Badana, Prince Rameses C.

13144 POL SC 211

9:00 AM - 10:30 AM

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ISLANDS vs. GRACIANO L. CABRERA, ET AL

G.R. NO. 1755 MARCH 4, 1922
“Nemo Est Supra Legis” or no one is above the law, even our law enforcement agents are trained to
remember that the law is supreme and above of them. But what happens if these law enforcers became the
number one violators of the law that they are supposed to enforce? Will justice be given to the victims?
FACTS:
Manila police department abused the Philippine Constabulary soldiers when they arrested a
woman who is a member of the household of one of the Constabulary soldiers. And, it was continued
when they shot dead one of the Constabulary soldiers in an encounter. It was a clash between two of the
law enforcement agencies at that time to the point that the Constabulary soldiers stationed in Santa Lucia
Barracks of the City of Manila have planned for retaliation and vengeance against the Manila police
department. They participated in the riot and fired shots against the police force that resulted in the deaths
of six members of the police department, two private citizens, and wounded three other citizens.
Graciano L. Cabrera, sergeant of the Philippine Constabulary and one of the appellants, stated during the
trial that they have to act against the abuses of the police force that included a false accusation that two of
Constabulary men falsely accused of keeping women in a bad reputation. He further counted that their
experience of the abuses and their hatred towards the Manila police department drove them to commit the
unthinkable and that was to attack the night of December 15, 1920, at the directions and intersections of
Calle Real, Intramuros.
ISSUES:
I. Whether there was a case of double jeopardy in the ruling.
II. Whether the trial court did not err in admitting Exhibits C to C-76
III. Whether there was a conspiracy
RULING:
The attorneys for the accused presented evidence to the court that included an issue that the court
did err in not allowing the defense of double jeopardy. However, the appellate court saw the evidence
weak and furthermore, the court found that the appellants are guilty of the crime of murder and serious
physical injuries. Sergeant Graciano L. Cabrera and other eleven (11) sergeants and corporals are
sentenced to the death penalty by the court and other sixty-six soldiers were sentenced to Cadena
Perpetua (life imprisonment) which is equivalent to forty (40) years.
ANALYSIS:
Based on my perspective, we should not make a rash judgment and put the law in our own hands
as said above, Nemo Est Supra Legis or no one is above the law. Not even our law enforcement agents.
But also, we should listen to the other side of the story to give justice to both parties. As sophist
Protagoras asserted, there will always be two sides of the coin and there will always be two sides of the
story and would be fair and just if we hear both sides to give justice. In this case, if we apply Protagoras’
thought, one side of the coin would show us the bad things such as the murder of the officers and innocent
civilians. On the other hand, the intention of the Constabulary soldiers was for the payback of injustice
that the Manila police force brought to them when they arrested a woman who is a member of the
household of a Constabulary soldier and was further enraged when one of their comrades was shot dead
in an encounter. As a law-abiding citizen of the Republic of the Philippines, there shall be no person even
a law enforcer that is above the law.
G.R. No. 145363 February 23, 2004
MERCEDES B. GONZALES vs. JOHN DOE (not his real name) and RICARDO P. NAGPACAN

We should be judicious in life as being judicious is a person with good judgment or sense. Anyone can
sue a person or file a lawsuit unto another but should be justified and with legal proof to be presented in
the court. Cases should also be filed into the proper appellate court and at the proper time.
FACTS:
The petitioner, Mercedes Gonzales, a public-school teacher and a former assistant principal of
Caloocan Elementary School, faced an administrative complaint of grave misconduct, dishonesty, and
estafa. The trial court convicted the petitioner on May 30, 1995, the trial court convicted the petitioner for
estafa and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of two to four years. In August of 1997, the Court of
Appeals acquitted Gonzales for they were not able to prove her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. All the
while, the petitioner never applied for a judicial relief for resolution of the jurisdictional issue and
declaration of nullity of the administrative proceedings.
Instead, she filed on February 25, 1999, an administrative complaint docketed as OMB-ADM-0-99-0177
for violation of Sec. 9 of the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers against Abracia, Gloria, and herein
respondents Nagpacan and John Doe (not his real name) before the Office of the Ombudsman. Graft
Investigation Officer Plaridel Oscar Bohol found the complaint sufficient in form and substance and
recommended that an administrative adjudication be conducted against Abracia, Nagpacan, and John Doe
(not his real name).
However, Administrative Adjudication Bureau Director Evelyn Baliton disapproved Bohol’s findings and
dismissed the petitioner’s administrative complaint against respondents. Baliton noted that the
administrative complaint was filed five (5) years after the occurrence of the act complained of, a ground
for outright dismissal of the complaint under Sec. 4(a), Rule III of the Rules of Procedure 15 of the Office
of the Ombudsman. Baliton also found that the complainant had an adequate remedy in another judicial or
quasi-judicial body, also a ground for dismissal under Sec. 2016 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989. The
proper remedy, Baliton maintained, was to seek judicial relief from the proper court for resolution of the
jurisdictional issue and declaration of nullity of the administrative proceedings. According to Baliton, the
petitioner failed to adduce substantial evidence. The petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a special
civil action for certiorari on the ground that the Office of the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of
discretion docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 56251.

