TABLE OF CONTENTS

Assignment 1
1. People vs. Mamalias [G.R. No. 128073 March 27, 2000]
2. Cariaga vs. People [G.R. No. 180010 July 30, 2010]
3. People vs. Lacson [G.R. No. 149453 October 7, 2003]
4. Young vs. CA [G.R. No. 79518 January 13, 1989]
5. De leon vs. Esguerra [G.R. No. 78059 August 31, 1987]
6. Estino vs. People [G.R. Nos. 163957-58 April 7, 2009]

Assignment 2
7. Cruz vs. CA, 388 SCRA 72, 83
8. Innosenties vs. Santos, GR Nos. 205963-64, July 07, 2016
9. David vs. Agbay and People, GR No. 199113, March 18, 2015
10. Trenas vs. People, 664 SCRA 355, 366
11. People vs. Sandiganbayan, 597 SCRA 49
12. Radiowealth Finance Company vs. Nolasco, GR No. 227146, November 14, 2016
13. Salvador vs. Patricia Incorporated, GR No. 195834, November 09, 2016
14. Atienza vs. People, GR No. 188694, February 12, 2014
15. Miranda vs. Tuliao, 486 SCRA 377, 388, 389.
16. Pfleider vs. People, GR No. 2080O1, June 19, 2017

Assignment 3
17. Jadewell Parking Systems Corporations vs. hon. Lidua Senior, GR No. 169588, Oct. 07, 2013.
18. Dino vs. Olivarez, 590 SCRA 559, June 23, 2009.
19. Orbe vs. Marcial, GR No. 217777, Aug. 16, 2017.
20. Ivler vs. Judge San Pedro, GR No. 172716, Nov. 17, 2010, 635 SCRA 191.
21. Co. vs. Small Business Guarantee and Finance Corporation, GR No. 211222, August 07,2017.
22. Valderama vs. People, GR No. 220054, March 27, 2017.
23. People vs. Bayabus, 750 SCRA 677, Feb. 18,2015.
24. Pp vs. Lindo, GR No. 189818, Aug. 09, 2010.
25. Pp vs. Triando, 785 SCRA 103, Feb, 24,2016.
26. Navaja vs. De Castro, 759 SCRA 487, June 22, 2015.

Assignment 4
27. Vaderama vs. People, Gr no. 220054, March 27, 2017.
28. People vs. Alapan, Gr. no. 199527, Jan. 10, 2018.
29. people vs. Bayotas, 236 SCRA 239.
30. Cosculuela vs. Sandiganbayan, 701 SCRA 188.
31. Panlilio vs. RTC, 641 SCRA 438.

Assignment 5

32. People vs. Antido [G.R. No. 208651 March 14, 2018]

Facts:
Accused-apellant Antido was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape by the
Court of Appeals thus, sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to
 pay private complainant indemnities and damages. The case was appealed in the supreme
court.
The high court affirmed the decision of the appellate court finding the accused guilty.
However, before the promulgation of its decision, the accused-appellant died.

Issue:
Whether or not the criminal and civil liability of the accused-appellant are
extinguished by his death

Held:

Yes, upon accused-appellant's death pending appeal of his conviction, the criminal
action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused;
the civil action instituted therein for the recovery of the civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto
extinguished, grounded as it is on the criminal action.
However, it is well to clarify that accused-appellant's civil liability in connection with
his acts against the victim may be based on sources other than delicts; in which case, the
victim may file a separate civil action against the estate of accused-appellant, as may be
warranted by law and procedural rules

[Link] Corporation vs. The Heirs of Confessor [G.R. No. 215671, September. 19, 2018]

Facts:
In January 15, 1966, the DENR through its Executive Director entered into a 25-year
leasehold agreement with Alsons Development and Investment Corporation. The agreement
was named IFPMA 21.
However, respondent Confessor filed before DENR Region 12 praying for the
cancellation of IFPMA 21 on the ground that a large portion of the property was covered by a
consolidated OCT thus no longer classified as public land. The protest was dismissed and
was also affirmed by the DENR Secretary when appealed in its office.
Respondent then filed a petition before the Office of the President which later set
aside the decision of the DENR Secretary.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was granted by the OP reversing
its prior decision.
It was then respondents' tum to file a motion for reconsideration. On December 20,
2010, granting the motion, the OP again reversed itself, ruling that respondents have
established their ownership of the subject property.
On January 19, 2011, petitioner filed a Petition for Review with a Prayer for Status
Quo Order before the CA, questioning the OP Decision. Manifesting that a petition for
annulment of title and reversion of the land was filed before the Regional Trial Court.
Petitioners argue that pending the decision of the RTC the CA should maintain the status
quo.
The CA affirmed the OPs decision. On January 20, 2014, petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration but was denied. Hence this petition.

