ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
April-2009 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 5195 - NELIA PASUMBAL DE-CHAVEZ-BLANCO REPRESENTED BY ATTY. EUGENIA J. MU OS v. ATTY. JAIME LUMASAG, JR.

  • A.C. No. 7813 - Carlito P. Carangdang v. Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina

  • A.M. No. 2008-12-SC Formerly A.M. No. 08-7-4-SC and A.M. NO. P-08-2510 - IN RE: IMPROPER SOLICATATION OF COURT EMPLOYEES / OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. SHEELA R. NOBLEZA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-06-1651 Formerly OCA IPI No. 04-1576-MTJ - PROSECUTOR ROBERT M. VISBAL v. JUDGE WENCESLAO B. VANILLA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-08-1706 Formerly OCA IPI No. 08-1984-MTJ - MUTYA B. VICTORIO v. JUDGE MAXWELL S. ROSETE

  • A.M. NO. P-05-1996 - ESTELITO R. MARABE v. TYRONE V. TAN

  • A.M. No. P-05-2065 - REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL AUDIT ETC.

  • A.M. No. P-07-2298 and A.M. No. P-07-2299 - Peteb B. Mallonga v. Marites R. Manio / Hon. Lyliha Abella-Aquino v. Marites R. Manio

  • A.M. No. P-07-2321 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2492-P - JUDGE PELAGIA DALMACIO-JOAQUIN v. NICOMEDES C. DELA CRUZ ETC.

  • A.M. No. P-07-2344 - DOMINGO U. SABADO, JR. v. LANIEL P. JORNADA ETC.

  • A.M. No. P-07-2366 Formerly OCA-I.P.I. No. 07-2519-P - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MA. CELIA A. FLORES

  • A.M. No. P-08-2469 Formerly OCA IPI No. 07-2509-P and A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2857-P - ERLINA P. JOLITO v. MARLENE E. TANUDRA/ERLINA P. JOLITO v. GEORGE E. GAREZA

  • A.M. No. P-08-2523 Formerly OCA-I.P.I. No. 08-2872-P - ATTY. MARLYDS L. ESTARDO-TEODORO v. CARLOS S. SEGISMUNDO

  • A.M. No. P-09-2622 Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2814-P - DOROTHY FE MAH-AREVALO v. ELMER P. MPE

  • A.M. No. P-09-2628 Formerly A.M. No. OCA IPI No. 07-2686-P - WILSON C. ONG v. ARIEL R. PASCAIO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-05-1917 - DEE C. CHUAN & SONS, INC. v. JUDGE WILLIAM SIMON P. PERALTA

  • A.M No. RTJ-06-1976 - PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR MANUEL F. TORREVILLAS v. JUDGE ROBERTO A. NATIVIDAD ETC.

  • A.M. RTJ-07-2058 - Dolores S. Bago v. Judge Ernesto P. Pagayatan etc.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-09-2176 - PROSECUTOR JORGE D. BACULI v. JUDGE MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN

  • B.M. No. 1222 - RE: 2003 BAR EXAMINATIONS ATTY. DANILO DE GUZMAN (PETITIONER)

  • G.R. No. 126890 - United Planters Sugar Milling Co., Inc. (UPSUMCO) v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 130088 - TALA REALY SERVICES CORP., ET AL. v. HON. ALICIA B. GONZALES-DECANO, ET AL./NANCY L. TY v. HON. WENCESLAO E. EBABAO, ETC. ET AL./TALA REALY SERVICES CORP., ET AL. VS.BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTAGE BANK/TALA REALY SERVICES CORP., ET A

  • G.R. No. 132540 - ALBAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., ET AL. v. HON. RAFAEL P. SANTELICES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135703 - PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS, REPRESENTED BY ORLANDO L. SALVADOR v. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138814 - MAKATI STOCK EXCHANGE, INC., ET AL. v. MIGUEL V. CAMPOS

  • G.R. No. 140717 - ANNIE L. MANUBAY, ET AL. v. HON. ERNESTO GARILAO

  • G.R. No. 145222 - SPOUSES ROBERTO BUADO AND VENUS BUADO v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 145867 - ESTATE OF SOLEDAD MANANTAN ETC. v. ANICETO SOMERA

  • G.R. No. 146408 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. ENRIQUE LIGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146622 - LEONORA P. CALANZA, ET AL. v. PAPER INDUSTRIES CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. NOS. 148263 and 148271-72 - ARMANDO DAVID v. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149221 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. MARCELINO BANATAO, ET AL. AND MARCIANO CARAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149907 - ROMA DRUG AND ROMEO RODRIGUEZ v. RTC OF GUAGUA PAMPANGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152048 - FELIX B. PEREZ, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE COMPANY

  • G.R. No. 152131 - FLORAIDA TERA A v. HON. ANTONIO DE SAGUN ETC.

