Reset

There are 340 results on the current subject filter

Padillo vs. People

9th October 2024

G.R. No. 271012
Summary
Roel Padillo was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs (shabu) found during the execution of a search warrant at his residence. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted him, and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court, upon review, reversed the lower courts' decisions and acquitted Padillo, finding fatal defects in both the issuance and implementation of the search warrant, rendering the seized evidence inadmissible, and also noting a significant, unexplained gap in the chain of custody of the alleged drugs.
Background
The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) suspected Roel Padillo of possessing shabu at his residence in Balingoan, Misamis Oriental, prompting them to apply for and obtain a search warrant to search the premises.
Criminal Law II

People vs. ABC260708

23rd January 2024

G.R. No. 260708
Summary
This case involves an appeal by ABC260708 who was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) for the rape (Criminal Case No. 17006) and rape through sexual assault (Criminal Case No. 17007) of his minor daughter, AAA260708. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but delved into the proper legal nomenclature when elements of both statutory rape (victim below 12 years old) and qualified rape (minority and relationship) are present. The Court abandoned the term "qualified statutory rape" used in some prior jurisprudence, ruling that the correct designation is "qualified rape of a minor," and established guidelines for its application. The damages awarded in the qualified rape case were also modified upwards.
Background
The case arose from charges filed against the accused, ABC260708, for committing rape through carnal knowledge and rape through sexual assault (oral rape) against his own daughter, AAA260708, who was eight years old at the time of the incidents in March 2015.
Criminal Law II
Rape

People vs. Flores

11th October 2023

G.R. No. 262686
Summary
This is a drug case where the Supreme Court reversed the conviction of the accused-appellants for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs due to reasonable doubt. The Court found significant breaches in the chain of custody of the seized drugs, particularly regarding the insulating witnesses' presence and the unexplained inconsistencies in the inventory process, thus undermining the integrity of the evidence and upholding the constitutional presumption of innocence.
Background
Accused-appellants were apprehended in a buy-bust operation for allegedly selling and possessing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted them, and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with slight modification. The case reached the Supreme Court via a Notice of Appeal. Accused-appellant Truelen passed away during the appeal process.
Criminal Law II

Quizon-Arciga vs. Baluyut

14th June 2023

G.R. No. 256612
Summary
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by Rita Quizon-Arciga and Relia Q. Arciga challenging the Court of Appeals' dismissal of their petition for annulment of judgment. The Court ruled that while the RTC lacked jurisdiction due to the complaint's failure to state the property's assessed value, petitioners were estopped from questioning jurisdiction after actively participating in the proceedings.
Background
The case stemmed from a loan agreement where Relia Arciga borrowed P500,000 from Jaycee Baluyut, secured by a real estate mortgage on property she co-owned with her mother Rita. When Relia defaulted, Baluyut filed for judicial foreclosure.
Civil Procedure I

Odilao vs. Union Bank of the Philippines

26th April 2023

G.R. No. 254787
Summary
This case involves a petition challenging the dismissal of a complaint for reformation of loan and mortgage agreements due to improper venue. The petitioner filed the suit in Davao City, where the mortgaged property was located, consistent with one of the locations specified in the mortgage contract's venue clause. However, the clause also granted the respondent bank the "absolute option" to choose between Davao City and Pasig City. The lower courts dismissed the case, interpreting the "option" clause as requiring the bank's prior selection. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the petitioner correctly filed the case in one of the stipulated venues and that the bank's "option" does not preclude the mortgagor from initiating suit in either location; the option is primarily for the bank's use when it is the plaintiff. The complaint was reinstated in the Davao City RTC.
Background
Petitioner Lucille Odilao and her husband entered into loan and real estate mortgage agreements with respondent Union Bank of the Philippines. The petitioner later sought judicial reformation of these agreements, contending they were contracts of adhesion and did not accurately reflect the parties' true intentions concerning various terms, including notices, interest, penalties, and venue procedures.
Civil Procedure I
Motion

Go vs. Court of Appeals

29th March 2023

G.R. No. 244681
Summary
This case involves a dispute over a property subject to execution in favor of Vicente C. Go following a judgment in a breach of contract and sum of money case. However, the property was previously sold to Spouses Colet, leading to a subsequent case for quieting of title. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the Court of Appeals' dismissal of Go's Petition for Annulment of Judgment, ruling that the RTC-Quezon City validly acquired jurisdiction and that Spouses Colet's prior unregistered sale took precedence over Go's registered levy.
Background
Vicente C. Go filed a Complaint against Setcom Inc. and several individuals for recovery of money, breach of contract, and damages (Civil Case No. 06-115453, RTC-Manila). The RTC-Manila ruled in Go's favor, ordering the defendants to pay Go P1.7 million with interest and damages. The property owned by Spouses Bernardo was levied and sold in execution to Go in 2011. Spouses Colet, who had purchased the property from Spouses Bernardo in 2005, later discovered the levy and filed a case for quieting of title in RTC-Quezon City. RTC-Quezon City ruled in favor of Spouses Colet, canceling Go’s encumbrances. Go filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision.
Civil Procedure I

Petron Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

20th March 2023

G.R. No. 255961
Summary
Petron Corporation sought a refund for excise taxes paid under protest on its importations of alkylate between July and November 2012, arguing that alkylate is not subject to excise tax under Section 148(e) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended. The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) Special Second Division and later the CTA En Banc denied the refund, holding that alkylate falls under "other similar products of distillation" because its raw materials are products of distillation. The Supreme Court reversed the CTA, ruling that alkylate, being produced through alkylation and not distillation, and differing significantly from naphtha and regular gasoline, is not among the items subject to excise tax under the plain language of Section 148(e); therefore, the taxes were erroneously collected and must be refunded.
Background
Petron Corporation, a manufacturer of petroleum products, imported alkylate for use as a blending component in gasoline production. Following a Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) letter dated June 29, 2012, implemented by Bureau of Customs (BOC) Customs Memorandum Circular (CMC) No. 164-2012 dated July 18, 2012, alkylate was deemed "similar to that of naphtha" and subjected to excise tax under Section 148(e) of the NIRC. Petron paid the taxes but contended they were erroneously imposed.
Civil Procedure I

Monasterial vs. Fontamillas and Kingsville Construction and Development Corporation

13th February 2023

G.R. No. 261457
Summary
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by Rosario Monasterial challenging the Court of Appeals' decision that affirmed the dismissal of her forcible entry case. The Court ruled that a boundary dispute cannot be settled through an ejectment case and that unregistered sketch plans without proper government approval have no evidentiary value.
Background
Rosario Monasterial filed a case for forcible entry against Engr. Vivencio Fontamillas and Kingsville Construction and Development Corporation regarding a property dispute. She presented sketch plans and a deed of sale to support her claim, while Kingsville presented a Torrens title.
Civil Procedure I

Spouses Libiran vs. Elisan Credit Corporation

13th February 2023

G.R. No. 255239
Summary
This case clarifies that while a judicial foreclosure of mortgage is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation, it is also a real action requiring the allegation of the property's assessed value to determine the proper court's jurisdiction. The failure to include this assessed value in the complaint is a fatal flaw, warranting dismissal without prejudice.
Background
Spouses Libiran obtained loans from Elisan Credit Corporation, secured by a real estate mortgage. When they defaulted, Elisan filed a judicial foreclosure complaint. The case reached the Supreme Court concerning jurisdictional issues.
Civil Procedure I

Nisperos vs. People

29th November 2022

G.R. No. 250927
Summary
This case involves Mario Nisperos y Padilla, who was convicted of selling dangerous drugs in a buy-bust operation. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the buy-bust team unjustifiably deviated from the chain of custody rule by failing to ensure the presence of all required witnesses at the place of transaction for the immediate inventory after seizure, leading to reasonable doubt about the integrity of the seized drugs.
Background
Petitioner Mario Nisperos y Padilla was charged with selling methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) in a buy-bust operation. The prosecution presented evidence of a pre-arranged buy-bust conducted by police officers based on information from a confidential informant. The defense contested the legality of the operation, particularly the chain of custody of the seized drug.
Criminal Law II

People vs. Agao

4th October 2022

930 Phil. 559, G.R. No. 248049
Summary
This case involves an appeal from a conviction for two counts of statutory rape where the accused-appellant, the victim's stepfather, contended that the acts did not constitute consummated rape. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modification (one count statutory rape, one count simple rape) but took the opportunity to definitively clarify the anatomical threshold distinguishing attempted from consummated rape by penile penetration, holding that penetration of the vulval cleft (cleft of the labia majora), however slight, constitutes consummation.
Background
The case arose from allegations of repeated sexual abuse committed by the accused-appellant, Efren Agao, against his minor stepdaughter, AAA, starting when she was 10 years old in 2009/2010 and continuing until 2012. Agao lived with AAA and her mother, BBB. The specific charges relate to incidents in July 2010 and January 2012.
Criminal Law II
Rape

Calleja vs. Executive Secretary

7th December 2021

G.R. No. 252578
Summary
Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (ATA), alleging violations of free speech, due process, and other rights. The Supreme Court partially granted the petitions, striking down specific provisions as unconstitutional, including parts of Section 4 (definition of terrorism) and Sections 25 (designation powers of the Anti-Terrorism Council), while upholding most of the law.
Background
The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (ATA) was enacted to replace the criticized Human Security Act of 2007, aiming to strengthen counter-terrorism measures and align with international standards (e.g., UN protocols, FATF guidelines). Civil society groups, journalists, and activists filed petitions arguing the law’s vague definitions (e.g., “terrorism,” “inciting”) and expanded executive powers threatened constitutional rights, enabling state abuse through arbitrary designations and surveillance. The government asserted the law was necessary to address evolving threats from groups like Abu Sayyaf and communist rebels while avoiding international sanctions for non-compliance with anti-terrorism financing rules. The case emerged amid heightened polarization over national security policies and concerns over “red-tagging” practices linking dissenters to terrorism.
Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Criminal Law II

RP vs. Spouses Nocom

15th November 2021

914 Phil. 686, G.R. No. 233988
Summary
This case concerns the Manila International Airport Authority's (MIAA) occupation of private lands for airport expansion without proper expropriation proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled that while MIAA's use was for public purpose, it must still pay just compensation to the landowners. The Court introduced a new method for calculating just compensation based on the present value concept to address the delay in payment.
Background
The case revolves around MIAA's occupation of private lands for airport expansion without proper expropriation proceedings. Initially, MIAA included the subject lots in its expropriation case but later moved to exclude some portions. Despite the exclusion, MIAA continued to occupy these portions without paying just compensation. The landowners, led by the Spouses Nocom, filed a case for recovery of possession and payment of rentals. The lower courts ruled in favor of the landowners, prompting MIAA to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Constitutional Law I

Roa v. Spouses Sy

14th September 2021

910 Phil. 219, G.R. No. 221586
Summary
This case addresses the distinction between "failure to state a cause of action" and "lack of cause of action" as grounds for dismissal of a complaint, and the impact of filing a motion for a bill of particulars (treated as a request for written interrogatories) on a defendant's ability to challenge the sufficiency of the complaint. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the complaint based on a ground not originally invoked by the respondents.
Background
The dispute involves a property initially co-owned by Zenaida Roa and her sister Amelia. Their niece, Marie Antoinette Francisco, allegedly fraudulently acquired title and then sold the property to Spouses Sy. Zenaida Roa filed a complaint seeking to nullify the deeds of sale and titles.
Civil Procedure I

Patricio G. Gemina, et al. v. Heirs of Gerardo V. Espejo, Jr., et al.

13th September 2021

910 Phil. 48, G.R. No. 232682
Summary
This case involves a petition for review challenging the Court of Appeals' decision which affirmed the Regional Trial Court's ruling in favor of the respondents (Heirs of Espejo) in an action for recovery of possession of property. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' decisions, finding that the petitioner (Gemina) was denied due process when the trial court allowed the respondents to present evidence ex parte solely due to the absence of Gemina's counsel during pre-trial, despite Gemina himself being present. The Court also highlighted issues regarding the sufficient identification of the disputed property and ultimately remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings, allowing Gemina to present his evidence.
Background
The dispute centers on a parcel of land located at 156 Session Road, Woodcrest Homes, Talanav, Area B, Batasan Hills, Quezon City. Petitioner Gemina claims ownership and possession since 1978 based on a purported purchase, presenting various documents like deeds, tax declarations, and permits. Respondents, the Heirs of Espejo, assert co-ownership based on a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT No. RIV786U [93809]) in the names of Gerardo V. Espejo, Jr. and Nenafe V. Espejo, and demanded Gemina vacate the property.
Civil Procedure I
Pre-trial

Pante vs. People

18th January 2021

969 SCRA 243, 894 Phil. 54, G.R. No. 218969
Summary
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Fernando Pante for theft. Pante was found guilty as a "finder in law" for failing to return money that was originally found by his co-accused minors. The Court held that even if Pante was not the original finder, his subsequent actions of appropriating the money and instructing the minors to keep it made him liable for theft under Article 308, par. 2(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
Background
Dawson Word lost a bundle of money (US dollars and Philippine pesos). A minor, one of Pante's co-accused, found the money and shared it with Pante and another minor. Pante, the only adult, took a significant portion of the money and used it for personal expenses. He only returned a portion after police intervention.
Property and Land Law

Re: Letter of Mrs. Ma. Cristina Roco Corona Requesting the Grant of Retirement and Other Benefits to the Late Former Chief Justice Renato C. Corona and Her Claim for Survivorship Pension as His Wife Under Republic Act No. 9946

12th January 2021

968 SCRA 12, 893 Phil. 231, A.M. No. 20-07-10-SC
Summary
This administrative matter concerns the request of Mrs. Ma. Cristina Roco Corona, the widow of the late former Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, for the grant of his retirement benefits and her corresponding survivorship pension under Republic Act No. 9946. Chief Justice Corona was removed from office via impeachment by the Senate in 2012 and passed away in 2016 before separate cases filed against him post-impeachment were concluded. The Supreme Court granted Mrs. Corona's request, ruling that removal by impeachment does not automatically result in the forfeiture of retirement benefits, which requires a separate final judicial determination of liability that was precluded by the Chief Justice's death; consequently, he was deemed involuntarily retired and entitled to benefits.
Background
Renato C. Corona served as an Associate Justice for eight years before being appointed Chief Justice in 2010. In 2011, impeachment proceedings were initiated against him by the House of Representatives on grounds including betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution. Following a trial, the Senate convicted him in 2012 primarily based on Article II concerning his failure to accurately declare his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN), leading to his removal from office. Subsequently, criminal, tax, and forfeiture cases were filed against him but were all dismissed following his death in 2016, prior to any final judgment.
Constitutional Law I

DPWH vs. Manalo

16th November 2020

G.R. No. 217656
Summary
This case concerns the rights of informal settlers facing eviction due to a government infrastructure project. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, holding that the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) must comply with due process and the requirements of existing laws before evicting the respondents and demolishing their structures.
Background
The DPWH initiated a C-5 extension project that affected the residential structures of the respondents, who are informal settlers. Instead of initiating expropriation proceedings, the DPWH offered financial assistance, which the respondents deemed insufficient. The respondents filed a complaint seeking just compensation.
Civil Procedure I

Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Central Bank of the Philippines

12th October 2020

958 SCRA 224, 887 Phil. 849, G.R. No. 197593
Summary
This case involves a bank fraud scheme that resulted in the loss of ₱9 million from the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI). The Supreme Court ruled that the Central Bank of the Philippines (CBP) cannot be held liable for the fraudulent acts of its employees, as it was performing a governmental function in operating the clearing house facility, and the employees were not acting as special agents.
Background
The case revolves around a sophisticated bank fraud scheme that exploited vulnerabilities in the check clearing process. Syndicate members opened accounts at BPI and Citibank, then deposited fraudulent checks. CBP employees Valentino and Estacio intercepted and altered clearing documents, preventing BPI from dishonoring the checks. Citibank, unaware of the fraud, allowed withdrawals after the clearing period. BPI discovered the ₱9 million loss and sought full reimbursement from CBP, which only partially complied. The legal battle that ensued focused on CBP's liability for its employees' actions and the nature of its clearing house operations.
Constitutional Law I

People vs. Meneses

30th June 2020

940 SCRA 372, 875 Phil. 724, G.R. No. 233533
Summary
This case involves the appeal of Joey Meneses y Cano, who was convicted of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, finding that the prosecution successfully proved all elements of the crime through a valid buy-bust operation, the testimonies of police officers, and the presentation of the seized drugs as evidence. The Court rejected Meneses' defenses of denial and frame-up, upholding the conviction.
Background
Joey Meneses was apprehended in a buy-bust operation conducted by police officers after a confidential informant reported his drug dealing activities. The operation stemmed from an initial transaction where Meneses sold marijuana to an undercover police officer. Subsequently, a planned buy-bust operation led to his arrest for selling both marijuana and shabu.
Criminal Law II

Taisei Shimizu Joint Venture vs. Commission on Audit

2nd June 2020

936 SCRA 359, 873 Phil. 323, G.R. No. 238671
Summary
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing and setting aside the Commission on Audit's (COA) decision that partially disapproved payment of a final and executory arbitral award. The Court ruled that the COA gravely abused its discretion by modifying the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission's (CIAC) final judgment, emphasizing that the COA's audit review power over money claims confirmed by final judgment is limited.
Background
After completing the New Iloilo Airport project, TSJV found that some of its billings remained unpaid. They sought arbitration through CIAC, which granted a substantial award in their favor. When TSJV attempted to enforce this award, they encountered resistance from government agencies, leading them to seek enforcement through COA. However, COA only partially approved the payment, effectively modifying the CIAC's final and executory award. TSJV then brought the case to the Supreme Court, challenging COA's decision.
Constitutional Law I

People vs. Guillermo

27th November 2019

926 SCRA 144, 866 Phil. 690, G.R. No. 229515
Summary
This case involves the appeal of Nida and Desiree Guillermo's conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Court decisions, acquitting the accused due to reasonable doubt arising from questionable aspects of the buy-bust operation and serious lapses in the chain of custody of the seized drugs.
Background
Nida and Desiree Guillermo were arrested in a buy-bust operation for allegedly selling shabu to a poseur-buyer. They were charged with violation of Section 5, in relation to Section 26, Article II of R.A. 9165. The prosecution presented the testimony of the arresting officers and the forensic chemist, while the defense presented testimonies denying the drug sale and alleging irregularities in the arrest and post-arrest procedures.
Criminal Law II

Philippine Textile Research Institute vs. Court of Appeals

9th October 2019

922 SCRA 623, 864 Phil. 993, G.R. No. 223319, G.R. No. 247736
Summary
This case involves a construction dispute between the Philippine Textile Research Institute (PTRI) and E.A. Ramirez Construction, Inc. The Supreme Court ruled that while PTRI is not immune from suit, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) lacks jurisdiction over the case as it falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC).
Background
E.A. Ramirez, a construction company, entered into a contract with PTRI for the rehabilitation of electrical facilities. Shortly after work began, E.A. Ramirez alleged that PTRI's consultant demanded a bribe, which E.A. Ramirez refused. Subsequently, E.A. Ramirez claimed to encounter various difficulties in completing the project, including frequent changes in instructions and rejection of their work. When E.A. Ramirez requested an extension, PTRI instead terminated the contract. E.A. Ramirez then filed a lawsuit against PTRI for breach of contract. PTRI sought to dismiss the case, citing state immunity and lack of jurisdiction. The case made its way through the court system, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court.
Constitutional Law I

PLDT vs. Citi Appliance M.C. Corporation

9th October 2019

922 SCRA 518, 864 Phil. 899, G.R. No. 214546
Summary
This case involves a forcible entry action filed by Citi Appliance against PLDT regarding underground telephone lines discovered on Citi Appliance's property during construction. The Supreme Court ruled that the action for forcible entry had prescribed as it was filed more than one year after Citi Appliance discovered PLDT's encroachment, and that prior physical possession by Citi Appliance was not sufficiently proven. The Court clarified the reckoning point for the one-year prescriptive period in forcible entry cases based on stealth, emphasizing it starts from the discovery of the unlawful entry, not the last demand to vacate.
Background
Citi Appliance, owner of a land in Cebu City, discovered underground telephone lines, cables, and manholes installed by PLDT while excavating for a parking lot for its planned commercial building. These installations were preventing Citi Appliance from fully utilizing its property. Citi Appliance sought to have PLDT remove these installations or pay for parking exemption fees, leading to a forcible entry case when PLDT refused.
Property and Land Law

Ang Nars Party-List v. Executive Secretary

8th October 2019

G.R. No. 215746
Summary
This case involves a petition filed by Ang Nars Party-List challenging the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 811 and Joint Resolution No. 4, which downgraded the salary grade of government nurses from Salary Grade 15 to Salary Grade 11. The petitioners argued that this violated Republic Act No. 9173 (Philippine Nursing Act of 2002), which mandated a higher entry-level salary for nurses.
Background
The case arose after the issuance of Executive Order No. 811, which downgraded the entry-level salary of government nurses to Salary Grade 11, contrary to Section 32 of Republic Act No. 9173. Ang Nars Party-List and PSLINK filed the petition, asserting that the downgrade was unconstitutional and beyond the authority of the Executive.
Statutory Construction

People vs. Tulagan

12th March 2019

896 SCRA 307, 849 Phil. 197, G.R. No. 227363
Summary
This case involves an appeal affirming Salvador Tulagan's conviction for sexual assault and statutory rape against a nine-year-old minor, AAA. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but modified the nomenclature of the sexual assault charge, the penalty imposed for it, and the damages awarded for both crimes, using the opportunity to extensively clarify and reconcile the applicable provisions of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) concerning sexual offenses against minors, particularly addressing the interplay between RPC Articles 266-A, 266-B, 336 and Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, establishing applicable penalties and standardized damages based on prevailing jurisprudence.
Background
The case arose from two separate incidents where the accused-appellant, Salvador Tulagan, sexually abused his nine-year-old neighbor, AAA, first by inserting his finger into her vagina in September 2011, and later by having sexual intercourse with her in October 2011, leading to charges of sexual assault and statutory rape respectively.
Criminal Law II
Rape

People vs. Noah

6th March 2019

895 SCRA 399, 848 Phil. 680, G.R. No. 228880
Summary
This case involves Lina Achieng Noah, a Kenyan national, who was convicted of illegal transportation of dangerous drugs (methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu). The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, which upheld the Regional Trial Court’s conviction. The core issue revolved around the legality of the warrantless search at the airport and the integrity of the chain of custody of the seized drugs. The Court ruled in favor of the prosecution, finding that the chain of custody was properly established and Noah's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Background
Lina Achieng Noah was apprehended at Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 1 upon arrival from Kenya via Dubai. Customs Examiner Landicho became suspicious of her luggage, leading to a further inspection in an exclusion room. This inspection revealed packages of shabu concealed within a laptop bag inside her luggage. Noah claimed the luggage was given to her and denied knowledge of the drugs.
Criminal Law II

People vs. Suico

10th September 2018

880 SCRA 32, 840 Phil. 1, G.R. No. 229940
Summary
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Jimboy Suico y Acope for illegal transportation of dangerous drugs (marijuana). The Court upheld the validity of the warrantless arrest and seizure, and found that the prosecution sufficiently established the chain of custody of the seized drugs, proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Background
Police officers set up a checkpoint for a "no plate, no travel" policy based on information about a person transporting marijuana on a specific motorcycle. Jimboy Suico, matching the description, approached the checkpoint and attempted to evade it, leading to his arrest and the discovery of marijuana in his backpack and sack.
Criminal Law II

People of the Philippines vs. Romy Lim y Miranda

4th September 2018

839 Phil. 598, G.R. No. 231989
Summary
Romy Lim y Miranda was convicted by the RTC and CA for illegal sale and possession of shabu (Sections 5 and 11, R.A. 9165) stemming from a buy-bust operation conducted by PDEA agents. Lim appealed to the Supreme Court, primarily arguing that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody over the seized drugs as mandated by Section 21 of R.A. 9165 due to the absence of required witnesses during the inventory. The Supreme Court found merit in Lim's argument, holding that the arresting officers failed to comply with the mandatory witness requirements under Section 21 without providing justifiable grounds, thereby casting reasonable doubt on the integrity of the seized drugs (corpus delicti), reversed the lower courts' decisions, acquitted Lim, and established a new mandatory policy for prosecutors regarding compliance with Section 21.
Background
Following a tip from a confidential informant (CI) regarding alleged drug selling activities by "Romy" in Cagayan de Oro City, agents from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Regional Office X planned and executed a buy-bust operation targeting the accused-appellant, Romy Lim y Miranda, at his residence.
Criminal Law II

Re: Show Cause Order in the Decision Dated May 11, 2018 in G.R. No. 237428 (Republic of the Philippines v. Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno)

17th July 2018

836 Phil. 166, A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC
Summary
This administrative matter arose from a show cause order issued by the Supreme Court against then-Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, requiring her to explain why she should not be sanctioned for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the New Code of Judicial Conduct (NCJC) through her public statements and actions during the pendency of the *quo warranto* case (G.R. No. 237428) against her. The Court found Sereno guilty of violating several canons related to respecting the courts, avoiding impropriety influencing the court, judicial independence, integrity, impartiality, and propriety, particularly transgressing the *sub judice* rule and casting aspersions on the Court and its members. Despite the severity, considering mitigating factors such as her prior removal via *quo warranto* and lack of previous administrative liability, the Court imposed the penalty of REPRIMAND with a STERN WARNING instead of suspension or disbarment.
Background
The administrative case originated as an offshoot of the *quo warranto* proceedings (G.R. No. 237428) filed by the Solicitor General against then-Chief Justice Sereno, questioning her eligibility for the position. Prior to the *quo warranto* case, an impeachment complaint had also been filed against her in the House of Representatives. During the pendency of both the impeachment and *quo warranto* matters, the Court observed that Sereno engaged in numerous public appearances and statements regarding the cases.
Constitutional Law I

Republic vs. Manalo

24th April 2018

862 SCRA 580, G.R. No. 221029
Summary
The Supreme Court ruled that a divorce decree obtained abroad by a Filipino citizen against a foreign spouse can be recognized in the Philippines, allowing the Filipino citizen to remarry, provided the divorce is valid according to the laws of the foreign country. The Court partially affirmed the Court of Appeals decision and remanded the case to the lower court to determine the relevant Japanese law on divorce.
Background
Marelyn Tanedo Manalo, a Filipino citizen, married a Japanese national. She later obtained a divorce decree in Japan and filed a petition in the Philippines for the recognition of the divorce and the cancellation of her marriage record. The lower court denied her petition, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision.
Legal Research and Writing

People vs. Tomawis

18th April 2018

862 SCRA 131, 830 Phil. 385, G.R. No. 228890
Summary
Basher Tomawis was convicted of selling illegal drugs. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, finding that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to significant procedural lapses in the handling of the seized drugs, particularly regarding the chain of custody and compliance with the mandatory witness rule under Section 21 of RA 9165. The Court emphasized the importance of strict adherence to these procedures to protect the integrity of drug evidence and safeguard the rights of the accused.
Background
This is a criminal case involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, specifically methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), under Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The case originated from a buy-bust operation conducted by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). The central issue revolves around the procedural compliance of law enforcement in handling seized drug evidence and protecting the accused’s rights within the context of the anti-drug campaign.
Criminal Law II

Leviste Management System, Inc. vs. Legaspi Towers 200, Inc

4th April 2018

829 Phil. 176, 860 SCRA 355, G.R. No. 199353
Summary
This case involves a dispute between Leviste Management System, Inc. (LEMANS) and Legaspi Towers 200, Inc. (Legaspi Towers) concerning the construction of an additional unit (Concession 4) by LEMANS on the roof deck of a condominium building owned and operated by Legaspi Towers. The Supreme Court ruled that the Condominium Act, Master Deed, and By-Laws govern the case, making Article 448 of the Civil Code on builders in good faith inapplicable, and upheld Legaspi Towers' right to abate the illegal construction at LEMANS' expense.
Background
Legaspi Towers 200, Inc. owns and operates a condominium building. Leviste Management System, Inc. (LEMANS) owned Concession 3, a unit within the building. LEMANS sought to build Concession 4 on the roof deck above Concession 3. Legaspi Towers objected, arguing the construction was illegal as it violated the Master Deed and Condominium Act and was built without proper approvals. LEMANS claimed ownership of the airspace and good faith in the construction, seeking application of Article 448 of the Civil Code.
Property and Land Law

Trillanes IV vs. Castillo-Marigomen

14th March 2018

859 SCRA 271, 828 Phil. 336, G.R. No. 223451
Summary
This case involves a Petition for Certiorari filed by Senator Antonio F. Trillanes IV challenging the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) denial of his motion to dismiss a defamation complaint filed against him by businessman Antonio L. Tiu. Trillanes argued his statements calling Tiu a "dummy" for former Vice President Binay concerning the "Hacienda Binay" were covered by parliamentary immunity and failed to state a cause of action. The Supreme Court dismissed Trillanes' petition, holding that his statements to the media were not covered by parliamentary immunity as they were not made during Senate sessions or committee hearings nor in the performance of his official legislative duties, affirmed the RTC's finding that the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action, and ruled that Trillanes violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts by filing directly with the Supreme Court without exceptionally compelling reasons.
Background
Petitioner, Senator Trillanes, initiated a Senate investigation (P.S. Resolution No. 826) into alleged overpricing of Makati City infrastructure projects involving former VP Binay. During a hearing, former Makati Vice Mayor Mercado testified about the "Hacienda Binay," a large estate in Batangas allegedly owned by VP Binay. Private respondent Antonio Tiu subsequently claimed ownership of a portion of the estate through his company, Sunchamp Real Estate Corporation. Following Tiu's testimony and presentation of an agreement before the Senate Blue Ribbon Sub-Committee, Senator Trillanes made statements to the media describing Tiu as a "front," "nominee," or "dummy" for VP Binay regarding the estate.
Civil Procedure I Constitutional Law I
Motion

Heirs of Jose Mariano and Helen S. Mariano vs. City of Naga

12th March 2018

931 Phil. 369, 858 SCRA 179, G.R. No. 197743
Summary
This case concerns an ejectment suit filed by the heirs of landowners against the City of Naga for possessing a 5-hectare property intended for the City Hall. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the heirs, finding that the purported donation of the land to the City was void due to formal defects in the Deed of Donation and failure to fulfill the condition that the City Hall construction contract be awarded to the landowners' subdivision. The Court held that the City's possession was by mere tolerance, which ceased upon demand by the heirs.
Background
In 1954, City Heights Subdivision offered to donate 5 hectares of land to the City of Naga for the City Hall, conditional on the subdivision being awarded the construction contract. The Municipal Board accepted the donation, and the City took possession and built the City Hall and other government offices. However, the construction contract was awarded to a different contractor. The landowners and their heirs later demanded the return of the property, arguing the condition for donation was not met, and the donation was not properly executed.
Property and Land Law

Osorio vs. Navera

26th February 2018

856 SCRA 435, 826 Phil. 643, G.R. No. 223272
Summary
The Supreme Court ruled that kidnapping can never be part of a soldier's official functions and cannot be done in a soldier's official capacity. If a soldier proceeds with kidnapping, even allegedly under orders from a superior officer, they shall be tried before civil courts. The remedy of habeas corpus, arguing that only courts-martial have jurisdiction over Armed Forces members, will not apply.
Background
The case stems from the alleged kidnapping of two University of the Philippines students, Karen E. Empeño and Sherlyn T. Cadapan, by military personnel including SSgt. Osorio and Major General Jovito Palparan. The victims were reportedly abducted from a house in Hagonoy, Bulacan, and detained in various military facilities from June 2006 to July 2007, resulting in their continuing disappearance.
Criminal Law II

People vs. Amarela

17th January 2018

852 SCRA 54, 823 Phil. 1188, G.R. Nos. 225642-43
Summary
This case is an appeal to the Supreme Court challenging the Court of Appeals' decision which affirmed the Regional Trial Court's conviction of Juvy Amarela and Junard Racho for two separate counts of rape against the same victim, AAA, on consecutive days. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' decisions and acquitted both accused-appellants due to the prosecution's failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, citing significant inconsistencies and improbabilities in the complainant's testimony and the lack of sufficient corroborating evidence.
Background
The case arose from allegations that Juvy Amarela raped AAA on February 10, 2009, and that Junard Racho raped her hours later, in the early morning of February 11, 2009, in Davao City, during fiesta celebrations. Two separate Informations for rape were filed against Amarela and Racho, respectively, which were jointly tried.
Criminal Law II
Rape

De Lima vs. Guerrero

10th October 2017

843 SCRA 1, 819 Phil. 616, G.R. No. 229781
Summary
This case is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition filed by Senator Leila De Lima, assailing orders issued by Judge Juanita Guerrero of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City, Branch 204, related to a criminal case filed against De Lima for violation of drug laws. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the petition, finding it premature and violative of the hierarchy of courts and the rule against forum shopping, and upheld the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Background
Legislative inquiries into drug syndicates at the New Bilibid Prison led to complaints against Senator De Lima for illegal drug trading. These complaints were consolidated before the Department of Justice (DOJ) Panel of Prosecutors for preliminary investigation. De Lima challenged the DOJ Panel's jurisdiction, arguing that the Ombudsman had exclusive jurisdiction.
Criminal Law II

Estipona, Jr. vs. Lobrigo

15th August 2017

837 SCRA 160, 816 Phil. 789, G.R. No. 226679
Summary
This case challenged the constitutionality of Section 23 of Republic Act No. 9165, which prohibits plea bargaining in all drug-related offenses. The Supreme Court ruled that the provision encroached upon the judiciary's exclusive power to promulgate procedural rules, thereby declaring it unconstitutional.
Background
Petitioner Salvador Estipona, Jr. was charged with possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. He attempted to enter into a plea bargaining agreement, which was denied based on the statutory prohibition under Section 23 of the law. He then filed a petition questioning the constitutionality of the prohibition, arguing that it violated the judiciary’s rule-making power.
Civil Procedure I Criminal Law I Criminal Procedure

National Housing Authority vs. Laurito

31st July 2017

833 SCRA 380, 814 Phil. 1019, G.R. No. 191657
Summary
This case involves a dispute between the National Housing Authority (NHA) and the heirs of Spouses Laurito over ownership of a parcel of land in Carmona, Cavite, with both parties presenting different Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) derived ultimately from the same parent title but registered at different times and through different processes (transfer vs. administrative reconstitution). The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions upholding the title of the Spouses Laurito's heirs, ruling that their title, registered earlier in time (1956), prevails over NHA's titles which originated from a later, dubious administrative reconstitution (1960) of an already cancelled parent title. The Court also denied a late petition-in-intervention filed by the heirs of Rufina Manarin.
Background
The case arose from conflicting claims of ownership over Lot F-3 of subdivision plan Psd-12274 in Carmona, Cavite. The heirs of Spouses Laurito based their claim on TCT No. T-9943 registered in 1956 (later reconstituted as RT-8747 in 1962), derived from TCT No. T-8237. Petitioner NHA based its claim on TCT Nos. T-3717 and T-3741, derived through a series of transfers originating from an alleged administrative reconstitution of the same parent title, TCT No. T-8237, in 1960 (as RT 3909) and subsequent subdivisions/transfers starting in 1960.
Civil Procedure I
Intervention

Integrated Bar of the Philippines Pangasinan Legal Aid vs. Department of Justice

25th July 2017

832 SCRA 36, 814 Phil. 440, G.R. No. 232413
Summary
The Supreme Court ruled that detainees held beyond mandated periods for preliminary investigation or whose dismissed cases remain pending automatic review must be released to protect constitutional rights to liberty, even if DOJ circulars initially permitted prolonged detention.
Background
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) discovered pre-trial detainees languishing in jail for years without charges due to DOJ circulars requiring automatic reviews. Jay-Ar Senin, arrested in a 2015 drug buy-bust, waived Article 125 of the RPC, but his case was dismissed and remained under DOJ review for eight months.
Criminal Law II

Edron Construction Corporation vs. Provincial Government of Surigao Del Sur

5th June 2017

826 SCRA 47, 810 Phil. 347, G.R. No. 220211
Summary
This case involves a petition for review challenging the Court of Appeals' reversal of a Regional Trial Court decision. Petitioners Edron Construction Corporation and Edmer Y. Lim sued the Provincial Government of Surigao Del Sur for specific performance and damages to collect unpaid amounts under three construction contracts. The Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action due to the petitioners' failure to submit a contractually required sworn statement. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, reinstated the RTC decision with modifications on interest rates, and held that the respondent had waived the defense regarding the sworn statement by failing to raise it in its Answer or in a timely Motion to Dismiss, as mandated by the Rules of Court.
Background
The dispute originated from three separate construction agreements entered into by petitioners Edron Construction Corporation and Edmer Y. Lim with the respondent, the Provincial Government of Surigao Del Sur, for the construction of the Learning Resource Center of Tandag, Tandag Bus/Jeepney Terminal, and Tandag Public Market.
Civil Procedure I
Motion

Castro vs. Mendoza

26th April 2017

809 Phil. 789, G.R. No. 212778
Summary
This case involves a dispute over a parcel of land originally owned by the Santos heirs and tenanted by petitioners Castro and Sebastian. An heir sold a portion to the Municipality of Bustos, which built a public market on it. Although the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) initially recognized the petitioners' right of redemption as tenants, subsequent execution proceedings led to the PARAD ordering the transfer of ownership despite the petitioners' failure to timely and validly redeem the property. The Court of Appeals reversed the PARAD's execution orders. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that while petitioners were tenants with a right of redemption, their failure to validly exercise this right (by timely consigning the full redemption price) and the property's conversion to public use precluded them from acquiring ownership or possession, though they are entitled to disturbance compensation.
Background
The case originates from the sale of a portion of agricultural land, tenanted by the petitioners, by one of the co-owning heirs to the respondent Municipality of Bustos for the expansion of its public market. The sale occurred without written notice to the petitioners, triggering their right of redemption under agrarian law. The property had already been classified as commercial, and a public market was constructed and operating on it before the petitioners formally sought redemption.
Civil Procedure I
Intervention

Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals at the Hall of Justice Building in Quezon City

7th March 2017

819 SCRA 313, 806 Phil. 822, A.M. No. 10-4-19-SC
Summary
This administrative matter addresses the complaint filed by Tony Q. Valenciano regarding the holding of daily Catholic masses at the basement of the Quezon City Hall of Justice, alleging violations of the constitutional principles of Separation of Church and State and the prohibition against the use of public property for religious purposes. The Supreme Court, applying the principle of benevolent neutrality and accommodation, denied Valenciano's request to prohibit the masses, finding no constitutional violation, but directed the Executive Judges to regulate and monitor such practices to ensure they do not disrupt public service or unduly inconvenience the public.
Background
The controversy began with letters from Tony Q. Valenciano to then Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, complaining that the basement of the Quezon City (QC) Hall of Justice was being used as a Roman Catholic Chapel for daily masses, complete with religious icons and an offertory table. Valenciano asserted this practice violated constitutional provisions and caused various practical inconveniences.
Constitutional Law I

Association of Medical Clinics for Overseas Workers, Inc. (AMCOW) vs. GCC Approved Medical Centers Association, Inc.

6th December 2016

812 SCRA 452, 802 Phil. 116, G.R. No. 207132, G.R. No. 207205
Summary
The Supreme Court reversed the Regional Trial Court's decision that nullified Department of Health orders prohibiting the referral decking system for overseas Filipino workers' medical examinations. The Court ruled that the DOH did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the cease and desist orders against the referral decking system, as this was a valid exercise of police power and did not violate principles of international law.
Background
The case revolves around the practice of "referral decking" for medical examinations of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs). This system required OFWs to go through GAMCA for referral to specific clinics for health examinations. The DOH initially allowed this practice but later sought to prohibit it through administrative orders and eventually through legislation (RA 10022). When the DOH issued cease and desist orders against GAMCA to stop the referral decking system, GAMCA challenged this in court, leading to a legal battle over the validity of the prohibition and its implementation.
Constitutional Law I

Majestic Plus Holdings International, Inc. vs. Bullion Investment and Development Corporation

5th December 2016

812 SCRA 91, 801 Phil. 883, G.R. No. 201017, G.R. No. 215289
Summary
A case involving a dispute over a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between two corporations regarding the acquisition of shares and development of a commercial property (Meisic Mall), where issues of summary judgment and execution pending appeal were central to the Supreme Court's decision.
Background
The case arose from a contract between the City of Manila and Bullion for the lease and development of a 4,808.40-square-meter property. Bullion won the bidding but needed additional funding to complete the commercial building (Meisic Mall). They entered into a MOA with Majestic Plus Holdings International, Inc. for 80% equity interest in exchange for funding.
Civil Procedure I

Ursua vs. Republic

5th October 2016

805 SCRA 1, 796 Phil. 439, G.R. Nos. 177857-58, G.R. No. 178193
Summary
This case involves consolidated petitions for review challenging various rulings of the Sandiganbayan regarding the ownership and disposition of coconut levy funds and assets, including shares in United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) and San Miguel Corporation (SMC). The petitioners, including COCOFED and individual coconut farmers, sought to reverse the rulings that declared the assets to be public funds held in trust for all coconut farmers, while the respondents, including the Republic, argued for the recovery of allegedly ill-gotten wealth.
Background
The case arose from a broader legal battle over the alleged misuse of coconut levy funds collected from coconut farmers during the Marcos regime. These funds were purportedly used to acquire shares in UCPB and SMC, among other assets. The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) filed several cases to recover these assets as part of the government's efforts to reclaim ill-gotten wealth.
Civil Procedure I

Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Bataan vs. Garcia, Jr.

5th October 2016

804 SCRA 629, 796 Phil. 414, G.R. No. 174964
Summary
This case involves a petition by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Bataan questioning the Court of Appeals' decision that affirmed the Regional Trial Court's order for a writ of mandamus compelling the province to transfer land titles to the Bataan Polytechnic State College (BPSC). The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts, holding that the subject lands, although titled under the Province of Bataan, are communal lands held in trust for the State and are thus properly transferable to BPSC as mandated by Republic Act No. 8562.
Background
The Province of Bataan owned land occupied by the Medina Lacson de Leon School of Arts and Trades (MLLSAT) and Bataan Community Colleges (BCC). Republic Act No. 8562 converted MLLSAT into Bataan Polytechnic State College (BPSC) and integrated BCC into it, declaring the lands occupied by these schools as property of BPSC and mandating the transfer of titles. The Province of Bataan refused to transfer the titles, claiming the lands were patrimonial property and mortgaged.
Property and Land Law

In the Matter of the South China Sea Arbitration

12th July 2016

PCA Case No. 2013-19
Summary
This landmark case concerns maritime entitlements and activities in the South China Sea, involving disputes between the Philippines and China. The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) ruled largely in favor of the Philippines, rejecting China's claims to historic rights within its "nine-dash line" and finding that China had violated the Philippines' sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone.
Background
The South China Sea, rich in natural resources and strategically important for international shipping, has been a subject of territorial disputes among several nations. The Philippines, concerned about China's increasing assertiveness in the region, initiated arbitration proceedings in 2013 to clarify the maritime entitlements of both nations under UNCLOS. Despite China's non-participation and rejection of the tribunal's jurisdiction, the arbitration proceeded. The case attracted global attention due to its potential impact on regional stability and the interpretation of international maritime law.
Constitutional Law I

Mercader, Jr. vs. Bardilas

27th June 2016

788 Phil. 136, 794 SCRA 387, G.R. No. 163157
Summary
This case involves a dispute over a road right of way between adjacent property owners. The petitioners, Spouses Mercader, claimed ownership of a portion of the easement and sought to prevent the respondents, Spouses Bardilas, from asserting their rights as owners of the servient estate. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision recognizing the Spouses Bardilas' ownership of the servient estate and right to the road right of way, clarifying that while an easement exists, the servient estate owner retains ownership and can use the property in a manner that doesn't impede the easement's exercise.
Background
The dispute arose between owners of subdivided lots originally part of a larger property. Spouses Mercader and Spouses Bardilas owned adjacent lots, with Spouses Bardilas' lot being burdened by a right of way for the benefit of Spouses Mercader's lot and others to access Clarita Village. A fence erected by the Clarita Village Association restricted the original exit of the right of way, leading to conflicts about encroachment and the extent of rights over the easement.
Property and Land Law
1-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201-250 251-300 301-340 »