Case Digests for Juris Doctor -First Year PDF

Preview

Summary

RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASEWILFREDO GERRY C. ROWENA TERCERO, M. BAUTISTA, MAMIGO, and C. MANILA, Petitioners vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, SIXTH DIVISION, and the OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Respondents , G. No. 238579-80, July 24, 2019FACTS: The instant case stemmed from petitioners' involv...

Description

RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASE WILFREDO GERRY C. ROWENA TERCERO, M. BAUTISTA, MAMIGO, and C. MANILA, Petitioners vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, SIXTH DIVISION, and the OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Respondents, G.R. No. 238579-80, July 24, 2019 FACTS: The instant case stemmed from petitioners' involvement in the Pola Watershed, a foreign-assisted project of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) funded by the Asian Development Bank, which spanned an area of 15,000 hectares. There was a bidding for a project and petitioner correspondingly issued a certification stating that they had "inspected the project in accordance with the Job Order7 dated Nov. 3, 1999" but there was noticed irregularities of the activity. DENRFact Finding Team investigated the alleged irregularities and forwarded to the Ombudsman. On August 27, 2013, the Field Investigation Office of the Ombudsman (FIO) filed a complaint 12 alleging that petitioners, in conspiracy with several others, defrauded the government, in the amount of ₱5,250,000.00, by simulating the bidding in favor of Lacanienta and making it appear that the latter had accomplished a perimeter survey and mapping of the project, when none was actually made. The Ombudsman conducted a preliminary investigation and came up with a Resolution dated August 26, 2016 finding probable cause to indict petitioners for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 otherwise known as Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act," and Falsification of Public Documents. Later, on July 14, 2017, the corresponding Information were filed before the SB charging petitioners of the foregoing crimes. On November 7, 2017, petitioners filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Suspend Arraignment, praying for the dismissal of their case for violation of their right to speedy disposition of cases at the SB’s Court. ISSUE: Whether or not the SB gravely abused its discretion in finding that there was no violation of petitioners' right to speedy disposition of their cases? RULING: No. The SB did not gravely abuse its discretion in essentially holding that petitioners' right to speedy disposition of cases was not violated. It bears pointing out that grave abuse of discretion refers to such "capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction." The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility,37 which does not obtain in this case. Doctrine and Discussion: A person's right to the speedy disposition of his case is guaranteed under Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which provides that: Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasijudicial, or administrative bodies. This constitutional right is not limited to the accused in criminal proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases, be it civil or administrative in nature, as well as all proceedings, either judicial or quasi-judicial. In this accord, any party to a case may demand expeditious action from all officials who are tasked with the administration of justice.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, V. SANDIGANBAYAN (SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION) AND LEONARDO B. ROMAN, Respondents, G.R. No. 231144, February 19, 2020 FACTS: The instant case stemmed from petitioners' involvement in the Pola Watershed, a foreign-assisted project of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) funded by the Asian Development Bank, which spanned an area of 15,000 hectares. On November 22, 1999, after purported compliance with the required bidding procedures, the project of conducting the final perimeter survey and mapping of the watershed (project) was awarded to Antonio M. Lacanienta (Lacanienta) through a Contract of Service with a project cost in the amount of ₱5,250,000.00. Thereafter, petitioners were designated as members of the Technical Inspection Committee tasked with monitoring the project and ensuring Lacanienta's compliance with his contractual obligations. On January 6, 2000, the project was completed and petitioners correspondingly issued a certification stating that they had "inspected [the project] in accordance with the Job Order7 dated Nov. 3, 1999." September 1, 2004 Complaint was filed against Roman, other local government officials of the Province of Bataan, and the owner of V.F. Construction for Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of Public Documents punished under Article 217, in relation to Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, and violation of Section 3(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. ISSUE: Whether or not the ruling of Sandiganbayan on Roman's right to speedy disposition of cases was violated? RULING: No. The Court finds that the period from the filing of the Complaint, to the conduct of the preliminary investigation, and up to the filing of the Information, was not attended or characterized by inordinate delay. There was nothing vexatious, capricious, and oppressive which would warrant the outright dismissal of the case. Principle/Doctrine and Discussion: Right to Speedy Disposition of the case – (Leonen, J) While the Constitution guarantees the right of the accused to speedy disposition of cases, this constitutional right is not a magical invocation which can be cunningly used by the accused for his or her advantage. This right is not a last line of remedy when accused find themselves on the losing end of the proceedings. The State's duty to prosecute cases is just as equally important and cannot be disregarded at the whim of the accused, especially when it appears that the alleged violation was raised as a mere afterthought. While the Constitution guarantees the right of the accused to speedy disposition of cases, this right is not a magical invocation which can be cunningly used by the accused for his or her advantage. This right is not a last line of remedy when accused find themselves at the losing end of the proceedings. The State's duty to prosecute cases is equally as important, and this cannot be disregarded at the whim of the accused, especially when it appears that the contention was raised as a mere afterthought.

RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION JAIME D. DELA CRUZ, Petitioner, Vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. G.R. No. 200748, July 23, 2014 FACTS: Petitioner Jaime D. dela Cruz was charged with violation of Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, by the Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer of the Office of the Ombudsman - Visayas, in an Information3 dated 14 February 2006. The officers were able to nab Jaime dela Cruz by using a pre-marked 500 bill dusted with fluorescent powder, which was made part of the amount demanded by "James" and handed by Corazon. Petitioner was later brought to the forensic laboratory of the NBI-CEVRO where forensic examination was done by forensic chemist Rommel Paglinawan. Petitioner was required to submit his urine for drug testing. It later yielded a positive result for presence of dangerous drugs as indicated in the confirmatory test result labeled as Toxicology (DangerousDrugs) Report No. 2006-TDD-2402 dated 16 February 2006. ISSUE: Whether or not the drug test conducted upon the petitioner is legal? RULING: No. Supreme Court declare that the drug test conducted upon petitioner is not grounded upon any existing law or jurisprudence. The Supreme Court gloss over petitioner’s non-compliance with the Resolution ordering him to submit clearly legible duplicate originals or certified true copies of the assailed Decision and Resolution. Petitioner was charged with use of dangerous drugs in violation of the law - Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs. Principle/Doctrine and Discussion: Rights Against Self Incrimination – (Sereno, C.J. ) The constitutional right of an accused against self-incrimination proscribes the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from the accused and not the inclusion of his body in evidence when it may be material. 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. (People vs. Olvis, 238 Phil. 513 [1987]) The essence of the right against self-incrimination is testimonial compulsion, that is, the giving of evidence against himself through a testimonial act. The drug test was a violation of petitioner’s right to privacy and right against self-incrimination. It is incontrovertible that petitioner refused to have his urine extracted and tested for drugs. He also asked for a lawyer prior to his urine test. He was adamant in exercising his rights, but all of his efforts proved futile, because he was still compelled to submit his urine for drug testing under those circumstances. The pertinent provisions in Article III of the Constitution are clear: Section 2. The right of the people to be securein their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

ARVIN R. BALAG, Petitioner Vs. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ORDER AND DANGEROUS DRUGS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS AND REVISION OF CODES AND MGEN. JOSE V. BALAJADIA, JR. (RET.) IN HIS CAPACITY AS SENATE SERGEANT-ATARMS, Respondents, G.R. No. 234608, July 3, 2018 FACTS: On September 17, 2017, Horacio Tomas T. Castillo III (Horacio Ill), a firstyear law student of the University of Sto. Tomas (UST), died allegedly due to hazing conducted by the Aegis Juris Fraternity (AJ Fraternity) of the same university. On September 19, 2017, SR No. 504, was filed by Senator Juan Miguel Zubiri (Senator Zubiri) condemning the death of Horacio III and directing the appropriate Senate Committee to conduct an investigation, in aid of legislation, to hold those responsible accountable. Petitioner attended the senate hearing. In the course of the proceedings, at around 11:29 in the morning, Senator Grace Poe (Senator Poe) asked petitioner if he was the president of AJ Fraternity but he refused to answer the question and invoked his right against self-incrimination. For the series of questions from the Senators, answer was not attained. Therefore, Petitioner was cited in contempt. ISSUE: Whether Respondent Senate Committees Acted with Grave Abuse of Discretion in Conducting the Legislative Inquiry and Citing Petitioner in Contempt. RULING: No. The Court finds that the period of imprisonment under the inherent power of contempt by the Senate during inquiries in aid of legislation should only last until the termination of the legislative inquiry under which the said power is invoked. The petition is DENIED for being moot and academic. However, the period of imprisonment under the inherent power of contempt of the Senate during inquiries in aid of legislation should only last until the termination of the legislative inquiry. The petition is moot and academic. The contempt power of the legislature under our Constitution is sourced from the American system. A study of foreign jurisprudence reveals that the Congress' inherent power of contempt must have a limitation. In the 1821 landmark case of Anderson v. Dunn, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) held that although the offense committed under the inherent power of contempt by Congress may be undefinable, it is justly contended that the punishment need not be indefinite. It held that as the legislative body ceases to exist from the moment of its adjournment or periodical dissolution, then it follows that imprisonment under the contempt power of Congress must terminate with adjournment. Principle/Doctrine and Discussion: Rights Against Self-incrimination - Petitioner also asserts that he properly invoked his right against self-incrimination as the questions propounded by Senator Poe regarding the officers, particularly the presidency of the AJ Fraternity, were incriminating because the answer thereto involves an element of the crime of hazing. Despite the questions being incriminating, he, nonetheless, answered them by admitting that he was a member of the AJ Fraternity but he did not know of its current president because he transferred to another school. He adds that his right to equal protection of laws was violated because the other resource

persons who refused to answer the questions of the Senate committees were not cited in contempt. NON-DETENTION BY REASON OF POLITICAL BELIEFS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSEPH JOJO V. GREY, FRANCIS GREY AND COURT OF APPEALS-CEBU CITY, EIGHTEENTH DIVISION G.R. No. 180109 : July 26, 2010 Facts: On December 11, 2006, an Information for Murder was filed against respondent Joseph Grey, former Mayor of San Jorge, Samar; his son, respondent Francis Grey; and two others for the death of Rolando Diocton, an employee of the San Jorge municipal government, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 41, Gandara, Samar. The Information was accompanied by other supporting documents and a motion for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Respondents filed a petition for review with the Secretary of Justice. Meanwhile, RTC Branch 41 Presiding Judge Rosario Bandal denied the motion for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Judge Bandal found the prosecutions evidence to be insufficient to link respondents to the crime charged. She directed the prosecution to present, within five days, additional evidence that would show that accused were the assailants or that they conspired, confederated, or helped in the commission of the crime charged. Issue: Whether there was lack of personal determination of probable cause by Judge Navidad in issuing the warrants for their arrest. Ruling: It is well to remember that there is a distinction between the preliminary inquiry which determines probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest and the preliminary investigation proper which ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial or be released.The determination of probable cause for purposes of issuing the warrant of arrest is made by the judge.The preliminary investigation proper whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged is the function of the investigating prosecutor. What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. Following established doctrine and procedure, he shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscals report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.

IRENE K. NACU, substituted by BENJAMIN M. NACU, ERVIN K. NACU, and NEJIE N. DE SAGUN, Petitioners, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, Respondents. G.R. No. 187752: November 23, 2010 Facts: PEZA issued a memorandum prohibiting its employees from charging and collecting overtime fees from PEZA-registered enterprises. Nacu however, still charged overtime fees. After investigations, the Director General of PEZA filed a complaint forDishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The PEZA used the services of the NBI in determining the similarity of her signature with the alleged items. After the hearing, Nacu was found guilty. Upon appeal, the CSC affirmed the findings of the PEZA Board of Discipline. The Court of Appeals likewise upheld the decision of the CSC after appeal. After a failed motion for reconsideration, Nacu appeals to the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether or not Nacu is guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service is supported by substantial evidence. Ruling: The petition has no merit. Instead of just discrediting the PNP Crime Labs findings, Nacu should have channeled her efforts into providing her own proof that the signatures appearing on the questioned SOS were forgeries. After all, whoever allegesforgery has the burden of proving the same by clear and convincing evidence. Nacu could not simply depend on the alleged weakness of the complainants evidence without offering stronger evidence to contradict the former. The right against self-incrimination is not self-executing or automatically operational. It must be claimed; otherwise, the protection does not come into play. Moreover, the right must be claimed at the appropriate time, or else, it may be deemed waived.In the present case, it does not appear that Nacu invoked her right against self-incrimination at the appropriate time, that is, at the time she was asked to provide samples of her signature. She is therefore deemed to have waived her right against self-incrimination. All told, Nacu was rightfully found guilty of grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and penalized with dismissal from the service and its accessory penalties.The general rule is that where the findings of the administrative body are amply supported by substantial evidence, such findingsare accorded not only respect but also finality, and are bindingon this Court. It is not for the reviewing court to weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses, or otherwise substitute its own judgment for that of the administrativeagency on the sufficiency of evidence. Petition is DENIED.

DOUBLE JEOPARDY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs ALEJANDRO y PIMENTEL G.R. No. 223099, January 11, 2018

FACTS:

Accused-appellant was charged with two counts of rape, defined and penalized under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a) of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Republic Act No. 83693 , of a 12-year old minor, AAA.Upon arraignment, accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty and trial ensued. On DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FCL 106 July 26, 2011, the RTC promulgated a Decision acquitting the accused-appellant. On the same day, however, the RTC recalled the said decision and issued an Order stating that upon manifestation of Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Roderick Cruz that there were Orders that were inadvertently placed in the record of Criminal Case No. Br. 20-4979 involving the same accused but different private complainant-victim, XXX, which if considered will result in a different verdict. Accused-appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing that a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory and can neither be withdrawn nor modified, because to do so would place an accused-appellant in double jeopardy A Joint Decision dated July 26, 2011 was rendered by the RTC, finding accused-appellant guilty of two counts of rape. Accused-appellant appealed to the CA, but the CA dismissed the appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the recall of the judgment of acquittal will result in double jeopardy.

RULING:

In our jurisdiction, We adhere to the finality-of-acquittal doctrine, that is, a judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable. The 1987 Constitution guarantees the right of the accused a...