Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts from January, 2017

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

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

Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado

Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado GR No. 105371, November 11, 1993 (227 SCRA 703)  FACTS: This is a petition raised by the members of the lower courts who assails the constitutionality of Section 35 of Republic Act No. 7354 implemented by the Philippine Postal Corporation through its Circular No. 92-28. Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado It is alleged that the said law is discriminatory per se to withdraw the franking privilege of the Judiciary but not on other offices of the government, such as:  the President of the Philippines, the Vice President of the Philippines; Senators and Members of the House of Representatives; the Commission on Elections; former Presidents of the Philippines; the National Census and Statistics Office; and the general public in the filing of complaints against public offices and officers. However, the respondents contend that there is no discrimination since the law is based on the valid classification in accordance of the equal prote
Post a Comment
Read more

Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion [Reconsideration]

Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion [Reconsideration] GR No. 139465    October 17, 2000 FACTS: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition in Secretary of Justice v. Lantion (GR 139465, Jan. 18, 2000) and ordered the petitioner to furnish private respondent copies of the extradition request and its supporting papers and to grant him a reasonable period within which to file his comment with supporting evidence. Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion On February 3, 2000, petitioner assailed, on his Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, that the Court failed to look into the important facts and points with regards to extradition law: I. There is a substantial difference between an evaluation process antecedent to the filing of an extradition petition in court and a preliminary investigation. II. Absence of notice and hearing during the evaluation process will not result in a denial of fundamental fairness III. In the evaluation process, instituting a notice and hearing requirement sat
Post a Comment
Read more

Secretary of Justice v. Lantion

Secretary of Justice v. Lantion GR 139465, Jan. 18, 2000 FACTS: On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs a U. S. Note Verbale containing a request for the extradition of private respondent Mark Jimenez to the United States. Attached to it were the Grand Jury Indictment, the warrant of arrest issued by the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, and other supporting documents for said extradition.  Secretary of Justice v. Lantion On the same day, the petitioner designated and authorized a panel of attorneys to handle the case in pursuant to Section 5 (1) of Presidential Decree No. 1069. Said attorneys will make a "technical evaluation and assessment" of the extradition request and its supporting documents. The panel found that there are still documents that need to be addressed with. While the evaluation is still pending due to lack of documents, the respondent wrote a letter requesting copies of the of
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