Case Digest: So v. Republic (G.R. No. 170603)

So v. Republic | G.R. No. 170603 | 29 Jan 2007 | Callejo, Sr. J. | Art IV (Section 1, Par 4) | Petitioners: Edison So Respondents: Republic of the Philippines Recit Ready Summary Herein Petitioner So filed for a Petition for Naturalization under CA No. 473 aka the Revised Naturalization Law.He presented 2 witnesses à fam business lawyer Atty. Adasa & UST classmate Mark Salcedo. RTC granted So’s petition. Respondent Republic of the Phil through OSG said not so fast! Coz SolGen claims na the 2 witnesses So presented did not know him (So) well enough and that they only gave general statements upon being asked about the character and moral conduct of So. CA set aside RTC’s decision. Hence, this present petition. The issue is W/N So qualifies for Philippines Citizenship and the Court said NO. It was wrong for So to claim that that RA 9139 should apply to his case instead of CA No. 473. This is because the latter applied to ALL ALIENS regardless of class while the former applies to nati...
Post a Comment

Case Digest: Andrew Harvey et. al. v. Defensor Santiago (G.R. No. 82544)

Matter of Petition for Habeas Corpus of: Andrew Harvey et. al. v. Defensor Santiago | G.R. No. 82544 | June 28, 1988 |  J. Melencio-Herrera | Article III - Section 2 |

RECIT READY SUMMARY: Petitioners are Foreign Nationals who were placed under surveillance by the CID for 3 months, and were later arrested. CID agents seized rolls of photo negatives and other literature advertising child prostitutes.

Harvey and Sherman were found with 2 young boys in their respective rooms. Petitioners argue that there is no provision in the Philippine Immigration Act that clothes any Commissioner with any authority to arrest or detain them, and that being the case, their right under Section 2, Article III was violated.

W/N their rights were violated. NO.

The arrest was based on probable cause determined after close surveillance of 3 months.

  • This justified the arrest, and the search and seizure of the negatives. 
  • Presuming that the arrest was invalid, deportation charges were already charged against them 3 days before the Warrants of Arrest were issued, making the restraint legal. 
  • Not being caught in the act does not affect the legality of the arrest, as they were found with young boys in their room. 
  • This circumstance gave CID agents reasonable grounds to believe that Petitioners committed Pedophilia.
  • The petition is dismissed, and the writ is denied.

FACTS:
1. Petitioners are Foreign Nationals residing in Pagsanjan, Laguna, and were apprehended by agents of the CID, and were detained at the CID Detention Center, as they were suspected of being alien pedophiles. They were apprehended by two CID agents on February 27, 1998, or after 3 months of surveillance. Petitioners were among a group of 22, and only they opted to face deportation. 

2. The CID agents seized rolls of photo negatives, and other literature advertising child prostitutes. Harvey and Sherman were found with 2 young boys in their room, the boys in Sherman’s room were naked. On March 7, Warrants of Arrest were issued, and a week later, Petitioners filed an Urgent Petition for Release Under Bond, due to their health being affected, but after examination, were found to be healthy. 

3. Harvey filed a Manifestation stating that he finally agreed to self-deportation. He was granted 5 days of provisional release, but upon the same day he was allowed, he already filed this petition. 

4. Petitioners now argue that there is no provision in the Philippine Immigration Act that clothes any Commissioner with any authority to arrest and detain petitioners, and that Respondent violated Article III § 2 since the CID agents were not clothed with a valid arrest, search, and seizure warrant.


ISSUE: W/N Petitioners rights under Article III, Section 2 were violated? NO

HELD:

  • Arrest of petitioners was based on probable cause determined after close surveillance of 3 months. This justified the arrest, and the search and seizure of the negatives, which are now admissible as evidence. 
  • Presuming that the arrest was not valid, deportation charges were already filed against them on March 4, 3 days before the Warrants of Arrest were issued. The restraint therefore, has become legal, and the Writ has served its purpose. 
  • The fact that they were not caught in the act does not make the arrest illegal, as they were found with young boys in their room. Under these circumstances, CID agents had reasonable grounds to believe that Petitioners committed pedophilia. 
  • Furthermore, the requirement of probable cause does not extend to deportation proceedings. What is essential is that there should be a specific charge against the alien intended to be arrested and deported, that a fair hearing be conducted, and that the charge be substantiated by competent evidence.

DISPOSITION: Petition is dismissed, and the Writ is denied.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest: Republic v. Sereno (G.R. No 237428) w/ Summary of Separate Opinions

Republic v. Sereno (including Summary of Separate Opinions) | G.R. No. 237428 | May 11, 2018 | Tijam, J. |  Topic: Art. VIII, Sec 5 (other topics included in the full digest) | SUMMARY:   A petition for quo warranto was filed by the OSG assailing the appointment of CJ Sereno as Chief Justice on the ground that she failed to prove her integrity during the nomination process as she failed to comply with the SALN requirements of the JBC. Several groups and individuals filed Motions for Leave to Intervene, among them Senators De Lima and Trillanes. CJ Sereno filed a Motion to Inhibit against six Justices. The Republic argues that (1) quo warranto is the proper remedy, as the Constitution does not make impeachment the exclusive mode of unseating an impeachable officer; (2) the petition is not time barred as prescription cannot run against the States; and, (3) that, at the time of her appointment, CJ Sereno was not of “proven integrity” she not having filed the required SALNs a...
Read more

Case Digest: Gloria Dy v. People (G.R. No 189081)

Gloria Dy v. People of the Philippines | G.R. No. 189081 | August 10, 2016 | Topic: Liability ex delicto / ex contractu FACTS: Dy, as the General Manager of Mandy Commodities Company, Inc. (MCCI) proposed to William Mandy (President of MCCI) to purchase a property for the company. To facilitate the purchase, the president obtained a loan from International China Bank of Commerce (bank), which was granted to the company in the amount of P20 million.   As security, MCCI executed a chattel mortgage over their warehouses. The president entrusted Dy to manage the payment of the loan. Later on, MCCI received a notice of foreclosure over the mortgaged property due to its default in paying.   In order to prevent the foreclosure, the president delivered to Dy, P21,706,281 worth of checks issued by MCCI, with the instruction that Dy shall use the checks to pay the loan. However, the president later discovered that the checks weren’t paid to the bank when the bank foreclosed the mortg...
Read more

Case Digest: Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo (G.R. No. 180906)

Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo |  G.R. No. 180906 | October 7, 2008 |  Puno. C.J. Doctrine and Concepts: The Writ of Amparo offers a better remedy to extralegal killings and enforced disappearances and threats thereof due to the nature of swiftness required to resolve these cases The remedy provides rapid judicial relief as it partakes of a summary that requires only substantial evidence to make the appropriate reliefs available to the petitioner; it is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt or liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence or administrative responsibility requiring full and exhaustive proceedings. Facts The case at bar is an appeal via Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo , seeking to reverse and set aside , the Decision promulgated by Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. AMPARO No. 00001. The original case was filed by ...
Read more