Supreme Court Dectvep Cases & Oruer Issues
‘THAT MADE IT TO THE HEADLINES IN YEARS 2015-2018
Justin Ryan D. Morilla
Last Updated on Octobe
2018,
PARDON OF ERAP
Risos-Vidal vy. COMELEC
January 21, 2015
DEATH BY HAZING
Dungo v. People
July 1, 2015
POLITICAL LAW; PARDON: Former President
Estrada was granted an absolute pardon that fully
restored all his civil and political rights, which
naturally includes the right to seek public elective
office, the focal point of this controversy. The
wording of the pardon extended to former President
Estrada is complete, unambiguous, and unqualified.
It is this Court’s firm view that the phrase in the
presidential parcion at issue which declares. that
former President Estrada “is hereby restored to his
civil and political rights" substantially complies with
the requirement of express restoration under Articles
36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code.
POLITICAL LAW; DISQUALIFICATION TO
RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE: Section 40 of the
isqualified from running for
any elective local position, to wit: (a) Those
sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving
moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one
(1) year or more of imprisonment, within two (2)
years after serving sentence. While it may be
apparent that the proscription in Section 40(a) of the
LGC is worded in absolute terms, Section 12 of the
EC provides a legal escape from the prohibition ~
a plenary pardon or amnesty. In other words, the
latter provision allows any person who has been
granted plenary pardon or amnesty after conviction
by final judgment of an offense involving moral
turpitude, inter alia, to run for and hold any public
office, whether local or national position. The
disqualification of former President Estrada under
Section 40 of the LGC in relation to Section 12 of the
OEC was removed by his acceptance of the absolute
pardon granted to him.
CRIMINAL LAW; MALUM PROHIBITU!
The crime of hazing under R.A. No. 8049 is malum
prohibitum. The Senate deliberations would show
that the lawmakers intended the anti-hazing statute to
be malum prohibitum. In Vedana v. Valencia, the
Court noted that in our nation’s very recent history,
the people had spoken, through the Congress, to
deem conduct constitutive of hazing, an act
previously considered harmless by custom, as
criminal. The act of hazing itself is not inherently
immoral, but the law deems the same to be against
public policy and must be prohibited. Accordingly,
the existence of criminal intent is immaterial in the
crime of hazing. Also, the defense of good faith
cannot be raised in its prosecution.
See Republic Act 11053 for the Anti-Hazing Act
of 2018
DISMISSAL OF JUNJUN BINAY
Carpio Morales v. CA
November 10, 2015,
POLITICAL LAW; ABANDONING THE.
CONDONATION DOCTRINE: To begin with, the
concept of public office is a public trust and the
corollary requirement of accountability to the people
at all times, as mandated under the 1987
Constitution, is plainly inconsistent with the idea that
an elective local official's administrative liability for
a misconduct committed during a prior term can be
wiped off by the fact that he was elected to a second
term of office, or even another elective post. Election
is not a mode of condoning an administrative
offense, and there is simply no constitutional or
statutory basis in our jurisdiction to support the
notion that an official elected for a different term is
fully absolved of any administrative liability ari
from an offense done during a prior term.
Page 1 of 22Supreme Court Dectvep Cases & Oruer Issues
‘THAT MADE IT TO THE HEADLINES IN YEARS 2015-2018
Justin Ryan D. Morilla
Last Updated on Octobe
Also, it cannot be inferred from Section 60 of the
LGC that the grounds for discipline enumerated
therein cannot anymore be invoked against an
elective local official to hold him. administratively
liable once he is re-elected to office. In fi Section
40 (b) of the LGC precludes condonation since in the
first place, an elective local official who is meted
with the penalty of removal could not be re-elected
to an elective local position due to a direct
disqualification from running for such post, In
ilar regard, Section 52 (a) of the RRACCS
imposes a penalty of perpetual disqualification from
holding public office as an accessory to the penalty
of dismissal from service.
It should, however, be clarified that this Court's
abandonment of the condonation doctrine should be
prospective in application for the reason that judicial
decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the
Constitution, until reversed, shall form part of the
legal system of the Philippines
KILLING OF JENNIFER LAUDE
Laude v. Ginez-Jabalde
November 24, 2015
REMEDIAL LAW; NOTICE OF HEARING:
Rule 15, Section 4 of the Rules of Court clearly
makes it a mandatory rule that the adverse party be
given notice of hearing on the motion at least three
days prior. While the general rule is that a motion
that fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 15
isa mere scrap of paper, an exception may be made,
and the motion may still be acted upon by the court,
provided doing so will neither cause prejudice to the
other party nor violate his or her due process rights.
113 The adverse party must be given time to study
the motion in order to enable him or her to prepare
properly and engage the arguments of the movant.
114 In this case, the general rule must apply because
Pemberton was not given sufficient time to study
petitioners’ Motion, thereby depriving him of his
right to procedural due process.
2018,
POLITICAL LAW; JUDICIAL REVIEW OF
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
VISITNG FORCES AGREEMENT: The
constitutionality of an official act may be the subject
of judicial review, provided the matter is not raised
collaterally. The constitutionality of the Visi
Forces Agreement is not the lis mora of this Petition,
Petitioners started their Petition with a claim that
their right to access to justice was violated, but ended
it with a prayer for a declaration of the Visiting
Forces Agreement’ unconstitutionality. ‘They
attempt to create the connection between the two by
asserting that the Visiting Forces Agreement
prevents the transfer of Pemberton to Olongapo City
Jail, which allegedly is tantamount to the impairment
of this court's authority.
REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL
JURISDICTION AND CUSTODY: The issues of
criminal jurisdiction and custody during trial as
contained in the Visiting Forces Agreement were
discussed in Nicolas v. Secretary Romulo.
REMEDIAL LAW; WRIT OF MANDATORY
INJUNCTION: It is likewise established that a writ
of mandatory injunction is granted upon a showing
that (@) the invasion of the right is material and
substantial; (b) the right of complainant is clear and
unmistakable; and (c) there is an urgent and
permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious
damage. Nowhere in their Petition did petitioners
discuss the basis for their claim that they are entitled
to the sought writ, let alone mention it in their
arguments. This court cannot consider the issuance
of a writ of mandatory injunction or a temporary
restraining order without any legal and factual basis.
GERRY ORTEGA MURDER CASE
De Lima v. Reyes
January 11, 2016
REMEDIAL LAW; PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION: In a preliminary investigation,
the prosecutor does not determine the guilt or
Page 2 of 22Supreme Court Dectvep Cases & Oruer Issues
‘THAT MADE IT TO THE HEADLINES IN YEARS 2015-2018
Justin Ryan D. Morilla
Last Updated on Octobe
innocence of an accused. The prosecutor only
determines "whether there is sufficient ground to
engender a well-founded belief that a crime has. been
committed and the respondent is probably guilty
thereof, and should be held for trial." As such, the
prosecutor does not perform quasi-judicial functions.
REMEDIAL LAW; EXECUTIVE AND
JUDICIAI DETERMINATION OF
PROBABLE CAUSE: There are two kinds of
determination of probable cause: executive and
judicial. The executive determination of probable
cause is one made during preliminary investigation.
It is a function that properly pertains to the public
prosecutor who is given a broad discretion to
determine whether probable cause exists and to
charge those whom he believes to have committed
the crime as defined by law and thus should be held
for trial. Otherwise stated, such official has the qu
judicial authority to determine whether or not a
criminal case must be filed in court. Whether or not
that function has been correctly discharged by the
public prosecutor, i., whether or not he has made a
correct ascertainment of the existence of probable
cause in a case, is a matter that the trial court itself
does not and may not be compelled to pass upon.
The judicial determination of probable cause, on the
other hand, is one made by the judge to ascertain
whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against
the accused. The judge must satisfy himself that
based on the evidence submitted, there is necessity
for placing the accused under custody in order not to
frustrate the ends of justice. If the judge finds no
probable cause, the judge cannot be forced to issue
the arrest warrant,
REMEDIAL LAW; EFFECT OF FILING OF
INFORMATION TO THE PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION: The preliminary investigation
conducted by the fiscal for the purpose of
determining whether a prima facie case exist
warranting the prosecution of the accused
terminated upon the filing of the information in the
proper court, In turn, as above stated, the filing of
2018,
said information sets in motion the criminal action
against the accused in Court. Should the fiscal find it
proper to conduct a reinvestigation of the case, at
such stage, the permission of the Court must be
secured. After such reinvestigation the finding and
recommendations of the fiscal should be submitted
to the Court for appropriate action. While it
that the fiscal has the quasi judicial discretion to
determine whether or not a criminal case should be
filed in court or not, once the case had already been
brought to Court whatever disposition the fiscal may
feel should be proper in the case thereafter should be
sed for the consideration of the Court, the only
ition is that the action of the Court must not
the substantial rights of the accused or the
right of the People to due process of law. (Citing
Crespo v. Mogul)
REMEDIAL LAW; REFUSAL BY THE COURT
‘TO GRANT MOTION TO DISMISS FILED BY
THE PROSECUTOR UPON THE DIRECTIVE
OF THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE: The rule
therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint
or information is filed in Court any disposition of the
case as t0 its dismissal or the convietion or acquittal
of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the
Court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and
control of the prosecution of criminal cases even
while the case is already in Court he cannot impose
his opinion on the trial court. The Court is the best
and sole judge on what to do with the case before
it.- The determination of the case is within its
exclusive jurisdiction and competence. A motion to
dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be
addressed to the Court who has the option to grant or
deny the same. It does not matter if this is done
before or after the arraignment of the accused or that
the motion was filed after a reinvestigation or upon
instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed
the records of the investigation, (Citing Crespo v.
Mogul)
Page 3 of 22