behavioral standards.
The stand ta"en b- petitioner as to his bein* entitled to securit- of tenure is
reinforced b- the provision on acade'ic freedo' which( as noted( is found in
the Constitution. #t was pointed out in ;arcia v. The .acult- &d'ission(
Co''ittee that acade'ic freedo' >is 'ore often #dentified with the ri*ht of a
facult- 'e'ber to pursue his studies in his particular specialt- and thereafter
to 'a"e "nown or publish the result of his endeavors without fear that
retribution would be visited on hi' in the event that his conclusions are found
distasteful or ob+ectionable to the powers that be( whether in the political(
econo'ic( or acade'ic establish'ents. .or the sociolo*ist( Robert Maclver( it
is 3a ri*ht clai'ed b- the accredited educator( as teacher and as investi*ator(
to interpret his findin*s and to co''unicate his conclusions without bein*
sub+ected to an- interference( 'olestation( or penaliation because these
conclusions are unacceptable to so'e constituted authorit- within or be-ond
the institution.H Tenure( accordin* to hi'( is of the essence of such freedo'.
.or hi'( without tenure that assures a facult- 'e'ber >a*ainst dis'issal or
professional penaliation on *rounds other than professional inco'petence or
conduct that in the +ud*'ent of his collea*ues renders hi' unfit> for
'e'bership in the facult-( the acade'ic ri*ht beco'es non-e4istent( /ecurit-
of tenure( for another scholar( ,ove +o-( is >the chief practical re8uisite for
acade'ic freedo'> of a universit- professor. &s with Maclver( he did not rule
out re'oval but onl- >for so'e *rave cause(> #dentified b- hi' as >proved
inco'petence or 'oral delin8uenc-.>
alcua4 *s #-%l%##%'e sc-//l /0 &us%'ess ad"%'%st$at%/' 5d%.est,,,6
7n Ma- 2( 05))( this Court throu*h its /econd 2ivision rendered a 2ecision in
the instant case which prodded the #ntervenor Cnion (hereinafter referred to as
the Cnion! to file a 'otion for reconsideration. #ts ar*u'ent hin*es on the
pronounce'ent that T
4 4 4. ,i"ewise( it is provided in the Manual( that the >written contracts>
re8uired for colle*e teachers are for one se'ester. #t is thus evident that after
the close of the first se'ester( the P/B&-NC no lon*er has an- e4istin*
contract either with the students or with intervenin* teachers. /uch bein* the
case( char*e of denial of due process is untenable. #t is ti'e-honored principle
that contracts are respected as the law between the contractin* parties. 4 4 4
(p. 02( 2ecision( italics supplied!.(p. )%1-)%5( Rollo!
with the alle*edl- inevitable conse8uence of e4tenuatin* the pernicious
practice of 'ana*e'ent to arbitraril- and wantonl- ter'inate teachers si'pl-
because their contracts of e'plo-'ent have alread- lapsed.
The 'otion li"ewise points out the fact that two of the facult- 'e'bers( na'el-
Mr. &sser (Bon*! Ta'a-o( and Mr. Rene @ncarnacion( supposedl- found *uilt-
b- the #nvesti*atin* Co''ittee headed b- Mr. &ntonio M. Ma*talas (p. <12(
Rollo!( had been issued per'anent appoint'ents (not 'ere te'porar-
contracts! b- no less than the President of the /chool hi'self. The
appoint'ent of Mr. &sser (Bon*! Ta'a-o dated &u*ust 5( 05)G (p. ))%( Rollo!
can attest to this clai'.
#t is on the basis of the fore*oin* that 6e hereb- a'end 7ur previous
state'ents on the 'atter.
#n a recent 2ecision( 9 this Court had the opportunit- to 8uite e'phaticall-
enunciate the precept that full-ti'e teachers who have rendered three (<!
-ears of satisfactor- service shall be considered per'anent (par. %5 of the
Manual of Re*ulations for Private /chools!. Thus( havin* attained a
per'anent status( the- cannot be re'oved fro' office e4cept for +ust cause
and after due process.
