On Bigamy

Any person who contracts a second marriage without first having a judicial declaration of the nullity of his or her first marriage, albeit on its face void and in existent for lack of a marriage license, is guilty of bigamy as defined and penalized by Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.

Lasanas v. People, G.R. No. 159031, June 23, 2014

Hesitate but never stop there. Else, you fail!

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SALIM ISMAEL

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.

SALIM ISMAEL y RADANG, Accused-Appellant

G.R. No. 208093, February 20, 2017
Del Castillo J

Salim was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 for selling and possessing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). 

Elements of Illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165

(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and

(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.

What is important is that the sale transaction of drugs actually took place and that the object of the transaction is properly presented as evidence in court and is shown to be the same drugs seized from the accused.

Elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs

[1] the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs;

[2] such possession was not authorized by law; and

[3] the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs.

The dangerous drug seized from the accused constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. Thus, it is of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be shown to have been duly preserved. "The chain of custody rule performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.

The first stage in the chain of custody rule is the marking of the dangerous drugs or related items. Marking, which is the affixing on the dangerous drugs or related items by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his initials or signature or other identifying signs, should be made in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon arrest. xxx In short, the marking immediately upon confiscation or recovery of the dangerous drugs or related items is indispensable in the preservation of their integrity and evidentiary value.

SPO1 Rodriguez and SPO1 Santiago did not mark the seized drugs immediately after they were confiscated from appellant. No explanations were given why markings were not immediately made. At this stage in the chain, there was already a significant break such that there can be no assurance against switching, planting, or contamination. The Court has previously held that, "failure to mark the drugs immediately after they were seized from the accused casts doubt on the prosecution evidence warranting an acquittal on reasonable doubt."

Due to the apparent breaks in the chain of custody, it was possible that the seized item subject of the sale transaction was switched with the seized items subject of the illegal possession case. This is material considering that the imposable penalty for illegal possession of shabu depends on the quantity or weight of the seized drug.

Aside from the failure to mark the seized drugs immediately upon arrest, the arresting officers also failed to show that the marking of the seized drugs was done in the presence of the appellant. This requirement must not be brushed aside as a mere technicality. It must be shown that the marking was done in the presence of the accused to assure that the identity and integrity of the drugs were properly preserved. Failure to comply with this requirement is fatal to the prosecution's case.

The prosecution failed to:

(1) overcome the presumption of innocence which appellant enjoys;

(2) prove the corpus delicti of the crime;

(3) establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs; and

(4) offer any explanation why the provisions of Section 21, RA 9165 were not complied with.

The Court is thus constrained to acquit the appellant based on reasonable doubt.


Full Text: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/feb2017/gr_208093_2017.html

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR CORRECTION OF ENTRY (CHANGE OF FAMILY NAME IN THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF FELIPE C. ALMOJUELA

G.R. No. 211724, August 24, 2016

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR CORRECTION OF ENTRY (CHANGE OF FAMILY NAME IN THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF FELIPE C. ALMOJUELA AS APPEARING IN THE RECORDS OF THE NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE), FELIPE C. ALMOJUELA, Petitioner 
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

FACTS: For almost sixty (60) years, petitioner has been using the surname "Almojuela." However, when he requested for a copy of his birth certificate from the National Statistics Office (NSO), he was surprised to discover that he was registered as "Felipe Condeno," instead of "Felipe Almojuela."

Petitioner alleged that he was born on February 25, 1950 and is the acknowledged natural child of Jorge V. Almojuela (Jorge), former governor of the said province, and Francisca B. Condeno (Francisca), both deceased. He averred that while his parents did not marry each other, he has been known to his family and friends as "Felipe Almojuela" and has been using the said surname in all of his official and legal documents. In support of his petition, he also presented a copy of his birth certificate issued by the Local Civil Registrar of the Municipality of Pandan, Catanduanes showing that "Felipe Almojuela" appears as his registered full name.

In a Decision, CA held that Petitioner’s failure to implead and notify the Local Civil Registrar and his half-siblings as mandated by the rules precluded the RTC from acquiring jurisdiction over the case, thereby, reversing the RTC’s Decision

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in nullifying the correction of entry on petitioner's birth certificate on the ground of lack of jurisdiction,

HELD: Rule 108 of the Rules of Court provides the procedure for the correction of substantial changes in the civil registry through an appropriate adversary proceeding.

A reading of Sections 4 and 5 shows that the Rule mandates two (2) sets of notices to potential oppositors: one given to persons named in the petition, and another given to other persons who are not named in the petition but nonetheless may be considered interested or affected parties. Consequently, the petition for a substantial correction of an entry in the civil registry should implead as respondents the civil registrar, as well as all other persons who have or claim to have any interest that would be affected thereby.

In Republic v. Coseteng-Magpayo, the Court emphasized that in a petition for a substantial correction or change of entry in the civil registry under Rule 108, it is mandatory that the civil registrar, as well as all other persons who have or claim to have any interest that would be affected thereby be made respondents for the reason that they are indispensable parties.

Similarly, in Republic v. Uy, the Court nullified the trial court's order to correct respondent's entry for the latter's failure to implead and notify not only the Local Civil Registrar, but also her parents and siblings as the persons who have interest and are affected by the changes or corrections sought.

In this case, the CA correctly found that petitioner failed to implead both the Local Civil Registrar and his half-siblings.  Although he claims that his half-siblings have acknowledged and accepted him, the procedural rules nonetheless mandate compliance with the requirements in the interest of fair play and due process and to afford the person concerned the opportunity to protect his interest if he so chooses.

Moreover, although it is true that in certain instances, the Court has allowed the subsequent publication of a notice of hearing to cure the petition's lack/failure to implead and notify the affected or interested parties, such as when: (a) earnest efforts were made by petitioners in bringing to court all possible interested parties; (b) the parties themselves initiated the corrections proceedings; (c) there is no actual or presumptive awareness of the existence of the interested parties; or, (d) when a party is inadvertently left out, these exceptions are, unfortunately, unavailing in this case.

In sum, the failure to strictly comply with the above-discussed requirements of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court for correction of an entry in the civil registrar involving substantial and controversial alterations renders the entire proceedings therein null and void.

In Republic v. CA, the Court held that the proceedings of the trial court were null and void for lack of jurisdiction as the petitioners therein failed to implead the civil registrar, an indispensable party, in the petition for correction of entry, viz.: 

The local civil registrar is thus required to be made a party to the proceeding. He is an indispensable party, without whom no final determination of the case can be had. As he was not imp leaded in this case much less given notice of the proceeding, the decision of the trial court, insofar as it granted the prayer for the correction of entry, is void. The absence of an indispensable party in a case renders ineffectual all proceedings subsequent to the filing of the complaint including the judgment.

x x x x

The necessary consequence of the failure to implead the civil registrar as an indispensable party and to give notice by publication of the petition for correction of entry was to render the proceeding of the trial court, so far as the corrction of entry was concerned, null and void for lack of jurisdiction both as to party and as to the subject matter.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

Full Text: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/aug2016/gr_211724_2016.html

People v. Seguiente

G.R. NO. 218253, June 20, 2018

Del Castillo, J.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

-versus -

EVELYN SEGUIENTE y RAMIREZ,
Accused-Appellant.

Issue: Whether the court a quo gravely erred in convicting herein accused-appellant despite the failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling: Yes.

Requisites of Illegal Sale of Drugs
In a prosecution for the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, "the prosecution needs to prove sufficiently the identity of the buyer, seller, object and consideration; and, the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence."

Requisites of Illegal Possession of Drugs
On the other hand, to prove "illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and, (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug." As found by the courts below, all the foregoing elements were proved beyond reasonable doubt. Appellant was caught in possession of shabu, a dangerous drug. She failed to show that she was authorized to possess the same. By her mere possession of the drug, there is already a prima facie evidence of knowledge which she failed to rebut.

According to the appellant, the marking of the items seized was not done in her presence. The physical inventory and taking of photographs was likewise not conducted in her presence and the persons mentioned in the law. The inventory receipt contained only the signature of the Intelligence Operative. The police operatives did not offer any explanation on their non-compliance with these requirements. She argues that these non-compliance made the legitimacy of the alleged buy-bust operation doubtful.

Chain of Custody
The procedure set forth in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is intended precisely to ensure the identity and integrity of dangerous drugs seized. This provision requires that upon seizure of illegal drug items, the apprehending team having initial custody of the drugs shall (a) conduct a physical inventory of the drugs and (b) take photographs thereof (c) in the presence of the person from whom these items were seized or confiscated and (d) a representative from the media and the Department of Justice and any elected public official (e) who shall all be required to sign the inventory and be given copies thereof.

As ruled in People v. Salonga, the marking "must always be done in the presence of the accused or his representative."

Another procedural lapse committed by the arresting team was their non-compliance with the photograph and physical inventory requirements under RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR).

Another crucial deviation from the procedure required by law was the failure to take photographs of the seized items.

Indeed, Section 2l(a) of the IRR, as amended by RA 10640, provides a saving clause in the procedure outline under Section 21 (1) of RA 9165. However, before this saving clause to apply, the prosecution is bound to recognize the procedural lapses, provide justifiable grounds for its non-compliance and thereafter to establish the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the items seized.
In the present case, the prosecution offered no explanation on why the procedure was not followed or whether there was a justifiable ground for failing to do so.
Appeal is granted. Appellant is acquitted.

Please click to read FULL TEXT here.

Did this post help you? Please leave a thumbs up or comment below.