ISSUE:
I. Whether the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion.
RULING:
On October 2, 2000, the appellate court dismissed CA-G.R. SP No. 56251 as it should have been
filed no later than 10 days. Also, the Court of Appeals found out that the Ombudsman correctly relied
upon the law. Wherefore, the instant petition for review was denied for lack of merit. Unfortunately,
petitioner chose to pursue another remedy not warranted by the circumstances of her case.

It is now indubitable that the Court of Appeals did not err when it dismissed her petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review is DENIED for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of
Appeals, dated October 2, 2000, in CA-G.R. SP No. 56251 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

ANALYSIS:
Concerning this petition, the Greek philosopher Socrates stated that one statement can be
considered true if otherwise cannot be proven wrong. We cannot condemn nor file a case against a person
without evidence. In this case, both parties were not able to present enough and sufficient evidence to
back their charges. In this case, neither of them paid the price of a penalty nor punished. Furthermore, the
petitioner was acquitted the same thing that happened to the petitioner’s complaint against the
respondents. As we relate the Socrates’ view in this case, both parties lacked evidence to back their
charges against each other and notably, the petitioner failed to file appropriate charges in time and chose
to pursue another remedy not warranted by the circumstances of her case that led to the dismissal of the
same. This related Socrates’ view that “one statement can be considered true if otherwise cannot be
proven wrong.”
G.R. No. 139530 February 27, 2004

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs PEPE BAUTISTA y SABADO

FACTS:
On or about February 3, 1993, at around 9:00 in the evening, Pepe Bautista hacked Rodolfo
Bacoling using Bacoling’s bolo which resulted in Bacoling’s death. According to the autopsy report dated
February 9, 1993, the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to head and neck injuries secondary to
multiple hacking wounds - incised wounds in the head, face, neck, and fingers, and abrasion at the back.
Bautista killed Bacoling. 
During the trial, the appellant gave a tale that the deceased followed him when he was going to return
home and warned that the deceased will kill him when the latter pick up a stone and hurled at him, albeit
he was not able to hit the appellant. As the deceased caught up with him, the appellant confronted him
and struck him with the deceased’s bolo. The trial court then rendered a decision finding the accused
guilty and hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. 
ISSUES:
I. The appellant assigns to the trial court that there was an err on their part when they sentenced
him guilty of murder and felt wronged by the court.
RULING:
The appellant requested to reconsider the verdict and insisted that what he did was an act of self-
defense as the deceased attacked him first with the bolo. But instead of only defending himself, he
committed a crime by killing the deceased using the deceased’s bolo. After deliberations by the appellate
court, they decided to modify that the appellant is guilty of Homicide and hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of 12 years imprisonment to pay for his crime.

ANALYSIS:
Based on my perspective, the appellant has the right to defend himself but does not have the right
to commit a crime by killing Bacoling for a reason that the deceased provoked him. As per Antiphon’s
concept of justice, “Justice is maintained by imposing punishments accordingly.” And by that thought, we
shall also be taught that we should punish a person for a crime that is according to the law’s sentence as
murder and homicide are distinct from each other. In my own perspective, if we apply Antiphon’s
concept of justice, we should impose punishments that are according to the exact measure of crime
committed by the criminal. We cannot sentence a person that has only committed a homicide instead of a
murder. Murder and Homicide are different in nature and in our revised penal code. As we give a
reference to the tale of the appellant, he only defended himself against the deceased when the deceased
threatened the life of the appellant using the bolo of the deceased.
G. R. No. 147607 January 22, 2004

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BENHUR MAMARIL

FACTS:
On February 1, 1999, at Municipality of Lingayen, province of Pangasinan, Benhur Mamaril was
caught with crushed marijuana leaves contained in seventy-eight (78) sachets with a total weight of two
hundred thirty-six (36) and eighty-three hundredth (236.83) grams and two (2) bricks of marijuana
fruiting tops weighing one thousand six hundred grams, each brick weighing eight hundred (800) grams,
with a total weight of one thousand eight hundred thirty-six and eighty-three hundredth (1,836.83) grams,
a prohibited drug, without authority to possess the same. The arrest was strengthened by the issued Search
Warrant No. 99-51. 
During the search, the appellant let the authorities do their actions for he cannot do anything with the
presence of an arrest warrant. The trial court charged him guilty for dealing and possessing drugs and
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. However, the appellant appealed to the court
that the arrest stating that the arrest that happened on February 1, 1999, was illegal according to the
Article III Bill of Rights, Section 3 that says (a) the privacy of communication and correspondence shall
be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as
prescribed by law. And, (b) any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. And that the right to privacy and communication shall
not be used against the appellant. 
The defense also raised an issue of whether the trial court erred in not declaring as inadmissible in
evidence the articles allegedly seized from accused-appellant considering that search warrant no. 99-51
was illegally issued. And which the appellate court answered that the appellant’s contention is
meritorious.
ISSUES:
I. Whether the trial court erred in not declaring as inadmissible in evidence the articles allegedly
seized from accused-appellant considering that search warrant no. 99-51 was illegally issued.

RULING:
After deliberations, the decision was modified and declared Search Warrant No. 99-51 null and
void, and the search and seizure operations conducted in the defendant’s residence were deemed illegal.
Therefore, the appellate court acquitted the appellant, Benhur Mamaril, and released him from
confinement. As the court decided:
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 39, in Criminal
Case No. L-5963, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Judgment is hereby rendered declaring Search
Warrant No. 99-51 NULL and VOID and the search and seizure made at appellant’s residence illegal. For
lack of evidence to establish appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, appellant BENHUR MAMARIL
is hereby ACQUITTED and ordered RELEASED from confinement unless he is being held for some
other legal grounds.

The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to IMPLEMENT without delay this Decision
and to INFORM this Court, within ten (10) days from receipt hereof, of the date appellant was actually
released from confinement.
The confiscated marijuana is ORDERED forfeited in favor of the State and the trial court is hereby
directed to deliver or cause its delivery to the Dangerous Drugs Board for proper disposition.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
ANALYSIS:
Furthermore, as stated by Antiphon, “Justice is maintained by imposing punishments
accordingly”. The trial court wronged Mamaril in sentencing him guilty wherein the evidence was
inadmissible due to an unconstitutional move by the law enforcement agents. As the evidence was
inadmissible and that the search warrant was illegally issued. In my own perspective, if we apply
Antiphon’s concept of justice, Mamaril was wronged by the trial court and that inadmissible evidence
was used against him by the law enforcement agencies. By interpreting Antiphon’s concept, we should
only sentence a criminal according to his crime and let an innocent free of charges.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by SOLICITOR GENERAL C. CALIDA 
Vs.
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

FACTS:
On May 11, 2018, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno was found disqualified for her
position as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines via Quo Warranto Petition filed against
her. The Solicitor General of the Philippines, Atty. Jose Calida filed a quo warranto petition against the
respondent with the reason of her lack of integrity to discharge duty as Chief Justice and her failure
to disclose the information of her Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Networth (SALN).
In the defense of the respondent, she argues that the Chief Justice can only be removed from office via
impeachment based on the constitution and that the petition is timely irrelevant as quo warranto petitions
must be filed within one year from the cause of ouster. However, the court favored their ruling to the
petitioner as it was proven true that she failed to present and update her Statement of Assets, Liabilities,
and Networth (SALN) as one of the requirements of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). 
ISSUE:
I. Whether the respondent lack integrity to discharge duty as Chief Justice.
II. Whether the respondent be ousted as the Chief Justice by failing to disclose the information of
her Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Networth (SALN).
RULING:
Thus, by a vote of 8-6, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno was ousted and excluded from
the body therefrom. As the court decided:
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Quo Warranto is GRANTED. Respondent Maria Lourdes P. A.
Sereno is found DISQUALIFIED from and is here y adjudged GUILTY of UNLAWFULLY HOLDING
and EXERCISING the OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE. Accordingly, Respondent Maria Lourdes
P.A. Sereno is OUSTED and EXCLUDED therefrom.
The position of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is declared vacant and the Judicial and Bar
Council is directed to commence the application and nomination process.
This Decision is immediately executory without need of further action from the Court.
Respondent Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno is ordered to SHOW CAUSE within ten (10) days from
receipt hereof why she should not be sanctioned for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and
the Code of Judicial Conduct for transgressing the subjudice rule and for casting aspersions and ill
motives to the Members of the Supreme Court.
SO ORDERED.
ANALYSIS:
The case is with Antiphon’s theory of justice; one must adhere to the law of the city and should
act justly to avoid the penalty for injustice. If we are a member of a body, we must comply with the law
because the law excuses no one. In my own perspective, if we apply Antiphon’s theory of justice, we
should abide by the law of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) and of being a public servant to disclose
the information of Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Networth to avoid the penalty for injustice. As for
the former Chief Justice, she was ousted from her position because she failed to disclose her SALN.
G.R. No. 139236           February 3, 2004

