Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2011 > September 2011 Decisions > [G.R. No. 194719 : September 14, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. RODEL SINGSON, APPELLANT.:




THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 194719 : September 14, 2011]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. RODEL SINGSON, APPELLANT.

D E C I S I O N


ABAD, J.:

In this rape case, when the victim's mother got home and found her daughter's bedroom locked, she looked for the key, opened her daughter's bedroom with it, and found her naked in bed with the accused hiding underneath it.

The Facts and the Case

The Provincial Prosecutor of Cabarroguis, Quirino, charged the accused Rodel Singson with rape before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of that province[1] in Criminal Case 1841.

MJ[2] testified that, through text messages by mobile phones, Rodel became her boyfriend and their relation lasted from January to September 2003.  But they hardly saw each other after MJ studied in Manila.  They met when MJ came home to Santiago for vacation in the summer of 2003.  After a few months, however, she broke up with Rodel to concentrate on her studies.

In the evening of December 22, 2003 MJ and her mother, LK, attended the simbang gabi from 9:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.  After the mass, LK wanted to join some church members to go caroling.  Since MJ felt sleepy, she bade her mother leave to go home at about 11:30 p.m.  On reaching home, MJ prepared to go to bed but someone knocked at their door.  Thinking it was her mother, she opened it and, to her surprise, saw Rodel standing at the door.

Rodel said that he wanted to talk to MJ about renewing their relation.  She was at first hesitant to entertain him because he appeared drunk but she eventually let him in.  After talking with Rodel at the living room for about 45 minutes, MJ asked him to leave and he did.  MJ then entered her room.  But, suddenly, Rodel appeared and sprayed something on her face that made her feel weak and dizzy.  Her vision also became blurred.  After undressing her, Rodel touched her body in various parts.  Eventually, he violated her.  She could only cry until she lost consciousness.

MJ woke up to the screams of her brother who was gripping Rodel by the bedroom window.  As it turned out, when LK came home at 2:00 a.m., she knocked at MJ's bedroom to check if she had gotten home safely but LK got no answer.  Worried, LK used a key to open the door and she saw MJ naked and unconscious on the bed.  Noticing unfamiliar clothes on the floor, LK became suspicious and looked around. When she checked under the bed, she saw Rodel there in his underwear.  LK shouted for help, waking up her sister who happened to be the barangay chairman of their village.  Some barangay tanods came.  They moved MJ to another room and arrested Rodel.  It was to her aunt that MJ told her story because the incident affected her mother deeply.

Rodel, on the other hand, insisted that he and MJ freely had sexual intercourse borne of their mutual affection.  He did not rape her.  But, declining to give credence to his defense, on November 26, 2007 the RTC found Rodel guilty of rape, sentenced him to life imprisonment, and ordered him to pay MJ P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages.

On March 25, 2010 the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 03161 affirmed the RTC decision, hence, this appeal.

The Issue Presented

The only issue presented in this case is whether or not Rodel raped MJ after spraying her with drugs that weakened her resistance and eventually rendered her unconscious.

The Ruling of the Court    

One of the ways of committing rape, according to Article 335 of theRevised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act 7659,[3] is by having carnal knowledge of a woman when she has been deprived of reason or otherwise rendered unconscious.  The prosecution claims that this was Rodel's crime.

But the Court doubts MJ's story.  She testified that Rodel sprayed something on her face, causing her to feel weak and dizzy. Rodel then brought her into her room and took off her clothes.  He kissed her neck and breasts and successfully ravished her.  She said that she was unable to scream for help because she suddenly became unconscious when Rodel entered her.  It was only when she heard her brother scream that she woke up.[4]

But, MJ's story is at variance with what she said in her December 23, 2003 affidavit[5] which she executed only hours after the incident. MJ there said that she was fully conscious during the time Rodel was raping her.  Indeed, she described Rodel's pumping motion until he discharged into her. She even felt pain afterwards in her genitals and in the other parts of her body.  MJ claimed that it was only after it was over that her eyes felt heavy and she lost consciousness.  When the defense counsel confronted her with this inconsistency between her testimony and her affidavit, MJ could not offer an explanation.[6]

The testimony of LK, MJ's mother, is just as dubious.  She said that on entering her daughter's room, she saw MJ naked in bed. Seeing a man's pants on the floor, LK looked under the bed and saw Rodel hiding there.  LK tried to rouse her daughter but she would not wake up, prompting LK to cry for help.  When the barangay chairman and the tanods arrived, they pulled Rodel from under the bed.  It was only then that MJ came around and told her mother that she had been raped.[7]

On cross-examination, however, LK's story of what happened followed a different sequence.  Rather than try to wake her daughter up, she immediately screamed for help on seeing Rodel under the bed.[8]  His son came, wrapped a blanket around MJ, and brought her still unconscious into another room.[9]  And LK claimed that MJ woke up only after Rodel and the others had left.[10]  LK also said that when she started screaming for help, MJ asked her, "What happen now to you?"[11] This shows that MJ regained consciousness at about the time her mother saw Rodel under the bed.  Only afterwards did they move MJ out of the room.

LK's revised version somehow corroborates Rodel's story of what really happened.  Rodel testified:

Q:  And what did you do when [MJ] instructed you to hide under her bed?

A:  I went under the bed, sir.[12]

x x x x

A:  Her brother peeped under the bed and he saw me so he pulled me and punched me, sir.[13]

x x x x

A:  After that, they took [MJ] out of her room and brought her to another room, sir.

Q:  Who took [MJ] to another room?

A:  Her mother, sir.[14]

x x x x

Q:  How about you, what did they do to you, if any?

A:  I was locked inside the room of [MJ], sir.

Q:  What happened next?

A:  I heard her mother talking to [MJ] whether she wants to continue her studies or she wants to get marry already.

Q:  So, what happened after that?

A:  No more, sir.[15]

Consider also that, although MJ claimed that Rodel sprayed her face with something that made her dizzy and weak, the prosecution never produced the spray can or bottle he used, which the barangay chairman or her tanods would have seized and kept as evidence if it existed.  MJ's mother did not mention seeing it.  Surely, Rodel who only had his underwear on when they arrested him could not have taken or concealed it.  It seems doubtful, therefore, that there had been a spraying of some immobilizing drugs that morning.

Testimonial evidence, to be believed, must not only come from credible lips but must be credible in substance.  A story that defies reason and logic and above all runs against the grain of common experience cannot persuade.[16]  Here, the prosecution's account failed to pass these tests.

In her Affidavit, MJ said that Rodel sought to walk her home because he wanted to talk to her about fixing their relationship.[17]  In her testimony, however, MJ insisted that she had no conversation with Rodel prior to his showing up at her house near midnight of December 23, 2003.  Thus:

Q:  When was the first time you saw Rodel?

A:  At the start of the caroling, sir.

Q:  Did you talk to each other when you saw him?

A:  No, sir.

Q:  You just saw him?

A:  Yes, sir.

Q:  So, that was the first and last time you have seen him while caroling?

A:  Yes, sir.

Q:  You are very sure about that?

A:  Yes, sir.[18] (Emphasis supplied)

When confronted by her contradictory statements, MJ had to admit that Rodel indeed talked to her about walking her home during the caroling. Thus:

A:  Only that part- he volunteered to accompany me, when we were in the terrace he said he wanted to talk to me, sir.[19]

MJ also testified that she and Rodel never really had a deep relationship because they seldom saw each other and communicated only through text messages on their mobile phones.[20]  Indeed, she broke up with him three months before December 2003.  Yet, when Rodel came by their house at around midnight of December 23, she let him in when Rodel was visibly drunk.  Then she let him stay for nearly an hour before asking him to leave.

And when Rodel left, MJ did not see him off at the door to lock it as he went out. Her excuse in not locking the door was that her mother was still out.[21]  But, notably, when Rodel supposedly came and knocked at the door after she got home at 11:30 p.m., she had to let him in because it was already locked.[22]

MJ also said that she was no longer naked when she woke up and heard her brother screaming by the bedroom window, with Rodel in a tight grip.[23]  If this were true, somebody must have slipped her clothes back on while she was out cold. This contradicts LK's testimony that her son had to wrap MJ in a blanket before taking her out of the room.

In insisting that she already had her dress on when she woke up, MJ was apparently steering clear of the fact that her mother had caught her naked, with Rodel in his underwear beneath the bed.  MJ simply wanted to save her dignity at Rodel's expense.  Apparently, what bothered MJ more was not the supposed rape but how she would explain the compromising situation in which her mother found her.  Thus MJ testified:

Q:  So, when you recovered consciousness, what did you do?

A:  I cried and cried, sir.

Q:  Why did you cry?

x x x x

A:  Because I could not accept what happened because my mother was asking me what happened, sir.[24]

x x x x

Q:  What did you tell your mother after you regained consciousness?

A:  I cried, sir.

Q:  What else did you tell your mother after you regained your consciousness?

A:  I was just crying, sir.

Q:  Did you not tell her that Rodel Singson sprayed something to your face?

A:  I told her, sir.

Q:  Immediately after you regained your consciousness, is that what you mean?

A:  No, sir it took sometime.

Q:  Why did you not tell immediately?

A:  (No answer of the witness).

Court:  What is the span of time did you tell to your mother?

A:  I do not know because I was crying and crying, sir.[25] (Emphasis supplied)

MJ's above testimony also contradicts her mother's original claim that when her daughter woke up she immediately said that Rodel raped her.[26]  Of course, LK had to remedy this contradiction by subsequently saying that MJ mentioned the supposed rape only when the barangay authorities showed up.  Thus, LK said:

Q:  Now, what did your daughter tell you?

A:  Actually my daughter narrated the incident to the barangay captain not to me because during that time I can not speak and I was shocked, sir.

Q:  So when did your daughter tell to the barangay captain what happened to her?

A:  I can no longer remember because that whole afternoon I was very weak and my body can not go through it, sir.

Q:  So it was the barangay captain who told you that your daughter was raped because your daughter told to her about that?

A:  Yes, sir. [27]

x x x x

Q:  So you did not know that morning that your daughter was raped?

A:  I don't know, sir.

Q:  When did you talk first with your daughter after that incident?

A:  Maybe two days after the incident because she herself was also crying.  She was always in tears and we can not talk to her, sir.[28] (Emphasis supplied)

The barangay chairman, MJ's aunt and LK's sister, testified that on her arrival the first thing she heard was that a man entered the house and that her sister found MJ naked.  No one told the barangay chairman at that point that MJ had been raped.  No wonder, the first thing the barangay chairman did was to go into the room and ask MJ if Rodel had taken her virginity from her.  Thus:

Q:  Who told you that her daughter was raped?

A:  My elder sister told me that a man entered their house but I was not yet informed that [MJ] was raped.

Q:  So, how did the mother of [MJ] tell you that her daughter [MJ] was raped?

A:  She was the first one who saw [MJ] naked.

Q:  That was told to you by her, is that correct?

A:  Yes, sir.

x x x x

Q:  When did you ask [MJ] about that Madam Witness?

A:  After my elder sister told me that she saw [MJ] naked so I went to [MJ] to verify if her womanhood was taken.[29]

x x x x

Q:  Do you remember if [MJ] told you about what the accused did first that he sprayed something in the face of [MJ]?

A:  No sir because the only thing I asked is that if he had taken her womanhood.[30] (Emphasis supplied)

It is uncanny that even after so much time had passed, still no one told the barangay chairman right off when she arrived that MJ had been raped.  It was MJ's nakedness in her room and Rodel's presence under the bed that preoccupied the barangay chairman and made her ask if MJ's virginity had been taken from her, which fact in itself did not amount to rape.  How Rodel succeeded in taking that virginity--supposedly by spraying MJ with something that made her dizzy--apparently did not have relevance to the barangay chairman's line of inquiry.

The sequence of events that the prosecution tried to establish did not also make sense.  The story is that MJ got home at about 11:30 p.m.[31]  Rodel came around midnight and they talked for about 30 to 45 minutes.  This means that Rodel left at 12:45 a.m. at the latest.  Since he came right back into the house, this means that, if the prosecution evidence were to be believed, he raped MJ at about 12:45 a.m.  Thus, at least one hour would have passed before MJ's mother, LK, came home at 2:00 a.m.[32]  So what reason would Rodel have for staying around in his underwear after raping MJ? And, although the bedroom had a window through which Rodel could easily have escaped, he chose to dive under the bed. These circumstances indicate that Rodel did not believe he committed a crime.  He hid simply to avoid exposing MJ to her mother's wrath.

It seems, considering all the testimonies that what happened is that, since they were alone in the house, Rodel and MJ lost control and made love. When MJ's mother suddenly showed up and opened her daughter's room with a key, Rodel hid under the bed.  But the suspicious mother, finding her daughter naked, looked for him under the bed.  LK summoned her sister, the barangay chairman, her son and her brother-in-law, both tanods and seized Rodel.  Asked if she preferred getting married to continuing her studies, MJ must have chosen the latter.  And, to save face, her relatives who had political power made it look like Rodel raped her.

Although the weight of jurisprudence is that the Court must respect the factual findings of the trial court and the CA, this case presents an exception.  On close examination, the prosecution's evidence left much to be desired.  With so many inconsistencies and incompatibilities with common experience, the Court is unable to see the unfiltered truth.  To conclude, the evidence failed to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence of the accused.

WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the appeal, SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 25, 2010 in CA-G.R. CR-HC 03161 as well as the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cabarroguis, Quirino, Branch 31 in Criminal Case 1841, and ACQUITS the accused-appellant Rodel Singson of the crime charged on ground of reasonable doubt.

The Court orders his immediate RELEASE from custody unless he is being held for some other lawful cause and ORDERS the Director of the Bureau of Corrections to immediately implement this Decision and to inform the Court within five days from its receipt of the date appellant was actually released from confinement.  Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Abad, Mendoza, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ.

Endnotes:


[1]  Branch 31.

[2] Pursuant to Republic Act 9262, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004" and its implementing rules, the real name of the victim, together with the real names of her immediate family members, is withheld and fictitious initials are used to represent her, both to protect her privacy (People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419, 421-426).

[3]  Entitled an act to impose the death penalty on certain heinous crimes, amending for that purpose the revised penal laws, and for other purposes.

[4]  TSN, January 3, 2005, p. 5.

[5]  Records, p. 2, Exhibit "C".

[6]  Supra note 4, at 19.

[7]  TSN, October 11, 2004, pp. 6-8.

[8]  Id. at 15.

[9]  Id. at 20.

[10]  Id. at 21.

[11]  Id. at 18.

[12]  TSN, November 9, 2005, p. 16.

[13]  Id. at 17.

[14]  Id.

[15]  Id. at 18.

[16]  People v. Abino, 423 Phil. 263, 276 (2001).

[17]  Supra note 5.

[18]  Supra note 4, at 15.

[19]  Id. at 17-18.

[20]  Id. at 9.

[21]  Id. at 23.

[22]  Id. at 20-21.

[23]  Id. at 6.

[24]  Id. at 26-27.

[25]  Id. at 29.

[26]  Supra note 7, at 8.

[27]  Id. at 21-22.

[28]  Id. at 23.

[29]  TSN, January 17, 2005, pp. 14-15.

[30]  Id. at 17.

[31]  Supra note 4, at 13.

[32]  Supra note 7, at 6.



Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-2011 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 176800 : September 05, 2011] ELMER LOPEZ, PETITIONER, VS. KEPPEL BANK PHILIPPINES, INC., MANUEL BOSANO III AND STEFAN TONG WAI MUN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 169331 : September 05, 2011] AGAPITO ROM, PASTORA P. ROSEL, VALENTINO R. ANILA, JUANITO P. ROSEL, VIRGILIO R. CASAL, LUIS H. BAUTISTA, CRESENCIANO M. ARGENTE, ANA M. ARGENTE, GIL B. CUENO, ENGRACIO B. BELTRAN, ANGELITO B. AURE, ESTEBAN C. BENDO, MARIA ALBAO, GILBERT H. DEL MUNDO, EUFRONIO H. DEL MUNDO, PASTOR H. DEL MUNDO, ANTONIO H. DEL MUNDO, ALBERTA H. DEL MUNDO, PEDRO H. DEL MUNDO, ROLANDO B. ATIE, PETITIONERS, VS. ROXAS & COMPANY, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. NO. P-04-1771 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 03-1618-P) : September 05, 2011] ATTY. PACIFICO CAPUCHINO, COMPLAINANT, VS. STENOGRAPHER MARIPI A. APOLONIO, LEGAL RESEARCHER CARINA C. BRETANIA, COURT STENOGRAPHER ANDREALYN M. ANDRES, COURT STENOGRAPHER ANA GRACIA E. SANTIAGO, INTERPRETER MA. ANITA G. GATCHECO, BRANCH CLERK OF COURT ROMEO B. ASPIRAS, CLERK IV FE L. ALVAREZ AND PROCESS SERVER EUGENIO P. TAGUBA, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 2, SANTIAGO CITY, ISABELA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 156318 : September 05, 2011] SPOUSES ANSELMO[1] AND PRISCILLA BULAONG, PETITIONERS, VS. VERONICA GONZALES, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-09-2703 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 99-654-P] : September 05, 2011] LINA LAURIA-LIBERATO, COMPLAINANT, VS. NESTOR M. LELINA, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT (MCTC), NAGUILIAN-REINA MERCEDES, ISABELA, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-05-2083 : September 06, 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. ELSIE C. REMOROZA, CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, MAUBAN, QUEZON, RESPONDENT. [A.M. NO. P-06-2263] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JOSEFINA NERI N. ALPAJORA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 193677 : September 06, 2011] LUCIANO VELOSO, ABRAHAM CABOCHAN, JOCELYN DAWIS-ASUNCION AND MARLON M. LACSON, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-10-2225 (FORMERLY A.M. OCA I.P.I. NO. 09-3182-RTJ) : September 06, 2011] ATTY. TOMAS ONG CABILI, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE RASAD G. BALINDONG, ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BRANCH 8, MARAWI CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 169905 : September 07, 2011] ST. PAUL COLLEGE QUEZON CITY, SR. LILIA THERESE TOLENTINO, SPC, SR. BERNADETTE RACADIO, SPC, AND SR. SARAH MANAPOL, PETITIONERS, - VERSUS- REMIGIO MICHAEL A. ANCHETA II AND CYNTHIA A. ANCHETA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 193577 : September 07, 2011] ANTONIO FRANCISCO, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS: NELIA E.S. FRANCISCO, EMILIA F. BERTIZ, REBECCA E.S. FRANCISCO, ANTONIO E.S. FRANCISCO, JR., SOCORRO F. FONTANILLA, AND JOVITO E.S. FRANCISCO, PETITIONERS, VS. CHEMICAL BULK CARRIERS, INCORPORATED, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 192466 : September 07, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ALEJO TAROY Y TARNATE, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 191251 : September 07, 2011] EDNA LOPEZ DELICANO, EDUARDO ALBERTO LOPEZ, MARIO DIEZ CRUZ, HOWARD E. MENESES, AND CORAZON E. MENESES, PETITIONERS, VS. PECHATEN CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175409 : September 07, 2011] PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. EXPLORER MARITIME CO., LTD., OWNER OF THE VESSEL M/V "EXPLORER", WALLEM PHILS. SHIPPING, INC., ASIAN TERMINALS, INC. AND FOREMOST INTERNATIONAL PORT SERVICES, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 174759 : September 07, 2011] DENIS B. HABAWEL AND ALEXIS F. MEDINA, PETITIONERS, VS. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, FIRST DIVISION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 174720 : September 07, 2011] LANDOIL RESOURCES CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. AL RABIAH LIGHTING COMPANY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 157537 : September 07, 2011] THE HEIRS OF PROTACIO GO, SR. AND MARTA BAROLA, NAMELY: LEONOR, SIMPLICIO, PROTACIO, JR., ANTONIO, BEVERLY ANN LORRAINNE, TITA, CONSOLACION, LEONORA AND ASUNCION, ALL SURNAMED GO, REPRESENTED BY LEONORA B. GO, PETITIONERS, VS. ESTER L. SERVACIO AND RITO B. GO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 173090-91 : September 07, 2011] UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES RODOLFO T. TIU AND VICTORIA N. TIU, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 164255 : September 07, 2011] SPOUSES ELBE LEBIN AND ERLINDA LEBIN, PETITIONERS, VS. VILMA S. MIRASOL, AND REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ILOILO, BRANCH XXVII, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186412 : September 07, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ORLITO VILLACORTA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 187887 : September 07, 2011] PAMELA FLORENTINA P. JUMUAD, PETITIONER, VS. HI-FLYER FOOD, INC. AND/OR JESUS R. MONTEMAYOR, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170257 : September 07, 2011] RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 163602 : September 07, 2011] SPOUSES EULOGIA MANILA AND RAMON MANILA, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES EDERLINDA GALLARDO-MANZO AND DANIEL MANZO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 189579 : September 12, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOSELITO ORJE Y BORCE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 170486 : September 12, 2011] SWIFT FOODS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES JOSE MATEO, JR. AND IRENE MATEO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187728 : September 12, 2011] CHURCHILLE V. MARI AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. ROLANDO L. GONZALES, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 39, SOGOD, SOUTHERN LEYTE, AND PO1 RUDYARD PALOMA Y TORRES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 156185 : September 12, 2011] CATALINA B. CHU, THEANLYN B. CHU, THEAN CHING LEE B. CHU, THEAN LEEWN B. CHU, AND MARTIN LAWRENCE B. CHU, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES FERNANDO C. CUNANAN AND TRINIDAD N. CUNANAN, BENELDA ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, AND SPOUSES AMADO E. CARLOS AND GLORIA A. CARLOS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 195005 : September 12, 2011] ROSANA ASIATICO Y STA. MARIA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. R E S O L U T I O N

