Human Rights Case Bites:

Section 1
Ang LADLAD vs. COMELEC (Equal protection of laws)
And LADLAD filed a petition for accreditation as party-list organization but was disqualified by COMELEC as it views
homosexual conduct as immoral and unacceptable. Further, it contended that there was no substantial differentiation
because they are still males and females protected by the Bill of Rights that applies to all citizens alike and that they are
not a special class of individuals. The Supreme Court granted LADLAD's application and held that laws of general
application should apply with equal force to LGBTs, and they deserve to participate in the party-list system on the same
basis as other marginalized and under-represented sectors.

GSIS vs. Montesclaros: (Due process clause/Equal protection of laws)

Sec. 18, PD 1146, which provides that the surviving spouse has no right to survivorship pension benefits if the surviving
spouse contracted with the pensioner within three years before the pensioner qualified for the pension, is violative of
the due process. Where the employee retires and meets the eligibility requirements, he acquires a vested right to
benefits protected by the due process clause.

There is outright confiscation of benefits due the surviving spouse without giving the surviving spouse an opportunity to
be heard. It is also violative of the equal protection of laws because the classification does not rest on substantial
distinctions. It discriminates against the dependent spouse who contracts marriage to the pensioner within three years
before the pensioner qualified for the pension because even if the dependent spouse married the pensioner more than
three years before the pensioners death, the dependent spouse would still not receive survivorship pension. Milagros
was ENTITLED to the survivorship pension benefits.

Section 2
People vs. Priscilla Del Norte:
The search warrant was issued against one Ising Gutierrez Diwa, residing at 275 North Service Road corner Cruzada St.,
Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City but the one arrested in that house was Priscilla del Norte, who claimed to be a resident of
376 Dama de Noche, Caloocan City. The search warrant is invalid because the authorities did not have personal
knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the search. The authorities did not conduct any prior surveillance. It was
only when they implemented the warrant that they coordinated with barangay officials, and one of the barangay
officials informed the police officers that Ising Gutierrez Diwa and Priscilla del Norte were one and the same person, but
said barangay official was not presented in court. Priscilla Del Norte was ACQUITTED.

Section 3
Zulueta vs. CA
The right to privacy of communications and correspondence may be invoked against the wife who went to the clinic of
her husband and took documents consisting of private communications between her husband and his alleged paramour.
The documents and papers seized by the wife were INADMISSIBLE in evidence.

People vs. Marti

Where contraband articles were seized by a private individual from another private individual, the same is ADMISSIBLE
in evidence. The provisions under the Bill of Rights cannot be invoked against acts of private individuals. Illegal search
and seizures may only be invoked against the State when there is governmental interference. The Bill of Rights governs
the relationship between the individual and the State. It does not concern with relations between private individuals.
Marti was found GUITY beyond reasonable doubt.

Section 4
Iglesia ni Kristo vs. CA
The Supreme Court held that the Board suppressed petitioner's freedom of speech and interfered with its right to free
exercise of religion when it gave an X-rating to the petitioner's TV program on the ground that it attacks against
another religion. Free exercise of religious profession and worship carries with it the right to disseminate religious
information. Such right can only be restrained upon showing that the television program would create a clear and
present danger of an evil which the State has the right to prevent. Here, the video tapes DO NOT bring about any
IMMINENT nor THREATENED HARM.
Section 5
Estrada vs. Escritor
A court interpreter was not held administratively liable for gross immoral conduct despite living with another man
without the benefit of marriage but whose conjugal arrangement was in conformity with her religious beliefs as
Jehovah's Witness, since her act was protected under the Free Exercise clause. She has made out a case for EXEMPTION
from the law based on her fundamental right to freedom of religion. There was NO SHOWING of a COMPELLING STATE
INTEREST that would override Escritors fundamental right to religious freedom.

Section 6
OCA vs. Salvador
For leaving abroad without a travel authority from OCA, a government employee was found guilty for violating an OCA
Circular. The Court held that the OCA circular does not violate her constitutional right to travel abroad because she did
not comply with the Courts rules and regulations. The exercise of ones constitutional right to travel is not absolute
because there are constitutional, statutory and inherent limitations regulating the right to travel. NOTE: Under Section 6,
the right to travel can only be impaired upon lawful order of the court or in the interest of national security, public
safety or public health.

