 Home

 Law Firm
 Law Library
 Laws

 Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2019 > January 2019 Decisions >

G.R. No. 234156, January 07, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. EMMANUEL OLIVA Y JORJIL, BERNARDO BARANGOT Y PILAIS AND
MARK ANGELO MANALASTAS Y GAPASIN, Accused-Appellants.:

G.R. No. 234156, January 07, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. EMMANUEL OLIVA Y JORJIL, BERNARDO BARANGOT Y PILAIS AND
MARK ANGELO MANALASTAS Y GAPASIN, Accused-Appellants.
 THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 234156, January 07, 2019

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EMMANUEL OLIVA Y

JORJIL, BERNARDO BARANGOT Y PILAIS AND MARK ANGELO MANALASTAS
Y GAPASIN, Accused-Appellants.

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

This is an appeal from the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision1 dated May 31, 2017
dismissing Emmanuel Oliva y Jorjil, Bernardo Barangot y Pilais and Mark Angelo
Manalastas y Gapasin's appeal, and affirming the Decision2 dated October 28, 2015
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 65, Makati City, convicting appellants of
Violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.

The facts follow.

The Chief of Station Anti-Illegal Drugs - Special Operations Task Group (SAID-
SOTG), on January 23, 2015, received a report regarding the sale of dangerous
drugs by a certain "Manu" in Barangay Cembo, Makati City and its nearby areas. As
such, a buy-bust operation was planned and after coordination with the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), a buybust team was formed wherein Police
Officer 3 (PO3) Luisito Marcelo was designated as the poseur-buyer and given a
P500.00 bill as marked money, and PO1 Darwin Catabay as back-up. Thereafter,
the buy-bust team proceeded to the exact location of "Manu" after it was confirmed
by the confidential informant.

When they arrived at the target area, the confidential informant pointed to
appellant Oliva as "Manu," the seller of dangerous drugs; thus, PO3 Marcelo and
the confidential informant approached the said appellant. PO3 Marcelo was
introduced by the confidential informant to appellant Oliva as a buyer who wanted
to buy P500.00 worth of shabu. PO3 Marcelo handed appellant Oliva the marked
money after the latter demanded payment. Appellant Oliva then showed PO3
Marcelo four (4) transparent plastic sachets with white crystalline substance and
asked the latter to choose one. Meanwhile, two (2) other persons, appellants
Barangot and Manalastas were also at the target area to buy shabu. Appellants
Barangot and Manalastas, and PO3 Marcelo each took one sachet from the four
sachets that appellant Oliva showed.

Upon receiving the dangerous drug, PO3 Marcelo immediately scratched his chin,
which is the pre-arranged signal to his back-up that the transaction has been
completed. Subsequently, PO3 Marcelo grabbed appellants Oliva and Barangot and,
thereafter, PO1 Catabay appeared and arrested appellant Manalastas.

The police officers conducted a body search on appellant Oliva and it yielded
another sachet containing white crystalline substance, the marked money and two
(2) more pieces of P500.00 bills. Eventually, appellants Oliva, Barangot and
Manalastas were arrested and brought to the barangay hall where an inventory was
conducted and on the basis thereof, an inventory report was prepared. The
confiscated items were then marked and photographed, and a request for
laboratory examination was accomplished and the seized items were submitted to
the PNP Crime Laboratory. The substance found inside the sachets were all tested
positive for the. presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

Thus, an Information for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 was filed
against appellant Oliva, that reads as follows:

On the 24th day of January 2015, in the City of Makati, Philippines, accused, not
being authorized by law and without the corresponding license and prescription, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and distribute zero
point six (0.06) gram of white crystalline substance containing methamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, contained in one (1) small transparent
plastic sachet, in consideration of Php500.00.

CONTRARY TO LAW.3
Also, in three informations, appellants Oliva, Barangot and Manalastas were
separately charged with violation of Section 11 of the said law, thus:

Crim. Case No. 15-196

(against appellant Oliva)

On the 24th day of January 2015, in the City of Makati, the Philippines, accused, not
being authorized by law to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug and
without the corresponding prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have in his possession zero point ten (0.10) gram of white crystalline
substance containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW.4

Crim. Case No. 15-197

(against appellant Barangot)

On the 24th day of January 2015, in the City of Makati, the Philippines, accused, not
being authorized by law to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug and
without the corresponding prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have in his possession zero point five (0.05) gram of white crystalline
substance containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW.5

Crim. Case No. 15-198

(against appellant Manalastas)

On the 24th day of January 2015, in the City of Makati, the Philippines, accused, not
being authorized by law to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug and
without the corresponding prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have in his possession zero point three (0.03) gram of white crystalline
substance containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW.6
Upon arraignment, appellants, with the assistance of counsel, entered pleas of "not
guilty" on all charges.

