Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > February 2016 Decisions > G.R. No. 170192, February 10, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MARISSA BAYKER, Accused-Appellant.:




G.R. No. 170192, February 10, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MARISSA BAYKER, Accused-Appellant.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 170192, February 10, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MARISSA BAYKER, Accused-Appellant.

D E C I S I O N

BERSAMIN, J.:

An illegal recruiter can be liable for the crimes of illegal recruitment committed in large scale and estafa without risk of being put in double jeopardy, provided that the accused has been so charged under separate informations.

The Case

The accused-appellant assails the decision promulgated on July 28, 2005,1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed her conviction for illegal recruitment and estafa, as follows:

WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the petition is DISMISSED and the Joint Decision dated August 27, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 138 of Makati City is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. In Criminal Case No. 01-1780 for Illegal Recruitment, the fine imposed is hereby REDUCED to P100,000.00 and in Criminal Case No. 01-1781 for Estafa, appellant is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as minimum to nine (9) years of prision mayor as maximum.

SO ORDERED.2ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Antecedents

The Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Makati the following amended informations against the accused-appellant and her two co-accused, namely: Nida Bermudez and Lorenz Langreo, alleging thusly:

Criminal Case No. 01-1780
Illegal Recruitment

That in or about during the month of January, 2001 up to the 23r day of July, 2001, in the City of Makati, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one another, and who have no authority to recruit workers for overseas employment, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously promise and recruit complainants, Basilio T. Miparanum, Virgilio T. Caniazares and Reynaldo E. Dahab, overseas job abroad and in consideration of said promise, said complainants paid and delivered to accused the amount of P52,000.00, P10,000.00 and P5,000.00, respectively as processing fees of their papers, but on the promise[d] dates of departure, accused failed to send the complainants abroad and despite demands to reimburse or return the amount of P52,000.00, P10,000.00 and P5,000.00 which complainants paid as processing fees, accused did then and there refuse and fail to reimburse or return to complainants the aforesaid amounts of P52,000.00, P10,000.00 and P5,000.00.

CONTRARY TO LAW.3

Criminal Case No. 01-1781
Estafa

That on or about the 9th day of April, 2001 up to July 23, 2001, in the City of Makati, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one another, by means of false pretense and fraudulent misrepresentations, defrauded Basilio T. Miparanum by previous of [sic] simultaneous act, that is; By pretending to possess power, influence, qualification authority, transactions or capacity to recruit and deploy said Basilio T. Miparanum for overseas job, which representations or manifestations the accused knew to be false and fraudulent as they have no authorities to recruit from the POEA and they have no principal employer and was merely intended to convince Basilio T. Miparanum to part his money in the amount of P52,000.00, in consideration thereof, as in fact complainant Basilio T. Miparanum paid the said amount to the accused relying on such false manifestation and/or representations to the damage and prejudice of complainant Basilio T. Miparanum in the aforesaid amount of P52,000.00.

CONTRARY TO LAW.4ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Only the accused-appellant and Langreo were arrested because Bermudez, who eluded arrest, continues to remain at large. However, the trial proceeded only against the accused-appellant because of the lack of notification of subsequent proceedings to Langreo.5

The State presented four witnesses, namely: Virgilio Caniazares, Reynaldo Dahab, Basilio Miparanum and PO3 Raul Bolido.

Caniazares testified that he and Dahab had met the accused-appellant at the house of a friend in Makati City in January 2001, and she had then represented herself to be recruiting workers for overseas employment, probably as hotel porters in Canada;6 that on January 27, 2001, he had gone to her residence in Pembo, Makati City to pay P4,000.00 for his medical examination, and she had then accompanied him to the Medical Center in Ermita, Manila for that purpose;7 that on March 30, 2001, she had gone to his house to inform him that he would be deployed as a seaman instead but that he had to pay P6,000.00 more; that he had paid the P6,000.00 to her, for which she had issued a receipt; that two weeks thereafter, she had called him about his deployment on April 21, 2001; that on the promised date, he had gone to her office at GNB Marketing in Makati but no one was around; that he had then proceeded to her house, and she had then told him that his seaman's application would not push through; that the two of them had then proceeded to her office bringing all his certificates of employment, and that it was there that she had introduced him to her manager, the accused Bermudez, who promised his deployment in Hongkong within two weeks; that because he had not been deployed as promised, he had gone to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), where he had learned that the accused, Bermudez and Langreo, had not been issued the license to recruit and place people overseas; and that he had then decided to charge them all with illegal recruitment and estafa in the Philippine National Police Crime Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG) in Camp Crame, Quezon City.8

Dahab declared that on January 27, 2001, he had met the accused-appellant at the Guadalupe Branch of Jollibee to pay P2,500.00 for his medical examination; that a week later, he had undergone the three-day training in Mandaluyong City, for which he paid P2,500.00; that she had then demanded from him the placement fee of P25,000.00; and that after he had not been able to raise the amount, he never saw her again; and that Caniazares soon called him to urge that he should complain against the accused in the PNP-CIDG.9

According to Miparanum, he met the accused-appellant through Caniazares, who was his cousin. Caniazares arrived at his house with her in tow in order to borrow money for his placement fee. On that occasion, she told Miparanum that she could help him find work abroad and even leave ahead of Caniazares if he had the money. Convinced, Miparanum went to her residence on April 11, 2001 to apply as a seaman. On April 17, 2001, he delivered to her P6,000.00 for his seaman's book. She again asked an additional P6,000.00 for the seaman's book, and P40,000.00 as the placement fee. On April 20, 2001, Miparanum went to her office where he met Bermudez. There, he handed the P46,000.00 to the accused-appellant but it was Bermudez who issued the corresponding receipt. The accused-appellant and Bermudez told him to wait for his deployment to Hongkong as an ordinary seaman within two weeks. Miparanum followed up on his application after two weeks, but was instead made to undergo training, and he paid P2,700.00 for his certificate. Sensing that he was being defrauded, Miparanum later proceeded to file his complaint at the PNP-CIDG.10

PO3 Raul Bolido of the PNP-CIDG recalled that in July, 2001, the complainants went to Camp Crame to file their complaints against the accused-appellant, Bermudez and Langreo. PO3 Bolido, along with SPO4 Pedro Velasco and Team Leader Police Inspector Romualdo Iringan, conducted an entrapment operation against the accused. They prepared 10 marked PI00 bills dusted with ultraviolet powder and gave the same to Miparanum. On July 23, 2001, the entrapment team proceeded with Miparanum to Jollibce-Guadalupe where Miparanum was to meet the accused-appellant. The team immediately arrested her upon her receiving the marked bills. The PNP Crime Laboratory conducted its examination for traces of ultraviolet powder on her person, and the results of the examination were positive for the presence of ultraviolet powder.11

In contrast, the accused-appellant pointed to Langreo and Bermudez who had operated GNB Marketing Agency. She claimed to have met Miparanum at Jollibee-Guadalupe only for the purpose of bringing him to Bermudez. She refused to receive the money being handed to her by Miparanum because she did not demand for it, but the four policemen suddenly arrested her, and one of them rubbed his arm against her forearm.12

The accused-appellant presented two witnesses, namely: Adelaida Castel and Edith dela Cruz. Castel testified that she had known the accused-appellant for almost five years; that being then present during the meeting between the accused-appellant and Caniazares she did not hear the accused-appellant representing herself as a legitimate recruiter to the latter; that she had been present when Miparanum delivered the P40,000.00 to Bermudez; and that prior to the entrapment of the accused-appellant, Caniazares had called their house three times to ask the accused-appellant to accompany him to the house of Bermudez.13 On her part, dela Cruz attested that she had known the accused-appellant since March, 2001 because they had worked together in a handicraft factory; that she did not know if the accused-appellant had been a recruiter; that it was Langreo who had been the recruiter because he had recruited her own daughter; and that she did not know anything about the transactions between the accused-appellant and the complaining witnesses.14

Subsequently, Dahab recanted his testimony, and stated that he had only requested assistance from the accused-appellant regarding his medical examination. He insisted that he had voluntarily paid P5,000.00 to her, and she had then paid the amount to the Medical Center for his medical examination.15

Ruling of the RTC

On August 27, 2002, the RTC rendered its ruling, disposing:

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered as follows -

a) In Criminal Case No. 01-1780 the Court finds the evidence of the Prosecution sufficient to establish the guilt of Marissa Bayker beyond reasonable doubt for having violated Section 6(m) of Republic Act No. 8042 (The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995) and applying Section 7 of the same Act, which directs imposition of the maximum penalty if the offender is a non-licensee or non-holder of authority, she is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of One Million Pesos. She is further ordered to indemnify Virgilio Caniazarcs of P6,000.00, Reynaldo Dahab P2,500.00 and Basilio Miparanum of P12,000.00.

b) In Criminal Case No. 01-1781, the Court finds the evidence of the Prosecution sufficient to establish the guilt of Marissa Bayker beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of estafa defined and penalized under Article 315 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code and she is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for FOUR (4) YEARS, NINE (9) MONTHS and ELEVEN (11) DAYS of prision correccional to NINE (9)YEARS of prision mayor. She is further ordered to pay Basilio Miparanum P40,000.00.

No pronouncement as to costs.

x x x x

SO ORDERED.10ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Judgment of the CA

On July 28, 2005, the CA affirmed the convictions of the accused-appellant by the RTC,17viz.:

WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the petition is DISMISSED and the Joint decision dated august 27, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 138 of Makati City is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. In Criminal Case No. 01-1780 for Illegal Recruitment, the fine imposed is hereby REDUCED to P100,000.00 and in Criminal Case No. 01-1781 for Estafa, appellant is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as minimum to nine (9) years of prision mayor as maximum.

SO ORDERED.

The CA opined that the Prosecution had established the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale by proving that the accused-appellant lacked the authority or license to engage in recruitment and placement,18 and had promised the complainants employment abroad and had then received money from them;19 and that the Prosecution had also established the estafa by showing that she had misrepresented to Miparanum about her power and authority to deploy him for overseas employment, thereby inducing him to part with his money.

Hence, this appeal.