Section 7
Hilado vs. Reyes
Where petitioners, who had filed an action for damages against the decedent during his lifetime and whose claims for
damages were included in the inventory of liabilities in the proceedings for the settlement of the estate, sought to see
the court records and obtain true copies of the inventory of the assets of the deceased but was denied by the probate
court, the Supreme Court granted access to the information sought. The Court held that unlike court orders and
decisions, pleadings and other documents filed by parties to a case need not be matters of public concern or interest,
and that access to public records may be restricted on a showing of good cause. In the case at bar, given the rights of the
parties based on relevant factors, including the nature of the controversy and the privacy interests involved vis-a-vis the
right to information, the purpose of petitioners to monitor the compliance with the rules governing the preservation and
proper disposition of the assets of the estate is legitimate and were thus GRANTED ACCESS to such information.

Section 8
GSIS vs. Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa
Government employees may not engage in strikes or in concerted and unauthorized stoppage of work. The right of
government employees to organize is limited to the formation of unions or associations, without including the right to
strike. The claim that the right to strike is part of the freedom of expression and the right to peacefully assemble and
petition the government for redress of grievances, and should thus, be recognized even in the case of government
employees, was REJECTED by the Supreme Court.

Section 9
Lagcao vs. Labra
An ordinance authorizing the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of land to be
used for the benefit of few squatters was declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Government may not capriciously or arbitrarily
choose which private property should be expropriated. There was no showing at all of necessity or why petitioners
property was singled out for expropriation by the city ordinance. Condemnation of private lands in an irrational or
piecemeal fashion, or the random expropriation of small lots to accommodate few squatters, is certainly not the
condemnation for public use contemplated by the Constitution. It deprives a citizen of his property for the convenience
of a few without perceptible benefit to the public.

Section 10
JMM Promotion vs. CA
A Department Order issued by DOLE, establishing various procedures and requirements for screening performing artists
to Japan as a prerequisite to the processing of any contract of employment by POEA, was held VALID as it does not
violate the Non-impairment of Contracts Clause. The non-impairment clause of the Constitution must yield to the loftier
purposes targeted by the government. Equally important, into every contract is read provisions of existing law, and
always, a reservation of the police power for so long as the agreement deals with a subject impressed with the public
welfare.
Section 11
Re: Exemption from Legal and Filing Fees of the Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc
A foundation working for indigent and underprivileged people requesting exemption from the payment of legal fees was
DENIED by the Supreme Court because only a natural party litigant may be regarded as an indigent litigant. Being a
juridical person, therefore, it cannot be accorded the exemption from legal and filing fees granted to indigent litigants.

Section 12
People vs. Guillermo
Where a policeman asked the accused how he killed the victim without appraising him about his constitutional rights
and without providing him with the services of counsel, violated the latter's constitutional rights to remain silent and to
counsel. Hence, the confession obtained thereon was INADMISSIBLE in evidence. Be that as it may, spontaneous
statements, or those not elicited through questioning by law enforcement officers, but given in an ordinary manner
where the appellant verbally admits to having committed the offense, are ADMISSIBLE in evidence, the same being not
made under custodial investigation but through media and private individuals. Guillermo was GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt.

People vs. Culala

An extra-judicial confession of the accused admitting the commission of the crime and obtained in the presence and
with the assistance of a municipal attorney, who testified that he apprised the accused of his constitutional rights, was
INADMISSIBLE in evidence. A Municipal attorney cannot be an independent counsel as required by the constitution.

People vs. Andan

A spontaneous, voluntary but uncounselled confession of the appellant in the presence of the mayor, the police, news
reporters from the media and appellant's own wife and son, was ADMISSIBLE in evidence. It was the accused who freely,
spontaneously and voluntarily sought the Mayor for a private meeting, and the Mayor did not know that the accused
was going to confess his guilt. Accused talked with the Mayor as a confidant, not as a law enforcement officer. The
confession made by the accused to the news reporters was likewise free of undue influence from the police authorities.
The news reporters acted as news reporters when they interviewed the accused; they were not acting under the
direction and control of the police. Constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to the spontaneous
statements not elicited through questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary manner whereby the accused
orally admitted having committed the crime.

