People v. Wilson

[G.R. No. 184546 : February 22, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, A…, APPELLANT.
: February 2010 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions 5/9/21, 1:26 PM
Home Law Firm Law Library Laws
Jurisprudence
February 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme
Court Jurisprudence
Search
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2010 >

February 2010 Decisions > [G.R. No. 184546 :
ChanRobles February 22, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Professional APPELLEE, VS. WILSON SUAN Y JOLONGON,
Review, Inc. APPELLANT.:
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 184546 : February 22, 2010]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS.

WILSON SUAN Y JOLONGON, APPELLANT.
ChanRobles On-
Line Bar Review DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010februarydecisions.php?id=1251 Page 1 of 67
[G.R. No. 184546 : February 22, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, A…, APPELLANT. : February 2010 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions 5/9/21, 1:26 PM
Once again we find occasion to reiterate the most

echoed constitutional guarantee that an accused in
criminal prosecutions is presumed innocent until his
guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt.[1] To

overcome the presumption of innocence and arrive at a
finding of guilt, the prosecution is duty bound to
establish with moral certainty the elemental acts
constituting the offense. In prosecutions involving
narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the
corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its
existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.[2] The identity of the
ChanRobles CPA narcotic substance must therefore be established
Review Online beyond reasonable doubt.[3]
We are compelled to acquit appellant in this case

because the prosecution miserably failed to establish
the identity of the substance allegedly seized from him.
In addition, we find that there was a break in the chain
of custody thereby casting doubt on the integrity and
evidentiary value of the substance allegedly seized
from the appellant.
This is an appeal from the Decision[4] dated March 25,

2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No.
00054. The CA affirmed in toto the Decision[5] dated

November 17, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Lanao del Norte, Branch 01, Iligan City finding
ChanRobles Special
appellant Wilson Suan y Jolongon guilty of violation of
Lecture Series
Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Factual Antecedents
On August 12, 2003, an Information was filed with the

RTC of Lanao del Norte, Branch 6 against appellant for
violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. The case
was docketed as Criminal Case No. 10315. Subsequent
to his arraignment on September 6, 2003 wherein he
pleaded not guilty and before the pre-trial, appellant
filed an Urgent Motion for Re-Investigation[6] which the
trial court granted on September 19, 2003.[7] As a

result of the re-investigation, an Amended
Information[8] was filed charging appellant with

violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. The
accusatory portion of the Amended Information reads:
The undersigned Prosecutor III of Iligan

City accuses WILSON SUAN y Jolongon for
VIOLATION OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165,
committed as follows:
That on or about August 12,

2003, in the City of Iligan,
Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused, without
being authorized by law, did
then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have
in his possession, custody and
control one (1) sachet of
methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug
commonly known as shabu,
weighing more or less 0.01

gram.
Contrary to and in violation of

Republic Act No. 9165, Article II,
Section 11, thereof.
City of Iligan, October 13, 2003.
Sea water nasal

The Amended Information was raffled to Branch 01
spray wherein appellant was arraigned and to which offense
he pleaded not guilty.
Help manage your

The evidence for the prosecution, as culled from the
everyday nasal problems
testimonies of PO2 Allan Labasano (PO2 Labasano),
the natural way
PO1 Samsodim Gondol (PO1 Gondol),[9] and Forensic
Chemist Police Senior Inspector April Carvajal[10]

Aqua Maris (Forensic Chemist Carvajal), is as follows:
On August 12, 2003 at about 3:30 a.m., PO2 Labasano

and PO1 Gondol conducted a buy-bust operation at
Shop Now Purok 4, Saray, Iligan City. PO1 Gondol, who was
provided with two pieces of P50.00[11] bills, acted as

the buyer while PO2 Labasano served as back-up. Upon
reaching the target area, the two saw appellant sitting
outside the house. PO1 Gondol approached appellant
and the latter asked the former if he wanted to buy a
narcotic substance. PO1 Gondol replied "I will buy
"Piso", meaning P100.00. After a brief exchange of the
money and the stuff, appellant was informed of his
constitutional rights and thereafter was arrested.
Appellant was brought to the police headquarters and
presented before the investigator. At the police
headquarters, PO2 Labasano prepared a Certificate of

Inventory. The buy-bust money and the plastic sachet
containing the stuff they recovered were turned over to
the evidence custodian as related by PO1 Gondol, and
to the Team Leader, as testified to by PO2 Labasano.
Upon request, the plastic sachet was sent to the PNP
Regional Crime Laboratory for examination.[12]
Forensic Chemist Carvajal received the written request

for laboratory examination of one sachet containing
white crystalline substance submitted to their office.
[13] She conducted the test and the result showed that
it contained methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu,

a dangerous drug. She then prepared Chemistry Report
No. D-500-2003[14] on her finding on the tests.
Appellant denied the charge against him. He claimed

that while he was sleeping on a bench beside the road,
PO2 Labasano suddenly held his arm and handcuffed
him. PO2 Labasano inserted his hand into appellant's
pocket, frisked him and shabu was later shown to him.
He was brought to Tipanoy for a drug test and detained
in jail for violation of the anti-drugs law.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
Giving full faith and credence to the prosecution's

version, the trial court found the test-buy and buy-bust
operation established. In its Decision dated November
17, 2004, the trial court found appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged and disposed as
follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the

Court find[s] the guilt of the accused
WILSON SUAN y JOLONGON beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged
against him in the information and hereby
sentences him to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment from 12 years and 1 day to
20 years and to pay a fine of P100,000.00.
The shabu taken from him is hereby

confiscated in favor of the government.
SO ORDERED.[15]
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Appellant appealed the trial court's Decision to the CA.

Finding no error
committed by the trial court in convicting appellant of

the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drug, the
CA affirmed the trial court's decision.
Undaunted, appellant seeks a final recourse before this

Court via the instant appeal.
In the Resolution dated November 24, 2008, we

accepted the appeal and notified the parties that they
may file their respective supplemental briefs if they so
desire. However, both parties manifested that they are
adopting their respective briefs earlier submitted with
the CA.
In support of his prayer for a reversal of the verdict of

his conviction, appellant contends: a) that the
For a healthy, happy
testimonies of the police operatives contained material
nose inconsistencies and contradictions as to (i) whether a
surveillance
Breathe free, breathe clean, was made prior to the buy-bust operation,
the natural
way (ii) whether there was marked money used in the
Aqua Maris operation, and, (iii) the amount of the shabu sold; b)
there was no proper identification of the illegal drug; c)
Shop Nowthe prosecution witnesses failed to testify on matters
regarding the possession of the illegal drug; and, d)

the defense of alibi was not properly appreciated.
February-2010 Our Ruling

Jurisprudence
The appeal is meritorious.
[G.R. No. 188002 : The inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police

February 01, 2010] operatives as regards prior surveillance
GOODRICH and use of marked money are immaterial.
MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION & MR. While it may be conceded that there are a number of
NILO CHUA GOY, inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution's
PETITIONERS, VS. principal witnesses as alluded to above, they are not, in
EMERLINA ATIVO, our view, substantial enough to impair the veracity of
LOVITO SEBUANO, the prosecution's evidence that a buy-bust operation
MICHAEL resulting in the arrest of appellant, was indeed
FERNANDEZ, conducted. The maxim falsus in unus, falsus in
JUNIFERÂ· CASAS, omnibus does not lay down a categorical test of
ROLANDO ISLA, credibility. While witnesses may differ in their
ELISEO DEL recollection of an incident, it does not necessarily follow
ROSARIO, MARK JON from their disagreements that both or all of them are
MARTIN, EDISON not credible and their testimonies completely discarded
GAMIDO, WARRY as worthless.
BALINTON, ROBERT
RAGO AND ROBERTO A prior surveillance much less a lengthy one, is not
MENDOZA, necessary during an entrapment as in the case at
RESPONDENTS. bench. To be sure, there is no textbook method of
conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has left to
[G.R. No. 187155 : the discretion of police authorities the selection of
February 01, 2010] effective means to apprehend drug dealers. In this
PEOPLE OF THE case, the buy-bust operation was set up precisely to
PHILIPPINES, test the veracity of the informant's tip and to arrest the
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, malefactor if the report proved to be true. Thus in one
VS. MARIANO case[16] we emphasized our refusal to establish on a
OFEMIANO ALIAS priori basis what detailed acts the police authorities
MANING, ACCUSED- might credibly undertake in their entrapment
APPELLANT. operations.
[G.R. No. 183577 : The doubt cast by the appellant on whether marked
February 01, 2010] money was used in the operation did not in any way
PEOPLE OF THE shatter the factuality of the transaction. Neither law
PHILIPPINES, nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of
APPELLEE, VS.
the money used in a buy-bust operation.[17] Much less
HILARIO ESCOTON,
is it required that the money be marked. In fact, not
APPELLANT.
even the absence or non-presentation of the marked
money would weaken the evidence for the prosecution.
[G.R. No. 177361 :
[18] The elements necessary to show that the crime
February 01, 2010]
had indeed been committed are proof that the illicit
ARMANDO VIDAR @
transaction took place coupled with the presentation in
"RICKY", NORBERTO
court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug.[19]
BUTALON,(â€ )
SONNY MARBELLA @
It is a fundamental rule that the trial court's findings
"SPIKE" AND JOHN
that are factual in nature and that involve credibility
DOES AND PETER
are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross
DOES, PETITIONERS,
misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary and
VS. PEOPLE OF THE
unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such
PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT. findings.[20] The rule finds an even more stringent
application where said findings are sustained by the

[G.R. No. 162336 : CA.[21] However, this rule will not apply in this case. As
February 01, 2010] will be discussed shortly, the courts below overlooked
HILARIO P. SORIANO, two significant and substantial facts which if
PETITIONER, VS. considered, as we do now consider, will affect the
PEOPLE OF THE outcome of the case.
PHILIPPINES,
BANGKO SENTRAL The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable
NG PILIPINAS (BSP), doubt the identity of the substance recovered from the
PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT appellant
INSURANCE AND
CORPORATION The main issue in the case at bench is whether the
(PDIC), PUBLIC prosecution witnesses were able to properly identify
PROSECUTOR the dangerous drug taken from appellant. For while the
ANTONIO C. BUAN, drug may be admitted in evidence it does not
AND STATE necessarily follow that the same should be given
PROSECUTOR evidentiary weight. It must be stressed that
ALBERTO R. admissibility should not be equated with its probative
FONACIER, value in proving the corpus delicti.
RESPONDENTS.[1]
Appellant submits that the shabu alleged to have been

[A.M. No. 08-2- sold was not properly identified by the police officers
107-RTC : February thus rendering doubtful and open to suspicion if the
01, 2010] REQUEST shabu submitted for examination is indeed the same
OF JUDGE NIÃ‘O A. substance sold by him.
BATINGANA,
REGIONAL TRIAL We agree. As we have stated at the outset, the
COURT, BRANCH 6, prosecution miserably failed to establish the identity of
MATI, DAVAO the substance allegedly recovered from the appellant.
ORIENTAL FOR Records show that while the police officers were able to
EXTENSION OF TIME prove the factuality of the buy-bust operation, the
TO DECIDE CRIMINAL prosecution dismally failed to prove the identity of the
CASE NO. 4745-05. substance taken from appellant.
[A.M. No. P-10- The Certificate of Inventory[22] prepared by PO2

2758 (Formerly OCA Labasano merely stated that a sachet of a substance
IPI No. 08-2957-P) : weighing 0.01 gram was seized from the appellant.
February 02, 2010] PO2 Labasano made no mention that he placed some
JUDGE DELIA P. markings on the sachet for purposes of future
NOEL-BERTULFO, identification. Thus:
MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURT, PALOMPON,
LEYTE, TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
COMPLAINANT, VS.
DYNDEE P. NUÑEZ, THIS IS TO CERTIFY that an inventory was
COURT AIDE, conducted in connection with the following
MUNICIPAL TRIAL operation:
COURT, PALOMPON,
LEYTE, RESPONDENT. Persons Arrested : Wilson Suan Y Jolongon
Date/Time of Arrest : 3:30 AM of 12 August
[G.R. No. 185588 : 2003
February 02, 2010] Place of Arrest : Purok 4, Barangay Saray,
PHILIPPINE BRITISH Iligan City
ASSURANCE
COMPANY, INC., This is to certify further that the following
PETITIONER, VS. items were seized during the said
REPUBLIC OF THE operation:
PHILIPPINES,
One [1] sachet of suspected shabu
REPRESENTED BY
THE BUREAU OF weighing more or less .01 gram
CUSTOMS (BOC), Two [2] pieces Php 50.00 peso bill - marked
RESPONDENT. money
[G.R. No. 181502 : x x x x (Emphasis supplied)

February 02, 2010]
FLORENCIA G. DIAZ,
However, we find it rather odd that in the Request for
PETITIONER, VS.
REPUBLIC OF THE Laboratory Examination/Urine Test[23] prepared by
PHILIPPINES, Police Chief Inspector Jesus Atchico Rebua and

RESPONDENT. addressed to the Provincial Chief of Police, Lanao del
Norte, the item allegedly seized from the appellant was
[G.R. No. 181357 : already marked as Exhibit "A". Thus:
February 02, 2010]
MALAYAN EMPLOYEES
xxxx
ASSOCIATION-FFW
AND RODOLFO
2. Request the conduct of laboratory
MANGALINO,
examination of evidence to determine the
PETITIONERS, VS.
presence of Dangerous Drugs or controlled
MALAYAN INSURANCE
precursors and essential chemicals:
COMPANY, INC.,
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBITS
[G.R. No. 170365 :

Exh.one small heat-sealed, plastic
February 02, 2010]
"A" transparent sachet containing
ABDUL GAFFAR P.M.
white crystalline granules
DIBARATUN,
suspected to be shabu weighing
PETITIONER, VS.
more or less 0.01 grams marked as
COMMISSION ON
Exh. "A" placed in a stapled
ELECTIONS AND
transparent plastic bag.
ABDUL CARIM MALA
ABUBAKAR,
x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 170405 : Still, in the Memorandum[24] for the Regional Chief of
February 02, 2010] the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory
RAYMUNDO S. DE Office prepared by the Provincial Chief, the item
LEON, PETITIONER, subject of the request for laboratory examination was
VS. BENITA T. ONG. already referred to as with markings. Thus:
[1], RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 169122 : xxxx
February 02, 2010]
MARCELINO 2. In connection with the above reference,

DOMINGO, request conduct laboratory examination on
PETITIONER, VS. the specimen described below to determine
COURT OF APPEALS, the presence of dangerous drugs.
AGAPITA DOMINGO,
ANA DOMINGO, EXH. A - One (1) small heat-sealed
HEIRS OF transparent plastic sachet marked as
GAUDENCIO "Exhibit A" containing white crystalline
DOMINGO, NAMELY: substance suspected to be SHABU
DOROTEO DOMINGO, placed inside a big staple-sealed
JULITA DOMINGO, transparent plastic pack with markings.
AMANDO DOMINGO,
AND ARCEL x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
DOMINGO; HEIRS OF
JULIAN DOMINGO,
Thus, when the Certificate of Inventory was prepared
NAMELY: JULIAN
by P02 Labasano, the item allegedly seized from the
DOMINGO, JR. AND
appellant bore no markings. However, in the Request
PONCIANO
for Laboratory Examination/Urine Test prepared by the
DOMINGO; HEIRS OF
Provincial Chief of Police, the item being subjected for
EDILBERTA
laboratory examination was already referred to as
DOMINGO, NAMELY:
Exhibit A. Next, in the Memorandum of the Regional
ANITA DOMINGO AND
Chief of PNP, the item that was referred to the Forensic
ROSIE DOMINGO;
Chemist already had other markings. From the
HEIR OF FELIPE
foregoing, there is already doubt as to the identity of
DOMINGO, NAMELY:
the substance being subjected for laboratory
LORNA DOMINGO;
examination. At this time, we are no longer sure
AND HEIRS OF
whether the item allegedly seized by PO2 Labasano
GERONIMO
from the appellant was the same item referred to by
DOMINGO, NAMELY:
the Provincial Chief and then the Regional Chief of PNP
EMILY DOMINGO AND
to the Forensic Chemist for laboratory examination.
ARISTON DOMINGO
REPRESENTED BY
Worse, in the Certificate of Inventory prepared by PO2
ROLANDO DOMINGO,
Labasano, the Memorandum prepared by the Provincial
RESPONDENTS.
Chief, and the transmittal letter prepared by the

[G.R. No. 166356 : Regional Chief, the substance supposedly weighed 0.01
February 02, 2010] gram. However, in the Chemistry Report No. D-500-
BENEDICTA M. 2003[25] prepared by Forensic Chemist Carvajal, the
SAMSON AND substance was indicated as weighing 0.1 gram. Thus:
MARCIAL M.
SAMSON,
xxxx
PETITIONERS,
PRESENT: VS. HON.
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
JUDGE GERALDINE C.
FIEL-MACARAIG,
A = One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic
BANK OF THE
sachet with markings EXHIBIT A containing
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,
0.1 gram of white crystalline substance,
FAR EAST BANK AND
placed in a transparent plastic bag with
TRUST CO., ATTY.
markings EXHIBIT A.
JULIA CECILY
COCHING-SOSITO,
xxxx
AND THE REGISTER
OF DEEDS FOR
MARIKINA CITY,
Indeed there is absolutely nothing in the evidence on
RESPONDENTS.
record that tends to show identification of the drug. For
sure, the difference particularly in the weight of the
[G.R. No. 165003 :
substance is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
February 02, 2010]
THE CITY MAYOR OF
Sale or possession of a dangerous drug can never be
BAGUIO AND THE
proven without seizure and identification of the
HEAD OF THE
prohibited drug. In People v. Magat,[26] we held that
DEMOLITION TEAM -
the existence of dangerous drugs is a condition sine
ENGR. NAZITA
qua non for conviction for the illegal sale and
BAÑEZ,
possession of dangerous drugs, it being the very
PETITIONERS, VS.
corpus delicti of the crime. In prosecutions involving
ATTY. BRAIN
narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the
MASWENG,
corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its
REGIONAL HEARING
OFFICER, NCIP-CAR, existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction

THE HEIRS OF beyond reasonable doubt. Of paramount importance
JUDITH CARIÑO, therefore in these cases is that the identity of the
JACQUELINE CARIÑO dangerous drug be likewise established beyond
AND THE HEIRS OF reasonable doubt.[27]
MATEO CARIÑO AND
BAYOSA ORTEGA,** It is lamentable that the trial court and even the
RESPONDENTS. appellate court overlooked the significance of the
absence of this glaring detail in the records of the case
[G.R. No. 163280 : but instead focused their deliberation on the
February 02, 2010] warrantless arrest of appellant in arriving at their
DORIS U. conclusions.
SUNBANUN,
PETITIONER, VS. The prosecution failed to establish the unbroken chain
AURORA B. GO, of custody of the confiscated substance.
RESPONDENT.
Not only did the prosecution fail to identify the

[G.R. No. 164860 : substance that was allegedly seized from the appellant;
February 02, 2010] it also failed to establish that the chain of custody of
HILTON HEAVY the substance was unbroken.
EQUIPMENT
CORPORATION AND In his direct testimony, PO2 Labasano testified that:
PETER LIM,
PETITIONERS, VS.
Q. After arresting the accused, what
ANANIAS P. DY,
transpired thereafter?
RESPONDENT.
A. We brought him in our office and we
filed a case against him.
[G.R. No. 157861 :
February 02, 2010]
Q. By the way, who brought the sachet
BIBIANA FARMS AND
which you bought from the accused to
MILLS, INC.,
the crime laboratory for examination?
PETITIONER, VS.
A. We, I with Gundol.
ARTURO LADO,
RESPONDENT.
Q. And who received that sachet?

[G.R. No. 126297 : A. A certain person who was on duty at
February 02, 2010] that time but I do not know him.[28]
PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES, INC.,
In contrast, PO2 Labasano stated during his cross-
PETITIONER, VS. THE
examination that he entrusted the substance recovered
COURT OF APPEALS
from the appellant to their team leader. Thus:
AND NATIVIDAD AND
ENRIQUE AGANA,
RESPONDENTS. [G.R. Q. Who was in possession of that sachet of
NO. 126467] shabu?
NATIVIDAD
A. When they approached the accused, I
[SUBSTITUTED BY
saw the accused taking the sachet of
HER CHILDREN
shabu from his pocket and putting it on
MARCELINO AGANA
his hand and I did not see what had
III, ENRIQUE AGANA,
happened already.
JR., EMMA AGANA-
ANDAYA, JESUS
Q. You did not see who received the
AGANA AND
sachet of shabu coming from the
RAYMUND AGANA]
suspect?
AND ENRIQUE
A. I was able to take of that but it was
AGANA,
really Gundol who bought that shabu
PETITIONERS, VS.
from him.
THE COURT OF
APPEALS AND JUAN
Q. And who recovered the marked money
FUENTES,
from the accused?
RESPONDENTS. [G.R.
A. It was Gundol also.
NO. 127590]
Q. So, it was PO1 Gundol who was in

[G.R. No. 183099 :
possession of this marked money and
February 03, 2010]
one (1) sachet of shabu from the time
PEOPLE OF THE
the suspect was arrested, is it not?
PHILIPPINES,
A. Yes, sir.
APPELLEE, VS.
RACHELLE BALAGAN Q. And what did you do with that marked

AND HERMINIA money [or] that alleged shabu being
AVILA, APPELLANTS. confiscated from the accused?
A. We turned it over to our team leader.
[G.R. No. 182221 :
February 03, 2010] Q. Are you referring to SPO2 CaÃ±onero?
THEMISTOCLES A. A. Yes, sir.[29]
SAÑO, JR.,
PETITIONER, VS.
The foregoing testimonies of PO2 Labasano are
COMMISSION ON
contradictory. At first, he testified that the substance
ELECTIONS, THE
recovered from the appellant was delivered to the
MUNICIPAL BOARD
crime laboratory but he did not know who received the
OF CANVASSERS OF
same. On cross-examination, however, he claimed that
DULAG, LEYTE,
the substance was delivered to their team leader, SPO2
FERDINAND A.
CaÃ±onero.
SERRANO, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS ACTING
Notably, the prosecution failed to put on the witness
CHAIRMAN OF THE
stand SPO2 CaÃ±onero or the person from the crime
MUNICIPAL BOARD
laboratory who allegedly received the substance.
OF CANVASSERS OF
Consequently, there was a break in the chain of
DULAG, LEYTE, AND
custody because no mention is made as regards what
MANUEL SIA QUE,
happened to the substance from the time SPO2
RESPONDENTS.
CaÃ±onero received it to the time the transmittal letter
was prepared by Police Chief Inspector Jesus Atchico
[G.R. No. 179117 :
Rebua addressed to the Provincial Chief of Police,
February 03, 2010]
Lanao del Norte requesting for laboratory
NORTHWEST
examination/urine test. We do not know how or from
AIRLINES, INC.,
whom Police Chief Inspector Jesus Atchico Rebua
PETITIONER, VS.
received the substance.
SPOUSES EDWARD J.
HESHAN AND NELIA
L. HESHAN AND There is no dispute that in the Chemistry Report[30] it
DARA GANESSA L. was established that the object examined was found
HESHAN, positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu,
REPRESENTED BY a dangerous drug. While the Forensic Chemist showed

HER PARENTS the contents of the sachet as the substance she
EDWARD AND NELIA examined and confirmed to be shabu, nonetheless, it is
HESHAN, not positively and convincingly clear from her
RESPONDENTS. testimony that what was submitted for laboratory
examination and later presented in court as evidence
[G.R. No. 166577 : was the same shabu actually recovered from the
February 03, 2010] appellant. The Forensic Chemist did not testify at all as
SPOUSES MORRIS to the identity of the person from whom she received
CARPO AND the specimen for examination.
SOCORRO CARPO,
PETITIONERS, VS. Verily, there is a break in the chain of custody of the
AYALA LAND, seized substance. The standard operating procedure on
INCORPORATED, the seizure and custody of the drug as mandated in
RESPONDENT. Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and its Implementing
Rules and Regulations was not complied with. As we
[GR. No. 166536 : observed, the chain of custody of the drug from the
February 04, 2010] time the same was turned over to the Team Leader, as
FLOR MARTINEZ, testified by PO2 Labasano or the Records Custodian as
REPRESENTED BY related by PO1 Gondol, to the time of submission to the
MACARIO MARTINEZ, crime laboratory was not clearly shown. There is no
AUTHORIZED indication whether the Team Leader and the Records
REPRESENTATIVE Custodian were one and the same person. Neither was
AND ATTORNEY-IN- there reference to the person who submitted it to the
FACT, PETITIONER, crime laboratory. The prosecution needs to establish
VS. ERNESTO G. that the Team Leader or Records Custodian indeed
GARCIA AND submitted such particular drug to the crime laboratory
EDILBERTO M. BRUA, for examination. The failure on the part of the Team
RESPONDENTS. Leader or Records Custodian as the case may be, to
testify on what he did with the drug while he was in
[G.R. No. 188602 : possession resulted in a break in the chain of custody
February 04, 2010] of the drug. There is obviously a missing link from the
PEOPLE OF THE point when the drug was in his hands to the point when
PHILIPPINES, the same was submitted for examination. The failure to
APPELLEE, VS. FORD establish the evidence's chain of custody is fatal to the
GUTIERREZ Y prosecution's case. Under no circumstance can we
DIMAANO, consider or even safely assume that the integrity and
APPELLANT. evidentiary value of the drug was properly preserved
by the apprehending officers. There can be no crime of
[G.R. No. 179800 : illegal possession of a prohibited drug when nagging
February 04, 2010] doubts persist on whether the item confiscated was the
REPUBLIC OF THE same specimen examined and established to be the
PHILIPPINES prohibited drug.[31]
REPRESENTED BY
THE COMMISSIONER Jurisprudence abounds with cases where deviation
OF INTERNAL from the standard procedure in an anti-narcotics
REVENUE, operation produces doubts as to the identity and origin
PETITIONER, VS. of the drug which inevitably results to the acquittal of
PHILIPPINE
the accused. In People v. Mapa,[32] we acquitted the
AIRLINES, INC.
appellant after the prosecution failed to clarify whether
(PAL), RESPONDENT.
the specimen submitted to the National Bureau of
Investigation for laboratory examination was the same
[G.R. No. 179570 :
one allegedly taken from the appellant. Also in People
February 04, 2010]
v. Dimuske,[33] we ruled that the failure to prove that
EGAP MADSALI,
the specimen of marijuana examined by the forensic
SAJIRON LAJIM AND
chemist was that seized from the accused was fatal to
MARON LAJIM,
the prosecution's case. The same holds true in People
PETITIONER, VS.
v. Casimiro[34] and in Zarraga v. People[35] where the
PEOPLE OF THE
appellant was acquitted for failure of the prosecution to
PHILIPPINES,
establish the identity of the prohibited drug which
RESPONDENT.
constitutes the corpus delicti. Recently in Catuiran v.
[G.R. No. 178908 : People,[36] we acquitted the petitioner for failure of the
February 04, 2010] prosecution witnesses to observe the standard
SPOUSES EULOGIO procedure regarding the authentication of the evidence.
N. ANTAZO AND
NELIA C. ANTAZO, In the light of the above disquisition, we find no further
PETITIONERS, VS. need to discuss the
LEONIDES DOBLADA,
DIOSDADO other remaining argument regarding the propriety of
CELESTRA, appellant's conviction for violation of Section 11, Article
LEOPOLDO II of RA 9165 when the evidence adduced and proved
CELESTRA, during the trial consists mainly of acts pertaining to a
FERDINAND sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of
CELESTRA, AND the said law. From whatever angle we look at it,
ROBERTO DOBLADA, whether it was a sale or merely possession of the
RESPONDENTS. dangerous drug, we arrive at the same conclusion that
the prosecution has not proven the indispensable
[G.R. No. 176464 : element of corpus delicti of the crime. To repeat, the
February 04, 2010] existence of dangerous drugs is a condition sine qua
EDWARD N. LIM, non for conviction for the illegal sale and possession of
PETITIONER, VS. MA. dangerous drugs, it being the very corpus delicti of the
CHERYL STA. CRUZ- crime.
LIM, RESPONDENT.
Based on these findings and following our precedents in
[G.R. No. 171194 : the afore-mentioned cases, we are compelled to
February 04, 2010] reverse the judgment of conviction in this case.
ASIAN TERMINALS, Consequently, we need not pass upon the merits of
INC., PETITIONER, appellant's defense of denial and frame-up. It is a well-
VS. DAEHAN FIRE entrenched rule in criminal law that the conviction of
AND MARINE an accused must be based on the strength of the
INSURANCE CO., prosecution's evidence and not on the weakness or
LTD., RESPONDENT. absence of evidence of the defense.[37]
[A.C. No. 6593 : WHEREFORE, on ground of reasonable doubt, the

February 04, 2010] instant appeal is GRANTED and the challenged
MAELOTISEA S. Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No.
GARRIDO, 00054 affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court
COMPLAINANT, VS. of Lanao del Norte, Branch 01, in Criminal Case No.
ATTYS. ANGEL E. 10315 is hereby REVERSED. Appellant WILSON
GARRIDO AND SUAN y JOLONGON is hereby ACQUITTED and
ROMANA P. ordered released from detention unless his further
VALENCIA, confinement is warranted for some other lawful cause

RESPONDENTS. or ground.
[G.R. No. 162924 : SO ORDERED.

February 04, 2010]
MID-PASIG LAND Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, Abad, and Perez,
DEVELOPMENT JJ., concur.
CORPORATION,
Endnotes:
PETITIONER, VS.
MARIO TABLANTE,
[1] Constitution, Article III, Section 14(12).
DOING BUSINESS
UNDER THE NAME
[2] People v. Simbahon, 449 Phil. 74, 83
AND STYLE ECRM
ENTERPRISES; (2003); Corino v. People, G.R. No. 178757,
ROCKLAND March 13, 2009.
CONSTRUCTION
[3] Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April
COMPANY; LAURIE
LITAM; AND MC 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 632.
HOME DEPOT, INC.,
RESPONDENTS. [4] CA rollo, pp. 129-145; penned by
Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja and
[G.R. No. 179717 : concurred in by Associate Justices Mario V.
February 05, 2010] Lopez and Elihu Y. YbaÃ±ez.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, [5] Records, pp. 62-67; penned by Judge
APPELLEE, VS. NIEVA Mamindiara P. Mangotara.

ALBERTO Y DE NIEVA,
APPELLANT. [6] Id. at 18.
[G.R. No. 185614 :

[7] Id. at 20.
February 05, 2010]
ANGELITA DELOS
[8] Id. at 21.
REYES FLORES,
PETITIONER, VS.
PEOPLE OF THE [9] Spelled as Gundol in the TSN.
PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT. [10] Sometimes spelled as Carbajal in the
records.
[G.R. No. 183417 :
February 05, 2010] [11] Exhibit "A" and "A-1", records, p. 53.
MINDANAO TIMES
CORPORATION,
[12] Exhibit "D", id. at 56.
PETITIONER, VS.
MITCHEL R.
[13] Exhibit "E", id. at 56 (posterior part).
CONFESOR,
RESPONDENT.
[14] Exhibit "F", id. at 57.
[G.R. No. 181842 :

February 05, 2010] [15] Id. at 67.
METROPOLITAN BANK
AND TRUST CO. AND [16] People v. Gonzales, 430 Phil. 504, 514
SOLIDBANK (2002).
CORPORATION,
PETITIONERS, VS. [17] People v. Fabro, 382 Phil. 166, 177
BERNARDITA H.
(2000).
PEREZ,
REPRESENTED BY
[18] People v. Simbulan, G.R. No. 100754,
HER ATTORNEY-IN-
October 13, 1992, 214 SCRA 537, 546.
FACT PATRIA H.
PEREZ, RESPONDENT.
[19] People v. Chang, 382 Phil. 669, 684
[G.R. No. 180302 : (2000).
February 05, 2010]

[20] People v. Julian-Fernandez, 423 Phil.
JIMMY ARENO, JR.,
PETITIONER, VS. 895, 911-912 (2001).
SKYCABLE PCC-
BAGUIO, [21] People v. Cabugatan, G.R. No. 172019,
RESPONDENT. February 12, 2007, 515 SCRA 537, 547.
[G.R. No. 175097 : [22] Exhibit "2", records, p. 6.
February 05, 2010]

ALLIED BANKING [23] Exhibit "B", id. at 54.
CORPORATION,
PETITIONER, VS.
[24] Supra note 12.
COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE,
[25] Supra note 14.
RESPONDENT.
[26] G.R. No. 179939, September 29, 2008,

[G.R. No. 169706 :
February 05, 2010] 567 SCRA 86, 94.
SPOUSES WILLIAM
GENATO AND [27] Catuiran v. People, G.R. No. 175647,
REBECCA GENATO, May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA 567.

PETITIONERS, VS.
RITA VIOLA, [28] TSN, April 12, 2004, pp. 5-6.
RESPONDENT.
[29] Id. at 14-15.
[G.R. No. 168785 :
February 05, 2010] [30] Supra note 14.
HERALD BLACK
DACASIN,
[31] Valdez v. People, G.R. No. 170180,
PETITIONER, VS.
November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 611, 628-
SHARON DEL MUNDO
629.
DACASIN,
RESPONDENT.
[32] G.R. No. 91014, March 31, 1993, 220
[G.R. No. 161178 : SCRA 670, 679.
February 05, 2010]

[33] G.R. No. 108453, July 11, 1994, 234
ADELA B. DELGADO,
PETITIONER, VS. SCRA 51, 61.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND [34] 432 Phil. 966, 979 (2002).
EMMANUEL ANG
JARANILLA, [35] G.R. No. 162064, March 14, 2006, 484
RESPONDENTS. SCRA 639, 647.
[G.R. No. 184434 : [36] G.R. No. 175647, May 8, 2009, 587
February 08, 2010]
SCRA 567.
G.G. SPORTSWEAR
MANUFACTURING
[37] People v. Teves, 408 Phil. 82, 102
CORP. AND NARESH
(2001).
K. GIDWANI,
PETITIONERS, VS.
BANCO DE ORO
UNIBANK, INC.,
PHILIPPINE
Back to Home | Back to Main
INVESTMENT ONE
(SPV-AMC), INC. AND
THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK OF COURT
AND EX OFFICIO
SHERIFF OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT OF MAKATI
CITY, BRANCH 133,
AS REPRESENTED BY
ATTY. ENGRACIO M.
ESCASINAS, JR.,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 180042 :

February 08, 2010]
COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE,
PETITIONER, VS.
IRONCON BUILDERS
AND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 178090 :

February 08, 2010]
PANASONIC
COMMUNICATIONS
IMAGING
CORPORATION OF
THE PHILIPPINES
(FORMERLY
MATSUSHITA
BUSINESS MACHINE
CORPORATION OF
THE PHILIPPINES),
PETITIONER, VS.
COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 172149 :

February 08, 2010]
SESSION DELIGHTS
ICE CREAM AND FAST
FOODS, PETITIONER,
VS. THE HON. COURT
OF APPEALS (SIXTH
DIVISION), HON.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION
(SECOND DIVISION)
AND ADONIS
ARMENIO M. FLORA,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 169711 :

February 08, 2010]
HEIRS OF SARAH
MARIE PALMA
BURGOS,
PETITIONERS, VS.
COURT OF APPEALS
AND JOHNNY CO Y
YU, RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 175590 :

February 09, 2010]
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
VS. FERNANDO
VILLAMIN Y SAN
JOSE ALIAS ANDOY,
ACCUSED-
APPELLANT.
[A.M. No. P-95-

1167 : February 09,
2010] CARMELITA
LLEDO,
COMPLAINANT, VS.
ATTY. CESAR V.
LLEDO, BRANCH
CLERK OF COURT,
REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 94,
QUEZON CITY,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 165333 :

February 09, 2010]
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES
(DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL
RESOURCES),
PETITIONER, VS.
TECHNOLOGICAL
ADVOCATES FOR
AGRO-FOREST
PROGRAMS
ASSOCIATION, INC.
(TAFPA, INC.),
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 164118 :

February 09, 2010]
SARGASSO
CONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,
PETITIONER, VS.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION (4TH
DIVISION) AND
GORGONIO
MONGCAL,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 188456 :

February 10, 2010]
H. HARRY L. ROQUE,
JR., JOEL R.
BUTUYAN, ROMEL R.
BAGARES, ALLAN
JONES F.
LARDIZABAL,
GILBERT T. ANDRES,
IMMACULADA D.
GARCIA, ERLINDA T.
MERCADO,
FRANCISCO A.
ALCUAZ, MA.
AZUCENA P. MACEDA,
AND ALVIN A.
PETERS,
PETITIONERS, VS.
COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS,
REPRESENTED BY
HON. CHAIRMAN
JOSE MELO,
COMELEC SPECIAL
BIDS AND AWARDS
COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN HON.
FERDINAND
RAFANAN,
DEPARTMENT OF
BUDGET AND
MANAGEMENT,
REPRESENTED BY
HON. ROLANDO
ANDAYA, TOTAL
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION AND
SMARTMATIC
INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION,
RESPONDENTS. PETE
QUIRINO-QUADRA,
PETITIONER-IN-
INTERVENTION.
SENATE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT, JUAN
PONCE ENRILE,
MOVANT-
INTERVENOR.
[G.R. No. 180050 :

February 10, 2010]
RODOLFO G.
NAVARRO, VICTOR F.
BERNAL, AND RENE
O. MEDINA,
PETITIONERS, VS.
EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY
EDUARDO ERMITA,
REPRESENTING THE
PRESIDENT OF THE
PHILIPPINES;
SENATE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
REPRESENTED BY
THE SENATE
PRESIDENT; HOUSE
OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
REPRESENTED BY
THE HOUSE
SPEAKER;
GOVERNOR ROBERT
ACE S. BARBERS,
REPRESENTING THE
MOTHER PROVINCE
OF SURIGAO DEL
NORTE; GOVERNOR
GERALDINE ECLEO
VILLAROMAN,
REPRESENTING THE
NEW PROVINCE OF
DINAGAT ISLANDS,
RESPONDENTS.
[A.M. No. P-10-

2763 [Formerly OCA
IPI No. 09-3056-P] :
February 10, 2010]
RE: IRREGULARITY
IN THE USE OF
BUNDY CLOCK BY
SOPHIA M. CASTRO
AND BABYLIN V.
TAYAG, SOCIAL
WELFARE OFFICERS
II,[1]BOTH OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, OFFICE OF
THE CLERK OF
COURT, ANGELES
CITY.
[A.M. No. 2007-02-

SC : February 10,
2010] RE:
COMPLAINT OF
JUDGE ROWENA
NIEVES A. TAN FOR
LATE REMITTANCE BY
THE SUPREME COURT
OF HER TERMINAL
LEAVE PAY TO GSIS
TO APPLY FOR
PAYMENT OF HER
SALARY LOAN TO
SAID AGENCY.
[G.R. No. 189466 :

February 11, 2010]
DARYL GRACE J.
ABAYON,
PETITIONER,
PRESENT: VS. THE
HONORABLE HOUSE
OF
REPRESENTATIVES
ELECTORAL
TRIBUNAL, PERFECTO
C. LUCABAN, JR.,
RONYL S. DE LA
CRUZ AND AGUSTIN
C. DOROGA,
RESPONDENTS. [G.R.
No. 189506]
CONGRESSMAN
JOVITO S. PALPARAN,
JR., PETITIONER, VS.
HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
ELECTORAL
TRIBUNAL (HRET),
DR. REYNALDO
LESACA, JR.,
CRISTINA PALABAY,
RENATO M. REYES,
JR., ERLINDA
CADAPAN, ANTONIO
FLORES AND
JOSELITO USTAREZ,
RESPONDENTS.
[A.M. No. MTJ-03-

1462 (formerly OCA
IPI No. 02-1515-RTJ)
: February 11, 2010]
JUDGE DOLORES L.
ESPAÑOL, RTC,
BRANCH 90,
DASMARIÑAS,
CAVITE,
COMPLAINANT, VS.
JUDGE LORINDA B.
TOLEDO-MUPAS,
MTC, DASMARIÑAS
CAVITE,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 189078 :

February 11, 2010]
MAYOR VIRGILIO P.
VARIAS, PETITIONER,
VS. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS AND
JOSE "JOY" D.
PEÑANO,
RESPONDENTS. D E C
ISION
[G.R. No. 185226 :

February 11, 2010]
CORAZON M.
GREGORIO, AS
ADMINISTRATRIX OF
THE ESTATE
LITIGATED IN THE
CASE BELOW,
RAMIRO T.
MADARANG, AND THE
HEIRS OF CASIMIRO
R. MADARANG, JR.,
NAMELY: ESTRELITA
L. MADARANG,
CONSUELO P.
MADARANG,
CASIMIRO
MADARANG IV, AND
JANE MARGARET
MADARANG-
CRABTREE,
PETITIONERS, VS.
ATTY. JOSE R.
MADARANG AND
VICENTE R.
MADARANG,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 187683 :

February 11, 2010]
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
APPELLEE, VS.
VICTORIANO DELA
CRUZ Y LORENZO,
APPELLANT.
[G.R. No. 186640 :

February 11, 2010]
GEN. ALEXANDER B.
YANO, CHIEF OF
STAFF, ARMED
FORCES OF THE
PHILIPPINES, LT.
GEN. VICTOR S.
IBRADO,
COMMANDING
GENERAL,
PHILIPPINE ARMY,
AND MAJ. GEN.
RALPH A.
VILLANUEVA,
COMMANDER, 7TH
INFANTRY DIVISION,
PHILIPPINE ARMY,
PETITIONERS, VS.
CLEOFAS SANCHEZ
AND MARCIANA
MEDINA,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 184740 :

February 11, 2010]
DENNIS A. B. FUNA,
PETITIONER, VS.
EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY
EDUARDO R. ERMITA,
OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT, SEC.
LEANDRO R.
MENDOZA, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY
AS SECRETARY OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
AND
COMMUNICATIONS,
USEC. MARIA ELENA
H. BAUTISTA, IN HER
OFFICIAL CAPACITIES
AS UNDERSECRETARY
OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
AND
COMMUNICATIONS
AND AS OFFICER-IN-
CHARGE OF THE
MARITIME INDUSTRY
AUTHORITY
(MARINA),
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 184197 :

February 11, 2010]
RAPID CITY REALTY
AND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,
PETITIONER, VS.
ORLANDO VILLA AND
LOURDES PAEZ-
VILLA,[1]
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 181409 :

February 11, 2010]
INTESTATE ESTATE
OF MANOLITA
GONZALES VDA. DE
CARUNGCONG,
REPRESENTED BY
MEDIATRIX
CARUNGCONG, AS
ADMINISTRATRIX,
PETITIONER, VS.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND
WILLIAM SATO,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. Nos. 177857-
58 : February 11,
2010] PHILIPPINE
COCONUT
PRODUCERS
FEDERATION, INC.
(COCOFED), MANUEL
V. DEL ROSARIO,
DOMINGO P. ESPINA,
SALVADOR P.
BALLARES, JOSELITO
A. MORALEDA, PAZ
M. YASON, VICENTE
A. CADIZ, CESARIA
DE LUNA TITULAR,
AND RAYMUNDO C.
DE VILLA,
PETITIONERS, VS.
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT.
JOVITO R. SALONGA,
WIGBERTO E.
TAÑADA, OSCAR F.
SANTOS, ANA
THERESIA
HONTIVEROS, AND
TEOFISTO L.
GUINGONA III,
OPPOSITORS-
INTERVENORS.
WIGBERTO E.
TAÑADA, OSCAR F.
SANTOS, SURIGAO
DEL SUR
FEDERATION OF
AGRICULTURAL
COOPERATIVES
(SUFAC) AND MORO
FARMERS
ASSOCIATION OF
ZAMBOANGA DEL
SUR (MOFAZS),
REPRESENTED BY
ROMEO C.
ROYANDOYAN; AND
PAMBANSANG
KILUSAN NG MGA
SAMAHAN NG
MAGSASAKA
(PAKISAMA),
REPRESENTED BY
VICENTE FABE,
MOVANTS-
INTERVENORS.
[G.R. No. 172927 :

February 11, 2010]
RONILO SORREDA,
PETITIONER, VS.
CAMBRIDGE
ELECTRONICS
CORPORATION,[1]
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 172279 :

February 11, 2010]
VALENTIN MOVIDO,
SUBSTITUTED BY
MARGINITO MOVIDO,
PETITIONER, VS.
LUIS REYES PASTOR,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 169190 :

February 11, 2010]
CUA LAI CHU, CLARO
G. CASTRO, AND
JUANITA CASTRO,
PETITIONERS, VS.
HON. HILARIO L.
LAQUI, PRESIDING
JUDGE, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 218,
QUEZON CITY AND
PHILIPPINE BANK OF
COMMUNICATION,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 164731 :

February 11, 2010]
GOVERNMENT
SERVICE,
INSURANCE SYSTEM,
PETITIONER, VS.
ROSALINDA A.
BERNADAS,
RESPONDENT.
[A.M. No. 08-2-01-

0 : February 11,
2010] RE: PETITION
FOR RECOGNITION
OF THE EXEMPTION
OF THE
GOVERNMENT
SERVICE INSURANCE
SYSTEM FROM
PAYMENT OF LEGAL
FEES. GOVERNMENT
SERVICE INSURANCE
SYSTEM,
PETITIONER.
[G.R. No. 190156 :

February 12, 2010]
LEONOR DANGAN-
CORRAL,
PETITIONER, VS.
COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS AND
ERNESTO ENERO
FERNANDEZ,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 180945 :

February 12, 2010]
PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL BANK, AS
THE ATTORNEY-IN-
FACT OF OPAL
PORTFOLIO
INVESTMENTS (SPV-
AMC), INC.,
PETITIONER, VS.
MERCEDES CORPUZ,
REPRESENTED BY
HER ATTORNEY-IN-
FACT VALENTINA
CORPUZ,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. Nos. 174599-

609 : February 12,
2010] PACIFICO R.
CRUZ, PETITIONER,
VS. THE
SANDIGANBAYAN
(FOURTH DIVISION),
OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN, OFFICE
OF THE SPECIAL
PROSECUTOR AND
SPECIAL
PRESIDENTIAL TASK
FORCE 156,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 171774 :

February 12, 2010]
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
PETITIONER, VS.
APOLINARIO
CATARROJA,
REYNALDO
CATARROJA, AND
ROSITA CATARROJA-
DISTRITO,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 168967 :

February 12, 2010]
CITY OF ILOILO
REPRESENTED BY
HON. JERRY P.
TREÑAS, CITY
MAYOR, PETITIONER,
VS. HON. LOLITA
CONTRERAS-BESANA,
PRESIDING JUDGE,
REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 32,
AND ELPIDIO
JAVELLANA,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 158385 :

February 12, 2010]
MODESTO PALALI,
PETITIONER, VS.
JULIET AWISAN,
REPRESENTED BY
HER ATTORNEY-IN-
FACT GREGORIO
AWISAN,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 187120 :

February 15, 2010]
PHILIPPINE
JOURNALISTS, INC.,
PETITIONER, VS.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, LABOR
ARBITER FEDRIEL S.
PANGANIBAN AND
EDUARDO S. RIVERA,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 188669 :

February 16, 2010]
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
APPELLEE, VS.
ILDEFONSO
MENDOZA Y BERIZO,
APPELLANT.
[G.R. No. 177747 :

February 16, 2010]
THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
VS. IGNACIO PORAS,
ACCUSED-
APPELLANT.
[A.M. No. P-09-

2721 (Formerly A.M.
No. 09-9-162-MCTC)
REPORT ON THE
FINANCIAL AUDIT
CONDUCTED ON THE
BOOKS OF
ACCOUNTS OF THE
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT
TRIAL COURT,
MONDRAGON-SAN
ROQUE, NORTHERN
SAMAR.
[A.M. NO. P-10-

2772 (Formerly A.M.
OCA I.P.I NO. 07-
2615-P) : February
16, 2010] DOMINGO
PEÑA, JR.,
COMPLAINANT, VS.
ACHILLES ANDREW V.
REGALADO II,
SHERIFF IV,
REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, OFFICE OF
THE CLERK OF
COURT, NAGA CITY,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 188920 :

February 16, 2010]
JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR.,
MATIAS V.
DEFENSOR, JR.,
RODOLFO G.
VALENCIA, DANILO E.
SUAREZ, SOLOMON
R. CHUNGALAO,
SALVACION
ZALDIVAR-PEREZ,
HARLIN CAST-
ABAYON, MELVIN G.
MACUSI AND
ELEAZAR P. QUINTO,
PETITIONERS, VS.
COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, MANUEL
A. ROXAS II,
FRANKLIN M. DRILON
AND J.R. NEREUS O.
ACOSTA,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 188353 :

February 16, 2010]
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
VS. LEOZAR DELA
CRUZ Y BALOBAL,
ACCUSED-
APPELLANT.
[G.R. No. 185954 :

February 16, 2010]
OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN,
PETITIONER, VS.
MAXIMO D. SISON,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 182498 :

February 16, 2010]
GEN. AVELINO I.
RAZON, JR., CHIEF,
PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL POLICE
(PNP); POLICE CHIEF
SUPERINTENDENT
RAUL CASTAÑEDA,
CHIEF, CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION AND
DETECTION GROUP
(CIDG); POLICE
SENIOR
SUPERINTENDENT
LEONARDO A.
ESPINA, CHIEF,
POLICE ANTI-CRIME
AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE (PACER);
AND GEN. JOEL R.
GOLTIAO, REGIONAL
DIRECTOR OF ARMM,
PNP, PETITIONERS,
VS. MARY JEAN B.
TAGITIS, HEREIN
REPRESENTED BY
ATTY. FELIPE P.
ARCILLA, JR.,
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 180356 :

February 16, 2010]
SOUTH AFRICAN
AIRWAYS,
PETITIONER, VS.
COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 179702 :

February 16, 2010]
ROLANDO P.
ANCHETA,
PETITIONER, VS.
DESTINY FINANCIAL
PLANS, INC. AND
ARSENIO
BARTOLOME,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 170864 :

February 16, 2010]
NELSON LAGAZO,
PETITIONER, VS.
GERALD B. SORIANO
AND GALILEO B.
SORIANO,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 168644 :

February 16, 2010]
BSB GROUP, INC.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT, MR.
RICARDO BANGAYAN,
PETITIONER, VS.
SALLY GO A.K.A.
SALLY GO-
BANGAYAN,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 166869 :

February 16, 2010]
PHILIPPINE HAWK
CORPORATION,
PETITIONER, VS.
VIVIAN TAN LEE,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 165377 :

February 16, 2010]
LOLITA REYES DOING
BUSINESS UNDER
THE NAME AND
STYLE, SOLID
BROTHERS WEST
MARKETING,
PETITIONER, VS.
CENTURY CANNING
CORPORATION,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 156287 :

February 16, 2010]
FELICITAS M.
MACHADO AND
MARCELINO P.
MACHADO,
PETITIONERS, VS.
RICARDO L.
GATDULA,
COMMISSION ON THE
SETTLEMENT OF
LAND PROBLEMS,
AND IRINEO S. PAZ,

SHERIFF IV, OFFICE
OF THE PROVINCIAL
SHERIFF, SAN
PEDRO, LAGUNA,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 190526 :

February 17, 2010]
SANDRA Y. ERIGUEL,
PETITIONER, VS.
COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS AND MA.
THERESA DUMPIT-
MICHELENA,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 173289 :

February 17, 2010]
ELAND PHILIPPINES,
INC., PETITIONER,
VS. AZUCENA
GARCIA, ELINO
FAJARDO, AND HEIR
OF TIBURCIO
MALABANAN NAMED
TERESA MALABANAN,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 169195 :

February 17, 2010]
FRANCISCO APARIS Y
SANTOS,
PETITIONER, VS.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 181809 :

February 17, 2010]
ROSE MARIE D.
DOROMAL,
PETITIONER, VS.
HERNAN G. BIRON
AND COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 173165 :

February 17, 2010]
ATTY. LUCKY M.
DAMASEN,
PETITIONER, VS.
OSCAR G. TUMAMAO,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 171231 :

February 17, 2010]
PNCC SKYWAY
TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT AND
SECURITY DIVISION
WORKERS
ORGANIZATION
(PSTMSDWO),
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT, RENE
SORIANO,
PETITIONER, VS.
PNCC SKYWAY
CORPORATION,
RESPONDENT.
[A.M. No. 05-8-

463-RTC : February
17, 2010] REQUEST
OF JUDGE NIÃ‘O A.
BATINGANA,
REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 6,
MATI, DAVAO
ORIENTAL FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME
TO DECIDE CIVIL
CASES NOS. 2063
AND 1756
[G.R. No. 176707 :

February 17, 2010]
ARLIN B. OBIASCA,
[1] PETITIONER, VS.
JEANE O.
BASALLOTE,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 185709 :

February 18, 2010]
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
APPELLEE, VS.
MICHAEL A. HIPONA,
APPELLANT.
[G.R. No. 183871 :

February 18, 2010]
LOURDES D.
RUBRICO, JEAN
RUBRICO APRUEBO,
AND MARY JOY
RUBRICO CARBONEL,
PETITIONERS, VS.
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-
ARROYO, GEN.
HERMOGENES
ESPERON, P/DIR.
GEN. AVELINO
RAZON, MAJ.
DARWIN SY A.K.A.
DARWIN REYES,
JIMMY SANTANA,
RUBEN ALFARO,
CAPT. ANGELO
CUARESMA, A
CERTAIN JONATHAN,
P/SUPT. EDGAR B.
ROQUERO, ARSENIO
C. GOMEZ, AND
OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 180123 :

February 18, 2010]
KULAS IDEAS &
CREATIONS, GIL
FRANCIS MANINGO
AND MA. RACHEL

MANINGO,
PETITIONERS, VS.
JULIET ALCOSEBA
AND FLORDELINDA
ARAO-ARAO,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 174237 :

February 18, 2010]
TERESITA L. ARAOS,
CORAZON L.
BALAGBIS, ROBERTO
B. BAUTISTA, MARITA
S. BELTRAN, RAUL A.
CASIANO, HIDELZA
B. CASTILLO,
ELEONORA CINCO,
MAY CATHERINE C.
CIRIACO, ERLINDA G.
DEL ROSARIO,
AMELITA C. DELA
TORRE, ALMA R.
FAUSTO, ANTONETTE
L. FERNANDEZ,
CORITA M.
GADUANG, VIRGINIA
E. GALLARDE, MA.
LUZ C. GENEROSO,
MA. TERESA C.
IGNACIO, EDDIE A.
JARA, JOSIE
MAGANA, ANTONIO
G. MARALIT,
NANCIANCINO L.
MONREAL, MARIBEL
D. ORTIZ, ALAN GENE
O. PADILLA, JESUS C.
PAJARILLO, MIGUEL
E. ROCA JR., EDGAR
M. SANDALO, AGNES
E. SAN JOSE, EVELYN
P. SAAYON, JUDY
FRANCES A. SEE,
MARIO R. SIBUCAO,
CARMEN O.
SORIANO, AND
ARNOLD A.
TOLENTINO,
PETITIONERS, VS.
HON. LEA REGALA,
PRESIDING JUDGE,
RTC, BRANCH 226,
QUEZON CITY AND
SOCIAL SECURITY
SYSTEM (SSS),
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 166579 :

February 18, 2010]
JORDAN CHAN PAZ,
PETITIONER, VS.
JEANICE PAVON PAZ,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 174570 :

February 20, 2010]
ROMER SY TAN,
PETITIONER, VS. SY
TIONG GUE,
FELICIDAD CHAN SY,
SY CHIM, SY TIONG
SAN, SY YU BUN, SY
YU SHIONG, SY YU
SAN AND BRYAN SY
LIM, RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 189698 :

February 22, 2010]
ELEAZAR P. QUINTO
AND GERINO A.
TOLENTINO, JR.,
PETITIONERS, VS.
COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 184546 :

February 22, 2010]
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
APPELLEE, VS.
WILSON SUAN Y
JOLONGON,
APPELLANT.
[G.R. No. 177100 :

February 22, 2010]
BANDILA SHIPPING,
INC., MR.
REGINALDO A. OBEN,
BANDILA SHIPPING,
INC. AND FUYOH

SHIPPING, INC.,
PETITIONERS, VS.
MARCOS C. ABALOS,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 173915 :

February 22, 2010]
IRENE SANTE AND
REYNALDO SANTE,
PETITIONERS, VS.
HON. EDILBERTO T.
CLARAVALL, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS
PRESIDING JUDGE OF
BRANCH 60,
REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT OF BAGUIO
CITY, AND VITA N.
KALASHIAN,
RESPONDENTS.
[A.M. No. CA-08-

45-J (Formerly OCA
IPI No. 08-130-CA-J)
ATTY. DENNIS V.
NIÑO, COMPLAINANT,
VS. JUSTICE
NORMANDIE B.
PIZARRO,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 169481 :
February 22, 2010]

REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
PETITIONER, VS.
HEIRS OF JULIO
RAMOS,
REPRESENTED BY
REYNALDO RAMOS
MEDINA, ZENAIDA
RAMOS MEDINA,
DOLORES RAMOS
MEDINA, ROMEO
RAMOS AND MEDINA,
VIRGIE RAMOS
MEDINA, HERMINIA
RAMOS MEDINA,
CESAR RAMOS
MEDINA AND
REMEDIOS RAMOS
MEDINA,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 182299 :

February 22, 2010]
WILFREDO M.
BARON, BARRY
ANTHONY BARON,
RAMIL CAYAGO,
DOMINADOR
GEMINO, ARISTEO
PUZON, BERNARD
MANGSAT, MARIFE
BALLESCA, CYNTHIA
JUNATAS, LOURDES
RABAGO, JEFFERSON
DELA ROSA AND
JOMAR M. DELA
ROSA, PETITIONERS,
VS. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION AND
MAGIC SALES, INC.
REPRESENTED BY
JOSE Y. SY,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 168169 :

February 24, 2010]
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
VS. ALBERTO
TABARNERO AND
GARY TABARNERO,
ACCUSED-
APPELLANTS.
[G.R. No. 188671 :

February 24, 2010]
MOZART P.
PANLAQUI,
PETITIONER, VS.
COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS AND
NARDO M. VELASCO,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 187070 :
February 24, 2010]

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
VS. ROLANDO
TAMAYO Y TENA,
ACCUSED-
APPELLANT.
[G.R. No. 183507 :

February 24, 2010]
OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN
(MINDANAO),
PETITIONER, VS.
ASTERIA E.
CRUZABRA,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 183063 :

February 24, 2010]
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
PETITIONER, VS.
CAYETANO L.
SERRANO,[1] AND
HEIRS OF CATALINO
M. ALAAN,
REPRESENTED BY
PAULITA P. ALAAN,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. Nos. 182382-

83 : February 24,
2010] JAIME S.
DOMDOM,
PETITIONER, VS.
HON. THIRD AND
FIFTH DIVISIONS OF
THE
SANDIGANBAYAN,
COMMISSION ON
AUDIT AND THE
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENTS.
[A.C. No. 8158 :

February 24, 2010]
ATTY. ELMER C.
SOLIDON,
COMPLAINANT, VS.
ATTY. RAMIL E.
MACALALAD,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 148306 :

February 24, 2010]
TERESITA DE MESA
REFORZADO,
PETITIONER, VS.
SPOUSES NAZARIO
C. LOPEZ AND
PRECILA LOPEZ,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 175241 :

February 24, 2010]
INTEGRATED BAR OF
THE PHILIPPINES
REPRESENTED BY ITS
NATIONAL
PRESIDENT, JOSE
ANSELMO I. CADIZ,
H. HARRY L. ROQUE,
AND JOEL RUIZ
BUTUYAN,
PETITIONERS, VS.
HONORABLE MANILA
MAYOR JOSE "LITO"
ATIENZA,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 184398 :

February 25, 2010]
SILKAIR
(SINGAPORE) PTE.
LTD., PETITIONER,
VS. COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 176625 :

February 25, 2010]
MACTAN-CEBU
INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
AND AIR
TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE,
PETITIONERS, VS.
BERNARDO L.
LOZADA, SR., AND
THE HEIRS OF
ROSARIO MERCADO,
NAMELY, VICENTE
LOZADA, MARIO M.
LOZADA, MARCIA L.
GODINEZ, VIRGINIA
L. FLORES,
BERNARDO LOZADA,
JR., DOLORES
GACASAN, SOCORRO
CAFARO AND
ROSARIO LOZADA,
REPRESENTED BY
MARCIA LOZADA
GODINEZ,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 169467 :

February 25, 2010]
ALFREDO P. PACIS
AND CLEOPATRA D.
PACIS, PETITIONERS,
VS. JEROME JOVANNE
MORALES,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 167139 :

February 25, 2010]
SUSIE CHAN-TAN,
PETITIONER, VS.
JESSE C. TAN,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 162218 :

February 25, 2010]
METROPOLITAN BANK
AND TRUST
COMPANY,
PETITIONER, VS.
EDGARDO D. VIRAY,
RESPONDENT.
[A.M. No. 07-6-6-

SC : February 26,
2010] RE: NON-
OBSERVANCE BY
ATTY. EDEN T.
CANDELARIA, CHIEF
OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES (OAS), OF
EN BANC
RESOLUTION A.M.
NO. 05-9-29-SC
DATED SEPTEMBER
27, 2005 AND EN
BANC RULING IN
OFFICE OF
OMBUDSMAN V. CIVIL
SERVICE
COMMISSION (G.R.
NO. 159940 DATED
FEBRUARY 16, 2005),
[G.R. No. 183505 :

February 26, 2010]
COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE,
PETITIONER, VS. SM
PRIME HOLDINGS,
INC. AND FIRST ASIA
REALTY
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,
RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 184286 :

February 26, 2010]
MAYOR JOSE
MARQUEZ LISBOA
PANLILIO,
PETITIONER, VS.
COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS AND
SAMUEL ARCEO DE
JESUS, SR.,
RESPONDENTS.
[A.M. No. 2009-23-

SC : February 26,
2010] RE: SMOKING
AT THE FIRE EXIT
AREA AT THE BACK
OF THE PUBLIC
INFORMATION
OFFICE
[G.R. No. 173472 :

February 26, 2010]
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
APPELLEE, VS. ELMER

PERALTA Y DE
GUZMAN ALIAS
"MEMENG",
APPELLANT.
[G.R. No. 167415 :

February 26, 2010]
ATTY. MANGONTAWAR
M. GUBAT,
PETITIONER, VS.
NATIONAL POWER
CORPORATION,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 165922 :

February 26, 2010]
BAGUIO MARKET
VENDORS MULTI-
PURPOSE
COOPERATIVE
(BAMARVEMPCO),
REPRESENTED BY
RECTO INSO,
OPERATIONS
MANAGER,
PETITIONER, VS.
HON. ILUMINADA
CABATO-CORTES,
EXECUTIVE JUDGE,
REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BAGUIO CITY,
RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 164141 :

February 26, 2010]
TIGER
CONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,
PETITIONER, VS.
REYNALDO ABAY,
RODOLFO ARCENAL,
ROLANDO ARCENAL,
PEDRO BALANA,
JESUS DEL AYRE,
ARNEL EBALE, ARNEL
FRAGA, ANGEL
MARAÑO, METHODEO
SOTERIO, MANUEL
TAROMA, PIO ZETA,
ISAIAS JAMILIANO,
ARNALDO RIVERO,
NOEL JAMILIANO
JOEL ARTITA, DANIEL
DECENA, ZENAIDA
LAZALA, RONNIE
RIVERO, RAMON
ABAY, JOSE ABAY,
HECTOR ABAY,
EDISON ABAIS,
DIOGENES ARTITA,
FLORENTINO B.
ARTITA, ROLANDO
ANTONIO, JERRY
ARAÑA, MAXIMENO
M. BARRA, ARMANDO
BAJAMUNDI, DANIEL
BARRION, RENANTE
BOALOY, ROLANDO
BONOAN, FRANCISCO
BAUTISTA, NOEL
BENAUAN, EDGARDO
BOALOY, REYNALDO
BONOAN, DIONISIO
BOSQUILLOS,
ROGELIO B. COPINO,
JR., RONNIE DELOS
SANTOS, FELIX DE
SILVA, REYNALDO
LASALA, LARRY
LEVANTINO,
DOMINGO LOLINO,
ROSALIO LOLINO,
PERFECTO MACARIO,
ROLANDO MALLANTA,
ANASTACIO
MARAVILLA,
ROSARIO MARBELLA,
GILBERTO MATUBIS,
RODEL MORILLO,
LORENZO
PAGLINAWAN, JOSE
PANES, RUBEN
PANES, MATEO
PANTELA, SANTOS
SALIRE, GERMAN
TALAGTAG, HILARIO
TONAMOR, JESUS
TAMAYO, JOSE
TRANQUILO, EDISON
VATERO, AND
ROBERTO VERGARA,
RESPONDENTS.
Copyright © 1995 - 2021 REDiaz

People v. Wilson

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Wilson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[G.R. No. 184546 : February 22, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, A…, APPELLANT.

: February 2010 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions 5/9/21, 1:26 PM

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws

February 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2010 >

[G.R. No. 184546 : February 22, 2010]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS.

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Once again we find occasion to reiterate the most

guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt.[1] To

beyond reasonable doubt.[2] The identity of the

ChanRobles CPA narcotic substance must therefore be established

Review Online beyond reasonable doubt.[3]

We are compelled to acquit appellant in this case

This is an appeal from the Decision[4] dated March 25,

00054. The CA affirmed in toto the Decision[5] dated

On August 12, 2003, an Information was filed with the

filed an Urgent Motion for Re-Investigation[6] which the

trial court granted on September 19, 2003.[7] As a

Information[8] was filed charging appellant with

The undersigned Prosecutor III of Iligan

That on or about August 12,

weighing more or less 0.01

Contrary to and in violation of

City of Iligan, October 13, 2003.

Sea water nasal

Help manage your

Chemist Police Senior Inspector April Carvajal[10]

On August 12, 2003 at about 3:30 a.m., PO2 Labasano

provided with two pieces of P50.00[11] bills, acted as

headquarters, PO2 Labasano prepared a Certificate of

Regional Crime Laboratory for examination.[12]

Forensic Chemist Carvajal received the written request

it contained methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu,

No. D-500-2003[14] on her finding on the tests.

Appellant denied the charge against him. He claimed

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

Giving full faith and credence to the prosecution's

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the

The shabu taken from him is hereby

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Appellant appealed the trial court's Decision to the CA.

committed by the trial court in convicting appellant of

Undaunted, appellant seeks a final recourse before this

In the Resolution dated November 24, 2008, we

In support of his prayer for a reversal of the verdict of

regarding the possession of the illegal drug; and, d)

February-2010 Our Ruling

[G.R. No. 188002 : The inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police

application where said findings are sustained by the

Appellant submits that the shabu alleged to have been

[A.M. No. P-10- The Certificate of Inventory[22] prepared by PO2

COURT AIDE, conducted in connection with the following

MUNICIPAL TRIAL operation:

[G.R. No. 185588 : 2003

February 02, 2010] Place of Arrest : Purok 4, Barangay Saray,

PHILIPPINE BRITISH Iligan City

PETITIONER, VS. items were seized during the said

REPUBLIC OF THE operation:

[G.R. No. 181502 : x x x x (Emphasis supplied)

PHILIPPINES, Police Chief Inspector Jesus Atchico Rebua and

[G.R. No. 170365 :

[G.R. No. 169122 : xxxx

February 02, 2010]