Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2011 > June 2011 Decisions > [G.R. No. 194836 : June 15, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.:




FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 194836 : June 15, 2011]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

D E C I S I O N


VELASCO JR., J.:

The Case

This is an appeal from the July 21, 2010 Decision [1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03800 entitled People of the Philippines v. Arnold Castro y Yanga which affirmed the January 6, 2009 Decision [2] in Criminal Cases Nos. Q-04-125048-9 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 103 in Quezon City. The RTC found accused Arnold Castro y Yanga (Castro) guilty of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The Facts

Criminal Case No. Q-04-125048 pertains to the Information filed against Castro for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the accusatory portion of which reads:

That on or about the 26th day of February, 2004 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused not being authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did, then and there, wil[l]fully, and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction, 0.03 (zero point zero three) gram of white crystalline substance containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride[,] a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW. [3]

On the other hand, in Criminal Case No. Q-04-125049, Castro was charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, as follows:

That on or about the 26th day of February, 2004 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused not being authorized by law to possess or use any dangerous drug, did, then and there, wil[l]fully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his/her possession and control 0.07 (zero point zero seven) gram of white crystalline substance containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride[,] a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW. [4]

On arraignment, Castro pleaded "not guilty" to both charges. [5] Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.

During trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of two (2) police witnesses, namely: P/Insp. Jaime Armenta (P/Insp. Armenta) and PO2 Napoleon Zamora (PO2 Zamora). [6] On the other hand, the defense presented the testimonies of Amalia Infante, Amor Castro, and the accused himself. [7]

The Prosecution's Version of Facts 

On February 26, 2004, at around 1:00 a.m., P/Insp. Armenta and PO2 Zamora, members of the Galas Police Station, received a report from a male informant that a certain alias "Idol" had been illegally selling drugs along Cordillera and Ramirez Streets in Brgy. San Isidro, Quezon City. [8] P/Insp. Armenta immediately relayed the said report to their chief, Col. Robert Razon (Col. Razon). [9]

Consequently, Col. Razon formed a buy-bust operation team, composed of more than four (4) policemen, which included P/Insp. Armenta and PO2 Zamora. [10] P/Insp. Armenta was designated as the poseur-buyer and was given a one hundred peso bill as the buy-bust money, which he marked with his initials "JA". [11] P/Insp. Armenta was also the one who prepared and sent a Pre-Operation Report [12] to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper coordination. [13]

The buy-bust team was dispatched in two (2) private vehicles to Brgy. San Isidro, Quezon City. [14] It arrived at the area of operation at around 2:00 a.m. Both P/Insp. Armenta and the confidential informant walked towards an eskinita with a distance of more than ten (10) meters. [15] PO2 Zamora saw them talk to another person, who turned out to be Castro, near a lighted Meralco post. [16]

The confidential informant introduced P/Insp. Armenta to Castro as a prospective buyer of shabu. [17] Thereafter, Castro asked P/Insp. Armenta how much, to which the latter responded "piso", which meant Php100.00. [18] P/Insp. Armenta then handed the one hundred peso buy-bust money to Castro. [19] The latter, in turn, gave him a transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance that he pulled out from his pocket. [20]

Afterwards, P/Insp. Armenta scratched his head to signal to his team members that the transaction was already consummated. [21] Accordingly, the buy-bust team immediately closed in and arrested Castro. PO2 Zamora informed Castro of his violation, frisked him and recovered from his pocket two (2) more transparent plastic sachets of white crystalline substance, as well as the marked money. [22]

P/Insp. Armenta took custody of the transparent plastic sachet that Castro sold to him, while PO2 Zamora kept the marked money and the two (2) other plastic sachets which he recovered. [23] When they reached their office, P/Insp. Armenta marked the transparent plastic sachet in his custody with his initials and the initials of Castro (JA-AC). [24] PO2 Zamora also marked the two (2) other sachets with his initials and also that of Castro's (NZ-AC). [25] The three (3) transparent plastic sachets were then turned over to the investigator, police officer Alexander Jimenez, who prepared and submitted a letter-request for analysis. [26]

Forensic Chemist/Police Inspector Leonard T. Arban of the PNP Crime Laboratory made a chemical analysis on the seized items. [27] In his Chemistry Report No. D-226-04, he confirmed that the three (3) transparent plastic sachets were positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride. [28]

Version of the Defense

Castro claimed that on February 24, 2004, at around 9:00 p.m., he was taking a rest in front of their house at No. 92 Union Sibika St., Galas, Quezon City when a Quezon City Police mobile car suddenly parked in front of him. [29] Four (4) men alighted, forced him to board the patrol car, and brought him to the Galas Police Station, where a plastic sachet was shown to him. [30] After Castro denied ownership of the said plastic sachet, a police officer then allegedly told him that he would be released only if he had money. [31]

To corroborate Castro's claim, his neighbor, Amalia Infante, testified that while she was walking along Mindanao St. at around 9:00 p.m. on February 24, 2004, she saw that Castro was surrounded by four (4) men. [32] They were about 15 to 20 meters away from her. [33] Despite her curiosity, she, however, went straight to the bakery to buy bread for her son. [34]

Castro's father, Amor Castro, also testified that on February 24, 2004, at around 9:00 p.m., he was watching television with his other children when he heard the sound of a car engine in front of his house. [35] When he looked outside, he saw four (4) men in civilian clothes putting his son, Castro, inside a police mobile car. [36] These men then told him to follow them at the Galas Police Station. [37] When he arrived at the police station, Castro told him that PO2 Zamora was allegedly demanding Php30,000.00 for his release. [38] He also claimed that Castro was plying his route as a tricycle driver on February 26, 2004. [39]

Ruling of the Trial Court

After trial, the RTC, on January 6, 2009, convicted Castro. The dispositive portion of its Decision reads:

ACCORDINGLY, judgment is rendered finding the accused ARNOLD CASTRO y Yanga GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the two offenses of which he is charged at bench, and he is hereby sentenced as follows:

I. In Q-04-125048 the accused is sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT for violation of Section 5, of RA 9165 (drug-pushing) as charged, and ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00; and

II. In Q-04-125049 the same accused is sentenced to suffer a jail term of 12 years and 1 day, as minimum to 13 years, as maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000.00 for violating Section 11, R.A. 9165 (possession).

The three (3) plastic sachets of shabu in these two cases are ordered transmitted to the PDEA thru DDB for proper disposal as per RA 9165.

In the court's personal opinion, the accused Arnold y Castro should only be found guilty of one (1) crime of drugpushing and not possession in addition, for his possession of the two other sachets appears to be sachets that he intended to sell to others. Nonetheless, since the Supreme Court has a contrary opinion in decided cases, this court cannot do anything but follow and obey that Supreme Court doctrine for as long as it has not been changed.

SO ORDERED. [40]

On appeal to the CA, Castro questioned the lower court's Decision in convicting him notwithstanding the prosecution's alleged failure to preserve the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti of the offenses charged, and its supposed failure to prove his guilt with moral certainty. [41]

Ruling of the Appellate Court

On July 21, 2010, the CA affirmed the judgment of the lower court. It ruled that both the sale and possession of illegal drugs were adequately established by the prosecution. It noted that Castro was caught in flagrante delicto in selling shabu to P/Insp. Armenta during the buy-bust operation and that he was also caught in possession of two (2) other sachets of shabu in his pocket. [42]

The CA also held that the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and respect because the trial judge has the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not. [43] Further, the CA ruled that the chain of custody of the seized prohibited drugs was shown not to have been broken as the handling of the sachets was free of any physical distortion. [44]

The fallo of the CA Decision reads:

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated January 6, 2009 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. [45]

On August 5, 2010, Castro filed his Notice of Appeal of even date. [46]

In Our Resolution dated January 26, 2011, [47] We notified the parties that they may file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desire, within thirty (30) days from notice. On March 21, 2011, Castro manifested that he will no longer file a supplemental brief as the assigned errors and issues have already been thoroughly discussed in his Brief for the Accused-Appellant dated October 20, 2009. [48] Similarly, the People of the Philippines, on March 30, 2011, manifested that it is no longer filing a supplemental brief considering that all the issues raised by Castro have been exhaustively discussed in its Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee dated February 18, 2010. [49]

The Issues

Castro contends in his Brief that:

I

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY AND IDENTITY OF THE CORPUS DELICTI OF THE OFFENSES CHARGED.

II

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED WHEN HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN WITH MORAL CERTAINTY.

Our Ruling

We sustain Castro's conviction.

Chain of Custody Established

Castro contends that that the prosecution patently failed to preserve the integrity of the seized items and to establish an unbroken chain of custody. [50] He claims that the police officer who had initial contact with the seized articles failed to observe the proper procedure in its handling and custody. [51] He insists that under Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, the apprehending team having initial control of the seized items should immediately after seizure or confiscation, have the same physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused, if there be any, and/or his representative, who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. [52]

He further asserts that the dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction, thus, it is essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt. [53]

Undeniably, in every prosecution for illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the presentation in evidence of the seized drug, as an integral part of the corpus delicti, is most material. [54] It is therefore vital that the identity of the prohibited drug be proved with moral certainty. [55] Also, the fact that the substance bought or seized during the buy-bust operation is the same item offered in court as exhibit must be established with the same degree of certitude. [56]  It is in this respect that the chain of custody requirement performs its function, that is, to ensure that all unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. [57]

Contrary to the claim of Castro, the chain of custody of the seized prohibited drugs was adequately established in the case at bar. As aptly observed by the CA:

Here, appellant was brought to the police station immediately after the illegal drugs and marked money were seized from him. The confiscated substances were marked accordingly, turned over to investigator PO Alexander Jimenez, and submitted to the PNP crime laboratory for analysis. Forensic chemist Arban tested the substances and after finding them positive for shabu, issued his chemistry report also on February 26, 2004, or within 24 hours after confiscation of the items. Thus, the trial court correctly upheld the admissibility of the seized items upon its finding that handling of the sachets was free of any physical distortion. [58]

Admittedly, testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. [59] Nonetheless, what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. [60]

Pertinently, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 on the handling and disposition of seized dangerous drugs is clear on this matter, thus:

SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. - The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items x x x.  (Emphasis supplied.)

Based on the above-quoted provision, the custodial chain rule is not to be rigorously applied provided "the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team". [61]  Consequently, the purported procedural infirmities harped on by Castro concerning the custody, photographing, inventory and marking of the seized items do not in any manner affect the prosecution of the instant case. Neither do the alleged infirmities render Castro's arrest illegal nor the items seized from him inadmissible.

Castro, however, further contends that "in order to properly establish, with moral certainty, the chain of custody, it is the prosecution's duty to show that in every link of the chain - from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence - there was no contamination or an opportunity to alter the object evidence." [62]

We disagree. In the recent case of People v. Quiamanlon, this Court held that "the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with." [63]

Concomitantly, it is Castro who bears the burden to make some showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers, as well as a presumption that said public officers properly discharged their duties. [64] Since Castro failed to discharge such burden, it cannot be disputed that the drugs seized from him were the same ones examined in the crime laboratory. The prosecution, therefore, established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized drugs.

Proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt adequately established

After a careful examination of the records of this case, this Court is satisfied that the prosecution's evidence established Castro's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

It is hornbook doctrine that the factual findings of the CA affirming those of the trial court are binding on this Court unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error. [65] In People v. Lusabio, Jr., this Court held:

All in all, we find the evidence of the prosecution to be more credible than that adduced by accused-appellant. When it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. The reason is obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate testimonial evidence properly. [66] (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)

Since Castro failed to show any palpable error, arbitrariness, or capriciousness on the findings of fact of the lower courts, the same deserve great weight and are deemed conclusive and binding.

In the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. [67] Significantly, what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence. [68]

In the instant case, P/Insp. Armenta, the poseur-buyer, clearly testified on the first element, thus:

FISCAL ARAULA
Q
You said you were one of the members of the group that composed the team, in your particular way what will be your role?
WITNESS (P/INSP. ARMENTA)
A
Poseur buyer.
Q
Being a poseur buyer, what Col. Razon informed (sic) you?
A
He provided P100 to be used on the buy bust operation.
xxx
Q
Upon receiving that buy bust money, what did you do to that buy bust money?
A
I put my initial JA on the right portion of the money.
Q
Showing to you the photocopy of the buy bust money, what can you say?
A
This is the machine copy.
Q
Why do you say that is the machine copy, tell me why did you say that this is the buy bust money you received?
A
Because of my initial (sic).
xxx
Q
You said after the briefing Col. Razon gave you the money, what happened after that?
A
We were on board the private vehicle and we proceeded to the place.
Q
How many vehicles did you use?
A
Two, sir.
Q
What time was that?
A
Past 2:00, sir.
Q
What time your group arrived (sic) on (sic) barangay Cordillera St.?
A
About 4:00 o'clock a.m.
Q
Upon arrival on (sic) that area, what happened then?
A
Our informant introduced to me a male person identified as alias Idol.
Q
In what particular place were you introduced?
A
Near the lighted Meralco post.
Q
Was he alone at the time?
A
Yes, sir.
Q
Were there other persons in the area?
A
Very rare, sir.
Q
How about your companions?
A
They positioned themselves away that can view me.
xxx
Q
The person you named Idol is present in the courtroom, can you identify that person?
A
Yes, sir.
Q
Please tap his shoulder? (sic)
INTERPRETER
Witness tapped the shoulder of a person inside the courtroom who identified himself as ARNOLD CASTRO.
Q
By the way you said you received the transparent sachet coming from the accused in this case, if that transparent sachet will be shown to you can you identify that?
A
Yes, sir.
Q
Showing to you the transparent sachet, what can you say to that. (sic) Among the 3 sachets, can you identify the sachet you received from the accused?
A
This is the one.
Q
Why do you say?
A
Because of my initial JA-AC.
xxx
Q
You testified a while ago that you scratch (sic) your head as a pre-arranged signal, upon scratching your head what happened?
A
The rest of the team rush (sic) to our place and effect the arrest of the accused. [69]

As regards the second element, P/Insp. Armenta also testified on the material details of the buy-bust operation. Particularly:

Q
You said you were introduced to the person named Idol, how did this informant of yours introduced you to the subject?
A
He said to Idol that I am going to buy shabu.
Q
What was the answer of Idol at that time?
A
He asked me how I will (sic) going to buy.
Q
What was your answer?
A
Piso for P100.00
Q
What was the action then?
A
He asked [for] the money.
Q
Did you give the money?
A
Yes, sir.
Q
After that?
A
He placed it on (sic) his pocket and he took on (from) the same pocket the transparent sachet.
Q
What did he do to the plastic sachet?
A
He gave it to me.
Q
And what did you do?
A
I received it and I made a signal to my companion. [70]

As the poseur-buyer, P/Insp. Armenta positively identified Castro during trial as the seller of the illegal drugs. He also testified that, using the marked money, he paid for the object of the crime, i.e., the shabu that was handed to him by Castro. Notably, the testimony of P/Insp. Armenta was substantially corroborated by PO2 Zamora.

With respect to the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, the evidence of the prosecution has sufficiently established the elements thereof, to wit: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. [71]

Pertinently, possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession. [72] As a consequence, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi. [73] In the case at bar, Castro miserably failed to discharge such burden.

