Ninja's Digests

Yo what's up. These are not the best digests around but they're still 2% helpful (I think). CLICK ON THE ARCHIVE SO YOU WON'T HAVE A HARD TIME SCROLLING THROUGH EVERYTHING.

[thehelpfulninja]

PEOPLE V. GLENN SALVADOR y BALVERDE & DORY ANN PARCON y DEL ROSARIO (GR NO. 190621)

FEBRUARY 10, 2014 DEL CASTILLO, J.

FACTS:

On September 2, 2003, a buy-bust operation was conducted based on a confidential informant’s (CI) report of a certain alias “Bumski,” herein appellant, who was allegedly engaged in the illicit sale of dangerous drugs. The CI and PO2 Soriano, the poseur-buyer, were already at the appellant’s house carrying out their duties when Parcon arrived and asked appellant for shabu. Upon the consummation of the transaction, PO2 Soriano thereafter arrested the appellant; Parcon was likewise arrested.

Salvador, on the other hand, denied the accusation and denied knowing Parcon. He further claimed that there was non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 since the officers failed to immediately conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same.

Upon the motion of the prosecution, the cases were consolidated. The RTC held Salvador and Parcon guilty beyond reasonable doubt; the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC.

ISSUE:

Whether the failure to conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the items seized from the accused will render the arrest illegal and the evidence inadmissible

RULING:

The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required inventory and photographed the objects confiscated does not ipso facto result in the unlawful arrest of the accused or render inadmissible in evidence the items seized. This is due to the proviso added in the implementing rules stating that it must still be shown that there exists justifiable grounds and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have not been preserved. “What is crucial is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved for they will be used in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.”

In this case, the prosecution established clearly the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu. There is no evidence that PO2 Soriano lost possession and control of the seized shabu from the time it was recovered from the appellant until its turnover to the police station. He marked the seized item immediately upon arrival at the police station. He turned it over to PO1 Calatay, the investigating officer, who prepared the letter request for the laboratory examination of the contents of the plastic sachets. These facts were admitted by the appellant.

FULL TEXT HERE

[thehelpfulninja]

REPUBLIC V. DANILO PANGASINAN (GR NO. 214077)

AUGUST 10, 2016 VELASCO, JR., J.

FACTS:

Danilo and Josephine were married. Sometime in September 2007, Josephine underwent hysterectomy. Four days after bringing her home, Danilo went on a business trip to Tacloban; said trip was known to Josephine prior to the operation however, it turned out that she didn’t want Danilo to leave. This sparked an argument which resulted to Josephine’s leaving the conjugal home; she never resumed cohabitation with Danilo.

On May 25, 2011, Danilo filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Josephine alleging Article 36 of the Family Code (psychological incapacity).The RTC declared the marriage void ab initio; the CA affirmed the decision.

ISSUE:

Whether the totality of evidence presented warrants the declaration of nullity of Danilo and Josephine’s marriage based on their psychological incapacity

RULING:

It has been held that mere showing of “irreconcilable differences” and “conflicting personalities” does not constitute psychological incapacity nor does failure of the parties to meet their responsibilities and duties as married persons. These differences do not rise to the level of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code and are not manifestations thereof which may be a ground for declaring the marriage void. If at all, these are difficulties that couples ordinarily deal with in the course of their marriage.

Neither can the marriage be nullified on the basis of Danilo’s psychological incapacity. While Danilo was likewise diagnosed to be suffering from “301.9 Personality Disorder Not Other Specified, presenting symptoms of Passive-Aggressive and Avoidant Personality Disorder,” which the RTC considered in declaring the couple’s marriage null and void, Danilo anchored his petition on the psychological incapacity of Josephine only.

FULL TEXT HERE

[thehelpfulninja]

PEOPLE V. RONNIE BOY EDA y CASANI (GR NO. 220715)

AUGUST 24, 2016 PERALTA J.

FACTS:

On February 17, 2011 a buy-bust operation was conducted in Balayan, Batangas against appellant Ronnie Boy Eda y Casani. While the civilian asset was negotiating with Eda, PO2 Bejer was on board the tricycle being driven by said civilian asset, carefully watching the transaction unfold. Upon the exchange of one plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance with the marked money, PO2 Bejer approached them and introduced himself to Eda as a police officer. Accused-appellant was then arrested and an additional of four plastic sachets with white crystalline substance were found in his right pocket.

Eda denied selling the illegal drug seized and claimed that never did he use shabu in his entire life. He further alleged that (1) he only admitted to owning the illegal drugs then for fear as the police officers gave him blows; and that (2) the alleged sachets of prohibited drugs recovered from him after the conduct of body search were actually planted by PO2 Bejer. 

The RTC convicted Eda of the crimes charged and the CA sustained the conviction.

ISSUE:

Whether accused-appellant was wrongly charged with violation of RA 9165

RULING:

In this case, the Court believes and so holds that all the requisites for the illegal sale of shabu were met. As demonstrated by the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the supporting documents they presented and offered, the identities of the buyer, the seller, the prohibited drug, and the marked money, have all been proven by the required quantum of evidence. 

Against the prosecution evidence, Eda merely denied the accusations against him and raised the defense of frame-up. We note, however, that the defense of denial and frame-up has been invariably viewed with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violation RA No. 9165. In order to prosper, the defense of denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing evidence. In this connection, Eda has the burden of proof to defeat the presumption that the police officers handled the seized drugs with regularity and that they properly performed their official duties. He failed. No bad faith or planting of evidence was actually shown. He did not substantiate any illicit motive on the part of the police officers, as to why they would choose to falsely implicate him in a very serious crime that would cause his imprisonment for life. For this failure, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses deserve full faith and credit.

FULL TEXT HERE

[thehelpfulninja]

ATTY. RAYMUND P. PALAD V. LOLIT SOLIS, ET AL. (GR NO. 206691)

OCTOBER 03, 2016 PERALTA, J.

FACTS:

Atty. Raymund Palad, petitioner herein, was the lawyer of Katrina Halili in the highly-publicized controversy involving the actress and Hayden Kho. On December 14, 2012, the IBP Board of Governors issued a resolution recommending the penalty of suspension of herein petitioner.

Sometime in April 2013, respondent Lolit Solis et al. publicized the aforementioned issue stating that the petitioner was already suspended from the practice of law for one year. Petitioner thereafter filed a proceeding for indirect contempt and alleged that the respondents violated Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court which declares that proceedings against attorneys shall be private and confidential.

ISSUE:

Whether respondents violated the confidentiality rule in proceedings against lawyers, warranting a finding of guilt for indirect contempt of court

RULING:

Since petitioner has become a public figure for being involved in a public issue, and because the event itself that led to the filing of the disciplinary case against petitioner is a a matter of public interest, the media has the right to report the disciplinary case as legitimate news. The legitimate media has a right to publish such fact under the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press. Respondents merely reported on the alleged penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a year against petitioner, and the supposed grounds relied upon. It appeared that the respondents, as entertainment writers, merely acted on information they received from their source about the petitioner who used to appear before the media in representing his actress client. Also, there was no evidence that the respondents published the articles to influence this Court on its action on the disciplinary case or deliberately destroy petitioner’s reputation. Thus, they did not violate the confidentiality rule in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers.

FULL TEXT HERE

[thehelpfulninja]

PEOPLE V. DENNIS SUMILI (GR NO. 212160)

FEBRUARY 4, 2015 PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

FACTS:

On June 7, 2006, a buy-bust operation was organized by SPO2 Englatiera against appellant Dennis Sumili. After the sale has been consummated and the team stormed Sumili’s house, appellant allegedly escaped by jumping through the window. Thereafter, the sachet of suspected shabu was turned over by the poseur-buyer to SPO2 Englatiera who in turn instructed NUP Ong to bring the sachet and the request  for laboratory examination to the PNP Crime Laboratory however, NUP Ong failed to do so since the lab was already closed; he was only able to submit it for examination on June 9, 2006 or two days after the buy-bust operation.

Sumili on the other hand, denied the accusation. He alleged that on the date and time of the buy-bust, he was at the market buying ingredients as he was a fishball vendor.

ISSUE: 

Whether Sumili’s conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 should be upheld

RULING:

As a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. In context, this would ideally include testimony about every link in the chain, from the seizure of the prohibited drug up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that everyone who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received, and the condition in which it was delivered, and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.

After a judicious review of the records, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the substance allegedly confiscated from Sumili due to unjustified gaps in the chain of custody, thus, militating against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

FULL TEXT HERE

[thehelpfulninja]

PEOPLE V. LARRY BASILIO y HERNANDEZ (GR NO. 195774)

FEBRUARY 23, 2015 DEL CASTILLO, J.

FACTS:

Appellant Larry Basilio y Hernandez was convicted for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act).  On November 2, 2006, at 10 PM, a buy-bust operation was conducted against “Kagi” which resulted to the acquisition of a small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance and the appellant’s arrest. The appellant however, denied the accusation and alleged that on the night of the buy-bust, he was on his way home when five police officers accosted him and asked about a certain alias “Peter” and that he was then arrested for failing to give them information.

The RTC found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt; the CA affirmed.

ISSUE:

Whether the lower courts correctly convicted appellant of the offense of illegal sale of shabu

RULING:

To obtain a conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 involving a buy-bust operation, the following essential elements must be established: “(1) identity of the buyer and seller, the object of the sale and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. Thus, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate the illegal transaction.

Here, all the foregoing elements are obtaining. The prosecution witnesses positively identified appellant as the seller of the substance to the poseur-buyer, SPO1 Chua, for the sum of P100. The white crystalline substance presented during trial was identified by SPO1 Chua as the substance sold and delivered to him by appellants. The substance when examined by Forensic Chemical Officer PSI Reyes tested positive to methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Clearly, the prosecution has adequately and satisfactorily proved all the elements of the offense.

FULL TEXT HERE

[thehelpfulninja]

FORTICH V. CORONA (GR NO. 131457)

APRIL 24, 1998 MARTINEZ, J.

FACTS:

On March 26, 1996, the Office of the President issued a decision converting a 144-hectare agricultural land to an agro-industrial area which resulted to a hunger strike staged by some alleged farmer-benefits. The incident paved the way for the reopening of the case despite the decision being already final and executory and thus, the issuance of the so-called “Win-Win Resolution.” Said resolution modified the decision converting only 44 hectares of the land in dispute to an agro-industrial area and the remaining thereof distributed to the farmer-benefits.

ISSUE:

Whether the final and executory decision dated March 29, 1996 can still be substantially modified by the Win-Win Resolution

RULING:

When the Office of the President issued the Order dated June 23, 1997 declaring the Decision of March 29, 1996 final and executory, as no one has seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration thereto, the said Office had lost its jurisdiction to re-open the case, more so modify its Decision. Having lost its jurisdiction, the Office of the President has no more authority to entertain the second motion for reconsideration filed by respondent DAR Secretary, which second motion became the basis of the assailed Win-Win Resolution.

The orderly administration of justice requires that the judgments/resolutions of a court or quasi-judicial body must reach a point of finality set by the law, rules and regulations. The noble purpose is to write finis to disputes once and for all. This is a fundamental principle in our justice system, without which there would be no end to litigations. Utmost respect and adherence to this principles must always be maintained by those who wield the power of adjudication. Any act which violates such principle must immediately be stuck down.

FULL  TEXT HERE

[thehelpfulninja]

REPUBLIC V. HON. MIGRINO (GR NO. 89483)

AUGUST 30, 1990 CORTES, J.

FACTS:

The New Armed Forces of the Philippines Anti-Graft Board moved to investigate private respondent Lt. Col Troadio Tecson (ret.) for violation of RA 1379. The Board alleged that the PCGG has the power to investigate and cause the prosecution of private respondent because he is a “subordinate” of former President Marcos.

Private respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss but said motion was denied. He then filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction with the RTC; respondent Judge herein granted the petition.

ISSUE:

Whether private respondent may be investigated and caused to be prosecuted by the Board

RULING:

Applying the rule in statutory construction known as ejusdem generis, that is - where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same kind or class as those specifically mentioned.

We are confronted with a situation wherein the PCGG acted in excess of its jurisdiction and, hence, may be enjoined from doing so, but the court that issued the injunction against the PCGG has not been vested by law with jurisdiction over it and, thus, the injunction issued was null and void.

FULL TEXT HERE

[thehelpfulninja]

MELCHOR V. COA (GR NO. 95398)

AUGUST 16, 1991 GUTIERREZ, JR., J.

FACTS:

Mario Melchor, petitioner herein, entered into a contract with Cebu Diamond Construction for the construction of Phase I of the home Technology Building of Alangalang Agro-Industrial School of Alangalang, Leyte. In the said contract, chief accountant Pablo Narido failed to sign as witness as required in Section 1 of the Letter of Instruction No. 968. However, Narido still issued a certificate of availability of funds.

On April 10, 1984, the contractor forfeited the project mainly to save itself for further losses. The COA Regional Director, Cesar Damole, then disallowed the payment of PHP 515, 305.60 to Cebu Diamond Construction, alleging that the absence of the chief accountant’s signature as witness renders the contract null and void.

ISSUE:

Whether petitioner Melchor should be held personally liable for the amount paid for the construction on the ground that the contract is null and void

RULING:

The Court finds that the contract executed by the petitioner and Cebu Diamond Construction is enforceable and, therefore, the petitioner should not be made to personally pay for the building already constructed.

Under Sections 85 and 86 of PD 1445, before a government agency can enter into a contract involving expenditure of government funds there must be an appropriation for such expenditure and the proper accounting official must certify that funds have been appropriated for the purpose. Under LOI 968, the chief accountant of the government agency, as the verifier of the availability of funds, must sign the contracts as witness. The uniform intent of these provisions is to ensure that government contracts are signed only when supported by available funds.

It is a rule of statutory construction that the court may consider the spirit and reason of a statute where a literal meaning would lead to absurdity, contradiction, injustice or would defeat the clear purpose of the lawmaker. (people v. Manantan 5 SCRA 684 [1962]) For this Court to draw a narrow and stringent application of LOI 968 would be to lose sight of the purpose behind its enactment. The rationale for LOI 968, which is to ensure that there are available funds to finance a proposed project, was already served by the chief accountant’s issuance of a certificate of fund availability.

FULL TEXT HERE

[thehelpfulninja]

PAGANO V. NAZARRO (GR NO. 149072)

SEPTEMBER 21, 2007 CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

FACTS:

Petitioner, Pagano, was a Cashier IV of the Office of the Provincial Treasurer of Benguet and during her term, it was discovered that she had incurred a shortage of P1 424 289.99. On January 16, 1998, she filed her Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Councilor in Baguio City. An executive order was then issued by the Provincial Governor creating an ad hoc committee composed of herein respondents to investigate the administrative charges against petitioner.

Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground that the committee had no jurisdiction over the subject of the action and over her person. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner. The CA reversed the decision.

ISSUE:

Whether a government employee who has been separated from the civil service by operation of law may still be administratively charged under civil service laws, rules and regulations

RULING:

[thehelpfulninja]

OMBUDSMAN V. ANDUTAN (GR NO. 164679)

JULY 27, 2011 BRION, J.

FACTS:

Andutan was formerly the Deputy Director of the One-Stop Shop Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center of the DOF. On July 1, 1998, Andutan resigned from the DOF pursuant to a memorandum directing all non-career officials or those occupying political positions to vacate their positions. On September 1, 1999, Andutan, et al. were criminally charged with estafa through falsification of public documents, and violations of Section 3(a), (e) and (j) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The Ombudsman found the respondents guilty of Gross Negligence of Duty. The CA, however, annulled and set aside the decision.

ISSUE:

Whether the Ombudsman has the authority to institute an administrative complaint a government employee who had already resigned

RULING:

[thehelpfulninja]

QUISAY V. PEOPLE (GR NO. 216920)

JANUARY 13, 2016 PERLAS-BERNABE, J. 

FACTS:

On December 28, 2012, the Officer of the City Prosecutor of Makati City issued a Pasiya or Resolution finding probable cause against petitioner Quisay for violation of Section 10 of RA 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act). A Pabatid Sakdal or Information was also filed before the RTC.

Petitioner moved to quash the Information on the ground of lack of authority of the person who filed the said information before the RTC; RTC dismissed the petition and the CA affirmed the decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA correctly held that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing the petition

RULING:

The CA correctly held that based on the wording of Section 9 or RA 10071, which gave the City Prosecutor the power to “investigate and/or cause to be investigated all charges of crimes, misdemeanors and violations of penal laws and ordinances within their respective jurisdictions, and have the necessary information or complaint prepared or made and filed against the persons accused,” he may indeed delegate his power to his subordinates as he may deem necessary in the interest of the prosecution service.

Unfortunately, the same could not be said of the Pabatid Sakdal or Information filed before the RTC, as there was no showing that it was approved by either the City Prosecutor of Makati or any of the OCP-Makati’s division chiefs or review prosecutors. Here, aside from the bare and self-serving Certification, there was no proof that ACP De La Cruz was authorized to file the Pabatid Sakdal or Information before the RTC himself.

In conclusion, the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s dismissal or petitioner’s motion to quash as the Pbatid Sakdal or Information suffers from an incurable infirmity – that the officer who filed the same before the RTC had no authority to do so. Hence, the Pabatid Sakdal must be quashed, resulting in the dismissal of the criminal case against petitioner.

FULL TEXT HERE

[thehelpfulninja]

PEOPLE V. HON. CASTILLO (GR NO. 204419)

NOVEMBER 07, 2016 PERALTA, J.

FACTS:

On January 13, 2012, Judge Marcelo Cabalbag of the MTC of Gattaran, Cagayan issued Search Warrant No. 45 asserting that there is probable cause to believe that a Violation of RA No. 9165 has been and is being committed by Joefrey Rabino. A search was then conducted thereafter by the PDEA and PNP which yielded one sachet containing residue of suspected methamphetamine hydrochloride inside the house of private respondent Rabino.

An information against Rabino was filed and private respondent then filed a Motion to Quash Search Warrant and for Suppression of Illegally Acquired Evidence mainly alleging that the issuing court did not have the territorial jurisdiction over the place to be searched. The RTC through herein respondent, Judge Castillo, granted the motion.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the MTC has the authority to issue a search warrant involving an offense in which it has no jurisdiction

RULING:

This Court has provided the rules to be followed in the application for a search warrant. Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

Sec. 2: Court where application for search warrant shall be filed. – An application for search warrant shall be filed with the following:

(a)    Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed.

(b)   For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced.

However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the application shall only be made in the court where the criminal action is pending.

Apparently, in this case, the application for a search warrant was filed within the same judicial region where the crime was allegedly committed. For compelling reasons, the Municipal Trial Court of Gattaran, Cagayan has the authority to issue a search warrant to search and seize the dangerous drugs stated in the application thereof in Aparri, Cagayan, a place that is within the same judicial region. The fact that the search warrant was issued means that the MTC judge found probable cause to grant the said application after the latter was found by the same judge to have been filed for compelling reasons. Therefore, Sec. 2, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court was duly complied with.

FULL TEXT HERE

[thehelpfulninja]

NAPOLES V. SEC. DE LIMA (GR NO. 213529)

JULY 13, 2016 LEONEN, J.

FACTS:

On March 8, 2013, a joint sworn statement was executed by Arturo Francisco Luy, Gertrude Luy, Arthur Luy and Annabelle Luy alleging that a family member, Benhur Luy, had been illegally detained since December 19, 2012 by Janet Lim-Napoles, the owner of JLN Group of Companies, and her brother, Reynald Lim. Said illegal detention was to cover up for the companies’ anomalous transactions involving the PDAF.

An information was filed for serious illegal detention before the RTC of Makati against Napoles and Lim. The case was then raffled to Branch 150 presided by Judge Alameda who issued a warrant of arrest. Napoles filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of herein respondents and that there was no probable cause to charge her with serious illegal detention; petition was dismissed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondents

RULING:

It is true that the Constitution allows the exercise of the power of judicial review in cases where grave abuse of discretion exists. In this case, however, a petition for certiorari before this Court was not the “plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law: because, as discussed, the trial court already acquired jurisdiction over the case. The proper remedy for Napoles was to proceed to trial and allow the exhaustive presentation of evidence by the parties. During the pendency of this Petition, the main case from which the Petition for Certiorari stemmed was decided by the trial court. In its April 4, 2015 Decision, Branch 150 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati found Napoles guilty beyond reasonable doubt of serious illegal detention, punished under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. Such verdict is a quantum of evidence higher than probable cause. Resolving whether there was probable cause in the filing of information before the trial court and in the issuance of an arrest warrant would be “of not practical use or value.”

FULL TEXT HERE

[thehelpfulninja]

MENDOZA V. PEOPLE (GR NO. 197293)

APRIL 21, 2014 LEONEL, J.

 FACTS:

The petitioner, Alfredo Mendoza, was an employee of Juno Cars, Inc. It was alleged by Juno Cars, Inc. through its representative, Raul Evangelista, that herein petitioner (1) sold and released five cars without Evangelista’s or the finance manager’s permission and that the buyers of said cars made payments. Mendoza however did not remit such payments amounting to P886 000; (2) that Mendoza was in custody of 20 cars but only 18 were accounted for; and (3) that Mendoza failed to turn over a 2001 Hyundai Starex and a Honda City 1.5 LXI.  

On January 8, 2008, Juno Cars, Inc., through Evangelista, filed a complaint-affidavit for qualified theft and estafa against Mendoza. Provincial Prosecutor Rey Delgado issued a Resolution finding probable cause and recommending the filing of an information. On March 30, 2009, the trial court dismissed the case stating that there is no probable cause for the offense of qualified theft and estafa; the Court of Appeals reversed the decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the trial court may dismiss an information filed by the prosecutor on the basis of its own independent finding of lack of probable cause

RULING:

While the information filed by Prosecutor Delgado was valid, Judge Capco-Umali still had the discretion to make her own finding whether probable cause existed to order the arrest of the accused and proceed with trial.

In this case, Judge Capco-Umali made an independent assessment of the evidence on record and concluded that “the evidence adduced does not support a finding of probable cause for the offenses of qualified theft and estafa.” Specifically, she found that Juno Cars “failed to prove by competent evidence that the vehicles alleged to have been pilfered by Alfredo were lawfully possessed or owned by them, or that these vehicles were received by Alfredo, to be able to substantiate the charge of qualified theft. She also found that the complaint “did not state with particularity the exact value of the alleged office filed or their valuation purportedly have been removed, concealed or destroyed by the accused,” which she found crucial to the prosecution of the crime of estafa under Article 315, fourth paragraph, no. 3 ( c) of the Revised Penal Code.

Accordingly, with the present laws and jurisprudence on the matter, Judge Capco-Umali correctly dismissed the case against Alfredo.

FULL TEXT HERE

[thehelpfulninja]

MAPALAD V. ECHANEZ (AC NO. 10911)

JUNE 06, 2017 TIJAM, J.

 FACTS:

Complainant, Virgilio Mapalad, Sr., was one of the plaintiffs in an action for Recovery of Possession and Damages with Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction while respondent, Atty. Anselmo Echanez, was the defendants’ counsel therein. In a Notice of Appeal filed by respondent, he only indicated his MCLE compliance no without indicating the date of issue thereof. He once again excluded the same in a brief filed for the appellants. Complainant then found out upon inquiry with the MCLE Office that said respondent had no MCLE compliance yet.

Mapalad then filed a complaint against respondent however, respondent failed to comply with the necessary measures.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent be administratively disciplined based on the allegations in the complaint and evidence on record

RULING:

Yes. There is no denying that the respondent was given ample opportunity to answer the imputations against him and defend himself but he did not do so despite due notices.

First, it was clearly established that respondent violated Bar Matter No. 850. No less than the MCLE Office had issued a certification stating that respondent had no complied with the first and second compliance period of the MCLE.

Second, despite such non-compliance, respondent repeatedly indicated false MCLE compliance number in his pleadings before the trial courts. In indicating patently false information in pleadings filed before the courts of law, not only once but four times, as per records, the respondent acted in manifest bad faith, dishonesty and deceit.

Third, the respondent also repeatedly failed to obey legal orders of the trial court, the IBP-CBD, and also this Court despite due notice. Court orders should be respected not only because the authorities who issued them should be respected, but because of the respect and consideration that should be extended to the judicial branch of the government, which is absolutely essential if our government is to be a government of law and not of men.

Taken altogether, considering respondent’s act of using a false MCLE compliance number in his pleadings, his repeated failure to obey legal orders, and the fact that he had already been sanctioned twice by this Court on separate cases, We are constrained to affirm the IBP Board of Governors’ Resolution No. XXI-2014-685, recommending his disbarment to prevent him from further engaging in legal practice.

FULL TEXT HERE

[thehelpfulninja]

ENRILE V. SANDIGANBAYAN (GR NO. 213847)

AUGUST 18, 2015 BERSAMIN, J.

FACTS:

On 2014, the Office of the Ombudsman charged Enrile and several others with plunder in the Sandiganbayan based on their alleged involvement in the misuse of appropriations under the PDAF. Enrile voluntarily surrendered when his warrant of arrest was issued and thereafter filed his Motion for Detention at the PNP General Hospital and his Motion to Fix Bail, asserting that (1) the Prosecution had not yet established that the evidence of his guilt was strong; (2) although he was charged with plunder which entails a penalty of reclusion perpetua, his would only be reclusion temporal given the presence of two mitigating circumstances (his voluntary surrender and his being over 70 years of age); and (3) he was not a flight risk due to his age and physical condition which must be given serious consideration.

The Sandiganbayan denied the Motion to Fix Bail.

ISSUE:

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in denying Enrile’s Motion to Fix Bail

RULING:

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan arbitrarily ignored the objective of bail to ensure the appearance of the accused during the trial; and unwarrantedly disregarded the clear showing of the fragile health and advanced age of Enrile. As such, the Sandiganbayayan gravely abused its discretion in denying Enrile’s Motion to Fix Bail.

Bail protects the right of the accused to due process and to be presumed innocent. The purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial, or whenever so required by the trial court. The amount of bail should be high enough to assure the presence of the accused when so required, but it should be no higher than is reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose. Thus, bail acts as a reconciling mechanism to accommodate both the accused’s interest in his provisional liberty before or during the trial, and the society’s interest in assuring the accused’s presence at trial.

FULL TEXT HERE