Bar Operations 1
Bar Operations 1
Bar Operations 1
OPERATIONS 1
SUBMISSION # 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
CHAILESE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., REPRESENTED BY
MA. TERESA M. CHUNG, Petitioner, v. MONICO DIZON
G.R. No. 206788, February 14, 2018
Held: No. It is a basic rule in procedure that the jurisdiction of the Court
over the subject matter as well as the concomitant nature of an action is
determined by law and the allegations of the complaint, and is
unaffected by the pleas or theories raised by the defendant in his answer
or motion to dismiss.
The jurisdiction of the DAR is laid down in Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657,
otherwise known as the CARL.
Facts: Lagon obtained a cash loan from private respondent Dizon, in the
amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 300,000.00). In
payment thereof, Lagon issued post-dated PCIBank Check No.
0064914, in an equal amount. However, when Dizon presented the
check for payment, it was dishonored for being Drawn Against
Insufficient Funds.
At the initial trial, neither of the parties submitted their judicial affidavits
or those of their witnesses. Hence, Judge Velasco issued the assailed
Order requiring the parties to submit their respective judicial affidavits
five (5) days before the trial.
Held: Despite the noble purpose of the Judicial Affidavit Rule, Lagon
comes to this Court bewailing the same procedural regulation as
violative of his right to due process of law, in that it "forces" him to
present evidence even before the plaintiff has rested his case,
apparently in violation of the rule on demurrer to evidence.
The fact that the defendant is mandated to submit his judicial affidavit
prior to the trial and before the plaintiff has rested his case is not a
cumbersome requirement or a circumvention of due process. On the
contrary, this is necessary for the orderly administration of the
proceeding before the courts. It must be remembered that in as early as
the pre-trial conference, the defendant is already required to submit a
pre-trial brief, where he is then tasked to state the number and names of
his witnesses, as well as the substance of their testimonies; the issues to
be tried and resolved; and the documents or exhibits to be presented
and the purpose thereof.40 Thus, the defendant is already required in
this early stage of the proceedings to formulate his defense and plan his
strategy to counter the plaintiffs complaint. There is nothing too tedious
or burdensome in requiring the submission of the judicial affidavit. In
fact, this would even help the defendant in preparing his opposing
arguments against the plaintiff.
REPUBLIC VS VIRGIE (VIRGEL) L. TIPAY
G.R. No. 209527, February 14, 2018
The petition was found sufficient in form and substance, and the case
proceeded to trial. Aside from his own personal testimony, Virgel's
mother, Susan L. Tipay, testified that she gave birth to a son on
February 25, 1976, who was baptized as "Virgel." The Certificate of
Baptism, including other documentary evidence such as a medical
certificate stating that Virgel is phenotypically male, were also presented
to the trial court.
There was no opposition to the petition. Soon after, the RTC granted
Virgel's petition. From this decision, the Republic filed a Notice of
Appeal, which was given due course by the trial court. The Republic,
through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argued that the change
of Virgel's name from Virgie should have been made through a
proceeding under Rule 103, and not Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. This
argument was premised on the assumption that the summary procedure
under Rule 108 is confined to the correction of clerical or innocuous
errors, which excludes one's name or date of birth. Since the petition
lodged with the RTC was not filed pursuant to Rule 103 of the Rules of
Court, the Republic asserted that the trial court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the case.
Unfortunately, however, when Virgel filed the petition for correction with
the RTC in 2009, R.A. No. 10172 was not yet in effect. As such, to
correct the erroneous gender and date of birth in Virgel's birth certificate,
the proper remedy was to commence the appropriate adversarial
proceedings with the RTC, pursuant to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
The changes in the entries pertaining to the gender and date of birth are
indisputably substantial corrections, outside the contemplation of a
clerical or typographical error that may be corrected administratively.
The records of this case show that Virgel complied with the procedural
requirements under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. He impleaded the
local civil registrar of Governor Generoso, Davao Oriental, the Solicitor
General, and the Provincial Prosecutor of Davao Oriental as parties to
his petition for correction of entries. The RTC then issued an order,
which set the case for hearing on July 10, 2009. In compliance with Rule
108, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, the order was published for three
(3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the
province of Davao Oriental. Additionally, the local civil registrar and the
OSG were notified of the petition through registered mail.
The OSG entered its appearance and deputized the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor of Mati, Davao City for purposes of the
proceedings before the RTC. Accordingly, the prosecutor assigned to
the case was present during the hearing but opted not to cross-examine
Virgel or his mother after their respective testimonies. There was also no
opposition filed against the petition of Virgel before the RTC.
Notably, the Republic does not assail whether the proceedings before
the trial court were adversarial, but merely insists on the erroneous
premise that a Rule 108 proceeding is limited to the correction of
harmless, clerical or typographical errors in the civil registry. Having
established that the proper recourse for the correction of substantial
changes in the civil registry is Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, the Court
cannot sustain the Republic's assertion on this matter. The Court has
long settled in Republic v. Olaybar that as long as the procedural
requirements in Rule 108 were observed, substantial corrections and
changes in the civil registry, such as those involving the entries on sex
and date of birth, may already be effected.
With respect to the change of his name to "Virgel" the Court does not
agree with the CA that the requirements under Rule 103 of the Rules of
Court may be substituted with that of Rule 108. These remedies are
distinct and separate from one another, and compliance with one rule
cannot serve as a fulfillment of the requisites prescribed by the other.41
Nonetheless, the Court has settled in Republic v. Mercadera42 that
changes in one's name are not necessarily confined to a petition filed
under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court. Rule 108, Section 2 of the Rules
of Court include "changes of name" in the enumeration of entries in the
civil register that may be cancelled or corrected. Thus, the name "Virgie"
may be corrected to "Virgel" as a necessary consequence of the
substantial correction on Virgel's gender, and to allow the record to
conform to the truth.
PATRICIA CABRIETO DELA TORRE, REPRESENTED BY BENIGNO
T. CABRIETO, JR. v. PRIMETOWN PROPERTY GROUP, INC.
Held: No. In this case, respondent filed a petition for rehabilitation and
suspension of payments with the RTC which issued a Stay Order on
August 15, 2003. The initial hearing was set on September 24, 2003;
thus, any comment or opposition to the petition should have been filed
10 days before the initial hearing but petitioner did not file any and
already barred from participating in the proceedings. However, petitioner
filed a motion for leave to intervene on October 15, 2004, one year after,
praying that respondent be ordered to execute in her favor a deed of
absolute sale over Unit 3306 of the Makati Prime Citadel Condominium,
subject matter of their earlier contract to sell. It bears stressing that
intervention is prohibited under Section 1,14 Rule 3 of the Interim Rules.
Hence, the RTC should not have entertained the petition for intervention
at all.
Facts: The prosecution alleged that in the early morning of February 23,
2012, an operative of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs (SAID), Special
Operation Task Group (SOTG), Valenzuela City, was informed of the
rampant selling of illegal drugs at a wake in Tamaraw Hills, Barangay
Marulas, Valenzuela City, which thus led to the conduct of an anti-illegal
drug operation. At about 3:30 a.m., certain Police Officer (PO) 2 Lim,
PO2 Recto, and PO1 Raya, together with PO1 Julius R. Congson (PO1
Congson), proceeded to surveil the area near No. 75 Tamaraw Hills
Street. While in the area, PO2 Recto and PO1 Congson saw a person
coming out of an alley about four (4) meters away, with a fan knife in his
right hand. Since there was a ban issued by the Commission on
Elections14 (COMELEC) on the carrying of deadly weapons at that time,
PO2 Recto and PO1 Congson approached the person and introduced
themselves as police officers. The person, who they later identified as
Gonzalez, immediately ran away, prompting the police officers to chase
and eventually, arrest him. PO1 Congson recovered the knife from
Gonzalez, frisked the latter, and ordered him to bring out the contents of
his pocket, which revealed one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
containing what PO1 Congson believed to be shabu. PO1 Congson
further recovered another heat-sealed transparent plastic pack, labeled
"Calypso", containing several plastic sachets. Thereafter, Gonzalez
started shouting, causing several persons from the wake (including
Gonzalez' mother) to approach him. The police officers then decided to
bring Gonzalez to the nearby barangay hall, where the seized items
were inventoried15 and turned over. After duly receiving the submitted
specimen, the forensic chemist examined17 the same which tested
positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The RTC found him 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 CA affirmed his
conviction.
Issue: whether or not the CA correctly upheld Guieb's conviction for the
crimes charged.
Held: No. After a judicious study of the case, the Court finds that the
police officers committed unjustified deviations from the prescribed chain
of custody rule, thereby putting into question the integrity and evidentiary
value of the dangerous drugs allegedly seized from Guieb.
First, records reveal that while the requisite inventory and photography
of the confiscated drugs were indeed conducted, a reading of the
Certificate of Inventory42 shows that only an elected official, i. e., Brgy.
Capt. Bagay, was present and that there were no representatives from
the DOJ and the media.
Verily, the procedural lapse committed by the police officers, which was
unfortunately unacknowledged and unexplained by the State, militates
against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused,
as the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been
compromised.45 It is well-settled that the procedure 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 suspects.46 As such,
since the prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for non-
compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as well as its IRR,
Guieb's acquittal is perforce in order.
In this light, prosecutors are strongly reminded that they have the
positive duty to prove compliance with the procedure set forth in Section
21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended. As such, they must have the
initiative to not only acknowledge but also justify any perceived
deviations from the said procedure during the proceedings before the
trial court. Since compliance with this procedure is determinative of the
integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti and ultimately, the
fate of the liberty of the accused, the fact that any issue regarding the
same was not raised, or even threshed out in the court/s below, would
not preclude the appellate court, including this Court, from fully
examining the records of the case if only to ascertain whether the
procedure had been completely complied with, and if not, whether
justifiable reasons exist to excuse any deviation. If no such reasons
exist, then it is the appellate court's bounden duty to acquit the accused,
and perforce, overturn a conviction.
People of the Philippines Vs. Jomar Sisracon y Rupisan, et al.
G.R. No. 226494. February 14, 2018
Facts: According to the victim, AAA, she was fifteen (15) years old and
the President of a youth group when the incident happened on February
29, 2004. Around 11 o'clock in the evening of that same day, AAA was
about to go home when she passed by the basketball court. She saw a
group composed of the nine accused/appellants.
Appellant Roberto called AAA and asked her to approach them because
they wanted to ask her about the organization that they recently joined.
AAA agreed and discussed with them the mission and vision of the
organization. Thereafter, AAA told the group that she wanted to go
home, but the latter asked her to stay longer as they were about to have
a drinking spree. AAA told them that she could not stay longer because
her mother would get angry at her and that she had to go to school the
following day. The group insisted that she stay long and finally, AAA told
them that she could stay but only until 11:30 in the evening. The group
then told AAA to go with them at the apartment of Ranil's aunt which is
just a street away from where they were. When they were on the way to
the apartment, the group suddenly ran. AAA inquired why they ran and
they replied that a certain Pita was there and that they didn't want the
latter to go with them because he was unruly and noisy. Pita was known
in their place as "sinto sinto" or "kulang-kulang sa pag-iisip" (mentally
deranged). AAA had known Pita for a long time including Ranil, who was
a friend of her bother, BBB and who regularly went to their house
attending social affairs. Pita eventually joined the group.
The group arrived at the apartment and upon entering, Ranil lit a candle
and Adonis closed the door. Ranil then opened a bottle of Emperador
Brandy and took a glass from which each of them had their "tagay"
(shots). AAA sat beside Jomar and since she was not used to drinking
liquor, she forced herself to swallow, the same slowly and by covering
her nose. At 11:30 p.m., AAA told the group that she must go home. Pita
also told AAA that it's time for them to go home. Since Pita insisted that
he and AAA should both go home, he was forced to go home alone
because the group started to hurt him by striking him in the nape
("binabatuk-batukan"). AAA also tried to leave the apartment but
appellants Jomar and Adonis blocked her way. Adonis even proceeded
to guard the door of the apartment. AAA was then threatened by the
group that they would hurt her older brother ("Kuya"), BBB, if she
insisted on leaving, thus, she decided to return to her seat. While this
was happening, the others were conversing with each other. Shortly, the
group opened a second bottle of Emperador Brandy and resumed
drinking. AAA had a shot of the liquor that was poured by Ranil and was
given to her by Jomar. After five to ten minutes from drinking the liquor,
AAA felt her legs and body turning numb, her vision turning blurry and
she started feeling dizzy. As she was closing her eyes, AAA felt that she
was being carried by Jomar. AAA was familiar with the voice of Jomar
and it was the latter who said, "Dito na, dito na." AAA was then placed in
a "papag" where Jomar proceeded to lower her shorts. AAA tried to
resist by bringing up her shorts but to no avail due to her weakness.
After successfully lowering AAA's shorts, Jomar went on top of her and
inserted his penis into her vagina causing her pain. After performing the
deed, Jomar invited the others to take their turns by saying, "Sino ang
susunod?" A person of heavier weight went on top of AAA and it was
then that the latter lost her consciousness. When AAA regained her
consciousness, she felt that somebody was putting on her dress and
heard shouts that he was coming ("Si BBB, si BBB andyan na?"). She
then heard footsteps and a commotion ensuing. When she awakened,
AAA was already inside a mobile unit with her brother and her mother on
their way to a clinic in Camp Crame. From Camp Crame, they
proceeded to the Municipal Hall of x x x, Rizal and were brought to the
Office of the Prosecutor at around 1 o'clock of March 1, 2004.
Thereafter, BBB was told to identify the suspects and pointed at five (5)
persons, namely, appellants Adonis, Jomar, Luis, Mark and Roberto.
During her identification of the suspects, the parents of the accused;
AAA's mother and brother, and the fiscal were present.
Thus, the following nine (9) Informations were filed against the
appellants and their other companions for qualified rape.
In this case, all the elements of the crime of rape have been properly
established by the prosecution and aptly appreciated by the RTC and
the CA. Through the testimony of AAA, it was clearly proven that the
appellants committed the crime and, as such, an attack on her credibility
is futile.
The prosecution was able to establish all the elements of the crime of
rape. First, [AAA] testified that Jomar went on top of her and, against her
will, inserted his penis in her vagina. After having carnal knowledge with
[AAA], Jomar told the others "sino ang susunod?" Thus, another man of
heavier weight went on top of [AAA] and inserted his penis in her vagina.
[AAA] identified that it was Jomar who carried him to another room and
placed her in a "papag" because she heard him say, "dito na, dito na." It
should be emphasized that [AAA] testified that she was familiar with
Jomar's voice because she knew him and the other appellants since
childhood. [AAA] used to invite these appellants in their house whenever
there were occasions and sometimes in going to videoke. Hence, this
Court agrees with the findings of the court a quo as regards [AAA]'s
positive identification of Jomar, through his voice, as one of the persons
who raped her.
Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, there is conspiracy when two
or more persons come to an agreement concerning a felony and decide
to commi.t it. It may be inferred from the acts of the accused before,
during or after the commission of the crime which, when taken together,
would be enough to reveal a community of criminal design, as the proof
of conspiracy is frequently made by evidence of a chain of
circumstances.[14] It is apparent, therefore, that conspiracy attended the
commission of the crime and the CA did not err finding such.