EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT (continuation).docx - THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT(continuation SUSPEND THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.2 DAVID E SO VS HON ESTEBAN A TACLA

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT (continuation).docx - THE EXECUTIVE...

This preview shows page 1 out of 252 pages.

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 252 pages?

Unformatted text preview: THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT (continuation) SUSPEND THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.............................................................................2 DAVID E. SO VS. HON. ESTEBAN A. TACLA, JR. (G.R. No. 190108, October 19, 2010).......2 PROCLAIM MARTIAL LAW OVER THE ENTIRE PHILIPPINES OR ANY PART THEREOF.....9 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF TEODOSIO LANSANG VS. BRIGADIER-GENERAL EDUARDO M. GARCIA (G.R. No. L-33964, December 11, 1971) .....................................................................................................................................................9 B/GEN. (RET.) FRANCISCO V. GUDANI VS. LT./GEN. GENEROSO S. SENGA (G.R. NO. 170165, August 15, 2006).........................................................................................................31 PROF. RANDOLF S. DAVID VS. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO (G.R. NO. 171396, May 03, 2006)...................................................................................................................................42 SANLAKAS VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (G.R. No. 159085, February 03, 2004)..............77 DISTINCTION BETWEEN COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF AND EMERGENCY POWERS...............87 PROF. RANDOLF S. DAVID VS. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO (G.R. NO. 171396, May 03, 2006)...................................................................................................................................87 DATU ZALDY UY AMPATUAN, ANSARUDDIN ADIONG, REGIE SAHALI-GENERALE VS. HON. RONALDO PUNO (G.R. No. 190259, June 07, 2011).................................................122 CONTRACTING AND GUARANTEEING FOREIGN LOANS...................................................126 SPOUSES CONSTANTINO VS. HON. JOSE B. CUISIA (G.R. NO. 106064, October 13, 2005).......................................................................................................................................126 TREATIES OR INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS VS. EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS............137 SENATOR AQUILINO PIMENTEL, JR. VS. OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (G.R. No. 158088, July 06, 2005)...........................................................................................137 QUA CHEE GAN, ET AL. VS. THE DEPORTATION BOARD (G.R. No. L-10280, September 30, 1963).................................................................................................................................142 GO TEK VS. DEPORTATION BOARD (G.R. No. L-23846, September 09, 1977).................147 COMMISSIONER ANDREA D. DOMINGO VS. HERBERT MARKUS EMIL SCHEER (G.R. No. 154745, January 29, 2004)..............................................................................................150 (11) POWER OVER LEGISLATION, (C) VETO POWER..........................................................166 CESAR BENGZON, QUERUBE MAKALINTAL, LINO M. PATAJO, JOSE LEUTERIO, ET AL. VS. HON. FRANKLIN N. DRILON (G.R. No. 103524, April 15, 1992)...................................166 (13) IMMUNITY FROM SUITS...................................................................................................180 LOURDES D. RUBRICO, JEAN RUBRICO APRUEBO VS. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO (G.R. No. 183871, February 18, 2010)...................................................................................180 PROF. RANDOLF S. DAVID VS. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO (G.R. NO. 171396, May 03, 2006).................................................................................................................................190 JOSEPH E. ESTRADA VS. ANIANO DESIERTO (G.R. Nos. 146710-15, March 02, 2001). 225 SUSPEND THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DAVID E. SO VS. HON. ESTEBAN A. TACLA, JR. (G.R. No. 190108, October 19, 2010) RESOLUTION NACHURA, J.: Before us are consolidated petitions: (1) A petition for the writs of habeas corpus and amparo against Judge Esteban A. Tacla, Jr. (Judge Tacla) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 208, Mandaluyong City, and Dr. Bernardo A. Vicente (Dr. Vicente) of the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH), docketed as G.R. No. 190108; and (2) G.R. No. 190473, which is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) on behalf of Judge Tacla and Dr. Vicente of the NCMH, assailing the Resolution[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) rendered in open court on December 3, 2009, in the case docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 00039. The antecedents are: Petitioner David E. So (So) in G.R. No. 190108 filed the petition for the writs of habeas corpus and amparo on behalf of his daughter, Ma. Elena So Guisande (Guisande), accused of Qualified Theft in the criminal case pending before Judge Tacla. Petitioner So alleged, among others, that Guisande was under a life-threatening situation while confined at the NCMH, the government hospital ordered by the RTC Mandaluyong City to ascertain the actual psychological state of Guisande, who was being charged with a non-bailable offense. Prior to the institution of the criminal proceedings before the RTC, Guisande was committed by So for psychiatric treatment and care at the Makati Medical Center (MMC). Thus, the return of the warrant for the arrest of Guisande, issued by Judge Tacla, stated that the former was confined at MMC for Bipolar Mood Disorder and that she was "not ready for discharge," as certified by her personal psychiatrist, Dr. Ma. Cecilia Tan. Acting on the prosecution's Urgent Motion to Refer Accused's Illness to a Government Hospital, Judge Tacla ordered Guisande's referral to the NCMH for an independent forensic assessment of Guisande's mental health to determine if she would be able to stand arraignment and undergo trial for Qualified Theft. Subsequently, Judge Tacla, upon motion of the NCMH, ordered that accused Guisande be physically brought to the NCMH, with NCMH Chief Dr. Vicente to have temporary legal custody of the accused, and thereafter, Judge Tacla would issue the corresponding order of confinement of Guisande in a regular jail facility upon the NCMH's determination that she was ready for trial. Accused Guisande was confined at the NCMH Payward, Pavilion 6-I-E, instead of Pavilion 35, Forensic Psychiatric Section, where female court case patients are usually confined at the NCMH. In connection therewith, Dr. Vicente issued a special Memorandum on November 9, 2009, reiterating existing hospital policies on the handling of court case patients undergoing evaluation procedures to foreclose any possibility of malingering [2] on the patient's part, specifically patients accused of a non-bailable crime. Eventually, claiming "life-threatening" circumstances surrounding her confinement at the NCMH which supposedly worsened her mental condition and violated her constitutional rights against solitary detention and assistance of counsel, accused Guisande and her father simultaneously, albeit separately, filed a Motion for Relief from Solitary Confinement before the RTC Mandaluyong City, and the present petition in G.R. No. 190108 for the issuance of the writs of habeas corpus and amparo. On the Motion for Relief filed with RTC Mandaluyong City, Judge Tacla issued the following Order: The Court rules to Grant accused's [Guisande's] motion subject to the condition that only the accused's counsel and the accused' physician on her hypothyroid condition are allowed to visit the accused in coordination with the respective psychiatrist/doctor of the NCMH taking charge of the psychiatric examination upon accused.[3] On the petition for habeas corpus and amparo, this Court issued a Resolution on November 24, 2009, to wit: G.R. No. 190108 (David E. So, in Behalf of his Daughter Maria Elena So Guisande vs. Hon. Esteban A. Tacla, Jr., Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong, Branch 208, Dr. Bernardo A. Vicente, National Center for Mental Health). - Acting on the Petition for Writs of Habeas Corpus and Amparo, the Court Resolved to (a) ISSUE a JOINT WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND AMPARO; (b) REFER the petition to the Court of Appeals, Manila, for (i) IMMEDIATE RAFFLE among the Members of the said Court; (ii) HEARING on December 3, 2009, Thursday, at 10:00 a.m.; and (iii) DECISION within ten (10) days after its submission for decision; and (c) ORDER the respondents to make a verified RETURN of the Joint Writ of Habeas Corpus and Amparo before the Court of Appeals, Manila, on December 1, 2009, and to COMMENT on the petition before said date.[4] As directed by this Court, Judge Tacla and Dr. Vicente appeared before the CA on December 1, 2009 and, in the afternoon, filed their Consolidated Return of the Writ. On December 3, 2009, the NCMH submitted its Evaluation Report to the RTC Mandaluyong City: ASSESSMENT AND REMARKS: Review of the history and clinical reports from Makati Medical Center revealed that Ma. Elena So-Guisande was diagnosed and managed as Bipolar I Disorder. On the other hand, based on a series of mental status examinations and observations at our center, she is found not manifesting signs and symptoms of psychosis at the present time. Neither a manic episode nor a severe depressive episode was manifested during her confinement at our center, despite voluntarily not taking her medication is. Although she is complaining of mood symptoms, these are not severe enough to impair her fitness to stand trial. Ms. Guisande does have sufficient understanding of the nature and objective of the court proceedings and the possible consequences of her cases. She is likewise capable of communicating with her counsels. She is therefore deemed COMPETENT to stand the rigors of court trial. (Emphasis supplied.) On