Please read the following cases and digest it and write on your activity notebok.

For your recitation

Cases to Ponder:

1. G.R. No. 203471 - VIRGILIO A. BOTE, Petitioner, v. SAN PEDRO CINEPLEX PROPERTIES, INC., Respondent.

Topic: Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. Bill of rights)

Facts:

• San Pedro Cineplex Properties, Inc. (SPCPI) filed an administrative complaint against Virgilio A. Bote, the incumbent
mayor of General Tinio, Nueva Ecija.

• The complaint alleged that Bote violated Section 444 (b) (2) (iv) of the Local Government Code, abused his authority,
and committed illegal and oppressive acts in a property dispute between SPCPI and Bote's clients, the heirs of Manuel
Humada Enano.

• SPCPI claimed that Bote, accompanied by armed men, harassed their security guards and destroyed the fence of the
disputed property.

• Bote denied the accusations and argued that he was only exercising his right to exclude SPCPI from the property.

Issue:

• Whether the Court of Appeals erred in modifying the Ombudsman's decision and holding Bote guilty of culpable
violation of the constitution.

Ruling:

• The Court ruled in favor of Bote and granted the Petition for Review on Certiorari.

• The Court annulled and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and dismissed the administrative complaint
against Bote.

Background of the Case

• The case involves an administrative complaint filed against Virgilio A. Bote, the incumbent mayor of General Tinio,
Nueva Ecija, by San Pedro Cineplex Properties, Inc. (SPCPI).

• The complaint alleges that Bote committed illegal acts in a property dispute.

• The dispute arose from a legal disagreement between Bote and SPCPI over a real property located in San Pedro,
Laguna.

• Bote represented the heirs of Manuel Humada Enano, who claimed ownership of the disputed property.

• On September 8, 2009, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of the heirs of [Link] Court ruled in favor of the
incumbent mayor, Bote, stating that he cannot be held administratively liable for misconduct committed during his
previous term, as the acts in question were done in his personal capacity and not connected to his official duties.
2. G.R. No. 118140 February 19, 1997

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

DANTE PIANDIONG Y CALDA, JESUS MORALLOS Y CALDA, ARCHIE BULAN Y AMPULAN, and TWO (2) JOHN DOES, accused.

Topic: Article 5, par 4 of the Optional Protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights // Human Rights
Committee)

Summary

Accused-appellants in the case of People v. Piandiong y Calda were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery
with homicide and were sentenced to death, as the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court based on the
existence of conspiracy among the accused-appellants and credible witness identification.

Facts:

Accused-appellants Dante Piandiong y Calda, Jesus Morallos y Calda, and Archie Bulan y Ampulan were charged with
robbery with homicide.

The crime occurred on February 21, 1994, when the accused-appellants and two unidentified individuals boarded a
passenger jeepney and announced a hold-up.

They divested the passengers of their valuables and shot and killed PO1 Gerry Perez.

The trial court found the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced them to death.

The court also ordered them to pay various amounts as indemnity and damages to the victims.

The case was brought before the Supreme Court for automatic review.

Issue:

Were the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, finding the accused-appellants guilty of robbery with
homicide and imposing the penalty of death.

Case Background and Incident Details

The case involves the conviction of accused-appellants Dante Piandiong, Jesus Morallos, and Archie Bulan for the crime
of robbery with homicide.

The incident occurred on February 21, 1994, when the accused-appellants, along with two unidentified individuals,
boarded a passenger jeepney and announced a hold-up.

They divested the passengers of their valuables and shot and killed PO1 Gerry Perez.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the court affirmed the decision of the trial court, finding accused-appellants guilty of robbery with
homicide and imposing the penalty of death.
3. G.R No. 130522. February 15, 2001.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROLANDO PAGDAYAWON, Accused-Appellant

Issue (Right to be presumed Innocent and He claims to be a victim of violations of article 5, paragraph 2, article 6
paragraphs 1 and 2, article 7, article 9 paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4, article 10, paragraph 1, and article 14 paragraphs 1, 2,
and 5, of the Covenant//Death Penalty

Summary

In this case, the accused, Rolando Pagdayawon, was found guilty of statutory rape and sentenced to death by the trial
court. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision, finding no reason to deviate from the trial court's findings regarding the
credibility of witnesses. The court emphasized the credibility of the rape victim's testimony and the corroborating
evidence presented. The court also ruled that the trial court did not err in imposing the penalty of death, as the
qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship were proven.

Background Information

The case involves the accused, Rolando Pagdayawon, who was charged with the crime of statutory rape under Article
335, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code.

The complainant, Lori, was 11 years old when she filed the complaint against her stepfather.

Lori claimed that her stepfather had sexually molested her repeatedly since she was 9 years old.

The accused denied the rape and claimed that he had been sexually impotent since 1986.

The trial court rejected the defense put up by the accused and found him guilty of statutory rape, sentencing him to
death.

Facts:

The case involves the accused, Rolando Pagdayawon, who was charged with the crime of statutory rape under Article
335, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code. The complainant, Lori Pagdayawon, who was eleven years old at the time, filed a
complaint against her stepfather, alleging that he had sexually molested her repeatedly since she was nine years old. Lori
revealed her ordeal to her teacher, and the matter was brought to the attention of the police authorities. Medical
examination confirmed old healed hymenal laceration. The accused denied the rape and claimed that he had been
sexually impotent since 1986. He also alleged that Lori's mother fabricated the charge to get rid of him and to live or
marry another man with whom she was pregnant at the time the rape case was filed. The trial court rejected the defense
put up by the accused and found him guilty of statutory rape, sentencing him to death with all its accessory penalties.
The case was forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review.

Issue:

The main issue in the case is whether the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty of statutory rape.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court found no reason to deviate from the findings of the trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses.
The testimony of the rape victim, Lori, was found credible and deserving of full credit. The court also ruled that the trial
court did not err in imposing the penalty of death upon the accused. The prosecution presented Lori's baptismal
certificate as independent proof corroborating her testimony and her mother's testimony. The qualifying circumstances
of minority and relationship, which warrant the imposition of the death penalty, were specifically alleged and proven.

Decision

The judgment finding Rolando Pagdayawon guilty of statutory rape and sentencing him to death is affirmed.
The civil indemnity is increased to P75,000.00, and an additional award of P50,000.00 by way of moral damages is
granted.

The records of the case are to be forwarded to the Office of the President for possible exercise of the pardoning power

4. Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel, 553 U.S. 851 (2008). Case No. 1320/2004

Topic: Torture during Marcos Regime (Martial Law)/ Right to Fair Trial

5. Marcellana and Gumanoy, Case No. 1560/2007

Human rights activists, Human Rights Abused victims

Topic: (Rights Violated: Arbitrary Deprivation of Life, Right to Security of a person, Adequacy of Investigation,
Effectiveness of Remedy)

6. Tanada v. Tuvera, GR No. L-63915, Apr 24, 1985

Topic: The Right of the People to be Informed on Matters of Public Concern

Summary

In the case of Tañada v. Tuvera, the court ruled in favor of the petitioners, affirming the necessity for the publication of
presidential decrees to ensure the people's right to due process and information on matters of public concern.

Facts:

Petitioners: Lorenzo M. Tañada, Abraham F. Sarmiento, and the Movement of Attorneys for Brotherhood, Integrity and
Nationalism, Inc. (MABINI)

Respondents: Government

Date: April 24, 1985

Issue: Demand for the disclosure of presidential decrees that were not published as required by law

Petitioners argued that publication is necessary to ensure the people's constitutional right to due process and
information on matters of public concern

Government argued that publication is not necessary when it is "otherwise provided" in the decrees themselves

Issue:

Is publication necessary for presidential decrees that were not published as required by law?

Ruling:

The Court affirmed the necessity for the publication of some of these decrees and ordered the respondents to publish
them in the Official Gazette.
7. Ichong v. Hernandez, GR No. L-7995, May 31, 1957

Topic: Due Process and Equal Protection Clause

Summary

The Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 1180, which aimed to nationalize the retail trade
business in the Philippines, citing the state's police power to protect the national economy and the limitations of aliens in
the industry.

Case Background and Petitioner's Argument

The case revolves around the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 1180, which nationalizes the retail trade business in
the Philippines.

The petitioner, Lao H. Ichong, represents other alien residents, corporations, and partnerships adversely affected by the
law.

The petitioner argues that the law violates the constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection of the laws.

Facts:

Lao H. Ichong, on behalf of himself and other alien residents, corporations, and partnerships, filed a petition against
Jaime Hernandez, the Secretary of Finance, and Marcelino Sarmiento, the City Treasurer of Manila.

The case revolves around the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 1180, which nationalizes the retail trade business in
the Philippines.

The case was heard by the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether Republic Act No. 1180 is constitutional, particularly in relation to the due process and equal protection clauses
of the Constitution.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that Republic Act No. 1180 is constitutional.

8. Gamboa vs. Chan et al., 193636

Topic: National Human Rights Law Revised Penal Code of the Philippines

FACTS

Gamboa alleged that the Philippine National Police in Ilocos Norte (PNP–Ilocos Norte) conducted a series of surveillance
operations against her and her aides, and classified her as someone who keeps a Private Army Group (PAG). Purportedly
without the benefit of data verification, PNP–Ilocos Norte forwarded the information gathered on her to the Zeñarosa
Commission, thereby causing her inclusion in the Report’s enumeration of individuals maintaining PAGs. Contending that
her right to privacy was violated and her reputation maligned and destroyed, Gamboa filed a Petition for the issuance of
a writ of habeas data against respondents in their capacities as officials of the PNP-Ilocos Norte.

ISSUE

Whether or not the petition for the issuance of writ of habeas data is proper when the right to privacy is invoked as
opposed to the state’s interest in preserving the right to life, liberty or security.

RULING

NO.
9.-10. G.R. Nos. 138874-75

February 3, 2004

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

FRANCISCO JUAN LARRAÑAGA alias “PACO”; JOSMAN AZNAR; ROWEN ADLAWAN alias “WESLEY”; ALBERTO CAÑO alias
“ALLAN PAHAK”; ARIEL BALANSAG, DAVIDSON VALIENTE RUSIA alias “TISOY TAGALOG”; JAMES ANTHONY UY alias
“WANGWANG”; and JAMES ANDREW UY alias “MM”, Accused-Appellants.

Topic:

A. violations of rights of due process

B. no preliminary investigation including the right to choose counsel & the right to effective counsel

C. the refusal to hear the author’s testimony

D. the refusal to allow the author to call defense witnesses

E. the denial of an impartial trial through the actions of the presiding judge

F. improper handling of the main prosecution witness’s evidence

G. insufficient prosecutionevidence to convict him an inappropriate standard of proof required for presenting alibi
evidence

Summary

In a high-profile case, the Philippine court affirms the guilty verdict of the appellants accused of kidnapping, rape, and
murder, rejecting their claims of witness credibility, due process violations, and bias, while upholding the finding of
conspiracy and the order for damages to be paid to the victims' heirs.

Case details and convictions

The case involves the kidnapping, rape, and murder of two sisters in Cebu City, Philippines.

The appellants were found guilty of kidnapping and serious illegal detention.

They were sentenced to "two (2) reclusiones perpetua" and ordered to pay damages to the victims' family.

The prosecution's main witness, Rusia, testified to the events and identified the appellants as the perpetrators.

The defense raised the defense of alibi.

The court found the prosecution's evidence to be credible and convicted the appellants.

Facts:

The case involves the kidnapping, rape, and murder of Marijoy and Jacqueline Chiong in Cebu City, Philippines. The
appellants, Francisco Juan Larra aga, Josman Aznar, Ariel Balansag, Alberto Ca o, Rowen Adlawan, James Anthony Uy, and
James Andrew Uy, were found guilty by the Regional Trial Court of kidnapping and serious illegal detention. They were
sentenced to two reclusiones perpetua and ordered to pay damages to the victims' heirs.

The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of state witness Davidson Rusia, who admitted to participating in
the abduction of the sisters. Rusia identified all the appellants as the perpetrators and provided a detailed account of the
crimes. He stated that Larra aga was the mastermind and that Rowen Adlawan was his conduit. Rusia testified that the
sisters were forcibly taken into a car and brought to a safehouse where they were raped and subjected to physical abuse.
Marijoy was later thrown off a cliff and left to die, while Jacqueline was taken back to the car and eventually brought to
Cebu City. Rusia also mentioned other witnesses who saw snippets of the events, further corroborating his testimony.

The appellants, on the other hand, raised the defense of alibi. Larra aga claimed that he was in Quezon City taking exams
and then at a bar with friends during the time of the crimes. Several witnesses testified to support his alibi.

Issue:

The main issues raised in the case are as follows:

Whether the testimony of the state witness, Davidson Rusia, is credible.

Whether the trial court erred in admitting testimony without the presence of the appellants' chosen counsel.

Whether there was conspiracy in the case.

Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution witnesses.

Whether the trial court displayed bias and prejudice in deciding the case.

Whether the trial court erred in not allowing some defense witnesses to testify.

Whether the trial court erred in considering Rowen Adlawan to have waived presentation of evidence on his behalf.

Ruling:

The court affirmed the decision of the trial court and found the appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping
and serious illegal detention. The court also upheld the order for them to pay damages to the victims' heirs. The court
rejected the appellants' arguments and found no errors in the trial court's decision.

Discuss the definition of entrepreneurship

- [ ] Type of entrepreneurs

- [ ] Characteristics of entrepreneurship

- [ ] Importance of entrepreneurship

- [ ] What is entrepreneurial management and its importance

- [ ] Why is it important to have an entrepreneur management plan

- [ ] The principles of entrepreneurial management