Remedial Law Case Digest 2014 2015

8/19/2019 Remedial Law Case Digest 2014 2015

1/83

March 7, 2015

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

WRIT OF KALIKASAN

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY OFFICERS V. LIM,

G.R. NOS. 187836 & 187916, NOVEMBER 25, 201

Facts:

The consolidated cases involve the validity of Or!"a"c# N$% &1&7 enactedby the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Manila on 14 May 2009.

Or!"a"c# N$% &1&7 amended Or!"a"c# N$% &11' which is otherwise

known as ‘T(E MANILA COMPRE(ENSI)E LAND *SE PLAN AND+ONING ORDINANCE OF 200-%

Ordinance No. 1! created a M"#$%M $N#%&T'$() *ON" +1,2- (N# "(/$N#%&T'$() *ON" +1,- and rovided for its enforcement. The creation of amedi3m ind3strial one +1,2- and heavy ind3strial one +1,- e5ectively liftedthe rohibition a6ainst owners and oerators of b3sinesses7 incl3din6 hereinintervenors Ch#.r$" 8hiliines7 $nc. +hevron/, P!!!"as Sh# 8etrole3mororation +&hell-7 and P#tr$" ororation +8etron-7 collectively referred toas the $! c$a"!#s7 from oeratin6 in the desi6nated commercial one :an ind3strial one rior to the enactment of Or!"a"c# N$% &027 1andOr!"a"c# N$% &11'2.

The aforementioned intervenors claim that their ri6hts with resect to the oil

deots in 8andacan wo3ld be directly a5ected by the o3tcome of thesecases.

These etitions are a se;3el to the case of &ocial


2/83

n3mero3s ind3strial installations7 there are also small b3sinesses7 ch3rches7resta3rants7 schools7 daycare centers and residences sit3ated there.MalacaJan6 8alace7 the oKcial residence of the 8resident of the 8hiliinesand the seat of 6overnmental ower7 is A3st two kilometers away. There is arivate school near the 8etron deot. (lon6 the walls of the &hell facility areshanties of informal settlers. More than 1>7000 st3dents are enrolled inelementary and hi6h schools sit3ated near these facilities. ( 3niversity with ast3dent o3lation of abo3t 2>7000 is located directly across the deot on

the banks of the 8asi6 'iver. On 20 November 20017 d3rin6 the inc3mbency of former Mayor ?0>27 and before the eLiration of the

validity of 'esol3tion No. 17 the oil comanies Dled the followin6 actionsbefore the 'e6ional Trial o3rt of Manila@ +1- an action for the a""6#"t $4 Or!"a"c# N$% &027 8!th a!cat!$" 4$r 8r!ts $4 r#!!"ar9r$h!!t$r9 !"6"ct!$" a" r#!!"ar9 a"at$r9 !"6"ct!$" : byhevronC +2- a #t!t!$" 4$r r$h!!t!$" a" !"#$"!% also for theann3lment of the Ordinance with alication for writs of reliminaryrohibitory inA3nction and reliminary mandatory inA3nction : by &hellC and+- a #t!t!$" assa!!" th# .a!!t9 $4 th# Or!"a"c# 8!th ra9#r 4$rth# !ss6a"c# $4 a 8r!t $4 r#!!"ar9 !"6"ct!$" a";$r t#$rar9r#stra!"!" $r#r


3/83

Nat3ral 'eso3rces and then Mayor (tiena7 to6ether with other residents andtaLayers of the ity of Manila7 also alle6es violation of the ri6ht to health of the eole and the ri6ht to a healthf3l and balanced ecolo6y 3nder &ections1> and 1? of the onstit3tion.

$n his Memorand3m7 former Mayor )im7 thro36h the ity )e6al OKcer7

attacks the #t!t!$"#rs- ac= $4 #a sta"!" t$ s6#% e likewise ointso3t that the etitioners 4a!# t$ $s#r.# th# r!"c!# $4 h!#rarch9 $4 c$6rts. On the other hand7 the oil comanies so36ht the o3tri6ht dismissal

of the etitions based on alle6ed roced3ral inDrmities7 amon6 others7incomlete re;3isites of A3dicial review7 violation of the rincile of hierarchyof co3rts7 imroer remedy7 s3bmission of a #4#ct!.# .#r!3cat!$" a"c#rt!3cat!$" aa!"st 4$r6 sh$!", a" 4$r6 sh$!"%

Iss6#:

Hhether or not the enactment of the assailed Ordinance allowin6 the

contin3ed stay of the oil comanies in the deots is7 indeed7 invalid and3nconstit3tional.

R6!":

Or!"a"c# N$% &1&7 !s !".a! a" 6"c$"st!t6t!$"a with resect to the

contin3ed stay of the 8andacan Oil Terminals and sho3ld be stricken downwitho3t delayP

He Drst r3le on the r$c#6ra !ss6#s raised by the resondents and the oil

comanies. (t the o3tset7 let it be emhasied that the o3rt7 in =.'. No.1>?0>27 has already rono3nced that th# att#r $4 8h#th#r $r "$t th#$! #$ts sh$6 r#a!" !" th# Pa"aca" ar#a !s $4 tra"sc#"#"ta!$rta"c# t$ th# r#s!#"ts $4 Ma"!a% He may7 th3s7 br3sh asideroced3ral inDrmities7 if any7 as we had in the ast7 and take co6niance of the cases.

'3le ?> seciDcally re;3ires that the remedy may be availed of only when

Bthere is no aeal7 or any lain7 seedy7 and ade;3ate remedy in theordinary co3rse of law.I &hell ar63es that the etitioners sho3ld have so36htreco3rse before the Drst and second level co3rts 3nder the R6#s $4 Pr$c#6r# 4$r E".!r$"#"ta Cas#s7 which 6overn Bthe enforcement or

violations of environmental and other related laws7 r3les andre63lations.I 8etron additionally s3bmits that the most ade;3ate remedyavailable to etitioners is to have the assailed ordinance reealed bytheSangguniang Panlungsod. $n the alternative7 a local referend3m may behad. It 8$6 a#ar, h$8#.#r, that th# r##!#s !#"t!3# 9 th#!"t#r.#"$rs r$.# t$ # !"a#>6at# t$ r#s$.# th# r#s#"tc$"tr$.#rs!#s !" th#!r #"t!r#t9 $8!" t$ th# !"tr!cac!#s $4 th#c!rc6sta"c#s h#r#!" r#.a!!"%

Th# R6#s $4 Pr$c#6r# 4$r E".!r$"#"ta Cas#s ar# !!t# !"

sc$#% Hhile7 indeed7 there are alle6ations of violations of environmentallaws in the etitions7 these only serve as c$at#ra attac=s that wo3ld

s3ort the other osition of the etitioners : the rotection of the ri6ht tolife7 sec3rity and safety.

From another ersective7 &hell Dnds fa3lt with the etitionersQ direct

reco3rse to this o3rt when the &3reme o3rt eLercises only aellate A3risdiction over cases involvin6 the constit3tionality or validity of anordinance. To f3rther s3ort its osition7 it said that ath$6h th# !"sta"t#t!t!$" !s st9# as a #t!t!$" 4$r '()*+)")+ , !" #ss#"c#, !t s##=s th##carat!$" 9 th!s C$6rt $4 th# 6"c$"st!t6t!$"a!t9 $r !#a!t9 $4 th# >6#st!$"# $r!"a"c# a" #?#c6t!.# $r#r% It, th6s, arta=#s $4


4/83

th# "at6r# $4 a #t!t!$" 4$r #carat$r9 r#!#4 $.#r 8h!ch th!s C$6rthas $"9 a#at#, "$t $r!!"a, 6r!s!ct!$"%

Ass6!" that a #t!t!$" 4$r #carat$r9 r#!#4 !s th# r$#r r##9,

a" that th# #t!t!$"s sh$6 ha.# ##" 3# 8!th th# R#!$"a Tr!aC$6rt, 8# ha.#, t!# a" aa!", r#s$.# t$ tr#at s6ch a #t!t!$" as$"# 4$r r$h!!t!$", rovided that the case has 4ar@r#ach!"!!cat!$"s a" tra"sc#"#"ta !ss6#s that need to be resolved7 as inthese resent etitions.

On a related iss3e7 we initially fo3nd convincin6 the ar63ment that theetitions sho3ld have been Dled with the 'e6ional Trial o3rt7 it havin6conc3rrent A3risdiction with this o3rt over a secial civil action forrohibition7 and ori6inal A3risdiction over etitions for declaratory relief.($8#.#r, as 8# ha.# r##at#9 sa!, th# #t!t!$"s at ar ar# $4 tra"sc#"#"ta !$rta"c# 8arra"t!" a r#a?at!$" $4 th# $ctr!"#$4 h!#rarch9 $4 c$6rts% This is in accordance with the well,entrenchedrincile that r3les of roced3re are not inReLible tools desi6ned to hinder ordelay7 b3t to facilitate and romote the administration of A3stice. Their strictand ri6id alication7 which wo3ld res3lt in technicalities that tend tofr3strate7 rather than romote s3bstantial A3stice7 m3st always beeschewed.

8etitioners have a le6al ri6ht to seek the enforcement of Ordinance No. 02!

beca3se the s3bAect of the etition c$"c#r"s a 6!c r!ht, and they7 asr#s!#"ts of Manila7 ha.# a !r#ct !"t#r#st in the imlementation of theordinances of the city. He have r3led in revio3s cases that 8h#"a !"#$"!% r$c##!" c$"c#r"s a 6!c r!ht a" !ts $#ct !s t$c$# a 6!c 6t9, th# #$# 8h$ ar# !"t#r#st# !" th# #?#c6t!$"$4 th# a8s ar# r#ar# as th# r#a art!#s !" !"t#r#st a" th#9"## "$t sh$8 a"9 s#c!3c !"t#r#st% #s!#s, as r#s!#"ts $4 Ma"!a,#t!t!$"#rs ha.# a !r#ct !"t#r#st !" th# #"4$rc##"t $4 th# c!t9-s

$r!"a"c#s% Th6s, 8h#" th# r$c##!" !".$.#s th# ass#rt!$" $4 a 6!c r!ht,

th# #r# 4act that th# #t!t!$"#r !s a c!t!B#" sat!s3#s th#r#>6!r##"t $4 #rs$"a !"t#r#st% Th# r#s#r.at!$" $4 th# !4#,s#c6r!t9 a" sa4#t9 $4 th# #$# !s !"!s6ta9 a r!ht $4 6t$st!$rta"c# t$ th# 6!c% C#rta!"9, th# #t!t!$"#rs, as r#s!#"ts $4 Ma"!a, ha.# th# r#>6!r# #rs$"a !"t#r#st t$ s##= r#!#4 4r$ th!sC$6rt t$ r$t#ct s6ch r!ht%

Hhen this o3rt eLercises its constit3tional ower of A3dicial review7

however7 we have7 by tradition7 viewed the 8r!ts $4 '()*+)")+ a"r$h!!t!$" as r$#r r##!a .#h!c#s t$ t#st th# c$"st!t6t!$"a!t9

$4 stat6t#s, a" !"##, $4 acts $4 $th#r ra"ch#s $4 $.#r"#"t% On the iss3e of For3m &hoin67 &hell contends that the etitioners in =.'.

No. 1!? violated the r3le a6ainst for3m shoin6 alle6edly beca3se allthe elements thereof are resent in relation to =.'. No. 1>?0>2. He are noters3aded. $t bears to stress that the resent etitions were initially Dled7 notto sec3re a A3d6ment adverse to the Drst decision7 6t, r#c!s#9, t$#"4$rc# th# #ar!#r r6!" to relocate the oil deots from the 8andacanarea. The Dlin6 of the instant etitions is not barred by res judicata.

Now on the s3bstantial iss3es7 the very nat3re of the deots where millionsof liters of hi6hly Rammable and hi6hly volatile rod3cts7 re6ardless of whether or not the comosition may ca3se eLlosions7 has no lace in a

densely o3lated area. &3rely7 any 3ntoward incident in the oil deots7 be itrelated to terrorism of whatever ori6in or otherwise7 wo3ld deDnitely ca3senot only destr3ction to roerties within and amon6 the nei6hborin6comm3nities b3t certainly mass deaths and inA3ries.

The ordinance was intended to safe63ard the ri6hts to life7 sec3rity and

safety of all the inhabitants of Manila and not A3st of a artic3lar class. $ttherefore became necessary to remove these terminals to dissiate thethreat. Eoth law and A3risr3dence s3ort the constit3tionality and validityof Ordinance No. 02!. Hitho3t a do3bt7 there are no imediments to itsenforcement and imlementation. (ny delay is 3nfair to the inhabitants of


5/83

the ity of Manila and its leaders who have cate6orically eLressed theirdesire for the relocation of the terminals.

ARIGO V. S-IFT,

G.R. NO. 206510, SETEMBER 16, 201

Facts:

The %&& =3ardian is an (ven6er,class mine co3ntermeas3res shi of the %&Navy. $n #ecember 20127 the %& "mbassy in the 8hiliines re;3ested dilomaticclearance for the said vessel B to enter and eLit the territorial waters of the8hiliines and to arrive at the ort of &3bic Eay for the 3rose of ro3tine shirelenishment7 maintenance7 and crew libertyI. On


6/83

(s it is7 the waiver of &tate imm3nity 3nder the /F( ertains only to criminal A3risdiction and not to secial civil actions s3ch as the resent etition for iss3anceof a writ of Galikasan. $n fact7 it can be inferred from &ection 1!7 '3le ! of the '3lesthat a criminal case a6ainst a erson char6ed with a violation of an environmentallaw is to be Dled searately@

$n any case7 it is o3r considered view that a r3lin6 on the alication or non,alication of criminal A3risdiction rovisions of the /F( to %& ersonnel who may

be fo3nd resonsible for the 6ro3ndin6 of the %&& =3ardian7 wo3ld be remat3reand beyond the rovince of a etition for a writ of Galikasan. He also Dnd it3nnecessary at this oint to determine whether s3ch waiver of &tate imm3nity isindeed absol3te. $n the same vein7 we cannot 6rant dama6es which have res3ltedfrom the violation of environmental laws. The '3les allows the recovery of dama6es7 incl3din6 the collection of administrative Dnes 3nder '.(. No. 100?!7 in asearate civil s3it or that deemed instit3ted with the criminal action char6in6 thesame violation of an environmental law.

On the other hand7 we cannot 6rant the additional reliefs rayed for in theetition to order a review of the /F( and to n3llify certain imm3nity rovisions

thereof.

(s held in E((N +Ea6on6 (lyansan6 Makabayan- v. "Lec. &ec. *amora741 the/F( was d3ly conc3rred in by the 8hiliine &enate and has been reco6nied as atreaty by the %nited &tates as attested and certiDed by the d3ly a3thoriedreresentative of the %nited &tates 6overnment. The /F( bein6 a valid and bindin6a6reement7 the arties are re;3ired as a matter of international law to abide by itsterms and rovisions. The resent etition 3nder the '3les is not the roerremedy to assail the constit3tionality of its rovisions. H"'"FO'"7 the etition forthe iss3ance of the rivile6e of the Hrit of Galikasan is hereby #"N$"#.

WRIT OF AMPARO

CARAM V. SEGUI,

G.R. NO. 193652, AUGUST 05, 201

FACTS:

( etition for ertiorari via '3le 4> and &ec. 19 of writ of (maro was Dled in & in

order to set aside the decision of the 'T. The 'T had dismissed etitionerQsetition for the iss3ance ofa writ of amaro which etitioner Dled in order for her tore6ain arental a3thority and c3stody of


7/83

&ecretary. hristina ar63ed that by makin6 these misreresentations7 theresondents had acted beyond the scoe of their le6al a3thority thereby ca3sin6the enforced disaearance of the said child and derivin6 her of her c3stodialri6hts and arental a3thority over him.

ISS*E:

Hhether or not a Hrit of (maro is a roer remedy

R*LING:

NO7 H'$T OF (M8('O $& $M8'O8"'. 8etition sho3ld be denied.

o3rt eLlicitly declared that as it stands7 the writ of amaro is conDned only tocases of eLtraA3dicial killin6s and enforced disaearances7 or to threats thereof.(s to what constit3tes Senforced disaearance7S the o3rt in Navia v. 8ardicoen3merated the elements constit3tin6 Senforced disaearancesS as the term isstat3torily deDned in &ection +6- of '.(. No. 9>14 to wit@

+a- that there be an arrest7 detention7 abd3ction or any form of derivation of

libertyC+b- that it be carried o3t by7 or with the a3thoriation7 s3ort orac;3iescence of7 the &tate ora olitical or6aniationC

+c- that it be followed by the &tate or olitical or6aniationQs ref3sal toacknowled6e or 6ive information on the fate or whereabo3ts of the ersons3bAect of the amaro etitionC and7

+d- that the intention for s3ch ref3sal is to remove s3bAect erson from therotection of the law for a rolon6ed eriod of time.

$n this case7 hristina alle6ed that the resondent #&H# oKcers ca3sed herSenforced searationS from Eaby


8/83

8etitioners alle6e that the ersons resonsible for the forced disaearance of Mr.E3r6os were 6overnment ersonnel7 seciDcally from the (F8 as identiDed byeyewitness acco3nts.

The writ of amaro was so36ht by the etitioner d3e to the fail3re of the 8N8,$#=7(F8Qs 8rovost Marshal7 and even the initial ' investi6ation wherein there weresi6niDcant lases in the handlin6 of the investi6ation.

On the art of resondents7 the abd3ction of E3r6os was said to be a militaryoeration whose obAective was to cat3re ersons involved with the 88,N8(7 of which E3r6os was said to be a member of the N8(7 as an intelli6ence oKcer.

8etitioner7 in this instance7 rayed for the iss3ance of a new writ of amaro7considerin6 that the initial Dndin6s of the ' had lases and were 3nsatisfactory.

#esite the rayer of a 2nd writ of amaro7 the ' contin3ed with its investi6ationinto the forced disaearance of Mr. E3r6os7 as ordered by the co3rt with theadditional order to cond3ct its investi6ation with eLtraordinary dili6ence.

Iss6#:

HON the iss3ance of the 2nd writ of amaro was roer

(#:

"L 8arte Motion "L (b3ndanti a3tela of etitioner #"N$"#

The &3reme o3rt held that the iss3ance of another writ of amaro is3nnecessary and red3ndant since the 3rose of a writ of amaro7 as it said7 is todetermine whether there has been an enforced disaearance7 as well as todetermine who are resonsible and acco3ntable7 and to rovide remedies for it. (writ of amaro7 is also meant to eLedite the investi6ation of enforceddisaearances7 and not to comlicate it.

The &3reme o3rt decided the "L 8arte Motion in this wise7 to wit@

% O" th# *r#"t E? Part# M$t!$" E? A6"a"t! Ca6t#a

(fter reviewin6 the newly discovered evidence s3bmitted by theetitioner and considerin6 all the develoments of the case7 incl3din6the March 17 201 ( decision that conDrmed the validity of theiss3ance of the Hrit of (maro in the resent case7 we resolve to denythe etitionerUs %r6ent "L 8arte Motion "L (b3ndanti a3tela.

He note and concl3de7 based on the develoments hi6hli6hted above7that the beneDcial 3rose of the Hrit of (maro has been served in the

resent case. (s we held in 'aon7


9/83

established by s3bstantial evidence to have articiated inwhatever way7 by action or omission7 in an enforceddisaearance7 as a meas3re of the remedies this o3rt shallcraft7 amon6 them7 the directive to Dle the aroriatecriminal and civil cases a6ainst the resonsible arties in theroer co3rts. Acc$6"ta!!t97 on the other hand7 refers tothe meas3re of remedies that sho3ld be addressed to thosewho eLhibited involvement in the enforced disaearance

witho3t brin6in6 the level of their comlicity to the level of resonsibility deDned aboveC or who are im3ted withknowled6e relatin6 to the enforced disaearance and whocarry the b3rden of disclos3reC or those who carry7 b3t havefailed to dischar6e7 the b3rden of eLtraordinary dili6ence in

the investi6ation of the enforced disaearance. 2 &a#(

$n the resent case7 while


10/83

a6ainst the roer arties7 if warranted7 based on the 6atheredevidence. For this 3rose7 we direct the etitioner to f3rnish the #O<and the NE$ coies of her %r6ent "L 8arte Motion "L (b3ndanti a3tela7to6ether with the sealed attachments to the Motion7 within Dve +>- daysfrom receit of this 'esol3tion.

(s mentioned7 we take A3dicial notice of the on6oin6 investi6ation by the#O


11/83

the identiDed st3dents to have deorted themselves in a manner roscribed by theschoolQs &t3dent andbook7 to wit@

1. 8ossession of alcoholic drinks o3tside the school cam3sC2. "n6a6in6 in immoral7 indecent7 obscene or lewd actsC. &mokin6 and drinkin6 alcoholic bevera6es in 3blic lacesC4. (arel that eLoses the 3nderwearC>. lothin6 that advocates 3nhealthy behavio3rC deicts obscenityC contains

seL3ally s366estive messa6es7 lan63a6e or symbolsC and?. 8osin6 and 3loadin6 ict3res on the $nternet that entail amle body eLos3re.

The 6irls were sent to &ister 83risimaQs oKce7 the hi6hschool rincial. They wereberated7 and told that as 3nishment7 they were not allowed to Aoin the 6rad3ationrites on 0 March 2012.

( week before 6rad3ation7 or on March 27 20127 (n6elaQs mother7 #r. (rmenia M. Tan +Tan-7 Dled a 8etition for $nA3nction and #ama6es before the 'T of eb3 itya6ainst &T7 rayin6 that defendants therein be enAoined from imlementin6 thesanction that recl3ded (n6ela from Aoinin6 the commencement eLercises. On

March 2>7 20127 etitioner 'honda (ve /ivares +/ivares-7 the mother of


12/83

To etitioners7 the interlay of the fore6oin6 constit3tes an invasion of theirchildrenQs rivacy and7 th3s7 rayed that@ +a- a writ of habeas data be iss3edC +b-resondents be ordered to s3rrender and deosit with the co3rt all soft and rintedcoies of the s3bAect data before or at the reliminary hearin6C and +c- after trial7 A3d6ment be rendered declarin6 all information7 data7 and di6ital ima6es accessed7saved or stored7 rerod3ced7 sread and 3sed7 to have been ille6ally obtained inviolation of the childrenQs ri6ht to rivacy.

Findin6 the etition s3Kcient in form and s3bstance7 the 'T7 thro36h an Orderdated 7 20127 iss3ed the writ of habeas data. Thro36h the same Order7 hereinresondents were directed to Dle their veriDed written ret3rn7 to6ether with thes3ortin6 aKdavits7 within Dve +>- workin6 days from service of the writ.

$n time7 resondents comlied with the 'TQs directive and Dled their veriDedwritten ret3rn7 layin6 down the followin6 6ro3nds for the denial of the etition7 vi@+a- etitioners are not the roer arties to Dle the etitionC +b- etitioners areen6a6in6 in for3m shoin6C +c- the instant case is not one where a writ of habeasdata may iss3eC and +d- there can be no violation of their ri6ht to rivacy as thereis no reasonable eLectation of rivacy on Facebook.

%ltimately7 tho36h7 the 'T dismissed the etition for the writ of habeas data.

ISS*E:

The main iss3e to be threshed o3t in this case is whether or not a writ of habeasdata sho3ld be iss3ed 6iven the fact3al milie3. r3cial in resolvin6 the controversy7however7 is the ivotal oint of whether or not there was indeed an act3al orthreatened violation of the ri6ht to rivacy in the life7 liberty7 or sec3rity of theminors involved in this case.

R*LING:

The &3reme o3rt denied the iss3ance of the writ.

Pr$c#6ra !ss6#s c$"c#r"!" th#a.a!a!!t9 $4 th# Wr!t $4 (a#as Data

$n develoin6 the writ of habeas data7 the o3rt aimed to rotect an individ3alQsri6ht to informational rivacy7 amon6 others. ( comarative law scholar has7 infact7 deDned habeas data as Ba roced3re desi6ned to safe63ard individ3alfreedom from ab3se in the information a6e.I1 The writ7 however7 will not iss3e onthe basis merely of an alle6ed 3na3thoried access to information abo3t a erson.(vailment of the writ re;3ires the eListence of a neL3s between the ri6ht torivacy on the one hand7 and the ri6ht to life7 liberty or sec3rity on the other. 14

Th3s7 the eListence of a ersonQs ri6ht to informational rivacy and a showin67 atleast by s3bstantial evidence7 of an act3al or threatened violation of the ri6ht torivacy in life7 liberty or sec3rity of the victim are indisensable before therivile6e of the writ may be eLtended.1>cralawlawlibrary

Hitho3t an actionable entitlement in the Drst lace to the ri6ht to informationalrivacy7 a habeas data etition will not roser. /iewed from the ersective of thecase at bar7 this re;3isite be6s this ;3estion@ 6iven the nat3re of an online socialnetwork +O&N-::+1- that it facilitates and romotes real,time interaction amon6millions7 if not billions7 of 3sers7 sans the satial barriers71? brid6in6 the 6acreated by hysical saceC and +2- that any information 3loaded in O&Ns leavesan indelible trace in the roviderQs databases7 which are o3tside the control of theend,3sers::!s th#r# a r!ht t$ !"4$rat!$"a r!.ac9 !" OSN act!.!t!#s $4 !ts6s#rs Eefore addressin6 this oint7 He m3st Drst resolve the roced3ral iss3es inthis case.


13/83

Th# 8r!t $4 ha#as ata !s "$t $"9 c$"3"# t$cas#s $4 #?tra#a =!!"s a" #"4$rc# !sa#ara"c#s

ontrary to resondentsQ s3bmission7 the Hrit of Habeas Data was not enacteds$#9 for the 3rose of comlementin6 the Hrit of Amparo in cases of eLtrale6alkillin6s and enforced disaearances.

&ection 2 of the '3le on the Hrit of abeas #ata

rovides@chan'oblesvirt3al)awlibrary

&ec. 2. Who May File. : (ny a66rieved arty may Dle a etition for the writ of habeas data. owever7 !" cas#s $4 #?tra#a =!!"s a" #"4$rc#!sa#ara"c#s7 the etition may be Dled by@chan'oblesvirt3al)awlibrary

+a- (ny member of the immediate family of the a66rieved arty7 namely@the so3se7 children and arentsC or

+b- (ny ascendant7 descendant or collateral relative of the a66rieved artywithin the fo3rth civil de6ree of consan63inity or aKnity7 in defa3lt of those mentioned in the recedin6 ara6rah. +emphasis supplied-

ad the framers of the '3le intended to narrow the oeration of the writ only tocases of eLtrale6al killin6s or enforced disaearances7 the above 3nderscoredortion of &ection 27 reRectin6 a variance of habeas data sit3ations7 wo3ld nothave been made.

Habeas data, to stress, as designed !to sa"eguard indi#idual "reedom "rom abusein the in"ormation a6e.I1! (s s3ch7 it is erroneo3s to limit its alicability toeLtrale6al killin6s and enforced disaearances only. $n fact7 the annotations to the'3le reared by the ommittee on the 'evision of the '3les of o3rt7 aftereLlainin6 that the Hrit of Habeas Data comlements the Hrit of Amparo7 ointedo3t that@chan'oblesvirt3al)awlibrary

Th# 8r!t $4 "4(" $"*", h$8#.#r, ca" # a.a!# $4 as a" !"##"#"tr##9 t$ #"4$rc# $"#-s r!ht t$ r!.ac9, $r# s#c!3ca9 th# r!ht t$!"4$rat!$"a r!.ac9%

The remedies a6ainst the violation of s3ch ri6ht can incl3de the 3datin67rectiDcation7 s3ression or destr3ction of the database or information or Dles inossession or in control of resondents.1 +emhasis O3rs-

learly then7 the rivile6e of the Hrit of Habeas Data may also be availed of incases o3tside of eLtrale6al killin6s and enforced disaearances.

M#a"!" $4 #"a# !" th# ath#r!",c$#ct!" $r st$r!" $4 ata $r !"4$rat!$"

'esondentsQ contention that the habeas data writ may not iss3e a6ainst &T7 itnot bein6 an entity en6a6ed in the 6atherin67 collectin6 or storin6 of data orinformation re6ardin6 the erson7 family7 home and corresondence of thea66rieved arty7 while valid to a oint7 is7 nonetheless7 erroneo3s.

To be s3re7 nothin6 in the '3le wo3ld s366est that the habeas data rotection shallbe available only a6ainst ab3ses of a erson or entity engaged in the business of 6atherin67 storin67 and collectin6 of data. (s rovided 3nder &ection 1 of the'3le@chan'oblesvirt3al)awlibrary

&ection 1. Habeas Data. : The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to anyerson whose ri6ht to rivacy in life7 liberty or sec3rity is violated or threatened byan 3nlawf3l act or omission of a 3blic oKcial or emloyee7 $r $4 a r!.at#!"!.!6a $r #"t!t9 #"a# !" th# ath#r!", c$#ct!" $r st$r!" $4 ata


14/83

$r !"4$rat!$" r#ar!" th# #rs$", 4a!9, h$# a" c$rr#s$"#"c# $4 th# ar!#.# art9% +emhasis O3rs-

To Ben6a6eI in somethin6 is di5erent from 3ndertakin6 a b3siness endeavo3r. ToBen6a6eI means Bto do or take art in somethin6.I19 $t does not necessarily meanthat the activity m3st be done in 3rs3it of a b3siness. Hhat matters is that theerson or entity m3st be 6atherin67 collectin6 or storin6 said data or informationabo3t the a66rieved arty or his or her family. Hhether s3ch 3ndertakin6 carries

the element of re63larity7 as when one 3rs3es a b3siness7 and is in the nat3re of a ersonal endeavo3r7 for any other reason or even for no reason at all7 isimmaterial and s3ch will not revent the writ from 6ettin6 to said erson or entity.

To a6ree with resondentsQ above ar63ment7 wo3ld mean 3nd3ly limitin6 the reachof the writ to a very small 6ro37 i.e.7 rivate ersons and entities whose b3sinessis data 6atherin6 and stora6e7 and in the rocess decreasin6 the e5ectiveness of the writ as an instr3ment desi6ned to rotect a ri6ht which is easily violated inview of raid advancements in the information and comm3nications technolo6y::ari6ht which a 6reat maAority of the 3sers of technolo6y themselves are not caableof rotectin6.

avin6 resolved the roced3ral asect of the case7 He now roceed to the core of the controversy.

Th# r!ht t$ !"4$rat!$"a r!.ac9 $" Fac#$$=

Th# R!ht t$ I"4$rat!$"a Pr!.ac9 The concet of pri#acy has7 thro36h time7 6reatly evolved7 with technolo6icaladvancements havin6 an inR3ential art therein. This evol3tion was brieRyreco3nted in former hief


15/83

the same time7 the very 3rose of O&Ns is socialiin6::sharin6 a myriad of information72! some of which wo3ld have otherwise remained ersonal.

Fac#$$=-s Pr!.ac9 T$$s: a r#s$"s# t$th# ca$r 4$r r!.ac9 !" OSN act!.!t!#s

Facebook connections are established thro36h the rocess of Bfriendin6I another3ser. Ey sendin6 a Bfriend re;3est7I the 3ser invites another to connect their

acco3nts so that they can view any and all B83blicI and BFriends OnlyI osts of theother. Once the re;3est is acceted7 the link is established and both 3sers areermitted to view the other 3serQs B83blicI or BFriends OnlyI osts7 amon6 others.BFriendin67I therefore7 allows the 3ser to form or maintain one,to,one relationshiswith other 3sers7 whereby the 3ser 6ives his or her BFacebook friendI access to hisor her roDle and shares certain information to the latter.29cralawlawlibrary

To address concerns abo3t rivacy70 b3t witho3t defeatin6 its 3rose7 Facebookwas armed with di5erent rivacy tools desi6ned to re63late the accessibility of a3serQs roDle1 as well as information 3loaded by the 3ser. $n H #. W 72 the &o3th=a3ten6 i6h o3rt reco6nied this ability of the 3sers to Bc3stomie their rivacy

settin6s7I b3t did so with this caveat@ BFacebook states in its olicies that7 altho36hit makes every e5ort to rotect a 3serQs information7 these rivacy settin6s are notfool,roof.Icralawlawlibrary

STC ! "$t .!$at# #t!t!$"#rs- a6ht#rs- r!ht t$ r!.ac9

Hitho3t these rivacy settin6s7 resondentsQ contention that there is no reasonableeLectation of rivacy in Facebook wo3ld7 in conteLt7 be correct. owever7 s3ch isnot the case. It !s thr$6h th# a.a!a!!t9 $4 sa! r!.ac9 t$$s that a"9OSN 6s#rs ar# sa! t$ ha.# a s6#ct!.# #?#ctat!$" that $"9 th$s# t$8h$ th#9 ra"t acc#ss t$ th#!r r$3# 8! .!#8 th# !"4$rat!$" th#9$st $r 6$a th#r#t$.>cralawlawlibrary

This7 however7 does not mean that any Facebook 3ser a3tomatically has arotected eLectation of rivacy in all of his or her Facebook activities.

