FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 203370. April 11, 2016.]

MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. and HELEN Y. DEE ,
petitioners, vs. PHILIP PICCIO, MIA GATMAYTAN, MA. ANNABELLA
RELOVA SANTOS, JOHN JOSEPH GUTIERREZ, JOCELYN UPANO,
JOSE DIZON, ROLANDO PAREJA, WONINA M. BONIFACIO, ELVIRA
CRUZ, CORNELIO ZAFRA, VICENTE ORTUOSTE, VICTORIA GOMEZ
JACINTO, JUVENCIO PERECHE, JR., RICARDO LORAYES, PETER C.
SUCHIANCO, and TRENNIE MONSOD , respondents.
[G.R. No. 215106. April 11, 2016.]
MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. , petitioner, vs. PHILIP
PICCIO, MIA GATMAYTAN, MA. ANNABELLA RELOVA SANTOS,
JOHN JOSEPH GUTIERREZ, JOCELYN UPANO, JOSE DIZON,
ROLANDO PAREJA, WONINA M. BONIFACIO, ELVIRA CRUZ,
CORNELIO ZAFRA, VICENTE ORTUOSTE, VICTORIA GOMEZ
JACINTO, JUVENCIO PERECHE, JR., RICARDO LORAYES, PETER C.
SUCHIANCO, and TRENNIE MONSOD , respondents.
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE , J :
p

Before this Court are two (2) consolidated petitions for review on certiorari. 1
The rst petition, docketed as G.R. No. 203370, led by petitioners Malayan Insurance
Company, Inc. (Malayan Insurance) and Helen Y. Dee (petitioners) assails the Decision 2
dated February 24, 2012 and the Resolution 3 dated September 5, 2012 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 31467, which denied their appeal from the Order 4
dated February 20, 2007 and the Resolution 5 dated September 3, 2007 of the Regional
Trial Court of Makati City (Makati-RTC), Branch 137 (Makati-RTC, Br. 137) in Criminal
Case Nos. 06-877 and 06-882 on the ground that the same was not authorized by the
Of ce of the Solicitor General (OSG). On the other hand, the second petition, docketed
as G.R. No. 215106, led by petitioner Malayan Insurance assails the Decision 6 dated
March 31, 2014 and the Resolution 7 dated October 17, 2014 of the CA in CA-G.R. CR.
No. 32148, which denied its appeal from the Orders 8 dated December 28, 2007 and
August 29, 2008 of the Makati-RTC, Branch 62 (Makati-RTC, Br. 62) in Criminal Case No.
06-884 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
The Facts
On October 18, 2005, Jessie John P. Gimenez (Gimenez), President of the
Philippine Integrated Advertising Agency the advertising arm of the Yuchengco
Group of Companies (Yuchengco Group), to which Malayan Insurance is a corporate
member led a Complaint-Af davit 9 for thirteen (13) counts of Libel, de ned and
penalized under Article 355 in relation to Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC),
before the City Prosecutor of Makati City, docketed as I.S. No. 05-I-11895, against
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

herein respondents Philip Piccio, Mia Gatmaytan, Ma. Annabella Relova Santos, John
Joseph Gutierrez, Jocelyn Upano, Jose Dizon, Rolando Pareja, Wonina M. Bonifacio,
Elvira Cruz, Cornelio Zafra, Vicente Ortuoste, Victoria Gomez Jacinto, Juvencio Pereche,
Jr., Ricardo Lorayes, Peter C. Suchianco, and Trennie Monsod (respondents) for
purportedly
posting
defamatory
articles/statements
on
the
website
www.pepcoalition.com that besmirched the reputation of the Yuchengco family and the
Yuchengco Group, including herein petitioners. 10
Upon the prosecutor's nding of probable cause, 11 thirteen (13) Informations
were led before the Makati-RTC. Among those led were Criminal Case Nos. 06-877
12 and 06-882 13 (raf ed to Makati-RTC, Br. 137) and Criminal Case No. 06-884 14
(raffled to Makati-RTC, Br. 62), from which arose the present petitions.
In Criminal Case Nos. 06-877 and 06-882, respondents led a Motion to Quash
dated June 7, 2006, asserting, among others, lack of jurisdiction, since the
residences of petitioners were not alleged in the Informations. Besides, even if so
stated, the residence or principal of ce address of petitioners was admittedly at
Quintin Paredes Street, Binondo, Manila, and not in Makati City. Hence, the venue was
mislaid, and the Makati-RTC, Br. 137 did not have jurisdiction over the said cases. 16
15

