Home

Law Firm

Law Library

Laws

Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2019 > February 2019 Decisions > G.R. No. 239957 -
JESUS TRINIDAD Y BERSAMIN, PETITIONER, v. THE PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.:

G.R. No. 239957 - JESUS TRINIDAD Y BERSAMIN, PETITIONER, v. THE PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 239957, February 18, 2019

JESUS TRINIDAD Y BERSAMIN, PETITIONER, v. THE PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 filed by petitioner Jesus Trinidad y Bersamin
(Trinidad) assailing the Decision2 dated January 25, 2018 and the Resolution3 dated May 31, 2018 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 39598, which affirmed the Decision4 dated November 7, 2016 of
the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 67 (RTC) in Crim. Case Nos. 155678 and 155679 finding him
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition under
Section 28 (a) in relation to Section 28 (e) (1), Article V of Republic Act No. (RA) 10591.5

The Facts

On December 12, 2014, an Information6 was filed before the RTC charging Trinidad with violation of RA
10591, the pertinent portion of which reads:

On or about November 14, 2014, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
accused, being then a private person, without any lawful authority, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have in [his] possession and under [his] custody and control one (1) unit
[c]aliber .38 revolver marked Smith & Wesson with serial number 833268 with markings "RJN", a small
arm, loaded with six (6) pieces live ammunitions of caliber .38 with markings "1RN, 2RN, 3RN, 4RN, 5RN
and 6RN", without first securing the necessary license or permit from the Firearms and Explosives Office
of the Philippine National Police, in violation of the above-entitled law.

Contrary to law.7

The prosecution alleged that at around 8:30 in the evening of November 14, 2014, members from the
Philippine National Police (PNP)-Pasig Police Station conducted a buy-bust operation, with Police Officer
(PO) 1 Randy S. Sanoy (PO1 Sanoy) as the poseur buyer and PO1 Rodrigo J. Nidoy, Jr. (PO1 Nidoy) as the
back-up arresting officer, to apprehend a certain "Jessie" who, purportedly, was involved in illegal drug
activities at Aurelia St., Barangay Bagong Hog, Pasig City.8 After the alleged sale had been
consummated, PO1 Nidoy arrested Trinidad, frisked him, and recovered from the latter a 0.38 caliber
revolver loaded with six (6) live ammunitions tucked at his back, as well as a 0.22 caliber rifle loaded
with seven (7) live ammunitions and two (2) magazines (subject firearms and ammunition) which were
found beside the gate of his house.9 When asked if he has any documentation for the same, Trinidad
claimed that they were merely pawned to him. After marking the seized items, they proceeded to the
nearby barangay hall and conducted inventory and photography thereof, and then went to the police
station where the request for ballistic examination was made.10 Finally, the seized items were brought
to the crime laboratory, where, after examination, it was revealed that "the firearms are serviceable and
the ammunitions are live and serviceable."11 During trial, Trinidad's counsel agreed to the stipulation
that Trinidad has no license to possess or carry firearms of any caliber at the time of his arrest.12

For his part, Trinidad denied the accusations against him, claiming, among others, that aside from the
present case, he was also charged with the crime of Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs,
which arose from the same incident, but was, however, acquitted13 therein for, inter alia, failure of the
prosecution to prove that Trinidad was validly arrested thru a legitimate buy-bust operation. He then
formally offered in evidence the said acquittal ruling, which was objected by the public prosecutor for
being immaterial and irrelevant to the present case.14 The RTC admitted said evidence only as part of
Trinidad's testimony.15

The RTC Ruling

In a Decision16 dated November 7, 2016, the RTC found Trinidad guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two
(2) counts of violation of RA 10591, and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment for an indeterminate period of ten (10) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day, as
minimum, to eleven (11) years and four (4) months of prision mayor, as maximum, for each count.17

The RTC found that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of the crime of Illegal Possession
of Firearms and Ammunition, considering that: (a) PO1 Nidoy positively identified the firearms
presented before the court as the same firearms seized and recovered from Trinidad's possession; and
(b) Trinidad admitted that he is not a holder of any license or permit from the PNP Firearms and
Explosives Unit. It gave credence to the positive, clear, and categorical testimonies of the prosecution's
witnesses rather than Trinidad's defenses of denial and alibi.18 It likewise held that Trinidad's acquittal
in the drugs charges is immaterial to this case, opining that the ground for his acquittal is neither
unlawful arrest nor unlawful search and seizure, but the procedural flaw in the chain of custody of the
dangerous drugs.19
Aggrieved, Trinidad appealed20 to the CA.

