Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > July 2016 Decisions > G.R. No. 215340, July 13, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GLORIA CAIZ Y TALVO, Accused-Appellants.:




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

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 215340, July 13, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GLORIA CAIZ Y TALVO, Accused-Appellants.

D E C I S I O N

LEONEN, J.:

Failure to prove the preservation of the integrity of the corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases will lead to the acquittal of the accused on the ground of reasonable doubt.

Two Informations were filed against accused-appellant Gloria Caiz y Talvo (Caiz) for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165.1chanrobleslaw

The accusatory portion of the Information for violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 states:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

That on or about 11:00 o'clock in the morning of February 20, 2008 at Zone 1, Brgy. Pinmaludpod, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (SHABU) weighing 0.05 gram, a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY to Sec. 5, Art. II of Republic Act 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."2chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The accusatory portion of the Information for violation of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 states:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
That on or about 11:00 o'clock in the morning of February 20, 2008 at Zone 1, Brgy. Pinmaludpod, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in her possession, control and custody two (2) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (SHABU) weighing 0.05 gram and 0.04 gram, with a total weight of 0.09 gram.

CONTRARY to Art. II, Sec. 11 of Republic Act 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."3chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
During the trial, Police Officer I Nesely Valle (PO1 Valle), Senior Police Officer I Ronald Patricio (SPO1 Patricio), and Police Officer III Michael Datuin (PO3 Datuin) were presented as witnesses.4 They testified on the events "before, during[,] and after the buy-bust operation[.]"5 Police Officer II Jeffrey Tajon (PO2 Tajon) of the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory testified that he "received the request for laboratory examination at around 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon of February 20, 2008."6chanrobleslaw

PO1 Valle testified that on February 20, 2008, at around 7:00 a.m., an informant reported to the Special Operations Group of the Philippine National Police in Lingayen about the rampant sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) in Barangay Pinmaludpod, Urdaneta City.7chanrobleslaw

A buy-bust operation team was immediately organized by the Special Operations Group. SPO1 Patricio and PO1 Valle were the poseur buyers, while Senior Police Officer II Meginio Garcia (SPO2 Garcia) prepared the marked money.8chanrobleslaw

The Philippine National Police coordinated with the Urdaneta City Police Community Precinct at Barangay Pinmaludpod for the conduct of the buy-bust operation.9 The buy-bust operation was scheduled on the same day, February 20, 2008.10chanrobleslaw

On February 20, 2008, the buy-bust team conducted a verification surveillance in Barangay Pinmaludpod and were able to observe Caiz's activities.11chanrobleslaw

After the verification surveillance, SPO1 Patricio, PO1 Valle, and the confidential informant went to Caiz's house at around 11:00 a.m. to conduct the buy-bust operation.12 The informant introduced SPO1 Patricio and PO1 Valle to Caiz. As poseur buyers, SPO1 Patricio and PO1 Valle told Caiz that they would like to purchase P600.00 worth of shabu.13 The marked money used consisted of one (1) P500.00 bill and one (1) P100.00 bill.14 These bills were marked before the buy-bust operation.15 The marking used was "RDP,"16 the initials of SPO1 Patricio.17chanrobleslaw

After Caiz received the marked money, she handed a "small transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance"18 to SPO1 Patricio. SPO1 Patricio then removed his bonnet, which was the pre­arranged signal of the operation. SPO1 Patricio and PO1 Valle identified themselves to Caiz as police officers and proceeded to arrest her.19chanrobleslaw

Caiz was informed of her constitutional rights.20 PO1 Valle frisked her right after she was arrested21 and recovered the marked money and "two (2) more plastic sachets containing shabu from . . . [Caiz's] pocket."22 Caiz was then brought to the Philippine National Police office in Lingayen23 for interrogation and documentation.24chanrobleslaw

The items recovered from Caiz "were turned over by PO1 Valle to SPO1 Patricio for marking purposes[.]"25cralawredchanrobleslaw

The plastic sachet sold to the police officers was marked "RDP."26 The two (2) other plastic sachets confiscated from Caiz were marked "RDP1"27 and "RDP2."28chanrobleslaw

PO1 Valle testified that the seized sachets were marked by SPO1 Patricio immediately after Caiz was arrested.29 On the other hand, SPO1 Patricio testified that the seized sachets were marked at the police station.30chanrobleslaw

After marking, SPO1 Patricio "surrendered the [marked plastic sachets] to their investigator, PO3 Michael Datuin[,] at their Lingayen Office for transmittal to the crime laboratory."31chanrobleslaw

Forensic Chemist Police Senior Inspector Emelda Besarra Roderos issued an initial laboratory report stating that the contents of the heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet weighed 0.05 gram and tested positive for shabu.32chanrobleslaw

Caiz presented a different version of the facts. She testified that on February 20, 2008, at around 10:00 a.m.,33 "she was putting her grandson to sleep . . . when she saw somebody enter her aunt's yard."34chanrobleslaw

She shouted and went to her mother's house.35 However, two (2) men were following her and asking for the marked money.36chanrobleslaw

Caiz informed the men that she had nothing.37 Inside her mother's house, she was "strip-searched by PO1 Valle."38 Still, PO1 Valle was unable to retrieve anything from her.39 She was then invited by the police officers to go to the police station.40 She could not refuse because a gun was pointed at her so they first went to the Barangay Hall at Pinmaludpod, Urdaneta City.41 Caiz narrated that she stayed inside the vehicle and that there was another person left with her inside the vehicle. That person, whom she did not name, showed her the plastic sachets allegedly confiscated from her.42 Caiz stated that it was the first time she saw the plastic sachets.43chanrobleslaw

They then went to the office of the Special Operations Group of the Philippine National Police Office in Lingayen. Caiz testified that while she was there, "she was offered a meal and allowed to watch TV."44 After, they proceeded to the Urdaneta City Police Station. Caiz alleged that the seized sachets were marked at the police station.45 A medical examination was conducted on her at a hospital.46chanrobleslaw

After two (2) days of incarceration at the police station,47 Caiz was brought to the prosecutor's office and was made to sign documents. She was then "committed to the Urdaneta City District Jail."48chanrobleslaw

In the Decision dated July 18, 2012,49 the trial court found Caiz guilty of violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, but dismissed the case for violation of Section 11.

The trial court reasoned that Caiz was positively identified by the prosecution's witnesses as the seller of shabu. She sold "one heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance"50 to PO1 Valle. The sachet was found to contain 0.05 gram of shabu. The seized sachet and the marked money were presented in court.51chanrobleslaw

The trial court held that the charge against Caiz for illegal possession of dangerous drugs was to be absorbed by the crime of illegal sale, thus:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
As to the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs against said accused, the same is already absorbed in the crime of illegal sale. Based on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, accused was arrested and frisked immediately after the consummation of the sale transaction resulting in the recovery of two more plastic sachets of shabu from her pocket. The fact that the arresting officer recovered other plastic sachets containing shabu from the pocket of the accused during said illegal sale transaction is already immaterial - and will not justify the filing of a separate case of illegal possession as enunciated by the Court in the case of People vs. Lacerna. . . . Possession of prohibited drugs is generally inherent in the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs and that conviction for both offenses is not feasible.52 (Citations omitted)
The dispositive portion of the Regional Trial Court Decision reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs and the court sentences her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Php500,000.00.

The case of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs filed against said accused is hereby DISMISSED.

The prohibited drugs presented in court as evidence is ordered forfeited in favor of the government and shall be forwarded to the PDEA Office for the proper disposition.

SO ORDERED.53chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
In her appeal before the Court of Appeals, Caiz argued that there were several procedural lapses committed by the police officers.54 Section 8655 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 requires coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, which the police officers did not do. The place where the seized sachets were marked was not proven because the police officers gave different testimonies.56chanrobleslaw

Further, the confiscation receipts prepared by SPO1 Patricio were not signed by Caiz, her representative or counsel, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice, or any public official.57 Caiz was not given a copy.58chanrobleslaw

Caiz claimed that there were no photographs of the seized sachets and the booking sheet of accused was prepared on the day after she was arrested.59 The police officer who received the request for laboratory examination and the forensic chemist were not presented in court.60 She also alleged that the prosecution was unable to show "who had the custody and safekeeping of the drugs after their examination and pending their presentation in court."61chanrobleslaw

