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
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
April-2010 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 186419 : April 23, 2010] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DARLENE QUIGOD Y MIRANDA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 188105 : April 23, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MONICO DE CHAVEZ Y PERLAS, JUANITO MIƑON Y RODRIGUEZ, AND ASUNCION MERCADO Y MARCIANO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186382 : April 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DOMINGO PANITERCE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 183788 : April 05, 2010] KRIZIA KATRINA TY-DE ZUZUARREGUI, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. JOSELITO C. VILLAROSA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 66 OF THE RTC OF MAKATI CITY, AND FANNIE TORRES-TY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 151215 : April 05, 2010] PCI LEASING AND FINANCE, INC., PETITIONER, VS. ANTONIO C. MILAN, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF "A. MILAN TRADING," AND LAURA M. MILAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 161368 : April 05, 2010] MEDISERV, INC., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FORMER 13TH DIVISION) AND LANDHEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 176634 : April 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROMEO MIRANDA Y MICHAEL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 177740 : April 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROMULO GARCIA Y MACEDA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 178063 [Formerly G.R. No. 149894] : April 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. TIRSO SACE Y MONTOYA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 182114 : April 05, 2010] GENESIS TRANSPORT SERVICE, INC. AND RELY L. JALBUNA, PETITIONERS, VS. UNYON NG MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA NG GENESIS TRANSPORT (UMMGT), AND JUAN TAROY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 183383 : April 05, 2010] ANABEL BENJAMIN AND RENATO CONSOLACION, PETITIONERS, VS. AMELLAR CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-06-2025 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2472-RTJ) : April 05, 2010] CECILIA GADRINAB SENARLO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MAXIMO G.W. PADERANGA, RTC, BRANCH 38, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 157449 : April 06, 2010] NEMESIO GOCO, LYDIA G. FABIAN, NATALIA BROTONEL, FLORA GAYOSO, BLEMIE SORIANO, ELPIDIA NAVALES, SERGIO ROMASANTA, CATALINA NAMIS AND NANCY PAMATIGA, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEYS-IN-FACT, LYDIA G. FABIAN, ELPIDIA NAVALES AND NATALIA BROTONEL, PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ATTY. HICOBLINO CATLY, LOURDES CATLY AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, CALAPAN CITY, ORIENTAL MINDORO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 175040 : April 06, 2010] FRANCIS RAY TALAM, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, 4TH DIVISION, CEBU CITY, THE SOFTWARE FACTORY, INC. AND/OR TERESA GRAPILON, OFFICE MANAGER, AND WOLFGANG HERMLE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 185849 : April 07, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JONJIE ESOY Y HUNGOY, ROLANDO CIANO Y SOLEDAD AND ROGER BOLALACAO Y DADIVAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • G.R. No. 187005 : April 07, 2010] FERDINAND A. PANGILINAN, PETITIONER, VS. WELLMADE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 183628 : April 07, 2010] DANIEL T. SO, PETITIONER, VS. FOOD FEST LAND, INC. RESPONDENT [G.R. NO. 183670] FOOD FEST LAND, INC., PETITIONER, VS. DANIEL T. SO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 179781 : April 07, 2010] SPOUSES BASILIO AND NORMA HILAGA, PETITIONERS, VS. RURAL BANK OF ISULAN (COTABATO, INC., AS REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER), RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 177878 : April 07, 2010] SPO1 LEONITO ACUZAR, PETITIONER, VS. APRONIANO JOROLAN AND HON. EDUARDO A. APRESA, PEOPLE'S LAW ENFORCEMENT BOARD (PLEB) CHAIRMAN, NEW CORELLA, DAVAO DEL NORTE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 161838 : April 07, 2010] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY DANTE QUINDOZA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ZONE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE BATAAN ECONOMIC ZONE, PETITIONER, VS. COALBRINE INTERNATIONAL PHILIPPINES, INC. AND SHEILA F. NERI, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 167766 : April 07, 2010] ENGR. CARLITO PENTECOSTES, JR., PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. Nos. 187958, 187961 : and 187962, April 07, 2010] MAYOR ABRAHAM N. TOLENTINO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, JOCELYN RICARDO, ARNEL TARUC, MARLENE CATAN, MARIA THERESA MENDOZA COSTA, FIDELA ROFOLS CASTILLO, DOMINADOR BASSI, ROBERTO MALABANAN HERNANDEZ, NERISSA MANZANO, LEONIDEZ MAGLABE HERNANDEZ, TAGUMPAY REYES, AND ELINO FAJARDO RESPONDENTS. [G.R. Nos. 187966, 187967, and 187968] VICE-MAYOR CELSO P. DE CASTRO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ARNEL TARUC, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 189431 & 191120 : April 07, 2010] MAYOR QUINTIN B. SALUDAGA, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ARTEMIO BALAG, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 189793 : April 07, 2010] SENATOR BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III AND MAYOR JESSE ROBREDO, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN JOSE A.R. MELO AND ITS COMMISSIONERS, RENE V. SARMIENTO, NICODEMO T. FERRER, LUCENITO N. TAGLE, ARMANDO VELASCO, ELIAS R. YUSOPH AND GREGORIO LARRAZABAL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. MTJ-04-1558 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 04-1594-MTJ) : April 07, 2010] RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT AGAINST HON. MARILOU RUNES- TAMANG, PRESIDING JUDGE, METC PATEROS, METRO MANILA AND PRESIDING JUDGE, METC SAN JUAN, METRO MANILA,

