100%(5)5 out of 5 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 95 - 97 out of 142 pages.
mother, old people who cannot afford a few pesos to pay for common prescriptions, broken families whoreturned to a normal life”, whom the Philippine Government and the Filipino society could not reach to or hadrejected or abandoned.Issue:Whether Good Shepherd Foundation is exempted from payment of legal fees granted to indigentlitigants.Ruling:NO.The basis for the exemption from legal and filing fees is the free access clause, embodied in Sec.11, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that “free access to the courts and quasi judicial bodiesand adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.”In implementation of the right of free access under the Constitution, the Supreme Court promulgatedrules, specifically, Sec. 21, Rule 3, Rules of Court, and Sec. 19, Rule 141, Rules of Court. The Court held that theclear intent and precise language of the provisions indicated that only a natural party litigant may be regardedas an indigent litigant. The Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc., being a corporation invested by the State with ajuridical personality separate and distinct from that of its members, is a juridical person. As a juridical person,it cannot be accorded the exemption from legal and filing fees granted to indigent litigants. The Court addedthat extending the exemption to a juridical person on the ground that it works for indigent andunderprivileged people may be prone to abuse (even with the imposition of rigid documentation95 | P a g e
POLITICAL LAW CASE SYLLABUSrequirements), particularly by corporations and entities bent on circumventing the rule on payment of thefees and that the scrutiny of compliance with the documentation requirements may prove too time-consuming and wasteful for the courts.RIGHTS OF SUSPECTSTHE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JAIME JOSE Y GOMEZ, et al., JAIME JOSE Y GOMEZ, BASILIOPINEDA, JR., alias "BOY," EDGARDO AQUINO Y PAYUMO and ROGELIO CAÑAL Y SEVILLAG.R. No. L-28232, February 6, 1971, Per CuriamThe only instances where an accused is entitled to counsel before arraignment, if he so requests, areduring the second stage of the preliminary investigation and after the arrest.Facts:An information was filed charging Jaime Jose Y Gomez, Basilio Pineda, Jr., Eduardo Aquino Y PayumoAnd Rogelio Cañal Y Sevilla as principals, Wong Lay Pueng, Silverio Guanzon Y Romero and Jessie Guion YEnvoltario as accomplices, of the crime of Forcible Abduction with rape committed against Magdalena"Maggie" de la Riva. Upon arraignment, Basilio Pineda, Jr. pleaded guilty. However, the court reservedjudgment "until such time as the prosecution shall have concluded presenting all of its evidence to prove theaggravating circumstances listed in the complaint." Upon the other hand, the rest of the defendants went totrial on their respective pleas of not guilty. After the merits, the court below rendered its decision finding thedefendants guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the petition. The admissibility of his extrajudicial