6/14/2017 G.R. No.

167764

THIRDDIVISION

VICENTEFOZ,JR.andDANNYG. G.R.No.167764
FAJARDO,
Petitioners, Present:

CARPIO,J.,Chairperson,
CARPIOMORALES,*
versus VELASCO,JR.,
NACHURA,and
PERALTA,JJ.

Promulgated:
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,
Respondent. October9,2009
xx


DECISION


PERALTA,J.:


Before the court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
[1]
assailingtheDecision oftheCourtofAppeals(CA),CebuCity,datedNovember24,2004inCA
G.R.CRNo.22522,whichaffirmedtheDecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC),Branch23,Iloilo
City, dated December 4, 1997 in Criminal Case No. 44527 finding petitioners guilty beyond
[2]
reasonable doubt of the crime of libel. Also assailed is the CA Resolution dated April 8, 2005
denyingpetitioners'motionforreconsideration.
[3]
In an Information dated October 17, 1994 filed before the RTC of Iloilo City, petitioners
VicenteFoz,Jr.andDannyG.Fajardowerechargedwiththecrimeoflibelcommittedasfollows:

Thatonoraboutthe5thdayofJuly,1994intheCityofIloilo,Philippinesandwithinthejurisdictionof
this court, both the accused as columnist and EditorPublisher, respectively, of Panay News, a daily
publicationwithaconsiderablecirculationintheCityofIloiloandthroughouttheregion,didthenand
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with malicious intent of impeaching the virtue, honesty,
integrity and reputation of Dr. Edgar Portigo, a physician and medical practitioner in Iloilo City, and
withthemaliciousintentofinjuringandexposingsaidDr.EdgarPortigotopublichatred,contemptand
ridicule,writeandpublishintheregularissueofsaiddailypublicationonJuly5,1994,acertainarticle
entitledMEETDR.PORTIGO,COMPANYPHYSICIAN,quotedverbatimhereunder,towit:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/167764.htm 1/10
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 167764

MEETDR.PORTIGO,
COMPANYPHYSICIAN

PHYSICIAN(sic)aredulysworntohelptodoalltheirbesttopromotethehealthoftheir
patients.Especiallyiftheyareemployedbyacompanytoserveitsemployees.

However,theoppositeappearstobehappeningintheLocalSanMiguelCorporationoffice,
SMCemployeesarefumingmadabouttheircompanyphysician,Dr.Portigo,becausethe
latter is not doing well in his sworn obligation in looking after the health problems of
employees,reportsreachingAim..Firesay.

One patient, Lita Payunan, wife of employee Wilfredo Payunan, and residing in Burgos,
Lapaz,IloiloCity,hasasadtaletosayaboutDr.Portigo.HerstorybeganSeptember19last
yearwhenshefeltillandhadtogotoDr.Portigoforconsultation.Thedoctorputherunder
observation,takingsevenmonthstoconcludethatshehadrectummyomaandmustundergo
anoperation.

Subsequently, the family sought the services of a Dr. Celis and a Dr. de los Reyes at
Doctor's Hospital. Incidentally, where Dr. Portigo also maintains a clinic. Dr. Portigo got
angry,sourcessaid,afterknowingthatthefamilychoseasurgeon(Dr.Celis)ontheirown
withouthisnodashehadonetorecommend.

LitawasoperatedbyDr.delosReyeslastMarchandwasreleasedfromthehospitaltwo
weeksafter.Later,however,sheagaincomplainedofdifficultyinurinatinganddefecating[.
On]June24,shewasreadmittedtothehospital.


The second operation, done by Dr. Portigo's recommendee, was devastating to the family
andthepatientherselfwhowoketofindoutheranusandvaginaclosedandaholewitha
catheterpunchedonherrightside.

Thiswasfollowedbyabadnewsthatshehadcancer.

Dr.Portigorecommendedanotheroperation,thistimetoboreanotherholeontheleftside
ofLita.But a Dr. Rivera to whom he made the referral frankly turned it down because it
wouldonlybeawasteofmoneysincethediseasewasalreadyontheterminalstate.

ThecompanyandthefamilyspentsomeP150,000.00topayforthewrongdiagnosisofthe
companyphysician.

MysympathyforLitaandherfamily.MaythegoodLord,Healerofallhealers,beonyour
side,MaytheHealerofallhealerslikewisetouchtheconscienceofphysicianstoremind
themthattheirprofessionisnolicenseforselfenrichmentattheexpenseofthepoor.But,
sadtosay,Litapassedaway,July2,1994.

Lita is not alone. Society is replete with similar experience where physicians treat their
patientsforprofits.Wherephysiciansprefertoactlikeagentsofmultinationalcorporations
prescribingexpensivedrugsseenifthereareequivalentdrugssoldatthecounterformuch
lower price. Yes, Lita, we also have hospitals, owned by a socalled charitable religious
institutions and socalled civic groups, too greedy for profits. Instead of promoting baby
and motherfriendly practices which are cheaper and more effective, they still prefer the
expensiveyetunhealthypractices.

The (sic) shun breast feeding and promote infant milk formula although mother's milk is
many times cheaper and more nutrious (sic) than the brands they peddle. These hospitals
separate newly born from their moms for days, conditioning the former to milk formula
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/167764.htm 2/10
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 167764
whileatthesametimestuntingthemother'smammaliafrommanufacturingmilk.Kadirito
death!

MydeepestsympathytothebereavedfamilyofMrs.LitaPayunanwhodiedJuly2,1994,
HerbodyliesatthePayunanresidencelocatedat236GBurgosSt.,Lapaz,IloiloCity.May
yourestinpeace,IndayLita.

wherein said Dr. Portigo was portrayed as wanting in high sense of professional integrity, trust and
responsibilityexpectedofhimasaphysician,whichimputationandinsinuationasbothaccusedknew
wereentirelyfalseandmaliciousandwithoutfoundationinfactandthereforehighlylibelous,offensive
andderogatorytothegoodname,characterandreputationofthesaidDr.EdgarPortigo.

[4]
CONTRARYTOLAW.



[5]
Upon being arraigned on March 1, 1995, petitioners, assisted by counsel de parte, pleaded not
guiltytothecrimechargedintheInformation.Trialthereafterensued.
[6]
On December 4, 1997, the RTC rendered its Decision finding petitioners guilty as charged. The
dispositiveportionoftheDecisionreads:

WHEREFORE, in the light of the facts obtaining and the jurisprudence aforecited, JUDGMENT is
hereby rendered finding both accused Danny Fajardo and Vicente Foz, Jr. GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT for the crime of Libel defined in Article 353 and punishable under Article
355 of the Revised Penal Code, hereby sentencing aforenamed accused to suffer an indeterminate
penaltyofimprisonmentofThree(3)MonthsandEleven(11)DaysofArrestoMayor,asMinimum,to
One(1)Year,Eight(8)MonthsandTwentyOne(21)DaysofPrisionCorreccional,asMaximum,and
[7]
topayafineofP1,000.00each.


[8]
Petitioners'motionforreconsiderationwasdeniedinanOrder datedFebruary20,1998.
Dissatisfied,petitionersfiledanappealwiththeCA.
On November 24, 2004, the CA rendered its assailed Decision which affirmed in toto the RTC
decision.
Petitionersfiledamotionforreconsideration,whichtheCAdeniedinaResolutiondatedApril
8,2005.
Hence,hereinpetitionfiledbypetitionersbasedonthefollowinggrounds:


I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THE SUBJECT ARTICLE LIBELOUS
WITHIN THE MEANING AND INTENDMENT OF ARTICLE 353 OF THE REVISED PENAL
CODE.

II.THECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINFINDINGTHEEXISTENCEOFMALICEINTHIS
CASE AND IN NOT FINDING THAT THE SUBJECT ARTICLE IS CONSTITUTIONALLY
PROTECTEDASPRIVILEGEDCOMMUNICATIONS.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/167764.htm 3/10
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 167764

III. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION OF
PETITIONER FAJARDO WHO HAPPENS TO BE MERELY PUBLISHER OF PANAY NEWS AND
COULD NOT POSSIBLY SHARE ALL THE OPINIONS OF THE NEWSPAPER'S OPINION
[9]
COLUMNISTS.

PetitionersarguethattheCAerredinfindingthattheelementofdefamatoryimputationwassatisfied
whenpetitionerFoz,ascolumnist,portrayedDr.Portigoasanincompetentdoctorandanopportunist
whoenrichedhimselfattheexpenseofthepoor.Petitionersposethequestionofwhetheranewspaper
opinioncolumnist,whosympathizeswithapatientandherfamilyandexpressesthefamily'soutrage
inprint,commitslibelwhenthecolumnistcriticizesthedoctor'scompetenceorlackofit,andsuch
criticism turns out to be lacking in basis if not entirely false. Petitioners claim that the article was
writteningoodfaithinthebeliefthatitwouldservethepublicgood.TheycontendthattheCAerred
in finding the existence of malice in the publication of the article that no malice in law or actual
malicewasprovenbytheprosecutionandthatthearticlewasprintedpursuanttotheboundenduty
ofthepresstoreportmattersofpublicinterest.Petitionersfurthercontendthatthesubjectarticlewas
an opinion column, which was the columnists exclusive views and that petitioner Fajardo, as the
editor and publisher of Panay News, did not have to share those views and should not be held
responsibleforthecrimeoflibel.
TheSolicitorGeneralfiledhisComment,allegingthatonlyerrorsoflawarereviewablebythisCourt
inapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45thatpetitionersareraisingafactualissue,i.e.,
whether or not the element of malice required in every indictment for libel was established by the
prosecution,whichwouldrequiretheweighinganewoftheevidencealreadypasseduponbytheCA
andtheRTCandthatfactualfindingsoftheCA,affirmingthoseoftheRTC,areaccordedfinality,
unless there appears on records some facts or circumstance of weight which the court may have
overlooked,misunderstoodormisappreciated,andwhich,ifproperlyconsidered,mayaltertheresult
ofthecaseasituationthatisnot,however,obtaininginthiscase.
IntheirReply,petitionersclaimthatthefirsttwoissuespresentedintheirpetitiondonotrequirethe
evaluation of evidence submitted in court that malice, as an element of libel, has always been
discussedwheneverraisedasanissueviaapetitionforreviewoncertiorari.Petitionersraiseforthe
firsttimetheissuethattheinformationchargingthemwithlibeldidnotcontainallegationssufficient
tovestjurisdictionintheRTCofIloiloCity.
TheCourtfindsthatthethresholdissueforresolutioniswhetherornottheRTCofIloiloCity,Branch
23,hadjurisdictionovertheoffenseoflibelaschargedintheInformationdatedOctober17,1994.

TheCourtnotesthatpetitionersraisedforthefirsttimetheissueoftheRTC'sjurisdictionover
the offense charged only in their Reply filed before this Court and finds that petitioners are not
precludedfromdoingso.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/167764.htm 4/10
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 167764

[10]
InFukuzumev.People, theCourtruled:
ItisnotedthatitwasonlyinhispetitionwiththeCAthatFukuzumeraisedtheissueofthetrial
courtsjurisdictionovertheoffensecharged.Nonetheless,theruleissettledthatanobjectionbasedon
thegroundthatthecourtlacksjurisdictionovertheoffensechargedmayberaisedorconsideredmotu
propriobythecourtatanystageoftheproceedingsoronappeal.Moreover,jurisdictionoverthesubject
matter in a criminal case cannot be conferred upon the court by the accused, by express waiver or
otherwise,sincesuchjurisdictionisconferredbythesovereignauthoritywhichorganizedthecourt,and
is given only by law in the manner and form prescribed by law. While an exception to this rule was
recognized by this Court beginning with the landmark case of Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, wherein the
defenseoflackofjurisdictionbythecourtwhichrenderedthequestionedrulingwasconsideredtobe
barred by laches, we find that the factual circumstances involved in said case, a civil case, which
[11]
justifiedthedeparturefromthegeneralrulearenotpresentintheinstantcriminalcase.

TheCourtfindsmeritinthepetition.
Venueincriminalcasesisanessentialelementofjurisdiction.TheCourtheldinMacasaet v.
[12]
People that:
Itisafundamentalrulethatforjurisdictiontobeacquiredbycourtsincriminalcasestheoffenseshould
havebeencommittedoranyoneofitsessentialingredientstookplacewithintheterritorialjurisdiction
ofthecourt.Territorialjurisdictionincriminalcasesistheterritorywherethecourthasjurisdictionto
takecognizanceortotrytheoffenseallegedlycommittedthereinbytheaccused.Thus,itcannottake
jurisdictionoverapersonchargedwithanoffenseallegedlycommittedoutsideofthatlimitedterritory.
Furthermore,thejurisdictionofacourtoverthecriminalcaseisdeterminedbytheallegationsin
thecomplaintorinformation.Andonceitissoshown,thecourtmayvalidlytakecognizanceof
the case. However, if the evidence adduced during the trial show that the offense was committed
[13]
somewhereelse,thecourtshoulddismisstheactionforwantofjurisdiction.(Emphasissupplied.)


Article360oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamendedbyRepublicActNo.4363,providesthespecific
rulesastothevenueincasesofwrittendefamation,towit:
Article 360. Persons responsible.Any person who shall publish, exhibit or cause the publication or
exhibitionofanydefamationinwritingorbysimilarmeans,shallberesponsibleforthesame.

The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business manager of a daily newspaper,
magazineorserialpublication,shallberesponsibleforthedefamationscontainedthereintothesame
extentasifheweretheauthorthereof.

Thecriminalactionandcivilactionfordamagesincasesofwrittendefamations,asprovidedforinthis
chaptershallbefiledsimultaneouslyorseparatelywiththecourtoffirstinstanceoftheprovinceorcity
where the libelous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties
actuallyresidesatthetimeofthecommissionoftheoffense:Provided,however,Thatwhereoneof
the offended parties is a public officer whose office is in the City of Manila at the time of the
commissionoftheoffense,theactionshallbefiledintheCourtofFirstInstanceoftheCityofManila
orofthecityorprovincewherethelibelousarticleisprintedandfirstpublished,andincasesuchpublic
officerdoesnotholdofficeintheCityofManila,theactionshallbefiledintheCourtofFirstInstance
oftheprovinceorcitywhereheheldofficeatthetimeofthecommissionoftheoffenseorwherethe
libelous article is printed and first published and in case one of the offended parties is a private
individual, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/167764.htm 5/10
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 167764
actuallyresidesatthetimeofthecommissionoftheoffenseorwherethelibelousmatterisprintedand
firstpublishedxxx.(Emphasissupplied.)
[14]
InAgbayaniv.Sayo, therulesonvenueinArticle360wererestatedasfollows:

1.Whethertheoffendedpartyisapublicofficialoraprivateperson,thecriminalactionmaybefiledin
theCourtofFirstInstanceoftheprovinceorcitywherethelibelousarticleisprintedandfirstpublished.

2.Iftheoffendedpartyisaprivateindividual,thecriminalactionmayalsobefiledintheCourtofFirst
Instanceoftheprovincewhereheactuallyresidedatthetimeofthecommissionoftheoffense.

3.IftheoffendedpartyisapublicofficerwhoseofficeisinManilaatthetimeofthecommissionofthe
offense,theactionmaybefiledintheCourtofFirstInstanceofManila.

4.IftheoffendedpartyisapublicofficerholdingofficeoutsideofManila,theactionmaybefiledinthe
CourtofFirstInstanceoftheprovinceorcitywhereheheldofficeatthetimeofthecommissionofthe
[15]
offense.

Applyingtheforegoinglawtothiscase,sinceDr.Portigoisaprivateindividualatthetimeof
thepublicationoftheallegedlibelousarticle,thevenueofthelibelcasemaybeintheprovinceorcity
wherethelibelousarticlewasprintedandfirstpublished,orintheprovincewhereDr.Portigoactually
residedatthetimeofthecommissionoftheoffense.

The relevant portion of the Information for libel filed in this case which for convenience the
Courtquotesagain,towit:
That on or about the 5th day of July, 1994 in the City of Iloilo, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this court, both the accused as columnists and EditorPublisher, respectively, of Panay
News,adailypublicationwithaconsiderablecirculationintheCityofIloiloandthroughouttheregion,
didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslywithmaliciousintentofimpeachingthevirtue,
honesty, integrity and reputation of Dr. Edgar Portigo, a physician and medical practitioner in Iloilo
City, and with the malicious intent of injuring and exposing said Dr. Edgar Portigo to public hatred,
contemptandridicule,writeandpublishintheregularissueofsaiddailypublicationonJuly5,1994,a
certainarticleentitledMEETDR.PORTIGO,COMPANYPHYSICIAN....


The allegations in the Information that Panay News, a daily publication with a considerable
circulationintheCityofIloiloandthroughouttheregiononlyshowedthatIloilowastheplacewhere
PanayNewswasinconsiderablecirculationbutdidnotestablishthatthesaidpublicationwasprinted
andfirstpublishedinIloiloCity.
[16]
InChavezv.CourtofAppeals, whichinvolvedalibelcasefiledbyaprivateindividualwiththe
RTCofManila,aportionoftheInformationofwhichreads:

ThatonoraboutMarch1995,intheCityofManila,Philippines,thesaidaccused[Baskinasand
Manapat] conspiring and confederating with others whose true names, real identities and present
whereabouts are still unknown and helping one another, with malicious intent of impeaching the
honesty,virtue,characterandreputationofoneFRANCISCOI.CHAVEZ,formerSolicitorGeneralof
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/167764.htm 6/10
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 167764
thePhilippines,andwiththeevidentpurposeofinjuringandexposinghimtopublicridicule,hatredand
contempt,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyandmaliciouslycausetobepublishedinSmartFile,a
magazine of general circulation in Manila, and in their respective capacity as EditorinChief and
[17]
AuthorReporter,....


theCourtruledthattheInformationdidnotsufficientlyvestjurisdictionintheRTCofManilatohear
thelibelchargeinconsonancewithArticle360.TheCourtmadethefollowingdisquisition:

xxx Still, a perusal of the Information in this case reveals that the word published is utilized in the
precise context of noting that the defendants cause[d] to be published in 'Smart File', a magazine of
generalcirculationinManila.TheInformationstatesthatthelibelousarticleswerepublishedinSmart
File,andnotthattheywerepublishedinManila.TheplaceManilaisinturnemployedtosituatewhere
SmartFilewasin general circulation, and not where the libel waspublished or first printed. The fact
thatSmartFilewasingeneralcirculationinManiladoesnotnecessarilyestablishthatitwaspublished
andfirstprintedinManila,inthesamewaythatwhileleadingnationaldailiessuchasthePhilippine
Daily Inquirer or the Philippine Star are in general circulation in Cebu, it does not mean that these
newspapersarepublishedandfirstprintedinCebu.
Indeed,ifweholdthattheInformationathandsufficientlyvestsjurisdictioninManilacourtssincethe
publication is in general circulation in Manila, there would be no impediment to the filing of the libel
actioninotherlocationswhereSmartFileisingeneralcirculation.UsingtheexampleoftheInquireror
theStar, the granting of this petition would allow a resident of Aparri to file a criminal case for libel
againstareporteroreditorinJolo,simplybecausethesenewspapersareingeneralcirculationinJolo.
[18]
SuchaconsequenceispreciselywhatRep.ActNo.4363soughttoavoid.

[19]
InAgustinv.Pamintuan, whichalsoinvolvedalibelcasefiledbyaprivateindividual,theActing
GeneralManageroftheBaguioCountryClub,withtheRTCofBaguioCitywheretheInformation
thereinallegedthatthelibelousarticlewaspublishedinthePhilippineDailyInquirer,anewspaperof
general circulation in the City of Baguio and the entire Philippines, the Court did not consider the
InformationsufficienttoshowthatBaguioCitywasthevenueoftheprintingandfirstpublicationof
theallegedlibelousarticle.
Article360oftheRevisedPenalCodeasamendedprovidesthataprivateindividualmayalsofilethe
libelcaseintheRTCoftheprovincewhereheactuallyresidedatthetimeofthecommissionofthe
offense.TheInformationfiledagainstpetitionersfailedtoallegetheresidenceofDr.Portigo.While
theInformationallegesthatDr.EdgarPortigoisaphysicianandmedicalpractitionerinIloiloCity,
suchallegationdidnotclearlyandpositivelyindicatethathewasactuallyresidinginIloiloCityatthe
timeofthecommissionoftheoffense.ItispossiblethatDr.Portigowasactuallyresidinginanother
place.

[20]
Again,inAgustinv.Pamintuan, where the Information for libel alleged that the offended party
wastheActingGeneralManageroftheBaguioCountryClubandofgoodstandingandreputationin
thecommunity,theCourtdidnotfindsuchallegationsufficienttoestablishthattheoffendedparty
wasactuallyresidinginBaguioCity.TheCourtexplaineditsrulinginthiswise:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/167764.htm 7/10
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 167764
Theresidenceofapersonishispersonal,actualorphysicalhabitationorhisactualresidenceorplaceof
abode provided he resides therein with continuity and consistency no particular length of time of
residence is required. However, the residence must be more than temporary. The term residence
involvestheideaofsomethingbeyondatransientstayintheplaceandtobearesident,onemustabide
in a place where he had a house therein. To create a residence in a particular place, two fundamental
elements are essential: The actual bodily presence in the place, combined with a freely exercised
intentionofremainingtherepermanentlyorforanindefinitetime.WhileitispossiblethatastheActing
GeneralManageroftheBaguioCountryClub,thepetitionermayhavebeenactuallyresidinginBaguio
City,theInformationsdidnotstatethathewasactuallyresidingthereinwhentheallegedcrimeswere
committed. It is entirely possible that the private complainant may have been actually residing in
another place. One who transacts business in a place and spends considerable time thereat does not
render such person a resident therein. Where one may have or own a business does not of itself
constituteresidencewithinthemeaningofthestatute.Pursuitofbusinessinaplaceisnotconclusiveof
[21]
residencethereforpurposesofvenue.

Settled is the rule that jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the
allegationsofthecomplaintorinformation,andtheoffensemusthavebeencommittedoranyoneof
[22]
itsessentialingredientstookplacewithintheterritorialjurisdictionofthecourt. Consideringthat
theInformationfailedtoallegethevenuerequirementsforalibelcaseunderArticle360,theCourt
finds that the RTC of Iloilo City had no jurisdiction to hear this case. Thus, its decision convicting
petitioners of the crime of libel should be set aside for want of jurisdiction without prejudice to its
filingwiththecourtofcompetentjurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 24, 2004 and the
ResolutiondatedApril8,2005oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CRNo.22522areSETASIDE
onthegroundoflackofjurisdictiononthepartoftheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch23,IloiloCity.
CriminalCaseNo.44527isDISMISSEDwithoutprejudice.

SOORDERED.



DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice


WECONCUR:



ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson



http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/167764.htm 8/10
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 167764

CONCHITACARPIOMORALESPRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice




ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice



CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionofthe
CourtsDivision.




ANTONIOT.CARPIO
ActingChiefJustice

*DesignatedasanadditionalmemberinlieuofAssociateJusticeMinitaV.ChicoNazario,perSpecialOrderNo.720datedOctober5,2009.
[1]
PennedbyAssociateJusticeRamonM.Bato,Jr.,withAssociateJusticesArsenioJ.MagpaleandMariflorPunzalanCastillo,concurring
rollo,pp.3746.
[2]
PennedbyAssociateJusticeRamonM.Bato,Jr,,withAssociateJusticesArsenioJ.MagpaleandIsaiasP.Dicdican,concurringrollo,p.
47.
[3]
Records,pp.13.
[4]
Id.
[5]
Id.at56.
[6]
PennedJudgeTitoG.GustiloCArollo,pp.1328.
[7]
Id.at28.
[8]
Records,pp.429430.
[9]
Rollo,pp.1516.
[10]
G.R.No.143647,November11,2005,474SCRA570.
[11]
Id.at583584.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/167764.htm 9/10
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 167764
[12]
G.R.No.156747,February23,2005,452SCRA255,271,citingUyv.CourtofAppeals,276SCRA367(1997).
[13]
Macasaetv.People,supra,at271.
[14]
178Phil.579(1979).
[15]
Id.at580.
[16]
G.R.No.125813,February6,2007,514SCRA279.
[17]
Id.at282.
[18]
Id.at290291.
[19]
G.R.No.164938,August22,2005,467SCRA601.
[20]
Id.
[21]
Id.at611612.
[22]
Id.at609.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/167764.htm 10/10