 Home

 Law Firm
 Law Library
 Laws

 Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2019 > January 2019 Decisions >

G.R. No. 241091, January 14, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. LITO PAMING Y JAVIER, Accused-Appellant.:

G.R. No. 241091, January 14, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. LITO PAMING Y JAVIER, Accused-Appellant.

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 241091, January 14, 2019

 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LITO PAMING Y
JAVIER, Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Assailed in this ordinary appeal1 is the Decision2 dated January 16, 2018 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 07676, which affirmed the Joint
Decision3 dated August 26, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Daet, Camarines
Norte, Branch 39 (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. 14502 and 14503 finding accused-
appellant Lito Paming y Javier (Paming) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating
Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, 4 otherwise known as
the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."

The Facts

This case stemmed from two (2) Informations5 filed before the RTC accusing
Paming of the crimes of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs,
respectively defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II ofRA 9165.
The prosecution alleged that at around 12:30 in the morning ofSeptember 14,
2010, members of the Paracale Municipal Police Station, with a civilian informant,
successfully implemented a buy-bust operation against Paming, during which one
(1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline
substance was recovered from him. When Paming was searched after his arrest, the
police officers were able to seize a matchbox holding twenty-eight (28) more heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachets containing a combined weight of 0.85 gram of
white crystalline substance from his possession. The police officers then took
Paming to a nearby billiard hall for marking of the confiscated drugs, but due to the
increasing number of people, they transferred to the police station to continue the
marking. At the police station, the seized items were turned over to the Desk
Officer and the Investigator, who instructed the poseur-buyer to put markings on
the items. Thereafter, the seized items were brought to the crime laboratory where,
after examination, the contents thereof yielded positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.6
In defense, Paming denied the charges against him, claiming instead, that he was
having a drinking spree with friends when he was approached by one Gil alias
"Tatong" who told him that he wanted to "score." When he replied that he did not
know what that meant, five men suddenly ganged up on him and dragged him to a
nearby billiard hall where they took from his possession P5,000.00, one-half (1/2)
bahay of gold and two (2) P20.00 bills. Tatong then shouted: "Sir, nandito po sa
posporo," and handed a matchbox to Police Officer 2 Jason R. Poot (PO2 Poot), who
pocketed it. Paming was then brought to the police station where he was detained
for two days, and was later made to sign a piece of paper purportedly containing an
inventory of the seized items.7

In a Joint Decision8 dated August 26, 2014, the RTC found Paming guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crimes charged, and accordingly, sentenced him as follows:
(a) in Criminal Case No. 14502, to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve
(12) years and one (1) day, and to pay a fine in the amount of P400,000.00; and
(b) in Criminal Case No. 14503, to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to
pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00.9 The RTC found that the prosecution,
through the testimonial and documentary evidence it presented, had established
beyond reasonable doubt that Paming indeed sold one (1) heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet containing dangerous drugs to the poseur-buyer, resulting in his
arrest, and that during the search incidental thereto, he was discovered to be in
possession of a matchbox holding twenty-eight (28) more heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachets of dangerous drugs. It likewise held that, notwithstanding the
procedural lapses of the buy-bust team in complying with Section 21, Article II of
RA 9165, the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal drugs were duly
preserved under the chain of custody rule. On the other hand, the RTC found
untenable Paming's defense of a self-serving unsubstantiated denial or claim of
frame-up due to his failure to allege, much less prove, any ill motive on the part of
the buy-bust team.10 Aggrieved, Paming appealed11 to the CA.

In a Decision12 dated January 16, 2018, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. 13 It held
that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of
the crimes charged against Paming, and that the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items have been preserved due to the arresting officers' substantial
compliance with the chain of custody rule.14

Hence, this appeal seeking that Paming's conviction be overturned.

The Court's Ruling

The appeal is meritorious.

In cases for Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA
9165,15 it is essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with
moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of
the corpus delicti of the crime.16 Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti
renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt and, hence, warrants an acquittal. 17

To establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, the
prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of custody from the
moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the
crime.18 As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that
the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted
immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. In this regard, case law
recognizes that "marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking
at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team." 19 Hence, the
failure to immediately mark the confiscated items at the place of arrest neither
renders them inadmissible in evidence nor impairs the integrity of the seized drugs,
as the conduct of marking at the nearest police station or office of the
apprehending team is sufficient compliance with the rules on chain of custody. 20

The law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done in the
presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his
representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a)
if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640,21 a representative from the
media AND the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official; 22 or (b)
if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public official and a
representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media.23 The law requires
the presence of these witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain
of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of
evidence."24

As a general rule, compliance with the chain of custody procedure is strictly

enjoined as the same has been regarded "not merely as a procedural technicality
but as a matter of substantive law."25 This is because "[t]he law has been 'crafted
by Congress as safety precautions to address potential police abuses, especially
considering that the penalty imposed may be life imprisonment."' 26

Nonetheless, the Court has recognized that due to varying field conditions, strict
compliance with the chain of custody procedure may not always be possible. 27 As
such, the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the same would
not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid,
provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is a justifiable
ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved.28 The foregoing is based on the saving clause
found in Section 21 (a),29 Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR) ofRA 9165, which was later adopted into the text ofRA 10640. 30 It should,
however, be emphasized that for the saving clause to apply, the prosecution must
duly explain the reasons behind the procedurallapses,31 and that the justifiable
ground for non compliance must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot
presume what these grounds are or that they even exist. 32

Anent the witness requirement, non-compliance may be permitted if the

prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient
efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, albeit they eventually failed to
appear. While the earnestness of these efforts must be examined on a case-to-case
basis, the overarching objective is for the Court to be convinced that the failure to
comply was reasonable under the given circumstances. 33 Thus, mere statements of
unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are
unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. 34 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 fully well that they would
have to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule.35

Notably, the Court, in People v. Miranda,36 issued a definitive reminder to

prosecutors when dealing with drugs cases. It implored that "[since] the
[procedural] requirements are clearly set forth in the law, the State retains the
positive duty to account for any lapses in the chain of custody of the drugs/items
seized from the accused, regardless of whether or not the defense raises the same
in the proceedings a quo; otherwise, it risks the possibility of having a conviction
overturned on grounds that go into the evidence's integrity and evidentiary value,
albeit the same are raised only for the first time on appeal, or even not raised,
become apparent upon further review."37

In this case, there appears to be an absence of the required inventory taking in the
presence of the accused, or his representative, and the required witnesses, i.e., the
elected public official and representatives from the media and the DOJ. A thorough
examination of the records of this case reveals that no physical inventory report
was submitted as evidence before the lower court. Although photographs were
offered, there was no proof that these were done in the presence of the accused, or
the required witnesses. This was also confirmed by the testimony of the arresting
officer, PO2 Poot on cross examination, to wit:

Cross-Examination
[Atty. Fernando F. Dialogo]: And when you arrived at the Police Station, what
happened to the shabu?
[PO2 Poot]: It was marked in the investigation room, sir.

xxxx

Q: When the markings were made, was there any local officials at your station
during that time?
A: None, sir.

Q: How about any representative from the media, Mr. Witness?

A: None, sir.

Q: How about the PDEA representative, Mr. Witness

A: None, sir.

xxxx

Q: Mr. Witness, was there an inventory made on this item that was allegedly
recovered from the accused?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: Were you present when the inventory was made, Mr. Witness?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: Where was the accused when the inventory was made?

A: In the investigation room, sir.

Q: And where was the exact place when the inventory was made?
A: At the Police Station because during that time the place of operation was dark.
So we brought it to the Police Station.

xxxx

Q: You said there was an inventory report made?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Who signed the inventory report?

A: The Investigation, sir.

Q: Are you referring to the Investigator?

A: Yes, sir.
Q: He was the only person who signed that inventory report?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: Where were you when the inventory was conducted by the Investigator?
A: I was inside the Police Station, sir.

Q: You were not at the investigation room, Witness?

A: Yes, sir.38

As earlier stated, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that there was an
actual inventory and photography done, and that it was conducted in the presence
of the accused and the required witnesses. While PO2 Poot claimed that there was a
purported inventory report, none was offered in evidence. This raises serious
doubts as to its existence. Even assuming that there was such a report, PO2 Poot
likewise confirmed that only the Investigator signed the same. In fact, the accused
was in the investigation room while the alleged inventory was conducted.
Furthermore, none of the required witnesses were present, and no justifiable
reason was offered nor was there a showing that genuine and sufficient efforts were
exerted by the apprehending officers to secure their presence. In view of these
unjustified deviations from the chain of custody rule, the Court is therefore
constrained to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items
purportedly seized from Paming were compromised, which consequently warrants
his acquittal.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 16, 2018 of

the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07676 is hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Lito Paming y Javier is ACQUITTED of the
crimes charged. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his
immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa, J. Reyes, Jr., and Hernando,* JJ.,

concur.
Endnotes:

[*] Designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2629 dated December 18,
2018.

1
 See Notice of Appeal dated January 29, 2018; rollo, pp. 19-21.

2
 Id. at 2-18. Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco with Associate
Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Rodil V. Zalameda, concurring.

3
 CA rollo, pp. 103-111. Penned by Judge Winston S. Racoma.

4
 Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT
OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT No. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 7, 2002.

5
 Both dated October 29, 2010. Criminal Case No. 14503 is for violation of Section
5, Article II of RA 9165 (records [Crim. Case No. 14503], pp. 1-2), while Criminal
Case No. 14502 is for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 (records [Crim.
Case No. 14502}, pp. l-2)

6
 See rollo, pp. 4-6; and CA rollo, pp. I 03-106. See also Chemistry Report No. D-
50-2010 dated September 14, 2010; records, p. 15.

7
 See rollo, p. 6. See also CA Rollo, p. 107.

8
 CA rollo, pp. 103-111.

9
 Id. at 111.

10
 See id. at 107-111.
11
 See Notice of Appeal dated October 21, 2014; records (Crim. Case. No. 14503),
p. 110.

12
Rollo, pp. 2-18.

13
 Id. at 17.

14
 See id. at 12-15.

15
 The elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA
9165 are: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the
consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment; while the
elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II ofRA
9165 are: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a
prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the
accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. (See People v. Crispo, G.R.
No. 230065, March 14, 2018; People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 231383, March 7,
2018; People v. Magsano, G.R. No. 231050, February 28, 2018; People v.
Manansala, G.R. No. 229092, February 21, 2018; People v. Miranda, G.R. No.
229671, January 31, 2018; and People v. Mamangon, G.R. No. 229102, January
29, 2018; all cases citing People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342,348 2015 and People v.
Bio, 753 Phil.730, 736 [2015]).

16
 See People v. Crispo, id.; People v. Sanchez, id.; People v. Magsano, id.; People
v. Manansala, id.; People v. Miranda, id.; and People v. Mamangon, id. See
also People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014).

17
 See People v. Gamboa, G.R. No. 233702, June 20, 2018, citing People v.
Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1039-1040 (2012).

18
 See People v. Ana, G.R. No. 230070, March 14, 2018; People v. Crispo, supra
note 15; People v. Sanchez, supra note 15; People v. Magsano, supra note
15; People v. Manansala, supra note 15; People v. Miranda, supra note 15;
and People v. Mamangon, supra note 15. See also People v. Viterbo, supra note 16.
19
People v. Mamalumpon, 767 Phil. 845, 855 (2015), citing Imson v. People, 669
Phil. 262, 270-271 (2011). See also People v. Ocfemia, 718 Phil. 330,348 (2013),
citing People v. Resurreccion, 618 Phil. 520, 532 (2009).

20
 See People v. Tumulak, 791 Phil. 148, 160-161 (2016); and People v. Rollo, 757
Phil. 346, 357 (2015).

21
 Entitled "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,"' approved on July 15, 2014.

22
 Section 21 (1) and (2) Article II ofRA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and
Regulations.

23
 Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA I 0640

24
 See People v. Miranda, supra note 15. See also People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749,
764 (2014).

25
 See People v. Miranda, id. See also People v. Macapundag, G.R. No. 225965,
March 13, 2017, 820 SCRA 204,215, citing People v. Umipang, supra note 17, at
1038.

26
 See People v. Segundo, G.R. No. 205614, July 26, 2017, 833 SCRA 16, 44, citing
People v. Umipang, id.

27
 See People v. Sanchez, 590 PhiL 214, 234 (2008).

28
 See People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (2010).

29
 Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of RA 9165 pertinently states: "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."

30
 Section 1 of RA I 0640 pertinently states: "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."

31
People v. Almorfe, supra note 28.

32
People v. De Guzman, 630 PhiL 637,649 (2010).

33
 See People v. Manansala, supra note 15.

34
 See People v. Gamboa, supra note 17, citing People v. Umipang, supra note 17,
at 1053.

35
 See People v. Crispo, supra note 15.

36
 Supra note 15.

37
 See id.

38
 TSN, October 23, 2012, pp. 18-26.

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

 ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

January-2019 Jurisprudence                 
  G.R. No. 235071, January 07, 2019 - EVANGELINE PATULOT Y GALIA,
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
 G.R. No. 234156, January 07, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. EMMANUEL OLIVA Y JORJIL, BERNARDO BARANGOT Y PILAIS AND
MARK ANGELO MANALASTAS Y GAPASIN, Accused-Appellants.

 G.R. No. 234323, January 07, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. JORDAN BATALLA Y AQUINO, Accused-Appellant.

 G.R. No. 234323, January 07, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. JORDAN BATALLA Y AQUINO, Accused-Appellant.

 G.R. No. 234156 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v.

EMMANUEL OLIVA Y JORJIL, BERNARDO BARANGOT Y PILAIS AND MARK ANGELO
MANALASTAS Y GAPASIN, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

 G.R. No. 234323 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v.

JORDAN BATALLA Y AQUINO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

 G.R. No. 215545, January 07, 2019 - QUIRINO T. DELA CRUZ, Petitioner, v.
NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION, Respondent.

 G.R. No. 234951, January 28, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. BENJAMIN A. ELIMANCIL, Accused-Appellant.

 G.R. No. 235071 - EVANGELINE PATULOT Y GALIA, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

 G.R. No. 201302, January 23, 2019 - HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION,

Petitioner, v. NUTRI-ASIA, INC., DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE
OF UFC PHILIPPINES (FORMERLY NUTRI-ASIA, INC.), Respondent.

 G.R. No. 228718, January 07, 2019 - EDWIN FUENTES Y GARCIA @ "KANYOD,"
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

 A.M. No. 18-07-153-RTC, January 07, 2019 - RE: DROPPING FROM THE ROLLS
OF LAYDABELL G. PIJANA, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF TAGAYTAY
CITY, CAVITE, BRANCH 18
  G.R. No. 241017, January 07, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. BRENDA CAMIÑAS Y AMING, Accused-Appellant.

 G.R. No. 223713, January 07, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v.
RODELINA MALAZO Y DORIA, Appellant.

 G.R. No. 231122, January 16, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. ALEX CASEMIRO AND JOSE CATALAN, JR., Accused-Appellants.

 A.M. No. P-16-3505 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4134-P], January 22, 2019 -
ZENMOND D. DUQUE, Complainant, v. . CESAR C. CALPO, COURT STENOGRAPHER
III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 16, CAVITE CITY, Respondent.

 G.R. No. 241091, January 14, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. LITO PAMING Y JAVIER, Accused-Appellant.

 G.R. No. 233883, January 07, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. MARK VINCENT CORRAL Y BATALLA, Accused-Appellant.

 G.R. No. 199562, January 16, 2019 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS AND
ANA C. GONZALES, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES FERNANDO V. QUIAOIT
PROMULGATED: AND NORA L. QUIAOIT, Respondents.

 G.R. No. 238176, January 14, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. RAMON BAY-OD, Accused-Appellant.

 G.R. No. 228262, January 21, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. JOENIL PIN MOLDE, Accused-Appellant.

 G.R. No. 224210, January 23, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. MARYLOU GUMBAN Y CARANAY AND JOEL CHENG NG, Accused,
MARYLOU GUMBAN Y CARANAY, Accused-Appellant.

 A.M. No. 18-11-09-SC, January 22, 2019 - RE: COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT OF

ELVIRA N. ENALBES, REBECCA H. ANGELES AND ESTELITA B. OCAMPO AGAINST
FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO [RET.], RELATIVE TO
G.R. NOS. 203063 AND 204743.
  G.R. No. 229780, January 22, 2019 - BALAYAN WATER DISTRICT (BWD),
CONRADO S. LOPEZ AND ROMEO D. PANTOJA, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON
AUDIT, Respondent.

 G.R. No. 221418, January 23, 2019 - JOSE T. VILLAROSA, CARLITO T. CAJAYON
AND PABLO I. ALVARO, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN AND
ROLANDO C. BASILIO, Respondents.

 G.R. No. 225725, January 16, 2019 - LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING

COMPANY, Petitioner, v. MAXIMO C. MAMARIL, EDUARDO C. FONTIVEROS,
RICHARD PADONG, SHARWIN ESPIQUE, CLARITO ALBING, BALUDOY TOTANES,
GERRY OLANIO, JOSEPH DUMANGENG, REYNALD MANUIT, NARDO SINGIT,
MICHAEL PANGDA, BENJAMIN ASIDERA, ALVARO PATAGUE, JR., ANGELITO NAYRE,
JR., JOSE MOJICA, AND JOEL SILARAN, Respondents.

 G.R. No. 209047, January 07, 2019 - ANGELA USARES Y SIBAY, Petitioner, v.
PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

 G.R. No. 210683, January 08, 2019 - DR. CONSOLACION S. CALLANG,

Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent.

 G.R. No. 233174, January 23, 2019 - RUEL FRANCIS M. CABRAL, Petitioner, v.
CHRIS S. BRACAMONTE, Respondent.

 G.R. No. 210773, January 23, 2019 - GSIS FAMILY BANK EMPLOYEES UNION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MS. JUDITH JOCELYN MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v.
SEC. CESAR L. VILLANUEVA (IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
GOVERNANCE COMMISSION FOR GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED
CORPORATIONS UNDER THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT), MR. EMMANUEL L.
BENITEZ (IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE GSIS FAMILY BANK), AND
ATTY. GERALDINE MARIE BERBERABE-MARTINEZ (IN HER CAPACITY AS
CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE GSIS FAMILY BANK),
Respondents.

 G.R. No. 232060, January 14, 2019 - VIRGILIA T. AQUINO, NAZARIA T.

AQUINO, AVELINA A. RONQUILLO, PATROCINIO T. AQUINO, AND RAMONCITO T.
NEPOMUCENO, Petitioners, v. ESTATE OF TOMAS B. AGUIRRE, Respondent.
  G.R. No. 231643, January 15, 2019 - CHRISTIAN C. HALILI, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, PYRA LUCAS, AND CRISOSTOMO GARBO,
Respondents.; G.R. No. 231657, January 15, 2019 - MARINO P. MORALES,
Petitioner, v. PYRA LUCAS AND THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondents.;
CHRISTIAN C. HALILI AND CRISOSTOMO GARBO, Respondents-Intervenors.

 G.R. No. 187262, January 10, 2019 - ENGINEERING GEOSCIENCE, INC.,

Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK, Respondent.

 A.C. No. 12063, January 08, 2019 - EVERDINA C. ANGELES, Complainant, v.

ATTY. WILFREDO B. LINA-AC, Respondent.

 G.R. No. 217044, January 16, 2019 - SPOUSES RAINIER JOSE M. YULO AND
JULIET L. YULO, Petitioners, v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Respondent.

 A.C. No. 11334, January 07, 2019 - JOCELYN SORENSEN, Complainant, v. ATTY.
FLORITO T. POZON, Respondent.; A.C. NO. 11335, January 07, 2019 - JOCELYN
SORENSEN, Complainant, v. ATTY. FLORITO T. POZON, Respondent.

 G.R. No. 230566, January 22, 2019 - SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY,
ET AL., Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent.

 G.R. No. 228953, January 28, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. JOSH JOE T. SAHIBIL, Accused-Appellant.

 G.R. No. 215904, January 10, 2019 - EDGAR L. TORILLOS, Petitioner, v.

EASTGATE MARITIME CORPORATION, F.J. LINES, INC., PANAMA, AND EMMANUEL
L. REGIO, Respondents.; G.R. No. 216165, January 10, 2019 - EASTGATE
MARITIME CORPORATION, F.J. LINES, INC., PANAMA, AND EMMANUEL L. REGIO,
Petitioners, v. EDGAR L. TORILLOS,, Respondent.

 A.M. No. 2014-16-SC, January 15, 2019 - RE: COMPLAINT AGAINST MR.
RAMDEL REY M. DE LEON, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT III, OFFICE OF ASSOCIATE
JUSTICE JOSE P. PEREZ, ON THE ALLEGED DISHONESTY AND DECEIT IN
SOLICITING MONEY FOR INVESTMENTS

 A.M. No. P-18-3791 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 15-4447-P), January 29, 2019 -
MILAGROS P. MALUBAY, LEGAL RESEARCHER II, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH
270, VALENZUELA CITY, Complainant, v. HONORIO RAUL C. GUEVARA, CLERK III,
SAME COURT., Respondent.

 G.R. No. 193534, January 30, 2019 - SPOUSES MANUEL AND EVELYN TIO,
Petitioners, v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Respondents.; G.R. No. 194091,
January 30, 2019 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Petitioner, v. GOLDSTAR
MILLING CORPORATION AND/OR SPOUSES MANUEL AND EVELYN TIO,
Respondents.

 G.R. No. 234528, January 23, 2019 - ISIDRO MIRANDA Y PARELASIO,

Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

 G.R. No. 214906, January 16, 2019 - ABOSTA SHIPMANAGEMENT CORP., CIDO
SHIPPING COMPANY LTD., AND ALEX S. ESTABILLO, Petitioners, v. DANTE C.
SEGUI, Respondent.

 G.R. No. 232806, January 21, 2019 - EDGARDO M. AGUILAR, Petitioner, v.

ELVIRA J. BENLOT AND SAMUEL L. CUICO, Respondents.

 G.R. No. 209116, January 14, 2019 - DANNY BOY C. MONTERONA, JOSELITO S.
ALVAREZ, IGNACIO S. SAMSON, JOEY P. OCAMPO, ROLE R. DEMETRIO,* AND
ELPIDIO P. METRE, JR.,** Petitioners, v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC.
AND GIOVANNI ACORDA,*** Respondents.

 G.R. No. 240541, January 21, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. REY BARRION Y SILVA, Accused-Appellant.

 A.M. No. 18-08-69-MTC, January 21, 2019 - RE: DROPPING FROM THE ROLLS
OF MR. STEVERIL* J. JABONETE, JR., JUNIOR PROCESS SERVER, MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURT PONTEVEDRA, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL.

 G.R. No. 226578, January 28, 2019 - AUGUSTIN INTERNATIONAL CENTER,

INC., Petitioner, v. ELFRENITO B. BARTOLOME AND RUMBY L. YAMAT, Respondents.

 G.R. No. 233336, January 14, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. DON EMILIO CARIÑO Y AGUSTIN A.K.A. "DON EMILIO CARIÑO
AGUSTIN," Accused-Appellants.

 G.R. No. 211289 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, v. LA

FLOR DELA ISABELA, INC., RESPONDENT.
  G.R. No. 239471 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v.
JOSEPH CINCO ARCIAGA A.K.A. "JOSEPHUS CINCO ARCIAGA," ACCUSED-
APPELLANT.

 A.M. No. P-19-3911 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4159-P) - RURAL BANK OF
TALISAY (CEBU), INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, ADELE V. VILLO,
COMPLAINANT, v. MANUEL H. GIMENO, SHERIFF IV, BRANCH 19, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, CEBU CITY, RESPONDENT.

 G.R. No. 213323 - TERESITA S. LAZARO, DENNIS S. LAZARO, MARIETA V.

JARA, ANTONIO P. RELOVA, GILBERTO R. MONDEZ, PABLO V. DEL MUNDO, JR.,
AND ALSANEO F. LAGOS, PETITIONERS, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, REGIONAL
DIRECTOR OF COA REGIONAL OFFICE NO. IV-A, AND COA AUDIT TEAM LEADER,
PROVINCE OF LAGUNA, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 213324, January 22, 2019]
EVELYN T. VILLANUEVA, PROVINCIAL ACCOUNTANT OF THE PROVINCE OF
LAGUNA, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

 G.R. No. 205282 - STEAG STATE POWER, INC. (FORMERLY STATE POWER
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION), PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

 G.R. No. 211829 - JACINTO J. BAGAPORO, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

 A.M. No. P-19-3925 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 16-4635-P) - ASUNCION Y.

ARIÑOLA, COMPLAINANT, v. ANGELES D. ALMODIEL, JR., INTERPRETER II,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, MASBATE CITY, MASBATE, RESPONDENT.

 G.R. No. 239521 - PRIMO A. MINA, FELIX BE VERA, POMPEYO MAGALI,

BERNADETTE AMOR AND PURIFICACION DELA CRUZ, PETITIONERS, v. THE COURT
OF APPEALS AND RODOLFO C. TANDOC, RESPONDENTS.

 G.R. No. 238865 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. BILLY

ACOSTA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

 G.R. No. 237809 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v.

ROSALINA AURE Y ALMAZAN AND GINA MARAVILLA Y AGNES,* ACCUSED-
APPELLANTS.
  G.R. No. 232940 - DENNIS LOAYON Y LUIS, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

 G.R. No. 212107 - KEIHIN-EVERETT FORWARDING CO., INC., PETITIONER, v.

TOKIO MARINE MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC.** AND SUNFREIGHT
FORWARDERS & CUSTOMS BROKERAGE, INC., RESPONDENTS.

 G.R. No. 231459 - HEIRS OF PAULA C. FABILLAR, AS REPRESENTED BY AUREO*

FABILLAR, PETITIONERS, v. MIGUEL M. PALLER, FLORENTINA P. ABAYAN, AND
DEMETRIA P. SAGALES, RESPONDENTS.

 G.R. No. 211449 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, v.

TRANSFIELD PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENT.

 A.M. No. 18-03-03-SB - RE: E-MAIL COMPLAINT OF MA. ROSARIO GONZALES

AGAINST HON. MARIA THERESA MENDOZA-ARCEGA, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE,
SANDIGANBAYAN AND HON. FLERIDA Z. BANZUELA, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 51, SORSOGON CITY, SORSOGON.

 G.R. No. 217978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v.

NANCY LASACA RAMIREZ A.K.A. "ZOY" OR "SOY" ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

 G.R. No. 224548 - MARLYN MONTON NULLADA, PETITIONER, v. THE HON. CIVIL
REGISTRAR OF MANILA, AKIRA ITO, SHIN ITO AND ALL PERSONS WHO HAVE OR
CLAIM ANY INTEREST, RESPONDENTS.

 G.R. No. 189162 - POLO PLANTATION AGRARIAN REFORM MULTIPURPOSE

COOPERATIVE (POPARMUCO), REPRESENTED BY SILANDO GOMEZ AND ELIAS
RAMOS, PETITIONER, v. RODOLFO T. INSON, CESO III, AS REGIONAL DIRECTOR
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, REGION VII - CEBU CITY,
RESPONDENT.

 G.R. No. 235873 - ENRIQUE MARCO G. YULO, PETITIONER, v. CONCENTRIX

DAKSH SERVICES PHILIPPINES, INC.,* RESPONDENT.

 A.C. No. 9917, January 14, 2019 - NORBERTO S. COLLANTES, Complainant, v.

ATTY. ANSELMO B. MABUTI, Respondent.

Copyright © 1995 - 2021 REDiaz