G.R. No.

227200, June 10, 2019

MANUEL B. PABLICO AND MASTER'S PAB RESTO BAR, PETITIONERS, v. NUMERIANO B.

CERRO, JR., MICHAEL CALIGUIRAN, EFREN PANGANIBAN, GENIUS PAUIG, REYNALIE LIM,
GLORIA NAPITAN, RICHARD CARONAN AND MANNY BAGUNO, RESPONDENTS.

Facts:

1. Respondent Cerro works as a bartender in Master's Pab Resto Bar (MPRB). At the former's
suggestion, the petitioner purchased and took over the management of MPRB from its original
owner, the Feliciano family.

2. On the same day, the petitioner took over, he promoted Cerro as Officer-in-Charge with a daily wage
of P200.00, and gave the latter the authority to hire additional employees.

3. Due to several infractions that caused MPRB losses, the petitioner transferred Cerro to another
establishment. Respondents Caliguiran, Panganiban, Pauig, Lim, Napitan, Caronan, and Baguno
received text messages, which they interpreted to mean that they have been terminated from work on
account of their close association to Cerro.

4. Acting on this the respondents then filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries
and benefits, damages and attorney's fees before the NLRC.

Issue: Whether the respondents were terminated.

Ruling: NO, the Court affirms that the rest of the respondents have not been terminated. 

It is a basic principle in illegal dismissal cases that the employees must first establish by
competent evidence the fact of their termination from employment. In this regard, mere allegation does
not suffice, evidence must be substantial and the fact of dismissal must be clear, positive and convincing.

In the case at bar, respondents Caliguiran, Panganiban, Pauig, Lim, Napitan, Caronan, and
Baguno failed to discharge this burden. The only evidence they presented are text messages supposedly
informing them that they have been terminated. However, as opined by the tribunals below, nowhere
from the language thereof can it be remotely inferred that they are being terminated. It was also not
shown that the respondents tried reporting for work, but were prevented to do so.

Jurisprudence settled that the claim of illegal dismissal cannot be sustained in the absence of any showing
of an overt or positive act proving that the employees have been dismissed, as the employees' claim in
that eventuality would be "self-serving, conjectural and of no probative value." In the same vein, the rule
that the employer bears the burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases finds no application in this case as
the petitioner denies having dismissed the respondents, and the latter failed to prove the fact of
termination.
 G.R. No. 227309, August 16, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOCELYN CARLIT Y GAWAT,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
Facts:
1. PO3 Carvajal was assigned at the Dagupan City Police Station when he was tasked to act as poseur
buyer in the buy bust operation against Jocelyn Carlit in the squatters area in Mayombo District of the
city. Their office received information that Carlit is engaged in illegal activities, hence, the buy bust
operation. During their preparation, they recorded the buy bust money to be used in the police
blotter. The police officer did not know whether there was coordination with the PDE.
2. Cadit interposed the defense. of denial. She claimed that she was illegally arrested, and that the
shabu that she allegedly sold to PO3 Carvajal was not from her. She further questioned the chain of
custody of the purported object of the sale, and points out that the buy-bust team failed to inventory,
mark, and photograph the drugs in her presence, with a representative of the Department of Justice
and a barangay official, immediately after her arrest.

Issue: Whether the prosecution failed to prove every link in the chain of custody

Ruling: YES
In People v. Salvador (Salvador): "The integrity and evidentiary value of seized items are
properly preserved for as long as the chain of custody of the same are duly established." "'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
seirure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court. Such
record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person
who had temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody was
made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition."

Here, the substance of PO3 Carvajal's testimony was that he was the poseur-buyer who received
the sachet containing the dangerous drug from Carlit, and that he was the only arresting officer who
handled the same until it was turned over to PSI Todeño at the PNP Crime Laboratory. PSI Todeño
confirmed receiving the narcotic substance from PO3 Carvajal for testing, and added that her specimen
was then handed to one PO2 Manuel, the evidence custodian, for safekeeping.

This is where the chain breaks. Clear in Salvador is that the final link of the chain must be on how the
drug item seized came into the court's physical custody. Unfortunately, PO2 Manuel was never presented
as witness in this case. Needless to say, the probability of the integrity and identity of the corpus
delicti being compromised is present in every single time the prohibited item is being stored or
transported, be it from the PNP crime laboratory directly to the court or otherwise. It was therefore
imperative for the prosecution to have presented as witness PO2 Manuel, and anyone else for that matter
who may have handled the drug after him. For during the interim time - from when the specimen was
placed under his custody until the time it was brought to court - the threat of tampering, alteration, or
substitution of the corpus delicti still existed.
Without PO2 Manuel's testimony, there is no guarantee that the corpus delicti of the offense had been
preserved. This alone is sufficient to warrant accused-appellant Cadit's acquittal in the extant case.
G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. SALVADOR TULAGAN, ACCUSED-
APPELLANT.

Facts:

1. BBB, aunt of the victim AAA, testified that around 10:30 a.m. of October 17, 2011, she noticed a man
looking at AAA outside their house. When AAA asked her permission to go to the bathroom located
outside their house, the man suddenly went near AAA. Out of suspicion, BBB walked to approach
AAA. As BBB came close to AAA, the man left suddenly.
2. After AAA returned from the bathroom, BBB asked what the man was doing to her. AAA did not
reply. She then told AAA to get inside the house. She asked AAA to move her panties down, and
examined her genitalia. She noticed that her genitalia was swollen.
3. AAA then confessed to her about the wrong done to her by appellant whom AAA referred to as
Badong or Salvador Tulagan. AAA cried hard and embraced BBB tightly. AAA asked BBB for her
help and even told her that she wanted Badong to be put in jail.

Issue: Whether the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt because
of the inconsistent testimony of AAA.

Ruling: No, the prosecution successfully discharged the burden of proof in two offenses of rape against
AAA.

It was held that all the elements of sexual assault and statutory rape was duly established. The trial court
relied on the credible and positive declaration of the victim as against the alibi and denial of Tulagan.

Here, in Criminal Case No. SCC-6210 for sexual assault, both the RTC and the CA found AAA's
testimony to be credible, straightforward and unwavering when she testified that Tulagan forcibly
inserted his finger in her vagina. In Criminal Case No. SCC-6211 for statutory rape, both the RTC and the
CA also found that the elements thereof were present, to wit: (1) accused had carnal knowledge of the
victim, and (2) said act was accomplished when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age.
Indubitably, the courts  a quo found that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt
Tulagan's guilt for the crime of rape.

As correctly held by the CA, the fact that some of the details testified to by AAA did not appear
in her Sinumpaang Salaysay does not mean that the sexual assault did not happen. AAA was still able to
narrate all the details of the sexual assault she suffered in Tulagan's hands. AAA's account of her ordeal
being straightforward and candid and corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician,
as well as her positive identification of Tulagan as the perpetrator of the crime, are, thus, sufficient to
support a conviction of rape.
 G.R. No. 227371. October 2, 2019
Catubao v. Sandiganbayan

Facts: Catubao called Perito asking any amount of money for a drinking session with his friends and
metioned that P5,000 will do. Perito immediately informed Ragasa about it. Ragasa proceeded to Perito’s
office and anded him said amount. Catubao finally resolved the case in favor of Ragasa.

Issue: Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved that Catubao is guilty of Direct Bribery

Ruling; No

The crime of direct bribery as defined in Art. 210 of the RPC consists of the following elements: 1.
That the accused is a public officer; 2. That he received directly or through another some gift or present,
offer or promise; 3. That such gift, present or promise has been given in consideration of his commission
of some crime, or any act not constituting a crime, or to refrain from doing something which is his official
duty to do; and 4. That the crime or act relates to the exercise of his functions as a public officer.

Here, the third element was not duly proven. The prosecution claimed that the P3,000 was
solicited by Catubao in exchange for finally acting on the estaa cases filed against Ragasa that were then
pending. The Court holds that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses failed to establish beyond
reasonable doubt the third element. This is so because the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were
so marred by inconsistencies that they are no longer believable. Atty. Perito testified that the first time
Catubao asked money from him was around Dec. 16,17, or 18,2008. On direct examination, he said that
Catubado demanded money from him via phone call, and that he called Ragasa after to tell himd that
Catubao was demanding money. Yet, on cross-examination, Atty. Perito was so confused about the
supposed incident as to when Catubao actually demanded money.
 G.R. No. 228002, June 10, 2019

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. OSCAR PEDRACIO GABRIEL, JR.,

ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Facts:

1. Acting on the information received, the Chief of Police, Col. Tabajora, immediately formed a buy-bust
team. After a briefing, the team coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA),
prepared the buy-bust money and recorded their operation in their blotter book. Thereafter, the team
proceeded to the target area.

2. When the team reached Barangay Cupang, PO1 Gangan alighted from the vehicle and walked going
to appellant's house while the other members of the team secretly followed him. Upon arriving at
appellant's house, PO1 Gangan knocked on the door. Somebody asked who he was, to whom PO1
Gangan replied, "pa iskor naman." PO1 Gangan was told to wait for a while. Thereafter, appellant
opened the door and PO1 Gangan immediately handed to him the marked money. Thereafter,
appellant handed to PO1 Gangan a plastic sachet of shabu. At that point, PO1 Gangan made the pre-
arranged signal by scratching his head and the other members of the team proceeded to the scene and
introduced themselves as police officers to appellant.

Issue: Whether the prosecution failed to prove the guild of Gabriel beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling: Yes, the Court acquits Gabriel for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.

In cases involving dangerous drugs, the confiscated drug constitutes the very corpus delicti  of the
offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction.  In this regard, Section
21, Article II of RA 9165, the applicable law at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, outlines
the procedure which the police officers 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 of the same and the seized drugs must be turned over to a forensic laboratory within
twenty-four (24) hours from confiscation for examination.

In the case at bar, the buy-bust team failed to comply with the requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165.
First, the arresting officers failed to mark and photograph the seized illegal drug at the place of arrest.  In
the instant case, however, no explanation or justification was given on why the inventory and
photographing were "not practicable" at the scene of the apprehension. Second, none of the three required
witnesses was present at the time of seizure and apprehension. Finally, the buy-bust team proffered no
explanation whatsoever to justify the non-compliance with the mandatory rules.