Eefore one can have an eLectation of rivacy in his or her O&N activity7 !t !s 3rst"#c#ssar9 that sa! 6s#r7 in this case the children of etitioners7 a"!4#st th#!"t#"t!$" t$ =## c#rta!" $sts r!.at#, thr$6h th# #$9#"t $4 #as6r#s t$ r#.#"t acc#ss th#r#t$ $r t$ !!t !ts .!s!!!t9.? (nd thisintention can materialie in cybersace thro36h the 6t!!Bat!$" $4 th# OSN-sr!.ac9 t$$s% I" $th#r 8$rs, 6t!!Bat!$" $4 th#s# r!.ac9 t$$s !s th#a"!4#stat!$", !" c9#r 8$r, $4 th# 6s#r-s !".$cat!$" $4 h!s $r h#r r!htt$ !"4$rat!$"a r!.ac9.!cralawlawlibrary

8etitioners7 in s3ort of their thesis abo3t their childrenQs rivacy ri6ht bein6violated7 insist that "sc3dero intr3ded 3on their childrenQs Facebook acco3nts7downloaded coies of the ict3res and showed said hotos to Ti6ol. To them7 thiswas a breach of the minorsQ rivacy since their Facebook acco3nts7 alle6edly7 were3nder Bvery rivateI or BOnly FriendsI settin6 safe63arded with a assword.9

%ltimately7 they osit that their childrenQs disclos3re was only limited since theirroDles were not oen to 3blic viewin6. Therefore7 accordin6 to them7 eole whoare not their Facebook friends7 incl3din6 resondents7 are barred from accessin6said ost witho3t their knowled6e and consent. (s etitionerQs children testiDed7 itwas (n6ela who 3loaded the s3bAect hotos which were only viewable by th#3.# $4 th#740 altho36h who these Dve are do not aear on the records.

"sc3dero7 on the other hand7 stated in her aKdavit41 that Bmy st3dents showed mesome ict3res of 6irls clad in brassieres. This st3dent sic of mine informed methat these are senior hi6h school st3dents of &T7 who are their friends inFacebook. L L L They then said that there are still many other hotos osted onthe Facebook acco3nts of these 6irls. (t the com3ter lab7 these st3dents then


16/83

lo66ed into their Facebook acco3nt sic7 and accessed from there the vario3shoto6rahs L L L. They even told me that there had been times when thesehotos were ‘3blicQ i.e.7 not conDned to their friends in Facebook.I

$n this re6ard7 He cannot 6ive m3ch wei6ht to the minorsQ testimonies for one keyreason@ fail3re to ;3estion the st3dentsQ act of showin6 the hotos to Ti6oldisroves their alle6ation that the hotos were viewable only by the Dve of them.Hitho3t any evidence to corroborate their statement that the ima6es were visible

only to the Dve of them7 and witho3t their challen6in6 "sc3deroQs claim that theother st3dents were able to view the hotos7 their statements are7 at best7 self,servin67 th3s deservin6 scant consideration.42cralawlawlibrary

$t is well to note that not one of etitioners dis3ted "sc3deroQs sworn acco3nt thather st3dents7 who are the minorsQ Facebook Bfriends7I showed her the hotos 3sin6their own Facebook acco3nts. This only 6oes to show that no secial means to beable to view the alle6edly rivate osts were ever resorted to by "sc3deroQsst3dents74 and that it is reasonable to ass3me7 therefore7 that the hotos were7 inreality7 viewable either by +1- their Facebook friends7 or +2- by the 3blic at lar6e.

onsiderin6 that the defa3lt settin6 for Facebook osts is B83blic7I it can bes3rmised that the hoto6rahs in ;3estion were viewable to everyone onFacebook7 absent any roof that etitionersQ children ositively limited thedisclos3re of the hoto6rah. $f s3ch were the case7 they cannot invoke therotection attached to the ri6ht to informational rivacy. The ens3in6rono3ncement in &S #. 'ines(Pere) 44 is mostinstr3ctive@chan'oblesvirt3al)awlibrary

( erson who laces a hoto6rah on the $nternet recisely intends to forsakeand reno3nce all rivacy ri6hts to s3ch ima6ery7 artic3larly 3nder circ3mstancess3ch as here7 where the #efendant did not emloy rotective meas3res or devicesthat wo3ld have controlled access to the Heb a6e or the hoto6rahitself.4>chanrobleslaw

(lso7 &nited States #. Ma*ell4? held that Bthe more oen the method of transmission is7 the less rivacy one can reasonably eLect. Messa6es sent to the3blic at lar6e in the chat room or e,mail that is forwarded from corresondent tocorresondent loses any semblance of rivacy.I

That the hotos are viewable by Bfriends onlyI does not necessarily bolster theetitionersQ contention. $n this re6ard7 the cyber comm3nity is a6reed that thedi6ital ima6es 3nder this settin6 still remain to be o3tside the conDnes of the onesof rivacy in view of the followin6@chan'oblesvirt3al)awlibrary

+1-

Facebook Ballows the world to be more oen and connected by 6ivin6 its3sers the tools to interact and share in any conceivable wayCI4!

+2-

( 6ood n3mber of Facebook 3sers BbefriendI other 3sers who are totalstran6ersC4

+-

The sheer n3mber of BFriendsI one 3ser has7 3s3ally by the h3ndredsC and

+4-

( 3serQs Facebook friend can BshareI49 the formerQs ost7 or Bta6I>0 otherswho are not Facebook friends with the former7 desite its bein6 visible onlyto his or her own Facebook friends.

$t is well to emhasie at this oint that settin6 a ostQs or roDle detailQs rivacy toBFriendsI is no ass3rance that it can no lon6er be viewed by another 3ser who isnot Facebook friends with the so3rce of the content. The 3serQs own Facebookfriend can share said content or ta6 his or her own Facebook friend thereto7re6ardless of whether the 3ser ta66ed by the latter is Facebook friends or not withthe former. (lso7 when the ost is shared or when a erson is ta66ed7 theresective Facebook friends of the erson who shared the ost or who was ta66edcan view the ost7 the rivacy settin6 of which was set at BFriends.I


17/83

$n s3m7 there can be no ;3ibblin6 that the ima6es in ;3estion7 or to be morerecise7 the hotos of minor st3dents scantily clad7 are ersonal in nat3re7 likely toa5ect7 if indiscriminately circ3lated7 the re3tation of the minors enrolled in aconservative instit3tion. owever7 the records are bereft of any evidence7 otherthan bare assertions that they 3tilied FacebookQs rivacy settin6s to make thehotos visible only to them or to a select few. Hitho3t roof that they laced thehoto6rahs s3bAect of this case within the ambit of their rotected one of

rivacy7 they cannot now insist that they have an eLectation of rivacy withresect to the hoto6rahs in ;3estion.

ad it been roved that the access to the ict3res osted were limited to theori6inal 3loader7 thro36h the BMe OnlyI rivacy settin67 or that the 3serQs contactlist has been screened to limit access to a select few7 thro36h the B3stomIsettin67 the res3lt may have been di5erent7 for in s3ch instances7 the intention tolimit access to the artic3lar ost7 instead of bein6 broadcasted to the 3blic atlar6e or all the 3serQs friends en masse7 becomes more manifest and alable.

8"T$T$ON #"N$"#.

WRIT OF (AEAS CORP*S

TUJANMILITANTE V. CAAEAERA,

G.R. NO. 210636, JULY 28, 201

Facts:

On March 247 20117 resondent 'a;3el M. ada,#eaera Dled before the 'T,aloocan a veriDed etition for writ of habeas cor3s7 docketed as &ecial ivil(ction ase No. ,444. $n the said etition7 resondent demanded the immediateiss3ance of the secial writ7 directin6 etitioner Ma. aelina T3Aan,Militante torod3ce before the co3rt r#s$"#"tHs !$$!ca a6ht#r, !"$r Cr!s#a M%Caa


18/83

(#:

He Dnd for resondent.

$n the case at bar7 what resondent Dled was a etition for the iss3ance of a writ of habeas cor3s 3nder &ection 20 of (.M. No. 0,04,04,& and '3le 102 of the '3lesof o3rt.20 (s rovided@

Section +. Petition "or rit o" habeas corpus.( A #eri-ed petition "or a rit o" habeas corpus in#ol#ing custody o" minors shall be -led ith the Family Court. $herit shall be en"orceable ithin its judicial region to hich the Family Court belongs.

Hoe#er, the petition may be -led ith the regular court in the absence o" the presiding judge o" the Family Court, pro#ided, hoe#er, that the regular court shallre"er the case tothe Family Court as soon as its presiding judge returns to duty.

$he petition may also be -led ith the appropriate regular courts in places herethere are no Family Courts.

$he rit issued by the Family Court or the regular court shall be en"orceable in the judicial region here they belong.

$he petition may lieise be -led ith the Supreme Court, Court o" Appeals, or ith any o" its members and, i" so granted,the rit shall be en"orceable anyherein the Philippines. $he rit may be made returnable to a Family Court or to any regular court ithin the region here the petitioner resides or here the minor may be "ound "or hearing and decision on the merits.

&pon return o" the rit, the court shall decide the issue on custody o" minors. $heappellate court, or the member thereo", issuing the rit shall be "urnished a copy o" the decision. /emphasis added0

onsiderin6 that the writ is made enforceable within a A3dicial re6ion7 etitions forthe iss3ance of the writ of habeas cor3s7 whether they be Dled 3nder '3le 102 of the '3les of o3rt or 3rs3ant to &ection 20 of (.M. No. 0,04,04,&7 maytherefore be Dled with any of the roer 'Ts within the A3dicial re6ion whereenforcement thereof is so36ht.

$n view of the afore,;3oted rovision it is ind3bitable that the Dlin6 of a etition forthe iss3ance of a writ of habeas cor3s before a family co3rt in any of the citiesen3merated is roer as lon6 as the writ is so36ht to be enforced within theNational aital


19/83

SILVERIO, SR. V. SILVERIO, JR.,

G.R. NOS. 20882829, AUGUST 13, 201

Facts: The late Eeatri &. &ilverio died witho3t leavin6 a will on October !7 19!.

&he was s3rvived by her le6al heirs7 namely@ 'icardo . &ilverio7 &r. +h3sband-7"dm3ndo &. &ilverio +son-7 "d6ardo &. &ilverio +son-7 'icardo &. &ilverio7


20/83

#"!" 3"a a6!cat!$" r#>6!r#s c$6rt ar$.a and


21/83

2. 'esondent7 bein6 NaolesU contact in the &andi6anbayan7 DLed theGevlar case res3ltin6 in her ac;3ittalC. 'esondent received an 3ndetermined amo3nt of money from Naolesrior to the rom3l6ation of the decision in the Gevlar case th3s7 she wass3re +SkamanteS-of her ac;3ittalC4. 'esondent visited Naoles in her oKce where she handed to him eleven+ll- checks7 each amo3ntin6 to 8227000.00 or a total of871027000.007 asadvanced interest for his 82>.> million E#O check she deosited in her

ersonal acco3ntC and>. 'esondent attended NaolesU arties and was hoto6rahed with &enator"strada and Naoles.

ISS*E

HON 'esondent is 63ilty of 6ross miscond3ct7 artiality and corr3tion or bribery

d3rin6 the endency of the Gevlar case7 and imroriety on acco3nt of his dealin6

and socialiin6 with Naoles after her ac;3ittal in the said case.

R*LING

ON E'$E"'

(n acc3sation of bribery is easy to concoct and diKc3lt to disrove. Thecomlainant m3st resent a anoly of evidence in s3ort of s3ch an acc3sation.$nasm3ch as what is im3ted a6ainst the resondent A3d6e connotes a 6ravemiscond3ct7 the ;3ant3m of roof re;3ired sho3ld be more thans3bstantial. oncededly7 the evidence in this case is ins3Kcient to s3stain thebribery and corr3tion char6es a6ainst the resondent. Eoth )3y and &3la have notwitnessed resondent act3ally receivin6 money from Naoles in eLchan6e for herac;3ittal in the Gevlar case. Naoles had conDded to )3y her alle6ed bribe toresondent.

ON M$&ON#%T

Miscond3ct is a trans6ression of some established and deDnite r3le of action7 aforbidden act7 a dereliction of d3ty7 3nlawf3l behavior7 willf3l in character7imroer or wron6 behaviorC while WS6rossS has been deDned as So3t of all meas3rebeyond allowanceC Ra6rantC shamef3lC s3ch cond3ct as is not to be eLc3sed.SHe cannot overemhasie that in administrative roceedin6s7 only s3bstantialevidence7 i.e.7 that amo3nt of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind mi6htaccet as ade;3ate to s3ort a concl3sion7 is re;3ired.Notwithstandin6 the absence of direct evidence of any corr3t act by the

resondent7 we Dnd credible evidence of his association with Naoles after therom3l6ation of the decision in the Gevlar case. The totality of the circ3mstancesof s3ch association stron6ly indicates resondentUs corr3t inclinations that onlyhei6htened the 3blicUs ercetion of anomaly in the decision,makin6 rocess. Eyhis act of 6oin6 to resondent at her oKce on two occasions7 resondent eLosedhimself to the s3sicion that he was artial to Naoles. That resondent was notthe onente of the decision which was rendered by a colle6ial body did notforestall s3ch s3sicion of artiality7 as evident from the 3blic dis63st 6eneratedby the 3blication of a hoto6rah of resondent to6ether with Naoles and&enator


22/83

( A3d6e m3st not only be imartial b3t m3st also aear to be imartial and thatfraterniin6 with liti6ants tarnishes this aearance. 83blic conDdence in the


23/83

No. 14>. &o3ses Monteiro anchored their claim on a deed of sale eLec3ted intheir favor by the heirs of 8edro #ima63ila +8edro-.

$n their (nswer7 the #ima63ilas co3ntered that there was no co,ownershi toseak. They alle6ed that the s3bAect roerty7 then owned by Maria $6nacioE3enaseda7 had lon6 been artitioned e;3ally between her two sons7 8erfecto and/italiano #ima63ila7 thro36h a #eed of "LtraA3dicial 8artition7 with its so3thern,half ortion assi6ned to 8erfecto and the northern,half ortion to /italiano. They

claimed that they were the heirs of /italiano and that &o3ses Monteiro hadnothin6 to do with the roerty as they were not heirs of either 8erfecto or/italiano.

On


24/83

To rove their claim of artition7 the resondent so3ses resented the followin6@

+1- the #eed of "LtraA3dicial 8artition7 dated October >7 194>7 eLec3ted by andbetween the brothers 8erfecto and /italianoC

+2- the cadastral ma of )iliw adm,447 dated (363st ?7 19!?7 showin6 that thes3bAect roerty had been divided into so3thern and northern ortions7re6istered as )ot Nos. !? and !!C and

+- the M3nicial (ssessorUs recordsshowin6 that the said lots were resectivelyclaimed by E3enavent3ra and 8erfecto.

$t is 3ndis3ted that the #eed of "LtraA3dicial 8artition stated that 8erfecto and/italiano a6reed Sto divide between them into two and share and share alikeSthe s3bAect roerty7 incl3din6 the ho3se sit3ated thereon. $t aears7 however7that the roerty was act3ally artitioned into deDnite ortions7 namely7so3thern and northern halves7 as reRected in the cadastral ma of )iliw7 whichwere resectively claimed by an heir of /italiano and 8erfecto himself. It, th6s,a#ars that th# s6#ct r$#rt9 ha ar#a9 ##" art!t!$"# !"t$

#3"!t# $rt!$"s $r# tha" 20 9#ars r!$r t$ th# $r!!"a c$a!"t 4$rart!t!$" 3# !" 1''7 and that s3ch division had been observed by thebrothersU heirs.

&ection 4 of '3le 129 of the '3les of o3rt rovides that an a!ss!$" a#9 a art9 !" th# c$6rs# $4 th# r$c##!"s !" th# sa# cas# $#s "$tr#>6!r# r$$4, a" a9 # c$"tra!ct# $"9 9 sh$8!" that !t 8asa# thr$6h aa# !sta=#%

The etitioners ar63e that s3ch admission was the alable mistake of theirformer co3nsel in his r3sh to Dle the answer7 a coy of which was not rovided tothem. This contention is 3naccetable. $t is a 3rely self,servin6 claim3ns3orted by any iota of evidence. Eare alle6ations7 3ns3bstantiated byevidence7 are not e;3ivalent to roof. F3rthermore7 the o3rt notes that thisosition was adoted by the etitioners only almost ei6ht +- years after theirori6inal answer was Dled7 in resonse to the amended comlaint of theresondent so3ses. $n their ori6inal answer to the comlaint for artition7 theirclaim that there was already a artition into northern,half and so3thern,half ortions7 was the very essence of their defense. $t was recisely this admissionwhich moved the resondent so3ses to amend their comlaint. The etitionerscannot now insist that the very fo3ndation of their ori6inal defense was aalable mistake.

(rticle 141 of the ivil ode rovides that thr$6h #st$#, a" a!ss!$"!s r#"#r# c$"c6s!.# 6$" th# #rs$" a=!" !t, a" ca""$t ##"!# $r !sr$.# as aa!"st th# #rs$" r#9!" th#r#$". Theresondent so3ses had clearly relied on the etitionersU admission and soamended their ori6inal comlaint for artition to one for recovery of ossessionof a ortion of the s3bAect roerty. Th3s7 the etitioners are now estoed fromdenyin6 or attemtin6 to rove that there was no artition of the roerty.

onsiderin6 that an admission does not re;3ire roof7 the admission of theetitioners wo3ld act3ally be s3Kcient to rove the artition even witho3t thedoc3ments resented by the resondent so3ses. $f anythin67 the additionalevidence they resented only served to corroborate the etitionersU admission.

A## )!$at!$" $4 th# R6# $" (#arsa9 a" #st E.!#"c# R6#

The etitioners ar63e that they timely obAected to the cadastral ma and the listof claimants resented by the resondent so3ses7 on the 6ro3nd that theyviolated the r3le on hearsay and the best evidence r3le.


25/83

(nent the #st #.!#"c# r6#7 &ection +d- of '3le 10 of the '3les of o3rtrovides that when the s3bAect of in;3iry is the contents of a doc3ment7 noevidence shall be admissible other than the ori6inal doc3ment itself7 eLcetwhen the ori6inal is a 3blic record in the c3stody of a 3blic oKcer or isrecorded in a 3blic oKce. &ection ! of the same '3le rovides that 8h#" th#$r!!"a $4 a $c6#"t !s !" th# c6st$9 $4 a 6!c $c#r $r !s r#c$r#!" a 6!c $c#, !ts c$"t#"ts a9 # r$.# 9 a c#rt!3# c$9 !ss6#9 th# 6!c $c#r !" c6st$9 thereof. &ection 24 of '3le 12 rovides that

the record of 3blic doc3ments may be evidenced by a coy attested by theoKcer havin6 the le6al c3stody or the record.

ertiDed tr3e coies of the cadastral ma of )iliw and the corresondin6 list of claimants of the area covered by the ma were resented by two 3blic oKcers. The Drst was risostomo (rves7 lerk $$$ of the M3nicial (ssessorUs OKce7 areository of s3ch doc3ments. The second was #omin6a Tolentino7 a #"N'emloyee7 who7 as a record oKcer7 certiDes and safekees records of s3rveyedland involvin6 cadastral mas. Th# caastra as a" th# !st $4 ca!a"ts, as c#rt!3# tr6# c$!#s $4 $r!!"a 6!c r#c$rs, 4a 6"#rth# #?c#t!$" t$ th# #st #.!#"c# r6#%

(s to the h#arsa9 r6#7 &ection 44 of '3le 10 of the '3les of o3rt s!!ar9r$.!#s that #"tr!#s !" $c!a r#c$rs ar# a" #?c#t!$" t$ th# r6#% Ther3le rovides that entries in oKcial records made in the erformance of the d3tyof a 3blic oKcer of the 8hiliines7 or by a erson in the erformance of a d3tysecially enAoined by law7 are rima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. The necessity of this r3le consists in the inconvenience and diKc3lty of re;3irin6the oKcialUs attendance as a witness to testify to the inn3merable transactionsin the co3rse of his d3ty. The doc3mentUs tr3stworthiness consists in theres3mtion of re63larity of erformance of oKcial d3ty.

adastral mas are the o3t3t of cadastral s3rveys. The #"N' is the deartmenttasked to eLec3te7 s3ervise and mana6e the cond3ct of cadastral s3rveys. $t is7therefore7 clear that the cadastral ma and the corresondin6 list of claimants;3alify as entries in oKcial records as they were reared by the #"N'7 asmandated by law. (s s3ch7 they are eLcetions to the hearsay r3le and are rimafacie evidence of the facts stated therein.

"ven 6rantin6 that the etitioners had not admitted the artition7 they resentedno evidence to contradict the evidence of the resondent so3ses. Th3s7 evenwitho3t the admission of the etitioners7 the resondent so3ses roved by areonderance of evidence that there had indeed been a artition of the s3bAectroerty.

2% Th# 1; $4 th# s$6th#r"@ha4 8as s$ t$ S$6s#s M$"t#!r$%

To rove that 1 of the so3thern,half ortion of the s3bAect roerty was sold tothem7 &o3ses Monteiro resented a deed of sale entitled Eilihan n6 )ahatNamin6 Garaatan7 dated &etember 297 19927 wherein 8edroUs share was soldby his heirs to them7 with the ac;3iescence of the heirs of "serana and)eandro in an (Kdavit of onformity and Haiver.

The etitioners ar63e that the Eilihan sho3ld not have been admitted intoevidence beca3se it lacked the doc3mentary stam taL re;3ired by &ection 201of the N$'.

On (363st 297 19947 the etitioners Dled a motion for the rod3ction andorinsection of doc3ments7 rayin6 that &o3ses Monteiro be ordered to rod3cethe deed of sale7 which they cited as the so3rce of their ri6hts as co,owners. OnNovember 207 199>7 &o3ses Monteiro s3bmitted their comliance7 f3rnishin6the 'T and the etitioners with a coy of the Eilihan. On


26/83

to eLercise their ri6ht of redemtion as co,owners of the 1 ortion of theso3thern half of the roerty 3nder (rticle 1?2 of the ivil ode by sendin6and tenderin6 ayment of redemtion to &o3ses Monteiro7 which was7however7 ret3rned.

Ey Dlin6 the notice of consi6nation and tenderin6 their ayment for theredemtion of the 1 ortion of the so3thern,half of the roerty7 theetitioners7 in e5ect7 admitted the eListence7 d3e eLec3tion and validity of the

Eilihan. onse;3ently7 they are now estoed from ;3estionin6 its admissiblityin evidence for relyin6 on s3ch for their ri6ht of redemtion. (dditionally7 theo3rt notes that the coy of the Eilihan does in fact bear a doc3mentary stamtaL. $t co3ld only mean that the doc3mentary stam taL on the sale wasroerly aid. The Eilihan was7 therefore7 roerly admitted into evidence andconsidered by the 'T.

Hith &o3ses Monteiro havin6 s3Kciently roved their claim over the s3bAect $ ortion of the so3thern,half of the roerty thro36h the Eilihan7 the lowerco3rts did not err in awardin6 ossession7 rentals7 attorneyUs fees7 and liti6ationeLenses to them.

The o3rt7 however7 Dnds that the award of rentals sho3ld be reckoned from 7 2009. (arently7 EEE7the wife of the acc3sed and mother of (((7 to6ether with the latter7 comlained to8olice OKcer Fretie &. obardo +8O obardo-7 the oKcer assi6ned at the8hiliine National 8olice +8N8- Homen and hildren 8rotection enter of Ta63i6ity. $t was she who investi6ated the above incident and took down the swornstatement of ((( late in the evenin6 of Febr3ary >7 2009. Members of theEaran6ay &ec3rity Force Michael "st3dillo +"st3dillo- and 'onillo 8erlas +8erlas-arrested the acc3sed. &he testiDed in the trial co3rt. ((( did not7 on acco3nt hernot aearin6 desite several s3boenas iss3ed by the co3rtC EEE and (((manifested their desistance7 sayin6 that ((( had already for6iven her father.

The trial co3rt convicted the acc3sed7 r3lin6 that the testimony of 8O obardowas art of res 6estae.

On aeal to the (7 the acc3sed,aellant maintained that d3e to the absence of (((Us testimony7 the rosec3tion failed to establish the circ3mstances rovin6beyond reasonable do3bt that he raed his da36hterC that the testimonies of therosec3tion witnesses 8O obardo and others7 not bein6 themselves victims orwitnesses to the Sstartlin6 occ3rrenceS of rae7 cannot create the hearsayeLcetion of

res gestae literally7 Sthin6s doneQ.

$he CA nonetheless con#icted the accused on the basis o" res gestae.

ISSUE1

Hitho3t the res gestae eLcetion7 the evidence of the rosec3tion wo3ld consistmainly of hearsay statements by 8O obardo7 E&F "st3dillo and E&F 8erlas all


27/83

reiteratin6 what ((( alle6edly told them. The same ;3estion7 whether resgestae as an eLcetion to the hearsay r3le m3st be areciated from the fact3alcirc3mstances of the case7 is now before this o3rt in this a3tomatic review.

R6!":

(%&"# $& (V%$TT"#

I" #ss#"c#, th# )( (*"( #?c#t!$" t$ th# h#arsa9 r6# r$.!#s that th##carat!$"s 6st ha.# ##" J.$6"tar!9 a" s$"ta"#$6s9 a#s$ #(") '#*(!;)"#(% " * 4( +# *( ;)((#'( < *( *)"#"'*+#:+' *( +%*)"*( "#$ (=;"+#, a" 8#r# !"$( %#$() %''+)'%!*"#'( " #('(")+ * (='%$( *( +$(" < $(+# ) $(+4()"*+#.>

AAAHs stat##"ts t$ th# 4")"#" *"#$ a" th# $!c# $ "$t >6a!49 asart $4 )( (*"( !" .!#8 $4 th# !ss!" ###"t $4 s$"ta"#!t9 a" th#as# $4 a" ar#c!a# t!# #t8##" th# ra# a" th# #carat!$"s8h!ch a$r# h#r s6c!#"t $$rt6"!t9 4$r r##ct!$"%

$n People #. Manhuyod, 2r.7 51 the o3rt stressed that in areciatin6 resgestae the element of sontaneity is ')+*+'". (ltho36h it was acknowled6ed thatthere is no hard and fast r3le to establish it7 the o3rt cited a n3mber of factors toconsider7 already mentioned in Dianos. The review of the facts below constrainsthis o3rt to take a view oosite that of the 'T and the (.

There is no do3bt7 however7 that there was nothin6 sontaneo3s7 3nreRected orinstinctive abo3t the declarations which ((( made to the barangay tanodand laterthat ni6ht to the olice. er statements were in fact a re,tellin6 of what she hadalready confessed to her mother earlier that afternoonC this time however7 herstory to thetanods and the olice was in clear7 conscio3s 3rs3it of a newly formedresolve7 eLhorted by her mother7 to see her father Dnally eLosed and 3t behindbars. ((( made her declarations to the a3thorities recisely beca3se she wasseekin6 their hel to 3nish the acc3sed,aellant. There was then nothin6sontaneo3s abo3t her so,called res gestae narrations7 even as it is remarkable tonote that while ((( was 6ivin6 her said statements to the olice7 her father wasalready bein6 held in detention7 and the investi6ation was cond3cted eLactly todetermine if there was a basis to hold him for trial for rae.

%es gestae seaks of a ;3ick contin33m of related haenin6s7 startin6 with theocc3rrence of a startlin6 event which tri66ered it and incl3din6 any sontaneo3sdeclaration made by a witness7 articiant or sectator relative to the saidocc3rrence. The cases this o3rt has cited invariably reiterate that the statementm3st be an 3nreRected reaction of the declarant7 3ndesi6ned and free of deliberation. $n other words7 the declarant is sontaneo3sly moved merely toeLress his instinctive reaction concernin6 the startlin6 occ3rrence7 and not to3rs3e a 3rose or desi6n already formed in his mind. $n People #.Sanche) 7 5 the o3rt belabored to eLlain that startlin6 events 3spea "or themsel#es, gi#ing out their "ullest meaning through the unprompted language o" the participants13 5 #c($&

%es gestae means the Sthin6s done.S $t Srefers to those eLclamations andstatements made by either the articiants7 victims7 or sectators to a crimeimmediately before7 d3rin67 or immediately after the commission of the crime7when the circ3mstances are s3ch that the statements were made as asontaneo3s reaction or 3tterance insired by the eLcitement of the occasion andthere was no oort3nity for the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a falsestatement.S ( sontaneo3s eLclamation is deDned as Sa statement or eLclamationmade immediately after some eLcitin6 occasion by a articiant or sectator andassertin6 the circ3mstances of that occasion as it is observed by him. Theadmissibility of s3ch eLclamation is based on o3r eLerience that7 3nder certain

http://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/59224?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=59224&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=208749&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote51_0http://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/59224?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=59224&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=208749&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote53_0http://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/59224?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=59224&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=208749&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote54_0http://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/59224?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=59224&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=208749&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote51_0http://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/59224?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=59224&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=208749&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote53_0http://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/59224?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=59224&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=208749&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote54_0


28/83

eLternal circ3mstances of hysical or mental shock7 a stress of nervo3s eLcitementmay be rod3ced in a sectator which stills the reRective fac3lties and removestheir control7 so that the 3tterance which then occ3rs is a sontaneo3s and sincereresonse to the act3al sensations and ercetions already rod3ced by theeLternal shock. &ince this 3tterance is made 3nder the immediate and 3ncontrolleddomination of the senses7 rather than reason and reRection7 and d3rin6 the brief eriod when consideration of self,interest co3ld not have been f3lly bro36ht tobear7U the 3tterance may be taken as eLressin6 the real belief of the seaker as to

the facts A3st observed by him.S $n a manner of seakin67 the sontaneity of thedeclaration is s3ch that the declaration itself may be re6arded as the eventseakin6 thro36h the declarant rather than the declarant seakin6 for himself. Or7stated di5erently7 S. . . the events seak for themselves7 6ivin6 o3t their f3llestmeanin6 thro36h the 3nromted lan63a6e of the articiants. The sontaneo3scharacter of the lan63a6e is ass3med to recl3de the robability of itsremeditation or fabrication. $ts 3tterance on the s3r of the moment is re6arded7with a 6ood deal of reason7 as a 63arantee of its tr3th. 55 +itations omitted-

The 'T and the ( held that the inc3latory statements of ((( to the barangay tanod and the olice are art of the res gestae occ3rrence of the rae. This is error.

$t is obvio3s that ((( had by then 3nder6one a serio3s deliberation7 rodded byher mother7 whose own o3tra6e as the betrayed wife and 6rievin6 mother soemboldened ((( that she Dnally resolved to emer6e from her fear of her father.ere then lies the cr3L of the matter@ ((( had clearly ceased to act 3nthinkin6ly3nder the immediate inR3ence of her shockin6 rae by her father7 and was now ledby another owerf3l com3lsion7 a new,fo3nd resolve to 3nish her father. a$(c

(#arsa9 #.!#"c# !s acc$r# "$ r$at!.# .a6# 4$r th# r#as$" that th#$r!!"a #cara"t 8as "$t ac# 6"#r $ath $r arat!$", "$r s6#ct#t$ cr$ss@#?a!"at!$" 9 th# #4#"s#, #?c#t !" a 4#8 !"sta"c#s as 8h#r#th# stat##"t !s c$"s!#r# art $4 th# )( (*"(%

This o3rt has a sit3ation where the incriminatory statements alle6edly made by((( were conveyed to the trial co3rt not by ((( herself b3t by 8O obardo7 E&F"st3dillo and E&F 8erlas. $n artic3lar7 8O obardo made a s3mmation of whatshe claims was (((Us narration of her ordeal7 alon6 with her own observations of her demeanor d3rin6 the investi6ation. E3t 3nless the rosec3tion s3cceeded ininvokin6 res gestae7 their testimonies m3st be dismissed as hearsay7 since (((Usstatements were not s3bAected to cross,eLamination consistent with theconstit3tional ri6ht of the acc3sed,aellant to confront the evidence a6ainst him.

Wh#" !"c6at$r9 4acts ar# s6sc#t!# $4 t8$ $r $r# !"t#rr#tat!$"s,$"# $4 8h!ch !s c$"s!st#"t 8!th th# !""$c#"c# $4 th# acc6s#, th##.!#"c# $#s "$t 463 $r h6r# th# t#st $4 $ra c#rta!"t9 r#>6!r# 4$rc$".!ct!$"%

$t is well,settled7 to the oint of bein6 elementary7 that when inc3latory facts ares3scetible to two or more interretations7 one of which is consistent with theinnocence of the acc3sed7 the evidence does not f3lDll or h3rdle the test of moralcertainty re;3ired for conviction . 1 ( forced alication of the resgestae eLcetion below res3lts if the o3rt says that (((Us incriminatorystatements were sontaneo3s and th3s art of a startling occurrence. $t rod3cesan o3tri6ht denial of the ri6ht of the acc3sed,aellant to be res3med innocent3nless roven 63ilty7 not to mention that he was also denied his ri6ht to confrontthe comlainant.

CRIMINAL PROCED*RE

ESTILOS V. GENEROSO,

G.R. NO. 182601, NOVEMBER 10, 201

http://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/59224?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=59224&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=208749&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote55_0http://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/59224?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=59224&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=208749&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote61_0http://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/59224?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=59224&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=208749&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote55_0http://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/59224?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=59224&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=208749&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote61_0


29/83

F"'*?

on Febr3ary 207 200>7 at aro3nd @1>am7 an altercation ens3ed between the

etitioners and (tty. Moreno =eneroso/A**. G(#() at 7 4arangay oly &irit7V3eon ity where the etitioners and (tty. =eneroso reside.

(tty. =eneroso called the entral 8olice #istrict7 &tation ? /4atasan Hills Police

Station0 to reort the incident. (ctin6 on this reort7 #esk OKcer &8O1 8rimitivoMonsalve /SP56 Monsal#e0 disatched &8O2 #ominador


30/83

Th# Iss6#s

$.

H"T"' O' NOT T" 8"T$T$ON"'& H"'" /()$#) (''"&T"#H$TO%T ( H(''(NT.

$$.

H"T"' O' NOT T" 8"T$T$ON"'& H"'" )(HF%)) (''"&T"#H"N T" H"'" M"'") $N/$T"# TO T" 8O)$" 8'"$NT.

$$$.

H"T"' O' NOT T" O'#"' #"N$N= T" MOT$ON FO'8'")$M$N(' $N/"&T$=(T$ON $& /O$# FO' F($)%'" TO &T(T" T"F(T& (N# T" )(H %8ON H$ $T H(& E(&"#. &a$"(

(ELD:

PETITION IS WIT(O*T MERIT.

Th# cr!!"a r$c##!"s aa!"st th# #t!t!$"#rs sh$6 "$8 r$c##%

(nent the Drst iss3e@

. 8resently7 the re;3irements of a warrantless arrest are now s3mmaried in '3le117 &ection > which states that@

&ection >. Arrest ithout arrant7 hen la"ul. Y ( eace oKcer ora rivate erson may7 witho3t a warrant7 arrest a erson@

+a- Hhen7 in his resence7 the erson to be arrested hascommitted7 is act3ally committin67 or is attemtin6 tocommit an o5enseC

+b- Hhen an o5ense has A3st been committed7 and he hasrobable ca3se to believe based on ersonal knowled6eof facts or circ3mstances that the erson to be arrestedhas committed itC and

+c- Hhen the erson to be arrested is a risoner who hasescaed from a enal establishment or lace where he isservin6 Dnal A3d6ment or is temorarily conDned while hiscase is endin67 or has escaed while bein6 transferredfrom one conDnement to another.

$n cases fallin6 3nder ara6rahs +a- and +b- above7 the ersonarrested witho3t a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to thenearest olice station or Aail and shall be roceeded a6ainst inaccordance with section ! of '3le 112.

( warrantless arrest 3nder the circ3mstances contemlated 3nder &ection > +a-

above has been denominated as one 3in 8agrante delicto,3 while that 3nder&ection > +b- has been described as a Shot 3rs3itS arrest.

For 3roses of this case7 we shall foc3s on &ection > +b- Y the rovisionalicable in the resent case. This rovision has 3nder6one chan6es thro36h theyears not A3st in its hraseolo6y b3t also in its interretation in o3r A3risr3dence.

&ection >+b- has 3nderwent a lot of chan6es. +1940 r3les7 19?47 19>7 and nowthe resent r3les-

http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/59373?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=59373&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=182601&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote44_0http://online.cdasia.com/jurisprudences/59373?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=59373&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=&q%5Bissue_no%5D=182601&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote44_0


31/83

. T( )((#* R(@+($ R%( < C)+!+#" )'($%)(

&ection > +b-7 '3le 11 of the 19> '3les of riminal 8roced3re was f3rtheramended with the incororation of the word Jr$a# ca6s#J as the basis of thearrestin6 oKcerUs determination on whether the erson to be arrested hascommitted the crime.

ence7 as resently worded7 S#ct!$" 5 +b-7 the followin6 are the notable chan6es@ )*, thecontemlated o5ense was ;3aliDed by the word SA3st7S connotin6 immediacyCand ('#$, the warrantless arrest of a erson so36ht to be arrested sho3ld bebased on robable ca3se to be determined by the arrestin6 oKcer based onhis #rs$"a ="$8## $4 4acts a" c!rc6sta"c#s that th# #rs$" t$ #

arr#st# has c$!tt# !t.

$t is clear that the resent r3les have SobAectiDedS the revio3sly s3bAectivedetermination of the arrestin6 oKcer as to the /60 commission of the crimeCand /+0 whether the erson so36ht to be arrested committed the crime. (ccordin6to Feria7 these chan6es were adoted to minimie arrests based on mere s3sicionor hearsay. 51

(s resently worded7 the elements 3nder S#ct!$" 5


32/83

"#$ *( %$+'+" ;)'(($+#


33/83

m3ch of an ordinary oliceman. e is not res3med to eLercise the s3btlereasonin6 of a A3dicial oKcer. Oftentimes7 he has no oort3nity to make roerinvesti6ation 6t 6st act !" hast# $" h!s $8" #!#4 t$ r#.#"t th# #sca#$4 th# cr!!"a. 7

++ S('#$ "#$ T+)$ E(!(#* < S('*+# 5 /4, R%( 113?

T( ')+!( " %* 4((# '!!+**($D;()#" #:($( < +b-7 '3le 11 of the 'evised '3les of riminal 8roced3re and o3r A3risr3dence on the matter7 we hold that the followin6 m3st be resent for a .a!8arra"t#ss arr#st: 1 the crime sho3ld have been A3st committedC and 2 thearrestin6 oKcerUs eLercise of discretion is limited by the standard of robableca3se to be determined from the facts and circ3mstances within his ersonalknowled6e. The re;3irement of the eListence of robable ca3se $#ct!3#s thereasonableness of the warrantless arrest for 3roses of comliance with theonstit3tional mandate a6ainst 6"r#as$"a# arrests.

ence7 for 3roses of resolvin6 the iss3e on the validity of the warrantless arrestof the resent etitioners7 the ;3estion to be resolved is whether the re;3irements

for a valid warrantless arrest 3nder &ection > +b-7 '3le 11 of the 'evised '3les of riminal 8roced3re were comlied with7 namely@ 60 has the crime A3st beencommitted when they were arrested +0 did the arrestin6 oKcer have ersonalknowled6e of facts and circ3mstances that the etitioners committed the crimeand ;0 based on these facts and circ3mstances that the arrestin6 oKcer ossessedat the time of the etitionersU arrest7 8$6 a r#as$"a9 !scr##t a" r6#"t#rs$" #!#.# that th# att#t# 6r#r $4 Att9% G#"#r$s$ 8asc$!tt# 9 th# #t!t!$"#rs

He r3le in the aKrmative.

III. A;;+'"*+# < S('*+# 5 /4, R%( 113 < *( R(@+($ R%(< C)+!+#" )'($%)( +# *( ;)((#* '"(? *()( :" "@"+$ :"))"#*( "))(*

To s3mmarie7 the arrestin6 oKcers went to the scene of the crime 3on the

comlaint of (tty. =eneroso of his alle6ed ma3lin6C the olice oKcers resonded tothe scene of the crime #ss tha" $"#


34/83

alle6ed crime transired in a comm3nity where (tty. =eneroso and the etitionersresideC (tty. =eneroso ositively identiDed the etitioners as those resonsible forhis ma3lin6 and7 notably7 the etitioners &5 and (tty. =eneroso & lived almost inthe same nei6hborhoodC more imortantly7 when the etitioners were confrontedby the arrestin6 oKcers7 they did not deny their articiation in the incident with(tty. =eneroso7 altho36h they narrated a di5erent version of what transired. &7

Hith these facts and c!rc6sta"c#s that the olice oKcers 6athered and which

they have ersonally observed #ss tha" $"# h$6r from the time that they havearrived at the scene of the crime 3ntil the time of the arrest of the etitioners7 wedeem it reasonable to concl3de that the olice oKcers had ersonal knowled6e of facts or circumstances A3stifyin6 the etitionersU warrantless arrests. Thesecirc3mstances were well within the olice oKcersU observation7 ercetion andeval3ation at the time of the arrest. These circ3mstances ;3alify as the oliceoKcersU #rs$"a $s#r.at!$", 8h!ch ar# 8!th!" th#!r #rs$"a ="$8##7romtin6 them to make the warrantless arrests.

IV. T( *()! >+#@+*($> +# *( A$"@+* < A))(* + '#*)%($ * !("# ""# "%*)+*"*+@( '!!"#$

(fter the resol3tion of the validity of the warrantless arrest7 the disc3ssion of theetitionersU second iss3e is lar6ely academic. (rrest is deDned as the takin6 of aerson into c3stody in order that he may be bo3nd to answer for the commissionof an o5ense. (n arrest is made by an act3al restraint of the erson to be arrested7or by his s3bmission to the c3stody of the erson makin6 the arrest. '1 Th3s7alication of act3al force7 man3al to3chin6 of the body7 hysical restraint or aformal declaration of arrest is not re;3ired. $t is eno36h that there be an intentionon the art of one of the arties to arrest the other and the intent of the other tos3bmit7 3nder the belief and imression that s3bmission is necessary. '2 a"($#

Notwithstandin6 the term 3in#ited3 in the (Kdavit of (rrest7 ' &8O2


35/83

(n information for m3rder7 docketed as riminal ase No. V9>,?11 7 was Dleda6ainst several members of the &cintilla


36/83

The test of s3Kciency of $nformation is whether it enables a erson of common3nderstandin6 to know the char6e a6ainst him7 and the co3rt to render A3d6mentroerly. L L L The 3rose is to allow the acc3sed to f3lly reare for his defense7recl3din6 s3rrises d3rin6 the trial.

ontrary to the ar63ments of the aellants7 the incl3sion of the hrase Swearin6masks andor other forms of dis63iseS in the information does not violate theirconstit3tional ri6hts.

$t sho3ld be remembered that every a66ravatin6 circ3mstance bein6 alle6ed m3stbe stated in the information. Fail3re to state an a66ravatin6 circ3mstance7 even if d3ly roven at trial7 will not be areciated as s3ch. $t was7 therefore7 inc3mbenton the rosec3tion to state the a66ravatin6 circ3mstance of Swearin6 masksandor other forms of dis63iseS in the information in order for all the evidence7introd3ced to that e5ect7 to be admissible by the trial co3rt.

$n criminal cases7 dis63ise is an a66ravatin6 circ3mstance beca3se7 like ni6httime7it allows the acc3sed to remain anonymo3s and 3nidentiDable as he carries o3t hiscrimes.

The introd3ction of the rosec3tion of testimonial evidence that tends to rove thatthe acc3sed were masked b3t the masks fell o5 does not revent them fromincl3din6 dis63ise as an a66ravatin6 circ3mstance. Hhat is imortant in alle6in6dis63ise as an a66ravatin6 circ3mstance is that there was a concealment of identity by the acc3sed. The incl3sion of dis63ise in the information was7 therefore7eno36h to s3Kciently arise the acc3sed that in the commission of the o5ensethey were bein6 char6ed with7 they tried to conceal their identity.

The introd3ction of evidence which shows that some of the acc3sed were notwearin6 masks is also not violative of their ri6ht to be informed of their o5enses.

The information char6es consiracy amon6 the acc3sed. onsiracy res3osesthat Sthe act of one is the act of all.S This wo3ld mean all the acc3sed had beenone in their lan to conceal their identity even if there was evidence later on torove that some of them mi6ht not have done so.

$n any case7 the acc3sed were bein6 char6ed with the crime of m3rder7 fr3stratedm3rder7 and attemted m3rder. (ll that is needed for the information to bes3Kcient is that the elements of the crime have been alle6ed and that there ares3Kcient details as to the time7 lace7 and ersons involved in the o5ense.

Ar6#"t:

That the acc3sed were not s3Kciently identiDed by the witnesses for therosec3tion.

(#:

The trial co3rt correctly held that Sconsiderin6 the swiftness of the incident7S therewo3ld be sli6ht inconsistencies in their statements. $n 8eole v. (driano abrillas7 itwas revio3sly observed that@

$t is erfectly nat3ral for di5erent witnesses testifyin6 on the occ3rrence of a crimeto 6ive varyin6 details as there may be some details which one witness may noticewhile the other may not observe or remember. $n fact7 A3risr3dence even warnsa6ainst a erfect dovetailin6 of narration by di5erent witnesses as it co3ld meanthat their testimonies were refabricated and rehearsed.


