Wednesday, October 29, 2014

case digest

Farhanna B. Mapandi23CALACDAY
33 SCRA 382 (1970)


Martiniano P. Vivo : acting commissioner of Immigration-Petitioner Calacday’s citizenship is being questioned-Petitioner seeks to enjoin the then Acting Commissioner of Immigration Vivo from taking them intocustody of conducting deportation proceedings against them or cancelling their identification certificateson the assumption that the previous decisions of the Board of Inquiry, affirmed by the Board of Immigration Commissioners declaring them Filipino citizens, had become final and conclusive-Based on this assumption, petitioner contends that respondent Vivo is devoid of any authority to takesteps to deport them under the appropriate provisions of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, asamended.


WON the warrants of arrest issued by the Commissioner of Immigration (Vivo) for the purposes of investigation and before a final judgment of the deportation proceedings is issued, are valid.


Art III, Sec 1 (3) states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effectsagainst unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but uponprobable cause, to be determined by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of thecomplainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, andthe persons or things to be seized.”
(the following is from Cruz, page 147)
Warrants of arrest may be issued by administrative authorities onlyfor the purpose of carrying out a final finding of a violation of law, like an order of deportation or an orderof contempt, and not for the sole purpose of investigation or prosecution. As held in Morano v. Vivo, “Theconstitutional limitation contemplates an order of arrest…not as a measure indispensable to carry out avalid decision by a competent official, such as a legal order of deportation, issued by the Commission of Immigration, in pursuance of a valid legislation.”



            Petitioner SWS and KPC states that it wishes to conduct an election survey throughout the period of the elections and release to the media the results of such survey as well as publish them directly. Petitioners argue that the restriction on the publication of election survey results constitutes a prior restraint on the exercise of freedom of speech without any clear and present danger to justify such restraint.


            Are the Comelec Resolutions prohibiting the holding of pre-polls and exit polls and the dissemination of their results through mass media, valid and constitutional?


            No. The Court held that Section (5)4 is invalid because (1) it imposes a prior restraint on the freedom of expression, (2) it is a direct and total suppression of a category of expression even though such suppression is only for a limited period, and (3) the governmental interest sought to be promoted can be achieved by means other than suppression of freedom of expression. 
It has been held that "[mere] legislative preferences or beliefs respecting matters of public convenience may well support regulation directed at other personal activities, but be insufficient to justify such as diminishes the exercise of rights so vital to the maintenance of democratic institutions.”


Gabriel Diaz, by blows and kicks, inflicted bodily injuries to Cornelio Alcanzaren. For it, the latter was charged with assault and battery before the Justice of Peace of San Carlos where he was found guilty and was penalized accordingly.
Later, Alcanzaren died. Diaz was again charged before the same Justice of Peace with homicide on the argument that the death of Alcanzaren was due to physical assault made unto him by Diaz earlier, a matter which the Justice of Peace took as well founded. Accordingly, the Justice of Peace held that the accused to await the action of the court of first instance.
Diaz was charged in the Court of First Instance of Homicide, wherein, during arraignment he interposed a plea of former jeopardy which was overruled. After trial, he was found guilty and subsequently sentenced to a term of imprisonment and other penalties.
Diaz appealed his case to the Supreme Court of the Philippines but the latter sustained his conviction. Hence, the case before the Supreme Court of the United States.
Whether or not Diaz is placed in a second jeopardy for being tried for a different offense arising from the same act considering that the latter offense could only be brought to court due to the resultant death of Alcanzaren.
No. Diaz is not placed in a second jeopardy.

Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho (1978)
 The Municipal Board of Manila enacted Ordinance 6537 requiring aliens (except those employed in the diplomatic and consular missions of foreign countries, in technical assistance programs of the government and another country, and members of religious orders or congregations) to procure the requisite mayor’s permit so as to be employed or engage in trade in the City of Manila. The permit fee is P50, and the penalty for the violation of the ordinance is 3 to 6 months imprisonment or a fine of P100 to P200, or both.
Whether the ordinance imposes a regulatory fee or a tax.
The ordinance’s purpose is clearly to raise money under the guise of regulation by exacting P50 from aliens who have been cleared for employment. The amount is unreasonable and excessive because it fails to consider difference in situation among aliens required to pay it, i.e. being casual, permanent, part-time, rank-and-file or executive.
[ The Ordinance was declared invalid as it is arbitrary, oppressive and unreasonable, being applied only to aliens who are thus deprived of their rights to life, liberty and property and therefore violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution. Further, the ordinance does not lay down any criterion or standard to guide the Mayor in the exercise of his discretion, thus conferring upon the mayor arbitrary and unrestricted powers. ]

Romulo Tolentino v. Judge Policarpio S. Camano, Jr.
A.M. RTJ-00-1522 January 20, 2000


Respondent Judge is being charged with gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of discretion, grave abuse of authority, violation of Canons 1, 2, and 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics and incompetence in connection with granting bail to the accused in a criminal case for child abuse.
The complaint alleges that respondent Judge granted bail while pending the holding of a preliminary investigation. The defense moved to quash the information against the accused on the alleged absence of a preliminary investigation. Consequently, respondent Judge ordered that a preliminary investigation be had by the state prosecutor. During the pendency of this, he granted bail in favor of the defendant after several notices of hearing to the state prosecutor to which the latter failed to appear. After such grant, complainant herein now accuses respondent of denying the prosecution the chance to adduce evidence to show that the guilt of the accused was strong and that bail should not have been granted in his favor.
            Whether or not there was an abuse of discretion resulting to denial of due process on the part of respondent?

NOT GUILTY. There was no denial of due process. It was not necessary to hold hearing so that the prosecution could show that evidence of guilt of the accused was strong since a preliminary investigation had been ordered by the court. At that point, bail was still a matter of right. Respondent judge, knowing that bail was indeed a matter of right at that stage, nevertheless set the hearing for the petition for bail four times. However, complainant failed to appear and present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused was strong. It thus appears that complainant is actually the one who was remiss in the performance of his duties. Considering that the case was referred to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for preliminary investigation, the accused could be considered as entitled to bail as a matter of right. Thus, respondent judge’s decision granting bail to the accused was proper and in accordance with law and jurisprudence.


oakleyses said...

replica watches, polo ralph lauren, tiffany and co, gucci handbags, louis vuitton, air max, louboutin pas cher, ray ban sunglasses, nike free run, jordan shoes, longchamp outlet, louis vuitton outlet, louis vuitton outlet, nike roshe, louis vuitton outlet, longchamp outlet, oakley sunglasses, nike air max, tiffany jewelry, longchamp pas cher, oakley sunglasses, prada outlet, ray ban sunglasses, tory burch outlet, sac longchamp pas cher, ugg boots, longchamp outlet, replica watches, polo ralph lauren outlet online, burberry pas cher, cheap oakley sunglasses, jordan pas cher, polo outlet, nike air max, ray ban sunglasses, christian louboutin, louis vuitton, michael kors pas cher, oakley sunglasses, nike outlet, christian louboutin shoes, prada handbags, nike free, christian louboutin outlet, christian louboutin uk, chanel handbags, oakley sunglasses wholesale, kate spade outlet, uggs on sale

oakleyses said...

timberland pas cher, hollister pas cher, nike free uk, coach outlet store online, true religion outlet, nike tn, hogan outlet, abercrombie and fitch uk, sac vanessa bruno, michael kors outlet, guess pas cher, oakley pas cher, true religion outlet, ray ban uk, nike air max uk, coach purses, vans pas cher, ray ban pas cher, nike roshe run uk, nike air force, true religion outlet, nike blazer pas cher, lululemon canada, north face, burberry outlet, ralph lauren uk, michael kors outlet online, nike air max, uggs outlet, coach outlet, sac hermes, replica handbags, new balance, uggs outlet, michael kors outlet online, true religion jeans, michael kors, michael kors outlet, polo lacoste, converse pas cher, burberry handbags, michael kors outlet online, michael kors, hollister uk, north face uk, kate spade, michael kors outlet online, mulberry uk, nike air max uk

oakleyses said...

lancel, vans outlet, nike air max, giuseppe zanotti outlet, nike roshe run, abercrombie and fitch, bottega veneta, ghd hair, vans, baseball bats, ferragamo shoes, instyler, oakley, north face outlet, mac cosmetics, new balance shoes, timberland boots, gucci, longchamp uk, louboutin, ralph lauren, insanity workout, nfl jerseys, iphone cases, nike huaraches, soccer shoes, herve leger, reebok outlet, hermes belt, lululemon, valentino shoes, converse outlet, wedding dresses, p90x workout, soccer jerseys, mcm handbags, asics running shoes, beats by dre, chi flat iron, babyliss, hollister, mont blanc pens, ray ban, nike trainers uk, hollister clothing, north face outlet, hollister, celine handbags, jimmy choo outlet, nike air max

oakleyses said...

juicy couture outlet, juicy couture outlet, swarovski, moncler, karen millen uk, louis vuitton, canada goose, wedding dresses, moncler outlet, canada goose uk, canada goose, ugg, ugg,uggs,uggs canada, louis vuitton, coach outlet, supra shoes, moncler uk, canada goose outlet, links of london, pandora jewelry, pandora charms, swarovski crystal, louis vuitton, moncler, ugg pas cher, replica watches, montre pas cher, hollister, louis vuitton, moncler, marc jacobs, toms shoes, canada goose, ugg uk, louis vuitton, moncler outlet, doudoune moncler, canada goose outlet, pandora jewelry, thomas sabo, canada goose outlet, moncler, canada goose jackets, pandora uk, ugg,ugg australia,ugg italia