People vs. Gomez

Where an uncounselled confession was given by the accused, who was merely apprised in general terms of his
constitutional rights to counsel and to remain silent, to NBI agents who visited him in a Hong Kong prison, the confession
was still declared INADMISSIBLE in evidence. It is immaterial that the sworn statement was executed in a foreign land.
The accused, a Filipino citizen, should enjoy these constitutional rights, like anyone else, even when abroad.

Section 13
Government of Hongkong vs. Olalia, Jr.
The Supreme Court modified its earlier ruling (in Government of the U.S. v. Purganan) that the constitutional right to bail
does not apply to extradition proceedings. Here, the right to bail is applicable to extradition proceedings. The Court said
that it cannot ignore the modern trend in public international law which places primacy on the worth of the individual
person and the sanctity of human rights. If bail can be granted in deportation cases, considering that the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights applies to deportation cases, there is no reason why it cannot be invoked in extradition
cases. After all, both are administrative proceedings where the innocence or guilt of the person detained is not in issue.

Section 14
People vs. Satorre
Where the trial court simply based appellants conviction on mere testimonial evidence of prosecution witnesses that
appellant orally owned up to the killing, the Supreme Court ACQUITTED the accused considering that the voluntariness
of said confession cannot be conclusively established because of appellant's personal circumstances (he did not finish
first grade) and the failure of the police to reduce the alleged oral confession into writing. An extrajudicial confession
will not support a conviction where it is uncorroborated. There must be such corroboration that, when considered in
connection with confession, will show the guilt of accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
People vs. Ostia
The lower court did not properly informed the accused of the nature of the charges against him where he plead guilty to
a capital offense. The lower court also failed to probe thoroughly into the reasons as well as the facts and circumstances
for the change of plea of the accused and his comprehension of his plea. It did not explain to the accused the elements
of the crime for which he is charged as well as the nature and effect of qualifying circumstances, generic aggravating
circumstances and mitigating circumstances in the commission thereof. The accused was not informed of the imposable
penalty and his civil liabilities for the crime for which he would plead guilty. Trial judges are cautioned to proceed with
meticulous care whenever the imposable penalty for the crime charged is death. When an accused enters a plea of
guilty to a capital offense, the trial court is mandated to do the following: (1) conduct a searching inquiry into the
voluntariness of the plea and the accuseds full comprehension of the consequences thereof; (2) require the prosecution
to present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability; and (3) ask the accused if
he desires to present evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires. The procedure in said rule is mandatory
and a judge who fails to observe with fealty the said rule commits grave abuse of discretion.

Section 15
Yu vs. Yu
The writ of habeas corpus is not available to either spouses who were contending for the custody of their child. The
issue on the custody of the spouses common children is deemed pleaded in the declaration of nullity case. It is the court
who shall determine the custody of the common children in the case for declaration of nullity.

Section 16
Yulo vs. People
Where the Court of Appeals resolved appellant's motion for reconsideration only after three (3) years from its filing, the
Supreme Court ruled that there was NO VIOLATION of appellant's right to a speedy disposition of her case because the
Appellate Court has explained satisfactorily why petitioners motion for reconsideration was not resolved immediately.
In this case, the ponente of the CA decision retired during the pendency of petitioners motion for reconsideration.
However, the case was assigned to another associate Justice only 3 years later but it took the latter only two (2) weeks
from notice to resolve the motion. Clearly, she did not incur any delay.

Section 17
Agustin vs. Court of Appeals
Where a father denied having fathered the child and refused to submit for DNA paternity testing arguing that this is
violative of his right against self-incrimination, the Supreme Court ruled that DNA paternity testing can be ordered
without violating petitioners constitutional right against self-incrimination. The kernel of the right is not against all
compulsion, but testimonial compulsion only. The right against self-incrimination is simply against the legal process of
extracting from the lips of the accused an admission of his guilt. It does not apply where the evidence sought to be
excluded is not an incriminating statement but an object evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of DNA
testing as a means of determining paternity.

People vs. Rondero

While in the custody of police officers, appellant's hair strands were forcibly taken from him without his consent and
submitted to the NBI for investigation, the Supreme Court held that the hair samples were ADMISSIBLE in evidence
against him, for what is proscribed is the use of testimonial compulsion from an accused and not the inclusion of his
body in evidence when it may be material.

People vs. Gallarde

Where immediately after the incident, the policemen took pictures of the accused without the presence of counsel,
being a purely mechanical act, the Supreme Court held that there was no violation of his right against self-incrimination.
Purely mechanical acts are not included in the prohibition as the accused does not thereby speak his guilt, hence the
assistance and guiding hand of counsel is not required. In fact, the accused may be compelled to submit to a physical
examination to determine his involvement in an offense of which he is accused.

Section 18
People vs. Lagman
Where two appellants refused to register in the military service as required by the National Defense Law because it
amounts to involuntary servitude as proscribed in the Constitution, the Supreme Court held the National Defense Law
does not go against this constitutional provision because the right of the Government to require compulsory military
service is a consequence of its duty to defend the State and is reciprocal with its duty to defend the life, liberty and
property of the citizen.

Section 19
Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice
Echegaray was sentenced to death by electrocution but Congress later changed the mode of execution to lethal
injection. Echegaray's contention that death by lethal injection constituted cruel, degrading, or unusual punishment was
REJECTED by the Supreme Court ruling that punishments are cruel only when they involve torture or a lingering death;
but the punishment of death itself is not cruel. Echegaray's contention that the infliction of wanton pain brought by
possible complications in intravenous injection if performed by untrained personnel constituted cruel, degrading or
unusual punishment was also REJECTED by the Supreme Court because any infliction of pain in lethal injection is merely
incidental in carrying out the execution of death penalty. Likewise, the Supreme Court ruled that the lack in particularity
as to the details of the execution by lethal injection does not constitute cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment. The
cruelty against which the Constitution protects a convicted man is cruelty inherent in the method of punishment, not
the necessary suffering involved in any method employed to extinguish life humanely.

Section 20
Serafin vs. Lindayag
Where a judge admitted issued a warrant of arrest on the strength of a criminal complaint charging the accused with
willful non-payment of debt, the Supreme Court annulled the warrant, since it is elementary that non-payment of an
indebtedness is not a criminal act and that no one may be criminally charged and punished for non-payment of a loan of
a sum of money.

Section 21
Sanvicente vs. People
The grant of a demurrer to evidence by the lower court is equivalent to an acquittal, and any further prosecution of the
accused would violate the constitutional proscription against double jeopardy. This constitutes an exception to the rule
that the dismissal of a criminal case made with the express consent of the accused or upon his own motion bars a plea
of double jeopardy.

Section 22
Chavez vs. COMELEC
The Supreme Court ruled that Sec. 32, Resolution No. 6520, which provides that all materials showing the picture, image
or name of a person, and all advertisements on print, in radio or on television showing the image or mentioning the
name of a person, who subsequent to the placement or display thereof becomes a candidate for public office shall be
immediately removed, otherwise, the person and the radio station, print media or television station shall be presumed
to have conducted premature campaigning, is NOT in the nature of an ex post facto law. The offense penalizes the non-
removal of the described propaganda materials three (3) days after the effectivity of COMELEC Resolution. If the
candidate for public office fails to remove such propaganda materials after the given period, he shall be liable for
premature campaigning. Indeed, nowhere is it indicated in the assailed provision that it shall operate retroactively.

BOCEA vs. Teves

RA 9335 intends to encourage BIR and BOC officials and employees to exceed their revenue targets by providing a
system of rewards and sanctions. The Bureau of Customs Employees Association's contention that RA 9335 is a BILL OF
ATTAINDER for the reason that it removes employees, who do not meet their revenue targets, was REJECTED by the
Supreme Court. A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment on individuals or members of a particular
group without a judicial trial. Essential to a bill of attainder are a specification of certain individuals or a group of
individuals, the imposition of a punishment, penal or otherwise, and the lack of JUDICIAL trial. RA 9335 is not a bill of
attainder because it does not possess the elements of a bill of attainder and it does not seek to inflict punishment
without a judicial trial. It merely lays down the grounds for the termination of a BIR or BOC official or employee and
provides for the consequences thereof.