LUMANOG VS.

PEOPLE

FACTS:

CARBONEL VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

FACTS:

Petitioner Clarita J. Carbonel, an employee of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology,
lost her copy of the result of the Computer Assisted Test (CATS) so she went to the CSCRO IV to
secure another one. The Examination Placement and Service Division noticed the discrepancy in the
personal and physical appearance of petitioner from the photo attached to the application form. An
investigation was conducted and petitioner made a voluntary statement stating that somebody else
accomplished the application form in behalf of her. She later on retracted her statement explaining that
she was not able to take the exam for attending her ailing mother and that, she was surprised to receive
a certificate of eligibility, so she went to the CSCRO IV not to get a copy of the certificate of rating but
to check the veracity of the certificate she received.

The CSCRO IV rendered judgment against Carbonel, thereby, dismissing her from service.
Petitioner filed a petition claiming that her right to due process was violated because she was not
afforded the right to counsel when her statement was taken during the investigation by the CSCRO IV.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioners right to due process was violated when she made an uncounselled
admission during the investigation of the CSCRO IV

HELD:

No, Carbonels right to due process was not violated. Although, it is true that the CSCRO gave
credence to petitioners uncounselled statements, it must be remembered that the right to counsel under
Section 12 of the Bill of Rights is meant to protect a suspect during custodial investigation. Thus, the
exclusionary rule under paragraph (2), Section 12 applies only to admissions made in a criminal
investigation but not to those made in an administrative investigation.

GOVERNMENT OF HONGKONG VS. OLALIA

FACTS:

Private respondent Juan Antonio Muoz was charged before the Hong Kong Court with
several crimes. DOJ then, received from the Hong Kong Department of Justice a request for the
provisional arrest of respondent. An order of arrest was issued and thereafter, he was detained.
Petitioner Hong Kong Special Administrative Region filed a petition for the extradition of private
respondent. For respondents part, he filed a petition for bail, which was granted.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there is nothing in the Constitution or statutory law providing that a potential
extradite has a right to bail, the right being limited solely to criminal proceedings

HELD:

Yes, while the extradition law does not provide for the grant of bail to an extradite, there is no
provision prohibiting him or her from filing a motion for bail, a right to due process under the
Constitution under Sec. 13, Art. 3.
 The constitutional provision on bail does not apply to extradition proceedings because it is
only available in criminal proceedings but while extradition is not a criminal proceeding, it is
characterized by the following: 1. It entails a deprivation of liberty on the part of the potential extradite;
and 2. The means employed to attain the purpose of extradition is also the machinery of criminal law.
An extradition proceeding, while ostensibly administrative, bears the characteristics of a criminal
process.

CANCERAN VS. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Petitioner Jovito Canceran, a merchandiser, tried stealing 14 boxes of Ponds White Beauty
Cream by concealing it in two boxes of Magic Flakes biscuits, but due to some cause independent of
his will, he was not able to successfully produce the crime. Canceran claimed that an earlier
information for theft was already filed which was eventually dismissed. Subsequently, a second
information was filed for the same offense over the same incident and became the subject of the present
case.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner should be acquitted of the crime that was not charged in the
information

HELD:

No, petitioner should be acquitted for he was not properly informed of the charge against him.
No less than the Constitution guarantees the right of every person accused in a criminal prosecution to
be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him. It is fundamental that every element of
which the offense is composed must be alleged in the complaint or information. The main purpose of
requiring the various elements of a crime to be set out in the information is to enable the accused to
suitable prepare his defense. He is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that
constitute the offense.

In the information, petitioner was charged with theft. However, there was no such thing. The
information can never be read to charge Canceran of consummated theft because the indictment itself
stated that the crime was never produced. Because of this uncertainty, the doubt should be resolved in
favor of the accused.

REYES VS. GONZALEZ

FACTS:

Petitioner Robert P. Reyes was among those arrested in the Manila Peninsula Hotel siege in
2007. After the incident, the DOJ Panel of Prosecutors proceeded with the inquest proceedings and
found probable cause against petitioner for the crime of rebellion. Upon the request of the DILG,
respondent DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzales issued Hold Departure Order (HDO) No. 45 ordering
Commissioner of Immigration to include in the Hold Departure List of the BID. The case was later on
reversed by the court. Petitioner Petitioners counsel thereafter, file a petition for the HDO to be lifted
claiming that despite the dismissal of the rebellion case, the HDO still subsists and as such, the
availment of the writ of habeas corpus must be given because the restraint on petitioners right to travel
is illegal.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners right to liberty has been violated or threatened with violation by
the issuance of the subject HDO, which would entitle him to the privilege of the

HELD:
 No, the rights that fall within the writ of amparo under Section 1 are the following: (1) right to
life; (2) right to liberty; (3) right to security. The right to travel refers to the right to move from one
place to another and is subject to the usual constraints imposed by the very necessity of safeguarding
the system of justice. In such cases, whether the accused should be permitted to leave the jurisdiction is
a matter of the courts discretion. Here the restriction on petitioners right to travel as a consequence of
the pendency of the criminal case filed against him was not unlawful. Petitioner has also failed to
establish that his right to travel was impaired in the manner and to the extent that it amounted to a
serious violation fo his right to life, liberty, and security, for which there exists no readily available
legal remedy.

SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE VS. MANALO

FACTS:

Defendants Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo, brothers of Bestre Manalo, the leader of New
Peoples Army (NPA), were abducted by members of the Citizens Armed Forces Grographical Unit
(CAFGU) from their house and detained in several different places. During their captivity, they were
subjected to tortures and were made to perform tasks and chores. Whilst being held captive, the
brothers came to know the names of their captors and identify each of them including the then General,
Palparan, who, in one occasion conversed with Raymond, face-to-face. The brothers managed to escape
from their nightmare after a number of tries. An investigation was ensued through a memorandum by
the Secretary of Defense, which directed the AFP Chief od Staff to conduct, regarding the incident that
almost took the lives of the Manalos.

The case was originally a petition for prohibition, injunction and restraining order but a few
months after the case was filed, the Writ of Amparo took effect. A manifestation was filed in order to
treat the existing petition as an amparo petition, which the court granted.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there the defendants have the right to the privilege of the writ of amparo

HELD:

Yes, they have the right to the privilege of the writ of amparo. First, the right to security is
freedom from fear. Under section 1 of the Amparo Rule, freedom from fear is the right and any
threat to the rights to life, liberty or security is the actionable wrong. Respondents right to security
were violated when they were detained, then threatened that if they escaped, their families, including
them would be killed.

Second, the right to security of person is a guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity or
security as enshrined under article III, sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution. Respondents right to security as
protection by the government have been violated. The military elements failed to provide protection to
respondents, and they themselves, were ones who perpetrated the abduction, detention, and torture.
When the investigation was commenced, it was superficial and one-sided because it merely relied on
the sworn statements of the six (6) implicated members of the CAFGU. Results of the investigation
were also not furnished to the Manalos, which they also seek through the petition for a writ of amparo.

Lastly, the right to security of person is a guarantee of protection of ones rights by the
government. In the context of the writ of Amparo, this right is built into the guarantees of the right to
life and liberty under Art III, sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution and the right to security of person (as
freedom from threat and guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity) under Art III, Sec. 2.

MISON VS. GALLEGOS

FACTS:
 Respondent Ja Hoon Ku is a Korean International wanted by South Korea for arbitrarily
spending money allotted as reserve fund of Phildip Company. SK asked for assistance in the arrest and
deportation of Ku through Hon. Siegfried Mison, Chairperson of the Bureau of Immigration (BI).
Subsequently, Ku was arrested by the BI then detained at the BI detention center.

Ku filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of amparo which was granted by the court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the privilege of the writ of amparo was properly granted in the case at bar

HELD:

No. Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides that it is available to any person
whose right to life liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity. As clarified in Navia, with
the enactment of RA 9851, the Amparo Rule is also anchored on a concrete statutory definition of what
an enforced or involuntary disappearance is. Kus disappearance does not fall in the above category
because when he was arrested and detained, his rights were read to him and was informed of the
authorities identities.