PART 2

RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES

TUMBOCON V SB (G.R. Nos. 235412-15)

Facts:

 Eldred Palada Tumbocon filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari challenging the denial
of his Motion to Dismiss a case on the ground of inordinate delay.
 The case was filed against Tumbocon in 2007 based on an anonymous complaint.
 A formal complaint was filed in 2009.
 The preliminary investigation was conducted in 2010.
 Probable cause was found in 2013.
 The Ombudsman approved the resolution in 2014.
 The Office of the Special Prosecutor filed the informations in 2017.
 Tumbocon filed a Motion to Dismiss in 2017, which was denied by the Sandiganbayan.

Issue:

 Whether there is inordinate delay that violated Tumbocon's constitutional right to a

speedy disposition of a case.

Ruling:

 The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tumbocon and granted his Petition for Review on
Certiorari.
 The Court held that there was inordinate delay in the resolution and termination of the
preliminary investigation, which violated Tumbocon's right to a speedy disposition of the
case.
 The criminal complaint against Tumbocon was dismissed.

Ratio:

 The Court applied the "balancing test" to determine whether Tumbocon's right to a
speedy disposition of the case was violated.
 The factors considered were the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, Tumbocon's
assertion of his right, and the prejudice to Tumbocon resulting from the delay.
 The Court found that the delays in the preliminary investigation and the filing of the
informations were unreasonable and prejudicial to Tumbocon's rights.
 The Court emphasized that delay should be assessed in light of the defendant's interest in
preventing oppressive pre-trial incarceration, minimizing anxiety and concerns, and
ensuring a fair trial.
 The Court also considered the burden on the government to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt and the need for a reasonable opportunity to prosecute criminals.
Case Background and Petitioner's Argument

 The case of Tumbocon v. Sandiganbayan Sixth Division involves a Petition for Review
on Certiorari filed by Eldred Palada Tumbocon (petitioner).
 The petitioner challenged the denial of his Motion to Dismiss a case due to inordinate
delay.
 The case was filed against him in 2007, and it took 10 years for four informations to be
filed against him before the Sandiganbayan.
 The petitioner argued that the delay violated his constitutional right to a speedy
disposition of a case.

Sandiganbayan's Decision and Exclusion of Certain Periods

 The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to dismiss, stating that the delay of 5 years, 6
months, and 29 days cannot be considered as inordinate.
 They excluded certain periods from the calculation of the delay, such as the time spent by
the Field Investigation Office (FIO) in issuing subpoenas and the period when the
petitioner and his wife failed to submit their counter-affidavits.
 The Sandiganbayan found that the delay was justified and not oppressive or vexatious.

Petitioner's Argument on Unjustified Delay

 The petitioner argued that the delay was unjustified, considering that the cases against
him were not complex and involved alleged untruthful statements in his Statement of
Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth.
 The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Special Prosecutor, argued that
there was no inordinate delay and that the petitioner failed to assert his right to a speedy
disposition of his case before the Office of the Ombudsman.

Supreme Court's Ruling and Application of Balancing Test

 The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that the delay constituted a
violation of his constitutional right to a speedy disposition of a case.
 They applied the "balancing test" to determine whether the defendant's right was violated,
considering factors such as the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the
defendant's assertion of his right, and the prejudice to the defendant resulting from the
delay.
 The Court found that the delay of 5 years, 3 months, and 24 days in the preliminary
investigation and the delay of 1 year, 7 months, and 19 days in filing the informations
were inordinate and prejudiced the petitioner's right to a speedy trial.

Q AND A

1.) What case was filed against Eldred Palada Tumbocon in the Sandiganbayan Sixth Division?
The case filed against Eldred Palada Tumbocon in the Sandiganbayan Sixth Division was for
violation of various laws.

2.) When was the anonymous complaint filed in the case against Eldred Palada Tumbocon?

The anonymous complaint was filed in 2007 in the case against Eldred Palada Tumbocon.

3.) What was the length of the delay in the case against Eldred Palada Tumbocon?

The delay in the case against Eldred Palada Tumbocon was 6 years, 11 months, and 13 days.

4.) What factors are considered in the balancing test to determine the violation of the right to a
speedy disposition of a case?

The factors considered in the balancing test are the length of the delay, the reason for the delay,
the defendant's assertion of his right, and the prejudice to the defendant.

5.) What did the Supreme Court rule in the case involving Eldred Palada Tumbocon?

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Eldred Palada Tumbocon, stating that the delay of 6 years,
11 months, and 13 days is inordinate and violated his right to a speedy disposition of the case.

6.) What did the Court find regarding the reason for the delay in the case against Eldred Palada
Tumbocon?

The Court found that the delay was unjustified as there was no valid reason provided for the
delay in the proceedings.

7.) How did Eldred Palada Tumbocon assert his right to a speedy disposition of the case?

Eldred Palada Tumbocon asserted his right to a speedy disposition of the case by filing a Motion
to Dismiss on the ground of inordinate delay.

8.) What was the effect of the delay on Eldred Palada Tumbocon according to the Court?

The delay prejudiced Eldred Palada Tumbocon as it caused anxiety, distress, and uncertainty on
his part.

9.) What test did the Court apply to determine the violation of Eldred Palada Tumbocon's right to
a speedy disposition of the case?

The Court applied the balancing test to determine the violation of Eldred Palada Tumbocon's
right to a speedy disposition of the case.

10.) What was the outcome of the Supreme Court's ruling in the case involving Eldred Palada
Tumbocon?
The outcome of the Supreme Court's ruling was the dismissal of the criminal complaint against
Eldred Palada Tumbocon due to excessive delay.

RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

ROSETE V LIM (G.R. No. 136051)

Facts:

 Respondents Juliano Lim and Lilia Lim filed a complaint for Annulment, Specific
Performance with Damages against several parties, including the petitioners, before the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
 The complaint sought to annul a Deed of Sale and transfer the ownership of certain
parcels of land to the respondents.
 The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was denied by the trial
court.
 The petitioners also filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, challenging
the denial of their motion to dismiss.
 Meanwhile, the respondents filed a notice to take depositions upon oral examination of
the petitioners.
 The petitioners objected to the taking of the depositions, arguing that it would violate
their right against self-incrimination due to pending criminal cases involving the same set
of facts.
 The trial court denied the petitioners' objection and allowed the taking of the depositions.
 The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision.
 The petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Issue:

1. Whether the trial court violated the petitioners' right against self-incrimination by
allowing the taking of their depositions in the civil case, considering the pending criminal
cases involving the same set of facts.
2. Whether the trial court erred in allowing the taking of the depositions without the joinder
of issues and without leave of court.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondents and upheld the decision of the Court of
Appeals.

Ratio:

 The petitioners' right against self-incrimination was not violated by the taking of their
depositions in the civil case.
 The right against self-incrimination can only be invoked when a specific incriminatory
question is asked, and it does not give a witness the right to refuse to testify altogether.
  The right to refuse to take the witness stand only applies to accused individuals in
criminal cases, and not to parties in civil cases.
 Therefore, the petitioners, as parties in the civil case, could not refuse to have their
depositions taken.
 The taking of the depositions was allowed under the rules of civil procedure.
 Once an answer has been served, the testimony of a person, whether a party or not, may
be taken by deposition upon oral examination.
 The fact that the petitioners filed their answers ex abudanti cautela did not make them
less of an answer, and the issues of the case were already joined when the answers were
filed.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit and upheld the decision of
the Court of Appeals, allowing the taking of the petitioners' depositions in the civil
case. The Court held that the petitioners' right against self-incrimination was not
violated, and the taking of the depositions was allowed under the rules of civil
procedure.

Case Background and Procedural History

 The case of Rosete v. Lim involves a petition to set aside the decision of the Court of
Appeals, which upheld the orders of the Regional Trial Court allowing the taking of
depositions upon oral examination of the petitioners.
 Respondents Juliano Lim and Lilia Lim filed a complaint for annulment, specific
performance with damages against various parties, including the petitioners.
 The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, but it was denied by the trial
court.
 The petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Court of
Appeals, challenging the denial of their motion to dismiss.
 The trial court granted the motion to admit the answers, but the petitioners refused to
have their depositions taken, citing pending criminal cases involving the same set of
facts.
 The trial court denied the petitioners' objection to the deposition taking and scheduled the
deposition.
 The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was also denied.
 The trial court then ordered the striking out of the petitioners' answers for their refusal to
be sworn.
 The petitioners filed an urgent ex-parte omnibus motion to lift the order of default, but it
was denied.
 The trial court proceeded with the ex-parte presentation of evidence against the
petitioners.
 The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and upheld the orders of the trial court.
 The petitioners then filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Issue: Violation of Right Against Self-Incrimination

  The main issue in the case is whether the petitioners' right against self-incrimination
would be violated by the taking of their depositions.
 The Supreme Court ruled that the right against self-incrimination can only be invoked by
an accused in a criminal case, and not by parties in a civil case.

