Tuesday, April 29, 2008

DNA Rules! (Rules on DNA Evidence)[1]

By Siesta-friendly

We have reservations about the recently released Supreme Court rules on DNA evidence. We even wonder why there wasn’t much criticism upon their release. Anyway, we hereby explain our unease.

Due Process, Probable Cause and Right to Privacy

Our main concern stems from the provision allowing the court, either on its own or on application of any person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, to order a DNA testing.[2] Although the order issues after due hearing and notice to the parties upon a showing that:

a) a biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;

b) the biological sample:

(i) was not previously subjected to the type of DNA testing now requested; or

(ii) was previously subjected to DNA testing, but the results may require confirmation for good reasons;

c) the DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique;

d) the DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new information that is relevant to the proper resolution of the case; and

e) the existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider as potentially affecting the accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing,

we would have preferred that the rules specifically require a showing of probable cause that a crime has been committed and of probable cause that the suspect committed it. These provisions may be innocuous in a paternity suit, but in convicting and subsequently imprisoning a person in a criminal case we feel there should be more safeguards on the rights of the accused.

The same provision allows DNA testing, “without need of a prior court order, at the behest of any party, including law enforcement agencies, before a suit or proceeding is commenced.” Not only is probable cause absent here, but due process as well.

Where probable cause is necessary to issue a search warrant, now a mere request is enough to search inside one’s genetic codes. Authorities cannot search a suspect’s belongings without probable cause but they can now obtain his clothes, car, toothbrush, or anything else he owns upon a showing that “a biological sample exists that is relevant to the case”.

Where we used to have a reasonable expectation of privacy, now authorities can easily stick a needle inside a suspect to get a blood sample pursuant to a mere “behest of any party”. We recall the following constitutional guaranties: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.”?[3]

Let’s say you gave some biological sample voluntarily in the course of a pre-employment process or some annual medical exam. The provision does not require your consent prior to DNA testing of that biological sample for the purpose of some criminal investigation. And so we seem to have a further loophole, that referring to doctor-patient confidentiality.

In a country well-known for corruption, such rampant testing of biological samples can never be good. Test results may depend on the highest bidder. In addition, the level of technology we have may be open to many mistakes in handling DNA evidence that we feel that certain standards like probable cause and right to privacy should be applied for the suspect’s protection.


Next, due to the delicate nature of DNA evidence, the science involved and the quality of work required for its handling, we also would’ve preferred a detailed disclosure requirement i.e., as to what one party shall make available to the other regarding the DNA evidence obtained.

True, the court is required to assess the probative value of the DNA evidence by considering the following:[4]

a) The chain of custody, including how the biological samples were collected, how they were handled, and the possibility of contamination of the samples;

b) The DNA testing methodology, including the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure, and compliance with the scientifically valid standards in conducting the tests;

c) The forensic DNA laboratory, including accreditation by any reputable standards-setting institution and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. If the laboratory is not accredited, the relevant experience of the laboratory in forensic casework and credibility shall be properly established; and

d) The reliability of the testing result, as hereinafter provided.

The court is also required to evaluate whether the DNA testing methodology is reliable by considering the following:[5]

a) The falsifiability of the principles or methods used, that is, whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested;

b) The subjection to peer review and publication of the principles or methods;

c) The general acceptance of the principles or methods by the relevant scientific community;

d) The existence and maintenance of standards and controls to ensure the correctness of data generated;

e) The existence of an appropriate reference population database; and

f) The general degree of confidence attributed to mathematical calculations used in comparing DNA profiles and the significance and limitation of statistical calculations used in comparing DNA profiles.

The court is required as well to evaluate the DNA testing results by considering the following:[6]

a) The evaluation of the weight of matching DNA evidence or the relevance of mismatching DNA evidence;

b) The results of the DNA testing in the light of the totality of the other evidence presented in the case; and that

c) DNA results that exclude the putative parent from paternity shall be conclusive proof of non-paternity. If the value of the Probability of Paternity is less than 99.9%, the results of the DNA testing shall be considered as corroborative evidence. If the value of the Probability of Paternity is 99.9% or higher, there shall be a disputable presumption of paternity.

But, in the interest of disclosure, we feel either party should be specifically required at pre-trial to provide the other all the above-mentioned information including all notes taken during the entire testing process (including the laboratory’s files), a list of all collected items and other known information relevant to the defendant’s case.

The rules also lack the procedure allowing the defense to inspect and test the available DNA evidence under any circumstance.

Nor is there any mention of making available a DNA expert pro bono for the defendant in case the latter is indigent.

We believe a defendant can properly and effectively prepare for his defense if these specific procedural requirements were laid down especially considering the science and technology being used as bases for his conviction and imprisonment.


While the rules seem disadvantageous to the accused when we feel they should be protective, they seem quite lenient when it comes to the rights of the convicted when it seems they don’t have to be. Just when there exists DNA evidence taken lawfully which leads to a successful criminal conviction, the rules allow their storage for only a limited time.

We would’ve preferred that a database be built of DNA profiles of known criminal offenders, but courts are allowed to order destruction of DNA evidence (samples, results and all) “for not less than the period of time that any person is under trial for an offense” and “in case the accused is serving sentence, until such time as the accused has served his sentence”[7]

In addition, courts are allowed to order “the physical destruction of a biological sample before the expiration of the periods set forth above, provided that: a) a court order to that effect has been secured; or b) the person from whom the DNA sample was obtained has consented in writing to the disposal of the DNA evidence.”[8] Any recidivist would certainly not think twice in allowing the destruction of DNA samples obtained from him.

Test case

The only case at present which has applied the rules is one of rape where the victim alleged that her child was conceived as a result of the alleged crime. The Supreme Court, on appeal from the defendant’s conviction, ordered the lower court to obtain DNA evidence to determine the child’s paternity and thus determine defendant’s guilt or innocence.[9]

In the absence of other practitioners’ concerns about the rules, we can only wait for more criminal cases - where DNA evidence may be obtained or offered - to further test the rules’ application .

[1] A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, October 2, 2007.

[2] Sec. 4.

[3] Sec. 1, Article III, 1987 Constitution.

[4] Sec. 7, Ibid.

[5] Sec. 8, Ibid.

[6] Sec. 9, Ibid.

[7] Sec. 12, Ibid.

[8] Supra.

[9] People vs. Umanito [G.R. No. 172607, October 26, 2007].


Sunday, April 20, 2008

Set to manual (Preparing an Employment Manual)

By Siesta-friendly

Want to make your life as an employer easier? Set your company policies and codes of conduct in an employment manual. And feel the reins tighten where it’s been otherwise lax to the detriment of your business. Show you’re running a professional business, show you mean business; avoid repetitive inimical behavior, avoid repeating yourself; identify responsibility, identify liability; let your guidelines govern, don’t be governed by your employees’ discretion.

How to begin? It’s best to start with a foreword (indicating the manual’s aim and scope, disclaimers and other notices) then follow this with your company’s history, profile and vision and mission statements (to inform employees of your line of business, your business purpose, what you’ve been through and where you intend to go).

Next, provide a Definition of Terms to define crucial terms like “employee” and “compensation” and other company terms.

You may wish to start with how employment begins. So begin discussing the procedures for recruiting and hiring. Then discuss the different status of employment – contractual, probationary, and regular. Might as well discuss employment records here – what they contain, when they are updated and who will have custody of and access to them.

Now that the preliminaries are settled, discuss the work schedule (including breaks). Define what constitutes absence and tardiness, overtime and undertime, leaves (vacation, sick, maternity, emergency, etc.) and how they are taken and computed. Don’t forget to describe how attendance is monitored (if it’s by bundy clock or otherwise).

Next could be a good place to tackle the compensation and company benefits. When and how are salaries given? What are the legally-mandated pays? How about holiday pays? Separation pays? What are the salary deductibles? How are increases and bonuses given? What about other benefits like health, accident, dental insurance, pensions, stock options, and the like? And who are eligible to avail of those? You might also want to include training and development programs, if any.

Then, it may be time to talk about employee movements or status changes. How does employment get regularized? How can one be subject of a transfer or promotion? When and how are performance evaluations made? This is also where you might want to discuss how one resigns or is terminated.

Afterwards you can go into categorized areas involving conduct/behavior you would like to regulate (like the ones listed below). Prior to each category you might want to begin with a statement or 2 about how the company regards the conduct/behavior then discuss the company policy regarding the same.

a) Attendance (including punctuality, filing of forms, AWOL, engaging in personal business, etc.)

b) Appearance (including dress codes, hygiene, etc.)

c) Cleanliness of workplace (including disorderliness, waste prevention and energy saving)

d) Use of Company Equipment and Facilities and other Property (including intellectual property)

e) Use of Telecommunications equipment/facilities (for business and personal use)

f) Use of Other Property (co-employee’s, client’s or visitor’s)

g) Compliance with Company Rules and Superior’s Instructions

h) Behavior towards Work (including inefficiency, negligence, poor work quality, plus loitering, slacking off, disrupting work, illegal work stoppage)

i) Behavior towards Co-Employees, Clients and other Visitors (including disrespect, discourtesy)

j) Expenses, Advances and Reimbursements

k) Security (of people and property), including company and personal privacy rights, plus Confidentiality of Records, Communications, etc.

l) Safety (of people, company premises, building premises)

m) Health issues (including actions to take in case of injury, failure to report injury or contagious disease, etc.)

n) Ethical Standards (what are expected of employees when faced with ethical issues)

o) Dishonesty (including falsification, misrepresentation, malversation)

p) Abuse of position or discretion

q) Harassment (including profanity, threats, intimidation, coercion)

r) Sexual Harassment (as defined by law, The Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 or R.A. 7877)

s) Indecency and Immorality

t) Different types of Misconduct (including violence)

u) Criminal Behavior (including assault, theft, etc.)

v) Smoking, Possession and use of Alcohol, Drugs, and other Dangerous Substances

w) Solicitations and Gifts (including bribes, kickbacks)

x) Conflict of Interest (including moonlighting)

y) Complaints (scope, procedure and actions to be taken)

z) Employee Suggestions (procedure and actions to be taken)

You are, of course, free to add or delete as much as you want in accordance with your desired policies. Remember though that while you are trying to protect your company’s interest, you should also be mindful of employee rights. You would want to avoid labor problems so be as specific as possible. Avoid ambiguity.

It is important to keep updated on relevant legislation so your manual will always reflect policies required by law (like those on health and safety) and will always be consistent with prevailing law. Of course, as the manual is potentially the basis of any cause of action, it is highly advisable to seek legal advice during its preparation.

After laying down your polices, you may then begin citing specific violations and their corresponding penalties. First, define the available disciplinary actions (like warning, suspension, dismissal). Next, make a table listing each violation on the left and the corresponding disciplinary action on the right. The disciplinary action may vary depending on whether it’s the 1st, 2nd offense and so on (unless the violation is so grave as to warrant immediate dismissal).

For easy reference, it might be good to attach (in an Annex) samples of the different forms discussed in your manual.

Finally, prepare an Acknowledgment Receipt and make each employee acknowledge they have received, read and understood it.

With your polices set in place, you’re practically on autopilot now that you’re on the manual.


Monday, April 14, 2008

Inhuman Security Act (The Human Security Act of 2007)[1]

By Siesta-friendly

Undeterred by domestic and international complaints against human rights abuses under its regime, as well as the Supreme Court’s declarations of the unconstitutionality of its oppressive Calibrated Preemptive Response policy and provisions of Proclamation 1017 and E.O. 464, the Arroyo government pushed the passage of The Human Security Act of 2007.

We place the HSA in the same category as the CPR policy, the unconstitutional raids and arrests provided under Proc. 1017, and the unbelievably broad executive privilege under E.O. 464, for being similarly unnecessary, excessive and oppressive in a democracy as will be explained below.

Already punishable acts

First of all, the acts that make up the definition of terrorism under the HSA are alll already prohibited under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) or other special laws. They are:[2]

a) Piracy in General and Mutiny in the High Seas or in the Philippine Waters (Art.122, RPC);

b) Rebellion or Insurrection (Art. 134, RPC);

c) Coup d’ Etat (Art. 134-a, RPC);

d) Murder (Art. 248, RPC);

e) Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention (Art. 267, RPC);

f) Crimes Involving Destruction (Art. 324, RPC);

g) Arson (P.D. 1613);

h) violating the Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control Act of 1990 (R.A. 6969);

i) violating the Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968 (R.A. 5207);

j) violating the Anti-Hijacking Law (R.A. 6235);

k) violating the Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974 (P.D. 532);

l) violating the Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal and Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunitions or Explosives (P.D. 1866, as amended).

So what makes the commission of these acts terrorism? Well, the law says that if any of them are done “thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand” then terrorism is committed.

So what’s wrong you say? Well, let’s tackle the obvious:

a) A necessary element in most crimes is criminal intent. A lot of these acts are committed without the intention of “sowing and creating widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace and of coercing the government to give in to an unlawful demand.” Yet the HSA automatically stamps the crime of “terrorism” to the commission of any of the acts even if they accidentally sow and create widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace and force the government to give in to an unlawful demand.

The penalty of reclusion perpetua (40 years imprisonment) without parole further emphasizes the harshness of the terrorist tag.

b) How many people and how much area would actually constitute “widespread and extraordinary fear and panic”? The definition is too vague to leave to the determination of a paranoid or abusive government. A student demonstration that somehow alarms shoppers in a mall may be deemed widespread and extraordinary. That’s how vague the law is and how much discretion is left to authorities in interpreting it.

c) What would constitute an “unlawful demand”? The participants in a mass action - say a labor or transportation strike seeking the overturn of an otherwise legal though unjust decision – are easily labeled as terrorists once some disorder is declared. What then of the people’s constitutionally protected rights to association, to free speech, to free assembly and to seek redress for grievances? Beware those who plan to engage in civil disobedience. Goodbye People Power.

d) And what about government forces that commit any of the mentioned acts thereby sowing and creating widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace? What are they called? Why aren’t they covered?

Additional crime

The HSA also punishes persons who conspire to commit any of the acts mentioned above with 40 years imprisonment. As defined therein there is conspiracy when 2 or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of the crime of terrorism and decide to commit the same.[3]

So, if you only agreed to provide the streamers, vehicles, t-shirts, placards, stickers, refreshments, or chewing gum for the mass action, you think you’re free? Think again. By the grace of Gloria, you could be a conspirator liable to also spend 40 years in jail.

Not alarmed yet? Hang on, there’s more …


Contrary to Art.125 of the Revised Penal Code which sets 12-, 18- and 36-hour detention limits and requires the actual commission of a crime, the suspected terrorist can be detained for up to 3 days under the HSA based on mere suspicion.[4]

There is absolutely no requirement of probable cause or legal ground for detention. Suspicions as to an imminent attack and possible participants therein are enough to go ahead with warrantless arrests and prolonged detentions.

Further, contrary to the Constitution which requires that even during the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, a “person arrested or detained be judicially charged within 3 days, otherwise he shall be released,”[5] under the HSA, in the event of an actual or imminent terrorist attack, suspects may be detained for more than 3 days (and until eternity) upon the simple written approval of a “municipal, city, provincial or regional official of a Human Rights Commission or judge of the municipal, regional trial court, the Sandiganbayan or a justice of the Court of Appeals nearest the place of the arrest.”[6] And still no requirement to provide probable cause or legal ground for detention. Did I hear you say Guantanamo?

Examination of Bank Records

The HSA allows law enforcers, with a court order, to:[7]

a) examine, or cause the examination of, the deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets and records in a bank or financial institution; and

b) gather or cause the gathering of any relevant information about such deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets, and records from a bank or financial institution.

The only requirements are that there exists probable cause of:

a) a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or, conspiracy to commit terrorism, or

b) a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group of persons; and

c) a member of such judicially declared and outlawed organization, association, or group of persons.

Based on the above requirements, the law clearly does not require that the examination be limited to only the bank records of the suspected terrorist. The law even specifically allows the “gathering of any relevant information about such deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets, and records from a bank or financial institution.” You may not be suspected at all of terrorism but if your information is deemed relevant in relation to the bank records of any suspected terrorist, then your information, financial or otherwise, is fair game.

Sequestration of Property

Property of whatever kind and nature belonging to a mere suspected terrorist is liable to seizure, sequestration, and freezing.[8] In this instance, no court order is required. Again, there is no process at all to determine probable cause of the commission of terrorism. And again, mere suspicion is all that is required. We’ll leave it up to your imagination as to what an abusive government can do with this power.

Travel Restrictions

The HSA states that in cases where evidence of guilt is not strong, and the person charged is entitled to bail and is granted the same, the accused may be limited the right of travel to within the municipality or city where he resides or where the case is pending, in the interest of national security and public safety.[9] Note that the provision begins by stating the fact that “evidence of guilt is not strong”. And so the violations to the Constitution never end.

The Constitution provides that all persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall be bailable. The right to bail is not impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended.[10]

Not content with restricting travel, the HSA also provides that the accused may be placed under house arrest by order of the court at his/her usual place of residence. To add further abuse, the lawmakers also provided that “while under house arrest, he or she may not use telephones, cellphones, e-mails, computers, the internet or other means of communications with people outside the residence until otherwise ordered by the court.”[11]

And all these even as the evidence is weak. The HSA allows bail but severely limits one’s right of movement. Is the accused on bail or not?

What to do with critics? Simply accuse them of being terrorists, file a case and apply for the travel restrictions to take place. Et Voila! No more dissenters. Why bother gathering evidence? The travel restrictions will apply even if the evidence is weak. Why bother prosecuting the case and getting a conviction?The incommunicado detention is punishment enough.

Void, void, void

We sincerely hope we don’t have to wait until any of the HSA provisions are fully implemented before the entire law is struck down for what is - unconstitutional. There are other words for it and for those who drafted it but there’s not enough space.

[1] R.A. 9372, March 09, 2007.

[2] Sec. 3, Ibid.

[3] Sec, 4, Ibid.

[4] Sec. 18, Ibid.

[5] Sec. 18, Art VII, Philippine Constitution.

[6] Sec. 19, Ibid.

[7] Sec. 27, Ibid.

[8] Sec. 39, Ibid.

[9] Sec. 26, Ibid.

[10] Sec. 13, Art. III, Philippine Constitution.

[11] Sec. 26, Ibid.


Sunday, April 6, 2008

Word History

Beyond legal issues, case records also provide information about history and culture. Different cases in Supreme Court history have provided various (memorable) glimpses into our past through words which stamp dates thereon by their mere inclusion.

For example, do you remember when combos[1] performed at night clubs[2]? When bomba[3] used to be shown and not thrown? When chicks[4] roamed at night? When beauticians[5] worked at beauty parlors[6]? Bet you didn’t know that bagets[7] could be drunk. Remember what “todas” meant?[8] Or what a Combi[9] or Toyopet[10] was?

Oh, how some words have marked court decisions by eras to when men made fashion statements carrying clutch bags,[11] wearing chalecos,[12] corduroy pants[13] and corduroy jackets,[14] walking the streets with hair made neat with pomade.[15]

Of course, any literature on Philippine culture (judicial or otherwise) will not be complete without “lagay”[16] and “lutong macao”[17]. And signs of political incorrectness like “chekwa”[18] and “bombay”.[19] Not to mention all-encompassing brand names like colgate[20] for toothpaste, frigidaire[21] for refrigerator and snowpake[22] for erasing.

Words that not only backdated court decisions have also helped define our culture, like “baduy[23] “palpak”, “praning”, “bading” and ‘badidang”[24]. Let’s not forget, “Chikinini”[25], “Carancho” and Chocaran”[26], nor “Bagoong Singkaw” (whatever that means).[27]

The Justices have even cited less than august language such as “utol”,[28] “ayos”, “pare,”[29] and “erpat.”[30] Swear words like “gago”,[31] “tanga”[32] “leche”[33] and “ulol”[34] have also found their way into court records. Even “susmareosep” is there.[35]

Talking about misguided name choices, suspects with the following aliases have practically done away with the need for witnesses to positively identify them: “Boy Bungi or Boy Bungal,” “Teddy Kulot,” “Rey Bakla,”[36] “Buboy Nguso”[37] “Boy Tatoo,”[38] “Tisoy”[39]“Boy Negro,”[40] “Boy Taba,”[41] “Lito Pilay,[42] “Kalbo,”[43] and “Komang”.[44]

Aliases like “Boy Saksak”, “Dan Saksak” and “Rod Saksak” are definitely not helpful either. Guilty by self-description!

And what else can we say about men called “Junior Ipis”[45], “Junior Otot,”[46] “Junior Kulangot”[47] “Surot,”[48] and “Luga.”[49]?

On a more positive note, the Supreme Court used the words “peace” 2,323 times, “love” 1,373 times, and “pag-ibig” 140 times from 1986 to 2006. At least, there are still words we can’t take issue on regardless of era.


[2] JOSEPH E. ICARD, vs. THE CITY COUNCIL OF BAGUIO, {G.R. No. L-1281. May 31, 1949.]

[3] CONGRESSIONAL COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, et al. vs. CA, et al. [G.R. No. L-59213. November 27, 1986.]

[4] PEOPLE vs. PERALTA [G.R. No. 128116. January 24, 2001.]

[5] SITON vs. CA, et al. [G.R. No. 94065. December 2, 1991.]

[6] supra.

[7] PEOPLE, vs. MAYORGA [G.R. No. 135405. November 29, 2000.]

[8] PAMPILO DE TORRES. [G.R. No. L-11815. January 31, 1961].

[9] RENO ARCAYA and EMMANUEL CEBALLOS The Honorable JUDGE VICTORINO C. TELERON, et al. [G.R. No. L-37446. May 31, 1974.]



[12] PEOPLE vs. LEOPOLDO PACAPAC, et al. [G.R. No. 90623. September 7, 1995.]

[13] PEOPLE vs. ARMANDO GIRENG y PINTO. [G.R. No. 97949. February 1, 1995.]

[14] PEOPLE vs. ROGER VICTOR. [G.R. No. 75154-55. February 6, 1990.]


[16] WILFREDO R. ANTONIO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN. [G.R. No. L-57937. October 21, 1988.]

[17] ARTEMIO ESPAYOS vs. ADELARDO G. LEE. [A.M. No. 1574-MJ. April 30, 1979.]

[18] PEOPLE vs. ROLANDO LUA y NERI. [G.R. Nos. 114224-25. April 26, 1996.]

[19] PEOPLE vs. OMAR MAPALAO and REX MAGUMNANG. [G.R. No. 92415. May 14, 1991.]

[20] PEOPLE vs. FEDERICO A. BRUCE. [G.R. Nos. 108604-10. March 7, 1997.]



[23] COURT EMPLOYEES OF THE MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, et al. vs. SY, et al. [A.M. No. P-93-808. November 25, 2005.]

[24] PEOPLE vs. GATUDAN BALAG-EY, et al. [G.R. No. 141532. April 14, 2004.]

[25] PEOPLE vs . ALLAN CASTRO Y GALAPATE [G.R. Nos. 146297-304. August 22, 2002.]



[28] PEOPLE vs. MONTEJO [G.R. No. L-68857. November 21, 1988.]

[29] PEOPLE vs. BANAAN, et al. [G.R. Nos. L-49385-87. July 2, 1986.]

[30] PEOPLE vs. GONZALEZ, JR., [G.R. No. 139542. June 21, 2001.]

[31] OCCENA vs. ICAMINA, et al. [G.R. No. 82146. January 22, 1990.]

JOCELYN TALENS-DABON vs. JUDGE HERMIN E. ARCEO [A.M. No. RTJ-96-1336. July 25, 1996.]


[34] APOLONIO BONDOC, G.R. No. 130612 May 11, 1999 LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, et al. [G.R. No. 103209. July 28, 1997]

[35] DECENA, et al. vs. MALANYAON [A.M. No. RTJ-02-1669. April 14, 2004.]

[36] PEOPLE vs. APOLONIO HIZON y VELASCO. [G.R. No. 71273. July 29, 1988.]

[37] PEOPLE, vs. DANILO REYES y BATAC. [G.R. No. 135682. March 26, 2003.]

[38] PEOPLE vs. EDCARDO (EGAY) EBRADA. [G.R. No. 122774. September 25, 1998.]

[39] PEOPLE vs. TIRSO ARCAY. [G.R. No. 132373. October 23, 2001.]

[40] PEOPLE vs. ANTONIO HAMTON, et al. [G.R. Nos. 134823-25. January 14, 2003.]

[41] PEOPLE vs. CESAR LUCERO. [G.R. No. 84656. January 4, 1994.]

[42] PEOPLE vs. MANUEL CUSTODIO Y CARILLO. [G.R. No. L-30463. October 30, 1972.]

[43] PEOPLE vs. EMILIANO DURANAN. [G.R. No. 134074-75. January 16, 2001.]

[44] LIGAYA vs. SANTOS vs. DOMINGO I. ORDA. [G.R. No. 158236. September 1, 2004.]

[45] PEOPLE vs. MARLO CANIAL Y ALIMON, et al.. [G.R. Nos. L-31042-31043 August 18, 1972.]

[46] PEOPLE vs. BERNARDINO DOMANTAY. [G.R. No. 130612 May 11, 1999.]

[47] PEOPLE vs. ATILANO GILBERO. [G.R. No. 142005. January 23, 2002.]

[48] PEOPLE vs. JEROME HONRADA y JOBEN. [G.R. No. 91161. December 17, 1991.]

[49] PEOPLE vs. MIGUEL L. DELA CRUZ y LIBUCAN. [G.R. No. 101315. May 12, 1993.