Davide v. Yaranon

En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt10) 343 Phil. 670 (1997) [Per J. Davide, Jr., En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt11) Id.

at 700-701, citing La Union Electric Cooperative v. Yaranon, 259 Phil. 457 (1989) [Per J. Gancayco, First Division] and Francisco v. Permskul, 255 Phil. 311 (1989) [Per J. Cruz, En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt12) 421 Phil. 290 (2001) [Per J. Bellosillo, En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt13) Id.

at 342. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt14) 128 Phil. 473 (1967) [Per J. Fernando, En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt15) Id.

at 475-476. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt16) 727 Phil. 430 (2014) [Per J. Carpio, En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt17) Id.

at 447. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt18) 706 Phil. 138 (2013) [Per J. Mendoza. En Banc].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt19) Id. at 157. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt20) 495 Phil. 289 (2005) [Per J. Tinga, En Banc].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt21) Id. at 308. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt22) CONST., art.

III, sec. 1. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt23) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art.

3. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt24) American Declaration of Independence (1776). (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt25) In the words of the American Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men[.]" (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt26) See Abraham H. Maslow's, A Theory of Human Motivation, PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 50, 370-396 (1943). (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt27) Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro , 39 Phil. 660, 705 (1919) [Per J. Malcolm, En Banc].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt28) 99 Phil. 515 (1956) [Per J. Concepcion, En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt29) CONST. (1935), art.

III, sec. I provides: Section 1. (1) No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the Jaws.

…. (3) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined 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. (4) The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired.

(5) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court or when public safety and order require otherwise. (6) The right to form associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.

(7) No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. (8) No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances.

…. (11) No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. (12) No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.

(13) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. (14) The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, in any of which events the same may be suspended wherever during such period the necessity for such suspension shall exist. (15) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.

(16) All persons shall before conviction be bailable by sufficient sureties, except those charged with capital offenses when evidence of guilt is strong. Excessive bail shall not be required. (17) In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall be presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses in his behalf.

(18) No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. …. (21) Free access to the courts shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt30) People v. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515, 551-552 (1956) [Per J. Concepcion, En Banc]. This enumeration must not be taken as an exhaustive listing of the extent of constitutional protection vis-a-vis liberty. Emphasis is placed on how the penumbra of cognate rights evolves and expands with the times.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt31) 596 Phil. 444 (2009) [Per J. Tinga, En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt32) Id. at 462-463.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt33) Id. at 463. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt34) 487 Phil. 531 (2004).

[Per J. Puno, En Banc] (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt35) Id. at 599-600. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt36) Kabataan Party-List v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 221318, December 16, 2015<<http://sc.judiciary.gove.ph/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2015/december2015/221318.pdf> >[Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc] citing White Light Corporation v. City of Manila, 596 Phil. 444 (2009) [Per J. Tinga, En Banc]; Concurring Opinion of J. Leonardo-De Castro in Garcia v. Drilon,712 Phil. 44, 112-143 (2013) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc]; and Separate Concurring Opinion of C.J. Reynato S. Puno in Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. COMELEC, 632 Phil. 32, 106 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, En Banc].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt37) CONST., art. II, sec. 12.

Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.

The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt38) Ponencia , p. 20.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt39) 354 Phil. 948 (1998) [PerJ. Puno, En Banc] states: [T]he right of privacy is recognized and enshrined in several provisions of our Constitution. It is expressly recognized in Section 3(1) of the Bill of Rights: "Sec. 3.

(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law." Other facets of the right to privacy are protected in various provisions of the Bill of Rights, viz: "Sec. 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Sec. 2. 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. ….

Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.

…. Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.

…. Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself."

(Citations omitted) (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt40) CONST., art. III, sec. 2.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt41) CONST., art. III, Sec. 2. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt42) CONST., art.

III, sec. 6. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt43) CONST., art.

III, sec. 8. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt44) CONST., art.

III, sec. 17. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt45) CONST., art.

II, sec. 12: Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution.

It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt46) CONST., art.

II, sec. 12. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt47) 732 Phil. 1 (2014) [Per J. Mendoza, En Banc].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt48) Id. at 193. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt49) 596 Phil. 444 (2009) [Per J. Tinga, En Banc].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt50) White Light is notable, not only for characterizing privacy as a fundamental right whose intrusions impel strict scrutiny. It is also notable for extending a similar inquiry previously made by this Court in 1967, in Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, et al. v. City of Manila, 128 Phil.

473 (1967) [Per J. Fernando, En Banc]. There, operators of motels assailed a supposed infringement of their property rights by an ordinance increasing license fees for their motels. ln upholding the validity of the ordinance, this Court distinguished between "freedom of the mind"

and property rights and held that "If the liberty involved were freedom of the mind or the person, the standard for the validity of governmental acts is much more rigorous and exacting, but where the liberty curtailed affects at the most rights of property, the permissible scope of regulatory measure is wider." Since the case only involved property rights, this Court found that the state interest of curbing "an admitted deterioration of the state of public morals" sufficed.

White Light extended the consideration of rights involved in similar establishments by examining, not only motel owners' property rights but also their clientele's privacy rights. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt51) White Light Corp. v. City of Manila, 596 Phil. 444, 464-466 (2009) [Per J. Tinga, En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt52) Id.

at 469-471. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt53) CONST. art.

II, sec. 13. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt54) Section 4.

Definition of Terms. - The following terms as used in this Act shall be defined as follows: …. (c) "Child"

refers to a person under the age of eighteen (18) years. (d) "Child at Risk" refers to a child who is vulnerable to and at the risk of committing criminal offenses because of personal, family and social circumstances, such as, but not limited to, the following: (1) being abused by any person through sexual, physical, psychological, mental, economic or any other means and the parents or guardian refuse, are unwilling, or unable to provide protection for the child; (2) being exploited including sexually or economically; (3) being abandoned or neglected, and after diligent search and inquiry, the parent or guardian cannot be found; (4) coming from a dysfunctional or broken family or without a parent or guardian; (5) being out of school; (6) being a streetchild; (7) being a member of a gang; (8) living in a community with a high level of criminality or drug abuse; and (9) living in situations of armed conflict.

(e) "Child in Conflict with the Law" refers to a child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having committed an offense under Philippine laws. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt55) Rep. Act No. 9344, sec.

4 (e) "Child in Conflict with the Law" refers to a child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having committed an offense under Philippine laws. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt56) Rollo , pp. 330-333.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt57) Ponencia, p. 28, fn 139. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt58) Id.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt59) Rollo , p. 201, Annex 5 of City of Manila Comment. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt60) Id.

at 202, Annex 5 of City of Manila Comment. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt61) 159 F.3d 843 (1998). (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt62) Dissenting Opinion of J. Carpio Morales in Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 487 Phil. 531, 697-701 (2004) [Per J. Puno, En Banc] citing Skinner v. State of Oklahoma ex rel.

Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942); Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652, 666 (1990); Attorney General of New York v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S.

898, 903-904 (1986); Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15, 395 U.S. 621 (1969); AdarandConstructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 235 (1995); Chapter 9 of G GUNTHER, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (12th Ed., 1991); and Gµnther, Foreword: In Search of Evolving Doctrine on a Changing Court: A Model for a Newer Equal Protection, 86 HARV. L. REV. 1, 21 (1972).

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt63) Rollo , pp. 317-318. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt64) It should be pointed out that the statement "most of minor children become out-of-school youth, unproductive by-standers, street children, and member of notorious gangs" is an absurd generalization without any basis.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt65) Ponencia , p. 33. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt66) Rollo , pp. 322-323.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt67) Ponencia , p. 34. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt68) Rollo , p.

7, Petition. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt69) Id. at 24, Petition.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt70) Id. at 200, Annex 5 of City of Manila Comment. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt71) See rollo , pp. 116-197, Annexes "l ,"

"2," and "3" of City of Manila Comment.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt72) Rollo , p. 19, Petition. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt73) 247-A Phil. 276 (1988) [Per J. Sarmiento, En Banc].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt74) Id. at 286 citing TRIBE, AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 718 (1978) and Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385 (1926). (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt75) 421Phil.290 (2001) [Per J. Bellosillo, En Banc].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt76) ld. at 354-355 citing United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 21, 4 L. Ed. 2d 524, 529 (1960); Yazoo & Mississippi Valley RR. v. Jackson Vinegar Co., 226 U.S. 217, 57 L. Ed. 193 (1912); and G. GUNTHER & K. SULLIVAN, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1299 (2001).

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt77) 646 Phil. 452 (2010) [Per J. Carpio-Morales, En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt78) Id. at 489 citing David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 522 Phil. 705 (2006) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, En Banc].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt79) 732 Phil. 1 (2014)[Per J. Mendoza, En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt80) Id. at 127 citing the Dissenting Opinion of J. Carpio in Romualdez v. Commission on Elections, 576 Phil. 357, 406 (2008) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, En Banc].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt81) Ponencia , pp. 11-12 (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt82) Rollo , p. 324. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt83) Id.

at 326. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt84) Rep. Act No. 9344 , sec. 7.

Determination of Age. - The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the presumption of minority. He/She shall enjoy all the rights of a child in conflict with the law until he/she is proven to be eighteen (18) years old or older.

The age of a child may be determined from the child's birth certificate, baptismal certificate or any other pertinent documents.

In the absence of these documents, age may be based on information from the child himself/herself, testimonies of other persons, the physical appearance of the child and other relevant evidence. In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be resolved in his/her favor. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt85) People v. Nazario, 247-A Phil. 276, 286 (1988) [Per J. Sarmiento, En Banc].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt86) Rollo , p. 7, Petition. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt87) Id.

at 6. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt88) Ponencia, p. 13.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt89) Kay Kindred, God Bless the Child: Poor Children, Parens Patriae, and a State Obligation to Provide Assistance, 57 OHIO STATE L. J. 519, 526 (1996). (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt90) J. Ryan and D. Sampen , Suing on Behalf of the State: A Parens Patriae Primer, 86 ILL. BAR J. 684 (1998), citing Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of California , 405 U.S. 25 I, 257 (172).

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt91) Margaret Hall, The Vulnerability Jurisdiction: Equity, Parens Patriae, and the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court, 2(1) CAN. J. OF COMP. & CONTEMP.

L. 185, 190-191 (2016), citing Sir James Munby, Protecting the Rights of Vulnerable and lncapacitous Adults - the Role of the Courts: An Example of Judicial Law-making, 26 CHILD & FAMILY LAW QUARTERLY 64, 66 (2014). (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt92) 136 U.S. 1, 57 (1890). (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt93) Id.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt94) Id. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt95) J. Ryan and D. Sampen, Suing on Behalf of the State: A Parens Patriae Primer, 86 ILL. BAR J. 684 (1998); see also Southern Luzon Drug v Department of Social Welfare and Development, G.R. No. 199669, April 25.

2017, <<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=jurisprudence/2017/april2017/199669.pdf>> Per J. Reyes, En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt96) See Government of the Philippine Islands v. El Monte de Piedad, 35 Phil. 728 (1916) [Per J. Trent, Second Division]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt97) Vasco v. Court of Appeals, 171 Phil. 673, 677 (1978) [Per J Aquino, Second Division], citing 67 C.J.S. 624; and Government of the Philippine Islands v. El Monte de Piedad , 35 Phil. 728 (1916) [Per J. Trent, Second Division].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt98) CONST. (1973), art. II, sec.

4. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt99) CONST. (1935), art.

II, sec. 4. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt100) 150-A Phil. 241 (1972) [Per J. Fernando, Second Division].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt101) Ponencia , p. 15. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt102) CONST.

(1935), art. II, sec. 4 was worded almost as similarly as the 1973 Constitution.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt103) Nery v. Lorenzo, 150-A Phil. 241, 248 (1972) [Per J. Fernando, Second Division]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt104)171 Phil. 673 (1978) [Per J. Aquino, Second Division]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt105) Id.

at 677. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt106) 732 Phil. 1 (2014) [Per J. Mendoza, En Banc].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt107) Id. at 195 citing Records, 1986 Constitutional Convention, Volume IV, pp. 401-402. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt108) Concepcion v. Court of Appeals, 505 Phil. 529, 546 (2005) [Per J. Corona, Third Division].

See also Dela Cruz v. Gracia, G.R. No. 177728, July 31, 2009 [Per J. Carpio Morales, Second Division]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt109) 424 Phil. 933 (2000) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt110) 156 Phil. 87 (1974) [PerJ.

Fenando, Second Division]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt111) See also People v. Cabodac, 284-A Phil. 303, 312 (1992) [Per J. Melencio-Herrera, Second Division]; People v. Dolores, 266 Phil. 724 (1990) [Per J. Melencio-Herrera, Second Division]; People v. Cawili, 160 Phil.. 25 (1975) [Per J Fernando, Second Division]; and People v. Evangelista, 346 Phil. 717 (1997) [Per J. Belosillo, First Division]; People v. Malto , 560 Phil. 119 (2007) [Per J. Corona, First Division].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt112) People v. Baylon, 156 Phil. 87, 95 (1974) [Per J. Fenando, Second Division]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#rnt113) 560 Phil. 119 (2007) [Per J. Corona, First Division]. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation [](javascript:history.back\(1\)) [](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr225442so2017.html#top)