Office of the Court Administrator vs. Lou D.
Laranjo, Clerk of Court II, Municipal Circuit Trial would be beyond the means of the party involved. (Citing Republic of the Philippines vs. Katrina S.
Court, Lugait-Manticao-Naawan, Misamis Oriental
(A.M. No. P-18-3859, June 4, 2019, Per Curiam)
Legal and Judicial Ethics. Duties and Responsibilities of the Clerk of Court.
Clerks of court perform a delicate function as designated custodians of the court's funds
and revenues, records, properties, and premises. It is the clerks of court's obligation to faithfully
perform their duties and responsibilities as such to the end that there is full compliance with their
function of being the custodian… Thus, “the nature of the work and of the office mandates that
the clerk of court be an individual of competence, honesty and integrity."
Political Law. Law on Public Officers. The Civil Service. Grave Misconduct.
Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden
act, a dereliction of duty, unlawful behavior, willful in character, improper or wrong behavior. Any
transgression or deviation from the established norm of conduct, work-related or not, amounts to
misconduct. The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption,
willful intent to violate the law, or to disregard established rules.
Political Law. Law on Public Officers. The Civil Service. Dishonesty.
Dishonesty has been defined as a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud;
unworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness
and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive, or betray.
Rolando D. Cortez vs. Luz G. Cortez
(G.R. No. 224638, April 10, 2019, Peralta, J.)
Civil Law. Persons and Family Relations. Marriage. Void Marriages. Psychological Incapacity.
Article 36 contemplates incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume basic
marital obligations and not merely difficulty, refusal, or neglect in the performance of marital
obligations or ill will. This incapacity consists of the following: (a) a true inability to commit oneself
to the essentials of marriage; (b) this inability to commit oneself must refer to the essential
obligations of marriage: the conjugal act, the community of life and love, the rendering of mutual
help, the procreation and education of offspring; and (c) the inability must be tantamount to a
psychological abnormality. It is not enough to prove that a spouse failed to meet his responsibility
and duty as a married person; it is essential that he must be shown to be incapable of doing so due
to some psychological illness. (Citing Yambao vs. Republic of the Philippines)
Civil Law. Persons and Family Relations. Marriage. Void Marriages. Psychological Incapacity.
The psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code must be characterized by
(a) gravity, i.e., it must be grave and serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out
the ordinary duties required in marriage; (b) juridical antecedence, i.e., it must be rooted in the
history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only
after marriage; and (c) incurability, i.e., it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure
Tobora-Tionglico)
Civil Law. Persons and Family Relations. Marriage. Void Marriages. Psychological Incapacity.
Thus, marriages entered into for other purposes, limited or otherwise, such as
convenience, companionship, money, status, and title, provided that they comply with all the legal
requisites, are equally valid. Love, though the ideal consideration in a marriage contract, is not the
only valid cause for marriage. Other considerations, not precluded by law, may validly support a
marriage.
People of the Philippines vs. Lemuel Gonzales y Banares
(G.R. No. 229352, April 10, 2019, Peralta, J. )
Criminal Law. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (RA 9165, as amended). Illegal sale of prohibited
drugs.
Under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 or illegal sale of prohibited drugs, in order to
be convicted of the said violation, the following must concur:
(1) The identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. In illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it is
necessary that the sale transaction actually happened and that the procured object " is properly
presented as evidence in court and is shown to be the same drugs seized from the accused."
Criminal Law. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (RA 9165, as amended). Illegal possession of
prohibited drugs.
Under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 or illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the
following must be proven before an accused can be convicted:
[1] The accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; [2] such possession was not authorized by
law; and [3] the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous
drugs.
Criminal Law. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (RA 9165, as amended). Chain of custody.
In both cases involving illegal sale and illegal possession, the illicit drugs confiscated from
the accused comprise the corpus delicti of the charges. It must be proven with certitude that the
substance bought during the buy-bust operation is exactly the same substance offered in
evidence before the court. Thus, the chain of custody carries out this purpose "as it ensures that
unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.”
Criminal Law. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (RA 9165, as amended). Chain of custody.
Exception for non-compliance.
Tersely put, the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure
laid out in Section 21 of RA 9165 and the 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.

Criminal Law. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (RA 9165, as amended). Chain of custody.
Exception for non-compliance.
For the above-saving clause to apply, the prosecution must explain the reasons behind
the procedural lapses, and that the integrity and 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 Law. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (RA 9165, as amended). Chain of custody.
Exception for non-compliance. Justifiable grounds.
It must be emphasized that the prosecution must be able to prove a justifiable ground in
omitting certain requirements provided in Sec. 21 such as, but not limited to the following: 1)
media representatives are not available at that time or that the police operatives had no time to
alert the media due to the immediacy of the operation they were about to undertake, especially if
it is done in more remote areas; 2) the police operatives, with the same reason, failed to find an
available representative of the National Prosecution Service; 3) the police officers, due to time
constraints brought about by the urgency of the operation to be undertaken and in order to
comply with the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code in the timely delivery of
prisoners, were not able to comply with all the requisites set forth in Section 21 of R.A. 9165.
The CA obviously did not take into account that the OMB had absolved respondent
Capoquian, Jr. from liability based on its application of the doctrine of condonation arising from
his re-election to the same position. Such absolution was final, executory and unappealable. Rule
43, which defines a mode of appeal, obviously did not apply. The CA had no appellate jurisdiction
to review and reverse the decision of the Ombudsman via petition for review under Rule 43 of the
Rules of Court. The final and unappealable decision of the OMB could still be the subject of
judicial review through the petition for certiorari upon allegation and proof of grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the OMB.
Political Law. Law on Public Officers. Condonation Doctrine.
The ruling promulgated in Morales v. Court of Appeals on the abandonment of the
doctrine of condonation had, indeed, become final only on April 12, 2016, and thus the
abandonment should be reckoned from April 12, 2016.
Condonation is an affirmative fact that must be raised by the respondent in the
administrative proceedings to enable the OMB to fully consider and pass upon the matter.

Criminal Law. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (RA 9165, as amended). Chain of custody.
Exception for non-compliance.
The prosecution never alleged and proved that the presence of the required witnesses
was not obtained for any of the following reasons, such as: (1) their attendance was impossible
because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and
photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused
or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in
the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a
DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article
125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the
threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-
drug operations.

Domingo Crebello vs. Office of the Ombudsman and Timoteo T. Capoquian, Jr.
(GR. 232325, April 10, 2019, Bersamin, CJ)

Remedial Law. Jurisdiction of Courts. Court of Appeals. Petition for Review under Rule 43.
We have ruled in Fabian v. Desierto[9] that, indeed, appeals from the decisions of the
OMB rendered in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the CA via petition for
review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.

Remedial Law. Jurisdiction of Courts. Court of Appeals. Petition for Review under Rule 43. Non-
Applicabity as to Final, Executory and Unappeallable Decisions of the OMB in Administrative Cases