G.R. No. 209195, September 17, 2014 - MANUEL J.

JIMENEZ, J…REME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY 22/09/2018, 11)18 PM

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Like 2 Tweet Share

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2014 > September 2014 Decisions > G.R. No. 209195,
September 17, 2014 - MANUEL J. JIMENEZ, JR., Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.; G.R.
NO. 209215 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. MANUEL J. JIMENEZ, JR., Respondent.:

Custom Search Search

G.R. No. 209195, September 17, 2014 - MANUEL J. JIMENEZ, JR., Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 209215 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. MANUEL J.
JIMENEZ, JR., Respondent.
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 209195, September 17, 2014

MANUEL J. JIMENEZ, JR., Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. NO. 209215

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. MANUEL J. JIMENEZ, JR., Respondent.

DECISION

BRION, J.:

Before the Court are two consolidated petitions for review on certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, assailing the amended decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 121167 entitled
Manuel J. Jimenez, Jr. v. Hon. Zaldy B. Docena et al.

The CA did not find any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Regional Trial Court (RTC Branch
170, Malabon) Judge Zaldy B. Docena (Judge Docena) in issuing the order which granted the People of
the Philippines� motion to discharge Manuel A. Montero (Montero) as a state witness in Criminal Case
No. 39225-MN.
DebtKollect Company, Inc.
The G.R. No. 209195 petition was filed by Manuel J. Jimenez, Jr. (Jimenez). He prays in this petition for
the reversal of the CA�s amended decision insofar as it ruled that Judge Docena did not gravely abuse
his discretion in issuing the assailed order.

The People likewise filed its petition, docketed as G.R. No. 209215. This petition seeks to reverse the
amended decision of the CA insofar as it ordered the re-raffle of the criminal case to another RTC judge
for trial on the merits.

The Factual Antecedents

On May 18, 2009 and June 11, 2009, Montero (a former employee of the BSJ Company owned by the
Jimenezes) executed sworn statements confessing his participation in the killing of Ruby Rose Barrameda
(Ruby Rose), and naming petitioner Jimenez, Lope Jimenez (Lope, the petitioner Jimenez�s younger
brother), Lennard A. Descalso (Lennard) alias �Spyke,� Robert Ponce (Robert) alias �Obet,� and Eric

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014septemberdecisions.php?id=773 Page 1 of 10
G.R. No. 209195, September 17, 2014 - MANUEL J. JIMENEZ, J…REME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
ChanRobles Intellectual Property
Division
September-2014 Jurisprudence
G.R. No. 205800, September 10, 2014 - MICROSOFT
CORPORATION AND ADOBE SYSTEMS
INCORPORATED, Petitioners, v. SAMIR FARAJALLAH,
VIRGILIO D.C. HERCE, RACHEL P. FOLLOSCO,
JESUSITO G. MORALLOS, AND MA. GERALDINE S.
GARCIA (DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF NEW FIELDS
(ASIA PACIFIC), INC.), Respondents.
G.R. No. 201237, September 03, 2014 - PHILIPPINE
TOURISTERS, INC. and/or ALEJANDRO R. YAGUE, JR.,
Petitioners, v. MAS TRANSIT WORKERS UNION-
ANGLO-KMU* AND ITS MEMBERS, REPRESENTED BY
ABRAHAM TUMALA, JR., Respondents.
G.R. No. 199388, September 03, 2014 - OMNI
HAULING SERVICES, INC., LOLITA FRANCO, and
ANICETO FRANCO, Petitioners, v. BERNARDO BON,
ROBERTO TORTOLES, ROMEO TORRES, RODELLO*
RAMOS, RICARDO DELOS SANTOS, JUANITO BON,
ELENCIO ARTASTE,** CARLITO VOLOSO, ROMEL
TORRES, ROBERT AVILA, EDUARDO BAUTISTA,
MARTY VOLOSO, OSCAR JABEL, RICKY AMORANTO,
BERNARD OSINAGA, EDUARDO BON, JERRY
EDUARCE, and FEDERICO BRAZIL, Respondents.
G.R. No. 197329, September 08, 2014 - NATIONAL
POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. LUIS SAMAR
AND MAGDALENA SAMAR, Respondents.
G.R. No. 205298, September 10, 2014 - LEOPOLDO
QUINTOS Y DEL AMOR, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014septemberdecisions.php?id=773
22/09/2018, 11)18 PM
Fernandez (Eric), as his co-conspirators.2 cralawlawlibrary
The statements of Montero which provided the details on where the alleged steel casing containing the
body of Ruby Rose was dumped, led to the recovery of a cadaver, encased in a drum and steel casing,
near or practically at the place that Montero pointed to.3 cralawlawlibrary
On August 20, 2009, the People, through the state prosecutors, filed an Information before the RTC,
charging Jimenez, Lope, Lennard, Robert, Eric and Montero of murder for the killing of Ruby Rose.4 cralawlawlibrary
Montero thereafter filed a motion for his discharge entitled �Motion for the Discharge of the Witness as
Accused Pursuant to the Witness Protection Program� pursuant to Republic Act No. 6981. The People
also filed a motion to discharge Montero as a state witness for the prosecution. Jimenez opposed both
motions.5cralawlawlibrary
The RTC�s ruling
On March 19, 2010, the RTC�s Acting Presiding Judge Hector B. Almeyda (Judge Almeyda) denied the
motion to discharge Montero as a state witness.6
cralawlawlibrary
Judge Almeyda ruled that the prosecution failed to comply with the requirements of Section 17, Rule 119
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure for the discharge of an accused as a state witness; it failed to
clearly show that Montero was not the most guilty or, at best, the least guilty among the accused. The
judge further ruled that Montero�s statements were not corroborated by the other evidence on record.
The prosecution, too, failed to present evidence to sustain the possibility of conviction against Jimenez.7 cralawlawlibrary
Montero and the People filed separate motions for reconsideration.
The July 30, 2010 order
On July 30, 2010, Judge Docena, the newly-appointed regular judge, reconsidered and reversed Judge
Almeyda�s order and ruled that the prosecution had presented clear, satisfactory and convincing
evidence showing compliance with the requisites of Section 17, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure.
According to Judge Docena, the crime would have remained undiscovered and unsolved had it not been
for Montero�s extrajudicial confession that narrated in detail the manner of the abduction and
subsequent murder of Ruby Rose. As the crime was committed in secret, only one of the co-
conspirators, such as Montero, could give direct evidence identifying the other coconspirators.
Judge Docena further ruled that Montero is qualified to be discharged as a state witness as he does not
appear to be the most guilty although he is a principal by direct participation. The principals by
inducement are more guilty because, without their orders, the crime would not have been committed.
Finally, Montero has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude.
Jimenez moved for the reconsideration of Judge Docena�s ruling.8 cralawlawlibrary
The December 29, 2010 order
During the pendency of the motion for reconsideration, Jimenez filed a motion for inhibition, praying that
Judge Docena inhibit himself from hearing the case on the ground of bias and prejudice.� Judge Docena
denied the motion in his order of December 29, 2010.9 cralawlawlibrary
The June 29, 2011 order
On June 29, 2011, Judge Docena issued an omnibus order: 1) denying the petitioner�s motion for
reconsideration of the July 30, 2010 order; 2) denying the petitioner�s motion for reconsideration of the
December 29, 2010 order; and 3) granting Manuel Jimenez III�s alternative motion to suspend the
proceedings, as his inclusion in the Information was still pending final determination by the Office of the
President.
Jimenez responded to these adverse rulings by filing with the CA a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court. The petition sought the annulment of Judge Docena�s orders dated July 30, 2010,
December 29, 2010, and June 29, 2011. The petition also prayed for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction that the CA both granted in its resolutions of
December 8, 2011 and February 6, 2012, respectively.10 cralawlawlibrary
The CA�s Decision
On May 22, 2012, the CA�s then Tenth Division, through the ponencia of Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-
Carpio (concurred in by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-
Padilla) rendered a decision granting Jimenez� petition.11 cralawlawlibrary
However, on motion for reconsideration filed by the People, the CA reversed its earlier ruling and issued
an Amended Decision penned by Associate Justice Jose Reyes.
The CA�s Amended Decision
The CA held that Judge Docena did not gravely abuse his discretion in ordering Montero�s discharge to
become a state witness because the prosecution had complied with the requirements of Section 17, Rule
119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.12
cralawlawlibrary
First, Judge Docena acted in accordance with settled jurisprudence when he ruled that there was
absolute necessity for the testimony of Montero as no other direct evidence other than his testimony was
available. Additionally, since the determination of the requirements under Section 17, Rule 119 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is highly factual in nature, Judge Docena did not commit grave
abuse of discretion in largely relying on the recommendation of the prosecution to discharge Montero as
a state witness.13
cralawlawlibrary
Furthermore, the CA agreed with Judge Docena that Montero is not the most guilty among the accused
because the principals by inducement are more guilty than the principals by direct participation. To the
Page 2 of 10
G.R. No. 209195, September 17, 2014 - MANUEL J. JIMENEZ, J…REME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
A.C. No. 7474, September 09, 2014 - PRESIDING
JUDGE JOSE L. MADRID, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 51, SORSOGON CITY, Complainant, v. ATTY.
JUAN S. DEALCA, Respondent.
G.R. No. 199139, September 09, 2014 - ELSIE S.
CAUSING, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
AND HERNAN D. BIRON, SR., Respondents.
G.R. No. 197336, September 03, 2014 -
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ROLANDO CORDERO,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 195549, September 03, 2014 -
WILLAWARE PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
JESICHRIS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 183360, September 08, 2014 - ROLANDO
C. DE LA PAZ,*, Petitioner, v. L & J DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY, Respondent.
G.R. No. 196182, September 01, 2014 - ECE REALTY
AND DEVELOPMENT INC., Petitioner, v. RACHEL G.
MANDAP, Respondent.
G.R. No. 178837, September 01, 2014 - COLEGIO
DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN, Petitioner, v. ISIDRA DELA
ROSA-MERIS, Respondent.
G.R. No. 198139, September 08, 2014 - NATIONAL
POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. FELICISIMO
TARCELO AND HEIRS OF COMIA SANTOS,
Respondents.
A.C. No. 10196, September 09, 2014 - MELODY R.
NERY, Complainant, v. ATTY. GLICERIO A. SAMPANA,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 194507, September 08, 2014 - FEDERAL
BUILDERS, INC., Petitioner, v. FOUNDATION
SPECIALISTS, INC., Respondent.; G.R. NO. 194621 -
FOUNDATION SPECIALISTS, INC., Petitioner, v.
FEDERAL BUILDERS, INC., Respondent.
G.R. No. 204233, September 03, 2014 - RICARDO A.
DALUSONG, Petitioner, v. EAGLE CLARC SHIPPING
PHILIPPINES, INC., NORFIELD OFFSHORE AS,
AND/OR CAPT. LEOPOLDO T. ARCILLAR, AND COURT
OF APPEALS, Respondents.
G.R. No. 197174, September 10, 2014 - FRANCLER
P. ONDE, Petitioner, v. THE OFFICE OF THE LOCAL
CIVIL REGISTRAR OF LAS PI�AS CITY, Respondent.
A.C. No. 8637, September 15, 2014 - IMELDA CATO
GADDI, Complainant, v. ATTY. LOPE M. VELASCO,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 178733, September 15, 2014 - ELISA
ANGELES, Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS,
OFFICER-IN-CHARGE MARILOU C. MARTIN, DEPUTY
SHERIFF JOSELITO SP ASTORGA, MARCO BOCO, AND
JOHN DOES, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG,
BRANCH 268, Respondents.
G.R. No. 194946, September 03, 2014 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ECO YABA Y
BASA A.K.A. �PLOK,� Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 205357, September 02, 2014 - GMA
NETWORK, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT. SENATOR ALAN PETER
�COMPA�ERO� S. CAYETANO, Petitioner-
Intervenor.; G.R. NO. 205374 - ABC DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 205592 - MANILA
BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC. AND NEWSOUNDS
BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC., Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.; G.R. NO.
205852 - KAPISANAN NG MGA BRODKASTER NG
PILIPINAS (KBP) AND ABS-CBN CORPORATION,
Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
Respondent.; G.R. NO. 206360 - RADIO MINDANAO
NETWORK, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, Respondent.
G.R. No. 199898, September 03, 2014 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEO DE LA
TRINIDAD Y OBALLES, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 157583, September 10, 2014 - FRUMENCIO
E. PULGAR, Petitioner, v. THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT OF MAUBAN, QUEZON, BRANCH 64, QUEZON
POWER (PHILIPPINES) LIMITED, CO., PROVINCE OF
QUEZON,AND DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 198656, September 08, 2014 - NANCY S.
MONTINOLA, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES,
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014septemberdecisions.php?id=773
22/09/2018, 11)18 PM
CA, this finding is highly factual in nature and it would not interfere with the trial court�s exercise of
discretion on factual issues in the absence of showing that the court had acted with grave abuse of
discretion.14
cralawlawlibrary
On Judge Docena�s �no inhibition� order, the CA held that while the case does not call for mandatory
inhibition, it should still be raffled to another sala for trial on the merits to avoid any claim of bias and
prejudice.15 cralawlawlibrary
The CA likewise dismissed the motion for the issuance of a show cause order which Jimenez filed against
Judge Docena.16
cralawlawlibrary
Both Jimenez and the People moved for partial reconsideration of the CA�s order but these motions were
all denied.17 The denials prompted both parties to file with this Court the present consolidated petitions
for review on certiorari.
The Present Petitions
I. G.R. No. 209195 (The Jimenez Petition)
Jimenez raises the following errors:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
First, there is no necessity to discharge Montero as a state witness because: 1) the voluntary sworn
extrajudicial confessions of Montero are all in the possession of the prosecution which they could readily
present in court without discharging Montero; and 2) there was unjust favoritism in the discharge of
Montero because all the other conspirators are equally knowledgeable of the crime.18 cralawlawlibrary
Second, contrary to the CA�s ruling, the judge, and not the prosecution, has the ultimate discretion in
ensuring that the requirements under Section 17, Rule 119 are complied with.19
cralawlawlibrary
Third, the cases the CA cited are factually different from the present case. Chua v. CA20 should not apply
as it deals with two accused, one of whom was ordered discharged.21 cralawlawlibrary
Fourth, Montero�s testimony cannot be substantially corroborated in its material points as the
prosecution�s own evidence contradicts his declarations.
These inconsistencies include: Montero�s statement that a �busal� was placed inside the mouth of
Ruby Rose; this statement is belied by the other prosecution witness; Montero also never mentioned the
presence of a packaging tape wrapped around the head and neck of the recovered cadaver; in
Montero�s sinumpaang salaysay, he stated that Ruby Rose was killed by strangulation using a �lubid�
but the death certificate stated asphyxia by suffocation and not by strangulation; the identification of the
cadaver as Ruby Rose is likewise questionable as there are differences in the height, and the dental and
odontological reports of Ruby Rose and the recovered cadaver.
Jimenez argued that these inconsistencies would require a thorough scrutiny; hence, the immediate
discharge of Montero as a state witness is suspicious. 22 cralawlawlibrary
Fifth, Montero appears to be the most guilty. He was the architect who designed and actively participated
in all phases of the alleged crime.23 cralawlawlibrary
Jimenez further argued that there is no authority supporting the ruling that the principals by inducement
are more guilty than the principal by direct participation. On the contrary, the Revised Penal Code
imputes on the principal by direct participation the heavier guilt; without the latter�s execution of the
crime, the principal by inducement cannot be made liable. Even if the principal by inducement is
acquitted, the principal by direct participation can still be held liable and not vice-versa.24
cralawlawlibrary
Sixth, the discharge of Montero was irregular because Judge Docena failed to conduct a prior hearing.25 cralawlawlibrary
Finally, Montero already executed a notice of withdrawal of consent and testimony which was submitted
to the CA.26 cralawlawlibrary
Comment of the People
The People argued that Jimenez is now estopped from raising the lack of hearing as an issue since he
raised this issue only after Judge Docena granted the motion to discharge and not after Judge Almeyda
denied the motion � an action that was favorable to him.27 cralawlawlibrary
It also argued that Jimenez actively participated in the proceedings for Montero�s discharge as the trial
court received evidence for and against the discharge. In this light, Judge Docena�s order granting or
denying the motion for discharge is in order, notwithstanding the lack of actual hearing.28
cralawlawlibrary
The People also agreed with the CA�s amended ruling that the requirements for the discharge of an
accused as a state witness were complied with.29 It added that the availability of the extrajudicial
statements in the prosecution�s possession is not a ground to disqualify an accused from being a state
witness.30 cralawlawlibrary
It further maintained that the alleged contradictions between Montero�s statements and other
prosecution�s evidence are better resolved during trial and are irrelevant to the issues in the present
case.31
cralawlawlibrary
For purposes of the present case, the material allegations of Montero on the identity of the victim and the
manner of her killing were substantially corroborated by the presence of the recovered original steel
casing, the drum containing a cadaver, the place where it was found, and the cadaver�s apparel.32 cralawlawlibrary
The People observed that Montero had already testified on direct examination on June 28, 2011 and
October 25, 2011. He attested and affirmed his statements in his affidavits dated May 18 and June 11,
2009; he narrated in his statements the murder of Ruby Rose and Jimenez� participation.33
cralawlawlibrary
Reply of Jimenez
Page 3 of 10
G.R. No. 209195, September 17, 2014 - MANUEL J. JIMENEZ, J…REME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
Respondent.
A.C. No. 9925, September 17, 2014 - MARIANO R.
CRISTOBAL, Complainant, v. ATTY. RONALDO E.
RENTA, Respondent.
G.R. No. 212705, September 10, 2014 - ROBERTO
CO, Petitioner, v. KENG HUAN JERRY YEUNG AND
EMMA YEUNG, Respondents.
A.C. No. 7184, September 17, 2014 - FELIPE B.
ALMAZAN, SR., Complainant, v. ATTY. MARCELO B.
SUERTE-FELIPE, Respondent.
G.R. No. 190198, September 17, 2014 - To disqualify a judge from hearing a case, bias and prejudice must be proven, in the manner being done
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner,
v. CE LUZON GEOTHERMAL POWER COMPANY, INC.,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 184000, September 17, 2014 - PUERTO
AZUL LAND, INC., Petitioner, v. PACIFIC WIDE
REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.
G.R. No. 197857, September 10, 2014 - SPOUSES
FRANCISCO SIERRA (SUBSTITUTED BY DONATO,
TERESITA, TEODORA, LORENZA, LUCINA, IMELDA,
VILMA, AND MILAGROS SIERRA) AND ANTONINA
SANTOS, SPOUSES ROSARIO SIERRA AND EUSEBIO
CALUMA LEYVA, AND SPOUSES SALOME SIERRA AND
FELIX GATLABAYAN (SUBSTITUTED BY
BUENAVENTURA, ELPIDIO, PAULINO, CATALINA,
GREGORIO, AND EDGARDO GATLABAYAN, LORETO
REILLO, FERMINA PEREGRINA, AND NIDA
HASHIMOTO), Petitioners, v. PAIC SAVINGS AND
MORTGAGE BANK, INC., Respondent.
A.M. No. P-13-3102 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-
2562-P], September 08, 2014 - JOSE S. VILLANUEVA,
Complainant, v. ATTY. PAULINO I. SAGUYOD, CLERK
OF COURT VI, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 6,
PANIQUI, TARLAC, Respondent.
G.R. No. 176121, September 22, 2014 - SPOUSES
TEODORICO AND PACITA ROSETE, Petitioners, v.
FELIX AND/OR MARIETTA BRIONES, SPOUSES JOSE
AND REMEDIOS ROSETE, AND NEORIMSE AND
FELICITAS CORPUZ, Respondents.
G.R. No. 206912, September 10, 2014 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
DEMOSTHENES BONTUYAN, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 189850, September 22, 2014 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REYNALDO
TORRES, JAY TORRES, BOBBY TORRES @ ROBERTO
TORRES Y NAVA, BRION, AND RONNIE TORRES,
Accused, BOBBY TORRES @ ROBERTO TORRES Y
NAVA, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 174353, September 10, 2014 - NESTOR
CHING AND ANDREW WELLINGTON, Petitioners, v.
SUBIC BAY GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, INC., HU HO
HSIU LIEN ALIAS SUSAN HU, HU TSUNG CHIEH ALIAS
JACK HU, HU TSUNG HUI, HU TSUNG TZU AND
REYNALD R. SUAREZ, Respondents.
G.R. No. 188773, September 10, 2014 - HEIRS OF
VALENTIN BASBAS, ANSELMA B. ENDRINAL,
GERTRUDES BASBAS, RUFINA BASBAS, CEFERINA B.
CARTECIANO, ANACLETO BASBAS, ARSENIA BASBAS,
ANASTACIO BASBAS, BEDACIO BASBAS, TEODOCIA
B. OCAMPO, SEGUNDO C. BASBAS, MARIA B. RAMOS
AND EUGENIO BASBAS IN REPRESENTATION OF
PEDRO BASBAS; HERINO T. BASBAS AND NESTOR T.
BASBAS IN REPRESENTATION OF LUCAS BASBAS;
ADELAIDA B. FLORENTINO, RODRIGO BASBAS, FELIX
BASBAS, JR., TEODULO BASBAS, ANDRESITO
BASBAS, LARRY BASBAS AND JOEY BASBAS IN
REPRESENTATION OF FELIX BASBAS, SR., VICTOR
BEATO, ALIPIO BEATO, EUTIQUIO BEATO, JULIANA B.
DIAZ, PABLO BEATO AND ALEJANDRO BEATO IN
REPRESENTATION OF REMIGIA B. BEATO, AS
REPRESENTED BY RODRIGO BASBAS, Petitioners, v.
RICARDO BASBAS AS REPRESENTED BY EUGENIO
BASBAS, Respondents.
G.R. No. 176697, September 10, 2014 - CESAR V.
AREZA AND LOLITA B. AREZA, Petitioners, v.
EXPRESS SAVINGS BANK, INC. AND MICHAEL
POTENCIANO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 197486, September 10, 2014 - RENATO L.
DELFINO, SR. (DECEASED), REPRESENTED BY HIS
HEIRS, NAMELY: GRACIA DELFINO, GREGORIO A.
DELFINO, MA. ISABEL A. DELFINO, RENATO A.
DELFINO, JR., MA. REGINA DELFINO ROSELLA, MA.
GRACIA A. DELFINO, MARIANO A. DELFINO, MA.
LUISA DELFINO GREGORIO AND REV. FR. GABRIEL A.
DELFINO, Petitioners, v. AVELINO K. ANASAO AND
ANGEL K. ANASAO (DECEASED AND REPRESENTED BY
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014septemberdecisions.php?id=773
22/09/2018, 11)18 PM
Jimenez reiterated his allegations in the comment. He added that Montero did not identify or authenticate
his sworn statements in support of the motion for his discharge.34
cralawlawlibrary
According to Jimenez, the notice of withdrawal of consent and testimony of Montero rendered his
discharge as a state witness moot and academic.35 cralawlawlibrary
II. G.R. No. 209215 (The People�s Petition)
The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, argue that the CA�s order to re-raffle the case to
another sala is not supported by Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, either under mandatory or
voluntary inhibition.36
cralawlawlibrary
in cases of voluntary inhibition.37 cralawlawlibrary
Jurisprudence establishes, too, that affiliation does not necessarily translate to bias.38 A judge�s non-
favorable action against the defense is not also necessarily indicative of bias and prejudice.39
cralawlawlibrary
Finally, the administrative case filed against Judge Docena is not a ground to disqualify him from hearing
the case.40 cralawlawlibrary
Comment of Jimenez
The option for voluntary inhibition does not give judges unlimited discretion to decide whether or not
they will desist from hearing a case. Jimenez enumerated Judge Docena�s acts that allegedly
constituted bias and prejudice:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
First, Judge Docena granted the motion to discharge even though the legal requirements under Section
17, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure were not factually and legally proven. He also
relied on the suggestions and information of the prosecutors thereby surrendering his duty to ensure that
the requirements for a discharge are duly complied with.
Second, in a previous case where his fraternity brother appeared as counsel, Judge Docena inhibited
himself from hearing the case. Thus, no reason exists for him not to similarly act in the present case
where Jimenez is his fraternity brother and State Prosecutor Villanueva was his classmate.
Third, Judge Docena granted the prosecution�s motion for cancellation of the September 29, 2011
hearing because the state prosecutor would be attending a legal forum. This was improper since other
prosecutors were available and other prosecution witnesses could be presented.
Fourth, Judge Docena has an uncontrolled temper and unexplainable attitude. In Jimenez� bail hearing,
Judge Docena immediately shouted at Jimenez� counsel when he made a mistake.41 cralawlawlibrary
The Issues
1) Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that Judge Docena did not commit grave abuse
of discretion in granting the motion to discharge Montero as a state witness; and
2) Whether or not the CA erred in ordering the re-raffle of Criminal Case No. 39225-MN
to another RTC branch for trial on the merits.
THE COURT�S RULING:
G.R. No. 209195
We agree with the CA�s ruling that Judge Docena did not gravely abuse his discretion when he granted
the motion to discharge Montero as a state witness.
The well-settled rule is that a petition for certiorari against a court which has jurisdiction over a case will
prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is clear and patent. The burden is on the part of the petitioner to
prove not merely reversible error, but grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of the public respondent issuing the impugned order.
Notably, mere abuse of discretion is not enough; the abuse must be grave. Jurisprudence has defined
�grave abuse of discretion� as the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment so patent and gross
as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as
where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner because of passion or hostility.42 cralawlawlibrary
We agree with the CA that the prosecution has complied with the requisites under Section 17, Rule 119
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides that: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(1) Two or more accused are jointly charged with the commission of an offense;
(2) The motion for discharge is filed by the prosecution before it rests its case;
(3) The prosecution is required to present evidence and the sworn statement of each
proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the discharge;
(4) The accused gives his consent to be a state witness; and
(5) The trial court is satisfied that:
a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is
requested;
b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the
offense committed, except the testimony of said accused;
c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material
points;
d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and,
e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral
turpitude.
No issues have been raised with respect to conditions (1), (2), (4), and 5(e). The parties dispute the
Page 4 of 10
G.R. No. 209195, September 17, 2014 - MANUEL J. JIMENEZ, J…REME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
HIS SOLE HEIR, SIXTO C. ANASAO), Respondents.
G.R. No. 193426, September 29, 2014 - SUBIC BAY
LEGEND RESORTS AND CASINOS, INC., Petitioner, v.
BERNARD C. FERNANDEZ, Respondent.
G.R. No. 176020, September 29, 2014 - HEIRS OF
TELESFORO JULAO, NAMELY, ANITA VDA. DE
ENRIQUEZ, SONIA J. TOLENTINO AND RODERICK
JULAO, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES ALEJANDRO AND
MORENITA DE JESUS, Respondents.
A.C. No. 7337, September 29, 2014 - ROLANDO
VIRAY, Complainant, v. ATTY. EUGENIO T. SANICAS,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 204160, September 22, 2014 - SPOUSES
MICHELLE M. NOYNAY AND NOEL S. NOYNAY,
Petitioners, v. CITIHOMES BUILDER AND
DEVELOPMENT, INC., Respondent.
G.R. No. 202701, September 10, 2014 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDILBERTO
BALIBAY Y LABIS AND MARICEL BALIBAY BIJA-AN,
Defendant-Appellants.
G.R. No. 178911, September 17, 2014 - EDUARDO
D. MONSANTO, DECOROSO D. MONSANTO, SR., AND
REV. FR. PASCUAL D. MONSANTO, JR., Petitioners, v.
LEONCIO LIM AND LORENZO DE GUZMAN,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 195289, September 24, 2014 -
ROBINSON�S BANK CORPORATION (FORMERLY THE
ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND [PHILS.], INC.),
Petitioner, v. HON. SAMUEL H. GAERLAN, HON.
HAKIM S. ABDULWAHID AND HON. RICARDO R.
ROSARIO, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS ASSOCIATE
JUSTICES RESPECTIVELY OF THE TENTH DIVISION
OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, AND TRADE AND
INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
G.R. No. 181921, September 17, 2014
INTERORIENT MARITIME ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Petitioner, v. VICTOR M. CREER III, Respondent.
A.M. No. 2010-21-SC, September 30, 2014 - Re:
ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT ON THE ALLEGED
INVOLVEMENT AND FOR ENGAGING IN THE
BUSINESS OF LENDING MONEY AT USURIOUS RATES
OF INTEREST OF MS. DOLORES T. LOPEZ, SC CHIEF
JUDICIAL STAFF OFFICER, AND MR. FERNANDO M.
MONTALVO, SC SUPERVISING JUDICIAL STAFF
OFFICER, CHECKS DISBURSEMENT DIVISION, FISCAL
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET OFFICE.
G.R. No. 207950, September 22, 2014 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARK JASON
CHAVEZ Y BITANCOR ALIAS �NOY�, Accused-
Appellant.
A.M. No. 2008-23-SC, September 30, 2014 -
ALLEGED LOSS OF VARIOUS BOXES OF COPY PAPER
DURING THEIR TRANSFER FROM THE PROPERTY
DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
(OAS), TO THE VARIOUS ROOMS OF THE PHILIPPINE
JUDICIAL ACADEMY.; [A.M. No. 2014-025-Ret.] -
RELEASE OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT BENEFITS
UNDER R.A. NO. 8291 OF MR. ISIDRO P. AUSTRIA,
FORMER SUPPLY OFFICER II, PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL
ACADEMY, SUPREME COURT.
G.R. No. 202733, September 30, 2014 -
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, JANEL D.
NACION, DIRECTOR IV, LEGAL SERVICES SECTOR OF
COA, AND THE SUPERVISING AUDITOR OF THE
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondents.
A.M. No. P-14-3260 (Formerly A.M. No. 12-2-38-
RTC ), September 16, 2014 - OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. EDGAR S. CRUZ,
CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 52,
GUAGUA, PAMPANGA, Respondent.
G.R. No. 210658, September 17, 2014 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PRIMO P.
JAPSON ALIAS �LONGLONG�, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 187144, September 17, 2014 - CARMEN T.
GAHOL, SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, RICARDO T.
GAHOL, MARIA ESTER GAHOL PEREZ, JOSE MARI T.
GAHOL, LUISITO T. GAHOL AND ALCREJ
CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. ESPERANZA
COBARRUBIAS, Respondent.
G.R. No. 191712, September 17, 2014 - EDITA S.
BUENO AND MILAGROS E. QUINAJON, Petitioners, v.
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014septemberdecisions.php?id=773
22/09/2018, 11)18 PM
compliance with conditions (3) and 5(a) to (d) as the issues before us. We shall discuss these issues
separately below.
Absolute necessity of the testimony
of Montero
We see no merit in Jimenez�s allegation that no absolute necessity exists for Montero�s testimony.
Absolute necessity exists for the testimony of an accused sought to be discharged when he or she alone
has knowledge of the crime. In more concrete terms, necessity is not there when the testimony would
simply corroborate or otherwise strengthen the prosecution�s evidence.43 cralawlawlibrary
We do not agree with Jimenez that the Court�s pronouncement in Chua v. CA et al. is inapplicable in the
present case simply because more than two accused are involved in the present case. The requirement of
absolute necessity for the testimony of a state witness depends on the circumstances of each case
regardless of the number of the participating conspirators.
In People v. Court of Appeals and Perez et al.,44 the Court ordered the discharge of the accused
Roncesvalles, ruling that his testimony is absolutely necessary to prove conspiracy with his other co-
accused. The Court agreed with the Solicitor General that considering the circumstances of the case and
that the other accused could not be compelled to testify, certain facts necessary for the conviction of the
accused would not come to light unless the accused Roncesvalles was allowed to testify for the State.
Specifically, unless accused Roncesvalles was allowed to testify for the government, there would be no
other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense charged, particularly on the role
of his co-accused in the preparation and completion of the falsified loan application and its supporting
papers.
Similarly in People v. Court of Appeals and Tan,45 the Court reinstated the ruling of the trial court which
ordered the discharge of accused Ngo Sin from among the five accused. The record justified his discharge
as a state witness considering the absolute necessity of his testimony to prove that the accused Luciano
Tan had planned and financed the theft.
In the present case, not one of the accused-conspirators, except Montero, was willing to testify on the
alleged murder of Ruby Rose and their participation in her killing. Hence, the CA was correct in ruling
that Judge Docena acted properly and in accordance with jurisprudence in ruling that there was absolute
necessity for the testimony of Montero. He alone is available to provide direct evidence of the crime.
That the prosecution could use the voluntary statements of Montero without his discharge as a state
witness is not an important and relevant consideration. To the prosecution belongs the control of its case
- and this Court cannot dictate on its choice in the discharge of a state witness, save only when the legal
requirements have not been complied with.
The prosecution�s right to prosecute gives it �a wide range of discretion � the discretion of whether,
what and whom to charge, the exercise of which depends on a smorgasbord of factors which are best
appreciated by prosecutors.� Under Section 17, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the
court is given the power to discharge a state witness only after it has already acquired jurisdiction over
the crime and the accused.46 cralawlawlibrary
Montero�s testimony can be substantially corroborated
We also do not find merit in Jimenez� argument that Montero�s testimony cannot be substantially
corroborated in its material points and is even contradicted by the physical evidence of the crime.
As the trial court properly found, the evidence consisting of the steel casing where the cadaver was
found; the drum containing the cadaver which the prosecution successfully identified (and which even the
acting Judge Almeyda believed) to be Ruby Rose; the spot in the sea that Montero pointed to (where the
cadaver was retrieved); the apparel worn by the victim when she was killed as well as her burned
personal effects, all partly corroborate some of the material points in the sworn statements of
Montero.47 cralawlawlibrary
With these as bases, Judge Docena�s ruling that Montero�s testimony found substantial corroboration
cannot be characterized as grave abuse of discretion.
Jimenez points to the discrepancies in Montero�s statements and the physical evidence, such as the
absence of �busal� in the mouth of the retrieved cadaver; his failure to mention that they used
packaging tape wrapped around the head down to the neck of the victim; and his declaration that the
victim was killed through strangulation using a rope (lubid).
However, the corroborated statements of Montero discussed above are far more material than the
inconsistencies pointed out by Jimenez, at least for purposes of the motion to discharge.
The alleged discrepancies in the physical evidence, particularly on the height and dental records of Ruby
Rose, are matters that should properly be dealt with during the trial proper.
We emphasize at this point that to resolve a motion to discharge under Section 17, Rule 119 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Rules only require that that the testimony of the accused sought
to be discharged be substantially corroborated in its material points, not on all points.
This rule is based on jurisprudential line that in resolving a motion to discharge under Section 17, Rule
119, a trial judge cannot be expected or required, at the start of the trial, to inform himself with absolute
certainty of everything that may develop in the course of the trial with respect to the guilty participation
of the accused. If that were practicable or possible, there would be little need for the formality of a
trial.48
cralawlawlibrary
Montero is not the most guilty
We also do not agree with Jimenez that the CA erred in finding that Montero is not the most guilty.
By jurisprudence, �most guilty� refers to the highest degree of culpability in terms of participation in
the commission of the offense and does not necessarily mean the severity of the penalty imposed. While
all the accused may be given the same penalty by reason of conspiracy, yet one may be considered to
Page 5 of 10
G.R. No. 209195, September 17, 2014 - MANUEL J. JIMENEZ, J…REME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, NAPOLEON S.
RONQUILLO, JR., EDNA G. RA�A AND ROMEO G.
REFRUTO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 204755, September 17, 2014 - SOLEDAD
TRIA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 189863, September 17, 2014 - PEDRO
LIBANG, JR., Petitioner, v. INDOCHINA SHIP
MANAGEMENT INC., MR. MIGUEL SANTOS AND
MAJESTIC CARRIERS, INC., Respondents.
A.C. No. 9115, September 17, 2014 - REBECCA
MARIE UY YUPANGCO-NAKPIL, Complainant, v. ATTY.
ROBERTO L. UY, Respondent.
G.R. No. 201644, September 24, 2014 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. JOSE C. GO AND
AIDA C. DELA ROSA, Respondents.
G.R. No. 206555, September 17, 2014 - ATTY.
FORTUNATO PAGDANGANAN, JR., ATTY. ABIGAIL D.
SUAREZ, AND EUGENIO A. VILLANUEVA, Petitioners,
v. FLORENTINO P. SARMIENTO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 188909, September 17, 2014 - REPUBLIC
OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE
OF THE PRESIDENT, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
AND HIGHWAYS AND PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT
COMMISSION, Petitioners, v. FLORENDO B. ARIAS,
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF EQUIPMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 158583, September 10, 2014 - ROSALIE L.
GARGOLES, Petitioner, v. REYLITA S. DEL ROSARIO,
DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE JAY
ANNE'S ONE HOUR PHOTO SHOP, Respondent.
G.R. No. 158150, September 10, 2014 - AGRIEX
CO., LTD., Petitioner, v. HON. TITUS B. VILLANUEVA,
COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF CUSTOMS (NOW
REPLACED BY HON. ANTONIO M. BERNARDO), AND
HON. BILLY C. BIBIT, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, PORT
OF SUBIC (NOW REPLACED BY HON. EMELITO
VILLARUZ), Respondents.
G.R. No. 182794, September 08, 2014 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOBBY
BELGAR, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 206510, September 16, 2014 - MOST REV.
PEDRO D. ARIGO, Vicar Apostolic of Puerto Princesa
D.D.; MOST REV. DEOGRACIAS S. INIGUEZ, JR.,
Bishop-Emeritus ofCaloocan, FRANCES Q. QUIMPO,
CLEMENTE G. BAUTISTA, JR., Kalikasan-PNE, MARIA
CAROLINA P. ARAULLO, RENATO M. REYES, JR.,
BagongAlyansang Makabayan, HON. NERI JAVIER
COLMENARES, BayanMuna Party-list, ROLAND G.
SIMBULAN, PH.D., Junk VFAMovement, TERESITA R.
PEREZ, PH.D., HON. RAYMOND V. PALATINO,
Kabataan Party-list, PETER SJ. GONZALES,
Pamalakaya, GIOVANNI A. TAPANG, PH. D., Agham,
ELMER C. LABOG, Kilusang Mayo Uno, JOAN MAY E.
SALVADOR, Gabriela, JOSE ENRIQUE A. AFRICA,
THERESA A. CONCEPCION, MARY JOAN A. GUAN,
NESTOR T. BAGUINON, PH.D., A. EDSEL F. TUPAZ,
Petitioners, v. SCOTT H. SWIFT in his capacity as
Commander of the U.S. 7th Fleet, MARK A. RICE in his
capacity as Commanding Officer of the USS Guardian,
PRESIDENT BENIGNO S. AQUINO III in his capacity
as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, HON. ALBERT F. DEL ROSARIO,
Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs, HON.
PAQUITO OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, Office of
the President, HON. VOLTAIRE T. GAZMIN, Secretary,
Department of National Defense, HON. RAMON JESUS
P. PAJE, Secretary, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, VICE ADMIRAL JOSE LUIS M.
ALANO, Philippine Navy Flag Officer in Command,
Armed Forces of the Philippines, ADMIRAL RODOLFO
D. ISORENA, Commandant, Philippine Coast Guard,
COMMODORE ENRICO EFREN EVANGELISTA,
Philippine Coast Guard Palawan, MAJOR GEN.
VIRGILIO O. DOMINGO, Commandant of Armed
Forces of the Philippines Commandand LT. GEN.
TERRY G. ROBLING, US Marine Corps Forces, Pacific
and Balikatan 2013 Exercise Co-Director,
Respondents.
A.C. No. 10438, September 23, 2014 - CF SHARP
CREW MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED, Complainant,
v. NICOLAS C. TORRES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 209286, September 23, 2014 - LINA DELA
PE�A JALOVER, GEORGIE A. HUISO AND VELVET
BARQUIN ZAMORA, Petitioners, v. JOHN HENRY R.
OSME�A AND COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
(COMELEC), Respondents.
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014septemberdecisions.php?id=773
22/09/2018, 11)18 PM
have lesser or the least guilt taking into account his degree of participation in the commission of the
offense.49
cralawlawlibrary
What the rule avoids is the possibility that the most guilty would be set free while his co-accused who are
less guilty in terms of participation would be penalized.50 cralawlawlibrary
Before dwelling on the parties� substantive arguments, we find it necessary to first correct the rulings of
the CA that are not exactly correct.
Contrary to the CA�s findings, a principal by inducement is not automatically the most guilty in a
conspiracy. The decision of the Court in People v. Baharan51 did not involve the resolution of a motion to
discharge an accused to become a state witness. Instead, the pronouncement of the Court related to the
culpability of a principal by inducement whose co-inducement act was the determining cause for the
commission of the crime.
Thus viewed, Baharan cannot be the basis of a peremptory pronouncement that a principal by
inducement is more guilty than the principal by direct participation.
In Chua v. People,52 which involved a motion to discharge an accused, the Court declared that if one
induces another to commit a crime, the influence is the determining cause of the crime. Without the
inducement, the crime would not have been committed; it is the inducer who sets into motion the
execution of the criminal act.
To place the Chua ruling in proper perspective, the Court considered the principal by inducement as the
most guilty based on the specific acts done by the two accused and bearing in mind the
elements constitutive of the crime of falsification of private documents where the element of
�damage� arose through the principal by inducement�s encashment of the falsified check.
This led the Court to declare that the principal by inducement is the �most guilty� (or properly, the
more guilty) between the two accused.
Thus, as a rule, for purposes of resolving a motion to discharge an accused as a state witness, what are
controlling are the specific acts of the accused in relation to the crime committed.
We cannot also agree with Jimenez� argument that a principal by direct participation is more guilty than
the principal by inducement as the Revised Penal Code penalizes the principal by inducement only when
the principal by direct participation has executed the crime.
We note that the severity of the penalty imposed is part of the substantive criminal law which should not
be equated with the procedural rule on the discharge of the particeps criminis. The procedural remedy of
the discharge of an accused is based on other considerations, such as the need for giving immunity to
one of several accused in order that not all shall escape, and the judicial experience that the candid
admission of an accused regarding his participation is a guaranty that he will testify truthfully.53
cralawlawlibrary
On the substantive issues of the present case, we affirm the CA ruling that no grave abuse of discretion
transpired when Judge Docena ruled that Montero is not the most guilty.
We draw attention to the requirement that a state witness does not need to be found to be the least
guilty; he or she should not only �appear to be the most guilty.�54 cralawlawlibrary
From the evidence submitted by the prosecution in support of its motion to discharge Montero, it appears
that while Montero was part of the planning, preparation, and execution stage as most of his co-accused
had been, he had no direct participation in the actual killing of Ruby Rose.
While Lope allegedly assigned to him the execution of the killing, the records do not indicate that he had
active participation in hatching the plan to kill Ruby Rose, which allegedly came from accused Lope and
Jimenez, and in the actual killing of Ruby Rose which was executed by accused Lennard.55 Montero�s
participation was limited to providing the steel box where the drum containing the victim�s body was
placed, welding the steel box to seal the cadaver inside, operating the skip or tug boat, and, together
with his co-accused, dropping the steel box containing the cadaver into the sea.
At any rate, the discharge of an accused to be utilized as a state witness because he does not appear to
be the most guilty is highly factual in nature as it largely depends on the appreciation of who had the
most participation in the commission of the crime. The appellate courts do not interfere in the
discretionary judgment of the trial court on this factual issue except when grave abuse of discretion
intervenes.56 cralawlawlibrary
In light of these considerations, we affirm the ruling of the CA that Judge Docena did not commit grave
abuse of discretion in ruling that Montero is not the most guilty.
The discharge of Montero as a state
witness was procedurally sound
We agree with the People that Jimenez is estopped from raising the issue of lack of hearing prior to the
discharge of Montero as a state witness. Jimenez did not raise this issue when Acting Judge Almeyda
denied the motion to discharge. This denial, of course, was favorable to Jimenez. If he found no reason
to complain then, why should we entertain his hearing-related complaint now?
The People even supported its argument that Jimenez actively participated in the proceedings of the
motion to discharge such as his filing of a 20-page opposition to the motion; filing a reply to the
People�s comment; submitting his memorandum of authorities on the qualification of Montero as state
witness; and filing a consolidated opposition on the People�s and Montero�s motion for reconsideration
of Judge Almeyda�s order.57 cralawlawlibrary
In these lights, Jimenez cannot impute grave abuse of discretion on Judge Docena for not conducting a
hearing prior to his grant of the motion to discharge. In People v. CA and Pring,58 the Court ruled that
with both litigants able to present their sides, the lack of actual hearing is not sufficiently fatal to
undermine the court's ability to determine whether the conditions prescribed for the discharge of an
accused as a state witness have been satisfied.
Contrary to Jimenez� argument, the Pring ruling is applicable in the present case. In Pring, the sworn
statements of the accused sought to be discharged (Nonilo Arile), together with the prosecution�s other
Page 6 of 10
G.R. No. 209195, September 17, 2014 - MANUEL J. JIMENEZ, J…REME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
G.R. No. 182424, September 22, 2014 - NENITA
CARGANILLO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 192957, September 29, 2014 - EMMANUEL
B. MORAN, JR., (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY HIS
WIDOW, CONCORDIA V. MORAN, Petitioner, v.
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, AS
REPRESENTED BY THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA AND PGA CARS,
INC., Respondents.
G.R. No. 199133, September 29, 2014 - ESPERANZA
TUMPAG, SUBSTITUTED BY HER SON, PABLITO
TUMPAG BELNAS, JR., Petitioner, v. SAMUEL TUMPAG,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 179654, September 22, 2014 - HACIENDA
LEDDY/RICARDO GAMBOA, JR., Petitioner, v.
PAQUITO VILLEGAS, Respondent.
G.R. No. 206599, September 29, 2014 - 680 HOME
APPLIANCES, INC., Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS, THE HONORABLE MARYANN E.
CORPUS-MA�ALAC, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE
PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
OF MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 141, ATTY. ENGRACIO
ESCASINAS, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE EX-
OFFICIO SHERIFF/CLERK OF COURT VII, OFFICE OF
THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
MAKATI CITY, FIRST SOVEREIGN ASSET
MANAGEMENT (SPV-AMC), INC. AND ALDANCO
MERLMAR, INC., Respondents.
G.R. No. 198538, September 29, 2014 - EXOCET
SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES CORPORATION
AND/OR MA. TERESA MARCELO, Petitioner, v.
ARMANDO D. SERRANO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 192398, September 29, 2014 - prosecutor in the motion to discharge
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner,
v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION,
Respondent.
A.M. No. SB-14-21-J [Formerly A.M. No. 13-10-06-
SB], September 23, 2014 - RE: ALLEGATIONS MADE
UNDER OATH AT THE SENATE BLUE RIBBON
COMMITTEE HEARING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2013
AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE GREGORY S. ONG,
SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 204369, September 17, 2014 - ENRIQUETA
M. LOCSIN, Petitioner, v. BERNARDO HIZON, CARLOS
HIZON, SPS. JOSE MANUEL & LOURDES GUEVARA,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 202666, September 29, 2014 - RHONDA
AVE S. VIVARES AND SPS. MARGARITA AND DAVID
SUZARA, Petitioners, v. ST. THERESA�S COLLEGE,
MYLENE RHEZA T. ESCUDERO, AND JOHN DOES,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 157633, September 10, 2014 -
NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner, v. MA.
CONCEPCION M. DEL ROSARIO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 202066, September 30, 2014 - CBK POWER
COMPANY LIMITED, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 205353 -
CBK POWER COMPANY LIMITED, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 152334, September 24, 2014 - H.H.
HOLLERO CONSTRUCTION, INC., Petitioner, v.
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM AND
POOL OF MACHINERY INSURERS, Respondents.
G.R. No. 200077, September 17, 2014 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ADEL RAMOS
Y ABELLANA, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 208716, September 24, 2014 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ELADIO B.
LUMAHO ALIAS �ATTUMPANG,� Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 199780, September 24, 2014 -
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM,
Petitioner, v. JOSE M. CAPACITE, Respondent.
A.M. No. P-13-3130 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 11-
3668-P], September 22, 2014 - OFFICE OF THE
COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Petitioner, v. MAY F.
HERNANDEZ, CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 199, LAS PI�AS CITY, Respondent.
G.R. No. 182770, September 17, 2014 - WPM
INTERNATIONAL TRADING, INC. AND WARLITO P.
MANLAPAZ, Petitioners, v. FE CORAZON LABAYEN,
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014septemberdecisions.php?id=773
22/09/2018, 11)18 PM
evidence, were already in the possession of the court and had been challenged by the respondent in his
Opposition to Discharge Nonilo Arile and in his Petition for Bail. The issue in that case was the propriety
of the trial court�s resolution of the motion to discharge Nonilo Arile without conducting a hearing
pursuant Section 9, Rule 119 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure (now Section 17, Rule 119 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure).
With Jimenez� active participation in the proceeding for the motion to discharge as outlined above, the
ruling of the Court in Pring should squarely apply.
Montero�s Notice of Withdrawal of
Consent is not material in the resolution
of the present case
We find no merit in Jimenez� argument that Montero�s submission of his notice of withdrawal of
consent and testimony of Manuel dated February 26, 2013 rendered the present case moot, since the
Court cannot consider this document in this petition.
It must be recalled that the present case involves an appellate review of the CA�s decision which found
no grave abuse of discretion on the part of Judge Docena in granting the motion to discharge.
Under the present recourse now before this Court, we cannot rule on the notice of withdrawal and
consider it in ruling on the absence or presence of grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the
assailed orders. The present case is not the proper venue for the determination of the value of the notice.
This conclusion is all the more strengthened by the fact that Montero already testified on direct
examination on June 28, 2011 and October 25, 2011. He attested and affirmed his statements in his
affidavits dated May 18 and June 11, 2009; he not only narrated the grisly murder of Ruby Rose, but also
revealed Jimenez� participation in the murder.
With this development, the notice may partake of the nature of a recantation, which is usually taken ex
parte and is considered inferior to the testimony given in open court. It would be a dangerous rule to
reject the testimony taken before a court of justice simply because the witness who gave it later changed
his/her mind.59 cralawlawlibrary
In sum on this point, the appreciation of the notice of withdrawal properly belongs to the trial court.
Interplay between the judge and
an accused to become a state witness
As a last point, we find it necessary to clarify the roles of the prosecution and the trial court judge in the
resolution of a motion to discharge an accused as a state witness. This need arises from what appears to
us to be a haphazard use of the statement that the trial court judge must rely in large part on the
prosecution�s suggestion in the resolution of a motion to discharge.
In the present case, the CA cited Quarto v. Marcelo60 in ruling that the trial court must rely in large part
upon the suggestions and the information furnished by the prosecuting officer, thus: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
A trial judge cannot be expected or required to inform himself with absolute certainty at
the very outset of the trial as to everything which may be developed in the course of the
trial in regard to the guilty participation of the accused in the commission of the crime
charged in the complaint. If that were practicable or possible there would be little need for
the formality of a trial. He must rely in large part upon the suggestions and the
information furnished by the prosecuting officer in coming to his conclusions as to the
"necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested"; as to the
availability or non-availability of other direct or corroborative evidence; as to which of the
accused is �most guilty,� and the like.
We deem it important to place this ruling in its proper context lest we create the wrong impression that
the trial court is a mere �rubber stamp� of the prosecution, in the manner that Jimenez now argues.
In Quarto, we emphasized that it is still the trial court that determines whether the prosecution�s
preliminary assessment of the accused-witness� qualifications to be a state witness satisfies the
procedural norms. This relationship is in reality a symbiotic one as the trial court, by the very nature of
its role in the administration of justice, largely exercises its prerogative based on the prosecutor�s
findings and evaluation.61 cralawlawlibrary
Thus, we ruled in People v. Pring62 that in requiring a hearing in support of the discharge, the essential
objective of the law is for the court to receive evidence for or against the discharge, which evidence shall
serve as the court�s tangible and concrete basis � independently of the fiscal's or prosecution's
persuasions � in granting or denying the motion for discharge. We emphasize, in saying this, that actual
hearing is not required provided that the parties have both presented their sides on the merits of the
motion.
We likewise do not agree with Jimenez that Quarto should not apply to the present case, since the
principles laid down in that case similarly operate in the present case, specifically, on issue of the
procedural processes required in the discharge of the accused as a state witness.
G.R. No. 209215
We find the People�s petition meritorious.
We note at the outset that the CA did not provide factual or legal support when it ordered the inhibition
of Judge Docena. Additionally, we do not find Jimenez� arguments sufficiently persuasive.
The second paragraph of Section 1 of Rule 137 does not give judges the unlimited discretion to decide
whether or not to desist from hearing a case. The inhibition must be for just and valid causes. The mere
imputation of bias or partiality is likewise not enough ground for their inhibition, especially when the
charge is without basis.63 cralawlawlibrary
Page 7 of 10
G.R. No. 209195, September 17, 2014 - MANUEL J. JIMENEZ, J…REME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY 22/09/2018, 11)18 PM

Respondent.
G.R. No. 192973, September 29, 2014 - PEDRITO
DELA TORRE, Petitioner, v. DR. ARTURO IMBUIDO,
DRA. NORMA IMBUIDO in their capacity as owners
It is well-established that inhibition is not allowed at every instance that a schoolmate or classmate
appears before the judge as counsel for one of the parties. A judge, too, is not expected to automatically
inhibit himself from acting in a case involving a member of his fraternity, such as Jimenez in the present
case. 64
cralawlawlibrary

and operators of DIVINE SPIRIT GENERAL HOSPITAL

AND/OR DR. NESTOR PASAMBA, Respondents. In the absence of clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge of bias and prejudice, a judge�s
ruling not to inhibit oneself should be allowed to stand.65cralawlawlibrary

G.R. No. 202354, September 24, 2014 - AMADA C.

ZACARIAS, Petitioner, v. VICTORIA ANACAY, EDNA In attributing bias and prejudice to Judge Docena, Jimenez must prove that the judge acted or conducted
ANACAY, CYNTHIA ANACAY-GUISIC, ANGELITO himself in a manner clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice so as to defeat the attributes of the
ANACAY, JERMIL ISRAEL, JIMMY ROY ISRAEL AND cold neutrality that an impartial judge must possess. Unjustified assumptions and mere misgivings that
ALL OTHER PERSONS CLAIMING AUTHORITY UNDER the judge acted with prejudice, passion, pride and pettiness in the performance of his functions cannot
THEM, Respondents. overcome the presumption that a judge shall decide on the merits of a case with an unclouded vision of
G.R. No. 173168, September 29, 2014 - PHILIPPINE its facts.66 cralawlawlibrary

AMANAH BANK (NOW AL-AMANAH ISLAMIC

INVESTMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, ALSO
KNOWN AS ISLAMIC BANK), Petitioner, v.
EVANGELISTA CONTRERAS, Respondent.
G.R. No. 200065, September 24, 2014 - CAPITAL
SHOES FACTORY, LTD., Petitioner, v. TRAVELER KIDS,
INC., Respondent.
G.R. No. 195889, September 24, 2014 - PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES EDUARDO
AND MA. ROSARIO TAJONERA AND EDUAROSA
REALTY DEVELOPMENT, INC., Respondents.
In the present case, Jimenez� allegation of bias and prejudice is negated by the CA finding in its
amended decision, as affirmed by this Court, that Judge Docena did not gravely abuse his discretion in
granting the motion to discharge. We support this conclusion as the cancellation of the September 29,
2011 hearing is not clearly indicative of bias and prejudice.
On the allegation that Judge Docena�s uncontrollable temper and unexplainable attitude should be
considered as a factor, we note that the allegations and perceptions of bias from the mere tenor and
language of a judge is insufficient to show prejudgment. Allowing inhibition for these reasons would open
the floodgates to abuse. Unless there is concrete proof that a judge has a personal interest in the
proceedings, and that his bias stems from an extra-judicial source, the Court would uphold the
presumption that a magistrate shall impartially decide the merits of a case.67 cralawlawlibrary

G.R. No. 211356, September 29, 2014 - WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition in G.R. No. 209195 and affirm the CA�s amended decision in CA-
CRISOSTOMO B. AQUINO, Petitioner, v. G.R. SP No. 121167 insofar as it found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of Judge Docena in
MUNICIPALITY OF MALAY, AKLAN, REPRESENTED BY granting the People�s motion to discharge Montero as a state witness.
HON. MAYOR JOHN P. YAP, SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF
MALAY, AKLAN, REPRESENTED BY HON. EZEL FLORES, We GRANT the petition in G.R. No. 209215 and modify the CA�s amended decision in CA-G.R. SP No.
DANTE PASUGUIRON, ROWEN AGUIRRE, WILBEC 121167 in accordance with our ruling that Judge Docena�s denial of the motion for inhibition was proper.
GELITO, JUPITER GALLENERO, OFFICE OF THE
MUNICIPAL ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE MUNICIPAL
TREASURER, BORACAY PNP CHIEF, BORACAY SO ORDERED. cralawred

FOUNDATION, INC., REPRESENTED BY NENETTE

GRAF, MUNICIPAL AUXILIARY POLICE, AND JOHN Carpio, (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr.,* and Leonen, JJ., concur.
AND JANE DOES, Respondents.

G.R. No. 205561, September 24, 2014 - DIONISIO Endnotes:

B. COLOMA, JR., Petitioner, v. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN
(THIRD DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondents. *Designated as Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Jose C. Mendoza, per Special
Order No. 1767 dated August 27, 2014.
G.R. No. 209195, September 17, 2014 - MANUEL J.
JIMENEZ, JR., Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE 1
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 209215 - The Decision�s original ponente, Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio, denied the OSG�s motion
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. MANUEL for reconsideration, which denial was concurred in by Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla.
J. JIMENEZ, JR., Respondent. The ponencia of the Amended Decision, Justice Jose Reyes, dissented prompting the
designation of two additional members, Hon. Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo
G.R. No. 195594, September 29, 2014 - REPUBLIC and Melchor Quirino C. Sadang, chosen by raffle, to form a special division of five. With the
OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE concurrence of Justices Leagogo and Sadang with Justice Jose Reyes, a majority was
NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION, reached and after consultation, Justice Jose Reyes was chosen to become the ponente;
Petitioner, v. SPOUSES ROGELIO LAZO AND DOLORES rollo, pp. 86, 95 of G.R. No. 209195.
LAZO, Respondents.
2 Id. at 81.
G.R. No. 200566, September 17, 2014 - JEBSEN
MARITIME INC., APEX MARITIME SHIP MANAGEMENT
3 Id. at 166 and 177.
CO. LLC., AND/OR ESTANISLAO SANTIAGO,
Petitioners, v. WILFREDO E. RAVENA, Respondent.
4Supra note 2.
G.R. No. 180290, September 29, 2014 -
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, 5 Id.
v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondent.
6 Id.
G.R. No. 167454, September 24, 2014 - EMERITU C.
BARUT, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent. 7 Id.

G.R. No. 191237, September 24, 2014 - ROBERT 8 Id. at 82.

KUA, CAROLINE N. KUA, AND MA. TERESITA N. KUA,
Petitioners, v. GREGORIO SACUPAYO AND
9 Id.
MAXIMINIANO PANERIO, Respondents.

A.M. No. MTJ-13-1837 [formerly OCA IPI No. 12- 10 Id.

2463-MTJ], September 24, 2014 - CONRADO ABE
LOPEZ, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. ROMUALDO JUBAY, 11 Id. at 84.
Complainant, v. JUDGE ROGELIO S. LUCMAYON,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 1,
12 Id. at 86-87.
MANDAUE CITY, CEBU, Respondent.

G.R. No. 198314, September 24, 2014 - PEOPLE OF 13 Id. at 88-90.

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICHARD
GUINTO Y SAN ANDRES, Accused-Appellant. 14 Id. at 90-92
G.R. No. 185345, September 10, 2014 - RONNIE L.
15 Id. at 93.
ABING, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION,
FACILITATORS GENERAL SERVICES AND MARILAG 16 Id.
BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, INC., Respondents. 17 Id. at 41-46.
G.R. No. 173632, September 29, 2014 - AMBROSIO
18 Id. at 7-15.
ROTAIRO (SUBSTITUTED BY HIS SPOUSE MARIA
RONSAYRO ROTAIRO, AND HIS CHILDREN FELINA
ROTAIRO, ERLINDA ROTAIRO CRUZ, EUDOSIA 19 Id. at 11.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014septemberdecisions.php?id=773 Page 8 of 10
G.R. No. 209195, September 17, 2014 - MANUEL J. JIMENEZ, J…REME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY 22/09/2018, 11)18 PM

ROTAIRO CRIZALDO, NIEVES ROTAIRO TUBIG,

REMEDIOS ROTAIRO MACAHILIG, FELISA ROTAIRO 20 329 Phil. 841 (1996).
LEGASPI, JOSEFINA ROTAIRO TORREVILLAS, AND
CRISENCIO R. ROTAIRO, MARCIANA TIBAY, EUGENIO 21Rollo,
PUNZALAN, AND VICENTE DEL ROSARIO, Petitioners, p. 12-15 of G.R. No. 209195.
v. ROVIRA ALCANTARA AND VICTOR ALCANTARA,
Respondents. 22 Id. at 15-20.

G.R. No. 194176, September 10, 2014 - LIMUELL C. 23 Id. at 20-28.

NARCISO, OMAR C. MATUGUINA, ERIC MATUGUINA,
AZENITH MAG-ASO, LILIBETH MASCARI�AS, 24
LUTGARDO OGAMA, LOLITO COLLAMAT, IRIS Id. at 28-32.
MATUGUINA AND ELMER BANILAD, CARLOS B.
MATUGUINA, JR., BIBIANO ESTRERA, JR., PEDRO 25 Id. at 33-35.
LINABOG, BOBBY ALQUEZA, SANTIAGO ATIS,
MARLON DAMAYO, CASINILLO NESTRO, BERNARDITO 26 Id. at 35-36.
DACAN, SABINIANO PATATAG, JOLLYBOY MONICIT,
RODRIGO DAYDAY, REY ESTRERA, CRESENCIO 27
CASIO, DOMINICO AVILA, ERVERT RICAZA, ENRIQUE Id. at 313-315.
PANTILGAN, JONARDEN E. GONZAGA, RENATO
CASIO, BENNY BOOC, DUA CORSINO, RANILO IGOT, 28 Id.
NARCISO PATERNO, ROBERTO RABAL, JULITO
MONSALES, LEOPOLDO MONGUEZ, JR., ROWEL 29 Id. at 307-309.
NEIGAS, EPIFANIO PIAMIL, LOUIE JUDILLAS AND
MANUEL CENIZA, Petitioners, v. PACIFIC TRADERS & 30
MANUFACTURING CORPORATION (PTMC)/TABOK Id. at 315
WORKERS MULTI�PURPOSE COOPERATIVE
(TWMPC), Respondents. 31 Id. at 325-326.

G.R. No. 195443, September 17, 2014 - JUANARIO 32 Id at 322-324.

G. CAMPIT, Petitioner, v. ISIDRA B. GRIPA, PEDRO
BARDIAGA, AND SEVERINO BARDIAGA, 33
REPRESENTED BY HIS SON ROLANDO BARDIAGA, Id. at 328-331.
Respondents.
34 Id. at 344-345.
G.R. No. 196508, September 24, 2014 - LEONARDO
A. VILLALON AND ERLINDA TALDE-VILLALON, 35 Id. at 346-347.
Petitioners, v. AMELIA CHAN, Respondent.
36 Rollo, p. 24 of G.R. No. 209215.
G.R. No. 185267, September 17, 2014 - CESAR T.
QUIAMBAO AND ERIC C. PILAPIL, Petitioners, v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ADERITO Z. YUJUICO 37 Id. at 25.
AND BONIFACIO C. SUMBILLA, Respondents.
38 Id. at 26.
G.R. No. 187621, September 24, 2014 - MOUNT
CARMEL COLLEGE EMPLOYEES UNION 39
(MCCEU)/RUMOLO S. BASCAR, MARIBEL TESALUNA, Id. at 28.
ROLANDO TESALUNA, KENNETH BENIGNOS, MARILYN
MANGULABNAN, EMELINA I. NACIONAL, JODELYN 40 Id. at 30.
REBOTON, EVERSITA S. BASCAR, MAE BAYLEN, ERNA
E. MAHILUM, EVELYN R. ANTONES, Petitioners, v. 41 Jimenez� Comment, unnumbered pages.
MOUNT CARMEL COLLEGE, INCORPORATED,
Respondent. 42Tan v. Spouses Antazo, 644 SCRA 337, 342 (2011).
G.R. No. 183345, September 17, 2014 - MA. GRACIA
HAO AND DANNY HAO, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE 43Supra note 20 at 853.
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
44 216 Phil. 102, 108 (1984).
G.R. No. 187401, September 17, 2014 - MA.
ROSARIO P. CAMPOS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE 45
PHILIPPINES AND FIRST WOMEN�S CREDIT 204 Phil 277, 281-282 (1983).
CORPORATION, Respondents.
46Quarto v. Marcelo et al., 658 SCRA 580, 602 (2011).
G.R. No. 180144, September 24, 2014 - LEONARDO
BOGNOT, Petitioner, v. RRI LENDING CORPORATION, 47Rollo, p. 171 of G.R. No. 209195.
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, DARIO J.
BERNARDEZ, Respondent. 48 Supra note 20 at 850.
G.R. No. 200055, September 10, 2014 - STANDARD
INSURANCE CO., INC., Petitioner, v. ARNOLD 49 People v. Ocimar et al., 212 SCRA 646, 655 (1992).
CUARESMA AND JERRY B. CUARESMA, Respondents.
50 Id.
G.R. No. 202838, September 17, 2014 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JULITO 51
GERANDOY, Accused-Appellant. 639 SCRA 157, 176-177 ( 2011).

G.R. No. 172843, September 24, 2014 - ALFREDO L. 52Supra note 20, at 843, 856.
VILLAMOR, JR., Petitioner, v. JOHN S. UMALE, IN
SUBSTITUTION OF HERNANDO F. BALMORES, 53People v. Hon. Sandiganbayan, et al., 341 Phil. 503, 524 (1997).
Respondent.; G.R. NO. 172881 - RODIVAL E. REYES,
HANS M. PALMA AND DOROTEO M. PANGILINAN, 54People
Petitioners, v. HERNANDO F. BALMORES, Respondent. v. de la Cruz et al., 578 Phil. 314, 328 (2008).

G.R. No. 200729, September 29, 2014 - TEMIC 55Rollo, p. 88 of G.R. No. 209215.
AUTOMOTIVE (PHILIPPINES), INC., Petitioner, v.
RENATO M. CANTOS, Respondent. 56 People v. Sison, 371 Phil 713, 724 (1999).
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2140 (Formerly A.M. No. 00-2-86- 57Supra
RTC), October 07, 2014 - OFFICE OF THE COURT note 58 at 312.
ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. EXECUTIVE JUDGE
OWEN B. AMOR, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, DAET, 58 223 SCRA 479, 488 (1993).
CAMARINES NORTE, Respondent.
59People v. Nardo, 405 Phil. 826, 843. (2001).
A.M. No. RTJ-14-2394 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 12-
3847-RTJ), September 01, 2014 - GEORGE T. CHUA, 60Supra
Complainant, v. JUDGE FORTUNITO L. MADRONA, note 49, at 603.
Respondent.
61 Id. at 602-603.
G.R. No. 189812, September 01, 2014 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REYNALDO 62 Supra note 61, at 487-488.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014septemberdecisions.php?id=773 Page 9 of 10
G.R. No. 209195, September 17, 2014 - MANUEL J. JIMENEZ, J…REME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY 22/09/2018, 11)18 PM

BATURI, Accused-Appellant.
63Gochan et al. v. Gochan et al., 446 Phil. 433, 447 (2003).
G.R. No. 200729, September 29, 2014 - TEMIC
AUTOMOTIVE (PHILIPPINES), INC., Petitioner, v. 64Kilosbayan
RENATO M. CANTOS, Respondent. Foundation et al. v. Janolo, Jr. et al., 625 SCRA 684, 699.

65 Id.

66 Id.

67 Supra note 66, at 448.

Back to Home | Back to Main

QUICK SEARCH

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908

1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016

Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

Copyright © 1998 - 2018 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014septemberdecisions.php?id=773 Page 10 of 10