43.PEOPLE VS.

FLORESTA
G.R. NO. 239032
17 JUNE 2019
PERLAS-BERNABE

FACTS:

Gilbert Floresta was convicted for the murder Jay Lourd Bones. The
crime was committed while victim was having a drinking session with his
friend. Victim’s wife heard a gunshot and found her husband bloodied on
the floor. Jay Lourd asked Jennifer if Gilbert was still there before he was
brought to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead. Jennifer went
to the police station and identified Gilbert as the shooter. Gilbert claimed
alibi, stating that he was watching a cockfight and playing a game with
friends during the time of the incident.

ISSUE:

Whether or not accused’s conviction should be proper.

RULING:

No, accused’s conviction erroneous, thus, he was acquitted of the crime

of Murder. The court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish
accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Here, while the Court agrees that Jay Lourd's utterance "Panggay, you
see if Gilbert is still there?" should be admitted in evidence as part of the
res gestae, the courts a quo erred in considering the same as direct
evidence of the killing and that Gilbert was the perpetrator thereof.
Plainly, Jay Lourd's utterance did not contain any positive and categorical
identification of Gilbert as his assailant. While it may be argued that, from
the utterance, Gilbert had something to do with his mortal wounds, such
utterance is ultimately inconclusive evidence to prove that Gilbert was
identified by Jay Lourd as his assailant. Faced with conflicting
 interpretations as to the nature of Jay Lourd's statement, the Court must
be guided by the equipoise rule, which instructs that where inculpatory
facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of
which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other
consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of
moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction. Applying this
rule to the present case would properly lead the Court to conclude that
Jay Lourd's utterance cannot be treated as direct evidence to positively
and categorically implicate Gilbert of the crime charged.

44. LADAGA VS. MAPAGU

G.R. NOS. 189689, 189690 & 189691
NOV 13, 2012
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

FACTS:

Three consolidated petitions for the issuance of a writ of amparo were

filed by the petitioners. The petitioners' names were included in the
alleged military hit-list known as the Order of Battle (OB) List. The OB List
identifies organizations and individuals connected to the Communist
Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its military arm, the New People's
Army (NPA). The pe Atty. Lilibeth O. Ladaga learned about the OB List
from an undisclosed source and experienced suspicious visits to her law
office. Petitioners argue that their inclusion in the OB List poses a real
threat to their rights. Atty. Angela A. Librado-Trinidad demanded the
removal of her name from the OB List and experienced incidents of
tailing and attempted entry into her home. Atty. Carlos Isagani T. Zarate
learned about his inclusion in the OB List through a public presentation
and denied any connection to the CPP-NPA.

ISSUE:
WON the evidence presented by the petitioners satisfies the standard of
substantial evidence required to prove the threats to their rights.
 RULING:

No. The Court denied the petitions and affirmed the Regional Trial
Court's (RTC) denial of the privilege of the writ of amparo.

Substantial evidence is the amount of relevant evidence that a

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
While flexibility is allowed in the admissibility of evidence in cases of
enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings, substantial evidence is
still required to establish the State's involvement in the violations.

45.BULAUITAN VS. PEOPLE

G.R. NO. 218891
PERLAS-BERNABE, J
SEP 19, 2016

FACTS:

A police team conducted a search in Bulauitan's residence based on a

search warrant. They found three heat-sealed plastic sachets containing
shabu. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Bulauitan guilty of illegal
possession of dangerous drugs and sentenced him to imprisonment and
a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision.

ISSUE:
Whether the search conducted by the police team was reasonable and in
compliance with the constitutional requirements.

RULING:

No. The Supreme Court acquits defendant Bulauitan of illegal possession

of dangerous drugs due to an unreasonable search conducted by the
police team, emphasizing the importance of complying with
constitutional requirements for a lawful search and seizure and
upholding the protection of individual rights. A search and seizure must
 be carried out through a judicial warrant based on probable cause. The
search team failed to comply with the requirement that the search be
witnessed by the lawful occupant of the premises or a member of his
family. Testimonies of the police officers and witnesses revealed that
Bulauitan was not present during the search, and his daughter and the
designated witnesses did not witness the search. The search was
deemed unreasonable, and the seized items were inadmissible as
evidence. Since the confiscated shabu was the very corpus delicti of the
crime charged, Bulauitan must be acquitted and exonerated from all
criminal liability.

46. COMERCIANTE VS. PEOPLE

G.R. NO. 205926
PERLAS-BERNABE, J
JUL 22, 2015

FACTS:
Petitioner Alvin Comerciante was charged with illegal possession of
dangerous drugs. The prosecution alleged that Comerciante and another
person were seen exchanging plastic sachets by police officers.
Comerciante and the other person were arrested, and two plastic
sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride were confiscated.
The other person was acquitted, while Comerciante was ordered to
present his defense. Comerciante claimed that he and the other person
were wrongfully arrested and framed by the police officers.

ISSUE:
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed Comerciante's
conviction.

RULING:

No. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Comerciante and acquitted him
of the crime. The warrantless arrest conducted by the police officer was
not valid. There was no lawful basis for the arrest as the police officer did
 not witness any overt act indicating that Comerciante had just
committed, was committing, or was attempting to commit a crime.

In this case, the Court reiterates that Comerciante's acts of standing

around with a companion and handing over something to the latter do
not constitute criminal acts. These circumstances are not enough to
create a reasonable inference of criminal activity which would constitute
a "genuine reason" for PO3 Calag to conduct a "stop and frisk" search on
the former. In this light, the "stop and frisk" search made on
Comerciante should be deemed unlawful.

47.PEOPLE vs. ACOSTA

G.R. No. 238865; Jan 28, 2019
PERLAS-BERNABE, J

FACTS:
Billy Acosta was accused of illegal planting and cultivation of marijuana
plants. The police officers discovered the marijuana plants at Acosta's
residence after receiving information from Alfredo Salucana, Acosta's
foster father. Acosta denied the charges and argued that the seized
plants were inadmissible as evidence because the discovery was not
inadvertent and there was a violation of Section 21, Article II of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.

ISSUE:
WON accused is guilty of the crime charged.

RULING:
No. The court ruled in favor of Acosta and acquitted him of the crime
charged. The court found that the discovery of the marijuana plants was
not inadvertent because the police officers had prior knowledge of
Acosta's illegal activities through the information provided by Salucana.
The court held that the "plain view" doctrine, which allows for the
 seizure of objects in plain view without a search warrant, cannot apply if
the officers are actually searching for evidence against the accused. Since
the police officers were already alerted to the possibility of marijuana
plants in the area, their discovery of the plants was not inadvertent.
Therefore, the seized marijuana plants were deemed inadmissible as
evidence against Acosta.

48. PEOPLE vs. BAPTISTA

G.R. No. 225783
20 AUG. 2018
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

FACTS:
Accused-appellant Christopher Baptista y Villa was charged with the
illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The prosecution alleged that Baptista
sold a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing methamphetamine
hydrochloride, or "shabu," to a poseur-buyer. The buy-bust operation
was conducted by Intelligence Officer 1 (IO1) Dexter D. Regaspi and the
rest of the buy-bust team. After the arrest, the seized item was marked
and brought to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Office
for inventory and photography. However, the presence of an elected
public official and a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ)
during the inventory and photography was not complied with. The seized
item was later tested positive for shabu.

ISSUE:
WON Baptista's conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs should
be upheld.

RULING:
No. The Court ruled in favor of Baptista and acquitted him of the crime
charged.

The absence of the 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 must therefore be adduced.

Jurisprudence dictates that the procedure enshrined in Section 21, Article

II of RA 9165 is a matter of substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside
as a simple procedural technicality; or worse, ignored as an impediment
to the conviction of illegal drug.

After a judicious study of the case, the Court finds that the
apprehending officers committed unjustified deviations from the
prescribed chain of custody rule, thereby putting into question the
integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from
Baptista. suspects.

The Court, however, clarified that under varied field conditions, strict
compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 may
not always be possible. In fact, the Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR) of RA 9165 which is now crystallized into statutory law with the
passage of RA 10640 provide that the said inventory and photography
may be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the
apprehending team in instances of warrantless seizure, and that non-
compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165
under justifiable grounds will not render void and invalid the seizure and
custody over the seized items so long as the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer or team. Tersely put, the failure of the apprehending team to
strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21, Article II of RA
9165 and its IRR does 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 justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b)
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved. In People v. Almorfe, the Court stressed that for the above-
saving clause to apply, the prosecution must explain the reasons behind
the procedural lapses, and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
 seized evidence had nonetheless been preserved. Also, in People v. De
Guzman, it was emphasized 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.

49. PEOPLE vs. FATALLO

G.R. No. 218805
07 NOV. 2018
CAGUIOA, J.

FACTS:

Accused-appellant Alvin Fatallo appealed his drug-related conviction.

Charged with violation of Sections 5 and 15, Article II of R.A. 9165 for
selling and using methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). Buy-bust
operation conducted by a team composed of police officers and a
confidential informant. Transaction between Fatallo and the poseur-
buyer witnessed by the team. Fatallo arrested and marked money used in
the buy-bust operation recovered from him. Two sachets of shabu seized
from Fatallo and brought to the police station for inventory and
examination.

ISSUE:

Whether the RTC and CA erred in convicting Fatallo of the crimes

charged.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Fatallo and acquitted him.
Failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of R.A.
9165:
- Presence of witnesses during the inventory and marking of
seized drugs is crucial for integrity and evidentiary value.
- None of the required witnesses were present during seizure
and inventory.
 - Prosecution failed to justify or explain deviations from the
procedure.
In this connection, Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165, the applicable
law at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, lays down the
procedure that police operatives must strictly follow to preserve the
integrity of the confiscated drugs and/or paraphernalia used as evidence.
The provision requires that: (1) the seized items be inventoried and
photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; (2) the physical
inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the
accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public
official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a representative
from the Department of Justice (DOJ), all of whom shall be required to
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only
during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless
arrest. It is at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is
most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and
confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and
integrity of the seized drug. If the buy-bust operation is legitimately
conducted, the presence of the insulating witnesses would also
controvert the usual defense of frame-up as the witnesses would be able
testify that the buy-bust operation and inventory of the seized drugs
were done in their presence in accordance with Section 21 of RA 9165.

As a final note, the Court exhorts the prosecutors to diligently

discharge their onus to prove compliance with the provisions of Section
21 of R.A. 9165, and its IRR, which is fundamental in preserving the
integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. The procedure
outlined in Section 21 is, to the Court's mind, straightforward and easy to
comply with. In the presentation of evidence to prove compliance
therewith, the prosecutors are enjoined to recognize any deviation from
the prescribed procedure and provide the explanation therefor as
dictated by available evidence. Compliance with Section 21 being integral
 to every conviction, the appellate court, this Court included, is at liberty
to review the records of the case to satisfy itself that the required proof
has been adduced by the prosecution whether the accused has raised,
before the trial or appellate court, any issue of non-compliance. If
deviations are observed and no justifiable reasons are provided, the
conviction must be overturned, and the innocence of the accused
affirmed.

50.CADAJAS vs. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 247348
16 NOV. 2021
LOPEZ, J.

FACTS:
Christian Cadajas y Cabias was found guilty of violating Section 4 (c) (2)
of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10175, in relation to Sections 4 (a), 3 (b) and (c)
(5) of R.A. No. 9775. The petitioner, who was 24 years old at the time,
engaged in a relationship with a 14-year-old girl and coerced her into
sending him explicit photos through Facebook Messenger. The court
upheld the conviction and rejected the petitioner's arguments regarding
the admissibility of evidence and the interpretation of the law. The
petitioner's right to privacy was deemed not violated as the evidence
was obtained legally.

ISSUE:
WON the evidence obtained from the petitioner's Facebook Messenger
account should be excluded due to a violation of his right to privacy.

RULING:
No. The court ruled that the evidence obtained from the petitioner's
Facebook Messenger account is admissible and upheld the petitioner's
conviction for child pornography.
 Here, the photographs and conversations in the Facebook Messenger
account obtained and used as evidence against Cadajas, which he
considers as fruit of the poisonous tree, were not obtained through the
efforts of the police officers or any agent of the State. Rather, these were
obtained by a private individual. Since the evidence was obtained by a
private individual, the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by
the provisions of the New Civil Code and not by the Bill of Rights.

AAA’s act cannot be said to have violated Cadajas’ right to privacy.

Cadajas’ expectation of privacy emanates from the fact that his
Facebook Messenger account is password protected. However, he never
asserted that his Facebook Messenger account was hacked or the
photos were taken from his account through unauthorized means.
Rather, the photos were obtained from his account because AAA, to
whom he gave his password, had access to it. In effect, he has authorized
AAA to access the same. Cadajas’ reasonable expectation of privacy, in
so far as AAA is concerned, had been limited. Thus, there is no violation
of privacy to speak of.

51. EDI-Staffbuilders International, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations

Commission
G.R. No. 145587
Oct 26, 2007
VELASCO, JR., J

FACTS:

Gran was recruited by EDI and deployed to work for Omar Ahmed Ali Bin
Bechr Est. (OAB) in Saudi Arabia. Gran's employment was terminated by
OAB after five months due to non-compliance with contract
requirements, non-compliance with pre-qualification requirements, and
insubordination or disobedience. Gran received his final pay and signed a
Declaration releasing OAB from any financial obligation towards him.
Gran filed a complaint against EDI, OAB, and others for underpayment of
wages/salaries and illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of
 the defendants, stating that there was no underpayment or illegal
dismissal. On appeal, CA ruled in favor of Gran, stating failure to furnish a
copy of the appeal memorandum to EDI was a mere formal lapse and not
a jurisdictional defect.

ISSUE:

WON Gran's failure to furnish EDI with a copy of the appeal

memorandum was fatal to the appeal.

RULING:

No. Gran's failure to furnish EDI with a copy of the appeal memorandum
was not fatal to the appeal because it was a mere formal lapse and not a
jurisdictional defect. The purpose of requiring a copy of the appeal
memorandum to be furnished to the adverse party is to give them notice
and an opportunity to respond, and this purpose was still achieved
despite the failure to furnish a copy.

“Unfortunately for petitioner, it did not prove the pertinent Saudi laws
on the matter; thus, the International Law doctrine of presumed-identity
approach or processual presumption comes into play. Where a foreign
law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is
that foreign law is the same as ours. Thus, we apply Philippine labor laws
in determining the issues presented before us.”

52.ILOILO JAR CORP. VS. COMGLASCO CORP.

G.R. No. 219509
Jan 18, 2017
MENDOZA, J.

FACTS:
Iloilo Jar Corporation (Iloilo Jar) and Comglasco Corporation/Aguila Glass
(Comglasco) entered into a lease contract for a warehouse building in
Iloilo City on August 16, 2000. The lease was for a period of three years.
On December 1, 2001, Comglasco requested for the pre-termination of
the lease, which Iloilo Jar rejected. Despite the rejection, Comglasco
removed all its stock, merchandise, and equipment from the leased
premises and stopped paying rent. Iloilo Jar sent demand letters, but
Comglasco ignored them. As a result, Iloilo Jar filed a civil action for
breach of contract and damages.

ISSUE:
WON Comglasco's answer tendered a genuine issue.

RULING:

No. The Court found that Comglasco's answer did not tender a genuine
issue and that judgment on the pleadings was proper

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Iloilo Jar Corporation in a civil action
for breach of contract and damages against Comglasco
Corporation/Aguila Glass, ordering Comglasco to pay unpaid rentals and
clarifying that Article 1267 of the Civil Code does not apply to lease
contracts.

What distinguishes a judgment on the pleadings from a summary

judgment is the presence of issues in the Answer to the Complaint. When
the Answer fails to tender any issue, that is, if it does not deny the
material allegations in the complaint or admits said material allegations
of the adverse party's pleadings by admitting the truthfulness thereof
and/or omitting to deal with them at all, a judgment on the pleadings is
appropriate. On the other hand, when the Answer specifically denies the
material averments of the complaint or asserts affirmative defenses, or in
other words raises an issue, a summary judgment is proper provided that
the issue raised is not genuine. "A 'genuine issue' means an issue of fact
which calls for the presentation of evidence, as distinguished from an
issue which is fictitious or contrived or which does not constitute a
genuine issue for trial."
 In this case, while petitioners' Answer to respondents' Complaint
practically admitted all the material allegations therein, it nevertheless
asserts the affirmative defenses that the action for revival of judgment is
not the proper action and that petitioners are not the proper parties. As
issues obviously arise from these affirmative defenses, a judgment on the
pleadings is clearly improper in this case.

53.Camitan vs. Fidelity Investment Corp.

G.R. No. 163684
NACHURA, J
Apr 16, 2008

FACTS:

Petitioners filed for the issuance of a duplicate TCT alleging that the
owner’s copy was missing. The RTC acting as land registration court was
able to issue the second owner’s duplicate copy and declared the original
as null and void. Respondent (Fidelity) filed a petition for annulment of
judgment before the CA arguing that the RTC has no jurisdiction in
issuing the duplicate TCT as the original is in their possession. The CA
gave due course of the petition. In the preliminary conference,
Fidelity presented the original owner’s duplicate. Petitioners’
counsel admitted to the authenticity. However, the petitioners
eventually retracted the admission on the ground of an honest mistake
attributed to the counsel’s nervousness and excitement in appearing
before the CA. The CA however granted the petition ruling that the
petitioners’ counsel’s admission bound them. Petitioners filed an R45
petition arguing that they have retracted the admission on account of an
honest mistake.

ISSUE: Whether petitioners are bound by the judicial admission of their

counsel.

HELD:
 The SC ruled that a judicial admission made by a party in the
proceedings is binding and may be contradicted only by a showing
that it was made through palpable mistake or that no admission was
made. In this case, the transcript of the preliminary conference clearly
shows that the petitioners’ counsel admitted to the authenticity of the
duplicate owner’s copy of the TCT and there is no proof of palpable
mistake. Therefore, such admission in bound to the petitioners.

A judicial admission is an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in

the course of the proceedings in the same case, which dispenses with
the need for proof with respect to the matter or fact admitted.

The general is that every counsel has the implied authority to do all acts
which are necessary or incidental to the prosecution and management of
the suit in behalf of his client. Any act performed by counsel within the
scope of his general and implied authority is, in the eyes of the law,
regarded as the act of the client himself. Consequently, the mistake or
negligence of the client's counsel, which may result in the rendition of an
unfavorable judgment, generally binds the client.

This rule admits of exceptions, i.e., where the counsel's mistake is so

great and serious that the client is deprived of his day in court or of his
property without due process of law. In these cases, the client is not
bound by his counsel's mistakes and the case may even be reopened in
order to give the client another chance to present his case.

54.Trinidad vs Bersamin;
G.R. No. 239957; Feb. 18, 2019
PERLAS-BERNABE, J

FACTS:

RTC and CA convicted Jesus Trinidad y Bersamin of the crime of Illegal

Possession of Firearms and Ammunition. RA 10591 Sec. 28 (a) in relation
to Sec. 28 (e) (1), Art. V. The police conducted a buy bust operation which
 consummated to sale of illegal drugs and while frisking Trinidad, they
discovered a .38 caliber revolver loaded with 6 live ammunitions, .22
caliber rifle loaded with 7 live ammunitions and two magazines. In his
defense, he was acquitted in the crime of Illegal Sale and Possession of
Dangerous Drugs. Then formally offered in evidence the said acquittal
ruling which was objected by the public prosecutor for being immaterial
and irrelevant to the present case. The RTC admitted said evidence only
as part of Trinidad’s testimony.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA correctly upheld Trinidad’s conviction for the crime
charged.
RULING:
No, the CA was not correct in upholding Trinidad’s conviction.
Sec. 2 of Art. III of the 1987 Constitution mandates that a search and seizure
must be carried out through or on the strength of a judicial warrant
predicated upon the existence of probable cause, absent which, such search
and seizure becomes ‘unreasonable’ within the meaning of said
constitutional provision. Sec. 3(2) provides that evidence obtained from
unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for any
purpose in any proceeding. The resolution in the drugs cases is immaterial in
this case as they involve different crimes and the “the ground for the
acquittal is neither unlawful arrest nor unlawful search or seizure, but the
procedural flaw in the chain of custody of the dangerous drug.” The general
rule is that the courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the
contents of the records of other cases. However, this rule admits of
exceptions, such as when the other case has a close connection with the
matter in controversy in the case at hand. The drugs caes and this caes are
so interwoven and interdependent of each other since, the drugs, as well a
the subject firearms and ammunition, were illegally seized in a singular
instance that is, the buy-bust operation. Hence, the Court may take judicial
notice of the circumstances attendant to the buy-bust operation as found
by the court which resolved the drugs cases. In the drugs cases, the finding
of unreasonableness of search and seizure of the drugs was mainly based
on the failure of PO1 Sanoy’s testimony to establish the legitimacy of the
buy-bust operation against Trinidad as said testimony was found to be
highly doubtful and incredible. This circumstance similarly obtains here as in
fact, the testimonies of both PO1 Nidoy and PO1 Sanoy in this case
essentially just mirror on all material points the latter’s implausible narration
in the drugs cases. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the
subject firearms and ammunition are also inadmissible in evidence for being
recovered from the same unreasonable search and seizure as in the drugs
cases. Since the confiscated firearms and ammunition are the very corpus
delicti of the crime charge in this case, Trinidad’s acquittal is in order.
Wherefore, petition is granted. Jesus Bersamin is acquitted of the crime
charged.