J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2018-0026: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS JAYSON TORIO Y PARAGAS (G.R. NO. 225780, 03 DEC 2018, DEL CASTILLO, J.) (SUBJECT/S: THE RULE ON CHAIN OF CUSTODY; WHAT TO PROVE IN ILLEGAL DRUG POSSESSION; WHAT TO PROVE IN SALE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS TORIO).

IN THIS CASE,  AN ACCUSED CONVICTED OF POSSESSION AND SALE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS WAS DECLARED NOT GUILTY BY THE SUPREME COURT. FIND OUT WHY.

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 29, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06473 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, appellant Jayson Torio y Paragas is ACQUITTED of the charges of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered to be immediately released from detention, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation and who is then directed to report to this Court the action he has taken within five days from his receipt of this Decision.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHY WAS THE ACCUSED DECLARED NOT GUILTY BY THE SUPREME COURT?

BECAUSE THE PROCEDURE FOR PHYSICAL INVENTORY AND TAKING OF PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SEIZED ITEMS WAS NOT FOLLOWED.

PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF RA 10640 IN 2014, THE PHYSICAL INVENTORY AND TAKING OF PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SEIZED ITEMS MUST BE WITNESSED BY THE FOLLOWING PERSONS: (A) ANY ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIAL; (B) A DOJ REPRESENTATIVE; AND ( C) A MEDIA REPRESENTATIVE.

IN THIS CASE THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PHYSICAL INVENTORY AND TAKING OF PHOTOGRAPH WERE MADE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE APPELLANT OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE, AS WELL AS REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE DOJ AND MEDIA.

CAN THIS 3 WITNESS RULE BE EXCUSED?

YES PROVIDED  THE PROSECUTION PROVES THAT THE ARRESTING OFFICERS EXERTED GENUINE EFFORTS TO SECURE THE PRESENCE OF SUCH WITNESSES, ALBEIT THEY EVENTUALLY FAILED TO APPEAR. ·

TO SECURE A CONVICTION FOR ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS UNDER SECTION 5, ARTICLE II OF RA 9165, WHAT SHOULD THE PROSECUTION PROVE?

THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE:

A) THE IDENTITIES OF THE BUYER AND THE SELLER;

B) THE DELIVERY OF THE DRUGS, AND

C) THE PAYMENT IN CONSIDERATION THEREOF.

HOW ABOUT IN CASES OF ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS, WHAT MUST THE PROSECUTION PROVE UNDER SECTION 11, ARTICLE II OF RA 9165?

THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE:

A) THAT THE THE ACCUSED WAS IN POSSESSION OF DANGERONS DRUGS;

B) THAT SUCH POSSESSION WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW[;] AND

C) THE ACCUSED WAS FREELY ANDCONSCIOUSLY AWARE OF BEING IN POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS.”

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

SCD-2018-0026-PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS JAYSON TORIO Y PARAGAS 

 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 2018-0025: ROBUSTUM AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION VS DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM AND LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (G.R. NO. 221484, 03 DEC 2018, PERALTA, J) (SUBJECT/S: JURISDICTION OF DAR) (BRIEF TITLE: ROBUSTUM AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION VS DAR AND LAND BANK)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Orders dated June 11, 2015 and September 28, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 69, of Silay City in Civil Case No. 2915-69, insofar as they effectively dismissed the petition for quieting of title and declaratory relief filed by petitioner Robustum Agricultural Corporation, are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

PETITIONER QUESTIONS THE VALIDITY OF THE NOTICE OF COVERAGE ISSUED BY DAR. HE FILED AT RTC A PETITION FOR QUIETING OF TITLE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF. WAS HIS ACTION PROPER?

NO. IT IS DAR AND NOT RTC WHICH HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE. THE NOTICE OF COVERAGE IS PART OF THE POWER OF DAR TO IMPLEMENT LAND REFORM.

“The grant of authority upon the DAR to conclude a “proceeding involving the implementation of the [agrarian reform law}” pending as of June 30, 2014 under Section 30 of RA No. 9700, like any statutory grant of authority, must be deemed to include all such powers, even those not expressly stated, that are necessary to effectuate the granted authority.40

This construction is justified by the doctrine of necessary implication: 41 No statute can be enacted that can provide all the details involved in its application. There is always an omission that may not meet a particular situation. What is thought, at the time of enactment, to be an allembracing legislation may be inadequate to provide for the unfolding events of the future. So-called gaps in the law develop as the law is enforced.”

……………………………

“A petition to lift the notice of coverage under the cited regulation is clearly the proper remedial forum whereby an aggrieved landowner can raise issues contesting the validity or efficacy of a notice of coverage. This, for all intents and purposes, is the remedy that petitioner should have availed of.

Since the sole question raised in the petition a quo is really only an agrarian reform matter that arose from an on-going proceeding for compulsory land acquisition and distribution, jurisdiction to resolve the same – as is the case for the main proceeding itself – must rest too with the DAR. As already pointed out, the authority given to the DAR under Section 30 of RA No. 9700 to conclude any agrarian reform proceeding pending as of June 30, 2014, by necessity, includes an authority for the same to continue exercising its quasi-judicial powers under Section 50 of RA No. 6657 with respect to any agrarian reform matter or controversy that may arise in such proceeding.”

WHAT IS THIS DOCTRINE OF NECESSARY IMPLICATION?

“The doctrine states that what isimplied in a statute is as much a part thereof as that which is expressed. Every statute is understood, by implication, to contain all such provisions as may be necessary to effectuate its object and purpose, or to make effective rights, powers, privileges or jurisdiction which it grants, including all such collateral and subsidiary consequences as may be airly and logically inferred from its terms. Ex necessitate legis. And every statutory grant of power, right or privilege is deemed to include all incidental power, right or privilege. This is so because the greater includes the lesser, expressed in the maxim, in eo plus sit, simper inest et minus.”

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

SCD-2018-0025-ROBUSTUM AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION VS DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM AND LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

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 2018-0024: JOHNNY GARCIA YAP VS PEOPLE (G.R. NO. 234217, 27 NOV 2018, PERALTA, J) (SUBJECT/S: ATTEMPTED MURDER DOWNGRAGED TO SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES) (BRIEF TITLE: YAP VS PEOPLE)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated March 8, 2017, in CA-G.R. CR No. 38903, which affirmed the August 7, 2015 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 27 in Criminal Case No. 13-297324, finding herein petitioner guilty of the crime of attempted murder, is hereby MODIFIED and instead finds petitioner GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of slight physical injuries, as defined and penalized under Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer the penalty of fifteen (15) days of arresto menor. Petitioner is ORDERED to PAY the victim, George Hao Ang, moral damages in the sum of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00).

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT IS THE CRIME IF THERE IS NO INTENT TO KILL BUT WOUNDS ARE INFLICTED?

PHYSICAL INJURIES ONLY.

“Based on the foregoing circumstances, while it is clear that petitioner really intended to harm Ang, it cannot be concluded nor inferred beyond doubt that in causing the injuries of Ang, petitioner had intended to kill him. When such .intent is lacking but wounds are inflicted upon the victim, the crime is not attempted murder but physical injuries only.”

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

SCD-2018-0024-JOHNNY GARCIA YAP VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

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”.