CASE DIGEST

BANCAYA, JULIANE L.
BS CRIMINOLOGY 3RD
YEAR
 CASE NAME:NON SEQUITURS

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

There is a petition for certiorari challenging the Court of Appeals' decision2 and
resolution3 in CA-G. The challenged decision upheld the National Labor Relations
Commission's (NLRC) decision that declared petitioner Arnulfo Almoite's termination due
to redundancy to be valid.
The petitioners claimed that, while the closure only affected the wet line, some of the
employees who were let go worked on the dry line or provided support services for both
the wet and dry lines. Petitioner Union and about 80 of its members, including petitioner
Almoite, filed complaints against respondent company at the NLRC Regional Arbitration
Branch 1 in San Fernando, La Union, alleging unfair labor practices, illegal layoffs, and
illegal dismissal.
Only 31 of the 80 employees took their grievances to the Labor Arbiter. Petitioners filed an
appeal with the NLRC, claiming that the respondent company failed to demonstrate with
substantial evidence that the retrenchment was absolutely necessary and unavoidable,
owing to the fact that the affected employees also performed support services on the wet
line. The Court of Appeals denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration for lack of merit
in a Resolution dated September 6, 2006. In affirming its decision, the appellate court found
no grave abuse of discretion by public respondent NLRC.

ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED BY THE COURT

The honorable court of appeals found that petitioner union is not a true party-in-interest
and so cannot represent its members in a dispute involving their dismissal, which is
contrary to the law. In affirming public respondent's finding that petitioner almoite's
termination was legal, the honorable court of appeals ruled contrary to law and evidence.

HOW DID THE COURT RESOLVED THE CASE

The Court dismissed the petition with respect to Petitioner Almoite for insufficiency or defective
verification and certification of non-forum shopping, as only the president of petitioner Union
signed the same. In its comment, respondent company prays that the petition should be dismissed
for lack of merit. "We find no basis for deviating from the doctrine of judicial review of labor cases".
 CASE NAME:US VS PONS 34 PHIL 733

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Gabino Beliso, a wine dealer with an office and warehouse at 203 Calle San Anton in Manila,
had been active in the sector. On the 5th or 6th of April 1915, the Spanish schooner Lopez y
Lopez arrived in Manila with 25 barrels of wine exhibited and delivered to Jacinto Lasarte.
Beliso handed Gregorio Cansipit, a customs broker, the shipper's invoice and bill of lading
for the 25 barrels. Customs officials discovered 77 opium tins stashed in lime barrels and
ordered their return to the customs office. Mariano Limjap owned the house, which was
rented out to a man named F.C. Garcia. Pons demonstrated how to unlock the barrels and
noted that each one contained opium. Garcia was a wine salesman who lived in Spain,
according to Pons, who testified throughout the trial. He also said that he and Beliso had
worked together on several opium sales. Juan Pons and Gabino Beliso were found guilty of
violating Act No. 2381, which states that they "imported and introduced 520 tins
containing 125 kilograms of opium valued at P62,400...did receive and conceal the said
quantity of opium and supported each other in the transportation, receipt, and
concealment of the same." According to the source, the last day of the Philippine
Legislature's extraordinary session for 1914 was February 28th, and Act No.2381, under
which Pons must be punished if found guilty, was not passed or ratified until March 1,
1914.

ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED BY THE COURT

Won the Court can take judicial notice of the journals.

HOW DID THE COURT RESOLVED THE CASE

Section 7 of The Act of Congress, passed on July 1, 1902, requires the Philippine Assembly
to keep a diary of its actions, which would be published. The Assembly's notebook for the
1914 sessions was made public, and the Assembly appears to have adjourned sine die on
February 28, 1914, at 12 a.m. The exact hour of adjournment is recorded in the journals of
the Philippine Legislature's extraordinary session of 1914. Investigating the veracity of the
journals would be a violation of the core laws that established the Philippine government,
both in word and spirit. Because the Philippine Constitution is built on the US Federal
Government's, we have no reservations about obeying US courts.
 CASE NAME:ALDEGUER VS HOSKIN 2 PHIL 500

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

On November 25, 1975, at approximately 6 a.m., a Ford Fiera and a Carina Express No. C-24
passenger bus collided in Bunawan, Calamba, Misamis Occidental. Pacifico Carbajosa, Sr.
was stuck beneath the steering wheel while the engine was on fire, leading him to be
severely burned and die as a result of his injuries. The incident also injured Trencio
Almedilla, the owner of the Fiera, which was registered under the Sevilla Line, and Alberto
Pingkian. The bus driver and passengers did not stop to help the victims; instead, the bus
continued on its way to Sapang Dalaga. Trencio Almedilla, the genuine owner of the Ford
Fiera but affiliated with defendant William Sevilla's Sevilla Lines, headed for Ozamis City on
November 25, 1975, on board his Ford Feria, to acquire textiles. When he arrived at
Dipolog City, he encountered Pacifico Carbajosa, who wanted to load fish and went
cautiously for fear of damaging the fish. They loaded Pacifico fish in Miputak, then stopped
at a Caltex station for gas before heading to Ozmis City. "Balodoy" requested that Trenrio
allow him to drive the automobile after passing Sapang Dalaga in Misamis Occidental
because he was an experienced driver. As a result, "Baladoy" was placed on the wheels in
the hopes that the fish would not be harmed. While negotiating a curb on the descending
stretch of the asphalted national highway, which was wet due to the rain, a Ford Fiera was
hit by a bus. Balodoy was gravely injured when the steering wheel pinned him to his
driver's seat. Pingkian and Trencio were also injured, but they were well enough to try to
free him. The driver of the Carina passenger bus, which had three passengers on board at
the moment, refused to assist and instead drove towards Sapang Dalaga. Genito Compania
retrieved a piece of wood from his adjacent home and used it as a lever to pry Baladoy free.

ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED BY THE COURT

ACCORDINGLY, and in view of all the foregoing, the Court hereby renders judgment as
follows: Ordering the defendants, Occidental Land Transportation Company and Edgardo
Enerio, to pay to the plaintiffs, Trencio Almedilla and Alberto Pingkian, the following:
For Plaintiff Almedilla: P 9,473.80 for the repair of the damaged Ford Fiera; P400.00 for
hospitalization; P100.00 daily for the income of the Ford Fiera starting from November 25,
1975 to March 10, 1986; P5,000.00 for moral damages.
For Plaintiff Pingkian: P5,000.00 for moral damages; P100.00 for loss of income; P100.00
for incidental expenses; and P1,000.00 for attorney's fees.
Ordering the defendants aforenamed to pay to the intervenors Carbajosas the following;
P6,000.00 for hospitalization; P3,000.00 for embalming, funeral services and last prayers;
P5,000.00 for moral damages; P5,000.00 for attorney's fees; and P500.00 for actual and
incidental expenses.
Dismissing the complaint-in-intervention insofar as it concerns plaintiffs Trencio Almedilla
and Alberto Pingkian. Denying the reliefs prayed for in the answer to the complaint-in-
intervention of plaintiffs Trencio Almedilla and Alberto Pingkian; Denying the reliefs
prayed for in the answer to the complaint-in-intervention of the aforenamed
defendants;Dismissing the counterclaim of the defendants aforenamed for lack of merit;
and Ordering the defendants aforenamed to pay the costs.

HOW DID THE COURT RESOLVED THE CASE

Even though such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court, courts are not
entitled to take judicial notice of the contents of other cases' records. The general norm
admits several exceptions as described in Tabuena v. Court of Appeals,13 the Court, citing
U.S. v. Claveria. However, it is clear that this exception only applies "in the absence of
objection," "with the knowledge of the opposing party," or "at the request or with the
cooperation of the parties." With the parties' awareness and in the absence of their protest,
the decision in Civil Case No. 3156 became part of the records of the instant case. The lower
court drew attention to this fact, namely: The company and its driver's cooperation and
silence became as conclusive as the Oroquieta Court's findings.The petition for review is
dismissed due to a lack of merit, and the petitioners will be charged with costs. Petitioner
contends that the Ford Fiera did not belong to Trencio Almedilla, but to its registered
owner — Sevilla Lines, and consequently damages for its repair were unlawfully given.

CASE NAME: AYALA VS CASE 8 PHIL 197

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Edwin Case, in Manila, through a passage on the west side of Carmen Ayala de Roxas'
property. The two contiguous properties to the south and west are owned by the appellant.
It also connects to the west, which faces the Escolta, but it was formerly held by someone
else and used as a hotel. In a series of decisions, Spain's top court has declined to accept
proof of any certain number of years as sufficient to satisfy the legislation. The appellant
also points out that, since the introduction of the Code of Civil Procedure in these Islands,
an immemorial prescription does not require the same level of proof as in Spanish law.
ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED BY THE COURT
The appellant has failed to present witnesses over the age of 60 who are familiar with the
use of a right of way that was described as existing in 1859. The appellant has not complied
with the second condition, that of declarations of persons older than the witnesses'
recollection, arguing that such testimony is inadmissible as hearsay under the current Code
of Civil Procedure. If such declarations had been requested in response to a query, it would
have raised the question of whether the right to utilize such proof was preserved under
section 795 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

HOW DID THE COURT RESEOLVED THE CASE

The appellant has failed to present witnesses over the age of 60 who are familiar with the
use of a right of way that was described as existing in 1859. The appellant has not complied
with the second condition, that of declarations of persons older than the witnesses'
recollection, arguing that such testimony is inadmissible as hearsay under the current Code
of Civil Procedure. If such declarations had been requested in response to a query, it would
have raised the question of whether the right to utilize such proof was preserved under
section 795 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

CASE NAME:PRATS AND CO VS POENIXINS CO 52 PHIL 807

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Prats & Co. filed a case in order to recover damages from Phoenix Insurance Co., plus
interest, as a result of a fire loss. The HBC has a shady reputation in Manila's insurance
circles. A bodega operated by HBC had nine policies in place, but none of them were for
reinsurance. The agent stated that if HBC is involved in the activity, the building will not be
reinsured. A new 9-policy insurance policy has been issued. A muchacho and Antonio Prats
transported petroleum inside the Bodega two nights before the fire, but it was gone when
he returned.

ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED BY THE COURT

Whether or not the RTC erred in ruling in favor of the plaintiff.
HOW DID THE COURT RESOLVED THE CASE
“The admission of proof in a court of first instance, even if the question as to its form,
materiality, or relevancy is doubtful, can never result in much harm to either litigant,
because the trial judge is supposed to know the law. If this course is followed and the cause
is prosecuted to the Supreme Court upon appeal, this court then has all the material before
it necessary to make a correct judgment.”. No, the lower court ruled correctly. Shortly after
the fire started, Prats instructed his muchacho to stop anyone who would turn on the
alarm. petroleum was gone.

CASE NAME:JAMORA VS BLANCO 78 PHIL 502

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

This is an original action for certiorari instituted by the petitioner, Juan Jamora, seeking the
annulment of the order of the respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo,
Honorable Manuel Blanco, dated October 18, 1946, which dismissed special proceeding No.
36 (Intestate Estate of the Deceased Gorgonia Jamora Vda. de Mapa: Juan Jamora,
petitioner), and set aside all the proceeding theretofore accomplished therein. The order
complained of recites that the respondent Judge personally knew that the estate of the
deceased Gorgonia Jamora Vda. de Mapa had been settled and distributed according to her
will probated in the Court of First Instance of Manila some fifteen years ago, and that the
petitioner, then already appointed administrator, when required to explain, stated that he
instituted special proceeding No. 36 in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, because the
records of the testate proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Manila were destroyed
as a result of the war.
Petitioner's main contention is that the respondent judge acted illegally in basing the order
of dismissal on his personal knowledge of alleged facts not borne out by any evidence.
While said respondent was perhaps somewhat hasty in the matter, due undoubtedly to his
reaction to the anomaly that confronted him, we are not inclined to hold that the petitioner
was thereby deprived of his day in court. Indeed, lack of a formal hearing for the reception
of necessary evidence, is more that supplied by petitioner's own admission in his petition
for certiorari (paragraphs 10, 11, 13) of the existence of the testate proceedings in the
Court of First Instance of Manila, of the destruction of the records thereof, and of the
absence of any petition for reconstitution. Such admission also points to the belief that the
petitioner, as alleged in the order in question, really confirmed at the hearing held on
October 15, 1946, what the respondent judge personally knew. And this is the reason why
the order in question relies on the fact that Petitioner's remedy is to file in the Court of
First Instance of Manila the proper petition for reconstitution of the records in the testate
proceedings. The circumstance that he is not in possession of documents sufficient for the
purpose, is not a valid excuse for his reluctance or omission to institute reconstitution
proceedings. He had no right to suppose that the records could not be reconstituted,
because other interested parties may be successful in the task; and even if reconstitution
should be impossible after proper proceedings, it would be incumbent upon the court to
order a new trial or permit the filling of a new action.

ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED BY THE COURT

The petitioner, Juan Jamora, seeking the annulment of the order of the respondent Judge of
the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Honorable Manuel Blanco

HOW DID THE COURT RESOLVED THE CASE

The herein petition will therefore be, as the same in hereby, dismissed, and it is so ordered
with costs against the petitioner.

CASE NAME: US VS CLEMENTE 24 PHIL 178

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

That on or about the 17th day of June, 1912, in the city of Manila, Philippine Islands, the
said Enrique Clemente, at the time being and acting as motorman of a street car No. 1ll
upon the line Pasay-Cervantes of the Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company, a
corporation duly organized and doing business in the city of Manila, Philippine Islands, and
then and there directing and operating said street car, as the motorman thereof, upon and
along Dakota Street in said city, and then and there being under the obligation as such
motorman of said street car to conduct and direct the same with due care and caution, in
order to avoid any accident which might occur to the vehicles and pedestrians who were
passing upon and over said Dakota Street, said accused at said time and place voluntarily
and illegally, with reckless imprudence and with inexcusable negligence and in violation of
the ordinance pertaining to the matter, conducted and directed said street car, without
paying any attention to the pedestrians who were crossing said street from one side to the
other, in such a manner that by reason of his lack of care and reckless negligence he
directed and conducted street car No. Ill against and over the body and head of Juan Garcia,
a child 3 years of age,who was then and there passing across the said Dakota
Street,dragging the body of said child over said street-car track for a considerable distance,
fracturing and destroying its skull and causing instant death. That if said acts thus
performed by the accused had been done with malice or intentionally he would be guilty of
the grave crime of homicide,"

ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED BY THE COURT

The court needs to find out if the offender is liable to the crime who cause the death of the
victim

HOW DID THE COURT RESOLVED THE CASE

“We are convinced, under this evidence, that the defendant should have been convicted of the crime
of homicide caused by his reckless negligence, as charged in the complaint. Of our authority to
convict him here and now of that crime, although he has once been acquitted of it, we do not doubt.
The crime of which the accused was convicted in the court below is included in the crime of
homicide by reckless negligence.. .. The accused is convicted of homicide committed through
reckless negligence and is sentenced to one year and one day of prision correccional with the
accessories provided by law, with costs. The appeal to this court from a conviction of the lower
offense places upon us the duty of revising the whole case and of taking such action in the premises
as law and justice require.

CASE NAME:US VS DE GUZMAN 30 PHIL 146

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Venancio de Guzman, the defendant and appellant in this case, was convicted in the court
below of the crime of asesinato (murder) and sentenced to life imprisonment. The evidence
of record leaves no room for doubt that, on the day and at place mentioned in the
information, De Guzman, who was walking through a field with Pedro and Serapio
Macarling and Rufino Garin, deceased, struck the latter on the head, knocked him down and
held him on the ground while Pedro Macarling stabbed him to death. There is and there can
be no question as to his guilt of the crime of which he was convicted in the court below, the
only question raised on this appeal being his right to exemption from prosecution for the
crime thus committed, on the ground that a former information, charging the same offense,
had been dismissed as to him in order that he might testify as a witness for the prosecution.
The Solicitor-General, relying on the provisions of sections 34, 35 and 365 of General orders No. 58,
recommends the discharge of the appellant, and that he be set at liberty forthwith. We do not think
so, and hold that, it conclusively appearing that appellant failed to carry out his agreement with the
fiscal, and had knowingly and falsely testified at the trial of his coaccused. The state was wholly
within its rights in bringing him to trial, and convicting and sentencing him for the crime with
which he was charged in the former information.

ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED BY THE COURT

In view, however, of the dissenting opinion, which seems to challenge the findings of fact
set forth in the majority opinion, it might be well to state the result of a careful examination
of the record in this regard. The evidence as to the guilt of the accused of the crime of
murder of which he was convicted is conclusive, beyond a reasonable doubt. It consists of
clear, definite, competent, and incontrovertible evidence as to the three separate
confessions of guilt by the accused wherein he set forth in detail the circumstances under
which he, together with Pedro and Serapio Macarling, for and in consideration of a promise
of fifty pesos, assassinated Rufino Garin, deceased. These confessions were corroborated by
the testimony of a number of witnesses, and leave no room for the shadow of a doubt as to
the truth and accuracy of the finding in the majority opinion, "that on the day and at the
place mentioned in the information. De Guzman, who was walking through a field with
Pedro and Serapio Macarling and Rufino Garin, deceased, struck the latter on the head,
knocked him down and held him on the ground while Pedro Macarling stabbed him to
death."

HOW DID THE COURT RESOLVED THE CASE

De Guzman, jointly with the two Macarlings, was charged with the murder of Garin. One of his
coaccused pleaded guilty and the other not guilty, and thereafter the case came on for trial. After
several witnesses had been called, De Guzman was placed on the witness stand, and denied all
knowledge of the murder. He swore that a statement made by him before a justice of the peace was
false and that it had been made through fear of police officers. The case was dismissed and the
accused discharged by reason of release of accused wads obtained by fraud as stated in the
prevailing opinion already quoted. All there is in the record in this case which, in any manner,
refers to the alleged fraud and misrepresentation as set out in the quotation is the opinion of the
trial court convicting the accused. As I have said, the facts so stated are not supported by a scintilla
of evidence in this very case.

CASE NAME:US VS BLANCO 37 PHIL 126

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
The defendant and appellant was originally convicted and fined P25 in the court of the
justice of the peace of the municipality of Castillejos, Province of Zambales, on a charge of
violating a municipal ordinance prohibiting and penalizing obstruction of public highways.
The accused was convicted and fined P25 after an appeal to the Court of First Instance of
the Province of Zambales. The case is before us on appeal from the Court of First Instance's
decision. Keeping in mind the provisions of Act No. 2677, enacted since this appeal was
perfected, expressly authorizing appeals in cases of this type, we do not stop to consider
the parties' contentions on the merely procedural question of the proper disposition of this
appeal under the law in force prior to the enactment of that statute. On this appeal, counsel
relies solely on his arguments.

ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED BY THE COURT

The defendant and appellant was originally convicted and fined P25 in the court of the
justice of the peace of the municipality of Castillejos, Province of Zambales, on a charge of
violating a municipal ordinance prohibiting and penalizing obstruction of public highways.
The accused was convicted and fined P25 after an appeal to the Court of First Instance of
the Province of Zambales. The case is before us on appeal from the Court of First Instance's
decision.

HOW DID THE COURT RESLOVED THE CASE

Section 3 of the Administrative Code expressly states that provisions of the Code that
incorporate prior laws shall be deemed to be made in continuation thereof, and to be in the
nature of amendments thereto, without prejudice to any right that has already accrued. As
a result, the Administrative Code's enactment had no effect on abrogating or repealing a
municipal ordinance enacted and maintained in the exercise of a power granted to the
municipality by the code itself. We find no error in the proceedings that is prejudicial to the
accused's rights, and we conclude that the judgment entered in the lower court should be
upheld, with the appellant being charged with the costs of this case..

CASE NAME:CIR VS FISHER 1 SCRA 93

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Walter G. Stevenson was born in the Philippines to British parents and married another
British subject, Beatrice, in Manila. He died in California, where he and his wife had
relocated, in 1951. In his will, he named Beatrice as his sole heir to certain real and
personal property, including 210,000 shares of Mindanao Mother Lode Mines stock. Lan
Murray Statt, the estate's appointed ancillary administrator, filed an estate and inheritance
tax return. He filed a preliminary return in order to obtain a waiver of the CIR on the
inheritance of Mines shares of stock. Beatrice assigned all of her rights and interests in the
estate to the Fishers' spouses in 1952. Statt filed an amended estate and inheritance tax
return, claiming additional exemptions, one of which is the estate and inheritance tax on
Mines' shares of stock due to a reciprocity provision in the NIRC, resulting in a refund of the
amount he initially paid. The claim was denied by the collector. He then applied to the CFI
of Manila for the aforementioned amount. The CFI ruled that the "share of Beatrice" should
be deducted from Walter's net estate because intangible personal property belonging to
Walter's estate is exempt from inheritance tax under the NIRC's reciprocity provision.

ISSUE TO BE SOLVED BY THE COURT

Whether or not the estate can take advantage of the NIRC's reciprocity provision, which
grants tax exemption for Mines shares of stock.

HOW THE COURT SOLVED THE CASE

In all other respects, the Court of Tax Appeals' decision is upheld. Respondent's claim for
interest on the allegedly overpaid amount, if any, is hereby denied in accordance with our
recent decision in Collector of Internal Revenue v. St. Paul's Hospital (G.R. No. L-12127, May
29, 1959), wherein we held that "in the absence of a statutory provision clearly or
expressly directing or authorizing such payment. As a result, as modified in the manner
indicated above, the lower court's judgment is hereby affirmed in all other respects not
inconsistent herewith. There are no fees. So it was ordered.

CASE NAME:CITIES OF MANILA VS GARCIA 19 SCRA

413
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
City of Manila (City) owned parcels of land located along the streets of Singalong, Kansas
and Vermont in Malate, Manila. After the liberation from 1945-1947, Garcia et al, entered
the premises and there established their homes with second-class materials, up until the
present filing of this case, without the necessary consent of City. When their presence were
discovered, Mendoza et al seek the permission of the then Mayor Fugoso through written
lease permits to be able to occupy such premises. Obaob and Garcia received theirs from
Mayor Dela Fuenta while the other 23 defendants received nor presented one. Soon the
school, Epifanio de los Santos Elementary School, near the premises in question had the
need to expand and so they gave the defendants 30 days to vacate and remove the
construction they had established. At the same time, the City Treasurer demanded from
them payment of rentals and vacate the premises within 15 days. Obviously, the defendant
refused to pay and to vacate, hence, the present suit in order to recover possession of
property.

ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED BY THE COURT

Whether RTC's decision on utilizing the premises in issue is proper for school purposes.

HOW DID THE COURT RESOLVED THE CASE

The city's evidence on this point is Exhibit E, the certification of the Chairman, Committee
on Appropriations of the Municipal Board. That document recites that the amount of
P100,000.00 had been set aside in Ordinance 4566, the 1962-1963 Manila City Budget, for
the construction of an additional building of the Epifanio de los Santos Elementary School.
It is indeed correct to say that the court below, at the hearing, ruled out the admissibility of
said document. But then, in the decision under review, the trial judge obviously revised his
views. He there declared that there was need for defendants to vacate the premises for
school expansion; he cited the very document, Exhibit E, aforesaid. Defendants have
absolutely no right to remain in the premises. The excuse that they have permits from the
mayor is at best flimsy. The permits to occupy are recoverable on thirty days' notice.
Defendants have absolutely no right to remain in the premises. The excuse that they have
permits from the mayor is at best flimsy. The permits to occupy are recoverable on thirty
days' notice

CASE NAME: COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM VS

ESSO STANDARD 66 SCRA 113
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
This case is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals reversing the
Commissioner of Customs' decision holding respondent ESSO Standard Eastern, Inc., and
hereinafter referred to as ESSO, liable in paying special import tax on certain articles
imported by the latter under Republic Act No. 387, otherwise known as the Petroleum Act
of 1949. Respondent is the holder of refining concession issued by the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, under Article 103 of Republic Act No. 387 which
provides: "During the five years following the granting of any concession, the
concessionaire may import free of customs duty, all equipment, machinery, material,
instruments, supplies and accessories,". But, when respondent imported they was assessed
with the special import tax - it was paid under protest. The Collector of Customs referred to
Republic Act No. 1394, assailed that the respondent is liable in paying special import tax,
this was appealed but the Commissioner of Customs affirmed the decision. The respondent
once more filed an appeal this time to the Court of Tax Appeals, it reversed the decision and
ordered the refund of the special import tax paid by the respondent.

ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED BY THE COURT

Whether exemption enjoyed by herein private respondent ESSO Standard Eastern, Inc.
from customs duties granted by Republic Act No. 387, or the Petroleum Act of 1949, should
embrace or include the special import tax imposed by R.A. No. 1394, or the Special Import
Tax Law.

HOW THE COURT RESOLVED THE CASE

Wherefore, the petition is dismissed, and there is no reason to reverse the findings and
decision of Court of Tax Appeals.

CASE NAME: PEOPLE VS DE ROXAS 6 SCRA 66

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

On October 12, 1954, Vivencio de Roxas, Bienvenido Lazarte, and Leoncio Patulot scaled the house
of Isidro Caunseran in Marayos, Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro. The principal issue in this appeal is
whether the appellants were properly identified as the authors of the crime. The admission by the
trial court of the confessions, Exhibits "D" and "E", is strenuously assailed on the ground that they
were coerced and obtained through torture. The Court of Appeal's decision does not detract from
her veracity, since recognition and description are different processes that do not necessarily go
together. It is argued that it is physically impossible that the knife or balisong exhibited by the
prosecution should be the murder weapon, because of the dimensions of the wound as established
by the autopsy. Neither does it appear that appellants complained of the alleged torture to Dr. Pio
Baldoz, the mayor of the town, before whom the statements were sworn, nor showed him any
injuries. The elasticity of the soft portions of the body can likewise explain the difference between
the blade's length and the depth of the wounds.

ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED BY THE COURT

On May 23, 1973, three girls were slain, the youngest only five years old. Zenaida Nastae, 21 years
old, stabbed once to death, ears severed; Canda Carluman, 7 years old,. stabbed once, hemorrhaging
to death; and Mona Carluman,. stabbed twice to death,. ears severed. Consider the carnage and the
girls who fell before the bloodied knife.

HOW THE COURT RESOLVED THE CASE

All of the accused-appellants are guilty of the three crimes of murder, treachery, and
obvious premeditation. Band, because it has already been absorbed by treachery; dwelling,
because the "tapahan" was not part of the victims' residence; and cruelty, because it has not
been demonstrated that the ears of the two victims were severed while they were still
alive, have been rejected as aggravating circumstances.
As a result, the judgment of conviction is upheld, and the sentence of death is imposed on
all of the..accused-appellants for each of the murders. The civil indemnity for which they
are jointly and severally liable has been increased to P30,000.00 for each victim's heirs. No
costs.

CASE NAME:DEL PILAR TRANSIT VS SILVA 17 SCRA

647
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
The Public Service Commission granted separate franchises to Jose Silva, Rodolfo Silva and
Jaguar Transportation. The applications were opposed by Laguna-Tayabas Bus Co.,
Batangas Transportation Co., Del Pilar Transit, Inc., and MD Transit and Taxi Co., and
Antonio Heras. The foregoing unrebutted testimonies of Jose and Rodolfo Silva prove their
required financial capacity, rendering such findings beyond our power to disturb. We have
consistently ruled that findings of the Public Service Commission as to public necessity and
convenience should not be interfered with where some evidence reasonably supports such
findings. The Public Service Commission (PSC) granted the additional lines because of a
public necessity. An inspector testified that buses coming from Laguna and Batangas are
full and could no longer accommodate those waiting at Alabang during the mornings and
afternoons. The Commission also found that there is yet no direct service along these lines.

ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED BY THE COURT

Grant is the ban of provincial buses from Manila which ban has not been in effect. The
decision shows, however, that the ban was considered in reference to the oppositions of
Laguna-Tayabas Bus Co. and Batangas Transportation Co. Said companies did not appeal.
And Del Pilar Transit, Inc's opposition was denied without regard to the provincial bus ban

HOW DID THE COURT RESOLVED THE CASE

Wherefore, the decision of the Public Service Commission appealed from is affirmed in all
respects, with costs. So ordered

CASE NAME: ROSALES VS CA 28 SCRA 813

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

On April 12, 1966, the Continental Bank instituted Civil Case No. 612 with the then Court of First
Instance of Balayan, Batangas, Branch 7. The complaint alleged that Atlas Timber Company, through
its Managing Partner Napoleon Rosales, and Luis Bustillo in his personal capacity, executed in favor
of the bank a promissory note dated August 11, 1965, in the amount of P1,000,000.00. Defendants
admitted the execution of the promissory note and real estate mortgages. They averred that the
loan was applied for under the Industrial Guaranty Loan Fund (IGLF) of the Central Bank, through
Continental Bank. It was intended for the completion of the veneer plant of Atlas Timber Company,
then being constructed in Butuan City. Instead of delivering to them the entire amount of
P1,000,000.00, Continental Bank delivered only P424,000., and retained the balance of
P576,000,.00, despite repeated demands for the turn-over thereof. Consequently, defendants were
unable to complete the construction of the plant and to manufacture veneers for exportation to the
United States. Defendants, therefore, set up a counterclaim for pecuniary, moral and exemplary
damages and for attorney's fees.

ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED BY THE COURT

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial of their motion to reopen the case, but
the same was denied. On June 30, 1997, the Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Balayan,
Batangas, executed the Final Deed of Sale in favor of Continental Bank. Petitioners argued that the
lower court amended the decision in its Order dated April 22, 1975, by adding TCT No. T-11839 to
the properties to be sold at public auction, without prior notice to petitioners. The sale to private
respondent of 271.306 hectares of lands, consisting of a total of P120,500.00, must be stricken
down as null and void for being grossly inadequate and unconscionable as to shock the moral sense.
The inclusion at the auction sale of the property of Luis Bustillo, covered by TCT No. T-11337, was
likewisenull and void in view of the lower court's finding that Bustillo did not sign the promissory
note and therefore should not be held liable for the same. Petitioners contend that they should be
allowed another period of ninety days within which to pay the judgment debt.

HOW DID THE COURT RESOLVED THE CASE

The sale of petitioners lands to Continental Bank is declared null and void, and all certificates of
title issued in lieu of them are ordered cancelled. Petitioners are ordered to pay to respondent
National Development Corporation, as successor-in-interest of Continental Bank, the sum of One
Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00), with interest thereon at the rate of eight percent (8%) per annum
computed from August 11, 1965 until the date of full payment, and an amount equivalent to ten
percent (10%) of the total amount due.

CASE NAME: UNITED TEXTILE VS CIR 36 SCRA

619
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
In 1952 the then Collector of Internal Revenue assessed against the petitioner deficiency sales taxes
and surcharges for the year 1949 and the first four months of 1950 in the aggregate sum of
P89,123.58. The case was appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals, and there was affirmed in its
decision dated February 28, 1952. The matter was thereafter elevated to this Court for review.
There is no dispute as to the amount as computed by the internal revenue examiners and confirmed
by the Collector. The only issues posed in the instant petition for review are whether or not the
petitioner was the importer of the goods and guilty of fraud so as to warrant a penalty of 50% on
the deficiency. The Court of Tax Appeals found that Heng Tong Textiles Co., Inc. and Pan-Asiatic
Commercial acted as importers of textiles from the United States in the sum of P2,190,948.66.
There is both documentary and testimonial evidence the latter being declarations of the petitioner's
own witnesses. The petition for review below contains the allegation that during the taxable year
1949, Heng Tung Textiles placed orders for importations of fabrics from the U.S.

ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED BY THE COURT

An arrangement resorted to does not by itself alone justify the penalty imposed. An attempt to
minimize one's tax does not necessarily constitute fraud. It is a settled principle that a taxpayer may
diminish his liability by any means which the law permits. The intention to minimize taxes, when
used in the context of fraud, must be proved to exist by clear and convincing evidence amounting to
more than mere preponderance, and cannot, be justified by mere speculation.

HOW DID THE COURT RESOLVED THE CASE

The decision of the Court of Tax Appeals is modified by removing the penalty of 50% on the
amount of deficiency sales taxes imposed, but is otherwise upheld. There has been no cost
announcement.

CASE NAME: BAGUIO VS DE JALAGAT 42 SCRA 337

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Petitioner went to the RTC to file a complaint that had previously been decided by that
court. The RTC ruled that the respondents' action was barred by res judicata. The RTC took
judicial notice of the previous decision it rendered as a basis for dismissal. The petitioner
then went to the Supreme Court to raise the following issue.
ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED BY THE COURT
Whether a motion to dismiss on the grounds of res judicata, that the cause of action is
barred by a prior judgment and a previous ruling, is appropriate in the case at hand.
HOW DID THE COURT RESOLVED THE CASE
The law would be subject to well-deserved criticism if the Rules of Court sanctioned such a
futile proceeding. Even appellant should understand that, under the circumstances, the
lower court could certainly take judicial notice of the finality of a judgment in a case that
was previously pending and then decided by it. The lower court did nothing more than
issue a dismissal order. Certainly, such an order is not illegal.

CASE NAME: OCCIDENTAL LAND VS CA 220 SCRA

167

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

That at about 4:50 o'clock in the morning of November 25, 1975, Trencio Almedilla, who
was the real owner of the Ford Fiera, but attached to the Sevilla Lines of defendant William
Sevilla, left for Ozamis City, on board his Ford Fiera, to buy textiles, together with Alberto
Pingkian who wanted to visit his aunt at Ozamis City. Reaching Dipolog City, Trencio
Almedilla came upon Pacifico Carbajosa, who wants (sic) to load fish in the Ford Fiera for
Ozamis City. As it was an opportune occasion, Trencio agreed to load the fish of Pacifico for
a freight of P130.00. So they loaded the fish of Pacifico at Miputak, then got gasoline at a
Caltex Station and proceeded towards Ozamis City. Trencio, was driving his Ford Fiera, was
running slowly as Pacifico alias "Balodoy" told him not to go fast so that his fish will not get
destroyed. After passing Sapang Dalaga, at Misamis Occidental, Trencio developed stomach
ache. At this, "Balodoy" requested that Trencio allow him to drive the Ford Fiera as he was
an experienced driver. Trencio agreed. And so, with "Balodoy" on the wheels of the Ford
Fiera, they proceeded slowly for fear that the fish will get damaged. Reaching Bunawan, at
Calamba, and while negotiating a curb at the descending portion of the asphalted national
highway, which was wet, as it was raining, a Carina passenger bus was running fast in an
ascent, zigzagging towards them. Because of this, the Ford Fiera went towards the extreme
right of the road with its right front and rear tires already running at (sic) the ground
shoulder, but even as the Ford Fiera tried to avoid the zigzagging Carina Express No. C-24,
the said Carina bus jerked towards the left, hitting, as a result, the Ford Fiera at the left
fender and hood, throwing it to the canal at the right side, with engine burning. The Carina
passenger bus continued to swerve towards the left until it turn about, facing towards the
direction of Ozamis City. Balodoy was pinned by the steering wheel to his driver's seat and
was seriously injured, Pingkian and Trencio were also injured, but they were well enough
to try to help to extricate Balodoy, not until Genito Compania got a piece of wood from his
house nearby, which he used as a lever to pry out Balodoy. The driver of the Carina
passenger bus, which had three passengers, at that time, did not help Balodoy. Instead it
proceeded towards Sapang Dalaga.

ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED BY THE CASE

Petitioners Occidental Land Transportation Company Inc. and Edgardo Enerio appealed from the
above-quoted decision to the Court of Appeals. They assigned the following errors: That the trial
court erred in deciding the case based on a decision rendered in another case, and not holding that
the ford fiera was exclusively responsible for the accident. .

HOW DID THE COURT RESOLVED THE CASE

Wherefore, finding no error in the decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 28,
1990 (CA-G.R. CV No. 10176) affirming the decision of the trial court dated March 11, 1986,
the petition for review is denied for lack of merit with costs against the petitioners.

CASE NAME: JULIANITO VS CA 20 SCRA 808

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Angelito Maglalang's natural mother is Lourdes S. Flores, who was born on July 6, 1966. On
March 13, 1981, she filed a support complaint against Gil C. Maglalang in the then Court of
First Instance of San Pablo City, alleging, among other things, that she once worked as a
domestic helper for Gil during which time they had sexual relations and that as a result, she
had a son, Angelito; that the latter's birth was not recorded in the local civil registrar's
office due to inadvertence; and that the latter's birth was not recorded in the that she was
given a monthly allowance of P15.00 for her own maintenance until the child graduated
from elementary school; that the said allowance was increased to P20.00 a month until
September, 1980; that thereafter, she had to wash clothes for other people in order to
survive, causing her to become sickly; and that she required a monthly allowance of
P500.00 for the child's support and education, an allowance of P500.00 for the child's
support and education, an allowance of P500.00 for the child's.
ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED BY THE COURT
Lourdes Flores filed a complaint for support and acknowledgment as a natural child against her son
Gil, who she claims is not her son's father. In the joint motion to dismiss signed by Gil and Lourdes,
it is categorically stated that she seriously doubts that Angelito is the son of Gil, so that Article 283
of the Civil Code is not applicable. The case was dismissed with prejudice on the grounds that there
are no identity of parties in the two cases.

HOW DID THE COURT RESOLVED THE CASE

The requirement of prior resort to barangay arbitration was not satisfied. Thus, the
dismissal of the case for lack of cause of action is called for. Wherefore, the petition is
dismissed for lack of merit. No costs.

CASE NAME: PEOPLE VS PONFERRADA 54 PHIL 68

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Justo A. Ponferrada graduated from the Escuela de Derecho in 1923, after which he successively
took the bar examinations for four times without success. His last examination in 1927 marked the
end of his legitimate efforts to be admitted to the practice of law. In this last examination his
general average was 61 per cent, which is 14 points below the 75 per cent required for a candidate
to pass the examinations. Ponferrada paid Naval three sums of money amounting to nine hundred
pesos for the revision of his examination papers, which he had requested from Naval. In February
or March a copy of a purported resolution of the Supreme Court on his motion for revision was
delivered to him by an employee of the office of the clerk. Albino Candelaria was charged with
making out notices of the resolutions of the court.

ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED BY THE COURT

This case has been brought upon appeal to the Supreme Court for the purpose of reversing
a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila, finding the appellant, Virgilio
Naval, guilty of the offense of falsification of a public and official document and sentencing
him to undergo imprisonment for five years, four months and twenty-one days, prision
correccional, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, and requiring him to pay a
fine of 1,500 pesetas, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay one-
third the costs of prosecution. In the information which is the basis of this prosecution
Justo A. Ponferrada and Albino Candelaria were joined as co-defendants, but the case
against the appellant was separately tried
HOW DID THE COURT REOLVED THE CASE
The offense committed in this case falls under article 301 of the Penal Code, and in view of
the aggravating circumstance that the appellant availed himself in the commission of this
offense of his official position as employee of the Supreme Court, no error was committed
in placing the penalty of imprisonment in the maximum degree of the penalty specified in
said article.
The judgment appealed from will therefore be affirmed, and it is so ordered, with costs
against the appellant.

CASE NAME: US VS CHUA MO 23 PHIL 233

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

That on or about January 16, 1915, on board the steamship Isidoro Pons, lying at anchor in
the Pasig River in front of Magallanes Landing within the jurisdiction of this court and in
the city of Manila, Philippine Islands, the said accused willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously
had in his possession and control two kilos and three hundred and seventy grams of
cocaine. Contrary to the law."cralaw virtua1aw library. Following the filing of the
complaint, the defendant was arrested, arraigned, tried, found guilty of the crime charged
in the complaint, and sentenced to three months in prison and a P500 fine, with subsidiary
imprisonment in the event of insolvency, as well as to pay the costs. The defendant filed an
appeal from that sentence in this court. The only error he assigns here is that the evidence
fails to show that the crime charged against him was committed within the jurisdiction of
the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila. The appellant makes no contention that he was
not in the possession of the opium described in the complaint. An examination of the proof shows
that on the 16th of January, 1915, the steamship Isidiro Pons was at Magallanes Landing, and that
the defendant left the said package in a box on the ship. A policeman opened the box in which the
package had been placed and there found the opium in question.

ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED BY THE COURT

This defendant is accused of violating Act No. 2381. Following the filing of the complaint,
the defendant was arrested, arraigned, tried, and found guilty of the crime charged in the
complaint, and sentenced to three months in prison and a P500 fine, with subsidiary
imprisonment in the event of insolvency, plus costs. Based on that sentence, the defendant
filed an appeal with this court..

HOW DID THE COURT RESOLVED THE CASE

There being no question as to the defendant's guilt or the penalty imposed by the lower
court, and having concluded that the error assigned had not been committed by the lower
court, we believe the sentence appealed from should be affirmed, with costs. So it was
ordered.

CASE NAME: PEOPLE VS MACASLIG 223 SCRA 630

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Evidence of record shows that Lt. Manuel Obrera, Chief of the Narcotics and Intelligence Division,
Integrated National Police, Baguio City, was asked for help in apprehending an alleged drug dealer.
Appellant Macasling had agreed with a Chinese businessman to deliver about 250 grams of shabu at
Room 77 of the Hyatt Terraces Hotel. Lt. Obrera formed a team which include Pat. Ramoncito
Bueno, Pat. Martel Nillo and himself and hastily left for the hotel where they were met by the
Narcom Chief who informed them that appellant had agreed to deliver the drugs. Appellant and
Editha Gagarin were brought to Camp Bado, Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet, where the fact of their
arrest was officially recorded. They were later transferred to the Baguio City Jail as detention
prisoners. The crystalline granules were forwarded to the INP Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame,
Quezon City, for examination. All tests showed the presence of metamphetamine hydrochloride, the
scientific name of the substance popularly called shabu.

ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED BY THE CASE

Hilario Macasling, Jr. appeals from the Decision of the Regional Trial Court which sentenced
him to suffer life imprisonment, to pay a fine and costs of litigation.

HOW DID THE CASE RESOLVED THE CASE

Wherefore, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court Baguio City, in Criminal Case No. 5936-
R is hereby affirmed in toto. No pronouncement as to costs.

CASE NAME: PEOPLE VS SENSOR 121 VS SCRA

141
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
On May 22, 1981, at about 9:15 in the evening, a police team composed of Cpt. Guitar, Cpl.
Jacinto Luna. Pat. Jose Federes and Pat. Romeo Joves went to Leverize Street to extrap and
apprehend the suspected drug pushers. Guitar fetched the informont, a boy of about twelve
to thirteen years old, whom he had earlier recruited to act as their poseur-buyer. The boy
lived a few blocks away. At about 9:30 Pm the police informeant turned pseudo-buyer
approached appellant Capoxport to buy marijuana with a marked Pro.00 bill. At that time.
Caponpon was standing alone in front of his house at 620 Interior 26. Leveriza ct., Malate,
Manila. Meanwhile, the members of the police term positioned themselves at a vontage
point in front of a store about five to ter meters away from where Caponpon stood. They
saw the informont give the marked money to Caponpon, after which latter handed over to
the buyer one (small plastic packet. The young informant touched his hair at the back of his
head to signal that the sale had been completed. Immediately, the arresting team swooped
down on Caponport. The plastic packet was turned over by the poseur-buyer to Pat. Joves
while the Pro. 00 bilt marked by four (4) dots at the four (4) corners was retrieved by Cpl.
Guitare from the right front pocket of Caponpon's pants. Caponpon the accompanied the
police officers to the house which he shared with Legazpi and surrendered nine (9) other
packets containing suspected marijuana leaves hidden behind the staircase. 3 Caponpon
was taken to the Westent Police District Station No. 5 at United Nations Avenue for
interrogation. Appellant subsequently executed a swort statement admitting that he sold
marijuara to the poseur-buyer.

ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED BY THE COURT

This is an appeal by Arsenio Caponpon y Marzo from the decision of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 27 of Manila, in Criminal Case No. 61820, which found him guilty of peddling
prohibited drugs in violation of Section 4, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, otherwise
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act, and sentenced him to life imprisonment, a P20,000.00
fine, and costs.

HOW DID THE COURT RESOLVED THE CASE

Wherefore, the appealed decision in Criminal Case No. 61820 is reversed and set aside.
Accused-appellant Arsenio Caponpon is hereby acquitted on reasonable doubt.

FLUERMER VS HIX 54 PHIL 610

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
An application for probate of the will of Edward Randolph Hix was filed on February 20,
1929. Petitioner who is the special administrator of the estate of Edward Randolph alleged
that the will was executed in Elkins, West Virginia, on November 3, 1925, by Hix who
resided therein. Petitioner submitted a copy of Section 3868 of Acts 1882, c.84 as found in
West Virginia Code, Annotated by Hogg, Charles E., vol. 2, 1914, p1690 and as certified to
by the Director of the National Library.

ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED BY THE COURT

The special administrator of the estate of Edward Randolph Hix appeals from a decision of
Judge of First Instance Tuason denying the probate of the document alleged to by the last
will and testament of the deceased. Appellee is not authorized to carry on this appeal. We
think, however, that the appellant, who appears to have been the moving party in these
proceedings, was a "person interested in the allowance or disallowance of a will by a Court
of First Instance," and so should be permitted to appeal to the Supreme Court from the
disallowance of the will (Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 781, as amended; Villanueva vs. De
Leon [1925], 42 Phil., 780.

HOW DID THE COURT RESOLVED THE CASE

Reference has been made by the parties to a divorce purported to have been awarded
Edward Randolph Hix from Annie Cousins Hix on October 8, 1925, in the State of West
specific pronouncements on the validity or validity of this alleged divorce.
For all of the foregoing, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed, with the costs of this
instance against the appellant.