Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions


Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > November 2011 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 197199 : November 16, 2011] RAFAEL REYES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES:




SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 197199 : November 16, 2011]

RAFAEL REYES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 16 NOVEMBER 2011 which reads as follows:cralaw

G.R. No. 197199(Rafael Reyes v. People of the Philippines) � We resolve the Petition for Review filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court by accused Rafael Reyes from the 23 August 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. C.R. No. 00018-MIN.

The RTC Ruling

In its Decision[1] promulgated 15 April 2004, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Isulan, Sultan Kudarat, found the accused Rafael Reyes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610[2] or the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act and sentenced him to suffer the straight penalty of 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor and to pay P 4,157.00 in actual damages, P10,000 as attorney's fees, and costs of the suit. The RTC was convinced by the testimony of the 13-year-old victim himself, AAA,[3]  that on the night of 16 June 2001, the accused injured him by slapping his face several times and striking his head with a bicycle rim. Accused allegedly used rattan rope to tie the child to a copra weighing scale and then held him at knifepoint. The RTC gave weight to accused petitioner�s admission that he did lay hands on AAA, because the latter had stolen several items from his store, including accused's own watch.[4]

The CA Ruling

The CA[5] rejected petitioner's claim that it was AAA's mother who had caused the child's injuries; it instead found AAA�s testimony truthful, frank, and consistent. The Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Ronald A. Jaramillo and the case study report of the Municipal Social Welfare Officer, as the latter explained in her testimony, confirm that AAA was maltreated and traumatized by the accused.[6]  However, the CA modified the straight penalty of prision mayor and instead imposed 4 years, 9 months, and 11 days of prision correccional as minimum, to 6 years, 8 months, and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum.

Our Ruling

We deny the Petition.

Accused petitioner asks for a review, claiming that the appellate court overlooked several crucial details which would have shown loopholes in the case for the prosecution. He claims that it was only AAA who testified regarding the incident, and such self-serving assertion cannot be relied upon. He also questions the probative value of the Medical Certificate of Dr. Jaramillo, arguing that without the latter's own testimony in court, the said certificate constitutes hearsay. Accused petitioner theorizes that it was the mother of AAA who beat him up after learning of his theft, and subsequently coached the child to testify falsely.[7]

We find no solid reason to disturb the findings of the CA. Reevaluation and calibration of the evidence necessarily involve consideration of factual issues; an exercise that is not appropriate for a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Generally, the Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence introduced in, and considered by, the tribunals below. When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the CA are binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court, unless they fall under any of the following recognized exceptions.[8] No such exceptions are applicable here.

Even if we yield to petitioners misguided assumption, the factual points he raises are still not meritorious. The Medical Certificate was properly admitted upon the RTC's order dated 18 July 2002, to which the defense never interposed any objection.[9] The trial court also adjudged AAA's testimony to be indicative of a dependent and trustworthy recollection and his narration consistently straightforward.[10] The age-old rule is that, when supported by the evidence on record, the task of assigning values to the testimonies of witnesses and weighing their credibility is best left to the trial court, which forms firsthand impressions of them. Trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses in the exact moments that they testify.[11]  Moreover, as previously held by the Supreme Court, the testimonies of children of sound mind are likely to be more truthful than those of older persons, so that once it is established that they have fully understood the character and nature of an oath, their testimonies should be given full credence.[12]

It is misleading for petitioner to claim that the RT'C based its findings on AAA's testimony alone. Five witnesses appeared in court for the prosecution: Barangay Chairperson Guillermo Togonon, Police Officer Jennifer Prudente, Social Welfare Officer Daisy Aduaya, the mother of AAA, and AAA himself.[13]  The RTC not only based its ruling on the totality of the prosecution evidence; it also highlighted the admission twice made by the accused that he did hit AAA: first, before the barangay chairperson, and second, before the trial court judge.[14] cralaw

Petitioner then argues that his act has not been proven to be prejudicial to the child's development. He reiterates that the Medical Certificate never established that his act prejudiced or even affected the development of the child.

Section 3(b) of R.A. 7610 defines child abuse as the maltreatment of a child, whether habitual or not, which is committed through any of the following: 

a) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment; 

b) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being: 

c) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival, such as food and shelter: or 

d) Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an injured child resulting in serious impairment of his growth and development or in his permanent incapacity or death. (emphasis supplied)

As we have held in Araneta v. People:[15]

The prosecution need not prove that the acts of child abuse, child cruelly and child exploitation have resulted in the prejudice of the child because an act prejudicial to the development of the child is different from the former acts. x x x 

(T)he use of "or" in Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 before the phrase "be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's development" supposes that there are four punishable acts therein. First, the act of child abuse; second, child cruelty; third, child exploitation; and fourth, being responsible for conditions prejudicial to the child's development. The fourth penalized act cannot be interpreted, as petitioner suggests, as a qualifying condition for the three other acts, because an analysis of the entire context of the questioned provision does not warrant such construal.

