G.R. No. 226679. August 15, 2017.

FACTS

Petitioner Salvador Estipona, Jr. was found to be in possession of (1) piece heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of shabu, a dangerous drug.  He was accused for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. Under Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165, plea-bargaining is prohibited in all drug cases.

Estipona filed a Motion to Allow the Accused to Enter into a Plea Bargaining Agreement, praying to withdraw his not guilty plea and, instead, to enter a plea of guilty for violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 with a penalty of rehabilitation in view of his being a first-time offender and the minimal quantity of the dangerous drug seized in his possession.

Judge Lobrigo denied the Motion holding that Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 expressly prohibits plea-bargaining in drugs cases

FACTS

In a letter-complaint to Secretary of Justice Franklin Drilon, General Renato de Villa who was then Chief of Staff of the AFP, requested DOJ to order the investigation of several individuals named therein, including private respondent Adaza, for their alleged participation in the failed December 1989 coup d’etat. The complaint is based on the affidavit.

There was a preliminary inquiry made by Special Composite Team of Prosecutors created by the DOJ finding that there is a probable cause to hold Adaza et al for trial for the crime of REBELLION WITH MURDER AND FRUSTRATED MURDER. Their Resolution became the basis for the filing of information.

Feeling aggrieved by the institution of proceedings against him, Adaza filed a complaint for damages before the RTC of Quezon City. In his complaint, Adaza charged petitioners with engaging in a deliberate, willful and malicious experimentation by filing against him a charge of rebellion complexed with murder and frustrated murder when petitioners, according to Adaza, were fully aware of the non-existence of such crime in the statute books.

FACTS

Petitioner & his mother obtained loan with Unicapital for 18M. The loans were secured by real estate mortgage wherein the title is under the name of “de la Cruz”. Half of the property was purchased by Unicapital & other half was purchased by Plant Builders. However before they can finally develop the property, they found out that the title is spurious. Unicapital demanded for the return of the payment, but petitioner ignored the demand.

Consing filed a civil case in RTC Pasig for injunctive relief, thereby seeking to enjoin Unicapital from proceeding against him for the collection of the P41,377,851.48 on the ground that he had acted as a mere agent of his mother.

FACTS

In 2004, Petitioner filed for violation of BP Blg 22 against Janiola with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Las Piñas City. He also filed the same in MTC

In 2006, Private respondent, joined by her husband, instituted a civil complaint against petitioner for the rescission of an alleged construction agreement between the parties, as well as for damages. The case was filed with the RTC, Branch 197 in Las Piñas City.

In 2007, private respondent filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings, claiming that the civil case posed a prejudicial question as against the criminal cases.