J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2016-0061: ALLIANCE FOR THE FAMILY FOUNDATION ET AL VS. HON. JANETTE L. GARIN ET AL (G.R. NO. 217872); CONCEPCION S. NOCHE ET AL VS. HON. JANETTE GARIN ET AL (G.R. NO. 221866) (24 AUGUST 2016, MENDOZA J.)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the case docketed as G.R No. 217872 is hereby REMANDED to the Food and Drugs Administration which is hereby ordered to observe the basic requirements of due process by conducting a hearing, and allowing the petitioners to be heard, on the re-certified, procured and· administered contraceptive dnigs and devices, including lmplanon and Implanon NXT, and to determine whether they are abortifacients or non-abortifacients.

Pursuant to the expanded jurisdiction of this Court and its power to issue rules for the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, the Court hereby:

1. DIRECTS the Food and Drug Administration to formulate the rules of procedure in the screening, evaluation and approval of all contraceptive drugs and devices that will be used under Republic Act No. 10354. The rules of procedure shall contain the following minimum. requirements of due process: (a) publication, notice and hearing, (b) interested parties shall be allowed to intervene, (c) the standard laid down in the Constitution, as adopted under Republic Act No. 10354, as to what constitutes allowable contraceptives shall be strictly followed, that is, those which d.o not harm or destroy the life of the unborn from conception/fertilization, (d) in weighing the evidence, all reasonable doubts shall be resolved in favor of the protection and preservation of the right to’ life of the unborn from conception/fertilization, and (e) the other requirements of administrative due process, as summarized in Ang Tibay v. CIR, shall be complied with.

2. DIRECTS the Department of Health in coordination with other concerned agencies to formulate the rules and regulations or guidelines which will govern the purchase and distribution/ dispensation of the products or supplies under Section 9 of Republic Act No. 10354 covered by Jhe certification from the Food and Drug Administration that said product and supply is made available on the condition that it will not be. used as an abortifacient subject to the following minimum due prbcess requirements: (a) publication, notice and hearing, and (b) interested parties shall be allowed to intervene. The rules and regulations or guidelines shall provide sufficient detail as to the manner py which said product and supply shall be strictly regulated in order1that they will not be used as an abortifacient and in order to sufficiently safeguard the right to life of the unborn.

3. DIRECTS the Department of Health to generate the complete and correct list of the government’s reproductive health programs and services under Republic Act No. 10354 which will serve as the template for the complete and correct information standard and, hence, the duty to inform under Section 23(a)(l) of Republic Act No. 10354. The Department of Health is DIRECTED to distribute copies of this template to all health care service providers covered by Republic Act No. 10354.

The respondents are hereby also ordered to amend the Implementing Rules and Regulations to conform to the rulings and guidelines in G.R. No. 204819 and related cases.

The above foregoing directives notwithstanding, within 30 days from receipt of this disposition, the Food and Drugs Administration should commence to conduct the necessary hearing guided by the cardinal rights of the parties laid down in CIR v. Ang Tibay. 71

Pending the resolution of the controversy, the motion to lift the Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED.

With respect to the contempt petition, docketed as G.R No. 221866, it is hereby DENIED for lack of concrete basis.

SO ORDERED.”

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

scd-2016-0061-alliance-for-the-family-foundation

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 2016-0060: PEOPLE VS. MERCELITA ARENAS (G.R. NO. 23598, 27 JULY 2016, PERALTA J.) (SUBJECT/S: PENALTY WHEN QUANTITY OF SHABU IS NOT STATED IN THE INFORMATION; INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS. ARENAS)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated January 22, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05533 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION only insofar as to the penalty imposable for the crime of illegal possession so that appellant is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate sentence of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months.

SO ORDERED.”

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

IN CRIME OF ILLEGAL  POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS, HOW WILL THE PENALTY BE DETERMINED?

BASED ON THE QUANTITY OF THE DANGEROUS DRUGS POSSESSED.

IN THIS CASE THE QUANTIIY OF SHABU FOUND WAS NOT INDICATED IN THE INFORMATION. BUT THE PROSECUTION DURING TRIAL WAS ABLE TO PROVE THE QUANTITY FOUND. CAN THIS QUANTITY FOUND BE USED AS BASIS?

NO.

APPELLANT’S RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE ACCUSATION AGAINST HER WOULD BE VIOLATED.

 IN THIS CASE  WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE RANGE OF PENALTY APPLICABLE?

SINCE IT WAS PROVED THAT APPELLANT WAS IN POSSESSION OF SHABU BUT THE QUANTITY WAS NOT SPECIFIED IN THE INFORMATION, THE CORRESPONDING PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED ON HER SHOULD BE THE MINIMUM PENALTY CORRESPONDING TO ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF LESS THAN FIVE GRAMS OF METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE OR SHABU WHICH IS PENALIZED WITH IMPRISONMENT OF TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY TO TWENTY (20) YEARS AND A FINE RANGING FROM THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P300, 000. 00) TO FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P400,000.00).

UNDER THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW HOW WILL PENALTY BE IMPOSED?

THE MINIMUM PERIOD OF THE IMPOSABLE PENALTY SHALL NOT FALL BELOW THE MINIMUM PERIOD SET BY THE LAW AND THE MAXIMUM PERIOD SHALL NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERIOD ALLOWED UNDER THE LAW;

APPLYING THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW WHAT THEN IS THE IMPOSABLE PENALTY IN THIS CASE?

THE IMPOSABLE PENALTY SHOULD BE WITHIN THE RANGE OF TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY TO FOURTEEN (14) YEARS AND EIGHT (8) MONTHS.

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

scd-2016-0060-arenas

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 2016-0059: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VERSUS  LUISITO GABORNE Y CINCO (G.R. No. 210710, 27 JULY 2016, PEREZ, J.) (SUBJECT/S: MURDER WITH UNLICENSED FIREARM; FRUSTRATED MURDER; CIVIL INDEMNITIES IN CASE OF DEATH RESULTING FROM MURDER) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS. CINCO)

 DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the 29 July 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01183 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Appellant LUISITO GABORNE Y CINCO is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder with the use of Unlicensed Firearm and shall suffer a penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, without eligibility for parole and shall pay the Heirs of Sixto Elizan y Herrera Pl00,000.00 as civil indemnity, Pl 00,000.00 as moral damages, and Pl 00,000.00 as exemplary damages; and of the crime of Frustrated Murder and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty ranging from eleven ( 11) years of Pris ion Mayor as minimum, to eighteen ( 18) years of Reclusion Temporal as maximum and shall pay P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages.

All monetary awards for damages shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent ( 6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.

In the service of his sentence, appellant, who is a detention prisoner, shall be credited with the entire period of his preventive imprisonment.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 “Illegal Possession of Firearm as an aggravating circumstance in the crimes of Murder and Frustrated Murder

The CA appropriately appreciated the use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance in the crimes of Murder and Frustrated Murder. Under R.A. No. 1059, use of loose firearm in the commission of a crime, like murder, shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. 58

In view of the amendments introduced by R.A. No. 8294 and R.A. No. 10591, to Presidential Decree No. 1866, separate prosecutions for homicide and illegal possession are no longer in order. Instead, illegal possession of firearm is merely to be taken as an aggravating circumstance in the crime of murder. 59 It is clear from the foregoing that where murder results from the use of an unlicensed firearm, the crime is not qualified illegal possession but, murder.· In such a case, the use of the unlicensed firearm is not considered as a separate crime but shall be appreciated as a mere aggravating circumstance. Thus, where murder was committed, the penalty for illegal possession of firearms is no longer imposable since it becomes merely a special aggravating circumstance. 60 The intent of Congress is to treat the offense of illegal possession of firearm and the commission of homicide or murder with the use of unlicensed firearm as a· single offense.61

In the case at hand, since it was proven that accused-appellant was not a licensed firearm holder, 62 and that he was positively identified by the witnesses as the one who fired shots against the victims, the use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of the crimes of Murder and Frustrated Murder should be considered as an aggravating circumstance thereof.

The presence of such aggravating circumstance would have merited the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of Murder. However, in view of R.A. No. 9346, we are mandated to impose on appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

Damages and civil liability

This Court resolves to modify the damages awarded by the appellate court in line with the recent jurisprudence.63 Appellant shall pay the Heirs of Sixto Elizan y Herrera Pl 00,000.00 as civil indemnity, Pl 00,000.00 as moral damages, and Pl00,000.00 as exemplary damages for the crime of Murder with the use of Unlicensed Firearm.

Appellant shall also be liable to pay P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages for the crime of Frustrated Murder. In addition, interest at the rate of six percent ( 6%) per annum shall be imposed on all monetary awards from date of finality of this Judgment until fully paid.”

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

scd-2016-0059-cinco

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”.