Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREME COURT
MANILA 19 PH 2: 14
SALVADOR A. ESTIPONA,
JR.
Petitioner,
- versus - G.R.NO.~~~~~-
226635
(Crimina l Case No. 13586)
HON. FRANK E. LOBRIGO,
Presiding Judge of the
Regional Trial Court of
Legazpi City, Branch 3, and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondents.
x----------------------------x
PREFATORY STATEMENT
THE PARTIES
1
Copy is attached hereto as Annex "C".
,' Estipona versus Hon. Lobrigo 5
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
2
Duplicate original copy is attached hereto as Annex "D".
3
Duplicate original copy is attached hereto as Annex "E".
4
Duplicate original copy is attached hereto as Annex "F".
'. Estipona versus Hon. Lobrigo 6
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
SO ORDERED."
11. Petitioner filed his Motion for Reconsideration 6 but the same
was denied by the RTC in its Order dated 26 July 2016. 7
13. If the issue is not settled, the same would cause grave
injustice and irreparable damage to t he petitioner, particularly
the denial of his right to equal protection of laws and right to due
process.
5
Ann ex "A" hereof.
6
Duplicate orig inal copy is attached hereto as Annex " G" .
7
Annex "B" hereof.
8
Planters Products, Inc. versus Fertiphil Corporation, G.R. No. 166006, 14 March 2008.
.
'
Estipona versus Hon. Lobrigo 7
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
decided upon. xxx xxx xxx Instead, the proper remedy is to file a
Petition for Certiorari and/or Prohibition under Rule 65. ,s
II
9
Australian Professional Realty, Inc., et al. versus Municipality of Padre Garcia Batangas
Province, G.R. No. 183367, 14 March 2012, emphasis ours.
10
The Diocese of Bacolod, represented by the Most Rev. Bishop Vicente M. Navarra versus
Commission on Elections , et a l. , G.R. No. 205728, 21 January 20 15.
.
'
Estipona versus Hon. Lobrigo 8
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
III
DISCUSSION
20. It is subm itted that Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 violates the
equa l protection clause of the Constitution as no reasonable
classification ex ists to classify violators of the anti-drugs law from
violators of other criminal laws, be it offenses listed in the
Revised Penal Code, or other special cri minal laws.
11
Commiss ioner of Customs et al. , v Hypermix Feeds Corporation, GR No. 179579, 1 February
2012
12
For clarity and for easy reference, undersigned counsel prepared a Table of Violations and
Penalties Provided under Republic Act No. 9165 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,
attached hereto as Annex "H".
Estipona versus Hon. Lobrigo 10
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
This, despite the fact that the afore-mentioned crimes are equally,
if not more, deplorable than drug offenses.
24. It should be noted that not all violations under R.A. No.
9165 fall under the classification of heinous crimes. Heinous
crimes are defined as those crimes that are "grievous, odious and
hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or
manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are
repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms
of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society. " 13
When Republic Act No. 7659, "AN ACT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY
ON CERTAIN HEINOUS CRIMES, AMENDING FOR THAT PURPOSE THE REVISED
PENAL LAWS, AS AMENDED, OTHER SPECIAL PENAL LAWS, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES" or the Heinous Crimes Law, was enacted (and took
effect on 31 December 1993 14 ), it amended 15 certain provisions
of Republic Act No. 6425 or the "DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT 1972" or
the old anti-drugs law, which was then in-effect (R.A. No. 9165
took effect on 4 July 2002 16 ). The amendment provided an
increase in penalties of up to reclusion perpetua to death. In
effect, certain violations under R.A . No. 6425 were placed under
the category of heinous crimes, their penalties having been made
equivalent to that of other heinous crimes. But there are many
other violations under R.A. No. 6425 that do not fall under the
category of heinous crimes. This goes true for violations under
R.A. No. 9165; offenses which are not punishable by reclusion
perpetua (or life imprisonment) to death are not classified as
heinous crimes but remain as ordinary crimes.
26. The provision was first introduced with the passage of R.A.
No. 7659 or the Heinous Crimes Law, specifically Section 18
thereof, amending R.A. No. 6425 or the old anti-drugs law, to wit:
13
Preamble of Republic Act No. 7659, "AN ACT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY ON CERTAIN
HEINOUS CRIMES, AMENDING FOR THAT PURPOSE THE REVISED PENAL LAWS, AS AMENDED, OTHER
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES"
14
People of the Philippines versus Winifredo David, G.R. No. 105667, 16 August 1994.
15
For c larity and for easy referen ce, unders igned counsel prepared a document titled Pertinent
Provisions of Republic Act No. 7659 Amending Provisions of Republic Act No. 6425 Otherwise
known as The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, hereto attached as Annex "I" .
16
Herminio Buenaventura versus People of the Philippines , G.R. No. 171578, 8 August 2007.
Estipona versus Hon. Lobrigo 11
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
31. Section 20-A of R.A. No. 6425 was eventually adopted with
modification in R.A. No. 9165 or the present anti-drugs law, via
the assailed Section 23 subject of this petition. However, in R.A .
No. 9165, the prohibition was no longer made to depend on the
imposable penalty of the drug violation; the distinctions between
heinous and non-heinous drug offenses were erased. The reason
behind this change is elucidated during the second reading of
Senate Bill No. 1858, the Senate's version of the bill that would
later become R.A. No . 9165. On this matter, Senator Renato
Luna Cayetano, who had the floor, began:
33. Not only that, there was a definit e t ime frame as to whe n
these judges made a complaint - durin g Sen. Cayetano 's
Chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Justice and Human
Rights which was, at the earliest, in 1998. R.A. No . 7659, which
amended R.A. No. 6425 by increasi ng the penalty for sa le of
dangerous drugs from the original twelve ( 12) years and one ( 1)
day to twenty (20) years 25 to the new penalty of reclusion
per petua to death, was approved on 13 December 1993 ; hence,
by 1998, the amendments were already in effect for roughly four
( 4) years . The importance of pointing out this timeline is this: by
the time the judges complained to Sen. Cayeta no, their concerns
23
Record of the Senate, 1ih Congress, First Regular Session, 14 January to 30 April 2002 ,
Volume Ill, pp. 69-70 ; copy attached hereto as Annex "L".
24
Record of the Senate, 12th Congress, First Regular Session, 6 May to 6 June 2002, Volume IV,
~ - 506; copy attached hereto as Annex "M".
5
Section 4 of R.A. No. 6425 origina lly reads:
Section 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of
Prohibited Drugs. The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve years
and one day to twenty years and a fine ranging from twelve thousand to twenty
thousa nd pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by
law, shall sell, administer, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in
transit or transport any prohibited drug, or shall act as a broker in any such
transactions. In case of a practitioner, the additional penalty of the revocation of
his license to practice his profession shall be imposed. If the victim of the offense
is a minor, the maximum of the penalty shall be imposed.
Should a prohibited drug involved in any offense under this Section, be the
proximate ca use of the death of a victim thereof, the penalty of life imprisonment
to death and a fine ranging from twenty thousand to thirty thousand pesos shall
be imposed upon the pusher.
Estipona versus Hon. Lobrigo 15
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
26
Section 2, R.A. No. 9165 .
Estipona versus Hon. Lobrigo 16
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
"Steps in a Trial
Plea Bargaining
27
Re: Petition for Recognition of the Exemption of the Government Service Insurance System
from Payment of Legal Fees, A.M. No. 08-2-01 -0, 11 February 2010.
Estipona versus Hon. Lobrigo 18
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
40. "Substantive law creates substantive rights and the two terms in
this respect may be said to be synonymous. Substantive rights is a
term which includes those rights which one enjoys under the legal
system prior to the disturbance of normal relations. (60 C.J., 980.)
Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines and
regulates rights, or which regulates the rights and duties which give
rise to a cause of action; that part of the law which courts are
established to administer; as opposed to adjective or remedial law,
which prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtains
redress for their invasion. (36 C. J. , 27; 52 C. J. S., 1026.)
28
How Courts Work, by the American Bar Association,
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public education/resources/law related ed ucation network/h
ow courts work/pleabarnaining.html, last accessed on 6 September 2016.
29
Dominador Bustos versus Antonio Lucero, G.R. No. L-2068, Resolution dated 8 March 1949,
emphasis ours.
30
397 U.S. 742, accessed through https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/texU397/742 on 6
Sept ember 2016 .
Estipona versus Hon. Lobrigo 19
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
This all the more establishes the procedural nature of the plea
bargaining process; it is a procedural device to eliminate the
burdens of a trial.
31
G.R. No. 99287 , 23 June 1992, emphasis ours.
..
Estipona versus Hon. Lobrigo 20
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
44. Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 deprives not only the accused
and the prosecution, but more importantly, the courts, of the
benefits of a validly entered plea bargaining agreement. It is
antithetical to the early resolution of cases and de- clogging of
court dockets, especially in instances such as this case, where
the prosecution does not object and both the prosecution and
defense are open to the possibility of plea bargaining. 33
32
Emphasis ours .
33
Please see Comment or Opposition dated 29 June 2016, Annex "F" hereof.
Estipona versus Hon. Lobrigo 21
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
34
Annex "A" hereof.
Estipona versus Hon. Lobrigo 22
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
35
Restituto Ynot versus Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74457, 20 March 1987; please
also see Phlippine Coconut Producers Federation, et al versus Republic of the Philippines, G.R.
No. 177857-58, Danilo Urs ua versus Republic of the Philippines , G.R. No. 178193, 24 January
2012 , emphasis ours .
Estipona versus Hon. Lobrigo 24
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
36
Citations omitted, emphasis ours.
Estipona versus Hon. Lobrigo 25
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
37
Emphasis ours, citations omitted.
38
Second exception .
39
First and fifth exceptions.
40
Third exception .
41
Third exception .
42
First exception .
43
Fourth exception.
Estipona versus Hon. Lobrigo 29
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
64. "As a general rule, the Court will not issue writs of prohibition or
injunction preliminary or final, to enjoin or restrain, criminal
prosecution. xxx xxx xxx However, in extreme cases, we have
laid the following exceptions:
(1) when the injunction is necessary to afford adequate
protection to the constitutional rights of the accused; (2) when it
is necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid
oppression or multiplicity of actions; (3) when there is a
prejudicial question which is subjudice; (4) when the acts of the
officer are without or in excess of authority; (5) where the
prosecution is under an invalid law; ordinance or regulation; (6)
when double jeopardy is clearly apparent; (7) where the Court
has no jurisdiction over the offense; (BJ where it is a case of
44
Seventh exception .
45
Section 9 (a) of R.A. No. 10707' AN ACT AMENDING P RESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 968, OTHERWISE
K NOWN AS THE "PROBATION LAW OF 1976", AS AMENDED.
46
Annex "N".
Es'tipona versus Hon. Lobrigo 30
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
RELIEF
47
P/ lnsp. Rodolfo Samson, et al. versus Teofisto Guingona, Jr., et al. G.R. No. 123504,
December 14, 2000.
48
Number of cases involving R.A. No. 9165 being handled by the PAO, hereto attached as
Annex "0".
Estipona versus Hon. Lo igo 31
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Other reliefs that are just and equitable are likewise prayed
for.
Department of Justice
PUBLIC ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
DOJ Agencies Bldg., NIA Road
corner East Avenue, Diliman
Quezon City
Tel. (02)929-94-36 Loe. 106/ 107
By :
on
.P.k. RAMO~-DA
~ v cv ~
1
lie Attorney IV
Roll No.49304
N
1rf
IBP Lifetime No. 09781; 1-05- 1
MCLE Complia e 00 563; - 3-15
ANA ~ SA ~O IANO
blic Attorney v
Roll No. 50954
IBP Lifetime No. 010152; 8-05-11
MCLE Compliance No. V-0006591; 3-3-15
FffifdtJtA
SALVADOR A. ESTIPONA
Affiant
GRACE B. BALAORO
Public Attorney II
(Pursuant to R.A . No. 9406)
EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Sec. 11, Rule 13 of the 1997
New Rules of Civil Procedure)
ANA
Copy furnished:
That on _ _S_E_P_1_6_
0_16_ _ , I served a copy of the following pleading/paper:
NATURE OF PLEADING/PAPER
ren-nof'J ~,z G~no~Prt2-I A-No PJZ..0H1e-,.not-.J (wrrtt P~.AYe-/2..
ro 0BCLA1Zf; ;~0TION 23 OF flr;Pllleuc ACT No . q /(:,& AS u N coNs..nru n o1\J,A L .
A/JD lA/2.be!T Pf<.Pr'(Gf- P0(2. ISS.UPrfJCE" Of A T1:;MfOJ2.A-f:-Y l(_E"~TIZ-PrrN l t-J& Q(2_eJEJ2
1
Service was made by registered mail as the post office is efficient, economical,
convenient and non-exhausting.
OSCAR T. BAL UY OT
Affiant
ORDER
The Court sees merit in the argument of the accused that it is also
the intendment of the law, R.A. No. 9165, to rehabilitate an accused of a
drug offense. Rehabilitation is thus only possible in cases of use of illegal
drugs because plea bargaining is disallowed. However, by case law, the
Supreme Court allowed rehabilitation for accused charged with
possession of paraphernalia with traces of dangerous drugs, as held in
People v. Martinez, G.R. No. 191366, 13 December 2010. The ruling of
the Supreme Court in this case manifested the relaxation of an otherwise
stringent application of Republic Act No. 9165 in order to serve an intent
for the enactment of the law, that is, to rehabilitate the offender.
While basic is the precept that lower comis are not precluded from
resolving, whenever warranted, constitutional questions, the Court is not
unaware of the admonition of the Supreme Court that lower courts must
observe a becoming modesty in examining constitutional questions.
Upon which admonition, it is thus not for this lower court to declare Sec.
23 of R.A. No. 9165 unconstitutional given the potential ramifications
that such declaration might have on the prosecution of illegal drugs cases
pending before this judicial station.
SO ORDERED.
Page 2of2
llEPLICATE COPY
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
FIFTH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 3
LEGAZPI CITY
ORDER
The Court finds no cogent reason to disturb its order of 12 July 2016,
So ORDERED.
FEL/csa
. . ..
,: ..
!" --- - - .. - ..
;.I -~
x- -------------------------------------------- --------x
I~~f-ORJV!J1.-~-10~
- - - -- - - -- .-- ------ - - - ----
:i '
. ~4(1
. ....
, ;
-- --- . . --- --- ---
c~:it.-y: c~f Le,~{ctZt)i! ~::i-: ti~})t)~ r:\~S : ~-jr-~ci v:..i ir~ tt:e jLJ r~ s(iict jc} r~ t)f
ti-kis ~-i c1 n c)ra bie t::c1t.~ rtf tl1 e a bf.; \f e-- rta rr~f:~ ci acct~ seci t r~c~ t ti(~ ir~ (~
i~J {/Vft~ I~:-/ ~3 L~t:-~-Jr i.z~?- ~'.i ~ . r) fJfJss;::s::.: CJr c~ t l--le r- t:\f~S e t.Jse d n :.t
t\~.gt~ldtf~d rirtJ~l ~ir1d v~!jtJ--~c1lJt t ~-~ 2 1: c1 1rt~~;j~lC=l1 c1ir~ f:1 Jjc s ri st~~ ()r
' ... , "-- : . -.' '~i.' ~ i--.. ; .-, ._ .._ ,._ rt,., r --. .-, : .-._ . -.. -.:. ;;.-.. J~ -i
+- 'r-. o.- ~ -.. ; .- r . ~ ..,. +-- ,-. i
i L 1 ~ t ;i_.;Ll:.:i y ' ;"I.
I
1
t
Page. 2-
T
-l"L-.
? i~...;flti t l l \i iDT")
-n.,at;o 1 "- 1 l_ .
r
CERTIFICATION
I
[
I hereby certify that the foregoi n ~1 information is fiied after a
prelirn lnary investigation had been conducted in accordance \Nith L:iitv
and ruies; that there is reasonable ground to believe th at the crirne
f chanJed has been cornrnitted and that the accused is probably guilty
' thur~ofl H-ld-t-
Li L H-,c.
\..11-......- 1 ,_, 1
---r c ;l l~ ;af"'
\.. t \.... Cl\.. ~ L4...s ,_.a.J ~
1"nf,-,,-
\'-'1l1,-,-!,::,,-l
\....'-~
'fV
c,f
'--' '-Lh1:::.
t t 1 ! "-'
,-omr1!""'1
\... }- 0
r-1~L u'.], !"-!(,-{
~t
of r'_ t-!A'-'
(:::vidence submitted against hirn and that he" was given the
opportunity to submit controverting evidence.
- .. . . . . . .. "t ..
Ati::acnecl ne.reto is t1-ie
~
suppon]n~i a r- '
irnJav1 or:
4 . And others .
GRACE~AORO
Public Attorney II
Roll No. 61960
IBP No. 10292791 /.A.lbav , a..
~.rrr< ., 1.__.omp
1\/1~. L-r. r< 1ia.nee N o. l.nu1 - 00~~~15
1J1 l
I'~OTICE OF HEARI NG
c~.c.P.tinac
Please submit the fo:reeo:Lnf.l fo:r L~e consideration of the
::r.L -~ c.-u . .i.... L..
Honorable Court upon :receipt hereof absent :further arguments from the
undersigned.
011
-RACE
LT .
- . f.IJJB~8~ TLA~U ~>
- RC
Copy fu.1nished:
COMMENT OR OPPOSITION
(TO THE MOTION TO ALLOW ACCU SED TO ENTER
INTO PLEA-BARGAINING AGREEMENT)
Wherefore, from the above arguments and opposition, the Prosecution moves
that the Motion of the Accused to Allow to Enter into Plea-bargaining Agreement
be denied for lack of merit.
Copy furnished:
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
FIFTH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH3
LEGAZPI CITY
COMMENT OR OPPOSITION
(TO THE MOTION TO ALLOW ACCUSED TO ENTER
INTO PLEA-BARGAINING AGREEMENT)
Wherefore, the Prosecution moves that the Motion of the Accused to Allow to
Enter into Plea-bargaining Agreement be denied for being contrary to law ..
Copy furnished:
JD
-- ~ ~
i .-::
The 1i.Of10f8_ble c::rder datec1 ..!.:..'- .
~ ---
L'--:'
----. + .--~
'C.ll..LG.l.
d..Iui:::r
'-'
offer1se."
~
decla.r&.tion Ho:no:ro_ble
bolstt:-red ir1 the case of Ja.i.rn.e D. Dela. Cruz vs. Pe:opfE of
r'i-.c-
, ,.._
pi-,;-;;,.)'"'1.,..-.
, u. t':I_ 1_,, _, ct: ~, _, ....w" .
..,. (-' i\T'.O
~
-;f1l"l-:,1n
, . ""- _. , , '+u, ,_,p;,1~, 11 11-11.'t
u. s .,;_..... , _,_. L ' .... _ , ,
-rPhF-r-"' +h;:.,
,, " ~~ .....~ ,~ '-'-
' ,
4. ln the same m.8..:I.I...."flE.'1", tb.e Hono:rable c~ou:rt SI.8-1:.BQ w. its
;
n1Jii."'lq
u
":;o:::x l011i.rer courts a.se not v:recluded.
