crimlawcases arts.1-5.docx

7/26/2019 crimlawcases arts.1-5.docx

1/337

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 17584 March 8, 1922

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

L. Porter Hamilton for appellant.

Acting Attorney-General Tuason for appellee.

ROMUALE!, J.:

Having caused the death of Porfirio Parondo, a bo ! ears old, b stri"ing hi# $ith auto#obile thathe $as driving, the herein appellant $as prosecuted for the cri#e of ho#icide b rec"lessnegligence and $as sentenced to suffer one ear and one da ofprision correccional, and to pa thecosts of the trial.

Not agreeable $ith that sentence he no$ co#es to this court alleging that the court belo$ co##ittedfour errors, to $it%

&. 'he trial court erred in not ta"ing (udicial notice of the fact that the appellant $as beingprosecuted in confor#it $ith Act No. )**+ of the Philippine egislature and that the Act isunconstitutional and gave no (urisdiction in this case.

). 'he lo$er court erred in not dis#issing the co#plaint after the presentation of theevidence in the case, if not before, for the reason that said Act No. )**+ is unconstitutionaland the proceedings had in the case under the provisions of the Act constitute a prosecutionof appellant $ithout due process of la$.

. 'he court a quo erred in not finding that it lac"ed (urisdiction over the person of theaccused and over the sub(ect- #atter of the co#plaint.

. 'he trial court erred in finding the appellant guilt of the cri#e charged and in sentencinghi# to one ear and one da ofprison correccional and to the pa#ent of costs.

/ith regard to the 0uestions of fact, $e have to sa that $e have e1a#ined the record and find thatthe conclusions of the trial (udge, as contained in his $ell-$ritten decision, are sufficientl sustainedb the evidence sub#itted.

'he accused $as driving an auto#obile at the rate of 2 #iles an hour on a high$a + #eter $ide,not$ithstanding the fact that he had to pass a narro$ space bet$een a $agon standing on one sideof the road and a heap of stones on the other side $here the $ere t$o oung bos, the appellant didnot ta"e the precaution re0uired b the circu#stances b slo$ing his #achine, and did not proceed


2/337

$ith the vigilant care that under the circu#stances an ordinar prudent #an $ould ta"e in order toavoid possible accidents that #ight occur, as unfortunatel did occur, as his auto#obile ran over thebo Porfirio Parondo $ho $as instantl "illed as the result of the accident.

'hese facts are so $ell established in the records that there cannot be a shade of doubt about the#.

Co#ing no$ to the other assign#ents of error, it $ill be seen that the deal $ith the funda#ental0uestions as to $hether or not Act No. )**+, under $hich the co#plaint in the present case $asfiled, is valid and constitutional.

'his Act is attac"ed on account of the a#end#ents that it introduces in 3eneral 4rders No. 5*, thedefense arguing that the Philippine egislature $as, and is, not authori6ed to a#end 3eneral 4rdersNo. 5*, as it did b a#ending section ) thereof because its provisions have the character ofconstitutional la$. 7aid section ) provides as follo$s%

All prosecutions for public offenses shall be in the na#e of the 8nited 7tates against thepersons charged $ith the offenses. 93. 4. No. 5*, sec. ) :.

Act No. )**+, $hich a#ends it, b virtue of $hich the People of the Philippine ;sland is #ade theplaintiff in this infor#ation, contains the follo$ing provisions in section &%

7EC';4N &. 7ection t$o of 3eneral 4rders, Nu#bered


3/337

A 7tatute relating to cri#inal procedure is void as a denial of the e0ual protection of the la$sif it prescribes a different procedure in the case of persons in li"e situation. 7ub(ect to thisli#itation, ho$ever, the legislature has large #easure of discretion in prescribing the #odesof cri#inal procedure. . . . 9&) C.>., &&*5, &&*+. 7ee Collins vs. >ohnston, )! 8.7., 52) 5s. Ct. Rep. + 5 . ed., &2!& 7hevlin-Carpenter Co. vs. Minnesota, )&* 8.7., 5! 2 7.Ct. Rep., ++ 5 . ed., 2 nn vs.


4/337


5/337

prosecutes and punishes public cri#es it does so b virtue of the authorit delegated to it b thesupre#e po$er of the Nation.

'his delegation #a be #ade either e1pressl as in the case of the several 7tates of the 8nion andincorporated territories li"e Porto Rico and Ha$aii, or tacitl as is the case $ith the Philippines,$hich is an organi6ed territor though not incorporated $ith the 8nion. 9Malcol#, PhilippineConstitutional a$, &*&-)25.:

'his tacit delegation to our 3overn#ent needs no de#onstration. As a #atter of fact, the cri#esco##itted $ithin our territor, even before section ) of 3eneral 4rders No. 5* $as a#ended, $ereprosecuted and punished in this (urisdiction as is done at present but then as no$ the repression ofcri#es $as done, and is still done, under the sovereign authorit of the 8nited 7tates, $hose na#eappears as the heading in all pleadings in cri#inal causes and in other (udicial papers and notarialacts.

'he use of such a heading is prescribed for civil cases in for# & of section !* of the Code of CivilProcedure in cri#inal causes the constant practice follo$ed in this (urisdiction established its use

and in notarial #atters its use is provided b section &)! of Act No. +. 'his long continued practicein cri#inal #atters and the legal provision relating to civil cases and notarial acts have not beena#ended b an la$, #uch less b Act No. )**+, the sub(ect of the present in0uir.

'here is not a single constitutional provision applicable to the Philippines prescribing the na#e to beused as part plaintiff in cri#inal cases.

'he fact that the political status of this countr is as et undeter#ined and in a transitor stage, is, inour opinion, responsible for the fact that there is no positive provision in our constitutional la$regarding the use of the na#e of the People of the Philippine ;slands, as part plaintiff, in cri#inalprosecutions, as is other$ise the case in the respective constitutional charters of the 7tates of the8nion and incorporated territories a situation $hich #ust not be understood as depriving the

3overn#ent of the Philippines of its po$er, ho$ever delegated, to prosecute public cri#es. 'he factis undeniable that the present govern#ent of the Philippines, created b the Congress of the 8nited7tates, is autono#ous.

'his autono# of the 3overn#ent of the Philippines reaches all (udicial actions, the case at barbeing one of the# as an e1a#ple of such autono#, this 3overn#ent, the sa#e as that of Ha$aiiand Porto Rico 9People of Porto Rico vs. Rosal Castillo @&&, ))! 8.7., )!2 5! . ed., 52! 7up. Ct. Rep., 5): cannot be sued $ithout its consent. 9Merritt vs. 3overn#ent of the Philippine;slands, Phil., && . 7. Moon F Co. vs. Harrison, p. )!,ante.: 'he doctrine, laid do$n in thesecases, ac"no$ledges the prerogative of personalit in the 3overn#ent of the Philippines, $hich, if itis sufficient to shield it fro# an responsibilit in court in its o$n na#e unless it consents thereto, it

should be also, as sufficientl authoritative in la$, to give that govern#ent the right to prosecute incourt in its o$n na#e $ho#soever violates $ithin its territor the penal la$s in force therein.

Ho$ever, li#iting ourselves to the 0uestion relative to the for# of the co#plaint in cri#inal #atters, itis $ithin the po$er of the egislature to prescribe the for# of the cri#inal co#plaint as long as theconstitutional provision of the accused to be infor#ed of the nature of the accusation is not violated.


6/337

8nder the Constitution of the 8nited 7tates and b li"e provisions in the constitutions of thevarious states, the accused is entitled to be infor#ed of the nature and cause of theaccusation against hi# . . .

;t is $ithin the po$er of the legislatures under such a constitutional provision to prescribe thefor# of the indict#ent or infor#ation, and such for# #a o#it aver#ents regarded asnecessar at co##on la$. 9)) Cc., )*5.:

All these considerations apriori are strengthened a posteriori b the i#portant reason disclosed bthe follo$ing fact that the Congress has tacitl approved Act No. )**+. Both the Act of Congressof >ul &, &2), section *+, and the >ones a$, last paragraph of section &, provide that all the la$senacted b the 3overn#ent of the Philippines or its egislature shall be for$arded to the Congressof the 8nited 7tates, $hich bod reserves the right and po$er to annul the#. And presu#ing, aslegall $e #ust, that the provisions of these la$s have been co#plied $ith, it is undisputed that theCongress of the 8nited 7tates did not annul an of those acts alread adverted to Nos. &, 2,2 9of the Philippine Co##ission:, and )+!!, )!2 and the one no$ in 0uestion No. )**+ 9of thepresent egislature: all of $hich $ere a#endator of 3eneral 4rders No. 5*. 'he Act no$ under

discussion 9No. )**+: too" effect on


7/337


Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L"11#7# Oc$o%&r 17, 191#

THE UNITE STATES,plaintiff-appellee,vs.ANRES PA'LO,defendant-appellant.

Alfonso (. $endo)a for appellant.

Attorney-General Avance%a for appellee.

TORRES, J.:

At about noon of the )&st of 4ctober, &&5, Andres Pablo, a police#an of the #unicipalit ofBalanga, $ent b order of his chief to the barrio of 'uo to raid a*ueteng ga#e $hich, according tothe infor#ation lodged, $as being conducted in that place but before the said officer arrived therethe plaers, perhaps advised of his approach b a sp, left and ran a$a ho$ever, on his arrival at avacant lot the defendant there found


8/337

that these latter $ere the cabecillas or ringleaders in the*ueteng ga#e, fro# infor#ation given hi#b an un"no$n person. ;n vie$ of this testi#on b the police officer $ho #ade the arrest and of theother evidence adduced at the trial the court ac0uitted the defendants Antonio Rodrigo and Ma1i#oMalicsi and sentenced onl


9/337

police#en Andres Pablo P)2, provided $itness and Rodrigo $ere e1cluded fro# the charge andthat onl P&5 $as delivered to the said Pablo, through 3regorio 3an6on. 'his state#ent $ascorroborated b the latter, though he said nothing about $hat a#ount of #one he delivered to thepolice#an Pablo.

'he defendant Andres Pablo testified under oath that, on his being as"ed b the (ustice of the peaceho$ he could have seen Ma1i#o Malicsi and Antonio Rodrigo, he replied that he did not see the# atthe place $here the ga#e $as being conducted nor did he see the# run a$a fro# there, for heonl found the table, the tambiolo, the bolas, and


10/337

testi#on a cri#e $hich can produce incalculable and far-reaching har# to societ and causeinfinite disturbance of social order.

'he right of prosecution and punish#ent for a cri#e is one of the attributes that b a natural la$belongs to the sovereign po$er instinctivel charged b the co##on $ill of the #e#bers of societto loo" after, guard and defend the interests of the co##unit, the individual and social rights andthe liberties of ever citi6en and the guarant of the e1ercise of his rights.

'he po$er to punish evildoers has never been attac"ed or challenged, as the necessit for itse1istence has been recogni6ed even b the #ost bac"$ard peoples. At ti#es the criticis# has been#ade that certain penalties are cruel, barbarous, and atrocious at other, that the are light andinade0uate to the nature and gravit of the offense, but the i#position of punish#ent is ad#itted tobe (ust b the $hole hu#an race, and even barbarians and savages the#selves, $ho are ignorant ofall civili6ation, are no e1ception.lawphil.net

Not$ithstanding that the said Act No. &+! 9$hich, as interpreted b this court in its decisions, $asdee#ed to have repealed the afore#entioned article of the Penal Code relating to false testi#on,

co#prised $ithin the ter# of per(ur: did not e1pressl repeal the said articles of the Penal Codeand as the said final article of the Ad#inistrative Code, in totall repealing Act No. &+!, does note1plicitl provide that the #entioned articles of the Penal Code are also repealed, the $ill of thelegislation not being e1pressl and clearl stated $ith respect to the co#plete or partial repeal of thesaid articles of the Penal Code, in the #anner that it has totall repealed the said Act No. &+!relating its per(ur and, further#ore, as it is i#perative that societ punish those of its #e#bers $hoare guilt of per(ur or false testi#on, and it cannot be conceived that these cri#es should gounpunished or be freel co##itted $ithout punish#ent of an "ind, it #ust be conceded that there#ust be in this countr so#e prior, pree1istent la$ that punishes per(ur or false testi#on.

'here certainl are la$s $hich deal $ith per(ur or false testi#on, li"e a$ !et seq. of 'itle ),third Partida.

Ho$ever, since the Penal Code $ent into force, the cri#e of false testi#on has been punishedunder the said articles of the said Code, $hich as $e have alread said, have not been specificallrepealed b the said Act No. &+!, but since its enact#ent, have not been applied, b the #ereinterpretation given to the# b this court in its decisions et, fro# the #o#ent that Act $as repealedb the Ad#inistrative Code, the needs of societ have #ade it necessar that the said articles &* to) should be dee#ed to be in force, inas#uch as the Ad#inistrative Code, in repealing the said Actrelating to per(ur, has not e1plicitl provided that the said articles of the Penal Code have li"e$isebeen repealed.

'his #anner of understanding and construing the statutes applicable to the cri#e of false testi#on

or per(ur is in har#on $ith the provision of a$ &&, 'itle ), Boo" , of theovisima,ecopilacion$hich sas%%

All the la$s of the "ingdo#, not e1pressl repealed b other subse0uent la$s, #ust beliterall obeed and the e1cuse that the are not in use cannot avail for the Catholic "ingsand their successors so ordered in nu#erous la$s, and so also have ; ordered on differentoccasions, and even though the $ere repealed, it is seen that the have been revived bthe decree $hich ; issued in confor#it $ith the# although the $ere not e1pressl


11/337

designated. 'he council $ill be infor#ed thereof and $ill ta"e account of the i#portance ofthe #atter.

;t is, then, assu#ed that the said articles of the Penal Code are in force and are properl applicableto cri#es of false testi#on. 'herefore, in consideration of the fact that in the case at bar theevidence sho$s it to have been dul proven that the defendant, Andres Pablo, in testifing in thecause prosecuted for ga#bling at*ueteng, perverted the truth, for the purpose of favoring the allegedga#blers, Ma1i#o Malicsi and Antonio Rodrigo, $ith the aggravating circu#stance of the cri#ebeing co##itted through briber, for it $as also proved that the defendant Pablo received P&5 inorder that he should #a"e no #ention of the said t$o ga#blers in his s$orn testi#on, $hereb he"no$ingl perverted the truth, $e hold that, in the co##ission of the cri#e of false testi#on, thereconcurred the aggravating circu#stance of price or re$ard, No. of article &2 of the Code, $ith no#itigating circu#stance to offset the effects of the said aggravating one $herefore the defendanthas incurred the #a1i#u# period of the penalt of arresto mayor in its #a1i#u# degree toprisioncorreccional in its #ediu# degree, and a fine.


12/337

'he antecedent facts and circu#stances of the four 9: counts of the offense charged, have beenclearl illustrated, in the Co##ent of the 4ffice of the 7olicitor 3eneral as official counsel for thepublic respondent, thus%

Petitioner $as in the process of putting up a car repair shop so#eti#e in April &*, but a did nothave co#plete e0uip#ent that could #a"e his venture $or"able. He also had another proble#, andthat $hile he $as going into this entrepreneurship, he lac"ed funds $ith $hich to purchase thenecessar e0uip#ent to #a"e such business operational. 'hus, petitioner, representing 8ltra7ources ;nternational Corporation, approached Cora6on 'eng, 9private co#plainant: ice Presidentof Mancor ;ndustries 9hereinafter referred to as Mancor: for his needed car repair service e0uip#entof $hich Mancor $as a distributor, 9,ollo, pp. 2-&:

Having been approached b petitioner on his predica#ent, $ho full bared that he had no sufficientfunds to bu the e0uip#ent needed, the for#er 9Cora6on 'eng: referred Magno to 7


13/337

&* and 22+*+2 dated 7epte#ber &5, &*, all in the a#ount of P5,2*. and No. 22+*+& dated7epte#ber )*, &*, in the a#ount of P&2,2!+.*!. 9/bid., pp. ) F :.

7ubse0uentl, petitioner could not pa 7


14/337

and doubtful legalit. ;t is in si#ple language, a sche#e $hereb Mrs. 'eng as the supplier of thee0uip#ent in the na#e of her corporation, Mancor, $ould be able to =sell or lease= its goods as inthis case, and at the sa#e ti#e, privatel financing those $ho desperatel need pettacco##odations as this one. 'his modus operandihas in so #an instances victi#i6edunsuspecting business#en, $ho li"e$ise need protection fro# the la$, b availing of the deceptivelcalled =$arrant deposit= not reali6ing that the also fall pre to leasing e0uip#ent under the guise of

a lease-purchase agree#ent $hen it is a sche#e designed to s"i# off business clients.

'his #aneuvering has serious i#plications especiall $ith respect to the threat of the penal sanctionof the la$ in issue, as in this case. And, $ith a $illing court sste# to appl the full harshness of thespecial la$ in 0uestion, using the 0mala prohibitia= doctrine, the noble ob(ective of the la$ is tainted$ith #aterialis# and opportunis# in the highest, degree.

'his angle is bolstered b the fact that since the petitioner or lessee referred to above in the leaseagree#ent "ne$ that the a#ount of P),!2.22 sub(ect of the cases, $ere #ere acco##odation-arrange#ents $ith so#ebod thru >oe 3o#e6, petitioner did not even atte#pt to secure the refundof said a#ount fro# 7


15/337

value= as this $as absent, and therefore petitioner should not be punished for #ere issuance of thechec"s in 0uestion.


16/337

'he cru1 of the #atter rests upon the reason for the dra$ing of the postdated chec"s b thepetitioner, i.e.$hether the $ere dra$n or issued =to appl on account or for value=, as re0uiredunder 7ection & of B.P. Blg, )). /hen vie$ed against the follo$ing definitions of the catch-ter#s=$arrant= and =deposit=, for $hich the postdated chec"s $ere issued or dra$n, all the #ore, thealleged cri#e could not have been co##itted b petitioner%

a: 3arranty A pro#ise that a proposition of fact is true. A pro#ise that certain factsare trul as the are represented to be and that the $ill re#ain so% . . . 9Blac"?s a$Gictionar,


17/337

Padilla and ,egalado "". concur.

arvasa !.". concurs in the result.

ocon ". is on leave.

Foo$+o$&-

K Penned b Associate >ustice orna 7. o#bos-Ge a ustices >esus M. Elbinias and uis . ictor.


Manila

EN 'ANC

G.R. No. 1#711 A/r0 (, 28

SPOUSES CARLOS S. ROMUALE! a+ ERLINA R. ROMUALE!,petitioners,vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS a+ ENNIS GARA,respondents.

E C I S I O N

CHICO"NA!ARIO, J.3

'his treats of the Petition for Revie$ on!ertiorari$ith a praer for the issuance of a 'e#porarRestraining 4rder andOor /rit of Preli#inar ;n(unction filed b petitioners 7pouses Carlos 7.Ro#ualde6 and Erlinda R. Ro#ualde6 see"ing to annul and set aside the Resolutions, dated &&>une )22&and )! >anuar )225)of the Co##ission on Elections 9C4MEEC: in E.4. Case No.)222-+. ;n the Resolution of && >une )22, the C4MEEC(n 5ancdirected the a$ Gepart#ent tofile the appropriate ;nfor#ation $ith the proper court against petitioners Carlos 7. Ro#ualde6 andErlinda Ro#ualde6 for violation of 7ection &29g: and 9(:in relation to 7ection 59(:of Republic ActNo. *&*, other$ise "no$n as 'he oterQs Registration Act of &+.5PetitionersQ Motion forReconsideration thereon $as denied.

'he factual antecedents leading to the instant Petition are presented hereunder%

4n &) >ul )222, private respondent Gennis 3ara, along $ith Angelino Apostol+filed a Co#plaint-Affidavit!$ith the C4MEEC thru the 4ffice of the Election 4fficer in Burauen, ete, chargingpetitioners $ith violation of 7ection )+&9:9):*and 7ection )+&9:95:of the 4#nibus Election Code,si#ilarl referred to as Batas Pa#bansa Blg. **& and 7ection &)&2of Republic Act No. *&*.

Private respondent deposed, inter alia, that% petitioners are of legal ages and residents of &&Mariposa oop, Mariposa 7treet, Bagong ipunan ng Cra#e, Lue6on Cit on Ma )222 and &&
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt1


18/337

Ma )222, petitioners Carlos 7. Ro#ualde6 and Erlinda R. Ro#ualde6, applied for registration asne$ voters $ith the 4ffice of the Election 4fficer of Burauen, ete, as evidenced b oterRegistration Record Nos. )525 and 2!2)5), respectivel in their s$orn applications,petitioners #ade false and untruthful representations in violation of 7ection &2&&of Republic Act Nos.*&*, b indicating therein that the are residents of 5 7an >ose 7treet, Burauen, ete, $hen intruth and in fact, the $ere and still are residents of && Mariposa oop, Mariposa 7treet, Bagong

ipunan ng Cra#e, Lue6on Cit, and registered voters of Baranga Bagong ipunan ng Cra#e,Gistrict ;, Lue6on Cit, Precinct No. &-A, as evidenced b oter Registration Record Nos.)+&5*) and )+&5*) and that petitioners, "no$ing full $ell said truth, intentionall and $illfull,did not fill the blan" spaces in said applications corresponding to the length of ti#e $hich the haveresided in Burauen, ete. ;n fine, private respondent charged petitioners, to $it%

Respondent-spouses, Carlos 7ison Ro#ualde6 and Erlinda Rees Ro#ualde6 co##ittedand consu##ated election offenses in violation of our election la$s, specificall, 7ec. )+&,paragraph 9:, subparagraph 9):, for "no$ingl #a"ing an false or untruthful state#entsrelative to an data or infor#ation re0uired in the application for registration, and of 7ec. )+&,paragraph 9:, subparagraph 95:, co##itted b an person $ho, being a registered voter,

registers ane$ $ithout filing an application for cancellation of his previous registration, bothof the 4#nibus Election Code 9BP Blg. **&:, and of 7ec. &), RA *&* 9oter RegistrationAct: for failure to appl for transfer of registration records due to change of residence toanother cit or #unicipalit.=&)

'he Co#plaint-Affidavit contained a praer that a preli#inar investigation be conducted b theC4MEEC, and if the evidence so $arrants, the corresponding ;nfor#ation against petitioners befiled before the Regional 'rial Court 9R'C: for the prosecution of the sa#e.

Petitioners filed a >oint Counter-Affidavit $ith Motion to Gis#iss&dated ) April )22&. 'hecontended therein that the did not #a"e an false or untruthful state#ents in their application forregistration. 'he avo$ed that the intended to reside in Burauen, ete, since the ear &*. 4n

Ma )222, the too" actual residence in Burauen, ete, b leasing for five 95: ears, the house of>uanito and ose 7treet in Burauen, ete. 4n even date, theBaranga Gistrict ;;; Council of Burauen passed a Resolution of /elco#e, e1pressing therein itsgratitude and appreciation to petitioner Carlos 7. Ro#ualde6 for choosing the Baranga as hisofficial residence.&

4n )* Nove#ber )22, Att. Maria Norina 7. 'angaro-Casingal, C4MEEC ;nvestigating 4fficer,issued a Resolution, reco##ending to the C4MEEC a$ Gepart#ent 9;nvestigation andProsecution Givision:, the filing of the appropriate ;nfor#ation against petitioners, disposing, thus%

PREM;7E7 C4N7;GEREG, the a$ Gepart#ent 9;nvestigation and Prosecution Givision:,REC4MMENG7 to file the necessar infor#ation against Carlos 7ison Ro#ualde6 beforethe proper Regional 'rial Court for violation of 7ection &2 9g: and 9(: in relation to 7ection 59(: of Republic Act *&* and to authori6e the Girector ; of the a$ Gepart#ent to designatea Co#elec Prosecutor to handle the prosecution of the case $ith the dut to sub#it periodicreport after ever hearing of the case.&5

4n && >une )22, the C4MEEC (n 5ancfound no reason to depart fro# the reco##endatorResolution of )* Nove#ber )22, and ordered, vi)%
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt15


19/337

/HEREune )22,&!rationali6ing, thus%

Ho$ever, perusal of the records reveal 9sic: that the argu#ents and issues raised in theMotion for Reconsideration are #erel a rehash of the argu#ents advanced b theRespondents in @their Me#orandu# received b the a$ Gepart#ent on &! April )22&, thesa#e @$as alread considered b the ;nvestigating 4fficer and $as discussed in herreco##endation $hich eventuall $as #ade as the basis for the (n 5ancQs resolution.

As aptl observed b the ;nvestigating 4fficer, the filing of re0uest for the cancellation and

transfer of oting Registration Record does not auto#aticall cancel the registration records.'he fact re#ains that at the ti#e of application for registration as ne$ voter of the hereinRespondents on Ma and &&, )22& in the 4ffice of Election 4fficer of Burauen, ete theirregistration in Baranga &-A, Baranga Bagong ipunan ng Cra#e Lue6on Cit $as stillvalid and subsisting.&*

4n &) >anuar )22+, Alioden G. Galaig, Girector ;, a$ Gepart#ent of the C4MEEC filed $ith theR'C, Burauen, ete, separate ;nfor#ations against petitioner Carlos 7. Ro#ualde6&for violation of7ection &29g:, in relation to 7ection 59(: of Republic Act No. *&*, and against petitioner Erlinda R.Ro#ualde6)2for violation of 7ection &29g:, in relation to 7ection 59(: of Republic Act No. *&*,subse0uentl doc"eted as Cri#. Case No. BN-2+-2-&*5 and Cri#. Case No. BN-2+-2-&*,respectivel. Moreover, separate ;nfor#ations for violation of 7ection &29(:, in relation to 7ection 59(:

of Republic Act No. *&* $ere filed against petitioners.)&

Hence, petitioners co#e to us via the instant Petition, sub#itting the follo$ing argu#ents%

;

RE7P4NGEN' C4MM;77;4N 4N EEC';4N7 3RAE AB87EG ;'7 G;7CRE';4NAM48N';N3 '4 ACD 4< 4R ;N ECE77 4< ;'7 >8R;7G;C';4N and

;;

C4MEEC 3RAE AB87EG ;'7 G;7CRE';4N /HEN ;' PREM;7EG ;'7 RE748';4N4N A M;7APPREHEN7;4N 4<


20/337

BN-2+-2-&* and for violation of 7ection &29g:, in relation to 7ection 59(: of Republic Act No.*&*, in Cri#inal Case No. BN-2+-2-&*5. 7i#ilarl, the Motion alleged that the C4MEEC filed$ith the R'C, t$o separate ;nfor#ations, both dated &) >anuar )22+, against petitioner Erlinda R.Ro#ualde6, charging her $ith the sa#e offenses as those charged against petitioner Carlos 7.Ro#ualde6, and thereafter, doc"eted as Cri#inal Case No. BN-2+-2-&*), and No. BN-2+-2-&*.

4n )2 >une )22+, this Court issued a Resolution)dening for lac" of #erit petitionersQ MotionReiterating Praer for ;ssuance of /rit of Preli#inar ;n(unction and to Cite for ;ndirect Conte#pt.

/e shall no$ resolve, in seriatim, the argu#ents raised b petitioners.

Petitioners contend that the election offenses for $hich the are charged b private respondent areentirel different fro# those $hich the stand to be accused of before the R'C b the C4MEEC.According to petitioners, private respondentQs co#plaint charged the# for allegedl violating, to $it%&: 7ection )+&9:9): and 7ection )+&9:95: of the 4#nibus Election Code, and ): 7ection &) of theoterQs Registration Act ho$ever, the C4MEEC (n 5ancdirected in the assailed Resolutions, that

the be charged for violations of 7ection &29g: and 9(:, in relation to 7ection 59(: of the oterQsRegistration Act. Essentiall, petitioners are of the vie$ that the $ere not accorded due process ofla$. 7pecificall, their right to refute or sub#it docu#entar evidence against the ne$ charges $hichC4MEEC ordered to be filed against the#. Moreover, petitioners insist that 7ection 59(: of theoterQs Registration Act is vague as it does not refer to a definite provision of the la$, the violation of$hich $ould constitute an election offense hence, it runs contrar to 7ection &9&:)5and 7ection&9):,)+Article ;;; of the &*! Constitution.

/e are not persuaded.

1irst. 'he Co#plaint-Affidavit filed b private respondent $ith the C4MEEC is couched in alanguage $hich e#braces the allegations necessar to support the charge for violation of 7ection

&29g: and 9(:, in relation to 7ection 59(: of Republic Act No. *&*.

A reading of the relevant la$s is in order, thus%

7ection &29g: and 7ection &29(: of Republic Act No. *&*, provide as follo$s%

7EC. &2 S ,egistration of &oters. - A 0ualified voter shall be registered in the per#anent listof voters in a precinct of the cit or #unicipalit $herein he resides to be able to vote in anelection. 'o register as a voter, he shall personall acco#plish an application for# forregistration as prescribed b the Co##ission in three 9: copies before the Election 4fficeron an date during office hours after having ac0uired the 0ualifications of a voter.

'he application shall contain the follo$ing data%

1 1 1 1

9g: Periods of residence in the Philippines and in the place of registration

1 1 1 1
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt26


21/337

9(: A state#ent that the application is not a registered voter of an precinct

'he application for registration shall contain three 9: speci#en signatures of the applicant,clear and legible rolled prints of his left and right thu#bprints, $ith four identification si6ecopies of his latest photograph, attached thereto, to be ta"en at the e1pense of theCo##ission.

Before the applicant acco#plishes his application for registration, the Election 4fficer shallinfor# hi# of the 0ualifications and dis0ualifications prescribed b la$ for a voter, andthereafter, see to it that the acco#plished application contains all the data therein re0uiredand that the applicantQs speci#en signatures, fingerprints, and photographs are properlaffi1ed in all copies of the voterQs application.

Moreover, 7ection 59(: of the sa#e Act, recites, thus%

7EC. 5. (lection 'ffense. S 'he follo$ing shall be considered election offenses under thisAct%

1 1 1 1

9(: iolation of an of the provisions of this Act.

7ignificantl, the allegations in the Co#plaint-Affidavit $hich $as filed $ith the a$ Gepart#ent ofthe C4MEEC, support the charge directed b the C4MEEC (n 5ancto be filed againstpetitioners $ith the R'C. Even a #ere perusal of the Co#plaint-Affidavit $ould readil sho$ that7ection &2 of Republic Act No. *&* $as specificall #entioned therein. 4n the #atter of the actscovered b 7ection &29g: and 9(:, the Co#plaint-Affidavit, spells out the follo$ing allegations, to $it%

5. Respondent-spouses #ade false and untruthful representations in their applications9Anne1es =B= and =C=: in violation of the re0uire#ents of 7ection &2, RA *&* 9'he oterQsRegistration Act:%

5.& Respondent-spouses, in their s$orn applications 9Anne1es =B= and =C=, clai#edto be residents of 5 7an >ose @7treet, Burauen, ete, $hen in truth and in fact,the $ere and still are residents of && Mariposa oop, Mariposa @7treet, Bagongipunan ng Cra#e, Lue6on Cit and registered voters of Baranga Bagong ipunanng Cra#e, Gistrict ;, Lue6on Cit, Precinct No. &-A, a cop of the Certificationissued b Hon. E##anuel . 3o6on, Punong Baranga, Bagong ipunan ng Cra#e,Lue6on Cit is hereto attached and #ade an integral part hereof, as Anne1 =G=

5.) Respondent-spouses "no$ing full $ell said truth, intentionall and $illfull, didnot fill the blan" spaces in their applications 9Anne1es =B= and =C=: corresponding tothe length of ti#e the have resided in Burauen, ete

+. Respondent-spouses, in 9sic: all intents and purposes, $ere and still are residents andregistered voters of Lue6on Cit, as evidenced b oter Registration Record Nos. )+&5*)and )+&5*), respectivel photocopies of $hich are hereto attached as Anne1es =E= and=


22/337

Charge of the 4ffice of the Election 4fficer,


23/337

enable hi# to #a"e his defense. et it be said that, inLacson, this court resolved the issue of$hether under the allegations in the sub(ect ;nfor#ations therein, it is the 7andiganbaan or theRegional 'rial Court $hich has (urisdiction over the #ultiple #urder case against therein petitionerand intervenors. ;n Lacson, $e underscored the ele#entar rule that the (urisdiction of a court isdeter#ined b the allegations in the Co#plaint or ;nfor#ation, and not b the evidence presented bthe parties at the trial.);ndeed, in acson, $e articulated that the real nature of the cri#inal charge

is deter#ined not fro# the caption or prea#ble of the ;nfor#ation nor fro# the specification of theprovision of la$ alleged to have been violated, the being conclusions of la$, but b the actual recitalof facts in the Co#plaint or ;nfor#ation.2

PetitionersQ reliance on Lacson, ho$ever, does not support their clai# of lac" of due processbecause, as $e have said, the charges contained in private respondentQs Co#plaint-Affidavit and thecharges as directed b the C4MEEC to be filed are based on the sa#e set of facts. ;n fact, thenature of the cri#inal charges in private respondentQs Co#plaint-Affidavit and that of the chargescontained in the ;nfor#ations filed $ith the R'C, pursuant to the C4MEEC Resolution(n 5ancarethe sa#e, such that, petitioners cannot clai# that the $ere not able to refute or sub#itdocu#entar evidence against the charges that the C4MEEC filed $ith the R'C. Petitioners $ere

afforded due process because the $ere granted the opportunit to refute the allegations in privaterespondentQs Co#plaint-Affidavit. 4n ) April )22&, in opposition to the Co#plaint-Affidavit,petitioners filed a >oint Counter-Affidavit $ith Motion to Gis#iss $ith the a$ Gepart#ent of theC4MEEC. 'he si#ilarl filed a Me#orandu# before the said bod.


24/337

/e are not convinced.

'he void-for-vagueness doctrine holds that a la$ is faciall invalid if #en of co##on intelligence#ust necessaril guess at its #eaning and differ as to its application.Ho$ever, this Court hasi#posed certain li#itations b $hich a cri#inal statute, as in the challenged la$ at bar, #a bescrutini6ed. 'his Court has declared that facial invalidation5or an =on-its-face= invalidation ofcri#inal statutes is not appropriate.+/e have so enunciated in no uncertain ter#s in ,omualde) v.#andiganbayan, !thus%

;n su#, the doctrines of strict scrutin, overbreadth, and vagueness are analtical toolsdeveloped for testing =on their faces= statutes in free speech cases or, as the are called inA#erican la$,


25/337

At the outset, $e declare that under these ter#s, the opinions of the dissent $hich see" to bring tothe fore the purported a#biguities of a long list of provisions in Republic Act No. *&* can bedee#ed as a facial challenge. An appropriate =as applied= challenge in the instant Petition should beli#ited onl to 7ection 5 9(: in relation to 7ections &2 9g: and 9(: of Republic Act No. *&*theprovisions upon $hich petitioners are charged. An e1panded e1a#ination of the la$ coveringprovisions $hich are alien to petitionersQ case $ould be antagonistic to the rudi#ent that for (udicial

revie$ to be e1ercised, there #ust be an e1isting case or controvers that is appropriate or ripe fordeter#ination, and not con(ectural or anticipator.

/e further 0uote the relevant ruling in 4avid v. Arroyoon the proscription anent a facial challenge%*

Moreover, the overbreadth doctrine is not intended for testing the validit of a la$ that=reflects legiti#ate state interest in #aintaining co#prehensive control over har#ful,constitutionall unprotected conduct.= 8ndoubtedl, la$less violence, insurrection andrebellion are considered =har#ful= and =constitutionall unprotected conduct.= ;n5roadric2 v.'2lahomait $as held%

;t re#ains a #atter of no little difficult to deter#ine $hen a la$ #a properl be held void onits face and $hen such su##ar action is inappropriate. '*$ $h& /a0+ 0/or$ o o*r ca-&-0-, a$ $h& 6&r: &a-$, $ha$ ac0a o6&r%r&a$h a=*0ca$0o+ 0- a+ &;c&/$0o+ $o o*r$ra0$0o+a r*&- o /rac$0c& a+ $ha$ 0$- *+c$0o+, a 00$& o+& a$ $h& o*$-&$, a$$&+*a$&-a- $h& o$h&r0-& *+/ro$&c$& %&ha60or $ha$ 0$ or%0- $h& S$a$& $o -a+c$0o+ o6&- ro/*r& -/&&ch $oar co+*c$and $ha$ co+*c$ &6&+ 0 &;/r&--06& a- 0$h0+ $h& -co/&o o$h&r0-& 6a0 cr00+a a- $ha$ r&&c$ &- a+ &;c&/$0o+$o -o& o $h& *-*a r*&- o co+-$0$*$0o+a 0$0


26/337

authori6ed court construes it #ore narro$l. 'he factor that #otivates courts to depart fro#the nor#al ad(udicator rules is the concern $ith the =chilling= deterrent effect of theoverbroad statute on third parties not courageous enough to bring suit. 'he Court assu#esthat an overbroad la$s =ver e1istence #a cause others not before the court to refrain fro#constitutionall protected speech or e1pression.= An overbreadth ruling is designed tore#ove that deterrent effect on the speech of those third parties.

;n other $ords, a facial challenge using the overbreadth doctrine $ill re0uire the Court toe1a#ine PP &2&! and pinpoint its fla$s and defects, not on the basis of its actual operationto petitioners, but on the assu#ption or prediction that its ver e1istence #a causeo$h&r-+o$ %&or& $h& Co*r$ to refrain fro# constitutionall protected speech or e1pression.

11 111 111

And thirda facial challenge on the ground of overbreadth is the #ost difficult challenge to#ount successfull, since the challenger #ust establish that$h&r& ca+ %& +o 0+-$a+c&h&+ $h& a--a0& a a: %& 6a0. Here, petitioners did not even atte#pt to sho$

$hether this situation e1ists.

Petitioners li"e$ise see" a facial revie$ of PP &2&! on the ground of vagueness. 'his, too, isun$arranted.

Related to the =overbreadth= doctrine is the =void for vagueness doctrine= $hich holds that =aa 0- ac0a: 0+6a0 0 &+ o coo+ 0+$&0


27/337

'he rationali6ation see#s to us to be pure sophistr.A -$a$*$& 0- +o$ r&+&r& *+c&r$a0+a+ 6o0 &r&: %&ca*-&


28/337

legislative fiat intends to punish not onl those e1pressl declared unla$ful but even those not sodeclared but are clearl en(oined to be observed to carr out the funda#ental purpose of thela$.53atchalian re#ains good la$, and stands unchallenged.

;t also does not escape the #ind of this Court that the phraseolog in 7ection 59(: is e#ploed bCongress in a nu#ber of our la$s.+'hese provisions have not been declared unconstitutional.

Moreover, ever statute has in its favor the presu#ption of validit.!'o (ustif its nullification, there#ust be a clear and une0uivocal breach of the Constitution, and not one that is doubtful, speculativeor argu#entative.*/e hold that petitioners failed to overco#e the heav presu#ption in favor of thela$. ;ts constitutionalit #ust be upheld in the absence of substantial grounds for overthro$ing thesa#e.

A salient point. Courts $ill refrain fro# touching upon the issue of constitutionalit unless it is trulunavoidable and is the ver lis mota. ;n the case at bar, the lis motais the alleged grave abuse ofdiscretion of the C4MEEC in finding probable cause for the filing of cri#inal charges againstpetitioners.

Third. Petitioners #aintain that the C4MEEC (n 5anc, pre#ised its finding on a #isapprehensionof facts, and co##itted grave abuse of discretion in directing the filing of ;nfor#ations against the#$ith the R'C.

/e are once again uni#pressed.

'he constitutional grant of prosecutorial po$er in the C4MEEC finds statutor e1pression under7ection )+5of Batas Pa#bansa Blg. **&, other$ise "no$n as the 4#nibus Election Code.52'hetas" of the C4MEEC $henever an election offense charge is filed before it is to conduct thepreli#inar investigation of the case, and #a"e a deter#ination of probable cause. 8nder 7ection*9b:, Rule of the C4MEEC Rules of Procedure, the investigating officer #a"es a deter#ination

of $hether there is a reasonable ground to believe that a cri#e has been co##itted.5&;n 5aytan v.!'$(L(!,5)this Court, sufficientl elucidated on the #atter of probable cause in the prosecution ofelection offenses, vi)%

;t is also $ell-settled that the finding of probable cause in the prosecution of election offensesrests in the C4MEEC?s sound discretion. 'he C4MEEC e1ercises the constitutionalauthorit to investigate and, $here appropriate, prosecute cases for violation of electionla$s, including acts or o#issions constituting election frauds, offense and #alpractices.3enerall, the Court $ill not interfere $ith such finding of the C4MEEC absent a clearsho$ing of grave abuse of discretion. 'his principle e#anates fro# the C4MEEC?se1clusive po$er to conduct preli#inar investigation of all election offenses punishable under

the election la$s and to prosecute the sa#e, e1cept as #a other$ise be provided b la$.5

I$ 0- -*cc0+c$ $ha$ co*r$- 0 +o$ -*%-$0$*$& $h& 0+0+< o /ro%a%& ca*-& %: $h& COMELEC 0+$h& a%-&+c& o


29/337

According to the C4MEEC (n 5anc, the investigating officer, in the case at bar, held that there $assufficient cause for the filing of cri#inal charges against petitioners, and found no reason to departtherefro#. /ithout 0uestion, on Ma and && of )22&, petitioners applied for registration as ne$voters $ith the 4ffice of the Election 4fficer of Burauen, ete, not$ithstanding the e1istence ofpetitionersQ registration records as registered voters of Precinct No. &-A of Baranga Bagongipunan ng Cra#e, Gistrict ;, Lue6on Cit. 'he directive b the C4MEEC $hich affir#ed the

Resolution55of )* Nove#ber )222 of ;nvestigating 4fficer Att. 'angaro-Casingal does not appear tobe $anting in factual basis, such that a reasonabl prudent #an $ould conclude that there e1istsprobable cause to hold petitioners for trial. 'hus, in the aforesaid Resolution, the ;nvestigating4fficer, found%

A violation therefore of 7ection &2 of Republic Act No. *&* is an election offense.

;n the instant case, $hen respondents Carlos Ro#ualde6 and Erlinda Ro#ualde6 filed theirrespective applications for registration as ne$ voters $ith the 4ffice of the Election 4fficer ofBurauen, ete on Ma and &&, )22&, respectivel, the stated under oath that the are notregistered voters in other precinct 9RR Nos. )525 and 2!2)&:. Ho$ever, contrar

to their state#ents, records sho$ the are still registered voters of Precinct No. &-A,baranga Bagong ipunan ng Cra#e, Gistrict ;, Lue6on Cit, as per RR Nos. )+&5*)5and )+&5*). ;n other $ords, respondentsQ registration records in Lue6on Cit is 9sic: stillin e1istence.

/hile it #a be true that respondents had $ritten the Cit Election 4fficer of Gistrict ;,Lue6on Cit for cancellation of their voterQs registration record as voterQs 9sic: therein, thecannot presu#e that the sa#e $ill be favorabl acted upon. Besides, RA *&* provides forthe procedure in cases of transfer of residence to another citO#unicipalit $hich #ust beco#plied $ith, to $it%

=7ection &). Change of Residence to Another Cit or Municipalit. S An registered voter $ho

has transferred residence to another cit or #unicipalit #a appl $ith the Election 4fficerof his ne$ residence for the transfer of his registration records.

'he application for transfer of registration shall be sub(ect to the re0uire#ents of notice andhearing and the approval of the Election Registration Board, in accordance $ith this Act.8pon approval, of the application for transfer, and after notice of such approval to theElection 4fficer of their for#er residence of the voter, said Election 4fficer shall trans#it bregistered #ail the voterQs registration record to the Election 4fficer of the voterQs ne$residence.=

'he cannot clai# ignorance of the abovestated provision on the procedure for transfer of

registration records b reason of transferred ne$ residence to another #unicipalit. Basedon the affidavit e1ecuted b one Eufe#ia 7. Cotoner, she alleged that the refusal of theAssistant Election 4fficer Ms. Estrella Pere6 to accept the letter of respondents $as due toi#proper procedure because respondents should have filed the re0uired re0uest for transfer$ith the Election 4fficer of Burauen, ete. Gespite this "no$ledge, ho$ever, theproceeded to register as ne$ voters of Burauen, ete, not$ithstanding the e1istence of theirprevious registrations in Lue6on Cit.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt55


30/337

;n their subse0uent affidavit of 'ransfer of oters Registration under 7ection &) of RepublicAct *&*, respondents ad#itted that the erroneousl filed an application as a ne$ voter9sic: $ith the office of the Election 4fficer of Burauen, ete, b reason of an honest #ista"e,$hich the no$ desire to correct. 9underscoring ours:.

Respondents lose sight of the fact that a statutor offense, such as violation of election la$,is #ala prohibita. Proof of cri#inal intent is not necessar. 3ood faith, ignorance or lac" of#alice is beside the point. Co##ission of the act is sufficient. ;t is the act itself that ispunished.

1 1 1 1

;n vie$ of the foregoing, the a$ Gepart#ent respectfull sub#its that there is probablecause to hold respondents Carlos Ro#ualde6 and Erlinda Ro#ualde6 for trial in violation of7ection &29g: and 9(: in relation to 7ection 59(: of Republic Act No. *&*. 'here is no doubtthat the applied for registration as ne$ voters of Burauen, ete consciousl, freel andvoluntaril.5+

/e ta"e occasion to reiterate that the Constitution grants to the C4MEEC the po$er to prosecutecases or violations of election la$s. Article ; 9C:, 7ection ) 9+: of the &*! Constitution, provides%

9+: une )22 and )! >anuar )225. ;n a Resolution dated )2 >une )22+, this Court(n5ancdenied for lac" of #erit petitionersQ Motion Reiterating Praer for ;ssuance of /rit of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_167011_2008.html#fnt61


31/337

Preli#inar ;n(unction and to Cite for ;ndirect Conte#pt. ogicall, the nor#al course of trial ise1pected to have continued in the proceedings a quo.

@HEREFORE, the Petition is ENIE. 'he assailed Resolutions, dated && >une )22 and )!>anuar )225 of the C4MEEC (n 5ancare AFFIRME. Costs against petitioners.

SO ORERE.


Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 178552 Oc$o%&r 5, 21

SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE ENGAGEMENT NET@OR, INC., o+ %&ha o $h& So*$h"So*$h

N&$or> BSSN or No+"S$a$& Ar& Gro*/ E+


32/337

'AGONG ALANSANG MAA'AAN B'AAN, GENERAL ALLIANCE 'INING @OMEN FORREFORMS, INTEGRIT, EUALIT, LEAERSHIP AN ACTION BGA'RIELA, ILUSANGMAG'U'UI NG PILIPINAS BMP, MOEMENT OF CONCERNE CITI!ENS FOR CIILLI'ERTIES BMCCCL, CONFEERATION FOR UNIT, RECOGNITION AN AANCEMENT OFGOERNMENT EMPLOEES BCOURAGE, ALIPUNAN NG AMAANG MAHIHIRAPBAAMA, SOLIARIT OF CAITE @ORERS, LEAGUE OF FILIPINO STUENTS BLFS,

ANA'AAN, PAM'ANSANG LAAS NG ILUSANG MAMAMALAAA BPAMALAAA,ALLIANCE OF CONCERNE TEACHERS BACT, MIGRANTE, HEALTH ALLIANCE FOREMOCRAC BHEA, AGHAM, TEOFISTO GUINGONA, )R., R. 'IENENIO LUM'ERA,RENATO CONSTANTINO, )R., SISTER MAR )OHN MANANSAN OS', EAN CONSUELO PA!,ATT. )OSEFINA LICHAUCO, COL. GERR CUNANAN Br&$., CARLITOS SIGUION"RENA, R.CAROLINA PAGAUAN"ARAULLO, RENATO REES, ANILO RAMOS, EMERENCIANA ELESUS, RITA 'AUA, RE CLARO CASAM'RE,Petitioners,vs.GLORIA MACAPAGAL"ARROO, 0+ h&r ca/ac0$: a- Pr&-0&+$ a+ Coa+&r"0+"Ch0&,EDECUTIE SECRETAR EUARO ERMITA, EPARTMENT OF )USTICE SECRETAR RAULGON!ALES, EPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS SECRETAR AL'ERTO ROMULO,

EPARTMENT OF NATIONAL EFENSE ACTING SECRETAR NOR'ERTO GON!ALES,EPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AN LOCAL GOERNMENT SECRETAR RONALO PUNO.EPARTMENT OF FINANCE SECRETAR MARGARITO TEES, NATIONAL SECURITAISER NOR'ERTO GON!ALES, THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COORINATING AGENCBNICA, THE NATIONAL 'UREAU OF INESTIGATION BN'I, THE 'UREAU OF IMMIGRATION,THE OFFICE OF CIIL EFENSE, THE INTELLIGENCE SERICE OF THE ARME FORCES OFTHE PHILIPPINES BISAFP, THE ANTI"MONE LAUNERING COUNCIL BAMLC, THEPHILIPPINE CENTER ON TRANSNATIONAL CRIME, THE CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINENATIONAL POLICE GEN. OSCAR CALERON, THE PNP, 0+c*0+< 0$- 0+$&0


33/337

THE OFFICE OF CIIL EFENSE, THE INTELLIGENCE SERICE OF THE ARME FORCES OFTHE PHILIPPINES BISAFP, THE ANTI"MONE LAUNERING COUNCIL BAMLC, THEPHILIPPINE CENTER ON TRANSNATIONAL CRIME, THE CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINENATIONAL POLICE GEN. OSCAR CALERON, THE PNP, 0+c*0+< 0$- 0+$&0


34/337

NATIONAL POLICE GEN. OSCAR CALERON, THE PNP, 0+c*0+< 0$- 0+$&0ul &!, )22!, organi6ations Bagong Alansang Ma"abaan 9BAAN:, 3eneralAlliance Binding /o#en for Refor#s, ;ntegrit, E0ualit, eadership and Action 93ABR;EA:,Dilusang Magbubu"id ng Pilipinas 9DMP:, Move#ent of Concerned Citi6ens for Civil iberties9MCCC:, Confederation for 8nit, Recognition and Advance#ent of 3overn#ent E#ploees9C48RA3E:, Dalipunan ng Ga#aang Mahihirap 9DAGAMA:, 7olidarit of Cavite /or"ers 97C/:,eague of ustice and Peace 9EM>P:, and Pro#otion of Church PeopleQs Response 9PCPR:,$hich $ere represented b their respective officers5$ho are also bringing action on their o$n behalf,filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition doc"eted as 3.R. No. &!**2.

4n August ), )22!, the ;ntegrated Bar of the Philippines 9;BP:, Counsels for the Gefense of ibert

9C4GA:,+

7enator Ma. Ana Consuelo A.7. Madrigal, 7ergio 4s#eTa ;;;, and /igberto E. 'aTadafiled a petition for certiorari and prohibition doc"eted as 3.R. No. &!&5!.

Bagong Alansang Ma"abaan-7outhern 'agalog 9BAAN-7':, other regional chapters andorgani6ations #ostl based in the 7outhern 'agalog Region,!and individuals*follo$ed suit b filingon 7epte#ber &, )22! a petition for certiorari and prohibition doc"eted as 3.R. No. &!+& thatreplicates the allegations raised in the BAAN petition in 3.R. No. &!*5*&.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_178552_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_178552_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_178552_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_178552_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_178552_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_178552_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_178552_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_178552_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_178552_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_178552_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_178552_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_178552_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_178552_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_178552_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_178552_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_178552_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_178552_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_178552_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_178552_2010.html#fnt8


35/337

;#pleaded as respondents in the various petitions are the Anti-'erroris# Councilco#posed of, atthe ti#e of the filing of the petitions, E1ecutive 7ecretar Eduardo Er#ita as Chairperson, >ustice7ecretar Raul 3on6ales as ice Chairperson, and


36/337

Ana" Mindanao Part-ist 3roup v. 'he E1ecutive 7ecretar&)su##ari6ed the rule on locus standi,thus%

ocus standi or legal standing has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in a casesuch that the part has sustained or $ill sustain direct in(ur as a result of the govern#ental act thatis being challenged. 'he gist of the 0uestion on standing is $hether a part alleges such personalsta"e in the outco#e of the controvers as to assure that concrete adverseness $hich sharpens thepresentation of issues upon $hich the court depends for illu#ination of difficult constitutional0uestions.

@A part $ho assails the constitutionalit of a statute #ust have a direct and personal interest. ;t#ust sho$ not onl that the la$ or an govern#ental act is invalid, but also that it sustained or is ini##ediate danger of sustaining so#e direct in(ur as a result of its enforce#ent, and not #erel thatit suffers thereb in so#e indefinite $a. ;t #ust sho$ that it has been or is about to be denied so#eright or privilege to $hich it is la$full entitled or that it is about to be sub(ected to so#e burdens orpenalties b reason of the statute or act co#plained of.


37/337

Ar# 9NPA:. 'he tagging, according to petitioners, is tanta#ount to the effects of proscription $ithoutfollo$ing the procedure under the la$.&5'he petition of BAAN-7', et al. in 3.R. No. &!+& pleadsthe sa#e allegations.

'he Court cannot ta"e (udicial notice of the alleged =tagging= of petitioners.

3enerall spea"ing, #atters of (udicial notice have three #aterial re0uisites% 9&: the #atter #ust beone of co##on and general "no$ledge 9): it #ust be $ell and authoritativel settled and notdoubtful or uncertain and 9: it #ust be "no$n to be $ithin the li#its of the (urisdiction of the court.'he principal guide in deter#ining $hat facts #a be assu#ed to be (udiciall "no$n is that ofnotoriet. Hence, it can be said that (udicial notice is li#ited to facts evidenced b public records andfacts of general notoriet. Moreover, a (udiciall noticed fact #ust be one not sub(ect to a reasonabledispute in that it is either% 9&: generall "no$n $ithin the territorial (urisdiction of the trial court or 9):capable of accurate and read deter#ination b resorting to sources $hose accurac cannotreasonabl be 0uestionable.

'hings of =co##on "no$ledge,= of $hich courts ta"e (udicial #atters co#ing to the "no$ledge of

#en generall in the course of the ordinar e1periences of life, or the #a be #atters $hich aregenerall accepted b #an"ind as true and are capable of read and un0uestioned de#onstration.'hus, facts $hich are universall "no$n, and $hich #a be found in encclopedias, dictionaries orother publications, are (udiciall noticed, provided, the are of such universal notoriet and sogenerall understood that the #a be regarded as for#ing part of the co##on "no$ledge of everperson. As the co##on "no$ledge of #an ranges far and $ide, a $ide variet of particular factshave been (udiciall noticed as being #atters of co##on "no$ledge. But a court cannot ta"e (udicialnotice of an fact $hich, in part, is dependent on the e1istence or non-e1istence of a fact of $hichthe court has no constructive "no$ledge.&+9e#phasis and underscoring supplied.:

No ground $as properl established b petitioners for the ta"ing of (udicial notice. PetitionersQapprehension is insufficient to substantiate their plea. 'hat no specific charge or proscription under

RA !) has been filed against the#, three ears after its effectivit, belies an clai#of i##inence of their perceived threat e#anating fro# the so-called tagging.

'he sa#e is true $ith petitioners DM8, NA


38/337

Parentheticall, the oel irador, 'eodoro CasiTo and 7aturnino 4ca#po of Baan Muna. Also na#edin the dis#issed rebellion charges $ere petitioners Re Claro Casa#bre, Carolina Pagaduan-Araullo, Renato Rees, Rita Baua, E#erencia de >esus and Ganilo Ra#os and accused of beingfront organi6ations for the Co##unist #ove#ent $ere petitioner-organi6ations DM8, BAAN,3ABR;EA, PAMAADAA, DMP, DAGAMA,


39/337

oppositor to the passage of RA !). 4utside these gratuitous state#ents, no concrete in(ur tothe# has been pinpointed.

Petitioners 7outhern He#isphere Engage#ent Net$or" and Att. 7oli#an 7antos >r. in 3.R. No.&!*55) also convenientl state that the issues the raise are of transcendental i#portance, =$hich#ust be settled earl= and are of =far-reaching i#plications,= $ithout #ention of an specificprovision of RA !) under $hich the have been charged, or #a be charged. Mere invocation ofhu#an rights advocac has no$here been held sufficient to clothe litigants $ith locus standi.Petitioners #ust sho$ an actual, or i##ediate danger of sustaining, direct in(ur as a result of thela$Qs enforce#ent. 'o rule other$ise $ould be to corrupt the sett led doctrine of locus standi, asever $orth cause is an interest shared b the general public.

Neither can locus standi be conferred upon individual petitioners as ta1paers and citi6ens. Ata1paer suit is proper onl $hen there is an e1ercise of the spending or ta1ing po$er ofCongress,)*$hereas citi6en standing #ust rest on direct and personal interest in the proceeding.)

RA !) is a penal statute and does not even provide for an appropriation fro# Congress for its

i#ple#entation, $hile none of the individual petitioner-citi6ens has alleged an direct and personalinterest in the i#ple#entation of the la$.

;t bears to stress that generali6ed interests, albeit acco#panied b the assertion of a public right, donot establish locus standi. Evidence of a direct and personal interest is "e.

Petitioners fail to present an actual case or controvers

B constitutional fiat, (udicial po$er operates onl $hen there is an actual case or controvers.

7ection &. 'he (udicial po$er shall be vested in one 7upre#e Court and in such lo$er courts as #abe established b la$.

>udicial po$er includes the dut of the courts of (ustice to settle actual controversies involving rights$hich are legall de#andable and enforceable, and to deter#ine $hether or not there has been agrave abuse of discretion a#ounting to lac" or e1cess of (urisdiction on the part of an branch orinstru#entalit of the 3overn#ent.29e#phasis and underscoring supplied.:

As earl asAngara v. (lectoral !ommission&the Court ruled that the po$er of (udicial revie$ isli#ited to actual cases or controversies to be e1ercised after full opportunit of argu#ent b theparties. An atte#pt at abstraction could onl lead to dialectics and barren legal 0uestions and tosterile conclusions unrelated to actualities.

An actual case or controvers #eans an e1isting case or controvers that is appropriate or ripe fordeter#ination, not con(ectural or anticipator, lest the decision of the court $ould a#ount to anadvisor opinion.)

;nfor#ation 'echnolog


40/337

the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests. ;n other $ords, the pleadings #ust sho$an active antagonistic assertion of a legal right, on the one hand, and a denial thereof on the otherhand that is, it #ust concern a real and not #erel a theoretical 0uestion or issue. 'here ought tobe an actual and substantial controvers ad#itting of specific relief through a decree conclusive innature, as distinguished fro# an opinion advising $hat the la$ $ould be upon a hpothetical state offacts. 9E#phasis and underscoring supplied:

'hus, a petition to declare unconstitutional a la$ converting the Municipalit of Ma"ati into a Highl8rbani6ed Cit $as held to be pre#ature as it $as tac"ed on uncertain, contingentevents.7i#ilarl, a petition that fails to allege that an application for a license to operate a radio ortelevision station has been denied or granted b the authorities does not present a (usticiablecontrovers, and #erel $heedles the Court to rule on a hpothetical proble#.5

'he Court dis#issed the petition in Philippine Press ;nstitute v. Co##ission on Elections+for failureto cite an specific affir#ative action of the Co##ission on Elections to i#ple#ent the assailedresolution. ;t refused, in Abbas v. Co##ission on Elections,!to rule on the religious freedo# clai# ofthe therein petitioners based #erel on a perceived potential conflict bet$een the provisions of the

Musli# Code and those of the national la$, there being no actual controvers bet$een real litigants.

'he list of cases dening clai#s resting on purel hpothetical or anticipator grounds goes on adinfinitu#.

'he Court is not una$are that a reasonable certaint of the occurrence of a perceived threat to anconstitutional interest suffices to provide a basis for #ounting a constitutional challenge. 'his,ho$ever, is 0ualified b the re0uire#ent that there #ust be sufficient facts to enable the Court tointelligentl ad(udicate the issues.*

er recentl, the 87 7upre#e Court, in Holder v. Hu#anitarian a$ Pro(ect,allo$ed the pre-enforce#ent revie$ of a cri#inal statute, challenged on vagueness grounds, since plaintiffs faced a

=credible threat of prosecution= and =should not be re0uired to a$ait and undergo a cri#inalprosecution as the sole #eans of see"ing relief.=2'he plaintiffs therein filed an action before afederal court to assail the constitutionalit of the #aterial support statute, &* 8.7.C. U)B 9a:9&:,&proscribing the provision of #aterial support to organi6ations declared b the 7ecretar of 7tateas foreign terrorist organi6ations. 'he clai#ed that the intended to provide support for thehu#anitarian and political activities of t$o such organi6ations.

Prevailing A#erican (urisprudence allo$s an ad(udication on the #erits $hen an anticipator petitionclearl sho$s that the challenged prohibition forbids the conduct or activit that a petitioner see"s todo, as there $ould then be a (usticiable controvers.)

8nli"e the plaintiffs in Holder, ho$ever, herein petitioners have failed to sho$ that the challengedprovisions of RA !) forbid constitutionall protected conduct or activit that the see" to do. Node#onstrable threat has been established, #uch less a real and e1isting one.

PetitionersQ obscure allegations of sporadic =surveillance= and supposedl being tagged as=co##unist fronts= in no $a appro1i#ate a credible threat of prosecution.


41/337

/ithout an (usticiable controvers, the petitions have beco#e pleas for declarator relief, over$hich the Court has no original (urisdiction. 'hen again, declarator actions characteri6ed b =doublecontingenc,= $here both the activit the petitioners intend to underta"e and the anticipated reactionto it of a public official are #erel theori6ed, lie beond (udicial revie$ for lac" of ripeness.

'he possibilit of abuse in the i#ple#entation of RA !) does not avail to ta"e the present petitionsout of the real# of the surreal and #erel i#agined. 7uch possibilit is not peculiar to RA !) sincethe e1ercise of an po$er granted b la$ #a be abused.5Allegations of abuse #ust be anchoredon real events before courts #a step in to settle actual controversies involving rights $hich arelegall de#andable and enforceable.

A ac0a 0+6a0a$0o+ o a -$a$*$& 0- ao& o+: 0+ r&& -/&&ch ca-&-, h&r&0+ c&r$a0+ r*&- oco+-$0$*$0o+a 0$0


42/337

'he position ta"en b >ustice Mendo6a in (stradarelates these t$o doctrines to the concept of a=facial= invalidation as opposed to an =as-applied= challenge. He basicall postulated that allegationsthat a penal statute is vague and overbroad do not (ustif a facial revie$ of its validit. 'he pertinentportion of the Concurring 4pinion of >ustice Mendo6a, $hich $as 0uoted at length in the #ainEstrada decision, reads%

A facial challenge is allo$ed to be #ade to a vague statute and to one $hich is overbroad becauseof possible=chilling effect= upon protected speech. 'he theor is that =@$hen statutes regulate orproscribe speech and no readil apparent construction suggests itself as a vehicle for rehabilitatingthe statutes in a single prosecution, the transcendent value to all societ of constitutionall protectede1pression is dee#ed to (ustif allo$ing attac"s on overl broad statutes $ith no re0uire#ent thatthe person #a"ing the attac" de#onstrate that his o$n conduct could not be regulated b a statutedra$n $ith narro$ specificit.= 'he possible har# to societ in per#itting so#e unprotected speechto go unpunished is out$eighed b the possibilit that the protected speech of others #a bedeterred and perceived grievances left to fester because of possible inhibitor effects of overl broadstatutes.

'his rationale does not appl to penal statutes. Cri#inal statutes have general in terroremeffectresulting fro# their ver e1istence, and, if facial challenge is allo$ed for this reason alone, the 7tate#a $ell be prevented fro# enacting la$s against sociall har#ful conduct. ;n the area of cri#inalla$, the la$ cannot ta"e chances as in the area of free speech.

'he overbreadth and vagueness doctrines then have special application onl to free speech cases.'he are inapt for testing the validit of penal statutes. As the 8.7. 7upre#e Court put it, in anopinion b Chief >ustice Rehn0uist, =$e have not recogni6ed an ?overbreadth? doctrine outside theli#ited conte1t of the


43/337

;ndeed, =on its face= invalidation of statutes results in stri"ing the# do$n entirel on the ground thatthe #ight be applied to parties not before the Court $hose activities are constitutionall protected. ;tconstitutes a departure fro# the case and controvers re0uire#ent of the Constitution and per#itsdecisions to be #ade $ithout concrete factual settings and in sterile abstract conte1ts. But, as the8.7. 7upre#e Court pointed out in 6ounger v. Harris

@'he tas" of anal6ing a proposed statute, pinpointing its deficiencies, and re0uiring correction ofthese deficiencies before the statute is put into effect, is rarel if ever an appropriate tas" for the(udiciar. 'he co#bination of the relative re#oteness of the controvers, the i#pact on the legislativeprocess of the relief sought, and above all the speculative and a#orphous nature of the re0uiredline-b-line analsis of detailed statutes, . . . ordinaril results in a "ind of case that is $hollunsatisfactor for deciding constitutional 0uestions, $hichever $a the #ight be decided.


44/337

>ustice Mendo6a accuratel phrased the subtitle+&in his concurring opinion that the vagueness andoverbreadth doctrines, as grounds for a facial challenge, are not applicable to penal la$s. A litigantcannot thus successfull #ount a facial challenge against a cri#inal statute on either vagueness oroverbreadth grounds.

'he allo$ance of a facial challenge in free speech cases is (ustified b the ai# to avert the =chillingeffect= on protected speech, the e1ercise of $hich should not at all ti#es be abridged.+)As reflectedearlier, this rationale is inapplicable to plain penal statutes that generall bear an =in terroremeffect=in deterring sociall har#ful conduct. ;n fact, the legislature #a even forbid and penali6e actsfor#erl considered innocent and la$ful, so long as it refrains fro# di#inishing or dissuading thee1ercise of constitutionall protected rights.+

'he Court reiterated that there are =critical li#itations b $hich a cri#inal statute #a be challenged=and =underscored that an Von-its-faceQ invalidation of penal statutes 1 1 1 #a not be allo$ed.=+

@'he rule established in our (urisdiction is, onl statutes on free speech, religious freedo#, and otherfunda#ental rights #a be faciall challenged. 8nder no case #a ordinar penal statutes be

sub(ected to a facial challenge. 'he rationale is obvious. ;f a facial challenge to a penal statute isper#itted, the prosecution of cri#es #a be ha#pered. No prosecution $ould be possible. A strongcriticis# against e#ploing a facial challenge in the case of penal statutes, if the sa#e is allo$ed,$ould effectivel go against the grain of the doctrinal re0uire#ent of an e1isting and concretecontrovers before (udicial po$er #a be appropriatel e1ercised. A facial challenge against a penalstatute is, at best, a#orphous and speculative. ;t $ould, essentiall, force the court to consider thirdparties $ho are not before it. As ; have said in # opposition to the allo$ance of a facial challenge toattac" penal statutes, such a test $ill i#pair the 7tateQs abilit to deal $ith cri#e. ;f $arranted, there$ould be nothing that can hinder an accused fro# defeating the 7tateQs po$er to prosecute on a#ere sho$ing that, as applied to third parties, the penal statute is vague or overbroad,not$ithstanding that the la$ is clear as applied to hi#.+59E#phasis and underscoring supplied:

;t is settled, on the other hand, that$h& a//0ca$0o+ o $h& o6&r%r&a$h oc$r0+& 0- 00$& $o aac0a >0+ o cha&+


45/337

parties not courageous enough to bring suit. 'he Court assu#es that an overbroad la$Qs =vere1istence #a cause others not before the court to refrain fro# constitutionall protected speech ore1pression.= An overbreadth ruling is designed to re#ove that deterrent effect on the speech ofthose third parties.++9E#phasis in the original o#itted underscoring supplied.:

;n restricting the overbreadth doctrine to free speech clai#s, the Court, in at least t$ocases,+!observed that the 87 7upre#e Court has not recogni6ed an overbreadth doctrine outsidethe li#ited conte1t of the


46/337

;n insisting on a facialchallenge on the invocation that the la$ penali6es speech, petitioners contendthat the ele#ent of =unla$ful de#and= in the definition of terroris#!!#ust necessaril be trans#ittedthrough so#e for# of e1pression protected b the free speech clause.

'he argu#ent does not persuade. /hat the la$ see"s to penali6e is conduct, not speech.

Before a charge for terroris# #a be filed under RA !), there #ust first be a predicate cri#eactuall co##itted to trigger the operation of the "e 0ualifing phrases in the other ele#ents of thecri#e, including the coercion of the govern#ent to accede to an =unla$ful de#and.= 3iven thepresence of the first ele#ent, an atte#pt at singling out or highlighting the co##unicativeco#ponent of the prohibition cannot recategori6e the unprotected conduct into a protected speech.

PetitionersQ notion on the trans#ission of #essage is entirel inaccurate, as it undul focuses on (ustone particle of an ele#ent of the cri#e. Al#ost ever co##ission of a cri#e entails so#e #incing of$ords on the part of the offender li"e in declaring to launch overt cri#inal acts against a victi#, inhaggling on the a#ount of ranso# or conditions, or in negotiating a deceitful transaction. An analogin one 8.7. case!*illustrated that the fact that the prohibition on discri#ination in hiring on the basis

of race $ill re0uire an e#ploer to ta"e do$n a sign reading =/hite Applicants 4nl= hardl #eansthat the la$ should be anal6ed as one regulating speech rather than conduct.

8tterances not ele#ental but inevitabl incidental to the doing of the cri#inal conduct alter neitherthe intent of the la$ to punish sociall har#ful conduct nor the essence of the $hole act as conductand not speech. 'his holds true a fortiori in the present case $here the e1pression figures onl as aninevitable incident of #a"ing the ele#ent of coercion perceptible.

@;t is true that the agree#ents and course of conduct here $ere as in #ost instances brought aboutthrough spea"ing or $riting. But it has never been dee#ed an abridge#ent of freedo# of speech orpress to #a"e a course of conduct illegal #erel because the conduct $as, in part,initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spo"en, $ritten, or printed. 7uch an

e1pansive interpretation of the constitutional guaranties of speech and press $ould #a"e itpracticall i#possible ever to enforce la$s against agree#ents in restraint of trade as $ell as #another agree#ents and conspiracies dee#ed in(urious to societ.!9italics and underscoring supplied:

Certain "inds of speech have been treated as unprotected conduct, because the #erel evidence aprohibited conduct.*27ince speech is not involved here, the Court cannot heed the call for a facialanalsis.7avvphi7

;N


47/337

=terroris#= is thus legall i#per#issible. 'he Court re#inds litigants that (udicial po$er neitherconte#plates speculative counseling on a statuteQs future effect on hpothetical scenarios nor allo$sthe courts to be used as an e1tension of a failed legislative lobbing in Congress.

/HERE


48/337

dignit, inevitabl follo$ed. ;t is $hen individual rights are pitted against 7tate authorit that (udicialconscience is put to its severest test.

Petitioner >oseph E(ercito Estrada, the highest-ran"ing official to be prosecuted under RA !2*2 9AnAct 4efining and Penali)ing the !rime of Plunder:,&as a#ended b RA !+5,)$ishes to i#pressupon us that the assailed la$ is so defectivel fashioned that it crosses that thin but distinct line$hich divides the valid fro# the constitutionall infir#. He therefore #a"es a stringent call for thisCourt to sub(ect the Plunder a$ to the crucible of constitutionalit #ainl because, according tohi#, 9a: it suffers fro# the vice of vagueness 9b: it dispenses $ith the =reasonable doubt= standardin cri#inal prosecutions and, 9c: it abolishes the ele#ent of mens reain cri#es alread punishableunder The ,evised Penal !ode,all of $hich are purportedl clear violations of the funda#entalrights of the accused to due process and to be infor#ed of the nature and cause of the accusationagainst hi#.

7pecificall, the provisions of the Plunder a$ clai#ed b petitioner to have transgressedconstitutional boundaries are 7ecs. &, par. 9d:, ) and $hich are reproduced hereunder%

#ection 7.1 1 1 1 9d: =;ll-gotten $ealth= #eans an asset, propert, business, enterprise or #aterialpossession of an person $ithin the purvie$ of 7ection '$o 9): hereof, ac0uired b hi# directl orindirectl through du##ies, no#inees, agents, subordinates andOor business associates b anco#bination or series of the follo$ing #eans or si#ilar sche#es%

9&: 'hrough #isappropriation, conversion, #isuse, or #alversation of public funds or raids onthe public treasur

9): B receiving, directl or indirectl, an co##ission, gift, share, percentage, "ic"bac"s oran other for# of pecuniar benefit fro# an person andOor entit in connection $ith angovern#ent contract or pro(ect or b reason of the office or position of the public officeconcerned

9: B the illegal or fraudulent conveance or disposition of assets belonging to the National3overn#ent or an of its subdivisions, agencies or instru#entalities, or govern#ent o$nedor controlled corporations and their subsidiaries

9: B obtaining, receiving or accepting directl or indirectl an shares of stoc", e0uit oran other for# of interest or participation including the pro#ise of future e#plo#ent in anbusiness enterprise or underta"ing

95: B establishing agricultural, industrial or co##ercial #onopolies or other co#binationsandOor i#ple#entation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or

special interests or

9+: B ta"ing advantage of official position, authorit, relationship, connection or influence toun(ustl enrich hi#self or the#selves at the e1pense and to the da#age and pre(udice of the


49/337

a combination or series of overt or criminal actsas described in #ection 7 8d9 hereof in the

aggregate amount or total value of at least fifty million pesos 8P:;;;;;;;.;;9 shall be guilty of the

crime of plunder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Any person who participated

with the said public officer in the commission of an offense contributing to the crime of plunder shall

li2ewise be punished for such offense. /n the imposition of penalties the degree of participation and

the attendance of mitigating and etenuating circumstances as provided by the ,evised Penal !ode

shall be considered by the court. The court shall declare any and all ill-gotten wealth and their

interests and other incomes and assets including the properties and shares of stoc2s derived from

the deposit or investment thereof forfeited in favor of the #tate 8underscoring supplied9.

#ection une )22& petitioner sub#itted his ,eply to the 'pposition.4n >ul )22& the 7andiganbaan denied petitioner?s $otion to =uash.

As concisel delineated b this Court during the oral argu#ents on &* 7epte#ber )22&, the issuesfor resolution in the instant petition for certiorari are% 9a: 'he Plunder a$ is unconstitutional for being


50/337

vague 9b: 'he Plunder a$ re0uires less evidence for proving the predicate cri#es of plunder andtherefore violates the rights of the accused to due process and, 9c: /hether Plunder as defined inRA !2*2 is a malum prohibitum, and if so, $hether it is $ithin the po$er of Congress to so classif it.

Preli#inaril, the $hole ga#ut of legal concepts pertaining to the validit of legislation is predicatedon the basic principle that a legislative #easure is presu#ed to be in har#on $ith theConstitution.Courts invariabl train their sights on this funda#ental rule $henever a legislative actis under a constitutional attac", for it is the postulate of constitutional ad(udication. 'his strongpredilection for constitutionalit ta"es its bearings on the idea that it is forbidden for one branch ofthe govern#ent to encroach upon the duties and po$ers of another. 'hus it has been said that thepresu#ption is based on the deference the (udicial branch accords to its coordinate branch - thelegislature.

;f there is an reasonable basis upon $hich the legislation #a fir#l rest, the courts #ust assu#ethat the legislature is ever conscious of the borders and edges of its plenar po$ers, and haspassed the la$ $ith full "no$ledge of the facts and for the purpose of pro#oting $hat is right andadvancing the $elfare of the #a(orit. Hence in deter#ining $hether the acts of the legislature are in

tune $ith the funda#ental la$, courts should proceed $ith (udicial restraint and act $ith caution andforbearance. Ever intend#ent of the la$ #ust be ad(udged b the courts in favor of itsconstitutionalit, invalidit being a #easure of last resort. ;n construing therefore the provisions of astatute, courts #ust first ascertain $hether an interpretation is fairl possible to sidestep the 0uestionof constitutionalit.

;n La +nion !redit !ooperative /nc. v. 6aranon$e held that as long as there is so#e basis for thedecision of the court, the constitutionalit of the challenged la$ $ill not be touched and the case $illbe decided on other available grounds. et the force of the presu#ption is not sufficient to catapult afunda#entall deficient la$ into the safe environs of constitutionalit. 4f course, $here the la$clearl and palpabl transgresses the hallo$ed do#ain of the organic la$, it #ust be struc" do$n onsight lest the positive co##ands of the funda#ental la$ be undul eroded.

eril, the onerous tas" of rebutting the presu#ption $eighs heavil on the part challenging thevalidit of the statute. He #ust de#onstrate beond an tinge of doubt that there is indeed aninfringe#ent of the constitution, for absent such a sho$ing, there can be no finding ofunconstitutionalit. A doubt, even if $ell-founded, $ill hardl suffice. As tersel put b >usticeMalcol#, =To o*%$ 0- $o -*-$a0+.=5And petitioner has #iserabl failed in the instant case todischarge his burden and overco#e the presu#ption of constitutionalit of the Plunder a$.

As it is $ritten, the Plunder a$ contains ascertainable standards and $ell-defined para#eters$hich $ould enable the accused to deter#ine the nature of his violation. 7ection ) is sufficientle1plicit in its description of the acts, conduct and conditions re0uired or forbidden, and prescribes theele#ents of the cri#e $ith reasonable certaint and particularit. 'hus -

7. That the offender is a public officer who acts by himself or in connivance with members of

his family relatives by affinity or consanguinity business associates subordinates or other

persons>

?. That he amassed accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth through a combination or

series of the following overt or criminal acts@ 8a9 through misappropriation conversion

misuse or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury> 8b9 by receiving
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html#fnt5


51/337

directly or indirectly any commission gift share percentage 2ic2bac2 or any other form of

pecuniary benefits from any person andor entity in connection with any government contract

or pro*ect or by reason of the office or position of the public officer> 8c9 by the illegal or

fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the ational Government or any

of its subdivisions agencies or instrumentalities of Government owned or controlled

corporations or their subsidiaries> 8d9 by obtaining receiving or accepting directly or indirectly

any shares of stoc2 equity or any other form of interest or participation including the promise

of future employment in any business enterprise or underta2ing> 8e9 by establishing

agricultural industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and

crimlawcases arts.1-5.docx

Documents