All appellants used denial as a defense.

According to appellant Oliva, on January 21, 2015, around 10:30 in the evening, he
was in front of a neighbor's house when several armed men, riding in motorcycles,
stopped by and invited him to go with them. When he refused to go, one of the
armed men pointed a gun at him, handcuffed him, and forcibly took him to the
SAID-SOTG office where he was detained.

On the other hand, appellant Barangot maintained that on January 22, 2015,
around 2:30 in the morning, he was having a drinking spree with one Mel and
Nonoy when several men barged inside the house and arrested them. They were
then brought to the SAID-SOTG office where they were detained, and subsequently,
freed after Mel and Noy paid the police officers for their release.

Appellant Manalastas also denied committing the offense charged against him and
claimed that on the same date, he was inside his room sleeping, when he was
suddenly roused by loud noises causing him to go outside and check the
commotion. He saw armed men inside his house and, thereafter, the latter took
him, his mother, a certain Bong, Ronald, Abby and two (2) boarders to the SAID-
SOTG office where they were all detained.

The RTC found appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses charged
against them and were sentenced as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. 15-195, the court finds the accused, Emmanuel Oliva y
Jorjil, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 5, Article
II, R.A. No. 9165 and sentences each of them to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).

2. In Criminal Case Nos. 15-196 to 15-198, the court finds the accused, Emmanuel
Oliva y Jorjil, Bernardo Barangot y Pilais and Mark Angelo Manalastas y Gapasin,
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 11, Article II,
RA. No. 9165 and sentences each of them to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of
twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight
(8) months, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P300,000.00).

The period of detention of the accused should be given full credit.

Let the dangerous drugs subject matter of these cases be disposed of in the
manner provided by law.

The Branch Clerk of Court is directed to transmit the plastic sachets containing
shabu subject matter of these cases to the PDEA for said agency's appropriate
disposition.

SO ORDERED.7

The RTC ruled that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the
guilt of the appellants.

The CA affirmed the Decision of the RTC in toto, thus:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.8
The CA ruled that the prosecution was able to establish the key elements for illegal
possession and sale of dangerous drugs, and that the bare denials of the appellants
cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the police officers. It also held that
the failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required
physical inventory and take the photograph of the objects confiscated does not ipso
facto render inadmissible in evidence the items seized.

Hence, the present appeal.

Appellants assigned the following errors:

I.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE PROSECUTION

WITNESSES' INCREDULOUS TESTIMONIES.

II.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS

GUILTY OF THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE THE POLICE OFFICERS' NON-
COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 AND ITS
IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS.

III.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN ADMITTING THE ALLEGEDLY SEIZED DRUGS
DESPITE THE POLICE OFFICERS' FLAWED MANNER IN THE CONDUCT OF
INVENTORY AND MARKING THE SAME.

IV.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS

DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH EVERY LINK IN THE CHAIN
OF CUSTODY OF THE ALLEGEDLY SEIZED ITEMS.9

Appellants argue that it is difficult to believe the testimonies of the police officers
because it is impossible for appellants to engage in drug transactions in the middle
of the street, under broad daylight, and in the presence of strangers. They also
claim that the arresting officers failed to immediately conduct a physical inventory
of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused, their
representative or counsel, a representative of the media and the Department of
Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who are required to sign the copies of
the inventory. Thus, according to appellants, the prosecution failed to establish
every link in the chain of custody of the seized items.
The appeal is meritorious.

Under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No, 9165 or illegal sale of prohibited drugs, in
order to be convicted of the said violation, the following must concur:

(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 10

In illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it is necessary that the sale transaction actually
happened and that "the [procured] object is properly presented as evidence in
court and is shown to be the same drugs seized from the accused." 11

Also, under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 or illegal possession of
dangerous drugs the following must be proven before an accused can be convicted:

[1] the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; [2] such possession was not
authorized by law; and [3] the accused was freely and consciously aware of being
in possession of dangerous drugs.12

In both cases involving illegal sale and illegal possession, the illicit drugs
confiscated from the accused comprise the corpus delicti of the charges.13 In People
v. Gatlabayan,14 the Court held that it is of paramount importance that the identity
of the dangerous drug be established beyond reasonable doubt; and that it must be
proven with certitude that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is
exactly the same substance offered in evidence before the court. In fine, the illegal
drug must be produced before the court as exhibit and that which was exhibited
must be the very same substance recovered from the suspect. 15 Thus, the chain of
custody carries out this purpose "as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning
the identity of the evidence are removed."16

To ensure an unbroken chain of custody, Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 specifies:

(1) The apprehending team having in trial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the
same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative
from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official
who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof.

