People vs.

Burgos

G.R. No. L-68955 September 4, 1986

Facts: Defendant is charged with illegal possession of firearm in furtherance of

subversion (tasks such as recruiting members to the NPA and collection of
contributions from its members) and found guilty by the RTC of Digos, Davao del Sur.
From the information filed by the police authorities upon the information given by
Masamlok, allegedly a man defendant tried to recruit into the NPA, the police
authorities arrest defendant and had his house searched. Subsequently, certain
NPA-related documents and a firearm, allegedly issued and used by one Alias Cmdr.
Pol of the NPA, are confiscated.

Issue: If defendant’s arrest, the search of his home, and the subsequent confiscation
of a firearm and several NPA-related documents are lawful.

Held: Records disclose that when the police went to defendant’s house to arrest him
upon the information given by Masamlok, they had neither search nor arrest warrant
with them—in wanton violation of ArtIV, Sec 3 (now Art III, sec 2). As the Court held
in Villanueva vs Querubin, the state, however powerful, doesn’t have access to a
man’s home, his haven of refuge where his individuality can assert itself in his choice
of welcome and in the kind of objects he wants around him. In the traditional
formulation, a man’s house, however humble, is his castle, and thus is outlawed any
unwarranted intrusion by the government.

People v. Aminundin

G.R.No. 74869 July 6, 1988

Facts

The PC (Philippine Constabulary) officer received a tip from one of their informers
that the accused was on board a vessel bound for Iloilo City and was carrying
marijuana. He was identified by name. Acting on this tip, they waited for him in the
evening and approached him as he descended from the gangplank after the informer
pointed at him. They detained him and inspected the bag he was carrying. It was
found to contained three kilos of what were later analyzed as marijuana leaves by
the NBI forensic examiner. On the basis of the finding, the corresponding charge was
then filed against Aminnudin.
Issue:

Whether or not accused constitutional right against unreasonable

serach and seizure is violated

Ruling:

The Supreme Court Held that warrantless arrest allowed under Rule
113 of the rules of court not justified unless the accused was caught in flagrante or a
crime was about to be committed or had just been committed.

A vessels and aircraft are subject to warrantless searches and seizures for violation of
the customs law because these vehicles may be quickly moved out of the locality or
jurisdiction before the warrant can be secured.

Antiquera v. People

G.R. No. 180661 December 11, 2013

Facts:

Police officers were conducting a police visibility patrol in Pasay City when they saw
two unidentified men rush out of a house and boarded a jeep. Believing that there
was a crime, the police officers approached the house. When they peeked through
the partially opened door, they saw Antiquera and Cruz engaged in a pot session. The
police officers entered the house, introduced themselves and arrested Antiquera and
Cruz. While inspecting the vicinity, PO1 Cabutihan saw a jewellery box which
contained shabu and unused paraphernalia. The RTC found them guilty of illegal
possession of paraphernalia for dangerous drugs. The court affirmed the decision of
RTC.

Issue:

Whether or not the arrest was invalid.

Held:

Yes, there was unlawful arrest because the circumstances here do not make out a
case of arrest made in flagrante delicto. Admittedly, the police officers did not notice
anything amiss going on in the house from the street where they stood. Indeed, even
as they peeked through its partially opened door, they saw no activity that warranted
their entering it. Clearly, no crime was plainly exposed to the view of the arresting
officers that authorized the arrest of accused Antiquera without warrant under the
above-mentioned rule. Considering that his arrest was illegal, the search and seizure
that resulted from it was likewise illegal.

Renato M. David vs. Editha A. Agbay and People,

G.R. No. 199113, March 18, 2015.

FACTS:

Petitioner migrated to Canada where he became a Canadian citizen by naturalization.

Upon retirement, petitioner and his wife returned to the Philippines and purchased a
lot along the beach in Oriental Mindoro where they constructed a residential house.
However, the portion where they built their house is public land and part of the
salvage zone. An information for Falsification of Public Document was filed before
the MTC and a warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner.

Issue:

W/N parties can post bail

Decision:

The voluntary appearance of the accused, whereby the court acquires jurisdiction
over his person, is accomplished either by his pleading to the merits (such as by filing
a motion to quash or other pleadings requiring the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction
thereover, appearing for arraignment, entering trial) or by filing bail. On the matter
of bail, since the same is intended to obtain the provisional liberty of the accused, as
a rule the same cannot be posted before custody of the accused has been acquired
by the judicial authorities either by his arrest or voluntary surrender.

People vs. Glen Piad,

G.R. No. 213607, January 25, 2016

Accused-appellant Piad was charged in two (2) informations with the crimes of illegal
sale of dangerous drugs weighing 0.05 gram and illegal possession of dangerous
drugs weighing 0.06 gram. While accused-appellant Villarosa, Carbo and Davis were
charged in two (2) informations with the crimes of illegal possession of dangerous
drugs during a party weighing 0.03 gram and illegal possession of drug paraphernalia
during a party. On August 8, 2005, Piad, Villarosa and Carbo were arraigned and they
pleaded "Not Guilty." Davis, however, was not arraigned because he had jumped bail.

Issue

W/N Davis lose right to post bail

Decision

Before conviction, bail is either a matter of right or of discretion. It is a matter of right

when the offense charged is punishable by any penalty lower than death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment. If the offense charged is punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, bail becomes a matter of discretion. In case
bail is granted, the accused must appear whenever the court requires his presence;
otherwise, his bail shall be forfeited.

People vs. PO1 Cyril De Gracia,

G.R. No. 213104, July 29, 2015

Facts

De Gracia was charged with the crime of Murder, with a prescribed penalty of
reclusion perpetua. On February 22, 2012, while detained in the Manila City Jail,
accused filed a petition for bail.

Issue

w/n De Gracia can post bail

Decision

Under Section 13, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, those charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, are not entitled to
bail before conviction. A reading of the provision reveals that bail shall only be
denied when the evidence of guilt for the offense punishable by reclusion perpetua
is strong. Necessarily, in all other instances, bail must be granted before the
conviction of the accused. The right to bail flows from the presumption of innocence
in favor of every accused who should not be subjected to the loss of freedom as
thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal, unless his guilt be proved beyond
reasonable doubt.16 Evidently, despite being charged with a non-bailable offense, an
accused can still possibly acquire bail.

People vs. Dramayo,

42 SCRA 60

Facts

The lower court found Pableo Dramayo and Paterno Ecubin, guilty beyond
reasonable doubt, of the crime of murder, qualified by the circumstance of evident
premeditation as aggravated by night time, and imposes upon each of the said
accused the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The other accused were not convicted as,
two of them, Crescencio Savandal and Severo Savandal being utilized as state
witnesses, and the other three, Priolo Billona, Francisco Billona and Modesto
Ronquilla acquitted. Dramayo and Ecubin appealed.

Issue:

Whether Dramayo and Ecubin should be acquitted inasmuch as the other co-accused
have been acquitted due to reasonable doubt. [No]

Decision

There is no question as to the other two who testified for the state being like-vise no
longer subject to any criminal liability. The judgment of conviction should not have
occasioned any surprise on the part of Dramayo and Ecubin, as from the evidence
deserving of the fullest credence, their guilt had been more than amply
demonstrated. The presumption of innocence

Garry Inacay v. People,

G.R. No. 223506, November 28, 2016

Facts

Inacay admitted that he received the payment made by GLH, but claimed that he
remitted the same to Melinda Castro, the accounting officer of MSC. However, on
cross-examination, Inacay claimed that he previously executed an Affidavit dated
November 3, 2006, stating that he was held up by robbers and among the things
taken from him were several checks issued by the customers of MSC. On February 21,
2013, the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 80 rendered a Decision8 finding Inacay guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa.

Issue:

whether Inacay's guilt of the crime charged had been proven beyond reasonable
doubt.

Decision

In this case, Inacay, during the proceedings before the trial court and the appellate
court, was represented by Manila who, based on the Certification issued by the OBC,
is not a lawyer. At that time, Inacay had no inkling that he was being represented by a
sham lawyer. It was only when his conviction of the offense charged was upheld by
the appellate court did Inacay learn that Manila is not a lawyer. Clearly, Inacay was
not assisted by counsel in the proceedings before the lower courts and, hence, was
denied of due process.

Federico Miguel Olbes vs. Hon. Danilo A. Buemio,

G.R. No. 173319, December 4, 2009;

Facts

Samir and Rowena Muhsen filed a complaint against petitioner Frederico Miguel
Olbes. Olbes was then indicted for Grave Coercion before the MeTC of Manila,
Branch 22, by Information dated June 28, 2002. November 3, 2003/ before pre-trial:
Olbes filed a Motion to Dismiss the Information on the ground of violation of his right
to a speedy trial.

ISSUES:

W/N Olbes’s right to speedy trial is violated

Decision

The principle of speedy trial is a relative term and necessarily involves a degree of
flexibility. Thus, in spite of the prescribed time limits, jurisprudence continues to
adopt the view that the concept of speedy trial is a relative term and must
necessarily be a flexible concept and that while justice is administered with dispatch,
the essential ingredient is orderly, expeditious, and not mere speed. It cannot be
definitely said how long is too long in a system where justice is supposed to be swift,
but deliberate. It is consistent with the delays and depends upon circumstances. It
secures rights to the accused, but it does not preclude the rights of public justice
hence, a balancing test of applying societal interests and the rights of the accused
necessarily compels the court to approach speedy trial cases on an ad hoc basis.

People vs. Gines,

197 SCRA 481

Facts

Respondent court issued the now assailed Order dismissing the case as against
respondents Labo and Floresca for failure of private complainant Justice Guerrero to
appear despite the vigorous objection of the fiscal who requested that the hearing of
the case be deferred as the Fiscal's Office was then conducting a preliminary
investigation with respect to Benefredo Esquivel. The prosecution avers that when
the respondent court ordered the dismissal of the case due to the absence of private
complainant, the latter was scheduled to depart for abroad for a medical check up.
Thus, a motion for reconsideration dated October 19, 1987 asking for a
reinstatement of the case was filed by the prosecution, to which private respondents
filed their opposition. The motion was denied on February 8, 1988 hence the instant
petition.

ISSUE:

whether the right of the accused to speedy trial had been violated to entitle them to
the dismissal of the case.

Decision:

The Court finds that said right has not been violated in the case at bar and thus holds
that the dismissal of the case as regards private respondents Labo and Floresca is
premature and erroneous.1âwphi1 "The right of an accused to a speedy trial is
guaranteed to him by the Constitution but the same shall not be utilized to deprive
the State of a reasonable opportunity of fairly indicting criminals. It secures rights to
a defendant but it does not preclude the rights of public justice." The Court is
convinced that private complainant's absences at the hearings of the case were in
good faith and that he had justifiable and meritorious reasons therefor.

CommoLamberto (Ret.) v. Sandiganbayan and People,

G.R. Nos. 221562-69, October 5, 2016

Petitioner and his co-accused were charged for allegedly giving unwarranted benefit
to several pharmaceutical companies, certifying the existence of an emergency, and
approving the emergency purchase of overpriced medicines without the proper
bidding. It was determined that no emergency existed and the overpriced items
bought were only kept in stock and were, essentially, over-the-counter drugs.

More particularly, petitioner's participation is limited to his issuance of the

Certificates of Emergency Purchase3 that do not indicate the actual condition
obtaining at the time of the purchase to justify the emergency purchase.

Issue

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying

petitioner's Motion to Quash, anchored on the alleged violation of petitioner's right
to speedy disposition of cases.

Decision

The petition is meritorious.

There is grave abuse of discretion when an act of a court or tribunal is whimsical,

arbitrary, or capricious as to amount to an "an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual
refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law,
such as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason
of passion or hostility." Grave abuse of discretion was found in cases where a lower
court or tribunal violates or contravenes the Constitution, the law, or existing
jurisprudence.

Garcia vs. Domingo,

52 SCRA 143

Facts:

For the convenience of the parties the trial was held in the air conditioned chamber
of the respondent judge Garcia. The complaint was under the premise that such act
is in violation of the right to hold a public trial.

Issue:
Whether or not such proceeding of holding trial in the chamber of the judge in
violation to the principle of right to a public trial.

Held:

It is not in violation of the right to a public trial since the trial was still open to public
and there is no showing that the public was deprived to witness the trial proceeding.