Facts:
6 ejectment cases were filed separately in the City Court of Manila by Eusebio Lu against Feliciano F. Endangan, Josefina Meimban, Teodorico Bontia, Rolando Antillon, Jose Mabalot and Vicente Villamor. All cases were decided by the City Court of Manila against Endangan, et. al., all of whom appealed in due time to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila, where the cases were raffled to Branch XXVI, presided over by the Honorable Jose P. Alejandro.
On 12 August 1979, Endangan, Bontia, Antillon, Mabalot, and Villamor entered into a compromise agreement with Lu whereby the Endangan, et. al. individually received from Lu the sum of P5,000 in consideration of which Endangan, et. al. agreed to vacate the premises in question and remove their houses therefrom within 60 days from the date of the execution of the agreement, failing which the appellee shall have the authority to demolish Endangan, et. al.'s houses with costs thereof chargeable against them. The compromise agreement was submitted to the court. Josefina Meimban did not join her co-defendants in entering into the compromise agreement. Up to that stage of the cases.
In July 1979, Meimban went to Court where she met Atty. Mejia who told her that the case has not yet been decided because there was still one party who has not signed the compromise agreement prepared by Atty. Doron. Atty. Mejia also remarked that she was surprised why rich people were helping in that case, like a certain Atty. Lu, a brother of Eusebio Lu, who has been approaching the presiding judge; and then told her she would help them provided they give P1,000 each for a gift to the Judge
They were able to give partial amount of the money being asked. Atty. Mejia also attempted to bribe the Tanodbayan Investigator (Christina Corall-Paterno), through intricate gold chain with a pendant hearing an inscription of letter "C," which the investigator returned through an employee. Corall-Paterno investigated the complaints of Josefina Meimban and Pilar Bautista against Atty. Aurora Mejia for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. On 23 April 1981, the Sandiganbayan, Mejia was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of paragraph (b), Section 3 of RA 3019 and sentenced her to an indeterminate imprisonment ranging from 4 years and 1 day as minimum to 7 years as maximum, to suffer perpetual disqualification from public office and to indemnify the victim Josefina Meimban the sum of P1,000.00 representing the money given to her. The Sandiganbayan also found Mejia, in Criminal Case 1989, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of paragraph (b), Section 3 of RA 3019 and likewise sentenced her to an indeterminate imprisonment ranging from 4 years and 1 day as minimum to 7 years as maximum, to suffer perpetual disqualification from public office and to indemnify the victim Pilar Bautista the amount of P500 representing the money given to her. Mejia was also ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings. Mejia filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.
Mejia contended that the proceedings taken by respondent Sandiganbayan in the case at bar is void ab initio. She argued that only one stage of appeal is available to the petitioner under PD No. 1606 which effectively deprives her of the intermediate recourse to the Court of Appeals and that in said appeal to this Court, only issues of law may be raised and worse still the appeal has become a matter of discretion rather than a matter of right. Petitioner contends this is a denial of the equal protection of the law.
Issue:
WON the accused is denied of due process and the equal protection of the law.
Held:
There is no denial of equal protection of the law. The classification satisfies the test announced by this Court through Justice Laurel in People v. Vera requiring that it must be based on substantial distinctions which make real differences; it must be germane to the purposes of the law; it must not be limited to existing conditions only, and must apply equally to each member of the class. To repeat, the Constitution specifically makes the urgency of which cannot be denied, namely, dishonesty in the public service. It follows that those who may thereafter be tried by such court ought to have been aware as far back as January 17, 1973, when the present Constitution came into force, that a different procedure for the accused therein, is not necessarily offensive to the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
There is no violation of due process. What is required for compliance with the due process mandate in criminal proceedings? This Court with Justice Tuason as ponente, succinctly Identified it with a "a fair and impartial trial and reasonable opportunity for the preparation of defense. In criminal proceedings then, due process is satisfied if the accused is "informed as to why he is proceeded against and what charge he hall to meet, with his conviction being made to rest on evidence that is not tainted with falsity after full opportunity for him to rebut it and the sentence being implied in accordance with a valid law. It is assumed, of course, that the court that rendered the decision is one of competent jurisdiction. Thus: This court has had frequent occasion to consider the requirements of due process of law as applied to criminal procedure, and, generally speaking, it may be said that if an accused has been heard in a court of competent jurisdiction, and proceeded against under the orderly processes of law, and only punished after inquiry and investigation, upon notice to him, with an opportunity to be heard, and a judgment awarded within the authority of a constitutional law, then he has had due process of law.
No comments:
Post a Comment