J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2016-0071: ALBERT WILSON, V. THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS ALBERTO ROMULO, SECRETARY OF JUSTICE RAUL GONZALES, BUREAU OF JAIL MANAGEMENT AND PENOLOGY, BOARD OF CLAIMS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SOLICITOR GENERAL AGNES DEVANADERA, AND BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, (G.R. NO. 189220, 07 DECEMBER 2016,  REYES, J.) (SUBJECT/S: MANDAMUS; COMPENSATION FOR ACCUSED UNJUSTLY CONVICTED; ENFORCEMENT OF  VIEW/COMMUNICATION OF UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE) (BRIEF TITLE: WILSON VS ERMITA ET AL.)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is denied for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WILSON, A BRITISH, WAS TRIED FOR RAPE, CONVICTED AND LATER ACQUITTED. THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE (UNHRC) EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT INVESTIGATION BE CONDUCTED, DUE COMPENSATION BE GIVEN AND THOSE RESPONSIBLE BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE. WILSON FILED A CASE FOR MANDAMUS TO COMPEL THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT TO ENFORCE THE VIEW OF THE UNHRC. CAN THE GOVERNMENT BE COMPELLED BY MANDAMUS?

NO BECAUSE THERE IS NO LAW COMPELLING THE GOVERNMENT TO DO SO.

WHAT IS MANDAMUS?

IT IS A WRIT ISSUED TO COMPEL A TRIBUNAL TO PERFORM AN ACT WHICH THE LAW ENJOINS AS A DUTY RESULTING FROM AN OFFICE, TRUST OR STATION.

WHEN IS MANDAMUS APPLICABLE?

WHEN A PURELY MINISTERIAL DUTY EXISTS AND A CLEAR LEGAL RIGHT IS ESTABLISHED BY THE PETITIONER FOR MANDAMUS.

IN OTHER WORDS PETITIONER MUST ESTABLISH A CLEAR LEGAL RIGHT TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT, AND A MANDATORY DUTY ON THE PART OF THE RESPONDENT IN RELATION THERETO.

 WHEN IS A DUTY A MINISTERIAL DUTY?

THE DUTY MUST BE CLEAR AND SPECIFIC AS TO LEAVE NO ROOM FOR THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION IN ITS PERFORMANCE.

WHAT IS A PURELY MINISTERIAL ACT OR DUTY?

ONE WHICH AN OFFICER OR TRIBUNAL PERFORMS IN A GIVEN STATE OF FACTS, IN A PRESCRIBED MANNER, IN OBEDIENCE TO THE MANDATE OF A LEGAL AUTHORITY, WITHOUT REGARD TO OR THE EXERCISE OF HIS OWN JUDGMENT UPON THE PROPRIETY OR IMPROPRIETY OF THE ACT DONE.

COMPARE DISCRETIONARY DUTY AND MINISTERIAL DUTY?

IF THE LAW IMPOSES A DUTY UPON A PUBLIC OFFICER AND GIVES HIM THE RIGHT TO DECIDE HOW OR WHEN THE DUTY SHALL BE PERFORMED, SUCH DUTY IS DISCRETIONARY AND NOT MINISTERIAL. THE DUTY IS MINISTERIAL ONLY WHEN THE DISCHARGE OF THE SAME REQUIRES NEITHER THE EXERCISE OF OFFICIAL DISCRETION OR JUDGMENT.

THE PHILIPPINES RATIFIED THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL OF THE UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE? IS THIS NOT A LAW ENFORCEABLE IN THE PHILIPPINES?

NO.

IT DID NOT BECOME PART OF THE DOMESTIC LAW?

HOW CAN AN INTERNATIONAL LAW BECOME PART OF DOMESTIC LAW?

IN TWO WAYS: BY TRANSFORMATION METHOD SUCH AS BY LEGISLATION OR BY INCORPORATION METHOD SUCH AS BY CONSTITUTIONAL DECLARATION.

UNDER THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, INTERNATIONAL LAW CAN BECOME PART OF THE SPHERE OF DOMESTIC LAW EITHER BY TRANSFORMATION OR INCORPORATION. THE TRANSFORMATION METHOD REQUIRES THAT AN INTERNATIONAL LAW BE TRANSFORMED INTO A DOMESTIC LAW THROUGH A CONSTITUTIONAL MECHANISM SUCH AS LOCAL LEGISLATION. THE INCORPORATION METHOD APPLIES WHEN, BY MERE CONSTITUTIONAL DECLARATION, INTERNATIONAL LAW IS DEEMED TO HAVE THE FORCE OF DOMESTIC LAW.
 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

scd-2016-0092-wilson-vs-ermita-et-al

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2016-0081: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JEHAR REYES (G.R. No. 199271, 19 OCT 2016, BERSAMIN, J.) (SUBJECT/S: GROUNDS FOR REVERSING  DRUG CONVICTION; PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE VIS A VI PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN PERFORMANCE OF DUTY) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS J. REYES).

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on June 13, 2011 by the Court  of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR-H.C. No. 00792 entitled People v. Jehar Reyes; ACQUITS accused-appellant JEHAR REYES of the offense charged on the ground of reasonable doubt; and ORDERS his immediate release from detention at the National Penitentiary, unless there are other lawful causes warranting his •continued detention.

The Court DIRECTS the Director of the Bureau of Corrections to forthwith implement this decision, and to report his action hereon to this Court within ten ( l 0) days from receipt.

No pronouncement on costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

“Was the chain of custody preserved in this case?

It appears clear to us as a reviewing court that the chain of custody was not preserved in the manner required by the aforementioned guidelines fixed by law. . . .”

First of all, the confiscated items were not marked immediately after the seizure. . . .

Secondly, the law specifically required that the marking must  be witnessed by the accused, but there was no credible showing by the State that the accused had actually witnessed the process of marking. . . .”

Thirdly, another substantial gap in the chain of custody concerned the absence of any representative of the media or of the Department of Justice (DOJ), and of the elected public official during the buy-bust operation and at the time of the confiscation of the dangerous drugs from the accused in the area of operation. . . .”

And, lastly, the arresting officers did not prepare any inventory of the confiscated items, and did not take photographs of the items. . . . .”

The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty in favor of the arresting officers did not prevail over the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused . . . .

The accused charged with a violation of the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002 is always presumed innocent of the crime charged against him. This presumption of his innocence, which has been enshrined in Section 14, Article III (The Bill of Rights) of the Constitution, ensures that: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.” It underlies our system of criminal justice, and far outweighs any other presumption, particularly one that is essentially a rule of evidence. . . .

The presumption of regularity of performance of official duty stands only when no reason exists in the records by which to doubt the regularity of the performance of official duty. . . .

Moreover, the regularity of the performance of their duty could not be properly presumed in favor of the policemen because the records were replete with indicia of their serious lapses. As a rule, a presumed fact like the regularity of performance by a police officer must be inferred only from an established basic fact, not plucked out from thin air. . . .”

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 scd-2016-0081-people-of-the-philippines-vs-jehar-reyes

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.