NEECO I VS. ERC, G.R. NO.

180642, February 3, 2016

ISSUE: Whether or not the cap on the recoverable rate of system loss prescribed in Section 10 of RA No.
78321 is arbitrary and violative of the non-impairment clause?
RULING: No. The regulation rates imposed by public utilities, such as electricity distributors, is an exercise
of the States police power. The police power of the State to regulate the rates imposed by public utilities is
also the same reason why the caps set in RA No. 7832 cannot be deemed to have impaired the loan
agreement between NEA and Asian Development Bank imposing a 15% system loss cap and providing a
power cost adjustment clause. All private contracts must yield to the superior and legitimate measures
taken by the State to promote public welfare. The police power legislation adopted by the State in RA No.
7832 to promote the general welfare of the people must imperatively prevail.

Ogayon v. People, G.R. No. 188794, September 2, 2015

ISSUE: What is substantial basis for determination of probable cause by the judge? Was it obtaining in
the case-at-bar?
RULING: Substantial basis means that the questions of the examining judge brought out such facts and
circumstances as would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been
committed, and the objects in connection with the offense sought to be seized are in the place sought to
be searched.
Apart from the statement in the search warrant itself, we find nothing in the records of this case indicating
that the issuing judge personally and thoroughly examined the applicant and his witness. The records,
therefore, bear no evidence from which we can infer that the requisite examination was made, and from
which the factual basis for probable cause to issue the search warrant was derived.

Perfecto v. Judge Esidera, A.M. No. RTJ-15-2417, July 22, 2015

Issue:
What is compelled religion? Is it consistent with freedom of belief and non-establishment of religion?
Ruling:
Compelled religion is when non-believers would be compelled to conform to a standard of conduct
buttressed by a religious belief, i.e., to a compelled religion anathema to religious freedom.
No. Compelled religion negates the idea of freedom of belief and non-establishment of religion. If
government relies upon religious beliefs in formulating public policies and morals, the resulting policies
and morals would require conformity to what some might regard as religious programs or agenda; to a
compelled religion. Likewise, if government based its actions upon religious beliefs, it would tacitly approve
or endorse that belief and thereby also tacitly disapprove contrary religious or non-religious views that
would not support the policy. As a result, government will not provide full religious freedom for all its
citizens, or even make it appear that those whose beliefs are disapproved are second-class citizens.
Expansive religious freedom therefore requires that government be neutral in matters of religion;
governmental reliance upon religious justification is inconsistent with this policy of neutrality.
People vs. Breis and Yumol
Issue: Were the warrantless search and arrest of Bries and Yumol valid and tenable?
Ruling: Yes. The warrantless arrest is lawful.
Having been found with prohibited drugs in their possession, appellants were clearly committing a criminal
offense in the presence of IO1 Mangili and IO1 Peralta. The subsequent warrantless arrest falls under
Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court
SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant,
arrest a person:Lawlibr
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense;
xxxx

1 Section 10, RA 7832 imposes a cap on the recoverable rate of system loss that may be charged
by rural electric cooperatives to their consumers

It being established that IO1 Mangili was not in violation of Yumol's or Breis' rights as he was searching the
bus, there is no excess of authority, clear and manifest or otherwise, for either Yumol or Breis to lawfully
resist. Hence, the act of Breis in pushing IO1 Mangili was an unlawful resistance to an agent of a person in
authority, contrary to Article 151 of the RPC.