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

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
August-2015 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 197709, August 03, 2015 - JOSE YULO AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES PERLA CABAYLO DAVIS AND SCOTT DAVIS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 200969, August 03, 2015 - CONSOLACION D. ROMERO AND ROSARIO S.D. DOMINGO, Petitioners, v. ENGRACIA D. SINGSON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213847, August 18, 2015 - JUAN PONCE ENRILE, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 8708 (CBD Case No. 08-2192), August 12, 2015 - SPOUSES BYRON AND MARIA LUISA SAUNDERS, Complainants, v. ATTY. LYSSA GRACE S. PAGANO-CALDE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 177803, August 03, 2015 - SPOUSES EMILIANO L. JALBAY, SR. AND MAMERTA C. JALBAY, Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201365, August 03, 2015 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANUELA FLORES Y SALAZAR @ WELLA Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 198908, August 03, 2015 - VIRGINIA OCAMPO, Petitioner, v. DEOGRACIO OCAMPO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195175, August 10, 2015 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. TOLEDO POWER COMPANY, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 199645 - TOLEDO POWER COMPANY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213233, August 05, 2015 - BLISS DEVELOPMENT CORP./HOME GUARANTY CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. MONTANO DIAZ, DOMINGO TAPAY, AND EDGAR H. ARREZA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 197953, August 05, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (2ND DIVISION), QUINTIN SALUDAGA Y BORDEOS, ARTHUS ADRIATICO Y ERUDA AND ROMEO DE LUNA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 187524, August 05, 2015 - SPOUSES MARIA BUTIONG AND FRANCISCO VILLAFRIA, SUBSTITUTED BY DR. RUEL B. VILLAFRIA, Petitioners, v. MA. GRACIA RIŅOZA PLAZO AND MA. FE RIŅOZA ALARAS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 209447, August 11, 2015 - PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG), Petitioner, v. HON. WINLOVE M. DUMAYAS, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 59, MAKATI CITY AND UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK (UCPB), Respondents.; G.R. NO. 210901 - PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG), Petitioner, v. HON. WINLOVE M. DUMAYAS, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 59, MAKATI CITY AND UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION (COCOLIFE), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 188739, August 05, 2015 - BENJAMIN E. RAVAGO, Petitioner, v. METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, SUBSTITUTED BY BRIGHT VENTURES REALTY, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 215714, August 12, 2015 - OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EFREN BASAL CAYAS, Accused-Appellant.

  • A.M. No. 11238-Ret., August 18, 2015 - IN RE: EXPIRATION OF FIXED TERM OF OFFICE OF ATTY. SAADUDDIN A. ALAUYA, OFFICE OF THE JURISCONSULT, ZAMBOANGA CITY

  • G.R. No. 167838, August 05, 2015 - JOSE V. TOLEDO, GLENN PADIERNOS AND DANILO PADIERNOS, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, LOURDES RAMOS, ENRIQUE RAMOS, ANTONIO RAMOS, MILAGROS RAMOS AND ANGELITA RAMOS AS HEIRS OF SOCORRO RAMOS, GUILLERMO PABLO, PRIMITIVA CRUZ AND A.R.C. MARKETING CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, ALBERTO C. DY, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 10635, August 26, 2015 - NOEL S. SORREDA, Complainant, v. ATTY. DAVID L. KHO, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-14-3253, August 19, 2015 - NICETAS TANIEZA-CALAYOAN, Complainant, v. ELMER JERRY C. CALAYOAN, PROCESS SERVER, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 2, BANGUED, ABRA, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 8084, August 24, 2015 - PATROCINIA H. SALABAO, Complainant, v. ATTY. ANDRES C. VILLARUEL, JR., Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 9834, August 26, 2015 - SAMUEL B. ARNADO, Complainant, v. ATTY. HOMOBONO A. ADAZA, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 7314, August 25, 2015 - MARY ANN T. FLORES, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOVENCIO LL. MAYOR, JR., Respondent.

