Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2010 > September 2010 Decisions > [G.R. No. 186470 : September 27, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. WILLIE MIDENILLA Y ALABOSO, RICKY DELOS SANTOS Y MILARPES AND ROBERTO DELOS SANTOS Y MILARPES, ACCUSED, RICKY DELOS SANTOS Y MILARPES AND ROBERTO DELOS SANTOS Y MILARPES, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS. :




THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 186470 : September 27, 2010]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. WILLIE MIDENILLA Y ALABOSO, RICKY DELOS SANTOS Y MILARPES AND ROBERTO DELOS SANTOS Y MILARPES, ACCUSED, RICKY DELOS SANTOS Y MILARPES AND ROBERTO DELOS SANTOS Y MILARPES, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

D E C I S I O N


VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

On appeal is the Decision[1] dated August 27, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02741 which affirmed with modification the Joint Decision[2] dated March 26, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Caloocan City, Branch 127 finding appellants Ricky Delos Santos y Milarpes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5[3] and II[4] of Article II, Republic Act (RA) No. 9165[5] or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and Roberto Delos Santos y Milarpes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of the same law.

On September 26, 2003, accused-appellant, Ricky Delos Santos also known as "Hika" was charged with the crime of Violation of Section 11, Article II, of RANo. 9165 in an Information which alleged:

That on or about the 24th day of September, 2003, in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control Six (6) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing METHYLAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE having a corresponding weight as follows:

B-("RICKY DM-1") 0.02 gram         E-("RICKY DM-4") 0.03 gram
C-C'RICKY DM-2") 0.03 gram         F-C'RICKYDM-5") 0.02 gram
D-("RICKY DM-3") 0.04 gram         G-('-RlCKY DM-6") 0.03 gram

knowing the same to be a dangerous drug under the provisions of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[6]

On the same date, accused-appellants Ricky Delos Santos also known as "Hika" and Roberto Delos Santos also known as "Obet" were charged with the crime of Violation of Section 5, Article II, RA No. 9165 committed as follows:

That on or about the 24 day of September, 2003, in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together and mutually aiding with one another, without the authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to PO1 RONNEL UGOT, who posed as buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing METHYLAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE weighing 0.05 gram knowing the same to be a dangerous drug under the provisions of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[7]

On December 1, 2003, accused-appellants duly assisted  by  their counsel pleaded not guilty[8] to the charges against them.

The prosecution presented the facts as follows.

On September 24, 2003, at 5:00 in the afternoon while PO1 Ronel L. Ugot was on duty, an informant reported to SPO1 Wilson Gamit that, two (2) brothers known by their aliases as "Obet" and "Hika" were engaged in selling illegal drugs. SPO1 Gamit reported the matter to their Chief, Cesar G. Cruz who in turn immediately formed a buy-bust team. The team was composed of PO1 Ugot, SPO1 Rodrigo Antonio, PO2 Ferdinand Modina, PO1 Ronald Allan Mateo, PO2 Roily Jones Montefrio, PO1 Borban Paras, PO3 Fernando Moran and SPO1 Gamit. PO1 Ugot was the designated poseur-buyer. PO1 Ugot received a one hundred peso bill from SPO3 Benjar Matining to be used as marked money. SPO1 Gamit was the team leader. PO1 Ugot's backups were PO1 Mateo and PO1 Paras. PO1 Mateo was tasked to recite the rights of the person to be arrested.[9]

The team, together with the informant, was dispatched at 6 o'clock in the evening and they proceeded to 3rd Avenue, Caloocan City.  Upon arrival thereat, the informant pointed Obet and Hika to PO1 Ugot.  From their location, PO1 Ugot saw Willie Midenilla approach Obet and Hika.  PO1 Ugot was approaching Obet and Hika when Obet asked PO1 Ugot "Pre, iiskor ka ba?" PO1 replied "yes, pison" and simultaneously handed over the money. Obet received the money and gave it to Hika saying "Hika, piso lang daw." Hika took the money and put it in his right pocket. Thereafter, Hika took out a plastic sachet and gave the same to Obet.  In turn, Obet gave the plastic sachet to POI Ugot.[10]

After receiving the plastic sachet from Obet, PO1 Ugot saw Midenilla receive a plastic sachet and aluminum foil from Hika.  At that instance, PO1 Ugot gave the pre-arranged signal to his backup.  PO1 Ugot held Hika and Obet while the other members of the buy-bust team came running towards them.  Midenilla tried to flee but he was caught by PO1 Paras.[11]

PO1 Ugot recovered the buy-bust money from Hika and held on to the plastic sachet given to him and marked both with "Ricky/Roberto DM (buy bust)."[12] He also informed PO1 Paras that Hika had more shabu in his possession. PO1 Paras recovered six more plastic sachets of shabu from Hika. PO1 Mateo placed the markings "RICKY DM-1 to RICKY DM-6" on the sachets recovered from Hika. On the other hand, PO1 Paras recovered from Midenilla three plastic sachets of shabu which were marked in evidence as Exhibits C-9, C-11 and C-12 with two strips of aluminum foil marked in evidence as Exhibits C-13 and C-14.[13]

After PO1 Mateo informed Hika, Obet and Midenilla of their constitutional rights, they were brought to the office of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs (SAID).  At the SAID office, the team turned-over the seized items to PO2 Randulfo Hipolito, the investigator on duty.  PO2 Hipolito requested the crime laboratory to determine whether the seized plastic sachets contained shabu and whether the hands of PO1 Ugot, Obet and Hika would indicate the presence of ultraviolet fluorescent powder.  The result of the examination on the seized plastic sachets confirmed its contents to be methylamphetamine hydrochloride.  PO1 Ugot, Obet, and Hika also tested positive for ultraviolet fluorescent powder.  PO1 Ugot identified Hika as appellant Ricky Delos Santos, while Obet was identified as appellant Roberto Delos Santos.[14] Meanwhile, accused Willie Midenilla jumped bail and remains at large.

The defense presented the facts as follow.

According to accused-appellant Roberto Delos Santos, he is the brother of Ricky Delos Santos but never knew Willie Midenilla. He was arrested on September 24, 2003 at around 5:00 p.m. and not 8:00 p.m. as claimed by the police officers.

At 5:00 p.m. of September 24, 2003, Roberto was at the video "carrera" shop watching together with several other spectators, among whom was Danny Kangkong.  Suddenly, a tricycle and an owner-type jeep parked infront of the video "carrera" shop.  The passengers of the said vehicles alighted and proceeded to where Roberto and his companions were. The other persons present thereat scampered away but Roberto just remained standing in his place.

The passengers of the vehicle who parked infront of the video "carrera" shop told the remaining five to six persons inside, "Walang tatakbo steady lang kayo" When frisked, nothing was found on the person of Roberto. Roberto then saw a plastic sachet fall from the pocket of one of those who were resisting and complaining against the frisking.  The said person was handcuffed by one of the passengers of the vehicle whom he later identified to be a policeman.

Roberto was surprised when he saw his younger brother Ricky being brought out of their house by policemen.  He approached them and asked why they were taking his brother.  The policemen replied that they will just conduct an investigation on his brother, so, together with that person from whom the plastic sachet fell, Ricky was made to board a vehicle bound for the police station. Roberto also voluntarily went with them.

Roberto's mother and wife, upon seeing what happened, also went inside the vehicle to accompany him and Ricky, who was afflicted with a lung disease. On their way to the police station, Roberto's mother suffered difficulty in breathing so Roberto requested the police officers to first bring his mother to the hospital. His mother was brought to the Caloocan Puericulture Center where they left his mother and wife.  Thereafter, the rest proceeded to the police station where Ricky, Roberto and that person from whom the sachet fell were detained.

Roberto claimed that the appearance of white dots at the dorsal and palmar portion of his right hand was the result of his hands being squeezed by someone he does not know while at the police precinct. He was aware of the ultraviolet examination conducted by the crime laboratory when his hands were placed under the light which is blue in color.[15]

According to accused-appellant Ricky Delos Santos, he was sleeping in his room on September 24, 2003 at around 5:00 p.m. when suddenly he was awakened by the two policemen who were looking for "Ferdie Putol." Ricky told them that he does not know "Feirdie Putol."  When he uttered those words, the policemen told him to just go with them.  He refused and asked them if they have a warrant.  The policemen just ignored his inquiry and forced him to go with them.  Ricky informed the policemen that he has lung ailment but they just handcuffed him.

As they were going out of the house, Roberto, his brother, blocked their way. Roberto told the policemen, "Where will you bring my brother? He has a lung ailment." Roberto also asked if the policemen have a warrant of arrest.

While going out of the alley, Ricky's mother asked the policemen where they will bring her son and likewise inquired if they have a warrant of arrest. Their mother and his sister-in-law went with them.  The policemen brought his brother Roberto to the Drug Enforcement Unit (DEU).

When Ricky was already onboard the owner-type jeep, his mother suffered a stroke.  Roberto asked the policemen to first bring his mother to the hospital.  Thereafter, the policemen brought Ricky and Roberto to the DEU where they were detained.[16]

Finding the testimonial and documentary evidence against the accused-appellants sufficient, the trial court declared them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11 of RA No. 9165. Accused-appellant Ricky Delos Santos was sentenced to a prison term of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency pursuant to Section 11, Article II, RA No. 9165. Both accused-appellants Ricky and Roberto Delos  Santos were  also  sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 as provided in Section 5, Article II, RA No. 9165.

Maintaining their innocence, ace used-appellants appealed the trial court's decision to the CA. However, accused Willie Midenilla jumped bail and to date has a standing warrant of arrest. Hence, his appeal to the CA was dismissed.[17] For the two remaining accused-appellants, the CA affirmed the trial court's decision with modification, to wit:

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The decision of the Regional Trial Court is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION on the penalty imposed, to wit:

Accused-appellant Ricky Delos Santos (Crim. Case No. 69224) is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY as minimum to FIFTEEN (15) YEARS as maximum and to pay a fine of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P400,000.00), as provided under Section 11, Article II, R.A. 9165; and

Accused-appellants Ricky Delos Santos and Roberto Delos Santos (Crim. Case No. 69225) are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00), as provided under Section 5, Article II, R.A. 9165.

SO ORDERED.[18]

Accused-appellants are now before this Court contending that the trial court gravely erred in convicting them of the crimes charged in view of the failure of the prosecution to overthrow the constitutional presumption of innocence in their favor. They stress that their defense of alibi was sufficient to acquit them of the crimes charged. Although indeed the "weakest" of all defenses, alibi attains importance when the case of the prosecution is weak. They point out that their version of the facts culled from their respective testimonies clearly shows that they should be acquitted.

Further, accused-appellants argue that the police officers who apprehended them failed to comply with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of RA No. 9165. They claim that the prosecution failed to prove that the apprehending officers conducted a physical inventory and photographed the confiscated items. In effect, they allege that the corpus delicti of the crime was not proven and hence, they should be acquitted.

On the other hand, the State represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) maintains that the trial court and the CA correctly found the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged and that such findings should be sustained by this Court. It is emphasized that as to the finding of facts, the version that the trial court accepted should be given due regard by the appellate courts. As a rule, the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of a testimony is generally accepted.[19]

As to the failure of the apprehending officers to strictly comply with the requirements of Section 21, Article II, RA No. 9165, the OSG argues that such is not fatal to the prosecution's case. Tt cites jurisprudence to the effect that non-compliance is not fatal as long as there is justifiable ground therefor and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items is properly preserved by the apprehending officers.[20]

The sole issue in this case is whether or not the prosecution has proven the guilt of the accused-appellants for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt.

We rule in the affirmative.

In appreciating testimony given during trial, considerable weight is given to the findings of the trial court. Thus in People v. Portugal[21], this Court held:

Just as often, the Court has relied on the observations of trial courts in the appreciation of testimony, said courts having been given the opportunity, not equally enjoyed by the appellate courts, to observe at first hand the demeanor of the witness on the stand, they, therefore, are in a better position to form accurate impressions and conclusions.

Although not constrained to blindly accept the findings of fact of trial courts, appellate courts can rest assured that such facts were gathered from witnesses who presented their statements live and in person in open court. In cases where conflicting sets of facts are presented, the trial courts are in the best position to recognize and distinguish spontaneous declaration from rehearsed spiel, straightforward assertion from a stuttering claim, definite statement from tentative disclosure, and to a certain degree, truth from untruth.

In the case at bar, we find no compelling reason to reverse the findings of fact of the trial court. There is no showing in the records and transcripts of any glaring inconsistencies in the version of the prosecution. The testimony of PO1 Ugot was believable, frank, and clear in detailing the events that led to the buy-bust operation and what transpired during and after the arrests.

On the other hand, the defense simply invoked alibi. For the defense of alibi to prosper, it must be proven by the accused that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime or its vicinity at the time of its commission.[22] in People v. Francisco,[23] this Court held:

xxx For the defense of alibi to prosper, it must be established by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that (1) the accused was somewhere else when the offense was committed, and (2) it was physically impossible for the accused to have been present at the scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. The Supreme Court has ruled where there is even the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the alibi will not hold.

The story of the defense in this case does not prove such physical impossibility. The accused-appellants merely presented a narrative that they were apprehended and dragged by the police officers for no reason at all. They feigned ignorance of the incident leading to their arrest but could not show any ill-motive, malice or any post-apprehension corruption or extortion on the part of the police officers. All they presented was bare denial of being engaged in illegal drug trading and possession of shabu at the time of the buy-bust operation.

In every case of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution is obliged to establish the following essential elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction.[24]

In order to properly establish the corpus delicti in drug cases, the prosecution must show, through an unbroken chain of custody, that the dangerous drug presented to the trial court as evidence is indeed the one/s seized from the accused. In the case at bar, the prosecution established the following:

One of the arresting officers, PO1 Ronald Allan Mateo, positively testified that he confiscated six pieces of plastic sachets from accused Ricky Delos Santos.[25] Upon confiscating, he immediately marked the sachets with "RICKY DM-1" up to "RICKY DM-6".[26]

As for accused Roberto Delos Santos, PO1 Ronel Ugot testified that upon receiving one plastic sachet from Roberto and handing him the marked money, he gave the pre-arranged signal to his companions that the sale was consummated. He farther testified that he held on to one (1) plastic sachet and also recovered the marked money from accused Roberto and immediately marked the seized items "Ricky/Roberto DM (buy bust)".[27]

Right after the operation, the police officers proceeded to the police station where POl Mateo turned over the six (6) plastic sachets recovered from accused Ricky and POl Ugot turned over the one plastic sachet recovered from accused Roberto to the investigator.[28]

The investigator, PO2 Randulfo Hipolito was presented in court by the prosecution but the defense agreed to stipulate on the substance of his testimony.[29] It was established that PO2 Hipolito, upon receiving the seized items from the arresting officers, made his own marking on the plastic sachets, then prepared a request[30] for laboratory examination and forwarded the specimens to the Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis.

P/Inspector Erickson Calabocal was the Forensic Chemical Officer of the Northern Police District Crime Laboratory Office. He was presented to testify on his participation in the custody of the seized items. However, both prosecution and defense agreed to stipulate on the substance of his testimony. As an expert witness in his field, P/lnspector Calabocal conducted a chemical analysis on the subject specimen per request for laboratory examination of the Chief, Cesar Gonzales Cruz, SAID-SOG. The result of his examination was embodied in his Physical Sciences Report[31] which disclosed that the subject specimens tested positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. He further testified that if needed, he could identify the subject drug as well as his report.[32]

Upon receiving the ''positive" results[33] of the chemical analysis, investigator PO2 Hipolito prepared a referral slip[34] and the affidavit of the arresting officers. He likewise testified that, if needed, he can identify the specimen, the accused and the referral slip.

Clearly, the chain of custody of the seized items was properly established by the prosecution. There is no doubt that the items seized from the accused-appellants at the scene of the crime were also the items marked by the arresting officers, turned over to the investigator, marked again, sent to the Crime Laboratory, and returned after yielding positive results for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride.

It is evident that although the arresting officers failed to strictly comply with Section 21 (1) of RA No. 9165 by failing to photograph the seized items at the scene of the crime, the evidentiary value of the items was adequately preserved. The seized items were properly marked at the scene of the crime, marked again prior to submission for laboratory examination and duly identified as the same specimen tested and presented as evidence in court. The chain of custody was therefore adequately shown by the prosecution and hence, we find no reason to reverse the conviction of the accused-appellants.

As to the penalty imposed on accused-appellants, we hold that the CA correctly sentenced accused-appellant Ricky Delos Santos to an indeterminate prison term of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY, as minimum, to FIFTEEN (15) YEARS, as maximum, and to pay a fine of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P400,000.00), as provided under Section 11, Article II, RA No. 9165; and accused-appellants Ricky Delos Santos and Roberto Delos Santos to life imprisonment and a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Ā£500,000.00), as provided under Section 5, Article II, RA No. 9165.

WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the appeal and AFFIRMS the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02741 dated August 27, 2008.

With costs against the accused-appellants.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio Morales, (Chairperson), Peralta,* Bersamin, and Sereno, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:


* Desgnated additional member per Special Order No. 885 dated September 1, 2010.

[1] Rollo, pp. 2-15. Penned by Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos, with Associate Justices Edgardo R. Sundiam and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. concurring.

[2] CA rollo, pp. 21-38.  Penned bu Jydge Victoriano B. Cabanos.

[3] SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.- The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.

The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P 100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500.000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any controlled precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a broker in such transactions.

If the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution or transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical transpires within one hundred (100) meters from the school, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case.

For drug pushers who use minors or mentally incapacitated individuals as runners, couriers and messengers, or in any other capacity directly connected to the dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals trade, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case.

If the victim of the offense is a minor or a menially incapacitated individual, or should a dangerous drug and/or a controlled precursor and essential chemical involved in any offense herein provided be the proximate cause of death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed.

The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person who organizes, manages or acts as a "financier" of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this Section.

The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000,00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who acts as a "protector/coddler" of any violator of the provisions under this Section.

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

(1)
10 grams or more of opium;
(2)
10 grams or more of morphine;
(3)
10 grams or more of heroin;
(4)
10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride;
(5)
50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu";
(6)
10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;
(7)
500 grams or more of marijuana; and
(8)
10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, methylenedioxymethamphetaraine (MDMA) or "ecstasy", paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA), trimethoxyamphetamine (IMA), lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD), gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB), and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements, as determined and promulgated by the Board in accordance to Section 93, Article XI of this Act.


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

(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from. Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" is ten (10) grams or more but less than fifty (50) grams;

(2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are five (5) grams or more but less than ten (10) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB,  and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or three hundred (300) grams or more but less than five hundred (500) grams of marijuana; and

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

[5] AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT No. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

[6] CA rollo p. 11.

[7] Id. at 12.

[8] Records, pp. 69-70.

[9] TSN, June 22, pp. 3-6.

[10] Id. at 7-8.

[11] Id. at 9.

[12] Id. at 11.

[13] Id. at 10; TSN, October 13, 2005, p. 7.

[14] Id. at 11-14.

[15] TSN, July 18, 2006, pp. 3-11, 15-18.

[16] TSN, November 28, 2006, pp. 3-7.

[17] CA rollo, p. 47.

[18] Rollo, p. 14.

[19] CA rollo, p. 122.

[20] People v. Pringus, G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531   SCRA 828, 842, citing People v. Sta. Maria, G.R. No. 171019, February 23, 2007, 516 SCRA 621, 633.

[21] G.R. No. 143030, March 12, 2002, 379 SCRA 212, 218.

[22] People v. Francisco, G.R. No. 110873, September, 1999, 315, SCRA 114, 122.

[23] Id. at 125.

[24] People v. Guiara, G.R. No. 186497, September 17. 2009, 600 SCRA 310, 322-323, citing People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 143805, April II, 2002, 380 SCRA 689, 697; People v. Bongalon, G.R. No. 125025, January 23, 2002, 374 SCRA 289, 307.

[25] TSN, February 7, 2006, p. 9.

[26] Id. at 11.

[27] TSN, June 22, 2004, p. 11.

