David v. Agbay
David v. Agbay
David v. Agbay
com™
Like 2
Tweet 4 Share 4 Share
Tweet Search
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2015 > March 2015 Decisions > G.R. No. 199113, March 18,
2015 - RENATO M. DAVID, Petitioner, v. EDITHA A. AGBAY AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.:
G.R. No. 199113, March 18, 2015 - RENATO M. DAVID, Petitioner, v. EDITHA A. AGBAY AND PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review
THIRD DIVISION
DECISION
This is a petition for review under Rule 45 seeking to reverse the Order1 dated October 8, 2011 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, which denied the petition for certiorari filed
by Renato M. David (petitioner). Petitioner assailed the Order2 dated March 22, 2011 of the Municipal
Trial Court (MTC) of Socorro, Oriental Mindoro denying his motion for redetermination of probable cause.
In 1974, petitioner migrated to Canada where he became a Canadian citizen by naturalization. Upon their
retirement, petitioner and his wife returned to the Philippines. Sometime in 2000, they purchased a 600-
square meter lot along the beach in Tambong, Gloria, Oriental Mindoro where they constructed a
residential house. However, in the year 2004, they came to know that the portion where they built their
house is public land and part of the salvage zone.
DebtKollect Company, Inc.
On April 12, 2007, petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Lease Application3 (MLA) over the subject land with
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) at the Community Environment and
Natural Resources Office (CENRO) in Socorro. In the said application, petitioner indicated that he is a
Filipino citizen.
Private respondent Editha A. Agbay opposed the application on the ground that petitioner, a Canadian
citizen, is disqualified to own land. She also filed a criminal complaint for falsification of public documents
under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) (I.S. No. 08-6463) against the petitioner.
Meanwhile, petitioner re-acquired his Filipino citizenship under the provisions of Republic Act No. 9225,4
(R.A. 9225) as evidenced by Identification Certificate No. 266-10-075 issued by the Consulate General of
the Philippines (Toronto) on October 11, 2007.
In his defense, petitioner averred that at the time he filed his application, he had intended to re-acquire
Philippine citizenship and that he had been assured by a CENRO officer that he could declare himself as a
Filipino. He further alleged that he bought the property from the Agbays who misrepresented to him that
the subject property was titled land and they have the right and authority to convey the same. The
dispute had in fact led to the institution of civil and criminal suits between him and private respondent�s
ChanRobles Intellectual Property family.
Division On January 8, 2008,6 the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor issued its Resolution7 finding probable cause
to indict petitioner for violation of Article 172 of the RPC and recommending the filing of the
corresponding information in court. Petitioner challenged the said resolution in a petition for review he
filed before the Department of Justice (DOJ).
On June 3, 2008, the CENRO issued an order rejecting petitioner�s MLA. It ruled that petitioner�s
subsequent re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship did not cure the defect in his MLA which was void ab
initio.8 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
In the meantime, on July 26, 2010, the petition for review filed by petitioner was denied by the DOJ
which held that the presence of the elements of the crime of falsification of public document suffices to
warrant indictment of the petitioner notwithstanding the absence of any proof that he gained or intended
to injure a third person in committing the act of falsification.9 Consequently, an information for
Falsification of Public Document was filed before the MTC (Criminal Case No. 2012) and a warrant of
arrest was issued against the petitioner.
