First Class Cadet Aldrin Jeff P.

Cudia of the
PMA, represented by his father Renato P.
Cudia, who also acts on his own behalf, and
Berteni
Cataluna
Causing
vs.
The Superintendent of the PMA, The Honor
Committee (HC) of 2014 and HC Members
and the Cadet Review and Appeals Board
(CRAB)
x---------------------------------------------x
Filipina P. Cudia, in behalf of Cadet First
Class Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia
G.R. No. 211362 February 24, 2015

 Petitioners filed the Petition for Certiorari,

Prohibition and Mandamus with application for
extremely urgent TRO 6 days prior to the
graduation ceremonies of the PMA
After the denial of the TRO, Filipina Cudia, mother
of Cadet Cudia filed a motion for leave to
intervene and thereafter filed a manifestation to
admit the Final Investigation Report of the
Commission on Human Rights
Cadet 1 CL Cudia (Cadet Cudia) was a member of
Siklab Diwa Class of 2014 of the PMA who was
supposed to graduate with academic honors and
to be commissioned as an ensign of the Philippine
Navy

Facts
The schedule for Cadet Cudias class are as follows:
(4th period) 1:30 3:00 PM OR432
(5th period) 3:05 4:05 PM ENG412
On the November 14, 2013, the Operations Research
(OR432) class of Dr. Costales, to which Cadet Cudia
belonged to, had a lesson examination. 5 days after, Cadet
Cudia, along with some of his classmates, was issued a
Delinquency Report (DR) by Professor Berong (professor in
ENG412) because he was 2 minutes late for their class.
Cadet Cudia received his DR and reasoned out that:
I came directly from OR432 Class. We were dismissed
a bit late by our instructor Sir

Major Hindang, Cadet Cudias CTO, meted out to him the

penalty of 11 demerits and 13 touring hours. Upon
clarifiying, he was told that the basis of the punishment
was Dr. Costales account of what happened. According to
her, she never dismissed her class late.

Facts
Cadet Cudia was advised to put his intention to
appeal and request for reconsideration in writing.
On the same day, he addressed the same to Major
Leander, Senior Tactical Officer, asserting that
I am not in control of the circumstances, our 4 th period
class ended 1500H and our 5 th period class, which is
ENG412,
started 1500H also. Immediately after 4 th period class, I
went
to my next class without any intention of being later Sir

Major Leander sustained the penalty imposed based

on Major Hindangs investigation that the 4 th period
class was not dismissed late.
Subsequently, Cadet Cudia was informed that Major
Hindang reported him to the Honor Committee (HC)
for violation of the Honor Code.

Facts
Cadet Cudia verbally applied for and was granted an
extension of time to answer the charge against him
because Dr. Costales was on emergency leave by
the HC, chaired by Cadet Mogol.
Based on a text message and personal
correspondence with Dr. Costales, Cadet Cudia
confirmed that when Major Hindang confronted Dr.
Costales of what happened, they were not in the
same time reference.
Cadet Cudia then submitted his letter of explanation
on the Honor Report. It alleges the following:
The OR432 had an LE that day
When the first bell rang (14:55) he submitted his paper
He and Cadet Archangel asked regarding the
deductions in their previous LE

Facts
Dr. Costales answered their query and told him that
she will give the copy of their section grade
He waited at the hallway outside the Office
Dr. Costales came out of the room and gave him the
grades
He, together with his other classmates, proceeded to
their 5th period class
His understanding of the duration of CLASS covers
not just the typical classroom instruction but
includes every transaction and communication a
teacher does with her students (his waiting was
vouched for by Dr. Costales via a Certification)

Facts
The case was formalized and a formal investigation
ensued. Cadet Cudia was informed of the charges against
him to which he pled Not Guilty. 2 hearings were
conducted where the persons involved stood as witnesses.
The voting done through secret ballot resulted to an 8-1
vote in favor of a guilty verdict. On alleged orders by
Cadet Mogol, voting members of the HC went inside a
chamber for further deliberation. When they came out, the
Presiding Officer announced the 9-0 Guilty verdict. Cadet
Cudia was informed of the same.
Cadet Cudia filed an appeal (parties differ in opinion as to
the resolution of the same)
The Headquarters Tactics Group (HTG) conducted an
informal review to check the findings of the HC to which
they confirmed with Professor Berong that the 5 th period
class started as scheduled, the same was affirmed by the
acting class marcher

Facts
Meanwhile, HC forwarded the Formal Investigation
Report to the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) for review who
found the report to be legally in order. Said report was
affirmed by Col. Briguez, Commandant of the Cadets
and recommended to Vice Admiral Abogado, then PMA
Superintendent, the separation from the PMA of Cadet
Cudia for violation of the First Tenet of the Honor Code
(Lying)
Special Order No. 26 was issued placing Cadet Cudia
on indefinite leave of absence and barring him from
future appointment and/or admission as cadet, among
others.
Vice Admiral Abogado approved the recommendation
to dismiss Cadet Cudia
Cadet Cudias sister Annavee posted his plight in her
FB account.

Facts
Spouses Cudia gave a letter to Maj. Gen. Lopez, the new
PMA Superintendent asking for the recognition of the 8-1
voting of the HC. The latter referred the matter to the
Cadet Review and Appeals Board (CRAB)
Alleged Special Order No. 1 was issued directing all PMA
cadets to ostracize Cadet Cudia by not talking to him and
separating him from all activities/functions of the cadets
Cudia family engaged the services of PAO
CRAB conducted a review of the case and informed Cadet
Cudia that pending the approval of his request for
extension to file an appeal, they will continue to review
the case and submit its recommendations based on
whatever evidence received and that it could not
favorably consider Cadet Cudias request for the copies of
the HC minutes, relevant documents, and video footages
and recordings of the HC hearings

Facts
Spouses Cudia filed a letter-complaint before the CHRCAR for the alleged violation of the human rights of
Cadet Cudia (right to due process, education, and
privacy of communication)
PAO moved for additional time to file Cadet Cudias
appeal and submit evidence and wrote AFP Chief of
Staff Gen. Bautista to favorably act on Cadet Cudias
requests
CRAB upheld the dismissal of Cadet Cudia
PAO received a letter from Maj. Gen. Lopez denying
Cadet Cudias requests for extension of time to file an
Appeal as well as his request to be furnished with a copy
of relevant documents. Cadet Cudia then filed an Appeal
Memorandum before the CRAB
Cudia wrote a letter to President Aquino attaching his
Appeal Memorandum thereto

Facts
Special Order No. 48 was issued directing the
creation of a Fact-Finding Board/Investigation Body
composed of the CRAB Members and PMA senior
officers to conduct a deliberate investigation
regarding the Appeal Memorandum of Cadet Cudia
CHR-CAR
issued
its
preliminary
recommending the following:

findings

To uphold and respect the 8-1 Not Guilty vote

To officially pronounce Cadet Cudia as Not Guilty
To restore Cadet Cudia of his rights and entitlements during
graduation
For the PMA to fully cooperate with the CHR investigation

The Cudia family had a meeting with President

Aquino and DND Secretary Gazmin where the
president recommended that they put in writing
their requests and other concerns

Facts
The President tasked Gen. Bautista to handle the
reinvestigation of the case
The AFP-GHQ upheld the decision of the PMA
CRAB denying the appeal for reinvestigation; FactFinding Body/Investigating Body denied Cadet
Cudias appeal
The CHR, on the other hand, found that there had
been violations of the rights of Cadet Cudia
Pending resolution of the case, the Office of the
President affirmed the findings of the AFP Chief of
Staff and the CRAB

ISSUES

Issues
PROCEDURAL
1. Whether or not petition for mandamus is
proper
2. Whether or not the Principle of Exhaustion
of Administrative Remedies was violated
3. Whether or not the court can interfere with
military affairs

Issues
SUBSTANTIVE
1. WON a Cadet relinquishes certain
liberties upon entry to PMA
2. WON PMA exercised Academic Freedom
3. WON Due Process was violated

civil

a) WON Cdt Cudia was denied the right to counsel

b) WON refusal to produce the records of the case
is tantamount to violation of Due Process
c) WON Cdt Cudia was Ostracized
d) Late and Vague Decisions
e) WON there was blind adoption of the HC
findings
f) Dismissal Proceedings as Sham Trial

Issues
SUBSTANTIVE
g) HC executive session/chambering

4. WON Cudias statements constituted lying

5. WON dismissal from PMA is an unjust and
cruel punishment
6. WON the CHR findings should be binding

PROCEDURAL

1. WON Mandamus is
Proper

PROCEDUR
AL
Petitioners

WON Mandamus is Proper

While one of the prayers sought for can no longer be granted,

the court may still grant the other reliefs prayed when there is a
violation of a constitutional right (In Garcia v The Faculty
Admission Committee)

Responde
nts

Petition for mandamus is improper since it does not lie to

compel the performance of a discretionary duty
It is also NOT PROPER because the relief sought by petitioners
were either already rendered moot and academic or falls within
the purview of academic freedom

PROCEDUR
AL
RULING

WON Mandamus is Proper

MANDAMUS is IMPROPER
Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
A Petition for Mandamus may be filed when any tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the
performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty
resulting from an office, trust or station. It may also be filed when
any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully
excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office
which such other is entitled.

For mandamus to lie, the acts sought to be enjoined must be a

ministerial act of duty. In that, the tribunal, corporation, board,
officer or person must have no choice to perform the act
specifically
An act is said to be ministerial if the act should be performed
under a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in
obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without regard
to or the exercise of the entitys own judgment upon the
propriety or impropriety of the act done

PROCEDUR
AL
RULING

WON Mandamus is Proper

In the case at hand, the reliefs sought by the petitioners do not

include ministerial acts of the officials complained of, rather,
said acts are discretionary on their part. At the same time,
petitioners should have a clear legal right to the thing
demanded, and there should be an imperative duty on the part
of respondents to perform the act sought to be mandated
RELIEFS SOUGHT
MOOT AND ACADEMIC
Concerning his inclusion in the list of graduates and the yearbook
Concerning his prayer to be allowed to take part in the
commencement exercise
WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM (standards must be
met, policies are to be pursued and discretion is of the essence)
Concerning the awarding of his academic honors
ENTITIES DUTY REQUIRED THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION/JUDGMENT
Concerning the reliefs sought against the administrative bodies

2. WON Principle of Exhaustion

of Administrative Remedies was
violated

PROCEDUR
AL
Petitioners

On Exhaustion of Administrative
Remedies

Petitioners already consider the President to have effectively

denied the appeal. Despite the familys efforts to seek
reconsideration from the AFP Officials and the President, said
efforts were still in vain
Rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies is not absolute

Responde
nts

Court must decline jurisdiction over the petition pending the

Presidential resolution of Cdt Cudias appeal since the President
can still overturn the decision of the PMA.
The filing of the case while the an appeal is pending before the
Office of the President is an irresponsible defiance

PROCEDUR
AL
RULING

On Exhaustion of Administrative
Remedies

The Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies WAS

NOT VIOLATED
Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
- courts, for reasons of law, comity, and convenience, should not
entertain suits unless the available administrative remedies have first
been resorted to and the proper authorities, who are competent to act
upon the matter complained of, have been given the appropriate
opportunity to act and correct their alleged errors, if any, committed in
the administrative forum.

The same admits of some exceptions (Buena v Benito)

1. When there is a violation of due process
2. When the issue involved is purely a legal question;
3. When the administrative action is patently illegal amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction;
4. When there is estoppel on the part of the administrative
agency concerned;
5. When there is irreparable injury;

PROCEDUR
AL
RULING

On Exhaustion of Administrative
Remedies

6. When the respondent is a department secretary whose acts as an

alter ego of the President bear the implied and assumed approval
of the latter;
7. When to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would be
unreasonable;
8. When it would amount to a nullification of a claim;
9. When the subject matter is a private land in land case
proceedings;
10. When the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate
remedy; and
11. When there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial
intervention.

. Since the petitioners raise the lack of due process in the dismissal
of Cdt Cudia from the PMA, it may be a ground to give due course to
the petition despite the non-exhaustion of administrative remedies
. NOTE: During the pendency of this case, the Office of the President
issued its ruling in sustaining the findings of the AFP Chief and the
CRAB.

3. WON the Court can

interfere with Military affairs

PROCEDUR
AL
Petitioners

Courts Interference in Military

Affairs

The Court is part of the States check and balance machinery

mandated by Article 8 of the 1987 Constitution to ensure that no
branch of government or any of its official acts without or in
excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of, discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
Judicial power is exercised to determine whether the AFP and the
members of the court martial acted with grave abuse of
discretion in their military investigation

Responde
nts
Courts cannot

interfere with military affairs because it would pose substantial

threat to military discipline

While Philippine courts have the power of judicial review in cases attended with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess jurisdiction, policy
considerations call for the widest latitude of deference to military affairs
A military constitutes a specialized community governed by a separate discipline
from that of the civilian
The disciplinary rules and procedure necessarily imposed in the PMA must have
different standard of conduct compared with civilian institutions

PROCEDUR
AL
RULING

Courts Interference in Military

Affairs

Court can interfere with Military affairs

Article 8 of the 1987 Constitution expanded the scope of judicial
power by including that it has the power to determine whether
or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government even if the latter does not
exercise judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial function
The proceedings of the Cadet Honor Committee can be
considered a governmental activity. By acting like a grand jury,
it clearly forms part of the process whereby a cadet can
ultimately be adjudged to have violated the Honor Code and be
separated from the Academy.
By doing so, the effect of the procedures and determinations of
the committee is sufficiently intertwined with the formal
governmental activity which may follow as to bring it properly
under the judicial review.

SUBSTANTIVE

Issues
SUBSTANTIVE
1. WON a Cadet relinquishes certain
liberties upon entry to PMA
2. WON PMA exercised Academic Freedom
3. WON Due Process was violated

civil

a) WON Cdt Cudia was denied the right to counsel

b) WON refusal to produce the records of the case
is tantamount to violation of Due Process
c) WON Cdt Cudia was Ostracized
d) Late and Vague Decisions
e) WON there was blind adoption of the HC
findings
f) Dismissal Proceedings as Sham Trial

Issues
SUBSTANTIVE
g) HC executive session/chambering

4. WON Cudias statements constituted lying

5. WON dismissal from PMA is an unjust and
cruel punishment
6. WON the CHR findings should be binding

1. WON a Cadet relinquishes

certain Civil Liberties upon entry
to PMA

SUBSTANTI
VE
Petitioners

Cadets relinquishment of certain

civil liberties

What the cadets may be compelled to surrender simply pertains

to what they have to sacrifice in order to prove that they are
men or women of integrity and honor such as the right to
entertain vices and to freely choose what to say or do BUT, it
does not include the surrender of the right to due process

Responde
nts

Standard rights applicable to a cadet is not the same as that of

a civilian because the formers right have already been
recalibrated to best serve the military purpose and necessity
As a military student aspiring to a commissioned post, Cdt
Cudia voluntarily gave up certain civil and political rights which
the rest of the civilian population enjoys

SUBSTANTI
VE
RULING

Cadets relinquishment of certain

civil liberties

Cadets DO NOT categorically relinquish certain civil liberties

upon entry to the PMA
A student at a military academy must be prepared to
subordinate his private interests for the proper functioning of
the educational institution he attends to. Necessarily, it is
required that he surrender some of the basic rights and liberties
for the good of the group
However, when a cadet faces dismissal from the military
academy for misconduct he is entitled to constitutionally
protected private interests, hence, disciplinary proceedings
must be conducted within the bounds of procedural due process
Where a persons good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is
at stake because of what the government is doing to him, the
minimal requirements of the due process clause must be
satisfied

2. WON PMA exercised Academic

Freedom

SUBSTANTI
VE
Petitioners

PMAs Academic Freedom

There is no law providing that a guilty finding by the HC may be

used by the PMA to dismiss or recommend the dismissal of a
cadet
The Honor Code violation is not among those listed as
justifications for the attrition of cadets considering that the
Honor Code and the Honor System do not state that a guilty
cadet is automatically terminated or dismissed from service
Academic freedom is not absolute and cannot be exercised in
blatant disregard of the right to due process and the
Constitution

SUBSTANTI
VE
Responde
nts

PMAs Academic Freedom

PMA may impose disciplinary measures and punishments as it

deems fit and consistent with the peculiar needs of the
Academy
PMA has regulatory authority to administratively dismiss erring
cadets pursuant to C.A. No. 1 and although the law grants the
President the authority to terminate a cadets appointment, the
power may be delegated to the PMA Superintendent
As an academic institution, the PMA has the inherent right to
promulgate reasonable norms, rules and regulations that is may
deem necessary for the maintenance of school discipline
(Section 3(2), Article 16 of the 1987 Constitution)
The PMA is an institution that enjoys academic freedom
guaranteed by Section 5(2), Article 16 of the 1987 Constitution.
Concomitant with such freedom [Academic] is the right and
duty to instill and impose discipline upon its students (Miriam
College Foundation v CA

SUBSTANTI
VE
RULING

PMAs Academic Freedom

The Philippine Military Academy is merely exercising its Academic

Freedom
School-student relationship is contractual in nature and reciprocal

Contractual in the sense that a students enrolment is not only semester in

duration but for the entire period he or she is expected to complete it and
that the same is imbued with public interest because priority to
Reciprocal in that the school undertakes to provide students with education
sufficient to enable them to pursue higher education or a profession and that
the students agree to abide by the academic requirements of the school and
to observe its rules and regulations

Four essential freedoms of a University

1.
2.
3.
4.

Who may teach

What may be taught
How it shall be taught
Who may be admitted to study

. A schools power to instill discipline in their students is subsumed in

their academic freedom and that the establishment of rules governing
university-student relations, particularly those pertaining to student
discipline, may be regarded as vital, not merely to the smooth and
efficient operation of the institution, but to its very survival

SUBSTANTI
VE
RULING

PMAs Academic Freedom

HOW IT SHALL BE TAUGHT establishment of educational

institution requires rules and regulations necessary for the
maintenance of an orderly educational program and the
creation of an educational environment conducive to learning
WHAT TO TEACH by instilling discipline, the school teaches
discipline; discipline was a means for the school to carry out its
responsibility to help its students grow and develop into mature,
responsible, effective and worthy citizens of the community
WHO MAY BE ADMITTED TO STUDY the school has the freedom
to determine whom to admit, logic dictates that it also has the
right to determine whom to exclude or expel, as well as upon
whom to impose lesser sanctions and the withholding of
graduation privilege
The institution may also determine whom it can confer the honor and
distinction of being its graduates
Nothing can be more objectionable than bestowing a universitys
highest academic degree upon an individual who has obtained the
same through fraud or deceit

SUBSTANTI
VE
RULING

PMAs Academic Freedom

While it is true that the students are entitled to the right to pursue
their education, an educational institution is also entitled to pursue
its academic freedom and see to it that the same is not jeopardized
The PMA, as the primary training and educational institution of the
AFP, has the right to invoke academic freedom in the enforcement
of its internal rules and regulations (Honor Code and Honor System)
The Honor Code set the basic and fundamental and ethical and
moral principle binding a cadet during his stay at the PMA
The Honor Code and System could be justified as the primary means
of achieving the cadets character development and as ways by
which the Academy has chosen to identify those who are deficient in
conduct
Academys disciplinary system as a whole is characterized as
correctional and education in nature rather than being legalistic and
punitive the purpose is to teach the cadets to be prepared to
accept full responsibility for all that they do or fail to do and to place
loyalty to the service above self-interest or loyalty to friends or
associates

3. WON Due Process was

violated

SUBSTANTI
VE
Petitioners

Right to Due Process

HC, the CRAB and the PMA fell short in observing the important
safeguards laid down in Ang Tibay v CIR and Non v Judge
Dames II which set the minimum standards to satisfy the
demands of procedural due process in the imposition of
disciplinary sanctions

Responde
nts

Guzman v NU is more appropriate in determining the minimum

standards for the imposition of disciplinary sanctions in
academic institutions
With the guideposts set in Andrews, Cdt Cudia was accorded
due process

SUBSTANTI
VE
RULING

Right to Due Process

Cdt Cudia was accorded due process

Although both Ang Tibay and Guzman essentially deal with the
requirements of due process, the latter case is more apropos
since it specifically deals with the minimum standards to be
satisfied in the imposition of disciplinary sanctions in academic
institutions, hence, it is the authority on the procedural rights of
students in disciplinary cases
Minimum Standards to satisfy Procedural Due Process
1. The students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause
of any accusation against them;
2. They shall have the right to answer the charges against them, with
the assistance of counsel, if desired;
3. They shall be informed of the evidence against them;
4. They shall have the right to adduce evidence on their own behalf;
and
5. The evidence must be duly considered by the investigating
committee or official designated by the school authorities

SUBSTANTI
VE
RULING

Right to Due Process

Due Process in disciplinary cases involving students does not entail

proceedings and hearings similar to those prescribed for actions and
proceedings in courts of justice; it may be summary, crossexamination is not an essential part of the investigation or hearing
and required proof is only substantial evidence or such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
a conclusion since the same is an administrative case
What is crucial is that the action must meet minimum standards of
fairness to the individual, which generally encompass the right to
adequate notice and a meaning opportunity to be heard
The essence of due process is simply and opportunity to be heard or
an opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity to seek
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of; therefore, if
the party is given the opportunity to advocate her cause or defend
her interest in due course, it cannot be said that there was denial of
due process
To be hear does not only mean presentation of testimonial
evidence in court, one may also be heard through pleadings, in
which case, there is no denial of due process

SUBSTANTI
VE
RULING

Right to Due Process

The flexibility which is inherent in the concept of Due Process of Law

precludes the dogmatic application of specific rules developed in
one context to entirely distinct forms of government action; the
court must carefully determine and balance the nature of private
interest affected and of the government interest involved, taking
account of history and the precise circumstances surrounding the
case at hand
Due process only requires for the dismissal of a Cadet from the
Merchant Marine Academy that he be given a fair hearing at which
he is apprised of the charges against him and permitted a defense
In the case at hand, the prescribed procedure and existing practice
in the PMA were sufficiently following in the conduct of the
investigation of Cdt Cudias Honor Code violation
By reason of their special knowledge and expertise gained from the
handling of specific matters falling under their respective
jurisdictions, the factual findings of administrative tribunals are
ordinarily accorded respect if not finality by the court unless such
findings are not supported by evidence or vitiated by fraud,
imposition or collusion

3(a) WON Cdt Cudia was denied

the Right to Counsel

SUBSTANTI
VE
Petitioners

(RDP) Right to Counsel

Respondents should be compelled to give Cdt Cudia the right to be

represented by a counsel during the proceedings before the CRAB or HC, if
remanded; While the CRAB allows him to be represented by a PAO Lawyer,
the counsel was only made an observer without any right to intervene
Cdt Cudia was not sufficiently given the opportunity to seek a counsel and
was not even asked if he would like to have one. Following Guzman, the
erring student has the right to answer the charges against him or her with
the assistance of counsel, if desired

Responde
nts

Right to counsel is not imperative in administrative investigations or noncriminal proceedings (Lumiqued v Exevea and Nera v The Auditor General)
Also, based on Cdt Cudias academic standing, it cannot be said that he is
not fully capable of understanding his rights and express himself more.
The confidentiality of the HC proceedings worked against the right to be
represented by counsel
Cdt Cudia was not precluded from seeking a counsels advice in preparing
his defense prior to the HC hearing

SUBSTANTI
VE
RULING

(RDP) Right to Counsel

There was NO VIOLATION of the Right to Counsel

There is nothing in the 1987 Constitution which says that a party in a
non-litigation proceeding is entitled to be represented by counsel;
assistance of a lawyer, while desirable, is not indispensable (Lumiqued
and Nera cases)
A party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by
counsel, irrespective of the nature of the charges and of the
respondents capacity to represent himself and no duty rests on such
body to furnish the person being investigated with counsel, hence,
administrative body is under no duty to provide the person with counsel
because the assistance of counsel is not an absolute requirement
The offense committed by Cdt Cudia is not criminal in nature, the
hearings before the HC and CRAB were investigative and not
adversarial; and that his excellent academic standing puts him in the
best position to look after his own vested interest
At the very least, a counsel has aided him in the drafting and filing of
the Appeal Memorandum and even acted as an observer who had no
right to participate in the proceedings, in such event, the requirement
of due process is satisfied

3(b) WON refusal to produce the

records of the case is
tantamount to violation of Due
Process

SUBSTANTI
VE
Petitioners

(RDP) Right to the Records of the

Case

The denial of the request for the records of the case is tantamount
to the denial of his right to procedural due process
The provision in the Honor Code which provides that: A cadet who
becomes part of any investigation is subject to the existing
regulations pertaining to rules of confidentiality and therefore, must
abide to the creed of secrecy. Nothing shall be disclosed without
proper guidance from those with authority does not deprive Cdt
Cudia of his right to obtain copies of said documents

Responde
nts

Refusal of the procurement for the petitioners and the

presentment of the same in court is based on confidentiality
matters

SUBSTANTI
VE
RULING

(RDP) Right to the Records of the

Case

Refusal of the defendants to produce the records of the case is

not tantamount to violation of Due Process
The court may require that an administrative record be
supplemented provided there is a strong showing or bad faith or
improper behavior
In the case at hand, what the petitioners merely did was to
suppose that Cdt Cudias guilty verdict would be overturned if
said records will be given, they did not even specifically indicate
the nature of the concealed evidence, if any, and the reason for
withholding it
Denial, thereby, was harmless procedural error since he was not
seriously prejudiced thereby

3(c) WON Cdt Cudia was

Ostracized

SUBSTANTI
VE
Petitioners

(RDP) Ostracism in PMA

The issuance of Special Order No. 1 which directed the ostracism

of Cdt Cudia left him without any opportunity to secure
statements of his own witnesses
Said order was recognized by some leaders of the PMA in news
reports
If it were issued by the Cadets themselves, the PMA would have
already reprimanded them but no event as to that effect existed

Responde
nts

Neither the petition nor the petition-in-intervention attached a full

text copy of said alleged Special Order No. 1, hence, attribution of
the same to the PMA is improper and misplaced since Ostracism has
already been absolutely dismissed as an academy-sanctioned
activity consistent with the trend in International Humanitarian Law
which the PMA included in its curriculum
Cadets could not have ostracized Cdt Cudia as he was in the
Holding Center

SUBSTANTI
VE
RULING

(RDP) Ostracism in PMA

Neither the petition nor the petition-in-intervention attached a

full text copy or even a pertinent portion of the alleged order;
being hearsay, its existence and contents are of doubtful
veracity, hence, a definite ruling on the matter can never be
granted
Cdt Mogol seemingly admitted that they issued said Special
Order No. 1 during the CHR hearing, if true, the same can no
longer be countenanced
Ostracism practically denies the accused cadets protected
rights to present witnesses and evidence in his or her behalf
and to be presumed innocent until finally proven otherwise in a
proper proceeding

3(d) Late and Vague Decisions

SUBSTANTI
VE
Petitioners

(RDP) Late and Vague Decisions

Cdt Cudia as kept in the dark as to the charge against him and
the decisions arrived at by the HC, the CRAB, and the PMA
There was no written decision furnished to him and, if any, the
information was unjustly belated on the justifications for the
decisions were vague
Even as to what evidence was weighed in the promulgation of
the decision, Cdt Cudia was kept in the dark

Responde
nts

PMA has a practice of orally declaring the HC findings so as to

protect the integrity of the erring cadet and guard the
confidentiality of the HC proceedings pursuant to the Honor
System

SUBSTANTI
VE
RULING

(RDP) Late and Vague Decisions

Petitioner contentions have no leg to stand on

While constitutionally mandated that no decision shall be
rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and
distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based, the same
cannot be applied in the present case
Neither Guzman nor Andrews require a specific form and
content of a decision issued in disciplinary proceedings. Even
the Honor Code and Honor System Handbook do not have a
written rule on the matter
What counts is, albeit furnished to him late, he was informed of
how it was decided, with an explanation of the factual and legal
reasons that led to the conclusions of the reviewing body,
assuring that it went through the processes of legal reasoning

3(e) WON there was blind

adoption of the HC findings

SUBSTANTI
VE
Petitioners

(RDP) Blind Adoption of HC findings

Pursuant to Sections 30 and 31 of C.A. No. 1, only President

Aquino has the power to appoint and remove a cadet for a
valid/legal cause. The HC is given no authority as the sole body
to determine the guilt or innocence of a cadet. No power also is
given to the PMA to adopt the guilty findings of the HC as a
basis for recommending the cadets dismissal

Responde
nts

Higher authorities of the PMA did not merely rely on the findings
of the HC, in fact, there were separate investigations conducted
like that od the HTG
Petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proof in showing
bad faith on the part of the PMA

SUBSTANTI
VE
RULING

(RDP) Blind Adoption of HC findings

There was no blind adoption of the HC findings

The HC has a limited role of investigating and determining
whether or not the alleged offender has actually violated the
Honor Code; The results of its proceedings are purely
recommendatory and have no binding effect
It is not required that procedural due process be afforded at
every stage of developing disciplinary action, what is required is
that an adequate hearing be held before the final act of
dismissing a cadet from the military academy
The same was sufficiently complied in the case at bar since the
OIC of HC, the SJA, the Commandant of Cadets and the PMA
Superintendent review the HC findings. A separate investigation
was even conducted by the HTC and a review was ensued by
the CRAB. And upon the directive, a Fact-Finding
Board/Investigating Body was constituted to conduct a
deliberate investigation of the case. And in compliance with due
process, said Body held hearings

3(f) Dismissal proceedings as Sham

Trial

SUBSTANTI
VE
Petitioners

(RDP) Dismissal Proceedings as

Sham Trial

The proceedings before the HC were a sham because the people behind
Cdt Cudias charge, investigation and conviction were the ones who had
the intent to deceive and who took advantage of the situation.
Clear manifestations of PMAs clear resolve to dismiss Cdt Cudia are as
follows: There was no sufficient proper notice was given to the Petitioners
of the scheduled CRAB hearing, during one of petitioner-intervors visit,
she was advised by Brig. Gen. Costales to convince her son to resign and
immediately leave the PMA and Cdt Cudias sister was told that Your
brother, he lied!

Responde
nts

Bad faith cannot be imputed against Maj. Hindang by referring to

the actions taken by the CTO of the other cadets who were given
DRs because unlike the other cadets, only Cdt Cudia did not
admit his being late and effectively evaded responsibility by
ascribing his tardiness to Dr. Costales
There was no reason or ill-motive on the part of the PMA to
prevent Cdt Cudia from graduating because the Academy does
not stand gain anything from said dismissal

SUBSTANTI
VE
RULING

(RDP) Dismissal Proceedings as

Sham Trial

In the absence of specifics and substantial evidence, the Court

cannot easily give credence to a baseless insinuation
For lack of actual proof of bad faith and ill-motive, the Court shall
rely on the non-toleration clause of the Honor Code which provides
that We do not tolerate those who violate the Code
Cadets are presumed to be characteristically honorable, they
cannot overlook or arbitrarily ignore the dishonorable action of their
peers, seniors or subordinates such acts which were performed by
the Cadets whom Petitioners are charging will ill-motive
Assuming for the sake of argument that indeed the individuals
imputed have a grudge against Cdt Cudia and were bent on causing
the latters downfall, their nefarious conduct would still be
insignificant since the HC, the CRAB and the Fact-Finding
Board/Investigating Body are collegial bodies. Hence, the claim that
the proceedings conducted were merely a sham because the
individuals participated in it results in implying the existence of
conspiracy, distrusting the competence, independence, and
integrity of the other members who constituted the majority

3(g) HC executive
session/chambering

SUBSTANTI
VE
Petitioners

(RDP) HC Executive
Session/Chambering

There was an irregular administrative hearing in the case because 2 voting

rounds took place and no record of the change was mentioned in the HC
formal report
Commaner Tabuados affidavit effected that it was Cdt Lagura who was the
lone dissenter in the first voting but was pressured to change his answer
during the chambering (executive session)
There is nothing in the procedure that permits the HC Chairman to order the
chambering of a member who voted contrary to the majority and subjects him
or her to reconsider in order to reflect a unanimous vote
The requirement of a unanimous vote involves a substantive right which
cannot
be
unceremoniously
changed
without
a
corresponding
amendment/revision in the Honor Code and Honor System
Chambering defeats the purpose of voting by secret ballot as it glaringly
destroys the very essence and philosophy behind the provisions of the Honor
System to ensure that the voting member is free to vote what is in his or her
heart and mind and that no one can pressure or persuade another to change
his or her vote
If one voting member acquits an accused cadet who is obviously guilty of the
offense, the solution is to remove him or her from the HC through the vote of
non-confidence as provided in the Honor Code

SUBSTANTI
VE
Responde
nts

(RDP) HC Executive
Session/Chambering

The Honor Code sets the standard for a cadets minimum ethical and
moral behavior and does not change while Honor System is a set of
rules for the conduct of the observance and implementation of the
Honor Code and may undergo necessary adjustments as may be
warranted by the incumbent members of the HC in order to be more
responsive to the moral training and character development
Historically, a non-unanimous guilty verdict automatically acquits a
cadet from the charge of Honor violation however since the situation
drew criticism, an existing practice is adopted wherein in case the vote
results to a 702 or 8-1, the HC would automatically sanction a jury
type of discussion called executive session or chambering which
was applied in this case
The same has been adopted and widely accepted by the PMA Siklab
Diwa Class of 2014 since their first year so Cdt Cudia is well aware of
the same
As per the affidavit of Cdt Lagura, debunking the affidavit of
Commander Tabuada, he allege that the executive session was by
way of practice and that he was not pressured into chainging his
vote

SUBSTANTI
VE
RULING

(RDP) HC Executive
Session/Chambering

The Executive Session was not irregular

The Honor Code provides the following for the manner of
voting:
After a thorough discussion and deliberation, the presiding member of
the Board will call for the members to vote whether the accused is GUILTY
or NOT GUILTY. A unanimous vote (9 votes) of GUILTY decides that a cadet
is found guilty of violating the Honor Code

It readily appears that the HC practice of conducting executive

session and chambering is not all prohibited as they are given
leeway on the voting procedures in actual cases. What is
important is that, in the end, there must be unanimous 9 votes
in order to hold a cadet guilty of violating the Honor Code
Intimidation and force is never presumed, mere allegation is
definitely not evidence . It must be substantiated and proved
because a person is presumed to be innocent of a crime or
wrong and that official duty has been regularly performed

4. WON Cudias Statements

constituted lying

SUBSTANTI
VE
Petitioners

WON Cudias statement constituted

lying

Cdt Cudia did not lie; There was no clear time reference as to when was
the actual dismissal or what was the exact time of dismissal whether it
should be the dismissal inside the room or the dismissal after the
section grade was given by Dr. Costales
Cdt Cudias only business was to ask Dr. Costales a query such that it
already finished as soon as she gave an answer, however, a new
business was initiated when he was asked to stay and wait for the
section grade. At that point, he was no longer in control of the
circumstances
When the respondents pointed out that the subsequent class started at
15:05 (03:05), it proves that Cdt Cudia was obviously not late since as
indicated in his DR, he was late for 2 minutes
What appears to have caused confusion in the minds of respondents is
just a matter of semantics perusal of the term dismissed as to
permit or cause to leave and class as a body of students meeting
regularly to study the same subject
The transcript of records of Cdt Cudia reflects proves his good conduct
during his stay at the Academy; his propensity to lie is far from the truth

SUBSTANTI
VE
Responde
nts

WON Cudias statement constituted

lying

Cdt Cudia was quibbling which is tantamount to lying

He fell short in telling a simple truth; he lied making untruthful
statements
OR432 was not dismissed late; Dr. Costales testifeied that a class is
dismissed as long as the instructor is not there and the bell has rung,
during the day of the incident, when the cadets had their LE, they are
dismissed from the time they have answered their respective Les.
Since Cdt Cudia finished his LE at 14:55 (02:55), he was already
considered dismissed, hence, cannot claim that the class ended at
03:00
Cdt Cudia was in control of the circumstances leading to his
tardiness; The instruction to wait by Dr. Costales was in response to
Cdt Cudias request and not her initiated instruction. Thereby, there
was no directive from her that Cdt Cudia and the others to stay, it
was actually them who wanted to meet with the instructor
Contrary to Cdt Cudias account, the subsequent class did not start at
15:00 (03:00) but actually started at 15:05 (03:05) as scheduled

It is highly improbable that Cdt Cudia used the incorrect language to

justify his mistake given his academic standing

SUBSTANTI
VE
RULING

WON Cudias statement constituted

lying

Cudias statements constitute quibbling which is tantamount to

lying
2 statements given by Cdt Cudia:
I came directly from OR432 Class. We were dismissed a bit late by our
instructor Sir
I am not in control of the circumstances, our 4 th period class ended
1500H and our 5th period class, which is ENG412, started 1500H also.
Immediately after 4th period class, I went to my next class without any
intention of being later Sir

Honor Code of the Cadet Corps Armed Forces of the Philippines:

We, the Cadets, do not lie, cheat, steal, nor tolerate among us those who do

Cadets violate the first tenet by making an oral or written statement

which is contrary to what is true or use doubtful information with the
intent to deceive or mislead; Cadets must answer directly, completely
and truthfully even though the answer may result in punitive action

Quibbling committed by a person who knowingly creates a false

impression in the mind of his listener by cleverly wording what he
says, omitting relevant facts, or telling a partial truth with the intent
to deceive or mislead. Being an intentional deception, it is a form of
lying

SUBSTANTI
VE
RULING

WON Cudias statement constituted

lying

Instead of directly and completely telling the cause of his being

late in the ENG412 class, Cdt Cudia chose to omit relevant facts,
thereby, telling a half-truth
2 elements for a cadet to have committed an honor violation:
1. The act and/or omission
2. The intent pertinent to it
*Intent does not only refer to the intent to violate the Honor Code but also
to commit and omit the act itself

. Basic questions a
unequivocally are:

cadet

must

always

seek

to

answer

1. Do I intend to deceive?
2. Do I intend to take undue advantage?
*If the answer to both questions is NO, he or she is doing the honorable
thing

. Cdt Cudias intend to deceive is manifested from the very act of

capitalizing on the use of the words dismiss and class as the
ordinary usage of the same in an educational institution, does
not correspond to what Cdt Cudia is trying to make it appear.

SUBSTANTI
VE
RULING

WON Cudias statement constituted

lying

The term class does not include every transaction and communication
a teacher does with her students more so will the composition of a few
students (at least 4) would constitute a class
Cdt Cudias deception became more obvious when compared to his
explanation, the other students who were also tendered with DRs wrote
that, we approached our instructor after our class as their explanation
The determination of the time of dismissal of the OR432 class is not
important since Dr. Costales herself, who stood witness for Cdt Cudia,
admitted that the latter was already dismissed when he passed his LE
and that she merely responded to his request to see the results of the UE.
The same being cadet-initiated is voluntary and not part of the class time
The case is not just a matter of semantics and a product of plain and
simple inaccuracy because it is apparent from the facts that Cdt Cdia
cunningly chose the words which led to the confusion and eventually to
the commencement of the HC inquiry
Cdt Cudias prior good conduct cannot as well clear him of the acts he
performed; Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one
time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or
similar thing at another time

5. WON dismissal from PMA is an

unjust and cruel punishment

SUBSTANTI
VE
Petitioners

Dismissal as an unjust and cruel

punishment

There is no need to distinguish between a little lie and a huge

falsehood since Cdt Cudia did not lie at all
Absent any intent to deceive and to take undue advantage, the
penalty imposed on him is considered unjust and cruel
The penalty is not commensurate to the fact that he is a graduating
cadet with honors and what he allegedly committed does not amount
to an academic deficiency or an intentional and flagrant violation of
the PMA non-academic rules and regulations

Responde
nts

Under the Cadet Corps Armed Forces of the Philippine Regulation, a violation of
the Cadet Honor Code is considered Grave delinquency which merits a
recommendation for the cadets dismissal from the PMA Superintendent

The Honor Code is considered the yardstick against which Cadets have
measure themselves and together with the System, it seek to assure that only
those who are able to meet the high standards of integrity and honor are
produced by the PMA
It is constitutionally permissible for the military to
uncommonly high standards of conduct and ethics

set

and

enforce

SUBSTANTI
VE
RULING

Dismissal as an unjust and cruel

punishment

Dismissal from the PMA is NOT an unjust and cruel punishment

The finding that Cdt Cudia in truth and in fact lied and his
acceptance that violation of the Honor Code warrants ultimate
penalty of dismissal from the PMA, there is no more dispute to
resolve
The sanction is clearly set forth and Cdt Cudia, by contract,
risked this when he entered the Academy
While the penalty is severe, it is nevertheless reasonable and
not arbitrary and therefore, not in violation of due process
While separation is admittedly a drastic and tragic consequence
of a cadets transgression, it is not an unconstitutionally
arbitrary one but rather a reasonable albeit severe method of
preventing men who have suffered ethical lapses from
becoming career officers

6. WON the CHR findings should

be binding

SUBSTANTI
VE
Petitioners

WON CHR findings should be binding

PMA turned a blind eye on the CHRs recommendations

CHR is a constitutional body mandated by the 1987 Constitution to
investigate all forms of human rights violations involving civil and
political rights, and to conduct investigative monitoring of economic,
social, and cultural rights, particularly of vulnerable sectors of society
CHRs investigation and recommendations are so persuasive that the
Court, on several occasions, gave its findings serious consideration

Responde
nts

CHR is merely a recommendatory body that is not empowered

to arrive at a conclusive determination of any controversy

SUBSTANTI
VE
RULING

WON CHR findings should be binding

Findings of fact and conclusions of law of the CHR are merely

recommendatory and, therefore, NOT BINDING
CHRs constitutional mandate extends only to the investigation
of all forms of human rights violations involving civil and
political rights;
It is only a fact-finding body and not a court of justice or quasijudicial agency nor is it empowered to adjudicate claims on the
merits or settle actual case or controversies
To be considered a judicial function, the faculty of receiving
evidence and making factual conclusions in a controversy must
be accompanied by the authority of applying the law to those
factual conclusions to the end that the controversy may be
decided or determined authoritatively, finally and definitively,
subject to such appeals or modes of review as may be provided
by law such latter function, the Commission does not have

THANK YOU!