Results of the 2011 Bar Examinations Out This Week

ABS-CBNnews.com reports today that the results of the 2011 Bar examinations will be released this Wednesday, February 29, 2012.

Last week, there were reports (rumours) that the result will be out last Tuesday after the Supreme Court en banc session, but that turned out to be a dud for many examinees and their friends and loved ones.

The waiting is an ordeal for the examinees. And as the day of reckoning draws nearer and nearer, there are those who resign to the fates. They wax fatalistic and go que sera sera. But many just want to get over with it so they can already map out their next moves.

Francisco Chavez v. Raul M. Gonzales and National Telecommunications Commission, G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008

D E C I S I O N
(En Banc)

PUNO, J.:

I.      THE FACTS

As a consequence of the public release of copies of the “Hello Garci” compact disc audiotapes involving a wiretapped mobile phone conversation between then-President Gloria Arroyo and Comelec Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano, respondent DOJ Secretary Gonzales warned reporters that those who had copies of the CD and those broadcasting or publishing its contents could be held liable under the Anti-Wiretapping Act. He also stated that persons possessing or airing said tapes were committing a continuing offense, subject to arrest by anybody. Finally, he stated that he had ordered the National Bureau of Investigation to go after media organizations “found to have caused the spread, the playing and the printing of the contents of a tape.” 

Meanwhile, respondent NTC warned in a press release all radio stations and TV network owners/operators that the conditions of the authorization and permits issued to them by government like the Provisional Authority and/or Certificate of Authority explicitly provides that they shall not use their stations for the broadcasting or telecasting of false information or willful misrepresentation. The NTC stated that the continuous airing or broadcast of the “Hello Garci” taped conversations by radio and TV stations is a continuing violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Law and the conditions of the Provisional Authority and/or Certificate of Authority.  It warned that their broadcast/airing of such false information and/or willful misrepresentation shall be a just cause for the suspension, revocation and/or cancellation of the licenses or authorizations issued to the said media establishments.

Grosjean v. American Press Co., Inc., 297 U.S. 233, February 10, 1936

SUTHERLAND, J.:

I.      THE FACTS

The case of Grosjean v. American Press Co., Inc., 297 U.S. 233, February 10, 1936, involved a Louisiana law that imposed on publishing companies a license tax of 2% of the gross receipts for the privilege of engaging in advertising in newspapers, magazines or periodicals if their circulation is more than 20,000 copies per week. Nine Louisiana-based publishers of newspapers, with circulations of more than 20,000 copies per week each, filed a suit to enjoin the enforcement against them of the said provision. They assailed the validity of the act on the ground, inter alia, that it abridges the freedom of the press in contravention of the due process clause contained in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, June 30, 1971

PER CURIAM:

I.      THE FACTS

In New York Times vs. U.S., 403 U.S. 713, June 30, 1971, the federal government of the U.S. sought to enjoin the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the contents of a classified Pentagon study entitled “History of U.S. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy.”

Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119673, July 26, 1996

D E C I S I O N

PUNO, J.:

I.      THE FACTS

Several pre-taped episodes of the TV program “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo” of the religious group Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) were rated “X” – i.e., not for public viewing – by the respondent Board of Review for Moving Pictures and Television (now MTRCB). These TV programs allegedly “offend[ed] and constitute[d] an attack against other religions which is expressly prohibited by law” because of petitioner INC’s controversial biblical interpretations and its “attacks” against contrary religious beliefs. 

Petitioner INC went to court to question the actions of respondent Board. The RTC ordered the respondent Board to grant petitioner INC the necessary permit for its TV programs. But on appeal by the respondent Board, the CA reversed the RTC. The CA ruled that: (1) the respondent Board has jurisdiction and power to review the TV program “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo,” and (2) the respondent Board did not act with grave abuse of discretion when it denied permit for the exhibition on TV of the three series of “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo” on the ground that the materials constitute an attack against another religion. The CA also found the subject TV series “indecent, contrary to law and contrary to good customs.” Dissatisfied with the CA decision, petitioner INC appealed to the Supreme Court.

Philippine Savings Bank v. Senate Impeachment Court, G.R. No. 200238, February 9, 2012

R E S O L U T I O N

(Re Application by Petitioners of a TRO)

I.      THE FACTS

Philippine Savings Bank (PS Bank) and its President, Pascual M. Garcia III, filed before the Supreme Court an original civil action for certiorari and prohibition with application for temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction. The TRO was sought to stop the Senate, sitting as impeachment court, from further implementing the Subpoena Ad Testificandum et Duces Tecum, dated February 6, 2012, that it issued against the Branch Manager of PS Bank, Katipunan Branch. The subpoena assailed by petitioners covers the foreign currency denominated accounts allegedly owned by the impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona of the Philippine Supreme Court.

China Banking Corporation v. CA, G.R. No. 140687, December 18, 2006

D E C I S I O N

(1^st Division)

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

I.      THE FACTS

A complaint for recovery of sums of money and annulment of sales of real properties and shares of stock was filed by Jose Gotianuy against his son-in-law, George Dee, and his daughter, Mary Margaret Dee. Jose Gotianuy accused his daughter Mary Margaret Dee of stealing, among his other properties, US dollar deposits with Citibank N.A. amounting to not less than P35,000,000.00 and US$864,000.00. Mary Margaret Dee received these amounts from Citibank N.A. through checks which she allegedly deposited at China Banking Corporation (China Bank). 

Jose Gotianuy died during the pendency of the case before the trial court. He was substituted by his other daughter, Elizabeth Gotianuy Lo. The latter presented six US Dollar checks withdrawn by Mary Margaret Dee from Jose Gotianuy’s US dollar placement with Citibank. In the course of the trial, the lower court ordered two employees of petitioner China Bank to testify and disclose in whose name the dollar fund was deposited. The CA affirmed the trial court’s order; thus, China Bank appealed to the Supreme Court.

Paul G. Roberts, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 113930, March 5, 1996

D E C I S I O N

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

I.      THE FACTS

Petitioners, who are corporate officers and members of the Board of Pepsi Cola Products Phils., Inc. were prosecuted in connection with the Pepsi “Number Fever” promotion by handlers of the supposedly winning “349” Pepsi crowns. Of the four cases filed against the petitioners, probable cause was found by the investigating prosecutor only for the crime of estafa, but not for the other alleged offenses.

On 12 April 1993, the information was filed with the trial court without anything accompanying it. A copy of the investigating prosecutor’s Joint Resolution was forwarded to and received by the trial court only on 22 April 1993. However, no affidavits of the witnesses, transcripts of stenographic notes of the proceedings during the preliminary investigation, or other documents submitted in the course thereof were found in the records of the case as of 19 May 1993.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, June 10, 1968

D E C I S I O N

WARREN, C.J.:

I.      THE FACTS

Cleveland, Ohio detective McFadden was on a downtown beat that he had been patrolling for many years when he observed two strangers (Terry and another man, Chilton) at a street corner. He saw them proceed alternately back and forth along an identical route, pausing to stare in the same store window, which they did for a total of about 24 times. Each completion of the route was followed by a conference between the two on a corner, at one of which they were joined by a third man (Katz) who thereafter left swiftly. 

Suspecting the two men of ‘casing a job, a stick-up’, the officer followed them and saw them rejoin the third man a couple of blocks away in front of a store. The officer approached the three, identified himself as a policeman, and asked their names. The men mumbled something, whereupon McFadden spun Terry around, patted down his outside clothing, and felt in his overcoat pocket – but was unable to remove – a pistol. He removed Terry’s overcoat, took out a revolver, and ordered the three to face the wall with their hands raised. He patted down the outer clothing of Chilton and Katz and seized a revolver from Chilton’s outside overcoat pocket. He did not put his hands under the outer garments of Katz (since he discovered nothing in his pat-down which might have been a weapon), or under Terry’s or Chilton’s outer garments until he felt the guns.

Columbia Pictures v. Flores, G.R. No. 78631, June 29, 1993

D E C I S I O N

(3^rd Division)

MELO, J.:

I.      THE FACTS

As a consequence of a complaint filed by the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc., NBI agents conducted surveillance operations on certain video establishments, among them respondent FGT Video Network, Inc. (FGT), for “unauthorized sale, rental, reproduction and/or disposition of copyrighted film," a violation of PD 49 (the old Intellectual Property Law). After an NBI agent was able to have copyrighted motion pictures “Cleopatra” (owned by 20th Century Fox) and “The Ten Commandments” (owned by Paramount) reproduced in video format in FGT, the NBI applied for and was able to obtain from the respondent judge the subject Search Warrant No. 45 which reads:

TO ANY PEACE OFFICER:

GREETINGS:

It appearing to the satisfaction of the Undersigned after examining under oath NBI Senior Agent Lauro C. Reyes and his witnesses Mr. Danilo Manalang and Ms. Rebecca Benitez-Cruz, that there is a probable cause to believe that Violation of Section 56 P.D. No. 49 as amended by P.D. No. 1988 (otherwise known as the Decree on Protection of Intellectual Property) has been committed and that there are good and sufficient reasons to believe that FGT Video Network, Inc., Manuel Mendoza, Alfredo C. Ongyanco, Eric Apolonio, Susan Yang and Eduardo Yotoko are responsible and have in control/possession at No. 4 Epifanio de los Santos corner Connecticut, Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila (per attached sketch and list of MPAA member Company Titles) the following properties to wit:

Randolf S. David v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006 (and other consolidated cases)

D E C I S I O N

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:

I.      THE FACTS

On February 24, 2006, as the Filipino nation celebrated the 20th Anniversary of the EDSA People Power I, President Arroyo issued PP 1017, implemented by G.O. No. 5, declaring a state of national emergency, thus:

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Republic of the Philippines and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested upon me by Section 18, Article 7 of the Philippine Constitution which states that: “The President. . . whenever it becomes necessary, . . . may call out (the) armed forces to prevent or suppress. . .rebellion. . .,” and in my capacity as their Commander-in-Chief, do hereby command the Armed Forces of the Philippines, to maintain law and order throughout the Philippines, prevent or suppress all forms of lawless violence as well as any act of insurrection or rebellion and to enforce obedience to all the laws and to all decrees, orders and regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my direction; and as provided in Section 17, Article 12 of the Constitution do hereby declare a State of National Emergency.