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs RODEL ANTIVOLA

FACTS:
In December 1997, a five-year-old girl named Rachel de Guzman was outrageously raped by the
appellant named Rodel (Bungi) Antivola and after being satisfied, he instructed the child to go home.
When the girl reached home, her mother, Sally de Guzman, noticed marks and reddish discoloration in
the private part of the girl when the mother was about to bathe her five-year-old daughter. 

During the trial, he testified that he is 26 years old, male, single, and lived with his brother near the five-
year-old’s home. He denied and insisted that he did not rape the child and added that they manipulated the
child. The court finds his arguments insufficient and feeble, for there are no parents in their right mind to
let their young daughter at the age of five do it. As there is not sufficient proof of Rachel’s minority, the
court sentenced the appellant with simple rape and hereby sentenced to suffer reclusion Perpetua instead
of the Death Penalty.
ISSUE:
I. Whether the trial court erred in not awarding civil indemnity to the victim, the same being
mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.
RULING:
As there is not sufficient proof of Rachel’s minority, the court sentenced the appellant with
simple rape and hereby sentenced to suffer reclusion Perpetua instead of the Death Penalty.
As the court decided:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 78, is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant Rodel Antivola is held GUILTY of simple rape, and is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to pay the victim Rachel de Guzman
P50,000 as civil indemnity; P50,000 as moral damages; and P25,000 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.
ANALYSIS:
In my own perspective, the case is associated with Antiphon’s concept of justice “Justice is
maintained by imposing punishments accordingly.” The court decided to sentence the respondent to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for being guilty of simple rape instead of suffering the penalty of
death penalty. As we apply the concept of Antiphon, the respondent shall be punished according to his
crime and because of the lack of evidence of the young child’s age minority, the respondent shall only
face reclusion perpetua as evidence plays heavily in the court.
G.R No. 176864

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HUBERT JEFFREY WEBB ET AL

FACTS:
On June 30, 1991, a rape-slay murder case rocked the entire country as the Vizconde family
found three female members of their family killed in a massacre. Authorities arrested suspects but were
discharged by the court due to a lack of evidence. After four years, a witness appeared and pointed out
some prominent people responsible for the crime. Years before, the court acquitted the suspects but was
reopened when the witness appeared. Lauro Vizconde, the father of the Vizconde family was hoping to
seize justice.
ISSUES:
I. Whether the evidence presented against the accused were enough.
RULING:
In the appellate court on January 6, 2000, Judge Tolentino rendered her decision, finding Hubert
Webb, Peter Estrada, Hospicio Fernandez, Michael Gatchalian, Antonio Lejano II, and Miguel Rodriguez
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with homicide. They were sentenced to reclusion
Perpetua and ordered to indemnify the Vizconde family for Php 3 million for the murders. Two of the
accused remain fugitives from the law: Joey Filart and Artemio Ventura. Former Parañaque policeman
Gerardo Biong was found guilty as an accessory for burning bedsheets and tampering with other evidence
in the crime. He was sentenced to eleven years in prison. Biong was released from jail on November 30,
2010, after serving his sentence.
The court decided to agree upon the merit of Webb’s appeal that his right to due process was violated.
Webb stated, citing Brady v. Maryland, that he is entitled to an acquittal on the ground of violation of his
right to due process given that the State failed to produce on order of the Court either by negligence or
willful suppression of the semen specimen taken from Carmela.
Consequently, the court reversed the decision and acquitted Webb and the other accused.
ANALYSIS:
The case is associated with Antiphon’s concept of justice that justice does not harm nor tolerate
suffering. In my own perspective, the State’s mishandling or failure to produce the specimen of semen
taken from Carmela on order of the court manifested that Webb and other accused of the crime has the
right to due process and that he is entitled to an outright acquittal. Antiphon’s concept is true for me as
justice does not tolerate suffering for the innocent people and must not tolerate an innocent person to
suffer the penalty of committing injustice as evidence were mishandled by the state.