Ong vs. People of the Philippines

8/18/2019 Ong vs. People of the Philippines

1/24

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

GEMM ONG a!"!a! MRI

TERES GEMM CTC#TN$

Petitioner,

- versus -

PEOP%E OF T&E P&I%IPPINES$

Respondent.

G!R! No! '()**+

Present:

CORONA, C.J.,Chairperson,

CARPIO,*

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,DEL CASTILLO, andPERLAS-BERNABE,** JJ.

Prom!"ated:

No#em$er %&, %'(() - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )

D E C I S I O N

%EONRDO,DE CSTRO$ J !-

Beore +s is a petition or re#ie on certiorari, i!ed nder R!e o the

R!es o Cort, to set aside and re#erse the /ne (0, %'' Decision1(2

o the Corto Appea!s inC,G!R! CR No! ./0+/, hi3h airmed the Septem$er %&,

%''& Decision1%2 o the Re"iona! Tria! Cort 4RTC5 o 6ani!a, Bran3h %

in Criminal Case No! ++,'/**1*.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/169440.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/169440.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/169440.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/169440.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/169440.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/169440.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/169440.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/169440.htm#_ftn1


2/24

On /!7 %8, %''', petitioner 9emma On" a..a. 6aria Teresa 9emma

Cata3tan 49emma5 as 3har"ed $eore the RTC or Inrin"ement nder Se3tion

( in re!ation to Se3tion (;' o Rep$!i3 A3t No. 8%


3/24

his e)amination, the prod3ts the7 sei=ed at the s$>e3t premises ere 3ontereit

3i"arettes182 as e!! as /esse Lara, ho, as then Senior In#esti"ator III at the

Inte!!e3ta! Propert7 Ri"hts 4IPR5 +nit o the E3onomi3 Inte!!i"en3e and

In#esti"ation Brea 4EIIB5, Department o @inan3e, !ed the in#esti"atin" team, to

testi7 on the e#ents that !ed to the arrest o 9emma.1


4/24

The EIIB team 3oordinated ith oi3ers o Phi!ip 6orris, In3., oner o the trademar 6ar!$oro La$e! in the Phi!ippines d!7 re"istered ith thePhi!ippine Patents Oi3e and s$seGent!7 ith the Inte!!e3ta! Propert7Oi3e 4IPO5 sin3e (


5/24

OnerRepresentati#e, hi!e a 3ertain emp!o7ee, 9ir!ie Canti!!o, a!sosi"ned as itness. On Septem$er %8, (


6/24

oi3ers asin" or her name. She said that hen she p!eaded to $e re!eased, she

as instr3ted to post a 3ash $ond, hi3h she did in the amont

o (%,'''.''.₱ 9emma a#erred that hen she posted her $ond and si"ned her

3ertii3ate o arrai"nment, she did so nder her rea! name 6aria Teresa 9emma

Cata3tan, as opposed to the si"natres in the In#entor7 and Certii3ation in the

Cond3t o Sear3h 4sear3h do3ments5, hi3h she denied si"nin". She 3!aimed that

she as not a$!e to $rin" p her deense o mistaen identit7 ear!7 on as she did

not no hen the proper time to raise it as. She a#oed that she as not

interro"ated $7 the po!i3e prior to her arrest, despite the to-7ear "ap $eteen it

and the sear3h o the s$>e3t premises. She a!!e"ed that she did not no /a3son

On" and that the prose3tion itnesses, hom she irst sa drin" her tria!,

3o!dnt e#en point to her as the person present drin" the raid hen the7 testiied

in 3ort. 9emma rther asse#erated that hi!e she 3o!d not remem$er here she

as on Septem$er %, (


7/24

imprisonment o to 4%5 7ears and to pa7 a ine o @it7 Thosand

4₱','''.''5 Pesos. A33sed is rther dire3ted to indemni7 pri#ate 3omp!ainant the sm o +S,'0


8/24

The RTC a!so nr!ed the a3t that hi!e 9emma 3!aimed to ha#e ne#er en"a"ed

in the sa!e and mana3tre o 6ar!$oro 3i"arettes, the address o her $siness

@as3inate Tradin" is re"istered as (0;; B!a3an Street, Sta. Cr=, 6ani!a, the same propert7 raided $7 the EIIB that 3ontained the 3ontereit 3i"arettes.1%%2

A""rie#ed, 9emma appea!ed the RTCs de3ision to the Cort o Appea!s $ased on

the o!!oin" "ronds:

I

T?E LOHER CO+RT 9RIEFO+SLJ ERRED INCONFICTIN9 DR. 6ARIA TERESA 9E66A CATAC+TAN9+ILTJ O@ T?E CRI6E O@ FIOLATION O@ T?E INTELLECT+ALPROPERTJ RI9?TS LAH DESPITE +TTER LAC O@ EFIDENCE.

II T?E LOHER CO+RT IN CONFICTIN9 DR. 6ARIA TERESA9E66A CATAC+TAN ON T?E BASIS O@ S+R6ISE 4 sic5,CON/ECT+RES AND 9+ESSHOR CO66ITTED 9RAFE

FIOLENCE A9AINST T?E CONSTIT+TIONAL PRES+6PTIONO@ INNOCENCE.

III

T?E LOHER CO+RT CO66ITTED SERIO+S REFERSIBLEERROR IN CONFICTIN9 T?E ACC+SED-APPELLANT H?O ?AD

NOT BEEN POSITIFELJ IDENTI@IED AND PINPOINTED AS6AN+@ACT+RER NOR 4 sic5 DISTRIB+TOR O@ @AE6ARLBORO PROD+CT.

IF

T?E LOHER CO+RT CO66ITTED SERIO+S REFERSIBLEERROR IN NOT 9IFIN9 T?E SLI9?TEST CREDENCE TO T?E+NCONTRADICTED, +NRE@+TED AND CANDID TESTI6ONJO@ T?E ACC+SED-APPELLANT, B+T INSTEAD, CONFICTED

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/169440.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/169440.htm#_ftn24


9/24

?ER ON 1T2?E BASIS O@ EKTRAPOLATED EFIDENCE NOTBORNE BJ T?E RECORDS.

F

T?E LOHER CO+RT CO66ITTED A 9RAFE REFERSIBLEERROR IN CONFICTIN9 ACC+SED-APPELLANT DESPITE T?E+TTER AND PAT?ETIC LAC O@ EFIDENCE TO S+STAIN T?EPROSEC+TIONS LA6E, S?ALLOH AND +NCON@O+NDEDT?EORJ O@ 9+ILT.1%&2

The Cort o Appea!s ond 9emmas appea! to $e nmeritorios. It said that

9emma as positi#e!7 identiied $7 the prose3tion itnesses as the oman ho

entertained them drin" the sear3h o the s$>e3t premises on Septem$er %, (e3tion o 9emmas

deense o mistaen identit7, as she sho!d ha#e raised it at the ear!iest opportnit7,

hi3h as at the time o her arrest, the postin" o her $ai! $ond, or drin" her

arrai"nment. The Cort o Appea!s he!d that the amendment o the prose3tion

itnesses aida#its as e)p!ained drin" the hearin", and a!tho"h the ori"ina!aida#its ere the ones mared drin" the pre-tria!, the amended ones pro#ided

the $asis or the i!in" o the Inormation a"ainst 9emma and her 3o-a33sed

/a3son On". The Cort o Appea!s a!so noted that the 6ar3h %', %''' Reso!tion

o the State Prose3tor spe3ii3a!!7 mentioned that the sear3h arrant as ser#ed

on 9emma On". The Cort o Appea!s then pro3!aimed that in the hierar3h7 o

e#iden3e, the testimon7 o the itness in 3ort 3ommands "reater ei"ht than his

ritten aida#it.1%2

The Cort o Appea!s airmed the 3on#i3tion o 9emma or trademar

inrin"ement nder Se3tion ( o Rep$!i3 A3t No. 8%


10/24

the $i!din" re"istered nder her $siness, @as3inate Tradin". The Cort o

Appea!s said that the prose3tion had satisa3tori!7 pro#en 9emmas 3ommission o

the oense sin3e the nathori=ed se o the trademar 6ar!$oro, oned $7 P6PI,

as 3!ear!7 intended to de3ei#e the p$!i3 as to the ori"in o the 3i"arettes $ein"

distri$ted and so!d, or intended to $e distri$ted and so!d. The Cort o Appea!s

rther sstained the pena!t7 and dama"es imposed $7 the RTC or $ein" in a33ord

ith the !a and a3ts.1%2

9emma is no $eore this Cort ith the o!!oin" assi"nment o errors:

A.T?E CO+RT O@ APPEALS ERRED IN 9IFIN9 CREDENCE TOT?E TESTI6ONIES O@ PROSEC+TION HITNESSESIDENTI@JIN9 PETITIONER AS PRESENT AT T?E TI6E ANDPLACE H?EN T?E SEARC? AND SEI+RE TOO PLACE.

B.

T?E CO+RT O@ APPEALS ERRED IN 9IFIN9 CREDENCE TO

T?E TESTI6ONIES O@ PROSEC+TION HITNESSES T?AT T?EJSAH PETITIONER SI9N ?ER NA6E AS 9E66A ON9 ASOHNERCLAI6ANTREPRESENTATIFE 4O@ T?E ARTICLESSEIED5 ON T?E SEARC? HARRANT 4EK?. A5, CERTI@ICATIONIN T?E COND+CT O@ SEARC? 4EK?. B5 AND INFENTORJ O@T?E S1E2IED ARTICLES AT T?E TI6E O@ T?E SEARC? 4EK?.D5.

C.

T?E CO+RT O@ APPEALS ERRED IN NOT @INDIN9 T?ATPETITIONERS SI9NAT+RE IN EK?IBITS A, B AND C ARE NOT?ERS B+T HERE @OR9ED, BEIN9 CO6PLETELJ ANDPATENTLJ DISSI6ILAR TO ?ER TR+E AND REAL SI9NAT+REAS S?OHN IN ?ER O@@ICIAL I.D AS PRO@ESSIONAL DENTIST.

D.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/169440.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/169440.htm#_ftn27


11/24

T?E CO+RT O@ APPEALS ERRED IN CONCL+DIN9 T?AT T?EA@@IDAFITS O@ T?E PROSEC+TION HITNESSES H?IC? DID

NOT 6ENTION PETITIONERS PRESENCE AT T?E TI6E ANDPLACE O@ T?E SEARC? CANNOT TAE PRECEDENCE OFER

T?EIR CONTRARJ TESTI6ONIES IN CO+RT T?AT S?E HASPRESENT AND IN @ACT T?E OCC+PANT AND OHNER O@ T?EPRE6ISES @RO6 H?IC? S?E INITIALLJ BLOCED T?EIR ENTRJ INTO.

E.

T?E CO+RT O@ APPEALS ERRED IN CONCL+DIN9 T?AT1PETITIONER2 HAS T?E FERJ SA6E PERSON H?O HASCA+9?T IN POSSESSION AND CONTROL O@ T?E PRE6ISESH?ERE T?E CO+NTER@EIT ARTICLES HERE SEIED BECA+SES?E ALLE9EDLJ NEFER PROTESTED BEIN9 HRON9@+LLJACC+SED AT T?E TI6E O@ ?ER ARREST ON A+9+ST %''',H?EN S?E POSTED ?ER CAS? BOND AND H?EN S?E EFENSI9NED ?ER NA6E AS 6A. TERESA 9E66A CATAC+TAN INT?E HAIFER, +NDERTAIN9 AND CERTI@ICATE OR ARRAI9N6ENT, ALL IN T?E NA6E O@ T?E ACC+SED AS9E66A ON9, a..a. 6A. T?ERESA CATAC+TAN.

@. T?E CO+RT O@ APPEALS ERRED IN NOT AC+ITTIN91PETITIONER2 @OR @AIL+RE O@ T?E PROSEC+TION TO PROFET?E 9+ILT O@ T?E ACC+SED-APPELLANT BEJONDREASONABLE DO+BT.1%02

9emma ar"es that i it ere tre that she as in the s$>e3t premises hen

it as raided on Septem$er %, (


12/24

premises hen it as sear3hed and that the testimonies o the prose3tion

itnesses ere per>red.1%;2

9emma rther 3!aims that the 3orts $e!o ere ron" in indin" that she

ne#er protested that she as mistaen!7 identiied. She 3!aims that she as arrested

ithot the $eneit o a pre!iminar7 in#esti"ation and a!! she anted to do at that

point as to "et ot 1o2 the 3!t3hes o o#er=ea!os and ea"er $ea#er po!i3emen

ho ere e)$erant in arrestin" an inno3ent part7 !ie1%82 her. 9emma a!so e)p!ains

that her non-protest drin" her arrai"nment as pon the ad#i3e o her ormer

!a7er, ho said that he o!d 3orre3t it in the proper time drin" the tria!.

Respondent Peop!e o the Phi!ippines, in its 3omment, 1%


13/24

On". 6oreo#er, the respondent a#ers, 9emma ai!ed to time!7 protest her arrest

and raise her 3!aim that she is not 9emma On".1&%2

Issues

A std7 o the p!eadin"s i!ed $eore this Cort shos that the on!7 isses to

$e reso!#ed are the o!!oin":

(. Hhether or not a33sed-appe!!ants petition or re#ie on certiorari nder

R!e o the R!es o Cort is ata!!7 dee3ti#e as it raises Gestions o

a3t and

%. Hhether or not 9emmas "i!t as pro#en $e7ond reasona$!e do$t in

!i"ht o her a!!e"ed mistaen identit7.

This Courts Ruling

Procedural Issue

As this 3ase rea3hed this Cort via R!e o the R!es o Cort, the $asi3 r!e is

that a3ta! Gestions are $e7ond the pro#in3e o this Cort, $e3ase on!7 Gestions

o !a ma7 $e raised in a petition or re#ie.1&&2 ?oe#er, in e)3eptiona! 3ases, this

Cort has taen 3o"ni=an3e o Gestions o a3t in order to reso!#e !e"a! isses,

s3h as hen there as pa!pa$!e error or a "ra#e misapprehension o a3ts $7 the

!oer 3ort.1&2 In Armed Forces of the Philippines Mutual Benefit Association, Inc.

v. Court of Appeals,1&2 e said that a!tho"h s$mission o isses o a3t in an

appea! $7 certiorari taen to this Cort is ordinari!7 pros3ri$ed, this Cort

nonethe!ess retains the option in the e)er3ise o its sond dis3retion, tain" into

a33ont the attendant 3ir3mstan3es, either to de3ide the 3ase or reer it to the

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/169440.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/169440.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/169440.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/169440.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/169440.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/169440.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/169440.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/169440.htm#_ftn37


14/24

proper 3ort or determination.1&02 Sin3e the determination o the identit7 o

9emma is the #er7 isse ae3tin" her "i!t or inno3en3e, this Cort 3hooses to

tae 3o"ni=an3e o this 3ase in the interest o proper administration o >sti3e.

