ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.

com™

Like 0 Tweet Share

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2018 > January 2018 Decisions > G.R. No. 212448, January 11,
2018 - AAA, Petitioner, v. BBB, Respondent.:

Custom Search
Search G.R. No. 212448, January 11, 2018 - AAA, Petitioner, v. BBB, Respondent.

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 212448, January 11, 2018

AAA*, Petitioner, v. BBB,* Respondent.

DECISION

TIJAM, J.:

May Philippine courts exercise jurisdiction over an offense constituting psychological violence under
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262,1 otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children
Act of 2004, committed through marital infidelity, when the alleged illicit relationship occurred or is
occurring outside the country?

The above question is addressed to this Court in the present Petition2 for the issuance of a writ of
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, to nullify the Resolutions dated February 24, 20143 and May
2, 20144 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 158, in Criminal Case No. 146468. The
assailed resolutions granted the motion to quash the Information5 which charged respondent BBB under
Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262, committed as follows:

DebtKollect Company, Inc.
On or about April 19, 2011, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
[BBB], being then legally married to [AAA], caused herein [AAA] mental and emotional
anguish by having an illicit relationship with a certain Lisel Mok as confirmed by his
photograph with his purported paramour Lisel Mok and her children and the e-mailed letter
by his mother mentioning about the said relationship, to the damage and prejudice of
[AAA], in violation of the aforecited law.

Contrary to law.

We briefly recount the antecedents.

Petitioner AAA and BBB were married on August 1, 2006 in Quezon City. Their union produced two
children: CCC was born on March 4, 2007 and DDD on October 1, 2009.6

In May of 2007, BBB started working in Singapore as a chef, where he acquired permanent resident status
in September of 2008. This petition nonetheless indicates his address to be in Quezon City where his
parents reside and where AAA also resided from the time they were married until March of 2010, when
AAA and their children moved back to her parents' house in Pasig City.7