&
from :resolvins: _ ~-
I)
L."'l of the to:regoi.r.i.g, the accused :respectfl111y p:rays
'l.lle\i\7
th.at the Honorable Court :reconsider its .July 12, 2016
Order and that the ac cused be allmved t o ent er 1f1to .rz ;--.,l-=!"<. . . ~--
bargaining ag:reem.ent.
~V:f!EREFORE,
p:rem.1ses consid.e:red, it most :respecL."'Ully L;";,
p:rayed unto the Hono:rable Cou:rt that this Iviotion fo:r Recon~.ideration be
qr
'-'
anted.
GRACE
P-ubhc II
~ljALAORO
~J~~::rney
Roll No . 61960
fR P No
- - - - -
10')4'.:J7Qf!
- - -
A1h:=n.r
! - -
- - - --,..-'
- l - .
!iOTICE OF HEARING
G R C;.CE . .b~.L\~L~ORO
)2
TABLE OF VIOLATIONS 1 AND PENALTIES 2 PROVIDED UNDER
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165
COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002
1
Does not include other violations by records custodian , law enforcement officials. government
officials, and prosecutors with regard to confidentiality of records, or testifying in, or prosecution of,
drugs cases (see Sections 72, 91 and 92)
2
Fines and accessory penalties (e .g., disqualification from office, etc) are omitted
3
If accused is a government official or employee, and is found guilty of the unlawful acts of R.A. No.
9165, the maximum penalty of such unlawful act is to be imposed (see Section 28)
4
"Maximum penalty" would refer to the maximum penalty provided in the section or provision referred J ,1
to , be it death or imprisonment for the stated number of years \ ./)
/
2
Death if dangerous
drugs is the proximate
cause of death of person
using said location
Section 6, par 6 Organizes, manages, finances Maximum penalty
activities mentioned in Section under this section
6
Section 6, par 7 Protector/coddler of any 12 years, 1 day to 20
violator of Section 6 years imprisonment
Section 7 Awareness by the 12 years, 1 day to 20
den/dive/resort employee or years imprisonment
visitor of said den/dive/resort
of the nature of the
den/dive/resort m connection
with activities mentioned m
Section 6
Section 8, par 1 Unauthorized manufachlfer of Life imprisonment to
any dangerous drug death
Section 8, par 2 Unauthorized manufacturer of 12 years, 1 day to 20
any controlled precursor and years imprisonment
essential chemical
14-
3
- 50 grams or more
of shabu
15
4
- 500 grams or
more of
..
marlJU3.11a
Life imprisonment if
shabu is 10 grams but
less than 50 grams
12 years, 1 day to 20
years imprisonment if
op mm, morphine,
heroin, marijuana resin
or resin oil, shabu, or
other dangerous dn1gs
as determined by the
DDB is less than 5
grams; less than 300
grams of marijuana
Section 12 Unauthorized possession of any 6 months, 1 day to 4
equipment etc fit or intended years of imprisonment
for smoking, consummg,
administering, injecting,
ingesting, or introducing
dangerous drugs to the body
Section 13 Unauthorized possession of any Maximum penalty
dangerous dn1g during a party, provided for in Section
social gathering, meeting, or in 11
the proximate company of at
least 2 persons
Section 14 Unauthorized possession of any Maximum penalty
equipment etc fit or intended provided for in Section
for smoking, consummg, 12
administering, injecting,
ingesting, or introducing
dangerous dn1gs to the body,
during a parties, social
gatherings, meetings, or m
5
5
Only provision of R.A. No. 9165 where the straight penalty of death is imposed
Jg
~
"
t\ :
'---<
:
.I'"' '"' ,\ ~' ,,, ,, EY " l,
,t, .. ... '. :, 1
If the land involved in is part of the public domain, the maximum of the
penalties herein provided shall be imposed upon the offender."
Section 14. Sections 14, 14-A, and 15 of Article III of Republic Act No. 6425 ,
as amended, known as the Dangerous Dn1gs Act of 1972, are hereby amended
to read as follows:
involved in any offense under this Section be the proximate cause of the
death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be
imposed."
"Sec. 15-a. Maintenance of a den, dive or resort for regulated dn1g users.
- The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five
hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any
person or group of persons who shall maintain a den, dive or resort where
any regulated dn1gs is used in any form , or where such regulated dn1gs in
quantities specified in Section 20, paragraph 1 of this Act are found.
Section 16. Section 16 of Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended,
known as the Dangerous Dn1gs Act of 1972, is amended to read as follows:
Section 17. Section 20, Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended,
known as the Dangerous Dn1gs Act of 1972, is hereby amended to read
as follows:
Section 19. Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, is hereby amended to read as follows :
"Sec. 24. Penalties for Goverrunent Official and Employees and Officers
and Members of Police Agencies and the Anned Forces, 'Planting' of
Evidence. - The maximum penalties provided for Section 3, 4(1), 5(1 ), 6,
7, 8, 9, 11 , 12 and 13 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15(1), 16 and
19 of Article III shall be imposed, if those found guilty of any of the said
22
5
Any such above government official, employee or officer who is found guilty of
"planting" any dangerous dn1gs punished in Sections 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 13 of
Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of this Act in the
person or in the immediate vicinity of another as evidence to implicate the latter,
shall suffer the same penalty as therein provided."
23
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES
SENATE
VOLUME 1, NOS. 1 - 27
... . . ...
,,=-"' .
.:t'
Senator Maceda: Thank you. INDIAN HEMP, OPIUM POPPY (PAPA VER SOMNIFERUM)
OR ANY OTHER PLANT WHICH IS OR MA Y I-IEREAITER
The Presiding Officer ~Senator Aquino): May we hear BE CLASSIFIED AS A DANGEROUS DRU(! BY Tl-ff. DAN-
from the Sponsor. GEROUS DRUGS BOARD OR FROM WHICH ANY DAN-
GEROUS DRUG MAY BE MANUFACTURED OR DE-
Senator Herrera: We have no objection. But I thought RIVED ."
tliat, maybe, a compromise can be made, if the Gentleman from
Lagunaarn.l Manila would agree, that on tl1e state of presumptive The P1esicli11g Officer [Senator Aquino): Is there any
drug-trafficking, we can pu11ish mere possession under the objection? [Silence) Hearing none, the amcnLlment is approved.
caption "Possession nf Certain Dangerous Drugs in Substantial
Quantities." Senator Herrera: Section 14, Article 194 of the s:une Code
is hereby reenacted and <unended to read as follows:
Senator Maceda: Mr. President, does tJ1e Gentleman not
think tliat, considering tl1e seriousness oftl1e penalty that is being "ARTICLE 194. MAINTENANCE OF A DEN, DIVE,
imposed - life imprisonment to deatll - the better part or RESORT OR SIMILAR PLACE FOR DANGEROUS DRUG
discretion would be to wait for tl1e distingnished Chairnlirn to USERS. - THE PENALTY OF RECLUSION PERPETUA TO
make some studies on the matter mid let us know? I do not think DEATH AND A FINE RANGING FROM FIVE HUNDRED
it will take him weeb or months to do so. THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00) TO ONE MILLION FIVE
I-IUNDREDTt-IOUSAND PESOS (Pl,500,000.00) SHALL RE
Senator Herrern: I have no objection to that , Mr. Presi- IMPOSED UPON ANY PERSON OR GROUP OF PERSONS
dent. I am just guided by the statement of tl1e Chairmm1 of the WHERE THE USEOFTHEDANGEROUS DRUGS THERE-
Committee, published in the newspapers today, that he is AT IS THE PROX IM ATE CAUSE OF THE DEATH OF A
appealing that we approve this bill the soonest possible time. So PERSON OR WHERE SUCH DANGEROUS DRUG TS AD-
I Uiought that in line with the wishes and the appeal of our MINISTERED, DELIVERED OR SOLD TO A MINOR WHO
Chairman, and in that spirit, we will have to make a decision on IS ALLOWED TU USE THE SAME IN SUCH PLACE OR
this issue now . Anyway, as I said, I have no objection. WHERE SUCH DANGEROUS DRUGS IN QUANTITIES
SPECIFIED IN THE PRECEDING ARTICLE l lJ2 UF THJS
Senator Tolentino: Mr. President, I tl1ink there are otJ1er CODE ARE FOUND."
parts of thewnendments being proposed by Senator Herrera that
cm1 tie considered. I was asking for a suspension only of this The Presiding Officer [Senator Aquino): ls t11ere <m y
particular item. We have already two under reservation, the objection'! [Silence] Hearing none, the<une1H hnrn t isaprro ved.
question of religious anti another item, and this can be a th ire!
reservation . We can continue witJ1 the other p;1rts of the We now go ro the last amendment.
proposetl amendment:; of Senator Herrera.
Senator Herrera: Sec tion Vi, J\rticle 1~I '.'i of the s;une Code
The Pre.~iding Officer [Senator Aquino] : What we can Lio is hereby reenacted anu ;unended to read as rollows:
is hold in aheyance Article 192,,t'lut we can proceeu. There are
only U.1fee others. So, Senator Henera will continue with Article "ARTICLE t<J). MISCELLANEOUS f'!W\IISION. - ANY
193. PERSON CHARGED UNDER TW:'. PROVISlUNS OF THIS
'JTilJE OF THIS BOOK SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED TO
Senator Herrera: Thm1k you , Mr. President. Section J 3, J\V /\IL UF Tl-D::: PROVISION ON PLEA-B ARGAINING."
Article 1lJ3 of the same Code is hereby reena cted and amended
lo read as follows: The Presiding Officer [Senator Aquino] : ls there any
ob1ectiu111
"ARTICLE JlJ3. CULTIVATJON OF ?I.ANIS WHICH
ARE SOURCES OF DANGEROUS DRUGS. -THE PENALTY Senator Maceda: Mr. Presiden t..
OF RECLUSION PERPETUA TO DEATH AND A FINE
RANGING FROM. FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS The Presid ing Officer [Senator Aquino]: Senator Maceda
(P500,000 .00) TO ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOU- is recognized.
SAND PESOS (Pl,500,000.00) SHALL l3E IMPOSED UPON
ANY PERSON WHO SHALL KNOWINGLY PLANT, CUL- Senator Maceda: Mr. President, in the United States where
TIVATE, OR CULTITRE ON ANY MEDIUM 50 PLANTS OF we have had a little experience, there is such a thing formally
177
25
- -
- - -
.
""" t\.
c:t! kd pica bargaining . That is why I was asking til e distin- rllat the re is th i~ pro vision where the y plea-h:irgai11 for <1 lesse r
guished Chairman of the Committee on Jus tice, who is a offe nse . tu he ch;ugeJ for lesser otfr nse. Sc, kt us cllcck on 1J1 i,.
pr:1ctirioner. whe the r plea bargaining, which is stateu he n:, is
sw11 e1hing that is provided by exis1 in g laws in o ur jurisdiction. Out l would sugges1 tilat il'til erc is such a rrovi,ion, thi s ha s
Ami ifno1, am! 1he answer W<L' "wat1" or a "IJol" then. pro babl y to be ahroga ted in the case o r drug-related cases hec:1use th is is
11iis co ncep1 of plea bargaining has 10 be ddinell or explained. being abused. Th e truth of 1he matter is tlut !his panicul:1r
pro visi o n is a resull of our publi c hearing and 1ilis is th e prnposai
Senator Herrera: Mr. Preside nl , thi s is pro vided in 1l1t: of ou r police :1ge11Lie:-..
prucedure but cJ1ere is a rampan t abuse of plea barg;1ining. l
recall wheIJ we condueiell :1 sludy on rhe case of Q11 ezon Ci1y. Senator Maceda : M r. Pn:., ident. as ] said. in pri11,ip le l
in l 1J<J I , oul of 5<) cases. ;ill lwd he en downgr:llled ;111d rc.,ol ved cen ai nl y do no 1di s:1g rt'.c' with 11i:11in1he s;1111e w:1y :"we wrn1l d
:1.'i1 result of pl e: 1harg:1ini1Jg. This i,, :ilso Ill e complaint of m:111 y l ike lo see ;i s illl <llion wlie re 1hcn: i\ !Hl ple;1 bar_l!:iin ing from
or our police officers . Mally oft he cc1se., ha ve been downgr:nlc<.J. lllllrdcr to /Jomicide, k l US ,\[I)', o f pellpk of l.ht: C:1l ;1 u:1li Df Ille:
111ar is wliy rll ere w;1., , if I :un no r mistakeri, an agreemenr whi ch /'\fariki nn type or Ille normal plea h; ug:i illing of ilk12:tl re crni11;;r-:
later wa.-.; implemented hy l11e [kparun crH of Justice. rlwt gc uing away wirhju.-.;c ii min or vioJarioll of the Lahor Code. I:
/JeIJcd(mli. prnsec111or., should no r agree 10 any pk;1harga ining. is all 0 1er Ille la11dsc;1pe. TJJ cre is 11 0 ques ri on . Tlw is ;1 problem
111;11 is prescn1 in ourjudici;d .\'f'Slem .
Senaror Lina : Mr. Presidc..:11<.
B111;1s I s;11d. WL' ll ave ro he ; 1 li eUc careful now wJ;cn we: arl'
The Prt'.sidin.~ Officer [Se n:11or Aquino/: .)'e11:11 or Lin:1 i., 1:tlki11g nbllLll nor ;i i/owing <1 plea b:1rrain in;.> wlie11 lht de;11 1;
recogniZLd . pe11a /1y is invo!:cd.
St:'na tn r Lin:l : \Vill i tile pcrrr:.i:).\i\Hl or the ( lt111!unen Oil St: u ~Hor }-ie rr<:ra: ~Jr PrL' ""i. h~ ;1t :.: :1! ! h L' .1."k Uk' .";;.:crciari:d
Ii><' Floor. in tilt' Rules lli' Cou 1, there is no pruv i.-;i;rn .in plc;1 !{; )fuv jd \.. i.h \'.' '. l h tJ it l<11f..:.". . n1 { \ 1 i1 ~- ! )! ~ '. f !U '-.:UL: i !1t- i-., \ l ..: .
b:1rgaioiug. But in praL'licc. tlli:rc is thi~ informal :1rr<lfl!,!L'111::.n1
b,: tli'ee:1the ti.-;c al :ind !lit' f;1wyer o f the :iu :u.-;e d. or someti mts,
lli: :wtcn t!ie pol ice m:1n <lllU til e fr.c:d 10 ;ig r L'l' Clli till' ' fll.'<.:ific
,J.:1rge. T:\-tll this is i10[ in Cl>llS \lll<ll !CC With till' f~uic .'> '11.l'oun
.'11> 1hat it we in -.:oq1ornk :1 flrtl \ision in thi s proposed bill. ., . .u -.: ... :1 lt { I, :.' L.: ...: LT:~~- ,
.kknmvh:dgin~ l ht' pk -harg:1ining :1 rra11 ge rn c11 1. thi.:11 \1't' wii!
hl' f,;rn1ali zillg \I f kg:ili::in .~ 1!J e plc:1 h:trg:1i11ing th;!! is !i;ippv n ..
;n g, hu1 wllich i\ il kg;d . But -..1rictly ;pe al, in g. in !Ill' R11h: -.. ut' s~ ll;1L1: lit:iT;;' r :. : ~, : : 1. ,! ) . '' i1,;: dJ1 ; ~ ' ;: .:;>1 :.,,-, .> f
( 'o un , th ere is Ill> pL.:' a h:1rl!;1i ni n~. 1 i!L.: \ ~ eoo k 2 \)t ~he Re v i:-- l~-.. t ~l_. , ... l t 'i. itl \ :~ 11 \.\ .r -,,!;h.: li th~
pn.:ci:d i l i.~ ;1rticks ;ire p rup\>~.c d !'! l) l1 i cnH tt ..; r~:i:HJ ':'.. i i.i ~ 'PJU iH
S,; na tor Ma..:t:ch;:.
..
\\' l'll. ill<it SU1'i()Ofh
~l
wh;1; r l\';\ S :;;1 yini!.
- :u1d n1l1c: prnl:ihi 1ivc drug,:" !< ) ". '11ZT1\ [. : ;: : i:n_:., fl:l:t :ivc 1;;
l\!r. !'res itkm , 1h:1i l cm \Ce m y way ck:1r t1\w:inis :i;.:1'<.:l:i11:: 1,) I IA NC iL!-!.Ul.iS d11J~~s''.
1hi >. Dur tile .:rn iccpt olpk;1 h;1rg:tinin0. if it is hli1ig fnnn:ili1.d
1111dcr 1ilis hill. mu-;t now he formalized a 11d dc i illcd. !Vle:1!1ing The !'res iding Offinr IS1..'il:iltlr Aqui1wj : /\ !'~ ;!;vrc :1!1i'
to s:1y. we rder :1g<iin to the fact rh at 1;; i1he r i11 effic: ic'.l1l :111d/o r ohkc1i,l11< 1 i.\'t/('111'1' ] lle:1rin;,; li<llW. ti11'. :1111tlll1l.1l'!d i,; :1p
c,irrup t poliLe me n. :ind lih' ll prosecu tors hit r>llL' wi1h :1 111:1x i- PIO\'L' t C'
InlflllL'li:1rl!l', even if th e evidence d:ies nCH "'"1rr:u!l. m p r q1;;r:i
ri on fur plc: 1 h:1.rg:;ining. i ll1L':1n lt1 ~;i y. l crn tltl >L'C tl! i:, r,.;iliy
work in g <llll 1t' wt c:111 re aso n:ih ly ht.: ;1>,111-..:d 11i;11 wl!,:i ;,
prnsec uior files a c1s..: wh ich eniai ls pe1wlt y <lf dc:1il1. 1h:1: i., Se n a t or lif.:' t'l't: !:::1 { ij l" H ! f~ 1\ : : . i : .. 1:1 . '-l : :Ct:;.:t'i.lll :~:
reall y tJit \L'rio us charge w: u-ra 111 ed by lilt L'\'idcncL . l\11l 111 ~ e .: 1ion s ol 1hv hi P :1CL'( 1rdi ,;ci )
pr:1c1icc. mus1 of us know that reall y. t:ve n if the y do no t i1 :11 c
suffi c ien t cvidellL't, they wil l jus l file the m:1 xin11 1111 ca.-;c prcp: i- Thc l'rl'~ id in g OlTinr :\ . :::.t(ir ;\ "!" ' ' \. ~.: .Lt. . .
r:1tory to illlormal plea h;ug:iini ng. OlljL'C l H>lls'' iSf/ ,.!;1 '(' i I k :1:ir..
ill ' 11 . ' : i.. "'
prove d .
Senat o r Ht:'rrtra : Mr. Pres iuent , I think tlll\ !.\just :111 ;;1 t1 e:-
otci1ceking o ut. Thi\ isa usu :Ll prau ice, mu! I :1111 :1hi1 c(111Jidc111 The Majorily l .eadcr 1 ~ :n1io' 11i zed .
178
~ONGRESS OF THE l'tllLlrnnwv
, S ".' K A. T ~
:coRbS,:;i.'l'\ ii A HCH l v ES DIVJSION
' 1 -- Q .~ ~i ~-,:fL'1
l . .r - ~~uJ.. \ .t1. 1.. LJ
T'GM
5 Republic of the Philippines
SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES
S E N A T E
Manila
D A T E November 24, 19 9 3
T I M .E 8:00 PM r .,...,.. . ~
(HOUSE PANEL)
SENATORS STAFF
SECRETARIAT (SENATE)
SECRETARIAT (HOUSE)
REP . CUENCO.
Ple a - Ba.r~ga:Lnin. 9 .
c :c ig inal l avl'?
fifty-eight, fifty-se~en.
1
r1atir1 ' y ung 0
s ;! l ~an}-:- ~Jcov- i 1~3ior1 i f.
SE~ . HER L~ER J\. .. And after 6 inser t natin ' y ung 7 . Sa
II-2 9: 0 2 LJ . rn . "
.,;
lang. s (
SEN . r1ERRSR2.I. .
ati.r1 , e.,
J~ aag ad, r;) ueCie ba rlS,4 tawaga.!1 rn~.) ' :1ur1; }~ l:t\Ja. 11 ' ga.nuor1 . Sc).bihi r1
TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST REGULAR SESSION
JANUARY 14 APRIL 30, 2002
VOLUME Ill
JO
Wednesday, January 16, 2002 RECORD OF THE SENA TE lnterpellations re S. No. 1858
Senator Cayetano. I would like to thank the gentleman for Senator Barbers. Before the gentleman changes, Mr.
that, Mr. President, because we have to make this very clear. President, I stand corrected. I stand corrected for my response
because it is very clear in this provision that delivering is to be
So if X boyfriend who is a pusher gives his girlfriend five considered as pushing. So even if a boyfriend delivers a
grams of shabu for love and not for any other consideration, would dangerous drug or gives it away to a friend, he could still be
he be considered a pusher? considered as a pusher.
Senator Barbers. Without any consideration, he could not Senator Cayetano. As far as that transaction is concerned.
be considered a pusher, Mr. President, but he could be charged
as a user. Senator Barbers. As far as this definition is concerned.
Senator Cayetano. No, no. Here is a known pusher, Mr. Senator Cayetano. Yes, as far as that particular transaction
President, who sells to somebody for a price. But he has a girlfriend is concerned.
and in this particular transaction, he was apprehended and is being
prosecuted. His defense is, "You know, I gave five grams of sh abu Senator Barbers. Yes, Mr. President.
not for any money or material consideration but as a gift because
I love my girlfriend." Now, would he be considered a pusher only Senator Cayetano. I thank the sponsor for that, Mr. President.
in that particular transaction? As I said, we have to make this very clear because, as we all know,
this is exactly what is happening.
Senator Barbers. Well, if he delivers the drugs to his
girlfriend, he could be considered a pusher as mentioned in this
Let me go to another section on page 15 , line 22 .
definition. When one delivers, administers or dispenses, he could
be considered a pusher.
Mr. President, it says here "Plea-Bargaining Provision." It
prohibits plea bargaining where the penalty is life imprisonment
Senator Cayetano. So it does not matter whether there is
to death . Plea bargaining is not allowed.
material consideration or not.
Mr. President, I have a strong reservation on this . Because
Senator Barbers. That is correct, Mr. President.
from the information that we have gathered-and I am sure even
my good friend and sponsor who once upon a time was the
Senator Cayetano. For as long as he is a pusher.
secretary of the Department of the Interior <mdLocal Government
also knows-most of the plea-bargaining cases happen not on
Senator Barbers. That is correct.
offenses penalized by life imprisonment or death but rather on
offenses penalized by imprisonment of less than, let us say, 12
Senator Cayetano. Now, here is a user whose penalty by
years or less than six years or thereabout.
the way is rather lenient. In fact, the first offense is merely
rehabilitation. Here is a known user; he gives away to his girlfriend
I recall that about two years when I was the chairman of the
five grams of shabu. Will that usernow become a pusherunder the
Committee on Justice and Human Rights and I was in Dumaguete,
gentleman's definition?
some of the judges there complained to me that many of those
Senator Barbers . Well, ifthe intention is not to deliverornot pushers who have been apprehended, with the consent of the
to administer but just to give away, I do not think he could be prosecutors, have engaged in plea bargaining simply because that
considered a pusher. is the law. When one engages in plea bargai ning, what happens
really is, ifa penalty, let us say, without plea bargaining involves
Senator Cayetano. He will still be a user. more than six years, a person cannot be subject to probation. But
because of plea bargaining, the crime and the penalty are reduced
Senator Barbers. A user. so much so that when the plea bargaining is approved, with the
consent of the prosecutor, the imposable penalty, more often than
Senator Cayetano. The importance of that distinction is, I not, is six years or at least not more than six years . And thereafter,
think, already quite clear because there is definitely a distinction because of the law on probation, Mr. President, this person or
in the bill between a pusher and a user. A user can escape pusher applies for probation. The lament and the complaint of
prosecution if he gives away five grams of shabu to a friend even many of the judges are, "We cannot get rid of the pushers simply
for a material consideration. Suppose I change somewhat my because the Jaw allows plea bargaining except on offenses penalized
hypothetical example. by life or death ."
69
c9 /
lnterpe/la1ions re S. No. 1858 RECORD OF THE SENA TE Vol. Ill, No. 45
So what I am pointing at, Mr. President, is, at the proper time, Also in line l 0 of the same page-"(b) Applicants for permit
would the gentleman, my good friend and sponsor, consider an to carry firearms outside of residence... ."
amendment to this-that in all cases, as long as it involves
dangerous drugs , there should be no plea bargaining at all in order Does it mean, Mr. President, that if one has a license to
to precisely make this law effective. Otherwise, if we retain ... possess, he need not be subjected to mandatOI)' drug testing
before he is given this license to possess? Because here it speaks
By the way, Section 22 of this present bill is really found in the of permit to carry firearms outside of residence.
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. It is in fact a verbatim reproduction
on plea bargaining. I am just looking at the section of the law. Senator Barbers. What is contemplated, Mr. President, is
that when one has a license to possess firearms and one does
Senator Barbers. Section 20 . not have a permit to carry the same outside of his residence, it
Senator Cayetano. Section20 of the law, ofRepublic Act No. would simply mean that he will leave his firearms in his
6425. I think this is the bane of the present provision of the law residence. So there is no dariger ofusing his fireanns in any traffic
which allows plea bargaining precisely on imposable penalty or violation or any vehicular accident for that matter. That is why
offenses punishable by life imprisonment to death. we are very specific in saying that we need random drug test
on persons applying for permit to carry firearms outside of
So at the proper time, I was wondering if my good friend and their residence.
sponsor would consider an amendment to precisely completely
disallow plea bargaining when it comes to any provision of this Senator Cayetano. I thank the gentleman for that clarification.
particular bill.
Senator Barbers. Because they are allowed to carry their
Senator Barbers. The observation of the gentleman is well- firea rms outside of their residence now. That is where the danger
taken, Mr. President. I am amenable to his proposal. We cross the lies, Mr. President.
bridge when we come to it.
Senator Cayetano. In line 18, it says: "Students ofelementary,
Senator Cayetano. Thank you, Mr. President . secondary and tertiary schools ... "
I have a few more questions, but just another point of Again, it is just a matter of clarification, Mr. President.
clarification.
Would this include all students of elementary, secondary and
On page 20, Mr. President, on mandatory drug testing. tertiary schools of public and private?
First of all, I would like to congratulate the sponsor of this bill Senator Barbers. That is correct, Mr. President. That is the
for this, Mr. President. contemplation of our proposal. As a matter offact, in the foll owing
section, we also mentioned officers and employees of public and
"(a) Applicants for driver's license." Will this apply, Mr. private offices at the same time.
President, to both professional and nonprofessional driver?
Senator Cayetano. In line 23, Mr. President, it says : "Office rs
Senator Barbers. In this particular section, Mr. President, and employees of public and private offices." I can appreciate
there is no distinction. So the application is to both professional officers and employees of public agencies, departments, bureaus
as well as nonprofessional. and offices, but I wonder about the legality ofrequiring mandatory
drug testing for employees of private entities .
Senator Cayetano. Will this also apply to applicants of
student license? This may create some constitutional problems as far as the
Senator Barbers. It will still apply, Mr. President, because private employees are concerned. They may invoke, for instance,
even ifhe is not applying for a driver's license, it is also provided freedom from search and seizure; they may invoke their freedom
that students of elementary, high school and terti ary schools of the ri ght to be left alone; and so on and so forth . Because they
should also be subjected to a random test. can say that they are being paid by private funds, they are
employed in private offices and companies and therefore there is
Senator Cayetano . I am glad, Mr. President, that my good no reason for them to undergo mandatory drug testing, except
friend has clarified that. Maybe lateron, as an editorial matter, we when the private employers themselves would require this as a
ca n make that very clear. condition of employment or continuing employment.
70
TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST REGULAR SESSION
MAY 6 - JUNE 6, 2002
VOLUME IV
33
.. - '~ '
Full Text of Conf Cllee.
Reporl on S. No . 1858/H. No . 4433 RECORD OF THE SENATE Vol. JV. No. 82
ho wever into consideration the agreement to cut 24. The Conferees adopted Section 24 of the
do wn the time e lement in the procedure reconciled bill which both came from the Senate
conc erning the burning and destruction of the and House versions since they are identic al.
subject items . Mo reover, the Conferees agreed
that the manne r of disposition of the subject 25. T he Conferees adopted Section 25 of the
items which is stipulated in paragraph (b) Section reconciled bill which came from the Senate
55 on the Po wers of the Board under House version.
version shall be incorporated to some extent and
be synchronized with Section 21 of the Sen:i te 26. The Conferees adopted Section 26 of the
version , including therein the participation of a reconciled bill which came from the Senate
representative from the Department o f Just ice in version since there was no counterp art provision
every step of the procedure . in the House version .
506
c34-
Republic of the Philippines )
Legazpi City, Albay ) S.S.
\~~
N ''
IEX ''----
,l ;...
AFFIDAVIT of MERIT
~ A- Aa1twu
IGRA2:E B'. BALAORO
Public Attorney II
(Pursuant to R.A. No. 9406) 3:)
1
REPUBLIKA NG PILIPINAS
KAGAWARAN NG KAT ARUNGAN
TANGGAPAN NG MANANANGGOL NG BAYAN
(PUBLIC ATIORNEY'SOFFICE)
DOJ-Agencies Bldg., NIA Rd., cor. East Ave. 1104 Diliman, Quezon City
Telephone Nos. 929-90-10/929-94-36 Fax No. 927-68-10/926-28-78
1st Sem. of
Judicial Services 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TOTAL
2016
Cases Pending, Beginning 40,297 36,271 34,911 37,965 48,103 60,847 40,297
New Cases Received 9,251 13 ,781 20,529 30,583 37,030 40,168 151,342
pt~t1iw~:t1~11~-ti;~f~:~~~$'.1.!~n~t~aJu~n8~1:u~1:&M w~~1sArs: n~PJ()~l ~fa~$~:4~_p; %~~1~~ :1r:fMf*$;;:c~j~~ \;~:irn:1inJ.;o.t; 1?t1~1:~: ~~;
Favorable Dispositions 4,319 5,523 7,061 9,028 11,542 4,967 42,440
Unfavorable Dispositions 246 408 677 1,123 1,863 1,295 5,612
OtherDispositions 8,712 9,210 9,737 10,294 10,88 1 12,187 61,021
r;t;9. ~~1;f11~:rm1~~t~~:~~:a-~~t.rU:1~n.~,$~1ipfj'.$)rnint; :X~R:iz%~,: ~i..;:r.4x; g-~1~7i47:: :~;~Q'#:*~-$ r.,%dg~4:~~~~, ;f::C\~1;~~JJ$:}i;fp,~(~;l.Q2~o}t~'.
Cases Pending, End 36,271 34,911 37,965 48, 103 60,847 82,566 82,566
1st Sem. of
Non-Judicial Services 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TOTAL
2016
Documents/PleadingPrepared 15,064 16,493 21,761 21,042 26,094 ll,251 111,705
OathsAdministered 10,789 11 ,812 15,583 15,069 11 ,953 5,070 70,276 ~' ..
Clients Counseled 34,961 38,276 50,497 48,831 69,227 38,309 280, 101
AssitedDuringCustodialinterrogation 816 893 1,178 1,139 1,483 507 6,0 16
AssitedDuringinquestlnvestigation 1,591 1,741 2,297 2,221 6,447 3,576 17,873
rt~i~l.i!tiffitJtjit?.~fil~r9.!J~l.J~1$r~~~~fl~a-~.;tfl;~~ui%t.;~~h ~;~~J~~X:I ~r~9;~1~. {:9.,~;axfi: ~~,~~~~'ii: ~g:1'.t:s?2"olt: '~t\fJ:~~~;vii.i~ lU:~s..~;.~:~J)
Prepared by:
{k/~
Charj,~ Laquindanum l
Statistician I
[ ~
-