Case Digests Rights of the Accused

JIMMY LIM PALACIOS v. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 240676, March 18, 2019

Facts:

The present case stemmed from a complaint6 for violation of Section 5 (i) of
Republic Act No. (RA) 92627 otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women
and Their Children Act of 2004" filed by Maria Cecilia Ramirez (Ramirez) against
petitioner. Ramirez alleged that she and petitioner were married8 on November 17,
1987 and thereafter, had a son.9 However, petitioner abandoned them and refused
to give them financial support, acts which constitute economic abuse under Section
5 (i) of RA 9262.

The OCP-QC recommended that petitioner be indicted for the crime charged.
In resolving the case based on the evidence proffered solely by Ramirez, the
investigating prosecutor held that petitioner failed to appear during the preliminary
investigation and submit his counter-affidavit despite being given ample
opportunity to do so. Consequently, the corresponding Information12 was filed
before the RTC.

Sometime in September 2016, petitioner, through his lawyer, filed before the
RTC an extremely very urgent motion for reinvestigation and to recall warrant of
arrest,decrying violation of his right to due process upon learning of the case that
Ramirez filed against him and the RTC's May 12, 2015 Order directing the issuance
of a warrant of arrest. He further alleged that he would not have been denied of his
right to due process and to a preliminary investigation had Ramirez not concealed
his true and correct address.

The RTC the RTC denied petitioner's motion, citing A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC19
which states that a motion for preliminary investigation shall only be granted where
the accused was subjected to inquest proceedings, which was not the case here.

On appeal, the CA affirmed the assailed RTC Orders upon finding that
petitioner was given the opportunity to participate in the preliminary investigation,
based on the certification25 of Assistant City Prosecutor. Hence, the petition.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioner was denied of his right to due process?

Ruling:
YES. The Court held that Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding
to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief
that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and
should be held for trial. The rationale of preliminary investigation is to "protect the
accused from the inconvenience, expense and burden of defending himself in a
formal trial unless the reasonable probability of his guilt shall have been first
ascertained in a fairly summary proceeding by a competent officer." Section 1,31
Rule 112 of the Rules of Court requires the conduct of a preliminary investigation
before the filing of a complaint or information for an offense where the penalty
prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day without
regard to fine.

In this case, although the OCP-QC conducted a preliminary investigation

relative to the complaint filed by Ramirez against petitioner, the latter bewails the
lack of notice to him of the proceedings, which resulted in his failure to participate
in the preliminary investigation.
Case Digests Rights of the Accused

The Court has punctiliously examined the available records of this case and
found no showing that indeed, petitioner had been duly notified of the charges filed
against him by Ramirez or served with a subpoena relative to the preliminary
investigation conducted by the OCP-QC. The Court therefore takes exception to the
CA's observation that petitioner failed to prove that he was denied participation in
the preliminary investigation, for it would have been impossible for him to prove
such negative allegation. Instead, under the circumstances, it was incumbent upon
respondent to show that petitioner had been duly notified of the proceedings and
that, despite notice, he still failed to appear or participate thereat. In the absence of
such proof, the Court therefore finds that petitioner had not been given an
opportunity to be heard. Case law states that "when service of notice is an issue,
the rule is that the person alleging that the notice was served must prove the fact of
service. The burden of proving notice rests upon the party asserting its existence.
It bears to stress that the right to preliminary investigation is substantive, not
merely formal or technical. As such, to deny petitioner's motion for reinvestigation
on the basis of the provisions of A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC would be to deprive him of the
full measure of his right to due process44 on purely procedural grounds. Thus, the
courts a quo should allow petitioner to be accorded the right to submit counter-
affidavits and evidence in a preliminary investigation for, after all, "the fiscal is not
called by the Rules of Court to wait in ambush; the role of a fiscal is not mainly to
prosecute but essentially to do justice to every man and to assist the court in
dispensing that justice.
Case Digests Rights of the Accused

SOUTHERN LUZON DRUG CORPORATION V. DSWD

GR No. 199669, April 25, 2017

Facts:

The case at bar is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision of
the Court of Appeals which dismissed the petition for prohibition filed by Southern
Luzon Drug Corporation (petitioner) against the Department of Social Welfare and
Development , the National Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons (now
National Council on Disability Affairs or NCDA), the Department of Finance and the
Bureau of Internal Revenue (collectively, the respondents), which sought to prohibit
the implementation of Section 4(a) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9257, otherwise known
as the "Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003" and Section 32 of R.A. No. 9442,
which amends the "Magna Carta for Disabled Persons," particularly the granting of
20% discount on the purchase of medicines by senior citizens and persons with
disability (PWD), respectively, and treating them as tax deduction. which dismissed
the petition for prohibition filed by Southern Luzon Drug Corporation (petitioner)
against the Department of Social Welfare and Development , the National Council
for the Welfare of Disabled Persons (now National Council on Disability Affairs or
NCDA), the Department of Finance and the Bureau of: Internal Revenue
(collectively, the respondents), which sought to prohibit the implementation of
Section 4(a) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9257, otherwise known as the "Expanded
Senior Citizens Act of 2003" and Section 32 of R.A. No. 9442, which amends the
"Magna Carta for Disabled Persons," particularly the granting of 20% discount on
the purchase of medicines by senior citizens and persons with disability (PWD),:
respectively, and treating them as tax deduction due to the reason that claiming it
affects the profitability of their business. The petitioner argues that R.A. Nos. 9257
and 9442 are violative of the equal protection clause in that it failed to distinguish
between those who have the capacity to pay and those who do not, in granting the
20% discount.

The petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of drugstore

operation in the Philippines while the respondents are government' agencies, office
and bureau tasked to monitor compliance with R.A. Nos. 9257 and 9442,
promulgate implementing rules and regulations for their effective implementation,
as well as prosecute and revoke licenses of erring establishments.

Issue:

Whether or not the 20% Sales Discount for Senior Citizens PWDs does not
violate the petitioner’s right to equal protection of the law?

Ruling:
NO. The Court held that it does not violate the right to equal protection of the
law. The equal protection clause is not infringed by legislation which applies only to
those persons falling within a specified class. If the groupings are characterized by
substantial distinctions that make real differences, one class may be treated and
regulated differently from another." For a classification to be valid, (1) it must be
based upon substantial distinctions, (2) it must be germane to the purposes of the
law, (3) it must not be limited to existing conditions only, and (4) it must apply
equally to all members of the same class.
Case Digests Rights of the Accused

To recognize all senior citizens as a group, without distinction as to income, is

a valid classification. The Constitution itself considered the elderly as a class of their
own and deemed it a priority to address their needs. When the Constitution
declared its intention to prioritize the predicament of the underprivileged sick,
elderly, disabled, women, and children, it did not make any reservation as to
income, race, religion or any other personal circumstances. It was a blanket
privilege afforded the group of citizens in the enumeration in view of the
vulnerability of their class.

R.A. No. 9257 is an implementation of the avowed policy of the Constitution

to enact measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human
dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities. 72 Specifically, it caters
to the welfare of all senior citizens. The classification is based on age and therefore
qualifies all who have attained the age of 60. Senior citizens are a class of their
own, who are in need and should be entitled to government support, and the fact
that they may still be earning for their own sustenance should not disqualify them
from the privilege.

The subject laws also address a continuing concern of the government for the
welfare of the senior citizens and PWDs. It is not some random predicament but an
actual, continuing and pressing concern that requires preferential attention. Also,
the laws apply to all senior citizens and PWDs, respectively, without further
distinction or reservation. Without a doubt, all the elements for a valid classification
were met.
Case Digests Rights of the Accused