People vs. Jalosjos, 342 SCRA 689

PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO G. JALOSJOS, accused-appellant,

324 SCRA 689, February 3, 200,
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
DOCTRINE: We start with the incontestable proposition that all top officials of Government-
executive, legislative, and judicial are subject to the majesty of law. There is an unfortunate
misimpression in the public mind that election or appointment to high government office, by itself,
frees the official from the common restraints of general 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.
FACTS: The accused-appellant, Romeo F. Jalojos is a full-pledged member of Congress who is now
confined at the national penitentiary while his conviction for statutory rape on two counts and acts
of lasciviousness on six counts is pending appeal. The accused-appellant filed this motion asking that
he be allowed to fully 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.

ISSUE: Whether or not membership in Congress exempt an accused from statutes and rules which
apply to validly incarcerated persons in general.

RULING: No, the instant motion is denied.

No less than accused-appellant himself admits that like any other member of the House of
Representatives "[h]e is provided with a congressional office situated at Room N-214, North Wing
Building, House of Representatives Complex, Batasan Hills, Quezon City, manned by a full
complement of staff paid for by Congress. Through [an] inter-department coordination, he is also
provided with an office at the Administration Building, New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, where
he attends to his constituents."

Accused-appellant further admits that while under detention, he has filed several bills and
resolutions. It also appears that he has been receiving his salaries and other monetary benefits.
Succinctly stated, accused-appellant has been discharging his mandate as a member of the House of
Representative consistent with the restraints upon one who is presently under detention. Being a
detainee, accused-appellant should not even have been allowed by the prison authorities at the
National Penitentiary to perform these acts.

The performance of legitimate and even essential duties by public officers has never been an excuse
to free a person validly in prison. The duties imposed by the "mandate of the people" are multifarious.
The accused-appellant asserts that the duty to legislate ranks highest in the hierarchy of government.
The accused-appellant is only one of 250 members of the House of Representatives, not to mention
the 24 members of the Senate, charged with the duties of legislation. Congress continues to function
well in the physical absence of one or a few of its members. Depending on the exigency of Government
that has to be addressed, the President or the Supreme Court can also be deemed the highest for that
particular duty. The importance of a function depends on the need for its exercise.

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.
A strict scrutiny of classifications is essential lest wittingly or otherwise, insidious discriminations

are made in favor of or against groups or types of individuals.
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, 342 SCRA 689

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Jalosjos, 342 SCRA 689

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Jalosjos, 342 SCRA 689

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE

OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO G. JALOSJOS, accused-appellant,

A strict scrutiny of classifications is essential lest wittingly or otherwise, insidious discriminations

You might also like