  • G.R. No. 152318 - DEUTSCHE GESELLSCHAFT FUR TECHNICHE v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 154473 and G.R. NO. 155573 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALFREDO L. BENIPAYO / PHOTOKINA MARKETING CORPORATION v. ALFREDO L. BENIPAYO

  • G.R. No. 154609 - MA. CORAZON SAN JUAN v. CELESTE M. OFFRIL

  • G.R. No. 155639 - JUANARIA A. RIVERA v. UNITED LABORATORIES, INC.

  • G.R. No. 156302 - THE HEIRS OF GEORGE Y. POE v. MALAYAN INSURANCE CO. INC.

  • G.R. No. 156766 - ROSARIO A. GATUS v. QUALITY HOUNSE INC., AND CHRISTOPHER CHUA

  • G.R. No. 157147 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. WILFREDOO CAWALING

  • G.R. No. 157584 - Congressman Enrique T. Garcia v. The Executive Secretary, et al.

  • G.R. No. 157723 - ROMEO SAYO Y AQUINO, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 157862 - PHILIPPINE COUNTRYSIDE RURAL BANK INC. v. JOVENAL B. TORING

  • G.R. No. 158071 - JOSE SANTOS v. COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS SETTLEMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 158805 - VALLEY GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, INC. v. ROSA O. VDA. CARAM

  • G.R. No. 158819 - ANTERO LUISTRO v. COURT OF APPEALS AND FIRST GAS POWER CORPORATION.

  • G.R. NO. 158885 and G.R. NO. 170680 - FORT BONIFACIO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. CIR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 158956 - ILIGAN CEMENT CORPORATION v. ILIASCOR EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS UNION-SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES FEDERATION OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 159687 - GULF AIR JASSIM HINDRI ABDULLAH, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 160132 - SERAFIN NARANJA, ET AL. v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 160467 - SOLEDAD MU OS MESA v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 160918 - CONCEPCION ALCANTARA v. HILARIA ROBLE DE TEMPLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 161539 - INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES, INC. v. FGU INSURANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 161778 - CAYETANO A. TEJANO, JR. v. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 161827 - SESINANDO POLINTAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 162272 - SANTIAGO C. DIVINAGRACIA v. CONSOLIDATED BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 162370 - DAVID TIU v. COURT OF APPEALS AND EDGARDO POSTANES

  • G.R. No. 163072 - Manila International Airport Authority v. City of Pasay, et al.

  • G.R. No. 163583 - BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO v. JOSE ISIDRO N. CAMACHO, ET AL.

  • G.R. NOS. 163957-58 and G.R. NOS. 164009-11 - MUNIB S. ESTINO AND ERNESTO PESCADERA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES/ ERNESTO G. PESCADERA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 164170 - MACA-ANGCOS ALAWIYA Y ABDUL, ET AL. v. HON. SIMEON A. DATUMANONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 164213 - VALENTIN CABRERA ET AL. v. ELIZABETH GETARUELA ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 164368 - People of the Philippines v. Joseph Ejercito Estrada, et al.

  • G.R. No. 164681 - BERNARDINO V. NAVARRO v. P.V. PAJARILLO LINER AND NLRC

  • G.R. No. 165443 - CALATAGAN GOLF CLUB, INC. v. SIXTO CLEMENTE, JR.

  • G.R. No. 164785 and G.R. NO. 165636 - ELISEO F. SORIANO v. MA. CONSOLIZA P. LAGUARDIA ETC.

  • G.R. No. 165927 - ERNESTO Z. GIDUQUIO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 166199 - THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ET AL. v. CHRISTOPHER KORUGA

  • G.R. No. 166510 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BENJAMIN "KOKOY" T. ROMULADEZ AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 166748 - LAUREANO V. HERMOSO, ET AL. v. HEIRS OF ANTONIO FRANCIA AND PETRA FRANCIA

  • G.R. No. 167768 - MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. VICTORIAS MILLING COMPANY, INC.

