Temere Animus

G.R. No. 222980| March 20, 2017 LOURDES C. RODRIGUEZ, petitioner, vs. PARK N RIDE, INC./VICEST (PHILS.), INC./GRAND LEISURE CORP./SPS. VICENTE & ESTELITA B. JAVIER, respondents. Ponente: LEONEN, J.: Doctrines: At the onset, we stress that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission, if supported by substantial evidence and when upheld by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive upon this Court when there is no cogent reason to disturb the same. In the present case, due to lack of any palpable error, mistake, or misappreciation of facts, this Court discerns no compelling reason to reverse the consistent findings of the appellate court and the labor tribunals. There is constructive dismissal when an employer’s act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee so as to foreclo...

Full Text:  See  https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/63434 G.R. No. 180969, September 11, 2017, NOEL NAVAJA, petitioner, vs. HON. MANUEL A. DE CASTRO or his successor, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Jagna & Gracia-Hernandez, Jagna, Bohol, and ATTY. EDGAR BORJE, respondents. Ponente : PERLAS-BERNABE, J. Doctrines: Section 1 of PD 1829 defines and penalizes the acts constituting the crime of obstruction of justice, the pertinent portions of which read:  Sec. 1. The penalty of prisión correccional in its maximum period, or a fine ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by committing any of the following acts:  (a) preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceeding or from reporting the commission of an...

G.R. No. 211053. November 29, 2017.* PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SEGFRED L. OROZCO, MANUEL D. OSIR, and ALBERTO B. MATURAN, accused,      ERNIE N. CASTRO, accused-appellant. Ponente :  LEONEN, J.: Doctrines:      To sustain a conviction under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution must prove that a person was killed, that the accused killed him, that the killing was not parricide or infanticide, and that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned under this Article. It is admitted that Mata was killed and that accused-appellant was one of those responsible for the stabs that led to his death. The only element disputed in this case is that the killing was attended by circumstances which qualify the crime as murder.      In People v. Dela Cruz, 612 SCRA 738 (2010), there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, m...

G.R. No. 200512. June 7, 2017 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ELMER AVANCENA y CABANELA, JAIME POPIOCO y CAMBAYA and NOLASCO TAYTAY y CRUZ, accused-appellants. Ponente: J. Leonen; Doctrines: In kidnapping for ransom, the prosecution must be able to establish the following elements:  [first,] the accused was a private person;  [second,] he [or she] kidnapped or detained or in any manner deprived another of his or her liberty;  [third,] the kidnapping or detention was illegal; and  [fourth,] the victim was kidnapped or detained for ransom. Accused-appellants claim that they were agents of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency’s Task Force Hunter but were unable to present any evidence to substantiate their claim. The prosecution, however, was able to present Police Inspector Nabor of the Human Resource Service of Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, who testified that accused-appellants “[were] not in any manner connected with [Philippine Drug...