even date, pursuant to the directive of this Court, the CA's Special Seventeenth Division held a hearing. Thereafter, Justice Normandie B. Pizarro (Justice Pizarro), to whom the petition was raffled, disposed, in this wise: JUSTICE PIZARRO: The essence of the deliberation this morning is on the proceedings that obtained pursuant to the September 22, 2009 Order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 208, Mandaluyong City. The parties heard the arguments of the Petitioner on the right of the subject patient, Ma. Elena, to avail of extended medical treatment citing the Constitution and the Geneva Convention on Human Rights. In the course of the proceedings this morning, Judge Tacla, Jr., informed this Court that the NCMH submitted to him a report consisting of eight (8) pages at about 8:46 this morning. The parties, specifically the petitioner, were shown the said report. Afterwards, Judge Tacla's opinion on the matter was heard and he did not interpose any objection thereto. The Accused, subject of this case, Ma. Elena So-Guisande, may now be discharged from the custody of the NCMH and is considered fit for the rigors of trial. The parties were heard on the matter and all of them were in accord with the dispositive portion of the aforesaid report. After a prolonged discussion on the matter, and without objection on the part of the parties, as the Accused should now proceed to trial in accordance with law, and at the same time recognizing the right of the Accused to avail of further medication, this Court decrees the following set up that should cover this proceedings: The trial of this case shall resume and the arraignment at the Court a quo shall push through as originally scheduled on February 2, 2010. To balance the situation, the right to seek medical treatment of the subject is hereby recognized by all and the patient shall be confined at the St. Clare's Medical Center, 1838 Dian St., Palanan, Makati City, her hospital of choice, under the headship of Dr. Yat, subject to the twenty-four (24) hour custodial control of the NBI. xxxx JUSTICE PIZARRO: Dr. Yat is directed to submit, again by agreement of the parties, a periodic report every fifteen days to the RTC, Branch 208, for its evaluation. The first report shall be submitted on or before December 18, 2009. In this regard, the Director Nestor M. Mantaring of NBI is politely DIRECTED to cause the transfer from NCMH to the St. Clare's Medical Center of the subject Accused, Ma. Elena SoGuisande, and to provide two (2) or three (3) security personnel to the Accused after making the proper coordination with the RTC, Branch 208. Director Mantaring is to submit a one (1) page compliance on the matter within three (3) days from receipt of this Resolution - furnishing Judge Tacla, Jr. a copy thereof. xxxx It is understood that the case pending before RTC, Branch 208, involves a non-bailable offense where normally the Accused should have been confined in jail. But considering the peculiarities of this case, the parties have all agreed to the set up as provided in this Order. It is also understood by the parties that henceforth the control of the trial proceedings as well as the control over the custody of the accused/patient shall be in the hands of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 208, Mandaluyong City. STATE SOL. DE VERA: Your honor, the Hospital fees to be settled before the transfer, Your Honor. JUSTICE PIZARRO: As committed in open-Court, Atty. Carpio shall insure the settlement of the fees for the confinement of Accused/patient at the NCMH, as a pre-condition for her release therefrom. WHEREFORE, the foregoing considering considered, this petition for Habeas Corpus and Amparo is considered CLOSE and TERMINATED. All parties are notified in open court of this Order. xxxx JUSTICE PIZARRO: Let copies of this Order be furnished the RTC, Br. 208, Mandaluyong City, the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation as well as the Supreme Court, and all the parties. SO ORDERED.[5] Hence, the petition for review on certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 190473, filed by the OSG, which was consolidated with G.R. No. 190108. During the pendency of these consolidated cases, various events occurred which ultimately led to the incident before this Court, i.e., a Manifestation and Motion[6] dated March 11, 2010, filed by the OSG on behalf of public respondents, Judge Tacla and Dr. Vicente, to wit: 1. On February 4, 2010, acting on the City Prosecutor's January 25, 2010 Motion to Withdraw Information, public respondent Judge ordered the dismissal of Criminal Case No. MC01912281. Hence, their Urgent Prayer for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) before this Honorable Court has been rendered moot and academic. A copy of the February 4, 2010 Order dismissing Criminal Case No. MC019-12281 is attached herewith as Annex "A." 2. Furthermore, in view of the dismissal of Criminal Case No. MC019-12281 from which the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Writ of Amparo (docketed before the Supreme Court as G.R. No. 190108 and Court of Appeals as CA-G.R. SP No. 00039) and the Petition for Review (docketed as G.R. No. 190473) stemmed from, these cases and pending incidents thereon should be dismissed for having been rendered moot and academic. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Writ of Amparo (docketed before the Supreme Court as G.R. No. 190108 and Court of Appeals as CAG.R. SP No. 00039) and the Petition for Review (docketed as G.R. No. 190473) and all other pending incidents thereon be DISMISSED for having been rendered moot and academic. Petitioner So filed a Comment[7] refuting the OSG's motion to dismiss G.R. Nos. 190108 and 190473. Through counsel, and using strong words, he vehemently opposed the dismissal of the petitions because they had filed criminal complaints and an administrative case against respondents Judge Tacla and Dr. Vicente, as well as the NCMH and an attending doctor thereat, for purported violations of accused Guisande's rights during her confinement at the NCMH. Adding to the flurry of cases, petitioner So filed a Verified Petition to cite Judge Tacla and Dr. Vicente in contempt before the CA for their supposed submission of an altered and falsified document, which was attached to, and formed an integral part of, their Consolidated Return of the Writ. Posthaste, and even without us requiring the OSG to file one, it filed a Motion to Admit Reply [8] with its Reply[9] to the Comment of petitioner So attached thereto. The OSG clarified and denied outright petitioner So's allegation in the Comment that the criminal case for Qualified Theft against accused Guisande was a prevarication and concoction of private complainant [10] and that Judge Tacla had conspired to falsely accuse petitioner So's daughter, Guisande. In all, the OSG reiterated that GR. Nos. 190108 and 190473 had been rendered moot and academic with the dismissal of the criminal case for Qualified Theft against Guisande. Significantly, on August 25, 2010, the OSG filed another Manifestation and Motion [11] informing this Court of the following: (1) Resolution dated June 7, 2010 issued by Assistant City Prosecutor Teresa D. EscobarPilares (Assistant City Prosecutor Escobar-Pilares), dismissing the charge of petitioner So against Judge Tacla and Dr. Vicente and their counsels for Falsification under Article 171 and 172 of the Revised Penal Code, docketed as I.S. No. XV-07-INV-10B-01371, for insufficiency of evidence;[12] and (2) Resolution dated July 27, 2010 of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 00039, where petitioner So's verified petition for contempt was dismissed for lack of merit, and where the CA ordered the petition for habeas corpus/writ of amparo closed and terminated.[13] Likewise, the OSG reiterated its motion to dismiss the instant consolidated petitions. We completely agree with the OSG. Accordingly, we deny the petitions in G.R. Nos. 190108 and 190473 for having been rendered moot and academic by the dismissal of Criminal Case No. MC09-12281 for Qualified Theft pending before the RTC Mandaluyong City. As correctly pointed out by the OSG, the petition for the writs of habeas corpus and amparo was based on the criminal case for Qualified Theft against petitioner So's daughter, Guisande. To recall, petitioner So claimed that the conditions and circumstances of his daughter's, accused Guisande's, confinement at the NCMH was "life threatening"; although Guisande was accused of a non-bailable offense, the NCMH could not adequately treat Guisande's mental condition. Thus, to balance the conflicting right of an accused to medical treatment and the right of the prosecution to subject to court processes an accused charged with a non-bailable offense, the CA directed the transfer of Guisande from the NCMH to St. Clare's Medical Center, while noting that because of the peculiarities of this case, there was a deviation from the regular course of procedure, since accused Guisande should have been confined in jail because she was charged with a non-bailable offense. Notably, nowhere in the transcript of the CA hearing on December 3, 2009, nor in the Order recited in open court by Justice Pizarro, is there an affirmation of petitioner So's claim that the confinement of accused Guisande at the NCMH was illegal. Neither were the respective acts performed by respondents Judge Tacla and Dr. Vicente in ascertaining the mental condition of accused Guisande to withstand trial declared unlawful. On the contrary, the NCMH, a wellreputed government forensic facility, albeit not held in high regard by petitioner So's and accused Guisande's family, had assessed Guisande fit for trial. The Rules on the Writs of Habeas Corpus and Amparo are clear; the act or omission or the threatened act or omission complained of - confinement and custody for habeas corpus and violations of, or threat to violate, a person's life, liberty, and security for amparo cases - should be illegal or unlawful. Rule 102 of the Rules of Court on Habeas Corpus provides: Sec. 1. To what habeas corpus extends. - Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the writ of habeas corpus shall extend to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto. while the Rule ...
View Full Document

  • Fall '15
  • Law, Supreme Court of the United States, Habeas corpus

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture