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: Dumlao v. COMELEC (G.R. No. G.R. No. L-52245)

Dumlao v. COMELEC | G.R. No. L-52245 | January 22, 1980 | J. Melencio-Herrera | Article III - Section 14 | 

Petitioners: PATRICIO DUMLAO, ROMEO B. IGOT, and ALFREDO SALAPANTAN, JR.
Respondents: COMELEC

Recit Ready Summary 

Assailed in this case is Sec. 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 52. It states that the filing of charges for the commission of the crimes of acts of disloyalty to the State such as subversion, insurrection, rebellion or other similar crimes shall be a prima facie evidence of such fact. (Take note that a person guilty of acts of disloyalty to the State is penalized of an accessory penalty of suspension of the right to hold office during the term of the sentence). The issue before the Court is W/N Sec. 4 of said BP violates the Presumption of Innocence. The Court answered in the affirmative. The Court explained that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. The challenged proviso contravenes the constitutional presumption of innocence, as a candidate is disqualified from running for public office on the ground alone that charges have been filed against him before a civil or military tribunal. Although the filing of charges is considered as but prima facie evidence, there is “clear and present danger” that because of the proximity of elections, time constraints will prevent one charged with acts of disloyalty from offering contrary proof to overcome the evidence.

FACTS: etitioners in this case seek to enjoin the COMELEC from implementing certain provisions of BP Blg. 51, 52, and 53 for being unconstitutional. These BPs provide for rules for public office and election such as the term of office and date of election. Pertinent to the discussion, petitioners assail Sec. 4 of BP Blg.52 that states “Any person who has committed any act of disloyalty to the State, including acts amounting to subversion, insurrection, rebellion or other similar crimes, shall not be qualified to be a candidate for any of the offices covered by this Act, or to participate in any partisan political activity therein: xxx the filing of charges for the commission of such crimes before a civil court or military tribunal after preliminary investigation shall be prima facie evidence of such fact.

ISSUE: Whether or not Sec. 4 of BP Blg. 52 violates the Presumption of Innocence protected by the Constitution. YES. 

HELD: The Court held that it violates the Presumption of Innocence. 

1. The Court first explained that the Constitution requires that, in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. The challenged proviso contravenes the constitutional presumption of innocence, as a candidate is disqualified from running for public office on the ground alone that charges have been filed against him before a civil or military tribunal. 

2. The Court added that, except as to the degree of proof, no distinction is made between a person convicted of acts of disloyalty and one against whom charges have been filed for such acts, as both of them would be ineligible to run for public office. A person disqualified to run for public office on the ground that charges have been filed against him is virtually placed in the same category as a person already convicted. 

3. Although the filing of charges is considered as but prima facie evidence, there is “clear and present danger” that because of the proximity of elections, time constraints will prevent one charged with acts of disloyalty from offering contrary proof to overcome the evidence.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, 1) The first paragraph of section 4 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 52 is hereby declared valid. 2) That portion of the second paragraph of section 4 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 52 providing that ". . . the filing of charges for the commission of such crimes before a civil court or military tribunal after preliminary investigation shall be prima facie evidence of such fact", is hereby declared null and void, for being violative of the constitutional presumption of innocence guaranteed to an accused.

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