Skip to main content

Posts

Abdula vs. Guiani

Abdula vs. Guiani G.R. No.: 118821, February 18, 2000, 326 SCRA 1 FACTS: The case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Japal M. Guiani of Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City. The petitioners, Mayor Bai Unggie D. Abdula and Odin Abdula, were charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 2376. The murder complaint alleged that the petitioners paid six other individuals for the death of a certain Abdul Dimalen, the former COMELEC Registrar of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. Initially, the Provincial Prosecutor of Maguindanao dismissed the murder charges against the petitioners and five other respondents due to lack of prima facie evidence. However, a separate information for murder was filed against one of the respondents, Kasan Mama. Subsequently, the case was ordered to be returned to the Provincial Prosecutor for further investigation. After additional evidence was presented, the Provincial Prosecutor found a prima
Post a Comment
Read more
Recent posts

Burgos vs. Chief of Staff

Burgos vs. Chief of Staff G.R. No. L-64261, December 26, 1984, 133 SCRA 800 FACTS: On December 7, 1982, respondent judge issued two [2] search warrants to "Metropolitan Mail" and "We Forum" newspapers. During the search, the office and printing machines, equipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles used in the printing, publication and distribution of the said newspapers, as well as numerous papers, documents, books and other written literature alleged to be in the possession and control of petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. publisher-editor of the "We Forum" newspaper, were seized. Petitioners pray to nullify the search warrants in question. Respondent: Respondents contend that petitioners should have filed a motion to quash said warrants in the court that issued them before impugning the validity of the same before this Court. Respondents also assail the petition on the ground of laches (failure or negligence for an unreasonab
Post a Comment
Read more

Marcos v. Manglapus

Marcos v. Manglapus 177 SCRA 668 FACTS: This case involves a petition for mandamus and prohibition asks the Courts to order the respondents to issue travel documents to Mr. Marcos and the immediate members of his family and to enjoin the implementation of the President's decision to bar their return to the Philippines.  Marcos v. Manglapus The case for petitioners is founded on the assertion that the right of the Marcoses to return to the Philippines is guaranteed under the following provisions of the Bill of Rights, to wit: Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may b
Post a Comment
Read more

Republic Act No. 10932 - Anti-Hospital Deposit Law

On August 3, 2017, President Rodrigo R. Duterte  signed into law the Republic Act No. 10932 or also known as the Anti-Hospital Deposit Law. Overview This is an act to strengthen the anti-hospital deposit law by incresing the penalties for the refusal of hospitals and medical clinics to administer appropriate initial medical treatment and support in emergency or serious cases. Amendment This law is to amend Batas Pambansa Bilang 702, otherwise known as  "An act prohibiting the demand of deposits or advance payments for the confinement or treatment of patients in hospitals and medical clinics in certain cases", as amended by Republic Act No. 8344 and for other purposes. Summary SECTION 1. The law prohibits any hospital or medical clinic personnel, as defined or mentioned in the act, to  request, solicit, demand or accept  any deposit or any other form of advance payment as a prerequisite for administering initial or basic medical care to patients. This also ap
1 comment
Read more

Ople vs. Torres [Rights of Privacy]

Ople vs. Torres [Rights of Privacy] GR No. 127685. July 23, 1998 FACTS: This is a petition raised by Senator Blas Ople to invalidate the Administrative Order No. 308 or the Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System issued by President Fidel V. Ramos.  The petitioner contends that the implementation of the said A.O. will violate the rights of the citizens of privacy as guaranteed by the Constitution.  Ople vs. Torres [Rights of Privacy] ISSUE: Whether or not A.O. No. 308 violates the right of privacy.  Ople vs. Torres [Rights of Privacy] Read:  Gaanan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) HELD: Yes. The right to privacy as such is accorded recognition independently of its identification with liberty; in itself, it is fully deserving of constitutional protection. The right of privacy is guaranteed in several provisions of the Constitution: "Sections 3 (1), 1, 2, 6, 8 and 17 of the Bill of Rights Sec. 3. The privacy of communic
1 comment
Read more

Gaanan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC)

Gaanan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) GR No. L-69809, October 16, 1986 [145 SCRA 112] FACTS: A direct assault case against Leonardo Laconico was filed by complainant Atty. Tito Pintor and his client Manuel Montebon. The said complainants made a telephone call to Laconico to give their terms for withdrawal of their complaint.  Gaanan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) Laconico, later on, called appellant Gaanan, who is also a lawyer, to come to his office to advise him about the proposed settlement. When complainant called up, Laconico requested appellant to secretly listen to the telephone conversation through a telephone extension so as to hear personally the proposed conditions for the settlement. After enumerating the conditions, several calls were made to finally confirm if the settlement is agreeable to both parties. As part of their agreement, Laconico has to give the money to the complainant's wife at the office of the Department of Public Highways.
Post a Comment
Read more

Soliven vs. Makasiar

Soliven vs. Makasiar GR No. 82585, November 14, 1988 [167 SCRA 394] FACTS: The case at bar is a petition raised by one of the petitioners, Beltran, who wants to call for an interpretation of the constitutional provision on the issuance of warrants of arrest. The petitioner assailed that his constitutional right was violated when respondent RTC judge issued a warrant for his arrest without personally examining the complainant and the witnesses, if any, to determine probable cause.  Soliven vs. Makasiar Beltran's interpretation of the words "determined personally" convinced him that the judge is solely responsible to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses in his determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest. Read: Reconsideration -- Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion ISSUE: Whether or not respondent committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when the warrant of arrest was issued. 
Post a Comment
Read more

De Guzman vs. Comelec

De Guzman vs. Comelec GR No. 129118. July 19, 2000  FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with urgent prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, assailing the validity of Section 44 of Republic Act No. 8189 (RA 8189) otherwise known as "The Voters Registration Act of 1996".  De Guzman vs. Comelec SEC. 44. Reassignment of Election Officers. - No Election Officer shall hold office in a particular city or municipality for more than four (4) years. Any election officer who, either at the time of the approval of this Act or subsequent thereto, has served for at least four (4) years in a particular city or municipality shall automatically be reassigned by the Commission to a new station outside the original congressional district. Petitioners, who are either City or Municipal Election Officers, were reassigned to different stations by the COMELEC.  De Guzman vs. Comelec Petitioners contend that the
Post a Comment
Read more

Popular posts from this blog

Javellana vs. Executive Secretary

Javellana vs. Executive Secretary G.R. No. L-36142, March 31 1973 - 50 SCRA 33 FACTS: On January 20, 1973, just two days before the Supreme Court decided the sequel of plebiscite cases, Javellana filed this suit against the respondents to restrain them from implementing any of the provisions of the proposed Constitution not found in the present 1935 Constitution. This is a petition filed by him as a Filipino citizen and a qualified and registered voter and as a class suit, for himself and in behalf of all citizens and voters similarly situated. Javellana also alleged that the President had announced the immediate implementation of the new constitution, thru his Cabinet, respondents including. Respondents are acting without or in excess of jurisdiction in implementing the said proposed constitution upon ground the that the President as Commander-in-Chief of the AFP is without authority to create the Citizens Assemblies; without power to approve proposed constitution; wi
Read more

TECSON VS. COMELEC

GR No. 161434, March 3 2004 FACTS: Respondent Ronald Allan Kelly Poe, also known as Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ) filed his certificate of candidacy on 31 December 2003 for the position of President of the Republic of the Philippines in the forthcoming national elections.  In his certificate of candidacy, FPJ, representing himself to be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, stated his name to be "Fernando Jr.," or "Ronald Allan" Poe, his date of birth to be 20 August 1939 and his place of birth to be Manila. Petitioner Fornier filed before the COMELEC a petition to disqualify FPJ and cancel his certificate of candidacy by claiming that FPJ is not a natural-born Filipino citizen, his parents were foreigners: his mother, Bessie Kelley Poe, was an American, and his father, Allan Poe, was a Spanish national, being the son of Lorenzo Pou, a Spanish subject.  The COMELEC dismissed the petition for lack of merit. ISSUE: Whether or not FPJ is a natural-born
Read more

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. PRES. AQUINO

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. PRES. AQUINO G.R. NO. 73748, May 22, 1986 FACTS: President Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. 1 on February 25, 1986 announcing that she and Vice President Laurel were taking power. On March 25, 1986, proclamation No.3 was issued providing the basis of the Aquino government assumption of power by stating that the "new government was installed through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people assisted by units of the New Armed Forces of the Philippines." Petitioners alleged that the Aquino government is illegal because it was not established pursuant to the 1973 Constitution. ISSUE: Whether or not the government of Corazon Aquino is legitimate. HELD: Yes. The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter but belongs to the realm of politics  where only the people are the judge. The Supreme Court further held that: The people have accepted the Aquino government which is in eff
Read more