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: Anonymous Complaint against Otelia Lyn G. Maceda (A.M. P-12-3093)

Anonymous Complaint against Otelia Lyn G. Maceda | A.M. P-12-3093 | March 26, 2014 | J. Leonardo De-Castro | Article III - Section 12 |

Petitioners: Anonymous complainant/OCA
Respondents: Otelia Lyn Maceda

Recit Ready Summary

  • Respondent was accused in an anonymous complaint of having falsified her attendance in court. 
  • The Court issued a Resolution stating that the complaint be re-docketed as an administrative complaint, and asked the parties (OCA and Maceda) to manifest if they are willing to submit the matter for resolution. 
  • Maceda refused stating that her right to counsel was not respected, as she did not have access to counsel during the investigation. She asked for more time to engage the services of a counsel. 
  • Court ruled that she cannot. The right to counsel applies to criminal proceeding, not administrative. Furthermore her active participation in the investigation, without complaining about the fact that she had no counsel, and only belatedly (almost 2 years after) raising this issue makes her complaint invalid. 
FACTS:
  1. Respondent has been accused by a “student” of falsifying her attendance in court so she could attend her law classes in UEP. The anonymous complaint states that Respondent has been habitually tardy and absent from her office.
  2. The complaint was referred to Judge Falcotelo who submitted his report, claiming to have personally talked to Maceda. The latter admitted that she had been enrolled in UEP, that she is in irregular student, and that her school from her work. Judge Falcotelo used this as a basis for his recommendation to dismiss the complaint.
  3. Maceda was required to comment, and she replied stating that she did not do anything wrong. The OCA submitted its report recommending her suspension. The Court ordered that the case be re-docketed as an administrative matter, requiring the parties to manifest if they are willing to submit the matter for resolution.
  4. Respondent refused because during the investigation, she was not represented by counsel. She prayed that she be given time to engage the services of a counsel.

ISSUE: W/N Maceda is entitled to a counsel in the administrative proceeding AT THIS POINT? NO.

HELD:

  • Maceda has voluntarily participated in the proceeding, and not once did she complain that she had no counsel available to her. Being a court employee and a law student, Maceda is capable of understanding the charges against her. 
  • The right to counsel under §12 is meant to protect a suspect during custodial investigation. It applies only to admissions made in criminal investigations, and NOT to administrative proceedings.

DISPOSITION: Respondent found guilty. RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS NOT VIOLATED BECAUSE IT DID NOT EXIST

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