Bongalon vs. People

3/8/23, 9:54 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 694 3/8/23, 9:54 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME
/8/23, 9:54 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 694
raison d’etre for the rule is when a court exercises its jurisdiction,
an error committed while so engaged does not deprived it of the
jurisdiction being exercised when the error is committed. If it did,
every error committed by a court would deprive it of its
jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void
judgment. In such a scenario, the administration of justice would
not survive. Hence, where the issue or question involved affects
G.R. No. 169533. March 20, 2013.* the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision―not the jurisdiction
GEORGE BONGALON, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE of the court to render said decision―the same is beyond the
PHILIPPINES, respondent. province of a special civil action for certiorari. The proper recourse
of the aggrieved party from a decision of the Court of Appeals is a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised
Remedial Law; Special Civil Actions; Certiorari; The special
Rules of Court.
civil action for certiorari is intended for the correction of errors of
jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or Same; Civil Procedure; Appeals; It is of no consequence that
excess of jurisdiction. Its principal office is only to keep the inferior the petitioner alleges grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
court within the parameters of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from Court of Appeals in his petition. The allegation of grave abuse of
committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or discretion no more warrants the granting of due course to the
excess of jurisdiction.—At the outset, we should observe that the petition as one for certiorari if appeal was available as a proper
petitioner has adopted the wrong remedy in assailing the CA’s and adequate remedy.—It is of no consequence that the petitioner
affirmance of his conviction. His proper recourse from the alleges grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA in his
affirmance of his conviction was an appeal taken in due course. petition. The allegation of grave abuse of discretion no more
Hence, he should have filed a petition for review on certiorari. warrants the granting of due course to the petition as one for
Instead, he wrongly brought a petition for certiorari. We certiorari if appeal was available as a proper and adequate
explained why in People v. Court of Appeals, 423 SCRA 605 remedy. At any rate, a reading of his presentation of the issues in
(2004): The special civil action for certiorari is intended for the his petition indicates that he thereby imputes to the CA errors of
correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion judgment, not errors of jurisdiction. He mentions instances
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Its principal office is attendant during the commission of the crime that he claims were
only to keep the inferior court within the parameters of its really constitutive of justifying and mitigating circumstances; and
jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of specifies reasons why he believes Republic Act No. 7610 favors his
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. As observed innocence rather than his guilt for the crime charged. The errors
in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, et al., “the he thereby underscores in the petition concerned only the CA’s
special civil action for certiorari is a remedy designed for the appreciation and assessment of the evidence on record, which
correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. The really are errors of judgment, not of jurisdiction.
Criminal Law; Slight Physical Injuries; Considering that
_______________ Jayson’s physical injury required five to seven days of medical
attention, the petitioner was liable for slight physical injuries
* FIRST DIVISION.
under Article 266 (1) of the Revised Penal Code.—Considering that
Jayson’s physical injury required five to seven days of medical
13 attention, the petitioner was liable for slight physical injuries
under Article 266 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, to wit: Article
266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment.―The crime of
VOL. 694, MARCH 20, 2013 13
slight physical injuries shall be pun-
Bongalon vs, People
14
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000186c184b591a938e05f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/14 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000186c184b591a938e05f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/14

3/8/23, 9:54 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 694 3/8/23, 9:54 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 694
14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Bongalon vs, People
Bongalon vs, People Act No. 7610.1 Only when the laying of hands is shown
beyond reasonable doubt to be intended by the accused to
ished: 1. By arresto menor when the offender has inflicted debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity
physical injuries which shall incapacitate the offended party for of the child as a human being should it be punished as
labor from one to nine days, or shall require medical attendance child abuse. Otherwise, it is punished under the Revised
during the same period. Penal Code.
Same; Same; Penalties; The penalty for slight physical
The Case
injuries is arresto menor, which ranges from one day to 30 days of
On June 22, 2005,2 the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed
imprisonment.—The penalty for slight physical injuries is arresto
the conviction of the petitioner for the crime of child abuse
menor, which ranges from one day to 30 days of imprisonment. In
under Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610.
imposing the correct penalty, however, we have to consider the
Antecedents
mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation under Article
On June 26, 2000, the Prosecutor’s Office of Legazpi City
13 (6) of the Revised Penal Code, because the petitioner lost his
charged the petitioner in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in
reason and self-control, thereby diminishing the exercise of his
Legazpi City with child abuse, an act in violation of Section
will power. Passion or obfuscation may lawfully arise from causes
10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610, alleging as follows:
existing only in the honest belief of the accused. It is relevant to That on or about the 11th day of May 2000, in the City of
mention, too, that in passion or obfuscation, the offender suffers a Legazpi Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
diminution of intelligence and intent. With his having acted Court, the above-named accused, did then and there wilfully,
under the belief that Jayson and Roldan had thrown stones at his unlawfully and feloniously commit on the person of JAYSON
two minor daughters, and that Jayson had burned Cherrlyn’s DELA CRUZ, a twelve year-old, Grade VI pupil of MABA
hair, the petitioner was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of Institute, Legazpi City, acts of physical abuse and/or
passion. Arresto menor is prescribed in its minimum period (i.e., maltreatment by striking said JAYSON DELA CRUZ with his
one day to 10 days) in the absence of any aggravating palm hitting the latter at his back and by slapping said minor
circumstance that offset the mitigating circumstance of passion. hitting his left cheek and uttering derogatory remarks to the
Accordingly, with the Indeterminate Sentence Law being latter’s family to wit: “Mga hayop kamo, para dayo kamo digdi,
inapplicable due to the penalty imposed not exceeding one year, Iharap mo dito ama mo” (You all animals, you are all strangers
the petitioner shall suffer a straight penalty of 10 days of arresto here. Bring your father here), which acts of the accused are
menor. prejudicial to the child’s development and which demean the
intrinsic worth and dignity of the said child as a human being.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.
Certiorari.
_______________
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
1 Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Oliver O. Olaybal for petitioner.
Discrimination Act (Approved on June 17, 1992).
The Solicitor General for respondent.
2 Rollo, pp. 18-31; penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico (retired), with
BERSAMIN, J.: Associate Justice Danilo B. Pine (retired) and Associate Justice Arcangelita
Not every instance of the laying of hands on a child Romilla-Lontok (retired) concurring.
constitutes the crime of child abuse under Section 10 (a) of 16

Republic
15 16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Bongalon vs, People
VOL. 694, MARCH 20, 2013 15
CONTRARY TO LAW.3 Bongalon vs, People
The Prosecution showed that on May 11, 2002, Jayson

To corroborate the petitioner’s testimony, Mary Ann
Dela Cruz (Jayson) and Roldan, his older brother, both
Rose testified that her father did not hit or slap but only
minors, joined the evening procession for the Santo Niño at
confronted Jayson, asking why Jayson had called her
Oro Site in Legazpi City; that when the procession passed
daughters “Kimi” and why he had burned Cherrlyn’s hair.
in front of the petitioner’s house, the latter’s daughter
Mary Ann Rose denied throwing stones at Jayson and
Mary Ann Rose, also a minor, threw stones at Jayson and
calling him a “sissy.” She insisted that it was instead
called him “sissy”; that the petitioner confronted Jayson
Jayson who had pelted her with stones during the
and Roldan and called them names like “strangers” and
procession. She described the petitioner as a loving and
“animals”; that the petitioner struck Jayson at the back
protective father.8
with his hand, and slapped Jayson on the face;4 that the
Ruling of the RTC
petitioner then went to the brothers’ house and challenged
After trial, the RTC found and declared the petitioner
Rolando dela Cruz, their father, to a fight, but Rolando did
guilty of child abuse as charged, to wit:9
not come out of the house to take on the petitioner; that
Rolando later brought Jayson to the Legazpi City Police WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations,
Station and reported the incident; that Jayson also judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused GEORGE
underwent medical treatment at the Bicol Regional BONGALON @ “GI” GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
Training and Teaching Hospital;5 that the doctors who Violation of Republic Act No. 7610, and is hereby ordered to
examined Jayson issued two medical certificates attesting undergo imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8)
that Jayson suffered the following contusions, to wit: (1) years of prision mayor in its minimum period.
contusion .5 x 2.5 scapular area, left; and (2) +1x1 cm. SO ORDERED.
contusion left zygomatic area and contusion .5 x 2.33 cm.
scapular area, left.6 Ruling of the CA
On his part, the petitioner denied having physically On appeal, the petitioner assailed the credibility of the
abused or maltreated Jayson. He explained that he only Prosecution witnesses by citing their inconsistencies. He
talked with Jayson and Roldan after Mary Ann Rose and contended that the RTC overlooked or disregarded material
Cherrylyn, his minor daughters, had told him about Jayson facts and circumstances in the records that would have led
and Roldan’s throwing stones at them and about Jayson’s to a favorable judgment for him. He attacked the lack of
burning Cherrylyn’s hair. He denied shouting invectives at credibility of the witnesses presented against him, citing
and challenging Rolando to a fight, insisting that he only the failure of the complaining brothers to react to the
told Rolando to restrain his sons from harming his incident, which was unnatural and contrary to human
daughters.7 experience.
The CA affirmed the conviction, but modified the
_______________ penalty,10 viz.:
3 Records, pp. 1-2.
4 TSN, June 4, 2001, pp. 9-11. _______________
5 TSN, February 6, 2001, pp. 6-21. 8 TSN, June 28, 2002, pp. 7-16.
6 TSN, October 19, 2001, pp. 3-12. 9 Records, pp. 301-304.
7 TSN, March 10, 2003, pp. 6-9.
18
17
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 694, MARCH 20, 2013 17 Bongalon vs, People

