Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Pascual
259 SCRA 604
Facts: Sometime in February, 1993, a certain Ceferino Tigas wrote a
letter, addressed to Hon. Reynaldo Suarez of the Office of the Court
Administrator of the Supreme Court, charging that irregularities and
corruption were being committed by the respondent Presiding Judge
of the Municipal Trial Court of Angat, Bulacan.
On March 10, 1993, the letter was referred to the National Bureau of
Investigation in order that an investigation on the alleged illegal and
corrupt practices of the respondent may be conducted. Ordered to
conduct a discreet investigation by the then NBI Director Epimaco
Velasco were: SA Edward Villarta, team leader, SI Reynaldo Olazo,
HA Teofilo Galang, SI Florino Javier and SI Jose Icasiano. They
proceeded to Angat, Bulacan, in order to look for Ceferino Tigas, the
letter writer. Tigas, the NBI team realized was a fictitious character.
In view of their failure to find Tigas, they proceeded to the residence
of Candido Cruz, an accused in respondents sala.
In his affidavit executed on March 23, 1993 before SA Edward
Villarta, Cruz declared that he was the accused in Criminal Case No.
2154, charged with the crime of Frustrated Murder. Respondent
judge, after conducting the preliminary investigation of the case,
decided that the crime he committed was only physical injuries and
so, respondent judge assumed jurisdiction over the case. Cruz
believed that he was made to understand by the respondent that, in
view of his favorable action, Cruz was to give to respondent the sum
of P2,000.00. Respondent judge is believed to be a drunkard and, in
all probability, would need money to serve his vice.
In view of this statement, the NBI agents assigned to the case caused
respondent judge to be entrapped, for which reason, the judge was
thought to have been caught in flagrante delicto. NBI agents Villarta
and Olazo filed the following report:
FACTS:
Lumiqued was the Regional Director of DAR-CAR. He was charged by Zamudio,
the Regional Cashier, for dishonestydue to questionable gas expenses under his
office. It was alleged that he was falsifying gas receipts forreimbursements and
indispensable. The legal profession was not engrafted in the dueprocess clause
complained that she was unjustly removed by Lumiqued two weeks after she
such that without the participation of its members, the safeguard is deemed
filed the twocomplaints. The issue was referred to the DOJ. Committee hearings
on the complaints were conducted on July 3and 10, 1992, but Lumiqued was
validly act at all except only with a lawyer at his side.In administrative
not assisted by counsel. On the second hearing date, he moved for its resetting
toJuly 17, 1992, to enable him to employ the services of counsel.The committee
granted the motion, but neither Lumiqued nor his counsel appeared on the
date he himself hadchosen, so the committee deemed the case submitted for
AO 52 dismissingLumiqued.
ISSUE:
Does the due process clause encompass the right to be assisted by counsel
during an administrative inquiry?
FACTS:
HELD:
The SC ruled against Lumiqued. The right to counsel, which cannot be waived
unless the waiver is in writing and inthe presence of counsel, is a right afforded
October 1990. The mass action had been staged to demand payment
right and may, thus, be invoked or rejected in a criminal proceeding and, with
Congress. On
independent counsel of his own choice. Lumiqued, however, was not accused of
taken
laws.Administrative hearings
determining if he could be held administratively liable under the law for the
Respondents,
were not given copies of the guidelines adopted by the committee for
part
October
in
the
1990,
mass
through
action
in violation of
started
counsel
Secretary
on
assailed
Carino
civil
service
December
1990.
the
legality
of
the
Magna Carta for Public School Teachers. Pending the action assailing
case,
the administrativecharges
school
the
superintendent
various
of
the
committees
against
division
as
chairman,
formed
by
private
respondents
DECS
to
did
hear
not
ISSUE:
were necessarily void. They could not provide any basis for the
to
ensure
an
impartial
tribunal.
It
was
this
HELD:
favor, and to defend ones rights; (3) a tribunal vested with competent
substantial
during the
Magna
specifically
schoolteachers.
evidence
submitted
School
for
consideration
Teachers,
which
public
FACTS:
Pursuant to the existing RP-US Extradition Treaty, the US
Government requested the extradition of Mark Jimenez. A hearing
was held to determine whether awarrant of arrest should be
issued. Afterwards, such warrant was issued but the trial court
allowed Jimenez to post bail for his provisional liberty.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not extraditee is entitled to notice and hearing
before issuance of warrant of arrest
2. Whether or not the right to bail is available in extradition
proceedings
RULING:
Held:
Five Postulates of Extradition
1.
2.
3.
parties thereto have examined, and that both accept and trust,
each others legal system and judicial process.More pointedly,
our duly authorized representatives signature on an
extradition treaty signifies our confidence in the capacity and
the willingness of the other stateto protect the basic rights of the
person sought to be extradited. That signature signifies our full
faith that the accused will be given, upon extradition to
therequesting state, all relevant and basic rights in the criminal
proceedings that will take place therein; otherwise, the treaty
would not have been signed, or wouldhave been directly
attacked for its unconstitutionality.
The Proceedings Are Sui Generis Third, as pointed out in
Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, extradition proceedings are not
criminal in nature. In criminal proceedings, the constitutional
rights of theaccused are at fore; in extradition which is sui
generis -- in a class by itself -- they are not.An extradition
proceeding is sui generis. It is not a criminal proceeding which
will call into operation all the rights of an accused as
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.To begin with, the process of
extradition does not involve the determination of the guilt or
innocence of an accused. His guilt or innocence will be adjudged
in thecourt of the state where he will be extradited. Hence, as a
rule, constitutional rights that are only relevant to determine
the guilt or innocence of an accused cannotbe invoked by an
extradite. There are other differences between an extradition
proceeding and a criminal proceeding. An extradition proceeding
is summary in nature while criminalproceedings involve a fullblown trial. In contradistinction to a criminal proceeding, the
rules of evidence in an extradition proceeding allow admission of
evidenceunder less stringent standards. In terms of the
quantum of evidence to be satisfied, a criminal case requires
proof beyond reasonable doubt for conviction while afugitive may
be ordered extradited upon showing of the existence of a prima
facie case. Finally, unlike in a criminal case where judgment
becomes executory uponbeing rendered final, in an extradition
proceeding, our courts may adjudge an individual extraditable
but the President has the final discretion to extradite him.
TheUnited States adheres to a similar practice whereby the
4.
5.
Due Process
Is an extraditee entitled to notice and hearing before the issuance of
a warrant of arrest?It is significant to note that Section 6 of PD 1069,
our Extradition Law, uses the word immediate to qualify the arrest
of the accused. This qualification would berendered nugatory by
setting for hearing the issuance of the arrest warrant. Hearing
entails sending notices to the opposing parties, receiving facts and
argumentsfrom them, and giving them time to prepare and present
such facts and arguments. Arrest subsequent to a hearing can no
longer be considered immediate. Thelaw could not have intended
the word as a mere superfluity but, on the whole, as a means of
imparting a sense of urgency and swiftness in the determination of
whether a warrant of arrest should be issued.By using the phrase if
it appears, the law further conveys that accuracy is not as
important as speed at such early stage. The trial court is not
expected to make anexhaustive determination to ferret out the true
Facts
The petition for bail was denied by reason that there was no
Philippine law granting the same in extradition cases and that the
respondent was a high flight risk. Private respondent filed a motion
for reconsideration and was granted by the respondent judge subject
to the following conditions:
Ruling
that accused hereby undertakes that he will appear and answer the
issues raised in these proceedings and will at all times hold himself
Ratio Decidendi
Petitioner alleged that the trial court committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in admitting
private respondent to bail; that there is nothing in the Constitution
or statutory law providing that a potential extraditee has a right to
government
Issue
Alcuaz v. PSBA
[GR 76353, 2 May 1988]
Facts: Sophia Alcuaz, Ma. Cecilia Alindayu, Bernadette Ang, Irna
Anonas, Ma. Remedios Baltazar, Corazon Bundoc, John Carmona,
Anna Shiela Dinoso, Rafael Encarnacion, et. al., are all bonafide
students of the Philippine School of Business Administration (PSBA)
Quezon City. As early as 22 March 1986, the students and the PSBA,
Q.C. had already agreed on certain matters which would govern their
activities within the school. In spite of the agreement, the students
felt the need to hold dialogues. Among others they demanded the
negotiation of a new agreement, which demand was turned down by
the school, resulting in mass assemblies and barricades of school
entrances. Subsequently dialogues proved futile. Finally, on 8
October 1996, the students received uniform letters from PSBA
giving them 3 days to explain why the school should not take/mete
out any administrative sanction on their direct participation and/or
conspiring with others in the commission of tumultuous and
anarchic acts on October 2, 3, and 7. On 22 October 1982, the letter
was answered by the counsel for the students in a reply letter.
During the regular enrollment period, the students were allegedly
blacklisted and denied admission for the second semester of SY
1986-1987. On 28 October 1986 the President of the Student
Council filed a complaint with the Director of the Ministry of
Education, Culture and Sports (MECS) against the PSBA for barring
the enrollment of the Student Council Officers and student leaders.
Simultaneously on the same date, the student council wrote the
President, Board of Trustees, requesting for a written statement of
the schools final decision regarding their enrollment. Another
demand letter was made by Counsel for the students Atty. Alan
Romullo Yap, also to the President, Board of Trustees, to enroll his
clients within 48 hours. All these notwithstanding, no relief appeared
Held: After the close of the first semester, the PSBA-QC no longer
has any existing contract either with the students or with the
intervening teachers. The contract having been terminated, there is
no more contract to speak of. The school cannot be compelled to
enter into another contract with said students and teachers. The
right of the school to refuse re-enrollment of students for academic
delinquency and violation of disciplinary regulations has always been
recognized by the Court, as it is sanctioned by law. Section 107 of
the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools considers academic
delinquency and violation of disciplinary regulations as valid
grounds for refusing re-enrollment of students. Due process in
disciplinary cases involving students does not entail proceedings and
hearings similar to those prescribed for actions and proceedings in
courts of justice. Such proceedings may be summary and crossexamination is not even an essential part thereof. Accordingly, the
minimum standards laid down by the Court to meet the demands of
procedural due process are:
(1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature
and cause of any accusation against them;
(2) they shall have the right to answer the charges against
them, with the assistance of counsel, if desired:
(3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them;
(4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own
behalf; and
(5) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating
committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear and
decide the case. Herein, conditions 3, 4 and 5 had not been complied
with.
The Court, however, ordered an investigation to be conducted by the
school authorities in the interest of
justice. Further, it is well settled that by reason of their special
knowledge and expertise gained from the