In an Order 17 dated February 20, 2007, the Makati-RTC, Br. 137 granted the said
motion and dismissed Criminal Case Nos. 06-877 and 06-882 on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction. 18 It found that the Informations led in these cases failed to state
that any one of the offended parties resides in Makati City, or that the subject articles
were printed or rst published in Makati City. 19 Hence, the failure to state the
aforementioned details was a fatal defect which negated its jurisdiction over the
criminal cases. 20 Petitioners led a motion for reconsideration, 21 which was, however,
denied in a Resolution 22 dated September 3, 2007. Hence, petitioners led an appeal
23 before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 31467 .
TCAScE

Similarly, in Criminal Case No. 06-884, respondents led a Motion to Quash 24

dated June 5, 2006, based on the following grounds: (a) that the Information failed to
vest jurisdiction on the Makati-RTC, (b) that the acts complained of in the Information
are not punishable by law; and (c) that the information is fatally defective for failing to
designate the offense charged and to allege the acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense of Libel. 25
In an Order 26 dated December 28, 2007, the Makati-RTC, Br. 62 dismissed
Criminal Case No. 06-884 for lack of probable cause. Among others, it ruled that the
element of malice was lacking since respondents did not appear to have been
motivated by personal ill will to speak or spite Malayan Insurance. 27 The prosecution
led a motion for reconsideration, 28 which was, however, denied in an Order 29 dated
August 29, 2008. Thus, Malayan Insurance led an appeal 30 before the CA, docketed
as CA-G.R. CR No. 32148 .
The Proceedings Before the CA
In CA-G.R. CR No. 31467 , the CA noted that while petitioners led a Notice of
Appeal, the Appellants' Brief was led only by the private prosecutor, and not by the
OSG as required by law. 31 It likewise observed from the records that the OSG led a
Manifestation and Motion 32 dated September 16, 2008 asking that "it be excused from
ling any documents or pleadings relative to the aforementioned case[,] considering
that it had not received any endorsement coming from the Department of Justice to
appeal the same." 33 Moreover, the CA held that "the Chief City Prosecutor of Makati
City was required to comment, and he categorically stated in his Explanation and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

Compliance that he did not authorize the ling, nor conform to the ling of an appeal
from the quashal of the two (2) Informations in [Criminal Case Nos. 06-877 and 06882 ]." 34
Thus, in the assailed Decision 35 dated February 24, 2012, the CA denied the
appeal outright on the ground that the same was not led by the authorized of cial, i.e.,
the OSG. It remarked that although the private prosecutor may, at certain times, be
permitted to participate in criminal proceedings on appeal in the CA, his participation is
always subject to prior approval of the OSG; and the former cannot be permitted to
adopt a position that is not consistent with that of the OSG. 36 Petitioners' motion for
reconsideration 37 was denied in the assailed Resolution 38 dated September 5, 2012,
prompting them to file the petition in G.R. No. 203370 .
The same was reached when the CA, in the assailed Decision 39 dated March 31,
2014 in CA-G.R. CR. No. 32148 , denied Malayan Insurance's appeal, but this time, on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The ruling was premised on its nding that the case
of Bonifacio v. RTC of Makati, Branch 149 (Bonifacio) , 40 which involved one of the
thirteen (13) Libel cases, particularly Criminal Case No. 06-876, participated in by the
same parties albeit concerning a different defamatory article, is already controlling. 41
Hence, since this Court directed the quashal of Information in Criminal Case No. 06-876
and dismissed the same, the CA did not delve on the propriety of the Makati-RTC, Br.
62's nding of probable cause, and instead, adopted the same course of action in
Bonifacio. In its view, all other issues are rendered moot and academic in light of this
Court's declaration that the Makati-RTC is without jurisdiction to try and hear cases for
Libel led by Malayan Insurance against respondents. 42 Malayan Insurance's motion
for reconsideration 43 was denied in the assailed Resolution 44 dated October 17, 2014,
prompting it to file the petition in G.R. No. 215106 .
The Issues Before the Court
In G.R. No. 203370 , petitioners contend that the CA erred in denying the appeal
in CA-G.R. CR No. 31467 due to lack of the OSG's authorization. While in G.R. No.
215106 , Malayan Insurance argued that the CA likewise erred in denying its appeal in
CA-G.R. CR. No. 32148 , but this time, on jurisdictional grounds.
The Court's Ruling
I.

Resolution of G.R. No. 203370

The authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases before the Court
and the CA is vested solely in the OSG 45 which is "the law of ce of the Government
whose speci c powers and functions include that of representing the Republic and/or
the People [of the Philippines] before any court in any action which affects the welfare
of the people as the ends of justice may require." 46 Section 35 (1), Chapter 12, Title III,
Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code 47 provides that:
Section 35. Powers and Functions. The Of ce of the Solicitor
General shall represent the Government of the Philippines , its agencies
and instrumentalities and its of cials and agents in any litigation, proceeding,
investigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyer. . . . . It shall have the
following specific powers and functions:
(1) Represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the
Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings ; represent the Government
and its of cers in the Supreme Court, and Court of Appeals, and all other courts
or tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the Government
or any officer thereof in his official capacity is a party. (Emphases supplied)
cTDaEH

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

In People v. Piccio (Piccio) , 48 which involved one of the thirteen (13) criminal
cases between the same parties, this Court held that "if there is a dismissal of a
criminal case by the trial court or if there is an acquittal of the accused, it is only the
OSG that may bring an appeal on the criminal aspect representing the People .
The rationale therefor is rooted in the principle that the party affected by the dismissal
of the criminal action is the People and not the petitioners who are mere complaining
witnesses. For this reason, the People are therefore deemed as the real parties
in interest in the criminal case and, therefore, only the OSG can represent
them in criminal proceedings pending in the CA or in this Court . In view of the
corollary principle that every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the
real party in interest who stands to be bene ted or injured by the judgment in the suit,
or by the party entitled to the avails of the suit, an appeal of the criminal case not led
by the People as represented by the OSG is perforce dismissible. The private
complainant or the offended party may, however, le an appeal without the intervention
of the OSG but only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned. He may
also le a special civil action for certiorari even without the intervention of the OSG, but
only to the end of preserving his interest in the civil aspect of the case." 49
In this case, as in Piccio, records show that petitioners' appeal in CA-G.R. CR
No. 31467 principally sought the remand of Criminal Case Nos. 06-877 and 06882 to the Makati-RTC, Br. 137 for arraignment and trial, or, in the alternative, amend
the Informations, and therefore, was not intended to merely preserve their interest in
the civil aspect of the case. Thus, as its appeal was led in relation to the criminal
aspect of the case, it is necessary that the same be led with the authorization of the
OSG, which, by law, is the proper representative of the real party in interest in the
criminal proceedings, the People. There being no authorization given, the appeal was
rightfully dismissed by the CA. In fact, in its Comment 50 dated July 5, 2013, the People,
through the OSG, even sought the dismissal of petitioners' appeal before this Court 51
on the ground that "petitioners have no legal personality to elevate on appeal the
quashal of the [Informations] in the subject criminal cases." 52 As it is, petitioners have
no legal standing to interpose an appeal in the criminal proceeding; hence, as they went
beyond the bounds of their interest, petitioners cannot successfully contest the
propriety of the Makati-RTC, Br. 137's dismissal of the criminal cases. It must, however,
be clari ed that the CA's denial of petitioners' appeal is without prejudice to their ling
of the appropriate action to preserve their interest in the civil aspect of the Libel cases,
following the parameters of Rule 111 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. 53
II.

Resolution of G.R. No. 215106

"Venue is jurisdictional in criminal actions such that the place where the crime
was committed determines not only the venue of the action but constitutes an
essential element of jurisdiction. This principle acquires even greater import in libel
cases, given that Article 360 [of the RPC], as amended [by Republic Act No. 4363], 54
speci cally provides for the possible venues for the institution of the criminal and civil
aspects of such cases," 55 to wit:
Article 360. Persons responsible. . . . .
xxx xxx xxx
The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written
defamations as provided for in this chapter, shall be led simultaneously or
separately with the court of rst instance of the province or city where
the libelous article is printed and rst published or where any of the
offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

offense : . . . .
xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Thus, generally speaking, "the venue of libel cases where the complainant is a
private individual is limited to only either of two places, namely: 1) where the
complainant actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense; or 2) where
the alleged defamatory article was printed and first published." 56
In this case, the CA proceeded to deny Malayan Insurance's appeal in view of the
Makati-RTC, Br. 62's lack of jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. 06-884. It held that this
Court's ruling in Bonifacio is already "controlling here because they involve the same
parties and the same issues," 57 observing that this case is "one (1) of the thirteen (13)
cases/[I]nformations led before the [Makati-RTC] which originated from the complaint
initiated by [Gimenez]." 58
To contextualize, the Libel case involved in Bonifacio was Criminal Case No. 06876 which, as the CA observed, involved the same parties herein. Highlighting the
Amended Information's allegation that the offending article "was rst published and
accessed by the private complainant in Makati City ," 59 respondents submitted
that "[t]he prosecution erroneously laid the venue of the case in the place where the
offended party accessed the internet-published article." 60 This Court sustained the
argument, and directed the Makati-RTC to quash the Amended Information in Criminal
Case No. 06-876 and dismiss the case, ratiocinating in the following wise:
If the circumstances as to where the libel was printed and rst published
are used by the offended party as basis for the venue in the criminal action, the
Information must allege with particularity where the defamatory article was
printed and rst published, as evidenced or supported by, for instance, the
address of their editorial or business of ces in the case of newspapers,
magazines or serial publications. This pre-condition becomes necessary in order
to forestall any inclination to harass.
cSaATC

The same measure cannot be reasonably expected when it pertains to

defamatory material appearing on a website on the internet as there would be
no way of determining the situs of its printing and rst publication. To credit
Gimenez's premise of equating his rst access to the defamatory article on
petitioners' website in Makati with printing and rst publication would spawn
the very ills that the amendment to Article 360 of the RPC sought to discourage
and prevent. It hardly requires much imagination to see the chaos that would
ensue in situations where the website's author or writer, a blogger or anyone
who posts messages therein could be sued for libel anywhere in the Philippines
that the private complainant may have allegedly accessed the offending
website.
For the Court to hold that the Amended Information suf ciently vested
jurisdiction in the courts of Makati simply because the defamatory article was
accessed therein would open the oodgates to the libel suit being led in all
other locations where the pepcoalition website is likewise accessed or capable
of being accessed. 61 (Underscoring in the original)

Here, Malayan Insurance opposes the CA's application of Bonifacio, asserting

that the venue was properly laid as the Informations subject of this case state in one
continuous sentence that: ". . . in Makati City, [Metro Manila,] Philippines and a place
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court . . ., the above-named accused . . . did
then and there . . . caused to be composed, posted and published in the said
website www.pepcoalition.com and [sic] injurious and defamatory article." 62 They also
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

aver that Bonifacio laid down an entirely new requirement on internet Libel cases which
did not exist prior to its promulgation and, hence, should not be applied retroactively to
Malayan Insurance's prejudice. 63
While Bonifacio's applicability was indeed squarely raised in the instant petition,
this Court nds that it would be improper not to pass upon this issue considering that
similar to the appeal in CA-G.R. CR No. 31467 the appeal in CA-G.R. CR No. 32148,
as well as this petition for review , suffers from a fatal defect in that they were led
without the conformity of the OSG. As earlier stated, the right to prosecute criminal
cases pertains exclusively to the People, which is, therefore, the proper party to bring
the appeal, through the representation of the OSG. The People are deemed as the
real parties in interest in the criminal case and, therefore, only the OSG can
represent them in criminal proceedings pending in the CA or in this Court . As
the records bear out, this Court, in a Resolution 64 dated September 9, 2015, required
the OSG to le its Comment so as to be given the ample opportunity to manifest its
desire to prosecute the present appeal, in representation of the People. However, in a
Manifestation (In lieu of Comment), 65 the People, through the OSG, manifested that it
is adopting its Comment 66 dated July 5, 2013 in G.R. No. 203370, which sought the
dismissal of the petition on the ground that "petitioners have no legal personality to
elevate on appeal the quashal of the [Informations] in the subject criminal cases." 67
Hence, in view of Malayan Insurance's lack of legal personality to le the present
petition, this Court has to dismiss the same, without prejudice, however, to Malayan
Insurance's ling of the appropriate action to preserve its interest in the civil aspect of
the Libel case following the parameters of Rule 111 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
68

WHEREFORE , the petitions are DENIED .

CHTAIc

SO ORDERED .

Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-de Castro, Bersamin and Caguioa, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo (G.R. No. 203370), pp. 10-51; and rollo (G.R. No. 215106), pp. 10-37.
2. Rollo (G.R. No. 203370), pp. 54-62. Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios with
Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. concurring.
3. Id. at 64-65. Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios with Associate Justices
Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Francisco P. Acosta concurring.
4. Id. at 311-321. Penned by Presiding Judge (now Deputy Court Administrator) Jenny Lind R.
Aldecoa-Delorino.
5. Id. at 341-344.
6. Rollo (G.R. No. 215106), pp. 47-55. Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybaez with
Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Melchor Q.C. Sadang concurring.
7. Id. at 57-58.
8. Id. at 249-257 and 314, respectively. Penned by Judge Selma Palacio Alaras.
9. Rollo (G.R. No. 203370), pp. 68-90; and rollo (G.R. No. 215106), pp. 59-81.
10. Rollo (G.R. No. 203370), pp. 16-20; and rollo (G.R. No. 215106), pp. 15-19.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

11. See Resolution dated May 2, 2006 (promulgated on May 5, 2006) of the Makati City
Prosecutor's Of ce signed by 1st Assistant City Prosecutor Romulo I. Nanola and
approved by City Prosecutor Feliciano Aspi; rollo (G.R. No. 203370), pp. 219-230; and
rollo (G.R. No. 215106), pp. 198-209.
12. Excerpts from the Information in Criminal Case No. 06-877 read:
That on or about the 26th day of August 2005 in Makati City, Metro Manila,
Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, being then the trustees of Parents Enabling Parents Coalition and as such
trustees they hold the legal title to the website [www.pepcoalition.com] which is of
general circulation, and publication to the public conspiring confederating and
mutually helping with one another together with John Does, did then and there
[wilfully], unlawfully and feloniously and publicly and maliciously with intention of
attacking the honesty, virtue, honor and integrity, character and reputation of
complainant Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., Yuchengco Family particularly Yuchengco
Family and [Yuchengco Group of Companies (YGC)] of which Malayan is part and for
further purpose exposing the complainant to public hatred and contempt published
an article imputing a vice or defect to the complainant and caused to be composed,
posted and published in the said website [www.pepcoalition.com] and injurious and
defamatory article as follows:
It's just plain common sense. Why throw good, hard earned money on something
that will earn you nothing?
We PPI planholders should face reality. The Yuchengcos are not the insurance
business. Their core business is DECEPTION. So why put your money on an
insurance or pre-need company that is not trustworthy? Ten years from now when
you make a claim, they'll just give you the same run around that they've been giving
us now.
C'mon do you really believe that the Yuchengco[']s will honor their commitments?
Hoy, Gising'
xxx xxx xxx (See rollo [G.R. No. 203370], pp. 231-233.)
13. Excerpts from the Information in Criminal Case No. 06-882 read:
That on or about the 12th day of September 2005 in Makati City, Metro Manila,
Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, being then the trustees of Parents Enabling Parents Coalition and as such
trustees they hold the legal title to the website [www.pepcoalition.com] which is of
general circulation, and publication to the public conspiring confederating and
mutually helping with one another together with John Does, did then and there
[wilfully], unlawfully and feloniously and publicly and maliciously with intention of
attacking the honesty, virtue, honor and integrity, character and reputation of
complainant Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., Yuchengco Family particularly Malayan is
part and Helen Dee and for further purpose exposing the complainant to public
hatred and contempt published an article imputing a vice or defect to the
complainant and caused to be composed, posted and published in the said website
[www.pepcoalition.com] and injurious and defamatory article as follows:
The coalition has been attacked by all sorts of lowlifes unleased [sic] by the HYDRA
(Helen Yuchengco Dee's Rampaging Alipores).
Maybe it is time to give YGC a dose of their own medicine. There are a lot of you
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

there with access or at least internet cafes.

xxx xxx xxx (See rollo [G.R. No. 203370], pp. 234-235.)
14. Excerpts from the Information in Criminal Case No. 06-884 read:
That on or about the 24th day of September 2005 in Makati City, Metro Manila,
Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, being then the trustees of Parents Enabling Parents Coalition and as such
trustees they hold the legal title to the website [www.pepcoalition.com] which is of
general circulation, and publication to the public conspiring confederating and
mutually helping with one another together with John Does, did then and there
[wilfully], unlawfully and feloniously and publicly and maliciously with intention of
attacking the honesty, virtue, honor and integrity, character and reputation of
complainant Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., Yuchengco Family particularly Yuchengco
Family and for further purpose exposing the complainant to public hatred and
contempt published an article imputing a vice or defect to the complainant and
caused to be composed, posted and published in the said website
[www.pepcoalition.com] and injurious and defamatory article as follows:
If, by any chance, our children's cries for justice and a better future, have struck a choir in
your heart, we ask you to convince the Scrooges in your family to let go of the greed
that seems to have overtaken and ruled their style of corporate governance. . . lest the
spirits of the past, present and future catch up with them all.
xxx xxx xxx (See rollo [G.R. No. 215106], pp. 210-211.)
15. Particularly respondents Wonina M. Bonifacio, Vicente Ortuoste, Juvencio Pereche, Jr.,
and Jocelyn Upano. Rollo (G.R. No. 203370), pp. 236-274.
16. Id. at 55.
17. Id. at 311-321.
18. Id. at 321.
19. Id. at 319-320.
20. Id. at 320-321.
21. Dated March 15, 2007, id. at 322-340.
22. Id. at 341-344.
23. See Notice of Appeal dated September 21, 2007 led through the private prosecutor, with
conformity of Public Prosecutor George V. De Joya; id. at 345-346.
24. Particularly respondents Winona M. Bonifacio, Vicente Ortuoste, Juvencio Pereche, Jr.,
and Jocelyn Upano. Rollo (G.R. No. 215106), pp. 212-246.
25. Id. at 212.
26. Id. at 249-257.
27. Id. at 51 and 256.
28. Dated April 24, 2008; id. at 258-278.
29. Id. at 314.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

30. See Notice of Appeal dated September 23, 2008 led through the private prosecutor; id. at
315-317.
31. Id. at 56.
32. Dated September 16, 2008. Id. at 366-368.
33. Id. at 56.
34. Id.
35. Id. at 54-62.
36. Id. at 58-59.
37. Not attached to the rollos.
38. Rollo (G.R. No. 203370), pp. 64-65.
39. Rollo (G.R. No. 215106), pp. 47-55.
40. 634 Phil. 348 (2010).
41. Rollo (G.R. No. 215106), p. 52.
42. Id. at 53.
43. Not attached to the rollos.
44. Rollo (G.R. No. 215106), pp. 57-58.
45. Villareal v. Aliga , G.R. No. 166995, January 13, 2014, 713 SCRA 52, 64, citing Bautista v.
Cuneta-Pangilinan, G.R. No. 189754, October 24, 2012, 684 SCRA 521, 534.
46. Gonzales v. Chavez, G.R. No. 97351, February 4, 1992, 205 SCRA 816, 845.
47. Executive Order No. 292, Series of 1987, entitled "INSTITUTING THE ADMINISTRATIVE
CODE OF 1987," signed on July 25, 1987.
48. G.R. No. 193681, August 6, 2014, 732 SCRA 254.
49. Id. at 261-262; emphases and underscoring supplied.
50. Rollo (G.R. No. 203370), pp. 636-660.
51. Id. at 659.
52. Id. at 648.
53. See People v. Piccio, supra note 48, at 262.
54. Entitled "AN ACT FURTHER AMEND ARTICLE THREE HUNDRED SIXTY OF THE REVISED
PENAL CODE," approved on June 19, 1965.
55. Bonifacio v. RTC of Makati, Branch 149 , supra note 40, at 360, citing Macasaet v. People ,
492 Phil. 355, 370 (2005).
56. Id. at 361; underscoring supplied.
57. Rollo (G.R. No. 215106), p. 52.
58. Id.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

59. Bonifacio v. RTC of Makati, Branch 149 ,

underscoring in the original.

supra note 40, at 357; emphasis and

60. Id. at 358.

61. Id. at 362-363.
62. Rollo (G.R. No. 215106), p. 26; emphasis supplied. See also id. at 210-211.
63. Id. at 30. Notably, this same argument is echoed in the above-discussed petition in G.R.
No. 203370. However, since the actual basis of the CA's denial of appeal was the
OSG's lack of conformity to the appeal in CA-G.R. CR No. 31467, which this Court has
hereinabove sustained, it is unnecessary to pass upon the merits of such claim (see
rollo [G.R. No. 203370], pp. 32-35).
64. See Minute Resolution dated September 9, 2015; rollo (G.R. No. 203370), pp. 713-715.
65. Dated February 2, 2016. Rollo (G.R. No. 215106), pp. 487-489.
66. Rollo (G.R. No. 203370), pp. 636-660.
67. Id. at 648.
68. See People v. Piccio, supra note 48, at 262.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com