  • G.R. No. 168273 - HARBOR VIEW RESTAURANT v. REYNALDO LABRO

  • G.R. No. 168631 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CAROLINA VDA. DE ABELLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 168716 - HFS PHLIPPINES, INC., RUBEN T. DEL ROSARIO AND IUM SHIP MANAGEMENT v. RONALDO R. PILAR

  • G.R. No. 168734 & G.R. No. 170621 - MARCELINO LOPEZ, ET AL. v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL./ NOEL RUBBER AND DEVELOPMENT CORP, ET AL. v. JOSE ESQUIVEL, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 168800 - NEW REGENT SOURCES, INC. v. TEOFILO VICTOR TANJUATCO, JR. AND VICENTE CUEVAS

  • G.R. No. 169914 & 174166 - ASIA'S EMERGING DRAGON CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, SECRETARY LEANDRO R. MENDOZA and MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 170093 - JOSE PEPITO M. AMORES M.D. v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LUNG CENTER OF THE PHILIPPINES AS REPRESENTED BY HON. MANUEL M. DAYRIT AND FERNANDO A. MELENDRES, M.D.

  • G.R. No. 170235 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JAIME CADAG JIMENEZ

  • G.R. No. 170270 - Newsounds Broadcasting Network, Inc., et al. v. Hon. Ceasar G. Dy, et al.

  • G.R. No. 170532 - THE PROVINCIAL ASSESOR OF MARINDUQUE v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 170589 - OLYMPIO REVALDO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 170750 - HEIRS OF TOMAS DOLLETON, ET AL. v. FIL-ESTATE MANAGEMENT INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 170977 - JOSE D. DEL VALLE, JR. AND ADOLFO C. ALEMANIA v. FRANCIS B. DY

  • G.R. No. 171072 - GOLDERES REALTY CORP. v. CYPRESS GARDENS ETC.

  • G.R. No. 171138 - H. TAMBUNTING PAWNSHOP, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. 171253 - LAKEVIEW GOLD AND COUNTRY CLUB, INC. v. LUZVIMIN SAMAHANG NAYON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 171536 - APRIL JOY ASETRE, ET AL. v. JUNEL ASETRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 171636 - NORMAN A. GAID v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 171735 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALEJO OBLIGADO Y MAGDARAOG

  • G.R. No. 172123 - MACARIOLA G. BARTOLO AND VIOLENDA B. SUCRO v. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 172601 - AILEEN G. HERIDA v. F4C PAWNSHOP AND JEWELRY STORE/MARCELINO FLORETE, JR.

  • G.R. No. 172602 - HENRY T. GO. v. THE FIFTH DIVISION, SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 172607 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RUFINO UMANITO

  • G.R. No. 172671 - MARISSA R. UNCHUAN v. ANTONIO J.P. LOZADA, ANITA LOZADA AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF CEBU CITY

  • G.R. No. 172832 - ROSARIO T. DE VERA v. GEREN A. DE VERA

  • G.R. No. 172854 - ADAM B. GARCIA v. NLRC (SECOND DIVISION) LEGAZPI OIL COMPANY, INC. ROMEO F. MERCADO AND GUS ZULUAGA

  • G.R. No. 173115 & 173163-64 - ATTY. VIRGILIO R. GARCIA v. EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC. ET AL./EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES INC. v. ATTY. VIRGILIO R. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 173210 - REPUBIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MACARIA L. TUASTUMBAN

  • G.R. No. 173588 - ARIEL M. LOS BA OS, ON BEHALF OF P/SUPT. VICTOR AREVALO, SP02 MARCIAL OLYMPIA, SP01 ROCKY MERCENE AND P01 RAUL ADLAWAN AND IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY v. JOEL R. PEDRO

  • G.R. No. 173637 - DANTE TAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

  • G.R. No. 173791 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PABLO AMODIA

  • G.R. No. 173807 - JAIME U. GUSICAO v. LETECIA CHING AND EDWIN CASTA

  • G.R. No. 173834 - ISABELITA CUNANAN, CAROLYN CUNANAN AND CARMENCITA F. NEMOTO v. JUMPING JAP TRADING CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY REUBEN M. PROTACIO

  • G.R. No. 173931 - ALICIA D. TAGARO v. ESTER A. GARCIA, ETC.