On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General argued that the trial court correctly convicted Caiz because the prosecution was able to prove that the sale of illegal drugs took place, and the items seized were presented in evidence.62chanrobleslaw

In addition, the required procedure in handling the seized items was substantially complied with. The police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.63 The Office of the Solicitor General likewise argued that non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 "would not necessarily render the evidence obtained from the drug operation as inadmissible, but it would only affect the merit or probative value of such evidence."64chanrobleslaw

The Office of the Solicitor General claimed that although there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of PO1 Valle and SPO1 Patricio on where the seized item was marked, the inconsistency "[did] not affect the credibility of the witnesses."65 The inconsistencies in their testimonies referred to trivial and insignificant matters.66chanrobleslaw

On the confiscation receipts, the Office of the Solicitor-General cited People v. Rosialda67 in that "[t]he failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to said guidelines, is not fatal and does not automatically render accused-appellant's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible."68chanrobleslaw

On the non-presentation of the forensic chemist, the Office of the Solicitor General cited People v. Amansec69 and argued that the laboratory reports and chemistry reports are sufficient to prove that the chain of custody was not broken.70chanrobleslaw

The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the Regional Trial Court.71 It held that Caiz failed to present evidence that the chain of custody was broken.72 It further held that non-compliance with Article II, Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 does not justify Caiz's acquittal. "What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused."73chanrobleslaw

The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals Decision reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED and the appealed Decision dated July 18, 2012 AFFIRMED in toto. No costs.

SO ORDERED.74 (Emphasis in the original)
Caiz filed a Notice of Appeal on September 26, 2014.75chanrobleslaw

The Notice of Appeal was noted and given due course in the Court of Appeals' October 20, 2014 Resolution.76 The case records were elevated to this Court on December 1, 2014.77chanrobleslaw

In the Resolution78 dated January 28, 2015, this Court noted the records forwarded by the Court of Appeals and notified the parties that they could file their respective supplemental briefs within 30 days from notice.

The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation and Motion79 stating that it would not file a supplemental brief since Caiz did not raise new issues in her appeal.80 Counsel for Caiz filed a Manifestation81 informing this Court that it would no longer file a supplemental brief.

We resolve the following issues:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryFirst, whether the guilt of accused-appellant Gloria Caiz y Talvo for violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 was proven beyond reasonable doubt; and cralawlawlibrary

Second, whether the rules on the chain of custody of the corpus delicti were observed.

We find for accused-appellant.

The prosecution was unable to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti. The non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 was not justified.

I

The elements of violation of Section 582 of Republic Act No. 9165 are:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. What is material is the proof that the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation before the court of the corpus delicti.83 (Emphasis in the original)
The prosecution must also establish the integrity of the dangerous drug, being the corpus delicti of the case.84chanrobleslaw

Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640,85 states the procedure to be observed by law enforcement officers in dangerous drugs cases:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
SEC. 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 dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items 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, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items.

. . . .

(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the.completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued immediately upon completion of the said examination and certification[.]86 (Emphasis supplied)
In view of the amendments to Republic Act No. 9165, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 were also amended, thus:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
SECTION 1. Implementing Guidelines. — 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:
  1. Marking, Inventory and Photograph; Chain of Custody Implementing Paragraph "a" of the IRR

    A.1.
     
    The apprehending or seizing officer having initial custody and control of the seized or confiscated dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, mark, inventory and photograph the same in the following manner:
    A.1.1.
    The marking, physical inventory and photograph of the seized/confiscated items shall be conducted where the search warrant is served.
    A.1.2.
    The marking is the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initial and signature on the item/s seized.
    A.1.3.
    In warrantless seizures, the marking of the seized items in the presence of the violator shall be done immediately at the place where the drugs were seized or at the nearest police station or nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable. The physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted in the same nearest police station or nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable.
    A.1.4.
    In cases when the execution of search warrant is preceded by warrantless seizures, the marking, inventory and photograph of the items recovered from the search warrant shall be performed separately from the marking, inventory and photograph of the items seized from warrantless seizures.
     
    A.1.5.
    The physical inventory and photograph of the seized/confiscated items shall be done in the presence of the suspect or his/her representative or counsel, with elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media, who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory of the seized or confiscated items and be given copy thereof. In case of their refusal to sign, it shall be stated "refused to sign" above their names in the certificate of inventory of the apprehending or seizing officer.
    A.1.6.
    A representative of the NPS is anyone from its employees, while the media representative is any media practitioner. The elected public official is any incumbent public official regardless of the place where he/she is elected.
    A.1.7.
    To prevent switching or contamination, the seized items, which are fungible and indistinct in character, and which have been marked after the seizure, shall be sealed in a container or evidence bag and signed by the apprehending/seizing officer for submission to the forensic laboratory for examination.
    A.1.8.
    In case of seizure of plant sources at the plantation site, where it is not physically possible to count or weigh the seizure as a complete entity, the seizing officer shall estimate its count or gross weight or net weight, as the case may be. If it is safe and practicable, marking, inventory and photograph of the seized plant sources may be performed at the plantation site. Representative samples of prescribed quantity pursuant to Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, as amended, and/or Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2007, as amended, shall be taken from the site after the seizure for laboratory examination, and retained for presentation as the corpus delicti of the seized/confiscated plant sources following the chain of custody of evidence.
    A.1.9.
    Noncompliance, under justifiable grounds, with the requirements of Section 21 (I) of RA No. 9165, as amended, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over the items provided the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team.
    A.1.10.
    Any justification or explanation in cases of noncompliance with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of RA No. 9165, as amended, shall be clearly stated in the sworn statements/affidavits of the apprehending/seizing officers, as well as the steps taken to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated items. Certification or record of coordination for operating units other than the PDEA pursuant to Section 86 (a) and (b), Article IX of the IRR of RA No. 9165 shall be presented.
    A.1.11.
    The chain of custody of evidence shall indicate the time and place of marking, the names of officers who marked, inventoried, photographed and sealed the seized items, who took custody and received the evidence from one officer to another within the chain, and further indicating the time and date every time the transfer of custody of the same evidence were made in the course of safekeeping until submitted to laboratory personnel for forensic laboratory examination. The latter shall continue the chain as required in paragraph B.5 below.

  2. Laboratory Examination, Custody and Report Implementing Paragraphs "b" and "c" of the IRR
    . . . .
    B.5.
    In any case, the chain of custody of the seized/confiscated items received from the apprehending officer/team, and examined in the forensic or crime laboratory shall be observed, where it shall document the chain of custody each time a specimen is handled, transferred or presented in court until its disposal and every individual in the chain of custody shall be identified following the laboratory control and chain of custody form. (Emphasis supplied)
II

Here, the lapses of the police officers in the procedure for handling seized sachets containing dangerous drugs are numerous and unjustified such that there is reasonable doubt whether the integrity of the corpus delicti was preserved.

People v. Kamal87 summarized the links in the chain of custody that must be established by the prosecution:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
[F]irst, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.88 (Emphasis in the original)
First, the place where the seized sachets were marked was not established with certainty.

Accused-appellant alleges that the marking of the sachets of shabu was not done at the place of arrest, but at the police station.89 She claims that there was a nearer police station where the marking could have been done, specifically:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The marking of the alleged three (3) sachets of shabu with PI Patricio's initials . . . was not made at the place of arrest but only at the police station. This took place only after they have passed by the barangay hall of Pinmaludpod, then the police's safehouse located at Zone 5, Brgy. Pinmaludpod, then to the office of S[pecial] O[perations] G[roup] in Lingayen, Pangasinan and have brought the accused-appellant to the hospital for medical examination.90chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On the other hand, the testimonies of the police officers reveal that they were confused as to the place where the seized sachets were marked. PO1 Valle testified:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Q:
What did you [sic] Patricio do after you turned over those plastic sachets?
A:
He placed marking.
Q:
What marking?
A:
RDP.91
On the other hand, SPO1 Patricio testified:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Q:
By the way, Mr. Witness, where were you when you marked these 3 plastic sachets?
A:
In our office, sir.92
PO1 Valle's testimony seems to imply that the seized sachets were marked at the place where the buy-bust operation was conducted. On the other hand, SPO1 Patricio testified that the seized sachets were marked at the police station.

The prosecution argues that the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers strengthen the case since these show that the police officers were not rehearsed witnesses. In addition, the place where the seized sachets were marked is not an essential element in establishing that the sale of illegal drugs took place.93chanrobleslaw

Although it may be true that the place of marking is not an essential element, the failure to establish with certainty where the seized sachets were marked affects the integrity of the chain of custody of the corpus delicti.

People v. Dahil94 has discussed the purpose and importance of marking evidence:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, this, preventing switching, planting or contamination of evidence.95 (Citations omitted)
Second, the police officers failed to have the confiscation receipts signed by accused-appellant, by her representative or counsel, by a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, or by an elected public official.96 The police officers likewise failed to give a copy of the confiscation receipts to accused-appellant.97 The prosecution does not refute these procedural lapses but argues that substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule is sufficient,98 citing People v. Rosialda:99
The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to said guidelines, is not fatal and does not automatically render accused-appellant's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. Indeed, the implementing rules offer some flexibility when a proviso added 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.' The same provision clearly states as well, that it must still be shown that there exists justifiable grounds and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have been preserved.

. . . .

. . . The chain of custody requirement performs the function of ensuring that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence are removed.

To be admissible, the prosecution must show by records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came into possession of the police officers and until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition up to the time it was offered in evidence.100 (Emphasis in the original)
In this case, the integrity of the corpus delicti is in doubt because the police officers cannot even state with certainty where the seized sachets were marked.

Third, none of the witnesses testified that the seized sachets were photographed. This leads us to believe that no photos of the seized sachets were taken by the buy-bust team.101chanrobleslaw

Fourth, accused-appellant's arrest was not immediately entered in the booking sheet.102 SPO1 Patricio testified on cross-examination:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Q:
After the arrest, Mr. Witness, you said and identified a while ago that you made a booking that was prepared by you?
A:
It was prepared by me in the office, sir.
Q:
At Lingayen?
A:
Yes, sir.
Q:
On what date was it prepared, Mr. Witness?
A:
That date February 20.
Q:
Showing to you the booking sheet you identified a while ago. Will you go over the same and tell us on what date was it prepared, Mr. Witness, according to the booking sheet? What date?
A:
21 February 2008, sir.
Q:
And the arrest was made on February 2008?
A:
Yes, sir.
Q:
You said a while ago that it was made on the same date the booking sheet was prepared by you on the same date?
A:
No, sir, 21. It was placed on the booking sheet.
Q:
So, it was made on the 21st not on February 20 (sic)?
A:
Yes, sir.103
The totality of the procedural lapses committed by the police officers leads this Court to doubt the integrity of the corpus delicti.

III

Accused-appellant argues that the non-coordination of the buy-bust operation with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency is a procedural lapse that overturns the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties.104chanrobleslaw

The alleged non-coordination of the police officers with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency did not render the buy-bust operation invalid.

People v. Rebotazo105 has discussed that Section 86106 of Republic Act No. 9165 does not state any consequence in case a buy-bust operation is not coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, thus:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
It is a well-established rule of statutory construction that where great inconvenience will result from a particular construction, or great public interests would be endangered or sacrificed, or great mischief done, such construction is to be avoided, or the court ought to presume that such construction was not intended by the makers of the law, unless required by clear and unequivocal words.
As we see it, Section 86 is explicit only in saying that the PDEA shall be the "lead agency" in the investigations and prosecutions of drug-related cases. Therefore, other law enforcement bodies still possess authority to perform similar functions as the PDEA as long as illegal drugs cases will eventually be transferred to the latter. Additionally, the same provision states that PDEA, serving as the implementing arm of the Dangerous Drugs Board, "shall be responsible for the efficient and effective law enforcement of all the provisions on any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical as provided in the Act." We find much logic in the Solicitor General's interpretation that it is only appropriate that drugs cases being handled by other law enforcement authorities be transferred or referred to the PDEA as the "lead agency" in the campaign against the menace of dangerous drugs. Section 86 is more of an administrative provision. By having a centralized law enforcement body, i.e., the PDEA, the Dangerous Drugs Board can enhance the efficacy of the law against dangerous drugs.107chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
This Court has ruled in other cases108 that nothing in Section 86 states that non-coordination with the PDEA renders the buy-bust operation invalid.

IV

Mallillin v. People
109 emphasizes why proof of the chain of custody in dangerous drugs cases must be strictly complied with:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature. The Court cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the possibility, that at any of the links in the chain of custody over the same there could have been tampering, alteration or substitution of substances from other cases — by accident or otherwise — in which similar evidence was seized or in which similar evidence was submitted for laboratory testing. Hence, in authenticating the same, a standard more stringent than that applied to cases involving objects which are readily identifiable must be applied, a more exacting standard that entails a chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness if only to render it improbable that the original item has either been exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with.110chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The law recognizes that there may be instances when exact compliance with the required procedure is not observed. Thus, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, provides:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
SECTION 1. Implementing Guidelines. — 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:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary. . . .

A.1.9.
Noncompliance, under justifiable grounds, with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of RA No. 9165, as amended, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over the items provided the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team.
A.1.10.
Any justification or explanation in cases of noncompliance with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of RA No. 9165, as amended, shall be clearly stated in the sworn statements/affidavits of the apprehending/seizing officers, as well as the steps taken to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated items. Certification or record of coordination for operating units other than the PDEA pursuant to Section 86 (a) and (b), Article IX of the IRR of RA No. 9165 shall be presented.
Here, the prosecution does not offer any explanation why there were several procedural lapses. The prosecution's argument that there is a presumption that "official duty has been regularly performed"111 will not suffice. Thus:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
It needs no elucidation that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty must be seen in the context of an existing rule of law or statute authorizing the performance of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure in the performance thereof. The presumption, in other words, obtains only where nothing on record suggests that the law enforcers involved deviated from the standard conduct of official duty as provided for in the law. Otherwise, where the official act in question is irregular on its face, an adverse presumption arises as a matter of course.112 (Citations omitted)
People v. Garry dela Cruz113 acquitted the accused as the prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti due to non-compliance with the rule on the chain of custody:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Non-compliance is tantamount to failure in establishing identity of corpus delicti, an essential element of the offenses of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. By failing to establish an element of these offenses, non-compliance will, thus, engender the acquittal of an accused.114chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Courts are reminded to exercise a higher level of scrutiny when deciding cases involving miniscule amounts of dangerous drugs. There should be stricter compliance with the rule on the chain of custody when the amount of the dangerous drug is minute due to the possibility that the seized item was tampered.115 We reiterate the words in People v. Holgado:116
It is lamentable that while our dockets are clogged with prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165 involving small-time drug users and retailers, we are seriously short of prosecutions involving the proverbial "big fish." We are swamped with cases involving small fry who have been arrested for miniscule amounts. While they are certainly a bane to our society, small retailers are but low-lying fruits in an exceedingly vast network of drug cartels. Both law enforcers and prosecutors should realize that the more effective and efficient strategy is to focus resources more on the source and true leadership of these nefarious organizations. Otherwise, all these executive and judicial resources expended to attempt to convict an accused for 0.05 gram of shabu under doubtful custodial arrangements will hardly make a dent in the overall picture. It might in fact be distracting our law enforcers from their more challenging task: to uproot the causes of this drug menace. We stand ready to assess cases involving greater amounts of drugs and the leadership of these cartels.117chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals Decision dated August 29, 2014 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06167 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Gloria Caiz y Talvo is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention unless she is confined for any other lawful cause.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City, for immediate implementation. The Superintendent of the Correctional Institution is DIRECTED to report to this Court, within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision, the action she has taken. Copies shall also be furnished to the Director General of the Philippine National Police and to the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.

The Regional Trial Court is DIRECTED to turn over the seized sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.

SO ORDERED.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, and Del Castillo, JJ., concur.
Mendoza, J., on official leave.

Endnotes:


1 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (2002).

2Rollo p. 5, Court of Appeals Decision.

3 Id.

4 Id.

5 Id. at 5-6.

6 Id. at 6.

7 CA rollo, p. 67, Brief for plaintiff-appellee.

8Rollo, p. 3.

9 Id.

10 CA rollo, p. 51, Regional Trial Court Decision.

11 Id. at 51-52.

12Rollo, p. 4.

13 Id.

14 CA rollo, p. 51.

15 Id.

16 Id.

17 Id.

18Rollo, p. 4.

19 Id.

20 CA rollo, p. 52.

21 Id.

22Rollo, p. 4.

23 CA rollo, p. 68.

24Rollo, p. 4.

25cralawred Id.

26 CA rollo, p. 36, Brief for accused-appellant.

27 Id.

28 Id.

29 Id. at 42.

30 Id.

31Rollo, p. 4.

32 Id.

33 CA rollo, p. 36.

34Rollo, p. 6.

35 Id.

36 Id.

37 Id.

38 Id.

39 CA rollo, p. 54.

40 Id.

41 Id.

42 Id.

43 Id.

44 Id.

45 Id. at 42.

46 Id. at 37.

47 Id. at 54.

48 Id.

49 Id. at 50-56. The case was docketed as Crim. Case Nos. U-15454 & 15455 and was raffled to Branch 48 of the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta City, Pangasinan. The Decision was penned by Presiding Judge Gonzalo P. Marata.

50 Id. at 55.

51 Id.

52 Id. at 55-56.

53 Id. at 56.

54 Id. at 40.

55 Implementing Rules and Regulations of Rep. Act No. 9165 (2002), sec. 86 provides:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySec. 86. Transfer, Absorption, and Integration of All Operating Units on Illegal Drugs into the PDEA and Transitory Provisions. -

. . . . 
 
(a)
Relationship/Coordination between PDEA and Other Agencies. - The PDEA shall be the lead agency in the enforcement of the Act, while the PNP, the NBI and other law enforcement agencies shall continue to conduct the anti-drug operations in support of the PDEA; Provided, that the said agencies shall, as far as practicable, coordinate with the PDEA prior to anti-drug operations; Provided, further, that, in any case, said agencies shall inform the PDEA of their anti-drug operations within twenty-four (24) hours from the time of the actual custody of the suspects or seizure of said drugs and substances, as well as paraphernalia and transport equipment used in illegal activities involving such drugs and/or substances, and shall regularly update the PDEA on the status of the cases involving the said anti-drug operations; Provided, furthermore, that raids, seizures, and other anti-drug operations conducted by the PNP, the NBI, and other law enforcement agencies prior to the approval of this IRR shall be valid and authorized; Provided, finally, that nothing in this IRR shall deprive the PNP, the NBI, other law enforcement personnel and the personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) from effecting lawful arrests and seizures in consonance with the provisions of Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.

56 CA rollo, p. 42.

57 Id. at 43.

58 Id.

59 Id.

60 Id. at 45.

61 Id. at 46.

62 Id. at 69-70.

63 Id. at 78.

64 Id. at 82.

65 Id. at 78.

66 Id.

67 643 Phil. 712 (2010) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., First Division].

68 Id. at 726-727.

69 678 Phil. 831 (2011) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division]: "Furthermore, there is nothing in Republic Act No. 9165 or in its implementing rules, which requires each and everyone who came into contact with the seized drags to testify in court. As long as the chain of custody of the seized drag was clearly established to have not been broken and the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drags seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drags should take the witness stand" (Id. at 857).

70 CA rollo, p. 81.

71Rollo, pp. 2-15. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser and concurred in by Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando (Chair) and Ramon R. Garcia of the Second Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

72 Id. at 13.

73 Id. at 12.

74 Id. at 14.

75 CA rollo, p. 108.

76 Id. at 111.

77Rollo, p. 1.

78 Id. at 21-22.

79 Id. at 23-25.

80 Id. at 23.

81 Id. at 28-31.

82 Rep. Act No. 9165 (2002), sec. 5 provides:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySEC. 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.

The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) 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 controlled precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a broker in such transactions. If the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution or transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical transpires within one hundred (100) meters from the school, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case. For drug pushers who use minors or mentally incapacitated individuals as runners, couriers and messengers, or in any other capacity directly connected to the dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemical trade, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case. If the victim of the offense is a minor or a mentally incapacitated individual, or should a dangerous drug and/or a controlled precursor and essential chemical involved in any offense herein provided be the proximate cause of death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed.

The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person who organizes, manages or acts as a "financier" of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this Section. The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who acts as a "protector/coddler" of any violator of the provisions under this Section.

83People v. Casacop y de Castro, G.R. No. 208685, March 9, 2015, 752 SCRA 151, 161 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division], citing People v. Almodiel, 694 Phil. 449, 460 (2012) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].

84People v. Enumerable y De Villa, G.R. No. 207993, January 21, 2015, 747 SCRA 495, 506-507 [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].

85 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" (2014).

86 The italicized phrases are the amendments introduced by Rep. Act No. 10640.

87 624 Phil. 289 (2010) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].

88 Id. at 304.

89 Accused-appellant did not specify whether the markings were done at the police station in Lingayen or at the police station in Urdaneta.

90 CA rollo, p. 42.

91 Id.

92 Id.

93 Id. at 78.

94 G.R. No. 212196, January 12, 2015, 745 SCRA 221 [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].

95 Id. at 241.

96 CA rollo, p. 43.

97 Id.

98 Id. at 79.

99 643 Phil. 712 (2010) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., First Division].

100 Id. at 726-727, citing People v. Rivera, 590 Phil. 894, 913-914 (2008) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].

101 CA rollo, pp. 51-54.

102 Id. at 43.

103 Id. at 43-44.

104 Id. at 41-42. Coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency is a requirement under Section 86 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended.

105 711 Phil. 150 (2013) [Per C.J. Sereno, First Division].

106 Rep. Act No. 9165 (2002), sec. 86 provides:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySection 86. Transfer, Absorption, and Integration of All Operating Units on Illegal Drugs into the PDEA and Transitory Provisions. — The Narcotics Group of the PNP, the Narcotics Division of the NBI and the Customs Narcotics Interdiction Unit are hereby abolished; however they shall continue with the performance of their task as detail service with the PDEA, subject to screening, until such time that the organizational structure of the Agency is fully operational and the number of graduates of the PDEA Academy is sufficient to do the task themselves: Provided, That such personnel who are affected shall have the option of either being integrated into the PDEA or remain with their original mother agencies and shall, thereafter, be immediately reassigned to other units therein by the head of such agencies. Such personnel who are transferred, absorbed and integrated in the PDEA shall be extended appointments to positions similar in rank, salary, and other emoluments and privileges granted to their respective positions in their original mother agencies.

The transfer, absorption and integration of the different offices and units provided for in this Section shall take effect within eighteen (18) months from the effectivity of this Act: Provided, that personnel absorbed and on detail service shall be given until five (5) years to finally decide to join the PDEA. Nothing in this Act shall mean a diminution of the investigative powers of the NBI and the PNP on all other crimes as provided for in their respective organic laws: Provided, however, That when the investigation being conducted by the NBI, PNP or any ad hoc anti-drug task force is found to be a violation of any of the provisions of this Act, the PDEA shall be the lead agency. The NBI, PNP or any of the task force shall immediately transfer the same to the PDEA: Provided, further, that the NBI, PNP and the Bureau of Customs shall maintain close coordination with the PDEA on all drug related matters.

107People v. Rebotazo, 711 Phil. 150, 177-178 (2013) [Per C.J. Sereno, First Division], citing People v. Sta. Maria, 545 Phil. 520; 531-532 (2007) [Per J. Garcia, First Division].

108See People v. Salvador, 726 Phil. 389, 403-405 (2014) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division]; People v. Adrid, G.R. No. 201845, March 6, 2013, 692 SCRA 683, 703-704 [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Third Division]; People v. Mondejar, 675 Phil. 91, 107 (2011) [Per J. Sereno, Second Division]; People v. Roa, 634 Phil. 437, 448-449 (2010) [Per J. Perez, Second Division].

109 576 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J.Tinga, Second Division].

110 Id. at 588-589.

111 CA rollo, p.73. RULES OF COURT, Rule 131, sec. 3(m) provides:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySEC. 3. Disputable presumptions. — The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary. . . .

(m) That official duty has been regularly performed[.]

112People v. Gutierrez, 614 Phil. 285, 298 (2009) [Per J. Carpio Morales, Second Division].

113 G.R. No. 205821, October 1, 2014, 737 SCRA 486 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

114 Id. at 496.

115Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 588 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].

116 G.R. No. 207992, August 11, 2014, 732 SCRA 554 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

117 Id. at 577.



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.