INMATES OF THE NEW BILIBID PRISON VS. DE LIMA  GR No. 212719, June 25, 2019  FACTS   President Benigno S. Aquino III signed into law R.A. No. 10592, amending Articles 29, 94, 97, 98 and 99 of Act No. 3815, or the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Article 29 provides for the period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of imprisonment, except when the accused is a  recidivist and when upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence they have failed to surrender voluntarily.  Petitioners contend that the provisions of R.A. No. 10592 are penal in nature and beneficial to the inmates, thus should be given retroactive effect in accordance with Article 22 of the RPC. For them, the IRR contradicts the law it implements. Petitioners submit that the simple standards added by the new law, should not override the constitutional guarantee of the rights to liberty and due process of law aside from the principle that penal laws beneficial to the accused are given retr...

SPARK VS. QUEZON CITY  GR No. 225442 August 8, 2017  FACTS   Following the campaign of Pres. Duterte to implement a nationwide curfew for minors, several LGUs in Metro Manila started to strictly implement their curfew ordinances on minors which were publicly known as Operation Rody.  Petitioners headed by Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan (SPARK) filed a petition claiming that the curfew ordinances following are unconstitutional because they deprive minors of the right to liberty and travel without substantive due cause.  While petitioners recognize the curfew exemptions (working students/students with evening class), they contend that the list of exemptions do not cover the range and breath of legitimate activities as to why minors are out at night .  ISSUE   Whether or not the Curfew Ordinances deprived minors of their Right to Liberty.  RULING   NO, the Curfew Ordinances do not deprived minors of their Right to Liberty  Minors do ...

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITH PETITION FOR RELIEF IBP  PANGASINAN LEGAL AID VS. DOJ  GR No. 232413, July 25, 2017  FACTS   The petition claims that as a result of jail visitations participated in by the IBP Legal Aid Program, as well as a series of consultations with the Philippine National Police (PNP) on the extant condition of detention prisoners, it was discovered that several detention prisoners had been languishing in jail for years without a case being filed in court by the prosecutor's office and without definite findings as to the existence or nonexistence of probable cause.   For the IBP, it is the height of injustice when innocent persons are left to suffer in jail for years without a fixed term. The IBP represents in this case its client, Jay-Ar Senin (Senin). Senin's rights were allegedly violated because he has been detained for at least eight months without any finding of probable cause or a case h...

ENRILE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN  GR. No. 213847, August 18, 2015  FACTS   Former senator Juan Ponce Enrile, then 90 years of age, charged with plunder involving his alleged involvement in the misappropriation of the Philippine Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), voluntary surrendered and filed for a motion for detention at the PNP General hospital. He then filed a motion to fix bail arguing that it is a matter of right on account of mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and age. The ombudsman contends that Enrile‟s right to bail is only discretionary since plunder is involves capital punishment.  ISSUE   Whether or not Enrile is allowed to bail.  RULING   YES, Enrile should be allowed to bail.  As a general rule; Any person, before being convicted of any criminal offense, shall be bailable unless he is charged with a criminal offense or with an offense punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, and the evidence of his guilt is stro...

REYES VS. GONZALES  606 SCRA 580 (2009)  FACTS   Petitioner, together with 49 others, were arrested and charged of rebellion/inciting to rebellion in relation to the Manila Peninsula Hotel Seige after Respondent DOJ secretary finds probable cause. Respondent then, upon request of the DILG, issued hold departure order 45 which included petitioner in the hold departure list of the Bureau of Immigration and deportation in the interest of national security and safety. The case against petitioner was later dismissed by the lower court. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration pending before the RTC after the dismissal of the aforementioned criminal case.  On his flight back to the Philippines from Hong Kong, petitioner contends that he was interrogated and detained in NAIA because of his inclusion in the hold departure list. This happens every time he left abroad. Petitioner‟s counsel wrote to the DOJ Secretary to ask to lift the Hold Departure Order because the cri...

CITY OF MANILA VS. LAGUIO JR.  4545 SCRA 308 (2005)  FACTS   The Local Government of the City of Manila passed ordinance 7783 which prohibits establishments or operation of business providing certain forms of amusements, entertainment, services and facilities in the Ermita-Malate area. Prohibited establishements defined in the law includes bars, karaoke bars, motels, hotels in the red District known for harboring thrill seekers.  Malate Tourist Development Corp. which manages motels in the district contends that the ordinance is invalid; that they do not market such not use women for entertainment/amusement purposes. The City government argues that the enactment of the ordinance is to promote morality and that is a valid exercise of police power.  ISSUE   Whether or not ordinance 7783 is null and void.  RULING   YES, ordinance 7783 is null and void.  The police power granted to LGUs must always be exercised with utmost observance of the right...

PEOPLE VS. POLMAR  46 Phil 440 (1924)  FACTS   Defendant, the manager ad person in charge of La Flor dela Isabela, a cigarrete manufacturing company, was adjudged guilty by the Court of First Instance of refusing and failing to pay P80 to Macaria Fajardo, a pregnant employee, despite her repeated demands in violation of Sec 13 and 15 of Act No. 3071which provides for a 30 day vacation with pay before delivery and another 30 day vacation with pay after confinement of pregnant laborers in factories, shops and place of labor. In an appeal, respondent questioned the constitutionality of the Act arguing that it is in violation of the right to contract.  ISSUE   Whether or not Act 3071 is unconstitutional on the grounds that it is in violation of the constitutional guarantee of right to contract.  RULING   YES, Act 3071 is unconstitutional.  The Right to enter into contract is included in the liberty of a person guaranteed by the constitution. It includ...

IMBONG VS. OCHOA  GR No. 204819, April 8, 2014  _________________________________________________________ FACTS   The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law) was passed into law in 20120. Herein Petitioner filed a petition before the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the aforementioned law. He contends that the law paves way to legalizing abortion in the country and therefore should be strike down as unconstitutional.  ISSUE   Whether or not the RH law is unconstitutional on the basis that it is contrary to the right to life because it paves way to legalizing abortion.  RULING   NO, the RH law is not contrary to the constitutional guarantee of right to life.  Human life begins at the moment of fertilization with the union of the egg and sperm resulting in the formation of a new individual, with a unique genetic composition that dictates all developmental stage that ensure.fetilization means the union of the male...