Gemma is guilty of violating

Section 155 in relation to Section 170 of

Reu!lic "ct #o$ %&'(

9emma as 3har"ed and 3on#i3ted o #io!atin" Se3tion ( in re!ation to

Se3tion (;' o Rep$!i3 A3t No. 8%


15/24

4 %'','''5, sha!! $e imposed on an7 person ho is ond "i!t7 o ₱3ommittin" an7 o the a3ts mentioned in Se3tion (, Se3tion (08 andS$se3tion (0


16/24

intended to $e so!d, as the7 not on!7 $ore P6PIs mar, $t the7 ere a!so

pa3a"ed a!most e)a3t!7 as P6PIs prod3ts.1(2

Regarding the Claim of )ista*en Identity

Despite a!! these indin"s, 9emma has posited on!7 a sin"!e deense, rom

the RTC a!! the a7 p to this Cort: that she is not the 9emma On" named and

a33sed in this 3ase. She $ases this 3!aim on the a!!e"ed dis3repan3ies in the

prose3tion itnesses ori"ina! aida#its vis--vis the amended ones, hi3h

dis3repan3ies, a33ordin" to her, stron"!7 s""est her inno3en3e.

This Cort has time and a"ain he!d that $eteen an aida#it e)e3ted

otside the 3ort, and a testimon7 "i#en in open 3ort, the !atter a!most a!a7s

pre#ai!s.

Dis3repan3ies $eteen a sorn statement and testimon7 in 3ort

do not otri"ht!7 >sti7 the a3Gitta! o an a33sed. S3h dis3repan3ies

do not ne3essari!7 dis3redit the itness sin3e e% parte

aida#its are otenin3omp!ete. The7 do not prport to 3ontain a 3omp!ete 3ompendim o

the detai!s o the e#ent narrated $7 the aiant. Ths, or r!in"s"enera!!7 3onsider sorn statements taen ot o 3ort to $e inerior toin 3ort testimon7. ) ) ).1%2

A readin" o the ori"ina! aida#its1&2 e)e3ted $7 S!a"!e and Att7. An3heta,

readi!7 re#ea!s that the7 3on3entrated on the a3ts and e#ents !eadin" p to the

sear3h and sei=re o the 3ontra$and materia!s rom the s$>e3t premises. The7 not

on!7 ai!ed to mention 9emma On"s presen3e there, $t the7 a!so ai!ed to mention

the other itnesses names and presen3e there as e!!. A!tho"h this mi"ht appear

to $e a mistae on the part o a non and esta$!ished !a irm !ie the asha

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/169440.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/169440.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/169440.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/169440.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/169440.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/169440.htm#_ftn45


17/24

La Oi3e, the irm immediate!7 so"ht to re3ti7 this $7 ha#in" the aida#its o

S!a"!e, Att7. An3heta, and Lara amended.

I it ere tre that 9emma as not at the s$>e3t premises at a!! on

Septem$er %, (


18/24

CO+RT: Pro3eed. ATTJ. 6A9LINAO:I o!d >st ant to $e on re3ord that m7 3!ient, 9emma Cata3tan has

ne#er $een non as 9emma On" $e3ase her

rea! name is 9emma Cata3tan. CO+RT: Do 7o ha#e an7 o$>e3tion to the amendment o the

inormationM

ATTJ. 6A9LINAO: No, 7or ?onor. 6a7 e reGest to 3orre3t the inormation rom 9emma

On" to 9emma Cata3tan.12

9emma rther a33ses the prose3tion itnesses o a!se!7 testi7in" and o

per>rin" themse!#es >st so the7 3an satis7 a $i" 3!ient !ie P6PI $7 shoin" that

some$od7 had $een arrested or 3ontereitin" its 3i"arettes. The 3rimes 9emma is

imptin" on these itnesses are serios 3rimes, and in the a$sen3e o 3on3rete and

3on#in3in" e#iden3e, this Cort 3o!d not $e!ie#e her mere a!!e"ations that imp!7

that these peop!e o!d destro7 someones !ie >st so the7 3an p!ease a 3!ient, more

so o#er mere 3i"arettes. In Principio v. &on. Barrientos,12 e said:

Bad aith is ne#er presmed hi!e "ood aith is a!a7s presmed and the3hapter on ?man Re!ations o the Ci#i! Code dire3ts e#er7 person, inter alia, to o$ser#e "ood aith, hi3h sprin"s rom the ontain o "ood3ons3ien3e. Thereore, he ho 3!aims $ad aith mst pro#e it. @or one to

$e in $ad aith, the same mst $e e#ident. ) ) ).102

The prose3tion itnesses, 3ontrar7 to 9emmas 3!aim, had positi#e!7

identiied her as the person ho initia!!7 resed the sear3h team entran3e, then

!ater a3Gies3ed to the sear3h operations. S!a"!e e)p!ained that e#en tho"h he

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/169440.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/169440.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/169440.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/169440.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/169440.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/169440.htm#_ftn48


19/24

mentioned 9emma on!7 in his amended aida#it, he as sre that she as at the

s$>e3t premises on the da7 that the7 sear3hed it:

Testimon: of Ro9er Sherman Sla9le

ATTJ. 6A9LINAO: In this amended aida#it 7o mentioned the name, 9emma Cata3tan

as one o the a33sedM A Jes sir.

Can :ou tell the court ho< :ou


20/24

A : 2es$ sir$ Gemma On9 is the o


21/24

there appears a handritten name 9emma On" and asi"natre a$o#e it, are 7o ami!iar ith this personhi3h appears to $e 9emma On"M

A : 2es$ sir$ Gemma On9 si9ne8 that in m: presence.

) ) ) ) : 6r. Hitness, in this do3ment hi3h is the 3ertii3ation in the

Cond3t o Sear3h and I ha#e here a$o#e the entr74OnerRepresentati#e5, a handritten name hi3hreads 9emma On" and there e)ist a si"natre a$o#ethe handritten name, 3an 7o identi7 thesi"natreM

A : 2es$ sir$ this


22/24

ATTJ. @RESo, the sear3h arrant as ser#ed a"ainst 9emma On"M HITNESS

Jes, Sir.1'2

Positi#e identii3ation o a 3!prit is o "reat ei"ht in determinin" hether

an a33sed is "i!t7 or not.1(2 9emma, in 3!aimin" the deense o mistaen identit7,

is in rea!it7 den7in" her in#o!#ement in the 3rime. This Cort has he!d that the

deense o denia! is insipid and ea as it is eas7 to a$ri3ate and dii3!t to pro#e

ths, it 3annot tae pre3eden3e o#er the positi#e testimon7 o the oended part7.1%2 The 8efense of 8enial is una;ailin9


23/24

9emmas deense 3onsists o her 3!aim o mistaen identit7, her denia! o her

in#o!#ement in the 3rime, and her a33sation a"ainst the prose3tion itnesses o

a!!e"ed!7 "i#in" a!se testimonies and 3ommittin" per>r7. These are a!! ea,

npro#en, and nonded 3!aims, and i!! not stand a"ainst the stron" e#iden3e

a"ainst her.

4&EREFORE$ this Cort DENIES the Petition. The /ne (0,

%'' Decision o the Cort o Appea!s in C,G!R! CR No!

./0+/ is FFIRMED.

SO ORDERED!

TERESIT ?! %EONRDO,DE CSTRO

Asso3iate /sti3e

HE CONC+R:

RENTO C! CORON

Chie /sti3eChairperson

NTONIO T! CRPIO MRINO C! DE% CSTI%%O


24/24

Asso3iate /sti3e Asso3iate /sti3e

ESTE% M! PER%S,@ERN@E

Asso3iate /sti3e

CERTIFICTION

Prsant to Se3tion (&, Arti3!e FIII o the Constittion, I 3erti7 that the

3on3!sions in the a$o#e De3ision had $een rea3hed in 3ons!tation $eore the 3aseas assi"ned to the riter o the opinion o the Corts Di#ision.

RENTO C! CORON

Chie /sti3e

Ong vs. People of the Philippines

Documents

Transcript of Ong vs. People of the Philippines