Thus, prejudice to the child's development is not an element of the crime of child abuse and need net be proved separately from the fact of actual physical abuse in order to warrant conviction. It is, as the Court has long resolved, merely one of the modes punishable under the crime generally designated as child abuse. Lastly, petitioner cannot escape the correct penalty as imposed by the Court of Appeals simply by arguing that the acts alleged in the Information constitute the crime of serious physical injuries, and not child abuse under R.A. 7610. Clearly, it is R.A. 7610 which should apply, as it is the specific special law punishing child abuse, and not the Revised Penal Code. It is undisputed that the victim, AAA, is a child at the time of the commission of the crime, being only 13 years old, and it is clear that R.A. 7610 does not require the physical maltreatment to be habitual. The interplay of R.A. 7610 with the Revised Penal Code is allowed only if R.A. 7610 itself so allows, as Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code states: 

Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary.

There being no reversible error attributable to the appellate court, its findings are affirmed, and the present Petition is denied.cralaw

WHEREFORE, the 23 August 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. C.R. No. 00018-MIN is hereby AFFIRMED.

Very truly yours,

MA. LUISA L. LAUREA 
Division Clerk of Court

By:

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:


[1] Penned by Judge German M. Malcampo in Criminal Case No. 2845, rollo, pp. 56-80.

[2] Enacted 17 June 1992, in particular Sec. 10(a), Article VI.

[3] The identify or the victim is withheld, pursuant to R.A. 7610, R.A. 9262, and A.M. No. 04-10-11.

[4] TSN, 28 May 2003, pp. 11-12.

[5] Decision promulgated 23 August 2010, penned by Associate .Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando and concurred in by Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Edgardo T. Lloren.

[6] CA Decision, p. 11, rollo, pp. 43-44.

[7] Petition, p. 22-23.

[8] Spouses Sevilla v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150284, 22 November 2010, 635 SCRA 508.

[9] CA Decision, p. 10, rollo, p. 42.

[10] RTC Decision p. 23, rollo, p. 78.

[11] People of the Philippines v. Alvin del Rosario, G.R. No. 189580, 9 February 2011, 642 SCRA 625.

[12] People of the Philippines v. Albert Te�oso, G.R. No 188975, 5 July 2010, 621 SCRA 614.

[13] RTC Decision, p. 2, rollo, p. 57.

[14] RTC Decision, p. 22, citing TSN, 28 May 2003, p. 11.

[15] G.R. No. 174205, June 27, 2008, 556 SCRA 323, 334.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

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






November-2011 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 167449 : November 14, 2011] BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB [PHILS.] v. NIXON A. BABAN

  • [G.R. No. 190648 : November 14, 2011] HYATT TAXI SERVICES, INC./MR. CESAR LEE/MR. CONSTANCIO RAMOS, JR. V. WILFREDO CERILLO

  • [G.R. No. 194974 : November 14, 2011] DAISY TOLEDO Y CAUPAYAN, FRED BULAWIN Y EROY AND EVELYN TIZON Y AGUSTINES, PETITIONERS -VERSUS- PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 196974 : November 14, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOMAR MALLILLIN Y BUNCAG

  • [G.R. No. 195966 : November 14, 2011] ATTY. ROSELLER "JACK" MAALAT v. HONORABLE COURT OR APPEALS [18TH DIVISION], CEBU CITY, LORETO VALENZUELA, AND JESSIE CERVANTES, ET AL.

  • [G.R. No. 194840 : November 14, 2011] MARCELO PACHECO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 198558 : November 14, 2011] ARIEL LANTAJO Y CRISTOBAL AND GUILLERMO ALOJAMIENTO Y GUAPIN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 197248 : November 14, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMULO DUTERTE

  • [G.R. No. 197924 : November 14, 2011] BENITO YAO CHUA AND WILSON GO v. LEONARDO L. VILLALON, ET AL.

  • [G.R. No. 196227 : November 14, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SHANEDATU UTOH

  • [G.R. No. 181027 : November 15, 2011] NQSR MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, ET AL.

  • [G.R. No. 191970 : November 15, 2011] ROMMEL APOLINARIO JALOSJOS VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND DAN ERASMO, JR.

  • [G.R. No. 193462 : November 15, 2011] DENNIS B. FUNA VS. MANILA ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL OFFICE AND COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • [G.R. No. 196933 : November 15, 2011] NOLI JOEL IGNAO BERMEO VS. LUZ IGNAO PADAYAO AND COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS [COMELEC]

  • [G.R. No. 197930 : November 15, 2011] EFRAIM C. GENUINO, ET AL. VS. HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ET AL.

  • [G.R. No. 197878 : November 15, 2011] GEMMA C. DELA CRUZ, ET AL. VS. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY [MERALCO], ET AL.

  • [G.R. No. 197778 : November 15, 2011] NASSER DIKI LAGUINDAB VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • [G.R. No. 197419 : November 15, 2011] JESUS VICENTE H. MAGSAYSAY II VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR.

  • [G.R. No. 196926 : November 15, 2011] JOSE A. ZAMORRO VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF MAASIM, SARANGANI AND ARTURO LAWA

  • [G.R No. 196452 : November 15, 2011] MARIA BLANCA KIM B. LOKIN VS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AND LEOPOLDO N. BATAOIL

  • [G.R. No. 195971 : November 15, 2011] AL-JIHAN R. EDDING VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND MIGUEL C. ALAVAR III

  • [G.R. No. 195649 : November 15, 2011] CASAN MACODE MAQUILING VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ROMMEL ARNADO Y CAGOCO AND LINOG G. BALUA

  • [G.R. No. 195378 : November 15, 2011] CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND FRANCISCO SERVITO

  • [G.R. No. 193808 : November 15, 2011] LUIS K. LOKIN, JR. AND TERESITA F. PLANAS VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND VIRGINIA S. JOSE, ALLEGEDLY REPRESENTING CITIZENS' BATTLE AGAINST CORRUPTION PARTY LIST, SHERWIN N. TUGNA AND CINCHONA CRUZ-GONZALES

  • [G.R. No. 193719 : November 15, 2011] SAMSON R. PACASUM, SR. VS. ATTY. MARIETTA D. ZAMORANOS

  • [A.M. No. P-04-1787 : November 15, 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. MS. MAURA D. CAMPANO, CLERK OF COURT, MTC, SAN JOSE, OCCIDENTAL MINDORO, NESTOR S. ROBLES, CLERK OF COURT, MCTC, MAGSAYSAY-RIZAL, CALINTAAN, OCCIDENTAL MINDORO AND YOLANDA A. BONUS, INTERPRETER I, MCTC, MAGSAYSAY-RIZAL-CALINTAAN, OCCIDENTAL MINDORO

  • [G.R. No. 153690 : November 15, 2011] DAVID LU VS. PATERNO LUYM, SR., ET AL.

  • [G.R. Nos. 184461-62 : November 15, 2011] LT. COL. ROGELIO BOAC, ET AL. VS. ERLINDA T. CADAPAN, ET AL.

  • [G.R. Nos. 183711-13 : November 15, 2011] EDITA T. BURGOS VS. PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, ET AL.

  • [A.M. No. 14082-Ret. : November 15, 2011] RE: APPLICATION FOR SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS OF HON. JUANITO C. RANJO, FORMER DEPUTY COURT ADMINISTRATOR [DCA]

  • [G.R. No. 174788 : November 15, 2011] THE SPECIAL AUDIT TEAM, COMMISSION ON AUDIT v. COURT OF APPEALS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • [G.R. No. 181653 : November 15, 2011] POLICE DIRECTOR GENERAL AVELINO I. RAZON, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VERSUS HON. ALAN PETER S. CAYETANO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 181067 : November 15, 2011] CECILIA ORENA-DRILON, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. HON. RONALDO V. PUNO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. [ G.R. NO. 181159. NOVEMBER 15, 2011 ] RAOUL ESPERAS, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. HON. EDUARDO ERMITA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 199034 November 15, 2011] GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO v. HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND RICARDO A. DAVID, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION [ G.R. NO. 199046. NOVEMBER 15, 2011 ] JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO v. SEC. LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, RICARDO V. PARAS III, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF STATE COUNSEL, AND RICARDO A. DAVID, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION DISSENTING OPINION

  • [G.R. No. 199034, November 15, 2011] GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, PETITIONER, v. HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. [ G.R. NO. 199046. NOVEMBER 15, 2011 ] JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO, PETITIONER, v. SECRETARY LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. DISSENTING OPINION

  • [G.R. No. 199034 : November 15, 2011] GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, PETITIONER, -VERSUS- HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND RICARDO A. DAVID, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, RESPONDENTS. [ G.R. NO. 199046. NOVEMBER 15, 2011 ] JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO, PETITIONER, -VERSUS- HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, RICARDO V. PARAS III, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF STATE COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND RICARDO A. DAVID, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, RESPONDENTS. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

  • [G.R. No. 199034 : November 15, 2011] GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO VS. HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND RICARDO A. DAVID, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION [ G.R. NO. 199046. NOVEMBER 15, 2011 ] JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO VS. HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, RICARDO V. PARAS III, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF STATE COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND RICARDO A. DAVID, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION

  • [G.R. No. 195640 (Formerly UDK No. 14455) : November 15, 2011] SUGAR REGULATORY ADMINISTRATION VS. ENCARNACION B. TORMON, ET AL.

  • [G.R. No. 197199 : November 16, 2011] RAFAEL REYES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. Nos. 196922 and 196928-29 : November 16, 2011] SULPICIO LINES, INC. AND SOLID TOWAGE AND LIGHTERAGE CO., INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS V. VINNELL ABORBE, ET AL., UNYON NG MGA MANDARAGAT SA SULPICIO LINES, INC./SOLID STOWAGE AND LIGHTERAGE CO., INC., ET AL. AND ALEXANDER KIAMCO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 147193 : November 16, 2011] SPOUSES ALFREDO G. VELAYO AND JOVITA F. VELAYO v. COURT OF APPEALS, NATY MIRANDA, NATALIO SALONGA, AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 197102 : November 16, 2011] SONNY LAZO Y ADEZA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 195376 : November 16, 2011] SERGIO RA�A v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 198595 : November 16, 2011] ANGELITO GLORIA Y BISARA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 191398 : November 16, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BOBBY SALIC Y PAUDAC

  • [G.R. No. 198461 : November 16, 2011] SAN LORENZO RUIZ BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS GROUP, INC. v. TACIANO L. BANGCORO

  • [G.R. No. 199034 : November 18, 2011] GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO V. HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND RICARDO A. DAVID, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION [ G.R. NO. 199046. NOVEMBER 18, 2011 ] JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO V. SEC. LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, RICARDO V. PARAS III, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF STATE COUNSEL, AND RICARDO A. DAVID, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION DISSENTING OPINION

  • [G.R. No. 199034 : November 18, 2011] GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO VS. HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND RICARDO A. DAVID, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION [ G.R. NO. 199046. NOVEMBER 18, 2011 ] JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO VS. HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, RICARDO V. PARAS III, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF STATE COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND RICARDO A. DAVID, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION

  • [G.R. No. 197050 : November 21, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MINA AKMAD Y MAMOMPON

  • [A.C. No. 8125 : November 21, 2011] TEOFILA JABONITE-ARAO v. ATTY. EMMANUEL C. OPAY

  • [G.R. No. 196241 : November 21, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ARIS ALLAWIGAN Y PAGULAYAN

  • [G.R. No. 197547 : November 21, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BERLITO MODAR Y MARCELO

  • [G.R. No. 198427 : November 21, 2011] LEE MICHAEL LEONIDAS QUIZON v. FERROTECH STEEL CORPORATION AND BENITO T. KEH

  • [G.R. No. 198236 : November 21, 2011] OLIVER RAPISORA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 194239 : November 22, 2011] WEST TOWER CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, ON BEHALF OF THE RESIDENTS OF WEST TOWER CONDO., AND IN REPRESENTATION OF BARANGAY BANGKAL, AND OTHERS, INCLUDING MINORS AND GENERATIONS YET UNBORN V. FIRST PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, FIRST GEN CORPORATION AND THEIR RESPECTIVE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS, JOHN DOES AND RICHARD ROES

  • [A.M. No. 07-9-447-RTC : November 22, 2011] REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9436, CREATION AND RATIFICATION OF CITY OF CARCAR IN CEBU AND CREATION OF RTC AND MTCC FOR SAID CITY

  • [G.R. No. 165450 : November 22, 2011] FRANCIS F. YENKO, AS ADMINISTRATOR, & MAYOR JINGGOY E. ESTRADA BOTH OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JUAN, METRO MANILA, PETITIONERS, v. RAUL NESTOR C. GUNGON, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. 11-11-199-RTC : November 22, 2011] RE: RENUMBERING OF THE RTC, BRANCH 66, BALER, AURORA OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL REGION

  • [A.M. No. 11-10-194-RTC : November 22, 2011] RE: CLARIFICATION ON THE JURISDICTION OF RTC, BRANCH 7, BAYUGAN CITY, AGUSAN DEL SUR AS DESIGNATED SPECIAL AGRARIAN COURT

  • [A.M. No. 14119-Ret. : November 22, 2011] RE: APPLICATION FOR SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF MRS. AMELITA M. GROSPE, SURVIVING SPOUSE OF THE LATE NATHANAEL M. GROSPE, FORMER SANDIGANBAYAN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE

  • [G.R. No. 198891 : November 22, 2011] FLORIDA F. MAPILE VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ARTURO T. FRIGILLANA

  • [G.R. No. 177131 : November 22, 2011] BOY SCOUTS OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • [G.R. NO. 198073 : November 23, 2011] LUCENO JUANICO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G. R. No. 145817 : November 28, 2011] URBAN BANK v. MAGDALENO M. PE�A

  • [G.R. No. 197426 : November 28, 2011] JOSEPH FLORANTE C. ALVARO, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO T. CANLAPAN

  • [G.R. No. 197443 : November 28, 2011] SPS. ERNESTO SANTOS AND LOURDES SANTOS v. SPS. RENATO AND PAG-ASA SANTOS

  • [G.R. No. 164181 : November 28, 2011] NISSAN MOTORS PHILS., INC. v. VICTORINO ANGELO

  • [G.R. No. 199082 : November 29, 2011] JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO VS. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, HON. LEILA DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, HON. SIXTO BRILLANTES, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND THE JOINT DOJ-COMELEC PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE AND FACT-FINDING TEAM

  • [A.M. No. 11-11-207-RTC : November 29, 2011] RE: REQUEST FOR REFUND OF APPEAL DOCKET FEE PAID TO THE RTC OF LEGASPI CITY RELATIVE TO CAD CASE NO. N-711

  • [G.R. No. 176579 : November 29, 2011] WILSON P. GAMBOA VS. FINANCE SECRETARY MARGARITO B. TEVES, ET AL.

  • [G.R. No. 199179 : November 29, 2011] MARIVIC P. JAVAREZ AND JESSIE A. TABANG VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND THE CITY BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, PALAWAN

  • [G.R. No. 199228 : November 29, 2011] ERNIE I. ALTERADO VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND JIMMY G. DUREZA

  • [G.R. No. 199149 : November 29, 2011] LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO VS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AND ELMER E. PANOTES

  • [G.R. No. 197466 : November 29, 2011] JOEL QUI�O, MARY ANTONETTE DANGOY, JOSEPHINE T. ABING, JOY ANN P. CABATINGAN, TESSA P. CANG, WILFREDO T. CALO, HOMER C. CANEN, JOSE L. CAGANG, ALBERTO CABATINGAN AND FRANCISCO OLIVERIO VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND RITCHIE WAGAS

  • [A.M. No. 11-11-206-RTC : November 29, 2011] RE: PETITION OF JUDGE JOSEPHINE ZARATE FERNANDEZ, RTC, BRANCH 76, SAN MATEO, RIZAL FOR RELIEF FROM PROPERTY AND RECORDS ACCOUNTABILITIES DUE TO THE DESTRUCTION CAUSED BY TYPHOON 'ONDOY' ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2009

  • [G.R. No. 198756 : November 29, 2011] BANCO DE ORO, ET AL. VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • [G.R. No. 199164 : November 29, 2011] EDNA FE R. DANDO VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC AND KARL BRANDO C. MALIKSI

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-06-1974 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2226-RTJ) : November 29, 2011] CARMEN P. EDA�O v. JUDGE FATIMA G. ASDALA, ET AL.

  • [G.R. No. 183711 : November 29, 2011] EDITA T. BURGOS v. GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR., LT. GEN. ROMEO P. TOLENTINO, MAJ. GEN. JUANITO GOMEZ, MAJ. GEN. DELFIN BANGIT, LT. COL. NOEL CLEMENT, LT. COL. MELQUIADES FELICIANO AND DIRECTOR GENERAL OSCAR CALDERON

  • [A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-182-CA-J : November 29, 2011] ATTY. ELIGIO P. MALLARI V. COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICE APOLINARIO D. BRUSELAS, JR., DIVISION CLERK OF COURT JOSEFINA C. MALLARI, AND ATTY. ANTONIO M. ELICAcO