On February 11, 2011, after the filing of the Information and before his arrest, petitioner filed an Urgent
Motion for Re-Determination of Probable Cause10 in the MTC. Interpreting the provisions of the law relied
upon by petitioner, the said court denied the motion, holding that R.A. 9225 makes a distinction between
those who became foreign citizens during its effectivity, and those who lost their Philippine citizenship
before its enactment when the governing law was Commonwealth Act No. 6311 (CA 63). Since the crime
for which petitioner was charged was alleged and admitted to have been committed on April 12, 2007
before he had re-acquired his Philippine citizenship, the MTC concluded that petitioner was at that time
still a Canadian citizen. Thus, the MTC ordered: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused, and for lack of merit,
the motion is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.12
In his motion for reconsideration,13 petitioner questioned the foregoing order denying him relief on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction and insisted that the issue raised is purely legal. He argued that since his
application had yet to receive final evaluation and action by the DENR Region IV-B office in Manila, it is
academic to ask the citizenship of the applicant (petitioner) who had re-acquired Philippine citizenship six
months after he applied for lease of public land. The MTC denied the motion for reconsideration.14 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Dissatisfied, petitioner elevated the case to the RTC via a petition15 for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging
March-2015 Jurisprudence grave abuse of discretion on the part of the MTC. He asserted that first, jurisdiction over the person of an
accused cannot be a pre-condition for the re-determination of probable cause by the court that issues a
A.C. No. 7158, March 09, 2015 - YOLANDA A. warrant of arrest; and second, the March 22, 2011 Order disregarded the legal fiction that once a
ANDRES, MINETTE A. MERCADO, AND ELITO P. natural-born Filipino citizen who had been naturalized in another country re-acquires his citizenship under
ANDRES , Complainants, v. ATTY. SALIMATHAR V. R.A. 9225, his Filipino citizenship is thus deemed not to have been lost on account of said naturalization.
NAMBI, Respondent.
In his Comment and Opposition,16 the prosecutor emphasized that the act of falsification was already
A.C. No. 5816, March 10, 2015 - DR. ELMAR O. consummated as petitioner has not yet re-acquired his Philippine citizenship, and his subsequent oath to
PEREZ, Complainant, v. ATTY. TRISTAN A. CATINDIG
re-acquire Philippine citizenship will only affect his citizenship status and not his criminal act which was
AND ATTY. KAREN E. BAYDO, Respondents.
long consummated prior to said oath of allegiance.
G.R. No. 211497, March 18, 2015 - HOCHENG
PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ANTONIO On October 8, 2011, the RTC issued the assailed Order denying the petition for certiorari after finding no
M. FARRALES, Respondent. grave abuse of discretion committed by the lower court, thus: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
G.R. No. 190828, March 16, 2015 - ONOFRE V. ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby DENIED. At any rate petitioner is not left without any
MONTERO, EDGARDO N. ESTRA�ERO, RENING P. remedy or recourse because he can proceed to trial where he can make use of his claim to
PADRE, GABRIEL A. MADERA, HERMINIO T. TACLA, be a Filipino citizen as his defense to be adjudicated in a full blown trial, and in case of
NELSON C. VILORIA, DEMETRIO Q. PAJARILLO, conviction, to appeal such conviction.
ALFREDO R. AGANON, REYNALDO AVILA, ALBERT T.
RUIZ, NESTOR Y. YAGO, HARTY M. TUPASI, AGUSTIN SO ORDERED.17
R. AVILA, JR. OR MARCOS R. AVILA, BONIFACIO B.
GAANO, JOSELITO D. CUENTA, JONAS P. ESTILONG, Petitioner is now before us arguing that �
DOMINADOR C. CANARIA, GENARO C. RONDARIS,
HERARDO M. DULAY, FRANKLIN A. RAVINA, JR., AND A. By supporting the prosecution of the petitioner for falsification, the lower court has
RUBEN C. CABELLO, Petitioners, v. TIMES
disregarded the undisputed fact that petitioner is a natural-born Filipino citizen, and
TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., AND SANTIAGO
RONDARIS, MENCORP TRANSPORT SYSTEMS, INC., that by re-acquiring the same status under R.A. No. 9225 he was by legal fiction
VIRGINIA R. MENDOZA AND REYNALDO MENDOZA, �deemed not to have lost� it at the time of his naturalization in Canada and
Respondents. through the time when he was said to have falsely claimed Philippine citizenship.
A.C. No. 7593, March 11, 2015 - ALVIN S. B. By compelling petitioner to first return from his legal residence in Canada and to
FELICIANO, Complainant, v. ATTY. CARMELITA surrender or allow himself to be arrested under a warrant for his alleged false claim
BAUTISTA-LOZADA, Respondents. to Philippine citizenship, the lower court has pre-empted the right of petitioner
through his wife and counsel to question the validity of the said warrant of arrest
G.R. No. 195661, March 11, 2015 - UNKNOWN against him before the same is implemented, which is tantamount to a denial of
OWNER OF THE VESSEL M/V CHINA JOY, SAMSUN
due process.18
SHIPPING LTD., AND INTER-ASIA MARINE
TRANSPORT, INC., Petitioners, v. ASIAN TERMINALS,
In his Comment, the Solicitor General contends that petitioner�s argument regarding the retroactivity of
INC., Respondent.
