You are on page 1of 6

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs
ROQUE DAYADAY y DAGOOC, Accused-Appellant
G.R. No. 213224, January 16, 2017
(Criminal Law - Requisites of Murder)

Facts:

Plaintiff Basilio Gallenero (Basilio) and his son Alex, were walking home after attending a
wedding celebration at the house of Rodolfo Dayday the brother of the accused Roque Dayaday
Dagooc (Roque), when suddenly, Roque shot the victim in the back four (4) times, successively.
Alex easily recognized the accused because the place was well lit and he was just about ten
(10) meters away from the latter.

Roque on the other hand, denied the accusation and interposed the defense that on the
night when Roque was shot, he was with his brother Reynald preparing the food for the
wedding celebration.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the court erred in convicting Roque for the crime of Murder.

HELD

Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, murder is committed when the following
circumstances occur: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was with
the attendance of any of the qualifying circumstances enumerated in Art. 248; and (4) the
killing neither constitutes parricide nor infanticide.

Qualifying circumstances present are Treachery. There is treachery when a victim is set
upon by the accused without warning, as when the accused attacks the victim from behind, or
when the attack is sudden and unexpected and without the slightest provocation on the part of
the victim, or is, in any event, so sudden and unexpected that the victim is unable to defend
himself, thus insuring the execution of the criminal act without risk to the assailant.

Here, the evidence unequivocally shows that the attack against the victim, which came
from behind, was sudden, deliberate and unexpected. The victim was completely unaware of
any threat to his life as he was merely walking home with his son. The use of a firearm showed
deliberate intent to kill the victim and the location and number of gunshot wounds rendered
him defenseless and incapable of retaliation. Hence, treachery was evident in the case at bar,
sufficient to qualify the crime to Murder.
DE LA SALLE ARANETA UNIVERSITY, Petitioner
vs.
JUANITO C. BERNARDO, Respondent
G.R. No. 190809, February 13, 2017
(Labor Law 1 – Retirement Benefits)

FACTS:

Juanito Bernardo is working as a part-time professional lecturer at De La Salle Araneta


University (DLS-AU) for almost 27 years. However, on November 8, 2004, DLS-AU informed
Bernardo through a telephone call that he could not teach at the school anymore as the school
was implementing the retirement age limit for its faculty members.

The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) opined that Bernardo was entitled to
retirement benefits as provided under RA No. 7641. Yet, Dr. Bautista Executive Vice-President,
in a letter informed and explains to Bernardo that he is not entitled to any kind of separation
pay or benefits as mandated by the DLS-AU’s policy and Collective Bargaining Agreement
(CBA), only those who are full-time permanent faculty of DLS-AU for at least 5 years
immediately preceding the termination of their employment could avail a postemployment
benefits.

ISSUE:

Whether or not part-time employees are excluded from the coverage of those entitled to
retirement benefits.

HELD:

In the case at bar, Bernardo is not alleging illegal dismissal nor claiming separation pay.
He is asserting his right to retirement benefits given the termination of his employment with
DLS-AU when he was already 75 years old. Thus, as a part-time employee with fixed-term
employment, the court ruled that Bernardo is entitled to retirement benefits.

In the case of Aquino vs. NLRC, the court declared that retirement benefits are intended
to help the employee enjoy the remaining years of his life, lessening the burden of worrying for
his financial support.

Hence, in the present case, even though Bernardo is not entitled to retirement benefits
under the CBA policy of the DLS-AU, the latter can still claim his retirement benefits pursuant to
RA 7641. The said law intends to give the minimum retirement benefits to the employee not
entitled to the same under collective bargaining and other agreements. It also applies to the
establishment with existing collective bargaining or other agreement or voluntary plans whose
benefits are Jess than those prescribe in the said law.
TRINIDAD GAMBOA-ROCES, Complainant
vs.
JUDGE RANHEL A. PEREZ, Presiding Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Enrique
Magalona-Manapla, Negros Occidental, Respondent
A.M. No. MTJ-16-1887, January 9, 2017
(Legal Ethics – Gross Ignorance)

FACTS:

Trinidad Gamboa-Roces filed a complaint charging Judge Ranhel Perez with gross
ignorance of the law for his failure to render judgment on the consolidated ejectment cases
within the reglementary period as prescribed by law.

In his answer, Judge Perez admitted the said instances and offered his deepest
apologies, explaining that the delay was inadvertent and not intended to prejudice the plaintiff.
He explained that he was able to finish the final draft of his decision but in his desire to have a
perfect decion, he did not immediately forward the draft to his Clerk of Court as he would still
polish it. He however got distracted with the other issues and matters in the office.

Thereafter, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that the
complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that Judge Perez be found
guilty of undue delay in rendering a decision or order.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Judge Perez is liable when he release his judgment beyond the
prescribe period.

HELD:

The Court has always reminded the judge to attend promptly to the business of the
court and to decide cases within the required periods for the honor and integrity of the Judiciary
is measured not only by the fairness and the correctness of the decision rendered, but also by
the efficiency with which disputes are resolved.

Sec. 2 and 5 of the Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct enjoin the judges to
devote their professional activity to judicial duties and perform them including the delivery of
reserved decision, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.

Therefore, the court will adopt the recommendation of the Office of Court Administrator
and rendered Judge Perez liable for gross ignorance of the law for failure to render judgment
beyond the reglamentary period as prescribe by the law.
HON. CESAR D. BUENAFLOR, Petitioner
vs.
JOSE R. RAMIREZ, JR., Respondent
G.R. No. 201607, February 15, 2017
(Civil Procedure – Jurisdiction)

FACTS:

Chairman Eufenio Domingo of the Presidentail Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) appointed


respondent Jose R. Ramirez, Jr. as Executive Assistant III, however when Chairman Domingo
resigned, the new Chairman, Hon. Cesar Buenaflor, terminated Ramirez on the ground that his
tenure had expired,

Aggrieved, Ramirez filed a motion to the RTC to declare his dismissal null and void,
Thus, Buenaflor through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed an answer contending
that Ramirez must exhaust first all administrative remedies and instead filed his administrative
complaint to the Civil Service Commission (CSC).

On December 28, 2007, after the trail, the RTC rendered judgment declaring Buenaflor
guilty of unlawful termination for terminating Ramirez without giving enough evidence that the
latter was coterminous with Chairman Domingo. Hence, the Court of Appeals adopts the
judgment of the RTC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA committed grave abused of discretion in not declaring that the
RTC has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the instant civil service related cases, which is under
the sole jurisdiction of the CSC.

HELD:

The jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of a particular action is determined by
the allegations in the complaint and the principal relief he seeks in the light of the law that
apportions the jurisdiction of courts.

It is cleared that the CSC has jurisdiction over a case involving a civil servant if it can be
regarded as equivalent to a labor dispute resoluble under the Labor Code. Hence, the regular
court has jurisdiction if the case can be decided under general laws, such as when the case is
for the recovery of private debts, or for the recovery of damages due to slanderous remarks of
the employer, or for malicious prosecution of the employees. Hence, the mere fact that the
parties are members of the CSC, the right jurisdiction in conferred to the CSC.
MS. FLORITA PALMA and MS. FILIPINA MERCADO, Complainants,
vs.
JUDGE GEORGE E. OMELIO, Regional Trial Court, Br. 14, Davao City (then of
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Br. 4, Davao City), JUDGE VIRGILIO G. MURCIA,
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Br. 2, and Clerk of Court MA. FLORIDA C. OMELIO,
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Office of the Clerk of Court, both of the Island Garden
City of Samal,, Respondents.
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2223, August 30, 2017
(Persons and Family Relations – Marriage)

FACTS:

Sometime in 2007 and 2008, a certain Filipina Mercado and Fiorita Palma sent an email
regarding on the alleged marriage scam conducted by Judge Virgilio Murcia, Judge George
Omelio and his wife, Clerk of Court Ma. Florida C. Omelio for solemnizing a marriage of a
certain Enchaverria.

Acting on the said complaint, the Office of the Court Administrator dispatched an
investigating team to check on the said issue. Hence, the team reported that there was indeed
a marriage happened and conducted by Judge Omelio on February 28, 2009 at the residence of
Enchaverria in Samal Island, whoever after checking, it was Judge Murcia who signed the
Marriage Contract and not Judge Omelio who conducted the ceremony and CoC Omelio did not
collect the solemnization fee.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Respondents violate Administrative Order No. 125-2007 that provides
the Guidelines on the Solemnization of Marriage by the members of the Judiciary.

HELD:

AO 124-2007 provides for the Guidelines on the Solemnization of Marriage by the


Members of the Judiciary and laid down the rules to enable the solemnizing authorities of the
Judiciary to secure and safeguard the sanctity of marriage as a social institution.

Here although both judges were clothed with authority to solemnize marriage, however
in case at bar, they overstepped the bounds of their authority when Judge Murcia affixed his
signature in the Marriage Contract of Julius and Khristine without actually solemnizing their
marriage, and instead it was Judge Omelio who solemnize the ceremony.

Marriage in this country is an institution in which the community is deeply interested.


The state has surrounded it with safeguards to maintain its purity, continuity and permanence.
The security and stability of the state are largely dependent upon it. It is the interest and duty
of each and every member of the community to prevent the bringing about of a condition that
would shake its foundation and ultimately lead to its destruction.
Respondents used their authority as a judge to make a mockery of marriage. As a
judicial officer, they are expected to know the law on solemnization of marriages. A judge is not
only bound by oath to apply the law; he must also be conscientious and thorough in doing so.
Certainly, judges, by the very delicate nature of their office, should be more circumspect in the
performance of their duties.

You might also like