CASE DIGESTS

G.R. No. 175319 January 15, 2010 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOSELITO NOQUE y GOMEZ Accused Joselito Noque sold 2.779 and 2. shabu’ and had in his possession and custody 679.215 grams of ‘shabu’. He avers that his conviction for the sale and possession of shabu, despite the fact that what was established and proven was the sale and possession of ephedrine, violated his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him since the charges in the Informations are for selling and possessing methamphetamine hydrochloride. ISSUE: Was the accused right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him violated? HELD: Accused’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations was not violated because when is charged with a specific crime, he is duly informed not only of such specific crime but also of lesser crimes or offenses included therein. it is clear that the designations and allegations in the In...

AASJS vs Datumanong Petitioner prays that a writ of prohibition be issued to stop respondent from implementing Republic Act No. 9225, entitled "An Act Making the Citizenship of Philippine Citizens Who Acquire Foreign Citizenship Permanent, Amending for the Purpose Commonwealth Act No. 63, As Amended, and for Other Purposes." Petitioner avers that Rep. Act No. 9225 is unconstitutional as it violates Section 5, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution that states, "Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law." ISSUE: By recognizing & allowing dual allegiance, is RA 9225 unconstitutional? HELD: No. Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution is a declaration of a policy and it is not a self-executing provision. The legislature still has to enact the law on dual allegiance. In Sections 2 and 3 of Rep. Act No. 9225, the framers were not concerned with dual citizenship per se, but with the status of naturalized citizens who...

Jacot vs. Dal Petitioner Nestor Jacot assails the Resolution of COMELEC disqualifying him from running for the position of Vice-Mayor of Catarman, Camiguin, in the 14 May 2007 National and Local Elections, on the ground that he failed to make a personal renouncement of US citizenship. He was a natural born citizen of the Philippines, who became a naturalized citizen of the US on 13 December 1989. He sought to reacquire his Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225. ISSUE: Did Nestor Jacot effectively renounce his US citizenship so as to qualify him to run as a vice-mayor? HELD: No. It bears to emphasize that the oath of allegiance is a general requirement for all those who wish to run as candidates in Philippine elections; while the renunciation of foreign citizenship is an additional requisite only for those who have retained or reacquired Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 and who seek elective public posts, considering their special circumstance of having m...

Tabasa vs CA In 1968, when petitioner was seven years old, his father, Rodolfo Tabasa, became a naturalized citizen of the United States. By derivative naturalization (citizenship derived from that of another as from a person who holds citizenship by virtue of naturalization), petitioner also acquired American citizenship. Petitioner theorizes that he could be repatriated under RA 8171 because he is a child of a natural-born Filipino, and that he lost his Philippine citizenship by derivative naturalization when he was still a minor. ISSUE: Is Jeovanie Tabasa a natural-born Filipino who had lost his Philippine citizenship by reason of political or economic necessity under RA 8171? HELD: He does not. The only persons entitled to repatriation under RA 8171 are the following: a. Filipino women who lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens; and b. Natural-born Filipinos including their minor children who lost their Philippine citizenship on account of political or economic ...

Carlos vs Ramos These petitions stemmed from the complaint-affidavit for deportation initiated by Luis T. Ramos against Jimmy T. Go alleging that the latter is an illegal and undesirable alien. Luis alleged that while Jimmy represents himself as a Filipino citizen, Jimmy’s personal circumstances and other records indicate that he is not so. Luis argued that although it appears from Jimmy’s birth certificate that his parents, Carlos and Rosario Tan, are Filipinos, the document seems to be tampered, because only the citizenship of Carlos appears to be handwritten while all the other entries were typewritten. ISSUE: Did we adopt the jus soli or jus sanguinins principle? Does the principle of res adjudicata apply to decisions on citizenship? HELD: We adopted the jus sanguinis principle. The doctrine of jus soli was never extended to the Philippines. The doctrine of jus soli was for a time the prevailing rule in the acquisition of one’s citizenship. However, the Supreme Court abandoned...

Section 12 G.R. No. 185710 January 19, 2010 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROMULO TUNIACO, JEFFREY DATULAYTA and ALEX ALEMAN, Accused. ALEX ALEMAN, Appellant. Accused Tuniaco, Datulayta, and Aleman were charged with murder before the RTC of General Santos City. Accused Aleman raises two issues: a) whether or not the prosecution was able to present evidence of corpus delicti; and b) whether or not accused Aleman’s extrajudicial confession is admissible in evidence. ISSUE: What is the doctrine of “interlocking confessions” ? Did the accused Aleman correctly invoked the Galit doctrine? HELD: It is improbable that the police fabricated Aleman’s confession and just forced him to sign it. The confession has details that only the person who committed the crime could have possibly known. What is more, accused Datulayta’s confession corroborate that of Aleman in important details. Under the doctrine of interlocking confessions, such corroboration is circumstantial evidence against ...

Kabataan Party-List vs. Comelec COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8585 on February 12, 2009 adjusting the deadline of voter registration for the May 10, 2010 national and local elections to October 31, 2009, instead of December 15, 2009 as previously fixed by Resolution No. 8514. The intense public clamor for an extension of the October 31, 2009 deadline notwithstanding, the COMELEC stood firm in its decision not to extend it, arguing mainly that it needs ample time to prepare for the automated elections. Via the present Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus filed on October 30, 2009, petitioners challenge the validity of COMELEC Resolution No. 8585 and seek a declaration of its nullity. Issue: Does the Comelec have discretion to fix other dates for continuing registration? Held: The clear text of the law thus decrees that voters be allowed to register daily during regular offices hours, except during the period starting 120 days before a regular election and 90 days before a special ele...