!! DON’T DELETE !!

just copy&paste the format

To create a new page, press command+enter (for mac users)/control+enter (for windows
users)

1. Boac vs People, G.R. No. 180597 (2008)

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

Doctrine from UP BOC:

2. Vitarich v. Losin, G.R. No. 181560 (2010)

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

Doctrine from UP BOC:

3. University of Mindanao, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No. 194964-65 (2016)

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

Doctrine from UP BOC:

4. Datalift Movers v. Belgravia Realty, G.R. No. 144268 (2006)
FACTS:
In 1987, the Philippine National Railways leased out its lot to Sampaguita Brokerage, Inc.
pursuant to a written contract with a monthly rental of Php 6,282.49, subject to 10% increase
every year. Sampaguita thereafter entered into a special arrangement with its sister
company, Belgravia Realty whereby the latter would put up on the lot a warehouse for its own
use. However, instead of using the warehouse for itself, Belgravia sublet it to Datalift, for a
monthly rental of Php 40,000.

After the one year contract period expired, Datalift continued in possession and enjoyment of
the leased warehouse, by acquiescence of Belgravia or by verbal understanding. Belgravia
unilaterally increased the monthly rental to Php 60,000. Monthly rental was again increased
to Php 130,000, allegedly in view of the increased rental demanded by PNR on Sampaguita.
Because of the rental increase, Datalift stopped paying its monthly rental for the warehouse.

Thereafter, Sampaguita addressed demand letters to Datalift asking the latter to pay its
rental in arrears and to vacate and surrender the warehouse in dispute. These efforts proved
futile, Belgravia and/or Sampaguita filed with the MeTC of Manila a complaint for ejectment.
In their Answer with Counterclaim, Datalift raised the defense that Belgravia has no cause of
action because it was neither the owner nor lessee of the lot where the warehouse stands.

MeTC ruled in favor of Belgravia and Sampaguita but reduced the amount of rental
arrearages. MeTC rejected Datalift’s challenge against Belgravia’s title over the PNR lot
occupied by the subject warehouse. Both parties appealed to the RTC. RTC affirmed the MeTC
in toto. Datalift elevated the case to the CA. CA dismissed the petition and affirmed with slight
modification the RTC decision. Hence, this petition for review.

ISSUE:
Whether or not an implied new lease was created between PNR and Respondents when the
former did not take positive action to eject the latter from the premises

RULING:
Petitioners first fault the CA for affirming the that the subject warehouse and the land area
which it occupies rightfully belong to respondent Belgravia, not Datalift, for an implied new
lease
was created between PNR, the acknowledged owner of the lot, and Sampaguita, Belgravia's
sister company, which, by virtue of a special arrangement, Sampaguita allowed Belgravia to
construct a warehouse on the leased lot and sub-leased the same to Datalift. There is no
definite showing that the lease contract between PNR and Sampaguita Brokerage, Inc. had
been effectively terminated. As held by the court a quo: “By PNR not taking a positive action to
eject Sampaguita from the leased premises up to the present, again, there is a tacit renewal
of the lease contract between PNR and Sampaguita.”

The Rules of Court already sufficiently shields respondent Belgravia, as lessor, from being
questioned by the petitioners as lessees, regarding its title or better right of possession as
lessor because having admitted the existence of a lessor-lessee relationship, the petitioners
are barred from assailing Belgravia’s title of better right of possession as their lessor.

Section 2, Rule 131, of the Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 2. Conclusive presumptions. — The following are instances of conclusive presumptions:
(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and
deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he
cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to
falsify it;
(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the
commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them. (Underscoring
ours.)

Conclusive presumptions have been defined as “inferences which the law makes so
peremptory that it will not allow them to be overturned by any contrary proof however
strong.” As long as the lessor-lessee relationship between the petitioners and Belgravia
exists as in this case, the former, as lessees, cannot by any proof, however strong, overturn
the conclusive presumption that Belgravia has valid title to or better right of possession to
the subject leased premises than they have.

The logical consequence of the operation of this conclusive presumption against the
petitioners is that they will never have the personality to question whether an implied new
lease was created between PNR and the respondents, because so long as there is no showing
that the lessor-lessee relationship has terminated, the lessor's title or better right of
possession as against the lessee will eternally be a non-issue in any proceeding before any
court. Additionally, as correctly pointed out by the CA, being non-privies to the contract of
lease between PNR and respondent Sampaguita, the petitioners have no personality to raise
any factual or legal issue relating thereto.

Doctrine from BOC:

Inferences which the law makes so peremptory that it will not allow them to be overturned by
any contrary proof however strong.
5. Santos v. National Statistics Office., G.R. No. 171129 (2011)

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

Doctrine from UP BOC:

6. Ermitaño v Paglas, G.R. No. 174436 (2013)

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

Doctrine from UP BOC:

7. Tarapen v. People, G.R. No. 173824 (2008)

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

Doctrine from UP BOC:

8. People v. Casabuena, G.R. No. 186455 (2014)

Facts: The appellant, Rosalinda Casabuena, was charged by the prosecution with illegal
sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 under an Information which states
that on or about the 4th day of February 2004, in the City of Laoag, she feloniously sells in a
buy bust operation shabu, contained in one plastic sachet. The appellant was duly
arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the charge laid. SPO1 Balolong testified that on
February 4, 2004, one of the police informants, Armando, went to the Laoag City Police
Station and informed him that the appellant was selling shabu in Barangay 5. Acting on this
information, the city’s chief of police formed an entrapment team. The team conducted a
‘briefing’, assigned Armando as the poseur-buyer, and then went to the target area. When
the team arrived there, they positioned themselves 15 meters from the appellant’s
compound. Armando entered the appellant’s house when he arrived; he went out after two
(2) minutes and made the pre-arranged signal to the other members of the buy-bust team.
Once inside, Armando handed the sachet of shabu to SPO1 Balolong. Armando then led the
police to the bathroom, and there, Armando grabbed the left hand of the appellant. SPO1
Balolong, for his part, "forced open" the appellant’s right hand and took two ₱100 bills from
her. The police then brought the appellant and the seized items to the Laoag City Police
Station. When they arrived there, SPO1 Balolong submitted the seized items to SPO2 Loreto
Ancheta, the evidence custodian who, in turn, marked these items. On cross examination,
SPO1 Balolong stated that Armando was just a "walk-in" informant. SPO1 Balolong also
admitted that he did not witness the transaction between Armando and the appellant since
he was outside the latter’s house. P/Sr. Insp. Cayabyab, the Forensic Chemical Officer of the
PNP Crime Laboratory made an initial preliminary examination on the submitted specimen,
and found it positive for the presence of 0.0139 gram of shabu. She conducted a
confirmatory test on the specimen, and this test yielded the same result. The defense
presented a different version of the events. In its decision, the RTC found the appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. On
appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision. The CA held that the prosecution was able to
prove that the appellant sold shabu to the poseur buyer. It found Armando to be a credible
witness, in the absence of any showing that there was ill motive on his part to falsely testify
against the appellant. In her brief, the appellant essentially maintains that the chain of
custody over the seized drug was broken. She added that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the object evidence had not been preserved. Thus, this present controversy.

Issue: Whether or not the buy bust operation against the appellant was conducted in the
regular performance of official duty.
Ruling: The Court resolved to acquit the appellant. In a prosecution for the illegal sale of a
prohibited drug under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution must prove the following
elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefore. All these require evidence that
the sale transaction transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti.
To remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug,
evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal
drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for
possession or for drug pushing under R.A. No. 9165 fails. However, the prescribed
procedure on the seizure and custody of drugs as embodied in Section 21, paragraph 1,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 was not shown to have been complied with by the members of
the buy-bust team, and nothing on record suggests that they had extended reasonable
efforts to comply with the said statutory requirement in handling the seized evidence. The
testimonies of SPO1 Balolong, SPO2 Ancheta, and Armando all showed that the police did
not inventory or photograph the seized shabu either at the place where it was seized or at
the police station. Notably, no photographs or certificate of inventory of the confiscated
items appear in the records. The prosecution did not even attempt to offer any justification
why it failed to inventory and to photograph the seized items. The Court cannot simply
presume what these justifications are. Contrary to the CA’s ruling, the so-called "field test of
the drugs recovered" and its turn over to the crime laboratory together with the marked
money are not the procedures mandated by Section 21 and its IRR. In the present case, the
prosecution’s evidence failed to establish the chain that would have shown that the shabu
presented in court was the very same specimen seized from the appellant. A vital link in the
chain of custody is SPO1 Balolong’s possession of the plastic sachet at Barangay 5, Laoag
City and his delivery of this sachet at the police station. We point out that SPO1 Balolong
did not mark the plastic sachet; it was SPO2 Ancheta who allegedly placed markings when
the plastic sachet was handed to him at the police station. Finally, the Court stressed that
the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty obtains only when there is
no deviation from the regular performance of duty. Where the official act in question is
irregular on its face, no presumption of regularity can arise. The presumption, in other
words, obtains only where nothing in the records is suggestive of the fact that the law
enforcers involved deviated from the standard conduct of official duty as provided for in the
law. Otherwise, where the official act in question is irregular on its face, an adverse
presumption arises as a matter of course.

Doctrine from UP BOC:

The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty obtains only when
there is no deviation from the regular performance of duty. Where the official act in
question is irregular on its face, no presumption of regularity can arise.
9. People v. Lagahit, G.R. No. 200877 (2014)

Facts:

Two criminal charges were filed against Charve John Lagahit, one for selling to a poseur-buyer 0.49
grams of marijuana (4 handrolled sticks) and another for possession of 0.88 grams of marijuana (8
handrolled sticks). He pleaded not guilty to both informations.

Prosecution witness PO3 Lawas Jr testified that they conducted a buy-bust operation against Lagahit
after reports in Brgy Lahug in Cebu about the Lagahit's selling of illegal drugs near the stairway of the
flyover. Most of his customers were students of the night high school of Brgy Lahug. They used marked
money and a trusted informant acted as poseur buyer who took down his bull cap as signal of the
consummation of the sale.

Appellant Lagahit testified that he was waiting for a friend and 3 persons out of nowhere and for no
reason arrested him. He resisted arrest but a gun was pointed at the back of his head. When he was
brought to the brgy hall, the arresting officers told him they found the sticks inside his pocket. He denied
owning them.

RTC convicted him and sentenced him to life imprisonment. CA affirmed.

Issue:

Whether or not Lagahit's guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt?

Ruling:

Guilt not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Lagahit is presumed innocent until proven guilty under Article III Section 14(2) of constitution and Section
2, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court which states:

In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is proved beyond reasonable
doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of
error, produces absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is required, or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.

Elements for prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs like marijuana:

1. identities of buyer and seller, the object, and consideration

2. delivery of the thing sold and payment for it

Elements for prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs like marijuana:

 1. accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified as a prohibited drug

2. possession is not authorized by law

3. accused freely and consciously possessed the drug

Since the drug is the corpus delicti of the crime, it must be identified and the chain of custody must be
observed. Chain of custody is defined in Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series
of 2002, that implements the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002:

"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or
controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the
time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature
of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of
custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.

In People v. Gatlabaya citing People v. Kamad this Court enumerated the links that the prosecution must
establish in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation to be as follows: first, the seizure and marking, if
practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the
turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the
turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination;
and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the
court.

In this case, prosecution evidence failed to show the essential links in the chain of custody (even though
prosecution proved the identities of the seller and buyer). In particular, prosecution failed to show how the
4 sticks came into the hands of PO3 Lawas Jr from the trusted informant/poseur-buyer. (After the
exchange of money and the bull cap signal from the informant, another person approached Lagahit and
they walked towards opposite side of road. PO3 Lawas and the brgy tanods followed them until they
apprehended Lagahit and searched him which led to the recovery of 8 more sticks, the mared 20peso bill,
and cash (90pesos). Thereafter Lagahit was brought to the brgy hall and then to the police station. All the
seized items remained with PO3 Lawas until they reached the police stations where the items were
marked.

There was no mention how the four sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes, which were the subject of
the sale transaction, came into the hands ofPO3 Lawas, Jr. from the trusted informant. PO3 Lawas, Jr.’s
testimony was lacking as to when, where and how the said four sticks of handrolled marijuanacigarettes
sold by the appellant to the trusted informant were turned over to him by the latter. In the same manner,
PO3 Lawas,Jr. failed to state that he actually seized the sold four sticks of handrolled marijuana
cigarettes. Considering that PO3 Lawas, Jr. was not the poseur-buyer and he was not even with the
poseur buyer during the sale transaction as he was on the opposite side of the road, the turning over to
him by the trusted informant of the four sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes sold by the appellant was
the supposed first link in the chain of custody. Given this missing link, reasonable doubt arises as to the
first charge (selling of marijuana).

As for the possession case, prosecution satisfied the elements of the crime but they failed to show that
the apprehending team complied with the required procedure for the custody and disposition of
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs set forth in Section 21, ArticleII of Republic Act
No. 9165:

(a) 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. (Emphasis supplied).

The specific procedures relating to the seizure and custody of drugs have been laid down under the
Implementing Rules and Regulations for Republic Act No. 9165, particularly Section 21(a), Article II
thereof, and it is the prosecution’s burden to adduce evidence that these procedures have been complied
with in proving the elements of the offense.

In this case, records don't show any physical inventory or photograph of confiscated items. Even the
marking wasn't shown to have been done in his presence. While non-compliance with Section 21 may not
be fatal as long as there is justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team, these conditions, however,
were not met in the present case.

Accused Lagahit acquitted.

Doctrine from UP BOC:

When there is gross disregard of the procedural safeguards set forth in Republic Act No. 9165
(Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), serious uncertainty is generated as to the
identity of the seized items that the prosecution presented in evidence. Such doubt cannot be
remedied by merely invoking the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duties.
Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

Doctrine from UP BOC: