Political Law - page 3

FACTS: A criminal complaint for estafa filed against complainant did not charge any crime but merely recited her failure to pay a simple indebtedness. Respondent judge issued a warrant for her arrest. ISSUE(S): Whether or not respondent judge erred in ordering complainant’s imprisonment for non-payment of debt. HELD: YES. In admitting such a “criminal complaint” that was plainly civil in aspects from the very face of the complaint and the “evidence” presented, and issuing on the same day the warrant of arrest upon his utterly baseless finding “that the accused is probably guilty of the crime charged,” respondent grossly failed…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Willie Francis, a 16-year-old black youth, was convicted of murder in Louisiana and sentenced to death by electrocution. On the appointed day, Francis was strapped in the chair and the executioner threw the switch. Electric current passed through Francis’s body but it was insufficient to kill him. The malfunction required a repair of the chair. In the meantime Francis sought to prevent the second execution attempt. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the second attempted execution deny Francis due process of law because of double jeopardy guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and because of cruel and unusual punishment of the Eighth…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Appellant was convicted of the crime of rape committed against his young daughter and was meted out the supreme penalty of death. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the re-imposition of the death penalty for heinous crimes violates the constitutional proscription against cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment. HELD: NO. The death penalty is imposed in heinous crimes because the perpetrators thereof have committed unforgivably execrable acts that have so deeply dehumanized a person or criminal acts with severely destructive effects on the national efforts to lift the masses from abject poverty through organized governmental strategies based on a disciplined and honest…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioner was confined in prison for contempt of court for failure to comply with a court order arising from a civil case between him and his wife. ISSUE(S): Whether or not petitioner’s detention violates constitutional right against cruel and unusual punishment. HELD: NO. The penalty complained of is neither cruel, unjust nor excessive. Punishments are cruel when they involve torture or a lingering death, but the punishment of death is not cruel, within the meaning of that word as used in the constitution. It implies there something inhuman and barbarous, something more than the mere extinguishment of life. Petition…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Congress enacted the Generics Act of 1988 (Republic Act No. 6675), Section 12, paragraphs b, c and d of which prescribe graduated penalties ranging from a reprimand to a fine of P10,000 ,and for the third offense, the suspension of the physician’s license to practice his profession for one year or longer, at the discretion of the court. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the Generics Act violate the constitutional guarantee against excessive fines and cruel and degrading punishment. HELD: NO. The penalty of suspension or cancellation of the physician’s license is neither cruel, inhuman, or degrading. It is no different…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Appellant was prosecuted for homicide through reckless imprudence and illegal possession of firearm. He was acquitted of the first offense and found guilty of the second for which he was sentenced to one year imprisonment. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the form of the penalty and the duration of the imprisonment imposed on the appellant infringe the constitutional provision against cruel and harsh punishment. HELD: NO. Confinement from 6 to 10 years for possessing or carrying firearm is not cruel or unusual, having due regard to the prevalent conditions which the law proposes to suppress or curb. The rampant lawlessness…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Appellant was charged with and convicted of violating Republic Act No. 3063 and sentenced to imprisonment for one month. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the penalty imposed in RA 3063 infringes the constitutional provision against cruel and harsh punishment. HELD: NO. Mere severity does not constitute cruel or unusual punishment. The fact that the punishment authorized by the statute is severe does not make it cruel and unusual. To come under the ban, the punishment must be “flagrantly and plainly oppressive”, “wholly disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shock the moral sense of the community.” Decision appealed…

Keep Reading

FACTS: For failure of respondent company to accede to the request of petitioners for a wage increase, the laborers declared a strike which suspended all the work in the respondent company. The parties reached a temporary wage arrangement and the laborers were ordered to return to work. Months later and while their main case was still pending in court, the court ordered petitioning union which again picketed against respondent company to return to work. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the order violated the constitutional inhibition against involuntary servitude. HELD: NO. The very impossibility of prompt decision or settlement of the dispute…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Appellants were charged with violation of the National Defense Law for refusing to register in the military service despite being required to do so. They were sentenced to imprisonment for a month and a day. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the National Defense Law violates the constitutional right against involuntary servitude. HELD: NO. The duty of the Government to defend the State cannot be performed except through an army. To leave the organization of an army to the will of the citizens would be to make this duty of the Government excusable should there be no sufficient men who volunteer…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Private respondents were charged as accessories for the killing of Sen. Benigno Aquino and Rolando Galman. In the course of the joint trial, the prosecution offered in evidence their individual testimonies before the Agrava Board, the ad hoc Fact Finding Board created under Presidential Decree 1886 to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding the killing. ISSUE(S): Whether or not their testimony before the Board made private respondents immune from prosecution by virtue of their right against self-incrimination. HELD: NO. PD 1886 grants merely immunity from use of any statement give before the Board, but not immunity from prosecution by…

Keep Reading