Supplementing the above-quoted provision, Section 21(a) of the Implementing

Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 provides:

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs
shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom
such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any
elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and
be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall
be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest
police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that noncompliance
with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over
said items[.]

On July 15, 2014, R.A. No. 1064017 was approved to amend R.A. No. 9165. Among
other modifications, it essentially incorporated the saving clause contained in the
IRR, thus:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous
drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia
and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official
and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided,
That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where
the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office
of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures: Provided, finally That noncompliance of these requirements under
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render
void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.

In her Sponsorship Speech on Senate Bill No. 2273, which eventually became R.A.
No. 10640, Senator Grace Poe admitted that "while Section 21 was enshrined in the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act to safeguard the integrity of the evidence
acquired and prevent planting of evidence, the application of said Section resulted
in the ineffectiveness of the government's campaign to stop increasing drug
addiction and also, in the conflicting decisions of the courts." 18 Specifically, she cited
that "compliance with the rule on witnesses during the physical inventory is
difficult. For one, media representatives are not always available in all corners of
the Philippines, especially in more remote areas. For another, there were instances
where elected barangay officials themselves were involved in the punishable acts
apprehended."19 In addition, "[t]he requirement that inventory is required to be
done in police station is also very limiting. Most police stations appeared to be far
from locations where accused persons were apprehended." 20

Similarly, Senator Vicente C. Sotto III manifested that in view of the substantial
number of acquittals in drug-related cases due to the varying interpretations of the
prosecutors and the judges on Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, there is a need for
"certain adjustments so that we can plug the loopholes in our existing law" and
"ensure [its] standard implementation."21 In his Co-Sponsorship Speech, he noted:

Numerous drug trafficking activities can be traced to operations of highly organized

and powerful local and international syndicates. The presence of such syndicates
that have the resources and the capability to mount a counter-assault to
apprehending law enforcers makes the requirement of Section 21(a) impracticable
for law enforcers to comply with. It makes the place of seizure extremely unsafe for
the proper inventory and photograph of seized illegal drugs.

xxxx
Section 21(a) of RA 9165 needs to be amended to address the foregoing situation.
We did not realize this in 2002 where the safety of the law enforcers and other
persons required to be present in the inventory and photography of seized illegal
drugs and the preservation of the very existence of seized illegal drugs itself are
threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of drug syndicates at the place of
seizure. The place where the seized drugs may be inventoried and photographed
has to include a location where the seized drugs as well as the persons who are
required to be present during the inventory and photograph are safe and secure
from extreme danger.

It is proposed that the physical inventory and taking of photographs of seized illegal
drugs be allowed to be conducted either in the place of seizure or at the nearest
police station or office of the apprehending law enforcers. The proposal will provide
effective measures to ensure the integrity of seized illegal drugs since a safe
location makes it more probable for an inventory and photograph of seized illegal
drugs to be properly conducted, thereby reducing the incidents of dismissal of drug
cases due to technicalities.

Non-observance of the prescribed procedures should not automatically mean that

the seizure or confiscation is invalid or illegal, as long as the law enforcement
officers could justify the same and could prove that the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are not tainted. This is the effect of the
inclusion in the proposal to amend the phrase "justifiable grounds." There are
instances wherein there are no media people or representatives from the DOJ
available and the absence of these witnesses should not automatically invalidate
the drug operation conducted. Even the presence of a public local elected official
also is sometimes impossible especially if the elected official is afraid or scared. 22

The foregoing legislative intent has been taken cognizance of in a number of cases.
Just recently, This Court opined in People v. Miranda:23

The Court, however, clarified that under varied field conditions, strict compliance
with the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 may not always be possible. In
fact, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 - which is now
crystallized into statutory law with the passage of RA 10640 - provide that the said
inventory and photography may be conducted at the nearest police station or office
of the apprehending team in instances of warrantless seizure, and that non-
compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 - under justifiable
grounds - will not render void and invalid the seizure and custody over the seized
items so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer or team. Tersely put, the failure of the
apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21 of
RA 9165 and the IRR does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the
items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that:
(a) there is justifiable ground for noncompliance; and (b) the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. In People v. Almorfe,
the Court stressed that for the above-saving clause to apply, the prosecution must
explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, and that the integrity and value
of the seized evidence had nonetheless been preserved. Also, in People v. De
Guzman, it was emphasized that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be
proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that
they even exist.24

Under the original provision of Section 21, after seizure and confiscation of the
drugs, the apprehending team was required to immediately conduct a physically
inventory and photograph of the same in the presence of (1) the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, (2) a representative from the media and (3) the DOJ,
and (4) any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof. It is assumed that the presence of these
three persons will guarantee "against planting of evidence and frame up," i.e., they
are "necessary to insulate the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any
taint of illegitimacy or irregularity."25 Now, the amendatory law mandates that the
conduct of physical inventory and photograph of the seized items must be in the
presence of (1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (2) with an elected
public official, and (3) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the
media who shall sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

In this case, the absence of a representative of the National Prosecution Service or

the media during the inventory of the seized items was not justifiably explained by
the prosecution. A review of the Transcript of Stenographic Notes does not yield
any testimony from the arresting officers as to the reason why there was no
representative from the DOJ or the media. The only one present to witness the
inventory and the marking was an elected official, Barangay Captain Evelyn
Villamor. Neither was there any testimony to show that any attempt was made to
secure the presence of the required witness.

In People v. Angelita Reyes, et al.,26 this Court enumerated certain instances where

the absence of the required witnesses may be justified, thus:

x x x It must be emphasized that the prosecution must able to prove a justifiable

ground in omitting certain requirements provided in Sec. 21 such as, but not limited
to the following: 1) media representatives are not available at that time or that the
police operatives had no time to alert the media due to the immediacy of the
operation they were about to undertake, especially if it is done in more remote
areas; 2) the police operatives, with the same reason, failed to find an available
representative of the National Prosecution Service; 3) the police officers, due to
time constraints brought about by the urgency of the operation to be undertaken
and in order to comply with the provisions of Article 12527 of the Revised Penal
Code in the timely delivery of prisoners, were not able to comply with all the
requisites set forth in Section 21 of R.A. 9165.

The above-ruling was further reiterated by this Court in People v. Vicente Sipin y
De Castro,28 thus:

The prosecution never alleged and proved that the presence of the required
witnesses was not obtained for any of the following reasons, such as: (1) their
attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area;·(2) their
safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by
an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in
his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable
acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ
or media representative and elected public official within the period required under
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Could prove futile through no fault of the arresting
officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time
constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of
confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the
required witnesses even before the offenders could escape.

Certainly, the prosecution bears the burden of proof to show valid cause for non-
compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as
amended.29 It has the positive duty to demonstrate observance thereto in such a
way that, during the proceedings before the trial court, it must initiate in
acknowledging and justifying any perceived deviations from the requirements of the
law.30 Its failure to follow the mandated procedure must be adequately explained
and must be proven as a fact in accordance with the rules on evidence. The rules
require that the apprehending officers do not simply mention a justifiable ground,
but also clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement
on the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the seized item. 31 A stricter
adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity of illegal drugs seized is
miniscule since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering, or alteration. 32

Thus, this Court finds it appropriate to acquit the appellants in this case as their
guilt has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. The resolution of the other
issues raised by appellants is no longer necessary.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated May 31, 2017 of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08121 dismissing appellants' appeai and affirming
the Decision dated October 28, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 65, Makati
City is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Appellants Emmanuel Oliva y Jorjil, Bernardo
Barangot y Pilais, Mark Angelo Manalastas y Gapasin are ACQUITTED for failure of
the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are ORDERED
IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless they are confined for any other
lawful cause. Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections
and the Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prisons, for immediate implementation.
Said Director and Superintendent are ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within
five (5) working days from receipt of this Decision the action he/she has taken.
SO ORDERED.

Leonen, Hernando, and Carandang,*JJ., concur.

A. Reyes, Jr., JJ., on leave.

January 15, 2019

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT

Sirs / Mesdames:

Please take notice that on January 7, 2019 a Decision, copy attached hereto, was
rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which
was received by this Office on January 15, 2019 at 3:08 p.m.

Very truly yours,

(SGD)

WILFREDO V. LAPITAN

Division Clerk of Court

ORDER OF RELEASE

TO: The Director General

       BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS
       1770 Muntinlupa City
        Thru: CSSupt. Gerardo F. Padilla
                 Superintendent
                 New Bilibid Prison
                 BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS
                 1770 Muntinlupa City

GREETINGS:

WHEREAS, the Supreme Court on January 7, 2019 promulgated a Decision in the

above-entitled case, the dispositive portion of which reads:

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated May 31, 2017 of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08121 dismissing appellant appeal and affirming
the Decision dated October 28, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 65, Makati
City is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellants Emmanuel Oliva y Jorjil, Bernardo
Barangot y Pilais, Mark Angelo Manalastas y Gapasin are ACQUITTED for failure of
the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are ORDERED
IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless they are confined for any other
lawful cause. Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections
and the Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prisons, for immediate implementation.
Said Director and Superintendent are ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within
five (5) working days from receipt of this Decision the action he/she has taken.

SO ORDERED."

NOW, THEREFORE, You are hereby ordered to immediately release EMMANUEL

OLIVA y JORJIL, BERNARDO BARANGOT y PILAIS and MARK ANGELO
MANALASTAS y GAPASIN unless there are other lawful causes for which they
should be further detained, and to return this Order with the certificate of your
proceedings within five (5) days from notice hereof.
GIVEN by the Honorable DIOSDADO M. PERALTA, Chairperson of the Third
Division of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, this 7th day of January 2019.

