Recent Cases Penned by Justice Carpio-Morales
Trillanes IV v. Pimentel, Sr., 27 Jun 2008
Political
No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,
shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong,
regardless of the stage of the criminal action.
The presumption of innocence does not carry with it the
full enjoyment of civil and political rights.
A public official can not be removed for administrative
misconduct committed during a prior term, since his re-
election to office operates as a condonation of the officer’s
previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to
remove him therefor. However, the case against petitioner
is not administrative in nature and there is no "prior term"
to speak of. Besides, the doctrine of condonation does not
apply to criminal cases.
Judge v. Yaneza, 30 Apr 2008
Political
The reason for the requirement that employees applying
for vacation leave, whenever possible, must submit in
advance their applications for vacation leave is to enable
heads of offices to make the necessary adjustments in the
work assignments among the staff so that the work may
not be hampered or paralyzed. However, mere failure to
file a leave of absence in advance does not ipso facto
render an employee administratively liable. In case the
application for vacation leave of absence is filed after the
employee reports back to work but disapproved by the
head of the agency, the employee shall not be entitled to
receive his salary corresponding to the period of his
unauthorized leave of absence. The unauthorized leave of
absence becomes punishable only if the absence is
frequent or habitual, detrimental to the service, or if the
official or employee falsified his daily time record.
Province v. Government, 14 Oct 2008
Political
[Suggestion: Read the case kahit ‘yung on the
substantive issues lang. G.R. No. 183591]
Review of standing and mootness.
The Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain
between the GRP and the MILF is a matter of public
concern which is within the coverage of the constitutional
right to information on matters of public concern.
Mactan v. Tudtud, 14 Nov 2008
Civil
The Statute of Frauds does not apply to contracts which
have been completely or partially performed. In such
contracts, the exclusion of parol evidence would promote
fraud or bad faith for it would enable the defendant to keep
the benefits already delivered by him from the transaction
in litigation, and, at the same time, evade the obligations,
responsibilities or liabilities assumed or contracted by him
thereby.
People v. Garte, 25 Nov 2008
Criminal
Whether the accused used a gun or a knife to threaten his
victim becomes immaterial as his moral ascendancy as a
father over her replaces "force and intimidation." In a rape
committed by a father against his own daughter, the
former's moral ascendancy and influence sufficiently takes
the place of violence or intimidation. Proof of force and
violence is not even essential, because the moral and
physical ascendancy of the father over his daughter is
sufficient to cow her into submission to his bestial desires.
Justimbaste v. COMELEC, 28 Nov 2008
Political
If the certificate contains a material representation which is
false, it may be challenged through a petition to deny due
course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. Material
misrepresentation as a ground to deny due course or cancel
a certificate of candidacy refers to the falsity of a statement
required to be entered therein. Concurrent with materiality
is a deliberate intention to deceive the electorate as to
one’s qualifications. The use of a name other than that
stated in the certificate of birth is not a material
misrepresentation.
A petition for disqualification based on material
misrepresentation in the certificate of candidacy is
different from an election protest. The purpose of the
latter is to ascertain whether the candidate proclaimed
elected by the board of canvassers is really the lawful
choice of the electorate.
BPI v. Tarampi, 10 Dec 2008
Remedial, Civil
The buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute
owner of the property purchased if it is not redeemed
during the period of one year after the registration of the
sale. As such, he is entitled to the possession of the
property and can demand it any time following the
consolidation of ownership in his name and the issuance of
a new TCT. In such a case, the bond required in Section 7
of Act No. 3135 is no longer necessary. Possession of the
land then becomes an absolute right of the purchaser as
confirmed owner. Upon proper application and proof of
title, the issuance of the writ of possession becomes a
ministerial duty of the court.
Topacio v. Ong, 18 Dec 2008
Remedial
The purpose of verification is simply to secure an
assurance that the allegations of the petition or complaint
have been made in good faith; or are true and correct, not
merely speculative. This requirement is simply a condition
affecting the form of pleadings, and non-compliance
therewith does not necessarily render it fatally defective.
Indeed, verification is only a formal, not a jurisdictional
requirement. Also, the Court brushes aside the defect,
insofar as the petition is concerned, of a notarial act
performed by one who is disqualified by reason of
consanguinity, without prejudice to any administrative
complaint that may be filed against the notary public.
While denominated as a petition for certiorari and
prohibition, the petition partakes of the nature of a quo
warranto proceeding with respect to Ong, for it effectively
seeks to declare null and void his appointment as an
Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan for being
unconstitutional. While the petition professes to be one for
certiorari and prohibition, petitioner even adverts to a "quo
warranto" aspect of the petition. Being a collateral attack
on a public officer’s title, the present petition for certiorari
and prohibition must be dismissed.
People v. Cardenas, 10 Feb 2009
Criminal
To constitute estafa, the issuance of a rubber check should
be the means to obtain money or property from the payee.
During A’s transactions since 1991 with B, A usually
issued postdated checks after jewelry was turned over to
her. In fact some of the postdated checks previously
issued were dishonored but were not made subject of
criminal complaints. Appellant did not thus have to assure
B that the check subject of the Information would be
funded on maturity to convince her to part off with the
jewelry. The issuance of the check was not the means to
obtain the jewelry. Appellant did not thus employ fraud
and thus, no estafa was commited.
Escasinas v. Shangri-la, 4 Mar 2009
Labor
The Labor Code does not require the engagement of full-
time nurses as regular employees of a company employing
not less than 50 workers. Under Article 157, Shangri-la,
which employs more than 200 workers, is mandated to
"furnish" its employees with the services of a full-time
registered nurse, a part-time physician and dentist, and an
emergency clinic. This means that it should provide or
make available such medical and allied services to its
employees, not necessarily to hire or employ a service
provider.
People v. Balagat, 24 Apr 2009
Criminal
The stipulation in the pre-trial order referred to the
chemist’s receipt of an "allegedly" confiscated specimen
which tested positive for shabu. In other words, there is no
certainty that what was submitted and subjected for
chemical examination was the very specimen obtained
from appellant. By Taasin’s claim, he turned over the
shabu to PO2 Cristobal who marked it with "AMB" and
prepared the request for laboratory examination; and the
buy-bust team members were the ones who brought the
request, together with the specimen, to the laboratory for
examination. The records show, however, that the
specimen examined by the forensic chemist was delivered
by PO3 Cave who does not appear to have been part of the
buy-bust team and did not even take the witness stand.
The Court thus finds the prosecution’s failure to prove the
evidence’s chain of custody to merit appellant’s acquittal.
People v. Robles, 24 Apr 2009
Remedial, Criminal
The chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an
exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a
finding that the matter in question is what the proponent
claims it to be. It would include testimony about every
link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up
to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that
every person who touched the exhibit would describe how
and from whom it was received, where it was and what
happened to it while in the witness’s possession, the
condition in which it was received and the condition in
which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These
witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to
ensure that there had been no change in the condition of
the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain
to have possession of the same. Narcotic substances are
not readily identifiable; they are subject to scientific
analysis to determine their composition and nature. The
Court cannot close its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the
possibility, that at any of the links in the chain of custody
over the same there could have been tampering, alteration
or substitution of substances from other cases—by
accident or otherwise—in which similar evidence was
seized or in which similar evidence was submitted for
laboratory testing. Thus, the corpus delicti should be
identified with unwavering exactitude. [Study Section 21,
paragraph 1 of Article II of R.A. No. 9165.]
Cojuanco v. Sandiganbayan, 24 Apr 2009
Mercantile
Although the inclusion of the dividends, interests, and
earnings of the 111,415 PTIC shares as belonging to the
Republic was not mentioned in the dispositive portion of
the Court’s previous Decision, it is clear from its body that
what was being adjudicated in favor of the Republic was
the whole block of shares and the fruits thereof, said shares
having been found to be part of the Marcoses’ ill-gotten
wealth, and therefore, public money. It would be absurd to
award the shares to the Republic as their owner and not
include the dividends and interests accruing thereto. An
owner who cannot exercise the "juses" or attributes of
ownership—the right to possess, to use and enjoy, to abuse
or consume, to accessories, to dispose or alienate, to
recover or vindicate, and to the fruits—is a crippled owner.
Dividends are payable to the stockholders of record as of
the date of the declaration of dividends or holders of
record on a certain future date, as the case may be, unless
the parties have agreed otherwise. A transfer of shares
which is not recorded in the books of the corporation is
valid only as between the parties, hence, the transferor has
the right to dividends as against the corporation without
notice of transfer but it serves as trustee of the real owner
of the dividends, subject to the contract between the
transferor and transferee as to who is entitled to receive the
dividends.
make it appear that it had the right to lease the property to
petitioner. When respondent filed the complaint, it could
not also have anchored its right to lease the property on the
"tolerance" of its previous owner Bayani who had died
more than 11 years earlier. Bayani’s act of tolerance in
favor of respondent had automatically ceased with his
demise.
A mortgage must "sufficiently describe the debt sought to
be secured, which description must not be such as to
mislead or deceive, and an obligation is not secured by a
mortgage unless it comes fairly within the terms of the
mortgage.
Any ambiguity in a contract whose terms are susceptible of
different interpretations must be read against the party who
drafted it. A mortgage and a note secured by it are deemed
parts of one transaction and are construed together, thus,
an ambiguity is created when the notes provide for the
payment of a penalty but the mortgage contract does not.
Construing the ambiguity against the petitioner, it follows
that no penalty was intended to be covered by the
mortgage. Plainly, the petitioner can be as specific as it
wants to be, as he was in the mortgage contract, yet it
simply did not specify nor even allude to, that the penalty
in the promissory notes would be secured by the mortgage.
This can then only be interpreted to mean that the
petitioner had no design of including the penalty in the
amount secured.

Dela Paz v. Marikina, 30 Apr 2009

Civil

Respondent, in misrepresenting in its complaint for

unlawful detainer that it is "the OWNER" of the property,
attached a document entitled "Pahintulot Sa Paghahanap-
buhay," which document, as the title itself says, is simply a
permit or authority to engage in business. Apparently,
respondent made such false declaration of ownership to
make it appear that it had the right to lease the property to
petitioner.

When respondent filed on February 11, 2002 the complaint

for unlawful detainer against petitioner, it could not also
have anchored its right to lease the property on the
"tolerance" of its previous owner Bayani who had died
more than 11 years earlier or on October 16, 1993.
Bayani’s act of tolerance in favor of respondent had
automatically ceased with his demise.

Respondent, in misrepresenting in its complaint for

unlawful detainer that it is the owner of the property,
attached a document entitled "Pahintulot Sa Paghahanap-
buhay," which document, as the title itself says, is simply a
permit or authority to engage in business. Apparently,
respondent made such false declaration of ownership to