8/13/2019 Constitution Due Process

1/4

People vs MArti

FACTS:

August 14, 1957, the appellant and his common-law wife, SherlyReyes, went to the booth of the !anila "ac#ing and $%port&orwarders' carrying &our (4) wrapped pac#ages* +he appellantinformed Anita Reyes that he was sending the pac#ages to afriend in urich, Swit erland* Anita Reyes as#ed if she coulde%amine and inspect the pac#ages* She refused and assures herthat the pac#ages simply contained boo#s, cigars, and glo.es*/efore the deli.ery of appellant0s bo% to the /ureau of ustomsand /ureau of "osts, !r* 2ob Reyes ("roprietor), following thestandard operating procedure, opened the bo%es for finalinspection* A peculiar odor emitted from the bo% and that theglo.es contain dried lea.es* 3e prepared a letter and reported tothe / and re6uesting a laboratory e%aminations* +he driedmari uana lea.es were found to ha.e contained inside thecellophane wrappers* +he accused 8 appellant assigns thefollowing errors +he lower court erred in admitting in e.idencethe illegality of search and sei ed ob ects contained in the four(4) parcels*

ISSUE: :hether or not the sei ing of illegal ob ects is legal;

HELD: appellant .alidly claimthat his constitutional right against unreasonable search andsei ure*

+he contraband in this case at bar ha.ing come into possessionof the go.ernment without the latter transgressing appellantsrights against unreasonable search and sei ure, the ourt seesno cogent reason whty the same should not be admitted*

FACTUAL CONSIDERATIONS Readily foreclose theproportion that / agents conducted an illegal search andsei ure of the prohibited merchandise, clearly that the /agents made no search and sei ure much less an illegal one,

contrary to the postulate of accused > appellant*

CHAD-IC. vs STATE , ha.ing obser.ed that which is open,where no trespass has been committed in aid thereof

/ILL OF RI0HTS

+he protection of fundamental liberties in the essence ofconstitutional democracy, protection against whom, protectionagainst the S+A+$*

Monte1 *or v Ar net Universit*, && SCRA "2#3#$&&4

?ac# of @ue "rocess in +ermination of $mployment Remediedby 3earing in the ?R *

& "etitioner was a professor at the Araneta =ni.ersity&oundation* n 7>B>74, he was found guilty of ma#inghomose%ual ad.ances on one ?eonardo @e ?ara by a facultyin.estating committee* n 11>B>74, another committee wasappointed to in.estigate another charge of a similar nature

against petitioner* "etitioner, through cousel, as#ed for thepostponement of the hearing set for 11>1B and 19, 1974, but thew>c motion was denied* +he committe then proceeded to hearthe testimony of the complainants and on 1C>5>74, submitted itsreport recommending the separation of petitioner from the=ni.ersity* n 1C>1C>74, the =ni.ersity applied w> the ?R forclearance to terminate petitionerDDDDs employment* !eanwhile,petitioner filed a complaint w> the ?R for reinstatement andbac#wages* 2udgement was rendered in petitionerDDDDs fa.or, buton appeal to the Sec* of ?abor, the latter found petitionerDDDDsdismissal to be ustified* 3ence, this petition for certiorari*

3$?@ +he onsti* assures to wor#ers security of tenure* n thecase of petitioner, this guarantee is reinforced by the pro.isionon academic freedom* n denying petitionerDDDDs motion forpostponement of the hearing, the committee did not accordprocedural due process to the petitioner* +his was, howe.er,remedied at the mediation conference called at the @ept* of?abor during w>c petitioner was heard on his e.idence* +here hewas gi.en the fullest opportunity to present his case* "etitiondismissed* "etitioner filed a !&R contending that the hearing inthe ?R did not conform to ther re6uirements of due processas the witnesses against petitioner were not called so thatpetitioner could cross-e%amine them*

3$?@ "ettioner did not ob ect to the presentation of thetestimony of the complainant and the witnesses at the schoolin.estigation and did not assert his right to cross-e%amine them*"etitioner wai.ed his right to confront the witnesses, relying

solely on the strength of his e.idence* or was it incumbent onresp* to present the witnesses in the ?R * "etitionerDDDDs onlyright is to be heard* EE*

T n ! v P(il Ato1ic Ener5* Co11ission, #6#SCRA "7& 3#$%84

/ias as @is6ualification in Administrati.e n.estigations &"etition for prohibition brought by ta%payers, 6uestioning thecompetence of members of the "A$ to pass udgment on thesafety of the /ataan "ower "lant and charging them w> bias andpre udgment, based on their publications stating that the plantwas safe*

3$?@ (1) :here the .alidity of an appointment is notchallenged in an appropriate proceeding, the 6uestion ofcompetence is not w>in the filed of udicial in6uiry* +he 6uestionof competence is a matter addressed to the appointing power*(C) n these publications, "A$ clearly indicated itspre udgement that the nuclear plant is safe* +he first waspublished in 19B5* +he other C were issued earlier, but as thema ority of the "A$ commissioners e.en then were alreadyoccupying responsible positions in the "A$ , they cannotescape responsibility for these publications* "etition granted and"A$ restrained from acting in the proceedings for issuance oflicense*

8/13/2019 Constitution Due Process

2/4

T n ! v T'ver #"8 SCRA 2&

FACTS:

"etitioners see# a writ of mandamus in compelling respondentpublic officials to publish and> or cause the publication in the

fficial Fa ette of .arious presidential decrees, letter ofinstructions, general orders, proclamations, e%ecuti.e orders,letter of implementation and administrati.e orders*

+he general rule in see#ing writ of mandamus is that it would be

granted to a pri.ate indi.idual only in those cases where he hassome pri.ate or particular interest to be subser.ed, or someparticular right to be protected, independent of that which heholds with the public at large,G and Git is for the public officerse%clusi.ely to apply for the writ when public rights are to besubser.ed'*

+he legal capacity of a pri.ate citi en was recogni ed by court toma#e the said petition for the reason that the right sought to beenforced by petitioners herein is a public right recogni ed by noless than the fundamental law of the land*

ISSUE: :hether publication in the fficial Fa ette is stillre6uired considering the clause in Article C unless otherwisepro.ided'*

HELD:

=nless it is otherwise pro.ided' refers to the date of effecti.ityand not with the publication re6uirement which cannot be omittedas public needs to be notified for the law to become effecti.e*

+he necessity for the publication in the fficial Fa ette of allunpublished presidential issuances which are of generalapplication, was affirmed by the court on April C4, 19B5* +his isnecessary to pro.ide the general public ade6uate notice of the.arious laws which regulate actions and conduct as citi ens*:ithout this, there would be no basis for Art H of the i.il ode

gnorance of the law e%cuses no one from compliancetherewith'*

:3$R$& R$, the ourt hereby orders respondents to publishin the fficial Fa ette all unpublished presidential issuanceswhich are of general application, and unless so published, theyshall ha.e no binding force and effect*

$I$ =+ E$ R@$R o CJJ

PRO9IDIN0 FOR THE PU/LICATION OF LA-S EITHER INTHE OFFICIAL 0A ETTE OR IN A NE-SPAPER OF

0ENERAL CIRCULATION IN THE PHILIPPINES AS ARE;UIREMENT FOR THEIR EFFECTI9IT