Latest Entries »

CASE 2018-0022: REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES VS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL (G.R. NO. 221103, 16 OCTOBER 2018, CARPIO J.) (SUBJECT/S: CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEVERAL PROVISIONS OF THE 2015 REVISED RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL(HRET) (BRIEF TITLE: REYES VS HRET)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

“The amendments to Rules 17 and 18 of the 2015 HRET Rules were made “with respect to the reckoning point within which to file an election protest or a petition for quo warranto, respectively, in order to further promote a just and expeditious determination and disposition of every election contest brought before the Tri bun al [.]” 11 The recent amendments, which were published in The Philippine Star on 26 September 2018 and took effect on 11 October 2018, clarified and removed any doubt as to the reckoning date for the filing of an election protest. The losing candidate can determine with certainty when to file his election protest.”

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2018-0022-Regina Ongsiako Reyes Vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal 

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

 

 

 

 

CASE 2018-0020: PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE VS. HON. MAXIMO M. DE LEON, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE MAKATI CITY REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 143, AND PHILIPPINE GAMING AND MANAGEMENT (G.R. NOS. 236577 AND 236597, 15 AUGUST 2018, LEONEN,J.) (SUBJECT/S: TRO, INJUNCTION) (BRIEF TITLE: PCSO VS JUDGE DE LEONEN)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED.The Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office may proceed with the biddingprocess for the Nationwide On-line Lottery System for Luzon.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT MUST THE APPLICANT SHOW SO THAT THE COURT WILL ISSUE A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION?

 

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 PREVENTIRREPARABLE INJURY.

 

In Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) v. CityAdvertising Ventures Corporation, 123 this Court held that “[f]or a writ ofpreliminary injunction to be issued, the applicant must show, by prima facievidence, an existing right before trial, a material and substantial invasion of this right, and that a writ of preliminary injunction is necessary to preventirreparable injury.”

 

WHAT WAS THE CLAIM OF PHILIPPINE GAMING AND MANAGEMENT CORP.?

 

IT CLAIMS EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO THE NATIONWIDE ON-LINE LOTTERY SYSTEM.

 

DOES IT HAVE SUCH EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS?

 

NO BECAUSE ITS EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS WAS UNDER THE AMENDMENTS TO EQUIPMENT LEASE AGREEMENT WHICH ALREADY EXPIRED.

 

Respondent Philippine Gaming and Management Corporation’s claim of exclusive rights, as stated in the Interim Settlement and which was brought to arbitration, pertained to its rights under the Amendments to Equipment Lease Agreement, which will expire on August 21, 2018. It failed 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.

 

 TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2018-0020-PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE VS. HON. MAXIMO M. DE LEON ET AL

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2018-0019: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. BENITO PALARAS Y LAPU-OS (G.R. NO. 219582, 11 JULY 2018, MARTIRES, J.) (SUBJECT/S: DRUG CASE DISMISSED BY SC; WARRANTLESS ARREST VOIDED AND AS A CONSEQUENCE ITEMS SEIZED WRE NOT CONSIDERED AS EVIDENCE; WITNESSES DISCREDITED BECAUSE OF DISTANCE)  (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS PALARAS)

  

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the Court of Appeals Decision, dated 29 January 2015, in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01758,affirming the 14 November 2013 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 69, Silay City, in Criminal Case Nos. 8561-69 and 8562-69, and ACQUITS accused-appellant BENITO PALARAS y LAPU-OS of the crimes charged in Criminal Case Nos. 8561-69 and 8562-69 on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is hereby ORDERED to immediately release accused-appellant BENITO PALARAS y LAPU-OS from custody unless he is being detained for some other lawful cause.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

IS THE NON-PRESENTATION OF THE POSEUR-BUYER FATAL IN DRUG CASE?

 

FATAL ONLY IF THERE IS NO OTHER EYEWITNESS.

 

IN THIS CASE THERE WERE EYEWITNESSES WHO WERE MEMBERS OF THE BUY-BUST TEAM. DID  THEIR TESTIMONY CURE THE NON-PRESENTATION OF THE POSEUR-BUYER.

 

NO BECAUSE THEIR DISTANCE RAISES DOUBT THAT THEY COULD CONFIRM THE ALLEGED SALE THAT TRANSPIRED.

 

“While it is true that the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer is fata only if there is no other eyewitness to the illicit transaction, 19 P02 Bernil and the other members of the buy-bust team cannot be considered as eyewitnesses to the illegal sale of drugs because their distance raises doubt that they could confirm whether what transpired was actually a sale, considering the legal characterizations20 of the act constituting the crime.

 

In People v. Amin,21 this Court did not deem as eyewitness account the testimony of the prosecution witnesses who were ten ( 10) meters away from the transaction. Similarly, in People v. Guzon,22 a police officer who admitted that he was seven (7) to eight (8) meters away from the actual transaction was not considered an eyewitness to the crime.”

 

WHAT DOES CONVICTION FOR ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF ILLEGAL DRUGS REQUIRE?

 

IT REQUIRES THE FOLLOWING:

 

 ( 1) THAT THE ACCUSED WAS IN POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS;

 

 (2) THAT SUCH POSSESSION WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW; AND

 

(3) THAT THE ACCUSED WAS FREELY AND CONSCIOUSLY AWARE OF BEING IN POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS

 

WAS THERE BASIS FOR THE WARRANTLESS ARREST?

 

NO BECAUSE THE SALE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS COULD NOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO ACCUSED.

 

WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF AN INVALID WARRANTLESS ARREST?

 

ANY ITEM IT YIELDED COULD NOT, THEREFORE, BE USED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.27

 

WAS ACCUSED GUILTY OF POSSESSION OF THE DRUGS?

 

NO BECAUSE HIS ALLEGED POSSESSION WAS PREMISED ON HIS SALE WHICH WAS NOT PROVEN.

 

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2018-0019-People of the Philippines Vs. Benito Palaras y Lapu-Os

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.