  • [A.M. No. P-07-2338 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2440-P) : April 07, 2010] JONATHAN* A. REBONG, COMPLAINANT, VS. ELIZABETH R. TENGCO, CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-07-2409 : April 07, 2010] RUFINA CHUA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ELEANOR A. SORIO, CLERK OF COURT, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 57, SAN JUAN CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-09-2196 [Formerly A.M. No. 00-1052-RTJ] : April 07, 2010] MARIA PANCHO, DAVID GAYOTIN, LORETO GRAN AND MARINA GRAN, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUDGE JOSE Y. AGUIRRE, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 56, HIMAMAYLAN, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 186450 : April 08, 2010] NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES BOARD (NWRB), PETITIONER, VS. A. L. ANG NETWORK, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170289 : April 08, 2010] ROSIE QUIDET, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 190582 : April 08, 2010] ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS CHAIR, DANTON REMOTO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 184179 : April 12, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JULIAN PAJES Y OPONDA AND MIGUEL PAGHUNASAN Y URBANO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 180542 : April 12, 2010] HUBERT NUƑEZ, PETITIONER, VS. SLTEAS PHOENIX SOLUTIONS, INC., THROUGH ITS REPRESENTATIVE, CESAR SYLIANTENG RESPONDENT,

  • [G.R. No. 183572 : April 13, 2010] YOLANDA M. MERCADO, CHARITO S. DE LEON, DIANA R. LACHICA, MARGARITO M. ALBA, JR., AND FELIX A. TONOG, PETITIONERS, VS. AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE-PARAƑAQUE CITY, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 152016 : April 13, 2010] NARCISO TUMIBAY,* RUPERTO TUMIBAY, ELENA TUMIBAY, EDUARDO TUMIBAY, CORAZON TUMIBAY, MANUELA SEVERINO VDA. DE PERIDA AND GREGORIA DELA CRUZ, PETITIONERS, VS. SPS. YOLANDA T. SORO AND HONORIO SORO, SPS. JULITA T. STA. ANA AND FELICISIMO STA. ANA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 165155 : April 13, 2010] REGIONAL AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL ADJUDICATOR, SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA, CECILIA MANIEGO, JOSE BAUTISTA, ELIZA PACHECO, JUANITO FAJARDO, MARIO PACHECO, MARIANO MANANGHAYA AS HEIR OF ANTONIO MANANGHAYA, MARCIANO NATIVIDAD, ROBERTO BERNARDO IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AND AS HEIR OF PEDRO BERNARDO, EDILBERTO NATIVIDAD, AS HEIR OF ISMAEL NATIVIDAD, JEFFREY DIAZ AS HEIR OF JOVITA R. DIAZ, RODOLFO DIMAAPI, ALBERTO ENRIQUEZ, BENIGNO CABINGAO, MARIO GALVEZ, DELFIN SACDALAN, AS HEIR OF AVELINO SANTOS, PETITIONERS,[1] VS. COURT OF APPEALS, VERONICA R. GONZALES, DEOGRACIAS REYES, LEONARDO REYES, ISABELITA BALATBAT, MANUELA REYES, WILHELMINA ALMERO, ARTURO REYES, EPIFANIO REYES, GLORIA REYES, MARIO REYES, TERESITA BALATBAT, LYDIA BALATBAT, FERNANDO BALATBAT, VICENTE BALATBAT, GILBERTO REYES, RENE REYES, EMILIA DUNGO, BRENDA CANCIO, VICTOR REYES, AND EDGARDO REYES, REPRESENTED BY VERONICA R. GONZALES, FOR HERSELF AND AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 177114 : April 13, 2010] MANOLO A. PEƑAFLOR, PETITIONER, VS. OUTDOOR CLOTHING MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, NATHANIEL T. SYFU, PRESIDENT, MEDYLENE M. DEMOGENA, FINANCE MANAGER, AND PAUL LEE, CHAIRMAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187605 : April 13, 2010] TECHNOL EIGHT PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND DENNIS AMULAR, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187605 : April 13, 2010] TECHNOL EIGHT PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND DENNIS AMULAR, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-08-2158 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 04-2018-RTJ) : April 13, 2010] ALFREDO FAVOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE CESAR O. UNTALAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 149, MAKATI CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 186540 : April 14, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EMELDO "PAMENTOLAN" OBINA, AMADO RAMIREZ, AND CARLITO "MASOC" BALAGBIS, ACCUSED; EMELDO "PAMENTOLAN" OBINA AND AMADO RAMIREZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 183879 : April 14, 2010] ROSITA SY, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 187483 : April 14, 2010] ARNEL BALARBAR Y BIASORA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 152234 : April 15, 2010] DIVERSIFIED SECURITY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. ALICIA V. BAUTISTA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 152364 : April 15, 2010] ALEJANDRA S. LAZARO, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND, ISAURO M. LAZARO; LEONCIO D. SANTOS; ADOLFO SANTOS; NENITA S. LACAR; ANGELINA S. SAGLES, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND, ALBERTO SANTOS, JR.; REGINA SANTOS AND FABIAN SANTOS, PETITIONERS, VS. MODESTA AGUSTIN, FILEMON AGUSTIN, VENANCIA AGUSTIN, MARCELINA AGUSTIN, PAUL A. DALALO, NOEL A. DALALO, GREGORIO AGUSTIN AND BIENVENIDO AGUSTIN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 168796 : April 15, 2010] SILVINO A. LIGERALDE, PETITIONER, VS. MAY ASCENSION A. PATALINGHUG AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173365 : April 15, 2010] JULIO FLORES (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS; BENITO FLORES (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS; DOLORES FLORES AND VIRGINIA FLORES-DALERE, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, JIMENA TOMAS, PETITIONERS, VS. MARCIANO BAGAOISAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 184971 : April 19, 2010] LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. MONET'S EXPORT AND MANUFACTURING CORP., VICENTE V. TAGLE, SR. AND MA. CONSUELO G. TAGLE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 165133 : April 19, 2010] SPOUSES JOSELINA ALCANTARA AND ANTONIO ALCANTARA, AND SPOUSES JOSEFINO RUBI AND ANNIE DISTOR-RUBI, PETITIONERS, VS. BRIGIDA L. NIDO, AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF REVELEN N. SRIVASTAVA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 166829 : April 19, 2010] TFS, INCORPORATED, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170207 : April 19, 2010] VICENTE CAWIS (SUBSTITUTED BY HIS SON, EMILIO CAWIS), PEDRO BACLANGEN, FELIZA DOMILIES, IVAN MANDI-IT A.K.A. IVAN MANDI-IT LUPADIT, DOMINGO CAWIS AND GERARD LIBATIQUE, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. ANTONIO CERILLES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE DENR SECRETARY, HON. MANUEL GEROCHI, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR, LANDS, MANAGEMENT BUREAU, AND MA. EDELIZA PERALTA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170241 : April 19, 2010] PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES DIONISIO GERONIMO AND CARIDAD GERONIMO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170483 : April 19, 2010] MANUEL C. BUNGCAYAO, SR., REPRESENTED IN THIS CASE BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT ROMEL R. BUNGCAYAO, PETITIONER, VS. FORT ILOCANDIA PROPERTY HOLDINGS, AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170912 : April 19, 2010] ROBERT DINO, PETITIONER, VS. MARIA LUISA JUDAL-LOOT, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND VICENTE LOOT, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 172896 : April 19, 2010] ROƑO SEGURITAN Y JARA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175532 : April 19, 2010] ROMEO BASAY, JULIAN LITERAL AND JULIAN ABUEVA, PETITIONERS, VS. HACIENDA CONSOLACION , AND/OR BRUNO BOUFFARD III, JOSE RAMON BOUFFARD, MALOT BOUFFARD, SPOUSES CARMEN AND STEVE BUMANLAG, BERNIE BOUFFARD, ANALYN BOUFFARD, AND DONA BOUFFARD, AS OWNERS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 179935 : April 19, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ROGELIO ASIS Y LACSON, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 149121 : April 20, 2010] NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, VS. AUGUSTO BASA, JR., LUZ BASA AND EDUARDO S. BASA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 166620 : April 20, 2010] ATTY. SYLVIA BANDA, CONSORICIA O. PENSON, RADITO V. PADRIGANO, JEAN R. DE MESA, LEAH P. DELA CRUZ, ANDY V. MACASAQUIT, SENEN B. CORDOBA, ALBERT BRILLANTES, GLORIA BISDA, JOVITA V. CONCEPCION, TERESITA G. CARVAJAL, ROSANNA T. MALIWANAG, RICHARD ODERON, CECILIA ESTERNON, BENEDICTO CABRAL, MA. VICTORIA E. LAROCO, CESAR ANDRA, FELICISIMO GALACIO, ELSA R. CALMA, FILOMENA A. GALANG, JEAN PAUL MELEGRITO, CLARO G. SANTIAGO, JR., EDUARDO FRIAS, REYNALDO O. ANDAL, NEPHTALIE IMPERIO, RUEL BALAGTAS, VICTOR R. ORTIZ, FRANCISCO P. REYES, JR., ELISEO M. BALAGOT, JR., JOSE C. MONSALVE, JR., ARTURO ADSUARA, F.C. LADRERO, JR., NELSON PADUA, MARCELA C. SAYAO, ANGELITO MALAKAS, GLORIA RAMENTO, JULIANA SUPLEO, MANUEL MENDRIQUE, E. TAYLAN, CARMELA BOBIS, DANILO VARGAS, ROY-LEO C. PABLO, ALLAN VILLANUEVA, VICENTE R. VELASCO, JR., IMELDA ERENO, FLORIZA M. CATIIS, RANIEL R. BASCO, E. JALIJALI, MARIO C. CARAAN, DOLORES M. AVIADO, MICHAEL P. LAPLANA, GUILLERMO G. SORIANO, ALICE E. SOJO, ARTHUR G. NARNE, LETICIA SORIANO, FEDERICO RAMOS, JR., PETERSON CAAMPUED, RODELIO L. GOMEZ, ANTONIO D. GARCIA, JR., ANTONIO GALO, A. SANCHEZ, SOL E. TAMAYO, JOSEPHINE A.M. COCJIN, DAMIAN QUINTO, JR., EDLYN MARIANO, M.A. MALANUM, ALFREDO S. ESTRELLA, AND JESUS MEL SAYO, PETITIONERS, VS. EDUARDO R. ERMITA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINE INFORMATION AGENCY AND THE NATIONAL TREASURER, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 169974 : April 20, 2010] SUPERIOR COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. KUNNAN ENTERPRISES LTD. AND SPORTS CONCEPT & DISTRIBUTOR, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 174160 : April 20, 2010] HACIENDA BIGAA, INC., PETITIONER, VS. EPIFANIO V. CHAVEZ (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY SANTIAGO V. CHAVEZ, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 179470 : April 20, 2010] NISSAN NORTH EDSA OPERATING UNDER THE NAME MOTOR CARRIAGE, INC., PETITIONER, VS. UNITED PHILIPPINE SCOUT VETERANS DETECTIVE AND PROTECTIVE AGENCY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 182835 : April 20, 2010] RUSTAN ANG Y PASCUA, PETITIONER, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND IRISH SAGUD, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187742 : April 20, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CRIZALDO PACHECO Y VILLANUEVA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 188471 : April 20, 2010] FRANCISCO ALONSO, SUBSTITUTED BY MERCEDES V. ALONSO, TOMAS V. ALONSO AND ASUNCION V. ALONSO, PETITIONERS, VS. CEBU COUNTRY CLUB, INC., RESPONDENT, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, PUBLIC RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 191002 : April 20, 2010] ARTURO M. DE CASTRO, PETITIONER, VS. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL (JBC) AND PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL - ARROYO, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 191032] JAIME N. SORIANO, PETITIONER, VS. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL (JBC), RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 191057] PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), PETITIONER, VS. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL (JBC), RESPONDENT. [A.M. No. 10-2-5-SC] IN RE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 15, ARTICLE VII OF THE CONSTITUTION TO APPOINTMENTS TO THE JUDICIARY, ESTELITO P. MENDOZA, PETITIONER, [G.R. No. 191149] JOHN G. PERALTA, PETITIONER, VS. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL (JBC). RESPONDENT. PETER IRVING CORVERA; CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM; ALFONSO V. TAN, JR.; NATIONAL UNION OF PEOPLE'S LAWYERS; MARLOU B. UBANO; INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES-DAVAO DEL SUR CHAPTER, REPRESENTED BY ITS IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT, ATTY. ISRAELITO P. TORREON, AND THE LATTER IN HIS OWN PERSONAL CAPACITY AS A MEMBER OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR; MITCHELL JOHN L. BOISER; BAGONG ALYANSANG BAYAN (BAYAN) CHAIRMAN DR. CAROLINA P. ARAULLO; BAYAN SECRETARY GENERAL RENATO M. REYES, JR.; CONFEDERATION FOR UNITY, RECOGNITION AND ADVANCE-MENT OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (COURAGE) CHAIRMAN FERDINAND GAITE; KALIPUNAN NG DAMAYANG MAHIHIRAP (KADAMAY) SECRETARY GENERAL GLORIA ARELLANO; ALYANSA NG NAGKAKAISANG KABATAAN NG SAMBAYANAN PARA SA KAUNLARAN (ANAKBAYAN) CHAIRMAN KEN LEONARD RAMOS; TAYO ANG PAG-ASA CONVENOR ALVIN PETERS; LEAGUE OF FILIPINO STUDENTS (LFS) CHAIRMAN JAMES MARK TERRY LACUANAN RIDON; NATIONAL UNION OF STUDENTS OF THE PHILIPPINES (NUSP) CHAIRMAN EINSTEIN RECEDES; COLLEGE EDITORS GUILD OF THE PHILIPPINES (CEGP) CHAIRMAN VIJAE ALQUISOLA; AND STUDENT CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES (SCMP) CHAIRMAN MA. CRISTINA ANGELA GUEVARRA; WALDEN F. BELLO AND LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES; WOMEN TRIAL LAWYERS ORGANIZATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY YOLANDA QUISUMBING-JAVELLANA; BELLEZA ALOJADO DEMAISIP; TERESITA GANDIONCO-OLEDAN; MA. VERENA KASILAG-VILLANUEVA; MARILYN STA. ROMANA; LEONILA DE JESUS; AND GUINEVERE DE LEON; AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR.; INTERVENORS. [G.R. No. 191342] ATTY. AMADOR Z. TOLENTINO, JR., (IBP GOVERNOR-SOUTHERN LUZON), AND ATTY. ROLAND B. INTING (IBP GOVERNOR-EASTERN VISAYAS), PETITIONERS, VS. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL (JBC), RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 191420] PHILIPPINE BAR ASSOCIATION, INC., PETITIONER, VS. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL AND HER EXCELLENCY GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.C. No. 8382 : April 21, 2010] ALFREDO B. ROA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JUAN R. MORENO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 178902 : April 21, 2010] MANUEL O. FUENTES AND LETICIA L. FUENTES, PETITIONERS, VS. CONRADO G. ROCA, ANNABELLE R. JOSON, ROSE MARIE R. CRISTOBAL AND PILAR MALCAMPO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G. R. No. L-2875 and L-3114 to L-3203 : April 22, 2010] MANILA YELLOWCAB ET AL., PETITIONER VS. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187154 : April 23, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. EDWIN DALIPE Y PEREZ, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 184760 : April 23, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PATERNO LORENZO Y CASAS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 184542 : April 23, 2010] ALMA B. RUSSEL, PETITIONER, VS. TEOFISTA EBASAN AND AGAPITO AUSTRIA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 184537 : April 23, 2010] QUINTIN B. SALUDAGA AND SPO2 FIEL E. GENIO, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, 4TH DIVISION AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2630-RTJ : April 23, 2010] FRANCISCO P. OCAMPO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE EVELYN S. ARCAYA-CHUA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 144, MAKATI CITY, RESPONDENT. [A.M. NO. RTJ-07-2049] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE EVELYN S. ARCAYA-CHUA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 144, MAKATI CITY, RESPONDENT. [A.M. NO. RTJ-08-2141 (FORMERLY A.M. NO. 07-5-263- RTC/ RE: INITIAL REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED AT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 144, MAKATI CITY)] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE EVELYN S. ARCAYA-CHUA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 144, MAKATI CITY, AND COURT STENOGRAPHER VICTORIA C. JAMORA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 144, MAKATI CITY, RESPONDENTS. [A.M. NO. RTJ-07-2093] SYLVIA SANTOS, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE EVELYN S. ARCAYA-CHUA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 144, MAKATI CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 133347 : April 23, 2010] ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, EUGENIO LOPEZ, JR., AUGUSTO ALMEDA-LOPEZ, AND OSCAR M. LOPEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO, EXEQUIEL B. GARCIA, MIGUEL V. GONZALES, AND SALVADOR (BUDDY) TAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 158189 : April 23, 2010] ROBERTO B. KALALO, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ERNESTO M. DE CHAVEZ AND MARCELO L. AGUSTIN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 158562 : April 23, 2010] RAMON R. YAP, PETITIONER, VS.COMMISION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 160270 : April 23, 2010] SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, VS. MERLINO E. RODRIGUEZ AND WIRA INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORP., BOTH REPRESENTED HEREIN BY HILDA M. BACANI, AS THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 162017 : April 23, 2010] CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., WILLIAM P. TIFFANY, E.C. CAVESTANY, AND E.M. CRUZ, PETITIONERS, VS. HERMIE G. AGAD AND CALTEX UNITED SUPERVISORS' ASSOCIATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 163554 : April 23, 2010] DANNIE M. PANTOJA, PETITIONER, VS. SCA HYGIENE PRODUCTS CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 165300 : April 23, 2010] ATTY. PEDRO M. FERRER, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES ALFREDO DIAZ AND IMELDA DIAZ, AND REINA COMANDANTE AND SPOUSES BIENVENIDO PANGAN AND ELIZABETH PANGAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 167237 : April 23, 2010] ASSOCIATED ANGLO-AMERICAN TOBACCO CORPORATION AND FLORANTE DY, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. CRISPIN C. LARON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, REGION 1, BRANCH 44, DAGUPAN CITY, SHERIFF VIRGILIO F. VILLAR, OFFICE OF THE EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF OF PASAY CITY, REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LINGAYEN, PANGASINAN AND SPOUSES PAUL PELAEZ, JR. AND ROCELI MAMISAY PELAEZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.C. No. 8159 (formerly CBD 05-1452) : April 23, 2010] REYNARIA BARCENAS, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ANORLITO A. ALVERO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 172036 : April 23, 2010] SPOUSES FAUSTINO AND JOSEFINA GARCIA, SPOUSES MELITON GALVEZ AND HELEN GALVEZ, AND CONSTANCIA ARCAIRA REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT JULIANA O. MOTAS, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, EMERLITA DE LA CRUZ, AND DIOGENES G. BARTOLOME, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171434 : April 23, 2010] NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. ALAN A. OLANDESCA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 173905 : April 23, 2010] ANTHONY L. NG, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 189093 : April 23, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CHRISTOPHER BRINGAS Y GARCIA, BRYAN BRINGAS Y GARCIA, JOHN ROBERT NAVARRO Y CRUZ, ERICKSON PAJARILLO Y BASER (DECEASED), AND EDEN SY CHUNG, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 180917 : April 23, 2010] ATTY. VICENTE E. SALUMBIDES, JR., AND GLENDA ARAƑA, PETITIONERS, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN , RICARDO AGON, RAMON VILLASANTA, ELMER DIZON, SALVADOR ADUL, AND AGNES FABIAN, RESPONDENTS,

  • [G.R. No. 182341 : April 23, 2010] TRINIDAD GO, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND, GONZALO GO, SR., PETITIONERS, VS. VICENTE VELEZ CHAVES,* RESPONDENT, ALICE CHAVES, RESPONDENT-INTERVENOR, MEGA-INTEGRATED AGRO LIVESTOCK FARMS, INC., RESPONDENT-INTERVENOR,

  • [G.R. No. 183337 : April 23, 2010] CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, PETITIONER, VS. GREGORIO MAGNAYE, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 188104 : April 23, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. BENANCIO MORTERA Y BELARMINO, APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. P-05-1935 (Formerly A.M. No. 04-10-599-RTC) : April 23, 2010] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. FERMIN M. OFILAS AND MS. ARANZAZU V. BALTAZAR, CLERK OF COURT AND CLERK IV, RESPECTIVELY, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SAN MATEO, RIZAL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-07-2322 : April 23, 2010] DALMACIO Z. TOMBOC, COMPLAINANT, VS. SHERIFFS LIBORIO M. VELASCO, JR., MEDAR T. PADAO, AND STEPHEN R. BENGUA, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, DIPOLOG CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-09-2190 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 08-2909-RTJ) : April 23, 2010] HADJA SOHURAH DIPATUAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MAMINDIARA P. MANGOTARA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 191124 : April 27, 2010] LUIS A. ASISTIO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. THELMA CANLAS TRINIDAD-PE AGUIRRE, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CALOOCAN CITY, BRANCH 129; HON. ARTHUR O. MALABAGUIO, PRESIDING JUDGE, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, CALOOCAN CITY, BRANCH 52; ENRICO R. ECHIVERRI, BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS OF PRECINCT 1811A, BARANGAY 15, CALOOCAN CITY; AND THE CITY ELECTION OFFICER, CALOOCAN CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 162230 : April 28, 2010] ISABELITA C. VINUYA, VICTORIA C. DELA PEƑA, HERMINIHILDA MANIMBO, LEONOR H. SUMAWANG, CANDELARIA L. SOLIMAN, MARIA L. QUILANTANG, MARIA L. MAGISA, NATALIA M. ALONZO, LOURDES M. NAVARO, FRANCISCA M. ATENCIO, ERLINDA MANALASTAS, TARCILA M. SAMPANG, ESTER M. PALACIO, MAXIMA R. DELA CRUZ, BELEN A. SAGUM, FELICIDAD TURLA, FLORENCIA M. DELA PEƑA, EUGENIA M. LALU, JULIANA G. MAGAT, CECILIA SANGUYO, ANA ALONZO, RUFINA P. MALLARI, ROSARIO M. ALARCON, RUFINA C. GULAPA, ZOILA B. MANALUS, CORAZON C. CALMA, MARTA A. GULAPA, TEODORA M. HERNANDEZ, FERMIN B. DELA PEƑA, MARIA DELA PAZ B. CULALA, ESPERANZA MANAPOL, JUANITA M. BRIONES, VERGINIA M. GUEVARRA, MAXIMA ANGULO, EMILIA SANGIL, TEOFILA R. PUNZALAN, JANUARIA G. GARCIA, PERLA B. BALINGIT, BELEN A. CULALA, PILAR Q. GALANG, ROSARIO C. BUCO, GAUDENCIA C. DELA PEƑA, RUFINA Q. CATACUTAN, FRANCIA A. BUCO, PASTORA C. GUEVARRA, VICTORIA M. DELA CRUZ, PETRONILA O. DELA CRUZ, ZENAIDA P. DELA CRUZ, CORAZON M. SUBA, EMERINCIANA A. VINUYA, LYDIA A. SANCHEZ, ROSALINA M. BUCO, PATRICIA A. BERNARDO, LUCILA H. PAYAWAL, MAGDALENA LIWAG, ESTER C. BALINGIT, JOVITA A. DAVID, EMILIA C. MANGILIT, VERGINIA M. BANGIT, GUILLERMA S. BALINGIT, TERECITA PANGILINAN, MAMERTA C. PUNO, CRISENCIANA C. GULAPA, SEFERINA S. TURLA, MAXIMA B. TURLA, LEONICIA G. GUEVARRA, ROSALINA M. CULALA, CATALINA Y. MANIO, MAMERTA T. SAGUM, CARIDAD L. TURLA, ET AL. IN THEIR CAPACITY AND AS MEMBERS OF THE "MALAYA LOLAS ORGANIZATION", PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO G. ROMULO, THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS DELIA DOMINGO- ALBERT, THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ, AND THE HONORABLE SOLICITOR GENERAL ALFREDO L. BENIPAYO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 190529 : April 29, 2010] PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD, INC. (PGBI), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-GENERAL GEORGE "FGBF GEORGE" DULDULAO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 166461 : April 30, 2010] HEIRS OF LORENZO AND CARMEN VIDAD AND AGVID CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., PETITIONERS, VS. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 169725 : April 30, 2010] RICARDO V. CASTILLO, PETITIONER, VS. UNIWIDE WAREHOUSE CLUB, INC. AND/OR JIMMY GOW, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170697 : April 30, 2010] HON. PRIMO C. MIRO, DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE VISAYAS, PETITIONER, VS. CARPIO, J., CHAIRPERSON, BRION, DEL CASTILLO, ABAD, AND PEREZ, JJ. REYNALDO M. DOSONO, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-06-2224 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2367-P] : April 30, 2010] ATTY. ALBERTO II BORBON REYES, COMPLAINANT, VS. CLERK OF COURT V RICHARD C. JAMORA, DEPUTY SHERIFF IV LUCITO ALEJO, AND CLERK III EULOGIO T. MONDIDO, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 56, MAKATI CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  •  





     
     

    [G.R. No. 184760 : April 23, 2010]   PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PATERNO LORENZO Y CASAS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

     
    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 184760 : April 23, 2010]

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PATERNO LORENZO Y CASAS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

    D E C I S I O N


    PEREZ, J.:

    Assailed in this appeal via Notice of Appeal is the 14 June 2007 Decision [1] of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR HC No. 02184 which affirmed the 05 October 2005 Decision[2] promulgated by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Mateo, Rizal, in Criminal Case Nos. 6991-93, finding accused-appellant Paterno Lorenzo y Casas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II, of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.[3]

    Accused-appellant was arrested and charged following a buy-bust operation.

    On 12 September 2003, two (2) Informations were filed against accused-appellant Paterno Lorenzo y Casas (Lorenzo) charging him with violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the accusatory portions thereof reading.

    Criminal Case No. 6992

    That on or about the 10th day of September 2003 in the Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession, direct custody and control a total of 2.04 grams of white crystalline substance contained in two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets which gave positive result to the test for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.[4]

    Criminal Case No. 6993

    That on or about the 10th day of September 2003, in the Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, deliver and give away to another 0.20 gram of white crystalline substance contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet which gave positive result to the test for Metamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.[5]

    The cases were raffled to Branch 76 of the RTC of San Mateo, Rizal and docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 6992-93.

    One Conrado Estanislao y Javier (Estanislao) was similarly charged in a different Information, which case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 6991. Estanislao was accused of possessing illegal drugs in violation of the provisions of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the Information containing the following averments:

    Criminal Case No. 6994

    That on or about the 10th day of September 2003, in the Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession, direct custody and control of 0.05 gram of white crystalline substance contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet which gave positive result to the test for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

    On arraignment, both accused, with the assistance of counsel, entered `NOT GUILTY' pleas.

    The three (3) cases having been consolidated, joint trial on the merits ensued.

    The prosecution presented as its lone witness, Police Officer 1 (PO1) Noel P. Pineda, who was a member of the buy-bust team.

    The evidence for the prosecution sought to establish that on 9 September 2003, upon a series of reports relayed by a confidential informant that a certain Paterno Lorenzo was peddling shabu in the Barangay Dulongbayan area, the team of PO3 Pineda embarked on a buy-bust operation against said drug peddler. Anticipating the operation, PO3 Pineda prepared two (2) pieces of marked P100.00 bills to be used as buy-bust money. At around 10:00 o'clock in the evening of the same day, PO3 Pineda, along with SPO1 Arellano and PO3 Tougan, proceeded to Barangay Dulongbayan and secretly met with their confidential informant. According to the confidential informant, he had not seen Lorenzo and raised the possibility that he was not in the area at the time. Assessing the situation, the police officers instructed the confidential informant to continue with his surveillance of the area and to inform them immediately if he comes across Lorenzo.

    At around 1:00 o'clock in the morning of 10 September 2003, while PO1 Pineda and his companions were waiting at Gen. Luna Street, the confidential informant reported that Lorenzo was already at the Daangbakal, Dulongbayan I area and was selling prohibited drugs. Riding an unmarked vehicle, the team proceeded to where Lorenzo was. On their arrival, Lorenzo was talking to a man at the corner of Pulong Diablo and Daangbakal. PO3 Tougan stepped out of their vehicle and hid in a place where he was not visible to Lorenzo. PO3 Pineda stayed close to SPO1 Arellano, who was then hiding inside a tricycle near Lorenzo. While this was happening, the confidential informant approached Lorenzo for the transaction. Lorenzo and the confidential informant were approximately four (4) meters away from PO3 Pineda. Because PO3 Pineda knew who Lorenzo was and considering the place was illuminated, PO3 Pineda recognized the suspect. The confidential informant and Lorenzo were talking for about one minute, after which the informant gave the marked money to Lorenzo. After taking the marked money, Lorenzo handed the shabu to the informant. PO3 Pineda and SPO1 Arellano alighted from the tricycle and approached Lorenzo, and introduced themselves as police officers. They arrested Lorenzo.

    Upon being arrested, Lorenzo was bodily searched and PO1 Pineda was able to retrieve the marked money and 2 other sachets of shabu from him. Seeing what had happened to Lorenzo, the man he was talking to and later on identified as a certain Estanislao, attempted to escape the police officers and ran, but he was soon accosted by PO3 Tougan. A search of his pockets yielded one (1) sachet of shabu.

    After the buy-bust operation, Lorenzo and Estanislao were taken to the police station where the incident was recorded in the police blotter. The plastic sachets containing 2.04 and 0.20 grams of white crystalline substance bought from Lorenzo was sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination. The results as contained in Chemistry Report no. D-1741-03E showed that the substance sold by Lorenzo was positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu.[6]

    Interposing the twin defenses of denial and frame-up, accused-appellant Lorenzo and Estanislao stood before the witness stand and presented their version of the facts.

    Lorenzo was in his mountain bike on the way home to Dulongbayan sometime between 12:00 o'clock in the evening and 1:00 o'clock in the morning of 10 September 2003. Estanislao, who was also with him at the time, was riding in his motor cross style bike and was supposed to buy food at said place after playing `tong-its.'

    While the two (2) were traversing Daangbakal and Delos Angeles Street, the chain on Estanislao's bike went loose. During the time Estanislao was repairing his bike, PO3 Tougan, PO3 Pineda, and SPO1 Arellano, who were then on board an owner type jeepney, arrived and arrested Lorenzo and Estanislao. According to the police officers, they were to be brought to the Municipal Hall. The two (2) suspects protested, claiming not having done anything wrong but the police officers continued with the arrest. It was later that they were informed that the arrest was for illegal drugs.

    On 5 October 2005, the RTC rendered a Decision convicting Lorenzo for illegal possession and sale of dangerous drugs, but acquitting Estanislao, disposing as follows:

    WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:

    (a) Finding accused Paterno Lorenzo y Casas guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, first paragraph, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Criminal Case No. 6993) or illegal selling of 0.20 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).

    (b) Finding accused Paterno Lorenzo y Casas guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of Section 11, second paragraph, No.3, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Criminal Case No. 6992) or illegal possession of 2.04 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of Twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to Twelve years and six (months) as maximum and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).

    (c) Finding accused Conrado Estanislao y Javier, for violation of Section 11, second paragraph, sub paragraph 3, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, NOT GUILTY for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

    Detained accused Conrado Estanislao y Javier is ordered released from detention at the San Mateo Jail unless detained for some other lawful cause.

    The plastic sachets of shabu subject matter of the instant cases are ordered forfeited in favor of the government and the Officer-In-Charge of the Court is hereby ordered to safely deliver or cause the safe delivery of the same to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition.[7]

    Weighing the testimonies of the prosecution and defense witnesses, as well as the other evidence presented during trial, the trial court gave more veracity to the prosecution's version that Lorenzo was caught in flagrante delicto selling illegal drugs to a poseur-buyer during a buy-bust operation. The trial court gave credence to the prosecution's evidence in accordance with the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions accorded to police officers. According to the trial court, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the buyer in the buy-bust operation and the seller, object and consideration, including the delivery of the shabu sold by Lorenzo and the payment of the buy-bust money.

    Invoking his innocence, Lorenzo appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals, questioning the procedure followed by the police operatives in the seizure and custody of the evidence against him.

    On 14 June 2007, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction rendered by the RTC, disposing to wit:

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, appeal is hereby dismissed and the assailed October 5, 2005 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Mateo Rizal, Branch 76, in Criminal Case Nos. 6991-93, is hereby AFFIRMED.

    Pursuant to Section 13 (C), Rule 124 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended by AM No. 00-5-03-SC dated September 28, 2004, which became effective on October 15, 2004. This judgment of the Court of Appeals may be appealed to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal filed with the Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals.

    SO ORDERED.

    Unyielding, Lorenzo appealed before this Court on Notice of Appeal,[8] adopting the same arguments raised before the Court of Appeals:

    I.

    THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 AND 11, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165; AND

    II.

    THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S DEFENSE OF DENIAL.

    The presumption of innocence of an accused in a criminal case is a basic constitutional principle, fleshed out by procedural rules which place on the prosecution the burden of proving that an accused is guilty of the offense charged by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Corollary thereto, conviction must rest on the strength of the prosecution's evidence and not on the weakness of the defense.

    In fact, if the prosecution fails to meet the required quantum of evidence, the defense may logically not even present evidence on its behalf. In which case, the presumption of innocence shall prevail and, hence, the accused shall be acquitted. However, once the presumption of innocence is overcome, the defense bears the burden of evidence to show reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.

    Whether the degree of proof has been met is largely left for the trial courts to be determined. Consistent with the rulings of this Court, it is but a fundamental and settled rule that factual findings of the trial court and its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its conclusions anchored on its findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect, more so when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The exception is when it is established that the trial court ignored, overlooked, misconstrued or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances which, if considered, will change the outcome of the case. Considering that what is at stake here is the liberty of accused-appellant, we have carefully reviewed and evaluated the records of the case and find it necessary to reverse the appellate court's decision convicting accused-appellant.

    Essentially, Lorenzo questions his conviction on the basis of reasonable doubt. The defense anchors its claim on the failure of the prosecution to adopt the required procedure under Section 21, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, on the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, or surrendered dangerous drugs. According to the defense, this alleged failure to follow proper procedure, i.e. inventory and photographing of the retrieved evidence, raises doubts as to whether the specimen examined by the forensic chemist and presented in court were indeed retrieved from accused-appellant. The defense also faults the police operatives for not having coordinated with the PDEA regarding the buy-bust.

    Thus, for resolution by this Court is the sole issue of whether the prosecution discharged its burden of proving Lorenzo's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime charged.

    We rule in the negative. The prosecution's case fails for failure to establish the identity of the prohibited drug with moral certainty.

    In order to successfully prosecute an accused for illegal sale of drugs, the prosecution must be able to prove the following elements: (1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[9] Material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale had actually taken place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[10] The term corpus delicti means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged.

    On the other hand, in illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the elements are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. Similarly, in this case, the evidence of the corpus delicti must be established beyond doubt.

    In both illegal sale and illegal possession of prohibited drugs, conviction cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the identity of the drug. The identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty. Apart from showing that the elements of possession or sale are present, the fact that the substance illegally possessed and sold in the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict.

    While buy-bust operations have been proven to be an effective way to flush out illegal transactions that are otherwise conducted covertly and in secrecy, a buy-bust operation is susceptible to police abuse. Thus, courts have been mandated to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses.

    Taking the aforementioned into consideration, specific procedures relating to the seizure and custody of drugs have been laid down under the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) for Republic Act No. 9165 and it is the prosecution's burden to adduce evidence that these procedures have been complied with in proving the elements of the offense.

    The procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, among others, is provided under Section 21 (a), paragraph 1 of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, to wit:

    (a) 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;

    Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, which implements said provision, reads:

    (a) 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; Provided, further that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.
    Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR offers some flexibility in complying with the express requirements. Indeed, the evident purpose of the procedure is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt of or innocence of the accused. Thus, the proviso stating that non-compliance with the stipulated procedure, under justifiable grounds, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items, for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers.

    In People v. Sanchez,[11] we clarified that this saving clause applies only where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds.

    Accused-appellant claims that no physical inventory and no photographing of the drugs took place. Non-compliance by the police operatives with the foregoing requirements in the instant case is fatal to the prosecution's case. Although the prosecution recognized its failure to coordinate with the PDEA because of the urgency of the situation, it ignored the issue of specifically identifying the prohibited drug at the point of confiscation. There is absolutely nothing in the records to show that the inventory and photography requirements, or their credible substitute to prove integrity and evidentiary value, were ever followed.

    In People v. Lim,[12] this Court held:

    xxx any apprehending team having initial custody and control of said drugs and/or paraphernalia, should immediately after seizure and confiscation, have the same physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused, if there be any, and or his representative, who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. The failure of the agents to comply with such a requirement raises a doubt whether what was submitted for laboratory examination and presented in court was actually recovered from the appellants. It negates the presumption that official duties have been regularly performed by the PAOC-TF agents.

    In Bondad, Jr. v. People,[13] where the prosecution did not inventory and photograph the confiscated evidence, this Court acquitted therein accused reasoning that failure to comply with the aforesaid requirements of the law compromised the identity of the items seized.

    In People v. Ruiz,[14] this Court acquitted accused due to the failure of the prosecution to comply with the procedures under Republic Act No. 9165 and its IRR as no physical inventory was ever made, and no photograph of the seized items was taken under the circumstances required.

    In People v. Orteza,[15] the Court explained the implications of the failure to comply with Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, to wit:

    In People v. Laxa, where the buy-bust team failed to mark the confiscated marijuana immediately after the apprehension of the accused, the Court held that the deviation from the standard procedure in anti-narcotics operations produced doubts as to the origins of the marijuana. Consequently, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the corpus delicti.

    The Court made a similar ruling in People v. Kimura, where the Narcom operatives failed to place markings on the seized marijuana at the time the accused was arrested and to observe the procedure and take custody of the drug.

    More recently, in Zarraga v. People, the Court held that the material inconsistencies with regard to when and where the markings on the shabu were made and the lack of inventory on the seized drugs created reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti. The Court thus acquitted the accused due to the prosecution's failure to indubitably show the identity of the shabu.

    To reiterate, the flexibility offered by the IRR of Republic Act No. 9165 is coupled with the proviso that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items must be preserved.

    Thus, in Malillin v. People,[16] the Court explained that the "chain of custody" requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. The chain of evidence is constructed by proper exhibit handling, storage, labeling and recording, and must exist from the time the evidence is found until the time it is offered in evidence.[17] Failure to prove that the specimen submitted for laboratory examination was the same one allegedly seized from accused is fatal to the prosecution's case. There can be no crime of illegal possession or illegal sale of a prohibited drug when nagging doubts persist on whether the item confiscated was the same specimen examined and established to be the prohibited drug.[18]

    PO1 Pineda testified that it was their confidential agent who purchased the shabu from accused-appellant and that he only retrieved it from said informant. He further testified that he marked the retrieved sachet of shabu together with the two other sachets of shabu that were allegedly seized from the accused, but it was not certain when and where the said marking was done nor who had specifically received and had custody of the specimens thereafter.

    The Court also observes that the prosecution did not present the poseur-buyer who had personal knowledge of the transaction. The lone prosecution witness was at least four meters away from where accused-appellant and the poseur-buyer were. From this distance, it was impossible for him to hear the conversation between accused-appellant and the poseur-buyer.

    The foregoing facts and circumstances create doubt as to whether the sachets of shabu allegedly seized from accused-appellant were the same ones that were released to Camp Crame and submitted for laboratory examination. We therefore find that this failure to establish the evidence's chain of custody is damaging to the prosecution's case.[19]

    In sum, the totality of the evidence presented in the instant case failed to support accused-appellant's conviction for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, since the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the offense.

    Accordingly, the presumption of innocence should prevail.

    WHEREFORE, the assailed Court of Appeals Decision dated 14 June 2007 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02184, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant PATERNO LORENZO y CASAS is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.

    Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this Court within five days from receipt of this Decision the action he has taken. Copies shall also be furnished the Director General, Philippine National Police, and the Director General, Philippine Drugs Enforcement Agency, for their information.

    SO ORDERED.

    Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo, and Abad, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:


    [1] Rollo, pp. 2-18; Penned by Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Ramon R. Garcia.

    [2] CA Rollo, pp. 52-64; Penned by Judge Josephine Fernandez.

    [3] Section 5. Sale , Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.xxx

    Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:

    Xxx Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:

    (3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana x xx

    [4] Records, p.1.

    [5] Id.

    [6] Exhibit E, Records, p. 95.

    [7] CA Rollo, pp. 52-64.

    [8] Rollo, p. 19.

    [9] People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 172116, October 30, 2006, 506 SCRA 280.

    [10] Valdez v. People, G.R. No. 170180, November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA, 629.

    [11] People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194.

    [12] People v. Lim, G.R. No. 141699, August 7, 2002, 386 SCRA 581.

    [13] Bondad, Jr., v. People, G.R. No. 173804, December 10, 2008, 573 SCRA 497.

    [14] People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009, 580 SCRA 750.

    [15] People v. Orteza, G.R. No. 173051, July 31, 2007, 528 SCRA 750.

    [16] Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619.

    [17] Supra, note 11 at 10.

    [18] Id.

    [19] People v. Dismuke, G.R. No. 108453, July 11, 1994, 234 SCRA 51.

    [G.R. No. 184760 : April 23, 2010]   PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PATERNO LORENZO Y CASAS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.




    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