Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > February 2016 Decisions > G.R. No. 192075, February 10, 2016 - ROBERTO PALO Y DE GULA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.:




G.R. No. 192075, February 10, 2016 - ROBERTO PALO Y DE GULA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 192075, February 10, 2016

ROBERTO PALO Y DE GULA,1 Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

PEREZ, J.:

For this Court's consideration is a Petition for Review on Certiorari2 under Rule 45 which seeks to reverse and set aside the September 22, 2009 Decision3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 31677. The assailed decision affirmed the July 27, 2007 Decision4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela City, Branch 171, in Criminal Case No. 586-V-02, finding Roberto Palo y De Gula (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

The Antecedent Facts

Petitioner and his co-accused Jesus Daguman y Ramos (Daguman) were charged with violation of Section 11 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 in an Information,5 which reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
"That on or about July 24, 2002 in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together and mutually helping one another, without any authority of law, did then and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously have in their possession, custody and control 0.03 gram of Metharnphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), knowing the same to be a regulated drug.

Contrary to Law."
The two accused were apprehended by the authorities. After posting their bail bonds, both were ordered released. At the scheduled arraignment on September 23, 2002, only Daguman appeared and pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.6 The petitioner's sister, Carolina Geronimo, explained that petitioner's failure to appear in said arraignment was because he was suffering from some kind of mental disorder.7 For this reason, the trial court ordered the family of the petitioner that he be brought to the National Center for Mental Health for psychiatric evaluation. The trial court also directed the attending physician to submit a report on the petitioner's mental condition. After receipt of notice that the petitioner was fit for trial, the trial court set his arraignment on March 10, 2003 during which he entered a plea of not guilty.8chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Version of the Prosecution

To establish its case, the prosecution presented Police Officer 3 Miguel Capangyarihan (PO3 Capangyarihan). During trial, the testimonies of all other prosecution witnesses namely: Police Officer 1 Ernesto Santos (PO1 Santos), Senior Police Officer 1 Reynaldo Tapar (SPO1 Tapar), Police Officer 2 Miguel Isla (PO2 Isla), and Police Inspector Juanita Sioson (P/Insp. Sioson) were dispensed with upon stipulation by the parties.

PO3 Capangyarihan, a member of the Valenzuela City Police, testified that at around 6:30 in the evening of July 24, 2002, he was walking along a dark alley at Mercado Street, Gen. T. De Leon in Valenzuela City. With him at that time was a boy who was a victim of a stabbing incident and right behind them, was PO1 Santos. While they were walking toward the petitioner's direction, at a distance of about five to seven meters, PO3 Capangyarihan saw the petitioner and Daguman talking to each other. PO3 Capangyarihan also noticed the petitioner holding a plastic sachet in his hand who was then showing it to Daguman. Believing that the plastic sachet contained shabu, from the manner by which the petitioner was holding the sachet, PO3 Capangyarihan immediately approached the petitioner, held and recovered from his hand the said plastic sachet. Right there and then, the petitioner was arrested by PO3 Capangyarihan. Daguman was also arrested by PO1 Santos.

PO3 Capangyarihan further testified that the petitioner and Daguman were informed of their constitutional rights and that the two accused, together with the item seized, were brought to the police station where the confiscated item was marked by PO3 Capangyarihan with petitioner's initials "RPD." During his cross-examination, PO3 Capangyarihan disclosed that there is a rampant selling of shabu at the place where the two accused were apprehended and that his suspicion was aroused by the petitioner's delicate way of handling the plastic sachet.

PO3 Capangyarihan turned over the petitioner, Daguman and the confiscated item to SPO1 Tapar, the investigator of the case. The parties stipulated that SPO1 Tapar received one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with "RPD" marking from PO3 Capangyarihan, which item was marked in evidence as Exhibit "B". SPO1 Tapar prepared the letter-request for the examination of the substance found inside the plastic sachet. Also stipulated was the fact that after SPO1 Tapar's investigation, the seized item (Exhibit "B") and the said letter-request were transmitted by him to PO2 Isla for delivery to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory-Northern Police District Crime Laboratory Office (PNPCL-NPDCLO).

The testimony of PO2 Isla was dispensed with as the prosecution and defense agreed that: (1) he received from SPO1 Tapar the seized item marked as Exhibit "B" as well as the corresponding letter-request for laboratory examination; (2) he delivered these two to the PNPCL-NPDCLO; and (3) both the seized item and the letter-request were accepted by P/Insp. Sioson.

Likewise dispensed with was the testimony of P/Insp. Sioson, a forensic chemical officer of the PNPCL-Camp Crame, Quezon City, after the defense acknowledged that her office received one (1) heat-sealed small transparent plastic sachet bearing the marking "RPD" (Exhibit "B") together with the letter-request for laboratory examination. In addition, the defense admitted that the contents of the sachet tested positive for methyl amphetamine hydrochloride, more commonly known as shabu. P/Insp. Sioson's examination of the submitted specimen was reduced into writing as embodied in her Chemistry Report No. D-706-02 containing the following entries:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
"SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:

A-One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "RPD" containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance. xxx

PURPOSE OF LABORATORY EXAMINATION:

To determine the presence of prohibited and/or regulated drug. xxx

FINDINGS:

Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimen gave POSITIVE result to the tests for Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug. xxx

CONCLUSION:

Specimen A contains Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug. xxx"9chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Lastly, the parties stipulated on the fact that PO1 Santos, also of the Valenzuela City Police Station, arrested Daguman but found no shabu in his possession at the time of his arrest.10chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Version of the Defense

The defense, on the other hand, presented the petitioner and Daguman as witnesses.

According to the petitioner, he can no longer recall the date and time of his arrest. All the same, the petitioner testified that he and Daguman were just sitting along the road, in front of a house that was raided by PO3 Capangyarihan and PO1 Santos. One or two persons were arrested from the raid. The petitioner averred that when the police officers passed by him and Daguman, they were arrested and frisked but nothing was found in their persons. Nevertheless, the two accused were made to board the police vehicle, brought to the police station and detained thereat. The petitioner insisted that he had never been involved in any drug-related incident prior to his arrest. On cross-examination, he stated that he only complained to his sister of the illegality of his arrest.11chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Testifying in his behalf, Daguman denied the accusation against him. He claimed that on the day of the incident, he went to the petitioner's place to play cara y cruz. Instead of gambling, Daguman was invited by the petitioner to go somewhere to get shabu. Daguman narrated that they rode a jeep and alighted at Mercado Street, Valenzuela City to look for the person from whom the petitioner would buy shabu. After the two accused met a certain Joseph, a shabu seller, the transaction between the petitioner and the latter started. While the petitioner and Joseph were busily selecting which plastic sachet had more contents, they caught the attention of the police officers. The police officers approached them and when they were about to be arrested, the petitioner went berserk, challenged the arresting officers to a fistfight and told them that they were only brave as they were armed. Nonetheless, the three were arrested. Daguman confirmed that several plastic sachets were confiscated from Joseph while one (1) small plastic sachet of shabu and a P100.00 bill were recovered from the petitioner at the time of their apprehension. On direct and cross-examination, Daguman categorically stated that no shabu was taken from him.12chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

The RTC's Ruling

After trial, judgment was rendered by the RTC convicting the petitioner of the offense charged. The trial court ruled that the prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and as the petitioner had been caught in flagrante delicto, his warantless arrest was justified pursuant to Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.13 The RTC applied the presumption of regularity in the performance of the police officers' duties since no ill motive on their part was shown by the defense. However, the trial court acquitted Daguman for insufficiency of evidence. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused ROBERT[O] PALO y DE GULA is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. Consequently, said accused is hereby ordered to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of eight years (8) and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months as maximum. In addition thereto, the said accused is further ordered to pay a FINE of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 300,000.00).

Anent, accused JESUS DAGUMAN y RAMOS, for insufficiency of evidence, he is hereby ACQUITTED of the offense charged. Accordingly, the bailbond posted by the said accused for his provisional liberty is hereby ordered RELEASED from liability.

The Branch Clerk of this Court is hereby directed to turn over to PDEAthe drugs used as evidence in this case for proper disposition.

SO ORDERED.14chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The CA's Ruling

On appeal, the CA affirmed the prior ruling of the RTC. The CA held that the chain of custody over the seized item was unbroken from the time it was confiscated from the petitioner at the crime scene until the same was brought to the crime laboratory for examination. It added that failure of the police officer to comply strictly with the directives embodied in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution's case if justifiable grounds exist and for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item has been properly preserved. The appellate court also found the testimony of PO3 Capangyarihan credible and accorded the police officer the presumption of regularity in the performance of his official duty. On the other hand, it completely disregarded the self-serving and uncorroborated denial by the petitioner.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed his Motion for Reconsideration15 of the CA Decision. Finding no merit in the motion, it was denied by the CA through its Resolution16 dated April 14, 2010.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

The Issues

Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari raising two issues, namely: (1) whether the Honorable Court of Appeals gravely erred in finding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged despite the dearth of evidence supporting the prosecution's contention; and (2) whether the Honorable Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming the decision of the trial court notwithstanding the arresting officers' patent non-compliance with the proper chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

The Court's Ruling

The petition is bereft of merit.

Illegal possession of dangerous drugs is penalized under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, to wit:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:

xxxx

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

xxxx

(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300.000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.
To secure a conviction for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, the concurrence of the following elements must be established by the prosecution: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.17chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The Court finds that these elements were proven by the prosecution in the present case. PO3 Capangyarihan testified in a clear and straightforward manner that when he chanced upon petitioner, the latter was caught red-handed in the illegal possession of shabu and was arrested in flagrante delicto. On direct examination, the police officer positively identified the petitioner as the person holding, scrutinizing and from whom the plastic sachet was confiscated. After conducting a chemical analysis, the forensic chemical officer certified that the plastic sachet recovered from the petitioner was found to contain 0.03 gram of shabu. Nowhere in the records was it shown that the petitioner is lawfully authorized to possess the dangerous drug. Furthermore, Daguman admitted that the petitioner intentionally sought and succeeded in getting hold of shabu. Clearly, the petitioner knowingly possessed the dangerous drug, without any legal authority to do so, in violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

The Court concurs with the trial court in attributing full faith and credence to the testimony of PO3 Capangyarihan. His detailed narration in court remained consistent with the documentary and object evidence submitted by the prosecution. As there is nothing in the record to indicate that PO3 Capangyarihan was impelled by improper motive when he testified against the petitioner, the Court upholds the presumption of regularity in the apprehending officer's performance of official duty.

In addition to the above-metioned elements, the prosecution must prove the corpus delicti18 which in drug-related cases refers to the dangerous drug itself,19 in this case, shabu. As repeatedly ruled by this Court, the identity, integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti are properly preserved for as long as the chain of custody of the same are duly established.20chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The essence of the chain of custody rule is to make sure that the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same dangerous drug recovered from his or her possession.21chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

To preserve the chain of custody over the seized drugs, Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 916522 prescribes:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
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:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(1) The apprehending 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.

xxxx
The aforequoted provision is expounded in Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165, to wit:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
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:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(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 wan-ant 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 the 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.23chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
In seeking acquittal, the petitioner insists that the failure of the arresting officers to comply with the directives outlined in Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 particularly on the requirements of markings, physical inventory and photograph of the seized items translates to their failure to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated item.

The Court disagrees with the argument of the petitioner.

The fact that the apprehending officer marked the plastic sachet at the police station, and not at the place of seizure, did not compromise the integrity of the seized item. Jurisprudence has declared that "marking upon immediate confiscation" contemplates even marking done at the nearest police station or office, of the apprehending team.24 Neither does the absence of a physical inventory nor the lack of photograph of the confiscated item renders the same inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items as these would be used in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.25cralawred

The Court is convinced that the integrity and evidentiary value of shabu seized from the petitioner had been preserved under the chain of custody rule even though the prescribed procedure under Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as implemented by Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165, was not strictly complied with.

Here, evidence shows that immediately after both the petitioner and the plastic sachet were brought to the police station by PO3 Capangyarihan, the latter marked the plastic sachet with petitioner's initials "RPD" and turned them over to investigator SPO1 Tapar. SPO1 Tapar forwarded the plastic sachet bearing "RPD" initials as well as the letter-request for laboratory examination to PO2 Isla. PO2 Isla delivered the same marked sachet and the letter-request to forensic chemical officer P/Insp. Sioson, of the PNPCL-NPDCLO, for examination of the contents of said sachet. As earlier mentioned, the contents of the marked sachet tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

It should be emphasized that the parties have already stipulated on the names of the above-stated persons who handled and essentially covered every movement of the seized item. The parties are bound by the stipulations they made in the trial court.

In effect, the prosecution was able to account for every link in the chain of custody starting from the time the shabu was confiscated by the arresting officer from the petitioner until the same was received by the forensic chemical officer for examination. Moreover, when the prosecution presented as evidence in court the plastic sachet with "RPD" initials, PO3 Capangyarihan positively identified that the shabu submitted for laboratory examination is the same one taken from the petitioner.

Further, the Court sees no compelling reason to deviate from the factual findings of the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court. Fundamental is the rule that factual findings of the trial courts involving the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts or speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.26chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The lower courts correctly rejected petitioner's defense of denial for being self-serving and uncorroborated. Denial is inherently a weak defense which cannot outweigh positive testimony of a prosecution witness.27 "A defense of denial which is unsupported and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence becomes negative and self-serving, deserving no weight in law, and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over convincing, straightforward and probable testimony on affirmative matters."28 In the instant case, the defense of denial fails even more when the petitioner's co-accused, Daguman, confirmed that the petitioner had every intent to possess and was caught in actual possession of shabu.

Thus, the Court affirms the conviction of the petitioner for illegal possession of 0.03 gram of shabu.

As previously cited, the penalty for illegal possession of less than five (5) grams of shabu is imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00). Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the petitioner shall be sentenced to an indeterminate sentence, the minimum period of which shall not be less than the minimum term fixed by law while the maximum period shall not exceed the maximum term prescribed under the same law.

The RTC and C A sentenced the petitioner to suffer the penalty of eight years (8) and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum. The lower courts also ordered the petitioner to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).

The penalty meted out by the RTC and CA should be modified as it is not in accord with the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum, is proper under the premises.

With respect to the imposed fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00), this amount is sustained as it is in accordance with that prescribed under Section 11(3), Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

WHEREFORE, the September 22, 2009 CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 31677 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner Roberto Palo y De Gula is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).

SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary

Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Reyes, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.cralawlawlibrary

Endnotes:


1Rollo, pp. 41 & 65; and records, p. 169. Petitioner's name is stated as Roberto Paloy De Gula in the CA and RTC decisions as well as in the present petition. Further, his driver's license bears the same name.

2 Id. at 10-25.

3 CA rollo, pp. 84-97; penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (now a retired member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Ricardo R. Rosario.

4 Records, pp. 139-144; penned by Judge Maria Nena J. Santos.

5 Id. at 1.

6 Id. at 24.

7 Id.

8 Id. at 49.

9 Id. at 4.

10 Id. at 57.

11 TSN, June 15, 2004, p. 8.

12 TSN, April 25, 2006, pp. 6-7.

13 Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
14 Records, pp. 143-144.

15 CA rollo, pp. 98-102.

16 Id. at 122-123.

17Tionco v. People, G.R. No. 192284, March 11, 2015.

18 In People v. Climaco, 687 Phil. 593, 603 (2012), corpus delicti is defined as the body of the crime.

19 Id.

20People v. Alviz, G.R. No. 177158, February 6, 2013, 690 SCRA 61, 76.

21People v. Musa, G.R. No. 199735, October 24, 2012, 684 SCRA 622, 638.

22 Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 has been amended by R.A. No. 10640 (An Act to Further Strengthen the Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government, Amending for the Purpose Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, Otherwise Known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002"). Taking into account that the incident in this case occurred on July 24, 2002 and the old law was favorable to herein petitioner, the Court shall apply the earlier version of Section 21 and its corresponding Implementing Rules and Regulations.

23 Id. at 636-638.

24Marquez v. People, G.R. No. 197207, March 13, 2013, 693 SCRA 468, 475.

25Tionco v. People, G.R. No. 192284, March 11, 2015.

26People v. Macatingag, G.R. No. 181037, January 19, 2009, 576 SCRA 354, 366.

27People v. Bitancor; 441 Phil. 758, 769 (2002).

28People v. Salvador, G.R. No. 190621, February 10, 2014, 715 SCRA 617, 632.



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





February-2016 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 212878, February 01, 2016 - MARLOW NAVIGATION PHILS., INC., MARLOW NAVIGATION CO., LTD., W. BOCKSTLEGEL REEDEREI (GERMANY), ORLANDO D. ALIDIO AND ANTONIO GALVEZ, JR., Petitioners, v. WILFREDO L. CABATAY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213910, February 03, 2016 - VINSON* D. YOUNG A.K.A. BENZON ONG AND BENNY YOUNG A.K.A. BENNY ONG, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AS REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198994, February 03, 2016 - IRIS MORALES, Petitioners, v. ANA MARIA OLONDRIZ, ALFONSO JUAN OLONDRIZ, JR., ALEJANDRO MORENO OLONDRIZ, ISABEL ROSA OLONDRIZ AND FRANCISCO JAVIER MARIA OLONDRIZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 181186, February 03, 2016 - SIGUION REYNA MONTECILLO AND ONGSIAKO LAW OFFICES, Petitioners, v. HON. NORMA CHIONLO-SIA, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 56 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF LUCENA CITY, AND THE TESTATE ESTATE OF DECEASED SUSANO RODRIGUEZ, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL ADMINISTRATRIX, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-13-2361 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4144-RTJ], February 02, 2016 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. PRESIDING JUDGE JOSEPH CEDRICK O. RUIZ, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 61, MAKATI CITY, Respondent.