Q AND A

1.) What is the main issue in the case of Rosete v. Lim?

The main issue in the case is whether the petitioners' right against self-incrimination would be
violated by the taking of their depositions.

2.) What is the ruling of the Supreme Court regarding the petitioners' right against self-
incrimination?

The Supreme Court ruled that the right against self-incrimination can only be invoked by an
accused in a criminal case, and not by parties in a civil case.

3.) Did the Supreme Court consider the pending criminal cases involving the same set of facts in
their ruling?

Yes, the Supreme Court considered the pending criminal cases involving the same set
of facts, but ruled that it does not give the petitioners the right to refuse to take the witness stand
or give their depositions in the civil case.

4.) What is the significance of the petitioners' answers filed ex abudanti cautela?

The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners' answers, filed ex abudanti cautela, are considered
valid answers and join the issues in the case.

5.) Is the joinder of issues required for the taking of depositions to be allowed?

No, the joinder of issues is not required for the taking of depositions to be allowed.

6.) What is the procedural history of the case?

The respondents filed a complaint, the petitioners filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied.
The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Court of Appeals,
challenging the denial of their motion to dismiss. The trial court granted the motion to admit the
answers, but the petitioners refused to have their depositions taken. The trial court denied
the petitioners' objection to the deposition taking and scheduled the deposition. The petitioners
filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied. The trial court then ordered the striking out
of the petitioners' answers for their refusal to be sworn. The petitioners filed an urgent ex-parte
omnibus motion to lift the order of default, but it was denied. The trial court proceeded with the
ex-parte presentation of evidence against the petitioners. The Court of Appeals dismissed the
petition and upheld the orders of the trial court. The petitioners then filed a petition for review on
certiorari before the Supreme Court.

7.) What is the ruling of the Supreme Court regarding the petitioners' objection to the deposition
taking?

The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not err in denying the petitioners' objection to
the deposition taking.

8.) What is the ruling of the Supreme Court regarding the petitioners' motion for reconsideration?

The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not err in denying the petitioners' motion for
reconsideration.

9.) What is the ruling of the Supreme Court regarding the striking out of the petitioners' answers?

The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not err in ordering the striking out of the
petitioners' answers for their refusal to be sworn.

10.) What is the ruling of the Supreme Court regarding the petitioners' urgent ex-parte omnibus
motion?

The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not err in denying the petitioners' urgent ex-parte
omnibus motion to lift the order of default.
RIGHT AGAINST INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE

PEOPLE V NANGCAS (G.R. No. 218806)

Facts:

The case involves accused-appellant Gloria Nangcas who was charged with Violation of
Republic Act No. 9208 or the "Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003". The information stated
that Nangcas recruited, transported, transferred, harbored, and provided four women, namely
AAA, BBB, CCC, and Judith Singane, for the purpose of offering and selling them for forced
labor, slavery, or involuntary servitude. Nangcas promised the victims local employment
as househelpers in Camella Homes, Cagayan de Oro City, with a monthly salary of Php 1,500.
However, instead of bringing them to Camella Homes, Nangcas brought them to Marawi City
and sold them for Php 1,600 each.

Issue:

The main issue in the case is whether or not Nangcas is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Republic Act No. 9208.

Ruling:

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Nangcas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Qualified Trafficking in Persons. The RTC reasoned that Nangcas deceived the victims and their
parents by promising them employment in Camella Homes but instead brought them to Marawi
City. The victims were left penniless and forced to work against their will. The RTC imposed
upon Nangcas the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00).

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision of the RTC. The CA found no merit in
Nangcas' arguments and accorded respect to the findings of fact of the trial court. The CA
concluded that Nangcas recruited, transported, and harbored the victims, employed fraud and
deceit, and subjected them to forced labor and slavery.

Ratio:

The court's decision was based on the provisions of Republic Act No. 9208, which
defines and penalizes trafficking in persons. The court found that Nangcas committed
the acts that constitute trafficking, such as recruitment, transportation, transfer, and
harboring of the victims. The court also determined that Nangcas employed fraud and
deceit and took advantage of the victims' vulnerability to successfully recruit them.
Lastly, the court concluded that Nangcas' acts and means resulted in the victims'
forced labor and slavery.

Gloria Nangcas' conviction for Qualified Trafficking in Persons

  Gloria Nangcas was found guilty of Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Republic Act
No. 9208.
 She was convicted for recruiting and transporting four women to work as house helpers
in Marawi City instead of Camella Homes in Cagayan de Oro City as promised.
 The victims were deceived and forced to work against their will.
 Nangcas was sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of Two Million
Pesos.
 The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, finding no merit
in Nangcas' arguments.

Arguments and findings in the case

 Nangcas argued that there was no deception or taking advantage of the victims, and that
they were not sold for forced labor, slavery, or involuntary servitude.
 However, the court found that Nangcas employed fraud and deception to bring the
victims to Marawi City, and that they were indeed sold for forced labor.
 The court also dismissed the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the victims.
 The court affirmed Nangcas' conviction and imposed the penalty of life imprisonment
and a fine.

Violation of Special Protection of Children and Anti-Violence against Women Acts

Q AND A

1.) What crime did Gloria Nangcas commit?

Gloria Nangcas was convicted of trafficking in persons.

2.) What was the penalty imposed on Gloria Nangcas?

Gloria Nangcas was sentenced to life imprisonment and a Two Million Pesos fine.

3.) Under what law was Gloria Nangcas found guilty?

Gloria Nangcas was found guilty under Republic Act No. 9208, also known as the Anti-
Trafficking in Persons Act.

4.) How did Gloria Nangcas deceive the victims?

Gloria Nangcas deceived the victims by promising them employment in Camella Homes in
Cagayan de Oro City, but instead brought them to Marawi City where they were sold.

5.) Were the victims of Gloria Nangcas forced to work against their will?

Yes, the victims were forced to work against their will.

6.) What were the living conditions of the victims?

The victims were subjected to poor living conditions.

7.) What was Gloria Nangcas' plea during the trial?

Gloria Nangcas pleaded not guilty.

8.) Did the Court of Appeals affirm the decision of the Regional Trial Court?

Yes, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court.

9.) Did the Supreme Court uphold the decision of the lower courts?

Yes, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower courts.

10.) Were there any inconsistencies in the victims' testimonies?

There were minor inconsistencies in the victims' testimonies, but they did not affect the
credibility of the witnesses.
RIGHT AGAINST EXCESSIVE FINES AND CRUEL, DEGRADING OR INHUMAN PUNISHMENT

ALEJANO V CABUAY (G.R. No. 160792)

Facts:

 On July 27, 2003, 321 armed soldiers, led by detained junior officers, took control of the
Oakwood Premier Luxury Apartments in Makati City.
 The soldiers publicly renounced their support for the administration and called for the
resignation of the President.
 After negotiations, the soldiers surrendered and returned to their barracks.
 The detainees were later transferred to the ISAFP Detention Center.
 The detainees, along with their lawyers, filed a petition for habeas corpus with the
Supreme Court.
 The Court issued a writ of habeas corpus and referred the case to the Court of Appeals for
a factual hearing.
 The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, ruling that habeas corpus was not the proper
remedy to address the detainees' complaints about the conditions in the detention center.

Issue:

 Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review and reverse the Supreme Court's
decision.
 Whether habeas corpus was the appropriate remedy for the detainees' complaints.
 Whether the conditions in the detention center violated the detainees' constitutional
rights.

Ruling:

 The Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review the petition.

 Habeas corpus was not the proper remedy for the detainees' complaints.
 The conditions in the detention center did not violate the detainees' constitutional rights.

Ratio:

 The Court held that the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review the petition because
the Supreme Court referred the case to them for a factual hearing.
 The Court ruled that habeas corpus was not the appropriate remedy for the detainees'
complaints about the conditions in the detention center. Habeas corpus is a remedy to
challenge the legality of detention, not the conditions of detention.
 The Court found that the restrictions on the detainees' right to counsel and the opening
and reading of their letters were reasonable measures to ensure security and prevent
escape.
 The Court also found that the separation of the detainees from their visitors by iron bars
and the boarding of the iron grills in their cells were not excessive punishments.
  Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of
Appeals, stating that habeas corpus was not the proper remedy to address the detainees'
complaints about the conditions in the detention center. The Court also found that the
conditions in the detention center did not violate the detainees' constitutional rights.

Case Background and Detainees' Actions

 The case of Alejano v. Cabuay involves a group of soldiers who publicly renounced their
support for the administration and called for the resignation of the President.
 As a result of their actions, the soldiers were detained and their constitutional rights were
restricted.

Dismissal of Habeas Corpus Petition

 The soldiers filed a petition for habeas corpus, seeking their release from detention.
 The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, ruling that the detainees' confinement was
under a valid indictment.
 The court held that habeas corpus was not the proper remedy to address the detainees'
complaints against the regulations and conditions in the detention center.

Constitutional Rights of the Detainees

 The Court of Appeals found that the detainees' constitutional rights were not directly
affected by the alleged violations.
 The court recognized that the opening and reading of the detainees' letters by detention
center officials violated their right to privacy of communication but did not justify the
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
 The court upheld the prohibition on contact visits, stating that it was reasonably related to
maintaining security and protecting innocent individuals from potential harm.

Conditions in the Detention Center

 The court ruled that the boarding of the iron grills and the limited light and ventilation in
the detainees' cells were discomforts inherent in the fact of detention and did not
constitute punishments on the detainees.
 The court concluded that the regulations and conditions in the detention center were not
inhuman, degrading, or cruel.
 The court acknowledged that the detainees were treated well, given regular meals, and
that the cells were relatively clean and livable compared to other detention facilities.

Q AND A

4.) What was the main issue raised in the case?

Whether habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for the detainees' complaints about the
conditions in the detention center
5.) What was the ruling of the Court of Appeals?

Habeas corpus was not the appropriate remedy for the detainees' complaints

6.) What did the Court of Appeals find regarding the conditions in the detention center?

The conditions in the detention center did not violate the detainees' constitutional rights

7.) What did the court emphasize regarding habeas corpus?

Habeas corpus is a limited remedy and is not the proper mode to question conditions of
confinement

8.) Who were the petitioners in the case?

Capt. Gary Alejano, Capt. Nicanor Faeldon, Capt. Gerardo Gambala, Lt. SG James Layug, Capt.
Milo Maestrecampo, Lt. SG Antonio Trillanes IV, Homobono Adaza, and Roberto Rafael (Roel)
Pulido

9.) Who were the respondents in the case?

Gen. Pedro Cabuay, Gen. Narciso Abaya, Sec. Angelo Reyes, and Sec. Roilo Golez

10.) What did the Court of Appeals order Gen. Cabuay to do?

To uphold the rights of the detainees in accordance with Standing Operations

Procedure No. 0263-04
RIGHT AGAINST IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT OR NON-PAYMENT OF POLL TAX

SUMBILLA V MATRIX FINCANCE CORP. (G.R. No. 197582)

Facts:

 Petitioner Julie S. Sumbilla obtained a cash loan from respondent Matrix Finance
Corporation.
 She issued six checks as partial payment for the loan.
 However, all the checks were dishonored due to insufficient funds.
 The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) found her guilty of six counts of violation of B.P.
Blg. 22.
 The MeTC imposed a fine of P80,000.00 for each count, with subsidiary imprisonment.
 The MeTC also ordered her to indemnify the respondent in the amount of P40,002.00
plus 12% annual legal interest.

Issue:

 Whether the penalty imposed in the MeTC Decision, which is already final and
executory, may still be modified.

Ruling:

 The petition is granted.

 The Supreme Court finds that the penalty imposed by the MeTC is excessive and outside
the range prescribed by law.
 The MeTC incorrectly computed the amount of fine using the total face value of the six
checks instead of the face value of each check.
 The maximum penalty of fine that can be imposed on the petitioner is only P13,334.00
for each count.
 However, since the MeTC decision is already final and executory, the Court exercises its
power to suspend its own rules and modify the penalty in the interest of substantial
justice.
 The Court cites previous cases where final and executory judgments were reversed to
correct erroneous penalties.
 The penalty imposed on the petitioner is modified to a fine of P13,334.00 for each count
and an order to indemnify the respondent in the amount of P40,002.00 plus 6% interest
per annum.

Ratio:

 The Court has the power and prerogative to suspend its own rules and modify final and
executory judgments if justice requires it.
 Procedural rules should be viewed as tools to facilitate the attainment of justice, and their
strict application should be eschewed if it hinders substantial justice.
  The interest of substantial justice and the duty and inherent power of the Court to correct
erroneous penalties justify the modification of the penalty imposed on the petitioner.
 The penalty imposed by the MeTC is outside the range prescribed by law, and therefore,
the Court modifies it to conform to the penalty prescribed by law.

Parties Involved and Background Information

 Petitioner: Julie S. Sumbilla

 Respondent: Matrix Finance Corporation
 Case involves violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. Blg. 22)
 Petitioner obtained a cash loan from respondent and issued six checks as partial payment
 All checks were dishonored due to insufficient funds
 Petitioner was indicted for six counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22

Decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC)

 MeTC found the petitioner guilty of six counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22
 Imposed a fine of P80,000.00 for each count, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
non-payment
 Ordered the petitioner to indemnify the respondent in the amount of P40,002.00 plus 12%
annual legal interest

Petitioner's Actions and Denial of Appeal

 Instead of filing a Notice of Appeal, the petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,
which was denied
 Petitioner's subsequent Notice of Appeal was also denied for being filed beyond the
reglementary period

Dismissal of Petitioner's Petitions by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and Court of Appeals
(CA)

 RTC and CA both dismissed the petitioner's petitions for certiorari

Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court

 Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court
 Main issue to be resolved is whether the penalty imposed in the MeTC Decision, which is
already final and executory, may still be modified

Q AND A

2.) What is the main issue to be resolved in the case?

The main issue to be resolved is whether the penalty imposed in the MeTC Decision, which is
already final and executory, may still be modified.
3.) What penalty was imposed by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) on the petitioner?

The MeTC imposed a fine of P80,000.00 for each count of violation of B.P. Blg. 22, with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment.

4.) What was the incorrect computation made by the MeTC?

The MeTC incorrectly computed the amount of fine by using the total face value of the six
checks instead of the face value of each check.

5.) What power does the Supreme Court have in relation to its own rules?

The Supreme Court has the power and prerogative to suspend its own rules and exempt a case
from their operation if justice requires it.

6.) What penalty did the Supreme Court modify in the case?

The Supreme Court modified the penalty imposed on the petitioner and ordered her to pay a fine
of P13,334.00 for each count of violation of B.P. Blg. 22.

7.) Is imprisonment prohibited as a penalty for violation of B.P. Blg. 22?

No, imprisonment is not prohibited as a penalty for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. The law is not
intended to coerce a debtor to pay his debt.

8.) What is the rationale for the modification of the penalty by the Supreme Court?

The penalty imposed by the MeTC was found to be excessive and outside the range prescribed
by law. The Court modified the penalty to achieve justice.

9.) What is the total amount of indemnification ordered by the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court ordered the petitioner to indemnify the respondent in the total amount of
P40,002.00 plus 6% interest per annum.

10.) What is the legal basis for the Supreme Court's power to modify final and executory
judgments?

The Supreme Court's power to modify final and executory judgments is based on its
duty and inherent power to correct erroneous penalties and achieve substantial justice.
RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY

PEOPLE V LAGUIO, JR. (G.R. No. 128587)

Facts:

 The case involves the appeal filed by the People of the Philippines against Lawrence
Wang's acquittal.
 Three separate charges were filed against Lawrence Wang: violation of Section 16,
Article III in relation to Section 2 (e) (2), Article I of the Dangerous Drugs Act, illegal
possession of firearms, and violation of the Comelec Gun Ban.
 Wang refused to enter a plea and objected to the admissibility of the evidence obtained
by the police operatives.
 The trial court ordered a plea of "Not Guilty" to be entered for Wang and the trial
proceeded.
 On May 16, 1996, police operatives arrested three individuals for unlawful possession of
shabu.
 The arrested individuals identified Redentor Teck and Joseph Junio as their source of the
drugs.
 An entrapment operation was set up, leading to the arrest of Teck and Junio.
 Teck and Junio revealed that they were working for Lawrence Wang, the owner of
Glamour Modeling Agency.
 The police operatives placed the Maria Orosa Apartment, where Wang was believed to
be, under surveillance.
 Wang was seen coming out of the apartment and walking towards a parked BMW car.
 The police officers approached Wang, introduced themselves as police officers, and
frisked him.
 The police officers also searched the BMW car and found drugs, firearms, and other
items.
 Wang filed a demurrer to evidence, arguing that the warrantless arrest and search were
unlawful.
 The trial court granted the demurrer to evidence and acquitted Wang of all charges for
lack of evidence.

Issue:

 Whether the prosecution may appeal the trial court's resolution granting Wang's demurrer
to evidence without violating double jeopardy.
 Whether there was a lawful arrest, search, and seizure despite the absence of a warrant.

Ruling:

 The prosecution cannot appeal the trial court's resolution granting the demurrer to
evidence without violating double jeopardy.
 The warrantless arrest and search were unlawful.
  The evidence obtained from the unlawful search is inadmissible.

Ratio:

 The prosecution cannot appeal the trial court's resolution granting the demurrer to
evidence without violating double jeopardy because it would expose the accused to the
risk of being put in jeopardy twice for the same offense.
 The warrantless arrest and search were unlawful because they did not fall under any of
the exceptions to the requirement of a warrant.
 There was no probable cause to justify the arrest.
 The evidence obtained from the unlawful search is inadmissible because it violates the
constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Conclusion

 The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the People of the Philippines.
 The trial court's decision to grant Wang's demurrer to evidence and acquit him of all
charges was affirmed.
 The warrantless arrest and search were unlawful, leading to the inadmissibility of the
evidence obtained.

Background of the Case

 The case of People v. Laguio, Jr. involves the dismissal of the appeal filed by the People
of the Philippines against Lawrence Wang's acquittal.
 The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the warrantless arrest and search
conducted by the police were unlawful, leading to the inadmissibility of the evidence
obtained.

Arrest and Investigation

 SPO2 Vergel de Dios, Rogelio Anoble, and another individual were initially arrested for
unlawful possession of shabu.
 During the investigation, Redentor Teck and Joseph Junio were identified as the source of
the drugs.
 An entrapment operation was set up, and Teck and Junio were arrested while attempting
to hand over another bag of shabu to the police.

Involvement of Lawrence Wang

 Teck and Junio revealed that they were working for Lawrence Wang, the owner of
Glamour Modeling Agency.
 They disclosed that Wang could be found at the Maria Orosa Apartment in Malate,
Manila.
 The police proceeded to the apartment and placed it under surveillance.
Warrantless Arrest and Search

 At around 2:10 a.m. on May 17, 1996, Wang came out of the apartment and walked
towards a parked BMW car.
 The police approached him, introduced themselves as police officers, and frisked him.
 They also searched the BMW car and found 32 bags of shabu, cash, scales, and firearms.
 Wang resisted the warrantless arrest and search.

Trial and Acquittal

 During the trial, Wang filed a demurrer to evidence, arguing that the warrantless arrest
and search were unlawful.
 The trial court granted the demurrer to evidence and acquitted Wang of all charges due to
lack of evidence.

Appeal and Supreme Court Ruling

 The People of the Philippines appealed the dismissal of the case, arguing that the
warrantless arrest and search were lawful.

Q AND A

1.) What were the charges filed against Lawrence Wang?

Lawrence Wang was charged with Violation of Section 16, Article III in relation to Section 2 (e)
(2), Article I of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act); Illegal Possession of
Firearms under Presidential Decree No. 1866; and Violation of Comelec Resolution No. 2828 in
relation to R.A. No. 7166 (COMELEC Gun Ban).

2.) What was the basis for Lawrence Wang's acquittal?

Lawrence Wang was acquitted due to the trial court's ruling that the arrest and search conducted
by the police were unlawful, rendering the evidence obtained inadmissible.

