PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE:

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

ACCUSSED0-APPELLANT:
ORLY VISPERAS y ACOBO
G.R NO. 231010
JUNE 26, 2019

CHARACTERS:
SPO1 ROBERTO MOLINA- POSEUR BUYER
SPO1 RONNIE QUINTO
PSI SORIANO POBLETE
SPO1 JEFFREY NATIVIDAD- INVESTIGATOR
MA. THERESA AMOR C. MANUEL- FORENSIC CHEMIST

FACTS:
 On September 29, 2010, SPO1 Roberto Molina (SPO1 Molina) and SPO1 Ronnie Quinto (SPO1
Quinto) relayed to Chief of Police, P/S Insp. Dominick Soriano Poblete (PSI Poblete), a report
from a confidential asset that appellant was selling shabu.
 SPO1 ROBERTO MOLINA is the poseur buyer
 SPO1 Jeffrey Natividad prepared the documents needed for the prosecution of appellant and
forwarded the sachet of shabu
 Forensic Chemist Ma. Theresa Amor C. Manuel performed a chemical examination on the
contents of the sachet and the results confirmed that it was indeed shabu.
 on September 29, 2010, Visperas was eating isaw with his niece and nephew in front of his
house.
 on September 29, 2010, Visperas voluntarily accepted the invitation of SPO1 Molina to the
municipal Hall
 Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, sets forth the mandatory procedural safeguards in a buy-bust
operation.

Issue:
Whether or not the procedures of RA 9165 is complied by the police officers.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals:

In its Decision of October 16, 2015, the CA affirmed the RTC's Decision. It held that the prosecution's
evidence established the acts constituting the illegal sale of shabu. Moreover, the CA ruled that the
apparent failure to comply with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, particularly, the procedure to be
observed in the inventory and photographing of the shabu seized during the buy-bust operation will not
render the same inadmissible in evidence. In this case, the prosecution failed to prove both requisites.
The Court has thoroughly reviewed the records and cannot find any mention at all that the physical
inventory and that photographing of the confiscated shabu had been done or were done in the presence
of an elected public official, a representative from media and the DOJ. WHEREFORE, the appeal is
GRANTED. The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision. Appellant Orly Visperas y Acoba
is acquitted of the indictment against him for his guilt not having been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
PETITIONERS:
RHONDA AVE S. VIVARES and SPS. MARGARITA and DAVID SUZARA
RESPONDENTS:
ST. THERESA`S COLLEGE, MYLENE RHEZA T. ESCUDERO, AND JOHN DOES
G.R. NO. 202666
September 29, 2014

CHARACTERS:
Nenita Julia V. Daluz (Julia)
Julienne Vida Suzara (Julienne)
Chloe Lourdes Taboada (Chloe)
Angela Lindsay Tan (Angela) - person who upload
Mylene Rheza T. Escudero (Escudero) - computer teacher
Kristine Rose Tigol (Tigol) - STC’s Discipline-in-Charge
Sr. Celeste Ma. Purisima Pe (Sr. Purisima) - STC’s high school principal and ICM6Directress
Mussolini S. Yap (Yap) - Assistant Principal
Roswinda Jumiller - Assistant Principal
Dr. Armenia M. Tan (Tan) - Angelas mother,
Rhonda Ave Vivares (Vivares) - mother of Julia, On March 25, 2012 joined as a intervenor

Facts:
 Nenita Julia V. Daluz (Julia) and Julienne Vida Suzara (Julienne are both minors and a
graduating high school students at St. Theresa's College (STC) in Cebu City.
 Angela Lindsay Tan (Angela) uploaded the photos of Julia and Julienne along with several others
on her Facebook Profile
 Julia and Julienne drinking hard liquor and smoking cigarettes inside a bar
 Julia and Julienne along the streets of Cebu wearing articles of clothing that show virtually the
entirety of their black brassieres.
 Escudero reported the matter and, through one of her student’s Facebook page showing a photo
to Kristine Rose Tigol (Tigol)
 Sr. Purisima informed their parents that their child is barred from joining the commencement
exercises scheduled on March 30, 2012
 On March 23, 2012 Dr. Armenia M. Tan (Tan), Angelas mother, filed a Petition for Injunction and
Damages
 Rhonda Ave Vivares (Vivares) - mother of Julia, On March 25, 2012 joined as a intervenor.

Issue:
Whether or not a writ of habeas data should be issued given the factual milieu.

Ruling:
The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or
security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a
private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding
the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party. It is an independent and summary
remedy designed to protect the image, privacy, honor, information, and freedom of information of an
individual, and to provide a forum to enforce one’s right to the truth and to informational privacy. It seeks
to protect a person’s right to control information regarding oneself, particularly in instances in which such
information is being collected through unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful ends. In finding that
respondent STC and its officials did not violate the minors' privacy rights, They find no cogent reason to
disturb the findings and case disposition of the court a quo. Wherefore, the petition is hereby DENIED.