Soliven v makasiar case digest

It is a decision that cannot be assumed and imposed by any other person. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Subsequent events have rendered the first issue moot and academic. Petitioner Beltran is convinced that the Constitution requires the judge to personally examine the complainant and his witness in his determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrests. Beltran argues that "the reasons which necessitate presidential immunity from suit impose a correlative disability to file suit".

Following established doctrine and procedure, he shall: Beltran contends that he could not be held liable for libel because of the privileged character of the publication. In doing so, the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witness.

The second issue calls for an interpretation of the constitutional provision on the issuance of arrest warrant. Whether or not the petitioners were denied due process when information for libel were filed against them although the finding of the existence of a prima facie case was still under review by the Secretary of Justice and, subsequently by the President 2.

It has not been shown that respondent judge has deviated from the prescribed procedure.

Soliven V Makasiar Case Digest

The third issue argues on the presidential privilege of immunity from any suit. Cory Aquino filed a criminal complaint for libel against Beltran. Due process of law does not require that the respondent in a criminal case actually file his counter-affidavits before the preliminary investigation is deemed completed.

Thus, an accused in a criminal case in which the President is complainant cannot raise the presidential privilege as a defense to prevent the case from proceeding against such accused. Whether or not freedom of speech was abridged. A second motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Beltran was denied by the Secretary of Justice on April 7, The petitions fail to establish that public respondents, through their separate acts, gravely abused their discretion as to amount to lack of jurisdiction.

The pertinent provision reads: Beltran also contends that he could not be held liable for libel because of the privileged character of the publication.

Finding no grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the public respondents, the Court resolved to dismiss the petitions in G. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

It is a decision that cannot be assumed and imposed by any other person. Following the established doctrine of procedure, the judge shall: In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses.

Motion for reconsideration was denied by the Executive Secretary Petitioner Beltran alleges that he has been denied due process of law. In these consolidated cases, three principal issues were raised: Second issue This calls for an interpretation of the constitutional provision on the issuance of warrants of arrest: On appeal, the President, through the Executive Secretary, affirmed the resolution of the Secretary of Justice on May 2, The following subsequent events informs about the first issue that rendered moot and academic: This, continues Beltran, would in an indirect way defeat her privilege of immunity from suit, as by testifying on the witness stand, she would be exposing herself to possible contempt of court or perjury.

A second motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Beltran was denied by the Secretary of Justice on April 7, Motion for reconsideration was denied Soliven v makasiar case digest the Executive Secretary Petitioner Beltran alleges that he has been denied due process of law.

Whether or not the petitioners were denied due process when information for libel were filed against them although the finding of the existence of a prima facie case was still under review by the Secretary of Justice and, subsequently by the President Whether or not the constitutional rights of Beltran petitioner were violated when respondent RTC judge issued a warrant for his arrest without personally examining the complainant and the witnesses, if any, to determine probable clause Whether or not the President of the Philippines, under the Constitution, may initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners through filing of a complaint-affidavit DECISION: Hence, the writs of certiorari and prohibition prayed for cannot issue.

What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

However, what the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. This is not an accurate interpretation. Fernandez for petitioner in G. Following the established doctrine of procedure, the judge shall:Aug 10,  · This case is a PETITION for certiorari and prohibition to review the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila FACTS: In these consolidated cases, three principal issues were raised: (1) whether or not petitioners were denied due process when informations for libel were filed against them although the finding of the existence of a.

Nov 25,  · Soliven v Makasiar Nov 14, G.R. No. Issue: WON Beltran's rights were violated when the RTC issued a warrant of arrest without personally examining the complainant and the witnesses to determine probable cause.

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition to review the decision of the RTC of Manila. The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court regarding G.

R Nos.

and ; wherefore, the petitioner’s were lump together considering these cases were same in character. We will write a custom essay sample [ ]. Feb 01,  · (2) What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause.

In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses.

Nov 14,  · Constitutional Law 2 Case digest. G.R.

Maximo Soliven vs Ramon Makasiar

No. November 14, MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, ANTONIO mi-centre.com, FREDERICK K. AGCAOLI. CASE DIGEST CASE #1: Kuroda mi-centre.comoni 83 Phil • FACTS: Shigenori Kuroda, former Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Forces of the Philippines, was charged before a Military Commission in violation of the laws and customs of war.

SOLIVEN vs MAKASIAR Download
Soliven v makasiar case digest
Rated 3/5 based on 80 review