Now appl-in* the sa'e principle in the case at bar( Mr. &sser (Bon*! Ta'a-o
havin* sta-ed in the Philippine /chool of Business &d'inistration( Nueon
Cit- Branch (P/B&( for brevit-! for three and one-half (< 0L2! -ears (in a full-
ti'e capacit-! 'a- be dee'ed a per'anent facult- 'e'ber provided( of
course( the services rendered have been satisfactor- to the school. ?owever(
because the investi*ation showed that Mr. Ta'a-o had participated in the
unlawful de'onstration( his services cannot be dee'ed satisfactor-.
#n the case of Mr. Rene @ncarnacion( and Mr. /everino Cortes( Fr. who tau*ht
in P/B& for two and one-half (2 0L2! -ears and one and one-half (0 0L2! -ears
respectivel-( to the' a per'anent status cannot be accorded for failure to
'eet the 'ini'u' re8uire'ent of three (<! -ears set b- the afore'entioned
Manual of Re*ulations. 7f e8ual i'portance( at this point( is the fact that the
letter of appoint'ent had been e4tended onl- to Mr. Ta'a-o and not to Mr.
@ncarnacion( neither to Mr. Cortes( Fr.
6?@R@.7R@( for the reasons adverted to hereinabove( the 'otion for
reconsideration( e4cept insofar as 6e have 'ade the afore'entioned
clarificator- state'ents about the tenure of full-ti'e teachers and professors(
is hereb- 2@N#@2.
#n conclusion( 6e wish to reiterate that while 6e value the ri*ht of students to
co'plete their education in the school or universit- of their choice( and while
6e full- respect their ri*ht to resort to rallies and de'onstrations for the
redress of their *rievances and as a part of their freedo' of speech and their
ri*ht to asse'ble( still such rallies( de'onstrations( and asse'blies 'ust
alwa-s be conducted peacefull-( and without resort to inti'idation( coercion( or
violence. &cade'ic freedo' in all its for's( de'ands the full displa- of
discipline. To hold otherwise would be to subvert freedo' into de*enerate
license.
'/' *s da"es
Facts: Petitioners( students in private respondent Mabini Colle*es( #nc. in
2aet( Ca'arines Norte( were not allowed to re-enroll b- the school for the
acade'ic -ear 05))-05)5 for leadin* or participatin* in student 'ass actions
a*ainst the school in the precedin* se'ester. The sub+ect of the protests is
not( however( 'ade clear in the pleadin*s.
Petitioners filed a petition in the court see"in* their read'ission or re-
enroll'ent to the school( but the trial court dis'issed the petition. The- now
petition the court to reverse its rulin* in &lcua vs. P/B&0( which was also
applied in the case. The court said that petitioners waived their privile*e to be
ad'itted for re-enroll'ent with respondent colle*e when the- adopted( si*ned(
and used its enroll'ent for' for the first se'ester of school -ear 05))-)5(
which states that9 The Mabini Colle*e reserves the ri*ht to den- ad'ission
ofstudents whose scholarship and attendance are unsatisfactor- and to re8uire
withdrawal ofstudents whose conduct discredits the institution andLor whose
activities undul- disrupts or interfere with the efficient operation of the colle*e.
/tudents( therefore( are re8uired to behave in accord with the Mabini Colle*e
code of conduct and discipline.
Issue: 6hether or Not the studentsI ri*ht to freedo' of speech and asse'bl-
infrin*ed.
Held: Bes. The protection to the co*nate ri*hts of speech and asse'bl-
*uaranteed b- theConstitution is si'ilarl- available to students is well-settled
in our +urisdiction. ?owever there are li'itations. The per'issible li'itation on
/tudent @4ercise of Constitutional Ri*hts withinthe school presupposes that
conduct b- the student( in class or out of it( which for an- reason whether it
ste's fro' ti'e( place( or t-pe of behavior should not 'ateriall- disrupt
classwor" or 'ust not involve substantial disorder or invasion of the ri*hts of
others