Latest Entries »

CASE 2016-0081: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JEHAR REYES (G.R. No. 199271, 19 OCT 2016, BERSAMIN, J.) (SUBJECT/S: GROUNDS FOR REVERSING DRUG CONVICTION; PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE VIS A VI PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN PERFORMANCE OF DUTY) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS J. REYES).

Filed under: Uncategorized — Leave a comment
November 25, 2016

CASE 2016-0081: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JEHAR REYES (G.R. No. 199271, 19 OCT 2016, BERSAMIN, J.) (SUBJECT/S: GROUNDS FOR REVERSING  DRUG CONVICTION; PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE VIS A VI PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN PERFORMANCE OF DUTY) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS J. REYES).

 

DISPOSITIVE:


“WHEREFORE the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on June 13, 2011 by the Court  of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR-H.C. No. 00792 entitled People v. Jehar Reyes; ACQUITS accused-appellant JEHAR REYES of the offense charged on the ground of reasonable doubt; and ORDERS his immediate release from detention at the National Penitentiary, unless there are other lawful causes warranting his •continued detention.

 

The Court DIRECTS the Director of the Bureau of Corrections to forthwith implement this decision, and to report his action hereon to this Court within ten ( l 0) days from receipt.

 

No pronouncement on costs of suit.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

“Was the chain of custody preserved in this case?

 

It appears clear to us as a reviewing court that the chain of custody was not preserved in the manner required by the aforementioned guidelines fixed by law. . . .”

 

First of all, the confiscated items were not marked immediately after the seizure. . . .

 

Secondly, the law specifically required that the marking must  be witnessed by the accused, but there was no credible showing by the State that the accused had actually witnessed the process of marking. . . .”

 

Thirdly, another substantial gap in the chain of custody concerned the absence of any representative of the media or of the Department of Justice (DOJ), and of the elected public official during the buy-bust operation and at the time of the confiscation of the dangerous drugs from the accused in the area of operation. . . .”

 

And, lastly, the arresting officers did not prepare any inventory of the confiscated items, and did not take photographs of the items. . . . .”

 

The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty in favor of the arresting officers did not prevail over the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused . . . .

 

The accused charged with a violation of the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002 is always presumed innocent of the crime charged against him. This presumption of his innocence, which has been enshrined in Section 14, Article III (The Bill of Rights) of the Constitution, ensures that: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.” It underlies our system of criminal justice, and far outweighs any other presumption, particularly one that is essentially a rule of evidence. . . .

 

The presumption of regularity of performance of official duty stands only when no reason exists in the records by which to doubt the regularity of the performance of official duty. . . .

 

Moreover, the regularity of the performance of their duty could not be properly presumed in favor of the policemen because the records were replete with indicia of their serious lapses. As a rule, a presumed fact like the regularity of performance by a police officer must be inferred only from an established basic fact, not plucked out from thin air. . . .”


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

 

 scd-2016-0081-people-of-the-philippines-vs-jehar-reyes

 

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”.

 

 

Comment

CASE 2016-0080: ERROL RAMIREZ, JULITO APAS, RICKY ROSELO AND ESTEBAN MISSION, JR. VS. POLYSON INDUSTRIES, INC. AND WILSON S. YU (GR NO. 207898, 19 OCTOBER 2016, PERALTA, J.) (ILLEGAL STRIKE) (BRIEF TITLE: RAMIREZ ET AL VS POLYSON INDUSTRIES ET AL)

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES — Leave a comment
November 18, 2016

CASE 2016-0080: ERROL RAMIREZ, JULITO APAS, RICKY ROSELO AND ESTEBAN MISSION, JR. VS. POLYSON INDUSTRIES, INC. AND WILSON S. YU (GR NO. 207898, 19 OCTOBER 2016, PERALTA, J.) (ILLEGAL STRIKE) (BRIEF TITLE: RAMIREZ ET AL VS POLYSON INDUSTRIES ET AL)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated January 23, 2013 and June 17, 2013, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 125091 are AFFIRMED.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

“The Court is not persuaded by petitioners’ contention that they are not guilty of “illegal concerted activity” as they claim that this term contemplates a “careful planning of a considerable number of participants to insure that the desired result is attained.” Nothing in the law requires that a slowdown be carefully planned and that it be participated in by a large number of workers. The essence of this kind of strike is that the workers do not quit their work but simply reduce the rate of work in order to restrict the output or delay the production of the employer. It has been held that while a cessation of work by the concerted action of a large number of employees may more easily accomplish the object of the work stoppage than if it is by one person, there is, in fact no fundamental difference in the principle involved as far as the number of persons involved is concerned, and thus, if the act is the same, and the purpose to be accomplished is the same, there is a strike, whether one or more than one have ceased to work. 35 Furthermore, it is not necessary that any fixed number of employees should quit their work in order to constitute the stoppage a strike, and the number of persons necessary depends in each case on the peculiar facts in the case and no definite rule can be laid down. 36 As discussed above, petitioners engaged in slowdown when they induced two of their co-workers to quit their scheduled overtime work and they accomplished their purpose when the slowdown resulted in the delay and restriction in the output of Polyson on June 8, 2011.

 

With respect to procedural due process, it is settled that in termination proceedings of employees, procedural due process consists of the twin requirements of notice and hearing.37 The employer must furnish the employee with two written notices before the termination of employment can be effected: (1) the first apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the second informs the employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss him.38 The requirement of a hearing is complied with as long as there was an opportunity to be heard, and not necessarily that an actual hearing was conducted. 39 In the present case, Polyson was able to establish that these requirements were sufficiently complied with.

 

As to petitioners’ liability, the second paragraph of Article 264(a) of the Labor Code provides:


x x x Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status: Provided, That mere participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the employer during such lawful strike.40

 

Finally, it cannot be overemphasized that strike, as the most preeminent economic weapon of the workers to force management to agree to an equitable sharing of the joint product of labor and capital, exert some disquieting effects not only on the relationship between labor and management, but also on the general peace and progress of society and economic well-being of the State.41 This weapon is so critical that the law imposes the supreme penalty of dismissal on union officers who irresponsibly participate in an illegal strike and union members who commit unlawful acts during a strike.42 The responsibility of the union officers, as main players in an illegal strike, is greater than that of the members as the union officers have the duty to guide their members to respect the law. 43 The policy of the State is not to tolerate actions directed at the destabilization of the social order, where the relationship between labor and management has been endangered by abuse of one party’s bargaining prerogative, to the extent of disregarding not only the direct order of the government to maintain the status quo, but the welfare of the entire workforce though they may not be involved in the dispute. 44 The grave penalty of dismissal imposed on the guilty parties is a natural consequence, considering the interest of public welfare.”

 

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

 

scd-2016-0080-errol-ramirez-et-al-vs-polyson-industries-inc-and-wilson-s-yu

 

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”.

 

 

Comment

CASE 2016-0079: THE CASE ON MARCOS BURIAL AT LIBINGAN NG MGA BAYANI (G.R. NO. 225973 AND RELATED CASES) (08 NOV 2016, PERALTA, J.)

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES — Leave a comment
November 14, 2016

CASE 2016-0079: THE CASE ON MARCOS BURIAL AT LIBINGAN NG MGA BAYANI  (G.R. NO. 225973 AND RELATED CASES)  (08 NOV 2016, PERALTA, J.)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petit10ns are DISMISSED. Necessarily, the Status Quo Ante Order is hereby LIFTED.”


SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

“Conclusion

 

In sum, there is no clear constitutional or legal basis to hold that there was a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction which would justify the Court to interpose its authority to check and override an act entrusted to the judgment of another branch. Truly, the President’s discretion is not totally unfettered. “Discretion is not a freespirited stallion that runs and roams wherever it pleases but is reined in to keep it from straying. In its classic formulation, ‘discretion is not unconfined and vagrant’ but ‘canalized within banks that keep it from overflowing.”‘186 At bar, President Duterte, through the public respondents, acted within the bounds of the law and jurisprudence. Notwithstanding the call of human rights advocates, the Court must uphold what is legal and just. And that is not to deny Marcos of his rightful place at the LNMB. For even the Framers of our Constitution intend that full respect for human rights is available at any stage of a person’s development, from the time he or she becomes a person to the time he or she leaves this earth.

 

There are certain things that are better left for history -not this Court -to adjudge. The Court could only do so much in accordance with the clearly established rules and principles. Beyond that, it is ultimately for the people themselves, as the sovereign, to decide, a task that may require the better perspective that the passage of time provides. In the meantime, the country must move on and let this issue rest.”

 

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


 scd-2016-0079-saturnino-c-ocampo-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”.

 

 

Comment