Issue:
 Whether or not the civil case for annulment of title and reversion before the RTC constitutes
a prejudicial question which would operate as a bar to the action for the cancellation of
IFPMA No. 21.

Held:
Yes, cancellation of IFPMA 21 solely depends upon the determination of whether or not
respondents, in the first place, have the right over the subject property.
The court finds, the cancellation of the IFPMA No. 21 is the logical consequence of the
determination of respondents' right over the subject property. Further, to allow the
cancellation thereof at the instance of the respondents notwithstanding the possibility of
finding that respondents have no right over the property subject thereof is a "sheer exercise
in futility."
For what happens if we, for the time being, uphold respondents' title and allow the
cancellation of IFPMA No. 21 and later on in the civil case, the RTC rules to cancel
respondents' TCT for being fake and spurious and reverts the property to the public domain?
It would then turn out that the cancellation was not proper. That will be a clear case of
conflicting decisions. On the other hand, if respondents will be proven to have a clear right
over the subject property, then they can proceed to exercise every power of dominion over
the same.

[Link] Manufacturing Corp. vs. Davidoff Inc. [G.R. No. 197482 March 6, 2017]

Three separate Complaint-Affidavits were filed before the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor of San Fernando, Pampanga charging Forietrans Manufacturing Corporation
(FMCs) and its employees· with violation of Republic Act No. 8293 or the Intellectual
Property Code for trademark infringement and false designation of origin.
However, Prosecutor Macabulos dismissed the criminal complaints on the ground
that the application for search warrant clearly insufficient to show probable cause to search
FMCs premises.
Respondents thereafter filed a Petition for Review before then Secretary of Justice
Raul M. Gonzalez. In his Resolution dated February 10, 2006, Secretary Gonzalez affirmed
the ruling of Prosecutor Macabulos.
Respondents moved for reconsideration. This, however, was denied with finality by
Secretary Gonzalez in his Resolution dated March 27, 2006. Respondents elevated the case
to the CA via a petition for certiorari.
The CA reversed the resolutions of Secretary Gonzalez. Hence this Petition.

Issue:
Whether the CA erred in ruling that Secretary Gonzalez committed grave abuse of
discretion in finding no probable cause to charge petitioners with trademark infringement
and false designation of origin.

Held:
No, the court sees no compelling reason to disturb the ruling of the CA finding
probable cause against petitioners for trademark infringement and false designation of
origin.
The determination of probable cause by the judge is to ascertain whether a warrant
of arrest should be issued against the accused, or for purposes of this case, whether a search
warrant should be issued. On the other hand, the determination of probable cause by the
 prosecutor is to determine whether a criminal case should be filed in court. The prosecutor
has no power or authority to review the determination of probable cause by the judge, just
as the latter does not act as the appellate court of the former.
Here, as correctly argued by respondents, Prosecutor Macabulos focused on the
evidence submitted before Judge Sunga to support the issuance of search warrants. He lost
sight of the fact that as a prosecutor, he should evaluate only the evidence presented before
him during the preliminary investigation. With his preconceived notion of the invalidity of
the search warrants in mind, Prosecutor Macabulos appeared to have completely ignored
the evidence presented by respondents during preliminary investigation.

[Link] vs. Office of the Ombudsman [G.R. No. 212761-62 July 31, 2018]

[Link] vs. Jerry Sapla [G.R. No. 244045 June 16, 2020]
Facts:
Accused-appellant Jerry Sapla was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the
Regional Trial Court of Tabuk City Branch 25 for violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.
He was found to be in possession of four bricks of marijuana dried leaves in a
checkpoint at the RPSB Talaca, Tabuk City by a joint operation by the RPSB and the KPPO-
PAIDSTOG. The operation stemmed from a phone call from a concerned citizen that a
certain individual would be transporting marijuana from Kalinga to the Province of Isabela.
A text message also followed for the details of the person and the vehicle t hat he will be
using.
The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals but the appellate court maintained the
decision of the lower court. Hence, this petition.

Issue:
Whether there was a valid search and seizure

Held:
No, the search and seizure was not valid. The court holds that cases adhering to the
doctrine that exclusive reliance on an unverified, anonymous tip cannot engender probable
cause that permits a warrantless search of a moving vehicle that goes beyond visual search.
Adopting a contrary rule would set an extremely dangerous and perilous precedent
wherein, on the sheer basis of an unverified information passed along by an alleged
informant, the authorities are given the unbridled license to undertake extensive and highly
intrusive searches, even in the absence of any overt circumstance that engenders a
reasonable belief that illegal activity is afoot.

[Link] vs. People [[Link]. 197788 February 29, 2012]

Facts:
Petitioner was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for illegal possession of
dangerous drugs by the RTC. The evidence used against him was seized when he was flagged
down by a Police Officer for violating a municipal ordinance for not wearing a helmet.
The case was appealed to the CA but the appellate court affirmed the decision of the
lower court. Hence, this appeal.

Issue:
Whether or not the evidence used against the petitioner is inadmissible
 Held:
No, The subject items seized during the illegal arrest are inadmissible. The drugs are
the very corpus delicti of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Thus, their
inadmissibility precludes conviction and calls for the acquittal of the accused

[Link] vs. People [G.R. 208775 January 22, 2018]

[Link] vs. Maderazo [G.R. No. 2353 Dec. 10, 2018]
[Link] vs. People [G.R. No. 236461 December 5, 2018]
[Link] vs. Judge Lobrigo [G.R. No. 226679 August 15, 2017]
[Link] vs. Pandillo [G.R. No. 2125 June, 2017]
43. Ranier vs. People [G.R. No.189176 March 19, 2014]

Assignment 6

[Link] Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, 630 SCRA 505, 515

[Link] vs. Sandiganbayan, GR. NO. 232197, April 16, 2018
[Link] vs. Sandiganbayan, GR. no. 206438 and 206458, July 31, 2018
[Link] Bank of Mabitac Laguna vs. Canicon, GR. NO. 196015, June 27, 2018
[Link] vs. CA, GR. NO. 183652, February 25, 2015
[Link] vs. Panganiban, [Link]. 211960, April 15, 2015
[Link] vs. Matsura, [Link]. 195616, January 9, 2013
[Link] vs. People, 177000, June 19, 2017
[Link] vs. People, [Link]. 194390, August 14, 2014
[Link] vs. Bracamonte, GR. NO. 233174 January 23, 2019
[Link] [Link], 550 SCRA 233
[Link] vs. Sandiganbayan [G.R No. 233063 February 11, 2019]

Assignment 7 [Due November 16, 2020 - Yellow Paper]

56. Napoles vs Sandiganbayan [G.R No. 224162 February 6, 2018]

Facts:
On December 20, 2017, petitioner Napoles filed a motion for the reconsideration of
the court's decision dated November 7, 2017. Said decision upheld the Sandiganbayan's
Resolutions dated October 16, 2015 and March 2, 2016 denying Napoles' application for bail,
there being no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of the Sandiganbayan.
In this petition, Napoles invokes the ruling in Macapagal-Arroyo vs People. The Court
in that case reversed the Sandiganbayan's denial of the demurrer to evidence in the plunder
case against former President GMA based on the prosecution's failure to specify the identity
of the main plunderer, for whose benefit the ill-gotten wealth was amassed, accumulated,
and acquired. According to Napoles, the ruling in Macapagal-Arroyo should have been
applied to her case.

Issue:
Whether or not the ruling in Macapagal-Arroyo vs People is applicable in the present
case.
 Held:
No, the distinction between the required standards of proof precludes the application
of Macapagal-Arroyo to the present case.
The Sandiganbayan's denial of the demurrer to evidence in Macapagal-Arroyo was
annulled based on the paucity of the evidence of the prosecution, which failed to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that former President GMA was the mastermind of the conspiracy
to commit plunder. In other words, there was a final determination of former President
GMA's innocence of the crime charged.
This is not the case for Napoles. The issue that the Court resolved in its Decision dated
November 7, 2017 was whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying
Napoles' application for bail. This involved a preliminary determination of her eligibility to
provisional liberty.
The resolution of this issue does not involve an inquiry as to whether there was proof
beyond reasonable doubt that Napoles, or her co-accused as the case may be, was the main
plunderer for whose benefit the ill-gotten wealth was amassed or accumulated. These are
matters of defense best left to the discretion of the Sandiganbayan in the resolution of the
criminal case. It was sufficient that the denial of her bail application was based on evidence
establishing a great presumption of guilt on the part of Napoles

57. People vs Cristobal [G.R No. 159450 March 30, 2011]

Facts:

58. People vs Ting [G.R No. 221505 December 5, 2018]

59. Malabanan vs Sandiganbayan [G.R No. 186329 August 2, 2017]
60. Javier vs Gonzales [G.R No. 19350 January 23, 2017]
61. Sevilla vs People [G.R No. 194390 August 13, 2014]
62. Canceran vs People [G.R No. 206442 July 1, 2015]
63. Jaylo vs Sandiganbayan [G.R Nos. 183152-54 January 21, 2015]
64. Custodio vs Sandiganbayan [G.R Nos. 96027-28 March 5, 2008]
65. Neypes vs CA [G.R No. 141524 September 14, 2005]
66. Tamayo vs People [G.R No. 174698 July 28, 2008]
67. Chua vs CA [G.R No. 140842 April 12, 2007]
68. People vs Piad [G.R No. 213607 January 25, 2016]
69. Saldua vs People [G.R No. 210920 December 10, 2018]

Assignment 8

[Link] vs. Caoili [G.R. No. 196342 August 8, 2017]

[Link] vs People [G.R No. 206442 July 1, 2015]
[Link] vs Tubongbanua [G.R. No. 171271 August 31, 2006]
 [Link] vs Yerro [G.R. No. 205952 February 11, 2015]
[Link] vs People [G.R. No. 193217 February 26, 2014]
[Link] vs People [G.R. No. 234217 November 14, 2018]
[Link] vs People [G.R. No. 227366 August 1, 2018]
[Link] vs Valdez [G.R. No. 175602 January 18, 2012]
[Link] vs People [G.R. No. 167333 January 11, 2016]
[Link] vs People [G.R. No. 198753 March 25, 2015]
[Link] vs Mateo [GR No. 147678-87 Jul 07, 2004]
[Link] vs People [G.R. No. 193169 April 6, 2015]
[Link] vs People [G.R. No. 182748 December 13, 2011]
[Link] vs CA [G.R. No. 183652 February 25, 2015]

Assignment 9 (On or before November 30, 2020)

84. Jimenez vs People [G.R. No. 209195 September 17, 2014]

85. People vs Pareja [G.R. No. 202122 January 15, 2014]
86. People vs Maongco [G.R. No. 196966 October 23, 2013]
87. So vs CA [G.R. No. 138869 August 29, 2002]
88. People vs Licayan [G.R. Nos. 140900 and 140911 August 15, 2001]
89. Padilla vs Velasco [G.R. No. 169956 January 19, 2009]
90. Bautista vs Pangilinan [G.R. No. 189754 October 24, 2012]
91. Garcia vs Ferro Chemicals, Inc. [G.R. No. 172505 October 1, 2014]
92. NAPOCOR vs Laoho [G.R. No. 151973 July 23, 2009]
93. People vs Alvaro [G.R. No. 225596 January 10, 2018]
94. Republic vs Sandiganbayan [G.R. No. 152375 December 16, 2011]
95. People vs Taruc [G.R. No. 185202 February 18, 2009]
96. People vs Valdez [G.R. No. 175602 February 13, 2013]
97. Sanico vs People [G.R. No. 198753 March 25, 2015]
98. _______________ 478 SCRA 547
Assignment 10
99. Padua and Pimentel vs. People, GR. NO. 220913, Feb. 4, 2019
100. People vs. Tuan, GR. no. 176066, Aug, 11, 2020;
101. Maderazo vs. People, GR. NO. 235348, Dec.10,2018;
102. Dabon vs. People, GR. no. 208775, Jan.. 22,2018;
103. Abuan vs. People, GR. NO.. 168773, oct. 27, 2006;
104. People vs. Lagman, GR. NO. 168695, DEC.8, 2008;
105. People vs. Mateo, 433 SCRA 640;
106. Reyes vs, People, L-21528 and L-21529, March 28, 1968;
107. People vs, Villahormoso, GR. NO. 218208,, Jan. 24, 2018
108. Uy vs. Internal Revenue, 344 SCRA 36;
109. Nueves vs. People, 516 SCRA 453;
110. Sydeco vs, People, GR .NO. 202692, Nov. 12, 2014;
111. Creballo vs. Ombudsman, GR. NO. 232324, April10, 2019;
112. Ombudsman vs. Jurado,, 561 SCRA 135, 146;
113. Villamor vs. People, [Link]. 200396, March 22, 2017
114. People vs. Macaspac, [Link]. 246165, Nov.. 28, 2019;
115. People vs, Macabalong, GR. NO. 215324, Dec. 5, 2019;
116. People vs. Catig, [Link]. 225729, March 11, 2020;
117. People vs. EStonilo, GR. NO. 248694, Oct. 14, 2020;
118. Valencia vs. People, GR. NO. 235573, Nov, 9, 2020.