Lawyerly

GR No. 215731

2015-09-02

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Before us is an appeal[1] from the June 10, 2014 Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05885 modifying the November 27, 2012 Decision[3] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 127, Caloocan City, finding appellant Rolando Carrera guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5,[4] Article II, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165[5] or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

GR No. 205926

2015-07-22

ALVIN COMERCIANTE Y GONZALES v. PEOPLE

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari[1] are the Decision[2] dated October 20, 2011 and the Resolution[3] dated February 19, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 32813, which affirmed in toto the Judgment[4] dated July 28, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 213 (RTC) in Crim. Case No. MC-03-7242-D convicting petitioner Alvin Comerciante y Gonzales (Comerciante) of the crime of illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs defined and penalized under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165,[5] otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

GR No. 212160

2015-02-04

PEOPLE v. DENNIS SUMILI

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Before the Court is an ordinary appeal[1] assailing the Decision[2] dated January 29, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01075, which affirmed in toto the Decision[3] dated August 10, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court of Iligan City, Branch 3 (RTC) in Crim. Case No. 12595 finding accused-appellant Dennis Sumili (Sumili) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5,[4] Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165,[5] otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."

GR No. 207664

2014-06-25

PEOPLE v. GIL SALVIDAR Y GARLAN

REYES, J.

For review[1] is the Decision[2] rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) on October 31, 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04989 affirming, albeit with modification as to the wordings of one of the penalties imposed, the Decision[3] dated April 11, 2011 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 120 in Criminal Case Nos. C-78532-33, convicting Gil Salvidar y Garlan (accused-appellant) for violation of Sections 5[4] and 11,[5] Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.[6]

GR No. 192816

2011-07-06

PEOPLE v. JOEL GASPAR Y WILSON

CARPIO, J.

Before the Court is an appeal assailing the Decision[1] dated 16 March 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02117. The CA affirmed with modification the Decision[2] dated 3 February 2006 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig, Branch 70, in Criminal Case Nos. 12840-D, 12841-D, 12842-D, convicting appellant Joel Gaspar y Wilson of violation of (1) Section 5, paragraph 1, Article II (Illegal Sale of Shabu);[3] (2) Section 11, 2nd paragraph, No. 3, Article II (Illegal Possession of Shabu);[4] and (3) Section 12, Article II (Possession of Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs),[5] all of Republic Act No. 9165[6] (RA 9165) or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

GR No. 192235

2011-07-06

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO LAYLO Y CEPRES

CARPIO, J.

Before the Court is an appeal assailing the Decision[1] dated 28 January 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03631. The CA affirmed the Decision[2] dated 16 September 2008 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Binangonan, Rizal, Branch 67, in Criminal Case No. 06-017, convicting appellant Rolando Laylo y Cepres (Laylo) of violation of Section 26(b), Article II (Attempted Sale of Dangerous Drugs)[3] of Republic Act No. 9165[4] (RA 9165) or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

GR No. 186470

2010-09-27

PEOPLE v. WILLIE MIDENILLA Y ALABOSO

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

On appeal is the Decision[1] dated August 27, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02741 which affirmed with modification the Joint Decision[2] dated March 26, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Caloocan City, Branch 127 finding appellants Ricky Delos Santos y Milarpes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5[3] and II[4] of Article II, Republic Act (RA) No. 9165[5] or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and Roberto Delos Santos y Milarpes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of the same law.

GR No. 172589

2010-08-08

JEFFREY NACAGUE v. SULPICIO LINES

CARPIO, J.

Nacague maintains that the S.M. Lazo Clinic drug test was not credible because Sulpicio Lines failed to show that S.M. Lazo Clinic is an authorized drug testing center. Nacague also alleges that the urine samples were gathered carelessly without proper labels to identify their owners and that S.M. Lazo Clinic did not ask Nacague if he was taking any medication that might alter the results of the drug test. [17]Nacague adds that Republic Act No. 9165[18] (R.A. No. 9165) and the Department of Labor and Employment Order No. 53-03[19] (Department Order No. 53-03) require two drug tests -- a screening test and a confirmatory test. Nacague maintains that, since only a screening test was conducted, he was illegally dismissed based on an incomplete drug test. Nacague argues that Sulpicio Lines failed to discharge its burden of proving that the termination of his employment was legal.

GR No. 187737

2010-07-05

PEOPLE v. ALIODING SULTAN

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Assailed before this Honorable Court is the October 17, 2008 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02646. The CA affirmed the August 28, 2006 Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Laoag City, Branch 13 finding appellant Alioding Sultan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5,[3] Article II of Republic Act No. 9165[4] or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."

GR No. 187070

2010-02-24

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO TAMAYO Y TENA

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

For review is the Decision [1] dated April 21, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01850, which affirmed the Joint Decision [2] dated December 27, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 103 in Criminal Case Nos. Q-03-117407 and Q-03-117408. The trial court convicted appellant Rolando Tamayo y Tena of violation of Sections 5 [3] and 11 [4] of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 [5] and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay the fine of P500,000.00 in Criminal Case No. Q-03-117407, and to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay the fine of P500,000.00 in Criminal Case No. Q-03-117408.

GR No. 177164

2009-06-30

PEOPLE v. RAMON FRONDOZO Y DALIDA

QUISUMBING, J.

No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.[4]

GR No. 171729

2008-07-28

PEOPLE v. RICARDO BOHOL Y CABRINO

QUISUMBING, J.

On appeal is the Decision[1] dated September 23, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01247 affirming the Decision[2] dated March 7, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 35, in Criminal Cases Nos. 02-205461 and 02-205462. The RTC had convicted appellant Ricardo Bohol (Bohol) of violating Sections 11 (3)[3] and 5,[4] Article II, respectively, of Republic Act No. 9165[5] also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

GR No. 168546

2008-07-23

MICHAEL PADUA v. PEOPLE

QUISUMBING, J.

On June 16, 2003, petitioner Michael Padua and Edgar Allan Ubalde were charged before the RTC, Branch 168, Pasig City of violating Section 5,[5] Article II of Republic Act No. 9165,[6] otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," for selling dangerous drugs.[7] The Information reads:The Prosecution, through the undersigned Public Prosecutor, charges Edgar Allan Ubalde y Velchez a.k.a. "Allan" and Michael Padua y Tordel a.k.a. "Mike", with the crime of violation of Sec. 5, Art. II, Republic Act No. 9165 in relation to R.A. [No.] 8369, Sec. 5 par. (a) and (i), committed as follows:

GR NO. 150251

2007-11-23

CAYETANO CAPANGPANGAN v. PEOPLE

VELASCO, JR., J.

The essence of the crime penalized under PD 1866, as amended, is primarily the accused's lack of license or permit to carry or possess the firearm, as possession itself is not prohibited by law.[12] In the instant case, the prosecution has duly proven that petitioner has no license or permit to possess the seized contraband. The Certification dated January 23, 1998 issued by SPO1 Regis, Assistant Team Leader of the 90th Civil Security Team, PNP Headquarters, Iligan City, pertinently enunciates: This is to certify that as per verification of records filed from this office as of [sic] Iligan City area, their [sic] is no name of Cayetano "Tano" Capangpangan appears [sic] in computerized firearm license as of this date.

GR NO. 143705

2007-02-23

RUBY DIMACUHA Y EBREO v. PEOPLE

GARCIA, J.

We found the penalty imposed by the trial court as affirmed by the CA to be correct. Although the Congress later enacted an amendatory law, R.A. No. 9165,[15] which increased the penalty for illegal possession of 10 grams or more but less than 50 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00),[16] and for the sale/delivery of dangerous drugs from life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand (P500,000.00) to ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) regardless of the quantity and purity involved,[17] the said law is not favorable to the petitioner, hence, it cannot be given retroactive application in the instant case.

GR NO. 171449

2006-10-23

PEOPLE v. JOSE D. LARA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As regards the special aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm in a murder or homicide, same cannot also be considered. Inasmuch as the use of an unlicensed firearm is now considered as a special aggravating circumstance which would not merit the imposition of the supreme penalty of death, the same must be specially alleged in the Information.[41] The Information in Criminal Case No. 97-13706 failed to allege this circumstance.

	GR No. 215731 2015-09-02	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO CARRERA Y IMBAT VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Before us is an appeal[1] from the June 10, 2014 Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05885 modifying the November 27, 2012 Decision[3] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 127, Caloocan City, finding appellant Rolando Carrera guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5,[4] Article II, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165[5] or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
	GR No. 205926 2015-07-22	ALVIN COMERCIANTE Y GONZALES v. PEOPLE PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari[1] are the Decision[2] dated October 20, 2011 and the Resolution[3] dated February 19, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 32813, which affirmed in toto the Judgment[4] dated July 28, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 213 (RTC) in Crim. Case No. MC-03-7242-D convicting petitioner Alvin Comerciante y Gonzales (Comerciante) of the crime of illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs defined and penalized under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165,[5] otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
	GR No. 212160 2015-02-04	PEOPLE v. DENNIS SUMILI PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Before the Court is an ordinary appeal[1] assailing the Decision[2] dated January 29, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01075, which affirmed in toto the Decision[3] dated August 10, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court of Iligan City, Branch 3 (RTC) in Crim. Case No. 12595 finding accused-appellant Dennis Sumili (Sumili) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5,[4] Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165,[5] otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
	GR No. 207664 2014-06-25	PEOPLE v. GIL SALVIDAR Y GARLAN REYES, J.
For review[1] is the Decision[2] rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) on October 31, 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04989 affirming, albeit with modification as to the wordings of one of the penalties imposed, the Decision[3] dated April 11, 2011 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 120 in Criminal Case Nos. C-78532-33, convicting Gil Salvidar y Garlan (accused-appellant) for violation of Sections 5[4] and 11,[5] Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.[6]
	GR No. 192816 2011-07-06	PEOPLE v. JOEL GASPAR Y WILSON CARPIO, J.
Before the Court is an appeal assailing the Decision[1] dated 16 March 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02117. The CA affirmed with modification the Decision[2] dated 3 February 2006 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig, Branch 70, in Criminal Case Nos. 12840-D, 12841-D, 12842-D, convicting appellant Joel Gaspar y Wilson of violation of (1) Section 5, paragraph 1, Article II (Illegal Sale of Shabu);[3] (2) Section 11, 2nd paragraph, No. 3, Article II (Illegal Possession of Shabu);[4] and (3) Section 12, Article II (Possession of Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs),[5] all of Republic Act No. 9165[6] (RA 9165) or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
	GR No. 192235 2011-07-06	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO LAYLO Y CEPRES CARPIO, J.
Before the Court is an appeal assailing the Decision[1] dated 28 January 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03631. The CA affirmed the Decision[2] dated 16 September 2008 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Binangonan, Rizal, Branch 67, in Criminal Case No. 06-017, convicting appellant Rolando Laylo y Cepres (Laylo) of violation of Section 26(b), Article II (Attempted Sale of Dangerous Drugs)[3] of Republic Act No. 9165[4] (RA 9165) or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
	GR No. 186470 2010-09-27	PEOPLE v. WILLIE MIDENILLA Y ALABOSO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
On appeal is the Decision[1] dated August 27, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02741 which affirmed with modification the Joint Decision[2] dated March 26, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Caloocan City, Branch 127 finding appellants Ricky Delos Santos y Milarpes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5[3] and II[4] of Article II, Republic Act (RA) No. 9165[5] or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and Roberto Delos Santos y Milarpes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of the same law.
	GR No. 172589 2010-08-08	JEFFREY NACAGUE v. SULPICIO LINES CARPIO, J.
Nacague maintains that the S.M. Lazo Clinic drug test was not credible because Sulpicio Lines failed to show that S.M. Lazo Clinic is an authorized drug testing center. Nacague also alleges that the urine samples were gathered carelessly without proper labels to identify their owners and that S.M. Lazo Clinic did not ask Nacague if he was taking any medication that might alter the results of the drug test. [17]Nacague adds that Republic Act No. 9165[18] (R.A. No. 9165) and the Department of Labor and Employment Order No. 53-03[19] (Department Order No. 53-03) require two drug tests -- a screening test and a confirmatory test. Nacague maintains that, since only a screening test was conducted, he was illegally dismissed based on an incomplete drug test. Nacague argues that Sulpicio Lines failed to discharge its burden of proving that the termination of his employment was legal.
	GR No. 187737 2010-07-05	PEOPLE v. ALIODING SULTAN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Assailed before this Honorable Court is the October 17, 2008 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02646. The CA affirmed the August 28, 2006 Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Laoag City, Branch 13 finding appellant Alioding Sultan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5,[3] Article II of Republic Act No. 9165[4] or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
	GR No. 187070 2010-02-24	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO TAMAYO Y TENA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
For review is the Decision [1] dated April 21, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01850, which affirmed the Joint Decision [2] dated December 27, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 103 in Criminal Case Nos. Q-03-117407 and Q-03-117408. The trial court convicted appellant Rolando Tamayo y Tena of violation of Sections 5 [3] and 11 [4] of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 [5] and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay the fine of P500,000.00 in Criminal Case No. Q-03-117407, and to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay the fine of P500,000.00 in Criminal Case No. Q-03-117408.
	GR No. 177164 2009-06-30	PEOPLE v. RAMON FRONDOZO Y DALIDA QUISUMBING, J.
No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.[4]
	GR No. 171729 2008-07-28	PEOPLE v. RICARDO BOHOL Y CABRINO QUISUMBING, J.
On appeal is the Decision[1] dated September 23, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01247 affirming the Decision[2] dated March 7, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 35, in Criminal Cases Nos. 02-205461 and 02-205462. The RTC had convicted appellant Ricardo Bohol (Bohol) of violating Sections 11 (3)[3] and 5,[4] Article II, respectively, of Republic Act No. 9165[5] also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
	GR No. 168546 2008-07-23	MICHAEL PADUA v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
On June 16, 2003, petitioner Michael Padua and Edgar Allan Ubalde were charged before the RTC, Branch 168, Pasig City of violating Section 5,[5] Article II of Republic Act No. 9165,[6] otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," for selling dangerous drugs.[7] The Information reads:The Prosecution, through the undersigned Public Prosecutor, charges Edgar Allan Ubalde y Velchez a.k.a. "Allan" and Michael Padua y Tordel a.k.a. "Mike", with the crime of violation of Sec. 5, Art. II, Republic Act No. 9165 in relation to R.A. [No.] 8369, Sec. 5 par. (a) and (i), committed as follows:
	GR NO. 150251 2007-11-23	CAYETANO CAPANGPANGAN v. PEOPLE VELASCO, JR., J.
The essence of the crime penalized under PD 1866, as amended, is primarily the accused's lack of license or permit to carry or possess the firearm, as possession itself is not prohibited by law.[12] In the instant case, the prosecution has duly proven that petitioner has no license or permit to possess the seized contraband. The Certification dated January 23, 1998 issued by SPO1 Regis, Assistant Team Leader of the 90th Civil Security Team, PNP Headquarters, Iligan City, pertinently enunciates: This is to certify that as per verification of records filed from this office as of [sic] Iligan City area, their [sic] is no name of Cayetano "Tano" Capangpangan appears [sic] in computerized firearm license as of this date.
	GR NO. 143705 2007-02-23	RUBY DIMACUHA Y EBREO v. PEOPLE GARCIA, J.
We found the penalty imposed by the trial court as affirmed by the CA to be correct. Although the Congress later enacted an amendatory law, R.A. No. 9165,[15] which increased the penalty for illegal possession of 10 grams or more but less than 50 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00),[16] and for the sale/delivery of dangerous drugs from life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand (P500,000.00) to ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) regardless of the quantity and purity involved,[17] the said law is not favorable to the petitioner, hence, it cannot be given retroactive application in the instant case.
	GR NO. 171449 2006-10-23	PEOPLE v. JOSE D. LARA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As regards the special aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm in a murder or homicide, same cannot also be considered. Inasmuch as the use of an unlicensed firearm is now considered as a special aggravating circumstance which would not merit the imposition of the supreme penalty of death, the same must be specially alleged in the Information.[41] The Information in Criminal Case No. 97-13706 failed to allege this circumstance.

PEOPLE v. PROCULO MEJECA Y MONTALLANA