  • A.M. No. CA-12-26-P, August 17, 2015 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. ANA MARIE ABARENTOS, RECORDS OFFICER IV, COURT OF APPEALS, CEBU CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206220, August 19, 2015 - LUIS UY, SUBSTITUTED BY LYDIA UY VELASQUEZ AND SHIRLEY UY MACARAIG, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES JOSE LACSAMANA AND ROSAURA* MENDOZA, SUBSTITUTED BY CORAZON BUENA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 214865, August 19, 2015 - ROSVEE C. CELESTIAL, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201822, August 12, 2015 - MARINA PORT SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, v. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 202967, August 05, 2015 - ALICIA Y. LAUREL, SUBSTITUTED BY HER SOLE HEIR AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE JUAN MIGUEL Y. LAUREL, Petitioner, v. FERDINAND M. VARDELEON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 183869, August 03, 2015 - LEONARDO L. VILLALON, Petitioner, v. RENATO E. LIRIO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 179751, August 05, 2015 - HERMINIA L. MENDOZA, IN HER CAPACITY AS OIC OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LUCENA CITY, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES ARMANDO AND ANGELA GARANA AND FAR EAST BANK & TRUST CO., INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208320, August 19, 2015 - GRACE DAVID Y CESAR, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 174542, August 03, 2015 - KAREN GO, Petitioner, v. LAMBERTO ECHAVEZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 196875, August 19, 2015 - TEDDY MARAVILLA, Petitioner, v. JOSEPH RIOS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205113, August 26, 2015 - HONORLITA ASCANO-CUPINO AND FLAVIANA ASCANO-COLOCADO, Petitioners, v. PACIFIC REHOUSE CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205823, August 17, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. REGIE BREIS Y ALVARADO AND GARY YUMOL Y TUAZON,* Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 198643, August 19, 2015 - MARSMAN & COMPANY AND QUIRINO R. ILEDAN, Petitioners, v. ARTEMIO M. LIGO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 214054, August 05, 2015 - NG MENG TAM, Petitioner, v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-11-2982 (Formerly O.C.A. IPI No. 08-2913-P), August 17, 2015 - FORMER JUDGE FERNANDO VIL PAMINTUAN, Complainant, v. SALVADOR G. COMUYOG, JR., CLERK III, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 187882, August 24, 2015 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES HIPPOCRATES AND MELANIE PIMENTEL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190984, August 19, 2015 - ACOMARIT ACOMARIT LIMITED, PHILS., AND/OR HONGKONG, Petitioners, v. GOMER L. DOTIMAS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 170706, August 26, 2015 - PRUDENCIO CARANTO, Petitioner, v. BERGESEN D.Y. PHILS. AND/OR BERGESEN D.Y. A.S.A., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 194617, August 05, 2015 - LA TONDEŅA, INC., Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206612, August 17, 2015 - TOYOTA ALABANG, INC., Petitioner, v. EDWIN GAMES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203142, August 26, 2015 - THE PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY (PPA), Petitioner, v. COALITION OF PPA OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, REPRESENTED BY HECTOR E. MIOLE, ET AL., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 182157, August 17, 2015 - ANLUD METAL RECYCLING CORPORATION, AS REPRESENTED BY ALFREDO A. DY, Petitioner, v. JOAQUIN ANG, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 5161, August 25, 2015 - RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF ROLANDO S. TORRES AS A MEMBER OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR.

