Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > July 2016 Decisions > G.R. No. 215192, July 27, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. BERNABE M. BARTOLINI, Appellant.:




G.R. No. 215192, July 27, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. BERNABE M. BARTOLINI, Appellant.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 215192, July 27, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. BERNABE M. BARTOLINI, Appellant.

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

On appeal is the 13 August 2014 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00550-MIN. The Court of Appeals affirmed the 16 November 2006 Judgment2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 25, convicting appellant Bernabe M. Bartolini (Bartolini) for violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The Facts

The Information dated 21 September 2004 reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
That on or about the 22nd day of June 2004 at about 7:20 o'clock in the evening, more or less, at Barangay Sugbongcogon, Municipality of Tagoloan, Province of Misamis Oriental, Republic of the Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to possess and to sell any dangerous drugs, knowingly, willfully and feloniously did then and there sell and convey to a third person twenty-six (26) pieces of white rolled Marijuana sticks, having a total weight of 2.2 grams, which when examined gave positive result to the test of the presence of Marijuana, a dangerous drug.

Contrary to and in violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.3chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Upon arraignment, Bartolini entered a plea of not guilty.

The facts, as culled from the records, are as follows:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryOn 12 June 2004, the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Unit (PAID-SOTU) of Misamis Oriental conducted a test-buy operation on Bartolini and was able to buy two marijuana sticks from the latter. The following day, the PAID-SOTU tried to conduct a buy-bust operation but failed because Bartolini could not be found within the area.

On 22 June 2004, at around 7:00 in the evening, the PAID-SOTU conducted a buy-bust operation against Bartolini in Sugbongcogon, Tagoloan, Misamis Oriental. The buy-bust team was composed of SPO4 Lorenzo Larot (SPO4 Larot) as team leader, SPO3 Wilfred Saquilayan, PO3 Arthur Catalan, PO3 Juancho Dizon (PO3 Dizon), PO2 Roel Sereno, and Barangay Kagawad Leonardo Abenque (Barangay Kagawad Abenque). They also had a confidential informant to act as the poseur-buyer to help with the operation. Marked money in the amount of Eighty Pesos (P80), composed of one Fifty Peso bill, one Twenty Peso bill, and one Ten Peso bill, was given to the poseur-buyer.

The members of the buy-bust team were inside a store pretending to be customers while the poseur-buyer was about two meters outside of the store. Bartolini approached the poseur-buyer and thereafter, SPO4 Larot saw the decoy show and give the marked money to Bartolini. Bartolini then went to his house and came back giving the decoy 26 sticks of marijuana. The decoy then placed his white towel on his shoulder, which was the pre­arranged signal that the transaction took place. The buy-bust team then rushed to Bartolini and arrested him. They recovered the marked money and three stalks of marijuana from Bartolini. The buy-bust team, together with Bartolini, went to the Tagoloan Police Station where the seized items were marked by SPO4 Larot. The Certificate of Inventory was also prepared by SPO4 Larot and was signed by SPO4 Larot, Bartolini, and Barangay Kagawad Abenque.

SPO4 Larot prepared the request for: (1) the laboratory examination of the 26 sticks and 3 stalks of marijuana; (2) the drug test for Bartolini; and (3) the test for ultra-violet radiation of the marked money and the body of Bartolini. The Chemistry Reports from the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory showed that: (1) the sticks tested positive for the presence of marijuana; (2) Bartolini tested positive for marijuana; and (3) the marked money and the hands of Bartolini were positive for bright green ultra-violet fluorescent powder.

Bartolini, for his defense, stated that on 22 June 2014, at around 7:00 in the evening, he was on his way home when he met two acquaintances -Dodong and Lito, whom he inquired regarding a job at Swift Processing Plant. During the course of their conversation, two persons walked towards them and put him under arrest. These persons were SPO4 Larot and PO3 Dizon. PO3 Dizon thereafter asked him if he was Roger Patok, and when Bartolini denied that he was Roger Patok, PO3 Dizon continued to insist that he was. After asking where Bartolini lived, they went inside his house and searched it. Bartolini saw SPO4 Larot pull something from his pocket and place a white cellophane on the stove of his kitchen. He was then brought to the highway where he was handcuffed, and thereafter, he was brought to the police station where he was made to hold money bills, one One Hundred Peso bill and one Ten Peso bill, and to urinate.

Bartolini strongly denied the accusations against him and contended that he is merely a victim of a frame-up by the police and no such buy-bust operation ever happened.

The Ruling of the RTC

In a Judgment dated 16 November 2006, the RTC found Bartolini guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165,4 to wit:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Constitutional presumption of innocence of accused having been overcome by substantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt, this Court finds accused BERNABE M. BARTOLINI, "guilty" beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 and without any aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, hereby sentences accused to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).

Accused is credited in the service of his sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty with the full time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners.

The twenty-six (26) pieces of white rolled Marijuana sticks are forfeited in favor of the government to be dispensed in accordance with law.

SO ORDERED.5chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Bartolini filed his Notice of Appeal6 which was given due course by the RTC.

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In a Decision dated 13 August 2014,7 the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC finding Bartolini guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. The dispositive portion of the Decision of the Court of Appeals reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court is AFFIRMED.8chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Bartolini filed his Notice of Appeal dated 18 September 2014 with the Court of Appeals.9chanrobleslaw

The Issue

The issue to be resolved in this appeal is whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely erred in finding Bartolini guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. Bartolini argues that the non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and the failure to establish the corpus delicti of the offense and the unbroken chain of custody should necessarily result in the reversal of his conviction.

The Ruling of the Court

The appeal is meritorious.

For a successful prosecution of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under RA 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) the buyer and the seller were identified.10 In this case, we find that the prosecution failed to prove these elements beyond reasonable doubt.

Specifically, Bartolini argues that the corpus delicti of the crime was not established, and the unbroken chain of custody was likewise not established. We find merit in his arguments.

In a case involving dangerous drugs, the substance itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction.11 In People v. Gatlabayan,12 this Court held that it is of prime importance that the identity of the dangerous drug be established beyond reasonable doubt; and that it must be proven with exactitude that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is exactly the same substance offered in evidence before the court.

We find that the prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti of the crime beyond reasonable doubt as there were significant gaps in the chain of custody. The requirement of an unbroken chain of custody is to ensure that unnecessary doubts on the identity of the evidence - the dangerous drugs - are removed.13 The prosecution has the duty to prove every link in the chain, from the moment the dangerous drug was seized from the accused until the time it is offered in court as evidence. The marking of the seized item, the first link in the chain of custody, is crucial in proving an unbroken chain of custody as it is the starting point in the custodial link that succeeding handlers of the evidence will use as a reference point.14 The succeeding links in the chain are the different processes the seized item will go through under the possession of different persons. This is why it is vital that each link is sufficiently proven to be unbroken - to obviate switching, planting, or contaminating the evidence.15chanrobleslaw

In this case, we find that the prosecution failed to sufficiently establish the first link in the chain of custody. There was a failure to mark the drugs immediately after the items were seized from Bartolini. The items were marked only at the police station and the prosecution offered no reasonable explanation as to why the items were not immediately marked after seizure. We have previously held that the failure to mark the drugs immediately after seizure from the accused cast doubt on the prosecution's evidence, which warrants an acquittal on reasonable doubt.16 In this case, SPO4 Larot admitted that the items were marked only at the Tagoloan Police Station where Bartolini was brought after he was arrested:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Q
It was only in Tagoloan Police Station where you brought the suspect later after his arrest and where you marked the twenty-six sticks and three (3) stalks of marijuana?
A
Yes, Ma'am.
Q
At the police station?
A
Yes, Ma'am.17
This Court has been consistent in holding that the failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs raises reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti and suffices to rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.18 This is consistent with the provisions of RA 9165 which state: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;

x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
There have been cases when the Court relaxed the application of Section 21 and held that the subsequent marking at the police station is valid. However, this non-compliance is not fatal only when there are (1) justifiable grounds and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.19 And while the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 1064020 now allows the conduct of physical inventory in the nearest police station, the principal concern remains to be the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. In this case, however, the prosecution offered no explanation at all for the non-compliance with Section 21, more particularly that relating to the immediate marking of the seized items. This non-explanation creates doubt on whether the buy-bust team was able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the items seized from Bartolini.

The prosecution also failed to offer any explanation as to why no media representative was present, despite the fact that the police had already conducted a test-buy operation a few days before. As testified by SPO4 Larot, there was no representative from the media during the inventory and taking of photographs of the seized items as required in Section 21:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
ATTY. MALANOG:
Q
So you took pictures of the marijuana sticks and stalks?
A
Yes, Ma'am.
Q
Where?
A
Tagoloan Police Station.
Q
In the presence of the accused?
A
Yes, Ma'am.
Q
Was there a media representative present?
A
There was no media representative[.] But there were barangay officials present.
Q
But, are you aware of Section 21, RA 9165, that when you took pictures as a result of the entrapment operation, you are supposed to get a media representative to witness the inventory of the items seized?
x x x x
A
At that time, we did not contact any media[.] But, there were barangay officials present at that time.
Q
You have been enforcing RA 6425 since when, Mr. Witness?
A
Since 1995.
Q
What about RA 9165?
A
In the year 2002.
Q
And, having enforced that law since 2002, you are aware of the provision on how the evidence should be handled?
A
Yes, Ma'am. I already have the knowledge since I took up some seminars in anti-narcotics.
COURT: (To the witness)
Q
Handling, custody and marking of evidence?
A
Yes, Your Honor.
ATTY. MALANOG: (To the witness)
Q
Of course, you are familiar with Section 21 of RA 9165?
A
Yes, Ma'am.21
The failure to immediately mark the seized items, taken together with the absence of a representative from the media to witness the inventory, without any justifiable explanation, casts doubt on whether the chain of custody is truly unbroken. Serious uncertainty is created on the identity of the corpus delicti in view of the broken linkages in the chain of custody.22 The prosecution has the burden of proving each link in the chain of custody - from the initial contact between buyer and seller, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the buy-bust money, and the delivery of the illegal drug.23 The prosecution must prove with certainty each link in this chain of custody and each link must be the subject of strict scrutiny by the courts to ensure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense.24chanrobleslaw

Moreover, there was failure to identify who placed certain markings on the seized items. While SPO4 Larot testified that he made the markings "A" and "C" on the items, he was not able to identify who placed the other markings on the evidence presented in court:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Q
Alright, now, the twenty-six (26) sticks marijuana cigarettes were confiscated by you from the person of the accused Bernabe Bartolini, as well as, the three (3) stalks of suspected marijuana[.] If those exhibits or specimens will be shown to you, will you be able to identify them?
A
Yes, Sir.
Q
Alright, I have here with me these drugs specimens[.] Kindly take a look at them and tell this Honorable Court what relation have these drugs specimens to those drugs confiscated by you on June 22, 2004 from the accused Bernabe Bartolini?
A
This Exhibit "E" with markings "E-D-292-04" were the ones confiscated from Bernabe Bartolini on that day.
Q
Who placed the markings here?
A
I don't know, Your Honor. But, I made a marking inside this "A".
Q
There is a masking tape around the plastic transparent cellophane with marking "A-D-292-04". Do you know who made these markings?
A
I don't know. I already have a marking inside Alpha.
Q
How about this "E-1"? There is also a masking tape marked "D-292-04"?
A
I think that represents the Chemistry Report, Your Honor.25cralawred (Emphasis supplied)
SPO4 Larot categorically stated that he did not know who placed the other markings on the seized items, although he offered his view that it represents the Chemistry Report. However, the prosecution did not formally offer the testimony of Police Senior Inspector and Forensic Chemist April Garcia Carbajal, who prepared such Chemistry Report.26 While the testimony of the forensic chemist was dispensed with,27 the prosecution failed to identify such markings in other ways, such as an affidavit, to establish the unbroken chain of custody of the seized items. In fact, there is no evidence as to who handled the seized items after SPO4 Larot turned them over to the laboratory. SPO4 Larot also did not categorically state in his testimony to whom the seized items were turned over to in the laboratory. This failure raises questions as to who exercised custody and possession of the specimen in the laboratory, as well as the manner it was handled, stored and safeguarded pending its offer in court. In People v. Coreche, we held that the failure of the prosecution to provide details pertaining to the post-examination custody of the seized item created a gap in the chain of custody which again raises reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti.28 This also applies in this case, where the prosecution failed to offer any details in the links pertaining to the seized items after they were allegedly turned over by SPO4 Larot to the laboratory which failure casts doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti.

Based on the foregoing, we find that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, and the corpus delicti of the crime was not sufficiently proven.

Aside from the points raised by Bartolini on the chain of custody and corpus delicti, we find that the first element of the crime involving the sale of illegal drugs - that the transaction or sale took place - was also not sufficiently proven by the prosecution. The non-presentation of the poseur-buyer was fatal to the prosecution as nobody could competently testify on the fact of sale between Bartolini and the poseur-buyer. In this case, SPO4 Larot admitted that he did not hear the conversation between the poseur-buyer and Bartolini, and that he only saw the pre-arranged signal before apprehending Bartolini:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
ATTY. MALANOG:
Q
While the buy-bust operation was ongoing, you were inside the store[.] The store was how many meters away from the house of Bernabe Bartolini?
A
Five (5) to eight (8) meters away.
Q
Now, how many houses were in-between the store and the house of Bernabe Bartolini?
A
There was none.
Q
It's in the opposite area of the road?
A
It was only divided by the road. What I mean is that in this area is the store and across the road is the house of Bernabe Bartolini.
Q
How about the decoy, where was he situated?
A
In front of the store.
Q
Why? You mean Bernabe Bartolini was inside the store?
A
Our decoy was in the store. Few minutes later, Bernabe Bartolini approached our decoy.
Q
When Bernabe Bartolini approached your decoy, what did Bernabe Bartolini tell your decoy?
A
I cannot hear because they were at a distance[.] But, when I looked at them, our decoy showed the money and gave it to Bernabe Bartolini.
Q
You have not heard the conversation between Bernabe Bartolini and your decoy and you only saw your decoy handing the money to Bernabe Bartolini?
A
Yes, Ma'am.
Q
And how many minutes elapsed before Bernabe Bartolini gave the twenty-six (26) marijuana cigarettes from the time he received the money?
A
More than a minute.
Q
More than a minute[.] Because you were inside the store and you did not actually hear the conversation and what were they talking about[.] The only time you knew that the transaction was consummated was when he put his white towel on his shoulder?
A
Yes, Ma'am.
Q
Which shoulder? Right or left?
A
Right shoulder.
Q
So, before the decoy gave the pre-arranged signal, you had no idea that the transaction was already consummated because you waited for that signal?
A
We were always waiting for the signal.
Q
My question is this: The only time that you knew that the transaction was consummated was when the decoy put his towel on his shoulder[.] But, before that, you were not sure whether the transaction was already consummated because you were waiting for the signal?
A
Yes, Ma'am. That was my briefing. That was my instruction.29 (Emphasis supplied)
As SPO4 Larot could not hear the conversation between Bartolini and the poseur-buyer, his testimony was mere hearsay and thus the prosecution failed to prove the fact of the transaction. The non-presentation of the poseur-buyer was fatal to the prosecution. In People v. Polizon, we held:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
We agree with the appellant's contention that the non-presentation of Boy Lim, the alleged poseur-buyer, weakens the prosecution's evidence. Sgt. Pascua was not privy to the conversation between Lim and the accused. He was merely watching from a distance and he only saw the actions of the two. As pointed out by the appellant, Sgt. Pascua had no personal knowledge of the transaction that transpired between Lim and the appellant. Since appellant insisted that he was forced by Lim to buy the marijuana, it was essential that Lim should have been presented to rebut accused's testimony.30chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
While there have been instances where the Court affirmed the conviction of an accused notwithstanding the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation, this is only when the testimony of such poseur-buyer is merely corroborative, and another eyewitness can competently testify on the sale of the illegal drug.31 In this case however, the lone witness for the prosecution was not competent to testify on the sale of the illegal drug as he merely relied on the pre-arranged signal to apprehend Bartolini.

We also find that the marked money presented by the prosecution as evidence raises questions as to the alleged transaction between the poseur-buyer and Bartolini. While SPO4 Larot testified that the transaction was for One Hundred Pesos (P100) worth of marijuana, the money that was actually marked was only Eighty Pesos (P80) - One Fifty Peso bill, one Twenty Peso bill, and one Ten Peso bill. No explanation was given as to why the remaining Twenty Pesos (P20) was not marked:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
ATTY. MALANOG (To the witness)
Q
Mr. Witness, I heard when you said in your direct-testimony that when you arrested the accused, you recovered from him the marked money, but, only P80.00. Tell this Court how much did you actually recover from him when you subjected him to a body search?
A
P100.00, Your Honor. But, the marked money was only P80.00.
Q
Yes. But you only produced P80.00. Where is now the other P20.00 not listed in the Certifipate of Inventory that you prepared?
A
It was listed, Your Honor.
Q
Where?
A
At the bottom, listed there are five (5) pieces of P20.00 bills[.] And, I think I have exhibited the P100.00.
Q
Why there are now five (5) pieces of P20.00 bills?
A
I have submitted it to the Court as exhibits.32
While it is not essential that the marked money be presented in court or that the money used in the buy-bust operation be marked,33 we find that the discrepancy in the marked money, taken together with the other gaps and lapses in this case, raises questions on the transaction that allegedly took place. In People v. Cruz,34 where the Court held that the failure to use marked money or to present it in evidence is not material since the sale cannot be essentially disproved by the absence thereof, the poseur-buyer was presented as a witness, and there was a direct testimony to establish that the transaction involving the illegal drug indeed took place. This is in stark contrast to the case at bar, as the testimony of the poseur-buyer was not offered in evidence. SPO4 Larot did not hear the conversation between the poseur-buyer and Bartolini. The marked money was not equal to the amount of the alleged transaction. Considering that the team had already conducted a test-buy a few days prior, they should have been more prepared for the buy-bust operation, which includes the preparation of the marked money. All of these, taken in totality, create doubt as to the fact of sale between the poseur-buyer and Bartolini.

It is well-settled in criminal law that the conviction of an accused must be based on the strength of the prosecution's evidence and not on the weakness or absence of evidence of the defense.35 Bartolini has the constitutional presumption of innocence in his favor which outweighs the presumption of regularity of duties of the policemen involved. Conviction must stand on the strength of the prosecution's evidence, and not on the weakness of the defense - the prosecution must be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the crime charged.36 In this case however, we find that the prosecution fell short in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is indeed guilty of the crime charged.

In sum, this Court finds that the prosecution failed (1) to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized items; (2) to prove the corpus delicti of the crime; (3) to offer any justifiable reason for the non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165; and (4) to establish the fact of sale between the poseur-buyer and Bartolini. There is a failure on the part of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of Bartolini — he should be acquitted of the crime charged.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The assailed 13 August 2014 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00550-MIN, which affirmed the 16 November 2006 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 25, in Criminal Case No. 2004-797, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

Accordingly, appellant Bernabe M. Bartolini is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt.

The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to cause the immediate release of appellant, unless the latter is being lawfully held for another cause, and to inform the Court of the date of his release or reason for his continued confinement within five (5) days from notice.

SO ORDERED.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Brion, Del Castillo, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:


1Rollo, pp. 3-9. Penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, with Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Pablito A. Perez concurring.

2 CA rollo, pp. 75-78. Penned by Judge Noli T. Catli.

3 Id. at 75.

4 Section 5 of RA 9165 provides in part:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySection 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. x x x.

5 CA rollo, p. 78.

6Rollo, pp. 10-12.

7 Id. at 3-9.

8 Id. at 9.

9 CA rollo, pp. 120-122.

10People v. De la Cruz, 591 Phil. 259, 269 (2008).

11People v. Frondozo, 609 Phil. 188, 198 (2009).

12 669 Phil. 240, 252 (2011).

13Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008).

14People v. Zakaria, 699 Phil. 367 (2012).

15People v. Coreche, 612 Phil. 1238 (2009).

16 See People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024 (2012), citing People v. Coreche, id.; People v. Laxa, 414 Phil. 156 (2001); People v. Casimiro, 432 Phil. 966 (2002).

17 TSN, 11 May 2005, p. 22.

18People v. Sabdula, 733 Phil. 85 (2014).

19People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 234 (2008).

20 Took effect on 15 July 2014.

21 TSN, 11 May 2005, pp. 22-23.

22People v. Havana, G.R. No. 198450, 11 January 2016.

23People v. Doria, 361 Phil. 595 (1999), citing People v. Tadepa, 314 Phil. 231 (1995) and People v. Crisostomo, G.R. No. 97427, 24 May 1993, 222 SCRA 511, 515.

24 Id.

25cralawred TSN, 11 May 2005, p. 11.

26 Records, p. 164.

27 Id. at 137.

28People v. Coreche, supra note 15, at 1250-1251.

29 TSN, 11 May 2005, pp. 14-15.

30 288 Phil. 821, 826-827 (1992).

31 See People v. Guzon, 719 Phil. 441 (2013), citing People v. Orteza, 555 Phil. 700, 709 (2007); People v. Ambrosio, 471 Phil. 241 (2004).

32 TSN, 11 May 2005, p. 13.

33People v. Cruz, 667 Phil. 420 (2011).

34 Id.

35People v. Suan, 627 Phil. 174, 192-193 (2010), citing People v. Teves, 408 Phil. 82, 102 (2001).

36People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749 (2014), citing People v. Belocura, 693 Phil. 476 (2012) further citing Patula v. People, 685 Phil. 376 (2012).



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





July-2016 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 210878, July 07, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JONALYN ABENES Y PASCUA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 202015, July 13, 2016 - ANTONIO VALEROSO AND ALLAN LEGATONA, Petitioners, v. SKYCABLE CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204620, July 11, 2016 - ROWENA A. SANTOS, Petitioner, v. INTEGRATED PHARMACEUTICAL, INC. AND KATHERYN TANTIANSU, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 204750, July 11, 2016 - SUSAN D. CAPILI, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205753, July 04, 2016 - ROSA PAMARAN, SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, THROUGH THEIR REPRESENTATIVE, ROSEMARY P. BERNABE, Petitioners, v. BANK OF COMMERCE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200042, July 07, 2016 - FELIZARDO T. GUNTALILIB, Petitioner, v. AURELIO Y. DELA CRUZ AND SALOME V. DELA CRUZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 220598, July 19, 2016 - GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), Respondents.; G.R. No. 220953 - BENIGNO B. AGUAS, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205951, July 04, 2016 - UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213660, July 05, 2016 - DR. WENIFREDO T. OÑATE, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-14-3213 [Formerly A.M. No. 12-5-91-RTC], July 12, 2016 - ACCREDITED LOCAL PUBLISHERS: THE WEEKLY ILOCANDIA INQUIRER, THE NORLUZONIAN COURIER, THE AMIANAN TRIBUNE, THE WEEKLY CITY BULLETIN, THE NORTHERN STAR, THE WEEKLY BANAT, THE NORTH LUZON HEADLINE, THE REGIONAL DIARYO, AND HIGH PLAINS JOURNAL ILOCANDIA, Complainants, v. SAMUEL L. DEL ROSARIO, CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 33, BAUANG, LA UNION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 193584, July 12, 2016 - HAMBRE J. MOHAMMAD, Petitioner, v. GRACE BELGADO-SAQUETON, IN HER CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR IV, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. XVI, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212206, July 04, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GABBY CONCEPCION Y NIMENDA AND TOTO MORALES, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 213847, July 12, 2016 - JUAN PONCE ENRILE, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 213568, July 05, 2016 - ALICIA P. LOGARTA, Petitioner, v. CATALINO M. MANGAHIS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 209264, July 05, 2016 - DAMASO T. AMBRAY AND CEFERINO T. AMBRAY, JR., Petitioners, v. SYLVIA A. TSOUROUS, CARMENCITA AMBRAY-LAUREL, HEDY AMBRAY-AZORES, VIVIEN AMBRAY-YATCO, NANCY AMBRAY-ESCUDERO, MARISTELA AMBRAY-ILAGAN, ELIZABETH AMBRAY-SORIANO, MA. LUISA FE AMBRAY-ARCILLA, AND CRISTINA AMBRAY-LABIT, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208353, July 04, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STEVE SIATON Y BATE, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 212337, July 04, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BELTRAN FUENTES, JR. Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 220978, July 05, 2016 - CENTURY PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioner, v. EDWIN J. BABIANO AND EMMA B. CONCEPCION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 203179, July 04, 2016 - TECHNO DEVELOPMENT & CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. VIKING METAL INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205728, July 05, 2016 - THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD, REPRESENTED BY THE MOST REV. BISHOP VICENTE M. NAVARRA AND THE BISHOP HIMSELF IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND THE ELECTION OFFICER OF BACOLOD CITY, ATTY. MAVIL V. MAJARUCON., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 204693, July 13, 2016 - GUAGUA NATIONAL COLLEGES, Petitioner, v. GUAGUA NATIONAL COLLEGES FACULTY LABOR UNION AND GUAGUA NATIONAL COLLEGES NON-TEACHING AND MAINTENANCE LABOR UNION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 213279, July 11, 2016 - C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC., BLUE OCEAN SHIP MANAGEMENT, LTD., AND/OR WILLIAM S. MALALUAN, Petitioners, v. WILLIAM C. ALIVIO, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-16-1869, July 27, 2016 - MARIE CHRISTINE D. BANCIL, Complainant, v. HONORABLE RONALDO B. REYES, PRESIDING JUDGE OF METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF SAN JUAN CITY, BRANCH 58, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 220449, July 04, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. RUSGIE GARRUCHO Y SERRANO, Appellant.

  • A.C. No. 10631, July 27, 2016 - ERNESTO B. BALBURIAS, Complainant, v. ATTY. AMOR MIA J. FRANCISCO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208264, July 27, 2016 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. RICO C. MANALASTAS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206649, July 20, 2016 - FOREST HELLS GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, INC., REPRESENTED BY RAINIER L. MADRID, IN A DERIVATIVE CAPACITY AS SHAREHOLDER AND CLUB MEMBER, Petitioner, v. FIL-ESTATE PROPERTIES, INC., AND FIL-ESTATE GOLF DEVELOPMENT, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 203657, July 11, 2016 - AILEEN ANGELA S. ALFORNON, Petitioner, v. RODULFO DELOS SANTOS AND EDSEL A. GALEOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 206690, July 11, 2016 - BARRIO FIESTA RESTAURANT, LIBERTY ILAGAN, SUNSHINE ONGPAUCO-IKEDA AND MARICO CRISTOBAL, Petitioners, v. HELEN C. BERONIA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189878, July 11, 2016 - WILSON FENIX, REZ CORTEZ AND ANGELITO SANTIAGO, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 181375, July 13, 2016 - PHIL-NIPPON KYOEI, CORP., Petitioner, v. ROSALIA T. GUDELOSAO, ON HER BEHALF AND IN BEHALF OF MINOR CHILDREN CHRISTY MAE T. GUDELOSAO AND ROSE ELDEN T. GUDELOSAO, CARMEN TANCONTIAN, ON HER BEHALF AND IN BEHALF OF THE CHILDREN CAMELA B. TANCONTIAN, BEVERLY B. TANCONTIAN, AND ACE B. TANCONTIAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208086, July 27, 2016 - FLORENCIO MORALES, JR., Petitioner, v. OMBUDSMAN CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES, ATTY. AGNES VST DEVANADERA, ATTY. MIGUEL NOEL T. OCAMPO, ATTY. JOYCE MARTINEZ-BARUT, ATTY. ALLAN S. HILBERO, AND ATTY. EDIZER J. RESURRECION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 215192, July 27, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. BERNABE M. BARTOLINI, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 204873, July 27, 2016 - ESTHER PASCUAL, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204899, July 27, 2016 - HEIRS OF BABAI GUIAMBANGAN, NAMELY, KALIPA B. GUIAMBANGAN, SAYA GUIAMBANGAN DARUS, NENENG P. GUIAMBANGAN, AND EDGAR P. GUIAMBANGAN, Petitioners, v. MUNICIPALITY OF KALAMANSIG, SULTAN KUDARAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MAYOR ROLANDO P. GARCIA, MEMBERS OF ITS SANGGUNIANG BAYAN, AND ITS MUNICIPAL TREASURER, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 205010, July 18, 2016 - PETRON GASUL LPG DEALERS ASSOCIATION AND TOTALGAZ LPG DEALERS ASSOCIATION, Petitioners, v. ELENA LAO, IMELDA LAO, POMPIDOU GOLANGCO, JEREMY WILSON GOLANGCO, CARMEN CASTILLO, AND/OR OCCUPANTS OF BAGUIO GAS CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 180060, July 13, 2016 - SPOUSES AUGUSTO AND NORA NAVARRO, Petitioners, v. RURAL BANK OF TARLAC, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 194121, July 11, 2016 - TORRES-MADRID BROKERAGE, INC., Petitioner, v. FEB MITSUI MARINE INSURANCE CO., INC. AND BENJAMIN P. MANALASTAS, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME OF BMT TRUCKING SERVICES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 200352, July 20, 2016 - MARY JUNE CELIZ, Petitioner, v. CORD CHEMICALS, INC., LEONOR G. SANZ, AND MARIAN ONTANGCO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 210715, July 18, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RUSTICO YGOT Y REPUELA, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 221636, July 11, 2016 - LAND BANK PHILIPPINES, OF THE Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND HEIRS OF MANUEL BOLAÑOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 189312, July 28, 2016 - FE B. SAGUINSIN, Petitioner, v. AGAPITO LIBAN, CESARIO LIBAN, EDDIE TANGUILAN, PACENCIA MACANANG, ISIDRO NATIVIDAD, TIMMY SIBBALUCA AND ISIDRO SIBBALUCA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 201436, July 11, 2016 - SPOUSES MAMERTO AND ADELIA* TIMADO, Petitioners, v. RURAL BANK OF SAN JOSE, INC., TEDDY MONASTERIO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ITS PRESIDENT/MANAGER, AND ATTY. AVELINO SALES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 198925, July 13, 2016 - SPOUSES ARCHIBAL LATOJA AND CHARITO LATOJA, Petitioners, v. HONORABLE ELVIE LIM, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 1, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BORONGAN, EASTERN SAMAR, ATTY. JESUS APELADO, REGISTER OF DEEDS, BORONGAN, EASTERN SAMAR, ALVARO CAPITO, AS SHERIFF, BRANCH 2, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BORONGAN, EASTERN SAMAR, AND TERESITA CABE, REPRESENTED BY ADELINA ZAMORA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195641, July 11, 2016 - TARCISIO S. CALILUNG, Petitioner, v. PARAMOUNT INSURANCE CORPORATION, RP TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., RENATO L. PUNZALAN AND JOSE MANALO, JR., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 212346, July 07, 2016 - RICHARD V. FUNK, Petitioner, v. SANTOS VENTURA HOCORMA FOUNDATION, INC., FEDERICO O. ESCALER, JOSE M. ZARAGOZA, DOMINGO L. MAPA, ERNESTO C. PEREZ AND ARISTON ESTRADA, SR., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195147, July 11, 2016 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondent.

  • G. R. No. 188283, July 20, 2016 - CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS, LTD., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES ARNULFO AND EVELYN FUENTEBELLA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 219627, July 04, 2016 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES POWER CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 187400, July 13, 2016 - FELICISIMO FERNANDEZ, SPOUSES DANILO AND GENEROSA VITUG- LIGON, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES ISAAC AND CONCEPCION RONULO Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 11078, July 19, 2016 - VERLITA V. MERCULLO AND RAYMOND VEDANO, Complainants, v. ATTY. MARIE FRANCES E. RAMON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 211028, July 13, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JONATHAN ARCILLO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 191442, July 27, 2016 - THE MUNICIPALITY OF ALFONSO LISTA, IFUGAO, REPRESENTED BY CHARLES L. CATTILING, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MUNICIPAL MAYOR AND ESTRELLA S. ALIGUYON, IN HER CAPACITY AS MUNICIPAL TREASURER, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, SPECIAL FORMER SIXTH DIVISION AND SN ABOITIZ POWER-MAGAT, INC.., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 206927, July 13, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DARIUS RENIEDO Y CAUILAN, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 204267, July 25, 2016 - LUZ S. ALMEDA, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (MINDANAO) AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. Nos. 205963-64, July 07, 2016 - AMANDO A. INOCENTES, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. ROLAND B. JURADO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRPERSON, SANDIGANBAYAN, FIFTH DIVISION, HON. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES, IN HER CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN, AS COMPLAINANT; AND HON. FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA, OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (OSG), IN ITS CAPACITY AS COUNSEL FOR THE PEOPLE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 205839, July 07, 2016 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. NARCISO L. KHO, Respondent.; G.R. No. 205840 - MA. LORENA FLORES AND ALEXANDER CRUZ, Petitioners, v. NARCISO L. KHO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206888, July 04, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. MARITESS CAYAS Y CALITIS @ "TETET", Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 204222, July 04, 2016 - NEPTUNE METAL SCRAP RECYCLING, INC., Petitioner, v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 191492, July 04, 2016 - PATRICIA SIBAYAN REPRESENTED BY TEODICIO SIBAYAN, Petitioner, v. EMILIO COSTALES, SUSANA ISIDRO, RODOLFO ISIDRO, ANNO ISIDRO AND ROBERTO CERANE., Respondents.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-14-2369 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 12-3907-RTJ], July 26, 2016 - DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY LEILA M. DE LIMA, Petitioner, v. JUDGE ROLANDO G. MISLANG, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 167, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG CITY, RESPONDENT.; A.M. No. RTJ-14-2372 [FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. No. 11-3736-RTJ] - HOME DEVELOPMENT MUTUAL FUND (HDMF), REPRESENTED BY ATTY. JOSE ROBERTO F. PO, Petitioner, v. JUDGE ROLANDO G. MISLANG, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 167, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210192, July 04, 2016 - ROSALINDA S. KHITRI AND FERNANDO S. KHITRI, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • A.M. OCA IPI No. 12-204-CA-J, July 26, 2016 - RE: VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DISBARMENT OF AMA LAND, INC. (REPRESENTED BY JOSEPH B. USITA) AGAINST COURT OF APPEALS ASSOCIATE JUSTICES HON. DANTON Q. BUESER, HON. SESINANDO E. VILLON AND HON. RICARDO G. ROSARIO.

  • G.R. No. 200537, July 13, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODRIGO QUITOLAY BALMONTE, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 183934, July 20, 2016 - ERNESTO GALANG AND MA. OLGA JASMIN CHAN, Petitioners, v. BOIE TAKEDA CHEMICALS, INC. AND/OR KAZUHIKO NOMURA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 183645, July 20, 2016 - HEIRS OF GAMALIEL ALBANO, REPRESENTED BY ALEXANDER ALBANO AND ALL OTHER PERSON LIVING WITH THEM IN THE SUBJECT PREMISES, Petitioners, v. SPS. MENA C. RAVANES AND ROBERTO RA VANES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 212426, July 26, 2016 - RENE A.V. SAGUISAG, WIGBERTO E. TAÑADA, FRANCISCO "DODONG" NEMENZO, JR., SR. MARY JOHN MANANZAN, PACIFICO A. AGABIN, ESTEBAN "STEVE" SALONGA, H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., EVALYN G. URSUA, EDRE U. OLALIA, DR. CAROL PAGADUAN-ARAULLO, DR. ROLAND SIMBULAN, AND TEDDY CASIÑO, Petitioners, v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE SECRETARY VOLTAIRE GAZMIN, DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS SECRETARY ALBERT DEL ROSARIO, JR., DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT SECRETARY FLORENCIO ABAD, AND ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES CHIEF OF STAFF GENERAL EMMANUEL T. BAUTISTA, Respondents.; G.R. No. 212444 - BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN (BAYAN), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GENERAL RENATO M. REYES, JR., BAYAN MUNA PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES NERI J. COLMENARES, AND CARLOS ZARATE, GABRIELA WOMEN'S PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES LUZ ILAGAN AND EMERENCIANA DE JESUS, ACT TEACHERS PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE ANTONIO L. TINIO, ANAKPAWIS PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE FERNANDO HICAP, KABATAAN PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE TERRY RIDON, MAKABAYANG KOALISYON NG MAMAMAYAN (MAKABAYAN), REPRESENTED BY SATURNINO OCAMPO, AND LIZA MAZA, BIENVENIDO LUMBERA, JOEL C. LAMANGAN, RAFAEL MARIANO, SALVADOR FRANCE, ROGELIO M. SOLUTA, AND CLEMENTE G. BAUTISTA, Petitioners, v. DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE (DND) SECRETARY VOLTAIRE GAZMIN, DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS SECRETARY ALBERT DEL ROSARIO, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES CHIEF OF STAFF GENERAL EMMANUEL T. BAUTISTA, DEFENSE UNDERSECRETARY PIO LORENZO BATINO, AMBASSADOR LOURDES YPARRAGUIRRE, AMBASSADOR J. EDUARDO MALAYA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE UNDERSECRETARY FRANCISCO BARAAN III, AND DND ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR STRATEGIC ASSESSMENTS RAYMUND JOSE QUILOP AS CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE NEGOTIATING PANEL FOR THE PHILIPPINES ON EDCA, Respondents.; KILUSANG MAYO UNO, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, ELMER LABOG, CONFEDERATION FOR UNITY, RECOGNITION AND ADVANCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (COURAGE), REPRESENTED BY ITS NATIONAL PRESIDENT FERDINAND GAITE, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS-KILUSANG MAYO UNO, REPRESENTED BY ITS NATIONAL PRESIDENT JOSELITO USTAREZ, NENITA GONZAGA, VIOLETA ESPIRITU, VIRGINIA FLORES, AND ARMANDO TEODORO, JR., Petitioners-In-Intervention,; RENE A.Q. SAGUISAG, JR., Petitioner-In-Intervention.

  • G.R. No. 208527, July 20, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARDO BACERO Y CASABON, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 190408, July 20, 2016 - BENJIE B. GEORG REPRESENTED BY BENJAMIN C. BELARMINO, JR., Petitioner, v. HOLY TRINITY COLLEGE, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 215764, July 13, 2016 - RICHARD K. TOM, Petitioner, v. SAMUEL N. RODRIGUEZ, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10944, July 12, 2016 - NORMA M. GUTIERREZ, Complainant, v. ATTY. ELEANOR A. MARAVILLA-ONA. Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204605, July 19, 2016 - INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HON. PAQUITO OCHOA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON. ALBERT DEL ROSARIO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, AND HON. RICARDO BLANCAFLOR, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 11316, July 12, 2016 - PATRICK A. CARONAN, Complainant, v. RICHARD A. CARONAN A.K.A. "ATTY. PATRICK A. CARONAN," Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206054, July 25, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. MINNIE TUMULAK Y CUENCA, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 206906, July 25, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. FLORDILINA RAMOS, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 217999, July 26, 2016 - TERESITA P. DE GUZMAN, IN HER CAPACITY AS FORMER GENERAL MANAGER; BERNADETTE B. VELASQUEZ, IN HER CAPACITY AS FINANCE MANAGER; ATTY. RODOLFO T. TABANGIN, ATTY. ANTONIO A. ESPIRITU, ATTY. MOISES P. CATING, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS FORMER MEMBERS OF THE BAGNIO WATER DISTRICT (BWD) BOARD OF DIRECTORS; AND SONIA A. DAOAS AND ENGR. FELINO D. LAGMAN, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS INCUMBENT MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, CENTRAL OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON MICHAEL G. AGUINALDO, COMMISSIONER JUANITO G. ESPINO, JR., COMMISSIONER HEIDI MENDOZA, AND NILDA B. PLARAS, DIRECTOR IV, COMMISSION SECRETARY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 213598, July 27, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MERCELITA1 ARENAS Y BONZO @ MERLY, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 208009, July 11, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDILBERTO PUSING Y TAMOR, Accused-Appellant.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3471 (Formerly A.M. No. 15-06-197-RTC), July 26, 2016 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. JOHN REVEL B. PEDRIÑA, CLERK III, BRANCH 200, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, LAS PIÑAS CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199151-56, July 25, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. THE SANDIGANBAYAN, FIFTH DIVISION, LT. GEN. LEOPOLDO S. ACOT, B/GEN. ILDEFONSO N. DULINAYAN, LT. COL. SANTIAGO B. RAMIREZ, LT. COL. CESAR M. CARINO, MAJ. PROCESO T. SABADO, MAJ. PACQUITO L. CUENCA, 1LT. MARCELINO M. MORALES, M/SGT. ATULFO D. TAMPOLINO, REMEDIOS "REMY" DIAZ, JOSE GADIN, JR., GLENN ORQUIOLA, HERMINIGILDA LLAVE, GLORIA BAYONA AND RAMON BAYONA JR., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190158, July 20, 2016 - HEIRS OF LIBERATO CASTILLEJOS AND RURAL BANK OF AGOO, LA UNION, Petitioners, v. LA TONDEÑA INCORPORADA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208837, July 20, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DONNA RIVERA Y DUMO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 210801, July 18, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALVIN CENIDO Y PICONES AND REMEDIOS CONTRERAS Y CRUZ, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 213529, July 13, 2016 - JANET LIM NAPOLES, Petitioner, v. HON. SECRETARY LEILA DE LIMA, PROSECUTOR GENERAL CLARO ARELLANO, AND SENIOR DEPUTY STATE PROSECUTOR THEODORE M. VILLANUEVA, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, HON. ELMO M. ALAMEDA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI, BRANCH 150, NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (NBI), ARTURO F. LUY, GERTRUDES K. LUY, ANNABELLE LUY-REARIO, AND BENHUR K. LUY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 215340, July 13, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GLORIA CAIZ Y TALVO, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 202514, July 25, 2016 - ANNA MARIE L. GUMABON, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192477, July 27, 2016 - MOMARCO IMPORT COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. FELICIDAD VILLAMENA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210606, July 27, 2016 - GRACE PARK* INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION AND WOODLINK REALTY CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. EASTWEST BANKING CORPORATION, SECURITY BANKING CORPORATION, ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY THE TRUSTEE AND ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF EASTWEST BANKING CORPORATION TRUST DIVISION, EMMANUEL L. ORTEGA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN, EDRIC C. ESTRADA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SHERIFF IV OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 172682, July 27, 2016 - SULPICIO LINES, INC., Petitioner, v. NAPOLEON SESANTE, NOW SUBSTITUTED BY MARIBEL ATILANO, KRISTEN MARIE, CHRISTIAN IONE, KENNETH KERRN AND KARISNA KATE, ALL SURNAMED SESANTE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199180, July 27, 2016 - THELMA RODRIGUEZ, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES JAIME SIOSON AND ARMI SIOSON, ET AL., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 181335, July 27, 2016 - MARIO SALUTA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 5951, July 12, 2016 - JUTTA KRURSEL, Complainant, v. ATTY. LORENZA A. ABION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 218665, July 20, 2016 - JULIUS BAUTTSTA, ARSENIO LARANANG, REYNALDO BALDEMOR, MANAYAN, NORMA FLORES, CONSUELO ESTIGOY, CARMELITA VALMONTE, SIMEON MARTIN, MAGDALENA GADIAN, JOSE GINNO DELA MERCED, JOVEN SILAN, JR., JULIO DIAZ, GIDEON ACOSTA, AND WENCESLA BAUTISTA, Petitioners, v. LT. COL. BENITO DONIEGO, JR., LT. COL. ALFREDO PATARATA, AND MAJOR GENERAL GREGORIO PIO CATAPANG, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 9492, July 11, 2016 - PLUTARCO E. VAZQUEZ, Complainants, v. ATTY. DAVID LIM QUECO KHO, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 6387 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3001], July 19, 2016 - GABINO V. TOLENTINO AND FLORDELIZA C. TOLENTINO, Complainants, v. ATTY. HENRY B. SO AND ATTY. FERDINAND L. ANCHETA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 215723, July 27, 2016 - DOREEN GRACE PARILLA MEDINA, A.K.A. "DOREEN GRACE MEDINA KOIKE," Petitioner, v. MICHIYUKI KOIKE, THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF QUEZON CITY, METRO MANILA, AND THE ADMINISTRATOR AND CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204494, July 27, 2016 - JO-ANN DIAZ-SALGADO AND HUSBAND DR. GERARD C. SALGADO, Petitioners, v. LUIS G. ANSON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213601, July 27, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FRANKIE GERERO, ROLITO GERERO Y ARMIROL, CHRISTOPHER GERERO, ALFIE ESPINOSA Y MENDEZ AND RENATO BARTOLOME Y JAIME, ACCUSED, ROLITO GERERO Y ARMIROL, ALFIE ESPINOSA Y MENDEZ AND RENATO BARTOLOME Y JAIME, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 217381, July 20, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICENTE R. SALVADOR, Accused-Appellant.

  • A.C. No. 7072, July 27, 2016 - VIRGILIO D. MAGAWAY AND CESARIO M. MAGAWAY, Complainants, v. ATTY. MARIANO A. AVECILLA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212615, July 19, 2016 - LEODEGARIO A. LABAO, JR., Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND LUDOVICO L, MARTELINO, JR., Respondents.; G.R. NO. 212989 - SHARON GRACE MARTINEZ-MARTELINO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND VICE MAYOR JOSE O. ALBA, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 194763-64, July 20, 2016 - WILFRED GACUS YAMSON, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER A, REY CAÑETE CHAVEZ, DEPARTMENT MANAGER C, ARNOLD DOMINGO NAVALES, DEPARTMENT MANAGER C, ROSINDO JAPAY ALMONTE, DIVISION MANAGER C, ALFONSO EDEN LAID, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER A, AND WILLIAM V. GUILLEN, DEPARTMENT MANAGER C, (ALL OF) DAVAO CITY WATER DISTRICT, BAJADA, DAVAO CITY, Petitioners, v. DANILO C. CASTRO AND GEORGE F. INVENTOR, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 210710, July 27, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LUISITO GABORNE Y CINCO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 209271, July 26, 2016 - INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF AGRI-BIOTECH APPLICATIONS, INC., Petitioner, v. GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES), MAGSASAKA AT SIYENTIPIKO SA PAGPAPAUNLAD NG AGRIKULTURA (MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO CASINO, DR. BEN MALAYANG III, DR. ANGELINA GALANG, LEONARDO AVILA III, CATHERINE UNTALAN, ATTY, MARIA PAZ LUNA, JUANITO MODINA, DAGOHOY MAGAWAY, DR. ROMEO QUIJANO, DR. WENCESLAO KIAT, JR., ATTY. H. HARRY ROQUE, JR., FORMER SEN. ORLANDO MERCADO, NOEL CABANGON, MAYOR EDWARD S. HAGEDORN, AND EDWIN MARTHINE LOPEZ, RESPONDENTS. CROP LIFE PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner-In-Intervention.; G.R. NO. 209276 - ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY AND THE FERTILIZER AND PESTICIDE AUTHORITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS, GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES), MAGSASAKA AT SIYENTIPIKO SA PAGPAPAUNLAD NG AGRIKULTURA (MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO CASINO, DR. BEN MALAYANG III, DR, ANGELINA GALANG, LEONARDO AVILA HI, CATHERINE UNTALAN, ATTY. MARIA PAZ LUNA, JUANITO MODINA, DAGOHOY MAGAWAY, DR. ROMEO QUIJANO, DR. WENCESLAO KIAT, JR., ATTY. H. HARRY ROQUE, JR., FORMER SEN. ORLANDO MERCADO, NOEL CABANGON, MAYOR EDWARD S. HAGEDORN, AND EDWIN MARTHINE LOPEZ, RESPONDENTS. CROP LIFE PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner-In-Intervention.; G.R. NO. 209301 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LOS BAÑOS FOUNDATION, INC.,. Petitioner, v. GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES) MAGSASAKA AT SIYENTIPIKO SA PAGPAPAUNLAD NG AGRIKULTURA (MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO CASINO, DR. BEN MALAYANG III, DR. ANGELINA GALANG, LEONARDO AVILA III, CATHERINE UNTALAN, ATTY. MARIA PAZ LUNA, JUANITO MODINA, DAGOHOY MAGAWAY, DR. ROMEO QUIJANO, DR. WENCESLAO KIAT, JR., ATTY. H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., FORMER SEN. ORLANDO MERCADO, NOEL CABANGON, MAYOR EDWARD S. HAGEDORN, AND EDWIN MARTHINE LOPEZ, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 209430 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LOS BAÑOS, Petitioner, v. GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES), MAGSASAKA AT SIYENTIPIKO SA PAGPAPAUNLAD NG AGRIKULTURA (MASIPAG), REP. TEODORO CASINO, DR. BEN MALAYANG III, DR. ANGELINA GALANG, LEONARDO AVILA III, CATHERINE UNTALAN, ATTY. MARIA PAZ LUNA, JUANITO MODINA, DAGOROY MAGAWAY, DR. ROMEO QUIJANO, DR. WENCESLAO KIAT, JR., ATTY. H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., FORMER SEN. ORLANDO MERCADO, NOEL CABANGON, MAYOR EDWARD S. HAGEDORN, AND PROMULGATED: EDWIN MARTHINE LOPEZ, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. 12-8-07-CA, July 26, 2016 - RE: LETTER OF COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICE VICENTE S.E. VELOSO FOR ENTITLEMENT TO LONGEVITY PAY FOR HIS SERVICES AS COMMISSION MEMBER III OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION; A.M. NO. 12-9-5-SC - RE: COMPUTATION OF LONGEVITY PAY OF COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICE ANGELITA A, GACUTAN; A.M. NO. 13-02-07-SC - RE: REQUEST OF COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICE REMEDIOS A. SALAZAR- FERNANDO THAT HER SERVICES AS MTC JUDGE AND AS COMELEC COMMISSIONER BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF HER JUDICIAL SERVICE AND INCLUDED IN THE COMPUTATION/ADJUSTMENT OF HER LONGEVITY PAY., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 202050, July 25, 2016 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OIL COMPANY AND PNOC DOCKYARD & ENGINEERING CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. KEPPEL PHILIPPINES HOLDINGS, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210991, July 12, 2016 - DUTY FREE PHILIPPINES CORPORATION (FORMERLY DUTY FREE PHILIPPINES) DULY REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, LORENZO C. FORMOSO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, HON. MA. GRACIA M. PULIDO TAN, CHAIRPERSON AND HON. HEIDI L. MENDOZA, COMMISSIONER, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10117, July 25, 2016 - IN RE: RESOLUTION DATED AUGUST 14, 2013 OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN CA- PRESENT: GR.CV NO. 94656, v. ATTY. GIDEON D.V. MORTEL, Respondent.