J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The March 22, 2017 Decision and the August 16, 201 7 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-CR No. 02397, which affirmed the July 23, 2012 Joint-Decision of the Regional Trial Court, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Virgilio Evardo y Lopena is ACQUITTED of the charges of violating Section 11 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.

For their information, copies of this Decision shall be furnished to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.

The Regional Trial Court is directed to tum over the seized sachets of shabu to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

So Ordered.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

IN THIS CASE THE ARRESTING OFFICERS’ SEARCH AND SUBSEQUENT SEIZURE WERE HELD INVALID. THUS, THE CONFISCATED DRUGS CANNOT BE USED AS EVIDENCE. WITHOUT EVIDENCE THE CASE HAS TO BE DISMISSED.

In cases involving drugs, the confiscated article constitutes the corpus delicti of the crime charged. Under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, the essence of the crime is the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution, and transportation of prohibited drugs, and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals. The act of transporting the drugs, as in this case, must be duly proven by the prosecution, along with how a particular person is the perpetrator of that act. The seized drug, then, becomes the corpus delicti of the crime charged. The entire case of the prosecution revolves around that material.

In drugs cases where the allegedly confiscated drug is excluded from admissible evidence – as when it was acquired through an invalid warrantless search – the prosecution is left without proof of corpus delicti. Any discussion on whether a crime has been committed becomes an exercise in futility. Acquittal is then inexorable.

Thus, here, the arresting officers’ search and subsequent seizure are invalid. As such, the two (2) sacks of marijuana supposedly being transported in the pickup cannot be admitted in evidence.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

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

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the pet1t10n is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 27, 2018 and the Resolution dated January 14, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 09323 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The charge against Noel T. Jaspe, Ma. Negenia V. Araneta and Sanny Apuang for Grave Misconduct in OMB-V-A-13-0170 is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

HOW WILL COLLUSION BE PROVEN?

BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE. 

On this score, Desierto v. Ocampo28 pronounced that the complainant charging collusion must prove it by clear-and convincing evidence, thus:

Collusion implies 2 secret understanding whereby one party plays into another’s hands for fraudulent purposes. It may take place between anci every contractor resulting in no competition, in which case, the government may declare a failure of bidding. Collusion may also ensue between contractors and the chairman and members of the PBAC to simulate or rig the bid.ding process, thus insuring the award to a favored bidder, to the-prejudice of the government agency anc! public ser•;ice. for such acts of the chairman and the members of the PBAC, they may be held administratively liable for conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the government service. Collusion by and among the members of the PBAC and/or contractors submitting their bids may be determined from their collective acts or omissions before, during and after the bidding process. The complainants are burdened to prove such coll us-ion by clear and convincing evidence because if so proved, the responsible officials may be dismissed from the government service or meted severe administrative sanctions for dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the government service.29 (Emphasis ours)

………………………………….

WHAT IS GRAVE MISCONDUCT?

Grave misconduct is defined as the “wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a premedi.tated, obstinate or intentional purpose.” It is not mere failure to comply with the law. Failure to comply must be deliberate and must be done in order to secure benefits for the offender •-r for some other person. 31

…………………………….

WHAT EVIDENCE IS NEEDED TO PROVE MISCONDUCT?

COMPETENT EVIDENCE DERIVED FROM DIRECT KNOWLEDGE. NOT MERE ALLEGATIONS.

For a ~harge of grave _miscpnduct or any grave offense to prosper, therefore, the evidence against the respondent should be competent and must be derived from direct knowledge. Reliance on mere allegations, conjectures and suppositions, as in this case, vvarrants the dismissal of the charge.32 So must it be.

…………………………..

SOME ACCUSED DID NOT APPEAL. WILL RESULT OF APPEAL EXONERATE THEM ALSO?

YES.

Notably, only petitioners Jaspe and Araneta actively · sought the reversal of the finding of grave misconduct in connection with the discharge of their function as BAC members. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charge against petitioners should benefit Apuang, another BAC member, even if he did not join Jaspe and Araneta here, nor appealed on his own.

