Solid Builders, Inc. v. China Banking Corp.

Short facts introduction

In this case involves the question of the issuance of the writ of
preliminary injunction. The complainant, Solid Builders, Inc.
loaned from the defendant China Banking Corp.,
a certain
amount of money and mortgaged some of the formers properties
as guarantee. Subsequently, dispute has arisen when the
complainant could not however pay the full amount because the
interest rates were exorbitant, usurious and confiscatory. The
complainant now seeks before the trial court the issuance of the
preliminary injunction to prevent the defendant bank to foreclose
the mortgaged properties. The trial court granted the complainant
making the defendant to file for reconsideration but the same has
been denied. Aggrieved by the trials court decision, the
defendant bank appeals to CA to ask for dissolution of the order
issued by the trial court which the CA affirmed. Thus, this case led
to SC.
CASE PRINCIPLE
A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an
action prior to judgment of final order, requiring a party, court,
agency, or person to refrain from a particular act or acts. It is a
preservative remedy to ensure the protection of a partys
substantive rights or interests pending the final judgment in the
principal action. A plea for an injunctive writ lies upon the
existence of a claimed emergency or extraordinary situation
which should be avoided for otherwise, the outcome of a litigation
would be useless as far as the party applying for the writ is
concerned.
A writ of preliminary injunction is an extraordinary event which
must be granted only in the face of actual and existing substantial

rights. The duty of the court taking cognizance of a prayer for a

writ of preliminary injunction is to determine whether the
requisites necessary for the grant of an injunction are present in
the case before it.

In this connection, a writ of preliminary injunction is issued to

preserve the status quo ante, upon the applicants showing of two
important requisite conditions, namely: (1) the right to be
protected exists prima facie, and (2) the acts sought to be
enjoined are violative of that right. It must be proven that the
violation sought to be prevented would cause an irreparable
injury.

As debtor-mortgagors, they do not have a right to prevent the

creditor-mortgagee from foreclosing on the mortgaged properties
simply on the basis of alleged usurious, exorbitant and
confiscatory rate of interest. First, assuming that the interest rate
agreed upon by the parties is usurious, the nullity of the
stipulation of usurious interest does not affect the lenders right to
recover the principal loan, nor affect the other terms thereof.
Thus, in a usurious loan with mortgage, the right to foreclose the
mortgage subsists, and this right can be exercised by the creditor
upon failure by the debtor to pay the debt due

The petition of the complainant solid builders is DENIED

People of the Philippines v. Marilyn Aguilar y Manzanillo

Criminal Law; R.A 9165 Sec.21 Chain of custody of the

dangerous drug; prosecution of sale, possession of the
same; entrapment v instigation - While a testimony about a
perfect and unbroken chain is ideal, such is not always the
standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken
chain. A perusal of the law reveals, however, that failure to strictly
comply with the procedure in Section 21 will not render the arrest
illegal or the items seized inadmissible in evidence, provided
that the integrity and evidentiary value of such items are
preserved since they will be used in the determination of
the guilt or innocence of the accused. To successfully
prosecute a case for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs - In a
prosecution for the sale of a dangerous drug, the following
elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and the
seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of
the thing sold and the payment therefor. Simply put, [in]
prosecutions for illegal sale of shabu, what is material is the proof
that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. Mere
possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence
of intent to possess, animus possidendi, sufficient to convict an
accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession. The
burden of evidence, thus, is shifted to the accused to explain the
absence of intent to possess. Entrapment is sanctioned by the law

as a legitimate method of apprehending criminals. Its purpose is

to trap and capture lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal
plan. Instigation, on the other hand, involves the inducement of
the would-be accused into the commission of the offense. In such
a case, the instigators become co-principals themselves.

PPL v Dante Dumalag (Drug Case)

PRINCIPLES:
Criminal law: RA 9165 Dangerous Drug act; Chain of Custody
when to mark confiscated drug, It has already been settled that
the failure of police officers to mark the items seized from an
accused in illegal drugs cases immediately upon its confiscation
at the place of arrest does not automatically impair the integrity
of the chain of custody and render the confiscated items
inadmissible in evidence, to be able to create a first link in the
chain of custody, then, what is required is that the marking be
made in the presence of the accused and upon immediate
confiscation. "Immediate confiscation" has no exact definition.
Thus, in People v. Gum-Oyen, testimony that included the marking
of the seized items at the police station and in the presence of the
accused was sufficient in showing compliance with the rules on
chain of custody. Marking upon immediate confiscation
contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office
of the apprehending team.
Testimonies of the prosecutions witnesses; It is an
established rule that factual findings of the trial court, if
supported by evidence on record, and particularly when affirmed

by the appellate court, are binding on this Court, unless

significant facts and circumstances were shown to have been
overlooked or disregarded which, if considered, would have
altered the outcome of the case. Moreover, questions as to
credibility of a witness are matters best left to the appreciation of
the trial court because of its unique opportunity of having
observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the
witness deportment on the stand while testifying, which
opportunity is denied to the reviewing tribunal. In this case, the
alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses testimonies
on the number and gender of the buy-bust team members are
trivial and irrelevant for it does not involve any of the necessary
elements for conviction of the accused-appellant for the illegal
possession and sale of shabu.
Prosecution for the crime of illegal possession to prosper;
for a prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug to
prosper, it must be shown that (a) the accused was in possession
of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated
drug; (b) such possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the
accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession
of the drug.
Prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited
drugs, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of
the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. What is
material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is
the proof that the transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled
with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence
Non-presentation of the informant by the prosecution; The
Court has time and again held that "the presentation of an
informant in an illegal drugs case is not essential for the
conviction nor is it indispensable for a successful prosecution
because his testimony would be merely corroborative and

cumulative." The informant's testimony is not needed if the sale

of the illegal drug has been adequately proven by the
prosecution.

PPL v MOISES CAOILE

Criminal Law: Amended information, complaint or information
to be sufficient, it must state the name of the accused; the
designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or
omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of
the offended party; the approximate time of the commission of
the offense, and the place wherein the offense was committed.
What is controlling is not the title of the complaint, nor the
designation of the offense charged or the particular law or part
thereof allegedly violated, these being mere conclusions of law
made by the prosecutor, but the description of the crime charged
and the particular facts therein recited. The acts or omissions
complained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient to
enable a person of common understanding to know what offense
is intended to be charged, and enable the court to pronounce
proper judgment. No information for a crime will be sufficient if it

does not accurately and clearly allege the elements of the crime
charged. Every element of the offense must be stated in the
information. What facts and circumstances are necessary to be
included therein must be determined by reference to the
definitions and essentials of the specified crimes. The requirement
of alleging the elements of a crime in the information is to inform
the accused of the nature of the accusation against him so as to
enable him to suitably prepare his defense. The presumption is
that the accused has no independent knowledge of the facts that
constitute the offense.
Carnal Knowledge of a Mental retardate; Carnal knowledge
of a mental retardate amounts to Rape Carnal knowledge of a
woman who is a mental retardate is rape under Article 266-A,
paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. This is
because a mentally deficient person is automatically considered
incapable of giving consent to a sexual act. Thus, what needs to
be proven are the facts of sexual intercourse between the
accused and the victim, and the victims mental retardation.
Sweetheart Defense; In rape committed by means of duress,
the victims will is nullified or destroyed. Hence, the necessity of
proving real and constant resistance on the part of the woman to
establish that the act was committed against her will. On the
other hand, in the rape of a woman deprived of reason or
unconscious, the victim has no will. The absence of will
determines the existence of the rape. Such lack of will may exist
not only when the victim is unconscious or totally deprived of
reason, but also when she is suffering some mental deficiency
impairing her reason or free will. In that case, it is not necessary
that she should offer real opposition or constant resistance to the
sexual intercourse. Carnal knowledge of a woman so weak in
intellect as to be incapable of legal consent constitutes rape.
Where the offended woman was feeble-minded, sickly and almost
an idiot, sexual intercourse with her is rape. Her failure to offer

resistance to the act did not mean consent for she was incapable
of giving any rational consent. The deprivation of reason need not
be complete. Mental abnormality or deficiency is enough.
Cohabitation with a feebleminded, idiotic woman is rape. Sexual
intercourse with an insane woman was considered rape. But a
deafmute is not necessarily deprived of reason. These
circumstances must be proven. Intercourse with a deafmute is not
rape of a woman deprived of reason, in the absence of proof that
she is an imbecile. Viada says that the rape under par. 2 may be
committed when the offended woman is deprived of reason due
to any cause such as when she is asleep, or due to lethargy
produced by sickness or narcotics administered to her by the
accused.

Arienda v Monilla
Administrative Case: Practice of law means any activity, in or
out of court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience. "To engage in the
practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics
of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or

render any kind of service, which device or service requires the

use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill."
Not being a lawyer, responden, who is a court stenographer, had
no authority to prepare and finalize an extrajudicial settlement of
estate. Worse, respondent also admitted receiving money from
complainant for her services. Being a court employee, respondent
ought to have known that it was improper for her to prepare and
finalize the extrajudicial settlement of estate, a service only a
lawyer is authorized to perform, and to receive money therefor.

Ppl v Zafra
Criminal Law: Rape; testimonial account, the court has ruled
that since human memory is fickle and prone to the stresses of
emotions, accuracy in a testimonial account has never been used
as a standard in testing the credibility of a witness.
Proof of injuries; While the victim testified that she was slapped
many times by the accused-appellant, which caused her to
become unconscious, the doctor found no trace or injury on her
face. The absence of any injury or hematoma on the face of the
victim does not negate her claim that she was slapped. Dr. Lao
also testified that if the force was not strong enough or if the
patients skin is normal, as compared to other patients where
even a slight rubbing of their skin would cause a blood mark, no
hematoma will result. But, even granting that there were no
extra-genital injuries on the victim, it had been held that the
absence of external signs or physical injuries does not negate the
commission of the crime of rape. Proof of injuries is not
necessary because this is not an essential element of the
crime.
Defense of retraction; We have said in so many cases that
retractions are generally unreliable and are looked upon with

disfavor by the courts. The unreliable character of this document

is shown by the fact that it is quite incredible that after going
through the process of having the [appellant] arrested by the
police, positively identifying him as the person who raped her,
enduring the humiliation of a physical examination of her private
parts, and then repeating her accusations in open court by
recounting her anguish, [the rape victim] would suddenly turn
around and declare that [a]fter a careful deliberation over the
case, (she) find(s) that the same does not merit or warrant
criminal prosecution. Thus, we have declared that at most the
retraction is an afterthought which should not be given probative
value. It would be a dangerous rule to reject the testimony taken
before the court of justice simply because the witness who gave it
later on changed his mind for one reason or another. Such a rule
would make a solemn trial a mockery and place the investigation
at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses. Because affidavits of
retraction can easily be secured from poor and ignorant
witnesses, usually for monetary consideration, the Court has
invariably regarded such affidavits as exceedingly unreliable.

People v Mores
Criminal Law: treachery; there is treachery when the
offender commits any of the crimes against the person,
employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof
which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without
risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party
might make." It is long settled in jurisprudence that two elements
must concur in order to establish treachery: (a) that at the time of
the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and
(b) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means of
attack employed.
Flight in criminal law; Flight is indicative of guilt, but its
converse is not necessarily true. Culprits behave differently and
even erratically in externalizing and manifesting their guilt. Some
may escape or flee a circumstance strongly illustrative of guilt
while others may remain in the same vicinity so as to create a
semblance of regularity, thereby avoiding suspicion from other
members of the community.
PPL V BACASMOT
Criminal Law; Moral Ascendency, in rape committed by close
kin, such as the victims father, stepfather, uncle, or the commonlaw spouse of her mother, it is not necessary that actual force or
intimidation be employed. Moral influence or ascendancy takes
the place of violence and intimidation.

Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Phils.,

Inc. v. COMELEC
Election law: COMELEC; Due process, the twin requirements
of due notice and hearing are indispensable before the COMELEC
may properly order the cancellation of the registration and
accreditation of a party-list organization. In connection with this,
the Court lengthily discussed in Mendoza v. Commission on
Elections.
Article 4 of the Civil Code states that "laws shall have no
retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided." As held in
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Reyes, "the general rule is
that statutes are prospective. However, statutes that are
remedial, or that do not create new or take away vested rights, do
not fall under the general rule against the retroactive operation of
statutes." We also reiterated in Lintag and Arrastia v. National
Power Corporation that:
It is a well-entrenched principle that statutes, including
administrative rules and regulations, operate prospectively unless
the legislative intent to the contrary is manifest by express terms
or by necessary implication because the retroactive application of
a law usually divests rights that have already become vested. This
is based on the Latin maxim: Lex prospicit non respicit (the law
looks forward, not backward).
True, COMELEC Resolution No. 9366 does not provide that it shall
have retroactive effect. Nonetheless, the Court cannot subscribe
to the argument of the Arquiza Group that SENIOR CITIZENS
already earned a vested right to its registration as a party-list
organization.
Montesclaros v. Commission on Elections teaches that "a public
office is not a property right. As the Constitution expressly states,
a Public office is a public trust. No one has a vested right to any

public office, much less a vested right to an expectancy of holding

a public office." Under Section 2(5), Article IX-C of the
Constitution, the COMELEC is entrusted with the function to
"register,
after
sufficient
publication,
political
parties,
organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to other
requirements, must present their platform or program of
government." In fulfilling this function, the COMELEC is dutybound to review the grant of registration to parties, organizations,
or coalitions already registered in order to ensure the latters
continuous adherence to the requirements prescribed by law and
the relevant rulings of this Court relative to their qualifications
and eligibility to participate in party-list elections.