Amr Finals

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

1/116

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 200238 November 20, 2012

PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BAN !PSBAN" #$% PASCUAL M. GARCIA III, #& re're&e$(#()ve o*P+))'')$e S#v)$-& B#$ #$% )$ +)& 'er&o$# /#'#/)(, Petitioners,vs.SENATE IMPEACHMENT COURT, /o$&)&()$- o* (+e &e$#(or& o* (+e re'b)/ o* (+e '+))'')$e/()$- #& &e$#(or %-e&, $#me 4UAN PONCE ENRILE, 4INGGO5 E4ERCITO ESTRA6A,VICENTE C. SOTTO III, ALAN PETER S. CA5ETANO, E6GAR6O 4. ANGARA, 4OER P.ARRO5O, PIA S. CA5ETANO, 7RANLIN M. 6RILON, 7RANCIS G. ESCU6ERO, TEO7ISTOGUINGONA III, GREGORIO B. HONASAN II, PAN7ILO M. LACSON, MANUEL M. LAPI6, LORENB. LEGAR6A, 7ER6INAN6 R. MARCOS, 4R., SERGIO R. OSMENA III, 7RANCIS IOPANGILINAN, A9UILINO PIMENTEL III, RALPH G. RECTO, RAMON REVILLA, 4R., ANTONIO 7.

TRILLANES IV, MANN5 VILLAR: #$% THE HONORABLE MEMBERS O7 THE PROSECUTIONPANEL O7 THE HOUSE O7 REPRESENTATIVES, Respondents.

R E S O L ! " O N

PERLAS;BERNABE, J.:

Petitioners Philippine Savin#s Ban$ %PSBan$& and Pascual M. 'arcia """, as President of PSBan$,

filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition see$in# to nullit( and set aside the Resolution)ofrespondent Senate of the Republic of the Philippines, sittin# as an "*peach*ent Court, +hich

#ranted the prosecutions re-uests for subpoena duces tecu* ad testificandu*to PSBan$ and/orits representatives re-uirin# the* to testif( and produce before the "*peach*ent Court docu*ents

relative to the forei#n currenc( accounts that +ere alle#ed to belon# to then Suprerpe Court Chief0ustice Renato C. Corona.

On Nove*ber 1, 2), and durin# the pendenc( of this petition, petitioners filed a Motion +ith Leave

of Court to 3ithdra+ the Petition4averrin# that subse-uent events have overta$en the petition andthat, +ith the ter*ination of the i*peach*ent proceedin#s a#ainst for*er Chief 0ustice Corona, the(are no lon#er faced +ith the dile**a of either violatin# Republic Act No. 565 %RA 565& or bein#held in conte*pt of court for refusin# to disclose the details of the sub7ect forei#n currenc( deposits.

"t is +ell8settled that courts +ill not deter*ine -uestions that have beco*e *oot and acade*icbecause there is no lon#er an( 7usticiable controvers( to spea$ of. !he 7ud#*ent +ill not serve an(useful purpose or have an( practical le#al effect because, in the nature of thin#s, it cannot be

enforced.6

"n 'ancho8on v. Secretar( of Labor and E*plo(*ent,1

the Court ruled9

"t is a rule of universal application that courts of 7ustice constituted to pass upon substantial ri#hts +illnot consider -uestions in +hich no actual interests are involved: the( decline 7urisdiction of *ootcases. And +here the issue has beco*e *oot and acade*ic, there is no 7usticiable controvers(, sothat a declaration thereon +ould be of no practical use or value. !here is no actual substantial reliefto +hich petitioners +ould be entitled and +hich +ould be ne#ated b( the dis*issal of the petition.%Citations o*itted&

"ndeed, the *ain issue of +hether the "*peach*ent Court acted arbitraril( +hen it issued theassailed subpoena to obtain infor*ation concernin# the sub7ect forei#n currenc( depositsnot+ithstandin# the confidentialit( of such deposits under RA 565 has been overta$en b( events.!he supervenin# conviction of Chief 0ustice Corona on Ma( ;, 2), as +ell as his eORE, the petition is ?"SM"SSE? for havin# beco*e *oot and acade*ic and thete*porar( restrainin# order issued b( the Court on >ebruar( ;, 2) is L">!E?. So Ordered.

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

2/116

Facts:

Philippine Savings Bank (PS Bank) and its President, Pascual M. Garcia III, filed befre

the Supre!e "urt an riginal civil actin fr certirari and prhibitin #ith applicatin fr

te!prar$ restraining rder and%r #rit f preli!inar$ in&unctin. 'he ' #as sught t stp

the Senate, sitting as i!peach!ent curt, fr! further i!ple!enting the Subpena AdTestificandum et Duces Tecum, dated Februar$ *, +-+, that it issued against the Branch

Manager f PS Bank, atipunan Branch. 'he subpena assailed b$ petitiners cvers the freign

currenc$ den!inated accunts allegedl$ #ned b$ the i!peached "hief /ustice enat "rna

f the Philippine Supre!e "urt.

Issue:

3hether or not the "*peach*ent Court acted arbitraril( +hen it issued the assailed

subpoena to obtain infor*ation concernin# the sub7ect forei#n currenc( deposits not+ithstandin# the

confidentialit( of such deposits under RA 565 has been overta$en b( events.

0eld:

"t is a rule of universal application that courts of 7ustice constituted to pass upon substantial

ri#hts +ill not consider -uestions in +hich no actual interests are involved: the( decline 7urisdiction of

*oot cases. And +here the issue has beco*e *oot and acade*ic, there is no 7usticiable

controvers(, so that a declaration thereon +ould be of no practical use or value.

!he supervenin# conviction of Chief 0ustice Corona as +ell as his e

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

3/116

Froilan M. Bacungan and Alfredo F. Tadiar for petitioners.

The Solicitor General for respondents.

RELOVA, J.:+.wph!1

Appeal fro* the Order, dated Au#ust )5, );@;, of respondent 0ud#e Nicanor 0. Cru, 0r., of the thenMunicipal Court of Paraa-ue, Metro Manila, disallo+in# the appearances of petitioners Nelson B.Malana and Robert . Lucila as private prosecutors in Cri*inal Cases Nos. 1D16; and 1D112, bothfor less serious ph(sical in7uries, filed a#ainst Pat. ?anilo San Antonio and Pat. Rodolfo ?ia,respectivel(, as +ell as the Order, dated Septe*ber 6, );@;, den(in# the *otion for reconsiderationholdin#, a*on# others, that the fiscals clai* that appearances of friends of part(8liti#ants should beallo+ed onl( in places +here there is a scarcit( of le#al practitioner, to be +ell founded. >or, if +eare to allo+ non8*e*bers of the bar to appear in court and prosecute cases or defend liti#ants in the#uise of bein# friends of the liti#ants, then the re-uire*ent of *e*bership in the "nte#rated Bar ofthe Philippines and the additional re-uire*ent of pa(in# professional taiscal Leode#ario C. Fuilatan opposed the appearances of saidpetitioners, and respondent 7ud#e, in an Order dated Au#ust )5, );@;, sustained the respondent

fiscal and disallo+ed the appearances of petitioners Malana and Lucila, as private prosecutors insaid cri*inal cases. Li$e+ise, on Septe*ber 6, );@;, respondent 0ud#e issued an order den(in#petitioners *otion for reconsideration.

=ence, this petition for certiorari, *anda*us and prohibition +ith pra(ers, a*on# others, that theOrders of respondent 7ud#e, dated Au#ust )5, );@; and Septe*ber 6, );@;, be set aside as the(are in plain violation of Section 46, Rule )4D of the Rules of Court and/or +ere issued +ith #raveabuse of discretion a*ountin# to lac$ of 7urisdiction. pon *otion, the Court, on Nove*ber D, );@;,issued a te*porar( restrainin# order en7oinin# respondent 7ud#e and all persons actin# for and inhis behalf fro* conductin# an( proceedin#s in Cri*inal Cases Nos. 1D16; %People of the Philippinesvs. ?anilo San Antonio& and 1D11; %People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo ?ia& of the MunicipalCourt of Paraa-ue, Metro Manila on Nove*ber )1, );@; as scheduled or on an( such dates as*a( be fi

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

4/116

SEC. 6.$ho #ust prosecute cri#inal actions. G All cri*inal actions eitherco**enced b( co*plaint or b( infor*ation shall be prosecuted under the directionand control of the fiscal.

!E?.

SO OR?ERE?.1)wph*1.+t

Facts:

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

5/116

n 1pril *, -787, petitiner !ul "anti!buhan filed separate cri!inal c!plaints against

Patrl!en ;anil San 1ntni and dlf ;ia< fr less serius ph$sical in&uries, respectivel$

at M'" f Paranaue.

n 1ugust -787, petitiners Malana and 2ucila filed their separate appearances, as friends f

c!plainant=petitiner "anti!buhan. 'he respndent Fiscal 2edegari ". >uilatan ppsed theappearances f said petitiners, and respndent &udge sustained the respndent fiscal and

disall#ed the appearances f petitiners Malana and 2ucila, as private prsecutrs in saidcri!inal cases. 2ike#ise, n Septe!ber , -787, respndent /udge issued an rder den$ing

petitiners? !tin fr recnsideratin.

Issue:

4hether r nt there is a grave abuse f discretin n the part f the petitiner t representhi!self as private prsecutr in a cri!inal case.

uling:

Pursuant t Sectins and -@, ule -- f the ules f "urt, it is the fiscal #h is e!p#ered

t deter!ine #h shall be the private prsecutr as #as dne b$ respndent fiscal #hen he

b&ected t the appearances f petitiners Malana and 2ucila. Sectins and -@, ule -- f the

ules f "urt prvide: tA.CDh5#EC

S". . 4h !ust prsecute cri!inal actins. 1ll cri!inal actins either

c!!enced b$ c!plaint r b$ infr!atin shall be prsecuted under the

directin and cntrl f the fiscal.

S". -@. Interventin f the ffended part$ in cri!inal actin. Hnless theffended part$ has #aived the civil actin r epressl$ reserved the right t

institute it separatel$ fr! the cri!inal actin, and sub&ect t the prvisins f

sectin heref, he !a$ intervene, persnall$ r b$ attrne$, in the prsecutinf the ffense.

'he per!issin f the fiscal is nt necessar$ fr ne t enter his appearance as private

prsecutr. If the fiscal #ants t handle the case persnall$ is t disall# the private prsecutr?sparticipatin, #hether he be a la#$er r nt, in the trial f the case Further, if a nn=la#$er can

appear as defense cunsel r as friend f the accused in a case befre the !unicipal trial curt,

#ith !re reasn shuld he be all#ed t appear as private prsecutr under the supervisin and

cntrl f the trial fiscal.

ules f "urt specificall$ prvides that it is Ja part$J #h !a$ cnduct his litigatin in persn,#ith the aid f an agent r friend appinted b$ hi! fr that purpse in the "urt f a /ustice f

the Peace. !ul "anti!buhan is nt a part$ #ithin the !eaning f the said ule. 1

c!plaining #itness r an ffended part$ nl$ intervene in a cri!inal actin in respect f the

civil liabilit$.

Sectins and -@, ule -- f the ules f "urt, being the !re specific prvisins in respect

f cri!inal cases, shuld take precedence ver Sectin 6, ule -69 and shuld be cntrlling(Bagatsing vs. 0n. a!ire

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

6/116

EN BANC

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHARGES A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC

OF PLAGIARISM, ETC., AGAINST

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIANO C.

DEL CASTILLO. Present:

"31, C.J.,

"1PI,

"1PI M12S,

21S", /., 31"0H1,

231;=; "1S',

BI3,

P12'1,

BS1MI3,

;2 "1S'I22,

1B1;,

I2211M1, /.,

PN, M3;N1, and

S3,JJ.

Pr!ulgated:

ctber -+, +-

=======================================================================================

DECISIONPER CURIAM:

'his case is cncerned #ith charges that, in preparing a decisin fr the

"urt, a designated !e!ber plagiari

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

7/116

!andatr$ in&unctin against the ecutive Secretar$, the Secretar$ f Freign

1ffairs, the Secretar$ f /ustice, and the ffice f the Slicitr General.

Petitiners clai!ed that in destr$ing villages in the Philippines during

4rld 4ar II, the /apanese ar!$ s$ste!aticall$ raped the! and a nu!ber f ther#!en, sei

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

8/116

a. A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogensb$ van /. "riddle

and van F=;escent, Tale /urnal f Internatinal 2a# (+7)

b. Breaking the Silence: Rape as an International Crimeb$

Mark llis, "ase 4estern eserve /urnal f Internatinal 2a#

(+*) and

c. nforcing rga !mnes !"ligationsb$ "hristian /.

'a!s, "a!bridge Hniversit$ Press (+@).

Petitiners clai! that the integrit$ f the "urtOs deliberatins in the case

has been put int 5uestin b$ /ustice ;el "astillOs fraud. 'he "urt shuld thus

Qaddress and disclse t the public the truth abut the !anifest intellectual theft

and utright plagiaris!RK6Lthat resulted in grss pre&udice t the petitiners.

Because f the publicit$ that the supple!ental !tin fr recnsideratin

generated, /ustice ;el "astill circulated a letter t his clleagues, subse5uentl$

verified, stating that #hen he #rte the decisin fr the "urt he had the intent t

attribute all surces used in it. 0e said in the pertinent part:

I& *#'& +e e*ha')e% &ha& &he"e a' e/e" )$&e$&)o$ &o

a&&")+#&e a 'o#"ce', he$e/e" %#e. A& $o o)$& a' &he"e e/e" a$

*a)c)o#' )$&e$& &o a"o")a&e a$o&he"2' o" a' o#" o$. 3e

"eca &ha& &h)'ponenciaa' &h")ce )$c#%e% )$ &he A!e$%a o( &heCo#"& en banc. I& a' %e)+e"a&e% #o$ %#")$! &he Ba!#)o 'e'')o$

o$ A") 14, 5010, A") 50, 5010 a$% )$ Ma$)a o$ A") 57,

5010. Each &)*e, '#!!e'&)o$' e"e *a%e h)ch $ece'')&a&e% *a6o"

"e/)')o$' )$ &he %"a(&. So#"ce' e"e "e-'%)e%, %)'c#'')o$' *o%)()e%,

a''a!e' a%%e% o" %ee&e%. The "e'#&)$! %ec)')o$ co*")'e' 4 a!e'

)&h 78 (oo&$o&e'.

9 9 9 9

A' "e!a"%' &he ca)* o( &he e&)&)o$e"' &ha& &he co$ce&' a'co$&a)$e% )$ &he a+o/e (o"e)!$ *a&e")a' e"e :&)'&e%,; &he 'a*e

"e*a)$' &he)" o)$)o$ h)ch e %o $o& $ece''a") 'ha"e.KL

n /ul$ +8, +-, the "urtn Banc referred the charges against /ustice ;el

"astill t its "!!ittee n thics and thical Standards, chaired b$ the "hief

/ustice, fr investigatin and rec!!endatin. 'he "hief /ustice designated

retired /ustice /se ". itug t serve as cnsultant f the "!!ittee. 0e

graciusl$ accepted.

n 1ugust +, +-, the "!!ittee directed petitiners t c!!ent n

/ustice ;el "astillOs verified letter. 4hen this #as dne, it set the !atter fr

hearing.

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

9/116

In the !eanti!e, n /ul$ -7, +-, van "riddle #rte n his blg that he

and his c=authr van F=;escent (referred t &intl$ as "riddle=;escent)

learned f alleged plagiaris! invlving their #rk but "riddleOs cncern, after

reading the supple!ental !tin fr recnsideratin, #as the "urtOs cnclusin

that prhibitins against seual slaver$ are nt#us cogensr internatinall$binding nr!s that treaties cannt di!inish.

n /ul$ +6, +-, ;r. Mark llis #rte the "urt epressing cncern that in

!entining his #rk, the "urt Q!a$ have !isread the argu!ent KheL !ade in the

article and e!pl$ed the! fr crss purpses.R ;r. llis said that he #rte the

article precisel$ t argue fr apprpriate legal re!ed$ fr victi!s f #ar cri!es.

n 1ugust 9, +-, after the referral f the !atter t the "!!ittee frinvestigatin, the ;ean f the Hniversit$ f the Philippines (H.P.) "llege f 2a#

publici

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

10/116

#rk that #ent int the !aking f the decisin in the $inuyacase. 'he "!!ittee

granted the re5uest.

'he researcher de!nstrated b$ P#er Pint presentatin h# the

attributin f the lifted passages t the #ritings f "riddle=;escent and llis, fundin the beginning drafts f her reprt t /ustice ;el "astill, #ere unintentinall$

deleted. She tearfull$ epressed re!rse at her Qgrievus !istakeR and grief fr

having Qcaused an enr!us a!unt f suffering fr /ustice ;el "astill and his

fa!il$.RK*L

n the ther hand, addressing the "!!ittee in reactin t the researcherOs

eplanatin, cunsel fr petitiners insisted that lack f intent is nt a defense in

plagiaris! since all that is re5uired is fr a #riter t ackn#ledge that certain#rds r language in his #rk #ere taken fr! antherOs #rk. "unsel invked

the "urtOs ruling in %ni&ersity of the 'hilippines Board of Regents &( Court of

Appeals and Arokias)amy *illiam +argaret Celine,K8Larguing that standards n

plagiaris! in the acade!e shuld appl$ #ith !re frce t the &udiciar$.

1fter the hearing, the "!!ittee gave the parties ten da$s t file their

respective !e!randa. 'he$ filed their !e!randa in due curse. Subse5uentl$

after deliberatin, the "!!ittee sub!itted its unani!us findings and

rec!!endatins t the "urt.

The I''#e'

'his case presents t# issues:

-. 4hether r nt, in #riting the pinin fr the "urt in

the $inuyacase, /ustice ;el "astill plagiari

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

11/116

1t its !st basic, plagiaris! !eans the theft f anther persnOs language,

thughts, r ideas. ' plagiari

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

12/116

3e (# a!"ee &ha& "ae, 'e9#a 'a/e", &o""e, a$% 'e9#a

/)oe$ce a"e *o"a "e"ehe$')+e a' e a' e!a "oh)+)&e% #$%e"

co$&e*o"a" )$&e"$a&)o$a a.

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

13/116

But, as it happened, the ackn#ledg!ent abve r a si!ilar intrductin

#as !issing fr! Ftnte *@.

3et, petitiners als pint ut that the fll#ing eight sentences and their

acc!pan$ing ftntes appear in tet n pages 6=6+ f the $inuyadecisin:

999 I$ )$&e"$a&)o$a a, &he &e"* :jus cogens; >)&e"a,

:co*e)$! a;? "e(e"' &o $o"*' &ha& co**a$% e"e*&o"

a#&ho")&, '#e"'e%)$! co$()c&)$! &"ea&)e' a$% c#'&o*. Jus

cogens$o"*' a"e co$')%e"e% e"e*&o" )$ &he 'e$'e &ha& &he a"e

*a$%a&o", %o $o& a%*)& %e"o!a&)o$, a$% ca$ +e *o%)()e% o$ +

!e$e"a )$&e"$a&)o$a $o"*' o( e#)/ae$& a#&ho")&.71

Ea" '&"a)$' o( &hejus cogens%oc&")$e ha/e e9)'&e% ')$ce &he

1700',75+#& e"e*&o" $o"*' +e!a$ &o a&&"ac& !"ea&e" 'choa"

a&&e$&)o$ )&h &he #+)ca&)o$ o( A("e% /o$ e"%"o''' )$(#e$&)a 147

a"&)ce, Fo"+)%%e$ T"ea&)e' )$ I$&e"$a&)o$a La.74 The "eco!$)&)o$ o(jus

cogens!a)$e% e/e$ *o"e (o"ce )$ &he 1=0' a$% 1

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

14/116

that, fr !st parts, she did her research electrnicall$. Fr internatinal !aterials,

she surced these !ainl$ fr! 4estla#, an nline research service fr legal and

la#=related !aterials t #hich the "urt subscribes.

In the ld da$s, the c!!n practice #as that after a /ustice #uld haveassigned a case fr stud$ and reprt, the researcher #uld surce his !aterials

!stl$ fr! available la# bks and published articles n print. 4hen he fund a

relevant ite! in a bk, #hether fr ne side f the issue r fr the ther, he #uld

place a strip f paper !arker n the apprpriate page, pencil !ark the ite!, and

place the bk n his desk #here ther relevant bks #uld have piled up. 0e

#uld later paraphrase r cp$ the !arked ut passages fr! s!e f these bks

as he t$ped his !anuscript n a !anual t$pe#riter. 'his ccasin #uld give hi!

a clear pprtunit$ t attribute the !aterials used t their authrs r surces.

4ith the advent f c!puters, h#ever, as /ustice ;el "astillOs researcher

als eplained, !st legal references, including the cllectin f decisins f the

"urt, are fund in electrnic diskettes r in internet #ebsites that ffer virtual

libraries f bks and articles. 0ere, as the researcher fund ite!s that #ere

relevant t her assign!ent, she d#nladed r cpied the! int her Q!ain

!anuscript,R a s!rgasbrd plate f !aterials that she thught she !ight

need. 'he researcherOs techni5ue in this case is nt t far different fr! that

e!pl$ed b$ a carpenter. 'he carpenter first gets the pieces f lu!ber he #uldneed, chsing the kinds and si

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

15/116

F)"'& F)$%)$!

'he "urt adpts the "!!itteeOs finding that the researcherOs eplanatin

regarding the accidental re!val f prper attributins t the three authrs iscredible. Given the peratinal prperties f the Micrsft prgra! in use b$ the

"urt, the accidental decapitatin f attributins t surces f research !aterials is

nt re!te.

Fr !st senir la#$ers and &udges #h are nt c!puter literate, a fa!iliar

ea!ple si!ilar t the circu!stances f the present case #uld prbabl$ help

illustrate the likelihd f such an accident happening. If researcher W, fr

ea!ple, happens t be interested in Qthe inalienable character f &uridicalpersnalit$R in cnnectin #ith an assign!ent and if the bk f the learned

"ivilist, 1rtur M. 'lentin, happens t have been published in a #ebsite,

researcher W #uld prbabl$ sh# interest in the fll#ing passage fr! that

bk:

999 Bo&h 6#")%)ca caac)& a$% caac)& &o ac& a"e $o& ")!h&',

+#& #a)&)e' o( e"'o$' he$ce, &he ca$$o& +e a)e$a&e% o"

"e$o#$ce%.1=

999

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX1=4 o$ T#h" 5

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

16/116

final fr! t 'lentin. 1fter the passage has been tagged, it #uld n# appear

like this:

he inalienable character o! juri"ical personalit#.54

999 Bo&h 6#")%)ca caac)& a$% caac)& &o ac& a"e $o& ")!h&',

+#& #a)&)e' o( e"'o$' he$ce, &he ca$$o& +e a)e$a&e% o"

"e$o#$ce%.5

999

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX54 F"o* Toe$&)$o.

54 o$ T#h" 554?. 'he erasure f the ftnte

eli!inates the link bet#een the lifted passage and its surce, 'lentinOs

bk. nl$ the fll#ing #uld re!ain in the !anuscript:

999 Bo&h 6#")%)ca caac)& a$% caac)& &o ac& a"e $o& ")!h&',+#& #a)&)e' o( e"'o$' he$ce, &he ca$$o& +e a)e$a&e% o"

"e$o#$ce%.4

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX44 o$ T#h" 5

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

17/116

acc!pan$ing ftntes that served as re!inder f the surces f the lifted

passages. 4ith --7 surces cited in the decisin, the lss f the + f the! #as nt

easil$ detectable.

Petitiners pint ut, h#ever, that /ustice ;el "astillOs verified letter f/ul$ ++, +- is incnsistent #ith his researcherOs clai! that the !issins #ere

!ere errrs in attributin. 'he$ cite the fact that the /ustice did nt disclse his

researcherOs errr in that letter despite the latterOs cnfessin regarding her !istake

even befre the /ustice sent his letter t the "hief /ustice. B$ den$ing plagiaris!

in his letter, /ustice ;el "astill allegedl$ per&ured hi!self and sught t

#hite#ash the case.K-6L

But nthing in the /ul$ ++ letter supprts the charge f false testi!n$./ustice ;el "astill !erel$ eplained Qthat there #as ever$ intentin t attribute all

surces #henever dueR and that there #as never Qan$ !alicius intent t

apprpriate antherOs #rk as ur #n,R #hich as it turns ut is a true

state!ent. 0e recalled h# the "urt deliberated upn the case !re than nce,

pr!pting !a&r revisins in the draft f the decisin. In the prcess, Q(s)urces

#ere re=studied, discussins !dified, passages added r deleted.R 3thing in the

letter suggests a cver=up. Indeed, it did nt preclude a researcherOs inadvertent

errr.

1nd it is understandable that /ustice ;el "astill did nt initiall$ disclse his

researcherOs errr. 0e #rte the decisin fr the "urt and #as epected t take

full respnsibilit$ fr an$ lapse arising fr! its preparatin. 4hat is !re, the

prcess f drafting a particular decisin fr the "urt is cnfidential, #hich

eplained his initial re5uest t be heard n the !atter #ithut the attendance f the

ther parties.

3tabl$, neither /ustice ;el "astill nr his researcher had a !tive rreasn fr !itting attributin fr the lifted passages t "riddle=;escent r t

llis. 'he latter authrs are highl$ respected prfessrs f internatinal la#. 'he

la# &urnals that published their #rks have eceptinal reputatins. It did nt

!ake sense t intentinall$ !it attributin t these authrs #hen the decisin

cites an abundance f ther surces. "iting these authrs as the surces f the

lifted passages #uld enhance rather than di!inish their infr!ative value. Bth

/ustice ;el "astill and his researcher gain nthing fr! the !issin. 'hus, the

failure t !entin the #rks f "riddle=;ecent and llis #as un5uestinabl$ due

t inadvertence r pure versight.

Petitiners f curse insist that intent is nt !aterial in c!!itting

plagiaris! since all that a #riter has t d, t avid the charge, is t enclse lifted

prtins #ith 5utatin !arks and ackn#ledge the surces fr! #hich these #ere

taken.K-LPetitiners pint ut that the "urt shuld appl$ t this case the ruling

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

18/116

in%ni&ersity of the 'hilippines Board of Regents &( Court of Appeals and

Arokias)amy *illiam +argaret Celine.K-@L 'he$ argue that standards n

plagiaris! in the acade!e shuld appl$ #ith !re frce t the &udiciar$.

But petitinersO ther$ ignres the fact that plagiaris! is essentiall$ a fr!f fraud #here intent t deceive is inherent. 'heir ther$ prvides n r! fr

errrs in research, an unrealistic psitin cnsidering that there is hardl$ an$

substantial #ritten #rk in an$ field f discipline that is free f an$ !istake. 'he

ther$ places an aut!atic universal curse even n errrs that, as in this case, have

reasnable and lgical eplanatins.

Indeed, the 9theditin f BlackOs 2a# ;ictinar$ defines plagiaris! as the

Qdeliberate and kn#ing presentatin f anther persn?s riginal ideas r creativeepressins as ne?s #n.RK-*L 'hus, plagiaris! presuppses intent and a

deliberate, cnscius effrt t steal antherOs #rk and pass it ff as neOs #n.

Besides, the "urt said nthing in %('( Board of Regentsthat #uld indicate

that an intent t pass ff antherOs #rk as neOs #n is nt re5uired in

plagiaris!. 'he "urt !erel$ affir!ed the acade!ic freed! f a universit$ t

#ithdra# a !asterOs degree that a student btained based n evidence that she

!isapprpriated the #rk f thers, passing the! ff as her #n. 'his is nt the

case here since, as alread$ stated, /ustice ;el "astill actuall$ i!puted thebrr#ed passages t thers.

Seco$% F)$%)$!

'he "urt als adpts the "!!itteeOs finding that the !issin f

attributins t "riddle=;escent and llis did nt bring abut an i!pressin that/ustice ;el "astill hi!self created the passages that he lifted fr! their published

articles. 'hat he !erel$ gt thse passages fr! thers re!ains self=evident,

despite the accidental deletin. 'he fact is that he still i!puted the passages t the

surces fr! #hich "riddle=;escent and llis brr#ed the! in the first place.

'his is best illustrated in the fa!iliar ea!ple abve. 1fter the deletin f

the sub&ect tag and, accidentall$, its ftnte #hich cnnects t the surce, the

lifted passage #uld appear like this:

999 Bo&h 6#")%)ca caac)& a$% caac)& &o ac& a"e $o& ")!h&',

+#& #a)&)e' o( e"'o$' he$ce, &he ca$$o& +e a)e$a&e% o"

"e$o#$ce%.4

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX44 o$ T#h" 5

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

19/116

1lthugh the unintended deletin severed the passageOs link t 'lentin,

the passage re!ains t be attributed t n 'uhr and alverde, the riginal

surces that 'lentin hi!self cites. 'he tet and its ftnte reference cancel utan$ i!pressin that the passage is a creatin f researcher W. It is the sa!e #ith

the passages fr! "riddle=;escent and llis. Because such passages re!ained

attributed b$ the ftntes t the authrsO riginal surces, the !issin f

attributins t "riddle=;escent and llis gave n i!pressin that the passages #ere

the creatins f /ustice ;el "astill. 'his #hll$ negates the idea that he #as

passing the! ff as his #n thughts.

'rue the sub&ect passages in this case #ere reprduced in

the $inuyadecisin #ithut placing the! in 5utatin !arks. But such passages

are !uch unlike the creative line fr! bert Frst,K-8LQ'he #ds are lvel$,

dark, and deep, but I have pr!ises t keep, and !iles t g befre I sleep, and

!iles t g befre I sleep.R 'he passages here cnsisted f c!!n definitins

and ter!s, abridged histr$ f certain principles f la#, and si!ilar fre5uentl$

repeated phrases that, in the #rld f legal literature, alread$ belng t the public

real!.

' paraphrase Bast and Sa!uels,K-9L#hile the acade!ic publishing !del isbased n the riginalit$ f the #riterOs thesis, the &udicial s$ste! is based n the

dctrine fstare decisis, #hich encurages curts t cite histrical legal data,

precedents, and related studies in their decisins. 'he &udge is nt epected t

prduce riginal schlarship in ever$ respect. 'he strength f a decisin lies in the

sundness and general acceptance f the precedents and lng held legal pinins it

dra#s fr!.

Th)"% F)$%)$!

Petitiners allege that the decisin t#isted the passages fr! 'a!s, "riddle=

;escent, and llis. 'he "urt adpts the "!!itteeOs finding that this is nt

s. Indeed, this allegatin f t#isting r !isrepresentatin re!ains a !$ster$ t

the "urt. ' t#ist !eans Qt distrt r pervert the !eaning f.R K-7L Fr ea!ple,

if ne lifts the l$rics f the 3atinal 1nthe!, uses it in his #rk, and declares that

/se Pal!a #h #rte it Qdid nt lve his cuntr$,R then there is Qt#istingR r

!isrepresentatin f #hat the anthe!Os l$rics said. 0ere, nthing in

the $inuyadecisin said r i!plied that, based n the lifted passages, authrs'a!s, "riddle=;escent, and llis supprted the "urtOs cnclusin that the

Philippines is nt under an$ bligatin in internatinal la# t espuse inu$a et

al(3sclai!s.

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

20/116

'he fact is that, ()"'&, since the attributins t "riddle=;escent and llis

#ere accidentall$ deleted, it is i!pssible fr an$ persn reading the decisin t

cnnect the sa!e t the #rks f thse authrs as t cnclude that in #riting the

decisin /ustice ;el "astill Qt#istedR their intended !essages. 1nd, 'eco$%, the

lifted passages prvided !ere backgrund facts that established the state finternatinal la# at varius stages f its develp!ent. 'hese are neutral data that

culd supprt cnflicting theries regarding #hether r nt the &udiciar$ has the

p#er tda$ t rder the ecutive ;epart!ent t sue anther cuntr$ r #hether

the dut$ t prsecute vilatrs f internatinal cri!es has attained the status f#us

cogens.

"nsidering h# it #as i!pssible fr /ustice ;el "astill t have t#isted

the !eaning f the passages he lifted fr! the #rks f 'a!s, "riddle=;escent,and llis, the charge f Qt#istingR r !isrepresentatin against hi! is t sa$ the

least, unkind. ' be !re accurate, h#ever, the charge is reckless and btuse.

No M)'co$%#c&

n ccasins &udges and &ustices have !istakenl$ cited the #rng surces,

failed t use 5utatin !arks, inadvertentl$ !itted necessar$ infr!atin fr!

ftntes r endntes. But these d nt, in ever$ case, a!unt t !iscnduct.

nl$ errrs that are tainted #ith fraud, crruptin, r !alice are sub&ect fdisciplinar$ actin.K+L 'his is nt the case here. /ustice ;el "astillOs acts r

!issins #ere nt sh#n t have been i!pelled b$ an$ f such disreputable

!tives(K+-L If the rule #ere ther#ise, n &udge r &ustice, h#ever c!petent,

hnest, r dedicated he !a$ be, can ever hpe t retire fr! the &udiciar$ #ith an

unble!ished recrd.K++L

No I$e9c#'a+e Ne!)!e$ce

Finall$, petitiners assert that, even if the$ #ere t cncede that the

!issin #as the result f plain errr, /ustice ;el "astill is nnetheless guilt$ f

grss inecusable negligence. 'he$ pint ut that he has full cntrl and

supervisin ver his researcher and shuld nt have surrendered the #riting f the

decisin t the latter.K+6L

But this assu!es that /ustice ;el "astill abdicated the #riting f

the $inuyadecisin t his researcher, #hich is cntrar$ t the evidence adduced

during the hearing. 1s his researcher testified, the /ustice set the directin that theresearch and stud$ #ere t take b$ discussing the issues #ith her, setting frth his

psitin n thse issues, and revie#ing and c!!enting n the stud$ that she #as

putting tgether until he #as c!pletel$ satisfied #ith it.K+L In ever$ sense,

/ustice ;el "astill #as in cntrl f the #riting f the reprt t the "urt, #hich

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

21/116

reprt eventuall$ beca!e the basis fr the decisin, and deter!ined its final

utc!e.

1ssigning cases fr stud$ and research t a curt attrne$, the e5uivalent f

a Qla# clerkR in the Hnited States Supre!e "urt, is standard practice in the highcurts f all natins. 'his is dictated b$ necessit$. 4ith abut 9 t - cases

assigned t a /ustice in ur "urt each !nth, it #uld be trul$ senseless fr hi!

t d all the studies and research, ging t the librar$, searching the internet,

checking ftntes, and #atching the punctuatins. If he des all these b$ hi!self,

he #uld have t allcate at least ne t t# #eeks f #rk fr each case that has

been sub!itted fr decisin. 'he #heels f &ustice in the Supre!e "urt #ill grind

t a halt under such a prpsitin.

4hat is i!prtant is that, in this case, /ustice ;el "astill retained cntrl

ver the #riting f the decisin in the $inuyacase #ithut, h#ever, having t

lk ver his researcherOs shulder as she cleaned up her draft reprt t ensure that

she hit the right c!puter ke$s. 'he /usticeOs researcher #as after all c!petent in

the field f assign!ent given her. She finished la# fr! a leading la# schl,

graduated third in her class, served as ditr=in "hief f her schlOs 2a# /urnal,

and placed furth in the bar ea!inatins #hen she tk it. She earned a !asterOs

degree in Internatinal 2a# and 0u!an ights fr! a prestigius universit$ in the

Hnited States under the Glbal=0auser prgra!, #hich cunsel fr petitinerscncedes t be ne f the tp pst graduate prgra!s n Internatinal 2a# in the

#rld. /ustice ;el "astill did nt eercise bad &udg!ent in assigning the research

#rk in the $inuyacase t her.

"an errrs in preparing decisins be preventedY 3t until c!puters cease

t be perated b$ hu!an beings #h are vulnerable t hu!an errrs. 'he$ are

h$pcrites #h believe that the curts shuld be as errr=free as the$ the!selves

are.

Incidentall$, in the curse f the sub!issin f petitinersO ehibits, the

"!!ittee nted that petitinersO hibit /, the accusing state!ent f the Facult$

f the H.P. "llege f 2a# n the allegatins f plagiaris! and !isinterpretatin,

#as a !ere du!!$. 'he #hle f the state!ent #as reprduced but the signatures

prtin bel# !erel$ listed the na!es f 69 facult$ !e!bers, in slid r#s, #ith

the letters QSgdR r QsignedR printed beside the na!es #ithut eceptin. 'hese

included the na!e f retired Supre!e "urt /ustice icente . Mend

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

22/116

appeared like slid teeth in the du!!$ turned ut t be brken teeth in the

riginal. Since nl$ 68 ut f the 9- n the list signed the dcu!ent, it des nt

appear t be a state!ent f the Facult$ but f &ust s!e f its !e!bers. 1nd

retired /ustice . . Mend

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

23/116

Facts:

In inu$a vs. eecutive Secretar$, pr!ulgated last 1pril +9, +-, the Supre!e

"urt ;ISMISS; the petitin filed b$ a grup f Filipin Qc!frt #!enR during the /apanese

!ilitar$ ccupatin f the Philippines. 'he "urt, speaking thrugh /ustice Marian ". del "astill, held

that the petitin seeking t c!pel the ecutive ;epart!ent t espuse the petitinersO clai!s fr

fficial aplg$ and ther fr!s f reparatins against /apan befre the Internatinal "urt f

/ustice and ther internatinal tribunals has 3 MI' because: (-) the prergative t deter!ine

#hether t espuse petitinersO clai!s against /apan belngs eclusivel$ t the ecutive ;epart!ent

and (+) the Philippines is nt under an$ internatinal bligatin t espuse the petitinersO clai!s.

;iscntented #ith the freging decisin, the petitiners in inu$a filed a !tin fr

recnsideratin. Subse5uentl$, the$ als filed a supple!ental !tin fr recnsideratin, this ti!e

accusing the /ustice del "astill f plagiari

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

24/116

(6) nfrcing rga !nes bligatins in Internatinal 2a# b$ Prfessr "hristian /. 'a!s ("hair

f Internatinal 2a# f Hniversit$ f Glasg# Schl f 2a#), published in "a!bridge

Hniversit$ Press (+@).

'he "urt then referred the charges against /ustice ;el "astill t its "!!ittee n

thics and thical Standards, chaired b$ "hief /ustice enat "rna, fr investigatin andrec!!endatin. 1fter the prceedings befre it, the "!!ittee sub!itted its findings and

rec!!endatins t the "urt en banc, #hich then treated and decided the cntrvers$ as an

ad!inistrative !atter.

Issues:

-. ;id /ustice ;el "astill, in #riting the pinin fr the "urt in the inu$a case,

plagiari

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

25/116

'he !a&rit$ ;ecisin that n plagiaris! #as c!!itted ste!s fr! its failure t

distinguish bet#een the deter!inatin f the b&ective, factual eistence f plagiaris! in

the inu$a decisinK-Land the deter!inatin f the liabilit$ that results fr! a finding f

plagiaris!. Specificall$, it !ade Q!alicius intentR, #hich heretfre had nt been relevant t a

finding f plagiaris!, an essential ele!ent.

'he !a&rit$ ;ecisin #ill thus stand against the ver#hel!ing cnventins n #hatcnstitutes plagiaris!. In ding s, the ;ecisin has created uni!aginable prble!s fr

Philippine acade!ia, #hich #ill fr! n# n have t find a disciplinar$ respnse t plagiaris!

c!!itted b$ students and researchers n the &ustificatin f the !a&rit$ ;ecisin.

It has als under!ined the prtectin f cp$righted #rk b$ !aking available t

plagiarists Qlack f !alicius intentR as a defense t a charge f vilatin f cp$ r ecn!ic

rights f the cp$right #ner c!!itted thrugh lack f attributin.

(b) the !aking f 5utatins fr! a published #rk if the$ are c!patible #ith fair use

and nl$ t the etent &ustified fr the purpse, including 5utatins fr! ne#spaper articles and

peridicals in the fr! f press su!!aries: Prvided that the surce and the na!e f the authr,

if appearing n the #rk, are !entined. (!phasis supplied)

Because the !a&rit$ ;ecisin has ecused the lack f attributin t the c!plaining

authrs in the inu$a decisin t editrial errrs and lack f !alicius intent t apprpriate Z

and that therefre there #as n plagiaris! Z lack f intent t infringe cp$right in the case f

lack f attributin !a$ n# als bec!e a defense, rendering the abve legal prvisin

!eaningless.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. >110 4$e 1>, 1>>1

THE PEOPLE O7 THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff8appellee,vs.MIAEL MALMSTE6T,

defendant8appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff,appellee.

-o#ulo Ma(anta Buena&entura Sa"oc / 0e los Angeles for defendant,appellant.

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

26/116

PA6ILLA, J.:p

"n an infor*ation dated )1 0une );D;, accused8appellant Mi$ael Mal*stedt %hereinafter referred toas the accused& +as char#ed before the Re#ional !rial Court %R!C& of La !rinidad, Ben#uet, Branch

)2, in Cri*inal Case No. D;8CR82554, for violation of Section 6, Art. "" of Republic Act 561, asa*ended, other+ise $no+n as the ?an#erous ?ru#s Act of );@, as a*ended. !he factualbac$#round of the case is as follo+s9

Accused Mi$ael Mal*stedt, a S+edish national, entered the Philippines for the third ti*e in?ece*ber );DD as a tourist. =e had visited the countr( so*eti*e in );D and );D1.

"n the evenin# of @ Ma( );D;, accused left for Ba#uio Cit(. pon his arrival thereat in the *ornin# ofthe follo+in# da(, he too$ a bus to Sa#ada and sta(ed in that place for t+o %& da(s.

At around @922 ocloc$ in the *ornin# of )) Ma( );D;, accused +ent to the Nan#ono#an bus stop inSa#ada to catch the first available trip to Ba#uio Cit(. >ro* Ba#uio Cit(, accused planned to ta$e a

late afternoon trip to An#eles Cit(, then proceed to Manila to catch his fli#ht out of the countr(,scheduled on )4 Ma( );D;. >ro* Sa#ada, accused too$ a S$(line bus +ith bod( nu*ber D221 andPlate nu*ber AC ;2. 1

At about D9 22 ocloc$ in the *ornin# of that sa*e da( %)) Ma( );D;&, Captain Alen asco, theCo**andin# Officer of the >irst Re#ional Co**and %NARCOM& stationed at Ca*p ?an#+a,ordered his *en to set up a te*porar( chec$point at Hilo*eter )6, Acop, !ubla(, Mountain Province,for the purpose of chec$in# all vehicles co*in# fro* the Cordillera Re#ion. !he order to establish achec$point in the said area +as pro*pted b( persistent reports that vehicles co*in# fro* Sa#ada+ere transportin# *ari7uana and other prohibited dru#s. Moreover, infor*ation +as received b( theCo**andin# Officer of NARCOM, that sa*e *ornin#, that a Caucasian co*in# fro* Sa#ada had inhis possession prohibited dru#s. 2

!he #roup co*posed of seven %@& NARCOM officers, in coordination +ith !ubla( Police Station, setup a chec$point at the desi#nated area at about )2922 ocloc$ in the *ornin# and inspected allvehicles co*in# fro* the Cordillera Re#ion.

At about )942 ocloc$ in the afternoon, the bus +here accused +as ridin# +as stopped. S#t. >iderand C"C 'alutan boarded the bus and announced that the( +ere *e*bers of the NARCOM and thatthe( +ould conduct an inspection. !he t+o %& NARCOM officers started their inspection fro* thefront #oin# to+ards the rear of the bus. Accused +ho +as the sole forei#ner ridin# the bus +asseated at the rear thereof.

?urin# the inspection, C"C 'alutan noticed a bul#e on accuseds +aist. Suspectin# the bul#e onaccuseds +aist to be a #un, the officer as$ed for accuseds passport and other identification papers.3hen accused failed to co*pl(, the officer re-uired hi* to brin# out +hatever it +as that +asbul#in# on his +aist. !he bul#in# ob7ect turned out to be a pouch ba# and +hen accused opened thesa*e ba#, as ordered, the officer noticed four %6& suspicious8loo$in# ob7ects +rapped in bro+npac$in# tape, pro*ptin# the officer to open one of the +rapped ob7ects. !he +rapped ob7ects turnedout to contain hashish,

a derivative of *ari7uana.

!hereafter, accused +as invited outside the bus for -uestionin#. But before he ali#hted fro* the bus,accused stopped to #et t+o %& travellin# ba#s fro* the lu##a#e carrier.

pon steppin# out of the bus, the officers #ot the ba#s and opened the*. A tedd( bear +as found ineach ba#. >eelin# the tedd( bears, the officer noticed that there +ere bul#es inside the sa*e +hichdid not feel li$e foa* stuffin#. "t +as onl( after the officers had opened the ba#s that accused finall(

presented his passport.

Accused +as then brou#ht to the head-uarters of the NARCOM at Ca*p ?an#+a, La !rinidad,Ben#uet for further investi#ation. At the investi#ation roo*, the officers opened the tedd( bears andthe( +ere found to also contain hashish. Representative sa*ples +ere ta$en fro* the hashish founda*on# the personal effects of accused and the sa*e +ere brou#ht to the PC Cri*e Laborator( forche*ical anal(sis.

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

27/116

"n the che*istr( report, it +as established that the ob7ects eor his defense, he raised the issueof ille#al search of his personal effects. =e also clai*ed that the hashish +as planted b( the

NARCOM officers in his pouch ba# and that the t+o %& travellin# ba#s +ere not o+ned b( hi*, but+ere *erel( entrusted to hi* b( an Australian couple +ho* he *et in Sa#ada. =e further clai*edthat the Australian couple intended to ta$e the sa*e bus +ith hi* but because there +ere no *oreseats available in said bus, the( decided to ta$e the neirst Narcotics Re#ionalnit at Ca*p Bado: ?an#+a, La !rinidad Ben#uet for proper disposition underSection 2, Article " of Republic Act 561, as a*ended.

SO OR?ERE?. =

See$in# the reversal of the decision of the trial court findin# hi* #uilt( of the cri*e char#ed, accusedar#ues that the search of his personal effects +as ille#al because it +as *ade +ithout a search+arrant and, therefore, the prohibited dru#s +hich +ere discovered durin# the ille#al search are notad*issible as evidence a#ainst hi*.

!he Constitution #uarantees the ri#ht of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papersand effects a#ainst unreasonable searches and seiures.

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

28/116

%c& 3hen the person to be arrested is a prisoner +ho has escaped fro* a penalestablish*ent or place +here he is servin# final 7ud#*ent or te*poraril( confined+hile his case is pendin#, or has escaped +hile bein# transferred fro* oneconfine*ent to another.

"n cases fallin# under para#raphs %a& and %b& hereof, the person arrested +ithout a

+arrant shall be forth+ith delivered to the nearest police station or 7ail, and he shallbe proceeded a#ainst in accordance +ith Rule )), Section @. %5a )@a&.

Accused +as searched and arrested +hile transportin# prohibited dru#s %hashish&. A cri*e +asactuall( bein# co**itted b( the accused and he +as cau#ht inflagrante delicto. !hus, the search*ade upon his personal effects falls s-uarel( under para#raph %)& of the fore#oin# provisions of la+,+hich allo+ a +arrantless search incident to a la+ful arrest.

3hile it is true that the NARCOM officers +ere not ar*ed +ith a search +arrant +hen the search+as *ade over the personal effects of accused, ho+ever, under the circu*stances of the case,there +as sufficient probable cause for said officers to believe that accused +as then and thereco**ittin# a cri*e.

Probable cause has been defined as such facts and circu*stances +hich could lead a reasonable,discreet and prudent *an to believe that an offense has been co**itted, and that the ob7ectssou#ht in connection +ith the offense are in the place sou#ht to be searched. 8!he re-uiredprobable cause that +ill 7ustif( a +arrantless search and seiure is not deter*ined b( an( fi

3arrantless search of the personal effects of an accused has been declared b( this Court as valid,because of eor is it not a re#ular nor* for an innocent *an, +ho hasnothin# to hide fro* the authorities, to readil( present his identification papers +hen re-uired to dosoK

!he receipt of infor*ation b( NARCOM that a Caucasian co*in# fro* Sa#ada had prohibited dru#sin his possession, plus the suspicious failure of the accused to produce his passport, ta$en to#ether

as a +hole, led the NARCOM officers to reasonabl( believe that the accused +as tr(in# to hideso*ethin# ille#al fro* the authorities. >ro* these circu*stances arose a pro(a(le cause+hich7ustified the +arrantless search that +as *ade on the personal effects of the accused. "n other+ords, the acts of the NARCOM officers in re-uirin# the accused to open his pouch ba# and inopenin# one of the +rapped ob7ects found inside said ba# %+hich +as discovered to containhashish& as +ell as the t+o %& travellin# ba#s containin# t+o %& tedd( bears +ith hashish stuffedinside the*, +ere pro*pted b( accuseds o+n atte*pt to hide his identit( b( refusin# to present hispassport, and b( the infor*ation received b( the NARCOM that a Caucasian co*in# fro* Sa#adahad prohibited dru#s in his possession. !o deprive the NARCOM a#ents of the abilit( and facilit( to

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

29/116

act accordin#l(, includin#, to search even +ithout +arrant, in the li#ht of such circu*stances, +ouldbe to sanction i*potence and ineffectiveness in la+ enforce*ent, to the detri*ent of societ(.

3=ERE>ORE, pre*ises considered, the appealed 7ud#*ent of conviction b( the trial court ishereb( A>>"RME?. Costs a#ainst the accused8appellant.

SO OR?ERE?.

NARVASA, J., concurrin# and dissentin#9

!he ancient tradition that a *ans ho*e is his castle, safe fro* intrusion even b( the $in#, has notonl( found its niche in all our charters, fro* );41 to the present: it has also received unvar(in#reco#nition and acceptance in our case la+. 1!he present Constitution 2declares that G

!he ri#ht of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effectsa#ainst unreasonable searches and seiures of +hatever nature and for an(purpose, shall be inviolable, and no search +arrant or +arrant of arrest shall issuee

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

30/116

"t further ordains that an( evidence obtained in violation of said ri#ht, a*on# others, shall beinad*issible for an( purpose in an( proceedin#. 3

!he rule is that no person *a( be sub7ected b( the police or other #overn*ent authorit( to a searchof his bod(, or his personal effects or belon#in#s, or his residence e

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

31/116

the Solicitor 'eneral asserts, infor*ation that *ost of the buses co*in# . . . %fro* the Cordillera&+ere transportin# *ari7uana and other prohibited dru#s.

!his case, is re*ar$abl( si*ilar to 3eo.&.A#innudin, decided on 0ul( 5, );DD also b( the >irst?ivision. 1!here, A*innudin +as arrested +ithout a +arrant b( PC officers as he +as dise*bar$in#fro* an inter8island vessel. !he officers +ere +aitin# for hi* because he +as, accordin# to an

infor*ers report, then transportin# *ari7uana. !he search of A*innudins ba# confir*ed theinfor*ers report: the ba# indeed contained *ari7uana. !he Court nevertheless held that since thePC officers had failed to procure a search +arrant althou#h the( had sufficient ti*e %t+o da(s& to doso and therefore, the case presented no such ur#enc( as to 7ustif( a +arrantless search, the searchof A*innudins person and ba#, the seiure of the *ari7uana and his subse-uent arrest +ere ille#al:and the *ari7uana +as inad*issible in evidence in the cri*inal action subse-uentl( instituted a#ainst

A*innudin for violatin# the ?an#erous ?ru#s Act.

!here are, on the other hand, other cases ad7udicated b( this Court in +hich apparentl( differentconclusions +ere reached. "t is needful to devote a fe+ +ords to the* so that the relevantconstitutional and le#al propositions are not *isunderstood.

"n 3eople &.laudio%decision pro*ul#ated on April )1, );DD&,18

the accused boarded a ictor(Liner passen#er bus #oin# to Olon#apo fro* Ba#uio Cit(. She placed the plastic ba# she +ascarr(in# at the bac$ of the seat then occupied b( Obia, an "NP *e*ber on ?etached Service +iththe Anti8Narcotics nit. !his avo+edl( aroused Obias suspicion, and at the first opportunit(, and+ithout Claudios $no+led#e, he surreptitiousl( loo$ed into the plastic ba# and noted that itcontained ca*ote tops as +ell as a pac$a#e, and that there e*anated fro* the pac$a#e the s*ell of*ari7uana +ith +hich he had beco*e fa*iliar on account of his +or$. So +hen the bus stopped atSta. Rita, and Claudio ali#hted, Obia accosted her, sho+ed her his "?, identified hi*self as apolice*an, and announced his intention to search her ba# +hich he said contained *ari7uanabecause of the distinctive odor detected b( hi*. "#norin# her plea G Please #o +ith *e, let ussettle this at ho*e G he brou#ht her to the police head-uarters., +here eernando, Pa*pan#a, ai*ed not onl( a#ainst persons +ho *a( co**it *isde*eanors . . . %there&but also on persons +ho *a( be en#a#in# in the traffic of dan#erous dru#s based on infor*ationsupplied b( infor*ers: . . . the( noticed a person carr(in# a red travellin# ba# . . +ho +as actin#suspiciousl(: the( as$ed hi* to open the ba#: the person did so onl( after the( identifiedthe*selves as peace officers: found in the ba# +ere *ari7uana leaves +rapped in plastic +ei#hin#one $ilo#ra*, *ore or less: the person +as then ta$en to the police head-uarters at San >ernando,Pa*pan#a, +here he +as investi#ated: and an infor*ation +as thereafter filed a#ainst that person,!an#liben, char#in# hi* +ith a violation of the ?an#erous ?ru#s Act of );@ %RA 561&, as

a*ended. pon these facts it +as ruled, citinglaudio supra, that there +as a valid +arrantlessarrest and a proper +arrantless search incident thereto.

!he facts in Tangli(en+ere pronounced to be different fro* those in 3eople &.A#innudinsupra. "ncontrast toA#innudin+here the Court perceived no ur#enc( as to preclude the application for andobtention of a search +arrant, it +as declared that the Tangli(en caseG

. . .presented urgenc". . . %!he evidence revealed& that there +as an infor*er +hopointed to the accused8appellant as carr(in# *ari7uana . . . >aced +ith such on8the8spot infor*ation, the police officers had to act -uic$l(. !here +as not enou#h ti*e tosecure a search +arrant . . . !o re-uire search +arrants durin# on8the8spotapprehensions of dru# pushers, ille#al possessors of firear*s, 7ueten# collectors,s*u##lers of contraband #oods, robber, etc. +ould *a$e it e

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

32/116

!+o other decisions presented substantiall( si*ilar circu*stance instances9 3osadas &..A.,et al.,decided on Au#ust , );;2, 20and 3eople &.Moises Maspil 5r.,et al., decided on Au#ust 2, );;2. 21

"n the first case, Posadas +as seen to be actin# suspiciousl( b( t+o *e*bers of the "NP, ?avaoMetrodisco*, and +hen he +as accosted b( the t+o, +ho identified the*selves as police officers,he suddenl( fled. =e +as pursued, overta$en and, not+ithstandin# his resistance, placed in custod(.

!he (uriba# Posadas +as then carr(in# +as found to contain a revolver, for +hich he could produceno license or authorit( to possess, four rounds of live a**unition, and a tear #as #renade. =e +asprosecuted for ille#al possession of firear*s and a**unition and convicted after trial. !his Courtaffir*ed Posadas conviction, holdin# that there +as, in the pre*ises, probable cause for a search+ithout +arrant, i.e., the appellant +as actin# suspiciousl( and atte*pted to flee +ith the (uriba# hehad +ith hi* at the ti*e. !he Court cited +ith approval the rulin# of the .S. >ederal Supre*e Courtin 5ohn $.Terr" &.State of 6hio22a );5D case, +hich the Solicitor 'eneral had invo$ed to 7ustif(the search.

"n the case of Maspil et al., a chec$point +as set up b( ele*ents of the >irst Narcotics Re#ional nitof the Narcotics Co**and at Sa(an#an, Ato$, Ben#uet, to *onitor, inspect and scrutinie vehicleson the hi#h+a( #oin# to+ards Ba#uio Cit(. !his +as done because of a confidential report b(

infor*ers that Maspil and another person, Ba#$in#, +ould be transportin# a lar#e -uantit( of*ari7uana to Ba#uio Cit(. "n fact, the infor*ers +ere +ith the police*en *annin# the chec$point. Ase

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

33/116

personall( seen that her ba# contained not onl( ve#etables but also a pac$a#e e*ittin# the odor of*ari7uana. "n Tangli(enthe person arrested and searched +as actin# suspiciousl(, and had beenpositivel( pointed to as carr(in# *ari7uana. And in both cases, the accused +ere about to boardpassen#er buses, *a$in# it ur#ent for the police officers concerned to ta$e -uic$ and decisiveaction. "n 3osadasthe person arrested and searched +as actin# suspiciousl(, too, and +henaccosted had atte*pted to flee fro* the police officers. And in Maspiland 'o 7o $ingthere +as

definite infor*ation of the precise identit( of the persons en#a#ed in transportin# prohibited dru#s ata particular ti*e and place.

No+, as re#ards the precise issue at hand, +hether or not the facts in the case at bar *a$e out ale#iti*ate instance of a +arrantless search and seiure, there is, as earlier pointed out, a re#rettablediver#ence of vie+s a*on# the *e*bers of the Court.

Contrar( to the conclusion reached b( the *a7orit(, " believe that the appellant should be absolvedon reasonable doubt. !here +as in this case no confidential report fro*, or positive identification b(an infor*er: no atte*pt to flee: no ba# or pac$a#e e*ittin# tell8tale odors: no other reasonabl(persuasive indications that Mal*stedt +as at the ti*e in process of perpetratin# the offense for+hich he +as subse-uentl( prosecuted. =ence, +hen the soldiers searched Mal*stedts pouch and

the ba#s in his possession, the( +ere si*pl( fishin# for evidence. "t *atters not that the searchdisclosed that the ba#s contained prohibited substances, confir*in# their initial infor*ation andsuspicion. !he search +as not *ade b( virtue of a +arrant or as an incident of a la+ful +arrantlessarrest, i.e., under circu*stances sufficient to en#ender a reasonable belief that so*e cri*e +asbein# or about to be co**itted, or ad7ust been co**itted. !here +as no intelli#ent and intentional+aiver of the ri#ht a#ainst unreasonable searches and seiure. !he search +as therefore ille#al,since the la+ re-uires that there first be a la+ful arrest of an individual before a search of his bod(and his belon#in#s *a( licitl( be *ade. !he process cannot be reversed, i.e., a search be firstunderta$en, and then an arrest effected, on the stren#th of the evidence (ielded b( the search. Anarrest *ade in that case +ould be unla+ful, and the search underta$en as an incident of such anunla+ful arrest, also unla+ful.

!he fact that +hen investi#ated at the head-uarters of the Narcotic Co**and at Ca*p ?an#+a, La

!rinidad, Mal*stedt had, it is said, +illin#l( ad*itted that there +ere +as hashish inside the tedd(bears in the lu##a#e found in his possession G an ad*ission subse-uentl( confir*ed b( laborator(e

!he prohibited dru#s supposedl( discovered in Mal*stedts ba#s, havin# been ta$en in violation ofthe constitutional ri#ht a#ainst unreasonable searches and seiures, are inad*issible a#ainst hi*for an( purpose in an( proceedin#. Also pronounced as inco*petent evidence a#ainst hi* are thead*issions supposedl( *ade b( hi* +ithout his first bein# accorded the constitutional ri#hts ofpersons under custodial investi#ation. 3ithout such ob7ect evidence and ad*issions, nothin#re*ains of the case a#ainst Mal*stedt.

"t *a( be conceded that, as the !rial Court points out, the evidence presented b( Mal*stedt in hisdefense is feeble, un+orth( of credence. !his is beside the point: for confor*abl( to the fa*iliara

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

34/116

account of the basic ri#hts #ranted b( the Constitution and the la+ to persons +ho *a( fall undersuspicion of en#a#in# in cri*inal acts. ?isre#ard of those ri#hts *a( not be 7ustified b( the ob7ectiveof ferretin# out and punishin# cri*e, no *atter ho+ e*inentl( desirable attain*ent of that ob7ective*i#ht be. ?isre#ard of those ri#hts, as this Court has earlier stressed, *a( result in the escape ofthe #uilt(, and all because the constable has blundered, renderin# the evidence inad*issible evenif truthful or other+ise credible. 30

" therefore vote to reverse the !rial Courts 7ud#*ent of October ), );D; and to ac-uit the appellanton reasonable doubt.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 83>88 Se'(ember 2>, 1>8>

RICAR6O C. VALMONTE AN6 UNION O7 LA5ERS AN6 A6VOCATES 7OR PEOPLEFSRIGHTS !ULAP",petitioners,vs.GEN. RENATO 6E VILLA AN6 NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION 6ISTRICTCOMMAN6, respondents.

-icardo . 9al#onte for hi#self and his co,petitioners.

PA6ILLA, J.:

!his is a petition for prohibition +ith preli*inar( in7unction and/or te*porar( restrainin# order,see$in# the declaration of chec$points in alenuela, Metro Manila or else+here, as unconstitutional

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

35/116

and the dis*antlin# and bannin# of the sa*e or, in the alternative, to direct the respondents tofor*ulate #uidelines in the i*ple*entation of chec$points, for the protection of the people.

Petitioner Ricardo C. al*onte sues in his capacit( as citien of the Republic, ta

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

36/116

effective territorial defense and *aintainin# peace and order for the benefit of the public.Chec$points *a( also be re#arded as *easures to th+art plots to destabilie the #overn*ent, in theinterest of public securit(. "n this connection, the Court *a( ta$e 7udicial notice of the shift to urbancenters and their suburbs of the insur#enc( *ove*ent, so clearl( reflected in the increased $illin#sin cities of police and *ilitar( *en b( NPA sparro+ units, not to *ention the abundance ofunlicensed firear*s and the alar*in# rise in la+lessness and violence in such urban centers, not all

of +hich are reported in *edia, *ost li$el( brou#ht about b( deterioratin# econo*ic conditions G+hich all su* up to +hat one can ri#htl( consider, at the ver( least, as abnor*al ti*es. Bet+een theinherent ri#ht of the state to protect its e

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

37/116

CRU?, J., dissentin#9

" dissent. !he s+eepin# state*ents in the *a7orit( opinion are as dan#erous as the chec$points it+ould sustain and frau#ht +ith serious threats to individual libert(. !he bland declaration thatindividual ri#hts *ust (ield to the de*ands of national securit( i#nores the fact that the Bill of Ri#hts+as intended precisel( to li*it the authorit( of the State even if asserted on the #round of nationalsecurit(. 3hat is +orse is that the searches and seiures are pere*ptoril( pronounced to bereasonable even +ithout proof of probable cause and *uch less the re-uired +arrant. !hei*probable eor these purposes, ever( individual *a( be stoppedand searched at rando* and at an( ti*e si*pl( because he e

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

38/116

G.R. No. L;D211> A-&( 2, 1>8=

IN THE MATTER O7 THE PETITION 7OR THE ISSUANCE O7 A RIT O7 HABEAS CORPUS7OR ARISTE6ES SARMIENTO AN6 LAURA 6EL CASTILLO SARMIENTO, IGNACIO 6ELCASTILLO, petitioner,vs.

HON. 4UAN PONCE ENRILE, LT. GEN. 7I6EL V. RAMOS AN6 MA4. GEORGE L.ALIOM, respondents.

'oren2o M. Taada 5ose $. 0io?no 5o?er 3. Arro"o -ene Sar#iento and Felicitas A!uino forpetitioner.

The Solicitor General for respondent @nrile.

R E S O L ! " O N

ABA6 SANTOS, J.:

At about ;922 p.*. on October ;, );D, Aristedes Sar*iento and his +ife, Laura del CastilloSar*iento, +ere apprehended b( ar*ed *en in civilian attire as the couple left the Rosarian =otel in'u*aca, Fueon. !he( +ere brou#ht to Ca*p Arsenio Natividad, also in 'u*aca, +here the( +ereinterro#ated +ithout benefit of counsel. Laura +as then ei#ht *onths pre#nant. She +as not*altreated: at least she *ade no clai* to that effect. But Aristedes co*plained that he +as struc$ athis side +ith the barrel of an Ar*alite rifle.

!he spouses +ere not released fro* detention despite the fact that the( +ere said to have been*erel( invited for -uestionin#. >or this reason, "#nacio del Castillo, father of Laura, filed the instantpetition for the issuance of a +rit of habeas corpus on October 2, );D, +ith the assistance of the>ree Le#al Assistance 'roup %>LA'&. 3e issued the +rit on October ), );D: re-uired therespondents to *a$e a return on October @, );D: and set the case for hearin# on October D,

);D.

!he return of the +rit states in part9

. !he evidence in the hands of the *ilitar( sho+s that at the ti*e of his arrest,Aristedes Sar*iento headed an operatin# unit of the Ne+ Peoples Ar*( %NPA&called the Pan#$at 0AC"N!O BON">AC"O. !his unit conducts a#itation propa#andaa*on# the far*ers and directl( recruits *e*bers for the NPA. Laura Sar*iento +asthe units finance officer.

4. On October l6, );D,Aristedes and Laura Sar*iento +ere char#ed +ith violation ofthe Revised Anti8Subversion La+ %P.?. DD1& as ran$in# leaders of the NPA in a

co*plaint filed before the Municipal Court of 'u*aca, Fueon in Cri*inal Case No.D214. A cop( of that Co*plaint is hereb( attached as Anne< ).

6. pon preli*inar( e

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

39/116

On March 4), );D4, the Sar*iento spouses +ere accused of subversion in t+o separateinfor*ations filed +ith the Re#ional !rial Court of 'u*aca, Fueon. After the prosecution hadpresented its evidence and rested its case, the defense *oved to dis*iss the char#es forinsufficienc( of evidence. And on March )1, );D6, the trial court issued an order dis*issin# thecases a#ainst the Sar*iento spouses. "n doin# so, the trial court said in part9

After a careful and thorou#h eLA' as$ed for the i**ediate release of Aristedes. =e +as not released. Accordin#l(, anr#ent Motion +as filed +ith this Court on Ma( )5, );D6, +herein it is pra(ed that the i**ediaterelease of Aristedes Sar*iento be ordered.

!he respondents +ere re-uired to co**ent on the r#ent Motion and after considerable dela( the(did so on 0ul( )6, );D6. !he( said that the Minister of ?efense ordered the release of Aristedes on0ul( 5, );D6, and he +as actuall( released on 0ul( )), );D6, at 942 p.*. !he( pra( that the petitionfor habeas corpus bein# *oot and acade*ic be dis*issed.

!he *a7orit( of the Court, +hich does not include the undersi#nedponente, is of the opinion that thepetition for habeas corpus has beco*e *oot and acade*ic because the Sar*iento spouses are nolon#er in detention.

3=ERE>ORE, the instant petition is hereb( dis*issed on the #round that it has been rendered*oot and acade*ic and it is so ordered.

!he undersi#nedponenteis constrained to disa#ree +ith the *a7orit( of the Court and thestate*ents follo+in# are entirel( his o+n9

l. " believe that the Court should have resolved the petition on the *erits and it is for this reason that

on the face of the r#ent Motion pra(in# for the release of Aristedes Sar*iento after the trial courthad dis*issed the t+o cases a#ainst the spouses that " voted for i**ediate affir*ative relief.

!he unstated pre*ise of the *a7orit( opinion is that a person +ho is detained under a PCO cannotbe released e

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

40/116

SCRA 14D, 1;681;5.& "n the case at bar since the Sar*iento spouses had been brou#ht before acourt of co*petent 7urisdiction, the fact that the( +ere covered b( a PCO is of no conse-uence: thecourt +hich ac-uired 7urisdiction over the* could order their release +ithout recourse to e

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

41/116

separate opinion in the said case, dissentin# fro* the Courts dis*issal of the case as havin#li$e+ise beco*e *oot after Caetes eventual release b( the *ilitar( on Ma( @, );D4, three *onthsafter his ac-uittal G not b( virtue of his ac-uittal but because the PCO had been lifted. " li$e+iseur#ed that the Court should have therein ruled s-uarel( on the funda*ental issue of the effect of adecision of ac-uittal upon a PCO, and to hold that a verdict of ac-uittal entities the accused to hislibert(, despite the PCO, +hich thereb( beca*e functus officio.

"t is i*perative then, in order to avoid countless other aetes and Sar#ientos, that in the lan#ua#eof the no+ Chief 0ustice in 0e la a#ara &s. @nage, Dthe fact that this case is *oot and acade*icshould not preclude this !ribunal fro* settin# forth in lan#ua#e clear and un*ista$able . . . . for the#uidance of lo+er court 7ud#es, the controllin# and authoritative doctrines that should be observedin accordin# full respect to constitutional ri#hts %referrin# in said case to the constitutional *andatethat ered Rui Castro inA!uino 5r. &. @nrile, the factthat a final deter*ination of a -uestion involved in an action is needed +ill be useful as a #uide forthe conduct of public officers or tribunals is a sufficient reason for retainin# an action +hich +ould orshould other+ise be dis*issed. Li$e+ise appeals *a( be retained if the -uestions involved are li$el(to arise fre-uentl( in the future unless the( are settled b( a court of last resort.

" reiterate *( stand in the above8cited case of aete 8that in such cases of conflictin# clai*s ofauthorit(, the individuals ri#ht to be set at libert( b( virtue of his ac-uittal b( the courts *ust prevailover the *ilitar(s clai* of a ri#ht to continue holdin# hi* in detention under the PCO. >or*er Chief0ustice Roberto Concepcion ri#htfull( observed in 3eople &s. 7ernande2>that individual freedo* istoo basic, too transcendental and vital in a republican state, li$e ours, to be denied upon *ere#eneral principles and abstract considerations of public safet(. >or brevit(s sa$e, " here+ithreproduce b( reference *( said separate opinion +hich full( applies, *utatis *utandis, in vie+ ofthe "dentical issues involved, to the case at bar.

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

42/116

EN BANC

PHILIP SIGFRID A. FORTUN G.R. No. 1054

a$% ALBERT LEE G. ANGELES,Petitiners, Present:

"31, C.J.,

"1PI,

21S", /.,

231;=; "1S',

BI3,= versus = P12'1,

BS1MI3,

;2 "1S'I22,

1B1;,

I2211M1, /.,

PN, M3;N1,

S3,

TS, and

P21S=B31B,JJ.

GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROO, a'

Co**a$%e"-)$-Ch)e( a$% P"e')%e$& o( &he Re#+)c

o( &he Ph)))$e', EDUARDO ERMITA, E9ec#&)/e

Sec"e&a", ARMED FORCES OF THEPHILIPPINES >AFP?, o" a$ o( &he)" #$)&',

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE >PNP?, o" a$

o( &he)" #$)&', JOHN DOES a$% JANE DOES

ac&)$! #$%e" &he)" %)"ec&)o$ a$% co$&"o,

espndents.

====================================================

DIDAGEN P. DILANGALEN, G.R. No. 105

Petitiner,

= versus =

EDUARDO R. ERMITA )$ h)' caac)& a'

E9ec#&)/e Sec"e&a", NORBERTO GONALES )$

h)' caac)& a' Sec"e&a" o( Na&)o$a De(e$'e,

RONALDO PUNO )$ h)' caac)& a' Sec"e&a" o(

I$&e")o" a$% Loca Go/e"$*e$&,

espndents.

====================================================

NATIONAL UNION OF PEOPLES2 G.R. No. 10401

LA3ERS >NUPL? SECRETAR GENERAL

NERI JAIER COLMENARES, BAAN MUNA

REPRESENTATIE SATUR C. OCAMPO,

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

43/116

GABRIELA 3OMEN2S PART

REPRESENTATIE LIA L. MAA, ATT.

JULIUS GARCIA MATIBAG, ATT. EPHRAIM

B. CORTE, ATT. JOBERT ILARDE

PAHILGA, ATT. OLTAIRE B. AFRICA,

BAGONG ALANSANG MAABAAN>BAAN? SECRETAR GENERAL RENATO M.

REES, JR. a$% ANTHON IAN CRU,

Petitiners,

= versus =

PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROO,

EECUTIE SECRETAR EDUARDO R.

ERMITA, ARMED FORCES OF THE

PHILIPPINES CHIEF OF STAFF GENERALICTOR S. IBRADO, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL

POLICE DIRECTOR GENERAL JESUS A.

EROSA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

SECRETAR AGNES ST DEANADERA,

ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES

EASTERN MINDANAO COMMAND CHIEF

LIEUTENANT GENERAL RAMUNDO B.

FERRER,

espndents.

====================================================

JOSEPH NELSON K. LOOLA, G.R. No. 10405

Petitiner,

= versus =

HER ECELLENC PRESIDENT GLORIA

MACAPAGAL-ARROO, ARMED FORCES

CHIEF OF STAFF GENERAL ICTOR

IBRADO, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE

>PNP?, DIRECTOR GENERAL JESUS

EROSA, EECUTIE SECRETAR

EDUARDO ERMITA,

espndents.

====================================================

JOITO R. SALONGA, RAUL C. G.R. No. 10407

PANGALANGAN, H. HARR L. ROKUE, JR.,

JOEL R. BUTUAN, EMILIO CAPULONG,FLORIN T. HILBA, ROMEL R. BAGARES,

DETER DONNE B. DION, ALLAN JONES F.

LARDIABAL a$% GILBERT T. ANDRES, '#)$!

a' &a9ae"' a$% a' CONCERNED F)))$o

c)&)e$',

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

44/116

Petitiners,

= versus =

GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROO, )$ h)' >sic?

caac)& a' P"e')%e$& o( &he Re#+)c o( &hePh)))$e', HON. EDUARDO ERMITA, JR., )$

h)' caac)& a' E9ec#&)/e Sec"e&a", a$% HON.

ROLANDO ANDAA )$ h)' caac)& a' Sec"e&a"

o( &he Dea"&*e$& o( B#%!e& a$% Ma$a!e*e$&,

GENERAL ICTOR IBRADO, )$ h)' caac)& a'

A"*e% Fo"ce' o( &he Ph)))$e' Ch)e( o( S&a((,

DIRECTOR JESUS EROSA, )$ h)' caac)& a'

Ch)e( o( &he Ph)))$e Na&)o$a Po)ce,

espndents.

====================================================

BAILENG S. MANTA3IL, DENGCO G.R. No. 104=ive others +ho onl( happened to be travellin# on the sa*e

hi#h+a( traversed b( the Man#udadatu convo( +ere also $illed.

"n response to this carna#e, President Arro(o issued on Nove*ber 6, 22; PP );65

declarin# a state of e*er#enc( in Ma#uindanao, Sultan Hudarat, and Cotabato Cit(.

On ?ece*ber 6, 22;, President Arro(o issued PP );1; declarin# *artial la+ and

suspendin# the privile#e of the +rit of ha(eas corpusin Ma#uindanao e

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

52/116

the rebellion +as localied and s+iftl( disinte#rated in the face of a deter*ined and a*pl( ar*ed

#overn*ent presence.

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

53/116

I. THE 7ACTS

On 0ul( D, );;6, an infor*ation for re/e&& )m'r%e$/e re&()$- )$ +om)/)%e+as fileda#ainst the petitioner before the R!C of Bulacan. !rial on the *erits ensued and on Au#ust );,);;D, the trial court convicted the petitioner as char#ed.

"n his appeal before the CA, the petitioner -uestioned, a*on# others, for the first ti*e, thetrial courts 7urisdiction. !he appellate court, ho+ever, in the challen#ed decision, considered thepetitioner to have activel( participated in the trial and to have belatedl( attac$ed the 7urisdiction ofthe R!C: thus, he +as alread( estopped b( laches fro* assertin# the trial courts lac$ of 7urisdiction.>indin# no other #round to reverse the trial courts decision, the CA affir*ed the petitionersconviction but *odified the penalt( i*posed and the da*a#es a+arded.

?issatisfied, the petitioner filed a petition for revie+ on certiorari+ith the Supre*e Court.

II. THE ISSUES

?oes the failure of the petitioner to raise the issue of lac$ of 7urisdiction durin# the trial ofthis case, +hich +as initiated and filed b( the public prosecutor before the +ron# court the

respondent R!C, constitutelachesin relation to the doctrine laid do+n in Ti4a# &. Si(onghano",not+ithstandin# the fact that said issue +as i**ediatel( raised in petitioners appeal to the=onorable Court of AppealsK Conversel(, does the active participation of the petitioner in the trial ofhis case, +hich is initiated and filed not b( hi* but b( the public prosecutor, a*ount to estoppelK

III. THE RULING

The Supre#e ourt GRANTthe petition and "#$"##the case without pre4udice.

N%, the failu&e of the petitio'e& to &aise the issue of (lac) of* u&isictio' u&i'- thet&ial of this case %# N%T co'stitute laches i' &elatio' to the oct&i'e lai ow' i' Tia v.#i/o'-ha'o0 N%, the active pa&ticipatio' of the petitio'e& i' the t&ial of his case %# N%T

aou't to estoppel.

Applied unifor*l( is the fa*iliar rule that the 7urisdiction of the court to hear and decide acase is conferred b( the la+ in force at the ti*e of the institution of the action, unless such statuteprovides for a retroactive application thereof. "n this case, at the ti*e the cri*inal infor*ation forrec$less i*prudence resultin# in ho*icide +ith violation of the Auto*obile La+ %no+ Land!ransportation and !raffic Code& +as filed, Section 4%& of B.P. ); had alread( been a*ended b(R.A. @5;). !he said provision reads9

Sec. 4. 5urisdiction of Metropolitan Trial ourts Municipal Trial ourts and Municipal ircuitTrial ourts in ri#inal ases. ,, E

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

54/116

!he #eneral rule is thatthe issue of 4urisdiction #a" (e raised at an" stage of theproceedings e&en on appeal and is not lost (" wai&er or (" estoppel. @stoppel (" laches to (ar alitigant fro# asserting the court;s a(sence or lac? of 4urisdiction onl" super&enes in eCceptionalcases si#ilar to the factual #ilieu of Ti4a# &. Si(onghano". "ndeed, the fact that a person atte*pts toinvo$e unauthoried 7urisdiction of a court does not estop hi* fro* thereafter challen#in# its

7urisdiction over the sub7ect *atter, since such 7urisdiction *ust arise b( la+ and not b( *ereconsent of the parties. !his is especiall( true +here the person see$in# to invo$e unauthoried

7urisdiction of the court does not thereb( secure an( advanta#e or the adverse part( does not sufferan( har*.

Appl(in# the said doctrine to the instant case, the petitioner is in no +a( estopped b( lachesin assailin# the 7urisdiction of the R!C, considerin# that he raised the lac$ thereof in his appealbefore the appellate court. At that ti*e, no considerable period had (et elapsed for laches to attach.!rue, dela( alone, thou#h unreasonable, +ill not sustain the defense of estoppel b( laches unlessit further appears that the part" ?nowing his rights has not sought to enforce the# until thecondition of the part" pleading laches has in good faith (eco#e so changed that he cannot (erestored to his for#er state if the rights (e then enforced due to loss of e&idence change of titleinter&ention of e!uities and other causes. "n appl(in# the principle of estoppel b( laches in the

eindin# no other

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

55/116

#round to reverse the trial courts decision, the CA affir*ed the petitioners conviction but *odified

the penalt( i*posed and the da*a#es a+arded.D

?issatisfied, the petitioner filed the instant petition for revie+ on certiorari raisin# the follo+in# issuesfor our resolution9

a. ?oes the fact that the petitioner failed to raise the issue of 7urisdiction durin# the trial ofthis case, +hich +as initiated and filed b( the public prosecutor before the +ron# court,constitute laches in relation to the doctrine laid do+n in !i7a* v. Sibon#hano(,not+ithstandin# the fact that said issue +as i**ediatel( raised in petitioners appeal to the=onorable Court of AppealsK Conversel(, does the active participation of the petitioner in thetrial of his case, +hich is initiated and filed not b( hi* but b( the public prosecutor, a*ount toestoppelK

b. ?oes the ad*ission of the petitioner that it is difficult to i**ediatel( stop a bus +hile it isrunnin# at 62 $ilo*eters per hour for the purpose of avoidin# a person +ho une

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

56/116

-uestionin# the 7urisdiction of the R!CGthe trial +ent on for 6 (ears +ith the petitioner activel(participatin# therein and +ithout hi* ever raisin# the 7urisdictional infir*it(. !he petitioner, for hispart, counters that the lac$ of 7urisdiction of a court over the sub7ect *atter *a( be raised at an( ti*eeven for the first ti*e on appeal. As undue dela( is further absent herein, the principle of laches +illnot be applicable.

!o settle once and for all this proble* of 7urisdiction vis8Q8vis estoppel b( laches, +hich continuousl(confounds the bench and the bar, +e shall anal(e the various Court decisions on the *atter.

As earl( as );2), this Court has declared that unless 7urisdiction has been conferred b( so*e

le#islative act, no court or tribunal can act on a *atter sub*itted to it.)63e +ent on to state in .S.v. ?e La Santa)1that9

"t has been fre-uentl( held that a lac$ of 7urisdiction over the sub7ect8*atter is fatal, and sub7ect toob7ection at an( sta#e of the proceedin#s, either in the court belo+ or on appeal %Enc(. of Pl. Pr.,vol. ), p. )D;, and lar#e arra( of cases there cited&, and indeed, +here the sub7ect8*atter is not+ithin the 7urisdiction, the court *a( dis*iss the proceedin# e< *ero *otu. %6 "ll., )44: );2 "nd., @;:Chip*an vs. 3aterbur(, 1; Conn., 6;5.&

0urisdiction over the sub7ect8*atter in a 7udicial proceedin# is conferred b( the soverei#n authorit(+hich or#anies the court: it is #iven onl( b( la+ and in the *anner prescribed b( la+ and an

ob7ection based on the lac$ of such 7urisdiction can not be +aived b( the parties. < <

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

57/116

< < < that an appellant +ho files his brief and sub*its his case to the Court of Appeals for decision,+ithout -uestionin# the latters 7urisdiction until decision is rendered therein, should be considered ashavin# voluntaril( +aived so *uch of his clai* as +ould e

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

58/116

of estoppel b( laches. !hus, in Cali*li* v. Ra*ire,4+e pointed out that Sibon#hano( +asdevelopin# into a #eneral rule rather than the e

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

59/116

the reconstitution of their titles. Private respondents have thus foreclosed their ri#ht to raise the issueof 7urisdiction b( their o+n actions.

!he Court has constantl( upheld the doctrine that +hile 7urisdiction *a( be assailed at an( sta#e, aliti#ants participation in all sta#es of the case before the trial court, includin# the invocation of itsauthorit( in as$in# for affir*ative relief, bars such part( fro* challen#in# the courts 7urisdiction

%PNOC Shippin# and !ransport Corporation vs. Court of Appeals , ;@ SCRA 62 );;D&.A part( cannot invo$e the 7urisdiction of a court to secure affir*ative relief a#ainst his opponent and

after obtainin# or failin# to obtain such relief, repudiate or -uestion that sa*e 7urisdiction %AssetPrivatiation !rust vs. Court of Appeals, 422 SCRA 1@; );;D: Province of Bulacan vs.Court of Appeals,;; SCRA 66 );;D&. !he Court fro+ns upon the undesirable practice of apart( participatin# in the proceedin#s and sub*ittin# his case for decision and then acceptin#

7ud#*ent, onl( if favorable, and attac$in# it for lac$ of 7urisdiction, +hen adverse %Producers Ban$of the Philippines vs. NLRC, ;D SCRA 1)@ );;D, citin# "locos Sur Electric Cooperative, "nc.vs. NLRC, 6) SCRA 45 );;1&. %italics ours&5

Note+orth(, ho+ever, is that, in the 221 case of Metro*edia !i*es Corporation v.

Pastorin,@+here the issue of lac$ of 7urisdiction +as raised onl( in the National Labor RelationsCo**ission %NLRC& on appeal, +e stated, after e

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

60/116

"ndeed, the #eneral rule re*ains9 a courts lac$ of 7urisdiction *a( be raised at an( sta#e of theproceedin#s, even on appeal. !he reason is that 7urisdiction is conferred b( la+, and lac$ of it affectsthe ver( authorit( of the court to ta$e co#niance of and to render 7ud#*ent on the action. Moreover,

7urisdiction is deter*ined b( the aver*ents of the co*plaint, not b( the defenses contained in the

ans+er.42

Also, in Man#alia# v. Catubi#8Pastoral,4)even if the pleader of lac$ of 7urisdiction activel( too$ partin the trial proceedin#s b( presentin# a +itness to see$ e

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

61/116

Appl(in# the said doctrine to the instant case, the petitioner is in no +a( estopped b( laches inassailin# the 7urisdiction of the R!C, considerin# that he raised the lac$ thereof in his appeal beforethe appellate court. At that ti*e, no considerable period had (et elapsed for laches to attach. !rue,dela( alone, thou#h unreasonable, +ill not sustain the defense of estoppel b( laches unless itfurther appears that the part(, $no+in# his ri#hts, has not sou#ht to enforce the* until the conditionof the part( pleadin# laches has in #ood faith beco*e so chan#ed that he cannot be restored to his

for*er state, if the ri#hts be then enforced, due to loss of evidence, chan#e of title, intervention ofe-uities, and other causes.45"n appl(in# the principle of estoppel b( laches in the e

8/13/2019 Amr Finals

62/116

EN BANC

ARNEL COLINARES, G.R. No. 18578Petitiner,

Present:

"31, C.J.,

"1PI,

21S", /.,

231;=; "1S',

BI3,

= versus = P12'1, BS1MI3,

;2 "1S'I22,

1B1;,

I2211M1, /.,

PN,

M3;N1,

S3,

TS, and

P21S=B31B,JJ.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, espndent. Pr!ulgated:

;ece!ber -6, +--

========================================================================================

DECISION

ABAD,J.:

'his case is abut a) the need, #hen invking self=defense, t prve all that

it takes b) #hat distinguishes frustrated h!icide fr! atte!pted h!icide and c)

#hen an accused #h appeals !a$ still appl$ fr prbatin n re!and f the case

t the trial curt.

The Fac&' a$% &he Ca'e

'he public prsecutr f "a!arines Sur charged the accused 1rnel"linares (1rnel) #ith frustrated h!icide befre the eginal 'rial "urt ('")

f Sa