8/11/2019 People vs. Jalosjos | Eight Subjects

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/people-vs-jalosjos-eight-subjects 1/4

8/12/14, 9:eople vs. Jalosjos | Eight Subjects

Page ttp://eightsubjects.blogspot.com/2013/06/people-vs-jalosjos.html

Home Privilege from ArrestPeople vs. Jalosjos

People vs. Jalosjos

Post under Doctrine of Condonation , Parliamentary Immunity , Political Law Case Digests , Privilege from Arrest

Facts:

The accused-appellant, Romeo

Jalosjos, is  a full-fledged

member of Congress who is

confined at the national

penitentiary while his conviction

for  statutory rape and acts of 

lasciviousness is pending

appeal. The accused-appellant

filed a motion asking that he be

allowed to f ully discharge the

duties of a Congressman,

including attendance at legislative sessions and  committee meetings despite his

having been convicted in the first instance of a non-bailable offense.

Jalosjos’ primary argument is the "mandate of sovereign will." He states that the

sovereign electorate  of the First District of Zamboanga del Norte chose him as

their representative in Congress. Having been re-elected by his constituents, he

has the duty to perform the functions of a Congressman. He calls this a covenant

with his constituents made possible by the intervention of the State. He adds that

it cannot be defeated by insuperable procedural restraints arising from pending

criminal cases.

Jalosjos also invoked the doctrine of condonation citing Aguinaldo v. Santos, which

states, inter alia, that –

The Court should never remove a public officer for acts done prior to his

present term of office. To do otherwise would be to deprive the people of 

their right to elect their officers. When a people have elected a man to office,

it must be assumed that they did this with the knowledge of his life and

character, and that they disregarded or forgave his fault or misconduct, if he

had been guilty of any. It is not for the Court, by reason of such fault ormisconduct, to practically overrule the will of the people.

Jalosjos further argues that on several occasions, the Regional Trial Court of Makati

granted several motions to temporarily leave his cell at the Makati City Jail, for

official or medical reasons.

Jalosjos avers that his constituents in the First District of Zamboanga del Norte

want their voices to be heard and that since he is treated as bona fide member of 

the House of Representatives, the latter urges a co-equal branch of government to

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

 Amendment or Substitution ( 3

)

Jurisdiction ( 9 )

Motion to Quash ( 4 )

New Trial/Reconsideration ( 4 )

Rights of the Accused ( 1 )

CRIMINAL LAW

Crimes Against Chastity ( 9 )

Crimes Against Honor ( 4 )

Crimes Against Persons ( 16 )

SEARCH THIS BLOG

Sear

LABOR LAW

Labor Law ( 6 )

CIVIL LAW

 Adoption ( 5 )

EightSubjects

NOTES AND CASE DIGESTS

HOME CIVIL LEGAL FORMS FAMILY CODE QUIZZER

 

8/11/2019 People vs. Jalosjos | Eight Subjects

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/people-vs-jalosjos-eight-subjects 2/4

8/12/14, 9:eople vs. Jalosjos | Eight Subjects

Page ttp://eightsubjects.blogspot.com/2013/06/people-vs-jalosjos.html

respect his mandate.

Issue:

Whether or not accused-appellant should be allowed to discharge mandate as

member of House of Representatives

Held:

NO.

The privilege of arrest has always been granted in a restrictive sense.

True, election is the expression of the sovereign power of the people. However, in

spite of its importance, the privileges and rights arising from having been elected

may be enlarged or restricted by law. Privilege has to be granted by law, not

inferred from the duties of a position. In fact, the higher the rank, the greater is

the requirement of obedience rather than exemption.

Section 11, Article VI, of the Constitution provides:

A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses

punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from

arrest while the Congress is in session. xxx

The immunity from arrest or detention of Senators and members of the House of 

Representatives, arises from a provision of the Constitution. The history of the

provision shows that the privilege has always been granted in a restrictive sense.

The provision granting an exemption as a special privilege cannot be extended

beyond the ordinary meaning of its terms. It may not be extended by intendment,

implication or equitable considerations.

The accused-appellant has not given any reason why he should be exempted from

the operation of Sec. 11, Art. VI of the Constitution. The members of Congress

cannot compel absent members to attend sessions if the reason for the absence is

a legitimate one. The confinement of a Congressman charged with a crime

punishable by imprisonment of more than six years is not merely authorized by

law, it has constitutional foundations.

Doctrine of condonation does not apply to criminal cases

The Aguinaldo case involves the administrative removal of a public officer for acts

done prior to his present term of office. It does not apply to imprisonment arising

from the enforcement of criminal law. Moreover, in the same way that preventive

suspension is not removal, confinement pending appeal is not removal. He remainsa congressman unless expelled by Congress or, otherwise, disqualified.

One rationale behind confinement, whether pending appeal or after final

conviction, is public self-defense. Society must protect itself. It also serves as an

example and warning to others.

Emergency or compelling temporary leaves from imprisonment are

allowed to all prisoners.

Criminal Law Updates ( 2 )

FAMILY CODE

 Adoption ( 5 )

Family ( 1 )

Family Home ( 1 )

Illegitimate Children ( 2 )

Legitimate Children ( 1 )

Legitimated Children ( 1 )

Marriages Exempted from

Licence Requirement ( 4 )

Parental Authority ( 2 )

Property Regime of Union

Without Marriage ( 1 )

Regime of Separation of 

Property ( 1 )

Requisites of Marriage ( 7 )

Rights and Obligations

Between Husband and Wife (

1 )

Support ( 2 )

System of Absolute

Community ( 1 )

Void Marriages ( 2 )

Voidable Marriages ( 2 )

EVIDENCE

Rule 129 ( 2 )

Rule 130 ( 30 )

Rule 131 ( 4 )

Co-ownership ( 4 )

Credit Transactions ( 2 )

Donation ( 7 )

Family Code ( 28 )

Prescription ( 2 )

Property ( 2 )

Quasi-Contracts ( 3 )

Usufruct ( 4 )

CASE DIGESTS

Family Code Case Digests (

12 )

Rules on Summary Procedure

Case Digests ( 1 )

CIVIL PROCEDURE

11-When to File Responsive

Pleadings

12-Bill of Particulars

 Amendment or Substitution

Civil Procedure

TWIT FOLLOW LTF

BLOG ARCHIVE

!  2013 ( 110 )

"  September ( 10 )

"  August ( 20 )

"  July ( 36 )

!  June ( 25 )

Romualdez-Marcos vs Come

Guerrero vs Comelec

Disease as Ground for Term

Voluntary Resignation

Torralba vs Municipality of S

Socrates vs Comelec

Mendoza vs Comelec

8/11/2019 People vs. Jalosjos | Eight Subjects

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/people-vs-jalosjos-eight-subjects 3/4

8/12/14, 9:eople vs. Jalosjos | Eight Subjects

Page ttp://eightsubjects.blogspot.com/2013/06/people-vs-jalosjos.html

There is no showing that the above privileges are peculiar to him or to a member

of Congress. Emergency or compelling temporary leaves from imprisonment are

allowed to all prisoners, at the discretion of the authorities or upon court orders.

To allow accused-appellant to attend congressional sessions and

committee meetings will virtually make him a free man

When the voters of his district elected the accused-appellant to Congress, they did

so with full awareness of the limitations on his freedom of action. They did so with

the knowledge that he could achieve only such legislative results which he could

accomplish within the confines of prison. To give a more drastic illustration, if 

voters elect a person with full knowledge that he is suffering from a terminal

illness, they do so knowing that at any time, he may no longer serve his full term

in office.

To allow accused-appellant to attend congressional sessions and committee

meetings for 5 days or more in a week will virtually make him a free man with all

the privileges appurtenant to his position. Such an aberrant situation not only

elevates accused-appellant’s status to that of a special class, it also would be a

mockery of the purposes of the correction system.

In the ultimate analysis, the issue before us boils down to a question of 

constitutional equal protection.

The Constitution guarantees: "x x x nor shall any person be denied the equal

protection of laws." This simply means that all persons similarly situated shall be

treated alike both in rights enjoyed and responsibilities imposed. The organs of 

government may not show any undue favoritism or hostility to any person. Neither

partiality nor prejudice shall be displayed.

Does being an elective official result in a substantial distinction that allows

different treatment? Is being a Congressman a substantial differentiation which

removes the accused-appellant as a prisoner from the same class as all personsvalidly confined under law?

The performance of legitimate and even essential duties by public officers has

never been an excuse to free a person validly in prison.

The Court cannot validate badges of inequality. The necessities imposed by public

welfare may justify exercise of government authority to regulate even if thereby

certain groups may plausibly assert that their interests are disregarded.

We, therefore, find that election to the position of Congressman is not a

reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement. The functions and duties of 

the office are not substantial distinctions which lift him from the class of prisoners

interrupted in their freedom and restricted in liberty of movement. Lawful arrest

and confinement are germane to the purposes of the law and apply to all those

belonging to the same class. ( People vs. Jalosjos

G.R. Nos. 132875-76. February 3, 2000)

 

Lonzanida vs Comelec

Montebon vs Comelec

Borja vs Comelec

Rivera vs Comelec

Dizon vs Comelec

Bolos vs Comelec

 Ampatuan vs Puno

People vs. Jalosjos

Pablico vs Villapando

Bien vs Bo

 Adormeo vs Comelec

 Aguinaldo vs. Santos

Filstream International Inc. v

City of Cebu vs CA

Chua Huat vs CA

Corpuz vs CA

Uy vs Contreras

Palafox vs Province of Ilocos

"  May ( 15 )

"  March ( 4 )

"  2012 ( 199 )

"  2011 ( 13 )

8/11/2019 People vs. Jalosjos | Eight Subjects

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/people-vs-jalosjos-eight-subjects 4/4

8/12/14, 9:eople vs. Jalosjos | Eight Subjects

Page ttp://eightsubjects.blogspot.com/2013/06/people-vs-jalosjos.html

0

 0 Comments 0 Comments

Newer Post Older PostHome

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )

CASE DIGESTS

Family Code Case Digests ( 12 )Political Law Case Digests ( 76 )Remedial Law Case Digest ( 1 )

FOLLOWERS

Join this site

with Google Friend Connect

Members (2)

 Already a member? Sign in

Copyright 2009. Eight Subjects - WPBoxedTech Theme Design by Technology Tricks for Health Coupons .Bloggerized by Free Blogger Template - Sponsored by Graphic ZONe and Technology Info