37/83

$t wo3ld be in line with h3man eLerience that a victim or an eyewitness of a crimewo3ld endeavor to Dnd ways to identify the assailant so that in the event that he orshe s3rvives7 the criminal co3ld be arehended. $t has also been revio3sly heldthat@

$t is the most nat3ral reaction for victims of criminal violence to strive to see thelooks and faces of their assailants and observe the manner in which the crime wascommitted. Most often the face of the assailant and body movements thereof7

creates a lastin6 imression which cannot be easily erased from their memory.

$n the commotion7 it was more than likely that the masked assailants co3ld havelost their masks. $t had been testiDed by the victims that some of the assailantswere wearin6 masks of either a iece of cloth or a handkerchief and that (lvir7*in6aan7 &oliva7 and Feliciano had masks on at Drst b3t their masks fell o5 andh3n6 aro3nd their necks.

Hhile the attack was swift and s3dden7 the victims wo3ld have had the resence of mind to take a look at their assailants if they were identiDable. Their ositiveidentiDcation7 in the absence of evidence to the contrary7 m3st be 3held to be

credible.

Ar6#"t:

(ccordin6 to the testimony of %.8. 8olice OKcer &alvador7 when he arrived at thescene7 he interviewed the bystanders who all told him that they co3ld notreco6nie the attackers since they were all masked. This7 it is ar63ed7 co3ld beevidence that co3ld be 6iven as art of the res 6estae.

(#:

(s a 6eneral r3le7 Sa witness can testify only to the facts he knows of his ersonalknowled6eC that is7 which are derived from his own ercetion7 L L L.S (ll otherkinds of testimony are hearsay and are inadmissible as evidence. The '3les of o3rt7 however7 rovide several eLcetions to the 6eneral r3le7 and one of which iswhen the evidence is art of res 6estae7 th3s@

&ection 42. 8art of res 6estae. , &tatements made by a erson while a startin6occ3rrence is takin6 lace or immediately rior or s3bse;3ent thereto with resectto the circ3mstances thereof7 may be 6iven in evidence as art of res 6estae. &o7also7 statements accomanyin6 an e;3ivocal act material to the iss3e7 and 6ivin6it a le6al si6niDcance7 may be received as art of the res 6estae.

$n 8eole v. 'odri6o &alafranca7 this co3rt has revio3sly disc3ssed theadmissibility of testimony taken as art of res 6estae7 statin6 that@

( declaration or an 3tterance is deemed as art of the res 6estae and th3sadmissible in evidence as an eLcetion to the hearsay r3le when the followin6re;3isites conc3r7 to wit@ +a- the rincial act7 the res 6estae7 is a startlin6occ3rrenceC +b- the statements are made before the declarant had time to contriveor deviseC and +c- the statements m3st concern the occ3rrence in ;3estion and itsimmediately attendin6 circ3mstances.

L L L L

The r3le on res 6estae encomasses the eLclamations and statements made byeither the articiants7 victims7 or sectators to a crime immediately before7d3rin67 or immediately after the commission of the crime when the circ3mstancesare s3ch that the statements were made as a sontaneo3s reaction or 3tteranceinsired by the eLcitement of the occasion and there was no oort3nity for the


38/83

declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement. The test of admissibilityof evidence as a art of the res 6estae is7 therefore7 whether the act7 declaration7or eLclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with the rincial fact orevent that it characteries as to be re6arded as a art of the transaction itself7 andalso whether it clearly ne6atives any remeditation or 3rose to man3fact3retestimony.

There is no do3bt that a s3dden attack on a 6ro3 eacef3lly eatin6 l3nch on a

school cam3s is a startlin6 occ3rrence. onsiderin6 that the statements of thebystanders were made immediately after the startlin6 occ3rrence7 they are7 in fact7admissible as evidence 6iven in res 6estae.

$n 8eole v. (lbarido7 however7 this co3rt has stated that Sin accord to ordinaryh3man eLerience@S

L L L ersons who witness an event erceive the same from their resective ointsof reference. Therefore7 almost always7 they have di5erent acco3nts of how ithaened. ertainly7 we cannot eLect the testimony of witnesses to a crime to beconsistent in all asects beca3se di5erent ersons have di5erent imressions and

recollections of the same incident. L L L

The statements made by the bystanders7 altho36h admissible7 have littleers3asive val3e since the bystanders co3ld have seen the events transirin6 atdi5erent vanta6e oints and at di5erent oints in time. "ven Frisco ailo7 one of the bystanders at the time of the attack7 testiDed that the attackers had theirmasks on at Drst7 b3t later on7 some remained masked and some were 3nmasked.

Hhen the bystandersU testimonies are wei6hed a6ainst those of the victims whowitnessed the entirety of the incident from be6innin6 to end at close ran6e7 theformer become merely corroborative of the fact that an attack occ3rred. Theiracco3nt of the incident7 therefore7 m3st be 6iven considerably less wei6ht thanthat of the victims.

Ar6#"t:

$t is ar63ed that the fact that the victims stayed silent abo3t the incident to the%.8. 8olice or the V3eon ity 8olice b3t instead eLec3ted aKdavits with theNational E3rea3 of $nvesti6ation fo3r +4- days after the incident 6ives do3bt as tothe credibility of their testimonies.

%.8. 8olice OKcer 'omeo abrera testiDed that on their way to the %.8. $nDrmary7he interviewed the victims who all told him they co3ld not reco6nie the attackersbeca3se they were all wearin6 masks. Meanwhile7 #r. Mislan6 testiDed to the e5ectthat when she asked Natalicio who attacked them7 Natalicio answered that he didnot know beca3se they were masked.

(#:

Their act of not disclosin6 the correct information to the %.8. 8olice or to #r. Mislan6does not make the olice oKcer or the doctorUs testimonies more credible thanthat of the victims. $t sho3ld not be for6otten that the victims act3ally witnessedthe entire incident7 while OKcer &alvador7 OKcer abrera7 and #r. Mislan6 weremerely relayin6 secondhand information.

The fact that they went to the National E3rea3 of $nvesti6ation fo3r +4- days afterthe incident also does not a5ect their credibility since most of them had beenhositalied from their inA3ries and needed to recover Drst.

&ince a fraternity moves as one 3nit7 it wo3ld be 3nderstandable that they decidedto wait 3ntil all of them were well eno36h to 6o to the National E3rea3 of $nvesti6ation head;3arters in order to 6ive their statements.


39/83

CI)IL PROCED*RE

MURY VS. Y,

G.R. NO. 187557, NOVEMBER 12, 201

FACTS:

M3rhy is one of the heirs of decedent (lcoran7 a co,owner of the s3bAect roerty.M3rhy averred that a sale and donation of the ortions of the s3bAect roertywere cons3mmated by her co,heirs witho3t her knowled6eC that she was neitherinformed by her co,heirs of the said sale nor was 6iven the chance to eLercise herre,emtive ri6htC that the sale and the donation of the s3bAect roerty wereeLec3ted witho3t a deed of artition and her co,owners merely arro6ated intothemselves their resective ortions witho3t her consent.8etitioner rayed that she be allowed to eLercise her ri6ht of redemtion over theortions of the s3bAect roerty conveyed to third ersons and that the s3bAectroerty be artitioned and raZed amon6 the heirs.

The comlaint was dismissed mot3 rorio for lack of A3risdiction. The 'T r3ledthat etitioner failed to alle6e the val3e of the s3bAect roerty and to attach thetaL declaration evidencin6 the assessed val3e of the lot.

ISS*E: Hhether or not the etitionerQs action fall within the A3risdiction of the 'T.

R*LING:

The etition is witho3t merit.


40/83

&evero Easbas was married to (na 'ivera. &evero . . . died on 7 herein etitioners eirs of /alentin Easbas discovered that

resondents risiniano and 'icardo Easbas were able to sec3re for themselves Transfer ertiDcate of Title No. T,29429> over )ot No. 9 of the &anta 'osa

#etached "state. &ometime in 19!7 resondents7 thro36h risiniano Easbas7

Dled a 8etition for 'econstit3tion of Title before the 'e6ional Trial o3rt7 EiJan7

)a63na7 docketed as )' ase No. E,!>7 coverin6 )ot No. 9 of the &anta 'osa

#etached "state.

&3bse;3ently thereafter7 or on


41/83

LLL LLL LLL

(s shown7 etitioners are now the 6reat 6randchildren of the late &evero

Easbas who died in &anta 'osa7 )a63na on 7 1911.

The defendants incl3din6 herein resondent 'icardo on the other hand claim that

they are also the le6al heirs of the late &evero Easbas. &3ch a claim7 however7 was

not s3orted by any doc3ment.

(s correctly ointed o3t by etitioners that ass3min67 for the sake of ar63ment7that Nicolas Easbas7 redecessor of these defendants incl3din6 herein resondent

'icardo7 was the son of &evero Easbas7 then Nicolas Easbas m3st have been an

ille6itimate child of &evero Easbas7 in which case his Dliation sho3ld be Drst

established before he can claim to be an heir. E3t this cannot be done anymore7

simly beca3se an action for reco6nition sho3ld have been made or bro36ht d3rin6

the lifetime of the res3med arents.

The defendants incl3din6 herein resondent 'icardo are not the le6al

heirs of the late &evero Easbas. They +defendants- incl3din6herein resondent 'icardo claimed that they derived their title

and ownershi over )ot No. 9 in reresentation of Felomino

Easbas7 an alle6ed son of the late &evero EasbasC that &evero

Easbas 6ave )ot No. 9 to Nicolas EasbasC and that )ot No. 40

was also 6iven by &evero Easbas to /alentin Easbas. &3ch a

claim has no basis at all. The etitioners evidence7 seciDcally

the Friar )ands ertiDcate . . . and the ertiDcation from the

#"N' . . . show that /alentin Easbas ac;3ired )ot No. 40 of the

&anta 'osa #etached "state by 3rchase from the 6overnment

way back on (ril 17 1917 contrary to the alle6ations of thedefendants incl3din6 herein resondent 'icardo that the same

was 6iven by &evero Easbas to /alentin Easbas as the latterUs

share in the inheritance. 10

risiniano and resondent 'icardo miserably fail to establish the stat3s of their

ascendant and 3rorted redecessor,in,interest7 Nicolas. $n fact7 the testimony of

resondent 'icardo tells abo3t the stat3s of /alentin7 not abo3t NicolasU stat3s7 as

a com3lsory heir of &evero.

$n all7 /alentinUs lon6,ossessed stat3s as a le6itimate child and th3s7 heir of &evero7 need no lon6er be the s3bAect of a secial roceedin6 for declaration of

heirshi as envisioned by the o3rt of (eals. There is no need to re,declare his

stat3s as an heir of &evero.

(nd7 contraosed to the fact that /alentinUs stat3s as a le6itimate child of &evero is

already established7 NicolasU stat3s as a 3rorted heir of &evero can no lon6er be

established7 NicolasU ri6ht thereto eLirin6 3on his death.

Gar!"9, th#r# !s "$ r#t#"s!$" 4r$ r#s$"#"tHs #" that N!c$as 8as

$r" $4 a .a! arr!a#, $"9 that h# !s S#.#r$Hs s$"% N$"#th##ss, #.#"!4 r#s

Date post:	07-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	georgina616
View:	231 times
Download:	0 times

Remedial Law Case Digest 2014 2015

Documents