- People of the Philippines vs. Erick Montierro y Ventocilla/Cypher Baldadera y Pelagio Vs. People of the Philippines/Re: Letter of the Philippine Judges Association expressing its concern over the ramifications of the decisions in G.R. No. 247575 and G.R. No. 250295/Re: Letter of Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta on the suggested plea bargaining framework submitted by the Philippine Judges AssociationPlea Bargaining in Drug Cases
G.R. No. 254564/G.R. No. 254974/A.M. No. 21-07-16-SC/A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC. July 26, 2022 [Date Uploaded on the Supreme Court website: 12/12/2022]The Supreme Court En Banc provided clarificatory guidelines on plea-bargaining in drugs cases. The accused must initiate and file in court an offer for plea bargaining in writing by way of a formal written motion. Upon receipt of the proposal for plea bargaining, the judge shall order the administration of a drug dependency assessment. If the accused admits drug use or is found positive, the accused shall undergo treatment and rehabilitation for not less than six (6) months. This period shall be credited to accused’s penalty and the period of the after-care and follow-up program if the penalty is still unserved. If the accused is found negative, then the accused will be released on time served, otherwise, the accused will serve the sentence in jail minus the counselling period at the rehabilitation center.Approval of the offer is subject to the sound discretion of the Court, taking into account the relevant circumstances, including the character of the accused. Plea bargaining shall not be allowed if the accused is a recidivist, habitual offender, known in the community as a drug addict and a troublemaker, has undergone rehabilitation but had a relapse, or has been charged many times, or when the evidence of guilt is strong.
- Rehman Sabir Vs. Department of Justice-Refugees and Stateless Persons Protection Unit (DOJ-RSPPU)Determination of Status of Refugees
G.R. No. 249387. August 2, 2022 [Date Uploaded: 12/13/2022]In this case, the Supreme Court En Banc set guidelines for refugee status determination proceedings. The determination of refugee status is a shared and collaborative responsibility between the applicant and the protection officer tasked to evaluate the applicant’s claim. The applicant must provide accurate, full, and credible account or proof in support of the claim, and submit all relevant evidence reasonably available, and the protection officer should actively assist and help the applicant clarify the claims and allegations in support of the application. The assistance can be in the form of requesting the Department of Foreign Affairs to contact foreign States, providing the applicant with translation services, and extending assistance in gathering evidence in support of the application, among others. In addition, the protection officer should determine if the applicant has established, to a reasonable degree, that the latter would have been persecuted had the applicant not left the country of origin or would be persecuted if the applicant returns thereto.
- Heirs of Spouses Anselmo Binay and Sevilla Manalo, Asuncion B. Anilao Saturnina B. Axalan, Silvestre Binay, Efren Binay, Felisa Binay, and Josefina B. Anilao Vs. Bienvenido Banaag, Marcelino Banaag, Nemesio Banaag, and Leoncio BanaagProof of Possession in Forcible Entry Cases
G.R. No. 226112. September 7, 2022 [Date Uploaded: 12/07/2022]In actions for forcible entry, the plaintiff must prove the prior physical possession of the disputed property by a preponderance of evidence. Possession may also be acquired not only through material occupation, but also through juridical acts “to which the law gives the force of acts of possession, i.e., donations, succession, execution, and registration of public instruments, inscription of possessory information titles, and the like.” In this case, the juridical acts from which the right of possession came from were the registration of the free patent and the consequent issuance of the original certificate of title, as well as the issuance of the tax declaration.
- LPL Greenhills Condominium Corporation, Spouses Clemartin Arboleda and Maria Angelita Arboleda, Mario Antoni Salzar and Lauro S. Leviste II Vs. Catharina Brouwer, represented herein by Attorney-in-Fact Manfred De KoningSpecial Power to Sell in Foreclosure of Condominium Units
G.R. No. 248743. September 7, 2022 [Date Uploaded: 12/07/2022]In an extrajudicial foreclosure of a mortgage over immovable property, a special authority or power to sell in favor of the mortgagor is indispensable, without which, the sale would be void. While Section 20 of the Condominium Act grants the option to enforce a lien through foreclosure of the condominium unit, it does not by itself grant condominium corporations the special authority or power to foreclose. Only the registered owner of the condominium unit has the right to dispose or alienate the same.
- People of the Philippines Vs. Wu Jian Cai and Jiang Huo ZaoBurden of Proof in Illegal Sale of Drugs Cases; Proof of Chain of Custody
G.R. No. 253186. September 21, 2022 [Date Uploaded: 11/25/2022]The finding of illegal drugs in the vehicle owned or occupied by the accused raises the presumption of knowledge and possession thereof, which is sufficient to convict the accused of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under the Section 11 of Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. The accused has the burden to rebut this presumption. In addition, the Court stated that “not all people who came into contact with the seized drugs are required to testify in court, [a]s long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established not to have been broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized.”
- Lenida T. Maestrado Vs. People of the PhilippinesAttempted Trafficking in Persons
G.R. No. 253629. September 28, 2022 [Date Uploaded: 11/18/2022]Under Sections 4-A(d) and Sections 4-A(e) of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act, simulating a birth for the purpose of selling, as well as soliciting and acquiring custody over the child through any means from among hospitals, clinics, nurseries, daycare centers, refugee or evacuation centers, and low-income families, for the purpose of selling the child constitute Attempted Trafficking in Persons. The said crime was proven in this case, when for the purpose of the simulation of birth and custody over AAA, petitioner and the cohorts bought the child from the biological mother to be brought to the United States of America.
- Eufrocina Rivera Vs. Rolando G. VelascoElements of Forcible Entry; No Collateral Attack Against a Torrens Certificate
G.R. No. 242837. October 5, 2022 [Date Uploaded: 11/25/2022]For a forcible entry suit to prevail, the plaintiff must allege and prove the following: 1.) prior physical possession of the property; and 2.) plaintiff’s dispossession or the unlawful deprivation of the property by the defendant took place through force, intimidation, strategy, threat, or stealth. Furthermore, a Torrens certificate of title cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law, and cannot be subject to a collateral attack, i.e., the issue on the validity of the title can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for that purpose.
- Republic of the Philippines Vs. John Arnel H. AmataExamination by an Expert Not Needed in a Case for Nullity of Marriage Based on Psychological Incapacity
G.R. No. 212971. November 29, 2022 [Date Uploaded: 12/21/2022]An unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and void marriage, and refusal to assume essential marital duties and obligations does not constitute psychological incapacity. The Court has previously ruled that in a case involving a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code for psychological incapacity, the medical examination of the spouse concerned by an expert is no longer required as courts may rely on the totality of evidence to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity. In this case, the totality of the evidence negates any manifestation that the respondent was afflicted with a psychological disorder that is so grave, permanent, incurable, and existed at the inception of the marriage, such that it incapacitated the respondent to perform the martial duties and obligations.