Roco vs Contreras Facts Facts:: Domingo Roco was engaged in the business of buying and selling dressed chicken. Sometime in 1993, he purchased his supply of dressed chicken from private respondent als !oultry Supply orporation "als orporation, for short#, a domestic corporation controlled and managed by one Danilo $ap. %s payment for his purchases, Roco drew five "&# checks payable to als orporation against his account with the !hilipp !hilippine ine ommerc ommercial ial and 'ndustri 'ndustrial al (ank (ank "!'(#. "!'(#. als orpora orporation tion deposit deposited ed the checks in its account with !'( but the bank dishonored them for having been drawn against a closed account. )hereafter, als orporation filed criminal complaints against petitioner for violation of (atas !ambasa (lg. ** "(! **#, otherwise known as the (ouncing hecks +aw. fter preliminary investigation, five "&# informations for violation of (! ** were filed against Roco before the unicipal )rial ourt in ities ")#, Ro-as ity, thereat docketed as rim. ases o. 9/0*1*01* to 9/0*1201*, all of which were raffled to (ranch * of said court but even before trial could commence, Roco filed with the (ureau of 'nternal Revenue "('R# at 'loilo ity a denunciation letter against als orporation for the latters alleged violation of Section *& in relation to Section *23 of the ational 'nternal Revenue ode in that it failed to issue commercial invoices on its sales of merchandise. 4pon ('Rs investigation, it was found that als orporations sales on account were unavoidable, hence, the corporation had to defer the issuance of Sale Sales s 'nvo 'nvoic ices es unti untill the the purc purcha hase ses s of its its cust custom omer ers s were ere paid paid in full full and and the the investigation disclosed that the same could not, as yet, be issued by the corporation precisely because the checks drawn and issued by him in payment of his purchases were dishonored by !'( for the reason that the checks were drawn against a closed account. %ccordingly, the ('R found no prima facia evidence of ta- evasion against als orporation orporation then trial of the criminal cases proceeded. proceeded. %fter the prosecution rested, the ) declared the cases submitted for decision on account of Roco failure to adduce evidence in his behalf. +ater, the same court rendered a 5udgment of conviction against Roco.
Issue: Issue: Whethe Whetherr the subpoe subpoena na calls calls for the produc productio tion n of specif specific ic documents, or rather for specific proof Held: )he )he issua issuanc nce e of a subpo subpoen ena a duces must appe appear ar,, by clea clearr and and duces tecum tecum, it must une6 une6ui uivo voca call proo proof, f, that that the the book book or docu docume ment nt soug sought ht to be prod produc uced ed cont contai ains ns evidence relevant relevant and material to the issue before the court, and that the precise book, paper or document containing such evidence has been so designated or described that it may be identified. oing by established precedents, it thus behooves the petitioner to first prove, to the satisfaction of the court, the relevancy and and the definiteness of the books and documents he seeks to be brought before it. %dmittedly, the books and documents that petitioner re6uested to be subpoenaed are designated and described in his re6uest with definiteness definiteness and readily identifiable. identifiable. )he test of definiteness, definiteness, therefore, is satisfied in this case. 't is, however, in the matter of relevancy of those books and
documents to the pending criminal cases that petitioner miserably failed to discharge his burden. 7e stress that the gravamen of the offense under (! ** is the act of making or issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentment for payment. )he offense is already consummated from the very moment a person issues a worthless check, albeit payment of the value of the check, either by the drawer or by the drawee bank, within five "&# banking days from notice of dishonor given to the drawer is a complete defense because the prima facie presumption that the drawer had knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds or credit at the time of the issuance of the check and on its presentment for payment is thereby rebutted by such payment. 8ere, Roco would want it appear that the books and documents sub5ect of his re6uest for subpoena duces tecum are indispensable, or, at least, relevant to prove his innocence. )he ourt disagrees. 7e do not find any 5ustifiable reason, and petitioner has not shown any, why this ourt must have to disbelieve the factual findings of the appellate court. 'n short, the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum or ad testificandum to compel the attendance of ivian Deocampo or Danilo $ap of als orporation or their duly authori:ed representatives, to testify and bring with them the records and documents desired by the petitioner, would serve no purpose but to further delay the proceedings in the pending criminal cases.
Jackson vs Macalino ;ackson vs. acalino
the ommissioner of the 'D can issue warrants of arrest and if so, 7> such warrants can only be issued to enforce a final order of deportation.
8eld= )he ultimate purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to relieve a person from unlawful restraint. 't is essentially a writ of in6uiry and is granted to test the right under which he is detained. )he term ?court@ includes 6uasi05udicial bodies like the Deportation (oard of the (ureau of 'mmigration. %s a general rule, the burden of proving illegal restraint by the respondents rests on the petitioner who attaches such restraints. 7hether the return sets forth process where on its face shows good ground for the detention of the petitioner, it is incumbent on him to allege and prove new matter that tends to invalidate the apparent effects of such process. 'f it appears that the detained person is in custody under a warrant of commitment in pursuance of law, the return shall be considered prima facie evidence of the cause of restraint. 'n this case, based on the return of the writ by the respondents, ;ackson was arrested and detained based on the order of the (> which had become final and e-ecutory. 8is passports were also cancelled by the 4S consul on the ground that they were tampered with. (ased on previous 5urisprudence, such constitute sufficient grounds for the arrest and deportation of aliens from the !hilippines. 8ence, the petition was dismissed.
In re: Issuance of Habeas Corpus <%)S= )he case is an application for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus on behalf of 1/ detainees. Sabino !adilla and others out of the 1/ detainees were then having a conference in the dining room at Dr. !arongAs residence. !rior thereto, all the 1/ detainees were under surveillance as they were then identified as members of the ommunist !arty of the !hilippines. engaging in subversive activities. )hey were arrested and later transferred to a facility only the !s know, hence, the present petition of ;osefina, mother of Sabina, for writ of habeas corpus. 'SS4B= 7hether
or
not
the
arrests
done
to
the
present
detainees
are
valid
8B+D= )he suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus raises a political, not a 5udicial, 6uestion and that the right to bail cannot be invoked during such a period. !D 132 and +>' 1*11 have vested, assuming a law is necessary, in the !resident the power of preventive arrest incident to the suspension of the privilege of the writ. 'n addition, however, it should be noted that the !> has been replaced by !reventive Detention %ction "!D%# pursuant to !D 1. %s provided for in the said decree, a !D% constitute an authority to arrest and preventively detain persons committing the aforementioned crimes, for a period of one year, with the cause or causes of their arrest sub5ected to review by the !resident or the by the Review ommittee created for the purpose.
Padua vs ricta <%)S = Domingo !adua, petioner sought to recover damages for the in5ures suffered by his eight0 year old daughter, +u:viminda, caused by her being hit by a truck driven by Rundio %b5aeto and owned by %ntonio C. Ramos. !adua was litigating in forma pauperis. )rial of the case having been set in due course, !adua commenced presentation of his evidence on December 2, 193. 8e gave testimony on direct e-6mination in the course of which reference was made to numerous documents. %t the close of his e-amination, and on motion of defendantsA counsel, the previously scheduled hearing of December 1*, 193 was cancelled, and !aduaAs cross0e-amination was reset on December 1, 193. 8owever, the hearing of December 1,193 was also cancelled, again at the instance of defendantsA counsel, who pleaded sickness as ground therefor and trial was once more slated to Etake place on arch 2, arch and 13, 19/, all at 9=FF oAclock in the morning.E %fter defendantsA attorney had twice sought and obtained cancellation of trial settings, as narrated, it was plaintiff !aduaAs counsel who ne-t moved for cancellation of a hearing date. 'n a motion dated and filed on arch 1, 19/, !aduaAs counsel alleged that he had Eanother hearing on arch 2, 19/ in
)arlac and that the cancellation would Eat any rate ... leave plaintiff and defendants two "*# hearing dates on arch and 13, 19/E and on these premises, he asked Ethat the hearing on arch 2, 19/ ... be ordered cancelled.E o opposition was filed by the defendants to the motion. %part from filing this motion on arch 1, 19/, plaintiffs counsel took the additional step of sending his clientAs wife to the ourt on the day of the trial, arch 2,19/, to verbally reiterate his application for cancellation of the hearing on that day. )his, rs. !adua did. )he respondent ;udge however denied the application and dismissed the case. !adua moved for reconsideration, but this was denied. 8ence, this petition. 'SS4B = 7hether or not the respondent 5udge erred in dismissing the case on the ground that it violates the right to a speedy disposition of cases. R4+'C= ourts should not brook undue delays in the ventilation and determination of causes. 't should be their constant effort to assure that litigations are prosecuted and resolved with dispatch. !ostponements of trials and hearings should not be allowed e-cept on meritorious grounds and the grant or refusal thereof rests entirely in the sound discretion of the ;udge. 't goes without saying, however, that that discretion must be reasonably and wisely e-ercised, in the light of the attendant circumstances. Some reasonable deferment of the proceedings may be allowed or tolerated to the end that cases may be ad5udged only after full and free presentation of evidence by all the parties, specially where the deferment would cause no substantial pre5udice to any part. )he desideratum of a speedy disposition of cases should not, if at all possible, result in the precipitate loss of a partyAs right to present evidence and either in plaintiffAs being non0suited or the defendantAs being pronounced liable under an e- parte 5udgment. ;udgeAs action was unreasonable, capricious and oppressive, and should be as it is hereby annulled.
People vs !allarde CallardeAs constitutional right against self0incrimination was violated. 8eld= o. )he taking of pictures of an accused even without the assistance of counsel, being a purely mechanical act, is not a violation of his constitutional right against selfincrimination.)he constitutional right of an accused against self0incrimination proscribes the use of physical or moral compulsion to e-tort communications from the accused and not the inclusion of his body in evidence when it may be material. !urely mechanical acts are not included in the prohibition as the accused does not thereby speak his guilt, hence the assistance and guiding hand of counsel is not re6uired. )he essence of the right against self0incrimination is testimonial compulsion, that is, the giving of evidence against himself through a testimonial act.
