Documents

Alternative Poli Law Digests

Description
Poli law review - Class of Atty. Jack Jimenez
Categories
Published
of 212
25
Categories
Published
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Share
Transcript
  Updated by K Pascual. 2014. 4C. Bill of Rights –  Poli Digests. Atty. Jack Jimenez. 4C.     1 CONTENTS Section 13. Right to Bail ............................................................................................ 153 102. CAMARA VS. ENAGE .................................................................................... 153 103. OBOSA VS. CA .................................................................................................. 154 Section 14 (1). Criminal Due Process ................................................................. 156 104. SCOTY’S DEPARTMENT STORE VS. MICALER  ............................... 156 105. Almeda v. Villaluz ......................................................................................... 156 105.5. MATEO VS. VILLALUZ............................................................................. 158 106. PEOPLE VS. TEEHANKEE ......................................................................... 160 Section 14 (2). Presumption of Innocence ...................................................... 161 107. PEOPLE VS. MINGOA................................................................................... 161 Section 14 (2). Right to Counsel............................................................................ 161 108. PEOPLE VS. FRISCO HOLGADO.............................................................. 161 109. PEOPLE VS. SIM BEN................................................................................... 162 110. DELGADO VS. CA ........................................................................................... 163 111. PEOPLE VS. MALUNSING .......................................................................... 163 Section 14 (2). Right to be Informed .................................................................. 164 112. PEOPLE VS. REGALA ................................................................................... 164 113. PEOPLE VS. ORTEGA ................................................................................... 165 Section 14 (2). Right to Speedy Trial.................................................................. 166 114. CONDE VS. RIVERA ...................................................................................... 166 Section 14 (2). Right to Public Trial .................................................................... 166 115. GARCIA VS. DOMINGO ................................................................................ 166 Section 14 (2). Right to Confrontation of Witness ...................................... 167 116. PEOPLE VS. ORTIZ-MIYAKE .................................................................... 167 117. PEOPLE VS. SENERIS .................................................................................. 169 118. PEOPLE VS. NARCA ...................................................................................... 170 Section. 16 ........................................................................................................................ 171 119. TATAD VS. SB .................................................................................................. 171 120. GONZALES VS. SB.......................................................................................... 173 121. US VS. NAVARRO ........................................................................................... 174 122. CABAL VS. KAPUNAN ................................................................................. 176 123. PASCUAL VS. MEDICAL BOARD ............................................................ 178 124. ALMONTE VS. VASQUEZ ........................................................................... 179 125. PEOPLE VS. MALIMIT ................................................................................. 180 126. US. vs. TAN TENG .......................................................................................... 181 127. BELTRAN VS. SAMSON .............................................................................. 182 128. PEOPLE VS. ECHEGARAY .......................................................................... 183 129. LOZANO VS. MARTINEZ ............................................................................ 186 130. CUISON VS. CA ................................................................................................ 186 131. PEOPLE VS. OBSANIA ................................................................................. 188 132. CUDIA VS. CA ................................................................................................... 190 133. GUERRERO VS. CA ........................................................................................ 192 134. TUPAS VS ULEP. ............................................................................................ 193 135. PEOPLE VS. VELASCO ................................................................................. 194 136. GALMAN VS. SB .............................................................................................. 195 137. MELO VS. PEOPLE ........................................................................................ 196  Updated by K Pascual. 2014. 4C. Bill of Rights –  Poli Digests. Atty. Jack Jimenez. 4C.     2 138. PEOPLE VS. CITY COURT MANILA ....................................................... 197 139. PEOPLE VS. RELOVA ................................................................................... 198 140. PEOPLE VS. JABINAL................................................................................... 199 ARTICLE IV AND V –  CITIZENSHIP AND SUFFRAGE....................................... 201 141. TECSON VS. COMLEC .................................................................................. 201 142. MOY YAO VS. COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION ........................... 203 143. CO VS. HRET .................................................................................................... 205 144. IN RE CHING. ................................................................................................... 206 145. BENGSON VS. HRET ..................................................................................... 207 146. MERCADO VS. MANZANO ......................................................................... 208 147. MAKALINTAL VS. COMELEC ................................................................... 209  Updated by K Pascual. 2014. 4C. Bill of Rights –  Poli Digests. Atty. Jack Jimenez. 4C.     3 6. RURAL BANK OF BUHI VS. CA procedural due process    Buhi Bank was a rural bank. Its books were examined by the Rural Banks division of the Central Bank    However, it refused to be examined. As a consequence, its financial assistance was suspended    Later, a general examination of the bank’s affairs and operations were again conducted.    The rural bank’s division found out massive irregularities in the operations, giving out loans to unknown and fictitious borrowers, and sums amounting to millions past due to the Central Bank. There were also promissory notes rediscounted with the Central Bank for cash.    As a result, the Buhi Bank became insolvent.    The division chief, Odra, recommended that Buhi be placed under receivership.    Thus, the Monetary Board adopted a Resolution # 583, placing the bank under receivership. Odra, the division chief, was made the receiver.    Odra thus implemented the resolution, authorizing deputies to take control and possession of Buhi’s assets and liabilities.    Del Rosario, the Buhi Bank Manager, filed an injunction against the receiver, arguing that the resolution violated the Rural Banks Act and constitutes gadalej. The bank claims that there was a violation of due process. They claim that the bank was not given the chance to deny and disprove the claim of insolvency or the other grounds and that it was hastily put under receivership.    Later on, the Central Bank Monetary Board ordered the liquidation of the Bank.    The judge ruled in favor of the Bank and issued a writ of execution.    The CA however restrained the enforcement of execution, citing that the Judge did not follow the orders, and thus required the Bank to yield to the CB. ISSUE: Was due process observed? SC: YES. CLOSURE VALID. Under Sec 29 of the RA 265, on proceedings regarding insolvency, there is NO REQUIREMENT that a hearing be first conducted before a bank may be placed under receivership. The law explicitly provides that the Monetary Board can IMMEDIATELY forbid a banking institution from doing business and IMMEDIATELY appoint a receiver when: 1) there has been an examination by CB, b) a report to the CB, and c) prima facie showing that the bank is insolvent. As to the claim that the RA 265 violates due process, the claim is untenable. The law could not have intended to disregard the constitutional requirement of due process when it conferred power to place rural banks under receivership. The closure and liquidation of the bank is considered an exercise of POLICE POWER. It maybe subject to judicial inquiry and could be set aside if found to be capricious, discriminatory, whimsical, arbitrary, etc. The appointment of a receiver may be made by the Monetary Board, WITHOUT NOTICE AND HEARING, but subject to the JUDICIAL INQUIRY, to insure protection of the banking institution.  Updated by K Pascual. 2014. 4C. Bill of Rights –  Poli Digests. Atty. Jack Jimenez. 4C.     4 Due process does NOT necessarily require a PRIOR HEARING. A hearing or an OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD may be made SUBSEQUENT to the closure. One could just imagine the dire consequences of a prior hearing: bank runs would happen, resulting in panic and hysteria. In that way, fortunes will be wiped out, and disillusionment will run the gamut of the entire banking industry. There is no question that the action of the MB may be subject to judicial review. C ourts may interfere with the MB’s exercise of discretion. Here, the RTC has jurisdiction to adjudicate the question of whether the MB acted in bad faith when it directed the dissolution of Buhi Bank. 7. POLLUTION BOARD VS. CA procedural due process    The board issued an EX PARTE ORDER directed against Solar Textile to immediately cease and desist from utilizing its waste water pollution source installations. The installations were allegedly discharging untreated waste water directly into a canal leading to the adjacent Tullahan Tinejeros River.    The ex parte order was signed by Factoran, the Board’s Chair.    The order was based on the findings made after inspection of Solar’s Plant by the National Pollution Control Commission, and by the DENR. They found out that the installation generated 30 gallons per minute of wastewater pollutants, in excess of that allowed under PD 984.    The order was received by Solar. A writ of execution was issued.    Solar assailed the order, contending that the same was issued without due process    The Board claims that it has authority to issue ex parte orders to suspend operations, under PD 984, when there is prima facie evidence of waste water discharge beyond the allowable limits. According to the investigator’s reports, there was prima facie evidence.    Solar insists that the order may issue only when there is immediate threat to life, public health, safety and welfare. It contends that there was no such finding. ISSUE: Order valid? SC: YES. It is clear to this Court that, based on the numerous reports, THERE WAS AT LEAST PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE before the board that the effluents emanating from the plant exceeded the maximum allowable lmits of chemical substances, and that accordingly there was adequate basis supporting the ex parte order to cease and desist. (it will be noted that the previous owner of the plant had earlier been issued a similar cease and desist order way back in 1985). It will also be noted that Solar was earlier summoned by NPCC for a hearing in 1986, yet the Board refrained from issuing an ex parte order until after 1986, and 1988 when they conducted re-inspections. Thus, the Board appears to have been forbearing in its efforts to enforce the applicable standards against Solar. Solor however, remain casual about its continued discharge of untreated wastewater. Here, the order was issued not by a local government, but directly by the Pollution Adjudication Board, the very agency tasked to determine whether the emissions of a particular industrial establishment comply with the anti-pollution law. Ex parte cease and desist orders are permitted by law and regulations in situations like these since stopping the continuous discharge of pollutants into the river cannot be made to wait until protracted litigation over the ultimate correctness or propriety of such orders has run its full course, including multiple and sequential appeals (which Solar has taken), which may take several years. The relevant pollution control statute and implementing regulations were enacted and promulgated in the exercise of that pervasive, sovereign power to protect the safety, health, and general welfare and comfort of the public, as well
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x