Case digests for first year students law school

1L

1. DE JOYA V. JAIL WARDEN OF BATANGAS CITY, G.R. NOS. 159418-19
FACTS
Petitioner filed a petition for a write of habeas corpus for her release from the Batangas City
Jail, claiming that her detention was illegal. During the trial, she was found guilty for two
instances of bouncing checks. Yet, she failed to appear in court despite being given ample
notice.
After 5 years of hiding, petitioner was apprehended while applying for an NBI clearance;
thereafter, she was arrested and taken to the Batangas City Jail.
Petitioner filed a motion to retroactively apply SC Admin. Circ. No. 12-2000 in accordance
with Art. 22 of RPC and order her release from detention.
ISSUES
W/N the Administrative Circular can be applied retroactively in this case.
W/N the petition for writ of habeas corpus have merit.
RULING
W/N the Administrative Circular can be applied retroactively in this case – NO
It is not a penal law. Art. 22 of RPC is not applicable. It merely lays down a rule of
preference in the application of the penalties for violation of BP 22.
W/N the petition for writ of habeas corpus have merit.- NO
Petitioner was arrested and detained in adherence to the final judgement of the MTC.
INMATES OF THE NEW BILIBID PRISON V. DE LIMA
FACTS
On May 29, 2023, Pres. Aquino signed into law RA 10592 which amends Articles 29, 94, 97,
98, and 99 of the RPC. Pursuant to the amended law, an IRR was issued by the DOJ and
DILG secretaries.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, contesting the validity of Sec 4, Rule 1
of the IRR. It directs the prospective application of the grant of good conduct allowance on
the ground that it violates Art. 22 of the RPC.
ISSUE
W/N the IRR should be applied retroactively to favor the prisoners under Art. 22.
RULING
YES
While RA 10592 does not define a crime or offense or provide or establish a penalty,
its powers have the same purpose and effect of diminishing the punishment attached
to the crime. Reduction of length of penalty is beneficial to the detained and
convicted prisoners alike.
PEOPLE V. SITON, 600 SCRA 476 (2009)
FACTS
Siton et al. was charged with vagrancy, in violation of Art. 202(2) of RPC. Respondents filed a
petition on a ground that such provision is unconstitutional for being vague and overbroad.
MTC denied and declared that the law on vagrancy was enacted pursuant to the State’s
police power as per the maxim salus populi est suprema lex.
OSG held that the overbreadth and vagueness doctrines apply only to free speech cases. Art.
202(2) is valid and constitutional.
RTC declared that it is unconstitutional for being vague and violating the equal protection
clause.
ISSUE
W/N Art. 202 (2) is unconstitutional.
RULING
CONSTITUTIONAL
Power to define crimes and prescribe their corresponding penalties is legislative in
nature and inherent in the sovereign power of the State as an aspect of police power.
Police power is an inherent attribute of sovereignty.
QUINTO V. ANDRES, 453 SCRA 511 (2005)
FACTS
Andres and Pacheco invited Wilson to go fishing with them near a drainage culvert. Wilson
was found dead. NBI filed a criminal complaint for homicide against Andres and Pacheco.
Accused filed demurrer to evidence which RTC and CA granted on the ground of insufficiency
of evidence.
ISSUE

2. W/N acquittal in criminal case bars a civil action where judgement of acquittal holds
that the accused did not commit the criminal acts imputed to them.
RULING
YES
Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
Civil action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final
judgement in the civil action that the act from where civil liability may arise does not
exist.
YNOT V. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (IAC), G.R. NO. 74457
FACTS
EO 626 was enacted to prohibit the slaughtering of carabaos; EO 626-A additionally banned
the movement of both carabaos and carabeef from interprovince.
On January 13, 1984, Ynot was caught transporting carabaos from Masbate to Iloilo. He was
charged in violation of EO 626-A and his carabaos were outrightly confiscated without trial; he
argued that it was unconstitutional as it violated his right to due process.
RTC ruled against Ynot, asserting that EO is a valid exercise of police power in order to
promote general welfare.
ISSUE
W/N EO 626-A was violative of right to due process.
RULING
YES
EO created a presumption based on the judgement of the executive. Movement of
carabaos does not mean a subsequent slaughter.
PESIGAN V. ANGELES, G.R. NO. L-64279 APRIL 30, 1984
FACTS
Petitioners, with permits and certificates for the transport of their carabaos, were confronted
by a police station commander and had their livestock confiscated.
ISSUE
W/N E) 626-A may be enforced before the publication in the Official Gazette.
RULING
NO
It is a penal obligation published more than 2 months later in the Official Gazette. It
became effective only 15 days thereafter as provided in Art. 1 of Civil Code.
TAÑADA V. TUVERA, 136 SCRA 27 (1985)
FACTS
Respondents would have case dismissed on the ground that petitioners have no legal
personality to bring the instant petition. In the absence of any showing that petitioners are
directly affected or prejudiced by the alleged non-publication of presidential issuances, they
are not being aggrieved parties within the meaning of Section 3, Rule 65 of the ROC.
ISSUE
W/N presidential issuances of general applicability are required to be published in
order to have force and effect.
RULING
YES
Presidential issuances of public nature or general applicability is mandated by law.
If applicable to particular persons or class, such need not be published on the
assumption that they have been circularized to all concerned.
A person needs to be informed of the law before being bound by it.