[28] Supra note 25, at 11-12.

[29] TSN, May 24,2004, pp. 3-4.

[30]
Exhibit "A," folder of exhibits, p. 3.

[31] Exhibit "B," id. at 5.

[32] Records, pp. 90-91.

[33]
Supra note 31.

[34]
Exhibit "I," folder of exhibits, p. 11.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

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






September-2010 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 182729 : September 29, 2010] KUKAN INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HON. AMOR REYES, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 21, AND ROMEO M. MORALES, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE "RM MORALES TROPHIES AND PLAQUES," RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 156439 : September 29, 2010] CLEMENCIA P. CALARA, ET AL., PETITIONER, VS. TERESITA FRANCISCO, ET AL. RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186470 : September 27, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. WILLIE MIDENILLA Y ALABOSO, RICKY DELOS SANTOS Y MILARPES AND ROBERTO DELOS SANTOS Y MILARPES, ACCUSED, RICKY DELOS SANTOS Y MILARPES AND ROBERTO DELOS SANTOS Y MILARPES, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-09-1745 : September 27, 2010] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. LEODEGARIO C. QUILATAN, FORMER JUDGE, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 57, SAN JUAN CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175195 : September 15, 2010] VIRGILIO BUG-ATAN, BERME LABANDERO GREGORIO MANATAD PETITIONERS, VS. THE PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-10-1764 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 09-2121-MTJ] : September 15, 2010] JUDITH S. SOLUREN, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE LIZABETH G. TORRES, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 60, MANDALUYONG CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 188352 : September 01, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROLLY DE GUZMAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 187540 : September 01, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. JESSIE BUSTILLO Y AMBAL, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 184799 : September 01, 2010] HEIRS AND/OR ESTATE OF ATTY. ROLANDO P. SIAPIAN, REPRESENTED BY SUSAN S. MENDOZA, PETITIONERS, VS. INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE EUFROCINA G. MACKAY AS REPRESENTED BY DR. RODERICK MACKAY AND ENGR. ELVIN MACKAY IN THEIR CAPACITY AS THE NEWLY COURT APPOINTED CO-ADMINISTRATORS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 183182 : September 01, 2010] GENTLE SUPREME PHILIPPINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. RICARDO F. CONSULTA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 182707 : September 01, 2010] SPOUSES ERNESTO LIM AND ZENAIDA LIM, PETITIONER, VS. RUBY SHELTER BUILDERS AND REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 181829 : September 01, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. SATURNINO VILLANUEVA, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 176657 : September 01, 2010] DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. FRANCO T. FALCON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 71 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN PASIG CITY AND BCA INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 176748 : September 01, 2010] JUDY O. DACUITAL,[1] EUGENIO L. MONDANO, JR., JOSEPH GALER, [2] MARIANO MORALES, ROBERTO RUANCE, JOSEPH PORCADILLA, RAULITO PALAD, RICARDO DIGAMON, NONITO PRISCO , EULOGIO M. TUTOR, MELVIN PEPITO, HELYTO N. REYES,[3] RANDOLF C. BALUDO, ALBERTO EPONDOL, RODELO A. SUSPER,[4] EVARISTO VIGORI, [5] JONATHAN P. AYAAY, FELIPE ERILLA, ARIS A. GARCIA, ROY A. GARCIA, AND RESTITUTO TAPANAN, PETITIONERS, VS. L.M. CAMUS ENGINEERING CORPORATION AND/OR LUIS M. CAMUS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 176410 : September 01, 2010] LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. CONRADO O. COLARINA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 171526 : September 01, 2010] RODEL CRISOSTOMO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 173292 : September 01, 2010] MEMORACION Z. CRUZ, REPRESENTED BY EDGARDO Z. CRUZ, PETITIONER, VS. OSWALDO Z. CRUZ, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170189 : September 01, 2010] SPOUSES ELEGIO* CAƑEZO AND DOLIA CAƑEZO, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES APOLINARIO AND CONSORCIA L. BAUTISTA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 161746 : September 01, 2010] EUGENIO FELICIANO, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS WIFE CEFERINA DE PALMA- FELICIANO, ANGELINA DE LEON, REPRESENTING THE HEIRS OF ESTEBAN FELICIANO, TRINIDAD VALIENTE, AND BASILIA TRINIDAD, REPRESENTED BY HER SON DOMINADOR T. FELICIANO, PETITIONERS, VS. PEDRO CANOZA, DELIA FELICIANO, ROSAURO FELICIANO, ELSA FELICIANO AND PONCIANO FELICIANO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 165803 : September 01, 2010] SPOUSES REX AND CONCEPCION AGGABAO, PETITIONERS, VS. DIONISIO Z. PARULAN, JR. AND MA. ELENA PARULAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 152303 : September 01, 2010] UNIVERSITY PHYSICIANS' SERVICES, INCORPORATED, PETITIONER, VS. MARIAN CLINICS, INC. AND DR. LOURDES MABANTA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186459 : September 01, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. NITA EUGENIO Y PEJER, APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-09-1738 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2033-MTJ) : September 06, 2010] CIRILA S. RAYMUNDO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE TERESITO A. ANDOY, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT (MTC), CAINTA, RIZAL, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2353-RTJ : September 06, 2010] SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR EMMANUEL Y. VELASCO, PETITIONER, VS. JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 183829 : September 06, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. PATERNO LASANAS, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 179033 : September 06, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. FELICIANO ANABE Y CAPILLAN, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 189155 : September 07, 2010] IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF MELISSA C. ROXAS, MELISSA C. ROXAS, PETITIONER, VS. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GILBERT TEODORO, GEN. VICTOR S. IBRADO, P/DIR. GEN. JESUS AME VERZOSA, LT. GEN. DELFIN N. BANGIT, PC/SUPT. LEON NILO A. DELA CRUZ, MAJ. GEN. RALPH VILLANUEVA, PS/SUPT. RUDY GAMIDO LACADIN, AND CERTAIN PERSONS WHO GO BY THE NAME[S] DEX, RC AND ROSE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187689 : September 07, 2010] CLARITA J. CARBONEL, PETITIONER, VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 182555 : September 07, 2010] LENIDO LUMANOG AND AUGUSTO SANTOS, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 185123] CESAR FORTUNA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 187745] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SPO2 CESAR FORTUNA Y ABUDO, RAMESES DE JESUS Y CALMA, LENIDO LUMANOG Y LUISTRO, JOEL DE JESUS Y VALDEZ AND AUGUSTO SANTOS Y GALANG, ACCUSED, RAMESES DE JESUS Y CALMA AND JOEL DE JESUS Y VALDEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182622 : September 08, 2010] PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY [PLDT], PETITIONER, VS. ROBERTO R. PINGOL, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 179918 : September 08, 2010] SHELL PHILIPPINES EXPLORATION B.V., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JEREMY CLIFF, PETITIONER, VS. EFREN JALOS, JOVEN CAMPANG, ARNALDO MIJARES, CARLITO TRIVINO, LUCIANO ASERON, CHARLITO ALDOVINO, ROBERTO FADERA, RENATO MANTALA, GERTRUDES MENESES, NORBERTO HERNANDEZ, JOSE CABASE, DANILO VITTO, EDWIN MARIN, SAMUEL MARIN, ARMANDO MADERA, EDGARDO MARINO, HERMINO RELOX, ROLANDO TARROBACO, ERNESTO RELOX, ROSALITO RUGAS, ELDIE DIMALIBOT, PLARIDEL MUJE, REYMUNDO CARMONA, RONILO RIOFLORIDO, LEONIDES MANCIA, JONAR GERANCE, RODEL CASAPAO, CARMENCITA MENDOZA, SEVERINO MEDRANO, EDWIN MENDOZA, DOMINEZ SANTIAGO, ROGER MUJE, REYNALDO MORALES, WILLIAM MENDOZA, NELSON SOLIS, ALBERTO MATRE, MARGARITO GADO, BONIFACIO LEOTERIO, NEMESIO PEREZ, JR., ARIEL MENDOZA, PEPITO MENDOZA, SALVADOR FALCULAN, JR., CEASAR ROBLEDO, SUZIMO CERNA, VIRGILIO VATAL, JIMMY ALBAO, CRISANTO SABIDA, LAUDRINO MIRANDA, LEOPOLDO MISANA, JIMMY DELACION, FREJEDO MAGPILI, ROLANDO DIMALIBOT, PEDRO MAPALAD, FAUSTINO BALITOSTOS, LEONARDO DIMALIBOT, MARIANO MAGYAYA, RAUL MIRANO, ERNESTO MATRE, ROMEO ROBLEDO, GILBERT SADICON, ROMEO SIENA, NESTOR SADICON, NOEL SIENA, REDENTER CAMPANG, ARNEL HERNENDEZ, RESTITUTO BAUTISTA, JOSE MUJE, DANILO BILARMINO, ADRIAN MAGANGO, VALERIANO SIGUE, BERNIE MORALES, JOSEPH SALAZAR, PABLITO MENDOZA, JR., ERWIN BAUTISTA, RUBEN BAUTISTA, ALEXANDER ROVERO, EDUARDO QUARTO, RUBEN RIOFLORIDO, NESTOR DELACION, SEVERINO MEDRANO, JOEY FAJECULAY, NICOLAS MEDRANO, FELIX MEDRANO, RODELIO CASAPAO, FELIPE LOLONG, MARCELINO LOLONG, ELDY DIMALIBOT, ROBERTO CASAPAO, SIMEON CASAPAO, HENRY DIMALIBOT, RONALDO MORALES, PEPING CASAPAO, JOEL GERANCE, JAYREE DIMALIBOT, MARIO DIMALIBOT, SANTO DIMALIBOT, ZERAPIN DIMALIBOT, FLORENCIO ROVERO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 178062 : September 08, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ABDUL AMINOLA Y OMAR AND MIKE MAITIMBANG Y ABUBAKAR, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173631 : September 08, 2010] PASIG CYLINDER MFG., CORP., A.G. & E ALLIED SERVICES, MANUEL ESTEVANEZ, SR., AND VIRGILIO GERONIMO, SR., PETITIONERS, VS. DANILO ROLLO, REYNALDO ORANDE, RONIE JOHN ESPINAS, ROGELIO JUAREZ, FELICIANO BERMUDEZ, DAVID OCLARINO, RODRIGO ANDICO, DANTE CALA-OD, JOSE RONNIE SERENIO, CHARLIE AGNO, EDWIN BEDES, JOSEPH RIVERA, FERNANDO SAN PEDRO, JESUS CABRERA, ANASTICO ALINGAS, EDUARDO GUBAN, ROLANDO DEMANO, ROBERTO PINUELA, AND EMELITO LOBO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 172138 : September 08, 2010] NELSON JENOSA AND HIS SON NIƑO CARLO JENOSA, SOCORRO CANTO AND HER SON PATRICK CANTO, CYNTHIA APALISOK AND HER DAUGHTER CYNDY APALISOK, EDUARDO VARGAS AND HIS SON CLINT EDUARD VARGAS, AND NELIA DURO AND HER SON NONELL GREGORY DURO, PETITIONERS, VS. REV. FR. JOSE RENE C. DELARIARTE, O.S.A., IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE INCUMBENT PRINCIPAL OF THE HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN, AND THE UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ITS INCUMBENT PRESIDENT REV. FR. MANUEL G. VERGARA, O.S.A., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 161162 : September 08, 2010] FRUEHAUF ELECTRONICS, PHILS., INC., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS (SIXTH DIVISION) AND PHILIPS SEMICONDUCTORS, PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENTS, [G.R. NO. 166436] FRUEHAUF ELECTRONICS, PHILS., INC., PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPS SEMICONDUCTORS, PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 164913 : September 08, 2010] ST. MARY'S ACADEMY OF DIPOLOG CITY, PETITIONER, VS. TERESITA PALACIO, MARIGEN CALIBOD, LEVIE LAQUIO, ELAINE MARIE SANTANDER, ELIZA SAILE, AND MA. DOLORES MONTEDERAMOS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 166358 : September 08, 2010] CHANG IK JIN, REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT KIMAN CHANG, AND KOREAN CHRISTIAN BUSINESSMEN ASSOCIATION, INC., PETITIONERS, VS. CHOI SUNG BONG, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 172727 : September 08, 2010] QUEENSLAND-TOKYO COMMODITIES, INC., ROMEO Y. LAU, AND CHARLIE COLLADO, PETITIONERS, VS. THOMAS GEORGE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 176959 : September 08, 2010] METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, INC. (AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF THE BANKING OPERATIONS OF GLOBAL BUSINESS BANK, INC. FORMERLY KNOWN AS PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION), PETITIONER, VS. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF RIVERSIDE MILLS CORPORATION PROVIDENT AND RETIREMENT FUND, REPRESENTED BY ERNESTO TANCHI, JR., CESAR SALIGUMBA, AMELITA SIMON, EVELINA OCAMPO AND CARLITOS Y. LIM, RMC UNPAID EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., AND THE INDIVIDUAL BENEFICIARIES OF THE PROVIDENT AND RETIREMENT FUND OF RMC, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 177240 : September 08, 2010] PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE AND ASSURANCE INC., PETITIONER, VS. ANSCOR LAND, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 184761 : September 08, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. JULIUS GADIANA Y REPOLLO, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 174149 : September 08, 2010] J. TIOSEJO INVESTMENT CORP., PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES BENJAMIN AND ELEANOR ANG, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 172060 : September 13, 2010] JOSELITO R. PIMENTEL, PETITIONER, VS. MARIA CHRYSANTINE L. PIMENTEL AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171268 : September 14, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BRINGAS BUNAY Y DAM-AT, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 186494 : September 15, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROY ALCAZAR Y MIRANDA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 159588 : September 15, 2010] P/CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT ROBERTO L. CALINISAN, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, POLICE REGIONAL OFFICE III, CAMP OLIVAS, SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA, AND P/CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT REYNALDO M. ACOP, DIRECTORATE FOR PERSONNEL AND RECORDS MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, CAMP CRAME, QUEZON CITY, PETITIONERS, VS. SPO2 REYNALDO ROAQUIN Y LADERAS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 168715 : September 15, 2010] MEDLINE MANAGEMENT, INC. AND GRECOMAR SHIPPING AGENCY, VS. PETITIONERS, GLICERIA ROSLINDA AND ARIEL ROSLINDA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173930 : September 15, 2010] SALVADOR O. ECHANO, JR., PETITIONER, VS. LIBERTY TOLEDO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 182075 : September 15, 2010] THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE & GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. JOSEPH ENARIO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 181422 : September 15, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ARNEL BABANGGOL Y MACAPIA, CESAR NARANJO Y RIVERA AND EDWIN SAN JOSE Y TABING, ACCUSED. ARNEL BABANGGOL Y MACAPIA AND CESAR NARANJO Y RIVERA, APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173863 : September 15, 2010] CHEVRON PHILIPPINES, INC. (FORMERLY CALTEX PHILIPPINES, INC.), PETITIONER, VS. BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND CLARK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 172476-99 : September 15, 2010] BRIG. GEN. (RET.) JOSE RAMISCAL, JR., PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 169004 : September 15, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION) AND ROLANDO PLAZA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 168707 : September 15, 2010] MARLA MACADAEG LAUREL, PETITIONER, VS. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, A BODY CORPORATE ACTING THROUGH THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION AND THE PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS (PARP), REPRESENTED BY HONESTO C. GENERAL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 176858 : September 15, 2010] HEIRS OF JUANITA PADILLA, REPRESENTED BY CLAUDIO PADILLA, PETITIONERS, VS. DOMINADOR MAGDUA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 191000 : September 15, 2010] JAREN TIBONG Y CULLA-AG, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 176675 : September 15, 2010] SPS. ALFREDO BONTILAO AND SHERLINA BONTILAO, PETITIONERS, VS. DR. CARLOS GERONA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. Nos. 173057-74 : September 20, 2010] BGEN. (RET.) JOSE S. RAMISCAL, JR., PETITIONER, VS. HON. JOSE R. HERNANDEZ, AS JUSTICE OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN; 4TH DIVISION, SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 181672 : September 20, 2010] SPS. ANTONIO & LETICIA VEGA, PETITIONER, VS. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM (SSS) & PILAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 183975 : September 20, 2010] GREGORIO DIMARUCOT Y GARCIA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. Nos. 186184 & 186988[1] : September 20, 2010] CELESTINO SANTIAGO SUBSTITUTED BY LAURO SANTIAGO AND ISIDRO GUTIERREZ SUBSTITUTED BY ROGELIO GUTIERREZ, PETITIONERS, VS. AMADA R. ORTIZ-LUIS SUBSTITUTED BY JUAN ORTIZ-LUIS, JR. RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 187056 : September 20, 2010] JARABINI G. DEL ROSARIO, PETITIONER, VS. ASUNCION G. FERRER, SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, VICENTE, PILAR, ANGELITO, FELIXBERTO, JR., ALL SURNAMED G. FERRER, AND MIGUELA FERRER ALTEZA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 143855 : September 21, 2010] REPRESENTATIVES GERARDO S. ESPINA, ORLANDO FUA, JR., PROSPERO AMATONG, ROBERT ACE S. BARBERS, RAUL M. GONZALES, PROSPERO PICHAY, JUAN MIGUEL ZUBIRI AND FRANKLIN BAUTISTA, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. RONALDO ZAMORA, JR. (EXECUTIVE SECRETARY), HON. MAR ROXAS (SECRETARY OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY), HON. FELIPE MEDALLA (SECRETARY OF NATIONAL ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY), GOV. RAFAEL BUENAVENTURA (BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS) AND HON. LILIA BAUTISTA (CHAIRMAN, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION), RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 184869 : September 21, 2010] CENTRAL MINDANAO UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY OFFICER-IN-CHARGE DR. RODRIGO L. MALUNHAO, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, THE CHAIRPERSON AND COMMISSIONERS OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, AND THE LEAD CONVENOR OF THE NATIONAL ANTI-POVERTY COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 189546 : September 21, 2010] CENTER FOR PEOPLE EMPOWERMENT IN GOVERNANCE, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-10-2785 : September 21, 2010] LOURDES S. ESCALONA, COMPLAINANT, VS. CONSOLACION S. PADILLO, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 260, PARAƑAQUE CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-08-2136 : September 21, 2010] SUSAN O. REYES, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MANUEL N. DUQUE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 197, LAS PIƑAS CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. Nos. 174040-41 : September 22, 2010] INSULAR HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION-NFL, PETITIONER, VS. WATERFRONT INSULAR HOTEL DAVAO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 173396 : September 22, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIFTH DIVISION), ABELARDO P. PANLAQUI, RENATO B. VELASCO, ANGELITO PELAYO AND WILFREDO CUNANAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173169 : September 22, 2010] IRENE MARTEL FRANCISCO, PETITIONER, VS. NUMERIANO MALLEN, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170685 : September 22, 2010] LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. ENRIQUE LIVIOCO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170599 : September 22, 2010] PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE OF THE LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND HON. GENERAL MANAGER CALIXTO CATAQUIZ, PETITIONERS, VS. SM PRIME HOLDINGS, INC. (IN ITS CAPACITY AS OPERATOR OF SM CITY MANILA), RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 168656 : September 22, 2010] DIMSON (MANILA), INC. AND PHESCO, INC., PETITIONERS, VS. LOCAL WATER UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 167567 : September 22, 2010] SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. BARTOLOME PUZON, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 182291 : September 22, 2010] PHILIP S. YU, PETITIONER, VS. HERNAN G. LIM, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 183094 : September 22, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. REYNALDO BARDE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 185008 : September 22, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MAXIMO OLIMBA ALIAS "JONNY," ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 186738 : September 27, 2010] PRUDENTIAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY (NOW BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,[1] PETITIONER, VS. LIWAYWAY ABASOLO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 160302 : September 27, 2010] DANILO ESCARIO, PANFILO AGAO, ARSENIO AMADOR, ELMER COLICO, ROMANO DELUMEN, DOMINADOR AGUILO, OLYMPIO GOLOSINO, RICARDO LABAN, LORETO MORATA, ROBERTO TIGUE, GILBERT VIBAR, THOMAS MANCILLA, JR., NESTOR LASTIMOSO, JIMMY MIRABALLES, JAILE OLISA, ISIDRO SANCHEZ, ANTONIO SARCIA, OSCAR CONTRERAS, ROMEO ZAMORA, MARIANO GAGAL, ROBERTO MARTIZANO, DOMINGO SANTILLICES, ARIEL ESCARIO, HEIRS OF FELIX LUCIANO, AND MALAYANG SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA BALANCED FOODS, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION), PINAKAMASARAP CORPORATION, DR. SY LIAN TIN, AND DOMINGO TAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 155097 : September 27, 2010] PHILIPPINE AIRLINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PALEA), HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ALEXANDER O. BARRIENTOS, PETITIONER, VS. HON. HANS LEO J. CACDAC (DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS), HON. ALEXANDER MARAAN (REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION), CYNTHIA J. TOLENTINO (REPRESENTATION OFFICER, LABOR RELATIONS DIVISION, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT), NIDA J. VILLAGRACIA, DOLLY OCAMPO, GERARDO F. RIVERA (IN THEIR RESPECTIVE CAPACITIES AS CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT OF PETITIONER PALEA), RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 163610 : September 27, 2010] HEIRS OF ENRIQUE TORING, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY MORIE TORING, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF TEODOSIA BOQUILAGA, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY PAULINO CADLAWON, CRISPIN ALBURO, VIVENCIO GOMEZ, EDUARDO CONCUERA AND PONCIANO NAILON, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 172250 : September 27, 2010] HEIRS OF PEDRO BARZ, NAMELY: ANGELO BARZ AND MERLINDA BARZ, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES JOSE GESALEM AND ROSA GESALEM, REPRESENTED [BY] THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, JONATHAN U. GESALEM; HON. AUGUSTINE VESTIL-PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 56, MANDAUE CITY; COURT OF APPEALS, NINETEENTH DIVISION, CEBU CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 185378 : September 27, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. JENNEFER CARIN Y DONOGA @ MAE-ANN, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 186232 : September 27, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ELPIDIO PAROHINOG ALEJANDRO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 182574 : September 28, 2010] THE PROVINCE OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR ISIDRO P. ZAYCO, PETITIONER, VS. THE COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSION ON AUDIT; THE DIRECTOR, CLUSTER IV-VISAYAS; THE REGIONAL CLUSTER DIRECTORS; AND THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. 2005-21-SC : September 28, 2010] RE: FAILURE OF VARIOUS EMPLOYEES TO REGISTER THEIR TIME OF ARRIVAL AND/OR DEPARTURE FROM OFFICE IN THE CHRONOLOG MACHINE

  • [A.M. No. P-07-2292 [Formerly A.M. No. 06-6-206-MCTC] : September 28, 2010] RE: COMPLAINT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, CORDILLERA ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, BAGUIO CITY AGAINST RITA S. CHULYAO, CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT-BARLIG, MOUNTAIN PROVINCE.

  • [A.M. No. 10-4-22-SC : September 28, 2010] RE: SENIORITY AMONG THE FOUR (4) MOST RECENT APPOINTMENTS TO THE POSITION OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.

  • [G.R. No. 155109 : September 29, 2010] C. ALCANTARA & SONS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, LABOR ARBITER ANTONIO M. VILLANUEVA, LABOR ARBITER ARTURO L. GAMOLO, SHERIFF OF NLRC RAB-XI-DAVAO CITY, NAGKAHIUSANG MAMUMUO SA ALSONS-SPFL (NAMAAL-SPFL), FELIXBERTO IRAG, JOSHUA BARREDO, ERNESTO CUARIO, EDGAR MONDAY, EDILBERTO DEMETRIA, HERMINIO ROBILLO, ROMULO LUNGAY, MATROIL DELOS SANTOS, BONERME MATURAN, RAUL CANTIGA, EDUARDO CAMPUSO, RUDY ANADON, GILBERTO GABRONINO, BONIFACIO SALVADOR, CIRILO MINO, ROBERTO ABONADO, WARLITO MONTE, PEDRO ESQUIERDO, ALFREDO TROPICO, DANILO MEJOS, HECTOR ESTUITA, BARTOLOME CASTILLANES, EDUARDO CAPUYAN, SATURNINO CAGAS, ALEJANDRO HARDER, EDUARDO LARENA, JAIME MONTEDERAMOS, ERMELANDO BASADRE, REYNALDO LIMPAJAN, ELPIDIO LIBRANZA, TEDDY SUELO, JOSE AMOYLIN, TRANQUILINO ORALLO, CARLOS BALDOS, MANOLITO SABELLANO, CARMELITO TOBIAS, PRIMITIVO GARCIA, JUANITO ALDEPOLLA, LUDIVICO ABAD, WENCISLAO INGHUG, RICARDO ALTO, EPIFANIO JARABAY, FELICIANO AMPER, ALEXANDER JUDILLA, ROBERTO ANDRADE, ALFREDO LESULA, JULIO ANINO, BENITO MAGPUSAO, PEDRO AQUINO, EDDIE MANSANADES, ROMEO ARANETA, ARGUILLAO MANTICA, CONSTANCIO ARNAIZ, ERNESTO HOTOY, JUSTINO ASCANO, RICARDO MATURAN, EDILBERTO YAMBAO, ANTONIO MELARGO, JESUS BERITAN, ARSENIO MELICOR, DIOSDADO BONGABONG, LAURO MONTENEGRO, CARLITO BURILLO, LEO MORA, PABLO BUTIL, ARMANDO GUCILA, JEREMIAH CAGARA, MARIO NAMOC, CARLITO CAL, GERWINO NATIVIDAD, ROLANDO CAPUYAN, EDGARDO ORDIZ, LEONARDO CASURRA, PATROCINIO ORTEGA, FILEMON CESAR, MARIO PATAN, ROMEO COMPRADO, JESUS PATOC, RAMON CONSTANTINO, ALBERTO PIELAGO, SAMUEL DELA LLANA, NICASIO PLAZA, ROSALDO DAGONDON, TITO GUADES, BONIFACIO DINAGUDOS, PROCOPIO RAMOS, JOSE EBORAN, ROSENDO SAJOL, FRANCISCO EMPUERTO, PATRICIO SALOMON, NESTOR ENDAYA, MARIO SALVALEON, ERNESTO ESTILO, BONIFACIO SIGUE, VICENTE FABROA, JAIME SUCUAHI, CELSO HUISO, ALEX TAUTO-AN, SATURNINO YAGON, CLAUDIO TIROL, SULPECIO GAGNI, JOSE TOLERO, FERVIE GALVEZ, ALFREDO TORALBA AND EDUARDO GENELSA, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 155135] NAGKAHIUSANG MAMUMUO SA ALSONS-SPFL (NAMAAL-SPFL), FELIXBERTO IRAG, JOSHUA BARREDO, ERNESTO CUARIO, EDGAR MONDAY, EDILBERTO DEMETRIA, HERMINIO ROBILLO, ROMULO LUNGAY, MATROIL DELOS SANTOS, BONERME MATURAN, RAUL CANTIGA, EDUARDO CAMPUSO, RUDY ANADON, GILBERTO GABRONINO, BONIFACIO SALVADOR, CIRILO MINO, ROBERTO ABONADO, WARLITO MONTE, PEDRO ESQUIERDO, ALFREDO TROPICO, DANILO MEJOS, HECTOR ESTUITA, BARTOLOME CASTILLANES, EDUARDO CAPUYAN, SATURNINO CAGAS, ALEJANDRO HARDER, EDUARDO LARENA, JAIME MONTEDERAMOS, ERMELANDO BASADRE, REYNALDO LIMPAJAN, ELPIDIO LIBRANZA, TEDDY SUELO, JOSE AMOYLIN, TRANQUILINO ORALLO, CARLOS BALDOS, MANOLITO SABELLANO, CARMELITO TOBIAS, PRIMITIVO GARCIA, JUANITO ALDEPOLLA, LUDIVICO ABAD, WENCISLAO INGHUG, RICARDO ALTO, EPIFANIO JARABAY, FELICIANO AMPER, ALEXANDER JUDILLA, ROBERTO ANDRADE, ALFREDO LESULA, JULIO ANINO, BENITO MAGPUSAO, PEDRO AQUINO, EDDIE MANSANADES, ROMEO ARANETA, ARGUILLAO MANTICA, CONSTANCIO ARNAIZ, ERNESTO HOTOY, JUSTINO ASCANO, RICARDO MATURAN, EDILBERTO YAMBAO, ANTONIO MELARGO, JESUS BERITAN, ARSENIO MELICOR, DIOSDADO BONGABONG, LAURO MONTENEGRO, CARLITO BURILLO, LEO MORA, PABLO BUTIL, ARMANDO GUCILA, JEREMIAH CAGARA, MARIO NAMOC, CARLITO CAL, GERWINO NATIVIDAD, ROLANDO CAPUYAN, JUANITO NISNISAN, AURELIO CARIN, PRIMO OPLIMO, ANGELITO CASTANEDA, EDGARDO ORDIZ, LEONARDO CASURRA, PATROCINIO ORTEGA, FILEMON CESAR, MARIO PATAN, ROMEO COMPRADO, JESUS PATOC, RAMON CONSTANTINO, MANUEL PIAPE, ROY CONSTANTINO, ALBERTO PIELAGO, SAMUEL DELA LLANA, NICASIO PLAZA, ROSALDO DAGONDON, TITO GUADES, BONIFACIO DINAGUDOS, PROCOPIO RAMOS, JOSE EBORAN, ROSENDO SAJOL, FRANCISCO EMPUERTO, PATRICIO SALOMON, NESTOR ENDAYA, MARIO SALVALEON, ERNESTO ESTILO, BONIFACIO SIGUE, VICENTE FABROA, JAIME SUCUAHI, CELSO HUISO, ALEX TAUTO-AN, SATURNINO YAGON, CLAUDIO TIROL, SULPECIO GAGNI, JOSE TOLERO, FERVIE GALVEZ, ALFREDO TORALBA AND EDUARDO GENELSA, PETITIONERS, VS. C. ALCANTARA & SONS, INC., EDITHA I. ALCANTARA, ATTY. NELIA A. CLAUDIO, CORNELIO E. CAGUIAT, JESUS S. DELA CRUZ, ROLANDO Z. ANDRES AND JOSE MA. MANUEL YRASUEGUI, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 179220] NAGKAHIUSANG MAMUMUO SA ALSONS-SPFL (NAMAAL-SPFL), AND ITS MEMBERS WHOSE NAMES ARE LISTED BELOW, PETITIONERS, VS. PROMULGATED: C. ALCANTARA & SONS, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175124 : September 29, 2010] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 181844 : September 29, 2010] SPS. FELIPE AND JOSEFA PARINGIT, PETITIONER, VS. MARCIANA PARINGIT BAJIT, ADOLIO PARINGIT AND ROSARIO PARINGIT ORDOƑO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-08-2487 : September 29, 2010] TANCHING L. WEE, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 32, CABARROGUIS, QUIRINO, AND NELITA G. WEE, COMPLAINANTS, VS. VIRGILIO T. BUNAO, JR., COURT INTERPRETER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 31, CABARROGUIS, QUIRINO, RESPONDENT. [A.M. NO. P-08-2493] VIRGILIO T. BUNAO, JR., COURT INTERPRETER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 31, CABARROGUIS, QUIRINO, COMPLAINANT, VS. L. WEE, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 32, CABARROGUIS, QUIRINO, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-10-2248* : September 29, 2010] JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MARIA ELISA SEMPIO DIY, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 225, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 165923 : September 29, 2010] SHIMIZU PHILS. CONTRACTORS, INC.,* PETITIONER, VS. VIRGILIO P. CALLANTA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. Nos. 178222-23 : September 29, 2010] MANILA MINING CORP. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS CHAPTER, SAMUEL G. ZUƑIGA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT, PETITIONERS, VS. MANILA MINING CORP. AND/OR ARTEMIO F. DISINI, PRESIDENT, RENE F. CHANYUNGCO, (SVP-TREASURER), RODOLFO S. MIRANDA, (VP-CONTROLLER), VIRGILIO MEDINA (VP), ATTY. CRISANTO MARTINEZ (HRD), NIGEL TAMLYN (RESIDENT MANAGER), BRYAN YAP (VP), FELIPE YAP (CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD), AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FIRST DIVISION), RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 183054 : September 29, 2010] NFD INTERNATIONAL MANNING AGENTS, INC./BARBER SHIP MANAGEMENT LTD., PETITIONERS, VS. ESMERALDO C. ILLESCAS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 185716 : September 29, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MIGUELITO MALANA Y LARDISABAY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 149624 : September 29, 2010] SPOUSES CONRADO ANTONIO AND AVELYN ANTONIO, PETITIONERS, VS. JULITA SAYMAN VDA. DE MONJE, SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, NAMELY: ANGELINA MONJE-VILLAMOR, LUZVISMINDA MONJE-CORTEL, MARRIETA MONJE-ORTICO, LEOPOLDO MONJE, CONCEPCION SAYMAN-MONJE, AND ROLINDA MONJE-CALO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 178788 : September 29, 2010] UNITED AIRLINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 185708 : September 29, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. JUANITO CABIGQUEZ Y ALASTRA, APPELLANT.