  • G.R. No. 174105 - Reghis M. Romero II, et al. v. Sen. Jinggoy E. Estrada, et al.

  • G.R. No. 175320 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ERNESTO PE A Y SARMIENTO

  • G.R. No. 175945 Formerly G.R. NOS. 153211-12 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LOLITO HONOR Y ALIGWAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 175983 - METROPOLITAN CEBU WATER DESTRICT v. J. KING AND SONS COMPANY, INC

  • G.R. No. 176348 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DIONISIO CABUDBOD Y TUTOR AND EDGAR CABUDBOD Y LACROA

  • G.R. No. 176531 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMEO BANDIN

  • G.R. No. 176566 - ELISEO EDUARTE Y COSCOLLA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 177163 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALEX BALAGAT

  • G.R. No. 177187 - SPOUSES JUANITO R. VILLAMIL ETC. ET AL. v. LAZARO CRUZ-VILLAROSA

  • G.R. No. 177210 - SUMMA KUMAGAI, INC-KUMAGAI, GUMI CO. LTD JOINT VENTURE v. ROMAGO, INC.

  • G.R. No. 177220 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RUBEN ROBLES

  • G.R. No. 177283 - DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY, ET AL. v. DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (DLSUEA-NAFTEU)

  • G.R. No. 177302 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JAIME LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. NO. 177333 : April 24, 2009 - PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION (PAGCOR) represented by ATTY. CARLOS R. BAUTISTA, JR., v. PHILIPPINE GAMING JURISDICTION INCORPORATED (PEJI), ZAMBOANGA CITY SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, et al.

  • G.R. No. 177346 - GUILLERMO PERCIANO v. HEIRS OF PROCOPIO TUMBALI REPRESENTED BY LYDIA TUMBALI

  • G.R. No. 177961 - LOURDES A. SABLE v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 178127 - VIRGEN SHIPPING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. JESUS B. BARRAQUIO

  • G.R. No. 178301 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROLANDO MALIBIRAN, BEVERLY TIBO-TARO

  • G.R. No. 178453 - GLORIA ARTIAGA v. SILIMAN UNIVERSITY AND SILIMAN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER

  • G.R. No. 178678 - DR. HANS CHRISTIAN M. SE ERES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND MELQUIADES A. ROBLES

  • G.R. No. 178763 - PETER PAUL PATRICK LUCAS, ET AL. v. DR. PROSPERO MA. C. TUA O

  • G.R. NOS. 178831-32, 179120, 179132-33 and 179240-41 - JOCELYN SY LIMKAICHONG v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. NO. 178873 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ILLUSTRE LLAGAS A.K.A. NONOY LLAGAS

  • G.R. No. 179255 - National Transmission Corp. v. Venusto D. Hamoy, Jr.

  • G.R. No. 179563 - BACOLOD-TALISAY REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL. v. ROMEO DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 179271 and G.R. NO. 179295 - BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT AND TRANSPARENCY (BANAT) v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS/ BAYAN MUNA, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 179708 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROGELIO ALETA, MARIO ALETA AND JOVITO ALETA

  • G.R. No. 179933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSEPH FABITO

  • G.R. No. 179955 - JOSE SY BANG (DECEASED), ET AL. v. ROSARIO SY (DECEASED), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 180046 - Review Center Associations of the Philippines v. Executive Secretatry Eduardo Ermita, et al.

  • G.R. No. 179987 - HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 180165 - METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. HON. SEC OF JUSTICE RAUL M. GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 180314 - NORMALLAH A. PACASUM v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 180363 - EDGAR Y. TEVES v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND HERMINIO G. TEVES

  • G.R. No. 180640 - HUTAMA-RSEA JOINT OPERATIONS, INC. v. CITRA METRO MANILA TOLLWAYS CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 180892 - UST FACULTY UNION v. UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS, REV. FR. ROLANDO DE LA ROSA, REV FR. RODELIO ALIGAN, DOMINGO LEGASPI, AND MERECEDES HINAYON

  • G.R. NO. 180923 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SOLOMON DIONEDA Y DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 181295 - Harlin Castillo Abayon v. Commission on Elections, et al.

  • G.R. No. 181318 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GERMAN AGOJO Y LUNA

  • G.R. No. 181377 and G.R. NO. 181726 - RODANTE MARCOLETA, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL./ ALAGAD PARTY-LIST REPRESENTED BY DIOGENES S. OSABEL, PRESIDENT v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 181475 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LARRY "LAURO" DOMINGO Y CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 182231 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EDDIE GUM-OYEN Y SACPA

  • G.R. No. 182296 - SUSAN SALES Y JIMENA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

  • G.R. No. 182790 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CESAR CANTALEJO Y MANLANGIT

  • G.R. NOS. 182978-79 and G.R. NOS. 184298-99 - BECMEN SERVICES EXPORTER AND PROMOTION, INC. v. SPS. SIMPLICIO AND MILA CUARESMA, ET AL./SPS. SIMPLICIO AND MILA CUARESMA v. WHITE FALCON SERVICES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. NO. 183232 - GILBERT DELA PAZ v. MARIKINA FOOTWEAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE, INC., (MAFODECO), REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN RODOLFO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 183278 - IMELDA O. COJUANGCO, PRIME HOLDINGS, INC., AND THE ESTATE OF RAMON U. COJUANGCO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE SHERIFF OF SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 183565 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EDUARDO ABOGANDA

  • G.R. No. 183905 and G.R. NO. 184275 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. / SEC, ET AL. v. ANTHONY ROSETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 184174 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REYNALDO CAPALAD

  • G.R. No. 184791 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PEDRO NOGPO, JR. A.K.A. "TANDODOY"

  • G.R. No. 185132 - GOV. ENRIQUE T. GARCIA, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 185162 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROLLY GIDOC @ BAYENG

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 182231 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EDDIE GUM-OYEN Y SACPA

      G.R. No. 182231 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EDDIE GUM-OYEN Y SACPA

    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. NO. 182231 : April 16, 2009]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, v. EDDIE GUM-OYEN y SACPA, Appellee.

    D E C I S I O N

    TINGA, J.:

    Two separate informations1 for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, were filed against appellant Eddie Gum-Oyen y Sacpa. He pleaded not guilty to both charges at the arraignment.2

    During the pre-trial conference, the prosecution and the defense stipulated on the existence of Chemistry Report Nos. D-049-03 and P1-002-03, as well as the existence of the request for the ultraviolet fluorescent dusting addressed to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory, Regional Office No. 1; the identity of the accused, and the date indicated in the information as the alleged date of the incident. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.

    The prosecution presented, as witnesses, Police Officer (PO)3 Allan Bañana, Police Inspector and Forensic Chemist Imelda Roderos, Senior Police Inspector and Forensic Chemist Valeriano P. Laya II, and Senior Police Officer (SPO)1 Wilfredo Montero. On the other hand, the defense called to the witness stand the accused himself Marilou Panit and Balloguing Gum-Oyen.

    According to the prosecution, the facts are as follows:

    On 5 February 2003, PO3 Allan Bañana and SPO1 Wilfredo Montero of the Drug Enforcement Unit, Naguilian, La Union received a report from a police asset that a certain Eddie would deliver marijuana to Barangay Cabaritan, Naguilian, La Union. PO3 Bañana and SPO1 Montero immediately relayed this information to their station commander, Police Superintendent Rolando Nana, who directed them to conduct a buy-bust operation together with PO3 Mendoza and PO1 Mendoza.3

    With the police asset acting as the poseur-buyer and P1,120.00 as buy-bust money,4 PO3 Bañana and SPO1 Montero proceeded to the target place. PO3 Bañana and SPO1 Montero positioned themselves at a waiting shed while the rest of the buy-bust team who followed stood by the houses opposite the shed. The police asset waited for the arrival of the appellant by the road close to the houses.5

    Around 11:30 a.m, appellant arrived at the place on board a tricycle. Carrying a blue bag, he alighted therefrom and talked to the police asset. Then appellant put down his bag, opened it and took out a square-shaped object wrapped in a brown-colored plastic. Appellant partially opened it and gave it to the police asset. After smelling the object, the police asset handed the buy-bust money to appellant. While appellant was counting the money, the buy-bust team identified themselves as policemen, arrested him, apprised him of his rights and frisked him for dangerous weapons.6

    PO3 Bañana searched appellant's bag and recovered three (3) more bricks of marijuana. Thereafter, they brought appellant to the police station and to the hospital for medical examination.7

    At the police station, the buy-bust money was recovered from appellant, together with the four (4) bricks of marijuana, and turned over to the investigator on duty, SPO1 Valentin Abenoja, who marked the items. The police next presented appellant to the Municipal Mayor, and photographs of them with several police officers and the seized items were taken.8

    Afterward, PO3 Bañana and SPO1 Abenoja, with appellant in tow, brought the marijuana, seven (7) of the P10.00 bills and one (1) P50.00 bill with two (2) requests for laboratory examination to the PNP Crime Laboratory. When the initial and the final laboratory reports confirmed the positive existence of marijuana, PO3 Bañana and SPO1 Montero executed a joint affidavit against appellant and a request for his inquest.9

    Police Inspector Imelda Roderos, a forensic chemist at the PNP Crime Laboratory testified that she had received a request to conduct an ultraviolet examination of several money bills and of the person of the appellant. Both hands of appellant and the money bills were found positive for the presence of ultraviolet powder. Her findings are embodied in Chemistry Report No. PI-002-03.10

    Senior Police Inspector Valeriano P. Laya II, also a forensic chemist of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory, stated that he had received a letter-request from the Naguilian Police Station for the laboratory examination of four (4) bricks of dried marijuana fruiting tops. The specimen tested positive for marijuana, and the findings were recorded in Chemistry Report No. D-049-03.11

    In his defense, appellant maintained that he had only been instigated to commit the offenses charged. He testified that on 12 January 2003, a certain Roger Fundanera, a former co-worker at a construction firm in Irisan, Baguio City and a police asset, had gone to his house and asked him to go buy marijuana from someone in San Gabriel. Roger returned a couple more times and, on the last date, 4 February 2003, gave him P2,500.00 and a letter and instructed him to give them to the person from whom he was going to buy marijuana. On even date, appellant left for Sacdaan, San Gabriel.12

    Appellant reached the place at 2:00 p.m. and thereat handed the letter and the money, in the amount of P2,200.00, to Ponsing. Appellant used the remaining P300.00 for his fare. Ponsing then told him to meet him at Lon-oy, San Gabriel the following day at 6:30 a.m. Subsequently, appellant went home to his parents' house in Bayabas, San Gabriel.13

    In the morning of the next day, appellant met with Ponsing in Lon-oy. Appellant handed to him his handbag, and the latter placed inside it something wrapped in plastic. Thereafter, appellant traveled to Bauang to meet with Roger. At the meeting place, after appellant had given Roger the handbag, the latter placed it inside a tricycle, boarded the same and asked appellant to ride with him to Naguilian. En route, three (3) men in civilian clothes boarded the tricycle. Roger asked appellant to give one (1) bundle from inside the bag to one of the three (3) persons. Following this, the three (3) persons, whom he later found out to be police officers, arrested him and brought him to the Municipal Hall of Naguilian.14

    Appellant denied having P1,120.00 in his pocket at the time of his arrest but he confirmed that his hands were found positive for the presence of ultraviolet powder.15 Appellant also testified that he had gone to San Gabriel upon Roger's request to help the latter procure marijuana, without any intent to gain on his part and despite the fact that he knew it was prohibited for anybody to have in his possession any amount of marijuana.16

    Marilou Panit, appellant's live-in partner, testified that Roger Fundanera, a police asset, had been to their house on 12 and 20 January 2003, and on 4 February 2004. Marilou stated that appellant had merely gone to San Gabriel to purchase marijuana for Roger upon the insistence of and as an accommodation to Roger in order for the policemen to believe appellant's story about its real source. After appellant left for San Gabriel, Marilou next saw him when he was already behind bars.17

    Balloguing Gum-Oyen, appellant's father, testified that in the evening of 4 February 2003, he was roused from sleep by the knocking at the door. When he opened it, he saw appellant. Asked about the purpose for his visit, appellant replied that somebody had ordered him to get something. Appellant left at dawn the next day without telling him where he was going.18

    In a Decision promulgated on 5 May 1995, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bauang, La Union, Branch 67 found appellant guilty of illegal possession of marijuana. Appellant, however, was acquitted of the offense of illegal sale of marijuana. The dispositive portion of the decision reads, as follows:

    WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered:

    In Criminal Case No. 2808 ACQUITTING the accused Eddie Gum-oyen y Sacpa on reasonable doubt of the charge;

    In Criminal Case No. 2809, finding the accused Eddie Gum-oyen y Sacpa GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of Marijuna defined and penalized under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and sentencing him to suffer the supreme penalty of death by lethal injection and to pay a fine of Ten Million (P10,000,000.00) Pesos, and the cost.

    The confiscated and/or seized items were already destroyed in accordance with Section 21, par. 4 of Republic Act 9165 on October 29, 2004 at 9:30 A.M. in front of the Justice Hall, Municipality of Bauang, Province of La Union.

    SO ORDERED.19

    Before the Court of Appeals, appellant raised a lone assignment of error' "the trial court gravely erred in convicting accused-appellant of the crime charged despite the failure of the prosecution to establish the identity of the corpus delicti."

    On 19 November 2007, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed decision20 affirming the judgment of the trial court but modifying the penalty to life imprisonment conformably to R.A. No. 934621 prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty. The pertinent portions of the decision follow:

    The prosecution successfully proved the existence of all elements necessary to convict accused-appellant of illegal possession of dangerous drugs penalized under Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165. PO3 Bañana, SPO1 Montero and the other police operatives caught accused-appellant in unauthorized possession of the three (3) bricks of marijuana at the time of his arrest. Accused-appellant was not authorized to possess marijuana. He knew that the unauthorized possession of marijuana is penalized by law. He freely and consciously possessed the bricks of marijuana notwithstanding his knowledge that such possession is illegal.

    Likewise, the prosecution established the corpus delicti of the offense with moral certainty. PO3 Bañana and the other members of the buy-bust team immediately turned over the three bricks of marijuana to the police investigator on duty, SPO1 Abenoja. The latter, PO3 Bañana and SPO1 Montero marked the three bricks of marijuana with their respective initials at the police station after accused-appellant's arrest. PO3 Bañana also recorded in the police blotter the items seized from accused-appellant including the three bricks of marijuana subject of this case. PO3 Bañana and SPO1 Abenoja turned over the three bricks of marijuana to the crime laboratory for examination. Chemistry Report No. D-049-03 shows that the three bricks tested positive to the laboratory examination for the presence of marijuana. The three marijuana bricks were properly identified, marked and offered in evidence during the trial. The testimony of PO3 Bañana sufficiently proves that the three bricks of marijuana seized from accused-appellant are the same items presented as evidence against him before the court a quo.

    x x x

    The defense of instigation put up by accused-appellant does not inspire belief. Accused-appellant's testimony in this regard is inconsistent and not credible. He initially testified that he worked with Roger Fundanera in a construction work, and that Roger asked him to buy marijuana for him. Despite the incredulity of Roger's request, accused-appellant gave in and traveled to Sacdaan, San Gabriel to buy marijuana from the person whom Roger mentioned. It was, however, only during the next hearing that accused-appellant testified that Roger was a police asset. Significantly, Roger never testified for the prosecution and for the defense. His identity remains questionable to this Court. Clearly, what the records reveal is that accused-appellant merely weaved a flimsy tale of instigation in a futile attempt to secure his acquittal.

    It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill-motive on the part of the police officers or deviation from the regular performance of their duties. The records do not show that prosecution witnesses PO3 Bañana and SPO1 Montero were moved by an improper motive in testifying against accused-appellant. Neither is there any evidence showing that the two police officers failed to perform their duties in a regular manner when they seized the three (3) bricks of marijuana from accused-appellant's possession immediately after his apprehension.ςηαñrοblεš νιr υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

    All elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II, R.A. 9165 being present in the case at bar, and the corpus delicit of the said offense having been established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, this Court sees no convincing reason to overturn the conviction of accused-appellant.22

    The Court sustains the verdict of conviction.

    There is no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the lower courts. Well-entrenched is the rule that an appellate court will generally not disturb the assessment of the trial court on factual matters considering that the latter, as a trier of facts, is in a better position to appreciate the same. The only exceptions allowed are when the trial court has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance which, if considered, may affect the result of the case; or in instances where the evidence fails to support or substantiate the lower court's findings and conclusions, or where the disputed decision is based on a misapprehension of facts.23 This case does not fall under any of the exceptions. Hence, there is no reason for us to modify the factual findings of the lower courts.

    Moreover, the prosecution's evidence sufficiently established the unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs beginning from the entrapment team, to the investigating officer, to the forensic chemist whose laboratory tests were well-documented, up to the time there were offered in evidence. The chain-of-custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be.24

    The Court also finds that the arresting officers strictly complied with the guidelines prescribed by law regarding the custody and control of the seized drugs.25 There was testimony regarding the marking of the seized items at the police station and in the presence of appellant. Likewise there was mention that an elected official was present during the inventory. In addition, it appears on record that the team photographed the contraband in accordance with law.26 Absent any indication that the police officers were ill-motivated in testifying against appellant, full credence should be given to their testimonies. In sum, contrary to appellant's lone argument, the prosecution established the corpus delicti with moral certainty.

    In contrast, appellant's defense of instigation is unsubstantiated. Not only was his testimony in this regard inconsistent, he was also unable to support his assertions with any other evidence. Significantly, the person named Roger whom he referred to as his instigator was never presented in court, raising questions as regards his identity and existence. As correctly quipped by the appellate court, appellant's tale of instigation was a futile attempt to secure his acquittal.

    Finally, it bears underscoring that appellant himself admitted that he was carrying marijuana at the time of his arrest and even though he knew it was against the law to so possess it in any amount.27 Hence, the lower courts aptly held him liable for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

    WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of conviction is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

    SO ORDERED.

    Endnotes:


    1 Records, Vol. 1, p.1; Records, Vol. II, p. 1.

    Criminal Case No. 2808-Bg

    That on or about the 5th day of February, 2003, in the Municipality of Naguilian, Province of La Union, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there, for and in consideration of the amount of ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED TWENTY PESOS (P1,120.00), willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sell, deliver, and give away to another one (1) brickof dried marijuana, a dangerous drug, weighing about nine hundred ninety-one point five (991.5) grams.

    CONTRARY TO Sec. 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

    Criminal Case No. 2809-Bg

    That on or about the 5th day of February, 2003, in the Municipality of Naguilian, Province of La Union, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in his possession, control and custody three (3) bricks of dried marijuana, a dangerous drug, weighing nine hundred eighty-five point seven (985.7) grams, nine hundred eighty-nine point two (989.2) grams, and nine hundred ninety-one point six (991.6) grams, respectively, for a total weight of two thousand nine hundred sixty-six point five (2966.5) grams.

    CONTRARY TO Sec. 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

    2 Id.

    3 TSN, 12 August 2003, pp. 3-7.

    4 In the following denominations: ten (10) P100.00 predusted bills consisting of one (1) P50.00 bill and seven (7) P10.00 bills, all bearing the initials of PO3 Bañana and whose serial numbers were recorded in the police blotter. All the bills, except the P100.00 bills, were dusted with ultraviolet powder.

    5 TSN, 12 August 2003, pp. 8-15.

    6 Id. at 15-22.

    7 Id. at 22-24.

    8 Id. at 24-26.

    9 Id. at 26-30.

    10 Rollo, pp. 7, 77.

    11 Id. at 7.

    12 Id. at 8, 79-80.

    13 TSN, 27 January 2004, pp. 4-5.

    14 Id. at pp. 6-9.

    15 Id. at 15-16.

    16 Id. at 16.

    17 TSN, 10 February 2004, pp. 4-8.

    18 TSN, 2 March 2004, pp.4-5.

    19 Rollo, pp. 89-90.

    20 In C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01105. Penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid and concurred in by Associate Justices Rodrigo V. Cosico and Arturo G. Tayag; id. at 2-21.

    21 Entitled "An act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines."

    22 Rollo, pp. 18-20.

    23 People v. Naag, G.R. No. 136394, 15 February 2001.

    24 Lopez v. People, G.R. No. 172953, 30 April 2008, citing United States v. Howard-Arias, 679 F. 2d. 363, 363 and United States v. Ricco, 52 F. 3d 58.

    25 Section 21 of R.A No. 9165 states that:

    1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

    26 Cf People of the Philippines v. Ranilo de la Cruz y Lizing, G.R. No. 177222, 29 October 2008.

    27 TSN, 27 January 2004, pp. 13-14, 16.

    G.R. No. 182231 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EDDIE GUM-OYEN Y SACPA


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED