ALFREDO M. DE LEON vs. HON. BENHAMIN B. ESGUERRA (153 SCRA 602) Case Digest

Facts:

In 1982, Alfredo M. De Leon was elected as Baranggay Captain along with the other petitioners as Barangay Councilmen of Baranggay Dolores, Taytay, Rizal. On February 9, 1987, he received a Memorandum antedated December 1, 1986, signed on February 8, 1987 by OIC Gov. Benhamin B. Esguerra designating Florentino Magno as new Barangay Captain. A separate Memorandum with the same dates was also issued by Hon. Esguerra replacing the Barangay Councilmen. De Leon along with the other petitioners filed a petition to declare the subject Memorandum null and void and prevent the respondents from taking over their positions in the Barangay. The petitioners maintained that OIC Gov. Esguerra no longer have the authority to replace them under the 1987 Constitution and that they shall serve a term of six (6) years in pursuant to Section 3 of the Barangay Election Act of 1982.

Issue:

Was the designation of the new Barangay Officials valid?

Ruling:

The effectivity of the Memorandum should be based on the date when it was signed, February 8, 1987. By that time, the 1987 Constitution was already in effect, thus superseding all previous constitution as provided in Section 27 of its Transitory Provisions. Respondent OIC Governor could no longer rely on Section 2, Article III of the Provisional Constitution to designate respondents to the elective positions occupied by petitioners.

Barangay Election Act of 1982 should still govern since it is not inconsistent with the 1987 Constitution.

Wherefore, the designation by the OIC Governor of new Barangay Officials was declared NO LEGAL FORCE AND EFFECT and the Writ for Prohibition is GRANTED enjoining respondents perpetually from ouster/take-over of petitioners’ position subject of this petition.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANDRE MARTI (193 SCRA 57) Case Digest

Facts:

On August 14, 1987, the appellant and his common-law wife, Shirley Reyes went to Manila Packaging and Export Forwarders to send packages to Zurich, Switzerland. It was received by Anita Reyes and ask if she could inspect the packages. Shirley refused and eventually convinced Anita to seal the package making it ready for shipment. Before being sent out for delivery, Job Reyes, husband of Anita and proprietor of the courier company, conducted an inspection of the package as part of standard operating procedures. Upon opening the package, he noticed a suspicious odor which made him took sample of the substance he found inside. He reported this to the NBI and invited agents to his office to inspect the package. In the presence of the NBI agents, Job Reyes opened the suspicious package and found dried-marijuana leaves inside. A case was filed against Andre Marti in violation of R.A. 6425 and was found guilty by the court a quo. Andre filed an appeal in the Supreme Court claiming that his constitutional right of privacy was violated and that the evidence acquired from his package was inadmissible as evidence against him.

Issue:

Can the Constitutional Right of Privacy be enforced against private individuals?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court held based on the speech of Commissioner Bernas that the Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the state.

The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures therefore applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. It is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals. It will be recalled that Mr Job Reyes was the one who opened the box in the presence of the NBI agents in his place of business. The mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the reasonable search effected by Mr. Reyes into a warrantless search and siezure proscribed by the constitution. Merely to observe and look at that which is in plain sight is not a search.

The judgement of conviction finding appeallant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged was AFFIRMED.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. GREGORIO PERFECTO (43 Phil 887) Case Digest

Facts:

On September 7, 1920, Mr. Gregorio Perfecto published an article in the newspaper La Nacion regarding the disappearance of certain documents in the Office of Fernando M. Guerrero, the Secretary of the Philippine Senate. The article of Mr. Perfecto suggested that the difficulty in finding the perpetrators was due to an official concealment by the Senate since the missing documents constituted the records of testimony given by witnesses in the investigation of oil companies. This resulted to a case being filed against Mr. Perfecto for violation of Article 256 of the Penal Code. He was found guilty by the Municipal Trial Court and again in the Court of First Instance of Manila. Mr. Perfecto filed an appeal in the Supreme Court to dismiss the case on the ground that Article 256 was not in force anymore.

Issue:

Will a law be abrogated by the change of Spanish to American Sovereignty over the Philippines?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court held that Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code was enacted by the Government of Spain to protect Spanish officials who were representative of the King. With the change of sovereignty, a new government, and a new theory of government, was set up in the Philippines. It was no sense a continuation of the old laws. No longer is there a Minister of the Crown or a person in authority of such exalted position that the citizen must speak of him only in bated breath.

The crime of lese majeste disappeared in the Philippines with the ratification of the Treaty of Paris. Ministers of the Crown have no place under the American flag.

Judgement is REVERED and the defendant and appellant ACQUITTED.