Title CASE 47

City of Manila vs. Laguio, Jr.

Case
G.R. No. 118127
Ponente
TINGA, J
Decision Date
Apr 12, 2005
The Supreme Court declares a Manila ordi ce prohibiting certain businesses in the Ermita-Malate area,
including motels and inns, as null and void due to its violation of constitutional rights, unreasonable
exercise of police power, and discrimination.
OutlineParagraph

Case Digest (G.R. No. 118127)

Facts:
 The case involves the validity of Ordinance No. 7783 of the City of Manila, which
prohibits the establishment and operation of certain businesses in the Ermita-
Malate area, including motels and inns.
 The case was brought by Malate Tourist Development Corporation (MTDC), a
corporation engaged in the operation of hotels, motels, and lodging houses.
 MTDC argued that the ordinance was unconstitutional and violated their
property rights.

Issue:
 The main issue in the case is the validity of the ordinance.

Ruling:
 The Supreme Court ruled in favor of MTDC and declared the ordinance null and
void.
 The Court held that the ordinance violated the constitutional rights of individuals
and businesses, including the right to due process and equal protection.
 The Court found that the ordinance was an unreasonable and oppressive exercise
of police power.
 The Court also found that the ordinance constituted an unlawful taking of
property without just compensation.
 The Court further held that the ordinance violated the equal protection clause.

Ratio:
 The Court held that the ordinance violated the constitutional rights of individuals
and businesses, including the right to due process and equal protection.
 The Court found that the ordinance was an unreasonable and oppressive exercise
of police power, as it did not have a reasonable relation to the legitimate
municipal interests it sought to protect.
 The Court also found that the ordinance constituted an unlawful taking of
property without just compensation.
 The Court further held that the ordinance violated the equal protection clause, as
it treated similar establishments differently and discriminated based on gender.
 The Court found that there were no substantial distinctions between motels and
other similar establishments, and that the classification in the ordinance was
arbitrary and not based on a reasonable purpose.
 The Supreme Court declared Ordinance No. 7783 of the City of Manila null and
void, as it violated constitutional rights, exceeded the City Council's power to
regulate, and violated the equal protection clause.
 The Court emphasized the importance of protecting individual rights and
property, and stated that the government should use reasonable regulations to
address social ills, rather than imposing absolute prohibitions.

Title CASE 48
Salazar vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 151931
Ponente
CALLEJO, SR., J
Decision Date
Sep 23, 2003
 In the case of Salazar v. People, the Supreme Court ruled that the trial court violated Salazar's right to
due process by ordering her to pay without allowing her to present evidence on the civil aspect of the
case after being acquitted through a demurrer to evidence.
OutlineParagraph

Case Digest (G.R. No. 151931)

Facts:
 Anamer Salazar was charged with estafa for issuing a check without sufficient
funds.
 After the prosecution rested its case, Salazar filed a Demurrer to Evidence with
Leave of Court.
 The trial court granted the demurrer and acquitted Salazar of the crime.
 However, the court also ordered Salazar to pay the private complainant for her
purchases without giving her the opportunity to present evidence.
 Salazar filed a motion for reconsideration on the civil aspect of the decision,
arguing that she should be allowed to present evidence.

Issue:
 Whether or not Salazar was denied due process when the trial court ordered her
to pay without giving her the opportunity to present evidence on the civil aspect
of the case.

Ruling:
 The petition is meritorious.
 The trial court violated Salazar's right to due process by ordering her to pay
without allowing her to present evidence.
 When a demurrer to evidence is granted and the accused is acquitted, the accused
has the right to adduce evidence on the civil aspect of the case, unless the court
declares that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not
exist.
 The trial court should have issued an order or partial judgment granting the
demurrer to evidence and acquitting the accused, and set the case for
continuation of trial for the petitioner to adduce evidence on the civil aspect of
the case.

Ratio:
 The criminal action has a dual purpose, which is the punishment of the offender
and indemnity to the offended party.
 The civil action is incidental to and consequent to the conviction of the accused.
 The accused has the right to adduce evidence on the civil aspect of the case if the
demurrer to evidence is granted and the accused is acquitted.
 The judgment on the civil aspect of the case would be a nullity if the court orders
the accused to pay without giving them the opportunity to present evidence, as it
violates the accused's right to due process.
Title CASE 49
People vs. Bodoso
Case
G.R. No. 149382-149383
Ponente
BELLOSILLO, J
Decision Date
Mar 5, 2003
The Supreme Court remands the case of People v. Bodoso to the trial court to determine the validity of
the accused's waiver of his right to present evidence and be heard, highlighting the importance of
ensuring a valid waiver and protecting the constitutional right to due process.
OutlineParagraph
 Case Digest (G.R. No. 149382-149383)

Facts:
 The case involves accused-appellant Ricardo Bodoso who was found guilty of two
counts of qualified rape committed against his fourteen-year-old daughter.
 The defense counsel did not seek relief from the trial court's order that waived
their client's constitutional right to present evidence and be heard.
 The Supreme Court decided to consider the issue of the alleged waiver in the
interest of justice.

Issue:
 Whether the alleged waiver of accused-appellant's right to present evidence and
be heard was valid.

Ruling:
 The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court to determine the validity
of the waiver, accused-appellant's knowledge of its consequences, and to receive
his evidence if the contrary is found.

Ratio:
 The alleged waiver of accused-appellant's right to present evidence and be heard
had affected the adequate representation of facts in his favor during the trial.
 The records of the case did not contain any summary of the proceedings or
transcripts of stenographic notes, making it difficult to determine if accused-
appellant truly intended to waive his right.
 The existence of waiver must be positively demonstrated and a waiver by
implication cannot be presumed.
 The standard of waiver requires that it must be voluntary, knowing, intelligent,
and done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely
consequences.
 The denial of due process can be invoked if there is no valid waiver of rights.
 The trial court failed to inquire from accused-appellant himself whether he
wanted to present evidence or submit a memorandum elucidating on the
contradictions and insufficiency of the prosecution evidence.
 A "searching inquiry" is important to determine the voluntariness and full
knowledge of the consequences of the waiver.
 Prerequisites for the validity of a waiver include the need for a procedure to
ensure that the waiver was done voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.
 Trial courts must proceed with more care in capital offense cases as the execution
of the death penalty is irrevocable.
 An invalid waiver does not automatically vacate a finding of guilt and enforce an
automatic remand of the case.
 The remand of the case is warranted if there was inadequate representation of
facts during the trial.

Additional Ruling:
 The Court directed the trial court to ascertain accused-appellant's volition to the
waiver, his knowledge of its consequences, and to receive his evidence if the
contrary is found.
 The Court ordered the transfer of accused-appellant to the Tabaco BJMP District
Jail for the duration of the proceedings.
 Title Case 50
Saya-Ang, Sr. vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 155087
Ponente
AZCUNA, J
Decision Date
Nov 28, 2003
The Supreme Court grants the petition of Eduardo T. Saya-ang, Sr. and Ricardo T. Lara, ruling that the
COMELEC lacked due process in denying their certificates of candidacy and that defects in the certificates
should have been questioned before the election, emphasizing the importance of due process and the
will of the electorate.
OutlineParagraph

Case Digest (G.R. No. 155087)

Facts:
 Petitioners Eduardo T. Saya-ang, Sr. and Ricardo T. Lara were candidates for the
Office of Barangay Captain in Barangays Congan and New Aklan, respectively.
 The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) issued a Resolution denying due
course to their certificates of candidacy on the grounds that they were not
residents of the barangays they wished to be elected in.
 Despite the denial, the petitioners were still proclaimed as winners in their
respective barangays, having received the most number of votes.
 However, they were subsequently directed to cease and desist from taking their
oath of office and assuming the positions they were elected to.

Issue:
 Whether the COMELEC lacked due process in denying the petitioners'
certificates of candidacy.
 Whether defects in the certificates should have been questioned before the
election.

Ruling:
 The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, granting their petition.
 The Court held that the COMELEC has jurisdiction to deny due course to or
cancel a certificate of candidacy.
 However, in this case, the decision of the COMELEC had not yet become final
and executory on the day of the elections.
 The petitioners still had until June 20, 2002, to file a motion for reconsideration.
 Therefore, the petitioners were validly proclaimed as winners on June 16, 2002,
having garnered the most number of votes.

Ratio:
 The Court emphasized the importance of due process and noted that the
petitioners were not given the opportunity to present their evidence or refute the
evidence against them.
 The Court further stated that defects in the certificates of candidacy should have
been questioned before the election and not after the will of the people has been
expressed through the ballots.
 The Court interpreted the provisions relating to certificates of candidacy as
directory after the elections to give effect to the will of the electorate.

Conclusion:
 The Supreme Court granted the petition of Eduardo T. Saya-ang, Sr. and Ricardo
T. Lara, ruling that the COMELEC lacked due process in denying their certificates
of candidacy and that defects in the certificates should have been questioned
before the election.
 The Court emphasized the importance of due process and the need to give effect
to the will of the electorate.

Case 51

CASIMIRO v. CA, GR No. 136911, 2003-02-11

Facts:

Respondents were the registered owners of a 25,000 square meter

parcel of land situated in Pamplona, Las Piñas City,... during a
relocation survey conducted by Geodetic Engineer Emilio Paz at the
instance of respondents, it was discovered that the Casimiro Village
Subdivision, owned by petitioners, encroached by 3,110 square meters
into respondents' land. Respondents notified... petitioners and
demanded that they desist from making further development in the
area.

Failing in their efforts to regain possession of the disputed premises,

respondents filed with the Court of First Instance of Pasay City an
action for recovery of possession with damages against petitioners and
the latter's lot buyers

In their defense, petitioners denied that there was an encroachment in

respondents' land. They presented Geodetic Engineers Lino C. Reyes
and Felipe Venezuela from the Bureau of Lands. Meanwhile, defendant-
lot buyers interposed a cross-claim against petitioners spouses
Casimiro,... averring that they were innocent purchasers in good faith
and for value of their respective lots.

the Court of First Instance, Branch XXVIII, Pasay City, rendered a

decision in favor of respondents,... Ruling on petitioners motion for
reconsideration, the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch CXI, set
aside its earlier decision, and held that the report of the engineers from
the Bureau of Lands were more credible and accurate, and enjoy the
presumption of regularity and... accuracy.

The Court of Appeals ordered that a relocation survey be conducted by

a team of surveyors composed of a... surveyor designated by the
respondents, a surveyor designated by the petitioners, and a third
member-surveyor chosen by the said two surveyors.

Petitioners complained of irregularities in the conduct of the relocation

survey, namely, (a) the actual field work was conducted by a separate
survey team composed of employees of the LRC without the knowledge
and presence of Engr. Bernardo; (b) the relocation plan and...
computations were done without consultation and coordination among
the members of the survey team; and (c) the relocation plan that was
prepared by Engr. Cortez did not conform to the verification plan earlier
approved by the Bureau of Lands in January 1982.

the Court of Appeals found that the final relocation survey report
yielded the "indisputable and inevitable conclusion" that petitioners
encroached on a portion of the respondents' property comprising an
area of 3,235 square meters.

Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied for lack of merit.

Hence, the instant petition for review.

Issues:

whether notices to attend the same were actually sent to and received
by petitioner or its duly authorized representative.

Ruling:

Notice to the landowner, however, cannot be dispensed with. It is part

of administrative due process and is an essential requisite to enable
the landowner himself to exercise, at the very least, his right of
retention guaranteed under the
CARL.

Poring over the records of the Court of Appeals regarding the resurvey
of the subject properties, it appears that the actual field work was
performed by engineers from LRA, without the representatives of
petitioners and respondents being present. There was no clear
showing that... notices of the field work were sent to petitioners and
respondents. Worse, the actual field work was undertaken by only four
engineers, all of whom were designated from the LRA. This is in
violation of the agreement of the parties that the actual field work
should be done by... five technical personnel, three of whom shall come
from the Land Registration Authority and the remaining two shall be
Engrs. Lopez and Bernardo or their respective representatives.

The failure of Engr. Cortez, as chairman of the resurvey team, to notify

Engr. Bernardo of the actual field work to enable him to participate
therein constituted as serious violation of petitioners' right to due
process, especially considering that it resulted in a deprivation... of
their property to the extent of 3,235 square meters. The actual survey
proceedings must, therefore, be conducted anew, ensuring this time
that the interests of both parties are adequately protected.

The instant petition is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals, which is

ordered to forthwith cause the resurvey the boundaries on the parties'
respective... properties by the team of surveyors agreed upon by the
parties, and thereafter to decide the case accordingly.

CASE 52
JOEL G. MIRANDA v. ANTONIO C. CARREON, GR No. 143540, 2003-04-
11

Facts:

Vice Mayor Amelita Navarro, while serving as Acting Mayor of the City
of Santiago because of the suspension of Mayor Jose Miranda,
appointed the above-named respondents to various positions in the city
government. Their appointments were with permanent... status and
based on the evaluation made by the City Personnel Selection and
Promotion Board (PSPB) created pursuant to Republic Act No. 7160.[3]
The Civil Service Commission (CSC) approved the appointments.

When Mayor Jose Miranda reassumed his post on March 5, 1998 after
his suspension, he considered the composition of the PSPB irregular
since the majority party, to which he belongs, was not properly
represented.

three months after Mayor Miranda reassumed his post, he issued an

order terminating respondents' services effective June 15, 1998
because they "performed poorly" during the probationary period.

Respondents appealed to the CSC, contending that being employees on

probation,[5] they can be dismissed from the service on the ground of
poor performance only after their probationary period of six months,
not after three (3) months. They also... denied that an evaluation on
their performance was conducted, hence, their dismissal from the
service violated their right to due process.

Meanwhile, the COMELEC disqualified Mayor Jose Miranda as a

mayoralty candidate in the 1998 May elections. His son Joel G.
Miranda, herein petitioner, substituted for him and was proclaimed
Mayor of Santiago City.

petitioner Joel G. Miranda contends that the Court of Appeals erred in

affirming the CSC Resolution declaring that the termination of
respondents' services is illegal and ordering their reinstatement to
their former positions with payment of backwages.

Issues:

respondents' claim that they were denied due process.

Ruling:

CSC Memorandum Circular

No. 12, Series of 1994) which provides:

"2.2. Unsatisfactory or Poor Performance... x x x

An official or employee who, for one evaluation period, is rated poor in

performance, may be dropped from the rolls after due notice. Due
notice shall mean that the officer or employee is informed in writing of
the status of his performance not later than the... fourth month of that
rating period with sufficient warning that failure to improve his
performance within the remaining period of the semester shall warrant
his separation from the service. Such notice shall also contain
sufficient information which shall enable the employee... to prepare an
explanation."

Respondents vehemently assert that they were never notified in

writing regarding the status of their performance, neither were they
warned that they will be dismissed from the service should they fail to
improve their performance. Significantly, petitioner did not refute...
respondents' assertion. The records show that what respondents
received was only the termination order from Mayor Jose Miranda.
Obviously, respondents' right to due process was violated.

A civil servant who lives in ceaseless fear of being capriciously

removed from office every time a new political figure assumes power
will strive to do anything that pleases the latter. In this way, he will...
hardly develop efficiency, accountability and a sense of loyalty to the
public service. Such a climate will only breed opportunistic, inefficient
and irresponsible civil servants to the detriment of the public. This
should not be countenanced.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated May

21, 1999 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 36997 is AFFIRMED.
 Title CASE 53
Government of the United States of America vs. Purga
Case
G.R. No. 148571
Ponente
VITUG, J
Decision Date
Dec 17, 2002
The case involves the denial of bail to a respondent facing extradition to the United States, with the
majority opinion denying bail based on flight risk and endangerment of the community, while a
dissenting opinion argues for the extension of the right to bail to extraditees to uphold constitutional
rights.
OutlineParagraph

Case Digest (G.R. No. 148571)

Facts:
 The case involves the Government of the United States of America as the
petitioner and Mark Jimenez, also known as Mario Batacan Crespo, as the
respondent.
 The case was heard by the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 42, with Judge
Guillermo G. Purganan as the presiding judge.

Issue:
 Whether the respondent, who is facing extradition to the United States, has the
right to bail.

Ruling:
 The motion for reconsideration is denied with finality.
 The majority opinion denies bail in extradition cases.
 The dissenting opinion argues for the extension of the right to bail to extraditees.

Ratio:
Majority Opinion:

 Bail is not a matter of right in extradition cases.

 Absence of flight risk and non-endangerment of the community are considered in
denying bail.
 Lack of special, humanitarian, and compelling circumstances justifying the grant
of bail.

Dissenting Opinion:

 The right to liberty and the need to uphold constitutional rights justify the
extension of the right to bail to extraditees.
 Title CASE 54
Soriano vs. Angeles
Case
G.R. No. 109920
Ponente
MENDOZA, J
Decision Date
Aug 31, 2000
A barangay captain files a case for direct assault against a policeman, but the trial court acquits the
accused due to lack of evidence and excludes certain testimonies, leading to the Supreme Court
dismissing the petition and upholding the acquittal.
OutlineParagraph

Case Digest (G.R. No. 109920)

Facts:
 The case involves a barangay captain, Ceferino A. Soriano, who filed a case for
direct assault against Ruel Garcia, a policeman.
 The case was assigned to Judge Adoracion C. Angeles of the Caloocan City
Regional Trial Court.
 The prosecution alleged that Garcia barged into the barangay hall and physically
assaulted Soriano, while four barangay tanods (village watchmen) failed to
intervene.
 Garcia claimed that he went to the barangay hall to inquire about his brother's
arrest and was pushed by Soriano, leading to a physical altercation.
 The trial court acquitted Garcia, finding it incredible that Soriano did not resist
the attack and that none of the barangay tanods came to his aid.
 The court also excluded the testimonies of Soriano and one of the barangay
tanods, Manuel Montoya, for failure to formally offer the evidence.

Issue:
 Did the trial court commit any errors in acquitting Garcia and excluding the
testimonies of Soriano and Montoya?

Ruling:
 The Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

Ratio:
 The private complainant (Soriano) had the legal standing to file the petition for
certiorari.
 However, the Court found no evidence of bias or partiality on the part of the
judge.
 Mere suspicion of bias is not enough, and there must be evidence to prove the
charge.
 The judge's efforts to settle the case and her evaluation of the evidence did not
indicate bias.
 Certiorari cannot be used to correct a lower court's evaluation of evidence and
factual findings.
 Therefore, the Court upheld the trial court's decision acquitting Garcia.