Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > April 2016 Decisions > G.R. No. 216010, April 20, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JIMMY ULANDAY @ "SAROY", Accused-Appellants.:




G.R. No. 216010, April 20, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JIMMY ULANDAY @ "SAROY", Accused-Appellants.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 216010, April 20, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JIMMY ULANDAY @ "SAROY", Accused-Appellants.

D E C I S I O N

PEREZ, J.:

For review is the May 23, 2014 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05692 which affirmed with modifications the June 28, 2012 Judgment2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 69, in Lingayen, Pangasinan, finding appellant Jimmy Ulanday guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.

The Antecedents

The appellant was charged in an Information3 dated June 13, 2011, whose accusatory portion reads as follows:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
"That sometime in the evening of March 11, 2011 in Brgy. Tampac, Aguilar, Pangasinan[,] and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs, armed with a knife, with force and intimidation, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously drag [XYZ]4 to a dark portion at the back portion of their house and thereafter removed her short pants and panty and have sexual intercourse with her, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.

Contrary to Article 266-A, par. [1] (a) of the Revised Penal Code."
A warrant was issued by the Executive Judge and the appellant was arrested on August 17, 2011.5 When arraigned, the appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. During the pre-trial conference, the prosecution and the defense stipulated on the identity of the parties; the existence of the medico-legal certificate of XYZ dated May 16, 2011 issued by Dr. Maria Gwendolyn Luna (Dr. Luna); and the existence of the certification of the entry in the police blotter of Philippine National Police (PNP), Aguilar Police Station, Pangasinan regarding the rape incident.6

Thereafter, trial ensued with the prosecution presenting the following witnesses: XYZ, the victim herself; BBB, half-sister of XYZ; and Dr. Luna, the attending physician at Region I Medical Center, Dagupan City who examined XYZ. On the other hand, only the appellant testified for the defense.

The facts of the case, as summarized by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and adopted by the appellate court, are as follows:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
"On the night of 11 March 2011, [XYZ], twenty-four (24) years old, sat beside the living room window near the main door of her family's house. She looked out the window and watched the dance party which was going on outside their house.

Out of nowhere, [appellant], armed with a knife, entered [XYZ's] house, pulled her out and dragged her towards the house of [her] neighbor, [AAA].

Although she does not know [appellant], [XYZ] was able to identify him because she has seen him before playing tong-its in the gambling area near [her] house.

[Appellant] brought [XYZ] at the back of [AAA's] house. No one was inside [AAA's] house and it was dark.

Once inside [AAA's] house, [appellant] immediately overpowered [XYZ]. He leaned [XYZ] against the wall and removed her pants and underwear. Thereafter, [appellant] pulled down his zipper. [Appellant] then covered [XYZ's] mouth using his left hand and pointed a knife against her face using his right hand. After, despite their standing position, [appellant] spread [XYZ's] legs, inserted his penis into her vagina and proceeded to rape [her]. During the entire assault, [appellant] poked his knife against [XYZ's] face.

After committing his dastardly act, [appellant] returned [XYZ's] pants and underwear. [XYZ] then went back home and slept.

A few months later, in May, [XYZ] got the courage to tell her mother what happened. After, [XYZ], accompanied by her mother, reported the crime committed against her to the police."7ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
BBB testified that on May 10, 2011, she and XYZ were summoned by CCC, their uncle, to his house. There, and in the presence of several persons namely: XYZ, BBB, CCC and appellant's nephew, Marvin Ulanday (Marvin), the appellant openly admitted that he had sexual intercourse with XYZ.8 After his confession, the appellant was mauled by the males then present.9 Thereafter, the appellant went into hiding.10

According to BBB, XYZ did not disclose the rape incident to anyone because of fear, having been threatened by the appellant that he will kill her if she did. During BBB's direct examination, the parties agreed to stipulate that XYZ was suffering from a physical disability particularly a limp due to polio.

When called to the witness stand, Dr. Luna attested that she conducted an anogenital examination of XYZ on May 16, 2011. She found XYZ to have had old, healed, deep lacerations in her hymen at 4, 6 and 7 o' clock positions.11 Dr. Luna explained that the lacerations could have been caused by the insertion of an object into the vagina, possibly a finger or an erect penis.12 Dr. Luna then reiterated the impression stated in her medico-legal report that her findings cannot totally rule out the possibility of sexual abuse.13

The defense offered a different version of the incident, as summarized by the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) in its Brief, to wit:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
On March 11, 2011, [appellant] was in Brgy. Kuako, Pangasinan, watching a wedding dance party when he first met [XYZ] who was [then] seated inside their house also watching tine dance party through their window. [XYZ] then called [appellant's] attention and when he approached her, they had a conversation over the window. During their conversation, [appellant] noticed that [XYZ] was not alone in the house as there are about five (5) other persons living with her. Their conversation lasted for about an hour until he was called by his cousin Eddie Ulanday to go home. He immediately slept upon arriving thereat.

[DDD], uncle[s] of [XYZ], while he was on his way to Poblacion riding his motorcycle. He was being accused by them of raping [XYZ], and when he denied having done the same, they mauled him.

Appellant vehemently denie[d] having made an admission of raping [XYZ] in the house of the latter's uncle, [CCC].14

After trial, the RTC convicted the appellant of rape in its judgment of June 28, 2012. The dispositive portion of its judgment reads:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds the accused Jimmy Ulanday GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay [XYZ] the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages.

SO ORDERED.15ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The appellant appealed to the CA on a sole assigned error that the trial court erred in finding that his guilt for the crime charged has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The CA affirmed the judgment of the RTC with the following modifications: (a) declared the appellant ineligible for parole; (b) ordered the appellant to pay XYZ exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00; and (c) imposed six percent (6%) interest per annum on all awarded damages reckoned from the date of finality of this decision until fully paid.16

Undeterred, the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal17 and the records of the case were elevated to the Court. In the resolution of February 23, 2015, the Court required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desire, within thirty (30) days from notice. Both parties opted not to file one as they had already exhaustively and extensively discussed all the matters and issues of this case in the briefs earlier submitted with the CA. Hence, in this appeal, the Court will rule on the lone assignment of error made by the appellant in his brief before the CA, to wit:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.18ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The Court's Ruling

After a circumspect review of the records, the Court affirms the conviction of the appellant.

To be convicted of rape under Article 266-A paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, the requisite elements are: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that he accomplished this act through force, threat, or intimidation; when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or when she was under twelve (12) years of age or was demented.

The Court finds that the prosecution sufficiently established the presence of these elements in the instant case.

With certainty, XYZ positively identified the appellant as the person who forced himself on her in the evening of March 11, 2011. She never wavered in her identification and was straightforward in recounting of how the appellant used force, threat and intimidation to satisfy his lust. This much can be gathered from her testimony in court, to wit:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
x x x x
Q:
When [appellant] entered the house, was that your first time to see him?
A:
No, your Honor.
Q:
So where have you met him before?
A:
In the gambling, your Honor.
Q:
So you mean, in your place near your house there's a gambling then?
A:
Yes, your Honor.
Q:
And it is usually at night time?
A:
Yes, your Honor.
Q:
What kind of game?
A:
Tong-its, your Honor.
Q:
You said you saw the [appellant] before, was he one of the participants in that tong-its game?
A:
Yes, your Honor.
Q:
How many times have you seen him before the date of the incident, many limes or whatever, many times?
A:
Yes, your Honor.
x x x x
Q:
What made you say that it was the accused who enter[ed] your house and eventually rape[d] you?
A:
It was really he, your Honor.
Q:
What made you say that [it] was him when it was dark at that time?
A:
Because he first entered our house, your Honor.
Q:
When he entered your house, was there a light in your house?
A:
Yes, your Honor.
Q:
Did you see his face?
A:
Yes, your Honor.
x x x x
PROS. CATUNGAL:
Your Honor, I just like to manifest that during the course of trial every time that the name of the accused is being mentioned the witness points to a person seated at the accused bench.
COURT:
And when asked his name.
INTERPRETER:
And when asked his name he responded Jimmy Ulanday.
COURT:
Alright.
x x x x
Q:
What did [appellant do] when he entered your house on March 11 [2011] in the evening while you were watching this dance party?
A:
[Appellant] entered [our house] armed with a knife and pulled me, sir.
Q:
[Where] did [appellant] pull you?
A:
In [an unlighted area at the back of]19 the house of our neighbor, sir.
x x x x
Q:
What did [appellant] do when he was able to pull you out?
A:
[Appellant] removed my pants, he removed my parity and then he covered my mouth and he poked a knife, sir.
Q:
When [appellant] was pulling and removing your parity and your pants, did you not shout for help?
A:
No, because he covered my mouth and 1 can hardly breath, sir.
Q:
By the way Madam witness, you said [appellant] was holding a knife, what did he do with the knife?
A:
[Appellant] poked [the knife] towards my face, sir.
x x x x
Q:
Were he able to remove your panty and your pants?
A:
Yes, sir.
Q:
Did you not make any struggle against his act?
A:
I tried, sir.
Q:
But he was able to over power you?
A:
Yes, sir.
x x x x
Q:
And after [removing] your panty and your pants, what did he do?
x x x x
A:
[Appellant] inserted his penis, sir.
Q:
How did [appellant] inserted] his penis Madam witness?
A:
By spreading my legs part ways, sir.
Q:
Then? What was your position at [the] time the [appellant] inserted his penis in your vagina?
A:
Still on [the] standing position leaning on something, your Honor.
Q:
How about the [appellant] what was his position?
A:
[Appellant] was in front of me, your Honor.
Q:
And what did he do with his clothing?
A:
[Appellant] was wearing short pants, your Honor.
Q:
How did he insert then his penis when he was wearing a short pant?
A:
With a zipper, your Honor, he pulled down the zipper, your Honor.
x x x x
Q:
So you mean he just opened the zipper and put out the penis?
A:
Yes, your Honor.
Q:
Were you able to see the penis?
A:
No, your Honor[,] because it was very dark then.
Q:
Did you feel it?
A:
Yes, your Honor.
Q:
How did you feel when the penis was inserted to your vagina?
A:
Painful, I felt pain, sir.
Q:
Was that the first time that a penis was inserted into your vagina?
A:
Yes, your Honor.
Q:
How long was the penis inserted to your vagina?
A:
Just a few minutes, your Honor.
x x x x
Q:
Did you not tell any of your relative of what happened to you?
A:
No, because of fear, I'm afraid of [appellant], sir.
Q:
Why are you afraid of him Madam witness?
A:
[Appellant] was armed with a knife, sir.
Q:
Did he utter any statement to you?
A:
Yes, your Honor.
Q:
What did he say?
A:
That he is going to kill me, your Honor.
Q:
How many times did [appellant] say that?
A:
Once only, your Honor.
Q:
Was that after [appellant] raped you or before raping you?
A:
After he rapefd] me, your Honor.
x x x x20
Both the trial and appellate courts upheld the credibility of XYZ and accorded credence to her testimony. As recognized in a long line of cases, a rape victim would not charge her attacker at all and thereafter exposed herself to the inevitable stigma and indignities her accusation will entail unless what she asserts is the truth for it is her natural instinct to protect her honor.21 There is no showing that XYZ was impelled by improper motives to impute to the appellant such a grave and scandalous offense.

Further, well-settled is the rule that factual findings of the trial courts are generally given full weight, credit and utmost respect on appeal especially when such findings are supported by substantial evidence on record.22 Here, XYZ's claim of sexual abuse was corroborated by the medical finding of healed hymenal lacerations. Considering that the trial court did not overlook any material or relevant matter that could have altered the outcome of the case, the Court sees no compelling reason to deviate from the factual findings and conclusions drawn by the courts below.

In a final attempt to exonerate himself, the appellant tried to discredit the testimonies of prosecution witnesses by pointing out certain alleged inconsistencies and loopholes in their statements.

First, the defense raised XYZ's confusion as to the location of the door through which the appellant dragged her out of the house. Her difficulty in giving the precise location of said door, whether it is located in the living room or kitchen, is a trivial matter and not enough to negate the fact that forced coitus did happen. Victim of rape is not expected to have an accurate or errorless recollection of the traumatic experience that was so humiliating and painful, that she might, in fact, be trying to obliterate it from her memory.23 For that reason, minor lapses or inconsistencies in the rape victim's testimony cannot be a ground to destroy her credibility or more so, serve as basis for appellant's acquittal.24

Second, the defense argued that XYZ's claim that she was threatened with a knife was doubtful because of the latter's admission that during the rape, she did not actually see the knife nor did she sustain any injury therefrom. A review of XYZ's testimony shows that she clearly saw the appellant with the knife when he stormed into her well-lighted house. At knife point, the appellant dragged XYZ out of her house and brought to her neighbor's. XYZ categorically stated that she felt the very same knife, which was then positioned near her face, the entire time the appellant was having sexual intercourse with her.

With respect to the argument that XYZ did not suffer any injury resulting from the use of a deadly weapon, the Court in People of the Philippines v. Esperas25 had this to say: "the presence of injuries is not vital to establishing the guilt of the appellant. The alleged absence of external injuries on the victim does not detract from the fact that rape was committed. Even, assuming arguendo that there were no signs of other bodily injuries, the occurrence of rape is still not negated, since their absence is not an essential element of the crime."

Third, the defense also questioned XYZ's conduct after the alleged rape incident. In particular, the defense highlighted that XYZ merely went home, slept and failed to immediately report her ordeal to family and the authorities, and contended that such behavior seemed very unnatural for someone who just went through a harrowing experience. Victims respond differently to trauma and there is no standard form of behavioral response when persons suffer from one.26 The Court in People of the Philippines v. Saludo27 made this ratiocination, viz: "[n]ot every victim of rape can be expected to act with reason or in conformity with the usual expectations of everyone. The workings of a human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable; people react differently. Some may shout, some may faint, while others may be shocked into insensibility. And although the conduct of the victim immediately following the alleged sexual assault is of utmost importance as it tends to establish the truth or falsity of the charge of rape, it is not accurate to say that there is a typical reaction or norm of behavior among rape victims, as not every victim can be expected to act conformaby with the usual expectation of mankind and there is no standard behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling experience, each situation being different and dependent on the various circumstances prevailing in each case." It also bears stressing that XYZ received a death threat from the appellant which instilled fear in her mind and logically explained why she did not immediately disclose her misfortune to her family and the authorities.

Fourth, the defense insisted that Dr. Luna's findings that the lacerations in XYZ's hymen were just five (5) days old belied the charge of rape which allegedly happened two (2) months before her examination. It reasoned that at most, the only thing Dr. Luna's testimony has proven was that XYZ had sexual intercourse and that it was not necessarily with the appellant.

In this regard, the Court quotes the relevant portion of Dr. Luna's testimony, which states:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
x x x x
Q:
Doctor you examined the victim when?
A:
May 16, 2011, your Honor.
Q:
When was she allegedly abused?
A:
March 11, 2011 [,] your Honor.
Q:
So after more or less how many days?
A:
Two (2) months, your Honor.28
x x x x
Q:
x x x [W]hat were your findings over the person of the said [XYZ]?
A:
My findings w[ere] centered on the an[o]genital examination and x x x on the genital area[,] they were old, healed, deep hym[e]nal laceration[s] at 4, 6 and 7 o'clock [positions], sir.
Q:
Relative to that word you said healed, was it freshly healed or old healed?
A:
It was an old laceration, sir.
Q:
And it ha[s] been how many months or days?
A:
Five (5) days or more, sir.29
x x x x
Q:
What does it signify] having an old healed lacerations?
A:
That the lacerations [could] have occurred about five (5) days or more before the examination, sir.
Q:
You mentioned that you were able to examine the victim after two (2) months?
A:
Yes, your Honor.
Q:
Could it be possible that she had contact before your examination?
A:
It is still possible, your Honor.
Q:
And it could still result to healed lacerations?
A:
Yes, your Honor.30
It would appear from the foregoing that the reasoning advanced by the defense was misplaced. The defense focused on Dr. Luna's estimate of five days old laceration completely disregarding the latter portion of her answer wherein she added "or more", in reply to the question propounded to her. The OSG was quick to point out in its brief that Dr. Luna's testimony simply means that the old lacerations were committed five (5) days or more prior to XYZ's examination.31 As such, the examining physician's declaration was actually consistent and supported XYZ's testimony that she was sexually assaulted on March 11, 2011.32

In any case, expert testimony like an examining physician is merely corroborative in character and not essential to conviction.33 In rape cases, the accused may be convicted on the basis of the sole uncorroborated testimony of the victim as long as said testimony is clear, positive and convincing.34 Here, XYZ's testimony passed the test of credibility and by itself, was sufficient to sustain the appellant's conviction.

The Court has ruled, time and again, that mere denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of a witness.35 The defense of denial is treated as a self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.36 For it to prosper, denial must be supported by strong and convincing evidence37 and this, the appellant failed to do in the instant case.

Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death as provided under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution was able to sufficiently allege in the information and establish during trial that a knife was used in the commission of rape. Considering that no aggravating or mitigating circumstance attended the commission of the crime, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed by the lower courts on the appellant. However, the CA, in its decision, added the qualification that the appellant shall be ineligible for parole pursuant to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346.38 In light of the attendant circumstances in the case at bar, there is no more need to append the phrase "without eligibility for parole" to appellant's prison term in line with the instructions given by the Court in A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC.39 Therefore, the dispositive portion of this decision should simply state that appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without any qualification.

Coming now to the pecuniary liabilities, an award of civil indemnity is mandatory upon a finding that rape took place,40 while moral damages are awarded to rape victims under the assumption that they suffered moral injuries from the ordeal they experienced in the hands of their assailants.41 The award of exemplary damages is justified under Article 2229 of the Civil Code to set a public example or correction for the public good.42 The recent case of People v. Jugueta43 increased the amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages to P75,000.00, P75,000.00 and P75,000.00, respectively. As such, the Court modifies the award of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages in the aforesaid amounts.

Lastly, the Court upholds the specification that all monetary awards shall bear an interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of decision until full payment thereof. Courts are given discretionary authority to levy interest as part of the damages for it is considered to be a natural and probable consequence of the acts of the accused complained of.44

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the May 23, 2014 Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05692. Appellant JIMMY ULANDAY @ "SAROY" is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape, and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to pay the victim XYZ the following: (a) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P75,000.00 as moral damages; (c) P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (d) interest of six percent (6%) per annum on all damages awarded from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary

Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Brion,* Peralta, and Reyes, JJ., concur.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Endnotes:


* Additional Member per Raffled dated March 21, 2016.

1 CA rollo pp. 77-90; penned by CA Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Edwin D. Sorongon.

2 Records pp. 81-95; penned by Judge Caridad V. Galvez.

3 Id. at 1.

4 Pursuant to the Court's ruling in People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419, the real name of the rape victim will not be disclosed. Similarly, the personal circumstances of the victim or any other information tending to establish or compromise the victim's identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members will be withheld. In this connection, fictitious initials are used to represent them. Here, the rape victim is referred to as XYZ; her half-sister, BBB; her neighbour, AAA; and her uncles, CCC and DDD.

5 Records, p. 29.

6 Id. at 47.

7 CA rollo, pp. 60-61.

8 TSN, December 6, 2011, testimony of BBB, pp. 4-6.

9 Id. at 8.

10 Id.

11 Records p. 19; May 16, 2011 Medico-Legal Report issued by Dr. Luna.

12 TSN, October 25, 2011, testimony of Dr. Luna, p. 5.

13 Id. at 6.

14 CA rollo, pp. 24-25; Appellant's Brief dated April 16, 2013.

15 Records, p. 95.

16 CA rollo, p. 89.

17 Id. at 91.

18 CA rollo, pp. 22 & 25.

19 TSN, November 3, 2011, testimony of XYZ, pp. 15 & 19.

20 Id. at 5-6, 20-30, 27, 7, 9-12, 18-19.

21People v. Cabel, 347 Phil. 82, 92 (1997).

22 G.R. No. 200920, People v. Esteban, June 9, 2014, 725 SCRA 517, 524.

23People v. Masapol, 463 Phil. 25, 33 (2003).

24People v. Perez, 673 Phil. 373, 382 (2011).cralawred

25People v. Esperas, 461 Phil. 700, 712 (2003).

26People v. Buates, 455 Phil. 688, 698 (2003).cralawred

27People v. Saludo, 662 Phil. 738, 758-759 (2011).

28 TSN, October 25, 2011, testimony of Dr. Luna, pp. 7-8.

29 Id. at 4-5.

30 Supra note 27 at 8.

31 CA rollo, p. 73; Appellee's Brief filed by the OSG dated August 22, 2013.

32 Id.

33People v. Balonzo, 560 Phil. 244, 259-260 (2007).

34 Id. at 260.

35People v. Hashim and Pansacala, 687 Phil. 516, 526 (2012).

36People v. Villacorta, 672 Phil. 712, 721 (2011).

37 G.R. No. 196228, People v. Besmonte, June 4, 2014, 725 SCRA 37, 56.

38 Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346 states that "[p]erson[s] convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended."

39 Section II of A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC (Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase "Without Eligibility for Parole" in Indivisible Penalties) states:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
x x x x

II.

In these lights, the following guidelines shall be observed in the imposition of penalties and in the use of the phrase "without eligibility for parole":
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(1) In cases where the death penalty is not warranted, there is no need to use the phrase "without eligibility for parole" to qualify the penalty of reclusion perpetua; it is understood that convicted persons penalized with an indivisible penalty are not eligible for parole; and

(2) When circumstances are present warranting the imposition of the death penalty, but this penalty is not imposed because of R.A. 9346, the qualification of "without eligibility for parole" shall be used to qualify reclusion perpetua in order to emphasize that the accused should have been sentenced to suffer the death penalty had it not been for R.A. No. 9346.
40 G.R. No. 203068, People v. Frias, September 18, 2013, 706 SCRA 156, 168.

41People v. Lascano and Delabajan, 685 Phil. 236, 245 (2012).

42 Supra note 40.

43 G.R. No. 202124, 5 April 2016.

44People v. Taguibuya, 674 Phil. 476, 483 (2011).



Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

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






April-2016 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 200302, April 20, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. GERRY LIPATA Y ORTIZA, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 222702, April 05, 2016 - RAPPLER, INC., Petitioner, v. ANDRES D. BAUTISTA, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10677, April 18, 2016 - RUDENIA L. TIBURDO, Complainant, v. ATTY. BENIGNO M. PUNO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195176, April 18, 2016 - THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., Petitioner, v. PAZ Y. KHU, FELIPE Y. KHU, JR., AND FREDERICK Y. KHU, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 196470, April 20, 2016 - ROSARIO VICTORIA AND ELMA PIDLAOAN, Petitioners, v. NORMITA JACOB PIDLAOAN, HERMINIGILDA PIDLAOAN AND EUFEMIA PIDLAOAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 194260, April 13, 2016 - HEIRS OF FELICIANO YAMBAO, NAMELY: CHONA YAMBAO, JOEL YAMBAO, WILLY YAMBAO, LENNIE YAMBAO AND RICHARD YAMBAO, AND ALL OTHER PERSONS ACTING UNDER THEIR AUTHORITY, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF HERMOGENES YAMBAO, NAMELY: ELEANOR YAMBAO, ALBERTO YAMBAO, DOMINIC YAMBAO, ASESCLO YAMBAO, GERALD DANTIC AND MARIA PILAR YAMBAO, WHO ARE ALL REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MARIA PILAR YAMBAO., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 193554, April 13, 2016 - SPOUSES RODRIGO IMPERIAL, JR. AND JOCELYN IMPERIAL, AND FE IMPERIAL, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES ROGELIO AND ASUNCION PINIGAT., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195155, April 13, 2016 - DIVINE WORD COLLEGE OF LAOAG, Petitioner, v. SHIRLEY B. MINA, AS HEIR-SUBSTITUTE OF THE LATE DELFIN A. MINA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 217930, April 18, 2016 - SPOUSES JORGE NAVARRA AND CARMELITA NAVARRA, Petitioners, v. YOLANDA LIONGSON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208648, April 13, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REYNALDO UMANITO, Accused-Appellant.

  • A.C. No. 11128, April 06, 2016 - PEDRO RAMOS, Complainant, v. ATTY. MARIA NYMPHA C. MANDAGAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 208896-97, April 06, 2016 - EDREN RICASATA, Petitioner, v. CARGO SAFEWAY, INC. AND EVERGREEN MARINE CORPORATION (TAIWAN), LTD., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195054, April 04, 2016 - ATTY. CORAZON CHAVEZ, Petitioner, v. RENATO GARCIA AND THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 204314, April 06, 2016 - HEIRS OF DANILO ARRIENDA, ROSA G. ARRIENDA, MA. CHARINA ROSE ARRIENDA-ROMANO, MA. CARMELLIE ARRIENDA-MARA, DANILO MARIA ALVIN G. ARRIENDA, JR., AND JESUS FRANCIS DOMINIC G. ARRIENDA, Petitioners, v. ROSARIO KALAW, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 6934, April 06, 2016 - HELEN CHANG, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSE R. HIDALGO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198774, April 04, 2016 - TEOFILO ALOLINO, Petitioner, v. FORTUNATO FLORES AND ANASTACIA MARIE FLORES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 184348, April 04, 2016 - TAN PO CHU, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, FELIX T. CHINGKOE, ROSITA L. CHINGKOE, AND RODRIGO GARCIA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 198222, April 04, 2016 - GOLDEN CANE FURNITURE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. STEELPRO PHILIPPINES, INC., SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, AIR LIQUIDE PHILIPPINES, INC., CLARK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, UP-TOWN INDUSTRIES SALES, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 187633, April 04, 2016 - HEIRS OF DELFIN AND MARIA TAPPA, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF JOSE BACUD, HENRY CALABAZARON AND VICENTE MALUPENG, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 205414, April 04, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. EDUARDO DELA CRUZ Y GUMABAT @ "EDDIE", Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 207408, April 18, 2016 - HEIRS OF FELINO M. TIMBOL, JR., NAMELY, MICHAEL JOHN JORGE TIMBOL, FELINO JAMES JORGE TIMBOL, AND MARILOU TIMBOL, Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 217120, April 18, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. THE HEIRS OF SPOUSES FLORENTINO AND PACENCIA MOLINYAWE, REPRESENTED BY MARITES MOLINYAWE AND FRED SANTOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 202756, April 06, 2016 - HEIRS OF CORAZON AFABLE SALUD, REPRESENTED BY DEOGRACIAS A. SALUD, NAPOLA Y. SALUD, JOSEPH Y. SALUD, AND JOE VINCENT Y. SALUD, Petitioners, v. RURAL BANK OF SALINAS, INC. Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195611, April 04, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF DIEGO LIM, NAMELY, PRUDENCIA D. LIM, ANGELINA D. LIM, SIXTA D. LIM BAJA, ERNESTO D. LIM, MIGUEL D. LIM, JOSEFAD.LIM, CASIMIRO D. LIM, BUENAVENTURA D. LIM, AND ENGRACIA D. LIM UY, (THE LAST FIVE BEING DECEASED, BUT REPRESENTED BY PRUDENCIA D. LIM), HEIRS OF JEORGE* JOSEFAT,** EPIFANIO ROMAMBAN, SANTIAGO PARONG, ANTONIO P. CACHO, JESSMAG, INC., ROSITA LAGUERTA, EMILIO JOSE, HEIRS OF NESTOR P. TRINIDAD, ANTONIO DIAZ, ANTONIO CHUA, GUILLERMO J. JOSE, DANIEL MA. JOSE, LOURDES JOSE, JUNA MA. JOSE, WILFREDO V. GARCIA, JESUS BILBAO, JOSECONCEPCION,JR., FRANCISCO ACHACOSO, DENNIS B. PABLIZO,*** ROMEO A. CRUZ, JOSE DE LA ROSA, VICTORIOSO DIAZ CARPIO, ROSARIO CARPIO SANTOS, MARIETA CARPIO BACAY, MARIETA PALMA, SPOUSES ROLANDO AND OFELIA HUANG, PELAGIO M. ACHACOSO, AND MELBA M. MANDOCDOC, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 214567, April 04, 2016 - DRA. MERCEDES OLIVER, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK AND LILIA CASTRO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 200274, April 20, 2016 - MELECIO DOMINGO, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES GENARO MOLINA AND ELENA B. MOLINA, SUBSTITUTED BY ESTER MOLINA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 199628, April 20, 2016 - HEIRS OF EXEQUIEL HAGORILES, NAMELY, PACITA P. HAGORILES, CONSEJO H. SABIDONG, CESAR HAGORILES, REYNALDO HAGORILES, ANITA H. GERONGANI, LOURDES H. CAPISTRANO, ANA LINA H. BOLUSO, AND SUZETTE H. PE

  • G.R. No. 206779, April 20, 2016 - LEVI STRAUSS & CO., Petitioner, v. ATTY. RICARDO R. BLANCAFLOR, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. 15-09-314-RTC, April 19, 2016 - RE: EVALUATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY OF HON. ANTONIO C. LUBAO, BRANCH 22, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, GENERAL SANTOS CITY, WHO COMPULSORILY RETIRED ON JANUARY 13, 2015, IN CONNECTION WITH THE CASES SUBJECT OF THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED THEREAT FROM MAY 19-22, 2014, AND OTHER RELEVANT DIRECTIVES ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR.

  • G.R. No. 190466, April 18, 2016 - LUIS DERILO Y GEPOLEO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206522, April 18, 2016 - DOEHLE-PHILMAN1 MANNING AGENCY INC., DOHLE (IOM) LIMITED AND CAPT. MANOLO T. GACUTAN, Petitioners, v. HENRY C. HARO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200693, April 18, 2016 - NENA C. ANG, SPOUSES RENATO C. ANG AND PAULINE ANG, SPOUSES GUILLERMO SY AND ALISON ANG-SY, NELSON C. ANG, RICKY C. ANG , AS SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, AND MELINDA C. ANG, Petitioners, v. CHINATRUST (PHILIPPINES) COMMERCIAL BANK CORPORATION AND THE ASIAN DEBT FUND, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208676, April 13, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALLAN MENALING Y CANEDO Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. Nos. 210220-21, April 06, 2016 - EDWARD THOMAS F. JOSON, Petitioner, v. THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, GOV. AURELIO M. UMALI, ALEJANDRO R. ABESAMIS, EDILBERTO M. PANCHO, MA. CHRISTINA G. ROXAS, AND FERDINAND R. ABESAMIS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 219811, April 06, 2016 - REX DACLISON, Petitioner, v. EDUARDO BAYTION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201852, April 05, 2016 - ROBERTO G. ROSALES, NICANOR M. BRIONES, PONCIANO D. PAYUYO, JOSE R. PING-AY, ISIDRO Q. LICO, AND JOSE TAN RAMIREZ, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR CONSUMER EMPOWERMENT OF ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES AND ON BEHALF OF THE NINE MILLION (9,000,000) MEMBER CONSUMERS OF NEA-ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES NATIONWIDE WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED THE MEMBERS' CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES (MCC) OR REINVESTMENT FUND FOR SUSTAINABLE CAPITAL EXPENDITURES (RFSC), Petitioners, v. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (ERC), ASELCO, AKELCO, ALECO, ANTECO, AURELCO, BATELEC I, BATELEC II, BENECO, BILECO, BOHECO I, BOHECO II, FIBECO, BUSECO, CAGELCO I, CAGELCO II, CASURECO I, CASURECO II, CASURECO III, CASURECO IV, CAMELCO, CAPELCO, CEBECO I, CEBECO II, CEBECO III, CENECO, CENPELCO, DORECO, DASURECO, ESAMELCO, FLECO, GUIMELCO, IFELCO, INEC, ISECO, ILECO I, ILECO II, ILECO III, ISELCO I, KAELCO, LUELCO, SORECO I, LANECO, LEYECO I/DORELCO, LEYECO II, LEYECO III, LEYECO IV, LEYECO V, PENELCO, MOELCO I, MOELCO II, MORESCO I, MORESCO II, MOPRECO, NORECO I, NORSAMELCO, NEECO I, NEECO II - Area I, NEECO II - Area II, PELCO I, PELCO II, CANORECO, PRESCO, QUEZELCO I, QUEZELCO II, SAMELCO I, SAMELCO II, SIARELCO, SOCOTECO I, SOCOTECO II, SOLECO, SUKELCO, SURNECO, SURSECO I, SURSECO II, TARELCO I, TARELCO II, VRESCO, ZAMECO I, ZAMECO II, ZAMCELCO, ZANECO, ZAMSURECO I, ZAMSURECO II, BATANELCO, LUBELCO, OMECO, ORMECO, MARELCO, TIELCO, ROMELCO, BISELCO, FICELCO, MACELCO, TISELCO, BANELCO, PROSIELCO, CELCO, COTELCO, TAWELCO, SIASELCO, SULECO, BASELCO, CASELCO, LASURECO, MAGELCO, DIELCO, and COTELCO-PALMA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 206226, April 04, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NIEVES CONSTANCIO Y BACUNGAY, ERNESTO BERRY Y BACUNGAY, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 207659, April 20, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FUNDADOR CAMPOSANO Y TIOLANTO, @ "Punday/Masta" AND HERMAN' DE LOS REYES @ "YOB," Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 209165, April 12, 2016 - LNL ARCHIPELAGO MINERALS, INC., Petitioner, v. AGHAM PARTY LIST (REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT REP. ANGELO B. PALMONES), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213394, April 06, 2016 - SPOUSES EMMANUEL D. PACQUIAO AND JINKEE J. PACQUIAO, Petitioners, v. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS - FIRST DIVISION AND THE COMMISSION OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192320, April 04, 2016 - BENJAMIN L. VERGARA, JONA M. SARVIDA AND JOSEPHINE P. SABALLA, Petitioners, v. ATTY. EUSEBIO I. OTADOY, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 216572, April 19, 2016 - FELICIANO LEGASPI, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ALFREDO D. GERMAR, AND ROGELIO P. SANTOS, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 196028, April 18, 2016 - SAMAHAN NG MAGSASAKA AT MANGINGISDA NG SITIO NASWE, INC. [SAMMANA], REPRESENTED BY ROGELIO A. COMMENDADOR, PRESIDENT, Petitioner, v. TOMAS TAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 186107, April 20, 2016 - NARCISA M. NICOLAS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SPOUSES RALPH ADORABLE AND ROWENA ADORABLE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205002, April 20, 2016 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF THE PORT OF BATANGAS, AND THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, Petitioners, v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION (PSPC), WILLIE J. SARMIENTO, PSPC VICE-PRESIDENT FOR FINANCE AND TREASURER AND ATTY. CIPRIANO U. ASILO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195728, April 19, 2016 - PARAMOUNT LIFE & GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. CHERRY T. CASTRO AND GLENN ANTHONY T. CASTRO, Respondents.; G.R. No. 211329 - CHERRY T. CASTRO AND GLENN ANTHONY T. CASTRO, Petitioners, v. PARAMOUNT LIFE & GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189607, April 18, 2016 - RENATO A. CASTILLO, Petitioner, v. LEA P. DE LEON CASTILLO, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3447 (formerly: OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2915-P), April 19, 2016 - LUALHATI C. GUBATANGA, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BALAGTAS, BULACAN, Complainant, v. RENATO V. BODOY, UTILITY WORKER I, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BALAGTAS, BULACAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 202124, April 05, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. IRENEO JUGUETA Accused-Appellant.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3436 [Formerly A.M. No. 13-12-261-RTC], April 05, 2016 - REPORT ON THE THEFT OF COURT EXHIBIT BY ROBERTO R. CASTRO, UTILITY WORKER I, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 172, VALENZUELA CITY

  • A.C. No. 10781 [Formerly CBD Case No. 10-2764], April 12, 2016 - COBALT RESOURCES, INC., Complainant, v. ATTY. RONALD AGUADO, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 7110, April 20, 2016 - ARTHUR S. TULIO, Complainant, v. ATTY. GREGORY F. BUHANGIN, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3437 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3665-P], April 20, 2016 - PROSECUTOR III LEO C. TABAO, Petitioner, v. SHERIFF IV JOSE P. CABCABIN, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, TACLOBAN CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 181892, April 19, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA, THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, AND MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, Petitioners, v. HON. JESUS M. MUPAS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH 117, PASAY CITY, AND PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS CO., INC., Respondents.; G.R. NO. 209917 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, AND MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS COMPANY, INC., TAKENAKA CORPORATION AND ASAHIKOSAN CORPORATION, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 209696 - TAKENAKA CORPORATION AND ASAHIKOSAN CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, AND PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS COMPANY, INC. Respondents.; G.R. NO. 209731 - PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS CO., INC., Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, AS REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, TAKENAKA CORPORATION, AND ASAHIKOSAN CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-14-2385 [Formerly A.M. No. 14-4-115-RTC], April 20, 2016 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Petitioner, v. JUDGE ROMEO B. CASALAN, [FORMERLY A.M. NO. 14-4-115-RTC (REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT [RTC], BRANCHES 13 AND 65, CULASI AND BUGASONG, ANTIQUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 191616, April 18, 2016 - FRANCIS C. CERVANTES, Petitioner, v. CITY SERVICE CORPORATION AND VALENTIN PRIETO, JR., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192428, April 20, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ELPEDIO CASTA

  • G.R. No. 202051, April 18, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS & HIGHWAYS; ENGINEER SIMPLICIO D. GONZALES, DISTRICT ENGINEER, SECOND ENGINEERING DISTRICT OF CAMARINES SUR; AND ENGINEER VICTORINO M. DEL SOCORRO, JR., PROJECT ENGINEER, DPWH, BARAS, CANAMAN, CAMARINES SUR, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES ILDEFONSO B. REGULTO AND FRANCIA R. REGULTO, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 8172, April 12, 2016 - ALEX NULADA, Complainant, v. ATTY. ORLANDO S. PAULMA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 184933, April 13, 2016 - VIOLETA BALBA, FOR AND IN BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILDREN ROY VINCE AND VIENNA GRACIA, BOTH SURNAMED BALBA, Petitioners, v. TIWALA HUMAN RESOURCES, INC., AND/OR TOGO MARITIME CORP., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 210308, April 06, 2016 - ASIAN INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206766, April 06, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDUARDO YEPES, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 195552, April 18, 2016 - ACS DEVELOPMENT & PROPERTY MANAGERS, INC., Petitioner, v. MONTAIRE REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 216607, April 05, 2016 - ARLENE LLENA EMPAYNADO CHUA, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, IMELDA E. FRAGATA, AND KRYSTLE MARIE C. BACANI, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 210621, April 04, 2016 - ALFREDO MANAY, JR., FIDELINO SAN LUIS, ADRIAN SAN LUIS, ANNALEE SAN LUIS, MARK ANDREW JOSE, MELISSA JOSE, CHARLOTTE JOSE, DAN JOHN DE GUZMAN, PAUL MARK BALUYOT, AND CARLOS S. JOSE, Petitioners, v. CEBU AIR,INC, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 184068, April 19, 2016 - SIMNY G. GUY, AS MINORITY STOCKHOLDER AND FOR AND IN BEHALF OF GOODLAND COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. GILBERT G. GUY, ALVIN AGUSTIN T. IGNACIO AND JOHN AND/OR JANE DOES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 214349, April 20, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEO MENDOZA, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 216010, April 20, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JIMMY ULANDAY @ "SAROY", Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 216776, April 19, 2016 - PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE (PCSO), Petitioner, v. CHAIRPERSON MA. GRACIA M. PULIDO-TAN, COMMISSIONER HEIDI L. MENDOZA, COMMISSIONER ROWENA V. GUANZON, THE COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 215534, April 18, 2016 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. LIQUIGAZ PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 215557 - LIQUIGAZ PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 197136, April 18, 2016 - ROMEO PUCYUTAN, FOR AND IN BEHALF OF THE CITY OF MUNTINLUPA, METRO MANILA AS ITS CITY TREASURER, Petitioner, v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203949, April 06, 2016 - SPOUSES GEORGE A. GALLENT, SR. AND MERCEDES M. GALLENT, Petitioners, v. JUAN G. VELASQUEZ, Respondent.; G.R. No. 205071 - JUAN G. VELASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES GEORGE A. GALLENT, SR. AND MERCEDES M. GALLENT, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 217508, April 18, 2016 - JOSEPH SCOTT PEMBERTON, Petitioner, v. HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, JUDGE ROLINE GINEZ- JABALDE, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 74 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF OLONGAPO CITY, AND MARILOU LAUDE Y SERDONCILLO, Respondents.

  • G.R. Nos. 221849-50, April 04, 2016 - DATU GUIMID P. MATALAM, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204325, April 18, 2016 - LYNMAN BACOLOR, JEFFREY R. GALURA, HELEN B. TORRES, FRITZIE C. VELLEGAS, RAYMOND CANLAS AND ZHEILA C. TORRES, Petitioners, v. VL MAKABALI MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., ALEJANDRO S. MAKABALI, MELCHOR CATAMBING AND DAX M. TIDULA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 175869, April 18, 2016 - ROBINA FARMS CEBU/UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ELIZABETH VILLA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212382, April 06, 2016 - SCANMAR MARITIME SERVICES, INCORPORATED, CROWN SHIPMANAGEMENT INC., LOUIS DREYFUS ARMATEURS AND M/T ILE DE BREHAT AND/OR MR. EDGARDO CANOZA, Petitioners, v. EMILIO CONAG, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 211098, April 20, 2016 - THE WELLEX GROUP, INC., Petitioner, v. SHERIFF EDGARDO A. URIETA OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN SECURITY AND SHERIFF SERVICES, THE SANDIGANBAYAN SECURITY AND SHERIFF SERVICES, AND BDO UNIBANK, INC. (FORMERLY EQUITABLE PCI BANK, INC.), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 199464, April 18, 2016 - ROGELIO ROSARIO, RUDY ROSARIO, MARY ANN GUTIERREZ, SYLVIA CASTILLO, LOURDES JOSE, LORENA ESTEPA, VIRGINIA ESTEPA AND REMEDIOS SABADO, Petitioners, v. RIZALITO F. ALBA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206459, April 06, 2016 - SPOUSES FLORANTE E. JONSAY AND LUZVIMINDA L. JONSAY AND MOMARCO IMPORT CO., INC., Petitioners, v. SOLIDBANK CORPORATION (NOW METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 167838, April 20, 2016 - JOSE V. TOLEDO, GLENN PADIERNOS AND DANILO PADIERNOS, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS, LOURDES RAMOS, ENRIQUE RAMOS, ANTONIO RAMOS, MILAGROS RAMOS AND ANGELITA RAMOS AS HEIRS OF SOCORRO RAMOS, GUILLERMO PABLO, PRIMITIVA CRUZ AND A.R.C. MARKETING CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, ALBERTO C. DY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189577, April 20, 2016 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. SPS. VICTORIANO & JOVITA FARICIA RIVERA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 209011, April 20, 2016 - MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. DIANA P. ALIBUDBUD, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 167679, April 20, 2016 - ING BANK N.V., ENGAGED IN BANKING OPERATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES AS ING BANK N.V. MANILA BRANCH, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207662, April 13, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. FABIAN URZAIS Y LANURIAS, ALEX BAUTISTA, AND RICKY BAUTISTA, Accused.; FABIAN URZAIS Y LANURIAS, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 174333, April 20, 2016 - PILIPINAS SHELL FOUNDATION, INC. AND SHELL PHILIPPINES EXPLORATION B.V., Petitioners, v. TOMAS M. FREDELUCES, MARCOS B. CORPUZ, JR., REYNALDO M. SAMONTE, NORMA M. SAMONTE, AMBROCIO VILLANUEVA, SALVACION A. BON, RAMIRO A. BON, LUZVIMINDA B. ANDILLO, LUDIVICO F. BON, ELMO AREGLO, ROSE A. SAN PEDRO, DANTE U. SANTOS, SR., MIGUEL SANTOS, EFREN U. SANTOS, RIC U. SANTOS, SIMON MARCE, JR., JOEL F. SALINEL, BEBIANA SAN PEDRO, AND MARINA SANTOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 175736 & 175898, April 12, 2016 - JOSE RIZAL L. REMO, REYNALDO G. PANALIGAN, TITA L. MATULIN, ISAGANI CASALME, CIPRIANO P. ROXAS, CESARIO S. GUTIERREZ, CELSO A. LANDICHO, AND EDUARDO L. TAGLE, Petitioners, v. ADMINISTRATOR EDITA S. BUENO, NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION (NEA) BOARD OF ADMINISTRATORS AND MEMBER-CONSUMERS OF BATELEC II, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 175898 - JOSE RIZAL L. REMO, REYNALDO G. PANALIGAN, TITA L. MATULIN, ISAGANI CASALME, CIPRIANO P. ROXAS, CESARIO S. GUTIERREZ, CELSO A. LANDICHO, AND EDUARDO L. TAGLE, Petitioners, v. ADMINISTRATOR EDITA S. BUENO, SEC. RAPHAEL LOTILLA, WILFREDO BILLENA, JOSE VICTOR LOBRIGO, EVANGELITO ESTACA AND MARILYN CAGUIMBAL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 188145, April 18, 2016 - SPOUSES PRIMO INALVEZ AND JULIANA INALVEZ, Petitioners, v. BAYANG NOOL, ALLAN NOOL AND CELESTINO NOOL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 172593, April 20, 2016 - NAPOLEON S. RONQUILLO, JR., EDNA G. RA

  • G.R. No. 192488, April 19, 2016 - BLUE EAGLE MANAGEMENT, INC., MA. AMELIA S. BONOAN, AND CARMELITA S. DELA RAMA, Petitioners, v. JOCELYN L. NAVAL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 194119, April 13, 2016 - SONIA F. MARIANO, Petitioner, v. MARTINEZ MEMORIAL COLLEGES, INC., AND/OR FERDINAND A. MARTINEZ/ DR. ELIZABETH M. DEL RIO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 215548, April 05, 2016 - UNDERSECRETARY AUSTERE A. PANADERO AND REGIONAL DIRECTOR RENE K. BURDEOS, BOTH OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DILG), Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 215726 - UNDERSECRETARY AUSTERE A. PANADERO AND REGIONAL DIRECTOR RENE K. BURDEOS, BOTH OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DILG), Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND MOHAMMAD EXCHAN GABRIEL LIMBONA, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 216158 - MANGONDAYA ASUM TAGO, Petitioner, v. COMELEC AND MOHAMMAD EXCHAN GABRIEL LIMBONA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208066, April 12, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHN GLEN WILE, EFREN BUENAFE, JR., MARK ROBERT LARIOSA AND JAYPEE PINEDA, Accused-Appellants.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-16-2455 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No.10-3443-RTJ), April 11, 2016 - NEMIA CASTRO, Complainant, v. JUDGE CESAR A. MANGROBANG, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 22, IMUS, CAVITE, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 7447, April 18, 2016 - RENE B. HERMANO, Complainant, v. ATTY. IGMEDIO S. PRADO JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210273, April 19, 2016 - BIBIANO C. RIVERA AND LUIS K. LOKIN, JR., Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SHERWIN N. TUGNA AND CINCHONA C. CRUZ-GONZALES, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 213069 - CITIZENS' BATTLE AGAINST CORRUPTION (CIBAC) FOUNDATION AS REPRESENTED BY JESUS EMMANUEL L. VARGAS, Petitioner, v. CIBAC NATIONAL COUNCIL AS REPRESENTED BY EMMANUEL JOEL VILLANUEVA, AND THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 11139, April 19, 2016 - PHILCOMSAT* HOLDINGS CORPORATION, DULY REPRESENTED BY ERLINDA I. BILDNER, Complainant, v. ATTY. LUIS K. LOKIN, JR. AND ATTY. SIKINI C. LABASTILLA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 194402, April 05, 2016 - NEPTALI S. FRANCO, MELINDA L. OCAMPO, ARTEMIO P. MAGABO, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY SOLEDAD MAGABO, BERNARDA C. LAVISORES, NICOMEDES B. DEYNATA, ALBERTO D. DOSAYLA, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY AILENE JOY BILLONES DOSAYLA AND MARIETTA U. LARRACAS, Petitioners, v. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, THE HON. ZENAIDA G. CRUZ-DUCUT, IN HER CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, THE SECRETARY FLORENCIO B. ABAD AND RICALINDA N. ADRIATICO, THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT BUREAU-A, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 213299, April 19, 2016 - PNCC SKYWAY CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. THE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT AND PNCC SKYWAY CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 191699, April 19, 2016 - WILLIAM GO QUE CONSTRUCTION AND/OR WILLIAM GO QUE, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS AND DANNY SINGSON, RODOLFO PASAQUI,1 LENDO LOMINIQUI,2 AND JUN ANDALES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 210540, April 19, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HOMER AND MA. SUSANA DAGONDON, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 203370, April 11, 2016 - MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. AND HELEN Y. DEE, Petitioners, v. PHILIP PICCIO, MIA GATMAYTAN, MA. ANNABELLA RELOVA SANTOS, JOHN JOSEPH GUTIERREZ, JOCELYN UPANO, JOSE DIZON, ROLANDO PAREJA, WONINA M. BONIFACIO, ELVIRA CRUZ, CORNELIO ZAFRA, VICENTE ORTUOSTE, VICTOMA GOMEZ JACINTO, JUVENCIO PERECHE, JR., RICARDO LORAYES, PETER C. SUCHIANCO, AND TRENNIE MONSOD, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 215106 - MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. PHILIP PICCIO, MIA GATMAYTAN, MA. ANNABELLA RELOVA SANTOS, JOHN JOSEPH GUTIERREZ, JOCELYN UPANO, JOSE DIZON, ROLANDO PAREJA, WONINA M. BONIFACIO, ELVIRA CRUZ, CORNELIO ZAFRA, VICENTE ORTUOSTE, VICTORIA GOMEZ JACINTO, JUVENCIO PERECHE, JR., RICARDO LORAYES, PETER C. SUCHIANCO, AND TRENNIE MONSOD, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 202618, April 12, 2016 - CONSULAR AREA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT BENJAMIN V. ZABAT, ROMEO JUGADO, JR., AND NANCY QUINO, Petitioner, v. ARNEL PACIANO D. CASANOVA, ENGR. TOMAS Y. MACROHON, LOCAL HOUSING BOARD OF TAGUIG CITY, AND THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF TAGUIG, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 214934, April 12, 2016 - PACIFIC REHOUSE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. JOVEN L. NGO, AS REPRESENTED BY OSCAR J. GARCIA, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 9018, April 20, 2016 - TERESITA P. FAJARDO, Complainant, v. ATTY. NICANOR C. ALVAREZ, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. 12-8-59-MCTC, April 12, 2016 - RE: FINDINGS ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED AT THE 7TH MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, LILOAN-COMPOSTELA, LILOAN, CEBU.

  • G.R. No. 208360, April 06, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. FELIPE BUGHO Y ROMPAL, A.K.A. "JUN THE MAGICIAN", Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 208446, April 06, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JONEL VARGAS Y RAMOS, JERIENALD VILLAMERO Y ESMAN, ARMANDO CADANO @ MANDO, JOJO ENORME @ JOJO, RUTHER GARCIA @ BENJIE/LOLOY, AND ALIAS TABOY, ACCUSED, JONEL VARGAS Y RAMOS, JERIENALD VILLAMERO Y ESMAN, Accused-Appellants.