Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 13

CRIMINAL CASES

Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe


September 16, 2011–present
CRIMINAL LAW I

ARTICLE 5

Ireneo Cachulogan Vs. People of the Philippines


G.R. No. 225695. March 21, 2018

While PD 1612 penalizes those who acquire properties which are proceeds of
Robbery or Theft, its prescribed penalties are similar to the latter crime in that they
are largely dependent on the value of the said properties. In fact, a reading of Section
3 of PD 1612 and. Article 309 of the RPC (which provides for the prescribed penalties
for the crime of Theft) reveals that both provisions use the same graduations of
property value to determine the prescribed penalty; in particular, if the value: (a)
exceeds P22,000.00, with additional penalties for each additional Pl0,000.00; (b) is
more than P12,000.00 but not exceeding P22,000.00; (c) is more than P6,000.00 but
not exceeding P12,000.00; (d) is more than P200.00 but not exceeding P6,000.00; (e)
is more than PS0.00 but not exceeding P200.00; and (j) does not exceed P5.00.
However, with the recent enactment of Republic Act No. 10951, which adjusted the
values of the property and damage on which various penalties are based, taking into
consideration the present value of money, as opposed to its archaic values when the
RPC was enacted in 1932, the graduation of values in Article 309 was substantially
amended, without any concomitant adjustment for PD 1612. This development
would then result in instances where a Fence, which is theoretically a mere accessory
to the crime of Robbery/Theft, will be punished more severely than the principal of
such latter crimes. This incongruence in penalties therefore, impels an adjustment of
penalties.

However, while it may be the most expeditious approach, a short cut by judicial fiat
is a dangerous proposition, lest the Court dare trespass on prohibited judicial
legislation. As the Court remains mindful of the fact that the determination of
penalties is a policy that belongs to the legislative branch of the government, it finds
it prudent to instead, furnish both Houses of Congress, as well as the President of the
Republic of the Philippines, through the Department of Justice, pursuant to Article 5
of the RPC, copies of this ruling in order to alert them on the aforestated
incongruence of penalties, all with the hope of arriving at the proper solution to this
predicament.

PENATIES

Ireneo Cachulogan Vs. People of the Philippines


G.R. No. 225695. March 21, 2018
Notably, while the crime of Fencing is defined and penalized by a special penal law,
the penalty provided therein is taken from the nomenclature in the Revised Penal
Code (RPC). In Peralta v. People, the Court discussed the proper treatment of
penalties found in special penal laws vis-a-vis Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the
"Indeterminate Sentence Law, "

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (ACT NO. 4103)

Ireneo Cachulogan Vs. People of the Philippines


G.R. No. 225695. March 21, 2018

Otherwise stated, if the special penal law adopts the nomenclature of the penalties
under the RPC, the ascertainment of the indeterminate sentence will be based on the
rules applied for those crimes punishable under the RPC.

Applying the foregoing and considering that there are neither mitigating nor
aggravating circumstances present in this case, the Court finds it proper to sentence
petitioner to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of four
(4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to
fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

CRIMINAL LAW II

FELONIES

SPECIAL CRIMINAL LAW

PD1612

Ireneo Cachulogan Vs. People of the Philippines


G.R. No. 225695. March 21, 2018

Section 2 of PD 1612 defines Fencing as "the act of any person who, with intent to
gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell
or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, item,
object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have been
derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft." The same Section also
states that a Fence "includes any person, firm, association, corporation or partnership
or other organization who/which commits the act of fencing."

The essential elements of the crime of fencing are as follows: (a) a crime of robbery
or theft has been committed; (b) the accused, who is not a principal or an accomplice
in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps,
acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any
article, item, object or anything of value, which has been derived from the proceeds
of the crime of robbery or theft; (c) the accused knew or should have known that the
said article, item, object or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of
the crime of robbery or theft; and (d) there is, on the part of one accused, intent to
gain for oneself or for another. Notably, Fencing is a malum prohibitum, and PD 1612
creates a prima facie presumption of Fencing from evidence of possession by the
accused of any good, article, item, object or anything of value, which has been the
subject of robbery or theft; and prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of the
property.

RA 9165

Section 5

People of the Philippines Vs. Pastorlito V. Dela Victoria


G.R. No. 233325. April 16, 2018

In this case, Dela Victoria was charged with the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous
Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. Notably, in order
to properly secure the conviction of an accused charged with illegal sale of dangerous
drugs, the prosecution must prove: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the
object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment.

People of the Philippines Vs. Nestor Año y Del Remedios


G.R. No. 230070. March 14, 2018

Here, Afio was charged with the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, defined
and penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. In order to secure the
conviction of an accused charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the
prosecution must prove: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and
the consideration; and ( b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment.2

Section 21

People of the Philippines Vs. Pastorlito V. Dela Victoria


G.R. No. 233325. April 16, 2018

In this case, Dela Victoria was charged with the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous
Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. Notably, in order
to properly secure the conviction of an accused charged with illegal sale of dangerous
drugs, the prosecution must prove: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the
object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment.

Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 outlines the procedure which the police officers must
follow when handling the seized drugs in order to preserve their integrity and
evidentiary value. Under the said section, prior to its amendment by RA 10640, the
apprehending team shall, among others, immediately after seizure and confiscation
conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the
accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or
counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and
any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory
and be given a copy of the same, and the seized drugs must be turned over to the
PNP Crime Laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours from confiscation for
examination. In the case of People v. Mendoza, the Court stressed that "[w]ithout the
insulating presence of the representative from the media [and] the [DOJ], [and] any
elected public official during the seizure and marking of the [seized drugs], the evils
of switching, 'planting' or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-
busts conducted under the regime of [RA] 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again
reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and
confiscation of the [said drugs] that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and
thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.
Indeed, the xxx presence of such witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain
of custody."

The Court, however, clarified that under varied field conditions, strict compliance
with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 may not always be possible.
In fact, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 -which is now
crystallized into statutory law with the passage of RA 10640 -provides that the said
inventory and photography may be conducted at the nearest police station or office
of the apprehending team in instances of warrantless seizure, and that non-
compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 -under
justifiable grounds -will not render void and invalid the seizure and custody over the
seized items so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer or team. In other words, the failure
of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section
21, Article II of RA 9165 and its IRR does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody
over the items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves
that: (a) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. In People v. Almorfe,
the Court explained that for the above-saving clause to apply, the prosecution must
explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, and that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized evidence had nonetheless been preserved. Also, in
People v. De Guzman, it was emphasized that the justifiable ground for non-
compliance must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these
grounds are or that they even exist.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

People of the Philippines Vs. Pastorlito V. Dela Victoria


G.R. No. 233325. April 16, 2018

At the outset, it must be stressed that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire
case for review and, thus, it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and
appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or
unassigned. "The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and
renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed
from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law."

"In this light, prosecutors are strongly reminded that they have the positive duty to
prove compliance with the procedure set forth in Section 21 [, Article II] of RA 9165,
as amended. As such, they must have the initiative to not only acknowledge but also
justify any perceived deviations from the said procedure during the proceedings
before the trial court. Since compliance with this procedure is determinative of the
integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti and ultimately, the fate of the
liberty of the accused, the fact that any issue regarding the same was not raised, or
even threshed out in the court/s below, would not preclude the appellate court,
including this Court, from fully examining the records of the case if only to ascertain
whether the procedure had been completely complied with, and if not, whether
justifiable reasons exist to excuse any deviation. If no such reasons exist, then it is the
appellate court's bounden duty to acquit the accused, and perforce, overturn a
conviction. "

People of the Philippines Vs. Nestor Año y Del Remedios


G.R. No. 230070. March 14, 2018

“At the outset, it must be stressed that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire
case for review and, thus, it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and
appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or
unassigned.20 "The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case
and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed
from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law."

Ireneo Cachulogan Vs. People of the Philippines


G.R. No. 225695. March 21, 2018

“Time and again, it has been held that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire
case for review, and it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and
appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or
unassigned. The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and
renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed
from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law."

******************
People of the Philippines Vs. Nestor Año y Del Remedios
G.R. No. 230070. March 14, 2018

People of the Philippines Vs. Marcelino Crispo y Descalso alias "Gogo" and Enrico Herrera
y Montes
G.R. No. 230065. March 14, 2018

People of the Philippines Vs. Romeo Antido y Lantayan a.k.a. Romeo Antigo y Lantayan
alias "Jon-Jon"
G.R. No. 208651. March 14, 2018

People of the Philippines Vs. Crispian Merced Lumaya a.k.a. "Ipyang" and Derek Joseph
Lumaya
G.R. No. 231983. March 7, 2018

