Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2011 > June 2011 Decisions > [G.R. Nos. 178701 and 178754, June 06 : 2011] ZAFIRO L. RESPICIO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. :




THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 178701 and 178754, June 06 : 2011]

ZAFIRO L. RESPICIO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

D E C I S I O N


CARPIO MORALES, J.:

Zafiro L. Respicio (petitioner) appeals the October 13, 2006 Decision and July 3, 2007 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan [1] which found him guilty of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 [2] and of falsification under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.

From the six-volume records of the cases, the following facts are gathered:

Petitioner was the Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) when 11 Indian nationals (the Indians), [3] who were facing criminal charges for drug trafficking, left the country on August 12, 1994 on the basis of a BID Self-Deportation Order (SDO) No. 94-685 dated August 11, 1994

SDO No. 94-685 (the Order) reads:

O R D E R

It appears that on 09 August 1994, respondents filed their respective requests for self-deportation.  They attached their airline tickets and travel documents.

The Bureau has not received any prior written request to hold the departure of the respondents from any government enforcement agency nor from any private person.  Moreover, there is no indication from the records that the respondents are the subject of any written complaints before any government agency nor before any private person.  Hence, the Board of Commissioners subject to the Immigration Act, Sections 38 and 229-A, hereby authorizes the respondents’ requests for self-deportation on the following conditions:

1) The respondents shall exhibit their outbound tickets prior to their release from detention;

2) The respondents shall pay an overtime fee in the amount of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) each which shall be remitted to the Bureau’s Trust Fund; and

3) The respondents shall be escorted to the NAIA by authorized officers of the Bureau, the former being barred from returning to the Philippines.

x x x x (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied),

The Order was signed by petitioner and then Associate Commissioners Bayani Subido, Jr. (Subido) and Manuel C. Roxas (Roxas). [4]

The issuance by petitioner, Subido and Roxas of the Order resulted in the filing before the Sandiganbayan by the Office of the Special Prosecutor of Information dated October 10, 1994 against them, docketed as Criminal Case No. 21545, charging them of falsification of official document under Art. 171 of the Revised Penal Code as follows:

That on or about August 9, 1994, prior or subsequent thereto at the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation with its office situated in Intramuros, Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the following accused officials of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, namely:  then Commissioner ZAFIRO L. RESPICIO; Associate Commissioner BAYANI M. SUBIDO, JR.; and Associate Commissioner MANUEL C. ROXAS, conspiring and confederating with each other, while in the performance of their officials [sic] functions, taking advantage of their official positions, and committing the crime in relation to their office, did then and there falsify Self-Deportation Order No. 84-685 dated August 9, 1994, a public document granting deportation of the eleven (11) Indian Nationals, by stating therein that ‘there is no indication from the records that the respondents eleven (11) Indian nationals are subject of any written complaints before any government agency,’ when in truth and in fact as above-named public officials are fully aware, a preliminary investigation is being conducted by State Prosecutor Reynaldo Lugtu against said eleven (11) Indian nationals for violation of Republic Act 6425, as amended (Dangerous Drugs Act), which case was ultimately filed before the Regional Trial Court of Las Pi[ñ]as, Metro Manila, last July 29, 1994, the truth thereof they have a duty to disclose, to the damage and prejudice of the government. [5]

Contrary to law.  (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Petitioner Subido and Roxas were likewise, by Information also dated October 10, 1994, docketed as Criminal Case No. 21546, charged, together with them National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Deputy Director and Chief of the Intelligence Service Arturo Figueras (Figueras) and John Does, of violating Section 3(e) [6] of Republic Act No. 3019 as follows:

That on or about August 9 to 11, 1994, prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused officials of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, in Intramuros Manila namely: then Commissioner ZAFIRO L. RESPICIO; Associate Commissioner BAYANI M. SUBIDO, JR.; Associate Commissioner MANUEL C. ROJAS, ARTURO A. FIGUERAS, Deputy Director and Chief of the Domestic Intelligence Service, National Bureau of Investigation, Manila; and JOHN DOES, while in the performance of their official functions as such, acting with evident bad faith and manifest partiality, conspiring and confederating with each other, did then and there, willfully and criminally issue BID Self-Deportation Order No. 94-685 dated August 9, 1994 authorizing the release of the following eleven (11) Indian nationals, namely:  PRAMOD SHIRIAD JOGDEO, SHAIK EASAF, SUNKAVALIVENKATA LAKSHIMANARAYA, AUGUSTINE RAJESH, NAGAYYA VANAM, MOHAMMAD RAFIQUE, KAUSAR ALI, NABI PASHAKHAN GULAM, MENGESH BENDU JADHAV, LAXMAN KUSHABA KADAM, CAJETAN MERWYN MLVARES who, with the prior knowledge of the aforenamed accused, were all facing criminal charges for violation of RA 6425, as amended (Dangerous Drugs Act), a heinous crime punishable with death, before the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas, Metro Manila, and held without bail and placed in the custody of the National Bureau of Investigation – Domestic Intelligence Service (NBI-DIS), headed by accused ARTURO A. FIGUERAS, thereby giving unwarranted benefits to the above-named eleven (11) Indian nationals and depriving the government the right to prosecute them, to the prejudice of the public interest and the government.

CONTRARY TO LAW. [7] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The Indians, who were arrested and detained by the NBI for manufacturing methaqualone,  were, on July 5, 1994, charged for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act before the Department of Justice (DOJ) before which they were subjected to preliminary investigation. On even date, NBI Deputy Director Arturo Figueras (Figueras) wrote petitioner requesting

[i]n connection with the investigation [which] this Bureau is presently undertaking, [that the NBI] be furnished with a certification and/or all information in [the Bureau of Immigration] files concerning the status of the following Indian Nationals, to wit:

x x x x [8] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Atty. Ernesto Zshornack Jr. (Atty. Zshornack), counsel for the Indians, later requested, by letter of July 13, 1994, the Secretary of Justice to deport his clients as a “protracted court investigation as to their culpability will serve no practical or useful purpose…and will entail costs to our government…” [9]  Then DOJ Undersecretary Ramon Esguerra (Usec. Esguerra) endorsed Atty. Zshornack’s letter to then NBI Director Epimaco Velasco who in turn forwarded it to Figueras. [10]

Acting on the request of Atty. Zshornack, Figueras, by Disposition Form dated July 25, 1994, [11] recommended to the NBI Director the deportation of the Indians for violating immigration laws.  Usec. Esguerra thereupon, by 3rd Indorsement dated July 28, 1994, [12] endorsed the matter to petitioner for appropriate actionwith the information that the criminal cases against [the Indians] are under preliminary investigation being conducted by State Prosecutor Reynaldo J. Lugtu.”

It appears that on July 28, 1994, after concluding the preliminary investigation, State Prosecutor Reynaldo J. Lugtu (Prosecutor Lugtu) filed an Information against the Indians with the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. [13]

Petitioner later, by 4th Indorsement of August 4, 1994, referred Figueras’ recommendation for the deportation of the Indians to Prosecutor Lugtu for appropriate action.  Petitioner’s Indorsement reads:

Respectfully forwarded to HON. REYNALDO J. LUGTU, State Prosecutor’s Office, Manila, for appropriate action the enclosed letter dated 13 July 1994 of Atty. Ernesto T. Zshornack, Jr., counsel for PRAMOD SHRIAD JOGORU et al. who are facing investigation for violation of Article III Section 14-A and 16 of Republic Act 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act) together with the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Indorsement[s] appended to said letter.  Anent the comment submitted by Atty. Arturo A. Figueras, CID Policy Guidelines of October 10, 1972 provides that:

“(6) A complaint charging a crime shall be referred to the proper Fiscal’s Office unless it has already been filed therewith or is pending in court.  Meanwhile, the deportation case shall be provisionally dismissed.” 
(emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The August 4, 1994 4th Indorsement of petitioner was received by Prosecutor Lugtu on August 16, 1994. [14]  Before that or on August 9, 1994, the Indians signed their respective requests for self-deportation, which requests were received by the BID on August 11, 1994 [15] on which latter date petitioner’s office prepared the Order to deport the Indians as in fact they left the country on August 12, 1994.

At the trial of subject cases, before the Sandiganbayan, Subido narrated how he came to sign the Order as follows: After partaking lunch on August 11, 1994 with petitioner, whose birthday fell on that day,  together with other BID personnel at petitioner’s Office, he (Subido) repaired back to his office.  He was soon presented the Order by Levi Navata (Navata), a staff member of petitioner, for his signature.  Noting that the Order had already been signed by petitioner, and recalling the verbal assurance of then DOJ Secretary Silvestre Bello III (Secretary Bello) also on that day that there were no pending charges against the Indians and that the “preliminary investigation was of no moment to the deportation request,” he signed the Order. [16]

Roxas for his part related that on the request of petitioner, he proceeded to the latter’s office where he saw Secretary Bello and several other guests. He was there presented the Order for his signature.  Noting from the Order that there was no pending case nor any Hold Departure Order against the Indians and that the Order already bore the signatures of petitioner and Subido, he affixed his. [17]

As for petitioner, he declared that upon receipt of the Indians’ requests for self-deportation, he requested his technical assistant Arthel Caronongan (Caronongan) and the Chief of the Intelligence Division Remigio Sta. Ana (Sta. Ana) to review them.  After Sta. Ana verbally communicated to him that there were no pending cases against the Indians, [18] he asked Navata and Caronongan to prepare the Order.

Petitioner disclaimed knowledge that the Indians were already charged before the RTC of Las Piñas, Prosecutor Lugtu never having communicated to him that he had, on July 28, 1994, filed a charge against the Indians before the RTC of Las Piñas City. [19] He admitted, however, being aware that the Indians had been undergoing preliminary investigation. [20]

Corroborating petitioner, Caronongan declared that petitioner instructed him on August 10, 1994 to conduct a record check of the Indians; that he referred the matter to Sta. Ana who informed him that the Indians had “no criminal records”; and that when he and Sta. Ana met with petitioner the next day, August 11, 1994, petitioner directed him to prepare the necessary order for the deportation of the Indians. [21]

Caronongan clarified that the BID only maintains “derogatory records” of aliens in its watch list, black list or hold departure list, but not criminal or administrative records. [22]  Albeit he admitted being aware that the Indians were apprehended by the NBI for the manufacture of illegal drugs, he took Sta. Ana’s word  that there was no pending criminal case against any of them. [23]

On the basis of the Order, the NBI, through Figueras, turned over on August 12, 1994, at 1:00 p.m., to the BID agents the custody of the Indians who at once proceeded to the airport for their 3:30 p.m. flight. [24]

As earlier stated, the Office of the Special Prosecutor filed before the Sandiganbayan Information for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 against petitioner, Subido, Roxas, Figueras and John Does, and another for falsification of official document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code against petitioner, Subido and Roxas.

All of the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges. [25]

Pending trial or on February 27, 2003, [26]  Figueras died. The case against him for violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 was thus dismissed.

By Decision of October 13, 2006, the Sandiganbayan in both cases exonerated Subido and Roxas but found petitioner guilty, disposing as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby finds COMMISSIONER ZAFIRO L. RESPICIO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses of Violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Falsification of Official Document under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, and after applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, imposes upon him the following penalties:

1)  Imprisonment for a period ranging from six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum to twelve (12) years as maximum in Criminal Case No. 21546 for Violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019; and

2)  Imprisonment for a period ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum and a fine of P5,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 21545 for Falsification of Public Document under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code.

Further, he is henceforth perpetually disqualified from holding public office.

The prosecution having failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of COMMISSIONER BAYANI SUBIDO, JR. and COMMISSIONER MANUEL C. ROXAS, they are hereby ACQUITTED of both charges in Criminal Cases Nos. 21545 and 21546.

The cash bonds posted for the provisional liberty of Commissioners Subido, Jr. and Roxas are hereby ordered returned to them, subject to the usual accounting and auditing procedures.  The Hold-Departure Order issued against them is hereby lifted and set aside.

The case against NBI Deputy Director ARTURO A. FIGUERAS is hereby DISMISSED, pursuant to Article 89, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code.

SO ORDERED. [27]  (emphasis, capitalization and italics in the original)

In convicting petitioner of violation of Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019, the Sandiganbayan declared:

It cannot therefore be categorically stated that Commissioner Respicio had ample information or knowledge about the case of the eleven Indians, starting from the query of NBI Deputy Director Figueras, on to the 3rd Indorsement of Undersecretary Esguerra and his own 4th Indorsement.  Despite such official communication, however, he never relayed any information about the eleven Indians to Remigio Sta. Ana, who was tasked with obtaining and keeping information about aliens in the country.  This is quite uncanny because as head of the agency, he should have exercised his responsibility of coursing valuable information to the Intelligence Service in order that records of the Bureau would be updated.  Instead, he merely contented himself with going through the motions of having Mr. Sta. Ana assure him verbally that they had no derogatory record, when requests for self-deportation were filed with the BID.

x x x x

Granting, however, that the eleven Indians had no derogatory record, as the phrase is understood within the BID to mean any violation of immigration laws, undesirability, term of residency or permission to work of an alien, the Self-Deportation Order should have specifically mentioned that fact, because that was in essence Mr. Sta. Ana’s report, instead of phrasing it in an extenuating statement that the records of the Bureau did not indicate any written complaint filed against them with any government agency.  For obvious reasons, having no derogatory record and having no written complaint filed refer to two different things. x x x x (emphasis and italics supplied)

x x x x

True, it is the filing in court of a case that may bar deportation, based on Memorandum Order No. 02-94 of the BID and as argued by Commissioner Respicio, but the tenacity of his argument pales in the light of his statement in his 4th Indorsement that a complaint charging a crime shall be referred to the proper Fiscal’s Office unless it has already been filed therewith or is pending in Court and that meanwhile, the deportation case shall be provisionally dismissed.  The necessary implication of this statement is that since no copy of the resolution of State Prosecutor Lugtu recommending the filing of charges in court against the eleven Indians has been furnished the Bureau, and that as such, the Bureau was not aware of the action of the Prosecutor conducting the preliminary investigation, the deportation would remain unavailing to the eleven Indians.  However, the reverse situation happened.

x x x x [28] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In convicting petitioner of the falsification charge, the Sandiganbayan declared:

. . . [T]he statement contained in Self-Deportation Order No. 94-685, that “there is no indication from the records that the respondents (eleven Indian nationals) are subject of any written complaints before any written complaints before any government agency”, is absolutely false because the truth is that these eleven Indians were the subject of preliminary investigation being conducted by State Prosecutor Lugtu, and more importantly, when the requests for self-deportation of the eleven Indians were referred to Commissioner Respicio on August 4, 1994, earlier communications had indeed already been sent to him containing the precise information that a preliminary investigation was being conducted by State Prosecutor Lugtu against Pramod Shriad Jogoru, et al.  Nevertheless, he approved and signed their self-deportation order without batting an eyelash.  It must be emphasized that Commissioner Respicio could not have been oblivious to such information which he received through the 3rd Indorsement of Undersecretary Esguerra and to which he responded through his own 4th Indorsement addressed to State Prosecutor Lugtu.

x x x x [29]  (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

His motion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioner filed the present petition for review, imputing error to the Sandiganbayan’s Decision and Resolution as

. . . not [being] in accord with and/or not sustained by applicable decision[s] of this Honorable Court [for] being based on insufficient evidence/overlooking vital facts and circumstances which if given their proper perspective and significance would negate the alleged finding of guilt. [30]

To petitioner, the prosecution failed to present any evidence pointing to his receipt or knowledge of Figueras’ letter dated July 5, 1994. In any event, he assists that the conduct of a preliminary investigation is not a bar to a self-deportation order in light of Memorandum Order No. 04-92, the pertinent provision [31] of which reads:

Section 1.  Offer of self-deportation.—An offer of self-deportation by the alien shall be granted provided there is no pending case in court against him.  Self-deportation shall not be allowed as a means of evading criminal prosecution or civil liability.

The offer of self-deportation shall be approved by the Commissioner upon the favorable recommendation of the Special Prosecutor, the Chief of the Intelligence Division or the Board of Special Inquiry, as the case may be. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)

The immediately-quoted rule, petitioner argues, pertains only to an actual case filed in court, but no evidence was presented that he was aware of the filing of a case in court against the Indians.  He thus maintains that he relied on the representations of his subordinates Caronongan and Sta. Ana about the lack of any criminal record of the Indians; and that he had discretion whether to grant or deny requests for self-deportation provided that there is no pending court case against the requesting party. [32]

Petitioner goes on to posit that the prosecution failed to present any evidence of any ulterior motive on his part in allowing the deportation of the Indians as in fact it was advantageous to the government to deport the aliens.

Petitioner furthermore posits that the Order bore the approval and signature of the two other commissioners. [33]

Petitioner thus concludes that in light of the foregoing circumstances, he had no legal obligation to disclose the truth of something that he had no knowledge about. [34]

The Office of the Special Prosecutor counters that it was able to prove all the elements of the offense under Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019 and that of falsification.  It asserts that it proved bad faith on the part of petitioner, as despite the July 5, 1994 letter to him of  Figueras inquiring about the status of the Indians who were “presently” under investigation by the NBI, and the July 27, 1994 3rd Indorsement to him  of Usec. Esguerra about the  “criminal cases against [the Indians which were] under preliminary investigation . . . by State Prosecutor . . . Lugtu,”  petitioner issued the Order.

With the deportation of the Indians, the Office of the Special Prosecutor laments that prosecution of the criminal charge filed in court against the Indians had been barred. [35]

The Office of the Special Prosecutor additionally contends that the issuance of the Order required petitioner’s intervention on account of his position and that the statement in the Order that “there is no indication from the records that the eleven Indian [n]ationals are subject of any written complaints before any government agency” is false because petitioner was in fact informed that they were under preliminary investigation.  The Office thus concludes that petitioner indubitably made an untruthful statement on the matter. [36]

The petition fails.

Section 3(e) of RA 3019, violation for which petitioner was charged, provides:

SEC. 3.  Corrupt practices of public officers.— In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

x x x x

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and  employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.

The elements of the offense are thus:

a) the accused is a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions;

b)  one must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence;

c) the action caused undue injury to any party including the Government, or has given any party unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. [37]

The elements of falsification under paragraph 4 of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code for which petitioner was likewise charged are:

a)
the offender is a public officer;
b)
the accused takes advantage of his official position;
c)
accused knows that what he imputes is false;
d)
the falsity involves a material fact;
e) /div>
there is a legal obligation for him to narrate the truth;
f)
and such untruthful statements are not contained in an affidavit or a statement required by law to be sworn in. [38]

The two offenses share two common elements—that the accused is a public officer and that the assailed act is related to the public officer’s position.  These two common elements are present in the two cases against petitioner as he was a public officer at the time he signed the Order and his intervention in issuing it was in relation to his position as a public office- BID Commissioner.

RESPECTING THE CHARGE OF VIOLATING 3(E) OF RA 3019, the elements which must be indubitably proved are whether petitioner acted with manifest partiality or evident bad faith, and whether such action caused undue injury to any party including the Government, or gave any party unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.  Both elements are present in this case.

Partiality is  differentiated from bad faith in this wise:

“Partiality" is synonymous with "bias" which "excites a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are." "Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud." [39]

The presence of manifest partiality and evident bad faith on the part of petitioner is gathered from his hardsell stance that he  never was aware of a case filed in court.  Even if indeed that were true, he had priorly been informed by Usec. Esguerra’s 3rd Indorsement of July 27, 1994 that the Indians were undergoing preliminary investigation.  In fact, at the witness stand, after vacillating, he finally admitted that the criminal charges against the Indians were “under preliminary investigation.”  Consider petitioner’s testimony:

JUSTICE NAZARIO:
Q
But you were aware of a reinvestigation (sic) being conducted even before the deportation order, is it not?
A
Yes, your Honor, but our regulations require the filing of a case in court.
Q
At the time there was a preliminary investigation being conducted, did it not occur to you to inquire from Lugtu what happened to the preliminary investigation before you signed the self-deportation order?
A
Your Honor, I must admit that I did not bother to call Prosecutor Lugtu because he never communicated with us and besides, the 11 Indians were arrested upon the surveillance of the NBI and the NBI also through Lugtu knew about the cases filed against the 11 Indians and we were never informed about these cases, your Honor.
Q
Yes, but don’t you think prudence would dictate to you that since you were aware of this investigation being conducted about the 11 Indians, you should have told them “what happened to the preliminary investigation you informed us?” before you signed the self-deportation order on August 9, 1994?
A
I relied on the recommendation of my Special Assistant Atty. Karunungan (sic) and Chief [of] Intelligence Mr. Sta. Ana. [40] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

On further questioning, petitioner became evasive and wavered in his testimony.

PROS. TURALBA
Q:
But can you recall that 4th Indorsement dated August 4, 1994 addressed to Prosecutor Reynaldo Lugtu?
A:
May I see it, sir?
x x x x
WITNESS
A:
Yes, sir. It appears to be an Indorsement signed by me last August 4, 1994.
PROS. TURALBA
Q:
And you have mentioned in your Indorsement of the letter of Atty. Ernesto Zshornack, Jr., counsel for Promod Shiriad Jogdeo, and others who are facing investigation for Violation of Article III, Sec. 14-A and 16 of Republic Act 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act?
A:
That is the content of the Indorsement, sir.
Q:
So, are you now confirming that before August 11 you were already informed of a pending investigation against these 11 Indians by Prosecutor Reynaldo Lugtu of the DOJ?
WITNESS
A:
Sir, our regulation requires the filing of the case not just an investigation that is why we approved the Deportation Order.
PROS. TURALBA
Q:
I would like to read to you the second paragraph of your Indorsement which says:
“A complaint charging a crime shall be referred to the proper Fiscal’s Office unless it has already been filed therewith or is pending in court.”
Do you remember having stated this in your Indosement?
A:
Yes, sir. But at the time when I sent that Indorsement, we were not yet informed of the filing of the case in court.
Q:
But would you agree with me that these are supposed to be alternative situations? It is either filed with the Fiscal’s Office or is pending in court?
A:
Our regulation is more on pending in court, sir.
Q:
But you have mentioned in this Indorsement the paragraph of your Guidelines dated October 10, 1972, is that correct?
A:
May I read the Indorsement, sir.
“A complaint charging a crime shall be referred to the proper Fiscal’s Office unless it has already been filed therewith or is pending in court.”
That is all what it means.
x x x x
Q:
By the way, but you were aware that there was a pending preliminary investigation before the Fiscal’s Office?
A:
No, your Honor. We just assumed that since it was with the NBI, some kind of an investigation must be ongoing but actually, we have not received any communication from them informing us of a pendency of a—
Q:
An investigation?
A:
Yes, Your Honor. That is why we approved the Order of Deportation.
x x x x
PROS. TURALBA
Q:

Mr. Witness, do you remember having answered during the direct examination when asked by the Honorable Justice if you were aware of a reinvestigation and you answered “yes?

x x x x
A:
We were never informed, sir.
Q:
You were never informed?
A:
Yes, before we approved the Deportation Order, sir.
Q:
When for the first time did you learn of the pending case before Prosecutor Lugtu?
A:
That was after we approved the Deportation Order last August 11, sir. [41] (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)

As reflected above, petitioner eventually admitted knowledge of the pendency of a preliminary investigation of the criminal cases against the Indians before he issued the Order.

PROS. TURALBA
x x x x
Q:
Will you agree with me that in this particular indorsement [dated August 4, 1994] you already knew of the investigation being conducted against these eleven (11) Indians for Violation of Article 3, Sec[tions] 14-a and 16 of Republic Act [No.] 6425?
A:
Yes, Sir, but please remember that under our guidelines what was prohibited was the filing of a case in court.
Q:
Can you still recall in this answer of yours appearing on page 18 that there was no mention of a pending case before the court?
A:
Yes, Sir. At the time when we approved the order, we were not informed about the pendency of a case in court.
Q:
But you knew of a pending investigation before the prosecutor of the [DOJ][?]
A:
It was mentioned that there was a preliminary investigation.
Q:
In other words, you were already aware of the charges against these eleven (11) Indians, is that not correct?
A:
We knew only of the preliminary investigation, Sir…
PROS. TURALBA
Q:
When for the first time did you learn of a pending investigation against these eleven (11) Indians?
A:
Sometime in the 4th of August before I approved that[42] (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)

That petitioner’s approval of the Order caused injury to the government, more particularly to its right and duty to prosecute a heinous crime, over and above the supposed “costs to our government” in having a “protracted court investigation as to [the Indians’] culpability,” is without question.  Needless to state, the deportation benefitted the Indians who would otherwise have stood trial.

RESPECTING THE CHARGE FOR FALSIFICATION, petitioner untruthfully stated that there is no indication from the records that the Indians are the subject of any written complaints before any government agency nor before any private person.  For that statement is belied by documentary evidence - the July 5, 1994 letter of Figueras to petitioner, the July 28, 1994 Indorsement of Usec. Esguerra to petitioner (of Figueras recommendation for the deportation of the Indians) and petitioner’s own August 4, 1994 4th Indorsement to Lugtu.

Petitioner’s refuge by blaming his subordinates does not lie.  For one, he failed to disclose to Caronongan or to Sta. Ana the information which he had received about the Indians undergoing preliminary investigation.  Such omission is telling.  For another, while the BID may indeed have had only in its possession at that time only “derogatory records” of aliens but not criminal or administrative as Caronongan claimed, since the BID is an attached agency of the DOJ, petitioner could have easily requested information on the outcome of the preliminary investigation, of which he was informed about, or if a case had already been filed in court against the Indians.

Petitioner’s reliance on the earlier-quoted pertinent provision of Memorandum Order No. 04-94 fails.  It bears emphasis that petitioner’s justification in issuing the Order was the lack of “any written complaints before any government agency nor before any private person” against the Indians, which was not the case.  Recall that petitioner himself quoted in his August 4, 1994 Indorsement to Prosecutor Lugtu the BID policy that [43] a deportation case should be provisionally dismissed when a criminal complaint charging a crime has been referred to the proper [Prosecutor]’s Office or is pending in court.”

In another vein, petitioner harps on the supposed absence of a request by Prosecutor Lugtu to prevent the flight of the Indians.  In laying the blame on Prosecutor Lugtu, petitioner proffers an August 15, 1990 DOJ Circular No. 38 [44] that directs prosecutors to move for the issuance of a hold departure order “to ensure that criminal offenders are punished and put in their proper places by taking the steps to prevent them from leaving for abroad during the pendency of criminal proceedings.”

Petitioner’s stance fails too.  Whether the Prosecutor moved to obtain a hold departure order is beside the point, what is material being that there was a pending preliminary investigation against the Indians, contrary to the statement in the Order that “there is no indication from the records that the [Indians] are the subject of any written complaint  . . . ,” which pending preliminary investigation called for the provisional dismissal of the deportation case.

In any event, the cited August 15, 1990 DOJ Circular No. 38 cannot be made to apply in the instant case as it clearly pertains to Filipinos, and not to foreigners, who opt to fly the coop to evade criminal prosecution.

The untruthful assertion of petitioner not having been made in an affidavit or in a statement required by law to be sworn in, he is, without any doubt, liable for falsification under paragraph 4 of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos. 21545 and 21546 are, in light of the foregoing discussions, AFFIRMED.

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Brion, Bersamin, Abad,* and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.

Endnotes:


* Additional member Per Special Order No. 997 dated June 6, 2011 in lieu of Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes P.A. Sereno.

[1] Penned by Associate Justice Teresita V. Diaz-Baldos with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ma. Cristina Cortez Estrada and Roland B. Jurado.

[2] ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT.

[3] They are PRAMOD SHIRIAD JOGDEO, SHAIK EASAF, SUNKAVALIVENKATA LAKSHIMANARAYA, AUGUSTINE RAJESH, NAGAYYA VANAM, MOHAMMAD RAFIQUE, KAUSAR ALI, NABI PASHAKHAN GULAM, MENGESH BENDU JADHAV, LAXMAN KUSHABA KADAM and CAJETAN MERWYN MLVARES

[4] Exhibit “O” for the prosecution; Exhibit “8” for the defense.

[5] Records, Vol. I pp. 1-2.

[6] Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.

[7] Records, Vol. III,  pp. 4-5.

[8] Exhibit “C-7.”

[9] Exhibit “F” and Exhibit “1” (Respicio).

[10] By 1st and 2nd Indorsements dated July 21, 1994 and July 26, 1994, respectively.  Vide Exhibits “G” and “K” for the prosecution.

[11] Exhibit “H”; Exhibit “3” (Respicio); and Exhibit “10” (Figueras).

[12] Exhibit “L”; Exhibit “5” (Respicio); Exhibit “11” (Figueras); and Exhibit “12” (Roxas).

[13] Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN), August 11, 1998, pp. 15-17.

[14] Exhibit “M-1.”  Vide Sworn Statement of Prosecutor Lugtu.

[15] Exhibits “N,” “N-1,” “N-2,” “N-3,” “N-4,” “N-5,” “N-6,” “N-7,” “N-8,” “N-9”  and “N-10.”

[16] TSN, August 14, 2005, pp. 11-15; TSN, April 21, 2005, pp. 13-15.  Vide:  Exhibit “X” to “X-3, inclusive (Affidavit of Mr. Bayani Subido Jr.).

[17] TSN, March 3, 2001, pp. 21-30.

[18] Id. at pp. 16.

[19] TSN, May 29, 2003, pp. 23-24.

[20] TSN, September 22, 2003, pp. 6-7.

[21] TSN, July 6, 2004, pp. 10-12.

[22] TSN, October 14, 2004, pp.

[23] Id. at 18-20.

[24] After Deportation Report of Rodelio Silapian, Chief, Civil Security Unit of BID; Exhibit “Q.”

[25] Records, Vol. I, pp. 155, 206 and 207; and II Records, pp. 102.

[26] Records, Vol. IV, p. 345.

[27] Rollo, pp. 99-100.

[28] Id. at 86-89.

[29] Id. at 95.

[30] Id. at 19-20.

[31] Rule XI, Section 1.

[32] Id. at 21-23.

[33] Id. at 26.

[34] Id. at 27-28.

[35] Id. at 176-178.

[36] Id. at 179-181.

[37] Evangelista v. People, 392 Phil. 449, 456 (2000).

[38] Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan, 364 Phil. 890 (1999).

[39] Sison v. People, G.R. Nos. 170339, 170398-403, March 9, 2010.

[40] TSN, May 29, 2003, pp. 23-25.

[41] TSN, Sept. 11, 2003, pp. 35-40.

[42] TSN, Sept. 22, 2003, pp. 7-8.

[43] CID Policy Guidelines of October 10, 1972, quoted above.

[44] Exhibit “9” (Respicio).  DOJ Circular No. 38 reads:

It has been observed that many persons accused of serious offenses seek refuge in other countries where the Philippines has no extradition treaty in order to escape prosecution and enjoy thereby the fruits of their crimes.  This kind of situation should not be allowed to continue for it will embolden the criminally minded into committing more crimes, knowing that they can get away with their misdeeds in a foreign country.  It is thus imperative for prosecutors to ensure that criminal offenders are punished and put in their proper places by taking the steps to prevent them from leaving for abroad during the pendency of criminal proceedings.

Towards this end and so as not to frustrate the ends of justice, you are hereby directed to move for the issuance by the court of Hold Departure Order (HDO) against the accused and for the Bureau of Immigration to implement, in the following cases:

1)   x x x x
2)   x x x x
3)   x x x x

4)   Violations of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, when the charge is cognizable by Regional Trial Courts under Batas Pambansa Blg. 29.

5)   x x x x
6)   x x x x
7)   x x x x

In cases where accused has jumped bail and fled to another country, the same shall be immediately reported to the Chief State Prosecutor who shall, with the approval of the Secretary of Justice, make appropriate representations with the Department of Foreign Affairs for the cancellation of accused’s passport and other travel documents so as to make him an undocumented alien in the host country subject to deportation.

Strict compliance herewith is enjoined.

FRANKLIN M. DRILON (Sgd.)
Secretary



Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





June-2011 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 179558, June 01 : 2011] ASIATRUST DEVELOPMENT BANK, PETITIONER, VS. FIRST AIKKA DEVELOPMENT, INC. AND UNIVAC DEVELOPMENT, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 169359-61, June 01 : 2011] MARCELO G. GANADEN, OSCAR B. MINA, JOSE M. BAUTISTA AND ERNESTO H. NARCISO, JR. PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND ROBERT K. HUMIWAT, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 169191, June 01 : 2011] ROMEO VILLARUEL, PETITIONER, VS. YEO HAN GUAN, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE YUHANS ENTERPRISES, RESPONDENT.

  • MEGAN SUGAR CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ILOILO, BRANCH 68, DUMANGAS, ILOILO; NEW FRONTIER SUGAR CORPORATION AND EQUITABLE PCI BANK, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186243, June 01 : 2011] HACIENDA PRIMERA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and ANNA KATRINA E. HERNANDEZ, Petitioners, vs. MICHAEL S. VILLEGAS, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 186243, June 01 : 2011] HACIENDA PRIMERA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and ANNA KATRINA E. HERNANDEZ, Petitioners, vs. MICHAEL S. VILLEGAS, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 185230, June 01 : 2011] JOSEPH C. CEREZO,PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, JULIET YANEZA, PABLO ABUNDA, JR., AND VICENTE AFULUGENCIA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 170500 & 170510-11, June 01 : 2011] MARCELO G. GANADEN, OSCAR B. MINA, JOSE M. BAUTISTA AND ERNESTO H. NARCISO, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL TRANSMISSION COMMISSION (TRANSCO), ALIPIO NOOL, FERMIN P. LANAG, SR., EUSEBIO B. COLLADO, JOSE S. TEJANO, NECIMIO A. ABUZO, ELISEO P. MARTINEZ AND PERFECTO LAZARO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 188064, June 01 : 2011] MILA A. REYES , PETITIONER, VS. VICTORIA T. TUPARAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 186465, June 01 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LORIE VILLAHERMOSA Y LECO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 185917, June 01 : 2011] FREDCO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE (HARVARD UNIVERSITY), RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 180683, June 01 : 2011] AURORA L. TECSON, SPOUSES JOSE L. TECSON AND LEONILA TECSON, PETITIONERS, VS. MINERVA, MARIA, FRANCISCO, AGUSTINA, JOSE, ROMUALDO, ELIZABETH AND VICTOR, ALL SURNAMED FAUSTO, AND ISABEL VDA. DE FAUSTO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 167050, June 01 : 2011] SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, PETITIONER, VS. RIZAL POULTRY AND LIVESTOCK ASSOCIATION, INC., BSD AGRO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND BENJAMIN SAN DIEGO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 161651, June 01 : 2011] ELVIRA LATEO Y ELEAZAR, FRANCISCO ELCA Y ARCAS, AND BARTOLOME BALDEMOR Y MADRIGAL, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 194379, June 01 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FELICIANO "SAYSOT" CIAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 173198, June 01 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DOLORES OCDEN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 178925, June 01 : 2011] MANUEL YBIERNAS, VICENTE YBIERNAS, MARIA CORAZON ANGELES, VIOLETA YBIERNAS, AND VALENTIN YBIERNAS, PETITIONERS, VS. ESTER TANCO-GABALDON, MANILA BAY SPINNING MILLS, INC., AND THE SHERIFF OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG CITY, BRANCH 163, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 179675, June 01 : 2011] SPOUSES JUANITO MAHUSAY AND FRANCISCA MAHUSAY,PETITIONERS, VS. B.E. SAN DIEGO, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 154704, June 01 : 2011] NELLIE VDA. DE FORMOSO AND HER CHILDREN, NAMELY, MA. THERESA FORMOSO-PESCADOR, ROGER FORMOSO, MARY JANE FORMOSO, BERNARD FORMOSO AND PRIMITIVO MALCABA, PETITIONERS, VS. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, FRANCISCO ARCE, ATTY. BENJAMIN BARBERO, AND ROBERTO NAVARRO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 193902, June 01 : 2011] ATTY. MARIETTA D. ZAMORANOS, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SAMSON R. PACASUM, SR., RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 193908] ATTY. MARIETTA D. ZAMORANOS, PETITIONER, VS. SAMSON R. PACASUM, SR., RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 194075] SAMSON R. PACASUM, SR., PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. MARIETTA D. ZAMORANOS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 191618, June 01 : 2011] ATTY. ROMULO B. MACALINTAL, PETITIONER, VS. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170251, June 01 : 2011] CELIA S. VDA. DE HERRERA, PETITIONER, VS. EMELITA BERNARDO, EVELYN BERNARDO AS GUARDIAN OF ERLYN, CRISLYN AND CRISANTO BERNARDO,* RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 127851, June 02 : 2011] CORONA INTERNATIONAL, INC., PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PHILIPPINE COCONUT AUTHORITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 178701 and 178754, June 06 : 2011] ZAFIRO L. RESPICIO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 185211, June 06 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ARNEL BENTACAN NAVARRETE, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 190107, June 06 : 2011] JAPRL DEVELOPMENT CORP., PETER RAFAEL C. LIMSON AND JOSE UY AROLLADO, PETITIONERS, VS. SECURITY BANK CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 168382, June 06 : 2011] AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 190515, June 06 : 2011] CIRTEK EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION-FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS PETITIONER, VS. CIRTEK ELECTRONICS, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 160506, June 06 : 2011] JOEB M. ALIVIADO, ARTHUR CORPUZ, ERIC ALIVIADO, MONCHITO AMPELOQUIO, ABRAHAM BASMAYOR, JONATHAN MATEO, LORENZO PLATON, JOSE FERNANDO GUTIERREZ, ESTANISLAO BUENAVENTURA, LOPE SALONGA, FRANZ DAVID, NESTOR IGNACIO, JULIO REY, RUBEN MARQUEZ, JR., MAXIMINO PASCUAL, ERNESTO CALANAO, ROLANDO ROMASANTA, RHUEL AGOO, BONIFACIO ORTEGA, ARSENIO SORIANO, JR., ARNEL ENDAYA, ROBERTO ENRIQUEZ, NESTOR BAQUILA, EDGARDO QUIAMBAO, SANTOS BACALSO, SAMSON BASCO, ALADINO GREGORO, JR., EDWIN GARCIA, ARMANDO VILLAR, EMIL TAWAT, MARIO P. LIONGSON, CRESENTE J. GARCIA, FERNANDO MACABENTE, MELECIO CASAPAO, REYNALDO JACABAN, FERDINAND SALVO, ALSTANDO MONTOS, RAINER N. SALVADOR, RAMIL REYES, PEDRO G. ROY, LEONARDO P. TALLEDO, ENRIQUE F. TALLEDO, WILLIE ORTIZ, ERNESTO SOYOSA, ROMEO VASQUEZ, JOEL BILLONES, ALLAN BALTAZAR, NOLI GABUYO, EMMANUEL E. LABAN, RAMIR E. PIAT, RAUL DULAY, TADEO DURAN, JOSEPH BANICO, ALBERT LEYNES, ANTONIO DACUNA, RENATO DELA CRUZ, ROMEO VIERNES, JR., ELAIS BASEO, WILFREDO TORRES, MELCHOR CARDANO, MARIANO NARANIAN, JOHN SUMERGIDO, ROBERTO ROSALES, GERRY C. GATPO, GERMAN N. GUEVARRA, GILBERT Y. MIRANDA, RODOLFO C. TOLEDO, ARNOLD D. LASTONA, PHILIP M. LOZA, MARIO N. CULDAYON, ORLANDO P. JIMENEZ, FRED P. JIMENEZ, RESTITUTO C. PAMINTUAN, JR., ROLANDO J. DE ANDRES, ARTUZ BUSTENERA, ROBERTO B. CRUZ, ROSEDY O. YORDAN, DENNIS DACASIN, ALEJANDRINO ABATON, AND ORLANDO S. BALANGUE, PETITIONERS, VS. PROCTER & GAMBLE PHILS., INC., AND PROMM-GEM INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 165279, June 07 : 2011] DR. RUBI LI, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES REYNALDO AND LINA SOLIMAN, AS PARENTS/HEIRS OF DECEASED ANGELICA SOLIMAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC, June 07 : 2011] RE: LETTER OF THE UP LAW FACULTY ENTITLED RESTORING INTEGRITY: A STATEMENT BY THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF PLAGIARISM AND MISREPRESENTATION IN THE SUPREME COURT

  • [G.R. No. 190259, June 07 : 2011] DATU ZALDY UY AMPATUAN, ANSARUDDIN ADIONG, REGIE SAHALI-GENERALE PETITIONERS, VS. HON. RONALDO PUNO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ALTER-EGO OF PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, AND ANYONE ACTING IN HIS STEAD AND ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES (AFP), OR ANY OF THEIR UNITS OPERATING IN THE AUTONOMOUS REGION IN MUSLIM MINDANAO (ARMM), AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, OR ANY OF THEIR UNITS OPERATING IN ARMM, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 177130, June 07 : 2011] HON. EDUARDO ERMITA IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, PETITIONER, VS. HON. JENNY LIND R. ALDECOA-DELORINO, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 137, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MAKATI CITY, ASSOCIATION OF PETROCHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTING JG SUMMIT PETROCHEMICAL CORPORATION, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-10-2835 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2901-P), June 08 : 2011] DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. BENILDA A. TEJADA, CHIEF LEGAL COUNSEL, COMPLAINANT, VS. CLERK OF COURT VII ATTY. JEOFFREY S. JOAQUINO, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, AND SHERIFF IV CONSTANCIO V. ALIMURUNG, BRANCH 18, BOTH OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CEBU CITY,RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 192465, June 08 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ANGELITO ESQUIBEL Y JESUS, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 170575, June 08 : 2011] SPOUSES MANUEL AND FLORENTINA DEL ROSARIO, PETITIONERS, VS. GERRY ROXAS FOUNDATION, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 185717, June 08 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GARRY DE LA CRUZ Y DELA CRUZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 179673, June 08 : 2011] NATIVIDAD STA. ANA VICTORIA, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 171972, June 08 : 2011] LUCIA RODRIGUEZ AND PRUDENCIA RODRIGUEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. TERESITA V. SALVADOR, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 178409, June 08 : 2011] YOLITO FADRIQUELAN, ARTURO EGUNA, ARMANDO MALALUAN, DANILO ALONSO, ROMULO DIMAANO, ROEL MAYUGA, WILFREDO RIZALDO, ROMEO SUICO, DOMINGO ESCAMILLAS AND DOMINGO BAUTRO, PETITIONERS, VS. MONTEREY FOODS CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 178434] MONTEREY FOODS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. BUKLURAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MONTEREY-ILAW AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA, YOLITO FADRIQUELAN, CARLITO ABACAN, ARTURO EGUNA, DANILO ROLLE, ALBERTO CASTILLO, ARMANDO MALALUAN, DANILO ALFONSO, RUBEN ALVAREZ, ROMULO DIMAANO, ROEL MAYUGA, JUANITO TENORIO, WILFREDO RIZALDO, JOHN ASOTIGUE, NEMESIO AGTAY, ROMEO SUICO, DOMINGO ESCAMILLAS AND DOMINGO BAUTRO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170146, June 08 : 2011] HON. WALDO Q. FLORES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SENIOR DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY IN THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, HON. ARTHUR P. AUTEA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY IN THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, AND THE PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION (PAGC), PETITIONERS, VS. ATTY. ANTONIO F. MONTEMAYOR, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175834, June 08 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ROSAURO ASETRE Y DURAN, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 169913, June 08 : 2011] HEIRS OF DR. JOSE DELESTE, NAMELY: JOSEFA DELESTE, JOSE RAY DELESTE, RAUL HECTOR DELESTE, AND RUBEN ALEX DELESTE, PETITIONERS, VS. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (LBP), AS REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, LAND VALUATION OFFICE OF LBP COTABATO CITY; THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR - REGION 12 OF COTABATO CITY, THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM; THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF REGION X - CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, REPRESENTED BY MCMILLAN LUCMAN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER (PARO) OF DAR LANAO DEL NORTE; LIZA BALBERONA, IN HER CAPACITY AS DAR MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER (MARO); REYNALDO BAGUIO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ILIGAN CITY AS NOMINAL PARTY; THE EMANCIPATION PATENT HOLDERS: FELIPE D. MANREAL, CUSTUDIO M. RICO, HEIRS OF DOMINGO V. RICO, HEIRS OF ABDON T. MANREAL, MACARIO M. VELORIA, ALICIA B. MANREAL, PABLO RICO, SALVACION MANREAL, HEIRS OF TRANQUILIANA MANREAL, HEIRS OF ANGELA VELORIA, HEIRS OF NECIFURO CABALUNA, HEIRS OF CLEMENTE RICO, HEIRS OF MANTILLANO OBISO, HEIRS OF HERCULANO BALORIO, AND TITO BALER, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 183849, June 11 : 2011] DOMINGO M. ULEP, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC, June 14 : 2011] RE: PETITION FOR RADIO AND TELEVISION COVERAGE OF THE MULTIPLE MURDER CASES AGAINST MAGUINDANAO GOVERNOR ZALDY AMPATUAN, ET AL., [A.M. No. 10-11-6-SC ] RE: PETITION FOR THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PRESENT COURT HANDLING THE TRIAL OF THE MASSACRE OF 57 PERSONS, INCLUDING 32 JOURNALISTS, IN AMPATUAN, MAGUINDANAO INTO A SPECIAL COURT HANDLING THIS CASE ALONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACHIEVING GENUINE SPEEDY TRIAL and FOR THE SETTING UP OF VIDEOCAM AND MONITOR JUST OUTSIDE THE COURT FOR JOURNALISTS TO COVER AND FOR THE PEOPLE TO WITNESS THE "TRIAL OF THE DECADE" TO MAKE IT TRULY PUBLIC AND IMPARTIAL AS COMMANDED BY THE CONSTITUTION, A.M. No. 10-11-7-SC RE: LETTER OF PRESIDENT BENIGNO S. AQUINO III FOR THE LIVE MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE MAGUINDANAO MASSACRE TRIAL.

  • [G.R. No. 189314, June 15 : 2011] MIGUEL DELA BARAIRO, PENA PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND MST MARINE SERVICES (PHILS,), INC.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-10-2246 (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3219-RTJ) : June 01, 2011] ATTY. RANDY P. BARENG, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ZENAIDA R. DAGUNA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 19, MANILA, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-10-2794 (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2937-P) : June 01, 2011] DANELLA G. SONIDO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JOSEFINA G. ILOCSO, CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 80, MORONG, RIZAL, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. SCC-11-16-P (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I No. 10-33-SCC [P] : June 01, 2011] SULTAN PANDAGARANAO A. ILUPA, COMPLAINANT, VS. MACALINOG S. ABDULLAH, CLERK OF COURT II, SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURT, MARAWI CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2931 (formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2852-P) : June 01, 2011] JOHN A. MENDEZ, ANGELITO, CABALLERO AND IVY CABALLERO, COMPLAINANTS, VS. NERISSA A. BALBUENA, COURT INTERPRETER, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 7, CEBU CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 196919 : June 06, 2011] JOSE RAMILO O. REGALADO, PETITIONER, VS. CHAUCER B. REGALADO AND GERARD R. CUEVAS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 155307 : June 06, 2011] M.A. JIMENEZ ENTERPRISES, INC., REPRESENTED BY CESAR CALIMLIM AND LAILA BALOIS, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN, JESUS P. CAMMAYO, ARTURO SANTOS, MANUEL FACTORA, TEODORO BARROZO, MANUEL ROY, RONALD MANALILI AND JOHN ULASSUS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 142676 : June 06, 2011] EMERITA MUÑOZ, PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. VICTORIANO R. YABUT, JR. AND SAMUEL GO CHAN, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 146718] EMERITA MUÑOZ, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES SAMUEL GO CHAN AND AIDA C. CHAN, AND THE BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 164939 : June 06, 2011] SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA HYATT (SAMASAH-NUWHRAIN), PETITIONER, VS. HON. VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR BUENAVENTURA C. MAGSALIN AND HOTEL ENTERPRISES OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 172303] SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA HYATT (SAMASAH-NUWHRAIN), PETITIONER, VS. HOTEL ENTERPRISES OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 191266 : June 06, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DARIUS BAUTISTA Y ORSINO @ DADA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 164891 : June 06, 2011] VIRGINIA M. GUADINES, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 168335 : June 06, 2011] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. NESTOR GALANG, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 190710 : June 06, 2011] JESSE U. LUCAS, PETITIONER, VS. JESUS S. LUCAS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 188897 : June 06, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. IRENO BONAAGUA Y BERCE, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 165887 : June 06, 2011] MAJORITY STOCKHOLDERS OF RUBY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, PETITIONERS, VS. MIGUEL LIM, IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AS STOCKHOLDER OF RUBY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION AND REPRESENTING THE MINORITY STOCKHOLDERS OF RUBY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION AND THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF RUBY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 165929 ] CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. MIGUEL LIM, IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AS A STOCKHOLDER OF RUBY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION AND REPRESENTING THE MINORITY STOCKHOLDERS OF RUBY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182918 : June 06, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. EFREN PATELAN LAMBERTE @ “KALBO” AND MARCELINO RUIZ NIMUAN @ “CELINE,” ACCUSED, MARCELINO RUIZ NIMUAN, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 175367 : June 06, 2011] DANILO A. AURELIO, PETITIONER, VS. VIDA MA. CORAZON P. AURELIO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 177131 : June 07, 2011] BOY SCOUTS OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-07-2087 : June 07, 2011] (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2621-RTJ) OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MA. ELLEN M. AGUILAR, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 70, BURGOS, PANGASINAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-07-2087 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2621-RTJ) : June 07, 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MA. ELLEN M. AGUILAR, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 70, BURGOS, PANGASINAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 182148 : June 08, 2011] SIME DARBY PILIPINAS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. GOODYEAR PHILIPPINES, INC. AND MACGRAPHICS CARRANZ INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 183210] GOODYEAR PHILIPPINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. SIME DARBY PILIPINAS, INC. AND MACGRAPHICS CARRANZ INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 167391 : June 08, 2011] PHIL-VILLE DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. MAXIMO BONIFACIO, CEFERINO R. BONIFACIO, APOLONIO B. TAN, BENITA B. CAINA, CRISPINA B. PASCUAL, ROSALIA B. DE GRACIA, TERESITA S. DORONIA, CHRISTINA GOCO AND ARSENIO C. BONIFACIO, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS THE SURVIVING HEIRS OF THE LATE ELEUTERIA RIVERA VDA. DE BONIFACIO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 178771 : June 08, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ALBERTO ANTICAMARA Y CABILLO AND FERNANDO CALAGUAS FERNANDEZ A.K.A. LANDO CALAGUAS, APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 177099 : June 08, 2011] EDUARDO G. AGTARAP, PETITIONER, VS. SEBASTIAN AGTARAP, JOSEPH AGTARAP, TERESA AGTARAP, WALTER DE SANTOS, AND ABELARDO DAGORO, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 177192] SEBASTIAN G. AGTARAP, PETITIONER, VS. EDUARDO G. AGTARAP, JOSEPH AGTARAP, TERESA AGTARAP, WALTER DE SANTOS, AND ABELARDO DAGORO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 189206 : June 08, 2011] GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE 15TH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND INDUSTRIAL BANK OF KOREA, TONG YANG MERCHANT BANK, HANAREUM BANKING CORP., LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, WESTMONT BANK AND DOMSAT HOLDINGS, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186395 : June 08, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ITO PINIC, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 167000 : June 08, 2011] GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), PETITIONER, VS. GROUP MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (GMC) AND LAPU-LAPU DEVELOPMENT & HOUSING CORPORATION (LLDHC), RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 169971] GROUP MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (GMC), PETITIONER, VS. LAPU-LAPU DEVELOPMENT & HOUSING CORPORATION (LLDHC) AND GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182917 : June 08, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BENJAMIN PADILLA Y UNTALAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. P-06-2130 (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. NO. 04-1946-P) : June 13, 2011] SUSANA E. FLORES, COMPLAINANT, VS. ARIEL D. PASCASIO, SHERIFF III, MTCC, BRANCH 5, OLONGAPO CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-09-2715 : June 13, 2011] (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1383-RTJ) Office of the Court Administrator, Complainant, Efren E. Tolosa, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Sorsogon City, Respondent.

  • [G. R. No. 165548 : June 13, 2011] PHILIPPINE REALTY AND HOLDINGS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. LEY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. [G. R. No. 167879] LEY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE REALTY AND HOLDINGS CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G. R. No. 191065 : June 13, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JONIE DOMINGUEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 164153 : June 13, 2011] JOHN ANTHONY B. ESPIRITU, FOR HIMSELF AND AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT FOR WESTMONT INVESTMENT CORPORATION, STA. LUCIA REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, GOLDEN ERA HOLDINGS, INC., AND EXCHANGE EQUITY CORPORATION, PETITIONERS, VS. MANUEL N. TANKIANSEE AND JUANITA U. TAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187083 : June 13, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDUARDO DAHILIG Y AGARAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 171628 : June 13, 2011] ARMANDO V. ALANO [DECEASED], SUBSTITUTED BY ELENA ALANO-TORRES,* PETITIONER, VS. PLANTER'S DEVELOPMENT BANK, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF MAUNLAD SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC.,*** RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-09-2715 (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1383-RTJ) : June 13, 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. EFREN E. TOLOSA, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, SORSOGON CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 194836 : June 15, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 193840 : June 15, 2011] ALEXANDER S. GAISANO, PETITIONER, VS. BENJAMIN C. AKOL, RESPONDENT.

  • [G. R. No. 178110 : June 15, 2011] AYALA LAND, INC. AND CAPITOL CITIFARMS, INC., PETITIONERS, VS. SIMEONA CASTILLO, LORENZO PERLAS, JESSIELYN CASTILLO, LUIS MAESA, ROLANDO BATIQUIN, AND BUKLURAN MAGSASAKA NG TIBIG, AS REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, SIMEONA CASTILLO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 169985 : June 15, 2011] MODESTO LEOVERAS, PETITIONER, VS. CASIMERO VALDEZ, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 194367 : June 15, 2011] MARK CLEMENTE Y MARTINEZ @ EMMANUEL DINO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 187047 : June 15, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MANUEL CRUZ Y CRUZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 150462 : June 15, 2011] TOP MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. LUIS FAJARDO AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LAS PIÑAS CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 177995 : June 15, 2011] HEIRS OF AGAPITO T. OLARTE AND ANGELA A. OLARTE, NAMELY NORMA OLARTE-DINEROS, ARMANDO A. OLARTE, YOLANDA OLARTE-MONTECER AND RENATO A. OLARTE, PETITIONERS, VS. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY (NHA), MARIANO M. PINEDA, AS GENERAL MANAGER, THE MANAGER, DISTRICT I, NCR, EDUARDO TIMBANG AND DEMETRIO OCAMPO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 189207 : June 15, 2011] ERIC U. YU, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE JUDGE AGNES REYES-CARPIO, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG-BRANCH 261; AND CAROLINE T. YU, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187640 : June 15, 2011] PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, VS. THE SPS. ANGELITO PEREZ AND JOCELYN PEREZ, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 187687] SPS. ANGELITO PEREZ AND JOCELYN PEREZ, PETITIONERS, VS. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 166838 : June 15, 2011] STA. LUCIA REALTY & DEVELOPMENT, INC., PETITIONER, VS. CITY OF PASIG, RESPONDENT, MUNICIPALITY OF CAINTA, PROVINCE OF RIZAL, INTERVENOR.

  • [G.R. No. 175021 : June 15, 2011] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, PETITIONER, VS. THI THU THUY T. DE GUZMAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 181126 : June 15, 2011] LEONARDO S. UMALE, [DECEASED] REPRESENTED BY CLARISSA VICTORIA, JOHN LEO, GEORGE LEONARD, KRISTINE, MARGUERITA ISABEL, AND MICHELLE ANGELIQUE, ALL SURNAMED UMALE, PETITIONERS, VS. ASB REALTY CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 189325 : June 15, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. TEOFILO RAGODON MARCELINO, JR. ALIAS "TERENCE" AND ALIAS TEOFILO MARCELINO Y RAGODON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 187326 : June 15, 2011] PHILIPPINE ARMY, 5th INFANTRY DIVISION, THROUGH GEN. ALEXANDER YAPSING, LT. COL. NICANOR PENULIAR, AND LT. COL. FERNANDO PASION, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES MAJOR CONSTANCIO PAMITTAN (RET.) AND LEONOR PAMITTAN, SPOUSES ALBERTO TALINIO AND MARIA CHONA P. TALINIO, SPOUSES T/SGT. MELCHOR BACULI AND LAARNI BACULI, SPOUSES S/SGT. JUAN PALASIGUE AND MARILOU PALASIGUE, SPOUSES GRANT PAJARILLO AND FRANCES PAJARILLO, SPOUSES M/SGT. EDGAR ANOG AND ZORAIDA ANOG, AND SPOUSES 2LT. MELITO PAPA AND PINKY PAPA, FOR THEMSELVES AND FOR OTHER OCCUPANTS OF SITIO SAN CARLOS, UPI, GAMU, ISABELA, BY WAY OF CLASS SUIT, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171742 : June 15, 2011] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. MIRANT (PHILIPPINES) OPERATIONS, CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 176165] MIRANT (PHILIPPINES) OPERATIONS CORPORATION (FORMERLY: SOUTHERN ENERGY ASIA-PACIFIC OPERATIONS (PHILS.), INC.), PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 184925 : June 15, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOSEPH MOSTRALES Y ABAD, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. P-10-2829 : June 21, 2011] JUDGE EDILBERTO G. ABSIN, COMPLAINANT, VS. EDGARDO A. MONTALLA, STENOGRAPHER, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 29, SAN MIGUEL, ZAMBOANGA PROMULGATED: DEL SUR, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.C. No. 6683 : June 21, 2011] RE: RESOLUTION OF THE COURT DATED 1 JUNE 2004 IN G.R. NO. 72954 AGAINST, ATTY. VICTOR C. AVECILLA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 149433 : June 22, 2011] THE COCA-COLA EXPORT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS.CLARITA P. GACAYAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 192649 : June 22, 2011] HOME GUARANTY CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. R-II BUILDERS INC. AND NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 183122 : June 22, 2011] GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION-INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION (GMC-ILU), PETITIONER, VS. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 183889] GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION-INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION (GMC-ILU), ET. AL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 183122 : June 22, 2011] GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION-INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION (GMC-ILU), PETITIONER, VS. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 183889] GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION-INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION (GMC-ILU), ET. AL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182980 : June 22, 2011] BIENVENIDO CASTILLO, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 182819 : June 22, 2011] MAXIMINA A. BULAWAN, PETITIONER, VS. EMERSON B. AQUENDE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 182645 : June 22, 2011] IN THE MATTER OF THE HEIRSHIP (INTESTATE ESTATES) OF THE LATE HERMOGENES RODRIGUEZ, ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ, MACARIO J. RODRIGUEZ, DELFIN RODRIGUEZ, AND CONSUELO M. RODRIGUEZ AND SETTLEMENT OF THEIR ESTATES, RENE B. PASCUAL, PETITIONER, VS. JAIME M. ROBLES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 182236 : June 22, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CHITO GRATIL Y GUELAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 186523 : June 22, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. URBAN SALCEDO ABDURAHMAN ISMAEL DIOLAGRA, ABDULAJID NGAYA, HABER ASARI, ABSMAR ALUK, BASHIER ABDUL, TOTING HANO, JR., JAID AWALAL, ANNIK/RENE ABBAS, MUBIN IBBAH, MAGARNI HAPILON IBLONG, LIDJALON SAKANDAL, IMRAM HAKIMIN SULAIMAN, NADSMER ISNANI SULAIMAN, NADSMER ISNANI MANDANGAN KAMAR JAAFAR, SONNY ASALI AND BASHIER ORDOÑEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS, KHADAFFY JANJALANI, ALDAM TILAO ALIAS "ABU SABAYA," ET AL., AND MANY OTHER JOHN DOES, PETER DOES AND RICHARD DOES, ACCUSED.

  • [G.R. No. 183676 : June 22, 2011] RUEL AMPATUAN "ALIAS RUEL," PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170646 : June 22, 2011] MA. LIGAYA B. SANTOS, PETITIONER, VS. LITTON MILLS INCORPORATED AND/OR ATTY. RODOLFO MARIÑO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170292 : June 22, 2011] HOME DEVELOPMENT MUTUAL FUND (HDMF), PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES FIDEL AND FLORINDA R. SEE AND SHERIFF MANUEL L. ARIMADO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-07-2044 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 07-2553-RTJ) : June 22, 2011] ATTY. FACUNDO T. BAUTISTA, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE BLAS O. CAUSAPIN, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 32, GUIMBA, NUEVA ECIJA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 193023 : June 22, 2011] NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. YUNITA TUAZON, ROSAURO TUAZON AND MARIA TERESA TUAZON, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170416 : June 22, 2011] UNIVERSITY PLANS INCORPORATED, PETITIONER, VS. BELINDA P. SOLANO, TERRY A. LAMUG, GLENDA S. BELGA, MELBA S. ALVAREZ, WELMA R. NAMATA, MARIETTA D. BACHO AND MANOLO L. CENIDO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 176740 : June 22, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. CARLO DUMADAG Y ROMIO, APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-11-1786 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-2262-MTJ] : June 22, 2011] FELICISIMA R. DIAZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE GERARDO E. GESTOPA, JR., MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, NAGA, CEBU, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170658 : June 22, 2011] ANICETO CALUBAQUIB, WILMA CALUBAQUIB, EDWIN CALUBAQUIB, ALBERTO CALUBAQUIB, AND ELEUTERIO FAUSTINO CALUBAQUIB, PETITIONERS, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 174158 : June 27, 2011] WILLIAM ENDELISEO BARROGA, PETITIONER, VS. DATA CENTER COLLEGE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND WILFRED BACTAD,[1] RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 176951 : June 28, 2011] LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (LCP), REPRESENTED BY LCP NATIONAL PRESIDENT JERRY P. TREÑAS; CITY OF CALBAYOG, REPRESENTED BY MAYOR MEL SENEN S. SARMIENTO; AND JERRY P. TREÑAS, IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AS TAXPAYER, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; MUNICIPALITY OF BAYBAY, PROVINCE OF LEYTE; MUNICIPALITY OF BOGO, PROVINCE OF CEBU; MUNICIPALITY OF CATBALOGAN, PROVINCE OF WESTERN SAMAR; MUNICIPALITY OF TANDAG, PROVINCE OF SURIGAO DEL SUR; MUNICIPALITY OF BORONGAN, PROVINCE OF EASTERN SAMAR; AND MUNICIPALITY OF TAYABAS, PROVINCE OF QUEZON, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 177499] LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (LCP), REPRESENTED BY LCP NATIONAL PRESIDENT JERRY P. TREÑAS; CITY OF CALBAYOG, REPRESENTED BY MAYOR MEL SENEN S. SARMIENTO; AND JERRY P. TREÑAS, IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AS TAXPAYER, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; MUNICIPALITY OF LAMITAN, PROVINCE OF BASILAN; MUNICIPALITY OF TABUK, PROVINCE OF KALINGA; MUNICIPALITY OF BAYUGAN, PROVINCE OF AGUSAN DEL SUR; MUNICIPALITY OF BATAC, PROVINCE OF ILOCOS NORTE; MUNICIPALITY OF MATI, PROVINCE OF DAVAO ORIENTAL; AND MUNICIPALITY OF GUIHULNGAN, PROVINCE OF NEGROS ORIENTAL, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 178056] LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (LCP), REPRESENTED BY LCP NATIONAL PRESIDENT JERRY P. TREÑAS; CITY OF CALBAYOG, REPRESENTED BY MAYOR MEL SENEN S. SARMIENTO; AND JERRY P. TREÑAS, IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AS TAXPAYER, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; MUNICIPALITY OF CABADBARAN, PROVINCE OF AGUSAN DEL NORTE; MUNICIPALITY OF CARCAR, PROVINCE OF CEBU; MUNICIPALITY OF EL SALVADOR, PROVINCE OF MISAMIS ORIENTAL; MUNICIPALITY OF NAGA, CEBU; AND DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 176579 : June 28, 2011] WILSON P. GAMBOA, PETITIONER, VS. FINANCE SECRETARY MARGARITO B. TEVES, FINANCE UNDERSECRETARY JOHN P. SEVILLA, AND COMMISSIONER RICARDO ABCEDE OF THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG) IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS CHAIR AND MEMBERS, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE PRIVATIZATION COUNCIL, CHAIRMAN ANTHONI SALIM OF FIRST PACIFIC CO., LTD. IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF METRO PACIFIC ASSET HOLDINGS INC., CHAIRMAN MANUEL V. PANGILINAN OF PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY (PLDT) IN HIS CAPACITY AS MANAGING DIRECTOR OF FIRST PACIFIC CO., LTD., PRESIDENT NAPOLEON L. NAZARENO OF PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, CHAIR FE BARIN OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE COMMISSION, AND PRESIDENT FRANCIS LIM OF THE PHILIPPINE STOCK EXCHANGE, RESPONDENTS. PABLITO V. SANIDAD AND ARNO V. SANIDAD, PETITIONERS-IN-INTERVENTION.

  • [G.R. No. 192591 : June 29, 2011] EFREN L. ALVAREZ, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 172227 : June 29, 2011] SPOUSES WILFREDO PALADA AND BRIGIDA PALADA,* PETITIONERS, VS. SOLIDBANK CORPORATION AND SHERIFF MAYO DELA CRUZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 181398 : June 29, 2011] FEB LEASING AND FINANCE CORPORATION (NOW BPI LEASING CORPORATION), PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES SERGIO P. BAYLON AND MARITESS VILLENA-BAYLON, BG HAULER, INC., AND MANUEL Y. ESTILLOSO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 188365 : June 29, 2011] BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., PETITIONER, VS. PRYCE GASES, INC., INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION, AND NEDERLANDSE FINANCIERINGS-MAATSCHAPPIJ VOOR ONTWIKKELINGSLANDEN N.V., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 148483 : June 29, 2011] BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, PETITIONER, VS. ORIENT COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, JOSE C. GO, GEORGE C. GO, VICENTE C. GO, GOTESCO PROPERTIES, INC., GO TONG ELECTRICAL SUPPLY INC., EVER EMPORIUM, INC., EVER GOTESCO RESOURCES AND HOLDINGS INC., GOTESCO TYAN MING DEVELOPMENT INC., EVERCREST CEBU GOLF CLUB AND RESORTS, INC., NASUGBU RESORTS INC., GMCC UNITED DEVELOPMENT CORP., GULOD RESORT, INC., OK STAR, EVER PLAZA, INC. AND EVER ELECTRICAL MFG., INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 183564 : June 29, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. LUCRESIO ESPINA, APPELLANT.