AAA claimed, albeit not reflected in the Information, that BBB sent little to no financial support, and only
sporadically. This allegedly compelled her to fly extra hours and take on additional jobs to augment her
income as a flight attendant. There were also allegations of virtual abandonment, mistreatment of her and
their son CCC, and physical and sexual violence. To make matters worse, BBB supposedly started having
an affair with a Singaporean woman named Lisel Mok with whom he allegedly has been living in
Singapore. Things came to a head on April 19, 2011 when AAA and BBB had a violent altercation at a
ChanRobles Intellectual Property
Division
January-2018 Jurisprudence
G.R. No. 190817, January 10, 2018 - REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. ROVENCY REALTY
AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.
G.R. Nos. 230429-30, January 24, 2018 - LARA'S
GIFT AND DECORS, INC., Petitioner, v. PNB GENERAL
INSURERS CO., INC. AND UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE
CO., INC., Respondents.
G.R. No. 195614, January 10, 2018 - DIGITAL
TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILS., INC./JOHN
GOKONGWEI, JR., Petitioner, v. NEILSON M.
AYAPANA, Respondent.
A.M. No. P-09-2633, January 30, 2018 - OFFICE OF
THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v.
ROLANDO C. TOMAS AND ANGELINA C. RILLORTA,
FORMER OFFICERS-IN-CHARGE, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, SANTIAGO CITY, ISABELA, Respondent.; A.M.
No. RTJ-12-2338, January 30, 2018 - ANGELINA C.
RILLORTA, Complainant, v. JUDGE FE A. MADRID,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 21, SANTIAGO
CITY, ISABELA, Respondent.
G.R. No. 218427, January 31, 2018 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EMILIANO DE
CHAVEZ, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 225176, January 19, 2018 - ESMERALDO
GATCHALIAN, DULY REPRESENTED BY SAMUEL
GATCHALIAN, Petitioner, v. CESAR FLORES, JOSE
LUIS ARANETA, CORAZON QUING, AND CYNTHIA
FLORES, Respondents.
G.R. No. 218245, January 17, 2018 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JESUS
EMPUESTO Y SOCATRE, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 223142, January 17, 2018 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROLANDO
SANTOS Y ZARAGOZA, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 196598, January 17, 2018 - EDITHA B.
ALBOR, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, NERVA
MACASIL JOINED BY HER HUSBAND RUDY MACASIL
AND NORMA BELUSO, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND NOLI
BELUSO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 217026, January 22, 2018 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LAWRENCE
GAJO Y BUENAFE AND RICO GAJO Y BUENAFE,
Accused-Appellants.
G.R. No. 199527, January 10, 2018 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, THRU PRIVATE COMPLAINANT
BRIAN VICTOR BRITCHFORD, Petitioner, v.
SALVADOR ALAPAN, Respondent.
G.R. No. 233395, January 17, 2018 - NORLINA G.
SIBAYAN, Petitioner, v. ELIZABETH O. ALDA,
THROUGH HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, RUBY O. ALDA,
Respondent.
hotel room in Singapore during her visit with their kids.8 As can be gathered from the earlier cited
Information, despite the claims of varied forms of abuses, the investigating prosecutor found sufficient
basis to charge BBB with causing AAA mental and emotional anguish through his alleged marital
infidelity.9
The Information having been filed, a warrant of arrest was issued against BBB. AAA was also able to
secure a Hold-Departure Order against BBB who continued to evade the warrant of arrest. Consequently,
the case was archived. 10
On November 6, 2013, an Entry of Appearance as Counsel for the Accused With Omnibus Motion to Revive
Case, Quash Information, Lift Hold Departure Order and Warrant of Arrest11 was filed on behalf of BBB.
Granting the motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and thereby dismissing the case, the
trial court reasoned:
Here, while the Court maintains its 28 October 2011 ruling that probable cause exists in this
case and that [BBB] is probably guilty of the crime charged, considering, however, his
subsequent clear showing that the acts complained of him had occurred in Singapore,
dismissal of this case is proper since the Court enjoys no jurisdiction over the offense
charged, it having transpired outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
xxxx
The Court is not convinced by the prosecution's argument that since [AAA] has been
suffering from mental and emotional anguish "wherever she goes", jurisdiction over the
offense attaches to this Court notwithstanding that the acts resulting in said suffering had
happened outside of the Philippines. To the mind of the Court, with it noting that there is
still as yet no jurisprudence on this score considering that Republic Act 9262 is relatively
a new law, the act itself which had caused a woman to suffer mental or emotional anguish
must have occurred within the territorial limits of the Court for it to enjoy jurisdiction over
the offense. This amply explains the use of the emphatic word "causing" in the provisions of
Section 5(i), above, which denotes the bringing about or into existence of something.
Hence, the mental or emotional anguish suffered by a woman must have been brought
about or into existence by a criminal act which must logically have occurred within the
territorial limits of the Court for jurisdiction over the offense to attach to it. To rule
otherwise would violate or render nugatory one of the basic characteristics of our criminal
laws - territoriality.
In the listing provided in the law itself - "repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial
of financial support or custody of minor children of (sic) access to the woman's
child/children"- it becomes clear that there must be an act which causes the "mental or
emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation", and it is such act which partakes of a
criminal nature. Here, such act was the alleged maintenance of "an illicit relationship with a
certain Liesel Mok" which has been conceded to have been committed in Singapore.
Granting, without conceding, that the law presents ambiguities as written, quashal of the
Information must still be ordered following the underlying fundamental principle that all
doubts must be resolved in favor of [BBB]. At best, the Court draws the attention of
Congress to the arguments on jurisdiction spawned by the law.12 (Emphasis in the original)
Aggrieved by the denial of the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the case, AAA
sought direct recourse to this Court via the instant petition on a pure question of law. AAA posits that R.A.
No. 9262 is in danger of becoming transmogrified into a weak, wobbly, and worthless law because with
the court a quo's ruling, it is as if husbands of Filipino women have been given license to enter into extra-
marital affairs without fear of any consequence, as long as they are carried out abroad. In the main, AAA
argues that mental and emotional anguish is an essential element of the offense charged against BBB,
which is experienced by her wherever she goes, and not only in Singapore where the extra-marital affair
takes place; thus, the RTC of Pasig City where she resides can take cognizance of the case.
In support of her theory, AAA draws attention to Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262, which provides:
Sec. 7. Venue - The Regional Trial Court designated as a Family Court shall have original
and exclusive jurisdiction over cases of violence against women and their children under
this law. In the absence of such court in the place where the offense was committed, the
case shall be filed in the Regional Trial Court where the crime or any of its elements was
committed at the option of the complainant. (Emphasis ours)
As to the ambiguity in the law hypothetically referred to in the assailed order, AAA directs us to:
Section 4. Construction. - This Act shall be liberally construed to promote the protection and
safety of victims of violence against women and their children.
In his Comment13 filed on January 20, 2015, BBB contends that the grant of the motion to quash is in
effect an acquittal; that only the civil aspect of a criminal case may be appealed by the private offended
party; and. that this petition should be dismissed outright for having been brought before this Court by
AAA instead of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) as counsel for the People in appellate proceedings.
BBB furthermore avers that the petition was belatedly filed.
We tackle first the threshold issue of whether or not this Court should entertain the petition.
It must be stated beforehand that BBB is plainly mistaken in asserting that the instant petition was
belatedly filed. The date erroneously perceived by BBB as the date of AAA's Motion for Extension14 was
filed - June 2, 2014 - refers to the date of receipt by the Division Clerk of Court and not the date when the
said motion was lodged before this Court. The motion was in fact filed on May 27, 2014, well within the
period that AAA had under the Rules of Court to file the intended petition. Thus, considering the timeliness
of the motion, this Court in a Resolution15 dated June 9, 2014, granted AAA an additional period of thirty
(30) days or until June 26, 2014 to file a petition for review.
In AAA's motion for extension of time, it was mentioned that she was awaiting the OSG's response to her
Letter16 dated May 26, 2014 requesting for representation. Since, the OSG was unresponsive to her plea
for assistance in filing the intended petition, AAA filed the present petition in her own name before the
lapse of the extension given her by this Court or on June 25, 2014.
We find that under the circumstances, the ends of substantial justice will be better served by entertaining
the petition if only to resolve the question of law lodged before this Court. In Morillo v. People of the
Philippines, et al.,17 where the Court entertained a Rule 45 petition which raised only a question of law
filed by the private offended party in the absence of the OSG's participation, we recalled the instances
when the Court permitted an offended party to file an appeal without the intervention of the OSG. One
such instance is when the interest of substantial justice so requires.18
Morillo,19 also differentiated between dismissal and acquittal, thus:
 G.R. No. 219435, January 17, 2018 - ALLIED
BANKING CORPORATION, NOW MERGED WITH
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. REYNOLD
CALUMPANG, Respondent.
A.M. No. P-17-3645 (formerly OCA IPI No. 15-
4415-P), January 30, 2018 - MARITA B. BALLOGUING,
PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRAPCH
20, VIGAN CITY, ILOCOS SUR, Complainant, v.
CRESENTE B. DAGAN, UTILITY WORKER I, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 20, VIGAN CITY, ILOCOS SUR,
Respondent.
A.C. No. 11111, January 10, 2018 - IN RE: G.R. NO.
157659 "ELIGIO P. MALLARI V. GOVERNMENT
SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM AND THE PROVINCIAL
SHERIFF OF PAMPANGA."
A.C. No. 10689 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3171],
January 08, 2018 - ROMEO A. ALMARIO, Complainant,
v. ATTY. DOMINICA LLERA-AGNO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 190286, January 11, 2018 - RAMON E.
REYES AND CLARA R. PASTOR, Petitioners, v. BANCOM
DEVELOPMENT CORP., Respondent.
G.R. No. 190289, January 17, 2018 - THE CITY OF
BACOLOD, HON. MAYOR EVELIO R. LEONARDIA, ATTY.
ALLAN L. ZAMORA AND ARCH. LEMUEL D. REYNALDO,
IN THEIR PERSONAL CAPACITIES AND IN THEIR
CAPACITIES AS OFFICIALS OF THE CITY OF BACOLOD,
Petitioners, v. PHUTURE VISIONS CO., INC.,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 218208, January 24, 2018 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRIAN
VILLAHERMOSO, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. Nos. 225642-43, January 17, 2018 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUVY D.
AMARELA AND JUNARD G. RACHO, Accused-
Appellants.
G.R. No. 196890, January 11, 2018 - CAREER
EXECUTIVE SERVICE BOARD, REPRESENTED BY
CHAIRPERSON BERNARDO P. ABESAMIS, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR MA. ANTHONETTE VELASCO-ALLONES, AND
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ARTURO M. LACHICA,
Petitioners, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN FRANCISCO T. DUQUE
III AND BLESILDA V. LODEVICO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 212472, January 11, 2018 - SPECIFIED
CONTRACTORS & DEVELOPMENT, INC., AND SPOUSES
ARCHITECT ENRIQUE O. OLONAN AND CECILIA R.
OLONAN, Petitioners, v. JOSE A. POBOCAN,
Respondent.
A.M. No. RTJ-18-2514 (Formerly A.M. No. 16-10-
387-RTC), January 30, 2018 - OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. JUDGE HECTOR B.
SALISE, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 7, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, BAYUGAN CITY, AGUSAN DEL SUR,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 212448, January 11, 2018 - AAA,
Petitioner, v. BBB, Respondent.
G.R. No. 218630, January 11, 2018 - REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. KATRINA S. TOBORA-
TIONGLICO, Respondent.
A.C. No. 5473, January 23, 2018 - GENE M.
DOMINGO, Complainant, v. ATTY. ANASTACIO E.
REVILLA, JR., Respondent.
G.R. No. 227215, January 10, 2018 - REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS
(DPWH), Petitioner, v. LEONOR MACABAGDAL,
REPRESENTED BY EULOGIA MACABAGDAL PASCUAL
(FORMERLY JOHN DOE "DDD"), Respondent.
G.R. No. 201501, January 22, 2018 - REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE POLLUTION
ADJUDICATION BOARD, Petitioner, v. N. DELA
MERCED & SONS, INC., Respondent.; G.R. No. 201658,
January 22, 2018 - N. DELA MERCED & SONS, INC.,
Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
REPRESENTED BY THE POLLUTION ADJUDICATION
BOARD, Respondent.
A.C. No. 10783, January 31, 2018 - ATTY. BENIGNO
BARTOLOME, Complainant, v. ATTY. CHRISTOPHER A.
BASILIO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 205307, January 11, 2018 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDUARDO
GOLIDAN Y COTO-ONG, FRANCIS NACIONALES Y
FERNANDEZ, AND TEDDY OGSILA Y TAHIL, ACCUSED,
EDUARDO GOLIDAN Y COTO-ONG AND FRANCIS
NACIONALES Y FERNANDEZ, Accused-Appellants.
G.R. No. 189609, January 29, 2018 - VICTORIA N.
RACELIS, IN HER CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR,
Petitioner, v. SPOUSES GERMIL JAVIER AND REBECCA
JAVIER, Respondents.
Acquittal is always based on the merits, that is, the defendant is acquitted
because the evidence does not show that defendant's guilt is beyond a reasonable
doubt; but dismissal does not decide the case on the merits or that the defendant
is not guilty. Dismissal terminates the proceeding, either because the court is not
a court of competent jurisdiction, or the evidence does not show that the offense
was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, or the complaint or
information is not valid or sufficient in form and substance, etc. The only case in
which the word dismissal is commonly but not correctly used, instead of the proper term
acquittal, is when, after the prosecution has presented all its evidence, the defendant
moves for the dismissal and the court dismisses the case on the ground that the evidence
fails to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty; for in such case the
dismissal is in reality an acquittal because the case is decided on the merits. If the
prosecution fails to prove that the offense was committed within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court and the case is dismissed, the dismissal is not an
acquittal, inasmuch as if it were so the defendant could not be again prosecuted
before the court of competent jurisdiction; and it is elemental that in such case,
the defendant may again be prosecuted for the same offense before a court of
competent jurisdiction.20 (Citation omitted and emphasis in the original)
The grant of BBB's motion to quash may not therefore be viewed as an acquittal, which in limited
instances may only be repudiated by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 upon showing grave abuse of
discretion lest the accused would be twice placed in jeopardy.21
Indubitably, "the Rules do not prohibit any of the parties from filing a Rule 45 Petition with this Court, in
case only questions of law are raised or involved."22 "There is a question of law when the issue does not
call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented or of the truth or falsehood of the
facts being admitted, and the doubt concerns the correct application of law and jurisprudence on the
matter."23
Further, the question of whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction in view of the peculiar provisions of R.A.
No. 9262 is a question of law. Thus, in Morillo,24 the Court reiterated that:
[T]he jurisdiction of the court is determined by the averments of the complaint or
Information, in relation to the law prevailing at the time of the filing of the complaint or
Information, and the penalty provided by law for the crime charged at the time of its
commission. Thus, when a case involves a proper interpretation of the rules and
jurisprudence with respect to the jurisdiction of courts to entertain complaints filed
therewith, it deals with a question of law that can be properly brought to this Court under
Rule 45.25 (Citations omitted)
We are not called upon in this case to determine the truth or falsity of the charge against BBB, much less
weigh the evidence, especially as the case had not even proceeded to a full-blown trial on the merits. The
issue for resolution concerns the correct application of law and jurisprudence on a given set of
circumstances, i.e., whether or not Philippine courts are deprived of territorial jurisdiction over a criminal
charge of psychological abuse under R.A. No. 9262 when committed through marital infidelity and the
alleged illicit relationship took place outside the Philippines.
The novelty of the issue was even recognized by the RTC when it opined that there is still as yet no
jurisprudence on this score, prompting it to quash the Information even as it maintained its earlier
October 28, 2011 ruling that probable cause exists in the case.26 Calling the attention of Congress to the
arguments on jurisdiction spawned by the law,27 the RTC furnished copies of the assailed order to the
House of Representatives and the Philippine Senate through the Committee on Youth, Women and Public
Relations, as well as the Committee on Justice and Human Rights.28
The issue acquires special significance when viewed against the present economic reality that a great
number of Filipino families have at least one parent working overseas. In April to September 2016, the
number of overseas Filipino workers who worked abroad was estimated at 2.2 million, 97.5 percent of
which were comprised of overseas contract workers or those with existing work contract; while 2.5
percent worked overseas without contract.29 It is thus necessary to clarify how R.A. No. 9262 should be
applied in a question of territorial jurisdiction over a case of psychological abuse brought against the
husband when such is allegedly caused by marital infidelity carried on abroad.
Ruling of the Court
There is merit in the petition.
"Physical violence is only the most visible form of abuse. Psychological abuse, particularly forced social
and economic isolation of women, is also common."30 In this regard, Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262 made it a
point to encompass in a non-limiting manner the various forms of violence that may be committed against
women and their children:
Sec. 3. Definition of Terms.- As used in this Act,
(a) "Violence against women and their children" refers to any act or a series of acts
committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a
woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he
has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or
without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual,
psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts,
battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. It includes, but is
not limited to, the following acts:
A. "Physical Violence" refers to acts that include bodily or physical harm;
B. "Sexual violence" refers to an act which is sexual in nature, committed
against a woman or her child. It includes, but is not limited to:
xxxx
C. "Psychological violence" refers to acts or omissions causing or likely to
cause mental or emotional suffering of the victim such as but not limited to
intimidation, harassment, stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or
humiliation, repeated verbal abuse and marital infidelity. It includes
causing or allowing the victim to witness the physical, sexual or psychological
abuse of a member of the family to which the victim belongs, or to witness
pornography in any form or to witness abusive injury to pets or to unlawful or
unwanted deprivation of the right to custody and/or visitation of common
children.
D. "Economic abuse" refers to acts that make or attempt to make a woman
financially dependent which includes, but is not limited to the following:
 G.R. No. 224498, January 11, 2018 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PFC ENRIQUE
REYES, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 228087, January 24, 2018 - H. VILLARICA
PAWNSHOP, INC., HL VILLARICA PAWNSHOP, INC.,
HRV VILLARICA PAWNSHOP, INC. AND VILLARICA
PAWNSHOP, INC., Petitioners, v. SOCIAL SECURITY
COMMISSION, SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, AMADOR
M. MONTEIRO, SANTIAGO DIONISIO R. AGDEPPA, MA.
LUZ N. BARROS-MAGSINO, MILAGROS N. CASUGA
AND JOCELYN Q. GARCIA, Respondents.
G.R. Nos. 206079-80, January 17, 2018 -
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. (PAL), Petitioner, v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent.; G.R. No. 206309, January 17, 2018 -
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner,
v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. (PAL), Respondent.
G.R. No. 192396, January 17, 2018 - STEPHEN A.
ANTIG, AS REPRESENTATIVE OF AMS BANANA
EXPORTER, INC. [FORMERLY AMS FARMING
CORPORATION], BERNARDITA S. LEMOSNERO,
JEMARIE J. TESTADO, THOMAS BERNARD C. ALLADIN,
AND GERARDO ARANGOSO, Petitioners, v.
ANASTACIO ANTIPUESTO, IN HIS OWN CAPACITY
AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF AMS KAPALONG
AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES MULTI-PURPOSE
COOPERATIVE (AMSKARBEMCO) AND ITS MEMBERS,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 225735, January 10, 2018 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BELEN
MEJARES Y VALENCIA, Accused-Appellant.
A.C. No. 8208, January 10, 2018 - RET. JUDGE
VIRGILIO ALPAJORA, Complainant, v. ATTY.
RONALDO ANTONIO V. CALAYAN, Respondent.
G.R. No. 227698, January 31, 2018 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HERNANDO
BONGOS, Accused-Appellants.
G.R. No. 219889, January 29, 2018 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDWIN
DAGSA Y BANTAS @ "WING WING," Accused-
Appellant.
G.R. No. 210161, January 10, 2018 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BIENVINIDO
UDANG, SR. Y SEVILLA,1 Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 202612, January 17, 2018 - TEODORO C.
TORTONA, RODRIGO C. TORTONA, PEDRO C.
TORTONA, ERNESTO C. TORTONA, AND PATRICIO C.
TORTONA, Petitioners, v. JULIAN C. GREGORIO,
FLORENTINO GREGORIO, JR., ISAGANI C. GREGORIO,
CELEDONIA G. IGNACIO, TEODOCIA G. CHAN,
LEONILA G. CAAMPUED, CONCORDIA G. MIJARES,
ROMEO C. GREGORIO, EDNA S. TAN, NELIA S. REYES,
CECILIA S. FRIEDMAN, LAMBERTO SUANTE, JULIUS
SUANTE, CORAZON YASAY-GREGORIO, DONALDO Y.
GREGORIO, ELMER Y. GREGORIO, AND ROY JOHN Y.
GREGORIO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 209582, January 19, 2018 - TEEKAY
SHIPPING PHILIPPINES, INC., AND/OR TEEKAY
SHIPPING LTD., AND/OR ALEX VERCHEZ, Petitioners,
v. ROBERTO M. RAMOGA, JR., Respondent.
G.R. No. 201792, January 24, 2018 - WILFREDO P.
ASAYAS, Petitioner, v. SEA POWER SHIPPING
ENTERPRISES, INC., AND/OR AVIN INTERNATIONAL
S.A., AND/OR ANTONIETTE GUERRERO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 219581, January 31, 2018 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MAXIMO
DELA PEÑA, Accused-Appellant.; ROMY REAL, DANNY
REAL AND ONYONG REYES, Accused.
G.R. No. 219238, January 31, 2018 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MOISES
DEJOLDE, JR. Y SALINO, Accused-Appellant.
A.M. No. P-17-3772 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 12-
3999-P), January 10, 2018 - JOVITA B. LAMSIS,
Complainant, v. JUDE F. SALES, SR., PROCESS
SERVER, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 10, LA
TRINIDAD, BENGUET, Respondent.
G.R. No. 229829, January 22, 2018 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARNEL
KALIPAYAN Y ANIANO, Accused-Appellant.
A.M. No. P-05-1938, January 30, 2018 - THE
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR,
Complainant, v. MR. CRISPIN C. EGIPTO, JR., CLERK
OF COURT IV, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES,
PAGADIAN CITY, Respondent.
G.R. No. 226355, January 24, 2018 - REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS
(DPWH), Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF CIRILO GOTENGCO,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 203298, January 17, 2018 - INTERLINK
MOVIE HOUSES, INC. AND EDMER Y. LIM, Petitioners,
xxxx
As jurisdiction of a court over the criminal ease is determined by the allegations in the complaint or
information, threshing out the essential elements of psychological abuse under R.A. No. 9262 is crucial. In
Dinamling v. People,31 this Court already had occasion to enumerate the elements of psychological
violence under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262, as follows:
Section 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children. - The crime of violence
against women and their children is committed through any of the following acts:
xxxx
(i) Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman
or her child, including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse,
and denial of financial support or custody of minor children or access to the
woman's child/children.
From the aforequoted Section 5(i), in relation to other sections of R[.]A[.] No. 9262, the
elements of the crime are derived as follows:
(1) The offended party is a woman and/or her child or children;
(2) The woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender, or is a woman with
whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or is a woman with
whom such offender has a common child. As for the woman's child or children,
they may be legitimate or illegitimate, or living within or without the family abode;
(3) The offender causes on the woman and/or child mental or emotional
anguish; and
(4) The anguish is caused through acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated
verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody of minor
children or access to the children or similar such acts or omissions.
xxxx
It bears emphasis that Section 5(i) penalizes some forms of psychological violence
that are inflicted on victims who are women and children. Other forms of psychological
violence, as well as physical, sexual and economic violence, are addressed and penalized in
other sub- parts of Section 5.
xxxx
Psychological violence is an element of violation of Section 5(i) just like the
mental or emotional anguish caused on the victim. Psychological violence is the
means employed by the perpetrator, while mental or emotional anguish is the
effect caused to or the damage sustained by the offended party. To establish
psychological violence as an element of the crime, it is necessary to show proof of
commission of any of the acts enumerated in Section 5(i) or similar such acts. And to
establish mental or emotional anguish, it is necessary to present the testimony of the victim
as such experiences are personal to this party. x x x.32 (Citations omitted and emphasis
ours)
Contrary to the interpretation of the RTC, what R.A. No. 9262 criminalizes is not the marital infidelity per
se but the psychological violence causing mental or emotional suffering on the wife. Otherwise stated, it is
the violence inflicted under the said circumstances that the law seeks to outlaw. Marital infidelity as cited
in the law is only one of the various acts by which psychological violence may be committed. Moreover,
depending on the circumstances of the spouses and for a myriad of reasons, the illicit relationship may or
may not even be causing mental or emotional anguish on the wife. Thus, the mental or emotional
suffering of the victim is an essential and distinct element in the commission of the offense.
In criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional. Thus, in Treñas v. People,33 the Court explained that:
The place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the
action but is an essential element of jurisdiction. It is a fundamental rule that for
jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases, the offense should have been
committed or any one of its essential ingredients should have taken place within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court. Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory
where the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the offense allegedly
committed therein by the accused. Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged
with an offense allegedly committed outside of that limited territory. Furthermore, the
jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined by the allegations in
the complaint or information. And once it is so shown, the court may validly take
cognizance of the case. However, if the evidence adduced during the trial shows that
the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action
for want of jurisdiction.34 (Emphasis in the original)
In Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262, venue undoubtedly pertains to jurisdiction. As correctly pointed out by AAA,
Section 7 provides that the case may be filed where the crime or any of its elements was committed at
the option of the complainant. While the psychological violence as the means employed by the perpetrator
is certainly an indispensable element of the offense, equally essential also is the element of mental or
emotional anguish which is personal to the complainant. The resulting mental or emotional anguish is
analogous to the indispensable element of damage in a prosecution for estafa, viz:
The circumstance that the deceitful manipulations or false pretenses employed by the
accused, as shown in the vouchers, might have been perpetrated in Quezon City does not
preclude the institution of the criminal action in Mandaluyong where the damage was
consummated. Deceit and damage are the basic elements of estafa.
The estafa involved in this case appears to be a transitory or continuing offense. It could be
filed either in Quezon City or in Rizal. The theory is that a person charged with a transitory
offense may be tried in any jurisdiction where the offense is in part committed. In transitory
v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, STATIONERY
EXPRESSIONS SHOP, INC. AND JOSEPHINE LIM BON
HUAN, Respondents.
G.R. No. 223099, January 11, 2018 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LINO
ALEJANDRO Y PIMENTEL, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 207354, January 10, 2018 - CHARLIE
HUBILLA, JOEL NAYRE, NENITA A. TAN, PEDRO
MAGALLANES, JR., ARNEL YUSON, JANICE CABATBAT,
JUDY PAPINA, VANESSA ESPIRITU, NOEMI YALUNG,
GENALYN RESCOBILLO, FIDEL ZAQUITA, NYL B.
CALINGASAN, JANICE MIRADORA, EVANGELINE
CHUA, ROSCHELLE MISSION, MELANIE BALLESTEROS,
MARILYN BACALSO, RENALYN ALCANTARA, FEDERICO
B. VIERNES, CHRISTOPHER B. YARES, ANA MARY R.
AGUILAR, MELANIE SAN MARCOS, EMERLOVE MONTE,
CHONALYN LUCAS, THERESA MALICOSIO, MA. FE
CERCARES, RUBELYN R. CLARO, JONALYN M. YALUNG,
MARY ANN V. MACANAG, RESLYN L. FLORES, CRISTEL
C. ROQUE, TERESA G. MUNAR, SUSAN A. DELA CRUZ,
SHEENA KAY P. DE VERA, ARLENE R. ANES, GINA B.
BINIBINI, CHERINE V. ZORILLA, MA. CRISTINE
MAGTOTO, FRANCIS MARIE O. DE CASTRO, VANESSA
R. ESPIRITU, RACHELLE V. QUISTORIA, JULIE ANN
ILAN, ANGELIE F. PANOTES, ANABEL PAYOS, MELISSA
M. PERLAS, MELANIE B. BERSES, BARVI ROSE
PERALTA, RESIE AQUE, ROWENA RIVERA, MELANIE M.
DY, CHERYLYN CORO, RANELYN SUBONG, ANGELA
SUBILLAGA, THELMA BARTOLABAC, MICHELLE C.
ILAGAN, PRECIOUS MAE DE GUZMAN, MARY
CAROLINE COLINA, FRELYN HIPOLITO, MYLINE A.
CALLOS, JANETH B. SEMBILLO, LEA LYN F. FERRANCO,
MAY C. SANTOS, ROSELLE A. NOBLE, JENNIFER D.
SUYOM, WARREN PETCHIE C. CAJES, ROWELYN F.
CATALAN, RIEZEL ANN A. ALEGRE, DEMETRIA B.
PEREZ, GENALYN OSOC, JUVILYN N. NERI, JOY B.
PIMENTEL, AIRENE LAYON, MARY JOY TURQUEZA,
MARY ANN VALENTIN, ROSIE L. NIEBRES, MELCA
MALLORCA, JOY CAGATCAGAT, DIANA CAMARO,
MARIVEL DIJUMO, SHEILA DELA CRUZ, ELIZABETH
ARINGO, JENALYN G. DISMAYA, MELANIE G. TRIA,
GRETCHEN D. MEJOS, AND JANELIE R. JIMENEZ,
Petitioners, v. HSY MARKETING LTD., CO.,
WANTOFREE ORIENTAL TRADING, INC., COEN
FASHION HOUSE AND GENERAL MERCHANDISE, ASIA
CONSUMER VALUE TRADING, INC., FABULOUS JEANS
& SHIRT & GENERAL MERCHANDISE, LSG
MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, UNITE GENERAL
MERCHANDISE, ROSARIO Q. CO, LUCIA PUN LING
YEUNG, AND ALEXANDER ARQUEZA, Respondents.
G.R. No. 215713, January 22, 2018 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOBBY S.
ABELARDE, Accused-Appellant.
A.M. No. P-17-3771 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 11-
3689-P), January 24, 2018 - JUDGE DENNIS B.
CASTILLA, Complainant, v. MARIA LUZ A. DUNCANO,
CLERK OF COURT IV, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF
COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES,
BUTUAN, AGUSAN DEL SUR, Respondent.
G.R. No. 203081, January 17, 2018 - LINDA CACHO,
MINORS SARAH JANE, JACQUELINE, FIRE RINA AND
MARK LOUISE ALL SURNAMED CACHO, ALL
REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND GUARDIAN AD
LITEM LINDA CACHO, Petitioners, v. GERARDO
MANAHAN, DAGUPAN BUS CO., INC., AND RENATO DE
VERA DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME R. M. DE
VERA CONSTRUCTION, Respondent.
G.R. No. 210766, January 08, 2018 - MARIA
CONCEPCION N. SINGSON A.K.A. CONCEPCION N.
SINGSON, Petitioner, v. BENJAMIN L. SINGSON,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 207074, January 17, 2018 - REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. MICHELLE SORIANO
GALLO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 195878, January 10, 2018 - MAGSAYSAY
MITSUI OSK MARINE, INC., KOYO MARINE, CO. LTD.,
AND CONRADO DELA CRUZ, Petitioners, v. OLIVER G.
BUENAVENTURA, Respondent.
G.R. No. 230404, January 31, 2018 - IN THE
MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF REYNALDO
GUZMAN RODRIGUEZ; ANITA ONG TAN, Petitioner, v.
ROLANDO C. RODRIGUEZ, RACQUEL R. GEGAJO*,
ROSALINDA R. LANDON, REYNALDO C. RODRIGUEZ,
JR., ESTER R. FULGENCIO, RAFAEL C. RODRIGUEZ
AND REYNEST C. RODRIGUEZ, Respondents.
G.R. No. 216057, January 08, 2018 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. CEFERINO
VILLACAMPA Y CADIENTE @ "DADDY GAGA,"
Appellant.
A.C. No. 9000, January 10, 2018 - TOMAS P. TAN,
JR., Complainant, v. ATTY. HAIDE V. GUMBA,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 205813, January 10, 2018 - ALFREDO F.