People of the Philippines Vs. Wilson Ramos y Cabanatan


G.R. No. 233744. February 28, 2018

People of the Philippines Vs. Allan Bugtong y Amoroso


G.R. No. 220451. February 26, 2018

People of the Philippines Vs. Roy Magsano y Sagauinit


G.R. No. 231050. February 26, 2018

People of the Philippines Vs. Raul Manansala y Maninang


G.R. No. 229092. February 21, 2018

Celso M.F.L Melgar Vs. People of the Philippines


G.R. No. 223477. February 14, 2018

People of the Philippines Vs. Cristhian Kevin Guib y Butay


G.R. No. 233100. February 14, 2018

Jasper Gonzalez y Dolendo Vs. People of the Philippines


G.R. No. 225709. February 14, 2018

People of the Philippines Vs. Crisanto Cirberto y Giray


G.R. No. 231359. February 7, 2018

People of the Philippines Vs. Ronaldo Paz y Dionisio


G.R. No. 229512. January 31, 2018

People of the Philippines Vs. Jovencito Miranda y Tigas


G.R. No. 229671. January 31, 2018
People of the Philippines Vs. Philip Mamangon y Espiritu
G.R. No. 229102. January 29, 2018

People of the Philippines Vs. Alvin Jugo y Villanueva


G.R. No. 231792. January 29, 2018

Angel Fuellas Dizon Vs. People of the Philippines


G.R. No. 227577. January 24, 2018

Cecilia Rivac Vs. People of the Philippines


G.R. No. 224673. January 22, 2018

The People of the Philippine Vs. Alexander Alvaro y De Leon and Rosalie Geronimo y
Madera
G.R. No. 225596. January 10, 2018

Joshua Casanas y Cabantac a.k.a. Geronimo y Lopez Vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 223833. December 11, 2017

People of the Philippines Vs. Rico Nierbes y Reginaldo


G.R. No. 230975. December 4, 2017

People of the Philippines Vs. Ernesto L. Delos Santos


G.R. No. 220685. November 29, 2017

Hilario Lamsen Vs. People of the Philippines


G.R. No. 227069. November 22, 2017

Digna Ramos Vs. People of the Philippines


G.R. No. 226454. November 20, 2017

Rogelio B. Antone Vs. People of the Philippines


G.R. No. 225146. November 20, 2017

Rizaldo L. Orsos Vs. People of the Philippines


G.R. No. 214673. November 20, 2017

People of the Philippines Vs. Niño Calibod y Henobeso


G.R. No. 230230. November 20, 2017

People of the Philippines Vs. Manuel Lim Ching


G.R. No. 223556. October 9, 2017

People of the Philippines Vs. Erlinda Racho y Somera


G.R. No. 227505. October 2, 2017
People of the Philippines Vs. Jonas Geronimo y Pinlac
G.R. No. 225500. September 11, 2017

The People of the Philippines Vs. Brahim Lidasan, et al.


G.R. No. 227425. September 4, 2017

Joselito Peralta y Zareno Vs. People of the Philippines


G.R. No. 221991. August 30, 2017

People of the Philippines Vs. Ruperto Rubillar, Jr. y Gaberon


G.R. No. 224631. August 23, 2017

People of the Philippines Vs. John Paul Ceralde y Ramos


G.R. No. 228894. August 7, 2017

Christopher Fianza a.k.a. "Topel" Vs. People of the Philippines


G.R. No. 218592. August 2, 2017
Dissenting Opinion
J. Caguioa

Jeffrey Miguel y Remegio Vs. People of the Philippines


G.R. No. 227038. July 31, 2017

People of the Philippines Vs. Agapito Dimaala y Arela


G.R. No. 225054. July 17, 2017

The People of the Philippines Vs. Dominador Ladra


G.R. No. 221443. July 17, 2017

People of the Philippines Vs. Norieto Monroyo y Mahaguay


G.R. No. 223708. June 28, 2017

Kevin Belmonte y Goromeo Vs. People of the Philippines


G.R. No. 224143. June 28, 2017

People of the Philippines Vs. Allan Jao y Calonia and Rogelio Catigtig y Cobio
G.R. No. 225634. June 7, 2017

People of the Philippines Vs. Porferio Culas y Raga


G.R. No. 211166. June 5, 2017

Eduardo Quimvel y Braga Vs. People of the Philippines


G.R. No. 214497. April 18, 2017
Dissenting Opinion
J. Carpio, J. Caguioa
Concuring Opinion
J. Perlas-Bernabe
Separate Concurring Opinion
J. Peralta
Separate Opinion
J. Leonen

Roberto P. Fuentes Vs. People of the Philippines


G.R. No. 186421. April 17, 2017

People of the Philippines Vs. Pala Toukyo y Padep


G.R. No. 225593. March 20, 2017

People of the Philippines Vs. Alberto Alejandro y Rigor and Joel Angeles y De Jesus
G.R. No. 225608. March 13, 2017

People of the Philippines Vs. Puyat Macapundag y Labao


G.R. No. 225965. March 13, 2017

Manny Ramos, et al. Vs. People of the Philippines/People of the Philippines Vs. Manny
Ramos, et al.
G.R. No. 218466/G.R. No. 221425. January 23, 2017

Richard A. Cambe Vs. Office of the Ombudsman, et al./Senator Ramon "Bong" Revilla, Jr.
Vs. Office of the Ombudsman, et al./Senator Ramon "Bong" Revilla, Jr. Vs. Office of the
Ombudsman, et al./Richard A. Cambe Vs. Office of the Ombudsman, et al./John Raymund
De Asis Vs. Conchita Carpio Morales, et al./Ronald John Lim Vs. Conchita Carpio Morales,
et al./Janet Lim Napoles Vs. Conchita Carpio Morales, et al./Mario L. Relampagos, et al.
Vs. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines
G.R. Nos. 212014-15/G.R. Nos. 212427-28/G.R. Nos. 212694-95/G.R. Nos. 213477-
78/G.R. Nos. 213532-33/G.R. Nos. 213536-37/G.R. Nos. 218744-59. December 6, 2016
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion
J. Velasco, Jr.

Antonio Gamboa y Delos Santos Vs. People of the Philippines


G.R. No. 220333. November 14, 2016

Marlon Curammeng y Pablo Vs. People of the Philippines


G.R. No. 219510. November 14, 2016

People of the Philippines Vs. Placido Goco y Ombrog


G.R. No. 219584. October 17, 2016

People of the Philippines Vs. Ariel Layag


G.R. No. 214875. October 17, 2016
Edmund Bulauitan y Mauayan Vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 218891. September 19, 2016

Elmer G. Sindac Vs. The People of the Philippines


G.R. No. 220732. September 6, 2016

People of the Philippines Vs. Romeo Lintag y Laureola


G.R. No. 219855. September 6, 2016

People of the Philippines Vs. Mario Galia Bagamano


G.R. No. 222658. August 17, 2016

People of the Philippines Vs. Gerrjan Manago y Acut


G.R. No. 212340. August 17, 2016

People of the Philippines Vs. Allan Egagamao


G.R. No. 218809. August 3, 2016

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo Vs. People of the Philippines and Sandiganbayan/Benigno B.


Aguas Vs. Sandigabayan [DOWNLOAD]
G.R. No. 220598/G.R. No. 220953. July 19, 2016
Dissenting Opinion
C.J. Sereno [DOWNLOAD], J. Leonen [DOWNLOAD]
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion
J. Bernabe [DOWNLOAD]

Jessica Lucila G. Reyes Vs. The Honorable Ombudsman/Jessica Lucila G. Reyes Vs. The
Honorable Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines/Janet Lim Napoles Vs. Conchita
Carpio Morales in her capacity as Ombudsman, People of the Philippines and
Sandiganbayan/Jo Christine Napoles and James Christopher Napoles Vs. Conchita Carpio
Morales in her capacity as Ombudsman, People of the Philippines and
Sandiganbayan/John Raymund De Asis Vs. Conchita Carpio Morales in her capacity as
Ombudsman, People of the Philippines and Sandiganbayan
G.R. Nos. 212593-94/G.R. Nos. 213163-78/G.R. Nos. 213540-41/G.R. Nos. 213542-
43/G.R. Nos. 215880-94/G.R. Nos. 213475-76. March 15, 2016

Roger Allen Bigler Vs. People of the Philippines and Linda Susan Patricia E. Barreto
G.R. No. 210972. March 2, 2016

People of the Philippines Vs. Godofredo Comboy y Cronico


G.R. No. 218399. March 2, 2016

Vinson D. Young, et al. Vs. People of the Philippines


G.R. No. 213910. February 3, 2016

Girlie M. Quisay Vs. People of the Philippines


G.R. No. 216920. January 13, 2016
Paz Cheng y Chu Vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 174113. January 13, 2016

Adina B. Manansala Vs. People of the Philippines


G.R. No. 215424. December 9, 2015

Dolores Diaz Vs. People of the Philippines and Leticias S. Arcilla


G.R. No. 208113. December 2, 2015

People of the Philippines Vs. Oscar Parba y Solon


G.R. No. 214506. October 19, 2015

Alvin Comerciante y Gonzales Vs. People of the Philippines


G.R. No. 205926. July 22, 2015

People of the Philippines Vs. Antonio Balcueva y Bondocoy


G.R. No. 214466. July 1, 2015

Separate Concurring Opinion


J. Perlas-Bernabe

People of the Philippines Vs. Antonio Balcueva y Bondocoy


G.R. No. 214466. July 1, 2015

People of the Philippines Vs. Ernie Inciong y Orense


G.R. No. 213383. June 22, 2015

Guillermo Wacoy y Bitol Vs. People of the Philippines / James Quibac y Rafael Vs. People
of the Philippines
G.R. No. 213792 / G.R. No. 213886. June 22, 2015

People of the Philippines Vs. Bernabe P. Palanas alias "Abe"


G.R. No. 214453. June 17, 2015

People of the Philippines Vs. Ricky Arguta alias "Joel" and Wilson Cahipe alias "Siwit"
G.R. No. 213216. April 20, 2015

People of the Philippines Vs. Eugene Samuya


G.R. No. 213214. April 20, 2015

People of the Philippines Vs. Charlie Sorin y Tagaylo


G.R. No. 212635. March 25, 2015

People of the Philippines Vs. Daniel Matibag y De Villa @ "Dani" or "Danilo"


G.R. No. 206381. March 25, 2015

Cherry Ann M. Benabaye Vs. People of the Philippines


G.R. No. 203466. February 25, 2015
People of the Philippines Vs. Benjamin Casas y Vintulan
G.R. No. 212565. February 25, 2015

People of the Philippines Vs. Ja Hinlo a.k.a. "Inday Kabang" (at large), Richard Palma y
Varcas a.k.a. "inday Atet", Ruvico Senido y Hamaybay a.k.a. "Ruby" and Edgar Pedroso Y
Palasol a.k.a. "Libat"
G.R. No. 212151. February 18, 2015

People of the Philippines Vs. Dennis Sumili


G.R. No. 212160. February 4, 2015

Rogelio J. Gonzaga Vs. People of the Philippines


G.R. No. 195671. January 21, 2015

People of the Philippines Vs. Arnel Balute y Villanueva


G.R. No. 212932. January 21, 2015

People of the Philippines Vs. Palmy Tibayan and Rico Z. Puerto


G.R. Nos. 209655-60. January 14, 2015

Mel Caprizo Candelaria Vs. People of the Philippines


G.R. No. 209386. December 8, 2014

Joey M. Pestilos, Dwight Macapanas, et al. Vs. Moreno Generoso and People of the
Philippines
G.R. No. 182601. November 10, 2014
Dissenting Opinion
J. Leonen

Leonora Rimando Vs. Spouses Winston and Elenita Aldaba, and People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 203583. October 13, 2014

People of the Philippines Vs. Jose C. Go and Aida C. Dela Rosa


G.R. No. 201644. September 24, 2014

People of the Philippines Vs. Marcelino Viterbo y Realubit and Ronald Viterbo y Realubit
G.R. No. 203434. July 23, 2014

People of the Philippines Vs. Roger Ringor Umawid


G.R. No. 208719. June 9, 2014

G.R. No. 205382. April 2, 2014


People of the Philippines Vs. Mauricio Hallarte y Mendoza

G.R. No. 207819. March 12, 2014


People of the Philippines Vs. Guillermo B. Candano, Jr.
G.R. No. 188694. February 12, 2014
Ricardo L. Atienza and Alfredo A. Castro Vs. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 198338. November 13, 2013


People of the Philippines Vs. P/Supt. Artemio E. Lamasen, et al.

G.R. No. 187174. August 28, 2013


Fely Y. Yalong Vs. People of the Philippines and Lucila C. Ylagan

G.R. No. 191219. July 31, 2013


SPO1 Ramon Lihaylihay and C/Insp. Virgilio V. Vinluan Vs. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 179079/G.R. No. 178947. June 26, 2013


People of the Philippines Vs. Timothy J. Desmond/Virginia De Los Santos-Dio, authorized
representative of H.S. Equities Ltd., et al. Court of Appeals., et al.

G.R. No. 198732. June 10, 2013


Christian Caballo Vs. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 201363. March 18, 2013


People of the Philippines Vs. Nazareno Villareal y Lualhati

G.R. No. 198338. February 20, 2013


People of the Philippines Vs. P/Supt. Artemio E. Lamsen, et al.

G.R. No. 198694. February 13, 2013


Ramon Martinez y Goco/Ramon Goco y Martinez Vs. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 199938. January 28, 2013


People of the Philippines Vs. Camaloding Laba y Samanoding

G.R. No. 199481. December 3, 2012


Crisologo Vs. People

G.R. No. 130714. October 16, 2012


People Vs. De Los Reyes

G.R. No. 185527. July 18, 2012


Go Vs. People

G.R. No. 186469. June 13, 2012


People Vs. Matias

Похожие интересы