Search This Blog

Loading...

Saturday, August 31, 2013

RODRIGUEZ vs APOSAGA Case Digest

ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ v. VICENTE P. APOSAGA, JR., 
A.M. No. P-03-1671, 31 January 2005, (CARPIO MORALES, J.) 

It bears emphasis that high standards are expected of sheriffs, they being agents of the law. They are mandated to perform the duties of their office earnestly, faithfully and honestly. 

FACTS: By 1st Indorsement of February 8, 2002, the Department of Justice (DOJ) referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for appropriate action a letter of herein complainant Antonio Rodriguez (Rodriguez) requesting assistance in the execution of the decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Zamboanga in his favor. It was alleged that Vicente P. Aposaga, Jr., Sheriff IV of the said court, asked for P10,000.00 for the execution of the said decision. 

Rodriguez, however, paid no heed to Aposaga‘s request. Consequently, Aposaga could not implement the writ of execution. With the help of a "common friend" who was aware of his predicament, Aposaga proceeded to cause the registration of the Notice of Levy on the judgment debtor‘s property. The Court arrived to the conclusion that what Aposaga was doing is a violation of Section 9, Rule 141 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Friday, August 30, 2013

RECUERDO vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and CA Case Digest

JOY LEE RECUERDO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF APPEALS 
395 SCRA 117 (2003), THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales, J.) 

B.P. 22 punishes the act of making and issuing a worthless check and not the non-payment of the obligation. 

FACTS: Yolanda Floro sold a loose diamond stone valued at P420,000.00 to Joy Lee Recuerdo. As payment for the diamond, Recuerdo gave P40,000 as downpayment and issued 9 postdated checks. When Floro tried to deposit eight checks, only three were cleared and the other five were dishonored due to the closure of Recuerdo‘s account. Recuerdo promised to convert the checks into cash but she welshed on it 

A demand letter was sent to Recuerdo but she still failed to comply with her obligation. This prompted Floro to file at the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) five informations against Recuerdo for violation of B.P. 22.

Thursday, August 29, 2013

QUIMBO vs GERVACIO Case Digest

PRUDENCIO QUIMBO v. ACTING OMBUDSMAN MARGARITO GERVACIO et al. 
466 SCRA 277 (2005), THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales, J.) 

Preventive suspension is merely a preventive measure, a preliminary step in an administrative investigation, not a penalty or punishment. 

FACTS: Petitioner Prudencio C. Quimbo, Provincial Engineer of Samar, was administratively charged for harassment and oppression by Elmo V. Padaon (Padaon), a general foreman. During the pendency of the case, he was placed under preventive suspension without pay. 

The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman found Quimbo guilty of oppression and recommended that he be ―suspended from office for a period of eight (8) months without pay. This was approved by the Ombudsman. The Court of Appeals (CA) found Quimbo guilty of simple misconduct only and penalized him with suspension from office for a period of two (2) months without pay.

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

PEOPLE vs VINECARIO Case Digest

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VICTOR DIAZ VINECARIO, et al. 
420 SCRA 280 (2004), THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales, J.) 

Vehicles may be stopped and extensively searched when there is probable cause that either the motorist is a law offender or the contents of the vehicle are or have been instruments of some offense. 

FACTS: On the night of April 10, 1995, as about fifteen police officers were manning a checkpoint at Ulas, Davao City pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 2735, otherwise known as the COMELEC gun ban, a motorcycle with three men on board namely appellant Victor Vinecario (Vinecario), Arnold Roble (Roble) Gerlyn Wates (Wates) sped past of the police officers. When they were ordered to return to the checkpoint, a police officer asked what the backpack contains which the appellants answered that it was only a mat. The police officers suspected that it was a bomb and when appellant opened the bag it turns out that its contents were marijuana. The three were then brought to the police station and later to Camp Catitipan and there they were investigated by police officials without the assistance of counsel, following which they were made to sign some documents which they were not allowed to read.

PEOPLE vs GO Case Digest

PEOPLE OF THE PHILLIPINES v. BENNY GO 
411 SCRA 81 (2003), THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales, J.) 

The search and seizure of articles must be limited to those which are particularly described in the search warrant. 

FACTS: A raiding team armed with a warrant entered the home of appelant Benny Go in search of evidence for the violation of Republic Act 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act), otherwise know as the 

Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 . Upon their entry, they met Jack Go, son of the Go and restrained him. As the former was the only one present at the time they then called on two baranggay kagawads to act as witnesses on the said search. They then siezed properties and objects even those which were not included in the warrant. When they were almost finished with their search Go arrived and immediately together with the two witnesses was made to sign the inventory reciept.

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

PAN vs PENA Case Digest



MAYOR MARCEL S. PAN v. YOLANDA O. PE√ĎA et al. 
579 SCRA 314 (2009), EN BANC (Carpio Morales, J.) 

A reorganization must be undertaken in the interest of efficiency and austerity and should not be marred by other considerations that circumvent security of tenure. 

FACTS: Petitioner Mayor Marcel Pan, after winning the mayoralty post, initiated a reorganization of the local government, allegedly due to the large budgetary deficit of the municipality. The Sangguniang Bayan (Sanggunian) passed a resolution giving the mayor full authority to restructure the local government unit (LGU). The Sanggunian thereafter created a Placement Committee to oversee the LGU reorganization in terms of selection and placement of personnel, in consonance with the procedures laid down in R.A. 6656, the Act to Protect the Security of Tenure of Civil Service Officers and Employees in the Implementation of Government Reorganization of 1988.