  • G.R. Nos. 191370-71, August 10, 2015 - RODOLFO BASILONIA, LEODEGARIO CATALAN AND JOHN BASILONIA, Petitioners, v. HON. DELANO F. VLLLARUZ, ACTING IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ROXAS CITY, BRANCH 16, AND DIXON ROBLETE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 165146, August 12, 2015 - SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION AND VERNETTE G. UMALI, Petitioners, v. BAGUIO COUNTRY CLUB CORPORATION, Respondent.; G.R. N0. 165209 - RAMON K. ILUSORIO AND ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO, Petitioners, v. BAGUIO COUNTRY CLUB CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203066, August 05, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODELIO LLOBERA Y OFIZA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 190892, August 17, 2015 - VICENTE H. MANULAT, JR., Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 183370, August 17, 2015 - NATION PETROLEUM GAS, INCORPORATED, NENA ANG, MARIO ANG, ALISON A. SY, GUILLERMO G. SY, NELSON ANG, LUISA ANG, RENATO C. ANG, PAULINE T. ANG, RICKY C. ANG,1 AND MELINDA ANG, Petitioners, v. RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, SUBSTITUTED BY PHILIPPINE ASSET GROWTH ONE, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213455, August 11, 2015 - JUAN PONCE ENRILE, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. AMPARO M. CABOTAJE-TANG, HON. SAMUEL R. MARTIRES, AND HON. ALEX L. QUIROZ OF THE THIRD DIVISION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 201405, August 24, 2015 - LIWAYWAY ANDRES, RONNIE ANDRES, AND PABLO B. FRANCISCO, Petitioners, v. STA. LUCIA REALTY & DEVELOPMENT, INCORPORATED, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 153810, August 12, 2015 - WINSTON R. GARCIA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER OF THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), Petitioners, v. ANGELITA TOLENTINO, EDELITO ZOLLO EDRALINDA, KATHLYN A. UMALI, VIVIAN ROSIELLE CERVANTES, EDITH MEDINA, ROMELO CABANGON, ET AL., Respondents.; G.R. NO. 167297 - MELINA I. GARCIA, CECILIA V. LAS, NIMFA PENALOSA, ROSANA R. ZEPEDA, RACHELLE L. JACOB, MARIBEL B. TENA, AND EDUVIGIS S. ANGELES (IN LIEU OF ANGELITA TOLENTINO FOR THE NATIONAL FORESTATION DEVELOPMENT OFFICE-DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.), Petitioners, v. WINSTON GARCIA, ET AL., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192943, August 12, 2015 - UNITED DUMANGAS PORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY, ATTY. OSMAR M. SEVILLA, GENERAL MANAGER, ATTY. FERNANDO B. CLAVERINA, PORT MANAGER, PORT MANAGEMENT OFFICER-ILOILO; AND RAUL T. SANTOS, PORT DISTRICT MANAGER, PORT DISTRICT OFFICE-VISAYAS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 200114, August 24, 2015 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, Petitioner, v. DEBBIE UBAŅA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 177168, August 03, 2015 - NAVY OFFICERS' VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC. (NOVAI), Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 163598, August 12, 2015 - AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES ASSOCIATION (ARBA), AS REPRESENTED BY ISAIAS "ACE" NICOLAS IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT, VIOLETA BATADHAY, JESUS F. DANAO, DOMINADOR RIOSA, EVA I. FLORIDO, VIRGINIA CARIAS, WILLIAM D. DORONELA, ELSA MENGOLIO, FEDELINA AMENGYAO, REBECCA REBAMBA, MELANI CADAG, SOFRONIA SABORDO, MYRNA SANTIAGO, JOSELYNDA MANALANZAN, NORA I. REBUZANO, NATIVIDAD PLACIDO, ALGERICO L. GAEGUERA, RUBEN G. ACEBEDO, MARGIE M. VALDEZ, HELEN S. BUNI, EMELINDA FERNANDEZ, JULIETA J. AVENGONZA, VIOLETA C. ASIS, CARINA C. CABRERA, EDUARDO M. DILAY, SIMEONA V. ROLEDA, EVELYN SANTO ELEUTERIA A. NOLASCO, TERESA CRUZ, MELBA ABRENICA, BESAME VILLACORTA, ROSALINA HERNANDEZ, VERONICA DOMULOT, LUCIA SOUN, ILUMENADA RONQUILLO, REGINA LOPEZ, AMPARO GREY, HIPOLITO MANDAO, JUAN DELA VEGA, PRESCILIANA LLEMIT, LEBERETA IGNACIO, FRANCISCO VALDEMOR, Petitioners, v. FIL-ESTATE INC., PROPERTIES, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 164660 - THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB), AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES, INC., ET AL., Petitioners, v. KINGSVILLE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. AND JOHNSON ONG, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 164779 - AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES ASSOCIATION (ARBA), VIOLETA BATADHAY, NATIVIDAD PLACIDO, JESUS F. DANAO, EVA I. FLORIDO, VIRGINIA CARIAS, WILLIAM D. DORONELA, ELSA MENGOLIO, ROBERTO ISIP, REBECCA REBAMBA, SOFRONIA SABORDO, MYRNA SANTIAGO, JOSELYNDA MANALANZAN, NORA I. REBUZANO, ALGERICO L. GALQUERA, RUBEN G. ACEBEDO, MARGIE M. VALDEZ, HELEN S. BUNI, JULIETA J. AVENGONZA, VIOLETA C. ASIS, CARINA C. CABRERA, EDUARDO M. DILAY, ELEUTERIA A. NOLASCO, TERESA CRUZ, MELBA ABRENICA, VERONICA DOMULOT, LUCIA SUN, ILUMENADA RONQUILLO AND PRESCILIANA LLEMIT, Petitioners, v. KINGSVILLE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND JOHNSONONG, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 164974, August 05, 2015 - CHARLIE TE, Petitioner, v. HON. AUGUSTO V. BREVA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, 11TH JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH 10, DAVAO CITY; U R. BAHINTING, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, SARANGGANI DISTRICT OFFICE; AND PRYCE GASES, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 211302, August 12, 2015 - PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., CARLOS C. SALINAS, AND NORWEGIAN CREW MANAGEMENT A/S, Petitioners, v. CESAR C. PELAGIO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210164, August 18, 2015 - ROMMEL C. ARNADO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND FLORANTE CAPITAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 211649, August 12, 2015 - AQA GLOBAL CONSTRUCTION, INC., Petitioner, v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK, Respondent.; G.R. No. 211742 - JE-AN SUPREME BUILDERS AND SALES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203355, August 18, 2015 - LEO R. ROSALES, EDGAR SOLIS JONATHAN G. RANIOLA, LITO FELICIANO, RAYMUNDO DIDAL, JR., NESTOR SALIN, ARNULFO S. ABRIL, RUBEN FLORES, DANTE FERMA AND MELCHOR SELGA, Petitioners, v. NEW A.N.J.H. ENTERPRISES & N.H. OIL MILL CORPORATION, NOEL AWAYAN, MA. FE AWAYAN, BYRON ILAGAN, HEIDI A. ILAGAN AND AVELINO AWAYAN, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-14-2383 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I No. 05-2301-RTJ), August 17, 2015 - DR. CORAZON D. PADERANGA, DULCE P. GUIBELONDO, PATRIA P. DIAZ, CARMENCITA P. ORSENO, AND DR. AMOR P. GALON, Complainants, v. HONORABLE RUSTICO D. PADERANGA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 28, IN MAMBAJAO, CAMIGUIN, Respondent.; A.M. No. RTJ-07-2033 (FORMERLY A.M. OCA I.P.I No. 06-2485-RTJ) - PATRIA PADERANGA DIAZ, Complainant, v. HON. RTC JUDGE RUSTICO D. PADERANGA, AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 28, IN MAMBAJAO, CAMIGUIN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 160924, August 05, 2015 - TERELAY INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. CECILIA TERESITA J. YULO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213286, August 26, 2015 - MAMERTA LOPEZ CLAUDIO, EDUARDO L. CLAUDIO, ASUNCION CLAUDIO-CONTEGINO, ANA CLAUDIO-ISULAT, DOLORES CLAUDIO-MABINI, AND FERMIN L. CLAUDIO, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES FEDERICO AND NORMA SARAZA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200295, August 19, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDGAR BOLO Y FRANCO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 209331, August 24, 2015 - DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, REPRESENTED BY HON. CESAR V. PURISIMA IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY, AND THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, REPRESENTED BY HON. ROZZANO RUFINO B. BIAZON, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Petitioners, v. HON. MARINO M. DELA CRUZ, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANILA, HON. FELICITAS O. LARON-CACANINDIN, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANILA, BRANCH 17, RONNIE C. SILVESTRE, EDWARD P. DELA CUESTA, ROGEL C. GATCHALIAN, IMELDA D.CRUZ, LILIBETH S. SANDAG, RAYMOND P. VENTURA, MA. LIZA S. TORRES, ARNEL C. ALCARAZ, MA. LOURDES V. MANGAOANG, FRANCIS AGUSTIN Y. ERPE, CARLOS T. SO, MARIETTA D. ZAMORANOS, CARMELITA M. TALUSAN,1] AREFILES H. CARREON,2] AND ROMALINO G. VALDEZ, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 6738, August 12, 2015 - GABRIELA CORONEL, Petitioner, v. ATTY. NELSON A. CUNANAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 170671, August 19, 2015 - FILADELFA T. LAUSA, LORETA T. TORRES, PRIMITIVO TUGOT AND ANACLETO T. CADUHAY, Petitioners, v. MAURICIA QUILATON, RODRIGO Q. TUGOT, PURIFICACION T. CODILLA, TEOFRA T. SADAYA, ESTRELLITA T. GALEOS AND ROSITA T. LOPEZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 202322, August 19, 2015 - LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. ROMULO S. MENDOZA, FRANCISCO S. MERCADO, ROBERTO M. REYES, EDGARDO CRISTOBAL, JR., AND RODOLFO ROMAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 198751, August 19, 2015 - FLOR CAŅAS-MANUEL, Petitioner, v. ANDRES D. EGANO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 181111, August 17, 2015 - JACKSON PADIERNOS Y QUEJADA, JACKIE ROXAS Y GERMAN AND ROLANDO MESINA Y JAVATE, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 202645, August 05, 2015 - FORTUNATO R. BARON, MANOLO B. BERSABAL, AND RECTO A. MELENDRES, Petitioners, v. EPE TRANSPORT, INC. AND/OR ERNESTO P. ENRIQUEZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 211263, August 05, 2015 - OKS DESIGNTECH, INC. REPRESENTED BY ZAMBY O. PONGAD, Petitioner, v. MARY JAYNE L. CACCAM, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 175098, August 26, 2015 - ISMAEL V. CRISOSTOMO, Petitioner, v. MARTIN P. VICTORIA, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. CA-15-33-P [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-207-CA-P], August 24, 2015 - TERESITA R. MARIGOMEN, CLERK OF COURT, COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA, Complainant, v. RONELO G. LABAR, DRIVER, MAILING AND DELIVERY SECTION, COURT OF APPEALS, CEBU STATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 168157, August 19, 2015 - HILARIO P. SORIANO, Petitioner, v. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON VICTOR C. FERNANDEZ, FLORIZA A. BRIONES, GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICER II, DONNA B. PASCUAL, GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICER II, AND ATTY. ADONIS C. CLEOFE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 200841-42, August 26, 2015 - CE LUZON GEOTHERMAL POWER COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 171582, August 19, 2015 - ALBERTO T. LASALA, PREVIOUSLY DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE STYLE PSF SECURITY AGENCY, Petitioner, v. THE NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 169343, August 05, 2015 - SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioner, v. BF HOMES, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 166102, August 05, 2015 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, v. THE CITY ASSESSOR AND CITY TREASURER OF LUCENA CITY, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. 99-7-01-SC, August 18, 2015 - RE: REQUEST OF RETIRED SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICES FOR INCREASE/ADJUSTMENT OF THEIR DECEMBER 1998 PENSIONS

