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.

Abosta Ship Management Corp. v Delos Reyes

G.R. No. 215111, June 20, 2018

Del Castillo, J.

ABOSTA SHIPMANAGEMENT CORPORATION, PANSTAR SHIPPING CO., LTD., AND/OR GAUDENCIO MORALES, Petitioner

-versus-

RODEL DELOS REYES
Respondent.

In case of conflicting medical assessments, the assessment of the company-designated physician prevails unless a third party doctor is sought by the parties.

Issue: whether respondent was entitled to total and permanent disability compensation.

Ruling: No. There is total disability when employee is unable "to earn wages in the same kind of work or work of similar nature that he or she was trained for, or accustomed to perform, or any kind of work which a person of his or her mentality and attainments could do. " On the other hand, there is permanent disability when the worker is unable "to perform his or her job for more than 120 days [or 240 days, as the case may be,] regardless of whether or not he loses the use of any part of his or her body."

In this case, respondent was repatriated for medical treatment. Upon the advice of the company-designated physician, respondent underwent right inginual hemiorrhaphy with mesh imposition. Two months after his surgery or within the 120-day period, he was declared fit to work by the company-designated physician.

In Marlow Navigation Philippines, Inc. v. Osias, the Court declared that-Based on the above-cited provision, the referral to a third doctor is mandatory when: (1) there is a valid and timely assessment by the company-designated physician and (2) the appointed doctor of the seafarer refuted such assessment.

Respondent failed to refer the conflicting medical assessments to a third doctor.The Court has consistently ruled that in case of conflicting medical assessments, referral to a third doctor is mandatory; and that in the absence of a third doctor's opinion, it is the medical assessment of the company-designated physician that should prevail.

Under prevailing jurisprudence, "the assessment of the company-designated physician is more credible for having been arrived at after months of medical attendance and diagnosis, compared with the assessment of a private physician done in one day on the basis of an examination or existing medical records."

Click here for the FULL TEXT of the case.

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

People v Cariat

G.R. No. 223565, June 18, 2018

Del Castillo, J.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, 
-versus-
JONATHAN PAL, THANIEL MAGBANTA, DODONG MANGO [RON ARIES DAGATAN CARIA T] and alias TAT AN CUTACTE, Accused, RON ARIES DAGATAN CARIAT

Issue: Whether appellant was guilty of the crime of rape.

Ruling: Yes.

To secure a conviction for rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution must prove that (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) he accomplished such act through force, threat, or intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under twelve years of age or was demented.

In this case, the prosecution had sufficiently established the existence of the elements above. The testimony of "AAA" established that Magbanta had sexual intercourse with her with the assistance of appellant, Pal, and Cutacte. "AAA" testified that appellant held her, pointed a knife at her, and helped his co-accused drag her to a secluded grassy area where Magbanta punched her and forced her to lie down. Magbanta then undressed her and inserted his penis inside her vagina while her legs were held by appellant. These circumstances show that Magbanta had sexual intercourse with "AAA" against her will through force, threat, and intimidation and with the assistance of appellant and the other accused.

The Court likewise finds that conspiracy was established in this case. There is conspiracy "when the acts of the accused demonstrate a common design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose."10 While appellant did not personally have sexual intercourse with "AAA", the acts of appellant, Magbanta, Pal, and Cutacte clearly demonstrated a common design to have carnal knowledge of "AAA". Appellant helped Magbanta, Pal, and Cutacte in restraining "AAA" and in dragging her to a secluded grassy area. He also pointed a knife at "AAA" and held her while Magbanta inserted his penis into "AAA's" vagina. Unmistakably, appellant concurred in the criminal design to rape "AAA". Since there was conspiracy among appellant, Magbanta, Pal, and Cutacte, the act of one was the act of all making them equally guilty of the crime of rape against "AAA".

Click here for the FULL TEXT of the case.

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