LAYA, JR., Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK
AND RICARDO A. BALBIDO, JR., Respondents.
or continuing offenses in which some acts material and essential to the crime and requisite
to its consummation occur in one province and some in another, the court of either province
has jurisdiction to try the case, it being understood that the first court taking cognizance of
the case will exclude the others x x x[.]35
What may be gleaned from Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262 is that the law contemplates that acts of violence
against women and their children may manifest as transitory or continuing crimes; meaning that some
acts material and essential thereto and requisite in their consummation occur in one municipality or
territory, while some occur in another. In such cases, the court wherein any of the crime's essential and
material acts have been committed maintains jurisdiction to try the case; it being understood that the first
court taking cognizance of the same excludes the other. Thus, a person charged with a continuing or
transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or territory where the offense was in part
committed.36
It is necessary, for Philippine courts to have jurisdiction when the abusive conduct or act of violence under
Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 in relation to Section 3(a), Paragraph (C) was committed outside Philippine
territory, that the victim be a resident of the place where the complaint is filed in view of the anguish
suffered being a material element of the offense. In the present scenario, the offended wife and children
of respondent husband are residents of Pasig City since March of 2010. Hence, the RTC of Pasig City may
exercise jurisdiction over the case.
Certainly, the act causing psychological violence which under the information relates to BBB's marital
infidelity must be proven by probable cause for the purpose of formally charging the husband, and to
establish the same beyond reasonable doubt for purposes of conviction. It likewise remains imperative to
acquire jurisdiction over the husband. What this case concerns itself is simply whether or not a complaint
for psychological abuse under R.A. No. 9262 may even be filed within the Philippines if the illicit
relationship is conducted abroad. We say that even if the alleged extra marital affair causing the offended
wife mental and emotional anguish is committed abroad, the same does not place a prosecution under
R.A. No. 9262 absolutely beyond the reach of Philippine courts.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated February 24, 2014 and
May 2, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 158, in Criminal Case No. 146468 are SET
ASIDE. Accordingly, the Information filed in Criminal Case No. 146468 is ordered REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
*
Section 44 of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti Violence Against Women and Their Children Act
of 2004) requires the confidentiality of all records pertaining to cases of violence against
women and their children. Per said section, all public officers and employees are prohibited
from publishing or causing to be published in any format the name and other identifying
information of a victim or an immediate family member. The penalty of one (1) year
imprisonment and a fine of not more than Five Hundred Thousand pesos (P500,000.00)
shall be imposed upon those who violate the provision. Pursuant thereto, in the courts'
promulgation of decisions, final resolutions and/or final orders, the names of women and
children victims shall be replaced by fictitious initials, and their personal circumstances or
any information, which tend to identify them, shall likewise not be disclosed.
1 AN ACT DEFINING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN, PROVIDING FOR
PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR VICTIMS, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFORE, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES. Approved on March 8, 2004.
2Rollo, pp. 19-45.
3 Rendered by Presiding Judge Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro; id. at 49-52.
4 Id. at 53.
5 Id. at 4 and 26.
6 Id. at 57.
7
Id. at 57-58.
8 Id. at 58-59.
9 Id. at 26.
10 Id. at 27.
11 Id. at 49.
12 Id. at 50-51.
13
Id. at 154-160.
14 Id. at 3-6.
15 Id. at 17-A.
16 Id. at 15-17.
17 775 Phil. 192 (2015).
18 Id. at 215-216.
19
Morillo v. People, et al., supra.
20 Id. at 212, citing People v. Salico, 84 Phil. 722, 732-733 (1949).
21 Id. at 211.
22DelSocorro v. Van Wilsem, 749 Phil. 823,832 (2014), citing Rep. of the Phils., et al. v.
Sunvar Realty Development Corp., 688 Phil. 616, 630 (2012).
23 Id. at 832.
 G.R. No. 192971, January 10, 2018 - FLORO 24Morillo v. People, et al., supra.
MERCENE, Petitioner, v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE
INSURANCE SYSTEM, Respondent. 25 Id. at 214.
A.M. No. RTJ-11-2301 [Formerly A.M. No. 11-3-55- 26Rollo,
RTC], January 16, 2018 - OFFICE OF THE COURT
p. 50.
ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. JUDGE PERLA V. 27
CABRERA FALLER, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OPHELIA G. Id. at 51.
SULUEN AND PROCESS SERVER RIZALINO RINALDI B.
28 Id. at 52.
PONTEJOS, ALL OF THE RTC, BRANCH 90,
DASMARIÑAS, CAVITE, Respondents.; A.M. No. RTJ-
11-2302 [FORMERLY A.M. No. 11-7-125-RTC] - 29 < https://psa.gov.ph/content/total-number-ofws-estimated-22-million-results-2016-
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, surveyoverseas-filipinos > (visited October 30, 2017).
Complainant, v. PRESIDING JUDGE FERNANDO L.
FELICEN, CLERK OF COURT V ATTY. ALLAN SLY M. 30 Garcia v. Judge Drilon, et al., 712 Phil. 44, 94 (2013).
MARASIGAN, SHERIFF IV ANSELMO P. PAGUNSAN,
JR., COURT STENOGRAPHERS ROSALIE MARANAN 31 761 Phil. 356 (2015).
AND TERESITA P. REYES, COURT INTERPRETER
IMELDA M. JUNTILLA, AND PROCESS SERVER 32
HIPOLITO O. FERRER, ALL OF THE RTC, BRANCH 20, Id. at 372-376.
IMUS, CAVITE; PRESIDING JUDGE NORBERTO J.
33 680 Phil. 368 (2012).
QUISUMBING, JR., CLERK OF COURT ATTY. MARIA
CRISTITA A. RIVASSANTOS, LEGAL RESEARCHER
MANUELA O. OSORIO, SHERIFF IV FILMAR M. DE 34 Id. at 380, citing Isip v. People, 552 Phil. 786, 801-802 (2007).
VILLA, COURT STENOGRAPHERS MARILOU CAJIGAL,
WENDILYN T. ALMEDA AND HELEN B. CARALUT, 35Tuzon v. Judge Cruz, 160 Phil. 925, 929 (1975).
COURT INTERPRETER ELENITA T. DE VILLA, AND
PROCESS SERVER ELMER S. AZCUETA, ALL OF THE 36Morillo v. People, supra note 17, at 206.
RTC, BRANCH 21, IMUS, CAVITE; PRESIDING JUDGE
CESAR A. MANGROBANG, CLERK OF COURT VI ATTY.
REGALADO E. EUSEBIO, CLERK OF COURT V ATTY.
SETER M. DELA CRUZ-CORDEZ, LEGAL RESEARCHER
DEVINA A. REYES BERMUDEZ, COURT
STENOGRAPHERS PRISCILLA P. HERNANDEZ,
NORMITA Z. FABIA, MERLY O. PARCERO, AND JOYCE
Back to Home | Back to Main
ANN F. SINGIAN, COURT INTERPRETER MICHELLE A.
ALARCON, AND PROCESS SERVER ELMER S. AZCUETA,
ALL OF THE RTC, BRANCH 22, IMUS, CAVITE;
EXECUTIVE JUDGE PERLA V. CABRERAFALLER, CLERK
QUICK SEARCH
OF COURT ZENAIDA C. NOGUERA, SHERIFF IV TOMAS
C. AZURIN, OIC LEGAL RESEARCHER OPHELIA G.
SULUEN, COURT STENOGRAPHERS JESUSA B. SAN
JOSE, ROSALINA A. COSTUNA, AND MARIA LOURDES 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
M. SAPINOSO, COURT INTERPRETER MERLINA S.
FERMA, AND PROCESS SERVER RIZALINO RINALDI B. 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
PONTEJOS, ALL OF THE RTC, BRANCH 90, 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
DASMARIÑAS, CAVITE, Respondents.; A.M. No. 12-9-
188-RTC - RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER COMPLAINT 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
AGAINST JUDGE PERLA V. CABRERA-FALLER, BRANCH 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
90, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, DASMARIÑAS CITY,
CAVITE, RELATIVE TO CIVIL CASE NO. 1998-08 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
G.R. No. 194214, January 10, 2018 - MARILOU
PUNONGBAYAN-VISITACION, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
OF THE PHILIPPINES AND CARMELITA P. 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
PUNONGBAYAN, Respondents.
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
G.R. No. 200469, January 15, 2018 - PHILIPPINE 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
SAVINGS BANK, Petitioner, v. JOSEPHINE L. PAPA,
Respondent. 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
G.R. No. 205440, January 15, 2018 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. YOLANDO B. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
PANERIO ALIAS JOHN "YOLLY" LABOR AND ALEX 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
(JOJO) F. ORTEZA, ACCUSED, YOLANDO B. PANERIO,
Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 214291, January 11, 2018 - AMERICAN

POWER CONVERSION CORPORATION; AMERICAN
POWER CONVERSION SINGAPORE PTE. LTD.;
AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION (A.P.C.), B.V.; Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION (PHILS.) B.V.;
DAVID W. PLUMER, JR.; GEORGE KONG; AND ALICIA
HENDY, Petitioners, v. JASON YU LIM, Respondent.

G.R. No. 225596, January 10, 2018 - THE PEOPLE

OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
ALEXANDER ALVARO Y DE LEON AND ROSALIE
GERONIMO Y MADERA, Accused-Appellants.

G.R. No. 210610, January 11, 2018 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARILOU
HILARIO Y DIANA AND LALAINE GUADAYO Y ROYO,
ACCUSED. MARILOU HILARIO Y DIANA, Accused-
Appellant.

G.R. Nos. 206841-42, January 19, 2018 - ARMANDO

GO, Petitioner, v. EAST OCEANIC LEASING AND
FINANCE CORPORATION, Respondent.

G.R. No. 208835, January 19, 2018 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NOEL BEJIM Y
ROMERO, Accused-Appellant.

A.M. No. P-17-3639 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 14-

4314-P), January 23, 2018 - MA. CECILIA FERMINA T.
ROXAS, Complainant, v. ALLEN FRANCISCO S. SICAT,
SHERIFF III, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, ANGELES CITY,
PAMPANGA, Respondent.

G.R. No. 219683, January 23, 2018 - HON.

JONATHAN A. DELA CRUZ AND HON. GUSTAVO S.
TAMBUNTING, AS MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES AND AS TAXPAYERS, Petitioners,
v. HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS
THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; HON. JOSEPH EMILIO A.
ABAYA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
COMMUNICATIONS; HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, IN
HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT; AND
HON. ROSALIA V. DE LEON, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE
NATIONAL TREASURER, Respondents.

G.R. No. 225690, January 17, 2018 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GERALD
ARVIN ELINTO RAMIREZ AND BELINDA GALIENBA
LACHICA, Accused-Appellants.

G.R. No. 204039, January 10, 2018 - UNITED

COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES
WALTER UY AND LILY UY, Respondents.

G.R. No. 195887, January 10, 2018 - BEN LINE

AGENCIES PHILIPPINES, INC., REP. BY RICARDO J.
JAMANDRE, Petitioner, v. CHARLES M.C. MADSON AND
ALFREDO P. AMORADO, Respondents.

G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSHUA QUE
Y UTUANIS, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 230144, January 22, 2018 - THE MANILA

BANKING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. BASES
CONVERSION AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 216017, January 19, 2018 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NIÑO FLOR Y
MORA, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 188243, January 24, 2018 - LAND BANK

OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. RAUL T.
MANZANO, JOSE R. JUGO, RAMON H. MANZANO, AND
HEIRS OF PILAR T. MANZANO, NAMELY: RICARDO T.
MANZANO, JR., RENATO T. MANZANO, JR., RAMON T.
MANZANO, JR., RAUL T. MANZANO, RAFAEL T.
MANZANO, ROBERTO T. MANZANO, AND REGINA T.
MANZANO, Respondents.

G.R. No. 231792, January 29, 2018 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALVIN JUGO
Y VILLANUEVA, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 197920, January 22, 2018 -

DEMOSTHENES R. ARBILON, Petitioner, v. SOFRONIO
MANLANGIT, Respondent.

A.M. No. P-18-3796 (Formerly OCA IPI No.16-

4545-P), January 22, 2018 - ATTY. MA. JASMINE P.
LOOD, MARY JANE G. CORPUZ, AND MA. HAZEL P.
SEBIAL, Complainants, v. RUEL V. DELICANA, LEGAL
RESEARCHER, BRANCH 3, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
IN CITIES [MTCC], GENERAL SANTOS CITY, SOUTH
COTABATO, Respondent.

G.R. No. 208775, January 22, 2018 - JORGE

DABON, a.k.a. GEORGE DEBONE @ GEORGE,
Petitioner, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 208638, January 24, 2018 - SPOUSES

FRANCISCO ONG AND BETTY LIM ONG, AND SPOUSES
JOSEPH ONG CHUAN AND ESPERANZA ONG CHUAN,
Petitioners, v. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC.,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 191460, January 31, 2018 - PERFECTO M.

PASCUA, Petitioner, v. BANK WISE, INC. AND
PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, Respondent.; G.R. No.
191464, January 31, 2018 - BANKWISE, INC.,
Petitioner, v. PERFECTO M. PASCUA AND PHILIPPINE
VETERANS BANK, Respondents.

G.R. No. 226400, January 24, 2018 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSELITO
BRINGCULA Y FERNANDEZ, Accused-Appellant.

A.C. No. 10684, January 24, 2018 - ILUMINADA D.

YUZON, Complainant, v. ATTY. ARNULFO M. AGLERON,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 227577, January 24, 2018 - ANGEL

FUELLAS DIZON, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILLIPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 229512, January 31, 2018 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RONALDO
PAZ Y DIONISIO @ "JEFF", Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 195472, January 08, 2018 - SAMSON LIM

BIO HIAN, Petitioner, v. JOAQUIN LIM ENG TIAN,
Respondent.; G.R. No. 195568, January 08, 2018 -
JOHNSON LIM BIO TIONG, Petitioner, v. JOAQUIN LIM
ENG TIAN, Respondent.

G.R. No. 200401, January 17, 2018 - METRO RAIL

TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
GAMMON PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent.

A.M. No. MTJ-18-1908 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 14-

2674-MTJ), January 16, 2018 - BERNARDITA F.
ANTIPORDA, Complainant, v. FRANCISCO A. ANTE,
JR., PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN
CITIES, VIGAN, CITY, ILOCOS SUR, Respondent.
 G.R. No. 207613, January 31, 2018 - REYMAN G.
MINSOLA, Petitioner, v. NEW CITY BUILDERS, INC.
AND ENGR. ERNEL FAJARDO, Respondents.

G.R. No. 222317, January 24, 2018 - ST. PAUL

COLLEGE, PASIG, AND SISTER TERESITA BARICAUA,
SPC, Petitioners, v. ANNA LIZA L. MANCOL AND
JENNIFER CECILE S. VALERA, Respondents.

G.R. No. 213465, January 08, 2018 - CAREER

PHILIPPINES SHIPMANAGEMENT, INC.; COLUMBIA
SHIPMANAGEMENT LTD. LIBERIA; AND/OR
SAMPAGUITA D. MARAVE, Petitioners, v. DONARD P.
SILVESTRE, Respondent.

G.R. No. 228799, January 10, 2018 - MACTAN ROCK

INDUSTRIES, INC. AND ANTONIO TOMPAR,
Petitioners, v. BENFREI S. GERMO, Respondent.

G.R. No. 224673, January 22, 2018 - CECILIA

RIVAC, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 226103, January 24, 2018 - GENERATO M.

HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. MAGSAYSAY MARITIME
CORPORATION, SAFFRON MARITIME LIMITED
AND/OR MARLON R. ROÑO, Respondents.

GR. No. 199081, January 24, 2018 - ASIGA MINING

CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. MANILA MINING
CORPORATION AND BASIANA MINING EXPLORATION
CORPORATION, Respondents.

G.R. No. 203160, January 24, 2018 -

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner,
v. COVANTA ENERGY PHILIPPINE HOLDINGS, INC.,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 218984, January 24, 2018 - ARMANDO M.

