Criminal

Law; Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs; Corpus Delicti

Evidence

Question: A was indicted for the sale and illegal possession of shabu in Zamboanga.
B, who is a police officer, in an entrapment operation frisked accused-appellant and
recovered from the latter the marked money and 16 sachets of shabu inside a
cigarette pack. The marking of the seized drugs was not promptly conducted at or
near the place of arrest and seizure and without photograph of the evidence in the
crime scene. No barangay officials witnessed the arrest. The buy-bust team brought
accused-appellant to the police station then marked the 16 sachets.

A denies charges against him and insists he was illegally arrested without a warrant.
According to him, he and his wife were resting at his rented house when armed men
in civilian clothing suddenly entered and searched his house and found nothing.
Despite protest, he was brought to the police station and claimed he did not know
why he was detained.

The RTC gave more credence to the version of the prosecution and accorded the
police officers, who were witnesses, the presumption of regularity in the
performance of their official duties. On appeal to the CA, accused-appellant harped
on the prosecution's failure to discharge their burden of proving his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, and argued that the corpus delicti was not established with moral
certainty. Decide on the case.

Answer: No, the court should favor the accused-appellant.

According to the ruling in People vs. Hashim Nasa, the prosecution, to prove guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, must present in evidence the corpus delicti of the case.
The prosecution has the burden of showing that two conditions were complied with:
first, deviation was called for under the circumstances; and second, that the identity
and integrity of the evidence could not have been, at any stage, compromised. These
two conditions ensure that the spirit and intention of the chain of custody
requirement are complied with.

In this case however, the policemen’s failure to provide a physical inventory and
photograph at the place of search or at nearest police station challenged the
integrity of the corpus delicti of the crime. It follows that there was insufficient basis
for a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. For the same reason, the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty does not hold. The
presumption applies when nothing in the record suggests that the law enforces
deviated form the standard conducted of official duty required by law; where the
official act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise.

Thus, it is proper that the accused-appellant be acquitted. (People of the Philippines
vs. Hashim Asdali, G.R. No. 219835, August 29, 2018, Tijam, J.)

Criminal Law; Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs; Requirements for the Custody
and disposition of Seized Items and Exception to its non-compliance

Question: Stipulate the requirements concerning custody and disposition of
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered drugs and/or drugs paraphernalia.

Cite the rule when non-compliance does not ipso facto render the seizure and
custody over the items void and invalid.

Answer:
1. Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Act spells out:

(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;

2. The Court in the case of People vs. Lumumba emphasized that the failure of the
apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21 of
RA 9165 and its 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 non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

In People v. Almorfe, the Court explained that for the above-saving clause to apply,
the prosecution must explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses. and that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence had nonetheless been
preserved. Also, in People v. De Guzman, it was emphasized that the justifiable
ground for noncompliance must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot
presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.

(People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs Danny Lumumba Y Made, G.R. No.
232354, August 29, 2018, Tijam, J)




Labor Law; Claims of Death Benefits;

Question: X was hired by Y (private respondent), a local manning agency engaged
in the recruitment and/or deployment of Filipino seafarers for its foreign principal,
Z. X in charge of main engine piston exposed to undue pressure as he has to be on
call 24 hours of the day. Due to long hours in the engine room, X felt dizzy and
nauseous. He experienced redness of eyes, purple patches on skin, bleeding gums
and prolonged nosebleed but these were not entered in the ship’s logbook despite
the knowledge of the shipmaster. When X arrived at the Philippines, he was thinking
his illness was not serious and immediately went to his hometown without
submitting his post-employment medical examination in anticipation of another
deployment with private respondents. X health was deteriorating, diagnosed with
leukemia and died months after.

Will X’s death be compensable?

Answer: No, X death is not compensable.

The law is clear in Section 20(B) of the 2000 POEA-SEC states: “the seafarer shall
submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a company-
designated physician within three working days upon his return except when he is
physically incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written notice to the agency
within the same period is deemed as compliance. Failure of the seafarer to comply
with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right
to claim the above benefits.”

As the Court ruled in Yap v. Rover Maritime Services Corp., "x x x in order for the
beneficiaries of a seafarer to be entitled to death compensation from the employer,
it must be proven that the death of the seafarer (1) is work-related; and (2)
occurred during the term of his contract."

In this case, absent any medical report or any relevant document showing X illness
during the term of his employment, such claim is mere allegation. Also the failure of
X to report within 3 days from repatriation and have not reported his condition to
his employer or be checked by the company-designated physician as he arrived did
not excuse X of his failure to comply with the reporting requirement.

Hence, the death of X should not be compensable.

(Amalia Menez, Petitioner vs. Status Maritime Corporation, et. al, G.R. No. 227523,
August 29, 2018, Caguioa, J)






Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs; Chain of Custody Rule

Question: What is the chain of custody rule in cases for the Illegal Sale and/or
Possession of Dangerous drugs?

Answer:
As alighted in the case of People vs. Quilang, to establish the identity of the
dangerous drug with moral certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for
each link of the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their
presentation in court as evidence of the crime. As part of the chain of custody
procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and
photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and
confiscation of the same. It is well to clarify, however, that under Section 21 (a),
Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, which was
later adopted into the text of RA 10640, the foregoing procedures may be instead
conducted at the place where the arrest or seizure occurred, at the nearest police
station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable, in instances of warrantless seizures - such as in buy-bust operations. In
fact, case law recognizes that "marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates
even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team."
Hence, the failure to immediately mark the confiscated items at the place of arrest
neither renders them inadmissible in evidence nor impairs the integrity of the
seized drugs, as the conduct of marking at the nearest police station or office of the
apprehending team is sufficient compliance with the rules on chain of custody.

(People of the Philippines vs. Jomar Quilang Y Bangayan, G.R. No. 232619, August
29, 2018, Perlas-Bernabe, J)

















Ethics; Disbarment Case; Evidentiary Threshold

Question: What is the evidentiary threshold in a disbarment case?

