Tañada v Tuvera Digest 1985 

G.R. No. L-63915 April 24, 1985

LORENZO M. TAÑADA, ABRAHAM F. SARMIENTO, and MOVEMENT OF ATTORNEYS FOR BROTHERHOOD, INTEGRITY AND NATIONALISM, INC. [MABINI], petitioners,
vs.

HON. JUAN C. TUVERA, in his capacity as Executive Assistant to the President, HON. JOAQUIN VENUS, in his capacity as Deputy Executive Assistant to the President , MELQUIADES P. DE LA CRUZ, in his capacity as Director, Malacañang Records Office, and FLORENDO S. PABLO, in his capacity as Director, Bureau of Printing, respondents.

ESCOLIN, J.:

Facts of the Case: 

           Invoking the people’s right recognized in Section 6, Article IV of the 1973 Philippine Constitution, which States “The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and paper pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, shall be afforded the citizens subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.”, petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondent public officials to publish in the Official Gazette the Presidential Decrees, Letter of Instructions, General Orders, Executive Orders, Letters of Implementation and Administrative Orders.

         However, respondents would like to have the case dismissed outright on the ground that petitioners have no legal personality to bring the instant petition, they being not the aggrieved parties defined in Section 3, Rule 65, furthermore, the respondents contend that publication in the Official Gazette is not a sine qua non requirement for the effectivity of laws where the laws provide for their own effectivity.

Issues: 1. Whether or not petitioners have the legal personality to bring the instant petition.

            2. Whether or not the public officials are obliged to publish in the Official Gazette any law or statute before it becomes valid and binding.

Held: 

           1. Yes. When the question is one of public right and the object of the mandamus is of public duty, the relator need not show special interest.

          2. Yes. Laws or statute can only be effective and binding when it is published in the Official Gazette. Respondents contention is logically correct only insofar as it equates the effectivity but not with the fact of publication in accordance with Section 1 of Commonwealth Act 638.

Pesigan v Angeles Digest 1984

G.R. No. L-64279 April 30, 1984

ANSELMO L. PESIGAN and MARCELINO L. PESIGAN, petitioners,
vs.
JUDGE DOMINGO MEDINA ANGELES, Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City Branch 129, acting for REGIONAL TRIAL COURT of Camarines Norte, now presided over by JUDGE NICANOR ORIÑO, Daet Branch 40; DRA. BELLA S. MIRANDA, ARNULFO V. ZENAROSA, ET AL., respondents.

Quiazon, De Guzman Makalintal and Barot for petitioners.

The Solicitor General for respondents.

AQUINO, J.:

Facts of the Case: 

         Anselmo L. Pesigan and Marcelo L. Pesigan, carabao dealers, transported in an Isuzu ten-wheeler truck in the evening of April 2, 1982 twenty-six carabaos and a calf from Sipocot, Camarines Sur with Padre Garcia, Batangas as the destination.

       The carabaos were confiscated by Lieutenant Arnulfo V. Zenarosa, the town’s police station commander, and by Doctor Bella S. Miranda, provincial veterinarian, in spite of the permit and certificates to transport. Doctor Miranda, thereafter, distributed the carabaos among twenty-five farmers of Basud Camarines Norte – where said carabaos were confiscated, and to a farmer from Vinzons municipal nursery.

           Judge Domingo Medina Angeles, who heard the case filed by the Pesigans against Zenarosa and Miranda, dismissed the case for lack of cause of action. The cause of confiscation was based on Executive Order No. 628-A.

Issue: Whether or not Executive Order 626-A is effective prior to its publication in the Official Gazette.

Held: 

          No, Executive Order 626-A cannot be enforced at the time the carabaos and calf were confiscated, April 2, 1982 more than two months prior to the publication of the said E.O on the Official Gazette --- June 14, 1982.

        Executive Order 626-A is a penal regulation. Justice and fairness dictate that the public must be informed of that provision by means of publication in the Gazette before violators can be bound.

US v. Pablo Digest 1916

G.R. No. L-11676           October 17, 1916

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ANDRES PABLO, defendant-appellant.

Alfonso E. Mendoza for appellant.
Attorney-General Avanceña for appellee.

Facts of the Case:

           A policeman named Andres Pablo of the municipality of Balanga went to the barrio of Tuyo to raid a jueteng game. Upon arrival, he recover a tambiolo and 37 bolas. The said officer also saw Maximo Malicsi and Antonio Rodrigo about to leave the place however, only Francisco Dato was arrested.

     Pablo testified under oath that when he and his companion Tomas de Leon arrived he only saw Francisco Dato in place, leading to the acquittal of Malicsi and Rodrigo and sentencing only Dato.

        However, upon the provincial fiscal’s investigation, it was found out that Pablo had a conference with accused Malicsi and Rodrigo and agreed that he would exclude the involvement of the two in the case in exchange of a bribe of fifteen pesos.

          By reason of the foregoing, provincial fiscal, filed in the Court of First Instance of Bataan charging Andres Pablo with the crime of perjury, under the provisions of section 3 of Act No. 1697. However, the Act No. 1697 relating to perjury, and the repealing clause of the said Administrative Code does not say under what other penal law in force the crime of false testimony, at least, if not that of perjury, shall be punished.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent is guilty of the crime of perjury or of false testimony under art. 318 to 324 of the Revised Penal Code when the same has been deemed repealed by Act No. 1697.

Held: 

           Yes. The Article 318 to 324 of the Penal Code in which the crime of false testimony has been punished was not specifically repealed by the said Act. No. 1697. Article 318 to 324 of the Penal Code is deemed to be in force and are properly applicable to crimes of false testimony.

          Thereby sentencing Andres Pablo to the penalty of two years four months and one day of prision correccional, to pay a fine of 1,000 pesetas, and, in case of insolvency, to suffer the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment, which shall not exceed one-third of the principal penalty. He shall also pay the costs of both instances.

Pp v. Santiago Digest 1922

G.R. No. 17584             March 8, 1922

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
GREGORIO SANTIAGO, defendant-appellant.

Facts of the Case: 

    The accused, Gregorio Santiago was driving an automobile at the rate of 30 miles an hour on a highway 6 meter wide, notwithstanding the fact that he had to pass a narrow space between a wagon standing on one side of the road and a heap of stones on the other side where there were two young boys at. One of the boys named, Porforio Parondo was ran over and killed. Appellant was prosecuted for the crime of homicide by reckless negligence as a result and was sentenced to suffer one year and one day of prision correccional, and to pay the costs of the trial.

            These facts are so well established in the records that there cannot be a shade of doubt about them.

         However, the herein appellant contends that the trial court erred in not taking judicial notice of the fact that the appellant was being prosecuted in conformity with Act No. 2886 of the Philippine Legislature and that the Act is unconstitutional and gave no jurisdiction in this case.

         Act No. 2886 states, “All prosecutions for public offenses shall be in the name of the People of the Philippine Islands against the persons charged with the offense.”, while in General Order No. 58, “All prosecutions for public offenses shall be in the name of the United States against the persons charged with the offenses.”

Issue: Whether or not the General Order No. 58 can be amended by Act. No. 2886.

Held:

        Yes. General Order No. 58 can be amended. It has a statutory character rather than constitutional character. The procedure in criminal matters is not incorporated in the Constitutions of the States, but is left in the hand of the legislatures, so that it falls within the realm of public statutory law. Since the provisions of this General Order have the character of statutory law, the power of the Legislature to amend it, is self-evident.

          The sentence appealed from is affirmed.

Have you ever stalked someone before na kahit sa joined facebook niya ay umabot ka? Or even his or her very first post in his or her blog ay narating mo na?