The CA Ruling

In a Decision21 dated January 25, 2018, the CA affirmed Trinidad's conviction with modification,
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of eight (8) years and
one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to ten (10) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of prision
mayor, as maximum, for each count.22 The CA ruled that the evidence for the prosecution convincingly
established all the elements of the crime charged as Trinidad: (a) was caught in possession and control
of two (2) firearms, consisting of one (1) .38 caliber23 revolver loaded with six (6) live ammunitions and
one (1) .22 caliber rifle loaded with seven (7) live ammunitions, as well as two (2) magazines during the
conduct of the buy-bust operation; and (b) failed to show any permit or license to possess the same,
simply claiming that the said firearms were pawned to him.24 It likewise noted that Trinidad's counsel
agreed to the stipulation that Trinidad has no license to possess or carry the subject firearms at the time
of his arrest.25 Finally, it agreed with the RTC's opinion that Trinidad's acquittal in the drugs charges was
due to the prosecution's failure to prove the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs, and not
due to his supposed questionable arrest.26

Dissatisfied, Trinidad moved for reconsideration,27 but was denied in a Resolution28 dated May 31,
2018; hence, this petition.

The Issue Before the Court

The sole issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly upheld Trinidad's conviction
for the crime charged.

The Court's Ruling

The petition is meritorious.

"At the outset, it must be stressed that in criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for
review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or
even reverse the trial court's decision based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as
errors. The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court
competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the
proper provision of the penal law."29

"Section 2,30 Article III of the 1987 Constitution mandates that a search and seizure must be carried out
through or on the strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause, absent
which, such search and seizure becomes 'unreasonable’ within the meaning of said constitutional
provision. To protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures, Section 3 (2),31 Article III of
the 1987 Constitution provides that evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures shall
be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. In other words, evidence obtained and
confiscated on the occasion of such unreasonable searches and seizures are deemed tainted and should
be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree."32

"One of the recognized exceptions to the need for a warrant before a search may be affected is a search
incidental to a lawful arrest. In this instance, the law requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a
search can be made – the process cannot be reversed."33

A lawful arrest may be affected with or without a warrant. With respect to the latter, a warrantless
arrest may be done when, inter alia, the accused is caught in flagrante delicto,34 such as in buy-bust
operations in drugs cases.35 However, if the existence of a valid buy-bust operation cannot be proven,
and thus, the validity of the in flagrante delicto warrantless arrest cannot be established, the arrest
becomes illegal and the consequent search incidental thereto becomes unreasonable.36 Resultantly, all
the evidence seized by reason of the unlawful arrest is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any
proceeding.37

In this case, Trinidad essentially anchors his defense on the following contentions: (a) his arrest
stemmed from a purported buy-bust operation where the illegal drugs and the subject firearms and
ammunition were allegedly recovered from him; (b) this resulted in the filing of three (3) Informations
against him, two (2) of which are for violations of RA 916538 (which were tried jointly), while the other
pertains to the instant case; and (c) his acquittal39 in the drugs cases should necessarily result in his
acquittal in this case as well. In finding these contentions untenable, the courts a quo opined that the
resolution in the drugs cases is immaterial in this case as they involve different crimes40 and that "the
ground for the acquittal x x x is neither unlawful arrest nor unlawful search or seizure, but the
procedural flaw in the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs."41

However, a more circumspect review of the decision absolving Trinidad of criminal liability in the drugs
cases reveals that he was acquitted therein not only due to unjustified deviations from the chain of
custody rule,42 but also on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of a valid buy-
bust operation, thereby rendering Trinidad's in flagrante delicto warrantless arrest illegal and the
subsequent search on him unreasonable.43 Thus, contrary to the courts a quo's opinions, Trinidad's
acquittal in the drugs cases, more particularly on the latter ground, is material to this case because the
subject firearms and ammunition were simultaneously recovered from him when he was searched
subsequent to his arrest on account of the buy-bust operation.

The Court is aware that the findings on the illegality of Trinidad's warrantless arrest were made in the
drugs cases, which are separate and distinct from the present illegal possession of firearms and
ammunition case. Nevertheless, the Court is not precluded from taking judicial notice of such findings as
evidence, and apply them altogether for the judicious resolution of the same issue which was duly raised
herein. To be sure, the general rule is that the courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the
contents of the records of other cases. However, this rule admits of exceptions, such as when the other
case has a close connection with the matter in controversy in the case at hand.44 In Bongato v. Spouses
Malvar,45 the Court held:

[A]s a general rule, courts do not take judicial notice of the evidence presented in other proceedings,
even if these have been tried or are pending in the same court or before the same judge. There are
exceptions to this rule. Ordinarily, an appellate court cannot refer to the record in another case to
ascertain a fact not shown in the record of the case before it, yet, it has been held that it may consult
decisions in other proceedings, in order to look for the law that is determinative of or applicable to the
case under review. In some instances, courts have also taken judicial notice of proceedings in other
cases that are closely connected to the matter in controversy. These cases "may be so closely
interwoven, or so clearly interdependent, as to invoke a rule of judicial notice."46 (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)

Here, an examination of the ruling47 in the drugs cases (which Trinidad offered as evidence and the RTC
admitted as part of his testimony48 ) confirms that the drugs cases and this case are so interwoven and
interdependent of each other since, as mentioned, the drugs, as well as the subject firearms and
ammunition, were illegally seized in a singular instance, i.e., the buy-bust operation. Hence, the Court
may take judicial notice of the circumstances attendant to the buy-bust operation as found by the court
which resolved the drugs cases. To recall, in the drugs cases, the finding of unreasonableness of search
and seizure of the drugs was mainly based on the failure of PO1 Sanoy's testimony to establish the
legitimacy of the buy-bust operation against Trinidad as said testimony was found to be highly doubtful
and incredible.49 This circumstance similarly obtains here as in fact, the testimonies of both PO1
Nidoy50 and PO1 Sanoy51 in this case essentially just mirror on all material points the latter's
implausible narration in the drugs cases. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the subject
firearms and ammunition are also inadmissible in evidence for being recovered from the same
unreasonable search and seizure as in the drugs cases. Since the confiscated firearms and ammunition
are the very corpus delicti of the crime charged in this case, Trinidad's acquittal is in order.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 25, 2018 and the Resolution dated
May 31, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 39598 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Petitioner Jesus Trinidad y Bersamin is ACQUITTED of the crime charged. The Director of the Bureau of
Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any
other reason.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, Senior Associate Justice (Chairperson), Caguioa, J. Reyes, Jr., and Hernando,*JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

* Designated Additional Member per Special Order Nos. 2629 and 2630 dated December 18, 2018.

1Rollo, pp. 12-31.

2 Id. at 35-47. Penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez with Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-
Leagogo and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, concurring.

3 Id. at 49-51.

4 Id. at 87-97. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Maria Paz R. Reyes-Yson.

5 Entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE LAW ON FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION AND
PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF," otherwise known as the "COMPREHENSIVE
FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION REGULATION ACT," approved on May 29, 2013.

6 Dated December 12, 2014; rollo, pp. 59-61.

7 Id. at 59-60.

8 See id. at 36-37.

9 See id. at 37-38.

10 See id. at 38.

11 Id.

12 See id.

13 See Joint Decision dated March 1, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 154 in
Criminal Case Nos. 19814-D-PSG and 19815-D-PSG penned by Presiding Judge Achilles A. A.C. Bulauitan;
id. at 200-210.

14 See id. at 39.

15 See id. at 92.

16 Id. at 87-97.

17 Id. at 96.

18 See id. at 94.

19 See id. at 95.

20 See Brief for the Accused-Appellant dated July 24, 2017; id. at 66-85.

21 Id. at 35-47.

22 See id. at 47.

23 Erroneously indicated as ".22 caliber revolver" in the CA Decision; id. at 42.

24 See id.

25 See id. at 43-44.

26 See id. at 44-45.

27 See motion for reconsideration dated February 20, 2018; id. at 52-58.

28 Id. at 49-51.
29People v. Comboy, 782 Phil. 187, 196 (2016), citing Manansala v. People, 775 Phil. 514, 520 (2015).

30 Section 2, Article III of the 1987 CONSTITUTION reads:

Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally
by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

31 Section 3 (2), Article III of the 1987 CONSTITUTION reads:

Section 3. x x x.

(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding.

32Sindac v. People, 794 Phil. 421, 428 (2016).

33 See id.

34 Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE provides:

Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - x x x.

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense[.]
35 See People v. Amin, G.R. No. 215942, January 18, 2017, 814 SCRA 639, 646. See also People v. Rivera,
790 Phil. 770, 779-780 (2016).

36 See People v. Lim, 435 Phil. 640, 664 (2002).

37 See id.

38 Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, As AMENDED,
PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 7, 2002.

39 See rollo, pp. 200-210.

40 See id. at 45.

41 See id. at 95.

42 See id. at 207-209. See also People v. Paming, G.R. No. 241091, January 14, 2019; People v. Bambico,
G.R. No. 238617, November 14, 2018; People v. Mama, G.R. No. 237204, October 1, 2018.

43 See rollo, pp. 205-207. See also Sindac v. People, supra note 32; People v. Manago, 193 Phil. 505
(2016); Comerciante v. People, 764 Phil. 627 (2015).

44 See Degayo v. Magbanua-Dinglasan, 757 Phil. 376, 390 (2015), citing Tiburcio v. People's Homesite &
Housing Corporation, 106 Phil. 477, 483-484 (1959).

45 436 Phil. 109 (2002).

46 Id. at 117-118; citations omitted.

47 See rollo, pp. 200-210.

48 In T'Boli Agro-Industrial Development, Inc. v. Solilapsi, (442 Phil. 499, 513 [2002]), the Court held:

Courts may be required to take judicial notice of the decisions of the appellate courts but not of the
decisions of the coordinate trial courts, or even of a decision or the facts involved in another case tried
by the same court itself, unless the parties introduce the same in evidence or the court, as a matter of
convenience, decides to do so. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

49 See rollo, pp. 206-207.

50 TSN, August 17, 2015, pp. 3-22 and TSN, May 16, 2016, pp. 16-46.

51 TSN, June 13, 2016, pp. 1-9.

Back to Home | Back to Main

chanrobles.com
ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman

February-2019 Jurisprudence
G.R. Nos. 223869-960, February 13, 2019 - NEPTALI P. SALCEDO, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE THIRD
DIVISION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

G.R. No. 220913, February 04, 2019 - ALLEN C. PADUA AND EMELITA F. PIMENTEL, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, FAMILY CHOICE GRAINS PROCESSING CENTER, INC., AND GOLDEN SEASON GRAINS
CENTER, INC., Respondents.

G.R. No. 238467, February 12, 2019 - MARK ANTHONY V. ZABAL, THITING ESTOSO JACOSALEM, AND
ODON S. BANDIOLA, Petitioners, v. RODRIGO R. DUTERTE, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES; SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; AND EDUARDO M. AÑO, [SECRETARY]
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, Respondents.

G.R. No. 229823, February 27, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROGER ACABO,
Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 232645, February 18, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHlLIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTONIO
BALDERRAMA Y DE LEON, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 237324, February 06, 2019 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES AURORA SILVESTRE AND
ROGELIO SILVESTRE, AND NATIVIDAD GOZO (FORMERLY KNOWN AS "QQQQ"), Respondents.

G.R. No. 229099, February 27, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOY ANGELES Y
AGBOLOS, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 233063, February 11, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN
(FIFTH DIVISION), REYNALDO O. PAROJINOG, SR., AND NOVA PRINCESS E. PAROJINOG ECHAVEZ,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 229938, February 27, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSEPH A. AMPO
(APPELLANT)AND JOHNNY A. CALO (ATLARGE), ACCUSED. JOSEPH A. AMPO, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 238104, February 27, 2019 - ODELON ALVAREZ MIRANDA, Petitioner, v. SOCIAL SECURITY
COMMISSION AND SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, REPRESENTED BY CARINA L. CATAHAN, Respondents.

G.R. No. 226088, February 27, 2019 - FOOD FEST LAND, INC. AND JOYFOODS CORPORATION, Petitioners,
v. ROMUALDO C. SIAPNO, TEODORO C. SIAPNO, JR. AND FELIPE C. SIAPNO, Respondents.

G.R. No. 196874, February 06, 2019 - THE HEIRS OF THE LATE SPOUSES ALEJANDRO RAMIRO AND
FELICISIMA LLAMADA, NAMELY; HENRY L. RAMIRO; MERLYN R. TAGUBA; MARLON L. RAMIRO; MARIDEL
R. SANTELLA, WILMA L. RAMIRO; VILMA R. CIELO AND CAROLYN R. CORDERO, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES
ELEODORO AND VERNA BACARON, Respondents.

G.R. No. 208543, February 11, 2019 - GOODLAND COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. BANCO DE ORO-
UNIBANK, INC., AND GOODGOLD REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents.

G.R. No. 234240, February 06, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NOEL
NAVASERO, SR. Y HUGO, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 238839, February 27, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTHONY
MABALO Y BACANI, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 217123 - OSCAR M. PARINGIT, PETITIONER, v. GLOBAL GATEWAY CREWING SERVICES, INC.,*
MID-SOUTH SHIP AND CREW MANAGEMENT, INC., AND/OR CAPTAIN SIMEON FLORES, RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 211105 - RUBY C. DEL ROSARIO, PETITIONER, v. CW MARKETING & DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION/KENNETH TUNG, RESPONDENTS.
G.R. No. 200774 - GERMAN MARINE AGENCIES, INC., ET AL. PETITIONERS, v. TEODOLAH R. CARO, IN
BEHALF OF HER HUSBAND EDUARDO V. CARO, RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 213346 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, v. MILLER OMANDAM UNABIA,
RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 210731 - SIMEON LAPI Y MAHIPUS, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 221428 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. RENATO GALUGA Y WAD-AS,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

G.R. No. 221434 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, v. RESTBEI B. TAMPUS, APPELLANT.

G.R. No. 221967 - RAMIRO LIM & SONS AGRICULTURAL CO., INC., SIMA REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT,
INC., AND RAMIRO LIM, PETITIONERS, v. ARMANDO GUILARAN, ROMEO FRIAS, SANTIAGO CARAMBIAS,
SR., JOEL SUAREZ, VICENTE OBORDO, JESSIE DAYON, JOEL PALMA, DOMICIANO PITULAN, NINFA
ESPINOSA, ROMULO DELA PEÑA, FERNANDO ROWEL, VICENTE ESPINOSA, PONCIANO DACUMOS,
OFELIA FRIAS, GILBERT CARAMBIAS, RODRIGO FRIAS, NIXON CARAMBIAS, RESTITUTO JUANICA,
MARIANITA GUILARAN, ALY ROMERO, ROSEMINDA JUANICA, LOLITA ROMERO, LILIA ROWEL, ANTONIO
DUMDUMAN, SANTIAGO CARAMBIAS, JR., DIOSCORO DACUMOS, ROSENDO DACUMOS, JONIEL
DACUMOS, LEONARDA DACUMOS, JUDITA DACUMOS, MIGUELA DACUMOS, AND NINFA CARAMBIAS,
RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 198008 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, REGION X, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, PETITIONER, v. BENJOHN
FETALVERO, RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 238117 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. EDWIN ALCONDE Y MADLA AND
JULIUS QUERQUELA* Y REBACA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
G.R. No. 237349 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. MANUEL BASA, JR., A.K.A. "JUN,"
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

G.R. No. 239957 - JESUS TRINIDAD Y BERSAMIN, PETITIONER, v. THE PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 233833 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ROMULO ARAGO, JR. Y COMO,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

G.R. No. 222423 - METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, v. D.M. CONSUNJI,
INC. AND R-II BUILDERS, INC., RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 228807 - CARLITO B. LINSANGAN, PETITIONER, v. PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 236023 - MACACUNA BADIO Y DICAMPUNG, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 209608 - DIGITAL PARADISE, INC., AS REPRESENTED BY FEDERICO EUGENIO, PETITIONER, v.
HON. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE OVERALL DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN; HON. DENNIS L.
GARCIA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR; HON. ROLANDO W. CERVANTES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS GRAFT
INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICER; P/CINSP. JOEL MANUEL A. ANA, PSI RONNIE FAILOGA, PO3
DEMETRIO PRIETO,[*] AND PO1 SAMUEL ESCARIO DONES, RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 212611 - HEIRS OF BATORI,[*] REPRESENTED BY GLADYS B. ABAD, PETITIONER, v. THE REGISTER
OF DEEDS OF BENGUET AND PACITA GALVEZ, RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 212979 - MA. ANTONETTE LOZANO, PETITIONER, v. JOCELYN K. FERNANDEZ RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 232687 - SLORD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. BENERANDO M. NOYA,
RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 241081 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. BERNIDO ACABO Y AYENTO,[*]
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

G.R. No. 233999 - TELEPHILIPPINES, INC.,[*] PETITIONER, v. FERRANDO H. JACOLBE, RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 220008 - SOCORRO T. CLEMENTE, AS SUBSTITUTED BY SALVADOR T. CLEMENTE, PETITIONER, v.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, REGION IV-A),
RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 221117 - JEBSENS MARITIME, INC., ABOITIZ JEBSENS BULK TRANSPORT CORPORATION, AND/OR
ENRIQUE M. ABOITIZ, PETITIONERS, v. JESSIE D. ALCIBAR, SUBSTITUTED BY MILDRED U. ALCIBAR,
RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 211176 - BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONERS, v.
SPOUSES JUANITO AND VICTORIA LEDESMA, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 211583, February 6, 2019]
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, v. SPOUSES JUANITO AND VICTORIA LEDESMA,
RESPONDENTS.

A.C. No. 12125 - CELIANA B. BUNTAG, FLORA ARBILERA, VETALIANO BONGO, SEBASTIAN BONGO,
PETRONILO BONGO, LEO BONGO, AND RAUL IMAN, COMPLAINANTS, v. ATTY. WILFREDO S. TOLEDO,
RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 217949 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), PETITIONER, v. REYNALDO P.
PALMIERY, RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 224297 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. EDGARDO ROYOL Y ASICO,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
G.R. No. 238516 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ROGER RODRIGUEZ Y MARTINEZ,
ALIAS "ROGER," ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

G.R. Nos. 219824-25 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, v. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN

(FIRST DIVISION), MARIO L. RELAMPAGOS, MARILOU D. BARE, ROSARIO S. NUÑEZ AND LALAINE N.
PAULE, RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 216725 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ROGELIO YAGAO Y LLABAN,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

G.R. No. 223405 - CARLOS L. REYNES, PETITIONER, v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS), LUCRESIA
M. AMORES, AND MARIBEL HONTIVEROS, RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 217668 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. BENJIE CARANTO Y AUSTRIA,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

G.R. No. 213502 - JERLINDA M. MIRANDA, PETITIONER, v. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 229106 - TIONG BI, INC. [OWNER OF BACOLOD OUR LADY OF MERCY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL],
PETITIONER, v. PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 228881 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. DONDON GUERRERO Y ELING,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

G.R. No. 218731 - NICOMEDES AUGUSTO, GOMERCINDO JIMENEZ, MARCELINO PAQUIBOT, AND
ROBERTA SILAWAN, PETITIONERS, v. ANTONIO CARLOTA DY AND MARIO DY, RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 205333 - MA. MELISSA VILLANUEVA MAGSINO, PETITIONER, v. ROLANDO N. MAGSINO,
RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 222648 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. EDITHA TAMPAN, ACCUSED-
APPELLANT.

G.R. No. 238566 - PHILIP JOHN B. MORENO, ACOUNTANT III/DIVISION CHIEF II, PHILIPPINE RETIREMENT
AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, v. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FORMER TENTH DIVISION) AND OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN, RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 202792 - LA SALLIAN EDUCATIONAL INNOVATORS FOUNDATION (DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY-
COLLEGE OF ST. BENILDE) INC., PETITIONER, v. COMMISIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 206709 - VDM TRADING, INC. AND SPOUSES LUIS AND NENA DOMINGO, REPRESENTED BY
THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, ATTY. F. WILLIAM L. VILLAREAL, PETITIONERS, v. LEONITA CARUNGCONG
AND WACK WACK TWIN TOWERS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 243522 - REPRESENTATIVES EDCEL C. LAGMAN, TOMASITO S. VILLARIN, TEDDY BRAWNER
BAGUILAT, JR., EDGAR R. ERICE, GARY C. ALEJANO, JOSE CHRISTOPHER Y. BELMONTE AND ARLENE
"KAKA" J. BAG-AO, PETITIONERS, v. HON. SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON.
DELFIN N. LORENZANA, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AND MARTIAL LAW
ADMINISTRATOR; GEN. BENJAMIN MADRIGAL, JR., CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND MARTIAL LAW IMPLEMENTOR; AND HON. BENJAMIN E. DIOKNO, SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT; AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE
SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES AS COMPONENT HOUSES OF THE CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPECTIVELY REPRESENTED BY HON. SPEAKER GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO AND HON. SENATE
PRESIDENT VICENTE C. SOTTO III, RESPONDENTS.[G.R. No. 243677] BAYAN MUNA PARTYLIST
REPRESENTATIVE CARLOS ISAGANI T. ZARATE, GABRIELA WOMEN'S PARTY REPRESENTATIVES,
EMERENCIANA A. DE JESUS, AND ARLENE D. BROSAS, ANAKPAWIS REPRESENTATIVE ARIEL B. CASILAO,
ACT TEACHERS REPRESENTATIVES ANTONIO L. TINO AND FRANCE L. CASTRO, AND KABATAAN PARTYLIST
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH JANE I. ELAGO, PETITIONERS, v. PRESIDENT RODRIGO DUTERTE, CONGRESS OF
THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY SENATE PRESIDENT VICENTE C. SOTTO III AND HOUSE SPEAKER
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR MEDIALDEA, DEFENSE SECRETARY
DELFIN LORENZANA, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES CHIEFOF-STAFF LIEUTENANT GENERAL
BENJAMIN MADRIGAL, JR., PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OSCAR DAVID
ALBAYALDE, RESPONDENTS.[G.R. No. 243745] CHRISTIAN S. MONSOD, RAY PAOLO J. SANTIAGO,
NOLASCO RITZ LEE B. SANTOS III, MARIE HAZEL E. LAVITORIA, DOMINIC AMON R. LADEZA, AND
XAMANTHA XOFIA A. SANTOS, PETITIONERS, v. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES (REPRESENTED BY SENATE
PRESIDENT VICENTE C. SOTTO III), HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (REPRESENTED BY GLORIA
MACAPAGAL-ARROYO), EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL
DEFENSE (DND) SECRETARY DELFIN N. LORENZANA, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT (DILG) SECRETARY EDUARDO M. AÑO, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES (AFP) CHIEF
OF STAFF GENERAL BENJAMIN R. MADRIGAL, JR., PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE (PNP) DIRECTOR
GENERAL OSCAR D. ALBAYALDE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER HERMOGENES C. ESPERON, JR.,
RESPONDENTS.[G.R. No. 243797] RIUS VALLE, JHOSA MAE PALOMO, JEANY ROSE HAYAHAY AND
RORELYN MANDACAWAN, PETITIONERS, v. THE SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY THE
SENATE PRESIDENT VICENTE C. SOTTO III, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, REPRESENTED BY THE
HOUSE SPEAKER GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF
NATIONAL DEFENSE, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE CHIEF OF STAFF,
ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, AND ALL
PERSONS ACTING UNDER THEIR CONTROL, DIRECTION, INSTRUCTION, AND/OR SUPERVISION,
RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 202974 - NORMA D. CACHO AND NORTH STAR INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL, INC., PETITIONERS, v.
VIRGINIA D. BALAGTAS, RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 190682 - PAUL C. DAGONDON, PETITIONER, v. ISMAEL LADAGA, RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 227795 (Formerly UDK-15556) - MARVIN O. DAGUINOD, PETITIONER, v. SOUTHGATE FOODS,
INC., REPRESENTED BY MAUREEN O. FERRER AND GENERATION ONE RESOURCE SERVICE AND MULTI-
PURPOSE COOPERATIVE,[*] REPRESENTED BY RESTY CRUZ, RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 233339 - D.M. CONSUNJI, INC., PETITIONER, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE HEIRS
OF JULIAN CRUZ, REPRESENTED BY MACARIA CRUZ ESTACIO, RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 227184 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. BRYAN LABSAN Y NALA AND
CLENIO DANTE Y PEREZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

G.R. Nos. 199729-30 - MANILA BANKERS' LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.[G.R. Nos. 199732-33] COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, v. MANILA BANKERS' LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.
Copyright © 1995 - 2021 REDiaz