People of the Philippines Vs.
Emma Leocadio y Salazar and Sherryl
Leocadio y Salazar
G.R. No. 237697. July 15, 2020
Facts:
Sometime in the first week of August 2011, a group of twelve girls (11
minors) from Getafe, Bohol were invited to work in an internet café in
Angeles, Pampanga. They will be doing a dance strip wearing only bra and
panty to foreign clients. The accused were the one that recruited them with
the consent of their parents.
While inside the Supercat Terminal to board the ship from Cebu to Manila,
the security guard in the terminal became suspicious and informed the local
police about two women who were hoarding minors inside the terminal.
Upon seeing them, the police officer asked whether they have in their
possession documents required in the travel of the minors. Accused were
not able to present them. For that reason, they were placed under arrest for
violation of R.A. No. 9208 – Anti- Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003.
The accused alleged as a defense that the crime of trafficking in persons
cannot be proven since there was no actual sexual exploitation or
prostitution, an element of the crime.
RTC handed a guilty verdict and CA affirmed it.
Issue: Whether actual sexual exploitation or prostitution is material to
convict the accused for violation of RA 9208
Ruling:
No, the fact that there were no actual indecent shows that were performed
by the victims is immaterial. Based from the declarations of the witnesses,
they were recruited by the accused to perform lewd acts, indecent shows
and pornography in the internet. It is not necessary that the victims have
performed or are performing the act of prostitution or sexual exploitation at
the time when the perpetrators were apprehended. The material fact in the
crime charged is that the purpose of the perpetrators is to engage the
victims in the said act of prostitution or sexual exploitation.
Nenita Ko Vs. Atty. Ladimir Ian G. Maduramente and Atty. Mercy Grace L.
Maduramente
A.C. No. 11118. July 14, 2020
Facts:
Sometime in July 2006, Atty. Ladimir and Atty Mercy Maduramente
(spouses) informed Nenita Ko that the Manila Prince Hotel in San
Marcelino, Manila owned by Manila Prince Hotel Corporation was for sale.
They alleged that they knew the president of Manila Hotel, former Senator
Joey Lina. The purchase price is at Php 50M and is on installment basis. A
mere Php 5M as downpayment is required for Nenita to possess and
control the hotel.
Persuaded by the representations, Nenita agreed to buy the hotel.
She issued three checks in the amount of Php 5M, 6M, and another 6M, all
payable to the order of Atty. Mercy. Upon receipt of the checks, Atty. Mercy
executed an Acknowledgment to Nenita.
A few days later, upon her inquiry to her financial consultant, she
discovered that no sale transaction was concluded with respect to the said
hotel. She demanded from the responded to produce the documents of the
purported sale, they failed to comply. Instead, Atty. Mercy berated Nenita
for attributing to her botched sale transaction. She also bragged about her
alleged connections in the Office of the President in order to dissuade
Nenita from filing any complaint.
Nenita asked the responded lawyers to just return the two remaining
checks to her which they did. As to the first check which was already
incashed, respondents returned the amount of Php 1M and issued a check
for the remaining Php 4M. However, the check was dishonored due to
closed account. Hence, Nenita filed a complaint for disbarment.
Atty. Mercy claimed that what she actually offered to sell were shares
of stocks of the Manila Prince Corporation. She insisted that she did not
encash the check. Neither did she own the bank account in which the
check was deposited.
Atty. Ladimir asserted that it was Atty. Mercy who mentioned the sale
of Manila Prince Hotel to Nenita. However, he himself did not get involved
in the sale transaction to avoid conflict of interest.
IBP suspends Atty. Mercy and Atty Ladimir for two years for their
failure to account for and return their client’s money despite demands.
Issue: Whether respondent lawyers are both guilty of dishonesty and grave
misconduct
Ruling:
Yes. As a member of the bar, he/she must maintain the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession by refraining from committing acts which
might diminish in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity,
honesty and integrity of the profession. Both the respondents failed to live
up to the high moral standards required of them as members of the legal
profession.
The defense raised by Atty. Mercy deserve scant consideration. She failed
to give a plausible explanation as to why the checks were payable to her
name. She did not even dispute her signature in the Acknowledgment.
Having received the check in due course, it is presumed that the same
were in her possession and disposed of or used by her since it was a
crossed check.
Also, the defense of Atty. Ladimir that he was not a party to the purported
sale lacks merit. The proposal for the sale was made in his law office.
Moreover, respondents were husband and wife, hence, it is impossible that
he did not know anything about the sale especially since it involved his
client, Nenita.
Therefore, the respondents are guilty of Dishonesty and Gross Misconduct.
Atty. Mercy is likewise guilty of influence peddling, and commingling of
funds with clients.
The court is mindful that the power to disbar must be exercised with great
caution. Disbarment should be imposed in clear cases of misconduct that
seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the
court and as member of the bar, or the misconduct borders on the criminal,
or committed under scandalous circumstance.
Here, the respondents showed an absolute disregard of their duties
inscribed in the Lawyers’ Oath and the CPR. They demonstrated their
absence of good moral character, a continuous requirement for
membership in the bar. They do not possess not even a scintilla of high
moral fiber thereby making them unworthy of public confidence, and of
being members of the legal profession.
They are thus ordered Disbarred from the practice of law.
Engineering & Construction Corporation of Asia [now First Balfour,
Incorporated] Vs. Segundino Palle, et al.
G.R. No. 201247. July 13, 2020
Facts
Respondents were hired by the petitioner ECCA on various dates to work
in its construction business. They were hired on different dates to perform
task in the corporation’s construction business.
Respondents continuously employed them for different construction
projects of the company. However, they did not enjoy the benefits given by
the company to its regular employees, such as, Christmas bonuses,
hospitalization benefits, sick leaves, vacation leaves and service incentive
leaves, among others. They have signed employment contracts for some
ECCA’s projects but they were asked to work in new projects or transferred
to other existing projects without the benefit of corresponding employment
contracts.
On different dates of the year 2001, they were terminated and ECCA
informed them that the cause of termination was due to “project
completion”. Thus, they filed for illegal dismissal and prayed for
reinstatement.
Labor Arbiter held that respondents were regular employees of ECCA
because respondents were repeatedly rehired for more than 20 to 30 years
in several projects. They were granted reinstatement and awarded
backwages.
NLRC, however, reversed the findings of the labor arbiter. Repeated hiring
does not change the status of one’s employment as project employee or
automatically makes one as a regular employee.
CA held in favor of respondents and ruled that they are regular employees,
and therefore illegally dismissed.
Issue: Whether or not respondents were regular employee of ECCA
Ruling:
Yes. An employment is generally deemed regular where: (i) the employee
has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, subject to
exceptions, such as when one is fixed, project or seasonal employee; or
(ii) the employee has been engaged for at least one year, with respect to
the activity he or she is hired, and the employment of such employee
remains while such activity exists.
In order to ascertain whether respondents were project employees or
regular employees, it is essential to determine whether notice was given to
them that they were being engaged just for a specific project, which notice
must be made at the time of hiring.
ECCA failed to present substantial evidence to show that it informed
respondents of the duration and scope of their work at the time of their
hiring. Also, they did not submit a report with the DOLE of the termination
of the respondents’ employment every time a project is completed, which
is an indication that the workers were not project employees.
People of the Philippines Vs. Peter Lopez y Canlas
G.R. No. 247974. July 13, 2020
Facts:
On March 20,2014, conducted a buy-bust operation against the accused in
San Francisco, Iriga City. The police asset informed the designated
poseur-buyer that the accused would meet them. The accused arrived and
asked how much they would be buying. The poseur-buyer handed the
marked Php 2,000.00 to the accused. In turn, the latter gave him a small
heat-sealed transparent sachet containing crystalline substance which the
poseur-buyer suspected as shabu.
At that moment, he was arrested. Thereafter, the operatives headed to the
police station for the inventory and laboratory test of the confiscated
evidence. The accused was also subjected to urine test once using a Thin
Layer Chromatography (TLC) which resulted to positive results for
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
RTC and CA convicted the accused for the crimes of illegal sale and use of
dangerous drugs
Issue: Whether or not the use of TLC test alone is enough to convict the
accused for the use of illegal drugs
Ruling:
No. The law requires that the drug testing shall employ, among others, two
(2) testing methods, the screening test which will determine the positive
result as well as the type of the drug used and the confirmatory test which
will confirm a positive screening test. A positive screening laboratory test
must be confirmed for it to be valid in a court of law.
In the case at bar, prosecution shows the conduct if only one test which is
the use of TLC test. The use of TLC is only for screening test. It is a rapid
test performed to establish potential/presumptive positive results. Under
existing regulations of the Dangerous Drugs Board, the TLC is a screening
test that is subject to further confirmatory examinations if it yields a positive
result.
Without the requisite confirmatory test, the accused appellant cannot be
held criminally liable for illegal use of dangerous drugs.
The Heirs of Reynaldo A. Andag, namyly Veneranda B. Andag, et al. Vs.
DMC Construction Equipment Resources Inc., Jorge A. Consunji, President
and Agustine B. Gozalez, Area Manager
G.R. No. 244361. July 13, 2020
Facts:
On July 16,2012, respondent DMCI employed Reynaldo Andag as Second
Mate on its tugboat, the M/T Alexander Paul. On October 18,2013, as the
tugboat was towing an overloaded barge, a recoiling rope accidentally
struck Reynaldo causing him to be thrown towards the ship’s iron bars.
Reynaldo was rushed to the hospital where he was pronounced dead on
arrival. Months after, DMCI offered the petitioners (heirs) Php 200,000.00
as compensation for Reynaldo’s death under the condition that they would
execute a waiver and quitclaim in its favor. The petitioners refused the
offer. They send demand letter instead which DMCI ignored. Thus they
filed a complaint before the NLRC for actual, moral and exemplary
damages for the latter’s alleged negligence resulting to the death of
Reynaldo.
The labor arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action. NLRC
affirmed the decision of the LA with modification that the claim of damages
arising from DMCI’s alleged negligence resulting in the death of Reynaldo
was not within the jurisdiction of the LA, as it is claim based on torts which
is cognizable by the regular courts.
Issue: Whether or not the labor arbiter has jurisdiction for claims arising
from the alleged negligence of DMCI.
Ruling:
No. The petitioners’ claim for damages against DMCI is a claim based on
torts which is cognizable by the regular courts. While the maintenance of a
safe and healthy workplace is ordinarily a subject of labor cases, case law
nevertheless clarifies that a claim specifically grounded on the employer’s
negligence to provide a safe, healthy and workable environment for its
employees is no longer a labor issue, but rather, is a case for quasi-delict
which is under the jurisdiction of the regular courts. Hence, should the
petitioners wish to pursue this cause of action against DMCI, it should file
the proper case therefore before the regular courts.
Benito T. Keh and Gaudencio S. Quiballo Vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. Nos. 217592-93. July 13, 2020
Facts:
Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari to seek the ultimate
dismissal of criminal case filed against them for violation of of Section 74, in
relation to Section 144, of the Corporation Code for their unjustified refusal
to open the corporate books and records of Ferrotech Steel Corporation to
one of their stockholders, Ireneo C. Quizon. Petitioners Keh and Quiballo
were the chairman and the corporate secretary, respectively, of the said
corporation This was filed in the RTC which directed to quash the subject
criminal information without prejudice, on the ground that it did not contain
all the elements of the charges.
Still feeling aggrieved, petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals and bid
for a dismissal with prejudice on the ground that the eventual refiling of the
case would amount to double jeopardy. Here, they reiterated the supposed
defective and insufficient allegations contained in the information, and
insisted on its quashal, as well as on the dismissal of the criminal case with
prejudice. The Court of Appeals denied relief from petitioners
Issue: Whether the dismissal of the case without prejudice is proper
Ruling:
No. The law creates the duty on the part of the corporation to keep and
preserve a record of all business transactions and minutes of all meetings
of stockholders, members, or the board of directors or trustees, along with
the duty to make such record available to its stockholders or members
upon written request therefor; a violation of these duties invites criminal
prosecution against the erring officers to allow the eventual application of
the prescribed penalties.
Reviewing the information submitted to the trial court showed that all
elements of the charges complaint of were present. It is, indeed,
fundamental that for purposes of a valid indictment, every element of which
the offense is composed must be alleged in the information. Be that as it
may the criminal information is not meant to contain a detailed resumé of
the elements of the charge in verbatim.
The sufficiency of the allegations in the information serves the fundamental
right of the accused to be informed of the nature of the charge and to
enable him to suitably and adequately prepare his defense, as he is
presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute
the offense.
In the case at bar, by the subject information, have been fully informed of
the offense with which they have been charged and to which they have
pleaded and have thus far been tried. Given the undue termination of
petitioners' prosecution before the trial court, however, a remand for further
proceedings is in order.
Aboitiz Power Renewables, Inc./Tiwi Consolidated Union (APRI-TCU), et
al. Vs. Aboitiz Power Renewables, Inc., et al.
G.R. No. 237036. July 8, 2020
Facts:
Aboitiz Power Renewables, Inc. (APRI) is a corporation engaged in the
operation of the Tiwi Geothermal Power Plant in Tiwi, Albay. The three (3)
petitioners are unions representing former employees of APRI, who were
allegedly illegally dismissed in September 2013.
On September 16, 2013, APRI called for a town hall meeting, wherein the
employees were informed that the company will implement a redundancy
program that would result in the removal of around twenty percent (200/0)
of its current employees. According to Atty. Yasay, APRI's Assistant Vice
President for Legal and Commercial Services, the program was being
carried out in light of the declining steam production in the Tiwi Plant.
APRI also cited the adoption of the Oracle Enterprise Business Suit,
which streamlined its supply and financial system, as the further cause
for the redundancy of several positions within the company. In the
afternoon of the same day, APRI's representatives began to individually
meet the employees. The affected employees were informed that their
position in the company was found to be redundant and that their
employment will be terminated on October 20, 2013. They were given
and made to sign a Notice of Redundancy dated September 20, 2013,
which served as the written notice of their inclusion in the redundancy
program. They were also made to sign a Release, Waiver and Quitclaim
and were given the option of signing a letter addressed to Pierce, APRI's
President and Chief Operating Officer. In the said letter, it was stated that
the employees recognize the company's right to exercise the redundancy
program and that they exercise the option not to report for work from the
receipt of the Notice of Redundancy up to October 20, 2013, the date
when their termination becomes effective.
As a consequence of their termination because of the redundancy program,
the affected employees were given two (2) manager's checks. The first
check represented the separation pay and the second is a manager’s
check amounting to of as the one-time special assistance to
each of the affected employees.
Feeling aggrieved that they were forced to accept the redundancy program
or forced to resign, the said employees had the incident of their termination
recorded through a police blotter. Subsequently, they also filed complaints
for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice for union busting, and claims for
13th month pay, retirement benefits, damages, and attorney's fees.
Issue: Whether the dismissal of the employees on the basis of redundancy
of their respective position was valid
Ruling:
Yes. Redundancy is an authorized cause for termination of employment
under Article 298 (formerly Article 283) of the Labor Code. It exists when
"the services of an employee are in excess of what is reasonably
demanded by the actual requirements of the enterprise." The
determination of whether the employees' services are no longer
necessary or sustainable, and therefore, properly terminable for
redundancy, is an exercise of business judgment. In making such
decision, however, management must not violate the law nor declare
redundancy without sufficient basis. To ensure that the dismissal is not
implemented arbitrarily, jurisprudence requires the employer to prove,
among others, its good faith in abolishing the redundant positions as
well as the existence of fair and reasonable criteria in the selection of
employees who will be dismissed from employment due to redundancy
Such fair and reasonable criteria may include, but are not limited to: (a)
less preferred status, i.e., temporary employee; (b) efficiency; and (c)
seniority.
In the case at bar, good faith of APRI can be gleaned from its showing
that the services of the affected employees were indeed in excess of
what is required by the company. Meanwhile, the Right-Sizing Program,
the study in which the redundancy program was based, showed the
implementation guidelines and criteria used by APRI in determining
redundant positions, was also found to be fair and reasonable.
People of the Philippines Vs. Julian Sivederio III y Javelosa
G.R. No. 239777. July 8, 2020
Facts:
On May 10, 2012, Glenn Lasafin (victim) and Jethro Bonitillo together
with two companions went to Aura Chillout Lounge (Aura) at Smallville for
a drinking spree. While the four were drinking, the victim requested
Bonitillo to accompany him to the restroom.On their way to the restroom,
Julian Javelosa (accused) accosted them. Bonitillo told the victim not to
mind accused. When they were about to enter the restroom, they heard a
gunshot. Bonitillo looked at the direction from where the gunshot came and
then heard another gunshot. This time, Bonitillo saw that the victim was hit
in his upper left arm. While the victim was holding his upper left arm with
his right hand, accused approached and shot him with a .38 revolver. The
victim fell after the third gunshot hit his left chest. He was brought to the
hospital but was later declared dead.
RTC finds the accused guilty of Murder with treachery as the
qualifying circumstance. CA affirms the decision of the lower court.
Issue: Whether or not the killing was attended by treachery as qualifying
circumstance
Ruling:
Yes. Treachery is the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in
the execution of the crime against persons which tends directly and
specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the
defense which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is
that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and
unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim
the chance to resist or escape.
To properly appreciate treachery, two elements must be present: (l) at the
time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2)
the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means,
methods, or forms of attack employed by him.
The RTC and the CA correctly ruled that the prosecution was able to
prove that treachery attended the killing of the victim. As found by the
RTC, the victim was already hit on his upper left arm when he sat on
the stairs leading to the comfort room. Without prior altercation or
exchange of blows between the victim and accused, the victim was
unable to defend himself and was unaware when accused shot him. On
the other hand, accused knew fully well that the victim was already
injured and in no position to defend himself. Accused made sure that
his objective would be accomplished by "deliberately approaching the
injured and unarmed victim and when he was already near and surely
would not miss, shot the victim on the chest when the victim was almost
standing up. Evidently, the form of attack employed by accused
ensured the commission of the crime without risk to himself.
Intercrew Shipping Agency, Inc., Star Emirates Marine Services and/or
Gregorio Ortega Vs. Ofrecino B. Calantoc
G.R. No. 239299. July 8, 2020
Facts:
On March 14, 2008, Intercrew Philippines Agency, Inc. hired Ofrecino B.
Calantoc for its foreign principal, Star Emirates Marine Services as fourth
engineer for a period of 12 months. As such, respondent underwent a
pre-employment medical examination and was declared "fit for sea duty,"
despite his high blood pressure.
On March 20, 2008, respondent was deployed to join the yessel MV Oryx.
Four months into his contract, Calantoc already experienced a slurring of
speech, weakness on his right side, and was diagnosed with a mild
stroke. However, he still continued his work on board the vessel, but he
later on requested to be repatriated when his condition worsened.
On January 29, 2009, respondent then underwent a Magnetic Resonance
Imaging (MRI) examination which revealed a large convexity
meningioma, a tumor in the left frontoparietal region. On the same date,
respondent was admitted to the University of Santo Tomas Hospital due
to dysphasia.
Respondent now claimed that because of his illness he was unable to
return to his customary work as a seafarer for more than 120 days.
Petitioners repeatedly refused to grant him disability benefits. Thus, he
filed a complaint claiming disability compensation.
Petitioners, on the other hand, asserted that there was no accident or
medical incident that happened on board the vessel during the period of
respondent's employment and that respondent only requested to be
signed off due to a pre-existing high blood pressure;
Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is entitled for disability
compensation
Ruling:
Yes. There are two elements that must concur before an injury or
illness is considered compensable: first, that the injury or illness must
be work-related; and second that the work-related injury or illness must
have existed during the term of the seafarers' employment contract.
In the case at bar, the petitioners, despite knowing that respondent has
a high blood pressure, gave the latter a clean bill of health, through the
former's accredited clinic, before deployment which leads to a
conclusion that whatever illness respondent suffers on board the vessel
is work-related. petitioners having engaged the respondent as
hypersensitive as he is, they should now accept the liability for his
ensuing ailment in the course of his employment.
It is not required that an employee must be in perfect health when he
contracted the illness to be able to recover disability compensation. It is
equally true, that while the employer is not the insurer of the health of the
employees, once he takes the employees as he finds them, then he
already assumes the risk of liability.
Valentino C. Leano Vs. Atty. Hipolito C. Salatan
A.C. No. 12551. July 8, 2020
Facts:
Leano alleged that he was the defendant in the case of "Spouses
Juanito Tabudlo and Myrna Tabudlo, as represented by Miguel Cauilan
and Jorge Cauilan v. Valentino Leano," filed by Atty. Salatan, plaintiff's
counsel before Branch 36, Regional Trial Couat, Santiago City for
specific performance with damages. He claimed that in said case, Atty.
Salatan introduced the affidavit of a certain Teresita Cauilan (Teresita)
into evidence before the trial court which, upon closer scrutiny, bore
several defects on the face of the document itself: (a) the document
had no date of execution; (b) Teresita's competent proof of identity was
left blank in the document; and (c) Atty. Salatan's Mandatory
Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) compliance number was not
indicated therein002E In addition, Leano stated that the subject
affidavit does not appear in Atty. Salatan's notarial register.
Atty. Salatan explained that the failure to record Teresita's affidavit in
his notarial register was not deliberate but ä mere clerical error by his
staff. Atty. Salatan simply argued that he had "dutifully ascertained that
the affiant was sincerely telling the truth in support to the cause of
action of the spouses Juanito and Myrna Tabudlo against Valentino
Leano," which he deemed "the more important and overarching
consideration" in notarizing the document.
Issue: Whether Atty. Salatan vioiated the Notarial Rules when he
notarized Teresita's Affidavit
Ruling:
Yes. Court finds Atty. Salatan administratively liable for violation of the
Notarial Rules. Aside from the physical presence of the affiant during
the notarization of a document, the Notarial Rules also requires the
presentation of a competent evidence of the affiant's identity if he or
she is not personally known to the notary public.
In this case, the records show that Atty. Salatan had affixed his official
signature and seal on the notarial certificate of Teresita's affidavit
without properly identifying the person who signed the document. This
conclusion can easily be inferred from the fact that the competent proof
of Teresita's identity had been left blank on the face of the document
itself.
To make matters worse, it appears that the notarization of the subject
affidavit was not recorded in Atty. Salatan's notarial register, which is a
clear violation of the Notarial Rules.
Atty. Fernando P. Perito Vs. Atty. Bertrand A. Baterina, et al.
A.C. No. 12631. July 8, 2020
Facts:
Atty. Perito was the lawyer for the accused in a kidnapping case entitled
People v. Josephine and Jason Bracamonte which was filed before
Branch 169 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malabon. Respondents
Attys. Baterina and Besid were the private prosecutors.
On August 29, 2008, Attys. Baterina and Besid learned that the
Bracamontes had filed a disbarment case against them before the Court.
Suspecting that Atty. Perito was behind the filing of said complaint, Atty.
Baterina filed a countersuit for disbarment against Atty. Perito.
Atty. Perito charged herein respondents with pursuing a losing and
dismissed case or endlessly persecuting the Bracamontes in the
kidnapping case, and for filing a baseless disbarment complaint against
him grounded on suspicion.
Issue: Whether or not the respondents violated the CPR
Ruling:
No. The burden of proof rests upon Atty. Perito to prove his allegations
with substantial evidence. Attys. Baterina and Besid did not violate Rule
11.04, Canon I I of the CPR.
Noting that this is the third disbarment case involving Attys. Perito,
Baterina and Besid whether as parties or counsels, which all stemmed
from the kidnapping case involving the Bracamontes, the court reminded
the lawyers to focus on the merits of their claims, exercise mutual respect
and courtesy with each other, and not to indiscriminately file disbarment
suits against each other.
Court exercises the power to disbar with great caution. Being the most
severe form of disciplinary sanction, it is imposed only for the most
imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the
standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and
a member of the bar.
In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that Atty. Perito did not present
substantial evidence to show that herein respondents violated the CPR.
In fact, the instant petition is simply evidence of the parties' frustration
against each other and of their refusal to resolve their issues as lawyers
in a more dignified and less adversarial manner.
People of the Philippines Vs. Ranilo S. Suarez
G.R. No. 249990. July 8, 2020
Facts:
In the afternoon of July 16, 2008, operatives of the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Regional Office, Davao City implemented a
buy-bust operation in Panabo City, Davao Del Norte, against accused,
during which, one (l) transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance was recovered from him. The seized item was then placed
inside a sealed evidence pouch. When the PDEA operatives noticed that
people had started to gather around them, they, together with the accused,
immediately left on board their service vehicle. On the way to their office,
the PDEA operatives alighted the vehicle to conduct the marking of the
seized item. Upon reaching the PDEA office, they turned over the seized
item and the buy-bust money, and presented accused, to the duty desk
officer. Since the witnesses for the inventory and photography were not
available at that time, Investigating Officer Ortoyo took custody of the
seized item and put it inside her locker at the office, with only she having
accessed thereto. The following day, 102 Ortoyo brought the seized items
to the crime laboratory in Ecoland, Davao City (which is geographically
located in Davao Del Sur) where the inventory and photography took place
in the presence of the representatives from the media and the Department
of Justice (DOJ), an elected barangay official, and a photographer.
Thereafter, the arresting officers brought accused-appellant and the seized
item to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Provincial Crime Laboratory in
Tagum City, Davao Del Norte where, after a qualitative examination, the
seized item tested positive for 0.1524 gram of methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.
RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt the crime of Illegal
Sale of Dangerous Drugs. CA affirmed it.
Issue: Whether or not the integrity of the item seized was preserved even
though the rules on chain of custody was not complied
Ruling:
No, the apprehending officers committed various irregularities which
constitute as deviations from the chain of custody rule which affected the
integrity of item seized. 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.
While the Court finds that the arresting officers were justified in not
immediately conducting the marking, inventory, and photography of the
seized item at the place of arrest as people had started to gather around
them, it is highly irregular for them to stop the vehicle on the highway in
order to mark the seized item, before arriving at the PDEA Regional Office,
Davao City to conduct the same thereat.
Second, while the Court finds justifiable the conduct of inventory and
photography of the seized item the following morning in order for the
arresting officers to secure the presence of the required witnesses, the
Court finds it irregular that instead of bringing the required witnesses to
the PDEA Regional Office, Davao City, they needlessly transported
accused and the seized item to the crime laboratory in Ecoland, Davao
City which is geographically located in Davao Del Sur, for the conduct of
such activities.
In view of the foregoing unjustified deviations from the chain of custody
rule, the Court is constrained to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the dangerous drug purportedly seized from accused was
compromised, thereby warranting his acquittal.
Edda V. Henson Vs. Commission on Audit
G.R. No. 230185. July 7, 2020
Facts:
25. Edda V. Henson Vs. Commission on Audit
G.R. No. 230185. July 7, 2020 [Date Uploaded: 09/04/2020]
26. People of the Philippines Vs. AAA
G.R. No. 248777. July 7, 2020 [Date Uploaded: 09/02/2020]
27. People of the Philippines Vs. Marlon Bob Caraniagan Sanico a.k.a. “Marlon Bob”
G.R. No. 240431. July 7, 2020 [Date Uploaded: 09/02/2020]
