Case Digests in Constitutional Law

Jiamel B. Abdullah
LLB-4
MAQUERA VS BORRA
15 SCRA 7
Facts:
Maquera seeks to ask R.A. 4421 requires all candidates for national,
provincial, city and municipal offices to post a surety bond equivalent to the
one year salary or emoluments of the position, to which he is candidate,
which bond shall be forfeited in favor of the national, provincial, city or
municipal government concerned if the candidate, except when declared
winner, fails to obtain at least 10% of the votes cast for the office to which he
has filed his certificate of candidacy there being not more than 4 candidates
for the same office.
Issue:
Whether or not RA 4221 is unconstitutional.
Held:
Supreme Court held that property qualification is inconsistent with the nature
and essence of the Republican System ordained in our Constitution and the
principle of social justice underlying the same. The Court reasoned out that
sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates
from them, and this, in turn, implies a necessarily that the right to vote and
to be voted shall not be dependent upon the wealth of the individual
concerned. Social justice presupposes equal opportunity for all, rich and poor
alike, and that accordingly, no person shall, by reason of poverty, be denied
the chance to be elected for public office.
The Court resolved without prejudice to rendering an extended decision, to
declare that said RA 4421 is unconstitutional and hence, null and void, and
hence, to enjoin respondents herein, as well as their representatives and
agents, from enforcing and/or implementing said constitutional enactment.

Del Rosario vs People

358 SCRA 373
Facts:
Petitioner Vicente Del Rosario was convicted in the lower courts (RTC, Court
of Appeals) with the crime of illegal possession of firearms. The lower courts
relied upon the product of the search conducted by Pampanga CIDG and
several barangay officials of the petitioners residence at Barangay Tigbe,
Norzagaray, Bulacan. Earlier, said police officers were able to obtain a search
warrant from the QC RTC after the PNP-Firearms and Explosive Divisions

confirmed that the petitioner is not a licensed/registered firearm holder of

any kind and caliber. The search yielded the following items: (a.) a caliber .45
pistol with 5 magazines of caliber .45 found at the masters bedroom, (b.) 5
magazines of 5.56 M-16 rifle and 2 radios found in the room of petitioners
daughter, and, (c.) a caliber .22 revolver containing 8 pieces of live
ammunitions found in the kitchen. The police officers seized the subject
firearms because they were allegedly unlicensed.
Issue:
Whether petitioner had a license for the .45 caliber colt pistol and
ammunition seized in his bedroom.
Held:
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower courts. Petitioner is
acquitted. RA 8294, which provides that the possession of a firearm with an
expired license was unlawful, only took effect after the search. The law,
therefore could not be given a retroactive effect. Furthermore, pursuant to
firearm license was automatically applied for upon payment of license fees
for the renewal period. Therefore, the petitioners expired license was not
cancelled or revoked. It served as a temporary authority to possess the
firearm until the renewed license was issued. The absence of firearm license
constitutes as essential ingredient of the offense of illegal possession of
firearm and every ingredient or essential element of an offense must be
shown by the prosecution by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Illegal
possession of firearms is a crime punished by special law, a malum
prohibitum, and no malice or intent to commit a crime need to be proved. To
support a conviction, there must be possession coupled with intent to
possess firearm. Prosecution wasnt able to show proof beyond reasonable
doubt.

AKBAYAN CITIZENS ACTION PARTY VS. AQUINO

558 SCRA 468
FACTS:
Petitioners seek to obtain from respondents the full text of the JapanPhilippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) including the Philippine
and Japanese offers submitted during the negotiation process and all
pertinent attachments and annexes thereto. The JPEPA, which will be the first
bilateral free trade agreement to be entered into by the Philippines with
another country in the event the Senate grants its consent to it, covers a
broad range of topics which includes trade in goods, rules of origin, customs,
procedure, paperless trading, trade in services, investments, intellectual
property rights, government procurement, movement of natural persons,
cooperation, competition policy, mutual recognition, dispute avoidance and

settlement, improvement of the business environment, and general and final

provisions.
ISSUES:
Whether the executive privilege claimed by the respondents applies only at
certain stages of the negotiation process.
HELD:
Supreme Court dismissed the petition. SC stated that the constitutional right
to information includes official information on on-going negotiations before a
final contract. The information, however, must constitute definite
propositions by the government and should not cover recognized exceptions
like privileged information, military and diplomatic secrets and similar
matters affecting national security and public order.

PEOPLE VS. MALUNSING

63 SCRA 493
FACTS:
Manuel Villegas together with Malunsing et al were charged for murder. At
the opening of the trial, Manuel Villegas was appointed a counsel de oficio,
Atty. Geronimo Pajarito. Villegas however intimated to Geronimo and the trial
court that he has his own lawyer. However, the court proceeded without
giving Villegas the opportunity to present his own lawyer. The court then
asked Atty. Pajarito if he wants to confer with his client but Pajarito replied I
think I know the case. Thereafter, trial began where the prosecution
presented evidence against Villegas and he was not even called to the
witness stand to prove his innocence. Consequently, Villegas was convicted
of the crime charged.
ISSUE: Whether or not the conviction should be reversed.
HELD:
Yes, for there is a gross violation of Villegas constitutional rights. The
Supreme Court noted that it is not enough that a counsel de oficio was
appointed, especially so as here, where the accused had indicated that he
wanted a lawyer of his choice, a decision prompted moreover by the fact that
he had lost confidence in the member of the bar thus designated. Nor it is to
manifest respect for this right if the counsel de oficio, thus named, instead of
conferring with the accused, would just blithely inform the judge that he was
already fully prepared for his exacting responsibility. The Supreme Court
reversed the conviction but considering the gravity of the offense charged, it
ordered a new trial.

PEOPLE VS. VERA

65 PHIL 56
FACTS:
Cu-Unjieng was convicted of criminal charges by the trial court of Manila. He
filed a motion for reconsideration and four motions for new trial but all were
denied. He then elevated to the Supreme Court of United States for review,
which was also denied. The SC denied the petition subsequently filed by CuUnjieng for a motion for new trial and thereafter remanded the case to the
court of origin for execution of the judgement. The fiscal filed an opposition
to the granting of probation to Co-Unjieng, alleging, among other things, that
Act. No. 4221, assuming that it has not been repealed by Section 2 Article XV
of the Constitution, is nevertheless violative of Section 1, subsection (1),
Article III of the Constitution guaranteeing equal protection of the laws. The
private prosecution also filed a supplementary opposition, elaborating on the
alleged unconstitutionality on Act. No. 4221, as an undue delegation of
legislative power to the provincial boards of several provinces. (Sec. 1, Art.
VI, Constitution)
ISSUE:
Whether or not there is undue delegation of powers.
HELD:
Yes. Supreme Court concluded that Section II of Act No. 4221 constitutes an
improper and unlawful delegation of legislative authority to the provincial
boards and is, for this reason, unconstitutional and void. The challenged
section of Act No. 4221 in Section 11 which reads as follows: This Act shall
apply only in those provinces in which the respective provincial boards have
provided for the salary of a probation officer at rates not lower than those
now provided for provincial fiscals. Said probation officer shall be appointed
by the Secretary of Justice and shall be subject to the direction of the
Probation Office.
The Philippines is divided or subdivided into provinces and it needs no
arguments to show that if not one of the provinces and this is the actual
situation now appropriate the necessary fund for the salary of a probation
officer, probation under Act No. 4221 would be illusory. There can be no
probation without a probation officer. Neither can there be a probation officer
without the probation system.

ABRA VOLLEY COLLEGE, INC. VS. AQUINO

162 SCRA 106

FACTS:
Petitioner, an educational corporation and institution of higher learning duly
incorporated with the Securities and Exchange Commission in 1948, filed a
complaint to annul and declare void the Notice of Seizure and the Notice
of Sale of its lot and building located at Bangued, Abra, for non-payment of
real estate taxes and penalties amounting to P5,140.31. Said Notice of
Seizure by respondents Municipal Treasurer and Provincial Treasurer,
defendants, was issued for the satisfaction of the said taxes thereon.
The parties entered into a stipulation of facts adopted and embodied by the
trial court in its questioned decision. The trial court ruled for the government,
holding that the second floor of the building is being used by the director for
residential purposed and that the ground floor used and rented by Northern
Marketing Corporation, a commercial establishment, and thus the property is
not being used exclusive for educational purposes. Instead of perfecting an
appeal, petitioner availed of the instant petition for review on certiorari with
prayer for preliminary injunction before the Supreme Court, by filing said
petition on 17 August, 1974.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the lot and building are used exclusively for educational
purposes
HELD:
Section 22, paragraph 3, Article VI, of the then 1935 Philippine Constitution,
expressly grants exemption from realty taxes for cemeteries, churches, and
parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, and all lands, building, and
improvements used exclusively for religious, charitable or educational
purposes. Reasonable emphasis has always been made that the exemption
extends to facilities which are incidental to and reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the main purposes. The use of school building or lot for
commercial purposes is neither contemplated by law, nor by jurisprudence.
In the case at bar, the lease of the first floor of the building to the Northern
Marketing Corporation cannot, in any stretch of imagination, be considered
incidental to the purpose of education. The test of exemption from taxation is
the use of the property for purposes mentioned in the Constitution.
The decision of CFI Abra (Branch I) is affirmed subject to the modification
that half of the assessed tax be returned to the petitioner. The modification is
derived from the fact that the ground floor is being used for commercial
purposes (leased) and the second floor being used as incidental to education
(residence of the director).

PEOPLE VS. MATEO

433 SCRA 540
FACTS:
The MTC Tarlac Branch 1 found Mateo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of 10
counts of rape and to indemnify the complainant for actual and moral
damages. Mateo appealed to the CA. Solicitor General assailed the factual
finding of Trial Court and recommends an acquittal of appellant.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the case should be directly be forwarded to the Supreme
Court by virtue of express provision in the Constitution on automatic appeal
where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or
death.
RULING:
Up until now, the Supreme Court has assumed the direct appellate review
over all criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment (or lower but involving offenses committed on
the same occasion or arising out of the same occurrence that gave risk to
the more serious offense for which the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua,
or life imprisonment is imposed). The practice finds justification in the 1987
Constitution.
Article VIII, Section 5. The SC shall have the following powers: (2) Review,
revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law of the
Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
xxx (d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua
or higher.
It must be stressed, however, that the constitutional provision is not
preclusive in character, and it does not necessarily prevent the Court, in the
exercise of its rule-making power, from adding an intermediate appeal or
review in favor of the accused.

MONTEBON VS COMELEC
551 SCRA 50
FACTS:
Montebon had been elected for three consecutive terms as Municipal
Councilor of Tuburan, Cebu in 1998, 2001 and 2004 elections. However, in
January 2004, or during his second term, he succeeded and assumed the
position of vice-mayor of Tuburan when the incumbent vice-mayor retired.
When he filed his certificate of candidacy again as Municipal Councilor for
2007 elections, a petition for disqualification was filed against him based on

the three (3) term limit rule. In his answer, Montebon argued that he cannot
be disqualified on the ground of the 3-term limit rule because his second
term was interrupted when he assumed the position of Vice-Mayor Petronilo
Mendoza. Petitioners maintained that Montebons assumption of office as
vice-mayor in January 2005 should not be considered an interruption in the
service of his second term since it was a voluntary renunciation of his office
as Municipal Councilor.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Montebons assumption to the
considered an involuntary severance or interruption.

vice-mayor

position

HELD:
Yes. Succession in local government offices is by operation of law. Section 44
of RA 7160 provides that if a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the
vice mayor, the highest ranking Sanggunian Member shall become vice
mayor.
The legal successor is not given any option under the law on whether to
accept the vacated post or not. Section 44 of the Local Government Code
makes no exception. Only if the highest ranking councilor is permanently
unable to succeed to the post does the law speak of alternate succession.
In this case, a permanent vacancy occurred in the vice mayor post due to
retirement of Vice Mayor Mendoza. Montebon, being the highest ranking
municipal councilor, succeeded him in accordance with law. Thus,
Montebons assumption of office as vice mayor in January 2004 was an
involuntary severance from his office as municipal councilor, resulting in an
interruption in the service of his 2001-2004 term. It cannot be deemed to
have been reason of voluntary renunciation because it was by operation of
law.

EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE AUTHORITY VS CHR

268 SCRA 125
FACTS:
Valles, Aedia and Ordonez filed with CHR a joint complaint against EPZA for
allegedly violating their human rights when EPZA Project Engineer
Damondamon along with 215th PNP Company tried to level the area occupied
by complainants.
The same parcel of land was reserved and allocated for purpose of
development into Cavite Export Processing Zone which was bought by Filoil
Refinery Corporation and was later sold to EPZA.

CHR issued an order of injunction for EPZA and company to desist from
committing further acts of demolition, terrorism, and harassment until
further order. Two (2) weeks later, the group started bulldozing the area and
CHR reiterated its order of injunction, including the Secretary of DPWH to
desist from doing work on the area. EPZA filed a motion to lift the order with
CHR for lack of authority and said motion was dismissed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not CHR has the jurisdiction to issue a writ of injunction or
restraining order against supposed violators of human rights, to compel them
to cease and desist from continuing the acts complained of.
RULING:
In Carino vs. CHR, it was held that CHR is not a court of justice nor even a
quasi-judicial body. The most that may be conceded to the Commission in
the way of adjudicative power is that it may investigate, i.e. receive evidence
and make finding of facts as regards claimed human rights violations
involving civil and political rights.
The constitutional provision directing the CHR to provide for preventive
measures and legal aid services to the underprivileged whose human rights
have been violated or need protection may not be construed to confer
jurisdiction on the Commission to issue a restraining order or writ of
injunction for, if that were the intention, the Constitution would have
expressly said so. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and never derived by
implication.
EPZAs petition is granted.