Issues

The accused-appellant assigns the following errors to the CA, to wit:

I

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE THE PATENT WEAKNESS OF THE PROSECUTION'S DEFENSE

II

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING EXCULPATORY WEIGHT TO THE DEFENSE INTERPOSED BY THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT

III

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE RETRACTIONS MADE BY COMPLAINANT REYNALDO DAHAB20

The accused-appellant insists on her innocence, and points to Langreo and Bermudez as the persons who had directly engaged in illegal recruitment. She argues that her participation had been limited to signing the receipts as a witness, and to receiving payments for the medical examinations;21 that the CA and the RTC had disregarded the recantation by Dahab; and that had the evidence been limited to the testimonies of Caniazares and Miparanum, she would have only been liable for simple illegal recruitment.22

Did the CA correctly affirm the conviction of the accused-appellant for the crimes of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa?

Ruling of the Court

We affirm the assailed judgment of the CA.

I

Illegal Recruitment Committed in Large Scale

Illegal recruitment is committed by a person who: (a) undertakes any recruitment activity defined under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under Article 34 and Article 38 of the Labor Code; and (b) does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers.23 It is committed in large scale when it is committed against three or more persons individually or as a group.24

The CA properly affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant by the RTC for illegal recruitment committed in large scale because she had committed acts of recruitment against at least three persons (namely: Canizares, Dahab, and Miparanum) despite her not having been duly licensed or authorized by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) for that purpose.

The accused-appellant's insistence on her very limited participation in the recruitment of the complainants did not advance or help her cause any because the State established her having personally promised foreign employment either as hotel porters or seafarers to the complainants despite her having no license or authority to recruit from the POEA. The records made it clear enough that her participation was anything but limited, for she herself had accompanied them to their respective medical examinations at their own expense. In addition, she herself brought them to GNB Marketing and introduced them to her co-accused. In this regard, the CA pointedly observed:

The evidence established that without any license or authority to do so, appellant promised private complainants overseas employment in regard to which she required them to undergo medical examination and training and collected fees or payments from them, while repeatedly assuring that they would be deployed abroad. On appellant's contention that it was Nida Bermudez and Lorenz Langreo who received money from the complainants, even assuming arguendo that appellant never received any payment from the complainants, actual receipt of a fee is not an essential element of the crime of Illegal Recruitment, but is only one of the modes for the commission thereof. Besides, all the private complainants positively identified appellant as the person who recruited them and exacted money from them. Appellant's bare denials and self-serving assertions cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the complainants who had no ill motive to testify falsely against her.25

The accused-appellant's denial of her participation in the illegal recruitment activities of Bermudez and Langreo did not gain traction from her charging her co-accused with the sole responsibility for the illegal recruitment of the complainants. Based on the testimonial narration of the complainants regarding their recruitment, she was unqualifiedly depicted as having the primary and instrumental role in recruiting them for overseas placement from the inception. Also, her claim of having been only casually associated with GNB Marketing did not preclude her criminal liability for the crimes charged and proved. Even the mere employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment could be held liable, along with the employer, as a principal in illegal recruitment once it was shown that he had actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment.26 This is because recruitment and placement include any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, as well as referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not.

The accused-appellant protests that the RTC and the CA unreasonably disregarded Dahab's recantation; and that the recantation would render her liable only for simple illegal recruitment instead of illegal recruitment committed in large scale.

The protest of the accused-appellant is untenable.

Dahab's supposed recantation to the effect that he had only sought the assistance of the accused-appellant for his medical examination by no means weakened or diminished the Prosecution's case against her. Its being made after he had lodged his complaint against her with the PNP-CIDG (in which he supplied the details of his transactions with her) and after he had testified against her in court directly incriminating her rendered it immediately suspect. It should not be more weighty than his first testimony against her which that was replete with details. Its being the later testimony of the Dahab did not necessarily cancel his first testimony on account of the possibility of its being obtained by coercion, intimidation, fraud, or other means to distort or bend the truth.

Recantation by a witness is nothing new, for it is a frequent occurrence in criminal proceedings. As a general rule, it is not well regarded by the courts due to its nature as the mere afterthought of the witness. To be given any value or weight, it should still be subjected to the same tests for credibility in addition to its being subject of the rule that it be received with caution.27 The criminal proceedings in which sworn testimony has been given by the recanting witness would be rendered a mockery, and put at the mercy of the unscrupulous witness if such testimony could be easily negated by the witness's subsequent inconsistent declaration. The result is to leave without value not only the sanctity of the oath taken but also the solemn rituals and safeguards of the judicial trial. If only for emphasis, we reiterate that it is "a dangerous rule to reject the testimony taken before the court of justice simply because the witness who has given it later on changed his mind for one reason or another, for such a rule will make a solemn trial a mockery and place the investigation at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses."28

II
Estafa


The conviction of the accused-appellant for illegal recruitment committed in large scale did not preclude her personal liability for estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code on the ground of subjecting her to double jeopardy. The elements of estafa as charged are, namely: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (2) the offended party, or a third party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation.29 In contrast, the crime of illegal recruitment committed in large scale, as indicated earlier, requires different elements. Double jeopardy could not result from prosecuting and convicting the accused-appellant for both crimes considering that they were entirely distinct from each other not only from their being punished under different statutes but also from their elements being different.

The active representation by the accused-appellant of having the capacity to deploy Miparanum abroad despite not having the authority or license to do so from the POEA constituted deceit as the first element of estafa. Her representation induced the victim to part with his money, resulting in damage that is the second element of the estafa. Considering that the damage resulted from the deceit, the CA's affirmance of her guilt for estafa as charged was in order.

III
Penalties

The penalty for illegal recruitment committed in large scale, pursuant to Section 7(b)30 of Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers' Act), is life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P500,000.00 nor more than P1,000,000.00. In light of the provision of the law, the CA patently erred in reducing the fine to P100,000.00. Hence, we hereby increase the fine to P500,000.00.

Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Article 315 Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:

1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years, in such case, 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.

x x x x

Inasmuch as the prescribed penalty is prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, plus one year for each additional P10,000.00 over P22,000.00, provided that the total penalty shall not exceed 20 years, the penalty to be imposed on the accused-appellant should depend on the amount defrauded. We note that the RTC took into consideration only the sum of P40,000.00, and the CA concurred with the RTC thereon. Yet, the records reveal that Miparanum paid to the accused-appellant and her co-accused not only P40,000.00 but the aggregate sum of P54/700.00 (i.e., the P6,000.00 for the seaman's book, the additional P6,000.00 for the seaman's book, the P40,000.00 for placement fee, and P2,700 for his training certificate). The amount of P54,700.00 is the determinant of the penalty to be imposed.

Pursuant to Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty prescribed for estafa in which the amount of the fraud is over P12,000.00 but does not exceed P22,000.00 is prision correctional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period (i.e., four years, two months and one day to eight years); if the amount of the fraud exceeds P22,000.00, the penalty thus prescribed shall be imposed in its maximum period, and one year shall be added for each additional P10,000.00 provided the total penalty imposed shall not exceed 20 years. Considering that the penalty does not consist of three periods, the prescribed penalty is divided into three equal portions, and each portion shall form a period,31 with the maximum period being then imposed.32 However, the floor of the maximum period - six years, eight months and 21 days - is fixed in the absence of any aggravating circumstance, or of any showing of the greater extent of the evil produced by the crime,33 to which is then added the incremental penalty of one year for every P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00, or three years in all.34 The resulting total penalty is nine years, eight months and 21 days of prision mayor, which shall be the maximum of the indeterminate sentence.

The minimum of the indeterminate sentence is taken from prision correctional in its minimum period to prision correctional in its medium period (i.e., six months and one day to four years and two months), the penalty next lower to that prescribed by Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. We note that the CA correctly fixed the minimum of the indeterminate sentence at four years and two months of prision correctional.

In view of the foregoing, the indeterminate sentence for the accused-appellant is from four years and two months of prision correctional, as the minimum, to nine years, eight months and 21 days of prision mayor.

IV
Civil Liabilities

The civil liabilities as decreed by the RTC and upheld by the CA are also corrected to reflect the actual aggregate amount to be restituted to Miparanum at P54,700.00. In addition, the accused-appellant shall be obliged to pay interest of 6% per annum on the respective sums due to each of the complainants, to be reckoned from the finality of this decision until full payment considering that the amount to be restituted became determinate only through this adjudication.chanrobleslaw

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on July 28, 2005 subject to the following MODIFICATIONS, to wit:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
  1. In Criminal Case No. 01-1780, for illegal recruitment committed in large scale, the penalty of life imprisonment and fine of P500,000.00 is imposed on the accused- appellant;

  2. In Criminal Case No. 01-1781, for estafa, the accused- appellant is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four years and two months of prision correccional, as the minimum, to nine years, eight months and 21 days of prision mayor, as the maximum;

  3. The accused-appellant shall indemnify complainants Virigilio Caniazares, Reynaldo Dahab and Basilio Miparanum in the respective amounts of P6,000.00, P2,500.00, and P54,700.00 plus interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this decision until full payment; and

  4. The accused-appellant shall pay the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.

Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-De Castro, Perlas-Bernabe, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Endnotes:


1Rollo, pp. 3-23; penned by Associate Justice Portia Alino-Hormachuelos, and concurred in by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas.

2 Id. at 22-23.

3 Records, p. 79.

4 Id. at 83.

5 Id. at 385.

6 TSN dated October 15, 2001, pp. 4-7.

7 Id. at 8-10.

8 Id. at 12-21.

9 Id. at 29-34.

10 TSN dated November 5, 200 1, pp. 4-23.

11 TSN dated November 19, 2001, pp. 5-15.

12Rollo, p.11.

13 TSN dated March 11, 2002, pp. 3-16.

14 TSN dated April 29, 2002, pp. 243-246.

15 TSN dated January 22, 2002, pp. 3-7.

16 CA rollo, pp. 27-28.

17 Supra note 1, at 22-23.

18Rollo, p. 15.

19 Id. at 15-19.

20 CA rollo, p. 48.

21 Id. at 57-58.

22 Id. at 59.

23Nasi-Villar v. People, G.R. No. 176169, November 14, 2008, 571 SCRA 202, 208; People v. Ortiz-Miyake, G.R. Nos. 115338-39, September 16, 1997, 279 SCRA 180, 193.

24 Under Section 6 (m) (Definitions) of Republic Act No. 8042, illegal recruitment "when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered as offense involving economic sabotage;" and illegal recruitment "is deemed committed by a syndicate carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group." See People v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 199211, June 4, 2014, 725 SCRA 152, 156-157.cralawred

25Rollo, pp. 19-20.

26People v. Cabais, G.R. No. 129070, March 16, 2001, 354 SCRA 553, 561.cralawred

27People, v. Domingo, G.R. No. 181475, April 7, 2009, 584 SCRA 669, 678; Francisco v. National Labor Relations Commissions, G.R. No. 170087, August 3 1, 2006, 500 SCRA 690, 701-702.

28Flares v. People, G.R. Nos. 93411-12, July 20, 1992, 211 SCRA 622, 630.

29People v. Tolentino, G.R. No. 208686, July 1, 2015.

30 Section 7. PENALTIES. - x x x

xxxx

(b) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) nor more than one million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein.

xxxx

31 Article 65 of the Revised Penal Code.

32 Accordingly, the three periods of the prescribed penalty is four years, two months and one day to five years, five months and 10 days for the minimum period; five years, live months and 11 days to six years, eight months and 20 days for the medium period; and six years, eight months and 21 days to eight years for the maximum period.

33 Rule No. 7 of Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code states: "Within the limits of each period, the courts shall determine the extent of the penalty according to the number and nature of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater or lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime."

34 See People v. Ocden, G.R. No. 173198, June 1, 2011, 650 SCRA 124, 150-151.



Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





February-2016 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 212878, February 01, 2016 - MARLOW NAVIGATION PHILS., INC., MARLOW NAVIGATION CO., LTD., W. BOCKSTLEGEL REEDEREI (GERMANY), ORLANDO D. ALIDIO AND ANTONIO GALVEZ, JR., Petitioners, v. WILFREDO L. CABATAY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213910, February 03, 2016 - VINSON* D. YOUNG A.K.A. BENZON ONG AND BENNY YOUNG A.K.A. BENNY ONG, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AS REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198994, February 03, 2016 - IRIS MORALES, Petitioners, v. ANA MARIA OLONDRIZ, ALFONSO JUAN OLONDRIZ, JR., ALEJANDRO MORENO OLONDRIZ, ISABEL ROSA OLONDRIZ AND FRANCISCO JAVIER MARIA OLONDRIZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 181186, February 03, 2016 - SIGUION REYNA MONTECILLO AND ONGSIAKO LAW OFFICES, Petitioners, v. HON. NORMA CHIONLO-SIA, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 56 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF LUCENA CITY, AND THE TESTATE ESTATE OF DECEASED SUSANO RODRIGUEZ, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL ADMINISTRATRIX, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-13-2361 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4144-RTJ], February 02, 2016 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. PRESIDING JUDGE JOSEPH CEDRICK O. RUIZ, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 61, MAKATI CITY, Respondent.

  • OCA I.P.I. No. 13-4148-P, February 10, 2016 - SPS. JOSE AND MELINDA CAILIPAN, Complainants, v. LORENZO O. CASTAŅEDA, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 96, QUEZON CITY, Respondents

  • G.R. No. 205814, February 15, 2016 - SPOUSES ALFREDO TEAŅO* AND VERONICA TEAŅO, Petitioners, v. THE MUNICIPALITY OF NAVOTAS, REPRESENTED BY MAYOR TOBIAS REYNALD M. TIANGCO, AND MUNICIPAL TREASURER MANUEL T. ENRIQUEZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195145, February 10, 2016 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES SULPICIO AND PATRICIA RAMOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192075, February 10, 2016 - ROBERTO PALO Y DE GULA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 194548, February 10, 2016 - JUANA VDA. DE ROJALES, SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, REPRESENTED BY CELERINA ROJALES-SEVILLA, Petitioner, v. MARCELINO DIME, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, REPRESENTED BY BONIFACIA MANIBAY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 218396, February 10, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NESTOR ROXAS Y CASTRO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 208343, February 03, 2016 - SPOUSES CEFERINO C. LAUS AND MONINA P. LAUS, AND SPOUSES ANTONIO O. KOH AND ELISA T. KOH, Petitioners, v. OPTIMUM SECURITY SERVICES, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199194, February 10, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. JOSE B. SAREŅOGON, JR., Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 7618, February 02, 2016 - SPOUSES JONATHAN AND ESTER LOPEZ, Complainants, v. ATTY. SINAMAR E. LIMOS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199371, February 03, 2016 - PETRON LPG DEALERS ASSOCIATION AND TOTAL GAZ LPG DEALERS ASSOCIATION, Petitioners, v. NENA C. ANG, ALISON C. SY, NELSON C. ANG, RENATO C. ANG, AND/OR OCCUPANTS OF NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208451, February 03, 2016 - MANILA MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERY, INC., Petitioner, v. EZARD D. LLUZ, NORMAN CORRAL, ERWIN FUGABAN, VALDIMAR BALISI, EMILIO FABON, JOHN MARK APLICADOR, MICHAEL CURIOSO, JUNLIN ESPARES, GAVINO FARINAS, AND WARD TRADING AND SERVICES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190846, February 03, 2016 - TOMAS P. TAN, JR., Petitioner, v. JOSE G. HOSANA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204970, February 01, 2016 - SPOUSES CLAUDIO AND CARMENCITA TRAYVILLA, Petitioners, v. BERNARDO SEJAS AND JUVY PAGLINAWAN, REPRESENTED BY JESSIE PAGLINAWAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 205764, February 03, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEE QUIJANO ENAD, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 196651, February 03, 2016 - UWE MATHAEUS, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES ERIC AND GENEVIEVE MEDEQUISO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 207355, February 03, 2016 - JENNIFER A. AGUSTIN-SE AND ROHERMIA J. JAMSANI-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioners, v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, OVERALL DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, AND JOHN I.C. TURALBA, ACTING DEPUTY SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 209212, February 10, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plintiff and Appellee, v. ROMEL SAPITULA Y PACULAN, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 191185, February 01, 2016 - GUILBEMER FRANCO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3210-RTJ, February 03, 2016 - JUVY P. CIOCON-REER, ANGELINA P. CIOCON, MARIVIT P. CIOCON-HERNANDEZ, AND REMBERTO C. KARAAN, SR., Complainants, v. JUDGE ANTONIO C. LUBAO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 22, GENERAL SANTOS CITY, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 7594, February 09, 2016 - ADELPHA E. MALABED, Complainant, v. ATTY. MELJOHN B. DE LA PEŅA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207535, February 10, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICARDO LAGBO A.K.A RICARDO LABONG Y MENDOZA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 201073, February 10, 2016 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. Petitioner, v. PAL EMPLOYEES SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 180402, February 10, 2016 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208021, February 03, 2016 - OSCAR S. VILLARTA, Petitioner, v. GAUDIOSO TALAVERA, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 193748, February 03, 2016 - MERVIC REALTY, INC. AND VICCY REALTY, INC., Petitioners, v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 181789, February 03, 2016 - GMA NETWORK, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, CENTRAL CATV, INC., PHILIPPINE HOME CABLE HOLDINGS, INC., AND PILIPINO CABLE CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 202978, February 01, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICTOR P. PADIT, Accused-Appellant.

  • A.C. No. 9807, February 02, 2016 - ERLINDA SISTUAL, FLORDELISA S. LEYSA, LEONISA S. ESPABO AND ARLAN C. SISTUAL, Complainants, v. ATTY. ELIORDO OGENA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 180642, February 03, 2016 - NUEVA ECIJA I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INCORPORATED (NEECO I), Petitioner, v. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 194134, February 01, 2016 - JOSE ROMULO L. FRANCISCO, Petitioner, v. LOYOLA PLANS CONSOLIDATED INC., JESUSA CONCEPCION AND GERARDO B. MONZON, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 187417, February 24, 2016 - CHRISTINE JOY CAPIN-CADIZ, Petitioner, v. BRENT HOSPITAL AND COLLEGES, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 170192, February 10, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MARISSA BAYKER, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 202187, February 10, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ELISEO D. VILLAMOR, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 210542, February 24, 2016 - ROSALINA CARODAN, Petitioner, v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 215014, February 29, 2016 - REBECCA FULLIDO, Petitioner, v. GINO GRILLI, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 215107, February 24, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE TOLL REGULATORY BOARD, Petitioner, v. C.C. UNSON COMPANY, INC., Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-15-3300 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No.12-4011-P), February 10, 2016 - JOSEPHINE E. LAM, Complainant, v. NILA M. GARCIA, JUNIOR PROCESS SERVER, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, SIATON, NEGROS ORIENTAL, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3423 [Formerly A.M. No. 13-9-89-MTCC], February 16, 2016 - RE: CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATION IRREGULARITY (IMPERSONATION) OF MS. ELENA T. VALDEROSO, CASH CLERK II, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, ANTIPOLO CITY.

  • G.R. No. 210233, February 15, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES RODOLFO SY AND BELEN SY, LOLITA SY, AND SPOUSES TEODORICO AND LEAH ADARNA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 206256, February 24, 2016 - ALBERT C. AUSTRIA, Petitioner, v. CRYSTAL SHIPPING, INC., AND/OR LARVIK SHIPPING A/S, AND EMILY MYLA A. CRISOSTOMO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 202695, February 29, 2016 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. GJM PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING, INC., Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 5325, February 09, 2016 - NEMESIO FLORAN AND CARIDAD FLORAN, Complainants, v. ATTY. ROY PRULE EDIZA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201927, February 17, 2016 - VICENTE D. CABANTING AND LALAINE V. CABANTING, Petitioners, v. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 184332, February 17, 2016 - ANNA TENG, Petitioner, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (SEC) AND TING PING LAY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 198434, February 29, 2016 - HEIRS OF LEANDRO NATIVIDAD AND JULIANA V. NATIVIDAD, Petitioners, v. JUANA MAURICIO-NATIVIDAD, AND SPOUSES JEAN NATIVIDAD CRUZ AND JERRY CRUZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 182629, February 24, 2016 - MERCEDES N. ABELLA, MA. THERESA A. BALLESTEROS AND MARIANITO N. ABELLA, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF FRANCISCA C. SAN JUAN namely: GLICERIA SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, BENIGNA SAN JUAN VASQUEZ, EVARISTO SAN JUAN, NIEVES SAN JUAN LUSTRE AND MATILDE SAN JUAN QUILONIO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 207389, February 17, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FEDERICO DE LA CRUZ Y SANTOS, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 216566, February 17, 2016 - MAGELLAN AEROSPACE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE AIR FORCE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 175760, February 17, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SOGOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199537, February 10, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. ANDREA TAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 179287, February 01, 2016 - PCI JIMMY M. FORTALEZA AND SPO2 FREDDIE A. NATIVIDAD, Petitioners, v. HON. RAUL M. GONZALEZ IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE AND ELIZABETH N. OROLA VDA. DE SALABAS, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 182090 - ELIZABETH N. OROLA VDA. DE SALABAS, Petitioner, v. HON. EDUARDO R. ERMITA, HON. MANUEL B. GAITE, P/INSP. CLARENCE DONGAIL, P/INSP. JONATHAN LORILLA,1 PO3 ALLEN WINSTON HULLEZA AND PO2 BERNARDO CIMATU, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206758, February 17, 2016 - MARICEL S. NONAY, Petitioner, v. BAHIA SHIPPING SERVICES, INC., FRED OLSEN LINES AND CYNTHIA MENDOZA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195026, February 22, 2016 - CENTRAL MINDANAO UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, DR. MARIA LUISA R. SOLIVEN, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 174462, February 10, 2016 - PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION (POTC), PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION (PHILCOMSAT), Petitioners, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (3rd DIVISION), REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 199683, February 10, 2016 - ARLENE T. SAMONTE, VLADIMIR P. SAMONTE, MA. AUREA S. ELEPANO, Petitioners, v. LA SALLE GREENHILLS, INC., BRO. BERNARD S. OCA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 183486, February 24, 2016 - THE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION, LIMITED, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION AND CITYTRUST BANKING CORPORATION (NOW BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 194960, February 03, 2016 - PRO BUILDERS, INC., Petitioner, v. TG UNIVERSAL BUSINESS VENTURES, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203678, February 17, 2016 - CONCORDE CONDOMINIUM, INC., BY ITSELF AND COMPRISING THE UNIT OWNERS OF CONCORDE CONDOMINIUM BUILDING, Petitioner, v. AUGUSTO H. BACULIO; NEW PPI CORPORATION; ASIAN SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY AND ITS SECURITY GUARDS; ENGR. NELSON B. MORALES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS BUILDING OFFICIAL OF THE MAKATI CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT; SUPT. RICARDO C. PERDIGON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CITY FIRE MARSHAL OF THE MAKATI CITY FIRE STATION; F/C SUPT. SANTIAGO E. LAGUNA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF FIRE PROTECTION-NCR, AND ANY AND ALL PERSONS ACTING WITH OR UNDER THEM, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 174481, February 10, 2016 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CRISTY DIMAANO Y TIPDAS, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 218867, February 17, 2016 - SPOUSES EDMOND LEE AND HELEN HUANG, Petitioners, v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 190534, February 10, 2016 - C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC., RONALD AUSTRIA, AND ABU DHABI NATIONAL TANKER CO., Petitioners, v. LEGAL HEIRS OF THE LATE GODOFREDO REPISO, REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE LUZVIMINDA REPISO, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 10945 (Formerly CBD 09-2507), February 23, 2016 - ANGELITO RAMISCAL AND MERCEDES ORZAME, Complainants, v. ATTY. EDGAR S. ORRO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208406, February 29, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ALLAN RODRIGUEZ Y GRAJO, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 177382, February 17, 2016 - VIVA SHIPPING LINES, INC., Petitioner, v. KEPPEL PHILIPPINES MINING, INC., METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, CITY OF BATANGAS, CITY OF LUCENA, PROVINCE OF QUEZON, ALEJANDRO OLIT, NIDA MONTILLA, PIO HERNANDEZ, EUGENIO BACULO, AND HARLAN BACALTOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 203322, February 24, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. REMAN SARIEGO, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 186102, February 24, 2016 - NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF TEODULO EBESA, NAMELY: PORFERIA L. EBESA, EFREN EBESA, DANTE EBESA AND CYNTHIA EBESA, AND ATTY. FORTUNATO VELOSO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192233, February 17, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SPO1 CATALINO GONZALES, JR., Accused-Appellant.

  • A.M. No. P-15-3393 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4055-P], February 23, 2016 - SEGUNDINA P. NOCES-DE LEON AND LEONOR P. ALAVE, Petitioners, v. TERENCIO G. FLORENDO, SHERIFF IV, BRANCH 21, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, VIGAN CITY, ILOCOS SUR, Respondent.

  • IPI No. 15-35-SB-J, February 23, 2016 - RE: VERIFIED COMPLAINT DATED JULY 13, 2015 OF ALFONSO V. UMALI, JR., Complainant, v. HON. JOSE R. HERNANDEZ, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-15-3361 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3381-P], February 23, 2016 - ATTY. JOHN V. AQUINO, Petitioner, v. ELENA S. ALCASID, CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, OLONGAPO CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 185603, February 10, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. LOCAL SUPERIOR OF THE INSTITUTE OF THE SISTERS OF THE SACRED HEART OF JESUS OF RAGUSA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208404, February 24, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICENTE LUGNASIN AND DEVINCIO GUERRERO, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 183529, February 24, 2016 - OFELIA C. CAUNAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 207816, February 24, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAUL YAMON TUANDO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 171041, February 10, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. MOLDEX REALTY, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 188720, February 23, 2016 - QUEZON CITY PTCA FEDERATION, INC., Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY JESLI A. LAPUS, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 8037, February 17, 2016 - RE: DECISION DATED AUGUST 19, 2008, 3RD DIVISION, COURT OF APPEALS IN CA-G.R. SP NO. 79904 [HON. DIONISIO DONATO T. GARCIANO, ET AL. V. HON. PATERNO G. TIAMSON, ETC., ET AL.], Petitioner, v. ATTY. JOSE DE G. FERRER, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 220481, February 17, 2016 - VICTOR S. LIMLINGAN AND EMMANUEL A. LEYCO, Petitioners, v. ASIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, INC., Respondent.; G.R. No. 220503 - ASIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, INC., Petitioner, v. VICTOR S. LIMLINGAN AND EMMANUEL A. LEYCO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208976, February 22, 2016 - THE HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. LEOVIGILDO DELOS REYES, JR., Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10605, February 17, 2016 - BIENVENIDO T. CANLAPAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. WILLIAM B. BALAYO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 209180, February 24, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. REGHIS M. ROMERO II AND OLIVIA LAGMAN ROMERO, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 209253 - OLIVIA LAGMAN ROMERO, Petitioner, v. REGHIS M. ROMERO II, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208948, February 24, 2016 - JOSE B. LURIZ, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 173921, February 24, 2016 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner, v. ISAGANI DAWAL, LORNA CONCEPCION, AND BONIFACIO SINOBAGO, Respondents.; G.R. No. 173952 - ISAGANI DAWAL, LORNA CONCEPCION, AND BONIFACIO SINOBAGO, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., AVELINO L. ZAPANTA, AND CESAR B. LAMBERTE, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3419 [Formerly OCAIPI No. 11-3648-P], February 23, 2016 - AUGUSTO V. SANTOS, Complainant, v. SHERIFF IV ANTONIO V. LEAŅO, JR., SHERIFF III BENJIE E. LACSINA, SHERIFF III ALVIN S. PINEDA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 184288, February 16, 2016 - ERIC N. ESTRELLADO AND JOSSIE M. BORJA, Petitioners, v. KARINA CONSTANTINO DAVID, THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, HIPOLITO R. GABORNI AND ROBERTO S. SE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 175210, February 01, 2016 - MARIO JOSE E. SERENO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSOCIATION OF PETROCHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (APMP), Petitioner, v. COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND RELATED MATTERS (CTRM) OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NEDA), COMPOSED OF THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE NEDA SECRETARIAT, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARIES OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, FINANCE, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, AGRICULTURE, ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION, LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, AGRARIAN REFORM, THE GOVERNOR OF THE BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS AND THE CHAIRMAN OF THE TARIFF COMMISSION, AND BRENDA R. MENDOZA IN HER CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE TRADE, INDUSTRY & UTILITIES STAFF, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 170631, February 10, 2016 - CARAVAN TRAVEL AND TOURS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Petitioner, v. ERMILINDA R. ABEJAR, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 8667, February 03, 2016 - INOCENCIO I. BALISTOY, Petitioner, v. ATTY. FLORENCIO A. BRON, Respondent.

  • IPI No. 14-222-CA-J, February 23, 2016 - RE: COMPLAINT OF ATTY. MARIANO R. PEFIANCO AGAINST JUSTICES MARIA ELISA SEMPIO DIY, RAMON PAUL L. HERNANDO, AND CARMELITA SALANDANAN-MANAHAN, OF THE COURT OF APPEALS CEBU.

  • G.R. No. 193176, February 24, 2016 - PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, RENATO D. TAYAG, ISMAEL M. REINOSO, GENEROSO TANSECO, MANUEL MORALES, RUBEN B. ANCHETA, GERONIMO Z. VELASCO, TROADIO T. QUIAZON, JR., FERNANDO MARAMAG, EDGARDO TORDESILLAS, ARTURO R. TANCO, JR., GERARDO SICAT, PANFILO O. DOMINGO, POTENCIANO ILUSORIO, MANUEL B. SYQUIO, RAFAEL M. ATAYDE, HONORIO POBLADOR, JR., GEORGE T. SCHOLEY,1 TIRSO ANTIPORDA, JR., CARLOS L. INDUCTIVO, AND TEODORO VALENCIA, Respondents.