J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2020-0001: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JOSEPH SOLAMILLO AMAGO AND CERILO BOLONGAITA VENDIOLA, JR. (G.R. NO. 227739. JANUARY 15, 2020, PERALTA, CJ) (SUBJECT/S: DANGEROUS DRUGS; PROOF OF DELIVERY TO ANOTHER PERSON NOT NECESSARY; CONSPIRACY)(BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS AMAGO ET AL)

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

ACCUSED ARGUES THAT THERE WAS NO PROOF OF DELIVERY OF THE DRUGS TO ANOTHER PERSON. IS THERE CONTENTION CORRECT.

NO.

SINCE THE CRIME IS MALUM PROHIBITUM THE ONLY THING TO PROVE IS THE MOVEMENT OF THE ILLEGAL DRUGS FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER. PROVING THE DELIVERY TO ANOTHER PERSON IS NOT NECESSARY.

. . . . . .

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.

SCD-2020-0001-People of the Philippines Vs. Joseph Solamillo Amago and Cerilo Bolongaita Vendiola, Jr. 

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”.

CASE 2019-0063: (CONNIE L. SERVO VS. PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 234401. DECEMBER 5, 2019, LAZARO-JAVIER, J.) (SUBJECT/S: JURISDICTION OF PDIC; APPEAL TO CA BY QUASI JUDICIAL BODIES) (BRIEF TITLE: SERVO VS PDIC)

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

PETITIONER SERVO FILED A CLAIM AT PDIC ALLEGING THAT AN ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF GUTIERREZ WAS HERS. PDIC DENIED THE CLAIM BECAUSE SHE DOES NOT HAVE THE PROPER DOCUMENTS SHOWING THAT SHE OWNS THE ACCOUNT. SERVO FILED A CASE AT RTC. RTC SAID IT HAS NO JURISDICTION BECAUSE PDIC IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY AND ITS DECISION HAS TO BE APPEALED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS NOT AT RTC. SERVO FILED A PETITION FOR CERTIORARY BEFORE C.A. WITH AN ALTERNATIVE PRAYER  ASKING ALSO THAT C.A. CONSIDERS HER PETITION AS A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI QUESTIONING THE DECISION OF PDIC. C.A. AFFIRMED RTC DECISION. ON THE ALTERNATIVE PRAYER C.A. SAID THE ISSUE ON JURISDICTION MUST BE BROUGHT BEFORE SC SINCE IT IS A PURE QUESTION OF LAW. THE SUPREME COURT SAID C.A. AND NOT RTC HAS JURISDICTION OVER PDIC. THE ALTERNATIVE PRAYER OF SERVO MUST BE DENIED BECAUSE IT WAS FILED LATE (2 YRS OR MORE THAN 30 DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF PDIC DECISION.)

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.

SCD-2019-0063-Connie L. Servo Vs. Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation

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”.

CASE 2019-0062: OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN VS. VENANCIO G. SANTIDAD/VENANCIO G. SANTIDAD VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (G.R. NO. 207154/G.R. NO. 222046. DECEMBER 5, 2019) (BRIEF TITLE: OMBUDSMAN VS SNTIDAD ET AL)

DISPOSITIVE:

DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

SANTIDAD WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY CHARGED BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN FOR GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY AND DISHONESTY FOR SIGNING INVOICE RECEIPT FOR PROPERTY IN RELATION TO THE TRANSFER OF 21 VANS TO CONGRESSMAN ANDAYA WHEN IN FACT THERE WAS NO SUCH TRANSFER. THE COURT OF APPEALS RULED THAT HE DID NOT COMMIT GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY BUT HE COMMITTED DISHONESTY.

HE WAS ALSO CRIMINALLY CHARGED BEFORE THE SANDIGANG BAYAN FOR FALSIFICATION OF THE INVOICE RECEIPT. HE WAS CONVICTED.

SUPREME COURT SAID SANTIDAD WAS GUILTY OF GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY. THERE WERE SEVERAL SIGNS WHICH SHOW THAT THE PURCHASE AND DELIVERY OF THE VANS WERE ANOMALOUS. YET SANTIDAD DID NOT HEED THESE SIGNS.

SUPREME COURT EXONERATED HIM ON THE FALSIFICATION CHARGE. THERE WAS NO MALICIOUS INTENT PROVEN.

IN FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS BY MAKING UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENTS WHAT IS VITAL?

THERE MUST BE MALICIOUS INTENT.

 ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE OF GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY SANTIDAD SAID THAT HE RELIED IN GOOD FAITH THAT HIS SUBORDINATES WOULD PERFORM THEIR FUNCTIONS REGULARLY. IS THIS ARGUMENT CORRECT?

WRONG. WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST WHICH WOULD HAVE ALERTED HIM TO EXERCISE MORE DILIGENCE AND HE FAILED TO DO SO, HE CANNOT RAISE SUCH DEFENSE.

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.

SCD-2019-0062-Office of the Ombudsman Vs. Venancio G. SantidadVenancio G. Santidad Vs. People of the Philippines

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”.