DIOSDADO GUZMAN, ULYSSES URBIZTONDO, and ARIEL 

RAMACULA,
 petitioners,vs.
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
G.R. No. L-68288 July 11, 1986

Facts:
Petitioners Diosdado Guzman, Ulysses Urbiztondo and Ariel Ramacula, students of respondent
National University, filed a petition with the SC "for extraordinary legal and equitable remedies
with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction" against the respondents due to the latter’s
"continued and persistent refusal to allow them to enroll for the first semester of the school year
1984-1985 ."They allege that, respondent University's avowed reason for its refusal to re-enroll
them in their respective courses is "the latter's participation in peaceful mass actions within
the premises of the University. That this "attitude of the (University) disregards student's
exercise of their basic constitutional and human rights and violates petitioners’ right to due
process of law and that "in effect petitioners are subjected to the extreme penalty of expulsion
without cause or if there be any, without being informed of such cause and without being
afforded the opportunity to defend themselves. The respondents in their comment claimed that
petitioners' failure to enroll for the said semester is due to their own fault and not because of their
alleged exercise of their constitutional and human rights;" e.g. poor academic performance and
they lead and
actively participated activities or mass action within the school premises without prior permit fro
mschool authorities. By their actuations, petitioners must be deemed to have forfeited
their privilege, if any, to seek enrollment in respondent university.

Issue/s:
Whether or not petitioners were deprived of their right to due process, specifically in disciplinary
actions against students.

HELD:
YES. Guzman et al were deprived of due process. In the first place, NU never showed which
school policies or duly published rules did Guzman et al violate upon which they may be
expelled from. NU failed to show that it conducted any sort of proceedings (not necessarily a
trial-type one) to determine Guzman et al’s liability or alleged participation in the said mass
actions.

Under the Education Act of 1982, Guzman et al, as students, have the right among others “to
freely choose their field of study subject to existing curricula and to continue their course
therein up to graduation, except in case of academic deficiency, or violation of disciplinary
regulations.” Guzman et al were being denied this right, or being disciplined, without due
process, in violation of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools which provides that “no
penalty shall be imposed upon any student except for cause as defined in the Manual and/or in
the school rules and regulations as duly promulgated and only after due investigation shall have
been conducted.”
Therefore, in effect, NU, by barring the enrollment of Guzman et al imposed a sanction upon
the students without due investigation – such act is illegal.

The Supreme Court also emphasized the minimum standards which must be met to satisfy the
demands of procedural due process, and these are:

1. That the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation
against them;
2. That they shall have the right to answer the charges against them, with the assistance of
counsel, if desired;
3. That they shall be informed of the evidence against them;
4. That they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; and
5. That the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official
designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case.

People vs. Omaweng G.R. No. 99050, September 2, 1992. 213 SCRA 462 (1992)

Facts:

“In the morning of September 12, 1988, Joseph Layong, a PC constable with the Mt.
Province PC Command at Bontoc, Mt. Province proceeded with other PC soldiers to
Barrio Dantay, Bontoc and, per instruction of their officer, Capt. Eugene Martin, put up a
checkpoint at the junction of the roads, one going to Sagada and the other to. They
stopped and checked all vehicles that went through the checkpoint. At about 9:15 A.M.,
Layong and his teammate, Constable David Osborne Famocod (sic), saw and flagged
down a cream-colored Ford Fiera bearing Plate No. ABT-634 coming from the Bontoc
Poblacion and headed towards Baguio. The vehicle was driven by appellant and had no
passengers. Layong and his companions asked permission to inspect the vehicle and
appellant acceded to the request. When they peered into the rear of the vehicle, they
saw a travelling bag which was partially covered by the rim of a spare tire under the
passenger seat on the right side of the vehicle. Layong and his companions asked
permission to see the contents of the bag. Appellant consented to the request but told
them that it only contained some clothes. When Layong opened the bag, he found that
it contained forty-one (41) plastic packets of different sizes containing pulverized
substances. Layong gave a packet to his team leader, Constable David Osborne
Fomocod, who, after sniffing the stuff concluded that it was marijuana. The PC
constables, together with appellant, boarded the latter’s Ford Fiera and proceeded to
the Bontoc poblacion to report the incident to the PC The prohibited drugs were
surrendered to the evidence custodian, Sgt. Angel Pokling. Major Carlos Figueroa, a PC
Forensic Chemist at Camp Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet, who has conducted more than
2500 professional examinations of marijuana, shabu and cocaine samples, conducted
two chemistry examinations of the substance contained in the plastic packets taken
from appellant and found them to be positive for hashish or marijuana. A criminal
complaint was filed against the accused where the judge convicting the accused of the
crime of transporting prohibited drugs penalized under Section 4, Article II of R.A. No.
6425, as amended. Hence the appeal.

Issue: Whether the constitutional rights of the accused against unreasonable search was
violated even if he consented the opening of the said bag.