3.) Did the prosecution appeal the trial court's resolution granting the demurrer to evidence?

Yes, the prosecution appealed the trial court's resolution.

4.) Can the prosecution appeal an acquittal without violating double jeopardy?

The prosecution can only appeal an acquittal without violating double jeopardy if the trial court
committed grave abuse of discretion. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did
not commit grave abuse of discretion.

5.) What are the exceptions to the rule of double jeopardy?

The exceptions to the rule of double jeopardy include cases where the trial court committed
grave abuse of discretion.

6.) Why did the Supreme Court rule that the arrest and search were unlawful?

The Supreme Court ruled that the arrest and search were unlawful because they did not fall under
any of the exceptions to the requirement of a warrant, and there was no probable cause to justify
the arrest.

7.) What is the principle of double jeopardy?

The principle of double jeopardy protects an accused from being tried again for the same offense
after acquittal.

8.) What is a demurrer to evidence?

A demurrer to evidence is a motion filed by the accused after the prosecution has presented its
evidence, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.

9.) What is the significance of the Supreme Court's ruling in this case?

The Supreme Court's ruling emphasizes the importance of respecting individual rights and the
rule of law, and ensures that evidence obtained through unlawful means is inadmissible.

10.) What was the outcome of the appeal filed by the People of the Philippines?

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the People of the Philippines and affirmed
Lawrence Wang's acquittal.
GATMAITAN (G.R. No. L-4855, L-4964, L-5102)

Facts:

 The case involves three separate petitions filed by Jose M. Nava, Amado V. Hernandez,
and Eugenio Angeles, who were all detained for rebellion or insurrection.
 The petitioners argue that they should be granted bail despite the suspension of the writ
of habeas corpus.
 The lower court did not receive any evidence in the belief that the proclamation
suspended bail.

Issue:

 Whether the right to bail is automatically suspended for individuals detained under the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

Ruling:

 The right to bail is not automatically suspended for individuals detained under the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
 Individuals may petition for bail in the proper criminal case, even after being formally
indicted.
 If the judge refuses to grant bail based on the proclamation of suspension, the accused is
entitled to mandamus to require the judge to grant bail, unless the information describes a
capital offense.
 If the information describes a capital offense, the judge should hear the evidence of the
prosecution to determine whether it is strong or not, and then deny or grant bail
accordingly.
 If the judge abuses his discretion in weighing the evidence, certiorari is available.

Ratio:

 The court's ruling is based on the interpretation of the Constitution, which guarantees the
right to bail before conviction, except for those charged with capital offenses when
evidence of guilt is strong.
 Rebellion is not a capital offense, so individuals charged with rebellion are entitled to bail
unless the evidence of guilt is strong.
 The court emphasized the importance of upholding the rights of the accused and ensuring
a fair trial.

Facts:

 The case involves the question of whether the presidential proclamation suspending the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus for persons detained for rebellion or insurrection
has also suspended their right to bail after the information has been filed against them.
  The petitioner, Amado V. Hernandez, is charged with rebellion with multiple murder,
arsons, and robberies.
 The lower court did not receive any evidence in the belief that the proclamation
suspended bail.

Issue:

 Whether the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus also suspends the right to bail.

Ruling:

 The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus does not suspend the right to bail.
 Once the information is filed and the case is brought to court, the detainee is entitled to
the rights and privileges guaranteed by the Constitution, including the right to bail.
 The right to bail is a matter of right, unless the offense is a capital one and the evidence
of guilt is strong.
 The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus does not suspend all constitutional rights of
the detainees, only the right to habeas corpus.

Ratio:

 The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is a temporary invasion of normal judicial
territory, authorized by the Constitution for reasons of paramount necessity.
 The suspension does not extinguish the ultimate objective of obtaining freedom, but only
suspends one of the means to obtain freedom.
 Once the information is filed, the right to bail emerges in full force and effect.
 The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus does not suspend the right of the prisoners to
defend themselves, present witnesses, and face their accusers.

Facts:

 The case discussed in this excerpt involves the issue of whether individuals charged with
rebellion or insurrection can be released on bail despite the suspension of the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus by the President of the Philippines.
 The excerpt includes the opinions of various justices on the matter.
 The lower court, represented by Judge Montesa, has denied their r... continue reading