  • OCA I.P.I. No. 13-4148-P, February 10, 2016 - SPS. JOSE AND MELINDA CAILIPAN, Complainants, v. LORENZO O. CASTAŅEDA, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 96, QUEZON CITY, Respondents

  • G.R. No. 205814, February 15, 2016 - SPOUSES ALFREDO TEAŅO* AND VERONICA TEAŅO, Petitioners, v. THE MUNICIPALITY OF NAVOTAS, REPRESENTED BY MAYOR TOBIAS REYNALD M. TIANGCO, AND MUNICIPAL TREASURER MANUEL T. ENRIQUEZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195145, February 10, 2016 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES SULPICIO AND PATRICIA RAMOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192075, February 10, 2016 - ROBERTO PALO Y DE GULA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 194548, February 10, 2016 - JUANA VDA. DE ROJALES, SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, REPRESENTED BY CELERINA ROJALES-SEVILLA, Petitioner, v. MARCELINO DIME, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, REPRESENTED BY BONIFACIA MANIBAY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 218396, February 10, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NESTOR ROXAS Y CASTRO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 208343, February 03, 2016 - SPOUSES CEFERINO C. LAUS AND MONINA P. LAUS, AND SPOUSES ANTONIO O. KOH AND ELISA T. KOH, Petitioners, v. OPTIMUM SECURITY SERVICES, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199194, February 10, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. JOSE B. SAREŅOGON, JR., Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 7618, February 02, 2016 - SPOUSES JONATHAN AND ESTER LOPEZ, Complainants, v. ATTY. SINAMAR E. LIMOS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199371, February 03, 2016 - PETRON LPG DEALERS ASSOCIATION AND TOTAL GAZ LPG DEALERS ASSOCIATION, Petitioners, v. NENA C. ANG, ALISON C. SY, NELSON C. ANG, RENATO C. ANG, AND/OR OCCUPANTS OF NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208451, February 03, 2016 - MANILA MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERY, INC., Petitioner, v. EZARD D. LLUZ, NORMAN CORRAL, ERWIN FUGABAN, VALDIMAR BALISI, EMILIO FABON, JOHN MARK APLICADOR, MICHAEL CURIOSO, JUNLIN ESPARES, GAVINO FARINAS, AND WARD TRADING AND SERVICES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190846, February 03, 2016 - TOMAS P. TAN, JR., Petitioner, v. JOSE G. HOSANA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204970, February 01, 2016 - SPOUSES CLAUDIO AND CARMENCITA TRAYVILLA, Petitioners, v. BERNARDO SEJAS AND JUVY PAGLINAWAN, REPRESENTED BY JESSIE PAGLINAWAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 205764, February 03, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEE QUIJANO ENAD, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 196651, February 03, 2016 - UWE MATHAEUS, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES ERIC AND GENEVIEVE MEDEQUISO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 207355, February 03, 2016 - JENNIFER A. AGUSTIN-SE AND ROHERMIA J. JAMSANI-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioners, v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, OVERALL DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, AND JOHN I.C. TURALBA, ACTING DEPUTY SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 209212, February 10, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plintiff and Appellee, v. ROMEL SAPITULA Y PACULAN, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 191185, February 01, 2016 - GUILBEMER FRANCO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3210-RTJ, February 03, 2016 - JUVY P. CIOCON-REER, ANGELINA P. CIOCON, MARIVIT P. CIOCON-HERNANDEZ, AND REMBERTO C. KARAAN, SR., Complainants, v. JUDGE ANTONIO C. LUBAO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 22, GENERAL SANTOS CITY, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 7594, February 09, 2016 - ADELPHA E. MALABED, Complainant, v. ATTY. MELJOHN B. DE LA PEŅA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207535, February 10, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICARDO LAGBO A.K.A RICARDO LABONG Y MENDOZA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 201073, February 10, 2016 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. Petitioner, v. PAL EMPLOYEES SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 180402, February 10, 2016 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208021, February 03, 2016 - OSCAR S. VILLARTA, Petitioner, v. GAUDIOSO TALAVERA, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 193748, February 03, 2016 - MERVIC REALTY, INC. AND VICCY REALTY, INC., Petitioners, v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 181789, February 03, 2016 - GMA NETWORK, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, CENTRAL CATV, INC., PHILIPPINE HOME CABLE HOLDINGS, INC., AND PILIPINO CABLE CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 202978, February 01, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICTOR P. PADIT, Accused-Appellant.

  • A.C. No. 9807, February 02, 2016 - ERLINDA SISTUAL, FLORDELISA S. LEYSA, LEONISA S. ESPABO AND ARLAN C. SISTUAL, Complainants, v. ATTY. ELIORDO OGENA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 180642, February 03, 2016 - NUEVA ECIJA I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INCORPORATED (NEECO I), Petitioner, v. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 194134, February 01, 2016 - JOSE ROMULO L. FRANCISCO, Petitioner, v. LOYOLA PLANS CONSOLIDATED INC., JESUSA CONCEPCION AND GERARDO B. MONZON, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 187417, February 24, 2016 - CHRISTINE JOY CAPIN-CADIZ, Petitioner, v. BRENT HOSPITAL AND COLLEGES, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 170192, February 10, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MARISSA BAYKER, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 202187, February 10, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ELISEO D. VILLAMOR, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 210542, February 24, 2016 - ROSALINA CARODAN, Petitioner, v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 215014, February 29, 2016 - REBECCA FULLIDO, Petitioner, v. GINO GRILLI, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 215107, February 24, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE TOLL REGULATORY BOARD, Petitioner, v. C.C. UNSON COMPANY, INC., Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-15-3300 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No.12-4011-P), February 10, 2016 - JOSEPHINE E. LAM, Complainant, v. NILA M. GARCIA, JUNIOR PROCESS SERVER, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, SIATON, NEGROS ORIENTAL, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3423 [Formerly A.M. No. 13-9-89-MTCC], February 16, 2016 - RE: CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATION IRREGULARITY (IMPERSONATION) OF MS. ELENA T. VALDEROSO, CASH CLERK II, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, ANTIPOLO CITY.

  • G.R. No. 210233, February 15, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES RODOLFO SY AND BELEN SY, LOLITA SY, AND SPOUSES TEODORICO AND LEAH ADARNA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 206256, February 24, 2016 - ALBERT C. AUSTRIA, Petitioner, v. CRYSTAL SHIPPING, INC., AND/OR LARVIK SHIPPING A/S, AND EMILY MYLA A. CRISOSTOMO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 202695, February 29, 2016 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. GJM PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING, INC., Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 5325, February 09, 2016 - NEMESIO FLORAN AND CARIDAD FLORAN, Complainants, v. ATTY. ROY PRULE EDIZA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201927, February 17, 2016 - VICENTE D. CABANTING AND LALAINE V. CABANTING, Petitioners, v. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 184332, February 17, 2016 - ANNA TENG, Petitioner, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (SEC) AND TING PING LAY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 198434, February 29, 2016 - HEIRS OF LEANDRO NATIVIDAD AND JULIANA V. NATIVIDAD, Petitioners, v. JUANA MAURICIO-NATIVIDAD, AND SPOUSES JEAN NATIVIDAD CRUZ AND JERRY CRUZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 182629, February 24, 2016 - MERCEDES N. ABELLA, MA. THERESA A. BALLESTEROS AND MARIANITO N. ABELLA, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF FRANCISCA C. SAN JUAN namely: GLICERIA SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, BENIGNA SAN JUAN VASQUEZ, EVARISTO SAN JUAN, NIEVES SAN JUAN LUSTRE AND MATILDE SAN JUAN QUILONIO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 207389, February 17, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FEDERICO DE LA CRUZ Y SANTOS, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 216566, February 17, 2016 - MAGELLAN AEROSPACE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE AIR FORCE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 175760, February 17, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SOGOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199537, February 10, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. ANDREA TAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 179287, February 01, 2016 - PCI JIMMY M. FORTALEZA AND SPO2 FREDDIE A. NATIVIDAD, Petitioners, v. HON. RAUL M. GONZALEZ IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE AND ELIZABETH N. OROLA VDA. DE SALABAS, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 182090 - ELIZABETH N. OROLA VDA. DE SALABAS, Petitioner, v. HON. EDUARDO R. ERMITA, HON. MANUEL B. GAITE, P/INSP. CLARENCE DONGAIL, P/INSP. JONATHAN LORILLA,1 PO3 ALLEN WINSTON HULLEZA AND PO2 BERNARDO CIMATU, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206758, February 17, 2016 - MARICEL S. NONAY, Petitioner, v. BAHIA SHIPPING SERVICES, INC., FRED OLSEN LINES AND CYNTHIA MENDOZA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195026, February 22, 2016 - CENTRAL MINDANAO UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, DR. MARIA LUISA R. SOLIVEN, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 174462, February 10, 2016 - PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION (POTC), PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION (PHILCOMSAT), Petitioners, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (3rd DIVISION), REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 199683, February 10, 2016 - ARLENE T. SAMONTE, VLADIMIR P. SAMONTE, MA. AUREA S. ELEPANO, Petitioners, v. LA SALLE GREENHILLS, INC., BRO. BERNARD S. OCA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 183486, February 24, 2016 - THE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION, LIMITED, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION AND CITYTRUST BANKING CORPORATION (NOW BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 194960, February 03, 2016 - PRO BUILDERS, INC., Petitioner, v. TG UNIVERSAL BUSINESS VENTURES, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203678, February 17, 2016 - CONCORDE CONDOMINIUM, INC., BY ITSELF AND COMPRISING THE UNIT OWNERS OF CONCORDE CONDOMINIUM BUILDING, Petitioner, v. AUGUSTO H. BACULIO; NEW PPI CORPORATION; ASIAN SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY AND ITS SECURITY GUARDS; ENGR. NELSON B. MORALES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS BUILDING OFFICIAL OF THE MAKATI CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT; SUPT. RICARDO C. PERDIGON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CITY FIRE MARSHAL OF THE MAKATI CITY FIRE STATION; F/C SUPT. SANTIAGO E. LAGUNA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF FIRE PROTECTION-NCR, AND ANY AND ALL PERSONS ACTING WITH OR UNDER THEM, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 174481, February 10, 2016 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CRISTY DIMAANO Y TIPDAS, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 218867, February 17, 2016 - SPOUSES EDMOND LEE AND HELEN HUANG, Petitioners, v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 190534, February 10, 2016 - C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC., RONALD AUSTRIA, AND ABU DHABI NATIONAL TANKER CO., Petitioners, v. LEGAL HEIRS OF THE LATE GODOFREDO REPISO, REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE LUZVIMINDA REPISO, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 10945 (Formerly CBD 09-2507), February 23, 2016 - ANGELITO RAMISCAL AND MERCEDES ORZAME, Complainants, v. ATTY. EDGAR S. ORRO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208406, February 29, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ALLAN RODRIGUEZ Y GRAJO, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 177382, February 17, 2016 - VIVA SHIPPING LINES, INC., Petitioner, v. KEPPEL PHILIPPINES MINING, INC., METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, CITY OF BATANGAS, CITY OF LUCENA, PROVINCE OF QUEZON, ALEJANDRO OLIT, NIDA MONTILLA, PIO HERNANDEZ, EUGENIO BACULO, AND HARLAN BACALTOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 203322, February 24, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. REMAN SARIEGO, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 186102, February 24, 2016 - NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF TEODULO EBESA, NAMELY: PORFERIA L. EBESA, EFREN EBESA, DANTE EBESA AND CYNTHIA EBESA, AND ATTY. FORTUNATO VELOSO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192233, February 17, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SPO1 CATALINO GONZALES, JR., Accused-Appellant.

  • A.M. No. P-15-3393 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4055-P], February 23, 2016 - SEGUNDINA P. NOCES-DE LEON AND LEONOR P. ALAVE, Petitioners, v. TERENCIO G. FLORENDO, SHERIFF IV, BRANCH 21, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, VIGAN CITY, ILOCOS SUR, Respondent.

  • IPI No. 15-35-SB-J, February 23, 2016 - RE: VERIFIED COMPLAINT DATED JULY 13, 2015 OF ALFONSO V. UMALI, JR., Complainant, v. HON. JOSE R. HERNANDEZ, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-15-3361 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3381-P], February 23, 2016 - ATTY. JOHN V. AQUINO, Petitioner, v. ELENA S. ALCASID, CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, OLONGAPO CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 185603, February 10, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. LOCAL SUPERIOR OF THE INSTITUTE OF THE SISTERS OF THE SACRED HEART OF JESUS OF RAGUSA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208404, February 24, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICENTE LUGNASIN AND DEVINCIO GUERRERO, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 183529, February 24, 2016 - OFELIA C. CAUNAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 207816, February 24, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAUL YAMON TUANDO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 171041, February 10, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. MOLDEX REALTY, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 188720, February 23, 2016 - QUEZON CITY PTCA FEDERATION, INC., Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY JESLI A. LAPUS, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 8037, February 17, 2016 - RE: DECISION DATED AUGUST 19, 2008, 3RD DIVISION, COURT OF APPEALS IN CA-G.R. SP NO. 79904 [HON. DIONISIO DONATO T. GARCIANO, ET AL. V. HON. PATERNO G. TIAMSON, ETC., ET AL.], Petitioner, v. ATTY. JOSE DE G. FERRER, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 220481, February 17, 2016 - VICTOR S. LIMLINGAN AND EMMANUEL A. LEYCO, Petitioners, v. ASIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, INC., Respondent.; G.R. No. 220503 - ASIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, INC., Petitioner, v. VICTOR S. LIMLINGAN AND EMMANUEL A. LEYCO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208976, February 22, 2016 - THE HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. LEOVIGILDO DELOS REYES, JR., Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10605, February 17, 2016 - BIENVENIDO T. CANLAPAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. WILLIAM B. BALAYO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 209180, February 24, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. REGHIS M. ROMERO II AND OLIVIA LAGMAN ROMERO, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 209253 - OLIVIA LAGMAN ROMERO, Petitioner, v. REGHIS M. ROMERO II, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208948, February 24, 2016 - JOSE B. LURIZ, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 173921, February 24, 2016 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner, v. ISAGANI DAWAL, LORNA CONCEPCION, AND BONIFACIO SINOBAGO, Respondents.; G.R. No. 173952 - ISAGANI DAWAL, LORNA CONCEPCION, AND BONIFACIO SINOBAGO, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., AVELINO L. ZAPANTA, AND CESAR B. LAMBERTE, Respondents.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3419 [Formerly OCAIPI No. 11-3648-P], February 23, 2016 - AUGUSTO V. SANTOS, Complainant, v. SHERIFF IV ANTONIO V. LEAŅO, JR., SHERIFF III BENJIE E. LACSINA, SHERIFF III ALVIN S. PINEDA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 184288, February 16, 2016 - ERIC N. ESTRELLADO AND JOSSIE M. BORJA, Petitioners, v. KARINA CONSTANTINO DAVID, THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, HIPOLITO R. GABORNI AND ROBERTO S. SE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 175210, February 01, 2016 - MARIO JOSE E. SERENO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSOCIATION OF PETROCHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (APMP), Petitioner, v. COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND RELATED MATTERS (CTRM) OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NEDA), COMPOSED OF THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE NEDA SECRETARIAT, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARIES OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, FINANCE, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, AGRICULTURE, ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION, LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, AGRARIAN REFORM, THE GOVERNOR OF THE BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS AND THE CHAIRMAN OF THE TARIFF COMMISSION, AND BRENDA R. MENDOZA IN HER CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE TRADE, INDUSTRY & UTILITIES STAFF, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 170631, February 10, 2016 - CARAVAN TRAVEL AND TOURS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Petitioner, v. ERMILINDA R. ABEJAR, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 8667, February 03, 2016 - INOCENCIO I. BALISTOY, Petitioner, v. ATTY. FLORENCIO A. BRON, Respondent.

  • IPI No. 14-222-CA-J, February 23, 2016 - RE: COMPLAINT OF ATTY. MARIANO R. PEFIANCO AGAINST JUSTICES MARIA ELISA SEMPIO DIY, RAMON PAUL L. HERNANDO, AND CARMELITA SALANDANAN-MANAHAN, OF THE COURT OF APPEALS CEBU.

  • G.R. No. 193176, February 24, 2016 - PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, RENATO D. TAYAG, ISMAEL M. REINOSO, GENEROSO TANSECO, MANUEL MORALES, RUBEN B. ANCHETA, GERONIMO Z. VELASCO, TROADIO T. QUIAZON, JR., FERNANDO MARAMAG, EDGARDO TORDESILLAS, ARTURO R. TANCO, JR., GERARDO SICAT, PANFILO O. DOMINGO, POTENCIANO ILUSORIO, MANUEL B. SYQUIO, RAFAEL M. ATAYDE, HONORIO POBLADOR, JR., GEORGE T. SCHOLEY,1 TIRSO ANTIPORDA, JR., CARLOS L. INDUCTIVO, AND TEODORO VALENCIA, Respondents.