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision dated action for certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of
October 20, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 9 of Legazpi errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. The raison d’etre
City is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that for the rule is when a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error
accused-appellant George Bongalon is sentenced to suffer the committed while so engaged does not deprived it of the
indeterminate penalty of (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day jurisdiction being exercised when the error is committed. If it did,
of prision correccional, as minimum term, to six (6) years, eight every error committed by a court would deprive it of its
(8) months and 1 day of prision mayor as the maximum term. jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void
Further, accused-appellant is ordered to pay the victim, Jayson judgment. In such a scenario, the administration of justice would
de la Cruz the additional amount of P5,000 as moral damages. not survive. Hence, where the issue or question involved affects
SO ORDERED. the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision―not the jurisdiction
of the court to render said decision―the same is beyond the
Issues province of a special civil action for certiorari. The proper recourse
The petitioner has come to the Court via a petition for of the aggrieved party from a decision of the Court of Appeals is a
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.11 petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised
The petitioner asserts that he was not guilty of the Rules of Court.
crime charged; and that even assuming that he was guilty,
his liability should be mitigated because he had merely It is of no consequence that the petitioner alleges grave
acted to protect her two minor daughters. abuse of discretion on the part of the CA in his petition.
Ruling of the Court The allegation of grave abuse of discretion no more
At the outset, we should observe that the petitioner has warrants the granting of due course to the petition as one
adopted the wrong remedy in assailing the CA’s affirmance for certiorari if appeal was available as a proper and
of his conviction. His proper recourse from the affirmance adequate remedy. At any rate, a reading of his presentation
of his conviction was an appeal taken in due course. Hence, of the issues in his petition indicates that he thereby
he should have filed a petition for review on certiorari. imputes to the CA errors of judgment, not errors of
Instead, he wrongly brought a petition for certiorari. We jurisdiction. He mentions instances attendant during the
explained why in People v. Court of Appeals:12 commission of the crime that he claims were really
constitutive of justifying and mitigating circumstances; and
The special civil action for certiorari is intended for the specifies reasons why he believes Republic Act No. 7610
correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion favors his innocence rather than his guilt for the crime
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Its principal office is charged.13 The errors he thereby underscores in the
only petition concerned only the CA’s appreciation and
assessment of the evidence on record, which really are
_______________ errors of judgment, not of jurisdiction.
10 Supra note 2.
11 Rollo, pp. 3-17.
_______________
12 G.R. No. 142051, February 24, 2004, 423 SCRA 605, 612-613.
13 Rollo, pp. 10-14.
19
20
VOL. 694, MARCH 20, 2013 19

