Warrantless search and arrest; a waiver to question an illegal arrest only affects the jurisdiction of the court over his person. It is well-settled that a waiver of an illegal, warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest.

G.R. No. 220732, September 06, 2016

ELMER G. SINDAC @ "TAMER," PETITIONER, VS. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.


"xxx.

Section 2,[23] Article III of the 1987 Constitution mandates that a search and seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause, absent which, such search and seizure becomes "unreasonable" within the meaning of said constitutional provision. To protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures, Section 3 (2),[24] Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. In other words, evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such unreasonable searches and seizures are deemed tainted and should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree.[25]

One of the recognized exceptions to the need for a warrant before a search may be affected is a search incidental to a lawful arrest. In this instance, the law requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made - the process cannot be reversed.[26]

A lawful arrest may be effected with or without a warrant. With respect to the latter, the parameters of Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure should - as a general rule - be complied with:

Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with Section 7 of Rule 112.
The aforementioned provision identifies three (3) instances when warrantless arrests may be lawfully effected. These are: (a) an arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto; (b) an arrest of a suspect where, based on personal knowledge of the arresting officer, there is probable cause that said suspect was the perpetrator of a crime which had just been committed; and (c) an arrest of a prisoner who has escaped from custody serving final judgment or temporarily confined during the pendency of his case or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.[27]

In warrantless arrests made pursuant to Section 5 (a), Rule 113, two (2) elements must concur, namely: (a) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (b) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. On the other hand, Section 5 (b), Rule 113 requires for its application that at the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact just been committed and the arresting officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the accused had committed it.[28]

In both instances, the officer's personal knowledge of the fact of the commission of an offense is essential. Under Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the officer himself witnesses the crime; while in Section 5 (b) of the same, he knows for a fact that a crime has just been committed.[29]

In this case, the Court finds that there could have been no lawful warrantless arrest made on the person of Sindac. Based on the records, the arresting officer, PO3 Peñamora, himself admitted that he was about five (5) to ten (10) meters away from Sindac and Cañon when the latter allegedly handed a plastic sachet to the former. Suspecting that the sachet contained shabu, he and PO1 Asis rushed to Sindac to arrest him. PO3 Peñamora's testimony on direct examination reveals:[30]

[Prosecutor Cherry May P. Avellano (Fiscal Avellano)]: Where did this selling of shabu take place?

[PO3 Peñamora]: At Poblacion Uno, Real, Quezon, ma'am.

[Fiscal Avellano]: How did you know that there were selling of shabu that took place at Poblacion Uno, Real, Quezon [(Poblacion Uno)]?

[PO3 Peñamora]: We followed him from Ungos to [Poblacion Uno], ma'am.

[Fiscal Avellano]: Where in particular did you proceed in [Poblacion Uno] wherein you followed him?

[PO3 Peñamora]: Along the national road, ma'am.

[Fiscal Avellano]: When you saw [Sindacl selling shabu, how far were you located to that person?

[PO3 Peñamora]: 5 to 10 meters ma'am.

[Fiscal Avellano]: When you said there was selling of shabu, what was the participation of [Sindac] in the selling?

[PO3 Peñamora]: He was the buyer, ma'am.

[Fiscal Avellano]: Who was the seller then?

[PO3 Peñamora]: Alladin Cañon alias Indong, ma'am.

[Fiscal Avellano]: What did [Cañon] do when you said he was selling shabu to [Sindac]?

[PO3 Peñamora]: He handed the shabu to [Sindac], ma'am.

[Fiscal Avellano]: And what did [Sindac] do when [Cañon] handed shabu to [Sindac]?

[PO3 Peñamora]: He took it, ma'am.

[Fiscal Avellano]: What did he do after he took the shabu?

[PO3 Peñamora]: He kept the shabu in his hand, ma'am.

[Fiscal Avellano]: After [Sindac] kept the shabu in his hand, what did you do next?

[PO3 Peñamora]: We approached them, ma'am.

x x x x

[Fiscal Avellano]: After you arrested [Sindac], what did you do next if there was any?

[PO3 Peñamora]: We searched his pocket ma'am.

[Fiscal Avellano]: Were you the one who personally searched the pocket of [Sindac]?

[PO3 Peñamora]: No ma'am, we ordered him to put out his wallet?

[Fiscal Avellano]: Did he comply with your order?

[PO3 Peñamora]: Yes ma'am.

[Fiscal Avellano]: What did he do?

[PO3 Peñamora]: He turned out his pocket and showed his wallet, ma'am.

COURT

[Presiding Judge Arnelo C. Mesa (Judge Mesa)]: What was the result of that turning over his pocket and showing his wallet?

[PO3 Peñamora]: From his wallet I saw a small plastic folded, Your Honor.

[Judge Mesa]: Upon seeing this small plastic folded inside the pocket of his wallet, what transpired next if any?

[PO3 Peñamora]: As a policeman, I suspected it as shabu so I ordered him to take out the small plastic, Your Honor.

x x x x

[Judge Mesa]: Was it containing something?

[PO3 Peñamora]: Yes, Your Honor.

[Judge Mesa]: What was the content?

[PO3 Peñamora]: Crystalline substance, Your Honor.

[Judge Mesa]: Was there a color of the crystalline substance?

[PO3 Peñamora]: Colorless, looks like a tawas, Your Honor.

[Judge Mesa]: After he took out and showed to you this folded small plastic, what transpired next?

[PO3 Peñamora]: I took it from him, Your Honor.

x x x x

[Fiscal Avellano]: After you took that plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, what did you do next if any?

x x x x

[PO3 Peñamora]: I concluded that it to be a suspected shabu and I informed him that I will bring him to the police station and we arrested him, ma'am.

[Fiscal Avellano]: After you arrested him, what did you do next?

[PO3 Peñamora]: We brought him to the Municipal Police Station, we entered the matter to the police blotter and we prepared a receipt for evidence seized, ma'am. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
Considering that PO3 Peñamora was at a considerable distance away from the alleged criminal transaction (five [5] to ten [10] meters), not to mention the atomity of the object thereof (0.04 gram of white crystalline substance[31] contained in a plastic sachet), the Court finds it highly doubtful that said arresting officer was able to reasonably ascertain that any criminal activity was afoot so as to prompt him to conduct a lawful in flagrante delicto arrest and, thereupon, a warrantless search. These similar circumstances were availing in the cases of Comerciante v. People[32] and People v. Villareal[33] where the Court likewise invalidated the in flagrante delcito arrest and ensuing warrantless search. In this relation, it should also be pointed out that no criminal overt act could be properly attributed to Sindac so as to rouse any reasonable suspicion in the mind of either PO3 Peñamora or PO1 Asis that Sindac had just committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime. Sindac's actuations of talking to and later on, receiving an unidentified object from Cañon, without more, should not be considered as ongoing criminal activity that would render proper an in flagrante delicto arrest under Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Neither has the prosecution established that the conditions set forth in Section 5 (b), Rule 113 — that is, that an offense had in fact just been committed and the arresting officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the accused had committed it - have been complied with. From the circumstances above-discussed, it is fairly suspect that PO3 Peñamora had personal knowledge that a crime had been committed by Sindac. According to jurisprudence, "the arresting officer's determination of probable cause under Section 5 (b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is based on his personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person sought to be arrested has committed the crime. These facts or circumstances pertain to actual facts or raw evidence, i.e., supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested,"[34] which, however do not obtain in this case.

Based on the foregoing, it is, in fact, quite perceivable that PO3 Peñamora and PO1 Asis had proceeded to apprehend Sindac solely on account of information retrieved from previous surveillance operations conducted on Sindac's alleged drug dealing activities. Advancing to a warrantless arrest based only on such information, absent circumstances that would lead to the arresting officer's "personal knowledge" as described in case law, unfortunately, skews from the exacting requirements of Section 5, Rule 113. It is settled that "reliable information" alone - even if it was a product of well-executed surveillance operations - is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest. It is further required that the accused performs some overt act that would indicate that he has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense,[35] which, as already discussed, is missing in the instant case.

In People v. Villareal,[36] the Court highlighted the importance of the "personal knowledge" requirement by elucidating that:[37]

To interpret "personal knowledge" as referring to a person's reputation or past criminal citations would create a dangerous precedent and unnecessarily stretch the authority and power of police officers to effect warrantless arrests based solely on knowledge of a person's previous criminal infractions, rendering nugatory the rigorous requisites laid out under Section 5[,] Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure].

Verily, warrantless arrests conducted without this indispensable requisite should be struck down as unlawful, as in this case.

This is not the first instance where the Court, despite the existence of reliable information on the part of the arresting officer, invalidated a warrantless arrest of an accused on account of such officer's lack of personal knowledge that the accused has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. In People v. Racho,[38] the Court invalidated the warrantless arrest made on the person of the accused despite a confidential agent explicitly identifying him as a drug-dealer. In that case, the Court noted that at the time of the arrest, the accused was neither committing a crime in the presence of the police officers nor acting in a suspicious manner that would engender a reasonable ground for the police officers to suspect and conclude that he was committing or intending to commit a crime. Further, the Court held that the arresting officers were not impelled by any urgency that would allow them to do away with the requisite warrant, especially considering that they received the "tipped information" a day before conducting a warrantless arrest on the accused. To the Court, the arresting officers had ample opportunity to apply for a warrant. As such, their failure to do so renders the warrantless arrest, as well as the search made incidental thereto, invalid, thus, resulting in the acquittal of therein accused.[39]

As a consequence of the Sindac's unlawful arrest, it follows that there could be no valid search incidental to a lawful arrest which had yielded the plastic sachet containing 0.04 gram of shabu from Sindac. Notably, while it is true that Sindac: (a) failed to question the legality of the warrantless arrest against him before arraignment; and (b) actively participated in the trial of the case, it must nevertheless be clarified that the foregoing constitutes a waiver ONLY as to any question concerning any defects in his arrest, AND NOT with regard to the inadmissibility of the evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest. In Homar v. People[40]:

We agree with the respondent that the petitioner did not timely object to the irregularity of his arrest before his arraignment as required by the Rules. In addition, he actively participated in the trial of the case. As a result, the petitioner is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court, thereby curing any defect in his arrest.

However, this waiver to question an illegal arrest only affects the jurisdiction of the court over his person. It is well-settled that a waiver of an illegal, warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest.

Since the shabu was seized during an illegal arrest, its inadmissibility as evidence precludes conviction and justifies the acquittal of the petitioner.[41] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
All told, since the shabu purportedly seized from Sindac constitutes inadmissible evidence in violation of Section 3 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, and given that the confiscated shabu is the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, the Court finds Sindac's conviction to be improper and therefore, acquits him.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 26, 2015 and the Resolution dated September 18, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. No. 35413 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, petitioner Elmer G. Sindac alias "Tamer" is ACQUITTED for violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held for any other reason.


Xxx."

"Plain view" doctrine in lawful warrantless search

G.R. No. 238865, January 28, 2019

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee
vs.
BILLY ACOSTA, Accused-Appellant


"xxx.

Section 2,20 Article III of the 1987 Constitution mandates that a search and seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause, absent which, such search and seizure become "unreasonable" within the meaning of said constitutional provision. To protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures, Section 3 (2),21 Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. In other words, evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such unreasonable searches and seizures are deemed tainted and should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree.22

One of the recognized exceptions to the need of a warrant before a search may be effected is when the "plain view" doctrine is applicable.1awp++i1 In People v. Lagman,23 this Court laid down the following parameters for its application":


Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. The 'plain view' doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent.24 (Emphases supplied)

In this case, the first and third requisites were not seriously contested by Acosta. Instead, he argues that the second requisite is absent since the discovery of the police officers of the marijuana plants was not inadvertent as it was prompted by Salucana. After a careful review of the records, this Court is inclined to agree.

The testimonies of P/Insp. Gundaya, SPO4 Legaspi, and Salucana collectively paint the picture that the police officers proceeded with the arrest of Acosta for the mauling incident armed with prior knowledge that he was also illegally planting marijuana:

Direct Examination

[Assistant City Prosecutor Alfredo Z. Gomez (ACP Gomez)]: Why did you know that marijuana plants are owned and planted by the accused Billy Acosta?

[P/Insp. Gundaya]: It was disclosed to us by his foster father Alfredo Salucana that Billy Acosta is cultivating marijuana plants.25 (Emphasis supplied)

Direct Examination

[ACP Gomez]: If you know who was the one who planted those marijuana plants?

[SPO4 Legaspi]: I do not have personal knowledge considering that we did not see the accused in this case cultivate the plants. However, we just have been in [sic] fed of the information by Alfredo Salucana that it was Billy Acosta who cultivated that plants.26 (Emphasis supplied)

Direct Examination

[Court]: And that was the only time that you resort to report the incident to the police because he hurt you?

[Salucana]: Yes, Sir.

Q: At that time you reported the matter to the police you also told the police that Billy Acosta was planting marijuana?

A: Yes, Sir.

Q: That is why they went with you because of that report because he planted marijuana and he struck you with a piece of wood?

A: Yes, Sir.

x x x x

ACP Gomez: (continuing) Would you know of any reason why Billy Acosta would strike you with a wood?

[Salucana]: Because of the marijuana that I was able to pass.

x x x x

Q: Did you ever call the attention of Billy Acosta about the marijuana plants you testified to?

A: I told him that planting the marijuana plants is against the law.

Q: What was his response?

A: He told me that he will change when he will be imprisoned.27 (Emphases supplied)

It is clear from Salucana's testimony that he knew of Acosta's illegal activities even prior to the mauling incident. In fact, it may be reasonably inferred that the mauling incident had something to do with Acosta's planting of marijuana. It is also clear that Salucana apprised the police officers of the illegal planting and cultivation of the marijuana plants when he reported the mauling incident. Thus, when the police officers proceeded to Acosta's abode, they were already alerted to the fact that there could possibly be marijuana plants in the area. This belies the argument that the discovery of the plants was inadvertent. In People v. Valdez,28 the Court held that the "plain view" doctrine cannot apply if the officers are actually "searching" for evidence against the accused, to wit:

Note further that the police team was dispatched to appellant's kaingin precisely to search for and uproot the prohibited flora. The seizure of evidence in "plain view" applies only where the police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. Clearly, their discovery of the cannabis plants was not inadvertent. We also note the testimony of SPO2 Tipay that upon arriving at the area, they first had to "look around the area" before they could spot the illegal plants. Patently, the seized marijuana plants were not "immediately apparent" and a "further search" was needed. In sum, the marijuana plants in question were not in "plain view" or "open to eye and hand." The "plain view" doctrine, thus, cannot be made to apply.29 (Emphases supplied)

Verily, it could not be gainsaid that the discovery was inadvertent when the police officers already knew that there could be marijuana plants in the area. Armed with such knowledge, they would naturally be more circumspect in their observations. In effect, they proceeded to Acosta's abode, not only to arrest him for the mauling incident, but also to verify Salucana's report that Acosta was illegally planting marijuana. Thus, the second requisite for the "plain view" doctrine is absent. Considering that the "plain view" doctrine is inapplicable to the present case, the seized marijuana plants are inadmissible in evidence against Acosta for being fruits of the poisonous tree.30

All told, since the marijuana plants seized from Acosta constitute inadmissible evidence in violation of Section 3 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, and given that the confiscated plants are the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, the Court finds Acosta's conviction to be improper and therefore, acquits him.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated February 22, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01612-MIN is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Billy Acosta is ACQUITTED of the crime charged. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason.

Xxx."

Lawful warrantless arrest

G.R. No. 212340, August 17, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GERRJAN MANAGO Y ACUT, Accused-Appellant.

"xxx.

Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution mandates that a search and seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause, absent which such search and seizure becomes "unreasonable" within the meaning of the said constitutional provision. To protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures, Section 3 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such unreasonable searches and seizures are deemed tainted and should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. In other words, evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.34

One of the recognized exceptions to the need of a warrant before a search may be effected is a search incidental to a lawful arrest. In this instance, the law requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made — the process cannot be reversed.35chanrobleslaw

A lawful arrest may be effected with or without a warrant. With respect to the latter, the parameters of Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure should - as a general rule - be complied with:

SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and 

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with Section 7 of Rule 112.


Under the foregoing provision, there are three (3) instances when warrantless arrests may be lawfully effected. These are: (a) an arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto; (b) an arrest of a suspect where, based on personal knowledge of the arresting officer, there is probable cause that said suspect was the perpetrator of a crime which had just been committed; and (c) an arrest of a prisoner who has escaped from custody serving final judgment or temporarily confined during the pendency of his case or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.36

In warrantless arrests made pursuant to Section 5 (b), it is essential that the element of personal knowledge must be coupled with the element of immediacy; otherwise, the arrest may be nullified, and resultantly, the items yielded through the search incidental thereto will be rendered inadmissible in consonance with the exclusionary rule of the 1987 Constitution. In Pestilos v. Generoso,37 the Court explained the requirement of immediacy as follows:

Based on these discussions, it appears that the Court's appreciation of the elements that "the offense has just been committed" and "personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested; committed it" depended on the particular circumstances of the case.

However, we note that the element of "personal knowledge of facts or circumstance" under Section 5 (b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure requires clarification.

The phrase covers facts or, in the alternative, circumstances. According to the Black's Law Dictionary, "circumstances are attendant or accompanying facts, events or conditions." Circumstances may pertain to events or actions within the actual perception, personal evaluation or observation of the police officer at the scene of the crime. Thus, even though the police officer has not seen someone actually fleeing, he could still make a warrantless arrest if, based on his personal evaluation of the circumstances at the scene of the crime, he could determine the existence of probable cause that the person sought to be arrested has committed the crime. However, the determination of probable cause and the gathering of facts or circumstances should be made immediately after the commission of the crime in order to comply with the element of immediacy.

In other words, the clincher in the element of "personal knowledge of facts or circumstances" is the required element of immediacy within which these facts or circumstances should be gathered. This required time element acts as a safeguard to ensure that the police officers have gathered the facts or perceived the circumstances within a very limited time frame. This guarantees that the police officers would have no time to base their probable cause finding on facts or circumstances obtained after an exhaustive investigation.

The reason for the element of the immediacy is this - as the time gap from the commission of the crime to the arrest widens, the pieces of information gathered are prone to become contaminated and subjected to external factors, interpretations and hearsay. On the other hand, with the element of immediacy imposed under Section 5 (b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the police officer's determination of probable cause would necessarily be limited to raw or uncontaminated facts or circumstances, gathered as they were within a very limited period of time. The same provision adds another safeguard with the requirement of probable cause as the standard for evaluating these facts of circumstances before the police officer could effect a valid warrantless arrest.38 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)


In this case, records reveal that at around 9:30 in the evening of March 15, 2007, PO3 Din personally witnessed a robbery incident while he was waiting for his turn to have a haircut at Jonas Borces Beauty Parlor. After his brief shootout with the armed robbers, the latter fled using a motorcycle and a red Toyota Corolla. Through an investigation and verification made by the police officers headed by PO3 Din and S/Insp. Ylanan, they were able to: (a) find out that the armed robbers were staying in Barangay Del Rio Pit-os; and (b) trace the getaway vehicles to Manago. The next day, or on March 16, 2007, the police officers set up a checkpoint in Sitio Panagdait where, at around 9:30 in the evening, the red Toyota Corolla being driven by Manago passed by and was intercepted by the police officers. The police officers then ordered Manago to disembark the car, and from there, proceeded to search the vehicle and the body of Manago, which search yielded the plastic sachet containing shabu. Thereupon, they effected Manago's arrest.

The foregoing circumstances show that while the element of personal knowledge under Section 5 (b) above was present - given that PO3 Din actually saw the March 15, 2007 robbery incident and even engaged the armed robbers in a shootout - the required element of immediacy was not met. This is because, at the time the police officers effected the warrantless arrest upon Manago's person, investigation and verification proceedings were already conducted, which consequently yielded sufficient information on the suspects of the March 15, 2007 robbery incident. As the Court sees it, the information the police officers had gathered therefrom would have been enough for them to secure the necessary warrants against the robbery suspects. However, they opted to conduct a "hot pursuit" operation which - considering the lack of immediacy - unfortunately failed to meet the legal requirements therefor. Thus, there being no valid warrantless arrest under the "hot pursuit" doctrine, the CA erred in ruling that Manago was lawfully arrested.

In view of the finding that there was no lawful arrest in this case, the CA likewise erred in ruling that the incidental search on Manago's vehicle and body was valid. In fact, the said search was made even before he was arrested and thus, violated the cardinal rule on searches incidental to lawful arrests that there first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made.

Xxx."

Search of a moving vehicle

"xxx.

For another, the Court similarly finds the RTC's ruling that the police officers conducted a lawful warrantless search of a moving vehicle on Manago's red Toyota Corolla untenable.

In Caballes v. People,39 the Court explained the concept of warrantless searches on moving vehicles:

Highly regulated by the government, the vehicle's inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity. Thus, the rules governing search and seizure have over the years been steadily liberalized whenever a moving vehicle is the object of the search on the basis of practicality. This is so considering that before a warrant could be obtained, the place, things and persons to be searched must be described to the satisfaction of the issuing judge - a requirement which borders on the impossible in the case of smuggling effected by the use of a moving vehicle that can transport contraband from one place to another with impunity. We might add that a warrantless search of a moving vehicle is justified on the ground that it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. Searches without warrant of automobiles is also allowed for the purpose of preventing violations of smuggling or immigration laws, provided such searches are made at borders or "constructive borders" like checkpoints near the boundary lines of the State.40 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)

A variant of searching moving vehicles without a warrant may entail the setup of military or police checkpoints - as in this case - which, based on jurisprudence, are not illegal per se for as long as its necessity is justified by the exigencies of public order and conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists.41 Case law further states that routine inspections in checkpoints are not regarded as violative of an individual's right against unreasonable searches, and thus, permissible, if limited to the following: (a) where the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle which is parked on the public fair grounds; (b) simply looks into a vehicle; (c) flashes a light therein without opening the car's doors; (d) where the occupants are not subjected to a physical or body search; (e) where the inspection of the Vehicles is limited to a visual search or visual inspection; and (e) where the routine check is conducted in a fixed area.42

It is well to clarify, however, that routine inspections do not give police officers carte blanche discretion to conduct warrantless searches in the absence of probable cause. When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search - as opposed to a mere routine inspection - such a warrantless search has been held to be valid only as long as the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe before the search that they will find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be searched.43

In the case at bar, it should be reiterated that the police officers had already conducted a thorough investigation and verification proceedings, which yielded, among others: (a) the identities of the robbery suspects; (b) the place where they reside; and (c) the ownership of the getaway vehicles used in the robbery, i.e., the motorcycle and the red Toyota Corolla. As adverted to earlier, these pieces of information were already enough for said police officers to secure the necessary warrants to accost the robbery suspects. Consequently, there was no longer any exigent circumstance that would have justified the necessity of setting up the checkpoint in this case for the purpose of searching the subject vehicle. In addition, it is well to point out that the checkpoint was arranged for the targeted arrest of Manago, who was already identified as the culprit of the robbery incident. In this regard, it cannot, therefore, be said that the checkpoint was meant to conduct a routinary and indiscriminate search of moving vehicles. Rather, it was used as a subterfuge to put into force the capture of the fleeing suspect. Unfortunately, this setup cannot take the place of - nor skirt the legal requirement of - procuring a valid search/arrest warrant given the circumstances of this case. Hence, the search conducted on the red Toyota Corolla and on the person of its driver, Manago, was unlawful.

In fine, Manago's warrantless arrest, and the search incidental thereto, including that of his moving vehicle were all unreasonable and unlawful. In consequence, the shabu seized from him is rendered inadmissible in evidence pursuant to the exclusionary rule under Section 3 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution. Since the confiscated shabu is the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, Manago must necessarily be acquitted and exonerated from criminal liability.44

Xxx."

G.R. No. 212340, August 17, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GERRJAN MANAGO Y ACUT, Accused-Appellant.

Subject matter jurisdiction

"It is axiomatic that the jurisdiction of a tribunal, including a quasi-judicial officer or government agency, over the nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint is determined by the material allegations therein and the character of the relief prayed for, irrespective of whether the petitioner or complainant is entitled to any or all such reliefs. Jurisdiction over the nature and subject matter of an action is conferred by the Constitution and the law, and not by the consent or waiver of the parties where the court otherwise would have no jurisdiction over the nature or subject matter of the action. Nor can it be acquired through, or waived by, any act or omission of the parties. Moreover, estoppel does not apply to confer jurisdiction to a tribunal that has none over the cause of action. The failure of the parties to challenge the jurisdiction of the DARAB does not prevent the court from addressing the issue, especially where the DARAB’s lack of jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the complaint or petition.27"


G.R. No. 189570 July 31, 2013

HEIRS OF SANTIAGO NISPEROS, TEODORICO NISPEROS, RESTITUTA LARON, CARMEL IT A H. NISPEROS, VIRGILIO H. NISPEROS, CON CHIT A H. NISPEROS, PURIT A H. ISPEROS, PEPITO H. NISPEROS, REBECCA H. NISPEROS, ABRAHAM H. NISPEROS, IGNACIO F. NISPEROS, RODOLFO F. NISPEROS, RAYMUNDO F. NISPEROS, RENA TO F. NISPEROS, FE N. MUNAR, BENITO F. NISPEROS, REYNALDO N. NISPEROS, MELBA N. JOSE, ELY N. GADIANO, represented by TEODORICO NISPEROS, Petitioners,
vs.
MARISSA NISPEROS-DUCUSIN, Respondent.

Jurisdiction; DAR Secretary vs. DARAB

G.R. No. 189570 July 31, 2013

HEIRS OF SANTIAGO NISPEROS, TEODORICO NISPEROS, RESTITUTA LARON, CARMEL IT A H. NISPEROS, VIRGILIO H. NISPEROS, CON CHIT A H. NISPEROS, PURIT A H. ISPEROS, PEPITO H. NISPEROS, REBECCA H. NISPEROS, ABRAHAM H. NISPEROS, IGNACIO F. NISPEROS, RODOLFO F. NISPEROS, RAYMUNDO F. NISPEROS, RENA TO F. NISPEROS, FE N. MUNAR, BENITO F. NISPEROS, REYNALDO N. NISPEROS, MELBA N. JOSE, ELY N. GADIANO, represented by TEODORICO NISPEROS, Petitioners,
vs.
MARISSA NISPEROS-DUCUSIN, Respondent.


"xxx.

The complaint should have been lodged with the Office of the DAR Secretary and not with the DARAB.

Section 1, Rule II of the 1994 DARAB Rules of Procedure, the rule in force at the time of the filing of the complaint by petitioners in 2001, provides:

SECTION 1. Primary and Exclusive Original and Appellate Jurisdiction. The Board shall have primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) under Republic Act No. 6657, Executive Order Nos. 228, 229 and 129-A, Republic Act No. 3844 as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations. Specifically, such jurisdiction shall include but not be limited to cases involving the following:

x x x x

f) Those involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs) which are registered with the Land Registration Authority;

x x x x

However, it is not enough that the controversy involves the cancellation of a CLOA registered with the Land Registration Authority for the DARAB to have jurisdiction. What is of primordial consideration is the existence of an agrarian dispute between the parties.23

Section 3(d) of R.A. No. 6657 defines an agrarian dispute as "any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers’ associations or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements" and includes "any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under this Act and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee."

Thus, in Morta, Sr. v. Occidental,24 this Court held that there must be a tenancy relationship between the parties for the DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case. It is essential to establish all of the following indispensable elements, to wit: (1) that the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; (2) that the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; (3) that there is consent between the parties to the relationship; (4) that the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; (5) that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and (6) that the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.25

In the instant case, petitioners, as supposed owners of the subject property, did not allege in their complaint that a tenancy relationship exists between them and respondent. In fact, in their complaint, they described respondent as a "ward" of one of the co-owners, Maria, who is "not a bona fide beneficiary, she being not engaged in farming because she was still a minor" at the time the VLT was executed.26

It is axiomatic that the jurisdiction of a tribunal, including a quasi-judicial officer or government agency, over the nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint is determined by the material allegations therein and the character of the relief prayed for, irrespective of whether the petitioner or complainant is entitled to any or all such reliefs. Jurisdiction over the nature and subject matter of an action is conferred by the Constitution and the law, and not by the consent or waiver of the parties where the court otherwise would have no jurisdiction over the nature or subject matter of the action. Nor can it be acquired through, or waived by, any act or omission of the parties. Moreover, estoppel does not apply to confer jurisdiction to a tribunal that has none over the cause of action. The failure of the parties to challenge the jurisdiction of the DARAB does not prevent the court from addressing the issue, especially where the DARAB’s lack of jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the complaint or petition.27

Considering that the allegations in the complaint negate the existence of an agrarian dispute among the parties, the DARAB is bereft of jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same as it is the DAR Secretary who has authority to resolve the dispute raised by petitioners. As held in Heirs of Julian dela Cruz v. Heirs of Alberto Cruz:

The Court agrees with the petitioners’ contention that, under Section 2(f), Rule II of the DARAB Rules of Procedure, the DARAB has jurisdiction over cases involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of CLOAs which were registered with the LRA. However, for the DARAB to have jurisdiction in such cases, they must relate to an agrarian dispute between landowner and tenants to whom CLOAs have been issued by the DAR Secretary. The cases involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of the CLOAs by the DAR in the administrative implementation of agrarian reform laws, rules and regulations to parties who are not agricultural tenants or lessees are within the jurisdiction of the DAR and not of the DARAB.28 (Emphasis supplied.)

What the P ARAD should have done is to refer the complaint to the proper office as mandated by Section 4 of DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 2000:

SEC. 4. Referral of Cases.- If a case covered by Section 2 herein is filed before the DARAB, the concerned DARAB official shall refer the case to the proper DAR office for appropriate action within five (5) days after said case is determined to be within the jurisdiction of the Secretary.

Likewise, if a case covered by Section 3 herein is filed before any office other than the DARAB, the concerned DAR official shall refer the case to the DARAB for resolution within the same period provided herein.

While it is true that the PARAD and the DARAB (which was upheld by the CA) thoroughly discussed in their respective decisions the issues pertaining to the validity of the VLT and the OCT/CLOA issued to respondent, the fact that they are bereft of jurisdiction to resolve the same prevents this Court from resolving the instant petition on its merits. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not allow a court to arrogate unto itself authority to resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence.29 To assume the power is to short-circuit the administrative process, which has yet to run its regular course. The DAR must be given a chance to correct its administrative and procedural lapses in the issuance of the CLOA.30 Moreover, it is in a better position to resolve the particular issue at hand, being the agency possessing the required expertise on the matter and authority to hear the same.

WHEREFORE, the July 13, 2009 Decision and September 14, 2009 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 105898 are SET ASIDE. The complaint is REFERRED to the Office of the Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary for appropriate action.

Xxx."

Congress has laid down the law — a candidate is liable for election offenses only upon the start of the campaign period. This Court has no power to ignore the clear and express mandate of the law that "any person who files his certificate of candidacy within [the filing] period shall only be considered a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his certificate of candidacy." Neither can this Court turn a blind eye to the express and clear language of the law that "any unlawful act or omission applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the campaign period."

G.R. No. 181613 November 25, 2009

ROSALINDA A. PENERA, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and EDGAR T. ANDANAR, Respondents.


"xxx.

Section 79(a) of the Omnibus Election Code defines a "candidate" as "any person aspiring for or seeking an elective public office, who has filed a certificate of candidacy x x x." The second sentence, third paragraph, Section 15 of RA 8436, as amended by Section 13 of RA 9369, provides that "[a]ny person who files his certificate of candidacy within [the period for filing] shall only be considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his certificate of candidacy." The immediately succeeding proviso in the same third paragraph states that "unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the aforesaid campaign period." These two provisions determine the resolution of this case.

The Decision states that "[w]hen the campaign period starts and [the person who filed his certificate of candidacy] proceeds with his/her candidacy, his/her intent turning into actuality, we can already consider his/her acts, after the filing of his/her COC and prior to the campaign period, as the promotion of his/her election as a candidate, hence, constituting premature campaigning, for which he/she may be disqualified."1

Under the Decision, a candidate may already be liable for premature campaigning after the filing of the certificate of candidacy but even before the start of the campaign period. From the filing of the certificate of candidacy, even long before the start of the campaign period, the Decision considers the partisan political acts of a person so filing a certificate of candidacy "as the promotion of his/her election as a candidate." Thus, such person can be disqualified for premature campaigning for acts done before the start of the campaign period. In short, the Decision considers a person who files a certificate of candidacy already a "candidate" even before the start of the campaign period. lawphil

The assailed Decision is contrary to the clear intent and letter of the law.

The Decision reverses Lanot v. COMELEC,2 which held that a person who files a certificate of candidacy is not a candidate until the start of the campaign period. In Lanot, this Court explained:

Thus, the essential elements for violation of Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code are: (1) a person engages in an election campaign or partisan political activity; (2) the act is designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates; (3) the act is done outside the campaign period.

The second element requires the existence of a "candidate." Under Section 79(a), a candidate is one who "has filed a certificate of candidacy" to an elective public office. Unless one has filed his certificate of candidacy, he is not a "candidate." The third element requires that the campaign period has not started when the election campaign or partisan political activity is committed.

Assuming that all candidates to a public office file their certificates of candidacy on the last day, which under Section 75 of the Omnibus Election Code is the day before the start of the campaign period, then no one can be prosecuted for violation of Section 80 for acts done prior to such last day. Before such last day, there is no "particular candidate or candidates" to campaign for or against. On the day immediately after the last day of filing, the campaign period starts and Section 80 ceases to apply since Section 80 covers only acts done "outside" the campaign period.

Thus, if all candidates file their certificates of candidacy on the last day, Section 80 may only apply to acts done on such last day, which is before the start of the campaign period and after at least one candidate has filed his certificate of candidacy. This is perhaps the reason why those running for elective public office usually file their certificates of candidacy on the last day or close to the last day.

There is no dispute that Eusebio’s acts of election campaigning or partisan political activities were committed outside of the campaign period. The only question is whether Eusebio, who filed his certificate of candidacy on 29 December 2003, was a "candidate" when he committed those acts before the start of the campaign period on 24 March 2004.

Section 11 of Republic Act No. 8436 ("RA 8436") moved the deadline for the filing of certificates of candidacy to 120 days before election day. Thus, the original deadline was moved from 23 March 2004 to 2 January 2004, or 81 days earlier. The crucial question is: did this change in the deadline for filing the certificate of candidacy make one who filed his certificate of candidacy before 2 January 2004 immediately liable for violation of Section 80 if he engaged in election campaign or partisan political activities prior to the start of the campaign period on 24 March 2004?

Section 11 of RA 8436 provides:

SECTION 11. Official Ballot. – The Commission shall prescribe the size and form of the official ballot which shall contain the titles of the positions to be filled and/or the propositions to be voted upon in an initiative, referendum or plebiscite. Under each position, the names of candidates shall be arranged alphabetically by surname and uniformly printed using the same type size. A fixed space where the chairman of the Board of Election Inspectors shall affix his/her signature to authenticate the official ballot shall be provided.

Both sides of the ballots may be used when necessary.

For this purpose, the deadline for the filing of certificate of candidacy/petition for registration/ manifestation to participate in the election shall not be later than one hundred twenty (120) days before the elections: Provided, That, any elective official, whether national or local, running for any office other than the one which he/she is holding in a permanent capacity, except for president and vice-president, shall be deemed resigned only upon the start of the campaign period corresponding to the position for which he/she is running: Provided, further, That, unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall take effect upon the start of the aforesaid campaign period: Provided, finally, That, for purposes of the May 11, 1998 elections, the deadline for filing of the certificate of candidacy for the positions of President, Vice-President, Senators and candidates under the party-list system as well as petitions for registration and/or manifestation to participate in the party-list system shall be on February 9, 1998 while the deadline for the filing of certificate of candidacy for other positions shall be on March 27, 1998.

The official ballots shall be printed by the National Printing Office and/or the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas at the price comparable with that of private printers under proper security measures which the Commission shall adopt. The Commission may contract the services of private printers upon certification by the National Printing Office/Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas that it cannot meet the printing requirements. Accredited political parties and deputized citizens’ arms of the Commission may assign watchers in the printing, storage and distribution of official ballots.

To prevent the use of fake ballots, the Commission through the Committee shall ensure that the serial number on the ballot stub shall be printed in magnetic ink that shall be easily detectable by inexpensive hardware and shall be impossible to reproduce on a photocopying machine, and that identification marks, magnetic strips, bar codes and other technical and security markings, are provided on the ballot.

The official ballots shall be printed and distributed to each city/municipality at the rate of one (1) ballot for every registered voter with a provision of additional four (4) ballots per precinct.

Under Section 11 of RA 8436, the only purpose for the early filing of certificates of candidacy is to give ample time for the printing of official ballots. This is clear from the following deliberations of the Bicameral Conference Committee:


SENATOR GONZALES. Okay. Then, how about the campaign period, would it be the same[,] uniform for local and national officials?

THE CHAIRMAN (REP. TANJUATCO). Personally, I would agree to retaining it at the present periods.

SENATOR GONZALES. But the moment one files a certificate of candidacy, he’s already a candidate, and there are many prohibited acts on the part of candidate.

THE CHAIRMAN (REP. TANJUATCO). Unless we. . . .

SENATOR GONZALES. And you cannot say that the campaign period has not yet began (sic).

THE CHAIRMAN (REP. TANJUATCO). If we don’t provide that the filing of the certificate will not bring about one’s being a candidate.

SENATOR GONZALES. If that’s a fact, the law cannot change a fact.

THE CHAIRMAN (REP. TANJUATCO). No, but if we can provide that the filing of the certificate of candidacy will not result in that official vacating his position, we can also provide that insofar he is concerned, election period or his being a candidate will not yet commence. Because here, the reason why we are doing an early filing is to afford enough time to prepare this machine readable ballots.

So, with the manifestations from the Commission on Elections, Mr. Chairman, the House Panel will withdraw its proposal and will agree to the 120-day period provided in the Senate version.

THE CHAIRMAN (SENATOR FERNAN). Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

x x x x

SENATOR GONZALES. How about prohibition against campaigning or doing partisan acts which apply immediately upon being a candidate?

THE CHAIRMAN (REP. TANJUATCO). Again, since the intention of this provision is just to afford the Comelec enough time to print the ballots, this provision does not intend to change the campaign periods as presently, or rather election periods as presently fixed by existing law.

THE ACTING CHAIRMAN (SEN. FERNAN). So, it should be subject to the other prohibition.

THE CHAIRMAN (REP. TANJUATCO). That’s right.

THE ACTING CHAIRMAN (SEN. FERNAN). Okay.

THE CHAIRMAN (REP. TANJUATCO). In other words, actually, there would be no conflict anymore because we are talking about the 120-day period before election as the last day of filing a certificate of candidacy, election period starts 120 days also. So that is election period already. But he will still not be considered as a candidate.

Thus, because of the early deadline of 2 January 2004 for purposes of printing of official ballots, Eusebio filed his certificate of candidacy on 29 December 2003. Congress, however, never intended the filing of a certificate of candidacy before 2 January 2004 to make the person filing to become immediately a "candidate" for purposes other than the printing of ballots. This legislative intent prevents the immediate application of Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code to those filing to meet the early deadline. The clear intention of Congress was to preserve the "election periods as x x x fixed by existing law" prior to RA 8436 and that one who files to meet the early deadline "will still not be considered as a candidate."3 (Emphasis in the original)

Lanot was decided on the ground that one who files a certificate of candidacy is not a candidate until the start of the campaign period. This ground was based on the deliberations of the legislators who explained the intent of the provisions of RA 8436, which laid the legal framework for an automated election system. There was no express provision in the original RA 8436 stating that one who files a certificate of candidacy is not a candidate until the start of the campaign period.

When Congress amended RA 8436, Congress decided to expressly incorporate the Lanot doctrine into law, realizing that Lanot merely relied on the deliberations of Congress in holding that —

The clear intention of Congress was to preserve the "election periods as x x x fixed by existing law" prior to RA 8436 and that one who files to meet the early deadline "will still not be considered as a candidate."4 (Emphasis supplied)

Congress wanted to insure that no person filing a certificate of candidacy under the early deadline required by the automated election system would be disqualified or penalized for any partisan political act done before the start of the campaign period. Thus, in enacting RA 9369, Congress expressly wrote the Lanot doctrine into the second sentence, third paragraph of the amended Section 15 of RA 8436, thus:

x x x

For this purpose, the Commission shall set the deadline for the filing of certificate of candidacy/petition for registration/manifestation to participate in the election. Any person who files his certificate of candidacy within this period shall only be considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his certificate of candidacy: Provided, That, unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the aforesaid campaign period: Provided, finally, That any person holding a public appointive office or position, including active members of the armed forces, and officers and employees in government-owned or -controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his/her office and must vacate the same at the start of the day of the filing of his/her certificate of candidacy. (Boldfacing and underlining supplied)

Congress elevated the Lanot doctrine into a statute by specifically inserting it as the second sentence of the third paragraph of the amended Section 15 of RA 8436, which cannot be annulled by this Court except on the sole ground of its unconstitutionality. The Decision cannot reverse Lanot without repealing this second sentence, because to reverse Lanot would mean repealing this second sentence.

The assailed Decision, however, in reversing Lanot does not claim that this second sentence or any portion of Section 15 of RA 8436, as amended by RA 9369, is unconstitutional. In fact, the Decision considers the entire Section 15 good law. Thus, the Decision is self-contradictory — reversing Lanot but maintaining the constitutionality of the second sentence, which embodies the Lanot doctrine. In so doing, the Decision is irreconcilably in conflict with the clear intent and letter of the second sentence, third paragraph, Section 15 of RA 8436, as amended by RA 9369.

In enacting RA 9369, Congress even further clarified the first proviso in the third paragraph of Section 15 of RA 8436. The original provision in RA 8436 states —

x x x Provided, further, That, unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall take effect upon the start of the aforesaid campaign period, x x x.

In RA 9369, Congress inserted the word "only" so that the first proviso now reads —

x x x Provided, That, unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the aforesaid campaign period x x x. (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, Congress not only reiterated but also strengthened its mandatory directive that election offenses can be committed by a candidate "only" upon the start of the campaign period. This clearly means that before the start of the campaign period, such election offenses cannot be so committed.

When the applicable provisions of RA 8436, as amended by RA 9369, are read together, these provisions of law do not consider Penera a candidate for purposes other than the printing of ballots, until the start of the campaign period. There is absolutely no room for any other interpretation.

We quote with approval the Dissenting Opinion of Justice Antonio T. Carpio:

x x x The definition of a "candidate" in Section 79(a) of the Omnibus Election Code should be read together with the amended Section 15 of RA 8436. A "‘candidate’ refers to any person aspiring for or seeking an elective public office, who has filed a certificate of candidacy by himself or through an accredited political party, aggroupment or coalition of parties." However, it is no longer enough to merely file a certificate of candidacy for a person to be considered a candidate because "any person who files his certificate of candidacy within [the filing] period shall only be considered a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his certificate of candidacy." Any person may thus file a certificate of candidacy on any day within the prescribed period for filing a certificate of candidacy yet that person shall be considered a candidate, for purposes of determining one’s possible violations of election laws, only during the campaign period. Indeed, there is no "election campaign" or "partisan political activity" designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates to public office simply because there is no "candidate" to speak of prior to the start of the campaign period. Therefore, despite the filing of her certificate of candidacy, the law does not consider Penera a candidate at the time of the questioned motorcade which was conducted a day before the start of the campaign period. x x x

The campaign period for local officials began on 30 March 2007 and ended on 12 May 2007. Penera filed her certificate of candidacy on 29 March 2007. Penera was thus a candidate on 29 March 2009 only for purposes of printing the ballots. On 29 March 2007, the law still did not consider Penera a candidate for purposes other than the printing of ballots. Acts committed by Penera prior to 30 March 2007, the date when she became a "candidate," even if constituting election campaigning or partisan political activities, are not punishable under Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code. Such acts are within the realm of a citizen’s protected freedom of expression. Acts committed by Penera within the campaign period are not covered by Section 80 as Section 80 punishes only acts outside the campaign period.5

The assailed Decision gives a specious reason in explaining away the first proviso in the third paragraph, the amended Section 15 of RA 8436 that election offenses applicable to candidates take effect only upon the start of the campaign period. The Decision states that:

x x x [T]he line in Section 15 of Republic Act No. 8436, as amended, which provides that "any unlawful act or omission applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the campaign period," does not mean that the acts constituting premature campaigning can only be committed, for which the offender may be disqualified, during the campaign period. Contrary to the pronouncement in the dissent, nowhere in said proviso was it stated that campaigning before the start of the campaign period is lawful, such that the offender may freely carry out the same with impunity.

As previously established, a person, after filing his/her COC but prior to his/her becoming a candidate (thus, prior to the start of the campaign period), can already commit the acts described under Section 79(b) of the Omnibus Election Code as election campaign or partisan political activity, However, only after said person officially becomes a candidate, at the beginning of the campaign period, can said acts be given effect as premature campaigning under Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code. Only after said person officially becomes a candidate, at the start of the campaign period, can his/her disqualification be sought for acts constituting premature campaigning. Obviously, it is only at the start of the campaign period, when the person officially becomes a candidate, that the undue and iniquitous advantages of his/her prior acts, constituting premature campaigning, shall accrue to his/her benefit. Compared to the other candidates who are only about to begin their election campaign, a candidate who had previously engaged in premature campaigning already enjoys an unfair headstart in promoting his/her candidacy.6 (Emphasis supplied)

It is a basic principle of law that any act is lawful unless expressly declared unlawful by law. This is specially true to expression or speech, which Congress cannot outlaw except on very narrow grounds involving clear, present and imminent danger to the State. The mere fact that the law does not declare an act unlawful ipso facto means that the act is lawful. Thus, there is no need for Congress to declare in Section 15 of RA 8436, as amended by RA 9369, that political partisan activities before the start of the campaign period are lawful. It is sufficient for Congress to state that "any unlawful act or omission applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the campaign period." The only inescapable and logical result is that the same acts, if done before the start of the campaign period, are lawful.

In layman’s language, this means that a candidate is liable for an election offense only for acts done during the campaign period, not before. The law is clear as daylight — any election offense that may be committed by a candidate under any election law cannot be committed before the start of the campaign period. In ruling that Penera is liable for premature campaigning for partisan political acts before the start of the campaigning, the assailed Decision ignores the clear and express provision of the law.

The Decision rationalizes that a candidate who commits premature campaigning can be disqualified or prosecuted only after the start of the campaign period. This is not what the law says. What the law says is "any unlawful act or omission applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the campaign period." The plain meaning of this provision is that the effective date when partisan political acts become unlawful as to a candidate is when the campaign period starts. Before the start of the campaign period, the same partisan political acts are lawful.

The law does not state, as the assailed Decision asserts, that partisan political acts done by a candidate before the campaign period are unlawful, but may be prosecuted only upon the start of the campaign period. Neither does the law state that partisan political acts done by a candidate before the campaign period are temporarily lawful, but becomes unlawful upon the start of the campaign period. This is clearly not the language of the law. Besides, such a law as envisioned in the Decision, which defines a criminal act and curtails freedom of expression and speech, would be void for vagueness.

Congress has laid down the law — a candidate is liable for election offenses only upon the start of the campaign period. This Court has no power to ignore the clear and express mandate of the law that "any person who files his certificate of candidacy within [the filing] period shall only be considered a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his certificate of candidacy." Neither can this Court turn a blind eye to the express and clear language of the law that "any unlawful act or omission applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the campaign period."

The forum for examining the wisdom of the law, and enacting remedial measures, is not this Court but the Legislature. This Court has no recourse but to apply a law that is as clear, concise and express as the second sentence, and its immediately succeeding proviso, as written in the third paragraph of Section 15 of RA 8436, as amended by RA 9369.

WHEREFORE, we GRANT petitioner Rosalinda A. Penera’s Motion for Reconsideration. We SET ASIDE the Decision of this Court in G.R. No. 181613 promulgated on 11 September 2009, as well as the Resolutions dated 24 July 2007 and 30 January 2008 of the COMELEC Second Division and the COMELEC En Banc, respectively, in SPA No. 07-224. Rosalinda A. Penera shall continue as Mayor of Sta. Monica, Surigao del Norte.

Xxx."

The period of imprisonment under the inherent power of contempt of the Senate during inquiries in aid of legislation should only last until the termination of the legislative inquiry.

G.R. No. 234608, JULY 3, 2018

ARVIN R. BALAG, Petitioner
vs.
SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ORDER AND DANGEROUS DRUGS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS AND REVISION OF CODES AND MGEN. JOSE V. BALAJADIA, JR. (RET.) IN HIS CAPACITY AS SENATE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS, Respondents

"xxx.

The period of detention under
the Senate's inherent power of
contempt is not indefinite.

The Court finds that there is a genuine necessity to place a limitation on the period of imprisonment that may be imposed by the Senate pursuant to its inherent power of contempt during inquiries in aid of legislation. Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution states that Congress, in conducting inquiries in aid of legislation, must respect the rights of persons appearing in or affected therein. Under Arnault, however, a witness or resource speaker cited in contempt by the Senate may be detained indefinitely due to its characteristic as a continuing body. The said witness may be detained for a day, a month, a year, or even for a lifetime depending on the desire of the perpetual Senate. Certainly, in that case, the rights of persons appearing before or affected by the legislative inquiry are in jeopardy. The constitutional right to liberty that every citizen enjoys certainly cannot be respected when they are detained for an indefinite period of time without due process of law.

As discussed in Lopez, Congress' power of contempt rests solely upon the right of self-preservation and does not extend to the infliction of punishment as such. It is a means to an end and not the end itself. 48 Even arguendo that detention under the legislative's inherent power of contempt is not entirely punitive in character because it may be used by Congress only to secure information from a recalcitrant witness or to remove an obstruction, it is still a restriction to the liberty of the said witness. It is when the restrictions during detention are arbitrary and purposeless that courts will infer intent to punish. Courts will also infer intent to punish even if the restriction seems to be related rationally to the alternative purpose if the restriction appears excessive in relation to that purpose. 49 An indefinite and unspecified period of detention will amount to excessive restriction and will certainly violate any person's right to liberty.

Nevertheless, it is recognized that the Senate's inherent power of contempt is of utmost importance. A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislations are intended to affect or change. Mere requests for such information are often unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion is essential to obtain what is needed through the power of contempt during legislative inquiry.50 While there is a presumption of regularity that the Senate will not gravely abuse its power of contempt, there is still a lingering and unavoidable possibility of indefinite imprisonment of witnesses as long as there is no specific period of detention, which is certainly not contemplated and envisioned by the Constitution.

Thus, the Court must strike a balance between the interest of the Senate and the rights of persons cited in contempt during legislative inquiries.1avvphi1 The balancing of interest requires that the Court take a conscious and detailed consideration of the interplay of interests observable in a given situation or type of situation. These interests usually consist in the exercise by an individual of his basic freedoms on the one hand, and the government's promotion of fundamental public interest or policy objectives on the other.51

The Court finds that the period of imprisonment under the inherent power of contempt by the Senate during inquiries in aid of legislation should only last until the termination of the legislative inquiry under which the said power is invoked. In Arnault, it was stated that obedience to its process may be enforced by the Senate Committee if the subject of investigation before it was within the range of legitimate legislative inquiry and the proposed testimony called relates to that subject. 52 Accordingly, as long as there is a legitimate legislative inquiry, then the inherent power of contempt by the Senate may be properly exercised. Conversely, once the said legislative inquiry concludes, the exercise of the inherent power of contempt ceases and there is no more genuine necessity to penalize the detained witness.

Further, the Court rules that the legislative inquiry of the Senate terminates on two instances:

First, upon the approval or disapproval of the Committee Report. Sections 22 and 23 of Senate Rules state:


Sec. 22. Report of Committee. Within fifteen (15) days after the conclusion of the inquiry, the Committee shall meet to begin the consideration of its Report.

The Report shall be approved by a majority vote of all its members. Concurring and dissenting reports may likewise be made by the members who do not sign the majority report within seventy-two (72) hours from the approval of the report. The number of members who sign reports concurring in the conclusions of the Committee Report shall be taken into account in determining whether the Report has been approved by a majority of the members: Provided, That the vote of a member who submits both a concurring and dissenting opinion shall not be considered as part of the majority unless he expressly indicates his vote for the majority position.

The Report, together with any concurring and/or dissenting opinions, shall be filed with the Secretary of the Senate, who shall include the same in the next Order of Business.

Sec. 23. Action on Report. The Report, upon inclusion in the Order of Business, shall be referred to the Committee on Rules for assignment in the Calendar. (emphases supplied)

As gleaned above, the Senate Committee is required to issue a Committee Report after the conduct of the legislative inquiry. The importance of the Committee Report is highlighted in the Senate Rules because it mandates that the committee begin the consideration of its Report within fifteen (15) days from the conclusion of the inquiry. The said Committee Report shall then be approved by a majority vote of all its members; otherwise, it is disapproved. The said Report shall be the subject matter of the next order of business, and it shall be acted upon by the Senate. Evidently, the Committee Report is the culmination of the legislative inquiry. Its approval or disapproval signifies the end of such legislative inquiry and it is now up to the Senate whether or not to act upon the said Committee Report in the succeeding order of business. At that point, the power of contempt simultaneously ceases and the detained witness should be released. As the legislative inquiry ends, the basis for the detention of the recalcitrant witness likewise ends.

Second, the legislative inquiry of the Senate also terminates upon the expiration of one (1) Congress. As stated in Neri, all pending matters and proceedings, such as unpassed bills and even legislative investigations, of the Senate are considered terminated upon the expiration of that Congress and it is merely optional on the Senate of the succeeding Congress to take up such unfinished matters, not in the same status, but as if presented for the first time. Again, while the Senate is a continuing institution, its proceedings are terminated upon the expiration of that Congress at the final adjournment of its last session. Hence, as the legislative inquiry ends upon that expiration, the imprisonment of the detained witnesses likewise ends.

In Arnault, there have been fears that placing a limitation on the period of imprisonment pursuant to the Senate's power of contempt would "deny to it an essential and appropriate means for its performance."53 Also, in view of the limited period of imprisonment, "the Senate would have to resume the investigation at the next and succeeding sessions and repeat the contempt proceedings against the witness until the investigation is completed xxx."54

The Court is of the view that these fears are insufficient to permit an indefinite or an unspecified period of imprisonment under the Senate's inherent power of contempt. If Congress believes that there is a necessity to supplement its power of contempt by extending the period of imprisonment beyond the conduct of its legislative inquiry or beyond its final adjournment of the last session, then it can enact a law or amend the existing law that penalizes the refusal of a witness to testify or produce papers during inquiries in aid of legislation. The charge of contempt by Congress shall be tried before the courts, where the contumacious witness will be heard. More importantly, it shall indicate the exact penalty of the offense, which may include a fine and/or imprisonment, and the period of imprisonment shall be specified therein. This constitutes as the statutory power of contempt, which is different from the inherent power of contempt.

Congress' statutory power of contempt has been recognized in foreign jurisdictions as reflected in the cases of In re Chapman and Jurney v. MacCracken. Similarly, in this jurisdiction, the statutory power of contempt of Congress was also acknowledged in Lopez. It was stated therein that in cases that if Congress seeks to penalize a person cited in contempt beyond its adjournment, it must institute a criminal proceeding against him. When his case is before the courts, the culprit shall be afforded all the rights of the accused under the Constitution. He shall have an opportunity to defend himself before he can be convicted and penalized by the State.

Notably, there is an existing statutory provision under Article 150 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes the refusal of a witness to answer any legal inquiry before Congress, to wit:


Art. 150. Disobedience to summons issued by the National Assembly, its committees or subcommittees, by the Constitutional Commissions, its committees, subcommittees or divisions. - The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from two hundred to one thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment shall be imposed upon any person who, having been duly summoned to attend as a witness before the National Assembly, (Congress), its special or standing committees and subcommittees, the Constitutional Commissions and its committees, subcommittees, or divisions, or before any commission or committee chairman or member authorized to summon witnesses, refuses, without legal excuse, to obey such summons, or being present before any such legislative or constitutional body or official, refuses to be sworn or placed under affirmation or to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents, or records in his possession, when required by them to do so in the exercise of their functions. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who shall restrain another from attending as a witness, or who shall induce disobedience to a summon or refusal to be sworn by any such body or official. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Verily, the said law may be another recourse for the Senate to exercise its statutory power of contempt. The period of detention provided therein is definite and is not limited by the period of the legislative inquiry. Of course, the enactment of a new law or the amendment of the existing law to augment its power of contempt and to extend the period of imprisonment shall be in the sole discretion of Congress.

Moreover, the apprehension in Arnault - that the Senate will be prevented from effectively conducting legislative hearings during recess - shall be duly addressed because it is expressly provided herein that the Senate may still exercise its power of contempt during legislative hearings while on recess provided that the period of imprisonment shall only last until the termination of the legislative inquiry, specifically, upon the approval or disapproval of the Committee Report. Thus, the Senate's inherent power of contempt is still potent and compelling even during its recess. At the same time, the rights of the persons appearing are respected because their detention shall not be indefinite.

In fine, the interests of the Senate and the witnesses appearing in its legislative inquiry are balanced.1âwphi1 The Senate can continuously and effectively exercise its power of contempt during the legislative inquiry against recalcitrant witnesses, even during recess. Such power can be exercised by the Senate immediately when the witness performs a contemptuous act, subject to its own rules and the constitutional rights of the said witness.

In fine, the interests of the Senate and the witnesses appearing in its legislative inquiry are balanced. The Senate can continuously and effectively exercise its power of contempt during the legislative inquiry against recalcitrant witnesses, even during recess. Such power can be exercised by the Senate immediately when the witness performs a contemptuous act, subject to its own rules and the constitutional rights of the said witness.

In addition, if the Congress decides to extend the period of imprisonment for the contempt committed by a witness beyond the duration of the legislative inquiry, then it may file a criminal case under the existing statute or enact a new law to increase the definite period of imprisonment.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for being moot and academic. However, the period of imprisonment under the inherent power of contempt of the Senate during inquiries in aid of legislation should only last until the termination of the legislative inquiry.

The December 12, 2017 Resolution of the Court ordering the temporary release of Arvin R. Balag from detention is hereby declared FINAL.

SO ORDERED.

Xxx."

Battered woman syndrome

G.R. No. 135981 January 15, 2004

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,
vs.
MARIVIC GENOSA, appellant.

D E C I S I O N

PANGANIBAN, J.:

"Admitting she killed her husband, appellant anchors her prayer for acquittal on a novel theory -- the "battered woman syndrome" (BWS), which allegedly constitutes self-defense. Under the proven facts, however, she is not entitled to complete exoneration because there was no unlawful aggression -- no immediate and unexpected attack on her by her batterer-husband at the time she shot him.

Absent unlawful aggression, there can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete.

But all is not lost. The severe beatings repeatedly inflicted on appellant constituted a form of cumulative provocation that broke down her psychological resistance and self-control. This "psychological paralysis" she suffered diminished her will power, thereby entitling her to the mitigating factor under paragraphs 9 and 10 of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code.

In addition, appellant should also be credited with the extenuating circumstance of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as to have naturally produced passion and obfuscation. The acute battering she suffered that fatal night in the hands of her batterer-spouse, in spite of the fact that she was eight months pregnant with their child, overwhelmed her and put her in the aforesaid emotional and mental state, which overcame her reason and impelled her to vindicate her life and her unborn child's.

Considering the presence of these two mitigating circumstances arising from BWS, as well as the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, she may now apply for and be released from custody on parole, because she has already served the minimum period of her penalty while under detention during the pendency of this case.

Xxx."