Held: He willingly gave prior consent to the search and voluntarily agreed to have it
conducted on his vehicle and travelling bag. Thus, the accused waived his right against
unreasonable searches and seizures. When one voluntarily submits to a search or
consents to have it made of his person or premises, he is precluded from later
complaining thereof, he right to be secure from unreasonable search may, like every
right, be waived and such waiver may be made either expressly or impliedly. “Since in
the course of the valid search forty-one (41) packages of drugs were found, it behooved
the officers to seize the same; no warrant was necessary for such seizure. Besides, when
said packages were identified by the prosecution witnesses and later on formally offered
in evidence, the accused did not raise any objection whatsoever.

People v. Del Rosario, GR 127755, 1 April 1999 

FACTS:
On 13 May 1996 between 6:00 and 6:30 p.m., Paul Vincent Alonzo stopped his tricycle by the
side of
Nita's Drugstore, General Luna St., Cabanatuan City, when three women flagged him. Parked
at a distance of about 1½ meters in front of him was a tricycle driven by Joselito del Rosario y
Pascual. At that point, Alonzo saw 2 men and a woman (Virginia Bernas) grappling for
possession of a bag. After taking hold of the bag one of the two men (Ernesto "Jun" Marquez)
armed with a gun started chasing a man who was trying to help the woman, while the other
snatcher ("Dodong" Bisaya) kicked the woman sending her to the ground. Soon after, the armed
man returned and while the woman was still on the ground he shot her on the head. The bag
taken by the man was brought to the tricycle of del Rosario where someone inside (Virgilio
"Boy" Santos) received the bag. The armed man then sat behind the driver while his companion
entered the sidecar. When the tricycle sped away Alonzo gave chase and was able to get the
plate number of the tricycle. He also recognized the driver, after which he went to the nearest
police headquarters and reported the incident. Upon finding the name of the owner of the
tricycle, SP04 Geronimo de Leon and his team proceeded to Bakod Bayan in the house of the
barangay captain where the owner of the tricycle was summoned and who in turn revealed the
driver's name and was invited for interview. Del Rosario volunteered to name his passengers on
13 May 1996.

On the way to the police station, del Rosario informed them of the bag and lunch kit's location
and the place where the hold-uppers may be found and they reported these findings to their
officers, Capt. Biag and Capt. Cruz. After lunch, they proceeded to Brgy. Dicarma composed of
15 armed men where a shoot-out transpired that lasted from 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. After a brief
encounter, they went inside the house where they found Marquez dead holding a magazine and
a gun. While all of these were happening, del Rosario was at the back of the school, handcuffed
by the police because allegedly they had already gathered enough evidence against him and
they were afraid that he might attempt to escape. After the encounter, they went back to the
police station. The investigator took the statement of del Rosario on 14 May 1996, and was only
subscribed on 22 May 1996. All the while, he was detained in the police station as ordered by
the Fiscal. His statements were only signed on 16 May 1996. He also executed a waiver of his
detention. His Sinumpaang Salaysay was done with the assistance of Ex-Judge Talavera. Del
Rosario, on the other hand, claimed that he was hired for P120.00 by "Boy" Santos to drive him
to a cockpit at the Blas Edward Coliseum but was directed him to proceed to the market place to
fetch "Jun" Marquez and "Dodong" Bisaya; where the robbery homicide occurred. He claimed
that the 3 men alighted and warned del Rosario not to inform the police authorities about the
incident otherwise he and his family would be harmed. Del Rosario then went home. Because of
the threat, however, he did not report the matter to the owner of the tricycle nor to the barangay
captain and the police. Del Rosario, Marquez, Santos, and John Doe alias "Dodong" were
charged with the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide for having robbed Virginia
Bernas, a 66-year old businesswoman, of P200,000.00 in cash and jewelry and on the occasion
thereof shot and killed her. While del Rosario pleaded not guilty, Santos and alias "Dodong"
remained at large. Thus, only del Rosario was tried. The trial court found del Rosario guilty as
co-principal in the crime of Robbery with Homicide and sentencing him to death, and to pay the
heirs of victim Virginia Bernas P550,000.00 as actual damages and P100,000.00 as moral and
exemplary damages. Hence, the automatic review.
 
ISSUE:
Whether del Rosario was deprived of his rights during custodial investigation at the time he was
“invited” for questioning at the house of the barangay captain.
 
RULING:

Del Rosario was deprived of his rights during custodial investigation. From the time he was
invited for questioning at the house of the barangay captain, he was already under effective
custodial investigation, but he was not apprised nor made aware thereof by the investigating
officers. The police already knew the name of the tricycle driver and the latter was already a
suspect in the robbing and senseless slaying of Virginia Bernas. Since the prosecution failed to
establish that del Rosario had waived his right to remain silent, his verbal admissions on his
participation in the crime even before his actual arrest were inadmissible against him, as the
same transgressed the safeguards provided by law and the Bill of Rights. Herein, like victim
Virginia Bernas, del Rosario too was a hapless victim who was forcibly used by other persons
with nefarious designs to perpetrate a dastardly act. Del Rosario's defense of "irresistible force"
has been substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. Del Rosario was threatened with a
gun. He could not therefore be expected to flee nor risk his life to help a stranger. A person
under the same circumstances would be more concerned with his personal welfare and security
rather than the safety of a person whom he only saw for the first time that day. On the other
hand, conspiracy between him and his co-accused was not proved beyond a whimper of a
doubt by the prosecution, thus clearing del Rosario of any complicity in the crime charged.