Answer:

According to jurisprudence, the proper evidentiary threshold in disbarment cases is
substantial evidence.

[T]he evidentiary threshold of substantial evidence — as opposed to preponderance
of evidence — is more in keeping with the primordial purpose of and essential
considerations attending [to these types] of cases. As case law elucidates,
"[d]isciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor
purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an
investigation by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being intended
to inflict punishment, it is in no sense a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, there is
neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. It may be initiated by the Court motu
proprio. Public interest is its primary objective, and the real question for
determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the
privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely
calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the
Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the
proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members
who by their misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted
with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. In such
posture, there can thus be no occasion to speak of a complainant or a prosecutor."

(Vicente Ferrer Billanes vs. Atty. Leo Latido, A.C. No. 12066, August 28, 2088


















Ethics; Administrative Case; Lawyer’s Payment of Financial Obligation

Question: Atty. X issued worthless checks to Y. In return, Y charged him with two
(2) counts of violation of BP 22. Warrant of Arrest was issued but despite exhaustive
efforts, they were unable to locate Atty. X. Considering he was hiding to evade his
arrest, Y prayed for his immediate disbarment.

Will sanction against Atty. X prosper?

Answer: Yes, Atty. X has to be imposed with suspension from practice of law for a
cavalier attitude toward incurring debts.

In Lao v. Medel, the Court stressed that a lawyer's payment of financial obligations is
part of his duties:

Verily, lawyers must at all times faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar,
to the courts and to their clients. As part of those duties, they must promptly pay
their financial obligations. Their conduct must always reflect the values and norms
of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. On
these considerations, the Court may disbar or suspend lawyers for any professional
or private misconduct showing them to be wanting in moral character, honesty,
probity and good demeanor — or to be unworthy to continue as officers of the
Court.

Jurisprudence continues to state the issuance of worthless checks constitutes gross
misconduct and violates Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
mandates all members of the bar "to obey the laws of the land and promote respect
for law." Issuance of worthless checks also violates Rule 1.01 of the Code, which
mandates that "lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct."

In light of the foregoing, suspension from the practice of law is proper.

(Alfred Lehnert v. Atty. Dennis Dino, A.C. No. 12174, August 28, 2018, Leonen, J)












Remedial Law; Labor case; Reglementary Period

Question: The decision or award of the Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Arbitrators
is appealable to the Court of Appeals (CA) by petition for review under Rule 43 of
the Rules of Court, which provides a period of 15 days from notice of the decision or
award within which to file the petition for review. On the other hand, Article 262-A
(now Article 276) of the Labor Code sets 10 days as the period within which the
appeal is to be made.

Assailing decision of the Voluntary Arbirator before the Court of Appeals, should the
petitioner follow the customary reglementary period of fifteen (15) days?

Answer: According to the ruling in Guagua National Colleges vs. Court of Appeals,
the petition for review shall be filed within 15 days pursuant to Section 4, Rules 43
of the Rules of Court; the 10-day period under Article 276 of the Labor Code refers
to the filing of a motion for reconsideration vis-à-vis the Voluntary Arbitrator's
decision or award.

In the 2010 ruling in Teng v. Pagahac, the Court clarified that the 10-day period set
in Article 276 of the Labor Code gave the aggrieved parties the opportunity to file
their motion for reconsideration, which was more in keeping with the principle of
exhaustion of administrative remedies, holding thusly: By allowing a 10-day period,
the obvious intent of Congress in amending Article 263 to Article 262-A is to provide
an opportunity for the party adversely affected by the VA's decision to seek recourse
via a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules
of Court filed with the CA. Indeed, a motion for reconsideration is the more
appropriate remedy in line with the doctrine of exhaustion. of administrative
remedies. For this reason, an appeal from administrative agencies to the CA via Rule
43 of the Rules of Court requires exhaustion of available remedies as a condition
precedent to a petition under that Rule.

(Guagua National Colleges vs. Court of Appeals, GNC Faculty and Labor Union and
GNC Non-Teaching Maintenance Labor Union G.R. No. 188492, August 28, 2018,
Bersamin, J)












Civil Law; Land, Titles and Deeds; Eminent Domain; Just Compensation

Question: Mr. A acquired the subject property by virtue of Free Patent under the
Public Land Act, his property will be traversed to construct a Bypass Rode of DPWH.
Mr. A argued that they were entitled to just compensation based on the
Constitutional precept that no private property should be taken for public use
without payment of just compensation. DPWH informed Mr. A that they were not
entitled to the payment of just compensation of the affected area, such area was not
entitled to just compensation for it was acquired by virtue of Free Patent. Thus, a
legal easement of 60-meter wide right-of-way exists in favor of the government.

Decide on the case.

Answer: The amount of just compensation must be determined.

In Bartolata v. Republic, recapulated the two elements which must concur before the
property owner will be entitled to just compensation for the remaining property
under Sec. 112 of CA 141: (1) that the remainder is not subject to the statutory lien
of right of way; and (2) that the enforcement of the right of way results in the
practical destruction or material impairment of the value of the remaining property,
or in the property owner being dispossessed or otherwise deprived of the normal
use of the said remainder.

In order to apply parameters for determining entitlement to just compensation,
Thus, there must be a thorough determination by the trial court if the utilization and
taking of the portion of respondents' land amounts to a taking of the whole property
- as it amounts to the material impairment of the value of the remaining portion, or
if the respondents are being dispossessed or otherwise deprived of the normal use
thereof.

Just compensation is defined as 'the full and fair equivalent of the property taken
from its owner by the expropriator.' The word 'just' is used to qualify the meaning of
the word 'compensation' and to convey the idea that the amount to be tendered for
the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample. On the other hand,
the word 'compensation' means 'a full indemnity or renumeration for the loss or
damage sustained by the owner of property taken or injured tor public use.'

Thus, case should favor to Mr. A.

(Republic of the Philippines, represented by DPWH vs. Sps. Alforte, G.R. No. 217051,
August 22, 2018, Del Castillo, J)




Criminal Law; Rape Case; Part of Res Gestae (Rule 130)

Question: Four separate informations for rape and one for attempted rape were
filed in the RTC against XXX. Upon arraignment, XXX pleaded "not guilty" to all
charges. Trial on the merits ensued thereafter. During trial, the victim, AAA, died
before she could be subjected to cross-examination. The RTC, despite the lack of
AAA’s testimony due to her intervening death, mainly relied on the testimonies in
finding XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The RTC found that the utterances
made by AAA to them, while not made immediately or simultaneous to the rape
incidents, could still be considered part of the res gestae as they were "so connected
with it as to make the act or declaration and the main fact inseparable, or be
generated by an excited feeling which extends, without break or let down, from the
moment of the event they illustrate."

Despite the death of the victim before the cross-examination, will XXX’s guilt for
three (3) counts of rape be proven beyond reasonable doubt?

Answer: The evidence is sufficient to prove XXX’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In criminal cases, the offended party is the State and the role of the private
complainant is limited to the determination of the civil liability of the accused.
Hence, in this case, considering that the death of AAA did not extinguish the criminal
liability of XXX, the trial rightfully ensued with the rest of the evidence for the
prosecution. The testimonies pertaining to the statements of AAA can be considered
part of the res gestae and thus produce a conviction.

As general rule, hearsay evidence is inadmissible in courts of law. As an exception,
however, Sec. 42 of Rule 130 allows the admission of hearsay evidence as part of the
res gestae, to wit: Sec. 42. Part of the res gestae. — Statements made by a person
while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent
thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part
of the res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the
issue, and giving it a legal significance may be received as part of the res gestae.

The following requisites must, thus, be satisfied for the exception to apply: (i) that
the principal act, the res gestae, be a startling occurrence; (ii) that the statements
were made before the declarant had the time to contrive or devise a falsehood; and
(iii) that the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediate
attending circumstances.

In this case, there is no cogent reason to appreciate the evidence against XXX. Court
should find XXX guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence of the
prosecution.

(People of the Philippines vs. XXX, G.R. No. 205888, August 22, 2018, Caguioa, J)

Labor Law; SS Law; Entitlement to receive pension

Question: A was employed with the SSS from May 1958 to July 1984. During his
employment, he became a member of, and was elected as an officer/treasurer of the
SSS Employees' Association (SSSEA). He was reported by the SSSEA as an employee
for SSS coverage and A’s membership was approved. Thereafter, the SSSEA remitted
his monthly contributions as compulsory member from May 1966 to December
1981. A claimed retirement benefits however SSS denied the claim as he was not
entitled to because there was no employment relationship between A and SSSEA.

SSC orders SSS to credit A contributions remitted by SSSEA as voluntary
contributions. A filed motion for reconsideration but was denied by the SSC. Thus A
filed petition for review on certiorari to the CA but affirmed order of SSC.

Will A’s monthly contribution with SSSEA valid and will entitle him to receive
monthly pensions?

Answer: No. A is not entitled to receive monthly pension.

"Employer" is defined under R.A. No. 1161 as: Any person, natural or juridical,
domestic or foreign, who carries on in the Philippines any trade, business, industry,
undertaking, or activity of any kind and uses the services of another person who is
under his orders as regards the employment, except the Government and any of its
political subdivisions, branches or instrumentalities, including corporations owned
or controlled by the Government. While the Labor Code also provides, "Employer"
includes any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly. The
term shall not include any labor organization or any of its officers or agents except
when acting as employer.

In the present case, it was the SSSEA and A who made the incorrect representation
to the SSS that an employment relationship existed between them. As a result of said
representation, the SSS erroneously registered A as a compulsory member. In Noda
v. SSS, the Court held that if the act, conduct or misrepresentation of the party
sought to be estopped is due to ignorance founded on innocent mistake, estoppel
will not arise. Thus, A cannot claim estoppel against the SSS as the latter merely
relied on the former's representation.

Hence, the decision before the SSC as affirmed by the CA should prevail.

(Ramchrisen Haveria vs. Social Security System, Corazon De La Paz and Leonara
Nuque, G.R. No. 181154, August 22, 2018 Caguioa, J)





Criminal Law; Drug Case; Unbroken Chain of Custody

Question: The prosecution’s evidence against A consists of the testimonies of a
police officer, the forensic chemist, assigned poseur-buyer, officer assigned as the
receiving police, assigned photographer, assigned operation team leader, local
elected official present to witness the body search and assigned arresting officer. A
denies allegation and claimed that no buy-bust operation took place and the
improbability of 2 simultaneous buy-bust operations utilizing the same poseur-
buyer should affect the integrity of the seized item and prosecution failed to
establish the unbroken chain of custody of the seized item.

Decide on the matter.

Answer: The claim of the accused does not hold water.

The case laws held that "if the evidence of illegal drugs was not handled precisely in
the manner prescribed by the chain of custody rule, the consequence relates not to
the inadmissibility that would automatically destroy the prosecution's case but
rather to the weight of evidence presented for each particular case." It further held
that the requirements of marking of the seized items, conduct of inventory, and
taking of photographs in the presence of a representative from the media or the DOJ
and a local elective official, are police investigation procedures which call for
administrative sanctions in case of non-compliance. Non-observance of such police
administrative procedures should not affect the validity of the seizure of the
evidence.

As demonstrated by the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the
supporting documents they presented and offered, the chain of custody did not
suffer from serious flaws. As correctly observed, the integrity of the evidence is
presumed to be preserved unless there is showing of bad faith, ill-will or proof that
the evidence has been tampered with. In the case, A bears the burden to make some
showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a
presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and a
presumption that public officers properly discharge their duties.

Therefore, the court should side against the accused.

(People of the Philippines vs. Henry Banquilay G.R. No. 231981, August 20, 2018,
Peralty, J)







Criminal Law; Rape case; Qualified rape

Question: AAA was a minor at the time she was raped by her father XXX. Her father
assailed that despite AAA’s claim of having raped, she appeared to have no apparent
fear or disgust against him and that the testimonies indicated that the rape charges
were filed was with manipulation.

Will XXX denial and allegation prosper?

Answer: No, XXX denial and allegation should not prosper.

According to the ruling in People vs. Salaver, the Court gives great weight to the
findings of the lower courts on the credibility of "AAA". "It is settled jurisprudence
that testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, because when a
woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all
that is necessary to show that rape was committed. Youth and immaturity are
generally badges of truth and sincerity." The Court has ruled that "a young girl's
revelation that she had been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to
medical examination and willingness to undergo public trial where she could be
compelled to give out the details of an assault on her dignity, cannot be so easily
dismissed as mere concoction.” This legal dictum especially applies in cases where
the assailant was her father.

In the case, XXX allegation is unfounded. Hence, XXX should be charged.

(People of the Philippines vs. Benjamin Salaver, G.R. No. 223681, August 20, 2018,
Del Castillo, J)




















Civil Law; Contract of Lease; Partnership

Question: AA Law office entered into a Contract of Lease with BB Bank whereby the
latter agreed to lease the building for the period of 3 years and for a monthly fee of
P189, 600. When the Contract of Lease expired, the AA Law Office continued to
occupy the leased premise but discontinued paying its monthly rental obligations.
XX in his capacity as managing partner of AA Law Office, filed a separate complaint
for accounting and/or recomputation of unpaid rentals and damages against BB
Bank in relation to the Contract of Lease. XX claimed that AA Law Office is a sole
proprietorship and thus, he is the real-party-in-interest. BB Bank filed a motion to
include an indispensable party as plaintiff, praying that XX be ordered to amend
anew his complaint to include AA Law Office as principal plaintiff. BB Bank argued
that as a matter of right and equity, it can claim that amount from AA Law Office in
solidum with XX.

Is it proper to include AA Law office as defendant to BB Bank counterclaim?

Answer: Yes, it is proper.

AA Law Office is a partnership and not a single proprietorship. Article 1767 of the
Civil Code provides that by a contract of partnership, two or more persons bind
themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, with the
intention of dividing the profits among themselves. Two or more persons may also
form a partnership for the exercise of a profession. It also provided for the term of
the partnership, distribution of net profits and losses, and management of the firm
in which "the partners shall have equal interest in the conduct of [its] affairs.
"Moreover, it provided for the cause and manner of dissolution of the partnership.
These provisions would not have been necessary if what had been established was a
sole proprietorship. Indeed, it may only be concluded from the circumstances that,
for all intents and purposes, AA Law Office is a partnership created and organized in
accordance with the Civil Code provisions on partnership.

According to the case in Saludo vs. PNB, the law, in its wisdom, recognized the
possibility that partners in a partnership may decide to place a limit on their
individual accountability. AA Law Office entered into a contract of lease with BB
Bank as a juridical person to pursue the objectives of the partnership. AA Law Office
was created as partnership and as such acquired judicial personality by operation of
law. Hence, its rights and obligations, as well as those of its partners, are determined
by law and not by what the partners purport them to be.

(Aniceto Saludo, Jr. vs PNB, G.R. No. 193138, August 20, 2018, Jardeleza, J)





Criminal Law; Drug case; Chain of Custody

Question: Acting on the information, a buy-bust team was organized. Marked
money was handed, A, in turn gave him a small plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance. The buy-bust team conducted a body search upon A and
recovered from him the marked money. Due to security reasons, the buy-bust team
brought A and the seized items to the barangay hall, where the required inventory
and photography were conducted in the presence of A and Barangay Kagawad.

A denied the accusations against him, claiming that at that time he was taking a bath
inside his house when he heard a number of individuals shouting his name. He
averred that upon opening the door, and he was arrested. Thereafter, he was
handcuffed and brought to the barangay hall where all the pieces of evidence were
shown to him. A appealed that the chain of custody had been broken from the
moment the dangerous drug was seized by the apprehending officers until it was
introduced in evidence.

Should conviction be granted against A?

Answer: No, court should favor A in this case.

According to the law, the following elements must be proven with moral certainty:
(a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b)
the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. Case law instructs that it is essential
that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty,
considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus
delicti of the crime. Case laws, however, clarified that under varied field conditions,
strict compliance with the requirements of the law may not always be possible. In
fact, law provides 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 the law – 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.

In this case, inventory and the photography of the seized items were made in the
presence of A and an elected public official, the records do not show that the said
inventory and photography were done before any representative from the DOJ and
the media.

Hence, Court should be constrained to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized item was compromised. Acquittal should be in order.

(People of the Philippines vs. Benjamin Feriol, G.R. No. 232154, August 20, 2018,
Perlas-Bernabe, J)

Criminal Law; Drug case; Chain of Custody

Question: A confidential agent told Intelligence Officer that a certain A was selling
shabu. The Intelligence Officer then arranged a meet-up with A. At around 7 o’clock
in the evening, the buy-bust team went to the transaction area. Police gave the
marked money to A, who in turn, handed over one heat-sealed plastic sachet. After
examining the same, the buy-bust team rushed to the scene and since it was about to
rain, the requisite inventory could not be conducted. Thus, the team went back to
PDEA wherein police prepared inventory of the seized items in the presence only of
a media representative. No explanation as to why barangay official was not present
during the requisite inventory and photography.

In defense of A, he claimed that at that time, he was on his way to the tiange to drink
with a friend, before reaching, some unknown men grabbed and handcuffed him and
shortly after, he and his friend were brought to an office where he was accused by
PDEA agents of selling shabu.

Should conviction for the crime be upheld against A?


Answer: No, conviction should not favor.

According to the case of People vs. Baptista, the absence of the aforementioned
required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible.
However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and
sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses must be adduced. Jurisprudence
dictates that the procedure enshrined in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is a matter
of substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality;
or worse, ignored as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects.

In this case, police did not provide a sufficient explanation why no barangay official
was present during the requisite inventory and photography. Simply stating that the
witnesses were invited, without more, is too plain and flimsy of an excuse so as to
justify non-compliance with the positive requirements of the law.

In the view of the foregoing, Court should conclude that there has been unjustified
breach of procedure and hence, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus
delicti had been compromised. A’s acquittal is in order.

(People of the Philippines vs. Christpher Baptista, G.R. No. 225783, August 20, 2018,
Perlas-Bernabe, J)




Labor Law; Seafarer case; Permanent Disability Benefits

Question: Seafarer A entered into a contract of employment with respondent B on
board the vessel. A assisted in the unloading of raw logs from vessel but could not
withstand the strong odor of logs, A asked for leave and was excused form the
activity. However, the incident already triggered an asthma attack on petitioner. In
their defense, respondents denied liability contending, among others, that the
complaint was prematurely filed given that the 120-day period had not yet expired
at the time petitioner filed his complaint on June 4, 2014, and that the latter even
returned for a follow-up check-up with his attending specialist on June 20, 2014.
They further contended that petitioner was not entitled to disability benefits under
the CBA as his condition was not due to an accident,[38] and that his illnesses were
not compensable, considering that his degenerative changes (back condition) was
declared by the specialist to be a pre-existing condition, while his bronchial asthma
was not work-related since he already manifested its symptoms at the time he
joined the vessel.

Should A be entitled to permanent total disability benefits?

Answer: Yes, he is entitled to permanent total disability benefits.

It is settled that the entitlement of a seafarer on overseas employment to disability
benefits is governed by law, by the parties' contracts, and by the medical findings..

Pursuant to POEA-SEC, when a seafarer suffers a work-related injury or illness in
the course of employment, the company-designated physician is obligated to arrive
at a definite assessment of the former's fitness or degree of disability within a
period of 120 days from repatriation. Case law states that without a valid final and
definitive assessment from the company-designated physician within the 120/240-
day period, the law already steps in to consider petitioner's disability as total and
permanent. Thus, a temporary total disability becomes total and permanent by
operation of law.

In the case, while A the company-designated physician still failed to arrive at a
definitive assessment within the 120-day period or indicate the need for further
medical treatment. Evidently, without the required final medical assessment
declaring petitioner fit to resume work or the degree of his disability, the
characterization of the latter's condition after the lapse of the 120-day period as
total and permanent ensued in accordance with law, since the ability to return to
one's accustomed work before the applicable periods elapse cannot be shown.[94]
Thus, because of these circumstances, petitioner should be entitled to permanent
total disability benefits by operation of law.

(Oscar Gamboa vs. Maunlad Trans, Inc and/or Rainbow Maritime Co., LTD and Capt.
Silvino Fajardo G.R. No. 232905, August 20, 2018, Perlas-Bernabe, J)


Labor Law; Seafarer case; Compensability of Illness

Question: A was hired by B to serve as Oiler on board the vessel. Sometime in
January 2010, Lagne started to feel pain on his anus whenever he carries heavy
weights or performs laborious tasks. He also experienced chest pains and difficulty
in breathing during his work which he tried to endure. He was diagnosed to have a
"rectal mass" and was recommended for medical repatriation after having been
declared "unfit for duty."

B argued that A is not entitled to any disability compensation since rectosigmoid
adenocarcinoma is not listed as one of the occupational diseases under Section 32-A
of the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Seafarers (POEA-SEC). They further
claimed that even the medical conclusion of the company-designated physician
confirmed that A’s illness is not work- related.

Is A’s illness compensable?

Answer: Yes, A’s illness is compensable.

For disability to be compensable under Section 20(B)(4) of the POEA-SEC, two
elements must concur: (1) the injury or illness must be work-related; and (2) the
work-related injury or illness must have existed during the term of the seafarer's
employment contract. POEA-SEC defines a work-related injury as "injury(ies)
resulting in disability or death arising out of and in the course of employment," and
a work-related illness as "any sickness resulting to disability or death as a result of
an occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of this Contract with the
conditions set therein satisfied."

Considering the manual and laborious job that A does, in the case of Skippers United
Pacific vs. Estelito Lagne held that his working conditions exposed him to factors
that could have aggravated his medical condition. In determining the
compensability of an illness, the court does not require that the employment be the
sole factor in the growth, development, or acceleration of a claimants' illness to
entitle him to the benefits provided for. It is enough that his employment
contributed, even if only in a small degree, to the development of the disease.

Hence, court should grant decision in favor of A.

(Skippers United Pacific, Inc and/or Ikarian Moon Shipping vs. Estelito Lagne, G.R.
No. 217036, August 20, 2018, Peralta, J)





Labor Law; Managerial Employees to CBA benefits;

Question 1: Are managerial employees eligible to join any labor organization? If no,
cite the exemptions?

Answer 1: As a general rule in Article 245 of the Labor Code expressly states that
"managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor
organization." An exception to this prohibition is when the employer extends the
CBA benefits to the managerial employee as a matter of policy or established
practice. To be considered a company practice, the giving of the benefits should
have been done over a long period of time, and must be shown to have been
consistent and deliberate. The test or rationale of this rule on long practice requires
an indubitable showing that the employer agreed to continue giving the benefits
knowing fully well that said employees are not covered by the law requiring
payment thereof.

Remedial Law; Relaxation of Rule 45

Question 2: What are the circumstances for the relaxation of the rule where only
questions of law raised via a petition for review under Rule 34 are reviewable by the
Supreme Court?

Answer 2: Whenever any of the following circumstances is present:

1. [W]hen the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or
conjectures;
2. when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
3. when there is grave abuse of discretion;
4. when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
5. when the findings of fact are conflicting;
6. when in making its findings[,] the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the
case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the
appellee;
7. when the findings are contrary to that of the trial court;
8. when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which
they are based;
9. when the facts set forth in the petition[,] as well as in the petitioner's main and
reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent;'
10. when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and
contradicted by the evidence on record;
11. when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not
disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different
conclusion

(SITA, SITA Inc, Equant Services Inc and Lee Chee Wee vs. Theodore Huliganga, G.R.
No. 215504, August 20, 2018, Peralta, J)
Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs case; Chain of custody

Question: In the buy-bust operation, A was arrested for the sale of shabu. Inventory
of the seized item was witnessed by representative from the media and a councilor
of Barangay Sta. Cruz. While the prosecution was able to show that the seized item
was inventoried and photographed by the police officers in the presence of the
accused, representatives from the media, and barangay councilor, records fail to
disclose that said inventory and photography were conducted in the presence of a
representative from the DOJ as required by law.

Should conviction of the accused be upheld?

Answer: No, acquittal may properly be held.

According to the law, the prosecution must show an unbroken chain of custody over
the same by accounting for each link in the chain of custody from the moment of
seizure up to its presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti, in order to
prove its identity beyond reasonable doubt.

In the case, the absence of a DOJ representative during the inventory and
photography of the seized drugs is not per se fatal to the prosecution's cause.
However, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to demonstrate that genuine and
earnest efforts were employed in securing the presence of the DOJ representative or
that there exists a justifiable reason for non-compliance.

As the Court held in People v. Umipang, "[a] sheer statement that representatives
were unavailable – without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts
were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances – is to be
regarded as a flimsy excuse" – as in this case – and hence, not a valid excuse for non-
compliance.

Hence, acquittal of A is proper.

(People of the Philippines vs. Joseph Libre, et al, G.R. No. 235980, August 20, 2018,
Perlas-Bernabe, J)











Remedial Law; Negligence of Counsel

Question 1: A received the January 3, 2017 resolution of the CA denying its motion
for reconsideration on January 11, 2017. Hence, A had fifteen (15) days, or until
January 26, 2017, to file its appeal. It let this period lapse and, instead, filed herein
petition for certiorari on March 13, 2017. A argues that its failure to comply with the
CA's October 22, 2015 resolution was unintentional. It was merely due to the heavy
workload of its former counsel, as well as the effect of the recurring water
intrusion/leakage in its offices resulting to outpour of water soaked and damaged
the computers, case files, confidential documents and other materials belonging to
the lawyers.

Should petition be dismissed due to negligence of A’s counsel?

Answer: Petition should be dismissed. The right to appeal is neither a natural right
nor a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised
only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. Thus, one who
seeks to avail of the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the ROC.
Failure to do so often leads to the loss of the right to appeal.

Gross negligence has been defined as the want or absence of or failure to exercise
slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It examines a thoughtless
disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.

In the case, the acts of A’s counsel did not deprive A of due process. A was given
every opportunity to be heard but it failed to take advantage of the said
opportunities. Hence, the general rule that the negligence of the counsel binds the
client applies herein.

Enshrined by case laws that the invocation of substantial justice is not a magic
potion that will automatically compel the Court to set aside technical rules.

Hence, court should favor against A.

(PAGCOR vs. Court of Appeals and Angeline Paez, G.R. No. 230084, August 20, 2018,
Gesmundo, J)










Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Case; Chain of Custody

Question: As to the chain of custody, what are the links which must be established
to establish unbroken chain of custody?

Answer:

As to the chain of custody, the Court has consistently ruled that the following links
must be established:

First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officer;

Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer;

Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic
chemist for laboratory examination; and

Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the
forensic chemist to the court.


The rule on chain of custody expressly demands the identification of the persons
who handle the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized
movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they were
seized from the accused until the time they are presented in court. It would include
testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to
the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the
exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what
happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was
received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.
These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had
been no change in the condition of the item and there was no opportunity for
someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.

(People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Celso Plaza, Joseph Guibao Balinton,
G.R. No. 235467, August 20, 2018, Gesmundo, J)








Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Case; Chain of Custody

Question 1: Define Chain of Custody

Answer 1:

The Guidelines on the Custody and Disposition of Seized Dangerous Drugs,
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals and Laboratory Equipment[22]
defines "chain of custody" as follows:

Section 1 (b) - "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements
and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous
drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation
to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
destruction.

Question 2: Explain the Chain of Custody Rule

Answer 2:

In Junie Mallillin y Lopez v. People of the Philippines, the Court explained that the
chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by
evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the
proponent claims it to be. Thus:

x x x It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the
item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every
person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was
received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the
condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the
next link in the chain.

Question 3: The records do not show that the arresting officers marked the seized
items with their initials in the presence of accused, and immediately upon
confiscation. Officers in the scene only brought marked money, and no camera, pen,
masking tape were brought. Is the chain of custody considered compromised?

Answer: Yes, it can be deduced, that at the outset, no arresting officer was so
minded to mark or even take a photo of the possible contraband that they may
recover from both accused. Obviously, right from the start, the arresting officers had
no intention to comply with the law by marking the seized items in the presence of
the accused and immediately upon confiscation. Thus, break in the chain of custody.

(People of the Philippines vs. Anthony Madria, G.R. No. 233207, August 20, 2018,
Tijam, J)

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter

Question: Does jurisdiction over the subject matter of a complaint be lost through
waiver or estoppel? Explain.

Answer: Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a complaint is conferred by law. It
cannot be lost through waiver or estoppel. It can be raised at any time in the
proceedings, whether during trial or on appeal. The edict in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy is
not an exception to the rule on jurisdiction. A court that does not have jurisdiction
over the subject matter of a case will not acquire jurisdiction because of estoppel.
Rather, the edict in Tijam must be appreciated as a waiver of a party's right to raise
jurisdiction based on the doctrine of equity. It is only when the circumstances in
Tijam are present that a waiver or an estoppel in questioning jurisdiction is
appreciated.

In estoppel by laches, a claimant has a right that he or she could otherwise exercise
if not for his or her delay in asserting it. This delay in the exercise of the right
unjustly misleads the court and the opposing party of its waiver. Thus, to claim it
belatedly given the specific circumstances of the case would be unjust.

In summary, Tijam applies to a party claiming lack of subject matter jurisdiction
when:
(1) there was a statutory right in favor of the claimant;
(2) the statutory right was not invoked;
(3) an unreasonable length of time lapsed before the claimant raised the
issue of jurisdiction;
(4) the claimant actively participated in the case and sought affirmative relief
from the court without jurisdiction;
(5) the claimant knew or had constructive knowledge of which forum
possesses subject matter jurisdiction;
(6) irreparable damage will be caused to the other party who relied on the
forum and the claimant's implicit waiver.

(Gregorio Amoguis Tito Amoguis vs. Concepcion Ballado and Mary Grace Ledesma
and St. Joseph Realty, G.R. No. 189626, August 20, 2018, Leonen, J)











Remedial Law; Civil Procedure: Writ of Preliminary Injuction

Question 1: What are the grounds for the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary
Injuction?

Answer 1:
Rule 58, Sec. 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure

Section 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction. - A preliminary injunction
may be granted when it is established:
(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of
such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts
complained of, or in requiring performance of an act or acts, either for a limited
period or perpetually;
(b) That the commission, continuance or non-performance of the act or acts
complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant;
or
(c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to
do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in violation of
the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and
tending to render the judgment ineffectual.

In Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) v. City Advertising Ventures
Corporation,[123] this Court held that "[f]or a writ of preliminary injunction to be
issued, the applicant must show, by prima facie evidence, an existing right before
trial, a material and substantial invasion of this right, and that a writ of preliminary
injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable injury."

Question 2: Where PGMC claim exclusive rights as stated in the Interim Settlement
pertained to its righs under Amendments to Equipment Lease Agreement which will
expire on August 21, 2018, will PGMC have the right to be violated as indicia to file
Temporary Restraining Order/ Injunctive relief in the bidding of the procurement of
the Nationwide On-Line Lottery System?

Answer 2: No, it fails to provide proof that the Amendments to Equipment Lease
Agreement was extended beyond August 21, 2018. It cannot claim that it has alleged
exclusive rights to be protected and that it will suffer irreparable injury if petitioner
continued with the Nationwide On-line Lottery System bidding process. This is
precisely because the bidding was for the next supplier of the Nationwide On-line
Lottery System for a period of five (5) years after August 21, 2018 or commencing
on August 22, 2018.

(PCSO vs. Hon. Maximo De Leon, Presiding Judge of Makati RTC Branch 143, and
Philippine Gaming and Management Corporation, G.R. Nos. 236577 and 236597,
August 15, 2018, Leonen, J)

Criminal Law; Murder; Qualifying Circumstance

Question: A was charged with deliberate intent to kill with treachery and evident
premeditation to kill B with the used of an ice pick. A witness saw the victim held in
place on the right side by appellant and on the left by A while an unidentified person
held the victim’s feet. Thereafter, he witnessed A stab the victim.

The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The CA affirmed the
decision. Hence, A filed appeal.

Was the victim’s stabbing attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery?

Answer: Yes, it is attended by qualifying circumstance of treachery.

Settled is the rule that "appellate courts accord the highest respect to the
assessment made by the trial court because of the trial judge's unique opportunity
to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude
under grueling examination." In Reyes, Jr. v. Court of Appeals[22] that the findings of
the trial court will not be overturned absent any clear showing that it had
overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or
substance. After all, it is settled that "alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses
and 'must be brushed aside when the prosecution has sufficiently and positively
ascertained the identity of the accused'," as in this case.

"There is treachery when the offender employs means, methods or forms in the
execution of any of the crimes against persons that tend directly and especially to
ensure its execution witht rihimself arising from the defense
which the offended party might make."

In this case, appellant and two others held the victim in place. Clearly, the victim's
stabbing was attended by treachery, considering that (a) the means of execution of
the attack gave the victim no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b)
said means of execution was deliberately adopted by appellant and his co-accused.

Hence, appeal should be dismissed.

(People of the Philippines vs. Jeffrey Collamat, Jimbo Saladaga and Ronilo Rondina,
G.R. No. 218200, August 15, 2018, Del Castillo, J)








Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Replevin

Question: Petitioner A filed a replevin case against B for the recovery of the Toyota
Hi-Ace van valued at P300,000.00. She applied for a bond in the amount of
P600,000.00 with respondent in B’s favor. The Regional Trial Court approved the
bond and ordered the sheriff to recover the van from B and to deliver it to
petitioner. While the van was in petitioner's custody, the RTC dismissed the case
without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Thus, it ordered the sheriff to restore the
van to B. When petitioner failed to produce the van, the Regional Trial Court
directed respondent to pay B the amount of the bond. A executed indemnity
agreement with C Insurance where she agreed to indemnify latter for all damages,
payment, in whatever kind that would incur as surety of the replevin bond. RTC
directed C Insurance to pay B the amount of P600,000 and C Insurance wrote A
requesting remittance of the same amount to be paid on the replevin bond. C
constrained by the court paid B in compliance with RTC order.

A appealed arguing that the replevin bond had already expired; therefore, she could
not have been liable under the indemnity agreement. She also averred that even
assuming that she was still liable under the indemnity agreement, she should not
pay the full amount considering that the value of the van was only P300,000.00.

Should A be made liable for the full amount of the bond payment by The Mercantile
Insurance, as surety in relation to the previous case for replevin filed by B?

Answer: Forfeiture of the replevin bond, therefore, requires first, a judgment on the
merits in the defendant's favor, and second, an application by the defendant for
damages. Neither circumstance appears in this case. When petitioner failed to
produce the van, equity demanded that B be awarded only an amount equal to the
value of the van. The RTC would have erred in ordering the forfeiture of the entire
bond in B’s favor, considering that there was no trial on the merits or an application
by B for damages.

There was no trial on the merits. The Regional Trial Court's dismissal for failure to
prosecute was a dismissal without prejudice to re-filing. In this particular instance,
any writ of seizure, being merely ancillary to the main action, becomes functus
oficio. The parties returned to the status quo as if no case for replevin had been filed.
Thus, upon the dismissal of the case, it was imperative for petitioner to return the
van to B. C Insurance paid P600,000.00 to Asuten pursuant to a lawful order of RTC.
If there were any errors in the judgment of the RTC, Acould have appealed this.
Petitioner, however, chose to let the case lapse into finality.

Wherefore, petition should be denied. A should be liable for the full amount.

(Milagros Enriquez vs. The Mercantile Insurance Co., G.R. No. 210950, August 15,
2018 Leonen, J)




Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Forum Shopping; Judicial Notice

Question 1: What are the elements of Forum Shopping?

Answer 1:
In Young vs. Spouses, Sy, the Court held that there is forum shopping where there
exist:

(a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests
in both actions;
(b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded
on the same facts; and
(c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment
rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful would amount
to res judicata.

Question 2: Cite the rule and the exemptions on taking judicial notice.

Answer 2:

As a general rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial notice, in the
adjudication of cases pending before them, of the contents of the records of other
cases, even when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court, and
notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been heard or are actually
pending before the same judge.

Rule admits of exemptions, namely:
(a) In the absence of objection, and as a matter of convenience to all parties, a
court may properly treat all or any part of the original record of a case filed in its
archives as read into the record of a case pending before it, when, with the
knowledge of the opposing party, reference is made to it for that purpose, by name
and number or in some other manner by which it is sufficiently designated; or
(b)when the original record of the former case or any part of it, is actually
withdrawn from the archives by the court's direction, at the request or with the
consent of the parties, and admitted as a part of the record of the case then pending.

(Joe Bernas and the Wharton Resources Group vs. The Estate of Filipe Yu Han Yat,
G.R. No. 195908, August 15, 2018, Caguioa, J)





Civil Law; Obligations and Contracts; Novation

Question: What are the classifications of novation?

Answer:

Novation may be classified into: (a) objective or real, (b) subjective or personal, or
(c) mixed.

Article 1291(1) contemplates an objective or real novation where there is a change
in the cause, object or principal conditions of the obligations while (2) and (3) of
said Article contemplate a passive one where there is a substitution of the person of
the debtor and an active one where there is subrogation of a third person in the
rights of the creditor.[40] Mixed novation, on the other hand, refers to a
combination of objective and subjective novation.

As to its form or constitution, novation may be express, when it is declared in
unequivocal terms that the old obligation is extinguished by a new one which
substitutes the same, or implied or tacit, when the old and the new obligations are
incompatible with each other on every point.

As to extent or effect, novation may be total or extinctive[43], when there is an
absolute extinguishment of the old obligation, or partial, when there is merely a
modification of the old obligation.

(Benedicto Yujuico vs Far East Bank Company, G.R. No. 186196, August 15, 2018,
Caguioa, J)




















Civil Law; Property

Question: There was continuous heavy rain which caused a large volume of water
to fall from the hilltop subdivision of A Village Subdivision which damaged the fence,
furniture, appliance and car of Sps. B. Sps B alleged that A village committed a
wrongful act in replacing its steel grille gate with a concrete fence. Sps B asserted
had the steel grille gate unchanged, the injury suffered by them would have been
prevented.

A Village countered that they only exercised its propertary rights when it
constructed the concrete fence and that it was also not negligent.

Is A liable for the damage?

Answer: No, A Village Subdivision is not responsible for the damage of Sps. B’s
properties.

Malice or bad faith, at the core of Articles 20 and 21, implies a conscious and
intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity.
Records of the case reveal that while GVHAI replaced the steel grille gate with a
concrete fence, the construction was not intended to obstruct whatever waters that
may naturally flow from the higher estates. The concrete fence was made to ward
off undesirable elements from entering the subdivision. Thus, for purposes of
Articles 20 and 21, the construction of the concrete fence is not contrary to any law,
morals, good customs, or public policy.

There was also no negligence on the part of GVHAI. The test of negligence is stated
in Picart v. Smith, Jr. The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a
particular case may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in doing the alleged
negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent
person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence.

Hence, A Village Subdivision is absolved from any liabilities to the damage of B’s
properties.











Criminal Law; Rape case; Absence of Resistance; Purported Romantic
Relationship

Question 1: Information for Rape was filed against Ramos did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously by means of force and intimidation have carnal
knowledge with A against her will and consent.

Ramos ensued that A’s claim that she struggled against his advances is belied by the
absence of any physical injuries on her body.

Will his contention hold water?

Answer 1: No, his contention does not hold water. It must be noted that the absence
of bodily injury does not negate the commission of rape. In case of People vs. Zafra,
“the absence of external signs of physical injuries does not negate rate.” It is a well-
settled rule that "the force used in the commission of rape need not be
overpowering or absolutely irresistible." "A rape victim has no burden to prove that
she did all within her power to resist the force or intimidation employed upon her."
Resistance is not an element of rape. What is essential is simply that the force
employed was sufficient to enable the offender to consummate the lewd purpose
which he had in mind.

Question 2: Ramos claims that he and A were lovers and as such, their sexual
intercourse was consensual. Will his defense hold water?

Answer 2: No, it does not hold water. It cannot be gainsaid that in cases where the
accused raises the "sweetheart defense," there must be proof by compelling
evidence, that the accused and the victim were in fact lovers, and that the victim
consented to the alleged sexual relations. The second is as important as the first,
because love is not a license for lust.

(People of the Philippines vs Sonny Ramos, G.R. No. 210435, August 15, 2018, A.
Reyes, Jr., J)














Criminal Law; Anti-Graft case;


Question 1: What are the elements of the offense defined in violating Section 3(g) of
RA No. 2019 Corrupt practices of public officers?

Answer 1:

In Henry T. Go vs. Sandiganbayan, the elements of the offense defined in Section 3(g)
of R.A. No. 3019 were enumerated, to wit:
(1) that the accused is a public officer;
(2) that he or she entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the
government; and
(3) that such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly
disadvantageous to the government.


(Josie Castillo-Co vs Honorable Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, G.R.
No. 184766, August 15, 2018, A. Reyes Jr., J)