Very truly yours,

(SGD)

WILFREDO V. LAPITAN

Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

*
 Designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2624 dated November 28,
2018.

1
 Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser with Associate Justices Apolinario
D. Bruselas, Jr. and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob concurring; rollo, pp. 2-14.

2
 Penned by Presiding Judge Edgardo M. Caldona; CA rollo, pp. 17-25.

3
Id. at 12-13.

4
Id. at 14.

5
Id. at 15.

6
Id. at 16.

7
Id. at 25.

8
Rollo, p. 13.

9
 CA rollo, pp. 85-86.
10
People v. Ismael, G.R. No. 208093, February 20, 2017, 818 SCRA 122, 131-132.

11
Id. at 132.

12
Id.

13
Id.

14
 699 Phil. 240, 252 (2011).

15
People v. Mirondo, 771 Phil. 345, 356-357 (2015).

16
 See People v. Ismael, supra note 10, at 132.

17
AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE
GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO.
9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF
2002."

18
 Senate Journal. Session No. 80, 16th Congress, 1st Regular Session, June 4,
2014, p. 348.

19
Id.

20
Id.

21
Id. at 349.

22
Id. at 349-350.

23
 G.R. No. 229671, January 31, 2018.

24
 See also People v. Paz, G.R. No. 229512, January 31, 2018; People v.
Mamangon, G.R. No. 229102, January 29, 2018; People v. Jugo, G.R. No. 231792,
January 29, 2018; People v. Calibod, G.R. No. 230230, November 20, 2017: People
v. Ching, G.R. No. 223556, October 9, 2017; People v. Geronimo, G.R. No. 225500,
September 11, 2017; People v. Ceralde, G.R. No. 228894, August 7, 2017;
and People v. Macapundag, G.R. No. 225965, March 13, 2017, 820 SCRA 204.

25
People v. Sagana, G.R. No. 208471, August 2, 2017.

26
 G.R. No. 219953, April 23, 2018.

27
 Article 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial
authorities. - The penalties provided in the next preceding article shall be imposed
upon the public officer or employee who shall detain any person for some legal
ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within
the period of; twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light
penalties, or their equivalent; eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses
punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent and thirty·six (36) hours,
for crimes, or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their
equivalent. In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the cause of his
detention and shall be allowed upon his request, to communicate and confer at any
time with his attorney or counsel. (As amended by E.O. Nos. 59 and 272, Nov. 7,
1986 and July 25, 1987, respectively).

28
 G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018.

29
 See People v. Macapundag, supra note 16, at 214.

30
 See People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 229671, January 31, 2018; People v. Paz, G.R.
No. 229512, January 31, 2018; People v. Mamangon, G.R. No. 229102, January 29,
2018; and People v. Jugo, G.R. No. 231792, January 29, 2018.

31
People v. Saragena, G.R. No. 210677, August 23, 2017.

32
 See People v. Abelarde, G.R. No. 215713, January 22, 2018; People v. Macud,
G.R. No. 219175, December 14, 2017; People v. Arposeple, G.R. No. 205787,
November 22, 2017; Aparente v. People, G.R. No. 205695, September 27,
2017; People v. Cabellon, G.R. No. 207229, September 20, 2017; People v.
Saragena, G.R. No. 210677, August 23, 2017; People v. Saunar, G.R. No. 207396,
August 9, 2017; People v. Sagana, G.R. No. 208471, August 2, 2017; People v.
Segundo, G.R. No. 205614, July 26, 2017; and People v. Jaafar, G.R. No. 219829,
January 18, 2017, 815 SCRA 19, 33.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles CPA Review Online

 ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

January-2019 Jurisprudence                 

 G.R. No. 235071, January 07, 2019 - EVANGELINE PATULOT Y GALIA,

Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
 G.R. No. 234156, January 07, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. EMMANUEL OLIVA Y JORJIL, BERNARDO BARANGOT Y PILAIS AND
MARK ANGELO MANALASTAS Y GAPASIN, Accused-Appellants.

 G.R. No. 234323, January 07, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. JORDAN BATALLA Y AQUINO, Accused-Appellant.

 G.R. No. 234323, January 07, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. JORDAN BATALLA Y AQUINO, Accused-Appellant.

 G.R. No. 234156 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v.

EMMANUEL OLIVA Y JORJIL, BERNARDO BARANGOT Y PILAIS AND MARK ANGELO
MANALASTAS Y GAPASIN, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
  G.R. No. 234323 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v.
JORDAN BATALLA Y AQUINO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

 G.R. No. 215545, January 07, 2019 - QUIRINO T. DELA CRUZ, Petitioner, v.
NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION, Respondent.

 G.R. No. 234951, January 28, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. BENJAMIN A. ELIMANCIL, Accused-Appellant.

 G.R. No. 235071 - EVANGELINE PATULOT Y GALIA, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

 G.R. No. 201302, January 23, 2019 - HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION,

Petitioner, v. NUTRI-ASIA, INC., DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE
OF UFC PHILIPPINES (FORMERLY NUTRI-ASIA, INC.), Respondent.

 G.R. No. 228718, January 07, 2019 - EDWIN FUENTES Y GARCIA @ "KANYOD,"
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

 A.M. No. 18-07-153-RTC, January 07, 2019 - RE: DROPPING FROM THE ROLLS
OF LAYDABELL G. PIJANA, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF TAGAYTAY
CITY, CAVITE, BRANCH 18

 G.R. No. 241017, January 07, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. BRENDA CAMIÑAS Y AMING, Accused-Appellant.

 G.R. No. 223713, January 07, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v.
RODELINA MALAZO Y DORIA, Appellant.

 G.R. No. 231122, January 16, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. ALEX CASEMIRO AND JOSE CATALAN, JR., Accused-Appellants.

 A.M. No. P-16-3505 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4134-P], January 22, 2019 -
ZENMOND D. DUQUE, Complainant, v. . CESAR C. CALPO, COURT STENOGRAPHER
III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 16, CAVITE CITY, Respondent.

 G.R. No. 241091, January 14, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. LITO PAMING Y JAVIER, Accused-Appellant.

 G.R. No. 233883, January 07, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. MARK VINCENT CORRAL Y BATALLA, Accused-Appellant.
 G.R. No. 199562, January 16, 2019 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS AND
ANA C. GONZALES, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES FERNANDO V. QUIAOIT
PROMULGATED: AND NORA L. QUIAOIT, Respondents.

 G.R. No. 238176, January 14, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. RAMON BAY-OD, Accused-Appellant.

 G.R. No. 228262, January 21, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. JOENIL PIN MOLDE, Accused-Appellant.

 G.R. No. 224210, January 23, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. MARYLOU GUMBAN Y CARANAY AND JOEL CHENG NG, Accused,
MARYLOU GUMBAN Y CARANAY, Accused-Appellant.

 A.M. No. 18-11-09-SC, January 22, 2019 - RE: COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT OF

ELVIRA N. ENALBES, REBECCA H. ANGELES AND ESTELITA B. OCAMPO AGAINST
FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO [RET.], RELATIVE TO
G.R. NOS. 203063 AND 204743.

 G.R. No. 229780, January 22, 2019 - BALAYAN WATER DISTRICT (BWD),
CONRADO S. LOPEZ AND ROMEO D. PANTOJA, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON
AUDIT, Respondent.

 G.R. No. 221418, January 23, 2019 - JOSE T. VILLAROSA, CARLITO T. CAJAYON
AND PABLO I. ALVARO, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN AND
ROLANDO C. BASILIO, Respondents.

 G.R. No. 225725, January 16, 2019 - LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING

COMPANY, Petitioner, v. MAXIMO C. MAMARIL, EDUARDO C. FONTIVEROS,
RICHARD PADONG, SHARWIN ESPIQUE, CLARITO ALBING, BALUDOY TOTANES,
GERRY OLANIO, JOSEPH DUMANGENG, REYNALD MANUIT, NARDO SINGIT,
MICHAEL PANGDA, BENJAMIN ASIDERA, ALVARO PATAGUE, JR., ANGELITO NAYRE,
JR., JOSE MOJICA, AND JOEL SILARAN, Respondents.

 G.R. No. 209047, January 07, 2019 - ANGELA USARES Y SIBAY, Petitioner, v.
PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

 G.R. No. 210683, January 08, 2019 - DR. CONSOLACION S. CALLANG,

Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent.
 G.R. No. 233174, January 23, 2019 - RUEL FRANCIS M. CABRAL, Petitioner, v.
CHRIS S. BRACAMONTE, Respondent.

 G.R. No. 210773, January 23, 2019 - GSIS FAMILY BANK EMPLOYEES UNION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MS. JUDITH JOCELYN MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v.
SEC. CESAR L. VILLANUEVA (IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
GOVERNANCE COMMISSION FOR GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED
CORPORATIONS UNDER THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT), MR. EMMANUEL L.
BENITEZ (IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE GSIS FAMILY BANK), AND
ATTY. GERALDINE MARIE BERBERABE-MARTINEZ (IN HER CAPACITY AS
CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE GSIS FAMILY BANK),
Respondents.

 G.R. No. 232060, January 14, 2019 - VIRGILIA T. AQUINO, NAZARIA T.

AQUINO, AVELINA A. RONQUILLO, PATROCINIO T. AQUINO, AND RAMONCITO T.
NEPOMUCENO, Petitioners, v. ESTATE OF TOMAS B. AGUIRRE, Respondent.

 G.R. No. 231643, January 15, 2019 - CHRISTIAN C. HALILI, Petitioner, v.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, PYRA LUCAS, AND CRISOSTOMO GARBO,
Respondents.; G.R. No. 231657, January 15, 2019 - MARINO P. MORALES,
Petitioner, v. PYRA LUCAS AND THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondents.;
CHRISTIAN C. HALILI AND CRISOSTOMO GARBO, Respondents-Intervenors.

 G.R. No. 187262, January 10, 2019 - ENGINEERING GEOSCIENCE, INC.,

Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK, Respondent.

 A.C. No. 12063, January 08, 2019 - EVERDINA C. ANGELES, Complainant, v.

ATTY. WILFREDO B. LINA-AC, Respondent.

 G.R. No. 217044, January 16, 2019 - SPOUSES RAINIER JOSE M. YULO AND
JULIET L. YULO, Petitioners, v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Respondent.

 A.C. No. 11334, January 07, 2019 - JOCELYN SORENSEN, Complainant, v. ATTY.
FLORITO T. POZON, Respondent.; A.C. NO. 11335, January 07, 2019 - JOCELYN
SORENSEN, Complainant, v. ATTY. FLORITO T. POZON, Respondent.

 G.R. No. 230566, January 22, 2019 - SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY,
ET AL., Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent.
  G.R. No. 228953, January 28, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. JOSH JOE T. SAHIBIL, Accused-Appellant.

 G.R. No. 215904, January 10, 2019 - EDGAR L. TORILLOS, Petitioner, v.

EASTGATE MARITIME CORPORATION, F.J. LINES, INC., PANAMA, AND EMMANUEL
L. REGIO, Respondents.; G.R. No. 216165, January 10, 2019 - EASTGATE
MARITIME CORPORATION, F.J. LINES, INC., PANAMA, AND EMMANUEL L. REGIO,
Petitioners, v. EDGAR L. TORILLOS,, Respondent.

 A.M. No. 2014-16-SC, January 15, 2019 - RE: COMPLAINT AGAINST MR.
RAMDEL REY M. DE LEON, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT III, OFFICE OF ASSOCIATE
JUSTICE JOSE P. PEREZ, ON THE ALLEGED DISHONESTY AND DECEIT IN
SOLICITING MONEY FOR INVESTMENTS

 A.M. No. P-18-3791 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 15-4447-P), January 29, 2019 -
MILAGROS P. MALUBAY, LEGAL RESEARCHER II, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH
270, VALENZUELA CITY, Complainant, v. HONORIO RAUL C. GUEVARA, CLERK III,
SAME COURT., Respondent.

 G.R. No. 193534, January 30, 2019 - SPOUSES MANUEL AND EVELYN TIO,
Petitioners, v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Respondents.; G.R. No. 194091,
January 30, 2019 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Petitioner, v. GOLDSTAR
MILLING CORPORATION AND/OR SPOUSES MANUEL AND EVELYN TIO,
Respondents.

 G.R. No. 234528, January 23, 2019 - ISIDRO MIRANDA Y PARELASIO,

Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

 G.R. No. 214906, January 16, 2019 - ABOSTA SHIPMANAGEMENT CORP., CIDO
SHIPPING COMPANY LTD., AND ALEX S. ESTABILLO, Petitioners, v. DANTE C.
SEGUI, Respondent.

 G.R. No. 232806, January 21, 2019 - EDGARDO M. AGUILAR, Petitioner, v.

ELVIRA J. BENLOT AND SAMUEL L. CUICO, Respondents.

 G.R. No. 209116, January 14, 2019 - DANNY BOY C. MONTERONA, JOSELITO S.
ALVAREZ, IGNACIO S. SAMSON, JOEY P. OCAMPO, ROLE R. DEMETRIO,* AND
ELPIDIO P. METRE, JR.,** Petitioners, v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC.
AND GIOVANNI ACORDA,*** Respondents.
  G.R. No. 240541, January 21, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. REY BARRION Y SILVA, Accused-Appellant.

 A.M. No. 18-08-69-MTC, January 21, 2019 - RE: DROPPING FROM THE ROLLS
OF MR. STEVERIL* J. JABONETE, JR., JUNIOR PROCESS SERVER, MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURT PONTEVEDRA, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL.

 G.R. No. 226578, January 28, 2019 - AUGUSTIN INTERNATIONAL CENTER,

INC., Petitioner, v. ELFRENITO B. BARTOLOME AND RUMBY L. YAMAT, Respondents.

 G.R. No. 233336, January 14, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. DON EMILIO CARIÑO Y AGUSTIN A.K.A. "DON EMILIO CARIÑO
AGUSTIN," Accused-Appellants.

 G.R. No. 211289 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, v. LA

FLOR DELA ISABELA, INC., RESPONDENT.

 G.R. No. 239471 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v.

JOSEPH CINCO ARCIAGA A.K.A. "JOSEPHUS CINCO ARCIAGA," ACCUSED-
APPELLANT.

 A.M. No. P-19-3911 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4159-P) - RURAL BANK OF
TALISAY (CEBU), INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, ADELE V. VILLO,
COMPLAINANT, v. MANUEL H. GIMENO, SHERIFF IV, BRANCH 19, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, CEBU CITY, RESPONDENT.

 G.R. No. 213323 - TERESITA S. LAZARO, DENNIS S. LAZARO, MARIETA V.

JARA, ANTONIO P. RELOVA, GILBERTO R. MONDEZ, PABLO V. DEL MUNDO, JR.,
AND ALSANEO F. LAGOS, PETITIONERS, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, REGIONAL
DIRECTOR OF COA REGIONAL OFFICE NO. IV-A, AND COA AUDIT TEAM LEADER,
PROVINCE OF LAGUNA, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 213324, January 22, 2019]
EVELYN T. VILLANUEVA, PROVINCIAL ACCOUNTANT OF THE PROVINCE OF
LAGUNA, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

 G.R. No. 205282 - STEAG STATE POWER, INC. (FORMERLY STATE POWER
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION), PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, RESPONDENT.
  G.R. No. 211829 - JACINTO J. BAGAPORO, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

 A.M. No. P-19-3925 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 16-4635-P) - ASUNCION Y.

ARIÑOLA, COMPLAINANT, v. ANGELES D. ALMODIEL, JR., INTERPRETER II,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, MASBATE CITY, MASBATE, RESPONDENT.

 G.R. No. 239521 - PRIMO A. MINA, FELIX BE VERA, POMPEYO MAGALI,

BERNADETTE AMOR AND PURIFICACION DELA CRUZ, PETITIONERS, v. THE COURT
OF APPEALS AND RODOLFO C. TANDOC, RESPONDENTS.

 G.R. No. 238865 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. BILLY

ACOSTA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

 G.R. No. 237809 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v.

ROSALINA AURE Y ALMAZAN AND GINA MARAVILLA Y AGNES,* ACCUSED-
APPELLANTS.

 G.R. No. 232940 - DENNIS LOAYON Y LUIS, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

 G.R. No. 212107 - KEIHIN-EVERETT FORWARDING CO., INC., PETITIONER, v.

TOKIO MARINE MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC.** AND SUNFREIGHT
FORWARDERS & CUSTOMS BROKERAGE, INC., RESPONDENTS.

 G.R. No. 231459 - HEIRS OF PAULA C. FABILLAR, AS REPRESENTED BY AUREO*

FABILLAR, PETITIONERS, v. MIGUEL M. PALLER, FLORENTINA P. ABAYAN, AND
DEMETRIA P. SAGALES, RESPONDENTS.

 G.R. No. 211449 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, v.

TRANSFIELD PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENT.

 A.M. No. 18-03-03-SB - RE: E-MAIL COMPLAINT OF MA. ROSARIO GONZALES

AGAINST HON. MARIA THERESA MENDOZA-ARCEGA, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE,
SANDIGANBAYAN AND HON. FLERIDA Z. BANZUELA, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 51, SORSOGON CITY, SORSOGON.

 G.R. No. 217978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v.

NANCY LASACA RAMIREZ A.K.A. "ZOY" OR "SOY" ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
 G.R. No. 224548 - MARLYN MONTON NULLADA, PETITIONER, v. THE HON. CIVIL
REGISTRAR OF MANILA, AKIRA ITO, SHIN ITO AND ALL PERSONS WHO HAVE OR
CLAIM ANY INTEREST, RESPONDENTS.

 G.R. No. 189162 - POLO PLANTATION AGRARIAN REFORM MULTIPURPOSE

COOPERATIVE (POPARMUCO), REPRESENTED BY SILANDO GOMEZ AND ELIAS
RAMOS, PETITIONER, v. RODOLFO T. INSON, CESO III, AS REGIONAL DIRECTOR
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, REGION VII - CEBU CITY,
RESPONDENT.

 G.R. No. 235873 - ENRIQUE MARCO G. YULO, PETITIONER, v. CONCENTRIX

DAKSH SERVICES PHILIPPINES, INC.,* RESPONDENT.

 A.C. No. 9917, January 14, 2019 - NORBERTO S. COLLANTES, Complainant, v.

ATTY. ANSELMO B. MABUTI, Respondent.

Copyright © 1995 - 2021 REDiaz