  • [G.R. No. 192084 : September 14, 2011] JOSE MEL BERNARTE, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION (PBA), JOSE EMMANUEL M. EALA, AND PERRY MARTINEZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 164682 : September 14, 2011] JOEL GALZOTE Y SORIAGA, PETITIONER, VS. JONATHAN BRIONES AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 191265 : September 14, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARCELO PEREZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. Nos. 192435-36 : September 14, 2011] CITY GOVERNMENT OF TUGUEGARAO, REPRESENTED BY ROBERT P. GUZMAN, PETITIONER, VS. RANDOLPH S. TING, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 183349 : September 14, 2011] F&E DE CASTRO CORPORATION, ELISA DE CASTRO AND FEDERICO DE CASTRO, PETITIONERS, VS. ERNESTO G. OLASO AND AMPARO M. OLASO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173038 : September 14, 2011] ELENA JANE DUARTE, PETITIONER, VS. MIGUEL SAMUEL A.E. DURAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 152500 : September 14, 2011] PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (SECOND DIVISION), TOURIST DUTY FREE SHOPS, INC., BANK OF AMERICA AND RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 194719 : September 14, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. RODEL SINGSON, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 165287 : September 14, 2011] ARMANDO BARCELLANO, PETITIONER, VS. DOLORES BA�AS, REPRESENTED BY HER SON AND ATTORNEY-IN-FACT CRISPINO BERMILLO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 193247 : September 14, 2011] SERGIO I. CARBONILLA, EMILIO Y. LEGASPI IV, AND ADONAIS Y. REJUSO, PETITIONERS, VS. BOARD OF AIRLINES REPRESENTATIVES (MEMBER AIRLINES: ASIANA AIRLINES, CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS, CHINA AIRLINES, CEBU PACIFIC AIRLINES, CHINA SOUTHERN AIRLINES, CONTINENTAL MICRONESIA AIRLINES, EMIRATES, ETIHAD AIRWAYS, EVA AIR AIRWAYS, FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, GULF AIR, JAPAN AIRLINES, AIR FRANCE-KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES, KOREAN AIR, KUWAIT AIRWAYS CORPORATION, LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES, MALAYSIA AIRLINES, NORTHWEST AIRLINES, PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., QANTAS AIRWAYS, LTD., QATAR AIRLINES, ROYAL BRUNEI AIRLINES, SINGAPORE AIRLINES, SWISS INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES, LTD., SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES, AND THAI INTERNATIONAL AIRWAYS), RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 194276] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, REPRESENTED BY HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA,* IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, REPRESENTED BY HON. CESAR V. PURISIMA** IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF FINANCE, AND THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, REPRESENTED BY HON. ANGELITO A. ALVAREZ**** IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PETITIONERS, VS. BOARD OF AIRLINES REPRESENTATIVES (MEMBER AIRLINES: ASIANA AIRLINES, CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS, CHINA AIRLINES, CEBU PACIFIC AIRLINES, CHINA SOUTHERN AIRLINES, CONTINENTAL MICRONESIA AIRLINES, EMIRATES, ETIHAD AIRWAYS, EVA AIR AIRWAYS, FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, GULF AIR, JAPAN AIRLINES, AIR FRANCE-KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES, KOREAN AIR, KUWAIT AIRWAYS CORPORATION, LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES, MALAYSIA AIRLINES, NORTHWEST AIRLINES, PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., QANTAS AIRWAYS, LTD., QATAR AIRLINES, ROYAL BRUNEI AIRLINES, SINGAPORE AIRLINES, SWISS INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES, LTD., SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES, AND THAI INTERNATIONAL AIRWAYS), RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 179593 : September 14, 2011] UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST, PETITIONER, VS. UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 187044 : September 14, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RENATO LAGAT Y GAWAN A.K.A. RENAT GAWAN AND JAMES PALALAY Y VILLAROSA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2977 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 09-3254-P) : September 14, 2011] COL. MAURICIO A. SANTIAGO, JR. (RET.), COMPLAINANT, VS. ARTHUR M. CAMANGYAN, PROCESS SERVER, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 29, TOLEDO CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2970 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 10-3568-P) : September 14, 2011] DOLORES C. SELIGER, COMPLAINANT, VS. ALMA P. LICAY, CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, SAN JUAN, LA UNION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175299 : September 14, 2011] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, THROUGH THE HON. SECRETARY, HERMOGENES EBDANE, PETITIONER, VS. ALBERTO A. DOMINGO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 164181 : September 14, 2011] NISSAN MOTORS PHILS., INC., PETITIONER, VS. VICTORINO ANGELO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 161030 : September 14, 2011] JOSE FERNANDO, JR., ZOILO FERNANDO, NORMA FERNANDO BANARES, ROSARIO FERNANDO TANGKENCGO, HEIRS OF TOMAS FERNANDO, REPRESENTED BY ALFREDO V. FERNANDO, HEIRS OF GUILLERMO FERNANDO, REPRESENTED BY RONNIE H. FERNANDO, HEIRS OF ILUMINADA FERNANDO, REPRESENTED BY BENJAMIN ESTRELLA AND HEIRS OF GERMOGENA FERNANDO, PETITIONERS, VS. LEON ACUNA, HERMOGENES FERNANDO, HEIRS OF SPOUSES ANTONIO FERNANDO AND FELISA CAMACHO, REPRESENTED BY HERMOGENES FERNANDO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182397 : September 14, 2011] ALERT SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY, INC. AND/OR MANUEL D. DASIG, PETITIONERS, VS. SAIDALI PASAWILAN, WILFREDO VERCELES AND MELCHOR BULUSAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 195665 : September 14, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DAVID MANINGDING, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 166357 : September 19, 2011] VALERIO E. KALAW, PETITIONER, VS. MA. ELENA FERNANDEZ, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 178699 : September 21, 2011] BPI EMPLOYEES UNION - METRO MANILA AND ZENAIDA UY, PETITIONERS, VS. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 178735] BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PETITIONER, VS. BPI EMPLOYEES UNION - METRO MANILA AND ZENAIDA UY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. NO. P-11-2953 : September 28, 2011] LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. ROMEO L. DE LEMOS, CLERK OF COURT VI, DOMINADOR C. MASANGKAY, SHERIFF IV, ADELAIDA D. TOLENTINO, CASH CLERK II, MA. FATIMA M. YUMENA, DEMO II, MA. FE E. YUMOL, COURT AIDE II, AND RONALD M. TAGUINOD, PROCESS SERVER, ALL OF THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BALANGA CITY, BATAAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. 2011-05-SC : September 06, 2011] RE: DECEITFUL CONDUCT OF IGNACIO S. DEL ROSARIO, CASH CLERK III, RECORDS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTER SECTION, CHECKS DISBURSEMENT DIVISION, FMO-OCA.

  • [G.R. No. 191425 : September 07, 2011] ATILANO O. NOLLORA, JR., PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • Name[G.R. No. 176535 : September 07, 2011] NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, VS. FIRST UNITED CONSTRUCTORS CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 190994 : September 07, 2011] TONGONAN HOLDINGS AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. FRANCISCO ESCA�O, JR. RESPONDENT.

  • Name[A.C. No. 4955 : September 12, 2011] ANTONIO CONLU, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. IRENEO AREDONIA, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. NO. P-10-2765 [FORMERLY A.M. NO. 09-11-199-MCTC] : September 13, 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. EVELYN G. ELUMBARING, CLERK OF COURT II, 1ST MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, CARMEN-STO. TOMAS-BRAULIO E. DUJALI, DAVAO DEL NORTE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 183445 : September 14, 2011] OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION, PETITIONERS, VS. CALIXTO R. CATAQUIZ, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 165748 : September 14, 2011] HEIRS OF POLICRONIO M. URETA, SR., NAMELY: CONRADO B. URETA, MACARIO B. URETA, GLORIA URETA-GONZALES, ROMEO B. URETA, RITA URETA-SOLANO, NENA URETA-TONGCUA, VENANCIO B. URETA, LILIA URETA-TAYCO, AND HEIRS OF POLICRONIO B. URETA, JR., NAMELY: MIGUEL T. URETA, RAMON POLICRONIO T. URETA, EMMANUEL T. URETA, AND BERNADETTE T. URETA, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF LIBERATO M. URETA, NAMELY: TERESA F. URETA, AMPARO URETA-CASTILLO, IGNACIO F. URETA, SR., EMIRITO F. URETA, WILKIE F. URETA, LIBERATO F. URETA, JR., RAY F. URETA, ZALDY F. URETA, AND MILA JEAN URETA CIPRIANO; HEIRS OF PRUDENCIA URETA PARADERO, NAMELY: WILLIAM U. PARADERO, WARLITO U. PARADERO, CARMENCITA P. PERLAS, CRISTINA P. CORDOVA, EDNA P. GALLARDO, LETICIA P. REYES; NARCISO M. URETA; VICENTE M. URETA; HEIRS OF FRANCISCO M. URETA, NAMELY: EDITA T. URETA-REYES AND LOLLIE T. URETA-VILLARUEL; ROQUE M. URETA; ADELA URETA-GONZALES; HEIRS OF INOCENCIO M. URETA, NAMELY: BENILDA V. URETA, ALFONSO V. URETA II, DICK RICARDO V. URETA, AND ENRIQUE V. URETA; MERLINDA U. RIVERA; JORGE URETA; ANDRES URETA, WENEFREDA U. TARAN; AND BENEDICT URETA, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 165930 ] HEIRS OF LIBERATO M. URETA, NAMELY: TERESA F. URETA, AMPARO URETA-CASTILLO, IGNACIO F. URETA, SR., EMIRITO F. URETA, WILKIE F. URETA, LIBERATO F. URETA, JR., RAY F. URETA, ZALDY F. URETA, AND MILA JEAN URETA CIPRIANO; HEIRS OF PRUDENCIA URETA PARADERO, NAMELY: WILLIAM U. PARADERO, WARLITO U. PARADERO, CARMENCITA P. PERLAS, CRISTINA P. CORDOVA, EDNA P. GALLARDO, LETICIA P. REYES; NARCISO M. URETA; VICENTE M. URETA; HEIRS OF FRANCISCO M. URETA, NAMELY: EDITA T. URETA-REYES AND LOLLIE T. URETA-VILLARUEL; ROQUE M. URETA; ADELA URETA-GONZALES; HEIRS OF INOCENCIO M. URETA, NAMELY: BENILDA V. URETA, ALFONSO V. URETA II, DICK RICARDO V. URETA, AND ENRIQUE V. URETA; MERLINDA U. RIVERA; JORGE URETA; ANDRES URETA, WENEFREDA U. TARAN; AND BENEDICT URETA, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF POLICRONIO M. URETA, SR., NAMELY: CONRADO B. URETA, MACARIO B. URETA, GLORIA URETA-GONZALES, ROMEO B. URETA, RITA URETA-SOLANO, NENA URETA-TONGCUA, VENANCIO B. URETA, LILIA URETA-TAYCO, AND HEIRS OF POLICRONIO B. URETA, JR., NAMELY: MIGUEL T. URETA, RAMON POLICRONIO T. URETA, EMMANUEL T. URETA, AND BERNADETTE T. URETA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 179243 : September 17, 2011] JOSEPH ANTHONY M. ALEJANDRO, FIRDAUSI I.Y. ABBAS, CARMINA A. ABBAS AND MA. ELENA GO FRANCISCO, PETITIONERS, VS. ATTY. JOSE A. BERNAS, ATTY. MARIE LOURDES SIA-BERNAS, FERNANDO AMOR, EDUARDO AGUILAR, JOHN DOE AND PETER DOE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186209 : September 21, 2011] UNITED LABORATORIES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. JAIME DOMINGO SUBSTITUTED BY HIS SPOUSE CARMENCITA PUNZALAN DOMINGO, ANONUEVO REMIGIO, RODOLFO MARCELO, RAUL NORICO AND EUGENIO OZARAGA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 178782 : September 21, 2011] JOSEFINA P. REALUBIT, PETITIONER, VS. PROSENCIO D. JASO AND EDEN G. JASO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 175151 : September 21, 2011] TOBIAS SELGA AND CEFERINA GARANCHO SELGA, PETITIONERS, VS. SONY ENTIERRO BRAR, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT MARINA T. ENTIERRO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 169263 : September 21, 2011] CITY OF MANILA, PETITIONER, VS. MELBA TAN TE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 168053 : September 21, 2011] REBECCA T. ARQUERO, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS (FORMER THIRTEENTH DIVISION); EDILBERTO C. DE JESUS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; DR. PARALUMAN GIRON, DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE IV-MIMAROPA, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; DR. EDUARDO LOPEZ, SCHOOLS DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY; AND NORMA BRILLANTES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 159051 : September 21, 2011] MAGLANA RICE AND CORN MILL, INC., AND RAMON P. DAO, PETITIONERS, VS. ANNIE L. TAN AND HER HUSBAND MANUEL TAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 158143 : September 21, 2011] PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, VS. ANTONIO B. BALMACEDA AND ROLANDO N. RAMOS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-11-2265 [Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2986-RTJ] : September 21, 2011] ATTY. EMMANUEL R. ANDAMO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE EDWIN G. LARIDA, JR., CLERK OF COURT STANLEE D. CALMA AND LEGAL RESEARCHER DIANA G. RUIZ, ALL OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 18 TAGAYTAY CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 157150 : September 21, 2011] PEDRO ANGELES, REPRESENTED BY ADELINA T. ANGELES, ATTORNEY-IN FACT, PETITIONER, VS. ESTELITA B. PASCUAL, MARIA THERESA PASCUAL, NERISSA PASCUAL, IMELDA PASCUAL, MA. LAARNI PASCUAL AND EDWIN PASCUAL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A. C. No. 6281 : September 26, 2011] VALENTIN C. MIRANDA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. MACARIO D. CARPIO, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-11-1792 [Formerly OCA I.P.I No. 10-2294-MTJ] : September 26, 2011] ERNESTO Z. ORBE, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MANOLITO Y. GUMARANG, PAIRING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, IMUS, CAVITE, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.C. No. 8920 : September 28, 2011] JUDGE RENE B. BACULI, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. MELCHOR A. BATTUNG, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2972 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 10-3430-P) : September 28, 2011] YOLANDA LEACHON CORPUZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. SERGIO V. PASCUA, SHERIFF III. MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, TRECE MARTIRES CITY, CAVITE. RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-10-2836 (from RTJ-07-2070) : September 28, 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JESUS VINCENT M. CARBON III, FORMERLY CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ZAMBOANGA CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 196390 : September 28, 2011] PHILIPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (PDEA), PETITIONER, VS. RICHARD BRODETT AND JORGE JOSEPH, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 185721 : September 28, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RICKY UNISA Y ISLAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 180006 : September 28, 2011] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 177729 : September 28, 2011] PHILIPPINE EXPORT AND FOREIGN LOAN GUARANTEE CORPORATION (NOW TRADE AND INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES), PETITIONER, VS. AMALGAMATED MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, FELIMON R. CUEVAS, AND JOSE A. SADDUL, JR., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170404 : September 28, 2011] FERDINAND A. CRUZ, PETITIONER, VS. JUDGE HENRICK F. GINGOYON,[Deceased] JUDGE JESUS B. MUPAS, ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 117, PASAY CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. NO. P-11-2953 : September 28, 2011] LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, v. ROMEO L. DE LEMOS, CLERK OF COURT VI, DOMINADOR C. MASANGKAY, SHERIFF IV, ADELAIDA D. TOLENTINO, CASH CLERK II, MA. FATIMA M. YUMENA, DEMO II, MA. FE E. YUMOL, COURT AIDE II, AND RONALD M. TAGUINOD, PROCESS SERVER, ALL OF THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BALANGA CITY, BATAAN, RESPONDENTS.