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 eected with or without a warrant. With respect to the latter, the parameters of Section 5, Rule 11of the Re!ised Rules of "riminal #rocedure should $ as a %eneral rule $ be complied with: &a' an arrest of a suspect in (a%rante delicto) &b' an arrest of a suspect where, based on personal *nowled%e of the arrestin% oicer, there is probable cause that said suspect was the perpetrator of a crime which had +ust been committed) and &c' an arrest of a prisoner who has escaped from custody ser!in% nal +ud%ment or temporarily conned durin% the pendency of his case or has escaped while bein% transferred from one connement to another. another. Same Same:: Same Same:: Re-u Re-uis isit ites es of the the #aram aramet eter er on Warra arrant ntle less ss Arre Arrest st.. n warrantless arrest made in pursuant to Section 5 &a' Rule 11, two &/' elements must concur, namely: &a' the person arrested must e0ecute an o!ert act indicatin% that he has +ust committed, is actually committin%, or is attemptin% to commit a crime) &b' such o!ert act is done in the presence or within the !iew of the arrestin% oicer. n the other hand, Section 5 &b', Rule 11 re-uires for its application that at the time of the arrest, an oense had +ust in fact +ust been committed and the arrestin% oicer had personal *nowled%e of facts indicatin% that the accused had committed it. PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: J.: FACTS: The petit petition ioner er,, Sindac Sindac,, was found found to be in posse possessi ssion on of a sachet sachet containin methamphetamine h!droch"oride or shabu on or about #pri" 17, 2007 2007 whi"e whi"e $%3 $%3 $e&am e&amor ora a and and $%1 $%1 #sis #sis are are cond conduc ucti tin n sur' sur'ei ei""a ""anc nce e operations on the former(s a""eed dru trade.
)owe )owe'e 'err, Sind Sindac ac deni denied ed the the poss posses essio sion n of the the i""e i""ea a"" dru drus. s. )i )is s 'ersion is that on the said date, he is ridin on a tric!c"e when the po"ice o*icers stopped the 'ehic"e and ordered him to et o*. Then the! proceeded to the po"ice station, where Sindac was fris+ed and framed b! the po"ice who who imp" imp"an ante ted d the the shab shabu u in his his wa"" wa""et et.. RT RT -ue -ueon on foun found d Sind Sindac ac ui" ui"t! t! be!ond reasonab"e doubt of the crime chared aainst him 'io"atin Section 11, 11, #rti #rtic"e c"e // of Repu Repub" b"ic ic #ct #ct No. No. R# R# 16 16,, othe otherw rwis ise e +now +nown n as the the 4omprehensi'e 5anerous 5anerous 5rus #ct of 2002. # a*irmed the decision of RT. )ence, this appea". ISSUE: hether or not the warrant"ess arrest b! the po"ice o*icers e*ected aainst Sindac is 8usti9ed.
HELD: NEGATIVE. #s e"ucidated b! the ourt, Section 2, #rtic"e /// of the 1:7 onstitution mandates that a search and seiure must be carried out throuh or on the strenth of a 8udicia" warrant predicated upon the e;istence of a probab"e cause, absent which, such seiures becomes 4unreasonab"e within the meanin of said constitutiona" pro'ision. To protect the peop"e from unreasonab"e searches and seiures, Section 3 2 #rtic"e /// of the onstitution pro'ides that e'idence obtained from unreasonab"e searches and seiures sha"" be inadmissib"e in e'idence for an! purpose in an! proceedin.
To bein with, the warrant"ess arrest in the instant case cannot warrant the search and seiure aainst Sindac since the circumstances fa"" short of the re
arante de"icto? b an arrest of a suspect where, based on persona" +now"ede of the arrestin o*icer, there is probab"e cause that said suspect was the perpetrator of a crime which had 8ust been committed? and c an arrest of a prisoner who has escaped from custod! ser'in 9na" 8udment or temporari"! con9ned durin the pendenc! of his case or has escaped whi"e bein transferred from one con9nement to another./n warrant"ess arrest made in pursuant to Section a Ru"e 113, two 2 e"ements must concur, name"!= a the person arrested must e;ecute an o'ert act indicatin that he has 8ust committed, is actua""! committin, or is attemptin to commit a crime? b such o'ert act is done in the presence or within the 'iew of the arrestin o*icer. %n the other hand, Section b, Ru"e 113 re
true or plain copy if the said +ud%ment, order or resolution shall fall under 6other material portion of the record as would support the alle%ations of the petition.7 Same) Same) Writ of 80ecution. Since a Writ of 80ecution cannot alter the decision in the case but it is the one bein% -uestioned, it is still re-uired to submit a true or plain copy of the 9ecision. PEREZ, J.: FACTS: #n A8ectment omp"aint was 9"ed b! respondent Teodu"aBa8ao Ba8ao aainst Aduardo B. Sac"a, Cr., Doi"o C.Eu"on, Sr., A"ena Bertos,6 and Ta"ia in the FeT of Fani"a, pra!in that the defendants 'acate and demo"ish thesub8ect propert! "ocated at 21 Granate Street, Sta. #na, Fani"a. #ftertria", the FeT ru"ed in fa'or of Ba8ao in a 5ecision dated 20 No'ember 1:. The case was e"e'ated to RT which a*irmed the decision of FeT which became 9na" and e;ecutor! on Cu"! 2:, 2000.
Ba8ao 9"ed a Fotion for A;ecution on #uust :, 2000 which was on"! acted upon b! RT on %ctober 23, 2007, se'en 7 !ears after motion was 9"ed. /t was ranted on No'ember 2:, 2007 and on Eebruar! 27, 200:, Adardo -ui"o and #dna"o! i""ahermosa,petitioners herein, recei'ed a Notice to $a!Hacate and 5emo"ish $remises from the FeT, directin them to 'acate thepropert! and remo'e their houses therein b! 'irtue of the rit of A;ecution. $etitioners 9"ed a Fotion to -uash which was e'entua""! denied on Cune 26, 200:. FeT ordered the imp"ementation of the rit of A;ecution on Cu"! 2, 200: and the Sheri* ser'ed the 2 nd and Eina" Notice to $a!H acate and to 5emo"ish $remises on #uust 2, 200:. %n September 1, 200:, petitioners 9"ed a petition for certiorari underRu"e 6 of the 17 Ru"es of i'i" $rocedure before the RT imputinra'e abuse of discretion amountin to "ac+ or e;cess of 8urisdiction on thepart of pub"ic respondents )on. Ee"icitas 0. IaronJ acanindin and Sheri*Roe"io G. Cundarino for a*irmin the 5ecision of the FeT which ordered the e'iction of petitioners but it was denied b! RT on September K 200: for fai"ure to attach a certi9ed true cop! of the assai"ed8udment, order or reso"ution. $etitioners then 9"ed a Fotion for Reconsideration with the certi9ed true cop! of the FeT %rders dated 26 Cune200: and 2 Cu"! 200:. )owe'er, it was sti"" denied on 5ecember 1: 200:, sinceit on"! appended a certi9ed true cop! of the FeT %rdersdated 26 Cune 200: and 2 Cu"! 200: and fai"ed to inc"ude a certi9ed true cop! ofthe FeT 5ecision. The RT
further he"d that the petition fai"ed to comp"!with Section K, $araraph 2, Ru"e 1 of the 17 Ru"es of i'i" ISSUE: hether or not RT committed ra'e abuse of discretion HELD: NEGATIVE. Section 1, Ru"e 6 of the 17 Ru"es of i'i" $rocedure mandates thatpetitions for certiorari sha"" be accompanied b! a certi9ed true cop! of the8udment, order or reso"ution assai"ed. %n this case, petitioners contended that submission of FeT decision dated No'ember 20, 1: must be dispensed with since the! are on"! assai"in the orders dated Cune 26, 200: and Cu"! 2, 200:. erti9ed true cop! of which were submitted on"! when petitioners 9"ed a motion for reconsideration. Ne'erthe"ess, the! sti"" submitted the re
Ru"e 70 of the Re'ised Ru"es of Summar! $rocedure o'erns e8ectment cases and mandates that decisions be immediate"! e;ecutor!. #pp"!in the same in the case at bar, decision pursuant to the e8ectment proceedin orderin the 'acatin of the sub8ect propert! must be immediate"! e;ecuted. G.R No. 212171 September 7, 2016 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MERCURY DELA CRUZ !"# “DEDAY” Remedial Law) "hain of "ustody. n handlin% e!idence, perfect chain of custody should be obser!ed. owe!er, it is suicient that there is 6substantial compliance with the le%al re-uirements on the handlin% of the sei;ed item7 and what is of utmost importance is that the inte%rity and e!identiary !alue of the sei;ed items was preser!ed since these will be utili;ed in the determination of the %uilt of innocence of the accused. REYES, J.: FACTS: %n No'ember 10, 2006, at around 7=1 o(c"oc+ in the e'enin, $%3 Batoba"anos, $%1 Rea"es and $%1 Bu""ido conducted a bu!Jbust operation toether with a ci'i"ian asset. The ci'i"ian asset ca""ed 5e"a ru and to"d her that the!wi"" bu! shabu worth $200.00. Thereafter, 5e"a ru handed
$%1Rea"es asma"" p"astic containin white cr!sta""ine substance and in e;chane he handed to the former the $200.00 bi""s. Mpon ettin ho"d of the mone!, $03 Batoba"onos and $%1Bu""ido, who saw the consummation of thetransaction rushed to the scene.Fercur! 5e"a ru was apprehended for i""ea" sa"e of shabu. )owe'er, 5e"a ru was ab"e to run and e'ade arrest. %n their wa! to the po"ice station aboard their patro" car, $%1 Rea"eshanded the the sma"" p"astic containin white cr!sta""inesubstance which he purchased from5e"a ru to $03 Batoba"onos. Thereafter, upon arri'a" atthe po"ice station, the "atter mar+ed the seied item and prepared a Re
G.R. No. 206:0:J0 September 7,2016 LOCAL $ATER UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION FOR PROGRESS %LEAP&, MELANIO B. CUCHAPIN
II,'( ! v LOCAL $ATER UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION %L$UA& )* DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT
Remedial Law) Writ of #reliminary n+unction. A writ of preliminary in+unction is an order %ranted at any sta%e of an action or proceedin% prior to the +ud%ment or nal order, re-uirin% a party or a court, a%ency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts. Same) 9octrine of 80haustion of administrati!e remedies. he courts of +ustice ,for reasons of comity and con!enience,will shy away from a dispute until the system of administrati!e redress has been completed and complied with,so as to %i!e the administrati!e a%ency concerned e!ery opportunity to correct its error and dispose of the case. PERALTA, J.: FACTS:
# petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with a pra!er for temporar! restrainin order TR% and pre"iminar! in8unction with the RT of -ueon it! was 9"ed b! the petitioners aainst the IM# and 5BF a""ein that the "ater aencies acted with ra'e abuse of discretion in the imp"ementation of the appro'ed reoraniationa" p"an pursuant to A% K21 , on the round that the disp"acement of twent! 20 positions wi"" resu"t to in8ustice and irreparab"e in8ur! to at most 233 IM# emp"o!ees who wi"" face an immediate and outriht dismissa" from ser'ice. onse
1. hether or not the petition for certiorari under Ru"e 6 is the proper remed! 2. hether or not RT(s dismissa" of the principa"(s action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus resu"ts in the automatic disso"ution of the anci""ar! writ of pre"iminar! in8unction
HELD: +. NEGATIVE. Mnder Ru"e 6, petitioners, c"ear"! a'ai"ed themse"'es of the wron remed!. Mnder the Supreme ourt ircu"ar 2J0, an appea" ta+en to the ourt or to the # b! a wron or an inappropriate mode of merits outriht dismissa". Eurthermore, the ourt has ru"ed that fo""owin the doctrines of e;haustion of administrati'e remedies and doctrine of primar! 8urisdiction ,the ourt wi"" sh! awa! from a dispute unti" the s!stem of administrati'e redress has been comp"eted in the present case R# No. 666 pro'ides the petitioner with the amp"e remedies to address their a""eed predicament the petitioners shou"d ha'e 9rst brouht their case to the appointin authorit! which is the IM# Board of Trustees and thereafter to the i'i" Ser'ice ommission which has the primar! 8urisdiction. )owe'er, petitioner fai"ed to a'ai" of these remedies prior to 9"in of a petition for certiorari. . AFFIRMATIVE. The dismissa" of the principa" action and the purpose of the pro'isiona" remed! ha'in been ser'ed, the writ of pre"iminar! in8unction issued b! the RT is "i+ewise deemed "ifted. /t is a ru"e that a writ of pre"iminar! in8unction is an order ranted at an! stae of an action or proceedin prior to the 8udment or 9na" order, re
G.R. No. 223076 September 13, 2016 PILAR CANEDA BRAGA,PETER TIU LAVINA, '( ! )* SAMAL CITY RESORT O$NERS ASSOCIATION%SCROA& v HON. JOSEPH EMILIO A. ABAYA ,IN HIS CAPACITY AS SEC OF DOTC ,PRE-QUALIFICATION ,BIDS AND A$ARDS AND COMMITTEE %PBAC& AND PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY %PPA& Remedial Law) #olitical Law)Writ of
Same) same) Writ of "ontinuin% =andamus. s a remedy a!ailable when any %o!ernment a%ency, instrumentality or oicer unlawfully ne%lects a specic le%al duty in connection with the enforcement or !iolation of an en!ironmental law, rule or re%ulation, or a ri%ht therein or unlawfully e0cludes another from the use or en+oyment of such ri%ht and there is no other plain ,speedy and ade-uate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
BRION, J.: FACTS:
$etitioners 9"ed a petition for a rit of ontinuin Fandamus and Hor rit of a"i+asan with a pra!er for the issuance of a temporar! en'ironmenta" protection order TA$% aainst the 5epartment of Transportation and ommunications 5%T and the $hi"ippine $orts #uthorit! $$# for a""eed"! carr!in out the moderniation pro8ect of the 5a'ao Sasa harf ,under a $ub"ic @$ri'ate $artnership $$$ scheme without the necessar! An'ironmenta" omp"iance erti9cate A and An'ironmenta" /mpact Statements pursuant to $5 1:6 and fai"ed to conduct a pub"ic consu"tation on the socia" acceptabi"it! of the pro8ect as re
hether or not the rit of a"i+asan andHor rit of ontinuin Fandamus with TA$% sha"" issue HELD: NEGATIVE. The writ of +a"i+asan is a remed! for 'io"ation of constitutiona" riht to a ba"anced and hea"thfu" eco"o! or threat thereof throuh an! act or omission. Such 'io"ation must show en'ironmenta" damae of such manitude as to pre8udice "ife, hea"th or propert! of inhabitants within two or more cities or pro'inces. The ourt ru"ed that the petition is premature because the petitioner fai"ed to pro'e the threat of en'ironmenta" damae to be such manitude as to pre8udice the "ife,hea"th or propert! of inhabitants in two or more cities. The petitioner further fai"ed to identif! the particu"ar threats from the pro8ect itse"f. Since the pro8ect is
sti"" in the biddin process, biddin in itse"f does not constitute a harm. The $ro8ect is not a creation of a new port but rather a moderniation of an e;istin one , the purported neati'e impacts are a"read! in e;istence as the $ort of 5a'ao has been in operation wa! bac+ 100 , the a""eations are mere specu"ations and does not merit an issuance of a rit of a"i+asan.