In Tropical Homes, Inc. v. Fortun,33 the Court held that the reversal of the judgment on appeal is binding only on the paiiies to the appealed case and does not affect or inure to the benefit of those who did not join or were not parties to the appeal except when there is a communality of interests where the rights and liabilities of the parties appealing are so interwoven and dependent on each other as to be inseparable, in which case 3. reversal as to one operates as a reversal to all. To be sure, there is communality of interests among J aspe, et al. as their alleged liabilities arose out of their collegial decision in the same proceeding of which they serve as BAC members. Hence, the reversal of petitioners’ liability also operates as a reversal.of Apuang’s liability although he did not appeal therefrom.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

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

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals’ February 25, 2010 Decision and April 6, 201] Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 90303 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The May 9, 2007 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Parafiaque City, Branch 260, in Civil Cases 01-0228 and 03-0384 is REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

NOTE: “MARRIED TO” ONLY REFERS TO THE CIVIL STATUS OF THE PROPERTY’S REGISTERED OWNER. THE HUSBAND  CANNOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE CONTRIBUTED JOINTLY IN ACQUIRING THE FUNDS SINCE HE DID NOT CARE FOR AND MAINTAIN THE FAMILY AND THE HOUSEHOLD.

In this case, there is proof that the Parafiaque lot was not obtained by Mario and Rosanna’s joint efforts, work, or industry. Rita M. Tan, Rosanna’s aunt, donated the 315-square meter lot to Rosanna and her father, Rodolfo M. Tan. The Deed ofDonation331 dated August 25, 1998 provides that Rita M. Tan donated 157.50 square meters to “Rodolfo M. Tan, married to Josefina G. Leafio”332 and to “Rosanna L. Tan-Anda!, married to Mario Andal”333 each. Transfer Certificate of Title No. 139811 covering 157.50 square meters of the Parafiaque lot is under the name of “Rosanna L. Tan[1]Andal, of legal age, Filipino, married to Mario Andal.”334 In Salas, Jr. v. Aguila,335 this Court held that “married to” only refers to the civil status of the property’s registered owner.336 Thus, Rosanna exclusively owns half of the 315-square meter Parafiaque lot. Mario has no share in this property because he did not care for and maintain the family and the household.

As for the half of the duplex house that served as the parties’ family f home, there is evidence that the funds used to construct the house were obtained solely through Rosanna and her father’s efforts. In a promissory note337 dated July 13, 1998, Rosanna and her father jointly loaned P2,400,000.00 from the Elena P. Tan Foundation for the construction of a house on the Parafiaque lot. Although Mario signed the promissory note to give “marital consent” to Rosanna, he has no proof that he participated in acquiring the funds. He cannot be deemed to have contributed jointly in acquiring the funds since he did not care for and maintain the family and the household.

………………………………….

IN DECIDING CASES INVOLVING CUSTODY OF A MINOR WHAT MUST THE COURT CONSIDER?

AMONG OTHERS, “THE PREVIOUS CARE AND DEVOTION SHOWN BY EACH OF THE PARENTS; THEIR RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND, MORAL UPRIGHTNESS, HOME ENVIRONMENT AND TIME AVAILABILITY.

In Pablo-Gualberto v. Gualberto,339 this Court held that the “separation of parents” contemplated in Article 213 may either be legal separation or separation in fact. 340 In deciding cases involving custody of a minor, the courts must consider, among others, “the previous care and devotion shown by each of the parents; their religious background, moral uprightness, home environment and time availability; [ and] the [child’s] emotional and educational needs.”341 Here, Mario and Rosanna have been separated in fact since 2000. Between them, Rosanna showed greater care and devotion to Ma. Samantha. Even when they still lived together, Rosanna had been more available to her child. She raised Ma. Samantha on her own since she and Mario separated. Mario has not supported both mother and child since he separated from 0 Rosanna, even after he had claimed that he has been living “drug-free.”

……………………………

NOTE: MARRIAGE REMAINS AN INSTITUTION DESIGNED TO PROVIDE LEGAL AND PUBLIC RECOGNITION.

Marriage is not compulsory when in love; neither does it create love. Nonetheless, it remains an institution designed to provide legal and public recognition that may be well deserved not only for the couple, but also for their families existing or yet to come.

To be clear, our collective hope is that one who chooses marriage realizes that the other deserves more caring, more compassion, more kindness in the daily and banal grind of their relationship. It is in these same values of sacrifice and empathy that we will have the chance to evolve into a society that is more humane and, eventually, more just.

Yet, we are not blind to the reality that a person may be truly psychologically incapable for the other from the beginning. Should there be grave need to part for the reasons we have stated, courts can lead the way to make parting less bitter, minimize animosity, and make lives more forward- / looking for those most affected.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

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