Case Digest: People of the Philippines vs. Hon. Ruben Ayson and Felipe Ramos

07 July 1989                   

G.R. No. 85215

 

Ponente: Narvasa, J.

FACTS:

Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines, assigned at its Baguio City station.  The PAL manager sent him a letter regarding his involvement on the irregularities of the sales of plane tickets, wherein an investigation is to be made on 09 February 1986.  The day before the said investigation, Ramos sent a handwritten note to his superiors stating that he is willing to settle the said irregularities of approximately Php76,000.00.

In the said investigation done by the PAL Baguio Branch Manager, Edgardo Cruz in the presence of Station Agent Antonio Ocampo, Ticket Freight Clerk Rodolfo Quitasol, and PALEA Shop Steward Cristeta Domingo, Ramos agreed that his answers be taken down in writing.  Two months later, Ramos was charged with estafa allegedly committed from March 12, 1986 to January 29, 1987 to which Ramos entered a plea of “Not Guilty.”

The private prosecutors raised that the statements of Felipe Ramos taken on the investigation of 09 February 1986, together with his handwritten note, were confessions to the crime that the latter was being accused of.  The trial court judge dismissed the use of the said evidences since it does not appear that the accused was reminded of his constitutional rights to remain silent, and to have counsel, and that when he waived the same and gave his statement, it was with the assistance actually of a counsel.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Ramos was denied of his rights “not to be compelled to be a witness against himself” and “to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right.”

HELD:

The first right, against self-incrimination, mentioned in Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, is accorded to every person who gives evidence, whether voluntarily or under compulsion of subpoena, in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding. The right is NOT to "be compelled to be a witness against himself"

The precept set out in that first sentence has a settled meaning.  It prescribes an "option of refusal to answer incriminating questions and not a prohibition of inquiry." It simply secures to a witness, whether he be a party or not, the right to refuse to answer any particular incriminatory question, i.e., one the answer to which has a tendency to incriminate him for some crime. However, the right can be claimed only when the specific question, incriminatory in character, is actually put to the witness. It cannot be claimed at any other time. It does not give a witness the right to disregard a subpoena, to decline to appear before the court at the time appointed, or to refuse to testify altogether. The witness receiving a subpoena must obey it, appear as required, take the stand, be sworn and answer questions. It is only when a particular question is addressed to him, the answer to which may incriminate him for some offense that he may refuse to answer on the strength of the constitutional guaranty.

It should be noted that the following are the rights of a suspect in a crime:

·          BEFORE THE CASE IS FILED IN COURT (or with the public prosecutor, for preliminary investigation), but after having been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his liberty in some significant way, and on being interrogated by the police: the continuing right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed thereof, not to be subjected to force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiates the free will; and to have evidence obtained in violation of these rights rejected; and

·          AFTER THE CASE IS FILED IN COURT —

•     to refuse to be a witness;
•     not to have any prejudice whatsoever result to him by such refusal;
•     to testify in his own behalf, subject to cross-examination by the prosecution;
•     WHILE TESTIFYING, to refuse to answer a specific question which tends to incriminate him for some crime other than that for which he is then prosecuted.

It is clear from the facts that Ramos was not in any sense under custodial interrogation (that which is initiated by government officers under custody).  The constitutional rights of a person under custodial interrogation under Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution did not therefore come into play, were of no relevance to the inquiry. It is also clear, too, that Ramos had voluntarily answered questions posed to him on the first day of the administrative investigation, February 9, 1986 and agreed that the proceedings should be recorded, the record having thereafter been marked during the trial of the criminal action subsequently filed against him, just as it is obvious that the note that he sent to his superiors on February 8, 1986, the day before the investigation, offering to compromise his liability in the alleged irregularities, was a free and even spontaneous act on his part. They may not be excluded on the ground that the so-called "Miranda rights" had not been accorded to Ramos.

Respondent judge misapprehended the nature and import of the disparate rights set forth in the Constitution.  His Orders were thus rendered with grave abuse of discretion.  They should hereby be annulled and set aside. 

Case Notes:

·          The right against self-incrimination is not self- executing or automatically operational. It must be claimed. 

·          The objective of the Miranda Rights is to prohibit "incommunicado interrogation of individuals in a police-dominated atmosphere, resulting in self-incriminating statement without full warnings of constitutional rights." 

Case Digest: Oposa v. Factoran, Jr.

G.R. No. 101083                                                July 30, 1993

En Banc

PONENTE:  Davide, Jr., J

FACTS:

The petitioners, all minors duly represented and joined by their respective parents, filed a petition to cancel all existing timber license agreements (TLAs) in the country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements.  This case is filed not only on the appellants’ right as taxpayers, but they are also suing in behalf of succeeding generations based on the concept of “intergenerational responsibility” in so far as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned.

Together with the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), the petitioners presented scientific evidence that deforestation have resulted in a host of environmental tragedies.  One of these is the reduction of the earth’s capacity to process carbon dioxide, otherwise known as the “greenhouse effect”. 

Continued issuance by the defendant of TLAs to cut and deforest the remaining forest stands will work great damage and irreparable injury to the plaintiffs.  Appellants have exhausted all administrative remedies with the defendant’s office regarding the plea to cancel the said TLAs.  The defendant, however, fails and refuses to cancel existing TLAs.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the petitioners have legal standing on the said case
2. Admitting that all facts presented are true, whether or not the court can render a valid judgement in accordance to the prayer of the complaints
3.  Whether or not the TLAs may be revoked despite the respondents standing that these cancellation of these TLAs are against the non-impairment clause of the Constitution

HELD:

1. The petitioners have locus standi (legal standing) on the case as a taxpayers’ (class) suit.  The subject matter of complaint is of common and general interest to all the citizens of the Philippines.  The court found difficulty in ruling that the appellants can, for themselves, and for others file a class suit.
2. The right of the petitioners to a balanced and healthful ecology has been clearly stated.  A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the correlative duty or obligation to respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause of action.  The granting of the TLAs, as the petitioners claim to be done with grave abuse of discretion, violated their right to a balanced and healthful ecology hence, the full protection thereof requires that no TLAs should be renewed or granted. The appellants have also submitted a document with the sub-header CAUSE OF ACTION which is adequate enough to show, prima facie, the violation of their rights.  On this basis, these actions must therefore be granted, wholly or partially.
3. Despite the Constitution’s non-impairment clause, TLAs are not contracts, rather licenses; thus, the said clause cannot be invoked.  Even if these are protected by the said clause, these can be revoked if the public interest so required as stated in Section 20 of the Forestry Reform Code (P.D. No. 705).  Furthermore, Section 16 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides that: “The State shall protect the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.”  The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the government.  The said right is also clear as the DENR’s duty – under its mandate and by virtue of its powers and functions under Executive Order No. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 to protect and advance the said right.

Needless to say, all licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded.  It is not a contract, property or property right protected by the due process clause of the Constitution.

Case Doctrines: Police Power, Eminent Domain and Taxation

Ichong vs. Hernandez

The treaty is always subject to qualification or amendment by a subsequent law, and the same may never curtail or restrict the scope of the police power of the State.

Lutz vs. Araneta

The tax levied by the challenged statute is for a regulatory purpose, namely, to provide ways and means for the rehabilitation and stabilization of the sugar industry. x x x The law is thus primarily an exercise of the police power of the state and taxation was merely used to implement the state’s power.

Department of Education vs. San Diego

The State has the responsibility to harness its human resources and to see to it that they are not dissipated or, no less worse, not used at all.

Republic of the Philippines vs. La Orden de  PP. Benedictinos de Filipinas

Whether or not the purpose of the taking is necessary is a question of fact dependent only upon the facts of which the trial court very liberally took judicial notice but also other facts that do not appear of record and must, therefore, be established by means of evidence.

City of Manila vs. Chinese Community

Whether or not the municipal corporation or entity is exercising the right in a particular case under the conditions imposed by the general authority, is a question which the courts have the right to inquire into.

Republic of the Philippines vs. PLDT

Normally, the power of eminent domain results in taking or appropriation of title to, and possession of, the expropriated party; but no cogent reason appears why said power may not be availed of to impose only a burden upon the owner of the condemned property, without loss of title and possession. x x x the state may, in the interest of national welfare, transfer utilities to public ownership upon payment of just compensation, there is no reason why a state may not require a public utility to render services in the general interest, provided just compensation is paid therefor.

National Housing Authority vs. Reyes

Although in an expropriation proceeding the court technically would still have the power to determine the just compensation for the property, following the applicable decrees, its task would be relegated to simply stating the lower value of the property as declared either by the owner or the assessor.

It is violative of due process to deny the owner the opportunity to prove that the valuation in the tax documents is unfair or wrong.  And it is repulsive to the basic concepts of justice and fairness to allow the haphazard work of a minor bureaucrat or clerk to absolutely prevail over the judgement of a court promulgated only after expert commissioners have actually viewed the property, after evidence and arguments pro and con have been presented, and after all factors and considerations essential to a fair and just determination have been judiciously evaluated.

Association of Small Land Owners vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform

It cannot be denied from these cases that the traditional medium for the payment of just compensation is money and no other. x x x This is not an ordinary expropriation where only a specific property of relatively limited area is sought to be taken by the State from its owner for a specific and perhaps local purpose.  what we deal here is a revolutionary kind of expropriation. x x x Considering the vast areas of land subject to expropriation under the laws before us, we estimate that hundreds of billions of pesos will be needed, far more indeed than the amount of P50 billion initially appropriated, which is already staggering as it is by our present standards.  Such amount is in fact not even fully available in cash at this time. x x x

Republic vs. Lim

In cases where the government failed to pay the compensation within five years from the finality of the judgement in the expropriation proceedings, the owner concerned shall have the right to recover possession of their property.  This is in connection with the principle that ‘the government cannot keep the property and dishonour the judgement.’

Lladoc vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

The exemption in Sec. 22(3) of Article VI of the Constitution is only from the payment of taxes assessed on such properties enumerated as property taxes as distinguished from excise taxes. x x x Manifestly, a gift tax is not within the exemption provisions.

Yu Cong Eng vs. Trinidad

It would be oppressive and arbitrary to prohibit all Chinese merchants from maintaining a set of books in the Chinese language, and in the Chinese characters and thus prevent them from keeping advised of the status of their business and directing conduct.

Case Digest: Restituto Ynot vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et. al.

G.R. No. 74457      20 March 1987

Ponente: Cruz, J.

FACTS:

The petitioner had transported six carabaos in a pump boat from Masbate to Iloilo in January 1984, when they were confiscated by the police station commander for violation of E.O. No. 626-A which prohibits the interprovincial movement of carabaos and the slaughtering of carabaos not complying with the requirements of E.O. No. 626 (except when the carabo is seven years old if male, and eleven years old if female).  The penalty is confiscation of the carabaos and/or the carabeef.

ISSUE:

Whether E.O. No. 626-A is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the outright confiscation of carabao and carabeef being transported across provincial boundaries, thus denying due process.

RULING:

The due process clause was kept intentionally vague so it would remain so conveniently resilient for due process is not an “iron rule.”  Flexibility must be the best virtue of guaranty.  The minimum requirements of due process are notice and hearing which, generally speaking, may not be dispensed with because they are intended as a safeguard against official arbitrariness.

It is noted that E.O. No. 626-A imposes an absolute ban not on the slaughter of the carabaos but on their movement.  The reasonable connection between the means employed and the purpose sought to be achieved by the question of measure is missing.  Even if there was a reasonable relation, the penalty being an outright confiscation and a supersedeas bond of Php12,000.00.  The executive order defined the prohibition, convicted the petitioner and immediately imposed punishment, thus denying the centuries-old guaranty of elementary fair play.

To sum up, it was found that the challenged measure is an invalid exercise of the police power because the method employed to conserve the carabaos is not reasonably necessary to the purpose of the law and is unduly oppressive.  Due process is violated for the owner was denied the right to hear his defense and was not seen fit to assert and protect his rights.  Executive Order No. 626-A is hereby declared unconstitutional, and the superseceas bond is cancelled.

Case Digest: Romulo L. Neri vs. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, et. al.

G.R. No. 180643                25 March 2008

FACTS:

On April 21, 2007, the DOTC entered into a contract with ZTE for the supply of equipment and services for the NBN Project in the amount of nearly Php6B and was to be financed by the Republic of China.  Several Resolutions regarding the investigation and implications on national security and government-xto-government contracts regarding the NBN Project were introduced in Senate.  Respondent Committees initiated the investigation by sending invitations to certain personalities and cabinet officials involved in the NBN Project. Petitioner was summoned to appear and he testified to the Committees for eleven (11) hours, but refused to answer three important questions, invoking his right to executive privilege. For failing to appear in the other days that he was summoned, Neri was held in contempt.

ISSUES:

1. Whether Neri can invoke executive privilege;
2. Whether the invocation of executive privilege violate Sec. 28, Art. II and Sec. 7, Art. III; and
3. Whether the Committees gravely abused their discretion by holding Neri in contempt.

RULING:

1. The communications elicited by the three questions are covered by executive privilege.  Despite the revocation of E.O. 464, there is a recognized claim of executive privilege.  The privilege is said to be a necessary guarantee of presidential advisors to provide “the President and those who assist him with freedom to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately.”  Furthermore, the claim was properly invoked by the letter provided by Executive Secretary Ermita stating the precise and certain reason that the said information may impair the country’s diplomatic as well as economic relations with the Republic of China.
2. The petitioner was able to appear in at least one of the days where he was summoned and expressly manifested his willingness to answer more questions from the Senators, with the exception only of those covered by his claim of executive privilege.  The right to public information and full public disclosure of transactions, like any other right, is subject to limitation.  These include those that are classified by the body of jurisprudence as highly confidential.  The information subject to this case belongs to such kind. 
3. The Committees violated Sec. 21, Art. VI of the Constitution for having failed to publish its Rules of Procedure.  Inquiries are required to be in accordance with the “duly published rules of procedure.”  Without these, the aid of legislation are procedurally infirm.