TOLENTINO (DECEASED), HEREIN REPRESENTED BY
HIS SURVIVING SPOUSE MERLA F. TOLENTINO AND
CHILDREN NAMELY: MARIENELA, ALYSSA, ALEXA,
AND AZALEA, ALL SURNAMED TOLENTINO,
Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC.,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 217135, January 31, 2018 - MANILA

SHIPMANAGEMENT & MANNING, INC., AND/OR
HELLESPONT HAMMONIA GMBH & CO. KG AND/OR
AZUCENA C. DETERA, Petitioners, v. RAMON T.
ANINANG, Respondent.

G.R. No. 210504, January 24, 2018 - HEIRS OF

ALFONSO YUSINGCO, REPRESENTED BY THEIR
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, TEODORO K. YUSINGCO,
Petitioners, v. AMELITA BUSILAK, COSCA NAVARRO,
FLAVIA CURAYAG AND LIXBERTO1 CASTRO,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 229404, January 24, 2018 - MARILYN B.

ASENTISTA, Petitioner, v. JUPP & COMPANY, INC.,
AND/OR MR. JOSEPH V. ASCUTIA, Respondents.

G.R. No. 233922, January 24, 2018 - MA. VICTORIA

M. GALANG, Petitioner, v. PEAKHOLD FINANCE
CORPORATION AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF
CALOOCAN CITY, Respondents.

A.M. No. 17-11-272-RTC, January 31, 2018 - RE:

DROPPING FROM THE ROLLS OF LEMUEL H.
VENDIOLA, SHERIFF IV, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF
COURT (OCC), REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BIÑAN
CITY, LAGUNA (RTC).

A.C. No. 9129, January 31, 2018 - MARIA EVA DE

MESA, Complainant, v. ATTY. OLIVER O. OLAYBAL,
Respondent.

A.C. No. 9067, January 31, 2018 - MARJORIE A.

APOLINAR-PETILO, Complainant, v. ATTY. ARISTEDES
A. MARAMOT, Respondent.

G.R. No. 229671, January 31, 2018 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOVENCITO
MIRANDA Y TIGAS, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 207252, January 24, 2018 - PHILIPPINE

GEOTHERMAL, INC. EMPLOYEES UNION (PGIEU),
Petitioner, v. CHEVRON GEOTHERMAL PHILS.
HOLDINGS, INC., Respondent.

G.R. No. 225929, January 24, 2018 - JOSE V.

GAMBITO, Petitioner, v. ADRIAN OSCAR Z. BACENA,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 222159, January 31, 2018 - PAZ E.

REBADULLA, PERRAIN E. REBADULLA, JOCELYN E.
REBADULLA, CLEVIS E. REBADULLA, HAZEL R.
RIGUERA, ARIEL E. REBADULLA,GIOVANNI CLYDE E.
REBADULLA, ROEL E. STA. MARIA, KLEINER KYLE R.
STA. MARIA, AND KERSCHEL R. STA. MARIA,
Petitioners, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE
SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS & HIGHWAYS, AND
ENGR. TOMAS L. BUEN, PROJECT MANAGER, DPWH-
PMO-SWIM PROJECT, Respondents.; G.R. No. 222171,
January 31, 2018 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
THE SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS,
AND ENGR. TOMAS L. BUEN, PROJECT MANAGER,
DPWH-PMO-SWIM PROJECT, Petitioners, v. PAZ E.
 REBADULLA, PERRAIN E. REBADULLA, JOCELYN E.
REBADULLA, CLEVIS E. REBADULLA, PAZ R. STA.
MARIA, REPRESENTED BY HER COMPULSORY HEIRS
HAZEL R. RIGUERA, ARIEL E. REBADULLA, GIOVANNI
CLYDE E. REBADULLA, ROEL E. STA. MARIA, KLEINER
KYLE R. STA. MARIA, AND KERSCHEL R. STA. MARIA,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 213945, January 24, 2018 - LUCILA YARED

AND HEIRS OF THE LATE ERNESTO YARED, SR.,
Petitioners, v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 220103, January 31, 2018 - SAN MIGUEL

FOODS, INC., Petitioner, v. HANNIVAL V. RIVERA,
JOVICELL B. FUJA, ENCENARIO B. CORONADO, JR.,
LEYLANIE O. GULANE, JOSE PEDRO, REY RELLOROSA,
CHERRY MAY BRAGA, ROGELIO ALSONADO, JOHN DE
VERA, ALBERTO DAGANIO, RHENE PURA, EFREN
ESCOBIDO, ALEXANDER D. BUENAOBRA, SUSIE
VERIDIANO, ROBERTO E. GERMAN, JR., HERMAN B.
ESPANUEVA, JR., MARIONITO D. JUMAO-AS,
ANTHONY ANTONIO, JESSIE GLENN DELA CRUZ,
SOFRONIO SIMPORIOS, JR., RICHARD FLAUTA,
ENRIQUE BUNA, JOJIT ORILLOSA, JONATHAN PENA,
JENNIFER B. CASTILLO, EDGARDO BARBACENA, JOSE
WARLITO INTING, MICHAEL FLORES, LEONCIO M.
ISON, ALEXANDER C. ARELLANO, CARMELITO F.
FUNTANBA, ALMARO M. ROSEL, NORBERTO PONCE B.
PULIDO, JR., ARIAMHER OGANA, DOMINADOR B.
SALAZAR, ANGELITO C. TABUCOL, RENATO C.
ILLUSTRISIMO, ROGELIO M. DE LEON, FELIPE P.
GUILLANO, AND SHIRLY M. TOLENTINO,
Respondents.

A.M. No. RTJ-16-2470 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 12-

3987-RTJ), January 10, 2018 - PROSECUTOR LEO T.
CAHANAP, Complainant, v. JUDGE LEONOR S.
QUIÑONES, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 6,
ILIGAN CITY, LANAO DEL NORTE, Respondent.

G.R. No. 208197, January 10, 2018 - ARACELI

MAYUGA, SUBSTITUTED BY MARILYN MAYUGA
SANTILLAN FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ALL THE HEIRS,
Petitioner, v. ANTONIO ATIENZA, REPRESENTING THE
HEIRS OF ARMANDO* ATIENZA; BENJAMIN ATIENZA,
JR., REPRESENTING THE HEIRS OF BENJAMIN A.
ATIENZA, SR., Respondents.

G.R. No. 227395, January 10, 2018 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. OSCAR
GIMPAYA AND ROEL GIMPAYA, ACCUSED, OSCAR
GIMPAYA, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 229102, January 29, 2018 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PHILIP
MAMANGON Y ESPIRITU, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 210961, January 24, 2018 - LEO V. MAGO

AND LEILANIE E. COLOBONG, Petitioners, v. SUN
POWER MANUFACTURING LIMITED, Respondent.

G.R. No. 221862, January 23, 2018 - GEN.

EMMANUEL BAUTISTA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE
CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE
PHILIPPINES (AFP), GEN. EDUARDO AÑO, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE
INTELLIGENCE SERVICE OF THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE PHILIPPINES (ISAFP), GEN. HERNANDO
IRIBERRI, IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMANDING
GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINE ARMY, GEN. BENITO
ANTONIO T. DE LEON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE 5TH INFANTRY
DIVISION, AND PC/SUPT. MIGUEL DE MAYO LAUREL,
IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF THE ISABELA
PROVINCIAL POLICE OFFICE, Petitioners, v. ATTY.
MARIA CATHERINE DANNUG-SALUCON, Respondent.

Copyright © 1998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED