Hans Christian N.

Bonifacio
Philosophy of Law

Case Digests

40. Republic vs. Asuncion.

FACTS:
On 31 July 1991, private respondent Alexander Dionisio y Manio, a member
of thePhilippine National Police (PNP) assigned to the Central Police District
Command Station 2 in Novaliches, Quezon City, was dispatched by his
Commanding Officer to Dumalay Street inNovaliches to respond to a complaint
that a person was creating trouble there. Dionisio proceeded to that place, where he
subsequently shot to death T/Sgt. Romeo Sadang. Office of the City Prosecutor
filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City an information charging
Dionisio with the crime of homicide.The respondent Judge dismissed said Criminal
Case for re-filing with the Sandiganbayan" on theground that it is the
Sandiganbayan and not the Regional Trial Court, has the jurisdiction overthe case.
This is in view with the SC decision in the case of Deloso vs. Domingo, quoted
that The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over offenses committed by public
officials when penalty prescribed by law for the offense is higher than prision
correccional, the offense charged inthe herein case carries penalty of reclsusion
temporal maximum to death thus cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and the
Ombudsman has primary jurisdiction to investigate it.

Petitioner opposed the RTC dismissal of the case due to Courts jurisdiction, he
asserted that crimes committed by PNP members are not cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan because they fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regular
courts" as provided in Section 46 of R.A. No. 6975 and the Sandiganbayan is not a
regular court but a special court."

ISSUE
Whether the term regular courts includes the Sandiganbayan

HELD:
 Yes, Sandiganbayan is a regular Court.Regular courts are those within the
judicial department of the government, namely, the Supreme Court and such lower
courts which as established by law, under Section 16, Chapter 4, Book II of the
Administrative Code of 1987, includes the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan,
Court of Tax Appeals, Regional Trial Courts, Shari'a District Courts, Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, and Shari'a
Circuit Courts."Accordingly, the term regular courts in Section 46 of R.A. No.
6975 means civil courts. This is inline with the purpose of the law to remove the
jurisdiction of Court- Martial over criminal casesinvolving PNP members due to
reorganization and turning PNP into civilian in character whichin return mandates
the transfer of criminal cases against members of the PNP to the
civilian courts.

41. Akbayan-Youth vs. COMELEC

FACTS:
On January 25, 2001, AKBAYAN-Youth, together with other youth
movements sought the extension of the registration of voters for the May 2001
elections. The voters registration has already ended on December 27, 2000.
AKBAYAN-Youth asks that persons aged 18-21 be allowed a special 2-day
registration. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) denied the petition.
AKBAYAN-Youth the sued COMELEC for alleged grave abuse of discretion for
denying the petition. AKBAYAN-Youth alleged that there are about 4 million
youth who were not able to register and are now disenfranchised. COMELEC
invoked Section 8 of Republic Act 8189 which provides that no registration shall
be conducted 120 days before the regular election. AKBAYAN-Youth however
counters that under Section 28 of Republic Act 8436, the COMELEC in the
exercise of its residual and stand-by powers, can reset the periods of pre-election
acts including voters registration if the original period is not observed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the COMELEC exercised grave abuse of discretion when it
denied the extension of the voters registration.

HELD:
 No. The COMELEC was well within its right to do so pursuant to the clear
provisions of Section 8, RA 8189 which provides that no voters registration shall
be conducted within 120 days before the regular election. The right of suffrage is
not absolute. It is regulated by measures like voters registration which is not a mere
statutory requirement. The State, in the exercise of its inherent police power, may
then enact laws to safeguard and regulate the act of voters registration for the
ultimate purpose of conducting honest, orderly and peaceful election, to the
incidental yet generally important end, that even pre-election activities could be
performed by the duly constituted authorities in a realistic and orderly manner
one which is not indifferent and so far removed from the pressing order of the day
and the prevalent circumstances of the times. RA 8189 prevails over RA 8436 in
that RA 8189s provision is explicit as to the prohibition. Suffice it to say that it is
a pre-election act that cannot be reset.

Further, even if what is asked is a mere two-day special registration, COMELEC

has shown in its pleadings that if it is allowed, it will substantially create a setback
in the other pre-election matters because the additional voters from the special two
day registration will have to be screened, entered into the book of voters, have to
be inspected again, verified, sealed, then entered into the computerized voters list;
and then they will have to reprint the voters information sheet for the update and
distribute it by that time, the May 14, 2001 elections would have been overshot
because of the lengthy processes after the special registration. In short, it will cost
more inconvenience than good. Further still, the allegation that youth voters are
disenfranchised is not sufficient. Nowhere in AKBAYAN-Youths pleading was
attached any actual complaint from an individual youth voter about any
inconvenience arising from the fact that the voters registration has ended on
December 27, 2001. Also, AKBAYAN-Youth et al admitted in their pleading that
they are asking an extension because they failed to register on time for some
reasons, which is not appealing to the court. The law aids the vigilant and not those
who slumber on their rights.

42. Aznar vs. Yapdiangco

FACTS:
 Theodoro Santos advertised in the newspapers the sale of his Ford Fairlane
500. After the advertisement, a certain de Dios, claiming to be the nephew of
Vicente Marella, went to the residence of Santos and expressed his uncle's intent to
purchase the car. Since Santos wasn't around, it was Irineo, son of Theodoro, who
talked with de Dios.On being informed, Santos advised his son to see Marella,
which the son did.
Marella expressed his intention to purchase the car. A deed of sale was executed
and the registration was changed to the name of Marella.Upon arriving at the house
of Vicente Marella, he said that his money was short and that he had to borrow
from his sister. Marella then instructed de Dios and Irineo to the supposed house of
the sister to attain the money with an unidentified person. He also asked Irineo to
leave the deed to have his lawyer see it. Relying on the good faith of Marella,
Irineo did as requested.Upon arriving at the house of Marella's supposed to be
sister, de Dios and the unidentified person then disappeared together with the car.
Santos reported the incident to the authorities. Thereafter, Marella was able to sell
the land to Aznar. While in possession of the car, police authorities confiscated the
same from him.

Aznar filed an action for replevin (to recover the car). Claiming ownership
of the vehicle, he prayed for its delivery to him.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Santos may recover his car

HELD:
Yes. The lower court was correct in applying Article 55 of the Civil Code to
the case at bar, for under it, the rule is to the effect that if the owner has lost a
thing, or if he has been unlawfully deprived of it, he has a right to recover it, not
only from the finder, thief or robber, but also from third persons who may have
acquired it in good faith from such finder,thief or robber. The said article
establishes two exceptions to the general rule of irrevindicability, to wit, when the
owner (1) has lost the thing, or (2) has been unlawfully deprived thereof. In these
cases, the possessor cannot retain the thing as against the owner,who may recover
it without paying any indemnity, except when the possessor acquired it in a public
sale.