R.A. 9225 is without merit. It is contended that this Court�s rulings in Frivaldo v. Commission on
A.C. No. 5914, March 11, 2015 - SPOUSES ROGELIO Elections19 and Altarejos v. Commission on Elections20 on the retroactivity of one�s re-acquisition of
AMATORIO AND AIDA AMATORIO, Complainants, v. Philippine citizenship to the date of filing his application therefor cannot be applied to the case of herein
ATTY. FRANCISCO DY YAP AND ATTY. WHELMA F. petitioner. Even assuming for the sake of argument that such doctrine applies in the present situation, it
SITON-YAP, Respondents. will still not work for petitioner�s cause for the simple reason that he had not alleged, much less proved,
that he had already applied for reacquisition of Philippine citizenship before he made the declaration in
G.R. No. 215630, March 09, 2015 - METROGUARDS the Public Land Application that he is a Filipino. Moreover, it is stressed that in falsification of public
SECURITY AGENCY CORPORATION (FORMERLY document, it is not necessary that the idea of gain or intent to injure a third person be present. As to
KNOWN AS BEEGUARDS CORPORATION) AND MS. petitioner�s defense of good faith, such remains to be a defense which may be properly raised and
MILAGROS T. CHAN, Petitioners, v. ALBERTO N.
proved in a full-blown trial.
HILONGO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 199113, March 18, 2015 - RENATO M. On the issue of jurisdiction over the person of accused (petitioner), the Solicitor General opines that in
DAVID, Petitioner, v. EDITHA A. AGBAY AND PEOPLE seeking an affirmative relief from the MTC when he filed his Urgent Motion for Re-determination of
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents. Probable Cause, petitioner is deemed to have submitted his person to the said court�s jurisdiction by his
voluntary appearance. Nonetheless, the RTC correctly ruled that the lower court committed no grave
G.R. No. 205300, March 18, 2015 - FONTERRA abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner�s motion after a judicious, thorough and personal
BRANDS PHILS., INC., Petitioner, v. LEONARDO1 evaluation of the parties� arguments contained in their respective pleadings, and the evidence
LARGADO AND TEOTIMO ESTRELLADO, Respondents. submitted before the court.
G.R. No. 206019, March 18, 2015 - PHILIPPINE In sum, the Court is asked to resolve whether (1) petitioner may be indicted for falsification for
NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF representing himself as a Filipino in his Public Land Application despite his subsequent re-acquisition of
INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
Philippine citizenship under the provisions of R.A. 9225; and (2) the MTC properly denied petitioner�s
motion for re-determination of probable cause on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
G.R. No. 204757, March 17, 2015 - ATTY. JANET D. accused (petitioner).
NACION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, MA.
GRACIA PULIDO-TAN, JUANITO ESPINO AND HEIDI R.A. 9225, otherwise known as the �Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003,� was signed
MENDOZA, Respondents. into law by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on August 29, 2003. Sections 2 and 3 of said law read: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
G.R. No. 187836, March 10, 2015 - SOCIAL JUSTICE SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy.�It is hereby declared the policy of the State that all
SOCIETY (SJS) OFFICERS, NAMELY, SAMSON S.
Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have
ALCANTARA, AND VLADIMIR ALARIQUE T. CABIGAO,
Petitioners, v. ALFREDO S. LIM, IN HIS CAPACITY AS lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act.
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MANILA, Respondent.; G.R.
No. 187916 - JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., BIENVINIDO M. SEC. 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship.�Any provision of law to the contrary
ABANTE, MA. LOURDES M. ISIP-GARCIA, RAFAEL P. notwithstanding, natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine
BORROMEO JOCELYN DAWIS-ASUNCION, MINORS citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are hereby
MARIAN REGINA B. TARAN, MACAILA RICCI B. deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the following oath of
TARAN, RICHARD KENNETH B. TARAN, REPRESENTED allegiance to the Republic: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Petitioner, v. MARIA REP. JAVIER. I have some questions in Section 3. Here, under Section 3 of the Senate
THERESA V. SANCHEZ, Respondent.
version, �Any provision of law on the contrary notwithstanding, natural-born citizens of
G.R. No. 200983, March 18, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, shall� and so forth, ano, shall retain
THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HUANG TE FU, A.K.A. their Philippine citizenship.
ROBERT UY, Respondent.
Now in the second paragraph, natural-born citizens who have lost their citizenship by
G.R. No. 175433, March 11, 2015 - ATTY. JACINTO reason of their naturalization after the effectivity of this Act are deemed to have
C. GONZALES, Petitioner, v. MAILA CLEMEN F. reacquired�
SERRANO, Respondent.
THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. DRILON). Prior to the effectivity.
G.R. No. 201427, March 18, 2015 - TEOFILO B.
ADOLFO, Petitioner, v. FE. T. ADOLFO, Respondent. REP. JAVIER. Well, you have two kinds of natural-born citizens here. Natural-born citizens
who acquired foreign citizenship after the effectivity of this act are considered to have
G.R. No. 155701, March 11, 2015 - LIM TECK
retained their citizenship. But natural-born citizens who lost their Filipino citizenship before
CHUAN, Petitioner, v. SERAFIN UY AND LEOPOLDA
CECILIO, LIM SING CHAN @ HENRY LIM, the effectivity of this act are considered to have reacquired. May I know the distinction? Do
Respondents. you mean to say that natural-born citizens who became, let�s say, American citizens after
the effectivity of this act are considered natural-born?
G.R. No. 176908, March 25, 2015 - PURISIMO M.
CABAOBAS, EXUPERIO C. MOLINA, GILBERTO V. Now in the second paragraph are the natural-born citizens who lost their citizenship before
OPINION, VICENTE R. LAURON, RAMON M. DE PAZ, the effectivity of this act are no longer natural born citizens because they have just
JR., ZACARIAS E. CARBO, JULITO G. ABARRACOSO, reacquired their citizenship. I just want to know this distinction, Mr. Chairman.
DOMINGO B. GLORIA, AND FRANCISCO P. CUMPIO,
Petitioners, v. PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS, PHILIPPINES, THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. DRILON). The title of the Senate version is precisely retention and
INC., Respondents. reacquisition. The reacquisition will apply to those who lost their Philippine
citizenship by virtue of Commonwealth Act 63. Upon the effectivity -- assuming that
G.R. No. 200620, March 18, 2015 - ROBERTO L.
we can agree on this, upon the effectivity of this new measure amending Commonwealth
ABAD, MANUEL D. ANDAL, BENITO V. ARANETA,
PHILIP G. BRODETT, ENRIQUE L. LOCSIN AND Act 63, the Filipinos who lost their citizenship is deemed to have reacquired their Philippine
ROBERTO V. SAN JOSE, Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE citizenship upon the effectivity of the act.
COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY VICTOR AFRICA, Respondent. The second aspect is the retention of Philippine citizenship applying to future
instances. So that�s the distinction.
A.C. No. 10132, March 24, 2015 - HEIRS OF PEDRO
ALILANO REPRESENTED BY DAVID ALILANO, REP. JAVIER. Well, I�m just asking this question because we are here making distinctions
Complainants, v. ATTY. ROBERTO E. EXAMEN, between natural-born citizens. Because this is very important for certain government
Respondent.
positions, �no, because natural-born citizens are only qualified for a specific�
G.R. No. 209843, March 25, 2015 - TAIWAN KOLIN
CORPORATION, LTD., Petitioner, v. KOLIN THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. DRILON). That is correct.
ELECTRONICS CO., INC., Respondent.
REP. JAVIER. ...positions under the Constitution and under the law.
G.R. No. 203655, March 18, 2015 - SM LAND, INC.,
Petitioner, v. BASES CONVERSION AND THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. DRILON). Yes. We can get to that later on. It�s one of the
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ARNEL PACIANO D. provisions, yes. But just for purposes of the explanation, Congressman Javier, that is our
CASANOVA, ESQ., IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS conceptualization. Reacquired for those who previously lost [Filipino citizenship]
PRESIDENT AND CEO OF BCDA, Respondents. by virtue of Commonwealth Act 63, and retention for those in the future.
(Emphasis supplied)
G.R. No. 209227, March 25, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHARLIE Considering that petitioner was naturalized as a Canadian citizen prior to the effectivity of R.A. 9225, he
OROSCO, Accused-Appellant. belongs to the first category of natural-born Filipinos under the first paragraph of Section 3 who lost
Philippine citizenship by naturalization in a foreign country. As the new law allows dual citizenship, he was
G.R. No. 205469, March 25, 2015 - BPI FAMILY
SAVINGS BANK, INC., Petitioner, v. ST. MICHAEL able to re-acquire his Philippine citizenship by taking the required oath of allegiance.
MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Respondent.
For the purpose of determining the citizenship of petitioner at the time of filing his MLA, it is not
OCA IPI NO. 14-220-CA-J, March 17, 2015 - RE: necessary to discuss the rulings in Frivaldo and Altarejos on the retroactivity of such reacquisition
COMPLAINT DATED JANUARY 28, 2014 OF because R.A. 9225 itself treats those of his category as having already lost Philippine citizenship, in
WENEFREDO PARRE�O, ET AL., AGAINST HON. CELIA contradistinction to those natural-born Filipinos who became foreign citizens after R.A. 9225 came into
C. LIBREA-LEAGOGO, HON. ELIHU A. YBA�EZ AND force. In other words, Section 2 declaring the policy that considers Filipinos who became foreign citizens
HON. AMY C. LAZARO-JAVIER, ASSOCIATE JUSTICES as not to have lost their Philippine citizenship, should be read together with Section 3, the second
OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, RELATIVE TO CA G.R. SP paragraph of which clarifies that such policy governs all cases after the new law�s effectivity.
NO. 108807
As to the letter-reply of BI, it simply quoted Section 2 of R.A. 9225 without any reference to Section 3 on
G.R. No. 206381, March 25, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE
the particular application of reacquisition and retention to Filipinos who became foreign citizens before
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANIEL MATIBAG
Y DE VILLA @ �DANI� OR �DANILO,� Accused- and after the effectivity of R.A. 9225.
Appellant.
Petitioner�s plea to adopt the interpretation most favorable to the accused is likewise misplaced. Courts
G.R. No. 192284, March 11, 2015 - ALEX TIONCO Y adopt an interpretation more favorable to the accused following the time-honored principle that penal
ORTEGA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, statutes are construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused.23 R.A. 9225,
Respondent. however, is not a penal law.
A.C. No. 8826, March 25, 2015 - SHIRLEY OLAYTA- In arguing, on the other hand, that jurisdiction over their person was already acquired by
CAMBA, Complainant, v. ATTY. OTILIO SY BONGON, their filing of the above Urgent Motion, petitioners invoke our pronouncement, through
Respondent. Justice Florenz D. Regalado, in Santiago v. Vasquez: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
G.R. No. 203240, March 18, 2015 - NORTHERN The voluntary appearance of the accused, whereby the court acquires
ISLANDS, CO., INC., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES DENNIS jurisdiction over his person, is accomplished either by his pleading to the
AND CHERYLIN* GARCIA, DOING BUSINESS UNDER merits (such as by filing a motion to quash or other pleadings requiring the
THE NAME AND STYLE �ECOLAMP MULTI exercise of the court�s jurisdiction thereover, appearing for arraignment,
RESOURCES,�, Respondents. entering trial) or by filing bail. On the matter of bail, since the same is
intended to obtain the provisional liberty of the accused, as a rule the same
A.C. No. 8776, March 22, 2015 - ANTONINA S. cannot be posted before custody of the accused has been acquired by the
SOSA, Complainant, v. ATTY. MANUEL V. MENDOZA,
judicial authorities either by his arrest or voluntary surrender.
Respondent.
cralawred
Our pronouncement in Santiago shows a distinction between custody of the law and
G.R. No. 209283, March 11, 2015 - CECILIA RACHEL
V. QUISUMBING, Petitioner, v. LORETTA ANN P. jurisdiction over the person. Custody of the law is required before the court can act upon
ROSALES, MA. VICTORIA V. CARDONA AND the application for bail, but is not required for the adjudication of other reliefs sought by
NORBERTO DELA CRUZ, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS the defendant where the mere application therefor constitutes a waiver of the defense of
CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS, RESPECTIVELY, OF lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused. Custody of the law is accomplished
THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, Respondent. either by arrest or voluntary surrender, while jurisdiction over the person of the accused is
acquired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance. One can be under the custody of the law
A.C. No. 10672, March 18, 2015 - EDUARDO A. but not yet subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, such as when a person
MAGLENTE, Complainant, v. ATTY. DELFIN R. arrested by virtue of a warrant files a motion before arraignment to quash the warrant. On
AGCAOILI, JR., Respondent. the other hand, one can be subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, and yet
not be in the custody of the law, such as when an accused escapes custody after his trial
G.R. No. 208908, March 11, 2015 - THE COFFEE has commenced. Being in the custody of the law signifies restraint on the person, who is
BEAN AND TEA LEAF PHILIPPINES, INC. AND
thereby deprived of his own will and liberty, binding him to become obedient to the will of
WALDEN CHU, Petitioners, v. ROLLY P. ARENAS,
Respondent. the law. Custody of the law is literally custody over the body of the accused. It includes,
but is not limited to, detention.
A.C. No. 10695, March 18, 2015 - CRESCENCIANO
M. PITOGO, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSELITO TROY xxxx
SUELLO, Respondent.
While we stand by our above pronouncement in Pico insofar as it concerns bail, we clarify
G.R. No. 200759, March 25, 2015 - FAJ that, as a general rule, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have
CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. As we held in the aforecited case of
Petitioner, v. SUSAN M. SAULOG, Respondent. Santiago, seeking an affirmative relief in court, whether in civil or criminal
proceedings, constitutes voluntary appearance.
G.R. No. 207988, March 11, 2015 - THE PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRIAN
MERCADO Y SARMIENTO, Accused-Appellant. xxxx
G.R. No. 185374, March 11, 2015 - SIMPLICIA To recapitulate what we have discussed so far, in criminal cases, jurisdiction over the
CERCADO-SIGA AND LIGAYA CERCADO-BELISON, person of the accused is deemed waived by the accused when he files any
Petitioners, v. VICENTE CERCADO, JR., MANUELA C. pleading seeking an affirmative relief, except in cases when he invokes the
ARABIT, LOLITA C. BASCO, MARIA C. ARALAR AND special jurisdiction of the court by impugning such jurisdiction over his person.
VIOLETA C. BINADAS, Respondent. Therefore, in narrow cases involving special appearances, an accused can invoke the
processes of the court even though there is neither jurisdiction over the person nor
G.R. No. 176033, March 11, 2015 - FELILIBETH custody of the law. However, if a person invoking the special jurisdiction of the court
AGUINALDO AND BENJAMIN PEREZ, Petitioners, v.
applies for bail, he must first submit himself to the custody of the law.29 (Emphasis
REYNALDO P. VENTUS AND JOJO B. JOSON,
Respondent. supplied)
G.R. No. 205492, March 11, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF Considering that petitioner sought affirmative relief in filing his motion for re-determination of probable
THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES DANTE cause, the MTC clearly erred in stating that it lacked jurisdiction over his person. Notwithstanding such
AND LOLITA BENIGNO, Respondent. erroneous ground stated in the MTC�s order, the RTC correctly ruled that no grave abuse of discretion
was committed by the MTC in denying the said motion for lack of merit.
G.R. No. 202805, March 23, 2015 - ROSARIO
BANGUIS-TAMBUYAT, Petitioner, v. WENIFREDA WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Order dated October 8, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court of
BALCOM-TAMBUYAT, Respondent. Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro in Civil Case No. SCA-07-11 (Criminal Case No. 2012) is hereby
AFFIRMED and UPHELD.
G.R. No. 202943, March 25, 2015 - THE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, REPRESENTED BY With costs against the petitioner.
SECRETARY ENRIQUE T. ONA, AND THE FOOD AND
DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FORMERLY THE BUREAU OF
SO ORDERED.
FOOD AND DRUGS), REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF HEALTH NICOLAS B. LUTERO III,
OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, Petitioners, v. PHILIP MORRIS Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Reyes, and Perlas-Bernabe,*JJ., concur. cralawlawlibrary
G.R. No. 189296, March 11, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE 1Rollo, pp. 26-29. Penned by Presiding Judge Recto A. Calabocal.
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RECTO ANGNGAO
Y MAKAY AND ROBERT CARLIN Y PECDASEN, 2
ACCUSED, RECTO ANGNGAO Y MAKAY, Accused- Id. at 67-71. Penned by Acting MTC Judge Benuardo B. Manalo.
Appellant.
3 Id. at 32.
G.R. No. 202989, March 25, 2015 - COMGLASCO
CORPORATION/AGUILA GLASS, Petitioner, v. 4 AN ACT MAKING THE CITIZENSHIP OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENS WHO ACQUIRE FOREIGN
SANTOS CAR CHECK CENTER CORPORATION, CITIZENSHIP PERMANENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 63,
Respondent.
AS AMENDED, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
G.R. No. 167052, March 11, 2015 - BANK OF THE
5Rollo, p. 33.
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS SECURITIES CORPORATION,
Petitioner, v. EDGARDO V. GUEVARA, Respondent.
6 Should be January 8, 2009, id. at 13 & 50; records, pp. 6 &30.
G.R. No. 183531, March 25, 2015 - EASTERN
TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC., 7Rollo, pp. 36-38.
Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Respondent.
8 Id. at 34-35.
G.R. No. 184301, March 23, 2015 - GE MONEY
BANK, INC. (FORMERLY KEPPEL BANK PHILIPPINES, 9 Id. at 50-53.
INC.), Petitioner, v. SPOUSES VICTORINO M. DIZON
AND ROSALINA L. DIZON, Respondent. 10 Id. at 54-58.
G.R. No. 198753, March 25, 2015 - JOSE �PEPE�
11AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE WAYS IN WHICH PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP MAY BE LOST
SANICO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
AND JENNIFER SON-TENIO, Respondent. OR REACQUIRED, approved on October 21, 1936.
G.R. No. 202970, March 25, 2015 - NATANYA JOANA 12Rollo, p. 71.
D. ARGEL, Petitioner, v. GOV. LUIS C. SINGSON, IN
HIS CAPACITY AS THE GOVERNOR OF THE PROVINCE 13
OF ILOCOS SUR, Respondent. Id. at 72-75.
14 Id. at 76.
G.R. No. 197556, March 25, 2015 - WATERFRONT
CEBU CITY CASINO HOTEL, INC. AND MARCO
PROTACIO, Petitioners, v. ILDEBRANDO LEDESMA, 15 Records, pp. 1-16.
Respondent.
16 Id. at 65-67.
G.R. No. 211199, March 25, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RANDY
17Rollo, p. 29.
ROLLO Y LAGASCA, Defendant and Appellant.
G.R. No. 211159, March 18, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE 2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARCELINO did not in fact so participate; chanrobleslaw
OLOVERIO, Accused-Appellant.
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other
G.R. No. 175842, March 18, 2015 - NILO MACAYAN, than those in fact made by them; chanrobleslaw
G.R. No. 189949, March 25, 2015 - CASTILLEJOS 5. Altering true dates;
CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (CASCONA),
chanrobleslaw
G.R. No. 197115, March 23, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
OF AGRICULTURE, Petitioner, v. FEDERICO DACLAN,
JOSEFINA COLLADO AND HER HUSBAND FEDERICO 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
DACLAN, TEODORO DACLAN AND MINVILUZ DACLAN 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
AS SURVIVING HEIRS OF DECEASED JOSE DACLAN,
Respondents.; [G.R. NO. 197267] - FEDERICO 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
DACLAN, JOSEFINA COLLADO, TEODORO DACLAN 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
AND MINVILUZ DACLAN AS SURVIVING HEIRS OF
DECEASED JOSE DACLAN, Petitioners, v. REPUBLIC 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND PROVINCE OF LA
UNION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROVINCIAL 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
GOVERNOR, Respondent. 2013 2014 2015 2016
Copyright © 1998 - 20181998 - 2018 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED