Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 21 views

    Philippine Coconut Fed vs. RP

    Uploaded by

    Delos Santos Ailyn

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Philippine Coconut Fed vs. RP

    Uploaded by

    Delos Santos Ailyn
    21 views1 page

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    21 views1 page

    Philippine Coconut Fed vs. RP

    Uploaded by

    Delos Santos Ailyn

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Philippine Coconut, Producers Federation, Inc. (COCOFED), Manuel V. Del Rosario, Domingo P.

    Espina, Salvador P. Ballares, Joselito A. Moraleda, Paz M. Yason, Vicente A. Cadiz, Cesaria De Luna
    Titular, and Raymundo C. De Villa, Petitioners, vs. Republic of the Philippines, respondent.
    G.R. Nos. 177857-58. January 24, 2012 En Banc Decision; Justice Velasco
    Constitutional Law; Bill of Rights; Rights of the Accused; Right to be Heard; Right to Speedy Trial;

    Facts:
    In 1971, R.A. 6260 was enacted creating the Coconut Investment Company to administer the
    Coconut Investment Fund. The declaration of martial law in September 1972 saw the issuance of
    several presidential decrees purportedly designed to improve the coconut industry through the
    collection and use of the coconut levy fund. In G.R. Nos. 177857-58, class action petitioners
    COCOFED and a group of purported coconut farmers and COCOFED members, hereinafter
    “COCOFED et al.” collectively seek the reversal of the judgments and resolutions of the anti-graft
    court insofar as these issuances are adverse to their interests. As a procedural issue, COCOFED, et
    al. and Ursua contends that in the course of almost 20 years that the cases have been with the
    anti-graft court, they have repeatedly sought leave to adduce evidence (prior to respondent’s
    complete presentation of evidence) to prove the coco farmers’ actual and beneficial ownership of
    the sequestered shares. The Sandiganbayan, however, had repeatedly and continuously
    disallowed such requests, thus depriving them of their constitutional right to be heard.
    Issues:
    (1) Whether or not petitioners COCOFED et al. were not deprived of their right to be heard;
    (2) Whether or not the right to speedy trial was violated.
    Ruling:
    (1) No, petitioner COCOFED’s right to be heard had not been violated by the mere issuance of PSJ-
    A and PSJ-F before they can adduce their evidence. As it were, petitioners COCOFED et al. were
    able to present documentary evidence in conjunction with its “Class Action Omnibus Motion”
    dated February 23, 2001 where they appended around four hundred (400) documents including
    affidavits of alleged farmers. These petitioners manifested that said documents comprise their
    evidence to prove the farmers’ ownership of the UCPB shares, which were distributed in
    accordance with valid and existing laws. Lastly, COCOFED et al. even filed their own Motion for
    Separate Summary Judgment, an event reflective of their admission that there are no more factual
    issues left to be determined at the level of the Sandiganbayan. This act of filing a motion for
    summary judgment is a judicial admission against COCOFED under Section 26, Rule 130 which
    declares that the “act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in
    evidence against him.”
    (2) No. As a matter of settled jurisprudence, but subject to equally settled exception, an issue not
    raised before the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The sporting idea
    forbidding one from pulling surprises underpins this rule. For these reasons, the instant case
    cannot be dismissed for the alleged violation of petitioners’ right to a speedy disposition of the
    case. It must be clarified right off that the right to a speedy disposition of case and the accused’s
    right to a speedy trial are distinct, albeit kindred, guarantees, the most obvious difference being
    that a speedy disposition of cases, as provided in Article III, Section 16 of the Constitution. In fine,
    the right to a speedy trial is available only to an accused and is a peculiarly criminal law concept,
    while the broader right to a speedy disposition of cases may be tapped in any proceedings
    conducted by state agencies.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy