Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2019 > February 2019 Decisions > G.R. No. 232645, February 18, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHlLIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTONIO BALDERRAMA Y DE LEON, Accused-Appellant.:




G.R. No. 232645, February 18, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHlLIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTONIO BALDERRAMA Y DE LEON, Accused-Appellant.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 232645, February 18, 2019

PEOPLE OF THE PHlLIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTONIO BALDERRAMA Y DE LEON, Accused-Appellant.

D E C I S I O N

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

This is an appeal1 from the April 21, 2017 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08051 which affirmed the December 22, 2015 Judgment3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Taguig City, Branch 267, in Criminal Case No. 17248-D-TG.

The Facts

Accused-appellant Antonio Balderrama y De Leon (accused-appellant) was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, in two sets of Information which are successively reproduced as follows:

Criminal Case No. 17248-D-TG (Violation of Section 5, Article II, RA 9165)

That, on or about the 13th day of August 2010, in the City of Taguig, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of [the] Honorable Court, the above�named accused, without being authorized by law to sell or otherwise dispose any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, deliver, distribute and give away to a poseur buyer, zero point zero sixty (0.060) gram of white crystalline substance, for and in consideration of the amount of Five Hundred Pesos (Php500.00), which substance was found positive to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.4

Criminal Case No. 17249-D-TG (Violation of Section 11, Article II, RA 9165)

That, on or about the 13th day of August 20 I 0, in the City of Taguig, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of [the] Honorable Court, the above� named accused, without being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in [his] possession and control, zero point zero sixty (0.060) gram of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.5

Arraignment pushed through and accused-appellant pleaded not guilty.6 Pretrial was conducted after which trial ensued.7

Version of the Prosecution

The evidence for the prosecution included the testimonies of Police Officer 3 Antonio Reyes (PO3 Reyes)8 and Police Officer 3 Jowel Briones (PO3 Briones).9 Their testimonies established that, on August 13, 2010, they received information that accused-appellant was openly selling illegal drugs at his house in Barangay Calzada-Tipas, Taguig City. A buy-bust team was organized in which PO3 Reyes was the designated poseur-buyer. Bills amounting to P1,500.0010 were marked "PC" by Police Chief Inspector (PCI) Porfirio Calagan.

At 10:30 p.m., the team proceeded to accused-appellant's house on board a private vehicle. When the team reached Estacio Street, PO3 Reyes and the informant alighted from the vehicle and proceeded on foot. When they met accused-appellant, the informant introduced PO3 Reyes as a cousin wanting to buy shabu. Accused-appellant asked how much they wanted to buy and PO3 Reyes replied he wanted P500-worth of shabu. Accused�appellant offered to sell two sachets of shabu but PO3 Reyes said he would buy only one sachet. As accused-appellant handed one sachet, PO3 Reyes gave the marked money in exchange. When the transaction was completed, PO3 Reyes scratched his head which was the predetermined signal for the team to arrest accused-appellant. PO3 Briones handcuffed accused-appellant while PO3 Reyes frisked him further and found the marked money and another sachet of shabu. PO3 Reyes marked the two sachets as ADR-1-130810 and ADR-2-130810.11 Accused-appellant was brought to the police station. Three barangay officials � Napoleon Sulit, Virgilio Maglipon, and Francisco Estacio � were invited to witness the taking of inventory.

The white substance was subjected to a laboratory examination and yielded a positive result for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.12

Version of the Defense

Accused-appellant testified in open court and denied the allegation.13 He claimed, on August 13, 2010 at 10:00 p.m., while lying in bed inside his house at 13 Estacio St., Ibayo, Calzada-Tipas, Taguig City, three men in civilian attire barged in, held him by the wrist, and searched his house for 10-15 minutes without a warrant. Thereafter, the men ordered him to board a maroon vehicle and brought him to the police station where he was detained and photographed with two sachets of shabu and P500-bill.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

In its December 22, 2015 Judgment, the trial court found accused� appellant guilty of violating Section 5 of RA 9165, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing dissertation of the court, the court finds the accused ANTONIO BALDERRAMA Y DE LEON who was charged in Criminal Case No. 17248-D-TG for Violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt and Judgment is hereby pronounced that he should suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay FINE in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00).

With regard to the charge in Criminal Case No. 17249-D-TG for Violation of Section 11 of RA 9165, accused ANTONIO BALDERRAMA y DE LEON is hereby ACQUITTED of the same on the basis of reasonable doubt.

SO ORDERED.14

Accused-appellant filed his appeal assailing his conviction for sale of illegal drugs in Criminal Case No. 17248-D-TG.15 In his Brief,16 he asserted that the police officers did not comply with the chain-of-custody rule; the testimonies of the police officers were replete with inconsistencies; PO3 Reyes had P1,500.00 but only bought a sachet for P500.00; and the buy-bust operation was a sham.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the People, filed a Brief17 and argued that the evidence for the prosecution supported the conviction; the procedural requirements were complied with by the police officers; the seized items were marked at the scene of the crime; and the testimonies of the police officers who did not have any ill motive to falsely testify against accused-appellant must prevail over the self-serving and uncorroborated claim of the latter.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The appellate court affirmed the ruling of the trial court.18 It held that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt accused-appellant's violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 17248-D�TG.19

Hence, the present appeal.20

After being required to file supplemental briefs if they so desired,21 the parties instead submitted Manifestations22 in which they stated that they were adopting their Briefs23 submitted earlier before the appellate court and were dispensing with the filing of Supplemental Briefs.24

Our Ruling

There is merit in the appeal.

The failure of the police officers to observe the procedure laid down in Section 2125 of RA 9165 and Section 2126 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the same law compels this Court to reverse the assailed rulings and acquit accused-appellant.

Evaluated pursuant to the abovementioned provisions, the non�compliance with the custody rule by the apprehending officers is readily apparent considering that the witnesses required by law during the taking of inventory and photographs were not present. No representatives from the media and Department of Justice were present during the conduct of the inventory.

The chain of custody rule, indeed, provides a saving clause. Section 21(a) of the IRR states "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."

PO3 Reyes explained that the buy-bust operation happened so fast; hence, they were unable to summon the required witnesses.27 The justification, however, fails to persuade. The allegation that the operation happened quickly was belied by the testimony of PO3 Reyes himself, as follows:

COURT:
What time did your informant [come] to your Office?
A:
More or less 2:00p.m.
COURT:
Not 9:00 in the morning?
A:
No, Your Honor.
COURT:
It [was] around 2:00p.m. What time was the jump off?
A:
More or less 10:00 p.m.[,] Your Honor.
COURT:
10:00 p.m.?
A:
Yes, Your Honor.28

Clearly, the police officers had ample time, or eight hours to be exact, to summon the attendance of the required witnesses but they failed to do so. The explanation provided fails to justify the lapse.

The pronouncement of this Court in People v. Ramos29 bears reiterating.

It is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umipang, the Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law for "a sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse." Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. These considerations arise from the fact that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time - beginning from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest - to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand knowing full well that they would have to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21 of RA 9165. As such, police officers are compelled not only to state reasons for their non� compliance, but must in fact, also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable.30 [Citations omitted].

The non-compliance with the rule, aggravated by a failure to justify, inevitably warrants the acquittal of accused-appellant.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The April 21, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08051 which affirmed the December 22, 2015 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Taguig City, Branch 267, in Criminal Case No. 17248-D-TG is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

Accused-appellant Antonio Balderrama y De Leon is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision on the action he has taken. Copies shall also be furnished to the Director General of Philippine National Police and the Director General of Philippine Drugs Enforcement Agency for their information.

SO ORDERED.

Bersamin, C.J., Jardeleza, Gesmundo, and Carandang, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:


1Rollo, p. 38.

2 Id. at 2-37; penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon A. Cruz and Pedro B. Corales.

3 Records, pp. 133-142; penned by Judge Antonio M. Olivete.

4 Id. at 1.

5 Id. at 19.

6 Id. at 23 (Order dated September 15, 2010) and 25-26 (Certificates of Arraignment dated September 15, 2010).

7 Id. at 36-37 (Order dated November 10, 2010).

8 TSN, March 23, 2011, pp. 1-63.

9 TSN, August 3, 2011, pp. 1-18 and TSN, November 28, 2011, pp. 1-9.

10 Records, p. 87.

11 Id. at 96.

12 Id. at 97 (Physical Science Report No. D-288-105 signed by Forensic Chemist Anamelisa S. Bacani).

13 TSN, November 7, 2013, pp. 1-11; TSN, February 6, 2014, pp. 1-13; and TSN, April 23, 2014, pp. 1-7.

14 Records, p. 142.

15 CA rollo, p. 9.

16 Id. at 20-37.

17 Id. at 59-82.

18 Id. at 135.

19 Id. at 134.

20 Id. at 137.

21Rollo, pp. 43-44 (Resolution dated October 11, 2017).

22 Id. at 49-51 (Manifestation filed by Plaintiff-Appellee dated January 25, 2018); id. at 45-46 (Manifestation filed by Accused-Appellant dated January 26, 2018).

23 CA rollo, pp. 59-82 (Brief for the Appellee); id. at 20-37 (Brief for the Accused-Appellant).

24Rollo, pp. 45 and 49.

25 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:

(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[.]

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

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and 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[.]

27 TSN, March 23, 2011, p. 57.

28 Id. at 42-43.

29 G.R. No. 233744, February 28, 2018.

30 Id.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

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






February-2019 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. 223869-960, February 13, 2019 - NEPTALI P. SALCEDO, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE THIRD DIVISION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 220913, February 04, 2019 - ALLEN C. PADUA AND EMELITA F. PIMENTEL, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, FAMILY CHOICE GRAINS PROCESSING CENTER, INC., AND GOLDEN SEASON GRAINS CENTER, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 238467, February 12, 2019 - MARK ANTHONY V. ZABAL, THITING ESTOSO JACOSALEM, AND ODON S. BANDIOLA, Petitioners, v. RODRIGO R. DUTERTE, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES; SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; AND EDUARDO M. A�O, [SECRETARY] OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 229823, February 27, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROGER ACABO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 232645, February 18, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHlLIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTONIO BALDERRAMA Y DE LEON, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 237324, February 06, 2019 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES AURORA SILVESTRE AND ROGELIO SILVESTRE, AND NATIVIDAD GOZO (FORMERLY KNOWN AS "QQQQ"), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 229099, February 27, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOY ANGELES Y AGBOLOS, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 233063, February 11, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIFTH DIVISION), REYNALDO O. PAROJINOG, SR., AND NOVA PRINCESS E. PAROJINOG ECHAVEZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 229938, February 27, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSEPH A. AMPO (APPELLANT)AND JOHNNY A. CALO (AT�LARGE), ACCUSED. JOSEPH A. AMPO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 238104, February 27, 2019 - ODELON ALVAREZ MIRANDA, Petitioner, v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION AND SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, REPRESENTED BY CARINA L. CATAHAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 226088, February 27, 2019 - FOOD FEST LAND, INC. AND JOYFOODS CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. ROMUALDO C. SIAPNO, TEODORO C. SIAPNO, JR. AND FELIPE C. SIAPNO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 196874, February 06, 2019 - THE HEIRS OF THE LATE SPOUSES ALEJANDRO RAMIRO AND FELICISIMA LLAMADA, NAMELY; HENRY L. RAMIRO; MERLYN R. TAGUBA; MARLON L. RAMIRO; MARIDEL R. SANTELLA, WILMA L. RAMIRO; VILMA R. CIELO AND CAROLYN R. CORDERO, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES ELEODORO AND VERNA BACARON, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208543, February 11, 2019 - GOODLAND COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. BANCO DE ORO-UNIBANK, INC., AND GOODGOLD REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 234240, February 06, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NOEL NAVASERO, SR. Y HUGO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 238839, February 27, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTHONY MABALO Y BACANI, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 217123 - OSCAR M. PARINGIT, PETITIONER, v. GLOBAL GATEWAY CREWING SERVICES, INC.,* MID-SOUTH SHIP AND CREW MANAGEMENT, INC., AND/OR CAPTAIN SIMEON FLORES, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 211105 - RUBY C. DEL ROSARIO, PETITIONER, v. CW MARKETING & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION/KENNETH TUNG, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 200774 - GERMAN MARINE AGENCIES, INC., ET AL. PETITIONERS, v. TEODOLAH R. CARO, IN BEHALF OF HER HUSBAND EDUARDO V. CARO, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 213346 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, v. MILLER OMANDAM UNABIA, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 210731 - SIMEON LAPI Y MAHIPUS, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 221428 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. RENATO GALUGA Y WAD-AS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 221434 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, v. RESTBEI B. TAMPUS, APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 221967 - RAMIRO LIM & SONS AGRICULTURAL CO., INC., SIMA REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT, INC., AND RAMIRO LIM, PETITIONERS, v. ARMANDO GUILARAN, ROMEO FRIAS, SANTIAGO CARAMBIAS, SR., JOEL SUAREZ, VICENTE OBORDO, JESSIE DAYON, JOEL PALMA, DOMICIANO PITULAN, NINFA ESPINOSA, ROMULO DELA PE�A, FERNANDO ROWEL, VICENTE ESPINOSA, PONCIANO DACUMOS, OFELIA FRIAS, GILBERT CARAMBIAS, RODRIGO FRIAS, NIXON CARAMBIAS, RESTITUTO JUANICA, MARIANITA GUILARAN, ALY ROMERO, ROSEMINDA JUANICA, LOLITA ROMERO, LILIA ROWEL, ANTONIO DUMDUMAN, SANTIAGO CARAMBIAS, JR., DIOSCORO DACUMOS, ROSENDO DACUMOS, JONIEL DACUMOS, LEONARDA DACUMOS, JUDITA DACUMOS, MIGUELA DACUMOS, AND NINFA CARAMBIAS, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 198008 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, REGION X, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, PETITIONER, v. BENJOHN FETALVERO, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 238117 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. EDWIN ALCONDE Y MADLA AND JULIUS QUERQUELA* Y REBACA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • G.R. No. 237349 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. MANUEL BASA, JR., A.K.A. "JUN," ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 239957 - JESUS TRINIDAD Y BERSAMIN, PETITIONER, v. THE PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 233833 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ROMULO ARAGO, JR. Y COMO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 222423 - METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, v. D.M. CONSUNJI, INC. AND R-II BUILDERS, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 228807 - CARLITO B. LINSANGAN, PETITIONER, v. PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 236023 - MACACUNA BADIO Y DICAMPUNG, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 209608 - DIGITAL PARADISE, INC., AS REPRESENTED BY FEDERICO EUGENIO, PETITIONER, v. HON. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE OVERALL DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN; HON. DENNIS L. GARCIA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR; HON. ROLANDO W. CERVANTES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICER; P/CINSP. JOEL MANUEL A. ANA, PSI RONNIE FAILOGA, PO3 DEMETRIO PRIETO,[*] AND PO1 SAMUEL ESCARIO DONES, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 212611 - HEIRS OF BATORI,[*] REPRESENTED BY GLADYS B. ABAD, PETITIONER, v. THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF BENGUET AND PACITA GALVEZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 212979 - MA. ANTONETTE LOZANO, PETITIONER, v. JOCELYN K. FERNANDEZ RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 232687 - SLORD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. BENERANDO M. NOYA, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 241081 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. BERNIDO ACABO Y AYENTO,[*] ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 233999 - TELEPHILIPPINES, INC.,[*] PETITIONER, v. FERRANDO H. JACOLBE, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 220008 - SOCORRO T. CLEMENTE, AS SUBSTITUTED BY SALVADOR T. CLEMENTE, PETITIONER, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, REGION IV-A), RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 221117 - JEBSENS MARITIME, INC., ABOITIZ JEBSENS BULK TRANSPORT CORPORATION, AND/OR ENRIQUE M. ABOITIZ, PETITIONERS, v. JESSIE D. ALCIBAR, SUBSTITUTED BY MILDRED U. ALCIBAR, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 211176 - BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONERS, v. SPOUSES JUANITO AND VICTORIA LEDESMA, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 211583, February 6, 2019] PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, v. SPOUSES JUANITO AND VICTORIA LEDESMA, RESPONDENTS.

  • A.C. No. 12125 - CELIANA B. BUNTAG, FLORA ARBILERA, VETALIANO BONGO, SEBASTIAN BONGO, PETRONILO BONGO, LEO BONGO, AND RAUL IMAN, COMPLAINANTS, v. ATTY. WILFREDO S. TOLEDO, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 217949 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), PETITIONER, v. REYNALDO P. PALMIERY, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 224297 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. EDGARDO ROYOL Y ASICO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 238516 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ROGER RODRIGUEZ Y MARTINEZ, ALIAS "ROGER," ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. Nos. 219824-25 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, v. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), MARIO L. RELAMPAGOS, MARILOU D. BARE, ROSARIO S. NU�EZ AND LALAINE N. PAULE, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 216725 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ROGELIO YAGAO Y LLABAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 223405 - CARLOS L. REYNES, PETITIONER, v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS), LUCRESIA M. AMORES, AND MARIBEL HONTIVEROS, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 217668 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. BENJIE CARANTO Y AUSTRIA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 213502 - JERLINDA M. MIRANDA, PETITIONER, v. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 229106 - TIONG BI, INC. [OWNER OF BACOLOD OUR LADY OF MERCY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL], PETITIONER, v. PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 228881 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. DONDON GUERRERO Y ELING, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 218731 - NICOMEDES AUGUSTO, GOMERCINDO JIMENEZ, MARCELINO PAQUIBOT, AND ROBERTA SILAWAN, PETITIONERS, v. ANTONIO CARLOTA DY AND MARIO DY, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 205333 - MA. MELISSA VILLANUEVA MAGSINO, PETITIONER, v. ROLANDO N. MAGSINO, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 222648 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. EDITHA TAMPAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • G.R. No. 238566 - PHILIP JOHN B. MORENO, ACOUNTANT III/DIVISION CHIEF II, PHILIPPINE RETIREMENT AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, v. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FORMER TENTH DIVISION) AND OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 202792 - LA SALLIAN EDUCATIONAL INNOVATORS FOUNDATION (DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY-COLLEGE OF ST. BENILDE) INC., PETITIONER, v. COMMISIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 206709 - VDM TRADING, INC. AND SPOUSES LUIS AND NENA DOMINGO, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, ATTY. F. WILLIAM L. VILLAREAL, PETITIONERS, v. LEONITA CARUNGCONG AND WACK WACK TWIN TOWERS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 243522 - REPRESENTATIVES EDCEL C. LAGMAN, TOMASITO S. VILLARIN, TEDDY BRAWNER BAGUILAT, JR., EDGAR R. ERICE, GARY C. ALEJANO, JOSE CHRISTOPHER Y. BELMONTE AND ARLENE "KAKA" J. BAG-AO, PETITIONERS, v. HON. SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON. DELFIN N. LORENZANA, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AND MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR; GEN. BENJAMIN MADRIGAL, JR., CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES AND MARTIAL LAW IMPLEMENTOR; AND HON. BENJAMIN E. DIOKNO, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT; AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES AS COMPONENT HOUSES OF THE CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPECTIVELY REPRESENTED BY HON. SPEAKER GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO AND HON. SENATE PRESIDENT VICENTE C. SOTTO III, RESPONDENTS.[G.R. No. 243677] BAYAN MUNA PARTYLIST REPRESENTATIVE CARLOS ISAGANI T. ZARATE, GABRIELA WOMEN'S PARTY REPRESENTATIVES, EMERENCIANA A. DE JESUS, AND ARLENE D. BROSAS, ANAKPAWIS REPRESENTATIVE ARIEL B. CASILAO, ACT TEACHERS REPRESENTATIVES ANTONIO L. TINO AND FRANCE L. CASTRO, AND KABATAAN PARTYLIST REPRESENTATIVE SARAH JANE I. ELAGO, PETITIONERS, v. PRESIDENT RODRIGO DUTERTE, CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY SENATE PRESIDENT VICENTE C. SOTTO III AND HOUSE SPEAKER GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR MEDIALDEA, DEFENSE SECRETARY DELFIN LORENZANA, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES CHIEF�OF-STAFF LIEUTENANT GENERAL BENJAMIN MADRIGAL, JR., PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OSCAR DAVID ALBAYALDE, RESPONDENTS.[G.R. No. 243745] CHRISTIAN S. MONSOD, RAY PAOLO J. SANTIAGO, NOLASCO RITZ LEE B. SANTOS III, MARIE HAZEL E. LAVITORIA, DOMINIC AMON R. LADEZA, AND XAMANTHA XOFIA A. SANTOS, PETITIONERS, v. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES (REPRESENTED BY SENATE PRESIDENT VICENTE C. SOTTO III), HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (REPRESENTED BY GLORIA MACAPAGAL�-ARROYO), EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE (DND) SECRETARY DELFIN N. LORENZANA, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DILG) SECRETARY EDUARDO M. A�O, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES (AFP) CHIEF OF STAFF GENERAL BENJAMIN R. MADRIGAL, JR., PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE (PNP) DIRECTOR GENERAL OSCAR D. ALBAYALDE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER HERMOGENES C. ESPERON, JR., RESPONDENTS.[G.R. No. 243797] RIUS VALLE, JHOSA MAE PALOMO, JEANY ROSE HAYAHAY AND RORELYN MANDACAWAN, PETITIONERS, v. THE SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY THE SENATE PRESIDENT VICENTE C. SOTTO III, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, REPRESENTED BY THE HOUSE SPEAKER GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, AND ALL PERSONS ACTING UNDER THEIR CONTROL, DIRECTION, INSTRUCTION, AND/OR SUPERVISION, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 202974 - NORMA D. CACHO AND NORTH STAR INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL, INC., PETITIONERS, v. VIRGINIA D. BALAGTAS, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 190682 - PAUL C. DAGONDON, PETITIONER, v. ISMAEL LADAGA, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 227795 (Formerly UDK-15556) - MARVIN O. DAGUINOD, PETITIONER, v. SOUTHGATE FOODS, INC., REPRESENTED BY MAUREEN O. FERRER AND GENERATION ONE RESOURCE SERVICE AND MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE,[*] REPRESENTED BY RESTY CRUZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 233339 - D.M. CONSUNJI, INC., PETITIONER, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE HEIRS OF JULIAN CRUZ, REPRESENTED BY MACARIA CRUZ ESTACIO, RESPONDENTS.

  • G.R. No. 227184 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. BRYAN LABSAN Y NALA AND CLENIO DANTE Y PEREZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • G.R. Nos. 199729-30 - MANILA BANKERS' LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.[G.R. Nos. 199732-33] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, v. MANILA BANKERS' LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.