When Castro was arrested upon the conclusion of the buy-bust operation, PO2 Zamora bodily frisked him and was able to recover not only the buy-bust money, but two (2) transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance as well. As testified by PO2 Zamora:

FISCAL ARAULA
Q
When you accosted him, what happened, [M]r. [W]itness?
WITNESS (PO2 ZAMORA)
A
We introduced ourselves as police officers[,] sir.
xxx
Q
After that what happened, [M]r. [W]itness?
A
I bodily frisked the person[,] sir.
Q
What is the result [M]r. [W]itness?
A
I was able to recover the buy bust money sir.
Q
What part of the body, [M]r. [W]itness?
A
Left front pocket[,] sir.
Q
Other than that, what else, [M]r. [W]itness?
A
Two small transparent plastic sachet[s], [M]r. [W]itness? (sic)
Q
If that transparent plastic sachet you recovered will be shown to you, can you identify the same, [M]r. [W]itness?
A
Yes[,] sir.
Q
Why, [M]r. [W]itness?
A
Because of the marking[,] sir.
Q
What is the markings (sic), [M]r. [W]itness?
A
NZ-AC sir. [74]

Significantly, the owner-possessor of said sachets can be no other than Castro, who has neither shown any proof of the absence of animus possidendi nor presented any evidence that would show that he was duly authorized by law to possess them during the buy-bust operation, thus leading to no other conclusion than that Castro is equally liable for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165.

Denial as an Inherently Weak Defense

A bare denial is an inherently weak defense [75] and has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can be easily concocted but difficult to prove, and is a common standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of RA 9165. [76]

Concomitantly, this Court has held in several cases that "denials unsubstantiated by convincing evidence are not enough to engender reasonable doubt particularly where the prosecution presents sufficiently telling proof of guilt," [77] as in the case at bar.

As against P/Insp. Armenta's positive identification of Castro as the seller of the sachet containing the white crystalline substance eventually confirmed to be a dangerous drug, Castro's denial is perceptibly self-serving and has little weight in law.

Also, it is of note that the testimonies of Amalia Infante and Amor Castro failed to corroborate the testimony of Castro as they both failed to witness the event from the time the police arrived at the scene leading to the arrest of Castro.

Further, in the absence of any intent on the part of the police authorities to falsely impute such crime against the accused, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty should stand. [78]

In view of the foregoing, We uphold the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and find that the prosecution has discharged its burden of proving the guilt of Castro beyond reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03800 finding accused-appellant Arnold Castro y Yanga guilty of the crimes charged is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin,** Del Castillo, and Perez, JJ., concur.
Velasco, Jr., (Acting Chairperson),*

Endnotes:


* Per Special Order No. 1003 dated June 8, 2011.

** Additional member per Special Order No. 1000 dated June 8, 2011.

[1] Rollo, pp. 2-13. Penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and concurred in by Associate Justices Rebecca de Guia-Salvador and Sesinando E. Villon.

[2] CA rollo, pp. 19-24. Penned by Presiding Judge Jaime N. Salazar, Jr.

[3] CA rollo, p. 15.

[4] CA rollo, p. 17.

[5] Rollo, p. 3.

[6] CA rollo, p. 20.

[7] CA rollo, p. 21.

[8] Rollo, pp. 3-4.

[9] Rollo, p. 4.

[10] Rollo, p. 4.

[11] Rollo, p. 4.

[12] This Pre-Operation Report was given control number PDEA No. C-250204; rollo, p. 4.

[13] Rollo, p. 4.

[14] Rollo, p. 4.

[15] CA rollo, p. 20.

[16] Rollo, p. 4.

[17] Rollo, p. 4.

[18] Rollo, p. 4.

[19] Rollo, pp. 4-5.

[20] Rollo, pp. 4-5.

[21] CA rollo, p. 20.

[22] Rollo, p. 5.

[23] Rollo, p. 5.

[24] Rollo, p. 5.

[25] Rollo, p. 5.

[26] Rollo, p. 5.

[27] Rollo, p. 5.

[28] Rollo, p. 5.

[29] Rollo, p. 6.

[30] Rollo, p. 6.

[31] Rollo, p. 6.

[32] Rollo, p. 6.

[33] Rollo, p. 6.

[34] Rollo, p. 6.

[35] CA rollo, p. 22.

[36] CA rollo, p. 22.

[37] Rollo, p. 6.

[38] Rollo, p. 6.

[39] Rollo, pp. 6-7.

[40] CA rollo, pp. 23-24.

[41] CA rollo, p. 36.

[42] Rollo, p. 12.

[43] Rollo, p. 12.

[44] Rollo, p. 11.

[45] Rollo, pp. 12-13.

[46] Rollo, pp. 14-15.

[47] Rollo, pp. 19-20.

[48] Rollo, pp. 21-23.

[49] Rollo, pp. 29-30.

[50] CA rollo, pp. 43-44.

[51] CA rollo, p. 44.

[52] CA rollo, p. 45.

[53] CA rollo, p. 43.

[54] People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, January 26, 2011 citing People v. Doria, G.R. No. 125299, January 22, 1999, 301 SCRA 668, 718.

[55] People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, January 26, 2011 citing People v. Cortez, G.R. No. 183819, July 23, 2009, 593 SCRA 743, 762.

[56] People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, January 26, 2011 citing People v. Cortez, G.R. No. 183819, July 23, 2009, 593 SCRA 743, 762.

[57] People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, January 26, 2011 citing People v. Cortez, G.R. No. 183819, July 23, 2009, 593 SCRA 743, 762 citing Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 632.

[58] Rollo, p. 11.

[59] People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, January 26, 2011 citing People v. Cortez, G.R. No. 183819, July 23, 2009, 593 SCRA 743, 763.

[60] People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, January 26, 2011.

[61] People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, January 26, 2011.

[62] CA rollo, p. 47.

[63] People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, January 26, 2011 citing People v. Ventura, G.R. No. 184957, October 27, 2009, 604 SCRA 543, 562.

[64] People v. Ventura, G.R. No. 184957, October 27, 2009, 604 SCRA 543, 562.

[65] Fuentes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109849, February 26, 1997, 268 SCRA 703, 708-709.

[66] G.R. No. 186119, October 27, 2009, 604 SCRA 565, 590.

[67] People v. Alberto, G.R. No. 179717, February 5, 2010, 611 SCRA 706, 713 citing People v. Dumlao, G.R. No. 181599, August 20, 2008, 562 SCRA 762, 770.

[68] People v. Alberto, G.R. No. 179717, February 5, 2010, 611 SCRA 706, 713 citing People v. Dumlao, G.R. No. 181599, August 20, 2008, 562 SCRA 762, 770.

[69] TSN, December 13, 2004, pp. 6-15.

[70] TSN, December 13, 2004, pp. 11-13.

[71] People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 177777, December 4, 2009, 607 SCRA 377, 390-391 citing People v. Pringas, G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828, 846.

[72] People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, January 26, 2011 citing Buenaventura v. People, G.R. No.171578, August 8, 2007, 529 SCRA 500, 513.

[73] People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, January 26, 2011 citing Buenaventura v. People, G.R. No. 171578, August 8, 2007, 529 SCRA 500, 513.

[74] TSN, March 20, 2006, pp. 14-17.

[75] People v. Dulay, G.R. No. 150624, February 24, 2004, 423 SCRA 652, 662 citing People v. Arlee, G.R. No. 113518, January 25, 2000, 323 SCRA 201, 214.

[76] People v. Barita, G.R. No. 123541, February 8, 2000, 325 SCRA 22, 38.

[77] People v. Eugenio, G.R. No. 146805, January 16, 2003, 395 SCRA 317, 326 citing People v. Del Mundo, GR No. 138929, October 2, 2001, 366 SCRA 471.

[78] People v. Cruz, G.R. No. 185381, December 16, 2009, 608 SCRA 350, 369.



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.