G. R. No.

220732
September 6, 2016
ELMER G. SINDAC TAMER v PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Remedial Law: Warrantless Arrest. A lawful arrest may be effected with or
without a warrant. With respect to the latter, the parameters of Section 5,
Rule 113of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure should as a general
rule be complied with: (a) an arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto; (b) an
arrest of a suspect where, based on personal knowledge of the arresting
officer, there is probable cause that said suspect was the perpetrator of a
crime which had just been committed; and (c) an arrest of a prisoner who
has escaped from custody serving final judgment or temporarily confined
during the pendency of his case or has escaped while being transferred
from one confinement to another.
Same: Same: Requisites of the Parameter on Warrantless Arrest. In
warrantless arrest made in pursuant to Section 5 (a) Rule 113, two (2)
elements must concur, namely: (a) the person arrested must execute an
overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit a crime; (b) such overt act is done in the presence or
within the view of the arresting officer. On the other hand, Section 5 (b),
Rule 113 requires for its application that at the time of the arrest, an
offense had just in fact just been committed and the arresting officer had
personal knowledge of facts indicating that the accused had committed it.
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
FACTS:
The petitioner, Sindac, was found to be in possession of a sachet
containing methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu on or about April 17,
2007 while PO3 Peamora and PO1 Asis are conducting surveillance
operations on the formers alleged drug trade.
However, Sindac denied the possession of the illegal drugs. His
version is that on the said date, he is riding on a tricycle when the police
officers stopped the vehicle and ordered him to get off. Then they proceeded
to the police station, where Sindac was frisked and framed by the police
who implanted the shabu in his wallet. RTC Quezon found Sindac guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged against him violating Section
11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. CA affirmed the decision of
RTC. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the warrantless arrest by the police officers effected
against Sindac is justified.

HELD:
NEGATIVE. As elucidated by the Court, Section 2, Article III of the
1987 Constitution mandates that a search and seizure must be carried out
through or on the strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the
existence of a probable cause, absent which, such seizures becomes
unreasonable within the meaning of said constitutional provision. To
protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures, Section 3 (2)
Article III of the Constitution provides that evidence obtained from
unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for
any purpose in any proceeding.
To begin with, the warrantless arrest in the instant case cannot
warrant the search and seizure against Sindac since the circumstances fall
short of the requisites of the parameters set forth in the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, to wit: (a) an arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto; (b)
an arrest of a suspect where, based on personal knowledge of the arresting
officer, there is probable cause that said suspect was the perpetrator of a
crime which had just been committed; and (c) an arrest of a prisoner who
has escaped from custody serving final judgment or temporarily confined
during the pendency of his case or has escaped while being transferred
from one confinement to another.In warrantless arrest made in pursuant to
Section 5 (a) Rule 113, two (2) elements must concur, namely: (a) the
person arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; (b)
such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting
officer. On the other hand, Section 5 (b), Rule 113 requires for its
application that at the time of the arrest, an offense had just in fact just
been committed and the arresting officer had personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the accused had committed it.
The police officers are five to ten meters away from the alleged
handing of the shabu to Sindac which cannot be attributed as personal
knowledge on the part of the officers. With all the foregoing, the High
Court ruled to reverse and set aside the decisions of the lower courts and to
acquit the petitioner Sindac.
G.R No. 186199
September 7, 2016
EDGARDO A. QUILLO AND ADNALOY VILLAHERMOSA v. TEODULA
BAJAO
Remedial Law; Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Petition for Certiorari. The petition for certiorari shall be accompanied by a
certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof.
Such certified true copy can only be dispensed with and be replaced by a

true or plain copy if the said judgment, order or resolution shall fall under
other material portion of the record as would support the allegations of the
petition.
Same; Same; Writ of Execution. Since a Writ of Execution cannot alter the
decision in the case but it is the one being questioned, it is still required to
submit a true or plain copy of the Decision.
PEREZ, J.:
FACTS:
An Ejectment Complaint was filed by respondent TeodulaBajao (Bajao)
against Eduardo B. Saclag, Jr., Zoilo J.Fulong, Sr., Elena Bertos,6 and Talia
in the MeTC of Manila, praying that the defendants vacate and demolish
thesubject property located at 2519 Granate Street, Sta. Ana, Manila.
Aftertrial, the MeTC ruled in favor of Bajao in a Decision dated 20
November 1998. The case was elevated to RTC which affirmed the decision
of MeTC which became final and executory on July 28, 2000.
Bajao filed a Motion for Execution on August 8, 2000 which was only
acted upon by RTC on October 23, 2007, seven (7) years after motion was
filed. It was granted on November 28, 2007 and on February 27, 2008,
Edgardo Quilo and Adnaloy Villahermosa,petitioners herein, received a
Notice to Pay/Vacate and Demolish Premises from the MeTC, directing them
to vacate theproperty and remove their houses therein by virtue of the Writ
of Execution. Petitioners filed a Motion to Quash which was eventually
denied on June 26, 2008. MeTC ordered the implementation of the Writ of
Execution on July 29, 2008 and the Sheriff served the 2nd and Final Notice to
Pay/ Vacate and to Demolish Premises on August 29, 2008.
On September 1, 2008, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari
underRule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure before the RTC
imputinggrave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on thepart of public respondents Hon. Felicitas 0. LaronCacanindin and SheriffRogelio G. Jundarino for affirming the Decision of the
MeTC which ordered the eviction of petitioners but it was denied by RTC on
September 4 2008 for failure to attach a certified true copy of the
assailedjudgment, order or resolution.
Petitioners then filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the certified
true copy of the MeTC Orders dated 26 June2008 and 29 July 2008.
However, it was still denied on December 18 2008, sinceit only appended a
certified true copy of the MeTC Ordersdated 26 June 2008 and 29 July 2008
and failed to include a certified true copy ofthe MeTC Decision. The RTC

further held that the petition failed to complywith Section 4, Paragraph 2,

Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
ISSUE:
Whether or not RTC committed grave abuse of discretion
HELD:
NEGATIVE. Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
mandates thatpetitions for certiorari shall be accompanied by a certified
true copy of thejudgment, order or resolution assailed. On this case,
petitioners contended that submission of MeTC decision dated November
20, 1998 must be dispensed with since they are only assailing the orders
dated June 26, 2008 and July 29, 2008. Certified true copy of which were
submitted only when petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration.
Nevertheless, they still submitted the required documents and it is already
substantial compliance with the rules. However, petitioners contention
cannot be accepted. Even though they are not assailing the Writ of
Execution, a certified true copy can be excused but a true or plain copy of
such decision is still required as it fallsunder the required "other material
portion of the record as would support the allegations of the petition" as
ruled in Dr. Reyes v. CA.
Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Summary Procedure governs
ejectment cases and mandates that decisions be immediately executory.
Applying the same in the case at bar, decision pursuant to the ejectment
proceeding ordering the vacating of the subject property must be
immediately executed.
G.R No. 212171
September 7, 2016
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MERCURY DELA CRUZ alias
DEDAY
Remedial Law; Chain of Custody. In handling evidence, perfect chain of
custody should be observed. However, it is sufficient that there is
substantial compliance with the legal requirements on the handling of the
seized item and what is of utmost importance is that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items was preserved since these will be
utilized in the determination of the guilt of innocence of the accused.
REYES, J.:
FACTS:
On November 10, 2006, at around 7:15 oclock in the evening, PO3
Batobalanos, PO1 Reales and PO1 Bullido conducted a buy-bust operation
together with a civilian asset. The civilian asset called Dela Cruz and told
her that theywill buy shabu worth P200.00. Thereafter, Dela Cruz handed

PO1Reales asmall plastic containing white crystalline substance and in

exchange he handed to the former the P200.00 bills. Upon getting hold of
the money, P03 Batobalonos and PO1Bullido, who saw the consummation of
thetransaction rushed to the scene.Mercury Dela Cruz was apprehended for
illegal sale of shabu. However, Dela Cruz was able to run and evade arrest.
On their way to the police station aboard their patrol car, PO1
Realeshanded the the small plastic containing white crystallinesubstance
which he purchased fromDela Cruz to P03 Batobalonos. Thereafter, upon
arrival atthe police station, the latter marked the seized item and prepared
a Request for Laboratory Examination. The item was examined and Forensic
Chemist PCI Salinas found that the specimen gave positive resultfor the
presence of Methamphetamine hydrochloride.
On November 27, 2008, RTC found Dela Cruz guilty of illegal sale of
shabuunder Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165 which was affirmed by
Court of Appeals. However, Dela Cruz contended that the drugs were
marked notat the place where she was apprehended but at the police
station and thatthere was no physical inventory made on the seized item
which was a violation of the procedural requirements provided for in
Section 21 of RA No. 9165. Therefore, RTCs ruling must be reversed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTCs ruling shall be affected by the officers
failure to comply with the procedural requirements provided for in Section
21 of RA No. 9165
HELD:
NEGATIVE. This Court finds no merit to the contention of the
accused-appellant. It must be noted that in ideal situation, prosecution
should offer a perfect chain of custody in handling of evidence including
physical inventory and taking photograph of the item as provided in Section
21, Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA No. 9165.
However, substantial compliance with the legal requirements on the
handling of the seized item is sufficient as long as the utmost importance of
preserving the integrity and value of the evidence was observed. Also,
based on the facts of the case, the chain of custody remains unbroken based
on the actions done by the police officers as presented by the prosecution.
With this, even though the procedural requirements provided for in Sec. 21
ofR.A. No. 9165 were not faithfully observed, the guilt of the accused will
notbe affected.
G.R. No. 206808-09
September 7,2016
LOCAL
WATER
UTILITIES
ADMINISTRATION
EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION FOR PROGRESS (LEAP), MELANIO B. CUCHAPIN

II,et al v LOCAL WATER UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION (LWUA) and

DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT
Remedial Law; Writ of Preliminary Injunction. A writ of preliminary
injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior
to the judgment or final order, requiring a party or a court, agency or a
person to refrain from a particular act or acts.
Same; Doctrine of Exhaustion of administrative remedies. The courts of
justice ,for reasons of comity and convenience,will shy away from a dispute
until the system of administrative redress has been completed and complied
with,so as to give the administrative agency concerned every opportunity to
correct its error and dispose of the case.
PERALTA,J.:
FACTS:
A petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with a prayer for
temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction with the RTC
of Quezon City was filed by the petitioners against the LWUA and DBM
alleging that the later agencies acted with grave abuse of discretion in the
implementation of the approved reorganizational plan pursuant to EO 421 ,
on the ground that the displacement of twenty (20 ) positions will result to
injustice and irreparable injury to at most 233 LWUA employees who will
face an immediate and outright dismissal from service.
Consequently, after hearing, the RTC granted the petitioners prayer
for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction for reasons mentioned by
the petitioners. Aggrieved, the respondents filed their respective
Oppositions to the TRO and filed a separate Motions for Reconsideration
but were denied by the RTC. The LWUA and DBM then filed a separate
special civil actions for certiorari with the CA which reversed and set aside
the RTCs decision. Eventually, RTC dismissed the petition for certiorari,
mandamus and prohibition on the basis of lack of justiciable controversy
and resort to a wrong remedy.
A motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioners before the
CA but it was denied. Hence this petition under Rule 65.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper
remedy
2. Whether or not RTCs dismissal of the principals action for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus results in the automatic dissolution of the
ancillary writ of preliminary injunction

HELD:
1. NEGATIVE. Under Rule 65, petitioners, clearly availed themselves of the
wrong remedy. Under the Supreme Court Circular 2-90, an appeal taken to
the Court or to the CA by a wrong or an inappropriate mode of merits
outright dismissal. Furthermore, the Court has ruled that following the
doctrines of exhaustion of administrative remedies and doctrine of primary
jurisdiction ,the Court will shy away from a dispute until the system of
administrative redress has been completed in the present case RA No. 6656
provides the petitioner with the ample remedies to address their alleged
predicament the petitioners should have first brought their case to the
appointing authority which is the LWUA Board of Trustees and thereafter to
the Civil Service Commission which has the primary jurisdiction. However,
petitioner failed to avail of these remedies prior to filing of a petition for
certiorari.
2. AFFIRMATIVE. The dismissal of the principal action and the
purpose of the provisional remedy having been served, the writ of
preliminary injunction issued by the RTC is likewise deemed lifted. It is a
rule that a writ of preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of
an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a
party ora court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts.
As an auxiliary remedy, it can only be availed of during the pendency of the
main action for purposes of preserving and protecting certain rights and
interests or to primarily preserve the status quo. In the case at bar, the
application for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction was granted after
the trial court found the necessity of protecting the rights to security of
tenure of the petitioners. But for failure of the petitioners to exhaust
administrative remedies or to bring the case before the LWUA Board of
Trustees and then to the Civil Service Commission, the writ of preliminary
injunction was rightfully lifted.

G.R. No. 223076

September 13, 2016
PILAR CANEDA BRAGA,PETER TIU LAVINA, et al and SAMAL CITY
RESORT OWNERS ASSOCIATION(SCROA) v HON. JOSEPH EMILIO
A. ABAYA ,IN HIS CAPACITY AS SEC OF DOTC ,PRE-QUALIFICATION
,BIDS AND AWARDS AND COMMITTEE (PBAC) AND PHILIPPINE
PORTS AUTHORITY (PPA)
Remedial Law; Political Law;Writ of Kalikasan is a remedy to anyone whose
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated or
threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission. However, the
violation must involve environmental damage of such magnitude as to
prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or
provinces in order to warrant the issuance of the writ.

Same; same; Writ of Continuing Mandamus. Is a remedy available when any

government agency, instrumentality or officer unlawfully neglects a specific
legal duty in connection with the enforcement or violation of an
environmental law, rule or regulation, or a right therein or unlawfully
excludes another from the use or enjoyment of such right and there is no
other plain ,speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
BRION, J.:
FACTS:
Petitioners filed a petition for a Writ of Continuing Mandamus and /or
Writ of Kalikasan with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary
environmental protection order (TEPO)
against the Department of
Transportation and Communications (DOTC) and the Philippine Ports
Authority (PPA) for allegedly carrying out the modernization project of the
Davao Sasa Wharf ,under a Public Private Partnership (PPP) scheme
without the necessary Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) and
Environmental Impact Statements pursuant to PD 1586 and failed to
conduct a public consultation on the social acceptability of the project as
required by Sections 26 and 27 of the Local Government Code. Petitioner
contends that their constitutional right to a healthful and balanced ecology
is violated. Moreover, this project at the time this case was filed is still on
the bidding process spearheaded by the DOTC.
Hence, the petitioner sought to restrain the implementation of the
project including its bidding and award until the required environmental
permits are secured.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Writ of Kalikasan and/or Writ of Continuing
Mandamus with TEPO shall issue
HELD:
NEGATIVE. The writ of kalikasan is a remedy for violation of
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology or threat thereof
through any act or omission. Such violation must show environmental
damage of such magnitude as to prejudice life, health or property of
inhabitants within two or more cities or provinces. The Court ruled that the
petition is premature because the petitioner failed to prove the threat of
environmental damage to be such magnitude as to prejudice the life,health
or property of inhabitants in two or more cities. The petitioner further failed
to identify the particular threats from the project itself. Since the project is

still in the bidding process, bidding in itself does not constitute a harm. The
Project is not a creation of a new port but rather a modernization of an
existing one , the purported negative impacts are already in existence as the
Port of Davao has been in operation way back 1900 , the allegations are
mere speculations and does not merit an issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan.