SE ee ye i 290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED {BF Ciiland Corporation vs Otake Th dhe present cave, the complaint” whieh was filed afar tae enactment of Ra, 7681, cantained a statement tha, bosed to the tax decaration” fle inthe Office of the Asseson, the Tit subject of the accion publislana as an assensed value of is 000.00. A cory of the tax declaration war attached ‘Anns “Bf the complaint, Te subject lt, with an assented Salue below the jeriaditional mitt P50,000,00 for Mtro anita comes within the exclusive orignal juridition of the MeTC under BP 129, a8 amendod. Thus. the RTC erved in Folding thatthe MoT had no jurisdeton inthis case. WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition, We SET ASIDE the Resolutions dated 28 July 2005 and § July 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No, 68905, We REINSTATE {he 5 April2008 Decision andthe 20 June 2003 Order ofthe Neuopaltan Tri Court (Branch 77) of Parafague City in (Gh Case No. 11868. ‘Coste against petitlonc. 80 ORDERED. Nachura, Pelt, Abad and Mende, Jd, cones Peston grant, realutions st aside [Note-—An aecion publiiana ie = plenary action for recov exp af poostaion in cetinary el proceedings in order to {termine the better nnd legal rght to posts, independent Sitio dffers frm a freble entry ation in that it dose fol require prior physieal possession in arder to prosper. (Gonsaga ox Court of Appeats, 46 SCRA 592 (2008)) ato — Vol. 628, JULY 30, 2010 231 Caraga vs People GENITA ot CARIAGA, pein, 8, POP FHILIPPINES, respondent manaiaiead Oriminal Pacer; Proadurol Rules ond Tech fief prem stn vets falas cans atic, euch that any rigid and strict opplisation there which Fes in fcnatn tenine fo fits abana wate mak (bears be evided Far rade i pocctue tnt ba shed oss =e Fatitat hestainroa fat, sch that sey nd se tt spall therof which rene in ccnieaies ting fet robtantal justice mast aways Be anaded. ne binds he cen the Cnr has made enon dec ey Seminal oe wr ie ec eine 9a Techs cites olen een a et {mtens of ie 00 require “While to noes of ace oe fly binds the cle the Cour has mad exer ttt Sally erin cna where athlos wr gree mak Sorte dnt an pono ie en te {Pers the roof jie rogue can novke eee oe ‘hp coor of patitonar can fll undo any ofthese exception. | SEITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the © Courtof Appeals The fact ae statd in he opinion ofthe Court Baw V. Patricio for petitioner. “TauRD brisio282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Caraga vx Pople ‘CARPIOMORALES, J. In iaaue in th present petition fr review is one of juriic- By Resolutions of May 28, 2007 and Seplember 27, 2007, tna Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR No, 20514, “Pople ofthe Phiippines Cente Caraga," dsmissod the appeal of Cenita Range petitioner) for lak of jeriadition over the subject cS MamipP lacs ne aod sles erred ty ba by are oF nae ten mod hee wif, nly ad ites ee aaenaragy on reat Sete ees rset ser No. 1293, ‘The two other Informations i the second and third crim ‘nal eaten, Nos 1294 and 1295, contain the same allegations (CARato, p28 VOL. 626, JULY $0, 2010 233 Caraga vs. Poop ‘xcept the mulversed amounts which wre F252798 and '220735.15, spectively" Branch 20 of the Caunyan RTC, by Joint Decston of June 42, 2004 covlted petdaner nthe three ease dopaing ne fallows: . yi WREFORE, Nog heaped CHNITA.M. can GUILTY bpd onl ott fh ine of NAL ERSA ON {wh sb charged tho tse) sopra rata so in see any leatng Groote ery een tonite 1, a Ct Cav Xe Be, 0128, a nde peal of seam FOUR (a) YEARS wed GME av PRION CORURE GON ws minis wo SEVEN CY ans. FOUR Cy STS fh ONE i) DAY o PRISTON ATOR a maximum Sedo os Sy pena fpr pt gulicon odo ae Re ‘itand Seve Hed Egy ie P7390) Poe woes hdr Ingraoomt fas of ale toe ae Fea 2, tn cri, Cae No 202849 nda pay ot stam Fe 0) WEIS and ONE cb DAY of PRISON ATOR ck ‘ininun to BIGHTEEN i) Yeas HHI () HOMTNG aah Sie Day wf mECLUSION ReMPORAL ae massa sn I th assay pay of ret eel Soe pay toe oTweay Pte thoband Se Hints Meneses {Pdi 0) Pon Se credo denny oe Proved So ferment a nila Twety Bie Tus Sa Hue “eos Soren (P25,627.0) ean, witht nboiary impeconment ese floss: Gn eins besser 8. In rin, Cn No. Br 21295 andere pony fn ten io) Yeats and ONE) BAY of PRION IEUTOR ‘ibnum to FOURTEEN ue) YEAR, HIGHT 9) MONTES ook ‘i Gy Day of RECLUSION TaUPORIE we Sante ‘th sry palo pra spa! dain ie of Twenty Bend Soro Hunan ia, spo. eat Pennod by Judge HenadinoP, Base234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Cariaga vx People Posen without bude inpriamamen in cate of nsivency. Tha Eosnds ar sonmled. Cate agin! theses ‘$0 ORDERED.” Sed Not of Ap Peston, noah coal ne Bed peat stata ha be intnded appeal ho ial outs do nies Gor of ppele sa 3p Resolton af May 8, 20077 the Cour of Appel ante toners appeal sk oar ating tat wre Suncleanbyan whch an acie apple ui Sic nero: ho apelt ore “Cota eto veri am sate th be pec" Ca Sa ate ito Mand Ric map ue ede et 2 Pea Se Renee aa ane oe toed Hope eee : alae fen hich-onioss appellate iurisicto sae ‘Bhi th appa ths Court he somone aration TYR andere improper and improve’ mada” Compbasis ndersring op) Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied by renee septee 27,2007 Hane he presente TSE einer ddan to trace slows ja age RPURE. GEA uN ca Uae an ileal ities Raia oo pp. 4-50, Penna by then CA Presiding Justi nom 8 retired teuer oft Cour Rube T Raye with Amst ston aig t Carina Il and JaparB-Dimasmpon, conser Midst py. 5256. VOL, 626, JULY 20, 2010 235 Conaga ve, People 1, WHETHER. 1N CONSIDERATION OF SUBSTANTIAL SUSTICE IN A chiniNaL CASE, NEW TRIAL BE GRANGED 46 THE PETITIONER TO BE UNDERTAKEN IN THUS SANDIOANS BAYAN (ALTERNATIVELY IN THe REGIONAL TRIAL Couas) 50 THAT CRUCIAL EVIDENCE OF PEPIPIONER “BE ADMIT mb! Petitioner, now admitting the procedural error committed fy her former counsel, implarer the Court to rloe the Roles {o afford her an opperansty Yo fly ventilate her appeal sa fhe merits and requests the Court ta endorse and tran the records ofthe casos to the Sandigacbayan in liv interes of aubstantal asic, Section 2 of Ral 50 ofthe Rules of Court provides ggg BEG: ® lamina of improper apa tothe Cowt ofp . iatecoust But kal be arene canna cot That spplts jctition tm this ete persion tothe Saaigtngan tea Setcn taf Presser Bea Ne 16sec anon by Hopi ht Ne Cae ee Bit, detonation sa exe fhavesiota jeitinnatecee ne “Tn cases where none ofthe agcusel are. easing pose lars Grade 7 hlsher, pre id Republie Aet No. 9768, of milftary bod PNP officers mentioned above, exchnive origina jurndletns Coca Special Court Ta Be Kowa As “Saodigunbayan” fr Otter Parc. “At Panther Dein the Juriicion ofthe Sandganba i236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Coriaga vs. People shall be vested im the proper regional teal court ‘Setropoltan tal coor, smonllpel ial cure and muni pul circuit tial court, as the ease may be, pursuant to thelr Respective jurisdictions ae provided in Bator Pembonca Bl. 10; as amended ‘The Sondiganbasnn shall exercise exluslne apoellte ‘agional tla course ‘ricin_luvidieton_or-of-theieappsllate jurisdiction ag femin pawvided. 3" Gmpbasi ee abd ander rp pie Since the appl involves rina eases, and the possi ila govin ing dpe fry a ra Inpse mutates agaist he Coot’ iapensaton of ui, tha {Sere rants pettoner' yea fer eloratinn of th le. For rales of procedure must b viewed at ols to facitate the attainment of jac, such tat any righ and eet app tation thereof which rerls otechnialitie tending to Bus Ente stantial jantin mst away Be ved” Tn Ulep 0, Pople” the Court remanded the case to the Santigonbeyon when found that pions’ alae to designate the prope orm her appeal wae ndvertant. The omission id ot appear to be altars [been the caso.os er appeal could be disaseed outright for Teck afdacidieslon which was enaey wha happened inthe CA, Stigaabavan. Fir unfrtnate atthe RTC osge enaeraad (Suet the pron rode to be forerdat tha weg cost eet prs of ptiner Cases og sven lye wis lary ede ovr Gan oes omen, sb “be Guzman 0. Sandganbayon, GR, No. 19378, 256 SCRA TP ATG Ne A809, Sanuay 80208, 877 SCRA OD VOL, 626, JULY 9, 2010 297 Cartage ve. People E pertahiy on The Joes wan expected to Know and auld have ga th lathe rules of prove Te should ave known Swen appeals ne to be talon to the CA and when they thoula'be forwnrded to the Susdiganbuyan, He shea fone foniinsoaly an carly sbacrrod ths rerpnablty spa an ech thin where a poser’ ery was a aeons (nd undercring apie) i, The slapdaah work of pottone’s former counsel and the ‘rial court's apparent ignoranee of the lew eifactvly ore fired to deny petitioner the remedial menoures to ation Ter conven. While the nagligence of counsel generally binds the cont, he Court has made exceptions thereto, eapeciall in eminal gses where roclesa or gross negligence a caieedl deere fhe sion of due proces of lav, when ies apication sal we sult in outright deprivation ofthe elent's tery or proper ‘te whore the interests of justice ao requir" It can tot be ainsi thet the este of ptsner ea fall under any of those Fpeeptions Moreover, « more thorough review and appreiation of the evidenc fr the prosecution and defonce av well az prone ‘pplication ofthe imposabie penalties in the present cece eg the Sandiganbayan would da well to assuage pettonce thet lke eppeal ie desided serupously. 1, Bs Onder ef July 8 2004 he BTC apprond the Nei of Ap at and creed he branch cur tere ih che pee woman at umber tgetior with a nde ef the ens thet the onal and dpe cp ef he os ert of stnoerapicnoer af oe tentiuninstoe ites andthe exh at the puesta the Court-af Angels fr rcs prvelinss ipso {in underage "Ve Sormge Sr Banca Mipin Sang end Mergegy ‘Bonk, GR No. 143", 442 Pl 8 098 SCRA Bo ate,288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Caring ve People ‘WHEREFORE, to availed Rewluons of the Coue of anpuss in CAG C8 Ne sid are SET ASIDE. Let tho ‘econ of the cases be FORWARDED to tho Sandigantayan, Exprper dapat Barts of Presiding Judge of Branch 20, Henwne PE the Catan Cy aga vCnr ie WARNED neat pein esa feedral eon se pn ‘SO ORDERED. Brion, Bersamin, Abad” and Vilar, Je, Jd. cone. Resolutions st aside er than RA. ues ice PD Ne OG pend rer ta cotta he tinea Seen ein te Sunagonioan, bil SRA 2 rei eee hatred ye smenta in the information. (Ud te Nationa member per Spell Order No. 898 dated Mav 17, | VoL. 626, JULY 90, 2010 239 Dyeoea ve. Orin GR.Ne 184848. duly 90,2000: YIRGILIO DYCOCO, herin represented by his Attorneys fact CRISTINO C. GRAPILO, JOSH. GRAPILO’ sed ADOLFO C, GRAFILO, and CRISTINO C. GRAFILO, JOSE (0. GRAPILO and ADOLFO C. GRAFILO for end in thes ome behalf. petitioners, vs. ADELAIDA ORINA joinod hy hor hos brand GERMAN R. ORINA as represented by her Attarsoy ie fact EVELYN M. SAGALONGOS an for in the lteers oo behalf, respondente i tae ore: Gisinena of Sint: When the Annes of nines ety sn pred tat sonpron anda seca a oat seat th oa he nt eps he ct rte i th et Sl ‘ett Ala wo at anh yroae nae fhe Ra Bare Moaage EO abr prone essen ce irre ory pas aeny ofits dee alain“ manic pe oe Sa REM ws presented Is asomatc that hen the genus oh fleutare'on'n dosent toh We od fois spt af aan steels fgets thane etn he cance wi oon ot ecm trig ty i ne pce Wy ae fest Iisa win ct tc peas ea EGREN aber gerorte sear apes roe ta Fiorentina ey re PRTTTION for reviow on cortirar of «dessin ofthe Court oF Appel, The fete ose Armand C. Areata fr petitioners, aed in the opinion of the Court cea Mercado for respondents THIRD DIVISION,