Bongalon vs, People
Bongalon vs, People
to keep the inferior court within the parameters of its jurisdiction
or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion Even if we were to treat the petition as one brought
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. As observed in Land under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, it would still be
Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, et al. “the special civil defective due to its being filed beyond the period provided
by law. Section 2 of Rule 45 requires the filing of the pensation of justice in the case now awaiting our
petition within 15 days from the notice of judgment to be consideration.
appealed. However, the petitioner received a copy of the The petitioner’s right to liberty is in jeopardy. He may
CA’s decision on July 15, 2005,14 but filed the petition only be entirely deprived of such birthright without due process
on September 12, 2005,15 or well beyond the period of law unless we shunt aside the rigidity of the rules of
prescribed by the Rules of Court. procedure and review his case. Hence, we treat this
The procedural transgressions of the petitioner recourse as an appeal timely brought to the Court.
notwithstanding, we opt to forego quickly dismissing the Consonant with the basic rule in criminal procedure that
petition, and instead set ourselves upon the task of an appeal opens the whole case for review, we should deem
resolving the issues posed by the petition on their merits. it our duty to correct errors in the appealed judgment,
We cannot fairly and justly ignore his plea about the whether assigned or not.17
sentence imposed on him not being commensurate to the The law under which the petitioner was charged, tried
wrong he committed. His plea is worthy of another long and found guilty of violating is Section 10 (a), Article VI of
and hard look. If, on the other hand, we were to outrightly Republic Act No. 7610, which relevantly states:
dismiss his plea because of the procedural lapses he has
committed, the Court may be seen as an unfeeling tribunal Section 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or
of last resort willing to sacrifice justice in order to give Exploitation and other Conditions Prejudicial to the Child’s
premium to the rigidity of its rules of procedure. But the Development.―
Rules of Court has not been intended to be rigidly enforced (a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child
at all times. Rather, it has been instituted first and abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be responsible for other
foremost to ensure justice to every litigant. Indeed, its conditions prejudicial to the child’s development including those
announced objective has been to secure a “just, speedy and covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended,
inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.”16 but not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall
This objective will be beyond realization here unless the suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.
Rules of Court be given liberal construction and application x x x x
as the noble ends of justice demand. Thereby, we give
Child abuse, the crime charged, is defined by Section 3
primacy to substance over form, which, to a temple of
(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, as follows:
justice and equity like the Court, now becomes the ideal
ingredient in the dis- Section 3. Definition of terms.―
x x x x
_______________ (b) “Child Abuse” refers to the maltreatment, whether
14 Id., at p. 8. habitual or not, of the child which includes any of the following:
15 Id., at p. 15. (1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual
16 Section 6, Rule 1, Rules of Court, which provides: abuse and emotional maltreatment;
Section 6. Construction.—These Rules shall be liberally construed in
order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive _______________
disposition of every action and proceeding. (2a) 17 Ferrer v. People, G.R. No. 143487, February 22, 2006, 483 SCRA 31, 54.
21 22

VOL. 694, MARCH 20, 2013 21
Bongalon vs, People
Bongalon vs, People
(2) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades
or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a
human being; liable for slight physical injuries under Article 266 (1) of
(3) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival, the Revised Penal Code, to wit:
such as food and shelter; or
(4) Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an Article 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment.―The
injured child resulting in serious impairment of his growth and crime of slight physical injuries shall be punished:
development or in his permanent incapacity or death. 1. By arresto menor when the offender has inflicted physical
x x x x injuries which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor from
one to nine days, or shall require medical attendance during the
Although we affirm the factual findings of fact by the same period.
RTC and the CA to the effect that the petitioner struck x x x x
Jayson at the back with his hand and slapped Jayson on
the face, we disagree with their holding that his acts The penalty for slight physical injuries is arresto menor,
constituted child abuse within the purview of the above- which ranges from one day to 30 days of imprisonment.20
quoted provisions. The records did not establish beyond In imposing the correct penalty, however, we have to
reasonable doubt that his laying of hands on Jayson had consider the mitigating circumstance of passion or
been intended to debase the “intrinsic worth and dignity” of obfuscation under Article 13 (6) of the Revised Penal
Jayson as a human being, or that he had thereby intended Code,21 because the petitioner lost his reason and self-
to humiliate or embarrass Jayson. The records showed the control, thereby diminishing the exercise of his will
laying of hands on Jayson to have been done at the spur of power.22 Passion or obfuscation may lawfully arise from
the moment and in anger, indicative of his being then causes existing only in the honest belief of the accused.23 It
overwhelmed by his fatherly concern for the personal safety is relevant to mention, too, that in passion or obfuscation,
of his own minor daughters who had just suffered harm at the offender suffers a diminution of intelligence and intent.
the hands of Jayson and Roldan. With the loss of his self- With his having acted under the belief that Jay-
control, he lacked that specific intent to debase, degrade or
demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a _______________
human being that was so essential in the crime of child 19 Records, p. 154.
abuse. 20 Article 27, Revised Penal Code.
It is not trite to remind that under the well-recognized 21 Article 13. Mitigating circumstances.―The following are
doctrine of pro reo every doubt is resolved in favor of the mitigating circumstances:
petitioner as the accused. Thus, the Court should consider xxx
all possible circumstances in his favor.18 6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to
What crime, then, did the petitioner commit? have produced passion or obfuscation.
xxx
_______________ 22 United States v. Salandanan, et al., 1 Phil. 464, 465 (1902).
18 Villanueva v. People, G.R. No. 160351, April 10, 2006, 487 SCRA 42, 23 Reyes, Criminal Law, The Revised Penal Code, Book One (15th
58. Edition), p. 286, citing U.S. v. Ferrer, 1 Phil. 56, 62, U.S. v. Macalintal, 2
Phil. 448, 451; and People v. Zapata, 107 Phil. 103, 109.
23
24
VOL. 694, MARCH 20, 2013 23

Bongalon vs, People
Bongalon vs, People
Considering that Jayson’s physical injury required five
to seven days of medical attention,19 the petitioner was son and Roldan had thrown stones at his two minor
daughters, and that Jayson had burned Cherrlyn’s hair,
the petitioner was entitled to the mitigating circumstance resolution of jurisdictional issues. (Reyna vs. Commission
of passion. Arresto menor is prescribed in its minimum on Audit, 642 SCRA 210 [2011])
period (i.e., one day to 10 days) in the absence of any The penalty for slight physical injuries is arresto menor
aggravating circumstance that offset the mitigating “when the offender has inflicted physical injuries which
circumstance of passion. Accordingly, with the shall incapacitate the offended party for labor from one to
Indeterminate Sentence Law being inapplicable due to the nine days, or shall require medical attendance during the
penalty imposed not exceeding one year,24 the petitioner same period.” (People vs. Lagman, 669 SCRA 512 [2012])
shall suffer a straight penalty of 10 days of arresto menor.
The award of moral damages to Jayson is appropriate. ――o0o――
Such damages are granted in criminal cases resulting in
physical injuries.25 The amount of P5,000.00 fixed by the
lower courts as moral damages is consistent with the
current jurisprudence.26
WHEREFORE, we SET ASIDE the decision of the Court
of Appeals; and ENTER a new judgment: (a) finding
© Copyright 2023 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
petitioner George Bongalon GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES
under paragraph 1, Article 266, of the Revised Penal Code;
(b) sentencing him to suffer the penalty of 10 days of
arresto menor; and (c) ordering him to pay Jayson Dela
Cruz the amount of P5,000.00 as moral damages, plus the
costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno (C.J., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,

Villarama, Jr. and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Judgment set aside.
_______________
24 Section 2, Indeterminate Sentence Law.
25 Article 2219 (1) of the Civil Code.
26 People v. Villacorta, G.R. No. 186412, September 7, 2011, 657 SCRA
270, 288.
25
VOL. 694, MARCH 20, 2013 25

Bongalon vs, People
Notes.―In the absence of grave abuse of discretion,

questions of fact cannot be raised in a petition for
certiorari, under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court; Any resort
to the said petition under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is limited to the

Bongalon vs. People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bongalon vs. People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bongalon vs. People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/8/23, 9:54 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 694 3/8/23, 9:54 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME

/8/23, 9:54 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 694

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000186c184b591a938e05f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/14 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000186c184b591a938e05f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/14

14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Bongalon vs, People

constitutes the crime of child abuse under Section 10 (a) of 16

CONTRARY TO LAW.3 Bongalon vs, People

The Prosecution showed that on May 11, 2002, Jayson

18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000186c184b591a938e05f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/14 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000186c184b591a938e05f000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/14

VOL. 694, MARCH 20, 2013 19

22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 694, MARCH 20, 2013 23

Sereno (C.J., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,

Judgment set aside.

VOL. 694, MARCH 20, 2013 25

Notes.―In the absence of grave abuse of discretion,

You might also like