Narratives

Constitutional Law II
Michael Vernon Guerrero Mendiola 2005 Shared under Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial-ShareAli e !"0 #hili$$ines license"

Some %i&hts %eserved"

'able o( Contents

In %)* +eclaration o( the #etitioner,s %i&hts and +uties under Section - o( %A ./!2" 0a1 Ville&as 0ami" 2G% L-!23-54 22 5ctober /6708 9 / Me:ia vs" #amaran 2G%s L-5.73/-324 /5 A$ril /6--8 9 / #eo$le vs" ;errer 2G%s L-!2./!-/34 27 +ecember /6728 9 ! Misolas vs" #an&a 2G% -!!3/4 !0 <anuar1 /6608 9 3 #eo$le vs" Sandi&anba1an 2G% /0/7234 ! <ul1 /6628 9 5 =ri&ht vs" CA 2G% //!2/!4 /5 Au&ust /6638 9 .

This collection contains six (6) cases summarized in this format by Michael Vernon M. Guerrero (as a senior law student) during the First emester! school year "##$%"##6 in the &olitical 'aw (e)iew class under *ean Mariano Magsalin +r. at the ,rellano -ni)ersity chool of 'aw (,- '). .om/iled as &*F! e/tember "#0". 1erne Guerrero entered ,- ' in +une "##" and e)entually graduated from ,- ' in "##6. 2e /assed the &hili//ine bar examinations immediately after (,/ril "##3).

berne&uerrero"word$ress"com

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

368

In RE: Declaration of the Petitioner's Rights and Duties under Section 8 of RA 6132. a! "illegas a#i. $%R &'32(8)* 22 +cto,er 1-./0 First Division, Makasiar (J): 4 concur, 1 reserves vote, 2 maintain opinions in Imbong vs. Come ec an! "on#a es vs. Come ec, 1 concurs part $, 1 on eave, 1 %i es separate !issenting opinion 1acts: Kay Villegas Kami, Inc., filed a petition for declaratory relief, claiming to be a duly recognized and existing non-stock and non-profit corporation created under the laws of the land, and praying for a determination of the validity of ection ! of "# $%&' and a declaration of petitioner(s rights and duties thereunder. In paragraph ) of its petition, *Kay Villegas Kami* avers that it has printed materials designed to propagate its ideology and program of government, and that in paragraph %% of said petition, it intends to pursue its purposes by supporting delegates to the +onstitutional +onvention who will propagate its ideology. *Kay Villegas kami* actually impugns only the first paragraph of ec. !,a- on the ground that it violates the due process clause, right of association, and freedom of expression and that it is an ex post facto law. Issue: .hether ection ! of "# $%&' is in the nature of an ex-post facto law. 2eld: #n ex post facto law is one which/ ,%- makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act0 ,'- aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed0 ,&- changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed0 ,1- alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law re2uired at the time of the commission of the offense0 ,3- assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful0 and ,$- deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or ac2uittal, or a proclamation of amnesty. 4rom the aforesaid definition as well as classification of ex post facto laws, the constitutional inhibition refers only to criminal laws which are given retroactive effect. .hile it is true that ec. %! penalizes a violation of any provision of "# $%&' including ec. ! ,a- thereof, the penalty is imposed only for acts committed after the approval of the law and not those perpetrated prior thereto. 5here is nothing in the law that remotely insinuates that ecs. !,a- and %!, or any other provision thereof, shall apply to acts carried out prior to its approval. 6n the contrary, ec. '& directs that the entire law shall be effective upon its approval. It was approved on '1 #ugust %7)8. 36- 3e4ia 5s. Pa#aran $%Rs &')6.(1'(2* 1) A6ril 1-880 &n 'anc, "anca$co (J): 14 concur 1acts: $ e9ectment cases were filed separately in the +ity +ourt of :anila by ;usebio <u against 4eliciano 4. ;ndangan, =osefina :eimban, 5eodorico >ontia, "olando #ntillon, =ose :abalot and Vicente Villamor. #ll cases were decided by the +ity +ourt of :anila against ;ndangan, et. al., all of whom appealed in due time to the +ourt of 4irst Instance ,+4I- of :anila, where the cases were raffled to >ranch ??VI, presided over by the @onorable =ose A. #le9andro ,+ivil +ase %'')71 to %'')77-. 6n %' #ugust %7)7, ;ndangan, >ontia, #ntillon, :abalot, and Villamor entered into a compromise agreement with <u whereby the ;ndangan, et. al. individually received from <u the sum of A3,888 in consideration of which ;ndangan, et. al. agreed to vacate the premises in 2uestion and remove their houses therefrom within $8 days from the date of the execution of the agreement, failing which the appellee shall have the authority to demolish ;ndangan, et. al.(s houses with costs thereof chargeable against them. 5he compromise agreement was submitted to the court. =osefina :eimban did not 9oin her co-defendants in entering into the compromise agreement. Bp to that stage of the cases, the counsel of record of the defendants was #tty. . C. Doron. 6n '' #ugust %7)7, #tty. :odesto ". ;spano of the +itizens <egal #ssistant 6ffice ,+<#6-, wrote #tty. Doron to inform him that :rs. :eimban has sought the assistance of the +<#6 regarding her case, and asked that the records of the case be sent to him. #s a conse2uence, #tty. Doron filed on &8 #ugust %7)7 his motion to withdraw appearance as counsel for :eimban in +ivil +ase %'')73. .hile ;ndangan, >ontia, #ntillon, :abalot and Villamor, have decided to
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 1 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

settle with <u through compromise agreement that they signed, :eimban resolved to prosecute her appeal in her own case, +ivil +ase %'')73. .hen :eimban followed up her case in >ranch ??VI of the +4I of :anila and had occasion to talk to Danilo >uenaventura of that >ranch who told her that her case was already submitted for decision. he sought assistance from the +<#6 where she was instructed by #tty. ;spano to find out the real status of the case. he returned to the court sometime in =uly %7)7 and that was when she first came to know #tty. #urora :e9ia who told her that the case has not yet been decided because there was still one party who has not signed the compromise agreement prepared by #tty. Doron. #tty. :e9ia also remarked that she was surprised why rich people were helping in that case, like a certain #tty. <u, a brother of ;usebio <u, who has been approaching the presiding 9udge0 and then told her she would help them provided they give A%,888 each for a gift to the =udge, to which she replied she would broach the matter to her companions. 4rom the court, she went to #tty. :odesto ;spano and told the lawyer the case was not yet submitted. #tty. ;spano instructed her to get her papers from #tty. Doron, which she did. 5hereafter, she told Ailar >autista, daughter of =ose :abalot, and Cloria #ntonio, daughter of Vicente Villamor, about the help offered by #tty. :e9ia. 5he two said they would think it over as they had already signed something. .hen she went to the court to deposit her rentals #tty. :e9ia asked her if her companions were agreeable to the suggestion and she replied she had already told them and that they would consider the matter. 6n '8 Eovember %7)7, ylvia Dizon y "esurreccion who loaned :eimban A388 accompanied the latter to the court. he was seated at the corridor near the door of #tty. :e9ia(s office which was partially open, and she saw :eimban handed an envelope to #tty. :e9ia who put it inside her desk drawer. 6n ) December %7)7, the date set for the hearing of the motion to withdraw the compromise and to file memoranda filed by Ailar >autista and Cloria #ntonio in behalf of their fathers, #tty. :e9ia approached :eimban and said no oppositor might arrive, and asked her if >autista had brought %F' of the A%,888.88. >autista placed A$88 in an envelope and the two of them, >autista and :eimban, went to #tty. :e9ia(s office. >autista handed the envelope containing the money to #tty. :e9ia who received it. 6n & eptember %7!8, #tty. :e9ia attempted to bribe the 5anodbayan Investigator ,+hristina +orall-Aaterno-, through intricate gold chain with a pendant hearing an inscription of letter *+,* ,which the investigator returned through an employee, Dante "amos-. +orallAaterno investigated the complaints of =osefina :eimban and Ailar >autista against #tty. #urora :e9ia y "odriguez for violation of the #nti-Craft and +orrupt Aractices #ct. 6n '& #pril %7!%, the andiganbayan, in +riminal +ase %7!!, found #urora :e9ia y "odriguez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of paragraph ,b-, ection & of "# &8%7 and sentenced her to an indeterminate imprisonment ranging from 1 years and % day as minimum to ) years as maximum, to suffer perpetual dis2ualification from public office and to indemnify the victim =osefina :eimban the sum of A%,888.88 representing the money given to her. 5he andiganbayan also found :e9ia, in +riminal +ase %7!7, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of paragraph ,b-, ection & of "# &8%7 and likewise sentenced her to an indeterminate imprisonment ranging from 1 years and % day as minimum to ) years as maximum, to suffer perpetual dis2ualification from public office and to indemnify the victim Ailar >autista the amount of A388 representing the money given to her. :e9ia was also ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings. :e9ia filed a petition for review with the upreme +ourt. Issue: .hetehr Aresidential Decree is an ex-post facto law. 2eld: 5he contention that Aresidential Decree %$8$ is contrary to the ex post facto provision of the +onstitution is similarly premised on the allegation that *petitioner(s right of appeal is being diluted or eroded efficacy wise.* :e9ia alleged that the procedure provided for by the andiganbayan are ex post facto and hence all proceedings taken against her are void ab initio being in violation of the +onstitution. It is further argued that only one stage of appeal is available to :e9ia under AD %$8$ which effectively deprives her of the intermediate recourse to the +ourt of #ppeals and that in said appeal to the upreme +ourt only issues of law may be raised and worse still the appeal has become a matter of discretion rather than a matter of right. # more searching scrutiny of its rationale would demonstrate the lack of persuasiveness of such an argument. 5he Kay Villegas Kami decision, promulgated in %7)8, supplies the most recent and binding pronouncement on the matter. 5o 2uote from the ponencia of =ustice :akasiar/ *#n ex post facto law is one which/ ,%- makes
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 2 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act0 ,'- aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed0 ,&- changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed0 ,1- alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law re2uired at the time of the commission of the offense0 ,3- assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful, and ,$- deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or ac2uittal, or a proclamation of amnesty.* ;ven the most careful scrutiny of the said definition fails to sustain :e9ia(s claim. 5he *lawful protection* to which an accused *has become entitled* is 2ualified, not given a broad scope. It hardly can be argued that the mode of procedure provided for in the statutory right to appeal is therein embraced. 3./ Peo6le 5s. 1errer $%Rs &'32613'1(* 2. Dece#,er 1-.20 First Division, Castro (J): ( concur, 12 took no part, 1 !issente! in a separate opinion 1acts: 6n 3 :arch %7)8 a criminal complaint for violation of section 1 of the #nti- ubversion #ct was filed against 4eliciano +o in the +ourt of 4irst Instance ,+4I- of 5arlac. 6n :arch %8, =udge =ose +. de Cuzman conducted a preliminary investigation and, finding a prima facie case against +o, directed the Covernment prosecutors to file the corresponding information. 5he twice-amended information ,+riminal +ase ')-, recites *5hat on or about :ay %7$7 to December 3, %7$7, in the :unicipality of +apas, Arovince of 5arlac, Ahilippines, and within the 9urisdiction of this @onorable +ourt, the abovenamed accused, feloniously became an officer andFor ranking leader of the +ommunist Aarty of the Ahilippines, an outlawed and illegal organization aimed to overthrow the Covernment of the Ahilippines by means of force, violence, deceit, subversion, or any other illegal means for the purpose of establishing in the Ahilippines a totalitarian regime and placing the government under the control and domination of an alien power, by being an instructor in the :ao 5se 5ung Bniversity, the training school of recruits of the Eew Aeople(s #rmy, the military arm of the said +ommunist Aarty of the Ahilippines. 5hat in the commission of the above offense, the following aggravating circumstances are present, to wit/ ,a- 5hat the crime has been committed in contempt of or with insult to public authorities0 ,b- 5hat the crime was committed by a band0 and ,c- .ith the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity.* +o moved to 2uash on the ground that the #nti- ubversion #ct is a bill of attainder. :eanwhile, on '3 :ay %7)8, another criminal complaint was filed with the same court, charging Eilo 5ayag and five others with subversion. #fter preliminary investigation was had, an information was filed. 6n '% =uly %7)8 5ayag moved to 2uash, impugning the validity of the statute on the grounds that ,%- "epublic #ct %)88 is a bill of attainder0 ,'- it is vague0 ,&- it embraces more than one sub9ect not expressed in the title thereof0 and ,1- it denies him the e2ual protection of the laws. "esolving the constitutional issues raised, the trial court, in its resolution of %3 eptember %7)8, declared the statute void on the grounds that it is a bill of attainder and that it is vague and overbroad, and dismissed the informations against the two accused. 5he Covernment appealed. 5he upreme +ourt resolved to treat its appeal as a special civil action for certiorari. Issue: .hether the #nti- ubversion <aw partakes of the nature of a >ill of #ttainder. 2eld: #rticle III, section % ,%%- of the +onstitution states that *Eo bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be enacted.* # bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. Its essence is the substitution of a legislative for a 9udicial determination of guilt. 5he constitutional ban against bills of attainder serves to implement the principle of separation of powers by confining legislatures to rule-making and thereby forestalling legislative usurpation of the 9udicial function. @istory in perspective, bills of attainder were employed to suppress unpopular causes and political minorities, and it is against this evil that the constitutional prohibition is directed. 5he singling out of a definite class, the imposition of a burden on it, and a legislative intent, suffice to stigmatize a statute as a bill of attainder. @erein, when the #nti- ubversion #ct is viewed in its actual operation, it will be seen that it does not specify the +ommunist Aarty of the Ahilippines
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 3 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

or the members thereof for the purpose of punishment. .hat it does is simply to declare the Aarty to be an organized conspiracy for the overthrow of the Covernment for the purposes of the prohibition, stated in section 1, against membership in the outlawed organization. 5he term *+ommunist Aarty of the Ahilippines* is used solely for definitional purposes. In fact the #ct applies not only to the +ommunist Aarty of the Ahilippines but also to *any other organization having the same purpose and their successors.* Its focus is not on individuals but on conduct. .ere the #nti- ubversion #ct a bill of attainder, it would be totally unnecessary to charge +ommunists in court, as the law alone, without more, would suffice to secure their punishment. >ut the undeniable fact is that their guilt still has to be 9udicially established. 5he Covernment has yet to prove at the trial that the accused 9oined the Aarty knowingly, willfully and by overt acts, and that they 9oined the Aarty, knowing its subversive character and with specific intent to further its basic ob9ective, i.e., to overthrow the existing Covernment by force, deceit, and other illegal means and place the country under the control and domination of a foreign power. 4urther, the statute specifically re2uires that membership must be knowing or active, with specific intent to further the illegal ob9ectives of the Aarty. 5hat is what section 1 means when it re2uires that membership, to be unlawful, must be shown to have been ac2uired *knowingly, willfully and by overt acts.* 5he ingredient of specific intent to pursue the unlawful goals of the Aarty must be shown by *overt acts.* 5his constitutes an element of *membership* distinct from the ingredient of guilty knowledge. 5he former re2uires proof of direct participation in the organization(s unlawful activities, while the latter re2uires proof of mere adherence to the organization(s illegal ob9ectives. ;ven assuming, however, that the #ct specifies individuals and not activities, this feature is not enough to render it a bill of attainder. It is only when a statute applies either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a 9udicial trial does it become a bill of attainder. Eor is it enough that the statute specify persons or groups in order that it may fall within the ambit of the prohibition against bills of attainder. It is also necessary that it must apply retroactively and reach past conduct. 5his re2uirement follows from the nature of a bill of attainder as a legislative ad9udication of guilt. Indeed, if one ob9ection to the bill of attainder is that +ongress thereby assumes 9udicial magistracy, then it must be demonstrated that the statute claimed to be a bill of attainder reaches past conduct and that the penalties it imposes are inescapable. ection 1 of #nti- ubversion #ct expressly states that the prohibition therein applies only to acts committed *#fter the approval of this #ct.* 6nly those who *knowingly, willfully and by overt acts affiliate themselves with, become or remain members of the +ommunist Aarty of the Ahilippines andFor its successors or of any subversive association* after '8 =une %73), are punished. 5hose who were members of the Aarty or of any other subversive association at the time of the enactment of the law, were given the opportunity of purging themselves of liability by renouncing in writing and under oath their membership in the Aarty. 5he law expressly provides that such renunciation shall operate to exempt such persons from penal liability. 5he penalties prescribed by the #ct are therefore not inescapable. 3.1 3isolas 5s. Panga $%R 833(1* 3/ 7anuar! 1--/0 &n 'anc, Cortes (J): 11 concur, 1 concurs in resu t, 2 !issente! in separate opinions 1acts: #fter receiving information from an unidentified informant that members of the Eew Aeople(s #rmy ,EA#- were resting in a suspected *underground house* in 4oster Village, Del +armen, Aili, +amarines ur, elements of the Ahilippine +onstabulary ,A+- raided said house in the early morning of ! #ugust %7!). 5hree persons were inside the house, #rnel A. :isolas and two women known by the aliases *Ka Donna* and *Ka :enchie* but the women were able to escape in the confusion during the raid. 5he house was searched and the raiders found in a red bag under a pillow allegedly used by :isolas a .'8 gauge "emington shotgun and 1 live rounds of ammunition. Aetitioner was arrested and brought to the A+ head2uarters. 6n 1 eptember %7!), an information charging :isolas with illegal possession of firearms and ammunition under Aresidential Decree %!$$ was filed by the provincial fiscal. 5he information alleged that the firearm and ammunition were used in furtherance of subversion so as to 2ualify the offense under the third paragraph of ection % of AD %!$$. Bpon arraignment, :isolas, with the assistance of counsel de oficio pleaded *not guilty* to the charge. @owever, a few days later, the same counsel filed a motion to withdraw the plea on the ground that there was
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 4 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

basis for the filing of a motion to 2uash. =udge >en9amin V. Aanga, as =udge of "5+ >ranch &&, +adlan, Aili, +amarines ur, gave :isolas time to file a motion to 2uash. :isolas filed a motion to 2uash on the grounds ,%- that the facts charged do not constitute an offense because the information does not charge the proper offense since from the allegations the offense that may be charged is either subversion or rebellion0 and ,'that the trial court had no 9urisdiction over the person of petitioner because of violations of his constitutional rights, i.e, his arrest and the seizure of the firearm and ammunition were illegal. 5he 9udge denied the motion to 2uash for lack of merit in an order dated ) =anuary %7!!. :isolas moved for reconsideration, but such was denied on %3 4ebruary %7!!. :isolas filed the petition for certiorari. Issue: .hether AD %!$$ constitutes a bill of attainder. 2eld: :isolas ob9ected to AD %!$$ on the ground of substantive due process. ;stablished rules of constitutional litigation would, therefore, bar an in2uiry based on the theory that AD %!$$ constitutes a bill of attainder. Get, even if a challenge on the ground that AD %!$$ is a bill of attainder could be appropriately considered, it will still be met with little success. 5he +ourt, in Aeople v. 4errer, defined a bill of attainder as a legislative act which inflicts punishment on individuals or members of a particular group without a 9udicial trial. ;ssential to a bill of attainder are a specification of certain individuals or a group of individuals, the imposition of a punishment, penal or otherwise, and the lack of 9udicial trial. 5his last element, the total lack of court intervention in the finding of guilt and the determination of the actual penalty to be imposed, is the most essential. AD %!$$ does not possess the elements of a bill of attainder. It does not seek to inflict punishment without a 9udicial trial. Eowhere in the measure is there a finding of guilt and an imposition of a corresponding punishment. .hat the decree does is to define the offense and provide for the penalty that may be imposed, specifying the 2ualifying circumstances that would aggravate the offense. 5here is no encroachment on the power of the court to determine after due hearing whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the offense of illegal possession of firearms has been committed and that the 2ualifying circumstance attached to it has been established also beyond reasonable doubt as the +onstitution and 9udicial precedents re2uire. 3.2 Peo6le 5s. Sandigan,a!an $%R 1/1.2(* 3 7ul! 1--20 &n 'anc, "rino)*+uino (J): 14 concur 1acts: 5wo letter-complaints were filed on '! 6ctober %7!$ and 7 December %7!$, with the 5anodbayan by 5eofilo Celacio, a political leader of Covernor Valentina Alaza, wife of +ongressman Democrito 6. Alaza of #gusan del ur, shortly after the +eferino . Aaredes had replaced :rs. Alaza as 6I+Fprovincial governor of #gusan del ur in :arch %7!$. Celacio(s complaint 2uestioned the issuance to Covernor Aaredes, when he was still the provincial attorney in %7)$, of a free patent title for <ot &87)-!, Als. $), with an area of %,&7% s2.m., more or less, in the "osario public land subdivision in an 4rancisco, #gusan del ur. 6n '& 4ebruary %7!7, the 5anodbayan referred the complaint to the +ity 4iscal of >utuan +ity who subpoenaed Covernor Aaredes. @owever, the subpoena was served on, and received by, the tation +ommander of an 4rancisco, #gusan del ur, who did not serve it on Aaredes. Despite the absence of notice to Aaredes, Deputized 5anodbayanF+ity 4iscal ;rnesto :. >rocoy conducted a preliminary investigation ex parte. @e recommended that an information be filed in court. @is recommendation was approved by the 5anodbayan who, on %8 #ugust %8, %7!7, filed an information in the andiganbayan ,5>A +ase !$-8&&$!-, alleging *5hat on or about =anuary '%, %7)$, or sometime prior or subse2uent thereto, in an 4rancisco, #gusan del ur, Ahilippines, and within the 9urisdiction of this @onorable +ourt, the above-named accused, a public officer, being then the Arovincial #ttorney of #gusan del ur, having been duly appointed and 2ualified as such, taking advantage of his public position, did, then and there, wilfully and unlawfully persuade, influence and induce the <and Inspector of the >ureau of <ands, by the name of #rmando <. <uison to violate an existing rule or regulation duly promulgated by competent authority by misrepresenting to the latter that the land sub9ect of an application filed by the accused with the >ureau of <ands is disposable by a free patent when the accused well knew that the said land had already been reserved for a school site, thus by the accused(s personal
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 5 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

misrepresentation in his capacity as Arovincial #ttorney of #gusan del ur and applicant for a free patent, a report favorably recommending the issuance of a free patent was given by the said #rmando <. <uison, land inspector, thereby paving the way to the release of a decree of title, by the "egister of Deeds of #gusan del ur, an act committed by the accused, in outright pre9udice of the public interest.* Aaredes was arrested upon a warrant issued by the andiganbayan. +laiming that the information and the warrant of arrest were null and void because he had been denied his right to a preliminary investigation, Aaredes refused to post bail. @is wife filed a petition for habeas corpus praying this +ourt to order his release, but the upreme +ourt denied her petition because the proper remedy was for Aaredes to file a bail bond of A'8,888 fixed by the andiganbayan for his provisional liberty, and move to 2uash the information before being arraigned. 6n 3 #pril %77%, Aaredes filed in the andiganbayan *#n Brgent :otion to Huash Information and to "ecall .arrant of #rrest.* #fter the parties had filed their written arguments, the andiganbayan issued a resolution on % #ugust %77% granting the motion to 2uash on the ground of prescription of the offense charged. 5he Aeople of the Ahilippines, through the olicitor Ceneral, filed the petition for certiorari. Issue: .hether Aaredes may no longer be prosecuted for his violation of "# &8%7 in %7)$. 2eld: >atas Aambansa %73 which was approved on %$ :arch %7!', amending ection %% of "# &8%7 by increasing from %8 to %3 years the period for the prescription or extinguishment of a violation of the #ntiCraft and +orrupt Aractices #ct, may not be given retroactive application to the *crime* which was committed by Aaredes in =anuary %7)$ yet, for it would be pre9udicial to the accused. It would deprive him of the substantive benefit of the shorter ,%8 years- prescriptive period under ection %%, "# &8%7 which was an essential element of the *crime* at the time he committed it. 5o apply >A %73 to Aaredes would make it an ex post facto law for it would alter his situation to his disadvantage by making him criminally liable for a crime that had already been extinguished under the law existing when it was committed. ince an ex post facto law is proscribed by our +onstitution , ec. '', #rticle III, %7!) +onstitution-, the andiganbayan committed no reversible error in ruling that Aaredes may no longer be prosecuted for his supposed violation of "# &8%7 in %7)$, $ years before >A %73 was approved. 5he new prescriptive period under that law should apply only to those offenses which were committed after the approval of >A %73. 3.3 8right 5s. 9A $%R 113213* 1) August 1--(0 First Division, ,apunan (J): - concur, 1 on eave 1acts: 6n %) :arch %77&, #ssistant ecretary ime D. @idalgo of the Department of 4oreign #ffairs indorsed to the Department of =ustice Diplomatic Eote 8!8F7& dated %7 4ebruary %77& from the Covernment of #ustralia to the Department of =ustice through #ttorney Ceneral :ichael Duffy. aid Diplomatic Eote was a formal re2uest for the extradition of Aaul =oseph .right who is wanted for the indictable crimes of/ % count of 6btaining Aroperty by Deception contrary to ection !%,%- of the Victorian +rimes #ct of %73! ,.right and @erbert <ance 6rr, obtaining I&%3,'38 from :ulcahy, :endelson and "ound olicitors by falsely representing that all relevant documents relating to the mortgage had been signed by "odney and =anine :itchell who control "uven Eominee Aty. <td. .hich owned the >angholme, Victoria property-0 and %& counts of 6btaining Aroperty by Deception contrary to ection !%,%- of the Victorian +rimes #ct of %73! ,.right and =ohn +arson +racker, obtaining %%.' million commission including I&$),811 in bonus commission via #mazon >ond Aty. <td. by submitting '%3 life insurance proposals and paying premiums thereon, but where life proposals were not in existence and approximately '88 were allegedly false0 attempting to obtain I',!)8.$! commission in the name of #mazon >ond by submitting one proposal for life insurance with #:A ociety0 signing and swearing before the olicitor-0 one count of attempting to 6btain Aroperty by Deception contrary to ection &'%,m- of Victorian +rimes #ct of %73! ,.right and +arson attempting to cause the payment of I',!)8.$! commission to a bank account in the name of #mazon >ond Aty. <td. by submitting a proposal for <ife Insurance to the #:A ociety, the policy-holder of which does not exist-0 and one count of Aer9ury contrary to ection &%1 of Victorian +rimes #ct of %73! ,.right and +racker signing and swearing before a olicitor holding a current practicing certificate pursuant to the <egal
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 6 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Arofession Aractice #ct of %73!, a tatutory Declaration attending to the validity of '7 of the most recent <ife Insurance proposals of #:A ociety and containing & false statements-. Aursuant to ection 3 of AD %8$7, in relation to the ;xtradition 5reaty concluded between the "epublic of the Ahilippines and #ustralia on %8 eptember %778, extradition proceedings were initiated on $ #pril %77& by the tate +ounsels of the Department of =ustice before the "egional 5rial +ourt. In its 6rder dated %& #pril %77&, the trial court directed .right to appear before it on &8 #pril %77& and to file his answer within %8 days. In the same order, the =udge ,=ose de la "ama, >ranch %&7- ordered the E>I to serve summons and cause the arrest of .right. 5he trial court received return of the warrant of arrest and summons signed by E>I enior #gent :anuel #lmendras with the information that .right was arrested on '$ #pril %77& at 5aguig, :etro :anila and was subse2uently detained at the E>I detention cell where .right continue to be held. 5he trial court, in its decision dated %1 =une %77&, granted the petition for extradition re2uested by the Covernment of #ustralia, concluding that the documents submitted by the #ustralian Covernment meet the re2uirements of #rticle ) of the 5reaty of ;xtradition and that the offenses for which the petitioner were sought in his country are extraditable offenses under #rticle ' of the said 5reaty. 5he trial court, moreover, held that under the provisions of the same #rticle, extradition could be granted irrespective of when the offense J in relation to the extradition J was committed, provided that the offense happened to be an offense in the re2uesting tate at the time the acts or omissions constituting the same were committed. .right challenged the decision of the "egional 5rial +ourt before the +ourt of #ppeals. 5he +ourt of #ppeals, however, affirmed the trial court(s decision on %1 eptember %77& and denied .right(s :otion for "econsideration on %$ December %77&. @ence, .right filed the petition for review on certiorari to set aside the order of deportation. Issue: .hether the 5reaty(s retroactive application violate the +onstitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. 2eld: ;arly commentators understood ex post facto laws to include all laws of retrospective application, whether civil or criminal. @owever, +hief =ustice almon A. +hase, citing >lackstone, 5he 4ederalist and other early B. . state constitutions in +alder vs. >ull concluded that the concept was limited only to penal and criminal statutes. #s conceived under our +onstitution, ex post facto laws are ,%- statutes that make an act punishable as a crime when such act was not an offense when committed0 ,'- laws which, while not creating new offenses, aggravate the seriousness of a crime0 ,&- statutes which prescribe greater punishment for a crime already committed0 or, ,1- laws which alter the rules of evidence so as to make it substantially easier to convict a defendant. *#pplying the constitutional principle, the ,+ourt- has held that the prohibition applies only to criminal legislation which affects the substantial rights of the accused.* 5his being so, there is absolutely no merit in petitioner(s contention that the ruling of the lower court sustaining the 5reaty(s retroactive application with respect to offenses committed prior to the 5reaty(s coming into force and effect, violates the +onstitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. @ere, the 5reaty is neither a piece of criminal legislation nor a criminal procedural statute. *It merely provides for the extradition of persons wanted for prosecution of an offense or a crime which offense or crime was already committed or consummated at the time the treaty was ratified.*

Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 7 )