Ebralinag v Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu; G.R. NO.

95770; 01 Mar 1993; 219 SCRA 256

ISSUE(S):
Whether or not the expulsion of the students was constitutional.

RULING:
NO. Forcing a small religious group, through the iron hand of the law, to participate in a ceremony that
violates their religious beliefs, will hardly be conducive to love of country or respect for dully constituted
authorities. Coerced unity and loyalty even to the country — assuming that such unity and loyalty can be
attained through coercion — is not a goal that is constitutionally obtainable at the expense of religious
liberty. A desirable end cannot be promoted by prohibited means.

Petition is GRANTED. Expulsion orders are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.

Genaro Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al.

106 Phil 2

FACTS: RA 1265 is a law that makes a flag ceremony compulsory for schools. The implementing rule Dep
Order 8 says that the anthem must be played while the flag is raised. It also says that everyone must
salute the flag and no one is to do anything while the ceremony is being held. After the flag everyone is to
recite the patriotic pledge. Gerona’s children attending the Buenavista Community School in Uson,
Masbate refused to salute the flag, sing the anthem and recite the pledge. They did not do so out of
religious belief. They are Jehovah's Witnesses. They consider the flag to be an image in the context of
what is prohibited in their religion and because of this they were expelled from the school. Gerona wrote
to Sec of Ed that their children be exempt from the law and just be allowed to remain silent and stand at
attention. Sec of Ed denied the petition. Writ of preliminary injunction was petitioned and issued.

ISSUE: Is Dep Order 8 unconstitutional?

RULING: Flag salute ceremony is secular and the dep order non-

Discriminatory therefore it is constitutional. The freedom of belief is limitless and boundless but its
exercise is not. If the belief clashes with law then the former must yield. Petitioners salute the flag during
boy scout activities. Their objection then rests on the singing of anthem and recitation of pledge. The
pledge is judged to be completely secular. It does not even pledge allegiance to the flag or to the
Republic. The anthem is also secular. It talks about patriotism. It does not speak of resorting to force,
military service, or duty to defend the country. There was no compulsion involved in the enforcement of
the flag salute. They were not criminally prosecuted under a penal sanction. If they chose not to obey the
salute regulation they merely lost the benefits of public education.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ALFREDO ROSIL (alias LIBAT), Defendant-
Appellant.
Ildefonso de Guzman Mendiola for appellant.
Attorney-General Jaranilla for appellee.

VILLA-REAL, J.:

Alfredo Rosil ( alias Libat) appeals to this court from the sentence of the Court of First Instance of Palawan
convicting him of the crime of parricide without any modifying circumstance, and sentencing him to life
imprisonment, the accessories of law, an indemnity of P500 to the heirs of the deceased, and to pay the
cost.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

In support of his appeal, the appellant assigns the following alleged errors as committed by the trial court
in its judgment, to wit:

1. The lower court erred in holding the accused and appellant guilty of the crime of
parricide.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

2. The trial court erred in sentencing the herein appellant to cadena perpetua.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
chanrobles virtual law library

3. The court of origin erred in not estimating the following attenuating circumstances: (1) vindicacion
proxima de una ofensa grave al acusado; (2) arrebato y obcecacio; and (3) lack of instruction on the part
of the accused herein appellant.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

4. The court below erred in not acquitting the accused from the crime charged in the
information.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

5. The court below erred in denying the petition for continuance of the hearing of this case by the
defense.

The following facts were proved at the trial beyond a reasonable doubt: chanrobles virtual law library

The accused Alfredo Rosil ( alias Libat) married the deceased Tomasa Magalito according to the rites of
the Tabanua tribe to which both of them belonged. Prior to October 13, 1930 the accused became
suspicious that his wife was unfaithful to him, because she would leave their home alone and go with a
man named Urbano. Later she deserted the conjugal home for another house, refusing to return when
her husband begged her to do so. On the afternoon of the day of record, October 13, 1930, the accused
spoke to his wife about her conduct, and she answered that she had a right to act as she did. At this the
defendant slapped her and beat her with a strip of rattan. As she resisted, he stabbed her in the left side
of the breast with the knife Exhibit B, and then gave himself up at once to the barrio lieutenant, Santiago
Garcia, his half-brother, to whom he said he had killed his wife, and delivered up the knife, Exhibit B. An
hour later his victim died. The following morning Santiago Garcia went to the defendant' home, where the
crime had been committed, in the sitio of Cumapcap, barrio of Bucungan, municipality of Puerto Princesa,
Province of Palawan, and there he found the body of the deceased Tomasa Magalito on a bed, with a
wound in the right side of her breast. On October 20, 1930 while the defendant was under arrest, he was
investigated by the provincial fiscal, Antonio Lacson, who questioned him in English, the clerk of court
Pedro Valdes interpreting into the Cuyuno dialect which is the defendant's native dialect. The statements
he made at that investigation appears in Exhibit D, which he signed after its contents had been
interpreted for him into Cuyuno, and wherein he relates the same facts he had recounted to his half-
brother.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

At the preliminary investigation held on October 22, 1930 before Gaudencio Abordo, the justice of the
peace of Puerto Princesa, the accused, with counsel de oficio, upon arraignment pleaded guilty, ratifying
what he had stated before the provincial fiscal (Exhibit D) and signing Exhibit C of his own free will, after
its contents had been interpreted into the Tagbanua dialect, which he
understands.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The above statement of fact, proven beyond a reasonable doubt at the trial, leaves no room for doubt
that the accused was the one who caused the death of the deceased Tomasa Magalito, to whom he was
married according to the rites of the tribe of Tagbanuas to which both of them belonged, which rites
sanctioned said marriage according to the admission of the accused, and constitutes the crime of
parricide, defined and penalized in article 402 of the Penal Code, the penalty fixed by law being life
imprisonment to death. To gratitude said penalty the mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation
must be considered, without any aggravating circumstance to offset it, for which reason the penalty must
be imposed in the minimum degree, that is, life imprisonment.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles
virtual law library

Wherefore, finding the judgment appealed from to be in conformity with the law and the evidence, it is
hereby affirmed in its entirely with costs against the appellant, it being understood that in accordance
with the Revised Penal Code the penalty is reclusion perpetua and not cadena perpetua. So ordered.