  • A.M. No. RTJ-15-2439 (Formerly: OCA I.P.I. No. 12-3989-RTJ), August 26, 2015 - ARIEL "AGA" MUHLACH, Complainant, v. EXECUTIVE JUDGE MA. ANGELA ACOMPAŅADO-ARROYO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SAN JOSE CITY, CAMARINES SUR, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 169385, August 26, 2015 - TEOFILO GIANGAN, SANTOS BONTIA (DECEASED), AND LIBERATO DUMAIL (DECEASED), Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205722, August 19, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, Petitioners, v. LEGAL HEIRS OF JOSE L. AFRICA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 169710, August 19, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. JOSE ALBERTO ALBA, REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MANUEL C. BLANCO, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 162692, August 26, 2015 - NILO V. CHIPONGIAN, Petitioner, v. VICTORIA BENITEZ-LIRIO, FEODOR BENITEZ AGUILAR, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 206032, August 19, 2015 - JOSE RUDY L. BAUTISTA, Petitioner, v. ELBURG SHIPMANAGEMENT PHILIPPINES, INC., AUGUSTEA SHIPMANAGEMENT ITALY, AND/OR CAPTAIN ANTONIO S. NOMBRADO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208354, August 26, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICARDO BACUS, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 168258, August 17, 2015 - RICARDO V. QUINTOS, Petitioner, v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 181111, August 17, 2015 - JACKSON PADIERNOS Y QUEJADA, JACKIE ROXAS Y GERMAN AND ROLANDO MESINA Y JAVATE, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 202645, August 05, 2015 - FORTUNATO R. BARON, MANOLO B. BERSABAL, AND RECTO A. MELENDRES, Petitioners, v. EPE TRANSPORT, INC. AND/OR ERNESTO P. ENRIQUEZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 175098, August 26, 2015 - ISMAEL V. CRISOSTOMO, Petitioner, v. MARTIN P. VICTORIA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 211263, August 05, 2015 - OKS DESIGNTECH, INC. REPRESENTED BY ZAMBY O. PONGAD, Petitioner, v. MARY JAYNE L. CACCAM, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. CA-15-33-P [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-207-CA-P], August 24, 2015 - TERESITA R. MARIGOMEN, CLERK OF COURT, COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA, Complainant, v. RONELO G. LABAR, DRIVER, MAILING AND DELIVERY SECTION, COURT OF APPEALS, CEBU STATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 168157, August 19, 2015 - HILARIO P. SORIANO, Petitioner, v. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON VICTOR C. FERNANDEZ, FLORIZA A. BRIONES, GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICER II, DONNA B. PASCUAL, GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICER II, AND ATTY. ADONIS C. CLEOFE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 200841-42, August 26, 2015 - CE LUZON GEOTHERMAL POWER COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 171582, August 19, 2015 - ALBERTO T. LASALA, PREVIOUSLY DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE STYLE PSF SECURITY AGENCY, Petitioner, v. THE NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 169343, August 05, 2015 - SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioner, v. BF HOMES, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 166102, August 05, 2015 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, v. THE CITY ASSESSOR AND CITY TREASURER OF LUCENA CITY, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-15-2439 (Formerly: OCA I.P.I. No. 12-3989-RTJ), August 26, 2015 - ARIEL "AGA" MUHLACH, Complainant, v. EXECUTIVE JUDGE MA. ANGELA ACOMPAŅADO-ARROYO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SAN JOSE CITY, CAMARINES SUR, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. 99-7-01-SC, August 18, 2015 - RE: REQUEST OF RETIRED SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICES FOR INCREASE/ADJUSTMENT OF THEIR DECEMBER 1998 PENSIONS

  • G.R. No. 169385, August 26, 2015 - TEOFILO GIANGAN, SANTOS BONTIA (DECEASED), AND LIBERATO DUMAIL (DECEASED), Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205722, August 19, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, Petitioners, v. LEGAL HEIRS OF JOSE L. AFRICA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 169710, August 19, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. JOSE ALBERTO ALBA, REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MANUEL C. BLANCO, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 162692, August 26, 2015 - NILO V. CHIPONGIAN, Petitioner, v. VICTORIA BENITEZ-LIRIO, FEODOR BENITEZ AGUILAR, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 206032, August 19, 2015 - JOSE RUDY L. BAUTISTA, Petitioner, v. ELBURG SHIPMANAGEMENT PHILIPPINES, INC., AUGUSTEA SHIPMANAGEMENT ITALY, AND/OR CAPTAIN ANTONIO S. NOMBRADO,* Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208354, August 26, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICARDO BACUS, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 200751, August 17, 2015 - MONICO LIGTAS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 168258, August 17, 2015 - RICARDO V. QUINTOS, Petitioner, v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 215568, August 03, 2015 - RICHARD N. RIVERA, Petitioner, v. GENESIS TRANSPORT SERVICE, INC. AND RIZA A. MOISES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 172301, August 19, 2015 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS (M) BERHAD, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210554, August 05, 2015 - DAVID YU KIMTENG, MARY L. YU, WINNIE L. YU, VIVIAN L. YU, ROSA GAN, LILIAN CHUA WOO YUKIMTENG, SANTOS YU, MARCELO YU, AND SIN CHIAO YU LIM, Petitioners, v. ATTY. WALTER T. YOUNG, ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR., ATTY. JOVITO GAMBOL, AND ATTY. DAN REYNALD R. MAGAT, PRACTICING LAW UNDER THE FIRM NAME, YOUNG REVILLA GAMBOL & MAGAT, AND JUDGE OFELIA L. CALO, PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 211 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANDALUYONG CITY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 171804, August 05, 2015 - THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL AND THE NATIONAL TREASURER OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioners, v. OSCAR ANGLO, SR., AND ANGLO AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY OSCAR ANGLO, JR., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 205705, August 05, 2015 - DOMINADOR M. APIQUE, Petitioner, v. EVANGELINE APIQUE FAHNENSTICH, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195990, August 05, 2015 - HEIRS OF RAFAEL GOZO REPRESENTED BY CASTILLO GOZO AND RAFAEL GOZO, JR., Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE UNION MISSION CORPORATION OF THE SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH (PUMCO), SOUTH PHILIPPINE UNION MISSION OF SDA (SPUMCO) AND SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH AT SIMPAK, LALA, LANAO DEL NORTE REPRESENTED BY BETTY PEREZ , Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 163504, August 05, 2015 - BERLINDA ORIBELLO, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FORMER TENTH DIVISION), AND REMEDIOS ORIBELLO, Respondents.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 214865, August 19, 2015 - ROSVEE C. CELESTIAL, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

      G.R. No. 214865, August 19, 2015 - ROSVEE C. CELESTIAL, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    G.R. No. 214865, August 19, 2015

    ROSVEE C. CELESTIAL, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N

    VELASCO JR., J.:

    Nature of the Case

    This treats of the Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking the reversal of the April 28, 2014, July 17, 20142 and October 10, 20143 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R CR No. 35962, which dismissed petitioner's appeal for her failure to file the required appellant's brief. Said dismissal effectively affirmed her conviction by the trial court of six counts of qualified theft through falsification of commercial documents.

    The Facts

    Petitioner Rosvee Celestial was employed by Glory Philippines as its "Accounting-in-Charge." As such, she handles the company's bank transactions and accounting ledgers. She was terminated in 2006 when it was discovered that she made anomalous withdrawals from the company's dollar account.

    According to Akihiro Harada, the president of Glory Philippines, petitioner's modus was to prepare and ask him to sign withdrawal slips allegedly to pay for company expenses. Afterwards, petitioner would photocopy the signed slips and submit the said copies for the company's documentation. Later, she would insert additional figures in the originally signed forms to be able to withdraw an amount higher than what was intended, keeping for herself the excess amount and the duplicate original of the form. It was only when Harada noticed the discrepancies between the photocopied slips and the actual amounts withdrawn that he discovered petitioner's criminal acts. As extrapolated from the records, the amounts stated in the withdrawal slips are as follows:4redarclaw

    Date of Withdrawal
    June 1, 2006
    June 9, 2006
    June 26, 2006
    June 30, 2006
    June 30, 2006
    July 11, 2006
    Photocopy of the Withdrawal Slip
    $39.40
    $511.00
    $345.20
    $8,800.00
    $103.61
    $483.00
    Duplicate of the Withdrawal Slip
    $10,039.40
    $5,511.00
    8,345.20
    $18,800.00
    $3,103.61
    $15,483.00
    Discrepancy
    $10,000.00
    $5,000.00
    $8,000.00
    $10,000.00
    $3,000.00
    $15,000.00

    Thereafter, Glory Philippines lodged a criminal complaint against petitioner for qualified theft. Finding probable cause to file charges against petitioner, the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite City then filed six (6) Informations with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cavite City, Branch 16, indicting her with six (6) counts of qualified theft through falsification of commercial documents, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 94-07 up to 99-07.

    On June 25, 2013, the RTC rendered a Decision5 convicting petitioner, thus:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused ROSVEE CELESTIAL y CALDEJON guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case Nos. 94-07 to 99-07 of the crime of six (6) counts of Qualified Theft through Falsification of Commercial Documents and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment consisting of TWENTY (20) years of Reclusion Temporal for Each Count.

    SO ORDERED. Aggrieved, petitioner elevated the case to the CA via notice of appeal.
    On November 28, 2013, petitioner received a copy of the CA Notice dated November 20, 2013,6 directing her to file an appellant's brief within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof. On December 27, 2013, petitioner's former counsel, Atty. Bernard Paredes, moved for a thirty-day extension, or until January 26, 2014, within which to comply. Counsel would later on inform petitioner that he prayed for another extension of until February 26, 014 to file the appellant's brief.7redarclaw

    Allegedly unknown to petitioner, the CA, on April 28, 2014, issued a Resolution, which considered petitioner's appeal abandoned and dismissed for failure to file her appellant's brief. The fallo of the Resolution reads:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    It appearing from the CMIS Verification Report dated April 14, 2014 that accused-appellant and her counsel de parte failed to file the required appellant's brief despite a total extension of 60 days or until February 26, 2014 granted, by the Court, pursuant to Section 8 of Rule 124 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, the instant appeal is considered ABANDONED and accordingly DISMISSED.

    SO ORDERED.8
    Petitioner then claimed that she was surprised to have received, on August 6, 2014, a copy of the CA Resolution dated July 17, 20149 with attached Notice of Entry of Judgment.10 The Resolution, in part, reads:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    Considering the CMIS Verification dated My 11, 2014 that NO Motion for Reconsideration or Supreme Court petition was filed, the Resolution dated April 28, 2014 has attained finality on May 28, 2014. Let said Resolution now be ENTERED in the Book of Entries of Judgments.
    This prompted petitioner to file, on August 22, 2014, an Omnibus Motion,11 moving for (1) reconsideration of the July 17, 2014 Resolution, and (2) leave of court for the attached appellant's brief to be admitted. Petitioner averred that she never personally received a copy of the April 28, 2014 Resolution that considered her appeal abandoned and dismissed; that her former counsel, Atty. Paredes, was grossly and inexcusably negligent in handling her case; that the reviewing court may still allow for an extension of time since no motion to dismiss had been filed; that substantial justice demands that she be given another opportunity to file her brief.

    Unfortunately for petitioner, the CA, unswayed by her arguments, dismissed the Omnibus Motion through the assailed October 10, 2014 Resolution. Hence, the instant recourse.

    The Issue

    Petitioner prays that the rulings of the CA be reversed on the following grounds:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    1. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT PETITIONER SHOULD NOT BE BOUND BY THE GROSS AND INEXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE OF HER COUNSEL. THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WILL BE BEST SERVED IF PETITIONER'S APPEAL BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS BE REOPENED AND PETITIONER BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO VENTILATE HER ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE THEREIN, CONSIDERING THAT HER FAILURE TO FILE HER APPELLANT'S BRIEF WAS DUE TO REASONS BEYOND HER CONTROL. TO OUTRIGHT DENY PETITIONER HER RIGHT TO APPEAL WILL RESULT IN THE DEPRIVATION OF PETITIONER'S LIFE AND LIBERTY; AND

    2. PETITIONER HAS MERITORIOUS GROUNDS IN FIER APPEAL BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT SHOULD [HAVE BEEN VENTILATED] AND HEARD DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS12

    Verily, the main issue for consideration herein boils down to whether not the CA erred in dismissing the case for petitioner's failure to file her appellant's brief.

    In its Comment,13 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), for the People, countered that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege that may be lost if the party who seeks to avail the same does not comply with the requirements of the rules. Citing Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court, the OSG further argued that the CA is granted the discretion to dismiss an appeal for failure to prosecute, such as when the appellant fails to file the required brief.14 Finally, the OSG invoked the doctrine of immutability of judgments and averred that the dismissal of petitioner's appeal had already attained finality and may no longer be recalled or modified.15redarclaw

    The Court's Ruling

    The petition is unmeritorious.

    The CA's dismissal of the appeal for
    failure to prosecute was in order


    Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court pertinently provides:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    SEC. 8. Dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to prosecute. - The Court of Appeals may, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio and with notice to the appellant in either case, dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to file his brief within the time prescribed by this Rule, except where the appellant is represented by a counsel de officio.

    As aptly observed by the CA, petitioner's claim that she was not personally informed of the dismissal of the appeal deserves scant consideration. Fundamental is the rule that notice to counsel is notice to the client.16 When a party is represented by a counsel in an action in court, notices of all kinds, including motions and pleadings of all parties and all orders of the court must be served on his counsel.17redarclaw

    In the case at bar, it cannot be disputed that Atty. Paredes represented petitioner in the proceedings before the CA. And based on the registry return receipt, counsel received a copy of the April 28, 2014 Resolution on May 12, 2014.18 Thus, the CA complied with the procedural requirement under Section 8, Rule 124 and no violation of petitioner's right to notice of the dismissal can be attributed to the appellate court.

    Furthermore, the oft-cited doctrine is that the negligence of counsel binds his client.19 This is based on the rule that any act performed by a counsel within the scope of his general or implied authority is regarded as an act of his client. While, truly, there are situations where the Court can relax procedural rules, such exceptions do not obtain in the extant case.

    Under the factual backdrop of this case, We find the failure to file the appeal brief inexcusable. First, the handling lawyer, Atty. Paredes, was undoubtedly at fault. Even with the benefit of two (2) thirty-day (30-day) extensions, counsel, nevertheless, still failed to comply with the CA's directive. Second, petitioner herself was likewise negligent since, as she admitted, Atty. Paredes informed her that the deadline for the second extension was until February 26, 2014.20 It is then baffling why petitioner took no action to ensure compliance with the CA Notice to file her appellant's brief from the time she followed up the case to the date of the deadline, and even thereafter until the April 28, 2014 Resolution was promulgated. Absolutely nothing appeared to have been done in the interim, not even in terms of noting that no appeal brief had been filed. Thus, the petitioner simply took too long to rectify its mistake; by the time that she acted, it was simply too late.21 From these circumstances, the CA cannot in any way be said to have erred in dismissing the appeal.

    The proper penalty

    Notwithstanding the denial of the petition, We find cogent reason to lift the Entry of Judgment issued by the CA and modify the penalty imposed by the trial court. The demand of substantive justice calls for this approach. Pertinently, Arts. 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) provide:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    Article 309. Penalties. - Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    1. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more than 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, but if the value of the thing stolen exceeds the latter amount the penalty shall be the maximum period of the one prescribed in this paragraph, and one year for each additional ten thousand pesos, but the total of the penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.

    2. The penalty of prision correctional in its medium and maximum periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos.

    3. The penalty of prision correctional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property stolen is more than 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos.

    4. Arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correctional in its minimum period, if the value of the property stolen is over 50 pesos but does not exceed 200 pesos.

    5. Arresto mayor to its full extent, if such value is over 5 pesos but does not exceed 50 pesos.

    6. Arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if such value does not exceed 5 pesos.

    7. Arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, if the theft is committed under the circumstances enumerated in paragraph 3 of the next preceding article and the value of the thing stolen does not exceed 5 pesos. If such value exceeds said amount, the provision of any of the five preceding subdivisions shall be made applicable.

    8. Arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 50 pesos, when the value of the thing stolen is not over 5 pesos, and the offender shall have acted under the impulse of hunger, poverty, or the difficulty of earning a livelihood for the support of himself or his family.

    Article 310. Qualified theft. - The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of the plantation or fish taken from a fishpond or fishery, or if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance, (emphasis added)
    In ascertaining the proper penalty, We are guided by Our pronouncement in People v. Mercado:22redarclaw

    First, We get the value of the property stolen as determined by the tr al court, to wit:LawlibraryofCRAlaw


    Crim. Case No.
    99-07
    98-07
    95-07
    97-07
    94-07
    96-07
    Withdrawal Date
    June 1, 2006
    June 9, 2006
    June 26, 2006
    June 30, 2006
    June 30, 2006
    July 11, 2006
    Stolen Amount
    $10,000.00
    $5,000.00
    $8,000.00
    $10,000.00
    $3,000.00
    $15,000.00
    Amount in Pesos23
    P 531,570.00
    P265,785.00
    P425,256.00
    P531,570.00
    P159,471.00
    P785,970.00


    Second, We determine the imposable base penalty under Art. 309 of the RPC. Here, since the totality of the stolen amounts for each case exceeds P22,000.00, the imposable base penalty for each count, as per Art. 309 (1), is prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods to be imposed in the maximum period, which is eight (8) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to ten (10) years of prision mayor, had the crime charged been simple theft.24redarclaw

    Third, since the value of the stolen goods exceeds P22,000.00, We compute for the additional years of maximum imprisonment under Art. 309 (1) by deducting P22,000.00 from each case, and by subsequently dividing each difference by P10,000.00, disregarding any remainder amount. This would yield the following results:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    Grim. Case No.
    99-07
    98-07
    95-07
    97-07
    94-07
    96-07
    Stolen Amount in Pesos
    P531,570.00
    P265,785.00
    P425,256.00
    P531,570.00
    P159,471.00
    P785,970.00
    Less P22,000.00
    509,570.00
    243,785.00
    403,256.00
    509,570.00
    137,471.00
    763,970.00
    Divided By P10,000.00
    50
    24
    40
    50
    13
    76

    Fourth, We add the maximum of the base penalty to the above-determined quotient to arrive at the maximum imprisonment term imposable had the crime committed been simple theft:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    Grim. Case No.
    99-07
    98-07
    95-07
    97-07
    94-07
    96-07
    Maximum of
    Base Penalty
    10 years
    10 years
    10 years
    10 years
    10 years
    10 years
    Additional
    Years to  the
    Maximum
      Penalty
    50
    24
    40
    50
    13
    76
    Maximum
    Penalty
    60 years
    34 years
    50 years
    60 years
    23 years
    86 years

    Fifth, the maximum imprisonment term should not exceed the 20-year cap under Art. 309 (1), and any imprisonment term in excess of the cap should be disregarded. In this case, since all sums exceeded 20 years, the proper penalty - the maximum period adverted to in Art. 309 (1) - would have been 20 years of reclusion temporal, before the application of the indeterminate sentence law, for each count, had petitioner been convicted of simple theft.

    Sixth, the penalty for qualified theft is two degrees higher than that for simple theft. Under Art. 25 of the RPC, two (2) degrees higher than reclusion temporal- the penalty following reclusion perpetua - is death.25 Be that as it may. Art. 74 of the RPC, provides:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    ART. 74. Penalty higher than reclusion perpetua in certain cases. --
    In cases in which the law prescribes a penalty higher than another given penalty, without specifically designating the name of the former, if such higher penalty should be that of death, the same penalty and the accessory penalties of Article 40, shall be considered as the next higher penalty.
    Applying the aforequoted provision, the penalty of death cannot be :ted on herein petitioner, regardless of whether or not the imposition of capital punishment has been suspended. This is so because the penalty of death was not specifically prescribed as an imposable penalty under Art. 309 (1) of the RPC.Two degrees higher than reclusion temporal, the next higher penalty than reclusion perpetua, would then still be reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties of death under Art. 40 of the RPC.26redarclaw

    Jurisprudence, moreover, teaches that when the penalty of death cannot be imposed pursuant to Art. 74, the period of imprisonment should be fixed at forty (40) years of reclusion perpetua. Otherwise, there would be no difference at all between reclusion perpetua imposed as the penalty next higher in degree and reclusion perpetua imposed as the penalty fixed by law.27 The proper penalty to be imposed in this case, therefore, is forty (40) years of reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties of death, for each count of qualified theft.28redarclaw

    Lastly, since petitioner is convicted of six (6) counts of qualified theft through falsification of commercial documents with corresponding six (6) penalties of forty (40) years of reclusion perpetua, Art. 70 of the RPC on successive service of sentences shall apply. As provided:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

    Article 70. Successive service of sentence. -

    xxx

    Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding, the maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall not be more than three-fold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No other penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed equals the same maximum period.

    Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years.
    Therefore, in spite of the six (6) penalties of forty (40) years of reclusion perpetua, petitioner shall only suffer imprisonment for a period not exceeding 40 years. A downward modification of the penalty imposed by the RTC is then in order.

    WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the Court rules as follows:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
    1. The instant petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit, and;chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

    2. The Entry of Judgment in CA-G.R CR No. 35962 is LIFTED. The June 25, 2013 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Cavite City, Branch 16 in Criminal Case Nos. 94-07 up to 99-07, as effectively confirmed by the Court of Appeals, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION to read as follows:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

      WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused ROSVEE CELESTIAL y CALDEJON guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case Nos. 94-07 to 99-07 of the crime of six (6) counts of Qualified Theft through Falsification of Commercial Documents and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment consisting of six (6) penalties of reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties provided in Art. 40 of the RPC. But with the application of Art. 70 of the RPC, accused-appellant shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period not exceeding 40 years.

    SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary

    Leonardo-De Castro,* Peralta, Perez,** and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:


    * Acting Member per Special Order No. 2144 dated August 10, 2015.

    ** Acting member per Special Order No. 2084 dated June 29, 2015.

    1Rollo, pp. 3-31.

    2 Id. at 32.

    3 Id. at 34-37. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Rodil V. Zalameda and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr.

    4 Id. at 88-94.

    5 Id. at 88-129.

    6 Id. at 130.

    7 Id. at 7.

    8 Id. at 33. As cited in the Entry of Judgment.

    9 Id. at 32.

    10 Id. at 33.

    11 Id. at 39-53.

    12 Id. at 9.

    13 Id. at 147-156.

    14 Id. at 150.

    15 Id. at 152.

    16Balgami vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 13 1287, December 9, 2004, 445 SCRA 591, 600.

    17 Id. at 599.

    18 Supra note 1 at 36.

    19Victory Liner vs. Gammad, G.R. No. 159636, November 25, 2004, 444 SCRA 355, 36 I.

    20 Supra note 1 at 7.

    21Bachrach Corporation vs. Philippine Ports Authority, G.R. No. 159915, March 12 2009 580 SCRA 659, 665-666.

    22 G.R. No. 143676, February 19, 2003, 397 SCRA 746, 758.

    23 Based on June 2006 average foreign currency exchange rate of P53.157 = $1.00, and July 2006 average of P52.398 = $1.00 as per http://www.nscb.gov.ph/stats/pesodollar.asp, last accessed on August 7, 2015.

    24People vs. Mino, G.R. No. 193479, October 19, 2011, 659 SCRA 796, 815.

    25ArticIe 25. Penalties which may be imposed. - The penalties which may be imposed according to this Code, and their different classes, are those included in the following:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
    Scale
    Principal Penalties
    Capital punishment:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
    Death.
    Afflictive penalties:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
    Reclusion perpetua,
    Reclusion temporal.

    Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
    Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
    Prision mayor.
    Correctional penalties:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
    Prision correccional,
    Arresto mayor,
    Suspension,
    Destierro. Light penalties:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
    Arrestomenor,
    Public censure.
    Penalties common to the three preceding classes:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
    Fine, and
    Bond to keep the peace. Accessory Penalties
    Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
    Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the profession or calling.
    Civil interdiction.
    Indemnification,
    Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense,
    Payment of costs.
    26Article 40. Death; Its accessory penalties. - The death penalty, when it is not executed by reason of commutation or pardon shall carry with it that of perpetual absolute disqualification and that of civil interdiction during thirty years following the date sentence, unless such accessory penalties have been expressly remitted in the pardon.

    21People vs. Caņales, G.R. No. 126310, October 12, 1998, 297 SCRA 667, 671.

    28People vs. Bago, G.R. No. 122290, April 6, 2000, 330 SCRA 115, 144.

    G.R. No. 214865, August 19, 2015 - ROSVEE C. CELESTIAL, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.


    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